The Origin Of Nazarene Error
It has its fundamental error in the Garden of Eden, which develops into a theory of the atonement which is so foreign to the Truth of the Scriptures that we cannot countenance it as a part of saving faith. If this initial error did not develop into the extreme negation of the atonement that it has, there may have been some grounds of compatibility left. However, once having made the initial mistake, the theory proceeds to diverge from this premise through paths so far apart from our fundamental doctrines that no similarity with them remains.
The initial error is that God warned Adam that he would be put to death or slain the very day he partook of the forbidden fruit; and that Adam incurred this “violent death” through transgression, but God’s provisional promise of a redeemer foreshadowed in the slain animals provided a basis for its deferment. If, instead of deferment, they meant that the blood shed in Eden revealed that Adam was forgiven upon that basis: then instead of a violent death, the penalty in mercy was replaced by the sentence of natural death — there might be some basis left for talking terms with them. But even this possibility, of a talking point being left, is removed by the fact that they teach the opposite. They say the violent death was deferred only for Jesus to volunteer as Adam’s substitute and make full payment and restitution, suffering in the stead of Adam the very violence which our fore-father deserved.
There are several associated errors which are equally as dangerous as the foregoing; but first, a word concerning its starting point, that Adam was warned he would incur a violent death upon transgression.
It is argued that every other reference in Scripture using the words “thou shalt surely die” involve the subjects being put to death. Even if this were correct in every other case it would be doing violence to scriptural exegesis to say it must be so here. Both context and conditions are different in every other instance, natural death being already their pre-determined destiny. But not so with Adam. He had not yet been consigned to return to the dust. “Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return”, Gen. 3: 19, is without doubt a part of the sentence and not merely the limits of its duration in sweat and toil. Again Psalm 90: 3 also says “Thou turnest man to destruction; (Hebrew ‘daca’ to crush to very small particles) and sayest return, ye children of men” (Hebrew sons of Adam) . Here is a deliberate judgment of God upon all Adam’s sons, reducing them ultimately to dust. Then in the next verse we are reminded that “a thousand years in thy (God’s) sight are as yesterday” (Hebrew “as the day yesterday”), thus reminding us of the day in which Adam transgressed. So before the initial transgression, Adam’s death was undetermined: but after he sinned it was certain; and so was that of the whole human race. Seeing the situations are so different, the attempt to make the words “surely die” imply an immediate putting to death in all instances, is untenable. Furthermore, a violent death is not the native meaning of the Hebrew terms used. In any case, the words of Numbers 26: 65 indicate there were some, at least, who died natural deaths in the wilderness, of whom it had been said “they would surely die”.
Now for the meaning of the original words “Moth Tamuth” (the infinitive followed by the finite verb). The eminent scholar B. Davidson, makes it clear that the infinitive is used “adverbially for the sake of giving emphasis to the finite verb: This usage is exceedingly frequent.” (`Heads of Hebrew Grammar’ page 107.)
It is therefore correct to say that God was emphasising the certainty of natural death that would come through a process of natural laws working within the body. Whether strictly grammatically correct or not, the marginal rendering does supply a correct application of its meaning when giving the alternative of “Dying thou shalt die”. The Hebrew terms themselves in no sense carry on an innate meaning of violence in being put to death.
It is impossible to fully expose the gravest error of this teaching i.e. the substitutionary death of Jesus, unless we follow this doctrine through the primary theory of the forfeited life we are alleged to have in Adam, in contrast to the physical condemnation we believe the Bible fundamentally teaches. By physical condemnation we mean the fixation of the natural law of death to be constituted as a part of God’s permanent plan so long as Adam’s sons are born into the world. The personal sentence of Adam and the general declaration of Psalm 90: 3, coupled with Romans 5: 12 etc., are all expressions of it. In other words, the entire human race is mortal; i.e., subject to death as a result of Adam’s transgression.
The Fallacious Nazarene Teaching
On the other hand, the Nazarene doctrine rejects this and views the life of Adam as being legally forfeited, together with all his posterity begotten by the will of the flesh. In “Christadelphian Crisis” page 23, their most capable exponent today states “The condemnation being entirely a legal position and not a physical condition, if Jesus had been a son of Adam like us, he would inevitably have been in the same bondage as ourselves, and His perfect obedience would not have delivered even Himself”. In a published letter to the Christadelphian Committee, 1971, page 8, he writes: “He was a true substitutionary sacrifice on the scriptural principle of the Passover Lamb and he voluntarily surrendered his life, which was his own to give or to keep, as the redemptive purchase price for Adam and all of us who were federally in Adam when he forfeited his right to life by sin”.
On page 13 of the same letter he writes:
“No descendant of Adam could give his life as a ransom, since the life of every natural-born man is a part or continuation of the life which was forfeited, and thus death, as a deferred penalty of debt, hangs over the human race. Therefore it is evident that man could only be saved from extinction by one whose life was not derived by natural descent, who was not a sinner, and who was prepared voluntarily to sacrifice himself”.
Further in a circularised letter to Cliff Pryde, Queensland, he was careful to explain, ever so clearly, that Jesus did not die for our personal sins but they are forgiven for his sake (page 11). He is quite insistent that the crucifixion of Jesus was only to atone for the sin of Adam which involves all but Jesus in its scope. Then having bought back the lost or forfeited life of which we all partake, we are then in a position to seek forgiveness for our personal sins for Christ’s sake. He is very careful to differentiate between “sin” and “sins” in Scripture, interpreting sin (singular) to be the personal sin of Adam identifiable with the sin of the world which Jesus was to take away. In other words when Paul was baptised and washed away his sins (plural) it was only the sin (singular) of Adam that was really washed away if this theory is right. To make it fit one would have to alter the wording of Acts 22: 16 from “sins” to “sin”. Also seeing baptism is identification with the death of Jesus (Rom. 6: 3-4) how could it be said that baptism is for the remission of sins (plural) (Acts 2: 38) ? This theory that says Jesus did not die for our personal sins is loaded with violations of Scriptural principles and statements.
The Truth Of The Matter
In fact Jesus was, by his life of obedience, bearing the sin of the world. The original Greek uses the present participle, which is indicative of continuous action going on in time present, so that a proper understanding of John’s statement is “Behold the lamb of God who is bearing or taking away the sin of the world” (R. V. margin). How? The answer is by righteous acts culminating in his righteous death: not merely by one isolated act to happen 3 years later. Yet even in this single act it is the obedience of Jesus which is emphasised in Scripture as being the real power unto justification of life and righteousness. “As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life” (Rom. 5: 18). This is equally translatable as “by one offence and by one righteousness”, and in fairness we point this alternative out, likewise, it must still be admitted that the righteousness of his life was seen represented in his sacrifice constituting the power of the atonement, as the following verse indicates — “For as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners (or constituted sinners) so by the righteousness of one shall many be made righteous”, (Rom. 5: 19). This was not by the act of his sacrifice alone, which was but a token of his righteous character built and maintained over his lifetime. We see in the death of Jesus a positive and a negative principle which, fused together, become a powerful and vital force for the salvation of all he came to save. The positive has been shown in his righteousness when he offered himself without spot to God (Heb. 9: 14) . The negative is seen in his repudiation of every natural desire that could (if it would) oppose God. This is expressed in Romans 8: 3, for which I have never yet seen an adequate explanation in all the Nazarene literature that I have read. “God sending his own son in the likeness (sameness) of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh”. The very enemy that has overcome the entire human race had to be grappled with and vanquished by the Lord. He could not come to grips with it and conquer it apart from being a partaker of the very nature wherein this enemy holds sway. He must face the same foe, experience the same temptations common to men, which spring from the flesh that we inherit as our lot in Adam after his transgression.
Substitution Contrary To Scripture
There is no thought of a substitutionary offering in Scripture. But it is certain that in condemning sin in the very arena where it was master, he was representing at least those who join him with strong crying and tears in combatting the lusts of the flesh in giving glory to God. We fail — due to manifold weaknesses, both as the result of hereditary factors and because of our own misdeeds, indulgences and habits of long standing. He conquered — as Son of God, with a mind so absorbed in God’s word that he was truly the word made flesh. His keen, alert judgment and capacity for understanding, instantly sizing up a situation in which we would be prone to be lost, coupled by his strong desire and will to serve his Father, all contribute to his victory over sin. His offering was therefore a representative one in at least two ways.
- Giving glory to God by his righteousness that we strive to emulate but so often fail to attain.
- Vanquishing that which so often overcomes us by crucifying the very source of temptation in an act of dedication to God.
This is the thought that underlies his words in Matthew 20: 28 where Jesus says he would give his life a ransom for (anti) many. He is not giving his unforfeited life in the place of the forfeited one we are alleged to have lost in Adam by a single Adamic transgression. It was his life as an example of righteousness and holiness — represented in his “precious blood” poured out — which, in the sight of God, was more than adequate to purchase or redeem us from the power of sin. So the beautiful figure of a ransom is introduced to present the picture of the offering of a righteous life, alone being equal to the requirements of God in the scheme of redemption. The fundamental meaning of the Greek word “anti” used in this relation is that of equivalence and is never fundamentally that of substitution. Whoever thought of Jesus enduring the cross despising the shame instead of the joy set before him! The cross was not the substitute for the joy. He experienced the former and is now enjoying the latter. Yet Hebrews says “Who for (anti) the joy that was set before him endured the cross” etc. (Heb. 12: 2. The idea is equivalence. The one balances the other, as well as being with a view towards it. So “anti” does not always signify “instead of” as claimed by these writers. Nor does it in Matthew 20: 28.
Jesus himself refutes it quite effectively by saying of his life “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my father”. (John 10: 18) . If he gave his life as a substitute he could not take it again, otherwise he is taking back the very thing he gave in place of Adam’s forfeit. Then the forfeit must remain, and we are all still doomed in Adam.
The Lord’s Benefit From His Own Death
Another fundamental error of these teachers is that Jesus did not benefit by his own death. Whilst it is freely admitted he had no sins to atone for, it is within the framework of Scriptural teaching to see Jesus wearing a nature of mortal flesh and blood, which in the Divine scheme of things was fixed as a natural law until that very law should be annulled by the death of a righteous possessor of it. Nazarene teachers are usually confused at this point, mistaking “crucifixion” for “death”. Nowhere do Christadelphians officially teach that Jesus deserved or merited crucifixion because he wore a condemned nature. We do believe that by death (as death considered in itself) he abrogated that physical law of condemnation, both for himself and us, by tasting death for every man. Having died, the grave could not hold him because of his own personal righteousness. God could not suffer His holy one to see corruption (Acts 2: 27) . It was not by virtue of “free life” that he was raised, as Nazarene teachers insist; but his exaltation, which includes his resurrection, was because of his obedience unto death (Phil. 2: 8-9) .
Other Nazarene Errors Indicated
There are other dangerous aspects of Nazarene doctrine which I have not space to comment upon at the moment; but later articles may be able to expose some of these errors. For example, their insistence that the fall of man is only a myth; that man has suffered no changes within the condition of his nature subsequent to transgression; that it is possible for men born by the will of the flesh to live a perfect life, sinless before God; that some in fact did so, that their lot, as such, was still death without resurrection; that the only reason we fail is because we don’t try hard enough; that there is inherent power in the flesh itself to do good without assistance from God. Any thought of the victory of Jesus being due in any way to the fact that God was his Father is decried and viewed as an insult to Jesus. Let us beware of such God-dishonouring trends, noting rather the words of Jesus that the flesh profits nothing, and be warned by Jeremiah that our hearts can be very self-deceptive and desperately wicked. Let us realise that we will always need Jesus: that “if we say we have not sinned we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 John 1: 10) .
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren