Adamic Condemnation

Among the various theories which have been invented for the purpose of excluding Jesus Christ from the Adamic condemnation, not the least ingenious is that which attributes to the Baptism into Moses the efficacy of redemption.

The argument runs thus:

All the children of Israel who passed through the Red Sea, were transferred out of Adam into Moses [There is no ground for this assumption]; by this act they passed from under the penalty of Adam to under the law; the whole of one generation of Israelites being thus freed from Adamic condemnation, this privilege was transmitted to all their descendants, Jesus included; but all in Moses died under the penalty of the Mosaic law, in consequence of their personal transgressions; therefore this is a proof that they did not die under the Adamic penalty.

This argument begins with an assumption and ends with a non sequiter [An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence], and cannot be accepted by those who prove all things and receive only that which is true.

The assumption is, that baptism into Moses cleansed the Israelites from Adamic sin and its consequence, death. For this assertion no testimony has been adduced, the simple reason being that there is none. The non sequiter is the illogical argument that because the Israelites died under the Mosaic penalty, they could not have died under the Adamic condemnation. This is equivalent to saying that if, in a country where forgery and murder are punishable with death, a man is found guilty of both these crimes and is hung for them, that he suffers death for only one of them.

The fallacy of such a statement is easily seen when it is considered what would be necessary to obtain a reprieve—the forgiveness of one crime or both? Both, unquestionably; for if one were forgiven and not the other, the reprieve would be practically useless.

The Israelites were in a somewhat similar position. Condemned to death through Adam's and their own disobedience, they were under a double curse. To have provided a Saviour who could release them from one only, would have done them no real good. Therefore it was that Jesus suffered both the Adamic and the Mosaic curses in his violent death on the cross.

The Christadelphian, April 1875

What does release or redemption from Adamic condemnation necessitate?

The answer is, Resurrection; redemption involves responsibility; responsibility required judgment, and judgment necessitates resurrection. Therefore, if baptism into Moses effects a release from Adamic death, all the children of Israel under the Mosaic law must be raised from the dead to be judged for their individual actions. To this an objection may be raised, that the Israelites under the law died in consequence of their personal transgressions, and that this would be sufficient, if they were devoid of the Abrahamic faith, to debar their resurrection.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is a justifiable statement, there is a class of Israelitish souls to whom it does not apply. Infant mortality might not be so high in those days as it is now, but it is quite certain that Jewish parents were not saved the pain of losing their young children by death.

These children, according to the theory under examination, were born free from the Adamic condemnation; when eight days old they were circumcised, and thereby were formally brought under the Mosaic law; before arriving at an age when they could understand their position many of them died; not knowing the enactments of that law, they had neither kept nor transgressed them; in other words they were non-responsible for their personal acts.

Consequently they could not have died under the penalty of the Mosaic law. If, then, they did not die under the Adamic penalty, whence came their death? Any answer which attributes their death to some other cause than the operation of these two laws must, in effect, affirm that sin is not the sole cause of death among the human race. To do this is to give the lie to the Word of God which teaches that death is the result of Adam's sin.

The Christadelphian, April 1875

The serpent tempted Eve

In this, Moses and Paul agree.

as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty—(2 Cor. 11:3.) 

It was an animal, that is, "a beast of the field:" for it is classed with the beast of the field in the statement that it was

"more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made."

When it is said of Moses that he was "meek above all the men which were upon the face of the earth," the force of the statement lies in the fact that Moses was one of "the men which were upon the face of the earth." If he had been an angel, it would have no application. So the force of the statement that the serpent was "more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made," lies in the fact that it was one of those beasts.

The same remark holds good, as to the sentence: "Thou art cursed above all cattle:" if the serpent did not belong to the "cattle," this had no meaning. ...The serpent was a beast of the field and of "the cattle." It was an individual serpent, separate altogether from Eve; for in addition to Adam and Eve, judgment was passed on the serpent:

"And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above cattle."

The fact of its speaking only shows that God qualified an animal to perform the necessary part of putting the first pair to the proof. There is no difficulty in the way of common sense and child-like faith. The fact that the serpent is afterwards used as a figure is no more evidence of the unliterality of the serpent in the Garden of Eden than the use of trees in figure disproves the literality of the Garden itself.

A figure is a shadow. There cannot be a shadow without substance to cause it. To say the serpent in Genesis is a figure because the serpent in Revelations is so, is to say that because a shadow cast by a rock in the sun is a mere appearance, therefore the rock itself is a mere appearance.

The whole force of a figure is derived from the literal fact on which it is founded. The part performed by the literal serpent in the Garden of Eden gives the foundation for the figure which writes the name of the serpent on the present evil world; which is the fruit of the literal serpent's evil.

But there have always been incompetent allegorizers. Origen is the king of them. He involved the holy oracles in impenetrable cloud by his blinding msyticism. Human nature is the same still: and it has become one of the duties of the time to beware of English Origenism.

The Christadelphian, April 1875

The forbidden tree

...she ate on the suggestion of the serpent, who told her her eyes would be opened and knowledge increased. Her motives were what would be called "good." There was nothing wicked in the abstract in desiring to partake of good food and to have increased knowledge. Yet giving way to these innocent objects was the means of bringing sin and death into the world. God had forbidden Eve to eat: and no goodness of motive could justify her eating.

It was innocent enough in the abstract to desire good food and enlarged knowledge: but the indulgence of this innocent desire became criminal when it involved the disobedience of a command. This suggests a simple but very important principle in the regulation of our own lives. That only is right which God has commanded, and that wrong which He has forbidden.

There is no other standard of action; and this standard we must enforce upon ourselves strictly. To do a wrong thing with a "good" object is to repeat the transgression of Eden. No action can be "good" in the sight of God which sets His command aside.

Submission to Him is the only goodness He will recognise, even if it is pushed to the extreme of requiring the sacrifice of an only son, like Abraham. The application of this simple principle will blow away much sophistical mist that gathers around the steps of those who make their own conceptions of "good" the rule of their actions.

The Christadelphian, April 1875