Doctrine to Be Rejected # 4: “That Christ was born with a ‘free life’ ”. Introduction
We now come to the first of the numbered doctrines that was added by Robert Roberts after the first statement, as written sometime before 1871. The Doctrine to be rejected is #4 in the 1883 edition: That Christ was born with a “free life”. It is also the first of several statements that are hard to understand in the 21st Century, removed as we are by almost 150 years from the controversy that gave rise to it.
The fact that a definition is not immediately understood is insufficient reason to discard it. If it describes a false belief rejected by those who uphold the truth of the Scriptures it should be included. The doctrine “that Christ was born with a ‘free life’ ” is the counterpart to the essential teaching about the Lord’s nature defined in Clause 8 — that “he also himself likewise took part” of the nature we bear, a nature related to death and producing temptations to sin (Heb 2:14). Had he chosen not to offer himself so that we could have hope of life, death would still have claimed him; his own salvation from death was inextricably bound up with ours. In other words, his life was not “free” from the condemnation placed upon Adam and all his descendants, as has been claimed by those who allege that, unlike us, Jesus received his life direct from God and it was never forfeit.1
So the Doctrine can be restated in a positive way:
The phrase a “free life” signifies that Christ’s nature was not under Adamic condemnation as is that of all other members of the human race, and that therefore his sacrifice was a substitute for the “lives” of others. It denies that Christ could have be claimed by death, and needed saving from that fate.
Edward Turney
He was the individual most closely associated with the false doctrine of “free life”. In 1873, two years after the death of John Thomas, Edward Turney and Robert Roberts fell out over their understanding of the theological significance of the death of Christ, as Turney held to the “free life” view: Roberts, strongly disagreeing, announced in The Christadelphian that he “withdrew fellowship” from Turney and all who held his beliefs. This resulted in a division: only a minority in Birmingham, but the majority of the Nottingham Ecclesia followed Turney. (Nottingham at the time was probably the equal on Birmingham in size, and almost equal in influence.) Turney started a magazine, initially called The Christadelphian Lamp, but in 1875 this was changed to “The Christian Lamp”. By early 1877, under the effect of illness, he withdrew as editor, and he died a few days before his 44th birthday in 1879. Initially many ecclesias sent in intelligence, including a number from North America, but by the time volume 9 came to a close in 1883, only the Nottingham and Leicester groups appeared to be of any size, although there were a few others scattered about England. (There does not appear to have been any later issues.) So this controversy dwindled away, only to be revived in the 1950’s: some will have come across the Nazarene Fellowship, a tiny group that promotes Turney’s views to this day.
Much more could be said about this dispute2, but we will focus instead on the doctrinal aspects as related to “free life”.
Free life — the doctrines
Renunciationism is defined as follows by Robert Roberts:
“That the body of Jesus did not inherit the curse of Adam, though derived from him through Mary; and was therefore not mortal; that his natural life was ‘free’; that in this ‘free’ natural life, he ‘earned eternal life,’ and might, if he had so chosen, have avoided death, or even refused to die upon the cross, and entered into eternal life alone; his death being the act of his own free will, and not in any sense necessary for his own salvation; that his sacrifice consisted in the offering up of an unforfeited life, in payment of the penalty incurred by Adam and his posterity, which was eternal death; that his unforfeited life was slain in the room and stead of the forfeited lives of all believers of the races of Adam.”3
Thus, essentially if one believed in “free life” applied to Christ it would be equivalent to making him a God (i.e., not sharing our human nature). This is the same as the doctrine of the Trinity voiced in slightly different words. This false doctrine is the counterpart to the essential teaching about the Lord’s nature defined in “Truth to be received” # 8:
VIII.—That these promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, and who, though wearing their condemned nature, was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and, by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself and all who should believe and obey him (1Cor 15:45; Heb 2:14-16; Rom 1:3; Heb 5:8-9, 1:9; Rom 5:19-21; Gal 4:4-5; Rom 8:3-4; Heb 2:15; 9:26; Gal 1:4; Heb 7:27; 5:3-7; 2:17; Rom 6:10; 6:9;)
It should be noted that this statement was accepted by Edward Turney and his affiliates, but twisted as described by Roberts in the quote above.
The traditional view of Christadelphians is that Christ, like a High Priest, under the Law of Moses, sacrificed first for himself, then for the people — not that he had committed actual sin, but that, being human, he possessed a sin-prone nature — and that Christ died as an example to his followers both of how to follow God’s commands, and of what the weaknesses of human nature merited, namely annihilation. “He also himself likewise took part” of the nature we bear, a nature related to death and producing temptations to sin (Heb 2:14). Had he chosen not to offer himself so that we could have hope of life, death would still have claimed him; his own salvation from death could not be considered apart from ours. Hence Jesus’ life was not “free” from the condemnation placed upon Adam and all his descendants, as has been claimed by those who allege that, unlike us, Jesus received his life direct from God, and it was never possible for him to die as a result of his own sin.
This whole area (i.e., of the precise nature of Christ and his relationship to his own sacrifice) is not a topic to be dealt with lightly. It has caused, and is still causing, controversy within our community, and to go further than the relatively simple statements of the Bible and our pioneer brethren is no an arena to enter without an acknowledgement that the ways of our Heavenly Father are almost, it not totally, beyond our human comprehension.
References to Jesus shared our same nature
“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3-4).
“And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight” (Col 1:21-22).
“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed” (1 Pet 2:24).
“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one” Job 14:4
“How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?” (Job 25:4)
A sinless man made subject to the consequence of sin” (Law of Moses, R. Roberts).
“The statement that that he did these things ‘for us’ has blinded many to the fact that he did them ‘for himself’ first — without which he could not have done them for us; for it was by doing them for himself that he did them for us. He did them for us only as we may become part of him, in merging our individualizes in him by taking part in his death, and putting on his name and sharing his life afterwards” — Law of Moses, R. Roberts
“It was a sacrifice operative on himself first of all; for he is the beginning of the new creation, the first fruits of the new harvest, the foundation of the new temple…As such, it was needful that he should himself be subject of the process and the reaper of the results. Hence the testimony (Heb 13:20)…that by his own blood, entering into the holy place he obtained (middle, or self-subjective, state of the verb) eternal redemption (“for us” is interpolated) Heb 9:12. The Father saved him from death for his obedience unto death.” (Law of Moses, R. Roberts).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One