The Christadelphian Bible Journal
Jan 2007 - First Quarter - Volume 4 Number 31
Loving greetings in Yahshua Anointed.
Many thanks for writing. It is always a joy to hear from you.
In answer to your question, I feel that a belief, on our part, of the "sudden violent death" theory would be, in effect, the same as saying that Yahweh lied. Starting with a quote from the author of the violent death theory, J.J. Andrew, we read:
"A portion of the 'first principles' may be presented in a somewhat different light, but the only really new items are a violent death in relation to Edenic disobedience, and the doctrinal aspect of 'the second death. - (The Sanctuary Keeper, July 1894, p. 13).
Without getting into the "why" JJA came up with this theory, suffice it to say that he admits the violent death notion was not an original Christadelphian doctrine, but a new one devised by him. Will it stand up to the Scriptural test? And what might be the ramifications to any of us who believe the Andrew notion?
The verse, in part, reads:
..."for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."
The violent death theory declares that the penalty threatened for sin was a sudden violent cutting off of Adam and Eve "in the day" of transgression, but the Deity, in His mercy, allowed this sentence to be carried out on the animal instead so that the first couple could avoid this immediate cutting off. Is this true? Consider the following:
1. If the penalty threatened to both the man and woman in Genesis chapter two, verse 17, was a sudden violent cutting off for them in that very day, then it was not carried out, and the Elohim lied. Adam and Eve were neither violently cut off in that day, nor were they violently cut off in the first "millennial day."
2. If, after the fall, the Elohim changed the carrying out of this penalty from Adam and Eve to the animal, that is, for the animal to be violently slain "in the day" of transgression, then the Elohim cannot be trusted to do what He says He will do. Moreover, we have, in effect, a doctrine of substitution being introduced here; that is, a violent cutting off being transferred to the animal - the animal, or lamb, being cut off instead of Adam and Eve.
3. On the other hand, if the penalty threatened to both the man and woman was simply "dying thou shalt die," then the penalty was carried out "in the day" that they ate thereof, and the Elohim told the truth.
"Dying thou shalt die" is the sense of the original Hebrew and it indicates that the process of dying commenced in the day of the transgression. Death is a process with a beginning and an ending. This is similar to the Hebrew sense for "eat." "Eating thou shalt eat" is also a process with a beginning and an ending. Adam and Eve became dying creatures in the day that they ate of the forbidden fruit, just as the Elohim said they would.
It was not the Elohim that lied. The only liar on the pre-fall scene was the Serpent. In the history of Christadelphia, some have believed the Andrew "sudden violent death" notion, though in most, perhaps all, cases, it has been without realizing that such a belief makes Yahweh a liar. Whether we hold to the violent death error either innocently or not, it is wrong for us to do so.
And so, to answer your question, I think the spiritual ramifications to the belief in "the sudden violent death theory," is to be found in falsely accusing Yahweh. He, through the Elohim, did not lie. The penalty for sin that was threatened was precisely the penalty received. Adam and Eve became dying creatures in both the literal day of the transgression as well as in the first "millennial day."
Brother Thomas did write that it was absolutely necessary for the Seed of the woman (Yahshua) to be cut off by violence of the Serpent power (Rome at the urging of the Jews), in order that sin might be condemned in its own flesh... However, I do not believe that he was endorsing the Andrew notion. As you point out, brother Thomas taught the "dying thou shalt die" true Hebrew approach to Genesis chapters two and three.
Why, then, was "violence" employed in the cutting off of Messiah? The prophecies called for it. Isaiah, chapter 53, Psalm 22, and Daniel, chapter 9, all comes to mind. But principally, it was by this means "violence" that the blood of Yahshua could be shed in order to bring into force the Everlasting Covenant.
The Everlasting Covenant was foreshadowed in Eden through the shedding of the first lamb's blood, as a covering for sin - not as a substitute, but as a representative thing that pointed forward typically to Yahshua, the Lamb of Deity, who would forfeit his life by the shedding of his own blood ("the life is in the blood" -- forfeiture thereof is the penalty of sin) and thereby destroy both manifestations of sin: first, in his life through defeating sin in its own flesh by never yielding to it, and secondly, through putting to death, on the tree, the body of sin itself (Heb. 2:14). In this way sin and death would have no more hold upon him whatsoever.
The principles that the representative things could only teach through type and shadow, Yahshua, as the antitype, would fulfill in becoming the perfect covering for sin both for himself and for all who would come unto the Deity by him.
I hope this answers your question. I'll have to admit, this is a subject I have not thought about in a few years. Hence your question was good inasmuch as it got some of the cobwebs out of my old cranium. That can't be a bad thing.
What do you think?
Look forward to hearing from you again.
Yours faithfully,
Bob Widding