Author: Ken Stothard

Accounts of Jesus’ conspicuously Trinitarian baptism at his reception of the Spirit in the synoptics (see Mt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Lu. 3:21f.) bear strong resemblance to Pentecost and the later experiences of the disciples (e.g. Acts 10:44-48). Thus the picture painted by the gospel writers makes it entirely reasonable for us to draw the conclusion that our Lord’s baptism is the archetype of all Christian baptism.

Historically, however, the Church has not seen it this way. Even the human agent of Jesus’ baptism, John the Baptist whose baptism was with a view to repentance (Mark 1:4), reacted negatively and uncomprehendingly to Jesus’ request (Mt. 3:14) and, given the latter’s sinlessness and lack of need to repent, there is little wonder. Then the inference has sometimes been drawn that Jesus’ baptism involved proxy repentance, i.e. it signified a vicarious action of Jesus on behalf of his people. This is hardly convincing since repentance for transgression is a personal matter (Mark 1:15; Rom. 2:4). If it were true, it would have catastrophic theological and moral implications (cf. Mt. 3:9). Then again, Jesus’ endowment with the Spirit can be explained as a preparation for his ministry as Messiah, which it certainly was, but if this involves a denial that his baptism was the ideal baptism (see, e.g. Beasley-Murray’s chapter The Foundation of Christian Baptism, pp. 63ff.), it inevitably raises a variety of questions. For when too much emphasis is laid on the difference between Jesus and his disciples to the exclusion of his similarity to, even identity with, them at certain points (cf. Heb. 2:14ff.), there is a great danger of lapsing into the ancient heresy of docetism which denied Jesus’ true humanity.

So it needs first to be established that Jesus was a real man. According to John 1:14 the Word became flesh (see also Rom. 1:3). He was born of woman (Mt. 1:25; Lu. 2:7; Gal. 4:4, cf. 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14), was a true son of Adam (Lu. 3:38), a genuine Jew and son of the commandment (cf. Lu. 2:41ff.) and was made like his fellows in every respect (Heb. 2:17). Yet, in spite of being tempted like all men, he did not personally sin (Heb. 2:18; 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22). Therefore, though naturally mortal, his body was not subject to death on account of sin (cf. Rom. 8:10f.).

In seeking to glorify his Father Jesus’ main task was to redeem mankind (see e.g. John 10:15; 15:13; Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8, etc.). But in order to do this he had to act AS man FOR man (Heb. 2:6-10,14f.,17f.) in accordance with the original promise made to Adam (Gen. 2:17). Once he became flesh, however, he was made weak (Mt. 26:41), dependent and susceptible to temptation (Mt. 4:1-11), sin and death (2 Cor. 5:21; 13:4, cf. Rom. 8:3). As a true man there is a sense in which his divinity became an irrelevance, for, though he was truly the Son of God, he was granted no special favours or privileges (note Mt. 4:6f.; Heb. 5:7f.). As a man he had to live and act as a man, indeed, as man perfectly at harmony with the whole law of Moses, in order to receive the life originally promised to Adam (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Dt. 30:20; 32:47; Ezek. 20:11,13,21; Mt. 19:17; Mark 10:19; Luke 10:28; 18:18-20; Rom. 10:5). He was thus subject to the entire gamut of the law in all its forms. In other words, though like all human babies he was born knowing neither good nor evil (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.), he had to achieve personal righteousness under the law in the flesh (see Gen. 2:17; Dt. 6:24f., cf. Rom. 8:3), for apart from it he could not inherit life (Ezek. 18:5-9, etc.). And it was not until he had received the approval of his Father at the end of his probation under (the) law (Mt. 3:17, cf. Gal. 3:24; 4:2) that he gained life in accordance with the OT promise most clearly enunciated (though constantly repeated) in Leviticus 18:5. It was at his baptism that the Spirit was said to descend and, in contrast with the OT saints, remain on him (John 1:32f., cf. 3:34). It was then that he was openly acknowledged as the Son of God (Mt. 3:17). This permanent indwelling of the Spirit surely implied not merely that he had eternal life, that is, was born from above, but that he would persevere to the end. Thus being and action, ontology and function were seen to coincide in him who walked not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (cf. Rom. 8:4).

If this is so, then Jesus’ baptism would appear to be paradigmatic, setting the pattern for all Christian baptism. It may be objected, however, that John the Baptist on his own confession baptised only with water (e.g. Mark 1:8). While this may be true in general, it was certainly not so on the occasion of Jesus’ baptism when John clearly became the human instrument in a divine action.

It should be noted here that the indispensable precondition of what the apostle John calls the new birth or eternal life is righteousness. This is implied in Genesis 2:17 and made evident as early as the third chapter of Genesis where Adam and Eve’s failure to keep the commandment debarred them from the tree of life (3:22-24). The point of mentioning this is to underline the fact that Jesus was acting on behalf of all men and women throughout the history of the race. But as a man himself, as well as representative man, the last Adam, he had to gain life by living sinlessly in contrast with his original human progenitor, the first Adam, in order to put himself in a position to bring life to his fellows as the pioneer and perfecter of their faith (cf. Heb. 2:9-18). In other words, he had to have power over his own flesh (Rom. 8:3) in order to give eternal life to all whom the Father had given him (cf. John 17:2). While he was a servant still under the law, he was bent on achieving personal righteousness and was in no position to act on behalf of others (cf. Luke 17:7-10). Once, however, he had gained life for himself and been openly acknowledged as God’s Son (Mt. 3:17, etc.), he was not merely in his Father’s house (John 8:35) but able to serve as its very foundation for his people (Heb. 3:6). As the one who had uniquely kept the written law (cf. Ps. 143:2), he was now in a position to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15, cf. 19:21; Heb. 7:18f.). On the one hand, his goal was complete maturity or spiritual perfection as a man (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 5:8f., cf. Jas. 1:4; 3:2), on the other, his aim was to do his Father’s will by sacrificing himself on behalf of others (John 10:17f.; Acts 10:38) in an act of total commitment (John 4:34; 14:31) and supererogation. So, accepting by faith the sin of man imputed to him, he died on the cross and expiated the sins of all who put their trust in him. To them he freely gave a righteousness (justification by faith) that they were completely unable to provide for themselves (Ps. 143:2; Rom. 3:21ff.; 5:15f.; Phil. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18, etc.). And in this way, he opened the gate of heaven and gave them the eternal life originally promised to Adam on condition of his obedience (Gen. 2:17, cf. 1 John 2:25. Note also Rom. 5:17,18,21 where Paul maintains that righteousness leads to life.).

This brings us back to the new birth. Scripture makes it clear beyond equivocation (see espec. John 3:1ff. and 1 Cor. 15:42ff.) that regeneration relates primarily not to our sin, as Augustine taught, but to our earthly nature as flesh*. John 3:1-8, like 1 Corinthians 15:42-50, does not even mention sin. In verse 6 Jesus lays it down that what is born of the flesh is flesh and what is born of the Spirit is spirit (cf. John 1:13). But what applies to Nicodemus and to the rest of mankind must have applied equally to Jesus himself since, as we saw above when insisting that he was truly man born of woman, he also was flesh (cf. Heb. 2) and as such had to achieve righteousness under the law. Had he not been born again, he could not have entered the kingdom of God himself (John 3:5) least of all been the agent of its inauguration here on earth (cf. Mt. 12:22-32) and its very means of entry for his people (John 10:7; 14:6).

The latter point is underscored by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:50 (cf. 1 Pet. 1:23). Having already indicated that with all human beings (and, on the assumption of his incarnation, including Jesus) the flesh or the natural or physical comes first (v.46), he adds that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Admittedly, Paul’s focus of attention is the body, but the idea that we can experience a spiritual change apart from a bodily one (note vv.51ff.) would torpedo his entire argument here as elsewhere (2 Cor. 4:7-5:5; 1 Thes. 4:13ff.).

Another point of fundamental importance needs to be made in the effort to support the thesis that Jesus was the subject of regeneration: Jesus alone satisfied the demands of the OT covenant by keeping the written law to his Father’s satisfaction (Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11,13,21; Mt. 3:17; 19:17-21, cf. Gal. 3:2,5, etc.) and so made incorruptible life a reality for the first time (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). It is part of the essence of Paul’s theology that Jesus is the second or last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45ff., cf. Rom. 5:12ff.). As the One who at his incarnation descended from heaven with the express intention of ascending there again (cf. John 3:13; 6:62; 16:28) with his (spiritual) fellows in train (Heb. 2:10-18), he had to pave their way by pioneering the regenerate life himself as their representative (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 6:20; 12:2). Thus, as the second Adam, having perfectly played out his first Adamic role in the ‘flesh’ (recapitulation) as both slave (in Egypt, Mt. 2:15) and servant under the law (Lu. 2:41ff.; cf. Gal. 4:1-4), he proceeded as the man of heaven to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) by living out the spirit of the law in his majority as a son (Gal. 4:5; Acts 2:22; 10:38, cf. Mt. 19:21; 2 Cor. 3:2-6). Clearly as a servant bent on justifying himself before his Father he could do no good (meritorious) works (cf. Lu. 17:7-10) and, like John the Baptist, perform no miracles. But as the acknowledged and Spirit-filled Son he not only went about doing good (Acts 10:38, cf. Eph. 2:10) but also eventually capped his regenerate life by dying for and redeeming his sheep (John 10:15; 15:13; Gal. 4:5-7; 1 Cor. 15:45b). On the other hand, denial of Jesus’ regeneration, typically the logical and normal outcome of keeping the law (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5), leaves him still under the law, in permanent minority (Gal. 4:1ff., cf. 3:23ff.), devoid of the Spirit yet nonetheless capable of fulfilling all righteousness and thereby achieving perfection. This is an impossible position to hold. So far as the author of Hebrews is concerned, it means he was never perfected (7:18f., cf. Mt. 19:21; Phil. 3:12-15) and was therefore incapable of perfecting his fellows (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:14; 12:2). Such is the fruit of the erroneous dogma of original sin and a false covenant theology which fails to see that we are all first, even apart from sin, slaves, then, if we are Jews, servants, and finally by the grace of God sons (Gal. 4:1-7).

This is all so fundamentally important that it needs to be re-iterated and re-expressed. It is more than a little difficult to see how Jesus could do good works (Acts 10:38, cf. Eph. 2:10) and redeem people under the law (Gal. 4:5) if he was still under the law himself still being tested (cf. Ex. 16:4; Dt. 8:2,16) and doing his duty (Luke 17:10). The point of his baptism was that with the outpouring of the Spirit he was now not only by nature a son, the Son, but also functionally so since he was led by the Spirit. He had kept the law which promised life and now he had gained it. His was not an adoption as ours is. Rather, he who was by nature God’s Son, born of woman (nature) and subjected to the law in all its rigour had graduated in accordance with Paul’s teaching in Galatians 4:1-7.

In the upshot, it is clear that just as Jesus’ righteousness is the basis of ours in justification, so his regeneration is the foundation of ours in life. In other words, it is impossible to be born again in this world apart from faith in Christ (John 3:16; 1 John 5:11f.). We depend on him who as a man like us became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) for both righteousness and life (cf. Rom. 5:21).

Reference to Jesus’ sonship, of course, only serves to underline the fact that he underwent the new birth since the one implies the other. While the church has remained blind to the implication, the devil was all too aware of the significance of Jesus’ baptism. He thus pointedly tempted him as a regenerate son, the Son (Mt. 4:3,6), just as God had tested the Israelites, collectively his adopted son (Ex. 4:22), in the wilderness long before (Dt. 8:2).

On the assumption that the reasoning presented above is in essence correct, we can now agree with Robinson that regeneration is “the normal and ‘natural’ completion of what was begun in the first birth” (p. 327). Surely this is precisely what Paul is intimating in 1 Corinthians 15:42ff., not to mention Jesus’ own teaching in John 3. It must immediately be added, however, that for us sinners it is now only ‘natural’ because Jesus himself has made it so. Apart from his own new birth consequent on his keeping the law, all other new births would be impossible because of sin. To clarify the issue, it must be said that God’s original purpose, which involved man’s glorification (Gen. 1:26,28; Ps. 8:5f.;Rom. 2:7,10; 8:28-30; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 1:4f.; Heb. 2:9) and perfection (Mt. 5:48, cf. Rom. 8:29) but which was thwarted by sin, has now been effected in Jesus (Heb. 2:10; 5:8f.; 7:28; 1:3) and through him in his people both as community and individuals. (Cf. Westcott: “We cannot but believe that under any circumstances … there would have been a progress in the race, as well as in the individual, towards the gradual fulfilment of the idea of humanity…. In other words, the endeavour to follow out the normal development of the human race leads us to look for that which answers to the Incarnation, by which the completed body might be brought into a final unity of fellowship with God”, p.308. See also Warfield, who referred to Jesus’ human development as the only strictly normal development from birth to manhood, the world has ever seen, p.160).

The plain truth is then that, as Paul points out, we who are Christians follow the pattern established by the two Adams. The first, though made in the image of God, is physical (natural) and earthly, the second is spiritual and heavenly (1 Cor. 15:45-49). If we reach maturity or perfection we all necessarily conform to both on our way to heaven. Since, however, God does not permit fleshly man to boast (1 Cor. 1:29; Eph. 2:9), we all, with the single exception of Jesus (it is here, of course, that his divinity is of vital importance), fall into sin (Rom. 3:19-23). Thus Jesus alone of all men that ever lived achieved life (or the new birth and blessing of the Spirit, cf. Mt. 3:16f.), on the basis of his righteousness under the law in fulfilment of his Father’s promise made under the law (Lev. 18:5, cf. Gen. 2:17; Dt. 32:46f., etc.). And having as a man, the second Adam, gained life for himself, he was thus in a position to achieve it for his fellow men (cf. Heb. 2:10-13). If Adam sinned and brought in death, Jesus remained sinless and attained to righteousness and life (Rom. 5:12-21; 6:23; 2 Tim. 1:10).

In the last analysis, all who deny that Jesus needed to be born again are failing to appreciate, first, God’s purpose for man (Eph. 1:4; 4:13; Col. 1:28; 2:2, etc.) and, secondly, what the author of Hebrews is affirming when he says: “It was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers” (2:10f., ESV, cf. also 3:1-6). This failure means that they fall prey to docetism and hence deny the incarnation. Little wonder that the latter was regarded as the most abysmal of heresies in NT times (1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7, etc.). This being the case, it is imperative to ask why practically the whole church especially in the West has gone astray in denying to Jesus the necessity of regeneration. The answer doubtless lies, as Robinson hints in the reference above, in its uncritical following of Augustine of Hippo.

It needs to be recognised that Augustine became a colossus in the minds of Christians in the fifth and following centuries. His towering figure dominated later theologians including the Reformers (Luther, it must be remembered, was an Augustinian monk and Calvin could quote Augustine off the cuff.) While the latter rejected to some extent his ecclesiology, they accepted his doctrine of grace and regarded him as the great enemy of pernicious Pelagianism. (Pelagius emphasised free will and righteousness by works). Despite his mother’s being a professing Christian, Augustine’s early training was pagan. But worse, he adopted Manicheism and the view that the flesh was evil. Contemporary detractors like Julian of Eclanum maintained that he remained manicheistic to the end, and with good reason (see e.g. H.Chadwick, pp. 111f.). For example, it is now acknowledged by leading scholars that he regarded sex as evil (see e.g. Rist, pp.319ff.; Cunliffe-Jones, pp.162f.). Holding this view it was inevitable, subsequent to the sin of Adam, that for him desire (or carnal lust or concupiscence) and the flesh in general were tarnished. Thus to this day the church frequently regards the flesh as evil. (See e.g. Barrett, p.148, denied by Dunn, p.391. On page 156, commenting on Romans 8:3, Barrett, cf. Barth, even goes so far as to suggest that Jesus took on our “fallen nature” but constantly overcame the proclivity to sin! This is said in defiance of logic and is clearly a profound error.) But Jesus as ‘flesh’ must have experienced the normal desires of the flesh and been unavoidably caught up in the war between flesh and spirit (cf. Gal. 5:16ff.; 1 Pet. 2:11, pace Art. 9 of the C of E) common to all mankind or he could not have been tempted (cf. James 1:12ff.). If this is not the case, we are forced to conclude (a) that he was not human; (b) that he never gained victory over temptation; and hence (c) he was disqualified from acting as our high priest (Heb. 2:17f.; 4:15). However, it is quite clear that some ‘lusts’ (Gk. epithumia) are permissible (see e.g. Dt. 12:15,20f.; 21:11f. and espec. Lu. 22:15) indicating that human beings as ‘flesh’ have desires by nature (creation) like the Spirit himself (Gal. 5:17). What is forbidden, however, is the kind of ‘lust’ referred to in the tenth commandment (cf. Mt. 5:28; 2 Pet. 2:14), but this cannot be extended to what is entirely legitimate (i.e. not forbidden by the law, cf. Gal. 5:23) and intrinsically natural, despite the views of Augustine. For example, sexual relations between husband and wife are entirely legitimate, ordained by God in fact for the propagation of the race (Gen. 1:28). By contrast, however, adultery is illegitimate and is constituted sinful by the law (cf. Rom. 7:1-3).

It is also to Augustine that we owe the dogma of original sin which simply bristles with insoluble problems. (One of its fruits is the clearly erroneous view of Barrett referred to above. If it is true, we must assume that Jesus was a sinner like the rest of us, or, again, that he was not truly man.) In order to combat this patently unbiblical dogma Augustine was forced to call in the idea of infant and baptismal regeneration still so characteristic of the Roman Church (cf. Needham, pp.32-34,45,252). But Protestants need to be aware that federal and covenant theologies had their beginnings in the same dogma. Thus even the children of the Reformation make the capital error of presenting regeneration (a unilateral act of God) as the remedy of sin, especially original or birth sin (also a unilateral act of God and hence outside man’s control and responsibility). As we have seen, however, in a brief examination of John 3:1-8, Jesus pits Spirit or new birth not against sin but against nature, i.e. ‘flesh’. As the whole of the OT sacrificial system, not to mention specific NT teaching about the death of Christ, indicates the remedy for sin is blood not Spirit, atonement not regeneration (cf. 1 John 1:7; Heb. 1:3). The latter, however, is pre-eminent in sanctification.

What needs to be recognised, however, in the immortal words of Charles Wesley, is that the Spirit or the new birth breaks the power of CANCELLED sin (1 Cor. 6:11; Tit. 3:3-7). Indeed, unless sin is covered and righteousness attained (through justification by faith, cf. 1 Cor. 6:9), the new birth, which is synonymous with eternal life and the reception of the Spirit (Gal. 3:2,5), simply cannot take place (Lev. 18:5). If this is denied, we inevitably end up with unrepentant, unforgiven and unjustified sinners being granted eternal life and a place in the kingdom – a state of affairs which is directly contrary to the very essence of biblical teaching about salvation. The truth is that atonement and justification by faith MUST precede the granting of new life by the Spirit (Rom. 5:6,10,17,18,21), unless, as in Jesus’ own case, we have kept the law to perfection and have earned our Father’s ‘well done’ in our own strength (Mt. 3:17; 25:21,23). If regeneration occurred first, then sinners would be eternally cemented in their sin – a state of affairs against which God took measures at the start of history (Gen. 3:22).

Historically, the church has confused sin and grace with flesh and spirit and continues to do so to this day, and until it sorts out this muddle, doctrinal mayhem will remain a permanent feature of the church scene. So it needs to be stressed yet once more that, according to Scripture, the indispensable precondition of life (sonship) is righteousness by law-keeping as in Jesus’ case, or justification by faith in Christ in our own case (cf. Rom. 10:5f.). This being so, the pattern that believers must follow is that established by Jesus who blazed our trail and pioneered out salvation (or regenerate life: Heb. 2:10; 5:8f.; 6:20; 12:2). Whereas once, led by the devil and our fleshly passions (Eph. 2:2f., etc.), we followed the first Adam in his sin, now, having been justified by faith and led by the Spirit, we follow the second Adam in his righteousness and progressive sanctification (Rom. 6:13,16,19,22).

So, in conclusion it must be urged that if Jesus was ever ‘flesh’ (i.e. truly incarnate), as the last Adam he had necessarily to experience the new birth to fit him for heaven (cf. John 3:6; 1 Cor. 15:50). (This, of course, implies that his baptism and reception of the Spirit, like his acknowledged Sonship, Mark 1:11, anointing, John 1:41, sealing, John 6:27, overcoming, John 16:33, and so forth, were paradigmatic, see 1 John 2:27; Eph. 1:13; Gal. 4:6f.; Rom. 8:31ff., etc.) As one born of woman and knowing neither good nor evil (Isa. 7:15f.), he doubtless learned to accept the ‘no’ of his parents (cf. e.g. Ps. 78:5-8) and to be obedient in a way that the first Adam was not (cf. Heb. 5:7f.). Then as a son of the commandment (Lu. 2:41ff.), he faithfully served his apprenticeship in violent contrast with rebellious Israel whom he represented (cf. Gal. 4:5; Heb. 9:15). For this he was granted life in accordance with his Father’s promise and openly acknowledged as his Son at his baptism. Even for him eternal life was not an inalienable right. As man’s representative, the second Adam, it had to be attained by meticulous submission to the divine will (John 8:29,46; 15:10; Heb. 5:8f. 1 Pet. 2:22, etc.). In other words, as we saw above, ontology had to be matched with action or function. Otherwise, failure under the law meant banishment from access to the tree of life as it had for the first Adam (Gen. 3:22-24).

In the event, Jesus finished his work by overcoming the world (John 16:33; 17:4f., cf. Gen. 1:26,28; Ps. 8:5f.; Heb. 2:7-9; Jas. 3:2). Assuming that the ‘world’ cannot refer simply to the organised opposition of worldly men as various writers aver, he had to triumph also over the transitory forces of the created world (Rom. 8:3,39 cf. 1 John 2:8,16f.; 1 Cor. 7:31; Gal. 1:4). In order to do this completely, however, he needed, as we, his followers, in our turn need (cf. 1 John 5:5; Rev. 3:20f.), to be born of God (1 John 5:4). If we deny this, then we imply either that he overcame as a servant under the law and not as a son, the Son (cf. Heb. 3:1-6; Gal. 4:1-6) on whom the Spirit had been poured out without measure (Luke 4:18; John 3:34) or that the law can give life (contrast Gal. 3:21; Heb. 7:18f.).

On the assumption that what is argued above is in fact a true reflection of the biblical position, it is now possible to see how we owe everything to God in Christ. For in Jesus’ own case, the flesh was weak (2 Cor. 13:4, cf. Rom. 8:3; Mt. 26:41) and even he owed his ‘salvation’ to God (cf. Heb. 5:7ff.) in accordance with OT teaching (Isa. 43:3,11; 45:21f.; 48:11). Truly can it be said that no flesh will boast in God’s presence (Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 1:29). As Paul further intimates, God has consigned all men (and women) to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22). And that mercy is exercised in Christ, the heavenly Man, who achieved what the purely earthly man or first Adam proved intrinsically incapable of doing (cf. Rom. 7:7ff.).

So much for the argument which, reduced to its bare simplicity, is that if Jesus was incarnate, he had of necessity to be subject to regeneration in accordance with his own dictum (John 3:6) which was absolute and permitted no exceptions.

A Simple Syllogism

Major premise: All who are born of the flesh need to be born again (John 3:3,5,6).
Minor premise: Jesus was born of the flesh (Luke 1:42; Gal. 4:4).
Conclusion: Therefore Jesus was born again.

Explicit Teaching

There is yet a final question to pose: Does the NT ever indicate directly that Jesus was born again? Apart from its implication in Matthew 3:13-17, John 3:3,6 (2*) and 3:8, as far as I am aware the only texts which possibly enable us to answer this in the affirmative are 1 John 5:18 and Hebrews 2:11. (Further reflection has led me to infer its implication in 1 John 4:4. After all, in John 16:33 we read that Jesus overcame the world. So since 1 John 4:4 tells us that whatever is born again overcomes the world, we are compelled to conclude that Jesus, having kept the law overcame the world as the regenerate Son of God. He thereby enabled believers to do the same through faith in him, cf. Rev. 3:21.) Regarding the former, the expression “he that was born of God” is unique or “peculiar” (Westcott), though it might be taken to refer to the fact that Christ was “born from God historically” (De Young, p.1186, cf. Westcott on John 3:6, p.50). Stott, having stated that our begetting and sonship are different from his since the latter’s are unique and eternal, adds that they are sufficiently similar to make it possible for John to use almost identical expressions to cover both born of God and begotten of God (p. 192). This is hardly persuasive: the problem is that ‘almost identical expressions’ would normally imply similarity not difference (cf. John’s use of the word ‘begotten’ (aorist) in John 1:13. In contrast, Westcott makes two points: first, that the expression “he that was born of God” (3*) emphasises the connection of the Son with those whom he is not ashamed to call his brethren (Heb. 2:11), second, that it highlights the difference in sonship that is marked in John 5:26, for we, though possessing eternal life, do not have life in ourselves. Again, Kruse, having noted the connection between being born of God and doing right (p.114), says correctly, though despite its obvious implication (cf. Mt. 3:15; John 8:29; 15:10), that Jesus is never said to be born of God (p.171, n.195, cf. p.195, n.235). He admits, however, that 1 John 5:18 may be an exception. Later (p.195) he suggests that there is a close parallel between John 17:12-15 and 1 John 5:18. (John 17:14,16, it should be noted, are somewhat similar to Hebrews 2:11.) What is surely clear is that the text cannot refer to a parallel between the physical or incarnational birth of Jesus (note John 1:18 where the ‘one and only’ is used) and the spiritual or new birth of those who exercise faith in Christ. No such parallel exists and can only be entertained by Augustinians who believe that we, as opposed to Jesus, are born sinners. According to the Bible, the new birth is re-generation subsequent to and different in kind from natural or physical birth as John 1:13 and 3:6 make clear. (With regard to 1:13 commentators generally deny any reference to the virgin birth. See e.g. Lindars, Marsh, Ridderbos, ad loc. While Carson, p.126, points out that John differentiates between Jesus as a ‘son’ and a believer as a ‘child’ of God, Morris, p.100, says that he does not speak elsewhere about the virgin birth but has a good deal to say about regeneration alluding to chapter 3 and 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18.)

In light of the evidence it would seem reasonable to infer that the apostle is underlining the spiritual nature of both the above-mentioned expressions. If all things have been given to the Son (3:35, cf. 6:37,39) because the Father loves him (cf. Mt. 3:17; 17:5), the suggestion is that this arises out of his achievement in the flesh (John 8:29, cf. Acts 5:31 on which see Marshall, p.120, and John 3:35 on which see Morris, pp.247f.). Sovereignty of life and authority to judge relate to the true humanity of the Son of Man (cf. Westcott on John 5:26, and note Acts 17:30f.). Thus, it may truly be said that he was both the ‘founder and perfecter’ (ESV) of the salvation of all his brethren (12:2, cf. Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 6:20 and note 10:14; Acts 3:14f.; 5:31). Just as he was born again, sealed with the Spirit (John 6:27, cf. 1:32f.), resurrected from the dead and glorified, so in consequence were his followers (Eph. 1:13; 2 Cor. 4:14; Rom. 8:29f.). In other words, both of Westcott’s points are valid and interconnected. Precisely because Jesus attained to regeneration, that is, was granted life by keeping the law to perfection (Lev. 18:5, etc.), he paved the way for it to occur in all other cases through faith in him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45b, John 5:26, cf. 1 John 5:11f.). This, surely, is the wonder and heart of the gospel.

Regarding John 5:26, it seems to me that there is a danger of over-emphasising the ontology of the Word (cf. 1:4) to the exclusion of his function as Son (i.e. man).

So far as Hebrews 2:11 is concerned, the reference to the common divine origin (cf. Bruce, Lane, NIV, NRSV, etc.), of those who are brethren, points, in the light of verses like John 1:13 (cf. Heb. 2:13), to a common regeneration. (Lane strongly stresses the solidarity Jesus enjoyed with his people and maintains: “That solidarity is affirmed in the statement that the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family”, p.67, cf. pp.60,64) This conclusion is strengthened when we consider other references like Matthew 28:10, John 20:17, Romans 8:14-17,29 (on the latter see especially Dunn) and Galatians 4:6f., which surely rule out a common humanity, mere flesh and blood referred to in any case in verse 14 (contrast “the descendants of Abraham”, Heb. 2:16f.).

Though there is doubtless more to be said, I rest my case.

1* For Augustine the need to be born again arises from the fact that we are born sinful: ”So children derive guilt from their natural birth and cannot be liberated from this sickness unless they are born again” (Needham, p. 59, cf. pp. 251,286). The old notion that the word ‘flesh’ in John 3:6 meant ‘sinful flesh’ is now largely and rightly discarded. See e.g Morris, p.219 and notes.

2* Berkhof says of John 3:3 that the statement is absolute and leaves no room for exceptions (p.472). The same must be said of 3:6.

3* The difference between the aorist, referring to Jesus, and the perfect, relating to his people, is presumably significant. The aorist referring simply to an event in the past would suggest that Jesus’ rebirth was a ‘natural’ or ‘normal’ occurrence, uninterrupted by sin, in his progress towards perfection as the true Son of God; the perfect, referring to an event having continuing effects in the present, implies genuineness on the one hand (contrast 2:19) and, especially in the light of 1 John 1:8 and 3:9, constant guarding on the other (cf. John 10:28; 13:1).

References

C.K.Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, London, 1962.

G.R.Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, Exeter, 1962.

L.Berkhof, Systematic Theology, London, 1959.

H.Cunliffe-Jones, A History of Christian Doctrine, Edinburgh, 1978.

J.B.De Young, in Baker Commentary on the Bible, Grand Rapids, 1989.

J.D.G.Dunn, Romans 1-8, Dallas, 1988.

P.E.Hughes, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, repr. Grand Rapids, 1987.

C.G.Kruse, The letters of John, Leicester, 2000.

L.L.Morris, The Gospel According to John, Grand Rapids, 1971.

B.Lindars, The Gospel of John, London, 1972.

John Marsh, Saint John, London, 1968.

I.H.Marshall, Acts, Leicester, 1980.

L.L.Morris, The Gospel According to John, Grand Rapids, 1971.

N.R.Needham, The Triumph of Grace, London, 2000.

H.N. Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, Grand Rapids, 1997.

J.M.Rist, Augustine, Cambridge, 1994.

H.W.Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man, Edinburgh, 1911.

J.R.W.Stott, The Epistles of John, London, 1964.

B.B.Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings 1, Nutley, 1970.

B.F.Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, repr. London, 1958.

B.F.Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, London, 1883.

The title of the previous article, that is, The Pattern of Sin, is somewhat misleading, since the evidence adduced revealed that the pattern established by the sin of Eve was also a general pattern of behaviour which, in the absence of law, is quite acceptable, indeed, in some cases, demanded (cf. Dt. 12:7,12ff.; 14:26; 26:11). I have already intimated that the Augustinian idea that the flesh and its passions are sinful is quite erroneous on the ground that they are natural and only become sinful when law is transgressed (cf. Rom. 4:15; 1 Cor. 15:56; Gal. 5:23). What God appeared to require of man made in his image from the outset was dominion or regulation of what is earthly, including his own body (cf. Col.3:5), according to law. But is this really the case? To answer this question we clearly need to examine more evidence.

God’s Own Attitude

I have intimated above that the pattern of behaviour was established by or instigated with Eve. But again, was it? Further reflection on the first chapter of Genesis made me realise that it is said there, in verses 4,10,12,18,21,25 and 31, that God himself ‘saw’ what was ‘good’ (kalos). Of course, it is not then said that he ‘took’ what he saw even legitimately, except in Adam’s case (Gen. 2:15), but arguably that may be inferred, especially when we recognise that blessing follows on the divine work of creation. As Wenham says (p.24), “The blessing of God is one of the great unifying themes of Genesis. God blesses animals (1:22), mankind (1:28), the Sabbath (2:3), Adam (5:2), Noah (9:1), and frequently the patriarchs (12:3; 17:16,20, etc.).” Even more appositely he adds, “God’s blessing is most obviously visible in the gift of children, as this is often coupled with ‘being fruitful and multiplying’.” He goes on to assert that the latter is central (cf. 1:28; 9:1,7; 17:6,20; 28:3; 41:52; 48:4), and it is in one sense a continuation of God’s creative activity which enables man to imitate him, that is, God, by procreating. Just as God sowed the creation he had brought into being (cf. Gen. 1:11), so the sons of God (Gen. 1:26,28; 5:1f.; 6:2; Luke 3:38, cf. 1 Cor.11:7-9) tend, till (cf. Gen.2:15)  and sow both the earth or womb (Ps.139:13,15) from which they are taken and the garden of delight or womb of their wives when they ‘know’ (Gen. 4:1,17,25) or ‘go in to’ (Gen. 16:4; 29:21) them. At least this would seem to be the conclusion drawn by the author of Genesis when he says, “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” (2:24, RSV).

It is hardly surprising then that when God himself sends his own incarnate Son into the world he ‘overshadows’ Mary (Lu. 1:35) as he had creation in Genesis 1:2 (cf. Ps. 104:30; Ex. 40:35). And even less surprising, in view of what has just been said, is it that Mary was blessed (Luke 1:42,48, cf. 11:27). While it can hardly be denied that Jesus emphasises the superiority of the spiritual over the physical (Luke 11:28), it remains true that the one is dependent on the other (cf. 1 Cor. 15:23,46; Gen. 8:21f.). In other words, just as the material creation derives from the invisible (Heb. 11:3), so it serves an invisible purpose that transcends it. Or, as Paul says with regard to our own earthly lives, the physical precedes the spiritual (1 Cor. 15:46) but with intent. It might be noted here that when spiritual fruit fails to emerge when it is swamped by the fleshly or material in Genesis 6, the earth is threatened with an annihilating cataclysm that is only obviated by the covenant with Noah which promises better things in the future – the fulfilment of God’s purpose of salvation (Gen. 8:21f.).

Gods’ Love for Israel

It should not pass without notice that the divine pattern to be followed by man receives further confirmation in God’s own love for Israel, which, among other metaphors, is sometimes cast in sexual and nuptial terms. Whereas in Hosea he is betrothed to Israel forever (2:19), in Isaiah God himself is represented as a husband who fertilises a desolate wife (54:1-8; 62:5). This, however, prompts the question of what happened in history.

First, we note that Abram was born in Ur. From there he is taken to Canaan, intentionally by Terah (Gen. 11:31) and actually by God where he becomes very fruitful (Jos.24:3, cf. Gen. 13:16; 15:5; 28:13f.; 32:12). Just as God had taken Adam before him and put him in Eden and made him potentially fruitful, so now Abram is taken to Canaan, the land flowing with milk and honey, the Promised Land of the future. And it is here that the original promises made to Abram regarding his fruitfulness (Gen. 13:16; 17:2,4,6, etc.) are eventually fulfilled, at least on the physical level (1 Kings 3:8; 4:20). Again we note that just as Adam was one man who became many, so Abraham was one who also became many (Isa. 51:2). Even in the OT, however, we are led to believe that the purpose of all this was ultimately spiritual, for Israel was brought to physical birth so that the Spirit could be poured out on his descendants (Isa. 43:1-7; 44:1-5; 46:3f.; cf. Joel 2:28ff.). But here, especially in 43:4 (cf. 63:9), Isaiah gives tender expression to Israel’s preciousness in the eyes of God who loves as a husband loves the wife of his possession (43:1), who bears him children who will build his city (45:11-13, cf. Dt. 32:6b). Mention of the eyes of God reminds us not only of Eve’s eyes and her consequent desire but that God’s eyes and heart are on the house that Solomon has built (1 Kings 9:3) just as they were on the land from the time of the exodus (Dt.11:12). All this is in conformity with the assertion that God has loved his people with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3)  which, having resulted historically in Israel’s call and election (Ex.19:1-6, cf. Dt. 4:37; 7:8,12f.; 10:15; 23:5), has culminated in a similar call to the Gentiles. For God’s love spills over in the NT to the whole world (John 3:16; Rom.5:8).

Christ’s Love for the Church

The love of Christ for the church is expressed in various ways such as a shepherd’s care for his sheep (John 10 and note Luke 22:15 which refers specifically to Jesus’ deep desire). But Paul, following on Jesus’ reference to the marriage feast (Mt. 22:1-14; 25:1-13; Luke 12:35-40), portrays Christ’s love for the church in husband-and- wife terms and actually quotes Genesis 2:24 (Eph. 5:31). He also refers to the unity of the believer with the Lord (1 Cor. 6:17) as, of course, does Jesus himself (John 17:21-23, cf. 14:20). It is perhaps in the book of Revelation that we are given the most graphic portrayal of the marriage of Christ with his bride, the church. It is consummated in heaven itself of which Eden was but a pale reflection. (It should be noted, however, that the preaching of the word is presented to us in the NT as the sowing of seed in the hearts and minds of people. While Jesus produces no physical seed like the first Adam, he most certainly produces spiritual children, see Mark 4:3ff., cf. 3:35; James 1:18,21; 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9, who together constitute his bride).

It is important to recognise that my ruminations on the pattern began with Genesis 3:6 and sin. But it soon became clear that the pattern as such did not always involve sin (cf. Eph. 1:18). It was only when law intervened between natural, God-given, desire that problems arose. While I have tried to argue that the basic pattern is rooted in God himself, the Bible clearly warns us that God and his law are not alone in the field. Not for nothing did Jesus tell parables about the role of the devil, the god of this world. Capable of posing as an angel of light, he also imitates God. When he is not snatching away the seed God has sown (Mt. 13:18), he sows his own seed which produces weeds (13:25). Elsewhere we learn that these weeds are the children he fathers (1 John 3:8,10).  And needless to say, it is again a question of like father like son (John 8:44). The sons of the devil behave like the devil and like him will not gain entry into the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9f.; Rev.21:8; 20:10).

And so while the pattern of seeing, desiring and taking is fundamental to mankind, since it is a re-enactment of God’s own practice, and can be grossly perverted by illegitimate indulgence (cf. Jer. 6:13; 8:10; 22:17; Is.56:11), we are forced nonetheless to draw the conclusion that the Augustinian view of passionate love as sinful is itself a perversion of biblical teaching. It needs to be strongly stressed that Augustine’s Manichean views on sex and marriage which have haunted the church, especially the Roman Church*, for so long must be jettisoned in favour of a more healthy view. Once we recognise that the origin of mankind’s pattern of behaviour is rooted in God himself, we can abandon the idea that ‘lust’, a loaded term, or passionate desire, especially in marriage, is sinful (carnal concupiscence) as pernicious nonsense (cf. Ezek.24:16, etc.). Indeed, we can go further and assert with the Bible that sexual attraction (and other desires not forbidden by the tenth commandment) is wholesome and good, in fact the mainspring of the fruitfulness that God sanctions and blesses (see espec. 1 Cor. 7:36; 1 Tim. 4:3; Heb. 13:4).

Finally, we do well to remember that the God who is love, who has chosen us before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4f.) and loved us with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3), is the most passionate and persistent lover of all. And not without reason Paul tells us to model our love for our wives on Christ’s love for the church for which he died (Eph. 5:25). It goes without saying that so far as most of us are concerned our imitation of God    comes well short.

* It is a rather odd anomaly that Roman Catholicism, in contrast with Israel, advocates the celibacy of the clergy yet encourages fruitfulness in lay marriage.

Our Augustinian tradition, evident in both the Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, has it that since we are all born in sin, only rebirth by the Spirit can rectify the situation (*1 See N.R.Needham, The Triumph of Grace, London, 2000, pp.59,251,286,293.). Regeneration must therefore take priority in the order of salvation (ordo salutis). It is this view that undergirds infant baptism (*2 See the second of the Anti-Pelagian Canons of the Council of Carthage, 418 AD, quoted by Needham, p.293, cf. pp.32-34.). Apart from major difficulties arising from a variety of sources that many feel with both original sin and infant baptism, the explicit teaching of Romans would appear to add to them. What is this teaching?

First, in Romans 1:17 (cf. Gal. 3:11) Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4 as follows: “The righteous shall live by faith” (ESV). If for a moment we omit the words “by faith”, we shall see immediately that it is the righteous who will live. This was of course implicit in Genesis 2:17 (cf. Lev. 18:5; Prov. 4:4; 7:1; 10:2; Luke 10:28; 11:28, etc.). While Paul tells us plainly in Romans 4:5 (cf. 5:6,8) that God, in apparent contradiction of Ex. 23:7 and Proverbs 17:15, justifies the ungodly, he certainly does not regenerate them (cf. Gen. 3:22-24). That righteousness is the indispensable prerequisite or precondition of regeneration is implied in Romans 2:7,10 not to mention numerous earlier texts like Psalms 15 and 24.

This is also implicit in what Paul says in 3:21-31 where the God’s righteous justification of sinners in Christ is so strongly stressed. In chapter 4, however, even though he deals with Abraham who lived long before the coming of Christ, Paul is emphatic that Abraham’s faith is not merely justifying faith but in essence resurrection faith as verse 17 (cf. vv. 23-25) intimates. Not without reason is Abraham known elsewhere as the friend of God (Isa. 41:8; James 2:23).

In Romans 5:1f. Paul’s logic is manifest: no salvation without justification. The grace of our alien righteousness gives us ground for boasting in our hope of sharing the glory of God. Paul would then have us believe that the validity of our hope is demonstrated by the gift of the Spirit (v.5). In verses 6-11 he traces a path which begins with our unrighteousness, extends to the love of God, our justification by the blood of Christ, our reconciliation with God and ends with our salvation by the life of Christ (v.10, cf. 6:4).

In Romans 5:17 Paul tells us that grace and the free gift of righteousness lead to our reigning in life. The unavoidable inference we draw from this is that righteousness precedes life (Lev. 18:5; Dt. 6:24f.; Ezek. 18:5-9; 1 John 2:29, etc.). And since we are righteous by faith, we are therefore forced to conclude that faith precedes righteousness (cf. e.g. Rom. 3:22; Phil. 3:9). To argue then that regeneration, as opposed to the more general work of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 1:9; 15:3; 16:8-11; Acts 2:37-41; Rom. 10:17; Jas. 1:18), is the mother of faith is false. Furthermore, it implicitly denies justification by faith alone.

Next, in verse 18, Paul says that one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life. Here we infer that the order involves (a) the imputation of Jesus’ own righteousness to us by faith; (b) our consequent justification and (c) eternal life, the gift of the Spirit (Gal. 3:2,5) or regeneration (cf. Gal. 4:26).

Fourth, Romans 5:21 would seem to support this to the hilt, for Paul says here that grace reigns through righteousness, which leads to eternal life (3* Almost the same language is used in 2 Cor. 7:10 which also subverts the traditional Reformed order of salvation where regeneration is placed before repentance.).

Again, we learn in 6:5-11 that before we can be alive to God in Christ Jesus we must through faith die to or be freed (or justified, v.7, Gk) from sin. This can only mean that our justification precedes our regeneration and sanctification.

In 6:16 we are further taught that obedience leads to righteousness (cf. Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7). Since we are all disobedient (Rom. 3:9,23), it is manifest in contrast that the obedience of Jesus himself under the law led to his righteousness. This latter is then imputed to us by faith. Again we necessarily infer that the righteousness of Jesus (cf. Acts 3:14, etc.) was the precondition of his acceptance by the Father (Lev. 18:5). Proof of this was provided, first, at his baptism by the descent of the Spirit and open acknowledgement of his sonship (Mark 1:9-11) and, later, by his death, resurrection, ascension and exaltation (Acts 2:33,36). And, needless to add, these also provide the foundation of life for us (cf. Rom. 3:21ff.).

Seventh, Paul informs us in Romans 6:19 that righteousness (or justification) leads to sanctification (cf. Tit. 3:5; Eph. 5:26; Rom. 12:1f.).

Eighth, in explicit support of this we learn in 6:22 that the end or goal of sanctification, that is, service in the new life of the Spirit (7:6, cf. Mt. 3:15), is eternal life.

Ninth, in 8:10 (cf. v.13) Paul tells us that though the body of flesh is doomed to die because of sin, nonetheless because of righteousness (in Christ) our spirits are alive (cf. 1 Pet. 3:18; 4:6). This proves we are true, though adopted, children and heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ along with whom we are glorified (8:14-17).

Tenth, in 10:5-13 Paul makes it clear beyond reasonable dispute that while righteousness by law for us is out of the question, justification by faith in Christ leads to salvation for both Jew and Greek.

My conclusion is then that according to Paul’s letter to the Romans the order of salvation is: faith and repentance (conversion), justification, reconciliation, regeneration and/or adoption, sanctification, glorification (4* This order deliberately counteracts John Murray’s claim in his commentary on Romans, London, 1967, that regeneration is causally prior to faith, p.27 n.21.). The same is implied by Romans 8:29-30 where those who were foreknown and predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son were first called to faith, then justified, and finally glorified (cf. Eph. 1:4).

First, the body of flesh which stems from the temporal earth relapses naturally into the earth even apart from sin (Ps. 49:12,20; Eccl. 3:19f., cf. Gen. 3:19). Dust to dust is the way of all the earth (Jos. 23:14; 1 K. 2:2; Job 10:9). The heavenly body will not therefore be material/physical, that is, composed of dust, an earthen vessel or clay pot (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-50; 2 Cor. 4:7).

Next, it will not be the present body regenerated. Since we all, like creation itself, are subject to corruption, even fleshly rebirth (cf. re-incarnation) cannot help. In any case, both Jesus and Nicodemus implicitly deny its possibility (cf. John 3:4-6).

Third, it will not be the present body eternalised. This is impossible for the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50). The flesh, which is at war with the spirit and/or Spirit (Rom. 7:23; Gal. 5:17; Jas. 4:1; 1 Pet. 2:11), is cast out (Gal. 4:29f.). Only the spiritual son remains in the house forever (John 8:35). As Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:37 the body (of flesh) that is sown is not the body that is raised (cf. 1 Pet. 1:23). Even Jesus, like the creation from which he derived through his mother (cf. Heb. 1:10-12, etc.), was subject to ageing (Luke 2:41ff.; John 8:57). So even he who had the power of an indestructible life (Heb. 7:16) must have attained to perfection by undergoing transformation at his ascension and return to his heavenly glory (cf. John 17:5,24; 1 Cor. 15:51ff.). When Jesus came to earth he was transformed into flesh (incarnated). When he ascended he was retransformed in such a way as to recover the glory he shared with his Father before the world began (John 17:5,24, cf. 6:62; 13:3; 16:28; Phil. 2:6-11, etc.). In other words, though still human, he recovered the generic nature of God (cf. Phil. 2:6). As Irenaeus once put it: “Christ became what we are, in order that we might become what he is” (Adv. Haer. 5, preface).

So, fourth, we shall have a glorious spiritual body, or body of glory, like that of Christ (Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2; Heb. 1:3, cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; 15:42ff.), who is the image of God and in whom all the fullness of God dwells in bodily form (Col. 2:9, cf. Tit. 2:13). According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45 Christ is a life-giving spirit.

Fifth, we shall shine like the sun (Mt. 13:43, cf. 1 Tim. 6:14-16).

Sixth, while the present body stems from the corruptible earth and is dust like that of the first Adam (Gen. 2:7, etc.), the heavenly body will derive from the eternal heaven like that of Christ (Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 John 3:2). This harmonises with the original difference between the two Adams: the one came from the temporal earth, the other came from eternal heaven (John 1:18; 3:31; 8:23;1 Cor. 15:47-49). Paul says that the Jerusalem that is above is our mother (Gal. 4:26, cf. Heb. 12:22-24), so it follows naturally that we are born from above (John 3:3) and have God as our Father (John 1:13). As his spiritual sons and daughters, we shall be fully conformed to his image in Christ (Rom. 8:29, cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; 2 Pet. 1:4). Since we shall share his glory and his generic nature as his children we shall live in the spirit like God (1 Pet. 4:6).

Again, the present destructible body fashioned from clay (Gen. 2:7; Job 10:8f.; 2 Cor. 4:7) is “made by hand” (Job 10:3,8; Ps. 119:73, etc.) and is in direct contrast with the indestructible body which is “not made by hand” (2 Cor. 5:1). Like the earthly imitation temple (Heb. 8:5) which gives way to the true tent (Mark 14:58; Heb. 8:2; 9:11,24) and the earthly city which is replaced by the eternal city whose designer and builder is God (ESV, Heb. 11:10,16; 12:22; 13:14), the earthly body of flesh yields to a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens (2 Cor. 5:1).

Since we as mortals have received a heavenly call (Phil. 3:14; 1 Thes. 2:12; Heb. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:10) while on earth in the flesh (cf. Rom. 2:7), we draw the unavoidable inference that a change of body is indispensable. After all, a body geared to living on the material earth is hardly fitted for life in the spiritual heaven. This view of the matter is further supported by the fact that the body of flesh is part of a creation which, being “made by hand” and naturally in bondage to corruption (Isa. 45:12; 48:13; Heb. 1:10-12; Rom. 8:18-25), is itself ultimately destined for destruction (Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7, 10-12).

Whatever the nature of our body (cf. 1 John 3:2; 1 Cor. 2:9) it will be heavenly, spiritual and “not made by hand” (2 Cor. 5:1). It will fit us for living in the presence of our heavenly Father (John 14:6, cf. 1 Pet. 4:6) in the new Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22, cf. Isa. 65:17f.). If we are true believers our citizenship is already in heaven (Phil 3:20, cf. Eph. 2:6) and the flesh, like the world over which we were intended to exercise dominion from the start, is to be put to death (Col. 3:1-5, cf. 1 John 2:15-17, etc.). In the event, our present bodies will pass away like the present creation (2 Pet. 1:14; Heb. 12:27; Rev. 20:11; 21:1-4). As the author of Hebrews says, when the first is abolished, the second is established (10:9, cf. 1 Cor. 15:35ff.; 2 Cor. 5:1). Or again, in the words of Paul, when the perfect comes the imperfect will pass away (1 Cor. 13:10). This indicates that transformation in the sense of replacement is of the essence of Scripture (cf. Rom. 1:23). Who needs a fleshly body when we have a spiritual one (1 Cor. 15:45-52)? Who needs creation when the Creator is present (Ezek. 48:35)? Who needs a temple when we live and move and have our being in God (Acts 17:28; Rev. 21:22)? Who needs the sun when the Son himself shines (Rev. 21:22-22:5)? No wonder Paul wrote that from him and through him and to him are all things (Rom. 11:36). As the Westminster Shorter Catechism has it, it is our destiny to glorify him and enjoy him forever.

What does Scripture mean when it refers to (the) flesh as it does in both Testaments?

We may be tempted to say that the meaning of (the) flesh is obvious and that it is the physical or natural constitution of animals including humans (cf. Gen. 2:21,23). But, as we shall see, such a limited definition will soon prove inadequate to cover all that the Bible teaches on the subject. In Genesis 6:12 flesh means all humankind since only they are capable of corrupting themselves. In 6:17 (cf. 7:21), however, its meaning is more extensive and clearly embraces all animal life. It is important for us to note that in Genesis 6:3 the flesh is dependent on the Spirit of God (2:7; Job 12:10; 33:4; 34:14f.; Ps. 104:29f.) and is characterised by natural mortality in sharp contrast with the eternal God himself (Isa. 40:6-8; 2 Cor. 4:11, cf. Rom. 1:23). Wenham’s comment is therefore appropriate: “… the primary reference must be to man’s mortality and his total dependence on God’s power to survive” (p.142. Cf. e.g. Fee, p.818; Wolff, p.30; Guthrie, p.172). This, of course, was implied earlier in the creation account of Genesis 1 where food and procreation are mentioned (vv.11,29).

Weakness, Mortality and Corruptibility

As a created being (or ‘natural’ man, 1 Cor. 15:44,46) deriving physically from the earth (Gen. 2:7), far from being immortal as Augustine believed, man, like the animals and indeed all creation (Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 51:6; 1 Pet. 1:18), is naturally weak, vulnerable, mortal and corruptible (Ps. 78:39; 103:14-18; Isa. 51:8; Rom. 1:23). Like the temporal earth from which he is taken (Gen. 2:7; Job 10:9; Rom. 8:21), he has a beginning and must therefore have an end (cf. Gen. 6:3; Job 34:14f.; 104:29). Here he is in direct contrast to God himself (Dt. 32:40, cf. Rom. 1:23) and to Christ who, to the extent that he was divine, enjoyed indestructible life (Heb. 7:3,16,24f.,28). On the other hand, even Jesus in his Adamic nature or incarnate state suffered from the same weakness as his fellows (1 Cor. 15:45-49; 2 Cor. 13:4, cf. Mt. 26:41), and was hence susceptible to aging (Luke 2:42,52; John 8:57), death and corruption (cf. Gal. 6:8. Paul is clearly referring to the flesh here and not to what the NIV misleadingly calls ‘the sinful nature’.). The context suggests that this is what is meant by Hebrews 5:7, and, while Jesus’ Gethsemane experience illustrates the author’s point, undue concentration on it is surely unwarrantable. Jesus’ active and prayerful obedience in its entirety is in view (cf. 10:5-7), underscoring the role of God as the Lord of life acting for the accomplishment of human salvation (cf. Lane, p.120). As flesh, all humankind is both dependent and weak (cf. 2 Chr. 32:8) like the rest of the animal creation (Isa. 31:3), and if God withdraws his Spirit all flesh perishes and man and animal alike return to the dust (Job 34:14f.; Ps. 104:29f., cf. 49:12,20; Eccles. 3:19f.; 12:7; Jas. 2:26). This, of course, reminds us of Genesis 3:19, and, in light of it, it is imperative to infer, contrary to Augustine and many who have followed him, that Genesis 2:17 was a promise of eternal life (which Adam manifestly did not and could not have and which in any case was incapable of realisation in this temporal world) conditioned on obedience (cf. Lev. 18:5; Mt. 19:17, etc.). Thus, when Adam and Eve broke the commandment, they forfeited all hope of evading both physical and spiritual death. Spiritually, they were clearly alienated from their Creator on account of their sin (cf. Isa. 59:2; Eph. 2:1,5), and, physically they were cast out of the Garden, separated from the tree of life, to relapse in due course into the dust from which they were taken (Gen. 3:19, cf. Eccl. 3:19f.; Ps. 104:29). We in our turn, as created in their image (Gen. 5:1-3) and under their influence (Rom. 5:12), follow in their footsteps, go astray like sheep (Ps. 14:3; Eccl. 7:29; Isa. 53:6; 56:11; Ezek. 28:15; Rom. 3:12), experience separation from God and eventual death (Rom. 7:9f.; Heb. 9:27) along with the loss and total corruption of our fleshly bodies (2 Cor. 4:16; 5:1, cf. Rom. 8:10).

Temptation and Sin

The early chapters of Genesis also make it clear that man is not only weak and mortal (cf. Isa. 40:6-8) but naturally subject to fleshly passions and desires, a point that even children illustrate (cf. Gen. 6:5; 8:21). Thus as soon as he receives the commandment or law in some form he becomes susceptible to temptation and sin (Rom. 7:9f.), which exacerbates his situation (cf. Eph. 2:3). Whereas at the time of their creation Adam and Eve appear to listen to the voice of God with equanimity, once they have transgressed the commandment, like children they hide and become afraid (3:8-10). The same holds true of their sinful descendants at a later stage in salvation history. First, we become aware that Hagar is surprised that God has spoken to her and she has lived to tell the tale (Gen. 16:13, cf. Gen. 32:30; Ex. 33:20), then later when the Israelites receive the ten commandments, in fear of death they beg Moses to act as their mediator (Ex. 20:18f.), and ask, “For who of all flesh, that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of fire, as we have, and still lived?” (Dt. 5:26 ESV, cf. Isa. 33:14).

Sin the Only Problem?

Does this mean then that sin is the only real problem in our approach to God as dogmatic theology has averred over the years? It might suggest so, and this is the usual conclusion that has been reached by Christians. But the inference to be drawn from other evidence is that man’s fleshly or creaturely nature is itself, even apart from sin, a barrier (or curtain, cf. Heb. 6:19; 10:20) that has to be overcome (Job 41:9f.; Jer. 30:21; 49:19; 50:44; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16, cf. Ex. 19:13 and Heb. 12:20; Esth. 3:11,16; 5:2; 8:4f.; John 1:18; 6:46; 2 Cor. 5:6,8). The natural inability of man to see God is virtually taken for granted in Scripture (Ex. 33:20; Ps. 104:2; John 1:18; 2 Cor. 4:18; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16), not least in the Garden of Eden, which is the womb of mankind, the race. This is surely the view held by Jesus and Paul. In the famous encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus described in John 3 sin does not rate a mention. (This is not to suggest that the new birth has nothing to do with sin, see e.g. Tit. 3:5, rather that the flesh comes first and the fleshly or sinful nature comes second as in the case of Adam and Eve.) Nonetheless, Jesus, who clearly believed in anthropological dualism (cf. Guthrie, p.176), differentiates absolutely between flesh and spirit (cf. Mt. 26:41) and lays it down as an axiom without any reference to sin that one must be born of both water and Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. (Bultmann rightly said that man is a body. So as body and soul man is doubtless monistic but as flesh and spirit he is dualistic, cf. Luke 12:4f., etc.) Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 15:50 Paul insists that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom or the perishable the imperishable (cf. 1 Cor. 9:25; 1 Pet. 1:23). In other words, since we are by nature corruptible flesh and blood and hence unfitted for the eternal world to come, we need to undergo a second or spiritual birth in order to prepare us for it. Then at death, or at least at the consummation of all things, since our flesh has been destroyed (2 Cor. 5:1, cf. 1 Cor. 6:13), our bodies will be redeemed (Rom. 8:23). Because our corruptible flesh cannot be restored (cf. John 3:4), this can only mean we shall be given new spiritual, even glorious bodies (1 Cor. 15:44,46; Phil. 3:21) suited to our heavenly environment (2 Cor. 5:1f.).

Initial Fellowship with God

What do we make then of the fact alluded to above that initially Adam and Eve talked freely with God and enjoyed his very presence (though clearly not sight of him)? It is important for us to recognise that the early chapters of Genesis, like the book of Revelation, are to some extent symbolical. So, if we assume that the Garden of Eden is the womb of the race and that God characteristically creates in the womb (e.g. Gen. 30:2; Job 31:15; Isa. 44:2, etc.), there is a sense in which all of us as God’s creatures enjoy embryonic fellowship with God when we are first created in the womb like Adam and Eve. (The traditional idea that we are at once created by God, cf. Job 31:15, etc., and are born sinful in his image, cf. Genesis 5:1-3, is not only inherently contradictory but unavoidably impugns the integrity of the Creator. Adam himself, incidentally, was created in the earth, Ps. 139:15, and transferred to Eden, Gen. 2:8,15, like sperm.) This conclusion is strengthened by Paul’s allusion to his own infancy. For he maintains that as a creature of God, like Adam in the Garden, he himself enjoyed ‘life’ (potentially eternal life) at the start (cf. Ezek. 28:15). It was not until as a child he broke the commandment, which promised eternal life, that he earned his wages in death just as Adam did (Rom. 7:9f.)(1*). This scenario would appear to be supported by the attitude of Jesus for, like God at creation (Gen. 1:28), he blessed little children (Mark 10:16, cf. Ps. 22:9f.; 71:6) and assumed that such child-like human beings were potential members of the kingdom (Mark 10:14). Of course, this line of thinking proceeds on the assumption that original sin is an Augustinian misunderstanding and quite alien to Scripture. What is more, it raises questions regarding the idea that the word ‘flesh’ is usually, if not always, ethical in meaning and is to be regarded as sinful (cf. Wright, 296 n.71).

Flesh in John

With respect to John, in contrast to many older commentators, more modern ones seem to recognise that the word ‘flesh’ refers to man’s nature as derived naturally or physically from his parents (John 1:13) and ultimately from the earth (see e.g. Ridderbos, p.128). Thus it is virtually necessary to conclude that the contrast that appears in John 3:6, for example, differentiates between earth and heaven (cf. 6:63). According to Morris, John makes it clear that the flesh is “… of the earth, earthy. It cannot give rise to anything other than what is earthy (p.219 and nn.37,38). Westcott claims that, “The words (flesh and spirit) describe the characteristic principles of two orders. They are not related to one another as evil to good; but as two spheres of being with which man is connected. By the ‘spirit’ our complex nature is united to heaven, by the ‘flesh’, to earth“ (p.50). Westcott further maintains that the word ‘flesh’ does not include the idea of sinfulness but rather describes human personality on the side which tends to sin and on which we have all actually sinned. Though Westcott does not explicitly make them, there are two inferences to be drawn from this: first, that the flesh as the creation of God is not and cannot be evil, and, second, that as flesh we inevitably follow the pattern of conduct established by our original progenitors and portrayed in Genesis 3:1ff. Repetition or imitation pervades the entire Bible. In other words, while Augustine was unquestionably right to emphasise our need of grace, contrary to Article 9 of the Church of England Pelagius was also right to maintain that we sin because we imitate, or rather repeat, the sin of Adam and Eve in whose image we are made (Gen. 5:1-3, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49). (Augustine’s dismissal of this idea seems to be based in part on his failure to understand Pelagius’ point. See Needham, pp.49-51. As has just been indicated, there is in any case pervasive biblical evidence for both imitation and repetition of sin, cf. 3 John 11, etc.) But another point must be made: the flesh as such is used somewhat pejoratively by John not because it is sinful but because of its natural limitations and earthly character (John 1:12f., cf. 3:31). For example, in 6:63 Jesus, having referred to his ascension, immediately adds that the flesh is ultimately profitless (cf. Luke 8:19-21; 11:27f.). It requires no great leap of fancy to conclude that the point being made is basically the same as that in John 3:6 and 1 Corinthians 15:50 (cf. vv. 45-49; Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8).

Flesh in Paul

While John’s use of ‘flesh’, at least in the gospel, is fairly straightforward, the same cannot always be said of Paul’s even though he is quite capable of using it in the normal way (cf. Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 6:7f.; Eph. 5:29; Phil. 1:22), that is, as referring to our mortal (‘natural’) human nature as created by the hand of God (cf. Ps. 78:39; 119:73; 103:14; Rom. 6:12; 8:11) in contrast with spiritual rebirth. On the other hand, Paul can extend its ordinary meaning to include his natural relationships and associations as in Philippians 3:2ff. and even ethicise the word to mean, arguably at least, “human nature as controlled and directed by sin” (Murray, p.244. Cf. Fee who tells us that most often in Paul ‘flesh’ designates the whole person as oriented away from God and ‘spirit’ as the whole person as oriented towards God, p. 212.). Thus the NIV in particular frequently abandons the word ‘flesh’ and quite misleadingly substitutes ‘sinful nature’ as we saw above. This is a dangerous procedure (pace Moo, Encountering, pp.127f. in contrast with Romans, p.418 n.51) for at least four reasons: (1) Paul’s use of the word is by no means uniform and various meanings have been assigned to it (see e.g. Hafemann, pp.241f.n.10; Thiselton, pp.1266ff.); (2) it pre-empts careful exegesis; (3) it makes exegesis vulnerable to control by a possibly false theology; and (4) it weakens our understanding of the link between the word’s basic meaning, i.e. man’s earthly nature as created by God, and ethics. It is precisely failure to recognise these dangers, especially the last, that has led to so much misunderstanding. And when writers tell us that the flesh is ‘unqualifiedly evil’, ‘wholly sinful’ (Murray, Romans, pp.245,263) or ‘radically evil’ (Barrett, p.148) there is a real danger of distortion (cf. Dunn, pp.363f., 391). In the event, there can be little doubt that the dogma of original sin, falsely quarried from Romans 5:12ff., has impeded perception of Paul’s argument in Romans in general and of the ‘flesh’ in particular. This is especially plain with regard to Romans 7, which, though admittedly difficult in certain respects, has traditionally fallen prey to a false interpretation of Romans 5. Once we illegitimately assign a sinful connotation to the word ‘flesh’ we are in danger of distorting our understanding of the gospel.

Flesh and the Glory of God

It is useful at this point to paint in some necessary background for the purpose of clarification. For example, when Paul tells us that before God no flesh will be justified (Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16, cf. 3:11), he is drawing attention not to our sinfulness by birth (which would surely be absurd) but to our fleshly or earthly nature and its propensity to sin before the law (cf. Job 4:17-19; 15:14f.; 25:4-6; Ps. 78:39; 103:14; Jer. 13:23; 17:5ff.; Rom. 7:7ff.; 8:8, etc.). In other words, our failure arises from our natural inadequacy and weakness (Mt. 26:41) which, coupled with our failure to control our passions and physical appetites (Gen. 3:6; Num. 15:39; Eph. 4:22; 1 Thes. 4:4; 2 Pet. 1:4, etc., cf. Dunn, p.370), renders us incapable of keeping the law and so of justifying ourselves (cf. Rom. 8:3). (Though in one sense Moo is correct to say that “the power of sin made it impossible for any human being to fulfil the law”, p.439, he misses the point. Paul says that the power of sin is the law, 1 Cor. 15:56. Like many Reformed writers Moo appears to be asserting that we sin because we are (born) sinners. However, as with Adam and Eve, cf. Dt. 1:39, etc., in the first instance, it is the weakness of the flesh leading to our failure to keep the (parental) commandment and later the whole law that renders us incapable of justifying ourselves. In blunt terms, those who are in the flesh, Jesus apart, Mt. 3:17; Rom. 8:3, cannot keep the law and please God, Rom. 8:8, cf. 7:18,14. Murray is clearly going too far when he asserts that sin’s origin is in the spirit of man and not in his fleshly, material nature, Redemption, p.180) This, of course, was part of God’s eternal purpose which involved consigning us all to sin (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22) to prevent our boasting (1 Cor. 1:29), to exercise his mercy (Rom. 11:32), to demonstrate the riches of his grace (Gal. 3:22; Eph. 1:4-6), to be our one and only Saviour in Christ (Isa. 45:22; Phil. 2:10f.), and thus to promote his own glory (Phil. 2:11; Rom. 11:36; Rev. 4:11, cf. Isa. 2:11,17; 12:1-6; 42:8; 48:11; Jer. 9:23f.; 17:5,7, etc.). To express the issue somewhat differently, in Paul as in John, earth and heaven are in strong contrast. This is further emphasised by Paul himself when he tells us not simply to “make no provision for the flesh” (Rom. 6:12; 13:14; 8:4; Gal. 5:16,24f.) but to put to death what is earthly in us (Col. 3:5, contrast Rom. 16:18; Phil. 3:19, cf. v.2; Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24). For our citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1) to which we have been called in Christ (3:14; 1 Cor. 1:9; 1 Thes. 2:12, cf. Heb. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:10).

The War between Flesh and Spirit

This brings us to the war between flesh and spirit, or Spirit (Gal. 5:16ff.; James 4:1; 1 Pet. 2:11). It has been held by Christians in the Western world under the influence of Augustine of Hippo that this arises from our native sinfulness (see espec. Article 9 of the C of E). This, however, cannot be true, for the same war clearly afflicted, first, innocent Adam and Eve, at least in principle, and, secondly, Jesus, the last Adam, himself (Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 2:17; 4:15, cf. Jas. 1:13-15). So, it needs to be firmly laid down, first, that the notion of our being born sinful is necessarily foreign to Scripture (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.; Ezek. 18, etc.); second, that since we sin from the time we first disobey our parents’ commands (cf. Gen. 8:21) and fail to master our temptations (Gen. 4:7), we do indeed have a sinful nature (Jer. 13:23; Rom. 6:16; Eph. 2:3; Jas. 2:9-11; 2 Pet. 2:19, cf. John 8:34). So, like Adam and the Israelites in general (Jer. 3:25, etc.), not to mention the Gentiles whose sins are characteristically fleshly (Rom. 1:18ff.; Eph. 4:17ff., etc.) like that of Eve, we have all sinned from our youth and come short of the glory of God (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Ps. 25:7; Rom. 3:23; 5:12; Eph. 2:3; 2 Tim. 2:22; Tit. 3:3, cf. Jer. 3:23; Ezek. 23:8,18f.,21,27, etc.).

The Pejorative Nature of the Flesh

In light of this, the suggestion that the depreciatory or pejorative character of the flesh stems solely from its sinfulness, as our sin-obsessed forebears in particular seemed to think, is deeply suspect (see, for example, Murray, CW 2, p.185). To insist that it does is to ignore a great deal of biblical teaching. For a start, in the Bible whatever is “made by hand” (i.e. the material creation in general including man, see e.g. Job 10:8; Isaiah 45:11f.; Ps. 119:73; Mark 14:58 and Hebrews 1:10-12) is in direct contrast with what is “not made by hand” (e.g. 2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 9:11,24). Then, it should be noted that the need to lay up for ourselves treasure in heaven arises from the inherently transient nature of all earthly things, as Jesus in particular stressed (Mt. 6:19f.; 24:35; Luke 12:13ff.). But Peter (1:1:3f.,7,23-25), Paul (1 Cor. 7:31; 15:42-58; 2 Cor. 3:11; 4:16-5:4), James (1:9-12; 5:2f.), the author of Hebrews (1:10-12; 8:13; 10:34; 11:16; 12:27f.; 13:14) and John (1:2:17) all harp on the same theme. It was not so much sin as such, that is, transgression of the law, that brought about the demise of pre-Mosaic characters like Esau and Lot’s wife (contrast Ruth 1:16) but their deliberate choice of and commitment to the essentially ephemeral (cf. Luke 12:13ff.; 2 Tim. 4:10; 1 John 2:15-17) and their blatant rejection of the promised eternal inheritance (Heb. 12:15-17). These two, far from seeing themselves as aliens and exiles in this temporal world (1 Pet. 2:11), typified the Israelites who refused to head for the Promised Land under the leadership of Moses (note Heb. 11:25) and in their hearts returned to Egypt (Num. 11:4f.,18-20; Acts 7:39, contrast Ruth 1:15). They were what the book of Revelation terms “those who dwell on the earth” (6:10, etc.) and whose portion is in this life (Ps. 17:14, etc.). So even for us today, the danger of bartering our eternal heavenly inheritance for a transient earthly bowl of soup is immense, and it arises directly from our fleshly covetousness, desires and appetites (Rom. 8:13; 16:18; Gal. 6:8; Phil 3:19), as Adam and Eve’s paradigmatic sin and experience make manifest (Gen. 3:6, cf. Jas. 1:14f.).

The Moral Neutrality of the Flesh and the Passions

Is this to suggest that the passions of the flesh, including sex, are sinful? Not at all! (pace Murray, p.245). Such a notion stems, as I have already suggested, from Augustinian theology and its dogma of original sin (cf. Thiselton, pp.733f.). Our passions are God-given and are hence natural (see e.g. Cranfield, p.337, Fung, p.274). Being a law to themselves (Rom. 7:23) they are amoral. In other words, the “motions” (KJV) or impulses of the flesh operate unaffected by moral considerations, as the earthly temptations of Jesus make clear (cf. James 1:13f.). Their insidiousness arises from the fact that in certain circumstances they are constituted sinful by the law apprehended by the mind (Gen. 2:17; Ex. 20:17; Rom. 7). Thus, when they are not controlled according to (the) law, they lead to deception, transgression and death (Rom. 7:5 ( 2*); Eph. 4:22; James 1:14f.; 2 Pet. 1:4, cf. Rom. 16:18; Heb. 3:13; 11:25). So, though it is plain that the relationship between the flesh and sin is very close (see espec. Gen. 3:6; Rom 6:6; 7:14, 23-25; 8:3), it does not involve identity. The supreme wonder of the life of Jesus is that, despite being flesh and subject to the whole gamut of fleshly temptation, he finished his course sinless (Luke 13:32; John 19:30) and gained victory over the world, the flesh and the devil (Mt. 4:1-11; John 16:33, etc.) precisely in the flesh (Heb. 2), which Paul daringly, but with good reason, refers to as ‘sinful flesh’ (Rom. 8:3). So it was not his putative avoidance of original sin by means of the Virgin Birth that made Jesus unique, but the subjection of his body of flesh to keep of the law (Mt. 3:17; John 8:46; 15:10; contrast 7:19) and so to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15, cf. Heb. 10:7) despite, indeed in the face of, strong temptation (Mt. 4:1-11). In this way he accomplished his Father’s will (John 4:34; 5:30; Heb. 10:5-7, etc.). It was this that set him apart from all his fellows, for he alone achieved perfection (cf. Mt. 5:48; 19:21; James 3:2) by putting all things, including his own flesh, under his feet and proving worthy to be crowned with glory and honour (Ps. 8:4-6; Heb. 2:8-10,14-18; 4:14-16; Rev. 5:5) in violent contrast to the rest of us.

Why the War?

It might well be asked at this point why there is a war at all between the two sides of our God-given nature, personified, for example, in Galatians 4:29 and implicitly in 1 Corinthians 15:45-49. The answer is doubtless to be found in the very first chapter of the Bible where God is portrayed as creating man in his own image with a view to his exercising dominion over the earth (vv.26,28, cf. Ps. 8:5f.) and testing him accordingly (e.g. Ex. 16:4; Dt. 8:2,16, etc.). Here the point which usually seems to be missed is that man on his physical or fleshly side is created from the earth (Gen. 2:7), and this being so, his body of flesh is meant to be subject to the dominion of his spirit too, as a horse is to its rider (cf. Isa. 31:3; Ps. 32:9; 1 Thes. 4:4; James 3:3). From the start, the divine intention for us was to glorify him in our bodies (1 Cor. 6:20). To put the issue another way, it was precisely our first parents’ failure, at the insidious suggestion of the devil, to control their fleshly or earthly appetites according to law that led them into sin (Gen. 3:6, cf. Rom. 16:18-20). And it has done the same with all (solidarity, cf. Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 6:16-19) but One (separation) of their descendants ever since. The truth of this is brought out especially in Hebrews 2 where we learn that Jesus as man, the second Adam, alone succeeded in putting everything, especially his own body (cf. Rom. 8:3; James 3:2), under his feet and so was crowned (v.9) in preparation for dominion in the world to come (Heb. 1:6; 2:5, cf. Rev. 3:21). On the other hand, when Fee (GEP, p.819 n.39), for example, insists that of the fifteen works of the flesh alluded to in Galatians 5:19-21 very few of them can be located in the physical body, we cannot but agree. For all that, however, he seems to miss the point, since all of these sins stem from or find their ultimate origin or stimulus in our autonomous, recalcitrant, even persecuting (Gal. 4:29) earthly flesh (Rom. 1:24ff.; 13:13f., 16:17f., cf. Jas. 3:14f.), which by extension becomes ‘the flesh’ or the character or heart (Jer. 17:5-10; Mark 7:20-23) or mind (Col. 2:18) fashioned by the flesh (2 Pet. 2:14, cf. Rom. 12:2) and which, like the earth, is a law to itself (Rom. 7:5,23; 8:13, cf. Gal. 5:16f.) and meant to be mastered (cf. Gen. 4:7) in accordance with Genesis 1:26,28. (Fung, p.168 n.3, pp. 251f., points out that the Spirit-flesh antithesis in Gal. 5:16f. becomes opposition between the Spirit and the law in v. 18. What is composed of flesh, sarkinos, becomes characterised by flesh, sarkikos, unless it is ruled by the spirit/Spirit. The old self fashioned by the flesh and the world must be crucified through faith in Christ and replaced by the new self ruled by the Spirit, Gal. 2:20; 5:24; 6:14, etc.). These sinful (= against the law) works stand in stark contrast with the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16-24) against which there is no law. While the former are at bottom earthly or physical (cf. James 3:14-16; 1 John 2:17) and must be put to death (Rom. 8:13; Col. 3:5, cf. Gal. 4:29f.), the latter are heavenly (cf. James 3:17). The basic contrast then is between earth and heaven, the physical man of dust and the spiritual man of heaven, flesh and Spirit.

At this point, it might usefully be added that Mark 7:20-23, where Jesus refers to the human heart, and 2 Timothy 3:2-5, for example, are but variations of Galatians 5:19-21 (cf. Rom. 1:18-32; Eph. 4:17-24). As flesh we are naturally lovers of ourselves, naturally covetous and naturally nurture our own flesh in the interests of survival like all animals (2 Tim. 3:2-5, cf. Eph. 5:28f.). But as those who are made in the image of God we are called on to obey the law for our own good (Dt. 4:40; 5:33, etc.), to love God first, to deny ourselves (Mark 8:34), even, if necessary, to the point of sacrificing our fleshly existence (8:35f., cf. Mt. 4:4), to avoid pleasing ourselves in certain circumstances (cf. Heb. 11:25), to love our neighbours as ourselves (Rom. 15:1-3) and not to love the world (1 John 2:15-17). Only Jesus, who did not please himself (Rom. 15:3) but put his heavenly Father first (John 6:38; 8:29) to the point of giving his flesh for us, has ever fully succeeded in doing this (cf. 1 Pet. 3:18).

The Law

Why, it might be asked, was it ever necessary for God to institute the law to highlight (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:19) or to set a guard against (1 Tim. 1:8-11), the impulses of the flesh? It might be said first that the intention was to differentiate man made in the image of God from the animals. Then it should be noted that the OT makes it clear that the law was for the good of the people. It was intended to bring length of life and prosperity in the Promised Land (Dt. 5:33, etc.) and ultimately in heaven (Dt. 5:29). However, since the flesh by its very nature, like the earth from which it is taken, is not only autonomous, recalcitrant, undisciplined, volatile and impermanent (Rom.8:20), unreserved commitment to it signalled inevitable death as it does in the animal world (cf. Gal.6:8). (It is not without significance that in passages strongly reprobating spiritual whoredom animal imagery is freely used in both Testaments: Jer. 2:23f.; 5:8;31:18; Ezek. 23:20; Hos. 4:16; 7:11; 2 Pet. 2 and Jude. The message it sends to man made in the image of God ought to be clear.)

For mortal man made in God’s image, the law promised real or heavenly life. The only problem was that Adamic or fleshly man proved incapable of keeping the law (cf. Rom. 7:14) and in the interests of the flesh even rebelled against it (Gen. 3:6). In this situation, the law’s ministry was one of death not life (Rom. 7:10, cf. 2 Cor. 3). Relapse into the dust indicated sinful failure to meet the condition of the promise, which was obedience (cf. Ezek. 7:13 ESV).

Is the Flesh purely Physical?

As already indicated, the danger remains of tying the word ‘flesh’ to our physical nature to the extent that we virtually identify the two (cf. the RSV’s translation of psychikos in 1 Cor. 15:44,46). In reaction, however, some writers under the influence of the Augustinian dogma of original sin come close to denying the physical altogether. While they rightly indicate that the flesh has its ‘spiritual’ side as is evident in the list of sins in Galatians 5:19-21 (cf. James 3:13-17), they fail to see that these sins are an extension of the physical, the flesh in action so to speak, as I intimated above. In Romans 8:5ff. and Colossians 2:18, for example, Paul talks of ‘the mind of the flesh’. What does he mean? Surely that our natural minds are at least in part ruled by and hence characterised by our fleshly appetites in contravention of the law (cf. Rom. 7 where Paul’s well-intentioned mind fails to control his fleshly body, and note especially Rom. 12:2; 1 Pet. 1:14; 4:2; 1 John 2:15). It is only by the Spirit that we can hope to conquer (Rom. 8). In other words, as 8:5 indicates, our mind-set is wrong (Rom. 8:6-9, cf. Phil 3:19f.; Col. 3:1-5). At the very least it is limited as John the Baptist indicated (John 3:31). Thus, to focus attention largely or exclusively on this world, and on the satisfaction or gratification of the flesh in particular (1 Cor. 6:9f.; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5, etc.), is to court final disaster, for there is no ultimate future for either except eventual corruption (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8, cf. 1 John 2:17). So Paul is only saying in other words what is taught throughout the Bible about the natural corruptibility of the material creation, as noted earlier. In line with John 1:13; 3:6 and 6:63 and 1 Peter 1:3f., for example, Paul views the flesh pejoratively (cf. Phil. 3:4) not because it is intrinsically evil but because it is by nature inferior to the spirit which alone can undergo regeneration and survive into eternity (cf. Luke 12:4f.). Thus the idea, common in the early church, and still held with tenacity in some quarters today, that the flesh was capable of resurrection like the physical body of Jesus is clearly erroneous. This Paul makes abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 15 (note espec. 15:37). Regrettably this passage has been frequently misunderstood as a consequence of failure to eradicate previously held misconceptions like the one just mentioned.

Flesh and Body

It is imperative then to appreciate the distinction between the words ‘body’ and ‘flesh’. While it is true that on occasion Paul can identify the two as, for example, in Romans 6:12 and 7:24f., elsewhere he clearly distinguishes between the perishable body of flesh (2 Cor. 4:10f.; Col. 1:22; 2:11) and the spiritual or glorious body that will be ours in the world to come (1 Cor. 15:35ff.; 2 Cor. 5:1, cf. 1 Pet. 1:23-25; 1 John 3:9). Apart from temporary physical resurrections like that of Lazarus, resurrection in the NT always leads to transformation. Paul tells us that our physical or fleshly bodies will first be subject to wasting (aging), death, decay and destruction like the corruptible creation from which they are taken (Heb. 1:10-12; 12:26-29), and only then be raised transformed (2 Cor. 4:16-5:1) in concert with the bodies of the saints who are still alive at the coming of Christ (1 Thes, 4:16f.; 1 Cor. 15:51ff.). The body that is sown is NOT the body that is raised (1 Cor. 15:37). Restorationism, which is a conspicuous feature of the OT (1 K. 13:6; 2 K. 8:1; Ezr. 6:5; Dan. 4:36, etc.), is ruled out of court. The idea that we shall be restored to what we were at the beginning (cf. e.g. 1 K. 13:6, contrast Job 16:22; John 3:4) as though original sin and its curse were the only problem is a fundamental misapprehension of the plan of salvation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:1-5).

Jesus’ Resurrection Body

This, however, raises questions with regard to Jesus himself, for there is widespread agreement that his resurrection, which required his physical restoration, inevitably involved his transformation. This, however, is virtually a contradiction in terms and is clearly at odds with what the Bible teaches. In any case, the evidence for his transformation is speculative at best and is plainly falsified by such passages as Luke 24:36-42 and John 20:17,20,26-29. There are at least four points involving patent contradictions to be made here: first, the physical resurrection or restoration of Jesus is unmistakably asserted; second, if Jesus has already been glorified he is no longer flesh and bones for as such he cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:5f.); third, he is no longer visible (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18; Rom. 8:24f.) and has hence already ascended (Acts 1:9); and, fourth, immediately after the resurrection his physical body was strangely lacking in the splendour and glory that Jesus, Paul and John attribute to the heavenly or spiritual body (Mt. 13:43; John 17:5,24; 1 Cor. 15:35ff.; Phil 3:21; 1 John 3:2). The truth is that Jesus, as he himself intimated (John 20:17), was not transformed and glorified until he ascended (John 7:39; Rev. 3:21. etc.). For the essence of the ascension is not physical upward mobility but transformation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51-57). And it needs to be strongly asserted that when he returns it will not be in the form of a physically nondescript Galilean peasant but in the glory of his Father (Mt. 16:27, etc.), as Paul’s vision, Revelation 1:12ff.;2:18;19:12-16 and other references suggest (e.g. 2 Thes. 1:7).

Jesus and Corruption

While Jesus certainly died in the corruptible flesh he inherited from Adam (1 Pet. 3:18, etc.) and was raised, he did not see corruption. Why? The answer clearly lies in the fact that he did not sin, that is, give way to the flesh on his own account as Adam did. While the latter returned to the earth (dust) as a sinner (Gen. 3:19) having failed to meet the condition of life (Gen. 2:17), Jesus fulfilled the law and inherited the life it promised (Mt. 3:17). Thus, after his death and resurrection on our behalf, he ascended and was changed as the forerunner of those who at the end of the age will be redeemed apart from death and corruption (1 Cor. 15:51ff.).

Conclusions

Man’s Two Basic Problems

While a great deal more could be written particularly on the exegetical level, I have deliberately concentrated in this article on areas of basic misunderstanding. So what can be said by way of conclusion? First, mankind is beset by two fundamental problems: first, his earthly condition which by its very nature excludes him from heaven (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:1-7; 2 Cor. 5:6,8; Gal. 4:29f.), and, second, his sin which prevents the fulfilment of the initial promise of Genesis 2:17 (cf. 1 John 2:17). Strangely enough this was recognised as far back as the book of Job. Both Job himself (14:1f., cf. 5:7) and his comforter Eliphaz (4:17-19; 15:14) are acutely aware of the fact that those who are born of woman, that is, flesh (cf. Gal. 4:4) are inherently weak in a naturally recalcitrant world. But Eliphaz, despite his misunderstandings with regard to Job, also appears to recognise that sin exacerbates an inherently problematic situation when he points out that if God puts no trust in created things (cf. Rom. 1:20; Heb. 12:27), how much less in blatant sinners (15:16). At a much later date Paul too harps on the unprofitability and weakness of the flesh and all earthly things which are intrinsically subject to corruption (Rom. 7:18; 8:13,20f.; 1 Cor. 15:45-50; Gal. 6:8, cf. Col. 2:22; Eccl. 3:19f.; Ps. 49:12,20; 106:20). And in Romans 7 in particular, having drawn attention to the connection between the weakness of the flesh and sin, he pinpoints it in verse 14 (cf. 23-25). Why then the traditional almost exclusive emphasis on sin?

The answer lies in the fallacious analysis of the situation by Augustine. His most basic problem was that he misunderstood Genesis 1 and assumed that creation, including man (Adam) whom he idealised, was not simply ‘good’ in a moral sense but perfect at the outset (cf. Gk. kalos, that is, ideally suited to its purpose of producing and supporting biological life, especially man, cf. Isa. 45:12,18, etc.). He thus put the donkey before the carrot. And as a consequence of this, he failed to appreciate fully the fundamentally teleological character of creation and to realise that perfection was the goal, not the beginning. This the author of Hebrews in particular emphasised (1:10-12; 9:11; 12:22-29, etc.), and was supported by Paul who indicated uncompromisingly that the flesh or the natural precedes the spiritual in man who is creation in miniature (1 Cor. 15:46, cf. v.23; 1 Cor. 13:10; Gal. 3:3). For Augustine, however, and countless others who have followed in his steps, the axiom of original righteousness and holiness, an exegetical, logical and theological absurdity, was self-evident, and it was assumed that that ‘high estate’ was succeeded by the Fall, original sin and universal curse. Needless to say, if the Bible is our court of appeal, none of this can withstand serious scrutiny.

Original Sin Redundant

If my emphasis on the natural corruptibility of the flesh apart from sin is correct, then we can, even disregarding exegetical considerations, dismiss the traditional dogma of original sin as redundant. The primary reason why we sin is not because we have inherited the sin or a ‘twist’ from our forebears, though their impact is undeniable (see below), rather it is the same as the reason why Adam and Eve sinned, as surely that much neglected verse Genesis 3:6 (cf. Num. 15:39; Job 31:7; Eph. 4:22; James 1:14f.; 2 Pet. 1:4) makes clear. Initially, we all surrender to the flesh, our fleshly appetites or earthly nature which, as those made in the image of God, we were intended to rule over (cf. Eph. 2:3). Admittedly, apart from the work of the devil, there is another important factor. Since we are created in their fleshly image (Gen. 5:1-3), we not only follow naturally enough in the steps of our original progenitors as all children tend to do, but, as Paul like the OT prophets well recognised, we are, contrary to the teaching of Pelagius, conditioned by their example and the effects of their sin. (Note the a fortiori argument of Dt. 31:27, cf. Rom. 5:12ff.) While these certainly help to determine our conduct (Jer. 11:10; 14:20; 16:10-13; 32:18f.; Rom. 5:12ff., cf. Ex. 20:5f.; 34:6f.; Num. 14:18), they cannot be regarded as being finally deterministic as the traditional dogmas of the imputation and transmission of Adam’s sin would lead us to believe. This is proved beyond reasonable doubt by Jesus who, though a true child of Adam (Luke 3:38), born of a sinful woman (Gal. 4:4, cf. Ps. 51:5 ESV; Luke 2:47, cf. 11:13) and hence subject to the entire gamut of human temptation, did not personally commit sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22). Had this not been the case, he would have been in no position to surrender his flesh on behalf of his people (Heb. 2:9-18; 5:7-10; 10:19f.; Col. 1:21f.;1 Pet. 3:18).

It is one of the tragedies of modern evangelicalism, conditioned as it is by Augustine’s erroneous thinking, that its theology is almost exclusively sin-centred. This has serious repercussions in polemics, apologetics, evangelism (cf. Ezek. 18:30-32) and in general living; for so long as we preach original sin many of our hearers are bound to assume that we can do nothing to remedy the situation. (Cf. homosexuals desperately seeking a native gene which exonerates them of all responsibility since they were born that way.) On the other hand, if, with the NT especially, we lay a foundation in atonement for sins personally committed (Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 1:21; 2:13, etc.) and in the promise of the Holy Spirit for reformation of life and self-control (1 Thes. 4:3-7, etc.), we have a much more rationally coherent and convincing case to make.

The Dominant Role of the Flesh in Man

As indicated above, man was originally created in the image of God to exercise dominion over the earth. On the more personal level this meant that he was intended to reign over his own earth-derived flesh (cf. Dt. 6:4). As the first few verses of Genesis 3 make clear, once they had been placed on probation under the commandment both Adam and Eve failed their first real test, like Israel at a later date (see Ex. 32; 1 Cor. 10:6ff.), by succumbing to fleshly desire (cf. James 1:14f.; 2 Pet. 2:18). This has been the pattern of sin ever since (3*), though its manifestation sometimes takes on a more sophisticated hue. And what needs to be underscored at this juncture is the perennial tendency of man to give way to his fleshly desires, and to be fashioned (1 Pet. 1:14; 4:2) and dominated by them (cf. Rom. 6:16-23;; 2 Pet. 2; Jude, etc.). As Paul demonstrated in Romans 7 (cf. 3:9-20), man under the law, which he acknowledges even with approval in his mind, is a lamentable failure. The law with its ministry of death (2 Cor. 3) simply cannot give life (Gal. 3:21; Rom. 8:3, cf. Heb. 7:18f.); only the Spirit can do that (John 6:63). This highlights the fallacy that education or secular philosophy is the pandemic remedy for sin, crime and antisocial behaviour. Education or law can play its necessary part but, until it is complemented or supplemented by a change of heart, it will always prove inadequate as the entire Bible, universal history and personal experience testify. All the devotees of legalistic theologies both in the church and in the world religions need to recognise their need of grace through faith in Christ. But having said this, it is vital to recognise also that ‘the flesh’, or our nature as determined and characterised by the flesh, will always radically affect our outlook and conduct even when we are born again. And this is the reason why Christians in the NT are constantly exhorted to be subject to the leading of the Spirit and not the flesh, to put the earthly side of their nature to death (which in principle they have already crucified, Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24), to avoid the illegitimate gratification of fleshly desires, to exercise self-control (see e.g. Rom. 6:12-19; 8:13; 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:14; 2:11; 4:2f.; Col. 3:1-5; Tit. 2:6,12; 3:3-7), to avoid conformity to the world (cf. Gal. 6:14) and to be transformed by adopting the mind of Christ (Rom. 12:2; Phil. 2:5; Tit. 2:12, etc.). Romans 7, which has been understandably but wrongly regarded as being exclusively descriptive of the Christian life, indicates that the battle is life-long, that is, so long as we are in the flesh, as Paul in particular was painfully aware, for he first struggled unsuccessfully like Adam and Eve under the commandment (Rom. 7:7-13, see 2* again) and then under the law like Israel in general (Rom. 7:14-25). It was only under Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 9:21), when led by the Spirit, that he achieved some measure of success (Romans 8, cf. Phil. 3:12), but even then he had to severely discipline his body and subdue (enslave) it (1 Cor. 9:27, cf. James 3:2f.). (Our battle with the flesh is paralleled, of course, by our life-long battle with the earth which constantly requires man to till or cultivate it, Gen. 2:5,15, to prevent its reversal to chaotic wilderness and desolation, Isa. 6:11, etc., cf. Prov. 24:30-34. An untended or “untilled” body, that is not fed, watered, washed, shaved, manicured, etc. becomes a “desolation” like an uninhabited land, Jer. 44:22, etc., completely so in death when the spirit has departed, Jas. 2:26. Note also Paul’s battles with his environment on his missionary journeys, e.g. 2 Cor. 6:4f.; 11:23ff.). Sin in the regenerate ought not to occur (note again Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24) but, as John was well aware, it does (1 John 1:9f., cf. 3:9). Since the flesh, like the earth from which it derives, is autonomous or a law to itself (Rom. 7:23, cf. 8:13,20) as in the animal world, fleshly desires and attitudes are ever with us and have to be corrected, controlled and conquered as we are led by the Spirit of God within us. If not, they run riot (cf. Gen. 6:5ff.) and reduce us to mere creatures of instinct (2 Pet. 2; Jude, cf. Eccl. 3:18). The word ‘conquer’, like the word ‘tame’ in James 3, is significant in this regard, and it is used of Jesus whose active perfect obedience paved the way to his atonement for sin (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9; 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:5). It is also used of us (Rom. 8:37; 1 John 5:4; Rev. 3:21) and refers to the conquering of our own actual sins in the power of the Spirit (Rom. 6:12-14; 8:13; 1 Pet. 1:14,18f.; 2:1,11; 4:2f., etc.).

Materialism

So in this highly materialistic age of pervasive hedonism when the sins of the flesh become daily more blatant, it is vital for Christians to stress along with the writers of the NT, not original sin which robs us of personal responsibility, but the universal need to control our earthly nature in accordance with the creation cultural mandate apart from which we shall not see life (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5, cf. Phil. 3:19; 1 Thes. 4:1-8; Heb. 12:14). Indeed, it is for the deeds done in the body (of flesh) that we are to be judged (Rom. 2:4-11; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Pet. 4:6, etc.). So sinful commitment to this temporal world and unbridled submission to what is earthly in us can only result in catastrophe (cf. Ps. 10:3; 17:14; 1 John 2:15-17): it involves the denial of our humanity and the very purpose of our creation which was that we should seek glory, honour, immortality (incorruption, Rom. 2:7,10) and perfection in the image of God (Mt. 5:48; Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Heb. 1:3; 2:10; 5:8f.; 7:28; 12:23), who is spirit (John 4:24), and be presented blameless before him (1 Cor. 1:8; Eph. 1:4-6; Col. 1:22). We have been warned. It is precisely because we, who were created in the image of God, have, like Adam and Eve, sinned in the flesh and have forfeited the promise of life that we have an unavoidable appointment with death (cf. Rom. 8:10). And after death comes the judgement (Heb. 9:27). In the circumstances, the only way to life is through Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12, etc.).

To summarise the essence of my thesis I make the following points:

First, the flesh refers basically to our earthly physical nature inherited from Adam (1 Cor. 15:45-49). It is inherently temporary and perishable like its source. In light of this, we in the West who have been under the baneful influence of the Augustinian dogma of original sin need to be on our guard against over-ethicising the flesh, not least in the writings of Paul. In my view ‘sarx’, even in references like Romans 3:20 and Galatians 2:16, should always by translated ‘flesh’. Paul uses it with express purpose.

Second, the flesh is basically ‘good’, that is, useful like creation in general (1 Tim. 4:3f.), for it serves God’s purpose. Certain fleshly actions, however, are regulated by law and become sinful when it is transgressed. While the animal world is flesh and is totally subject to the (law of the) flesh (cf. Isa. 31:3), man, who is also created in the image of God, is meant to exercise dominion over it just as he is over the earth. Stubborn refusal and unmitigated failure lead to exclusion from the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2 Pet. 2; Jude; Rev, 21:8; 22:15, etc.). Serving the belly rather than the spirit/Spirit (Eccl. 6:7; Rom. 16:18; Phil. 3:19) is a denial of our humanity (Jude 10) and our creation in the image of God.

Third, as flesh man is weak, vulnerable, mortal, corruptible, dependent, naturally subject to temptation and, with the unique exception of Jesus, quite incapable of justifying himself by the works of the (spiritual) law (Rom. 3:9,19f.,23; 5:12; 7:7ff.; 8:3,8; 11:32; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; 3:10-12,22, etc.). Thus, inevitably, his body of flesh, or body of humiliation (Phil. 3:21), is a body of sin and death (Rom. 6:6; 7:24) which Jesus alone conquered (Rom. 8:3, cf. John 16:33; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 3:21).

Fourth, since failure to control their fleshly appetites and desires brought about the demise of our initially innocent first parents (Gen. 3:6), how much more does it lead to that of the rest of their children (Eph. 4:22; Jas. 1:14f.; 2 Pet. 1:4) who are also unavoidably affected and conditioned by their sinful example and its effects (Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12, cf. Ex. 20:5f.; 34:6f.). In light of this, the traditional dogma of original sin, which implies that God creates us evil, must be considered not only blasphemous but superfluous.

Fifth, the Bible, history and personal experience all testify to the tremendous negative power that our fleshly bodies along with the world exercise over us. Since we are susceptible both to intense pleasure, which we relish, and appalling pain, which we naturally shun, it is little wonder that their impact is so great. And it is only as we are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 5:16,18), that is, by a superior power above and beyond us, that we can hope to conquer and be conformed to the image of God in Christ (Rom. 8:29). It should be remembered that even Jesus in the days of his flesh relied totally on his heavenly Father to overcome (Heb. 5:7).

Sixth, salvation in the Bible is about deliverance not simply from sin but from this age and from all that is earthly (cf. Gal. 1:4; 2 Tim. 4:10; Col. 3:1-5). This includes our fleshly nature, if not our bodies. Even Jesus, who alone succeeded completely in making his flesh the vehicle of his spirit, looked for ultimate deliverance from it on his return to the Father (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50; John 6:62f.; 8:35; Gal. 4:30). He was born flesh (of woman) and as such was subject to (the) law. Then in the service of his Father he fulfilled all righteousness and achieved perfection in the power of the Spirit. As Galatians 4:1-7 indicates, he was born a slave, became a servant and attained to sonship in his progressive (covenantal) ascent to heaven (Heb. 1:3; Rev. 3:21). We, who believe follow in his steps, recapitulate his pilgrimage and the trail he blazed (cf. Mt. 5:45; 19:17-21; Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:14,19-21; 1 Pet. 2:21, etc.). As with the individual, so it is with mankind as a whole whom Jesus epitomised (cf. Eph. 1:10) as the second Adam (note Romans 1:18-3:31, which, like Romans 7:7-8:39 and 1 Corinthians 15:42-58, portrays the characteristic biblical movement from flesh to spirit).

Finally, such is the proclivity of the innately covetous flesh (4*), which is a law to itself, to temptation and hence to sin that Romans 8:3 (cf. Heb. 4:15) constitutes one of the most astonishing texts in Scripture pointing unerringly to the conclusion that Jesus was the unique Son of God and as such the only possible Saviour of men and women regardless of race, religion or status (cf. John 8:34-36).

1* Attempts to deny this (e.g. Moo, p.437f.), seem to me most unconvincing. The idea that Paul was relatively ‘alive’ until he received and transgressed the law of Moses is implicitly falsified both by Paul himself in Romans, especially chapter 1, and by Scripture as a whole (cf. Ps. 25:7; Eph. 2:3; Tit. 3:3). While Moo certainly has a better appreciation than many of salvation history (see e.g. p.389), and even of the progress of personal redemption (pp.529f.), it is doubtful whether it goes deep enough. On the one hand, an inadequate understanding of biblical covenant theology would appear to be part of his problem, and, on the other, a failure to appreciate the essential similarity between Eve’s sin and Israelite infraction of the tenth commandment. Eve’s child-like misdemeanour, which involves covetousness, is to all intents and purposes a proleptic transgression of the tenth commandment (Gen. 3:6, cf. Jas. 1:14f.). In any case, Moo’s claim that Paul was alive until he offended against the tenth commandment of the Mosaic law runs strangely counter to his unbiblical view that we are all, including Paul, dead in Adam from birth (see e.g. pp. 326,394,364,429,534).

2* The meaning of Romans 7:5 is in my view seriously distorted by modern translations, and, provided we refer to ‘passions’ or ‘impulses’ rather than ‘motions’, the KJV is to be preferred. Paul is not saying that the law ‘arouses’ or ‘stimulates’ sin (an Augustinian notion, see Needham, p.87, which admittedly contains an element of truth, as Calvin affirms in comment on Romans 5:20, p.214). How could he when he has spent so much time earlier in his letter describing the sinful passions of the heathen who were without the law? (Moo’s comment on this verse strikes me as being distinctly odd. He recognises that it is unlikely that Paul would accuse the law of ‘provoking’ sinful desires but apparently accepts that the law ‘arouses’ the sinful passions, p.420. The inconsistency here is patent. Schreiner is even less inhibited when he tells us, on pages 366 passim, that the law “exacerbates, provokes, and stimulates sin”.) In view of what he has already said and is going to say with regard to the law (NB 4:15; 5:13; 7:7-12), Paul is making it clear that while the passions, like the flesh itself, are in themselves morally neutral (i.e. ‘good’ in the sense of Gen. 1 and 1 Tim. 4:3f.), they become sinful when they involve transgression of the law (cf. Rom. 4:15). In other words, they are constituted sinful by the law which in the weakness of his flesh man cannot control.

To express the issue differently, it is truer to Paul (cf. James 1:14f.) to say that the flesh (Eve/Gentiles) arouses the sin (cf. Rom. 7:14) which is constituted sinful (cf. Rom. 7:13) by the law (Adam/Jews). The fact is that the flesh, which is a law to itself and amoral (7:23; 8:13; Gal. 5:17) does not discriminate as the law does. (I have read or heard the point crudely but effectively expressed as follows: an erect penis has no conscience! It is simply governed by fleshly desire as in the animal world.) A simple illustration highlights my point. As a virile young man I may be physically attracted to a pretty girl (A) and also to an even prettier married woman (B). While it is legitimate for me to desire, woo and marry A (cf. Dt. 21:11), it is not so for me to do the same with B. Given Paul’s own illustration in 7:1-3 it might be more to the point to say that while David’s wooing of the beautiful Abigail whose husband was dead is looked on favourably in Scripture, by contrast his passion for Bathsheba whose husband’s death had to be contrived is not.

In further comment we might add that while it is good (Gen. 1:28, pace Augustine and his horror of carnal lust, see Needham, p. 59, etc.) to exercise passion with a wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:9,28,36), it is not so with another man’s wife. In the latter case the naturally ‘good’ passion (cf. Gen. 1:28) is constituted sinful by the law. Once more we should draw the conclusion that where there is no law there is no sin (cf. Gal. 5:23; 1 Cor. 15:56). The marriage bed is good (Gen. 2:24; 1 Tim. 4:3f.), defiled it is not (Heb. 13:4).

3* I have briefly examined the pattern of sin elsewhere in another unpublished article and concluded that the sins of the primal pair were paradigmatic, as Wenham (p.90f.), Wright (p.245) and Dumbrell (p.24), for example, suggest. I am unaware of any similar study, doubtless because of the dominance of original sin. The latter has simply been taken for granted in the West, riddled though it is with insoluble problems.

4* See, for e.g., Ex. 20:17; Isa. 56:11; Jer. 6:13; 8:10; 22:17; Eccl. 6:7; Rom. 16:18; Phil. 3:19. William Barclay gives us a true reflection of the teaching of the Bible on the covetousness of the flesh when he comments on ‘pleonexia’ as follows: “The essence is the desire to have what is forbidden, the desire to take what should not be taken, the giving of rein to appetites and desires which are against the laws of God and man .… Pleonexia is the sin of the man who has allowed full play to the desire to have what he should not have, who thinks that his desires and appetites and lusts are the most important thing in the world, who sees others as things to be exploited, who has no god except himself and his desires” (pp.234f.). Thiselton also comments aptly on ‘sarx’ when he says that “The nearest that we can go towards finding a ‘general’ meaning … is to say that fleshly life is life lived in pursuit of one’s own ends, in independence of God or of the law of God, in contrast to living in accordance with the direction of the Holy spirit. This can take as many different concrete forms as being ‘selfish’ or ‘self-centred’” (NIDNTT, Vol. 1, p.681, cf. 2 Cor. 5:15). It is hard not to conclude in view of this that we all follow in the steps of our original fleshly progenitors, Adam and Eve. While we inherit them as our (evil) parents (cf. Luke 11:13), we do not inherit their sin (Dt. 24:16; Ezek. 18, etc.). Rather, as those created in their fleshly image (Gen. 5:1-3), we, not surprisingly, repeat it (Jer. 3:25; 14:20; 16:10-12; Acts 7:51f., etc.) under their influence (Rom. 5:12ff. etc.).

Additional Note on the War Between Flesh and Spirit

If it is true that the fleshly body stems from the earth, then it too along with the earth and its creatures (Gen. 1:26, cf. James 3:2f.,7) is intended to be subject to the dominion of (that is, the slave of) man made in the image of God (Gen. 4:7; 1 Cor. 9:27; James 3:8). Thus from the beginning man’s task was to till the earth (Gen. 2:5,15) and to control his own flesh (2:17) with a view to being eventually crowned with glory and honour (Ps. 8:5f.). In this he proved unsuccessful, for he was overcome by the world (Gen. 1), the flesh (Gen. 2:17, cf. 3:6) and the devil (Gen. 3:1-7). His defeat led to his alienation from God and a much harsher struggle with nature (Gen. 3:16-19) beyond the bounds of the garden. (Cf. again life in the womb and that outside.)

It was into this struggle that the second Adam entered in an attempt to overcome where the first failed. Not to mention the devil (John 14:30), he too had to contend with a recalcitrant earth and the weakness and temptations to which the flesh, being also a law to itself (Rom. 7:23; Gal. 5:16f.), is universally subject apart from sin (James 1:14, cf. 5:17). But the passions, to which the rest of Adam’s posterity yielded in violation of the law (cf. Rom. 7:5 on which see above), he mastered. Since he relied on the power of God, he did not allow his fleshly desires to come to maturity/ completion (Gal. 5:16, Gk. teleo; James 1:15, Gk. apoteleo). But that he had them is made abundantly plain in Matthew 4:1-11, Hebrews 2:17, 4:15, James 4:1 and 1 Peter 2:11, to go no further (pace Calvin, p.201; Art. 9 of the C. of E.). If this is true, then it is important to recognise that our fleshly passions in one form or another remain with us throughout our earthly lives. While, like Paul (Rom. 7), we fail miserably to manage them in our pre-Christian (school)days (1 Pet. 1:14; 4:2), we do achieve some measure of success once, through faith in Christ, we are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8, cf. 13:14, etc.). The wonder of the life of Jesus is that though truly flesh and subject to all its passions and desires, he first successfully kept the law to gain life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5) and then achieved perfection by fulfilling all righteousness in the power of the Spirit as God’s acknowledged Son (Mt. 3:15; 19:21). And while Paul tells us that he condemned sin in the flesh (8:3), the author of Hebrews informs us that the pioneer and perfecter of his people’s salvation (12:2) was himself made perfect through suffering and crowned with glory and honour (2:9f.).

So, Jesus uniquely made the flesh his slave (Rom. 6:16, cf. 1 Thes. 4:3-8, ESV; James 3:2; 2 Pet. 2:19) in spite of its ability to tempt and persecute (Gal. 4:29f.; Heb. 4:15). Thus, having conquered the world (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9) in the flesh (Rom. 8:3), he entered his Father’s house as the true spiritual Son (John 8:35 cf. Heb. 3:6) and the pioneer of his people (Heb. 2:10; 12:2). Paving their way to glory, he went ahead and prepared that spacious house for their occupation (John 14:2; Heb. 9:23). When he returns it will be as conqueror in order to complete their salvation (John 14:3; Heb. 9:28) and to present them to the Father (1 Cor. 15:23-28; Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 3:18, etc.). (On the assumption that the above is in essence correct, it should be obvious that since Christ conquered by representatively fulfilling mankind’s cultural mandate, Genesis 1:26,28, cf. John 16:33; Heb. 2:9f., the idea that he needs to return to effect a restoration of creation in an earthly millennium is based not only on radical misunderstanding but is in fact redundant.)

References

W.Barclay, New Testament Words, London, 1964.

C.K.Barrett, Romans, repr. London, 1987.

J.Calvin, Romans, repr. Grand Rapids, 1947.

C.E.B. Cranfield, ICC Romans, Edinburgh, 1975.

W.J.Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel, Grand Rapids, 2002.

J.D.G.Dunn, WBC Romans 1-8, Dallas, 1988.

G.D.Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, Peabody, 1994.

G.D.Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, 1987.

R.Y.K.Fung, Galatians, Grand Rapids, 1988.

D.Guthrie, New Testament Theology, Leicester, 1981.

S.J.Hafemann, NIVAC 2 Corinthians, Grand Rapids, 2000.

W.L.Lane, WBC Hebrews, Dallas, 1991.

D.J.Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, 1996.

D.J.Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans, Grand Rapids, 2002.

L.L.Morris, The Gospel According to John, Grand Rapids, 1971.

J.Murray, Redemption-Accomplished and Applied, Grand Rapids, 1955.

J.Murray, Romans, London, 1967.

N.R.Needham, The Triumph of Grace, London, 2000.

H.Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, Grand Rapids, 1997.

T.R.Schreiner, Romans, Grand Rapids, 1998.

A.C.Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, Grand Rapids/Carlisle, 2000.

NIDNTT, Vol. 1.

G.J.Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Waco, 1987.

B.F.Westcott, Gospel of John, repr. London, 1958.

H.W.Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, London, 1974.

C.H.J. Wright, The Message of Ezekiel, Leicester, 2001.

While I remain convinced of the essential correctness of what is written in the first article The End of the World, before suggesting a reason for what for us is Paul’s somewhat cryptic and easily misunderstood mode of expression in Romans 8:21, I would draw attention to the fact that Jesus himself frequently alludes to both nature and sin as being equally hurdles to be overcome as the following references indicate: Mt.6:19f.; 24:7f; Mark 13:8; Luke 12:33; 13:1-5; 21:10f.; John 4:13f.; 6:27ff., passim, etc. So, just as the temporal body of flesh (earth) must be destroyed (Mt.10:28; Luke 12:4f; 2 Cor. 5:1) and transformed into or replaced by a spiritual body to fit it for heaven (1 Cor. 15:35ff.), so must the ephemeral material world in which we live be destroyed and exchanged for God’s eternal spiritual kingdom (= heaven, cf. Mt.18:3f. etc., Heb.1:11; 12:27f.; cf. 1 Cor. 15:50) where Jesus in his perfected state, separated from sinners (Heb.7:26), is at the moment (Heb. 4:14; 5:9; 7:28, cf. John 14:2f.; 17:5,24). The fundamental imperfection or inadequacy, unrelated to sin, of the created world is basic to the Bible and to the gospel as it was first propounded, and Jesus’ stress on the need for naturally mortal creatures of flesh and blood to be born again spiritually (John 1:12f.; 3:3-6) in order to enter heaven was clearly necessary not least for the earth-bound Jews who, until the coming of Jesus, lived very much in the present age unaffected by the powers of the age to come (cf. Heb. 6:5).

This brings us back to the reason for the apparently enigmatic language Paul uses in Romans 8:21. In his day his readers were not governed by the faulty worldview emanating from Augustinian dogma and would not have been liable to misunderstand his point. For them in pre-Augustinian times, there was no original sin and no cosmic curse to mislead them. Only Augustinians, or those conditioned by their sin-obsessed thought, would ever dream of the physical creation (as opposed to the creature, i.e. man) ‘obtaining’ (see RSV, ESV, ad loc.) the freedom of the glory of the sons of God and attributing to Paul ideas that he expressly denied in 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 4 and 5. For Paul, as for Jesus, the physical heavens and earth were transient (Mt. 5:18; 24:35) but “good” in that they served an eternal purpose (e.g. Mt. 25:34; Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; Heb. 2:10, cf. 2 Cor. 5:4f., etc. Cf. Marshall, Saviour, p. 303).

It follows from this that our physical, fleshly bodies, like the earth from which they derive, form a barrier or veil between us and God (cf. Rom. 8:35-39; 2 Cor. 5:6,8). (It is worth bearing in mind too the recurring idea throughout Scripture that seeing God brings death, Gen. 16:13, etc. Furthermore, spiritual things are spiritually, not physically, discerned, 1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:24f.) This is surely what Isaiah is intimating in 25:7f. and is implicit as far back as the first two chapters of Genesis. The veil, which in effect becomes a shroud as a result of the old covenant’s ministry of death (2 Cor. 3:14f.), must be destroyed (cf. 2 Cor. 3:16-18) in order to prevent death from having its way. As Paul indicates, once the veil is removed through acceptance of Christ the glory of the Lord becomes visible – or, at least, as reflected in a mirror (3:18 NRSV, cf., 1 Cor.13:12), for we still live by faith and not by sight (2 Cor.5:7). The body of flesh remains subject to death (see John 11:25; Rom.8:10; 2 Cor. 5:1), which has not yet been swallowed up (Isa. 25:7; 1 Cor. 15:54), but once it has, the glory of God will be fully manifest (John 17:24; 1 John 3:2; Rev. 22:4).

It may be asked at this point, What about sin which leads to death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23)? Sin, or transgression of the law which promises life, prevents us from attaining to life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). In other words, while man, who is made in the image of God, is born into a naturally temporal, mortal and corruptible world of which he is a part, he is promised eternal life if he achieves the likeness of God, that is, keeps the law (cf. Rom. 2:7). Since he does not and cannot, he needs a Saviour who can and does (cf. Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:3, etc.). Thus Paul tells us that it is Jesus, who, though manifested in mortal flesh, abolished death and brought life and immortality (or incorruptibility) to light through the gospel (2 Tim.1:10; cf. Rom. 8:3). Prior to that time, as the author of Hebrews was well aware (12:27), all created things including man, being transient as Genesis 1:1 (cf. Heb. 7:3) implies, were doomed to eventual death and corruption. As Paul says, if Christ is not raised, everything is futile and meaningless (1 Cor. 15:17).

The notion of a barrier or curtain of flesh intervening between man and God appears in Hebrews 10:19f., but it is disputed whether the words “that is, his flesh” qualify “the curtain” or “the new and living way”. It is a crux interpretum according to Lane (p.275) and will repay brief but, I trust, careful study.

Bruce, followed for example by Hughes, takes the view that the curtain or veil is to be equated with Jesus’ flesh and endorses Davidson’s comment that “as the veil stood locally before the holiest in the Mosaic Tabernacle, the way into which lay through it, so Christ’s life in the flesh stood between Him and His entrance before God, and His flesh had to be rent ere He could enter … and for us also the way lies through His flesh” (p.248). Bruce (cf. Hughes, p.408) then deals with ’the way of his flesh’ interpretation, adopted by the NEB but whose protagonist was B.F.Westcott. The latter regarded the equation of ‘veil’ with ‘flesh’ as unsatisfactory because it treated Jesus’ flesh as an obstacle to the vision of God in a place where his humanity is stressed and because it failed to preserve the complete parallelism between the approach of Christ to God and the approach of the believer to God. Bruce rejects this as not appearing to carry much weight and prefers to take the line more naturally suggested by the word-order that the veil symbolised Christ’s human life (p. 249).

In contrast, Lane argues, convincingly according to de Silva (p.335), that the writer of Hebrews is concerned not with the composition of the ‘veil’, that is, the flesh of Jesus, but with the way the believer gains entrance to the holy place as he is in 6:19f., which is regarded as an obvious parallel. Lane further holds that 10:19 and 20 are analogous in structure. While this is certainly arguable, it hardly solves our problem. Indeed it raises the question of why the author, who, as well as in 10:19, is elsewhere happy to refer to blood alone in accordance with OT precedent as the means of gaining access to the Holy of Holies (9:7ff.; cf. 10:29; 12:24; 13:11f.,20), should suddenly find it necessary to draw attention to Jesus’ flesh unless he had something else in mind. (Lane alludes to 10:10, but the context suggests that the reference to Jesus’ body embraces his entire life, cf. Romans 12:1). In light of this, it is much more natural, if not exactly compelling, to assume his flesh is in apposition to and hence qualifies “the curtain”.

Lane then makes the point that the value of Westcott’s view is that it preserves the local and literal sense of “through the curtain” and denies that a metaphor is intended in 10:20. But surely the curtain is essentially a metaphor being but a shadow of the true even in 6:19, which Lane claims is decisive (p.284), while the literal component of the passage attaches to the blood of Jesus (v.19) and his flesh as in 2:14 where his humanity is being underlined.

Next he insists that v 20 is an elucidation of v 19, which speaking generally can hardly be denied. For all that, in an attempt to preserve the ‘internal logic’ of the sentence (hardly threatened or obscured by the contrary view, one would have thought) it would seem unduly strained to conclude that the preposition (dia, through) when expressed should be taken as local with “the curtain” yet when unexpressed (that is, assumed despite its remoteness from “the way”) should be regarded as instrumental (by means of) with “his flesh”. As Hughes points out, the single ‘dia’ has the effect of binding “the curtain” and his flesh together and suggests apposition (p. 409). He further quotes N.H.Young who claims that the grammatical grounds for taking “his flesh” as in apposition are “coercive”. In further support of his case, however, Lane draws attention to the fact that ‘dia’, actually expressed three times in 9:11-12, reflects variation in prepositional use. This may be true, but it is hardly relevant here. More to the point, it is certainly inconclusive and suggests special pleading on his part (pp. 275f.). He seems desperate to make a suspect case compelling.

Another point must be made. There is a real danger that abstruse linguistic, syntactical and grammatical arguments are driven by dogma as, for example, in the interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-22. This would appear to be at least a contributory factor here. Lane’s claim that the curtain is literal and not metaphorical in Hebrews 6:19 involves him in contradiction of his own exegesis of 7:13f. and 8:1-5 where he stresses that Christ lacked the necessary genealogical credentials to enable him to penetrate the literal curtain while he was on earth (p.182)., and also that “heaven, as the ‘place’ of God’s presence, transcends earth as the source of all reality and value” (pp.210f.). If this is so, then the literal curtain is but a shadow or symbol of the reality, which is Christ’s flesh. This would seem to be the only reasonable conclusion we can draw from Matthew 27:50f. (cf. Heb. 9:8-12). It might further be mentioned that both 6:19f. and 10:19ff. underline the ever-living nature of the high priest (cf. 7:24f.) who makes access to God possible for mankind by giving his fleshly life as an atonement for sin (1 Pet. 3:18). This being so, we can hardly fail to note that Lane, following Westcott, sees fit to translate the “living way” in 10:20, which Bruce links with John 14:6, by “the way that leads to life” (p.275). Again it must be said this appears somewhat contrived especially when it is compared with Peter’s “living hope”, which is directly linked to Jesus’ resurrection (1 Pet. 1:3). It would seem to be more harmonious, theologically speaking, to see the resurrected Christ himself as the living way, our very life (Col.3:4), and his flesh as the curtain through which that way was opened up. As Cranfield expresses it in comment on Mark 15:38, “the death of Jesus has opened the way into the presence of God” (Mark, p.460). No cross, no glory!

On the assumption then that the view propounded by Bruce and others is both more natural and persuasive we can now state that the curtain or veil was indeed the flesh of Jesus. (To suggest that the new and living way can in some sense be equated with a ‘dead’ curtain seems to me rather odd! After all, Peter tells us that Christ was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit in order to bring us to God, 1 Pet. 3:18, ESV). This is clearly in accord with biblical teaching in general where flesh and creation (see especially Hebrews and 1 and 2 Peter), which belong to the present age, are always pejorative relative to the age to come. So, contrary to Westcott, whose first objection in particular, as expressed by Bruce, is somewhat mystifying, I would insist that Jesus’ flesh is indeed an obstacle to the vision of God as is implied even in John 14:8-11 (cf. John 1:18; 1 Cor. 2:14). And it is not entirely irrelevant to the point at issue that Charles Wesley referred to Jesus in his famous hymn, “Hark the herald angels sing”, as “veiled in flesh”.

All in all as both John and Paul imply, it is impossible for man in the flesh to see God (John 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16). Only when this barrier is overcome by the removal of the curtain is vision of God achieved.

At the end of the day, since grammar fails to determine the issue, it is important to recognise that theology is what is at stake. What Westcott apparently failed to note is that the flesh as such, regardless of sin, is an obstacle to be overcome in Scripture. Man as created from the (temporal) earth cannot enter (eternal) heaven and the presence of God (1 Cor. 15:50). According to the original implied promise of Genesis 2:17, salvation, that is, knowing God (John 17:3) and entering his presence (1 Pet. 3:18), for man made flesh (Adam) was dependent on his keeping the law (Lev.18:5, etc.). In the event only Jesus succeeded in doing this. Thus his flesh was the curtain rent apart which permitted access to sinners who put their trust in him. Behind Westcott’s objections to this view apparently lies Augustinian theology, which makes sin the only problem*, but if this is the case, why did not sinless, though fleshly, Adam enjoy the heavenly presence and vision of God from the start? Or, to put the issue another way, why was he subjected to probation if his flesh, or human nature, was no obstacle? If he was created perfect, as traditional theology would have us believe, he had no goal to aspire to since he had already arrived! The whole point, as Paul was well aware, is that to be at home in the body of flesh, irrespective of sin, is to be away from the Lord (2 Cor. 5:6,8) who as spirit lives invisible in inaccessible light (1 Tim. 6:16) and is in any case a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29). Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5f.; 1 Cor. 15:50) not least because no one in the flesh can see God and live (Gen.16:13; 32:30; Jud. 6:22, etc., cf. 1 Pet. 3:18; 4:6). While Moses had to be hidden in the cleft of a rock and have his face covered to see God’s back (Ex. 33:18ff.), even Paul was temporarily blinded by his (partial?) vision of the ascended and glorified Christ. After all, as he was well aware, the spiritual is spiritually discerned (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14). If it is objected (a) that sin is exclusively the problem, Exodus 33:20, which does not mention sin, suggests otherwise even allowing for Exodus 6:12,30 and Isaiah 6:5; and (b) that at the end of the age every eye will see him (Rev. 1:7), it is sufficient to reply that the consequence on the one hand is death (2 Thes. 1:7ff.; Rev. 6:15-17) and on the other transformation (1 Cor. 15:50ff.; 1 Thes. 4:17). The Bible is amazingly consistent.

The flesh then, like the material world as such, is a barrier to be surmounted, a curtain to be pierced and penetrated, either personally by keeping the law (cf. Heb. 6:19f.) or alternatively by vicarious sacrifice (Heb. 10:19f.) leading to final transformation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50ff.). This is surely the point that Paul is making in a somewhat different way in 2 Corinthians 3 where Moses’ veil, symbolising the old covenant, is a physical obstruction. It is only when that veil, like the curtain in the temple, is removed (3:16, cf. Ex. 34:34) that the Lord becomes both visible and accessible, at least by faith (2 Cor. 5:7). Once the curtain of flesh has been dispensed with (cf. 2 Pet. 1:14) we shall not merely be able to see the Lord in all his glory (Isa. 24:23; 66:18; John 17:24; Rev. 22:4) but truly to reflect it (2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:24; 1 John 3:2). It is in this hope that we are saved (cf. Rom. 8:24f.).

Advocates of the restoration or renovation of the physical universe use still other texts to support their view. Hughes, for example, alludes to Hebrews 12:28; Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1ff.; Acts 3:21 (Hebrews, pp. 381f., 2 Corinthians, 167, 203f., 209).

With regard to Hebrews 12:28 it has to be said that Hughes’ handling of this text is far from sure. First, we need to note that his premise is the Augustinian notion of a cosmic curse stemming from the fall. Dealing with 2:9 he writes: “It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that man in his fall has degraded the rest of creation with himself and that his redemption involves the restoration of the order of creation to its destined purpose and perfection …” (p. 94, cf. O’Brien, pp. 53f.; Bruce, Colossians, p.74). Thus, in comment on 1:10-12, having described God as Creator, Judge and Restorer, he tells us that the author “teaches that there is to be one more cosmic shaking prior to the establishment of the unshakable kingdom of Christ extending over the renewed order of creation (12:26ff.)” (p. 67). But this, apart from being a virtual contradiction in terms, is surely to pervert the author’s meaning, since 12:27** speaks of the removal of the shakable so that the unshakable (not the renewed) that already exists (since it is eternal) may remain. Next, Hughes fails to reckon with the stubborn fact that the impermanent or temporal creation cannot inherit the permanent any more than the imperfect can inherit the perfect (1 Cor. 13:10). Just as flesh cannot be regenerated (John 3:4,6; 1 Cor. 15:50) because it is part of the temporal physical creation, so, obviously, neither can creation itself. It is simply compounding error to state that “this final shaking of both heaven and earth is necessary for the purging and eradication from the universe of all that is hostile to God and his will … for the inauguration of the new heaven and the new earth, that is, the renewed or ‘changed’ creation, in which all God’s purposes in creation are brought to everlasting fulfilment at the consummation of the redemption procured in and by Christ (Rev. 21:1ff.; 2 Pet. 3:10-13) ….” (p.558). Hughes has failed to realise that the reference to ‘change’ involves destruction like old wineskins (Mt. 9:17; cf. Heb. 1:12). The old will be exchanged for what is for us the new, that is, the permanent (cf. Heb. 10:9). (That the regeneration is the eternal heaven, the throne of God, would seem to be necessarily deduced from Mt. 19:28, cf. 16:27; 25:31; John 17:5,24; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 3:21; cf. Gal. 4:26, etc.)

Isaiah 65:17, 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1ff.
As indicated above it is dangerous to read too much into Isaiah’s reference to new heavens and a new earth since the OT people were essentially earth-centred in their thinking (cf. Bruce, Hebrews, 298f., 339; and note De Silva, pp.471f.). The use of present-age physical imagery of one kind or another was inevitable. If it is necessary for us (cf. e.g. Motyer, p.195), how much more for people who lacked the new covenant’s revelation of Christ. Indeed, as de Silva suggests with the eschatology of Hebrews in mind, we must be appropriately cautious with respect to an overly materialistic interpretation of Revelation 21 and 22 (p.472n.). Assuming unity of authorship, it is therefore important to recognise that no OT writer stresses the impermanence, even the destruction, of material things more than Isaiah (e.g. 13:9-13; 34:4; 40:6-8; 51:6; 54:10). Furthermore, it ought not to escape notice that both 2 Peter 3:7,10-12 and Revelation 21 (cf. 6:12ff.; 8:5; 16:20; 20:11; 21:1) point to total destruction rather than restoration. The new creation, the new world (cf. Mt.19:28) and the new or heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 11:10,16; 12:22; 13:14) refer to what already exists, that is, the city of the living God which shares his unshakable character. Heaven is God’s throne while earth is his footstool (Mt. 5:34f.). Writers tend to forget that we are born from above (John 3:3, anothen) and that our mother is the Jerusalem above (Gal. 4:26, ano).

Finally, in light of references such as Matthew 6:10,33; 7:21; 25:34; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 1 Peter 5:10 and 2 Timothy 4:18, not to mention others, it is difficult not to conclude that the new heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells is to be equated with what is elsewhere referred to as the kingdom of God or heaven (cf. 2 Pet. 1:11; 1 Pet. 1:3f.; Heb. 9:15).

Acts 3:21

Scholars appear less than certain about the meaning of apokatastasis. Bruce (Acts, p. 91n., cf. Wright, p. 77) entertains notions of the regeneration, transformation, renovation and restoration of the physical universe. Stott is also convinced that this line of thinking is more natural than the idea that the word ‘everything’ refers to the promises which God will ‘establish’. (All things (ta panta) occurs frequently and can be rather vague and unspecific as it is in English (e.g. the ‘all things’ that Elijah will restore, Mt. 17:11. Fee says that for Paul it refers to the whole of the created universe or the whole of a given subject, Philippians, p.384 n.34.). The context, however, with its strong emphasis on the fulfilment of prophecy (cf. Acts 1:16,20; 2:16ff.; 3:13,18ff.) surely favours the latter idea to which the former is quite alien. Not surprisingly therefore and surely rightly, Marshall maintains that “we should take the phrase to signify God’s perfect realisation of the things that he had promised through the prophets, the chief of which was the setting up of his rule or kingdom” (p.94. Cf. Bayer, pp.268f., 271 and Morey, p.244. On p.245, however, Morey, having glanced at Ephesians 1:10 and Colossians 1:20 claims quite gratuitously that Christ “will return the natural order or reconcile it to the state of perfection and bliss in fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy”!) Marshall’s view appears to me to be infinitely preferable not least because of the manifest inconsistency evident in Bruce and Stott’s thinking which seems to be coloured largely by their questionable interpretation of Romans 8:19ff. This inevitably involves them in circular reasoning. In any case, as was pointed out above, Bruce is at odds with himself. His understanding of Romans 8:19ff. contradicts his stance in Hebrews. Secondly, Stott in commentary on the Romans passage is so obsessed with, even mesmerised by the Augustinian view of sin, that he is trapped into flatly contradicting what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:50. He writes, “… for nature will be brought … out of corruption into incorruption” (Romans, pp.239f.)! But Paul, like Jesus (John 3:4-6), says this is impossible. What is more, in 2 Corinthians 4:18 (cf. Rom. 8:18,24f.) he asserts that while what is seen is transient, what is unseen is eternal (i.e. perfect like God himself. Cf. John 3:3). As becomes clear in his next paragraph, Stott, evidently in the grip of an inadequate covenant theology, which fails to appreciate the massive contrast between the old and new covenants so clearly taught in passages like 2 Corinthians 3, Galatians 3 and 4, and Hebrews 8 and 12, has embraced the “Old Testament prophetic vision of the messianic age” with disastrous consequences (p. 240). A careful reading of texts such as Hebrews 1:10-12; 10:34; 11:10, 16, 12:22ff. and 13:14, to go no further, should have led him to perceive that his claim that the “Christian hope looks forward not to an ethereal heaven but to a renewed universe, related to the present world by both continuity and discontinuity” (The Incomparable Christ, p.224) is a fundamental error arising from Augustine’s indefensible and thoroughly misleading dogmas of original righteousness, sin and cosmic curse. The truth, as Peter so strongly emphasises, is that far from being earthly, our inheritance is imperishable, undefiled, unfading and heavenly (1 Pet.1:4, cf. Luke 6:23; 18:22; 2 Cor.5:1; Phil. 3:14; Heb. 3:1; 9:15, etc.).

Colossians 1:20

Colossians 1:20 is yet another verse exploited by those who believe in the restoration or regeneration of the material cosmos. (It is not a little interesting to observe O’Brien’s reference to the presuppositions of commentators on this verse, pp.53f.) Wright, for example, regards sin as the exclusive barrier between man and God (p. 76), and almost inevitably ends up with a radically unbiblical view of the natural or physical which he fails to see is characteristic of the temporal creation (pp.76-80; see also Challenge, e.g. pp.144,179f.). O’Brien undertakes a detailed examination of the various views that have been held regarding “the reconciliation of all things” and opts, with Lohse, for restoration (p.56), an OT idea if ever there was one! Apart from the fact that this prompts the question he himself poses earlier of how the cosmos as an impersonal entity can be reconciled (p.55), it clearly presupposes the usual unbiblical Augustinian notions of original sin and cosmic curse. If the physical universe is to be destroyed once it has served its purpose, reconciliation or restoration of fellowship will be achieved by faith on the one hand and by the enforced pacification of all hostile forces on the other (cf. Bruce, Colossians, p.76. Fee, in comment on Philippians 2:10, denies that ‘the whole range of creation’ including inanimate creation is implied, pp.224f. nn.34f., cf. Marshall, Saviour, p.268. See also his comments on 1 Cor. 2:6-8, p.103, and on 7:31, p.342. Strangely, consistency seems to desert Fee when he comments on 1 Cor. 15:28 as follows: “In Paul’s view the consummation of redemption includes the whole sphere of creation as well (cf. Rom.8:19-22; Col.1:15-20). Nothing lies outside God’s redemptive purposes in Christ, in whom all things will be ‘united’ (Eph. 1:9-10). Therefore at the death of death the final rupture in the universe will be healed and God alone will rule over all beings (sic!), banishing those who have rejected his offer of life and lovingly governing all those who by God’s grace have entered into God’s ‘rest’”, p.760. What Fee fails to recognise here is that death is not a rupture in the universe but the basic characteristic of a temporal creation which, I would maintain, is what Paul is affirming in Romans 8:19ff. and elsewhere, e.g. Rom. 8:13; Gal.6:8, cf. Gen.3:19, and implying in 2 Timothy 1:10. Note also the logic of Gen.1:1 and Heb. 7:3,16). And as O’Brien himself affirms at the end of his study of Colossians 1:20, the words following the hymn (Col.1:21-23) indicate “the central purpose of Christ’s work of making peace has to do with those who have heard the Word of reconciliation and gladly accepted it” (p.57). How true, but this is far from saying with Wright (p.80), who, like Bruce (Colossians, p.74), is governed by a false understanding of Romans 8:19ff. (p.76), that Christ’s perfection “will one day be shared by ‘all things in heaven and on earth’”. So yet again we must insist that the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50, ESV, cf. 13:10; Heb. 12:27) enabling us to concur with Barth (quoted by Fee, p.646), when he says, “Because the sun rises all lights are extinguished”, and the book of Revelation amply bears him out (21:23; 22:4f., cf. 2 Cor. 3:10f.; 1 Cor. 2:9; 15:28)!

Finally, brief reference may be made to Ephesians 1:10. First, Lincoln, emphasising Ephesians close associations with Colossians, asserts the redemption not the dissolution of the created order and like Bauckham (see above) alludes to Romans 8:18-25. However, Mitton regards inferences drawn from such texts as Colossians 1:15-20 and Romans 8:19-22 as speculative. He also avers that what is probably intended here is that Christ’s reconciling power was effective in all circumstances, both in heaven and on earth and insists that the emphasis in Ephesians is certainly on the uniting of people (cf. O’Brien, pp.53,55,57; Beasley-Murray, p.308). Stott predictably takes a different view on the basis of his highly questionable understanding of Romans 8:18ff. To support his stance that ‘all things’ implies the physical universe he appeals to Hebrews 1:2-3 (God’s New Society, p.44). He could hardly have chosen a worse reference, for only a few verses later the writer undermines all ideas of cosmic renewal when he draws attention to the temporality and perishability of all things material (Heb.1:10-12, cf. 10:34; 11:10,16; 12:18-29; 13:14). As de Silva so convincingly argues (cf. Bruce, pp. 383ff.; Lane, p. 31, and, less certainly, pp. 480ff.), Hebrews presents a worldview totally at odds with that of the restorationists (pp.27ff. passim).

This then raises the question in a slightly different form. What does Ephesians 1:10 mean? I would contend that it coincides with Colossians 1:16 with its telic ‘eis’ and with Romans 8:21 as expounded in the essay (The End Of the World), The above (cf. Bruce, Philippians, p.109). The whole purpose of creation is found or summed up in Christ whose ultimate aim was to glorify God by bringing many sons to glory (Heb. 2:10; Rom. 5:2; 8:18-39; Col. 3:4; 1 Pet. 3:18; 4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4; John 17:3-5,24). And just as the physical body, having served its purpose (cf. Rom. 8:28) is destroyed (2 Cor.5:1), so is the physical universe from which it emanates (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). The blunt fact is that for man made in the image of God who is spirit, there is no future in either the world or the flesh (1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:15-17; Rom.8:13; Gal. 6:8) both of which, as means rather than ends, will find their end (terminus) in destruction as was always the plan. Only the permanently unshakable will remain, and that obviously forever.

Since then Christ is the agent, purpose and goal of creation, he is the heir of ‘all things’ (Heb.1:2). In light of the unmistakable implications of Hebrews 1:10-12, not to mention much of the rest of the book, the temporal creation is the means of attaining the end, which is the inheritance comprising many sons brought to glory (Heb.1:2; 2:10, cf. Rom. 8:14-17). Thus when creation has given birth or borne fruit (Rom. 8:19-23), its harvest been reaped (Mt. 13:36ff.; Rev. 14:14ff.) and its enemies been pacified, it will be dispensed with (cf. Heb. 6:7f.). This, of course, excludes the surely absurd idea that dust, whether in the form of the earth or of man, can be renewed, glorified, rendered incorruptible (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50) and/or purged of sin (!). Such clearly erroneous thinking must be rejected as being a fundamental misunderstanding of Scripture (pace Hughes, p.39, who, for all his occasional brilliance, is nothing if not inconsistent and unsystematic).

Intimations of all this are evident in the OT as a study of its typology makes manifest. For the OT frequently prefigures what happens or is recapitulated in the NT, and this certainly holds good so far as the end of the world is concerned. In Luke 17:28ff. Jesus likens the time of his second advent to the days of Lot (cf. 2 Pet. 2:6ff.; Jude 7). It is important to note that in Genesis 19 it is not merely ungodly people who are destroyed but the cities themselves (19:13,24-29, cf. Isa. 13:9-13, etc. and Babylon). The same picture is clearly drawn in 2 Peter 3:7,10-12: people, works and habitat are all specifically mentioned. And just as Lot and his daughters, though not his wife, were rescued from the total destruction of the cities of the plain, so it will be at the second coming when Christ himself will return to rescue his own (1 Thes. 4:16f.; Heb. 9:28, cf. Am. 4:11; Jude 23).

The same story is told in Exodus, for example:
First, the Israelites groan (Ex.2:23f., cf. Jud. 2:18; 10:16b; Rom. 8:22; 2 Cor. 5:2,4) in the harsh conditions of slavery or bondage (6:5). Next, as the son of God (4:22), Israel requires deliverance (3:8; 4:29-31). Third, in principle the Egyptians are destroyed (note 12:30 and 14:30, cf. 15:21) and Egypt ‘ruined’ (10:7). Fourth, the Israelites, apart from those who like Lot’s wife look back (Num. 14:1-3; Acts 7:39), go on to the Promised Land which was a type of heaven (Heb. 4:9f.; 11:16). Finally, though they take the treasures of Egypt with them (Ex. 12:36, cf. Rev. 21:26), there is no more going back to Egypt (cf. Dt. 17:16; 28:68; Neh. 9:17) than there is re-entry into one’s mother’s womb (John 3:4,6). So in the same way this world, like Egypt and the land from which Abraham departed, will be left behind forever (Heb. 11:13-16; 12:27; Rev. 20:11) and exchanged for heaven and the presence of God (Heb. 1:12). Then indeed the kingdom of the world will have become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ where righteousness dwells forever and ever (Rev. 11:15; 2 Pet. 3:13).

I conclude then that the notion of cosmic restoration or renovation, which stands in blatant contradiction of biblical (though not Wesleyan) perfectionism, is thoroughly unscriptural. The material creation, which had a beginning in time (Gen.1:1), will certainly have an end in violent contrast to Christ (Heb. 7:3, 16, cf. 1:10-12, etc.). So far as creatures of flesh and blood are concerned, we as believers will survive the destruction of the physical body (Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 5:1; 2 Tim. 4:18) and be given transformed spiritual bodies to fit us for our heavenly surroundings and the presence of God who is a consuming fire (1 Cor. 15:50ff., cf. Isa. 33:14-16; Heb.12:26-29; James 5:3; 1 Pet. 3:18; 4:6) and dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16, cf. 1:17). Little wonder that Paul, in counteracting materialism among other things, warned us that if we sow to the flesh, we shall, like the animals which are not guilty of sin, reap inevitable corruption (Gal. 6:8, cf. Isa. 31:3; Rom. 8:13; 2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10).

________________________________________________________

* Though Westcott certainly held to the Augustinian view of the Fall (capital F), he was the only one of his generation that I can recall, apart from Newman, who stressed the idea of perfection (which, though it corresponds with the notion of pilgrimage, cf. e.g. Luke 13:32; Phil. 3:12-16 and espec. Hebrews on which see Lane’s index, is logically undermined by the thoroughly OT notion of restorationism). He wrote, for example, that “man was made in God’s image to gain His likeness” (p.306); “We cannot but believe that under any circumstances, and wholly apart from the Fall, there would have been progress in the race, as well as in the individual, towards the gradual fulfilment of the idea of humanity” (p.308), and “There is ‘a making perfect’ which is correlative with ‘salvation’” (p.313). All this suggests that his thought was not entirely governed by the traditional cart-before-the-horse idea that God made us perfect to begin with. Like so many others, however, he apparently, though illogically, held to the view that the material creation would be restored in some sense answering to the redemption of man’s body (p.310). Behind this, however, surely lies confusion between physicality and corporeality (cf. 1 Cor. 15:35ff.) and between redemption and restoration. The truth is that the removal (metathesis) of the material creation (Heb.12:27) corresponds with the removal (apothesis) of the material body (2 Pet. 1:14, cf. 1 Pet. 3:21 on which see Kelly, pp. 83f. and 161f.). Since we have lost our flesh in corruption, our bodies need redemption (Rom. 8:23), and that they acquire in Christ.

** When I first suggested that the ‘eis’ of Romans 8:21 should be regarded as telic, I did not appreciate how remarkably similar in its basic implication this verse was to Hebrews 12:27, which also has its purpose or result (hina) clause. Note (a) removal or destruction; (b) things that have been made, that is, creation which was brought into being by the hand of God (see e.g. Ps. 8:3,6;102:25; Isa.48:13, etc.); and (c) the unshakable remaining. It may be complained, of course, that the children of God are creatures of time not eternity. What needs to be recognised, however, is that through faith in the eternal Christ (John 8:25f.; Rom. 6:22) they have come to share in the unshakable, the eternal life of God (Rom. 8:10; 1 Pet.4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4) who is the Father of spirits (Num. 16:22; Heb. 12:9 and note John 1:13), as was the intention from before the foundation of the world (Mt. 25:34; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2, etc.).

Hebrews 12:27 also bears interesting comparison with 1 Corinthians 1:28; 2:6; 6:13; 13:8 (2x); 13:10; 15:24,26 all of which provide, like 7:31 (cf. 1 John 2:17), either direct or indirect evidence of the basic imperfection or inadequacy of the physical creation. Fee, to whom I owe these references, quotes Conzelmann to the effect that “the things that are” belong “to the negative side” (p. 83 n.23). In other words, the physical creation including the flesh is not only imperfect and inherently incapable of (spiritual) perfection but frequently, though not always, like all things “made by hand” even by God (cf. Heb. 9:11,24), referred to pejoratively Scripture. (This truth is further underscored by references such as John 3:3,7,31; 19:11; Col. 3:1-7; Jas. 1:17; 3:15,17. John 3:31 highlights the issue. John the Baptist’s testimony “betrays nothing of sinfulness but only finitude and limitation” (Carson, ad loc. p.212), for John was a burning and shining light (John 5:35) and his testimony was true (John 10:41).) To put the matter bluntly, there is no ultimate future in transient materiality. God has something better in store.

________________________________________________________

References (additional to those listed above)

H.F.Bayer in Witness to the Gospel, ed. Marshall and Peterson, Grand Rapids, 1998.

E.Beyreuther, NIDNTT, 2, Exeter, 1976.

G.R.Beasley-Murray, NCBC Revelation, London, 1974.

F.F.Bruce, The Book of Acts, London, repr. 1956.

F.F.Bruce, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, Grand Rapids, 1984.

F.F.Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1964.

F.F.Bruce, GNBC Philippians, Basingstoke, 1983.

F.F.Bruce, Romans, Rev. Ed., Leicester, 1985.

D.A.Carson, The Gospel According to John, Leicester, 1991.

C.E.B.Cranfield, St Mark, Cambridge, 1963.

A.B.Davidson, Hebrews, Edinburgh, 1959.

D.A.deSilva, Perseverance and Gratitude, Grand Rapids, 2000.

G.D.Fee, NIC The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, 1987.

G.D.Fee, NIC Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, Grand Rapids, 1995.

W.Grundmann, TDNT, 3, Grand Rapids, 1966.

P.E. Hughes, Hebrews, Grand Rapids, 1977.

J.N.D.Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, Grand Rapids, repr. 1981.

W.L.Lane, WBC Hebrews, 2 Vols., Dallas, 1991.

A.T.Lincoln, WBC Ephesians, Dallas, 1990.

E.Lohse, TDNT, Vol.1X.

I.H. Marshall, Acts, Leicester, 1980.

I.H. Marshall, Jesus the Saviour, London, 1990.

C.L.Mitton, NCB Ephesians, London. 1973.

J.A.Motyer, BST Philippians, 1984.

R.A.Morey, Death and the Afterlife, Minneapolis, 1984.

J.Murray, NLC The Epistle to the Romans, London, 1967.

P.T.O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Milton Keynes, 1987.

J.Stott, The Message of Acts, Leicester, 1990.

J.Stott, God’s New Society, Leicester, 1979.

J.Stott, The Message of Romans, Leicester, 1994.

J.Stott, The Incomparable Christ, Leicester, 2001.

B.F.Westcott, The Epistles of John, London, 1883.

N.T.Wright, Colossians and Philemon, Leicester, 1986.

N.T.Wright, The Challenge of Jesus, Downers Grove, 1999.

Among various matters in dispute among those who believe that God has spoken to us in Scripture (Heb.1:1) is the question of whether the material creation, the earth in particular, is to be annihilated, purged, restored, renewed, redeemed, re-created, repristinated, transformed or replaced. On the face of it, the evidence appears somewhat ambiguous, but this in all probability arises from certain false assumptions, based on traditional theology, made about critical passages in the Bible, the principal one being Romans 8:18-25.

To my knowledge it has been all but universally held, at least in the West, that Paul is here elaborating Genesis 3:17-19, but his stress on the hope of glory, at present invisible, and his failure to mention sin scarcely harmonises with this. The difference between death throes and birth pangs is dramatic, though it is important to note that the two can occur together (Gen. 35:16-20; cf. John 12:24). Paul was doubtless well aware of this, and he points to the connection here in Romans 8 (cf. Acts 2:24; 1 Thes. 5:3 and note 2 Cor. 4:11f.; Gal. 4:19).

For many years and for various reasons I have held that the usual understanding is erroneous. While it is true that Genesis 1 teaches that creation was ‘good’ (Gk. kalos, literally ‘beautiful’) and we naturally tend to think that everything that God does is (morally) good, the Hebrew, like the Greek (cf. 1 Tim. 4:3f.), word at this point almost certainly means useful or ideally suited to its intended purpose (cf. Eccl. 3:11) of habitation (cf. Gen. 8:21f.; Isa. 45:12,18; 54:9f; Jer. 27:5; Mt. 5:45; Acts 14:17; 2 Cor. 5:5, etc.). Thus green plants are ‘good’ (kalos) for food (Gen. 2:9; 3:6; 1 Tim. 4:4, cf. Gen. 2:18). Why then, it may be asked, does the LXX refer to the good (agathos) land flowing with milk and honey (Ex. 3:8; Num. 14:7, cf. Mt. 7:17; contrast Egypt, Num. 16:13, cf. 11:5, which was certainly not good)? It may be replied that kalos and agathos are usually synomymous (see Grundmann, TDNT, 3,543f.; 1:10; 2:98, Beyreuther, in NIDNTT, 2, pp.98ff., Mounce, pp.240, 32,116). I would suggest, however, that the reason may well be that the Promised Land, like heaven which is characterised by the divine presence (Lev. 26:12; Dt.12:11; 1 K. 8:29; Ps. 11:4), was ‘good’ (agathos) in a moral sense like God himself (cf. Mark 10:18). It was a goal (cf. John 17:3) the Israelites were under a divine obligation to reach (Num. 13:2; 14:40; Dt. 1:8,21f., cf. Num. 15:39. Barclay quotes Hort to the effect that agathos is good in result, p. 154) so that the promise made to Abraham might be fulfilled. Numbers 13 and 14 are full of instruction at this point. While Joshua and Caleb are commended, the majority of the spies become the butt of God’s anger. The same is true in the NT where many prefer earth to heaven (e.g. Rom. 2:7f.; Phil.3:19-21; 2 Tim. 4:10, cf. Heb. 12:16; Rev. 6:10, etc.). In his commentary on Romans 8:28, Schreiner says that the ‘good’ is eschatological and will be realised at the end of time (p.450). So while the immediate ‘good’ to which the ancient people of God had to aspire was the Promised Land, so that to which we as Christians aspire is heaven, the presence of God himself (cf. Heb. 11:8-16).

This suggestion receives support from the recognition that the OT stresses that creation was achieved, like Israel’s redemption from Egypt, “by hand” (Ps. 102:25; 119:73; Isa. 48:13, etc.). Students of this term such as Lohse (TDNT, 1X, p.431) have contended that the expression relates exclusively to the Old Testament, and quotations in the NT underline its pejorative nature (see e.g. Mark 14:58; Col. 2:11). For all that, there is a tendency among theologians to imagine that what the expression indicates is the difference between man-made and God-made. However, 2 Corinthians 5:1 and Hebrews 1:10f., for example, hardly fit in with this. (Note also Acts 17:24f.). Consequently, we are led to infer that the natural creation as made “by hand” (Ps. 8:3,6), though “good” that is, ideally suited to its purpose, was certainly not perfect. Had it been so, it would hardly have required man to exercise dominion over it. And even man was to be regulated by a “hand-written” law (Col. 2:14) which in the event proved “faulty” or inadequate (Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7,13, cf. 2 Cor. 3:11f.; John 3:31). Furthermore, as the very first words of the Bible signify, since creation had a beginning, it was temporal and in strong contrast with its perfect eternal Creator (Dt. 32:40; 145:13, cf. Rom. 1:23; Heb. 7:3,16,23-25), as I shall proceed to emphasise.

The Teaching of Jesus

First, Jesus himself clearly taught that the present creation along with the law would eventually pass away (Mt. 5:18; Heb. 8:13). In Matthew 24:35 (cf. v.29) he endorses this but in the process points up a contrast between the law and his own words, as France indicates (p.115, cf. Isa. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:25; 1 John 2:17). Other teaching of Jesus also points to the inherent transitoriness of the material world. For example, what he says about rust and moths in Matthew 6:19-21, (cf. Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Jas. 5:2f.), aging in Luke 12:33, and food in John 6:27ff. (cf. 4:13f.; Mt. 15:17) would seem to imply that what is natural must be perishable or corruptible even apart from sin (cf. 1 Tim. 4:3f. where, as indicated above, the Greek word ‘kalos’ is used). Indeed, Jesus implies in John 4:13f. (cf. 6:49-51,58) that the water we repeatedly drink like the food we eat (6:27) in this world is ultimately as futile (cf. Mt. 15:17) as the OT sacrifices referred to in Hebrews 10:1f. Man, like the animals that God feeds (Ps. 104: 21; Mt. 6:26) simply cannot live forever on (material) bread alone (Mt. 4:4).

The Teaching of Paul

When we turn to Paul we find that his teaching conforms to that of his Master. Though he intimates in Romans 1:20 that the visible creation testifies to the eternal power and deity of God, he nonetheless insists in 2 Corinthians 4:18 that the things that are seen are transient (cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Rom. 8:18,24f.; Heb. 12:27) and subject to wear and aging (cf. Col. 2:22; Heb. 1:11). In Romans 1:23 he explicitly contrasts the glory of the immortal, or more specifically the incorruptible, God with mortal earth-derived man and his artefacts (cf. Ps. 106:20; Jer. 2:11). Further, he stresses that those (i.e. mortal men and women) who persist in doing good do so in order to gain immortality (i.e. incorruptibility, Rom. 2:7,10). He too was convinced that the law, which was written by the finger of God (Ex. 31:18), like the physical body (1 Cor. 15:42ff.; 2 Cor. 4:16; 5:1) also made “by hand” (Job 10:8; Ps. 119:73, cf. 2 Cor. 5:1), was in the process of passing away (2 Cor. 3:11). For Paul as for Jesus, food is naturally destructible or corruptible and the stomach along with it (1 Cor. 6:13). This suggests that while some things may be lawful (e.g. eating, physical exercise), they have limited value, and to set one’s heart on them can only lead to final corruption (Gal. 6:7f.,cf. Rom. 8:13). In other words, it must be said yet again that man cannot live on bread alone. The fact to be faced is that the advent of the age to come means the oblivion of the present age and all it comprises (1 Cor. 2:6; 7:31; 13:10; 2 Cor. 5:17). (This present ‘age’, cf. Luke 20:34-36, surely refers to this temporal age of creation, even this world, cf. 2 Tim. 4:10, which presupposes the age to come, Eph. 1:21. Though true, it is somewhat misleading to suggest that “The old age is the age of fallen humanity, running from the Fall to the Last Judgment”, Frame, p.558. Sin may feature in this age, Gal. 1:4, but it is not an essential part of it. If it were, then God himself as its creator would be compromised as he is by the traditional view of original sin. God’s light shone out of darkness at creation, cf. 2 Cor. 4:6, that is, before the advent of sin, and the darkness is passing away and giving way to the true light, 1 John 2:8.) According to Paul (Rom. 9:28f.), a decree of destruction (cf. Isa. 28:22) has been passed on the earth as at Sodom and Gomorrah, but people, like Lot (Lu. 17:29) may yet be saved in the mercy of God (v.33, cf. Oswalt 1, p.520). When Jesus returns in the glory of God, he will rescue his own from a fiery holocaust (2 Thes. 1:7).

If all this is true, it is impossible not to conclude that the traditional understanding of Romans 8:19-22 is unique in Paul. Brendan Byrne (as referred to by Burke, p.181 n.6) claims that its distinctiveness arises from the fact that the apostle here for the first time considers human beings in relation to the non-human created world. However, this assumption of uniqueness leads us willy-nilly to conclude that the passage is a contradiction of what Paul teaches elsewhere, for in 1 Corinthians 15:50 he explicitly denies that the corruptible can inherit the incorruptible. Jesus had implied the same in his conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:1-7). Man may live bodily in heaven (Rom. 8:23) but not physically (materially).

The Teaching of Hebrews

The writer to the Hebrews also believed unequivocally in the impermanent nature of both creation and the law, as 1:10-12 and 8:13 (cf. v.7) make clear. The similarity of language in 1:11 and 8:13 can easily be picked up in both English and Greek. Furthermore, this author, like others, is very much aware of the difference between a creation that was made ‘by hand’ and one that is not (1:10; 9:11,24). It is worth commenting that, with its emphasis on the contrast between the nature of angels and that of the Son, the first chapter of Hebrews, apart from verses 3 and 9, has nothing to say about sin. This suggests that the difference between the impermanence of created things (cf. 12:27) and the enduring of the heavenly world (1:3,6,13) of the Son who inhabits it (1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2) is intrinsic.

The Teaching of Peter

Other considerations apart, it is surely fair to say that the implication of 1 Peter 1:3f. (cf. vv.7,18,23; 5:4) and the natural meaning of 2 Peter 3:7,10-12 (cf. 1:11) point to the total dissolution or annihilation of the earth and all it contains (cf. Heb.12:27). Regarding the latter, Kelly says it is ‘demanded‘ (p.365). On the other hand, Bauckham, along with many others, jibs at this on the ground that Romans 8:21 and other extra-biblical literature “describe a renewal, not an abolition, of creation” (p.326). This, however, is precisely what must be questioned in view of the apparently categorical statements in the references made above and others which occur elsewhere in Scripture such as Deuteronomy 32:22; Psalm 90:3ff.; 97:3-5; 102:3f.,11; Isaiah 13:9-13; 33:14 (cf. Heb.12:29); 51:6,8; 54:10; Joel 2:10 (cf. Mt. 24:29); Hab. 3:5; Zeph. 1:18; 3:8; Heb. 10:34; 11:8-10,13-16; 13:14). Further, it is worth observation at this point that Peter refers to the removal of his own body of flesh (2 Pet. 1:14) in a manner that calls to mind the reference of the author of Hebrews to the removal (metathesis) of all created things (12:27) though he uses a slightly different compound (apothesis) to describe it. 2 Peter has more to teach us as we shall see further below.

The Teaching of James

James underlines the transience of created things notably in 1:10f. and 5:2f. and by implication in 1:12 where he refers to the fulfilment of the promise of life when our earthly pilgrimage has finished. Unsurprisingly, James (4:4), like John (1:2:15), warns us against loving this world.

The Teaching of John

This brings us to the writings of John (I am assuming that he is the author of the gospel, the epistles and Revelation). While more detail is required than is presented here, the implication of much of what is said in the gospel is that heaven and the presence of God is our future home, not a refurbished or even a newly created earth. Jesus goes back where he came from with the intention of preparing the way for those who put their trust in him (3:13; 6:62; 13:3; 14:2-4; 16:28; 17:5,24). The contrast between perishable earth and abiding heaven is the same as in Hebrews, for example, (3:3-6,27,31; 6:27,32f.,37-40,58,63; 8:23,58; 11:25; 12:25; 16:33; 17:15f.; 18:36). Clearly only Jesus, who alone conquered the world (16:33, cf. Heb. 2:9f.), could unlock the gates of heaven and let us in (3:16; 20:31)! In the epistles the contrast is plainly etched in 1:2:15-17 (cf. 1 Cor. 7:31). Unless we unwarrantably limit “the world” to sinful human society, the same is true in 5:4f. To the extent that anything is clear in the highly symbolic book of Revelation, the teaching in 6:13f.; 8:5; 11:19; 16:20f.; 20:11 and 21:1-5 harmonises with the evidence presented above. (On the new heavens and new earth, see below.)

Romans 8:21

In view of all this we are compelled to take another look at Romans 8:21 which has been interpreted against the background of Augustinian theology in such a way as to require the redemption (Dunn, p.471), regeneration (Murray, p.305) and transformation of the material universe (see e.g. Bruce, Romans, pp.160f.). Though he produces evidence that appears to militate against it, F. Merkel in his article on phtheiro (destroy, etc.) puts the issue as follows: “The defeat of death through the victory of Christ affects the whole cosmos. Through the sin of man it has been subjected to mortality, but the redemption of mankind means the redemption of the creation. It will be set ‘free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God’ (Rom. 8:21)” (NIDNTT, 1, p.470). But does this verse really support the notion of death and corruption through sin leading to redemption, purgation, restoration, renewal, regeneration, rejuvenation or even repristination? If Adam’s sin led to curse in time, then logically Christ’s righteousness should have led to its reversal in time. But by all accounts it has not (cf. Heb. 2:8). The reasoning is clearly faulty.

Presuppositions

Before going further it is important to lay our cards on the table. Those who opt for an interpretation of Romans 8:21 which involves the redemption of creation assume an Augustinian worldview, that is, original perfection, sin, fall and universal curse. Thus they speak of creation as fallen! However, in light of evidence of the kind I have provided above, I am compelled to deny this. My contention is that, since it is temporal in contrast with its eternal Creator, creation was never perfect: rather it was useful, a tool or temporary expedient in God’s hands and was noticeably “made by hand” (Isa. 45:12; 48:13, etc.). It was a means but certainly not an end and was subjected to futility by divine purpose apart from sin (8:20). So, whatever Romans 8:21 means, I submit that it cannot refer to the redemption or restoration of creation. So, bearing in mind the presuppositions which colour my interpretation, I offer the following analysis.

Literally verse 21 reads: “because the creation itself also (or, even the creation itself) will be freed from the slavery of corruption to (or into) the freedom of the glory of the children of God”. Modern translations like NIV, RSV, REB, Jerusalem and ESV, having referred to ‘creation’ or ‘universe’, lead us to believe that ‘into the freedom’ (NKJV) means something like ‘will obtain’, ‘participate in’ or ‘share in’ that freedom. But, in the light of the evidence presented above, this looks suspiciously like pre-emption, paraphrase and potential perversion, even special pleading, especially since Paul is quite capable of writing ’to obtain salvation’ (eis peripoiesin soterias) in full (1 Thes. 5:9; 2 Thes. 2:14, cf. Heb. 10:39). This gives us the clue to another possibility. The Greek word ‘eis’ can have telic force, as in the references just mentioned, and mean ‘with a view to’ or ‘for the purpose of’ (cf. Mt. 3:11a, 26:28; Rom. 1:1, and especially Col. 1:16. See also Fung, pp.216,244 n.2). If this is accepted, it is then possible to see what Paul is getting at. In tune with what he says in 1 Corinthians 15:42ff., 2 Corinthians 4:16 and 5:1, where he deals with our physical (natural), earth-derived bodies, which are creation in miniature, he is saying that creation, or the creature (cf. Rom. 1:25 KJV), gains its freedom by being destroyed (cf. 1 Thes. 5:3; Gal. 4:19) and changed (1 Cor. 15:50ff.), and this paves the way for the children of God to receive the freedom of glory. In other words, just as the physical or lowly (RSV) body is destroyed before it is transformed into a body of glory (cf. Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2f.), so creation, which belongs to this present (evil) age (Gal.1:4), is destroyed to give sole sway to an already existing heaven where Christ has gone ahead to prepare a place for us (John 14:2f.; 17:5,24, cf. Heb. 6:20; 12:2. Here we may note 2 Tim. 4:8,18 where Paul is sure of being saved for God’s heavenly kingdom despite death and physical corruption which he had hoped to avoid (2 Cor. 5:2f.; Phil. 1:21-23).

As a possibly more credible alternative to this, we can follow the KJV and translate ktisis as creature in verses 19,20 and 21. Then, in verse 20 the “not willingly” (implying complete subjection to the divine will) makes more obvious sense as, in verse 21, does the idea of the creature being set free from bondage to decay in order to experience the freedom of the glory that will characterise the children of God in heaven (Rom. 8:17). Susceptibility to corruption or bondage to decay, after all, as Genesis 2:17, like 1:1, implies, was evident from the start. For fleshly and hence mortal (not immortal as Augustine maintained) Adam, obedience promised eternal life apart from mortal flesh (cf. John 3:6; 1 Cor. 15:50). In the event, it was left to the second Adam to achieve it (2 Tim. 1:10). There is little doubt that this interpretation accords with the rest of Scripture.

Even if, however, we adopt the first view, creation, including ourselves as part of it (2 Cor. 5:2-4), is seen to be in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in us (cf. Gal. 4:19). Then, in essence, Romans 8:21 is saying little more than verse 19. If this is the case, there can scarcely be any doubt that the evidence at our disposal is again in substantial harmony (though see further below). On reflection, it is striking that writers, while acknowledging the link between man and nature, proceed to draw the conclusion that just as man’s body is redeemed so is creation (see e.g. Bruce, p.160. See further on this below.). In doing so, they ignore the teaching about the destruction of the physical or fleshly body so plainly set forth in 2 Cor. 4:16-5:1 (cf. Gen. 3:19, cf. Ps. 104:29) and implied in 1 Cor. 15:35ff., Rom. 8:13 and Gal. 6:8. Fee’s comment on 1 Corinthians 15:50 is worth repeating: “The two lines are most likely to be understood as synonymous parallelism, so that the second makes the same point as the first. Together they declare most decisively that the body in its present physical expression cannot inherit the heavenly existence of vv. 47-49. Of the two terms that describe present physical existence, the second, ‘the perishable’, was used in v. 42 and will be repeated in vv. 52-54” (p.798. See also his comment on Philippians 3:21, ad loc.). The unequivocal argument of the NT writers is that just as the physical body of flesh and blood is destroyed, so is the material creation from which it derives (cf. Isa. 51:6; Zeph. 1:18; 3:8). The two, being interrelated and interdependent, stand or fall together.

It would seem that there has been a failure on the part of many, perhaps under the influence of Bultmann who taught that man is a body, to recognise that man constitutes a dualism and is made up of two components (cf. the two Adams!) – flesh (earth) and spirit (heaven), and it is the latter alone that is redeemable (cf. John 3:6; Heb. 12:23; 1 Pet. 4:6. As body and soul man can doubtless be regarded as monistic.). Certainly our bodies are not left out of account for they are transformed into “spiritual” bodies (1 Cor. 15:44; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2). (I have addressed this subject at some length elsewhere and concluded, in view of the evidence of the NT writers, the impossibility of continued physicality or materiality.) On the other hand, the only reference to change in the material universe that I can discover is in Hebrews 1:12 where, in light of verse 11 and 8:13, the meaning is obvious.

Before leaving Romans 8:21, I feel it is perhaps necessary to focus again on the alternative interpretation already referred to above. Elsewhere I have made much of the fact that both Adam and Israel have two meanings which commentators sometimes find difficult to distinguish (cf. e.g. Wenham, pp. 32,82,126). Paul’s language and thought alike are highly sophisticated and subtle as is evinced by his use of ‘seed’ in Galatians 3:16, for example (cf. John 15:1ff.; Phil. 3:2, etc. See also Paul’s use of pneuma to refer both to the human spirit and the Holy Spirit, e.g. 8:14-16, and his play on words with regard to law in 1 Cor. 9:20f. and glory in 2 Cor. 3:9-11). And it is in Romans that the apostle makes an explicit distinction between physical and spiritual ‘Israel’ (2:28f.; 9:6-8). Since I would argue that in spite of his clear references to national Israel throughout most of Romans 9-11, ‘all Israel’ in 11:26 (cf. Gal. 6:16) probably means “all believers in Christ” or, at the very least, “all Israelite believers in Christ”, I am logically bound to allow the possibility that he is using the same word (i.e. creation) in a slightly different if related sense here in Romans 8 (cf. 1:25; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Col. 1:15,23). If we admit with the KJV and Michaels, whose essay in “Romans and the People of God”, pp.92ff., repays very careful reading, that in verse 21 at least ‘creation’ can, or rather should, be translated ‘creature’, meaning man himself, then harmony, especially with vv. 14-17 and 2 Corinthians 4 and 5 can be more easily recognised. It seems to me that ktisis in 1:25 (cf. Dt. 4:16-19; Col. 1:23; Heb. 4:13), in particular can be translated either way without materially altering the sense. The same is arguably true here for, as I have already said, the physical creation and man, who derives from it, stand or fall together. (In case I am accused of special pleading, I would urge the reader to consider how John uses the word ‘world’ in more than one sense and even in the same verse. See, for example, John 1:10 on which Ridderbos comments, “the term ‘world’ is not unambiguous either here or elsewhere in the Gospel”, p.44. See also 2 Samuel 7 for the ambiguous use of the word ‘house’ and Galatians 3 for the word ‘seed’, clearly differentiated in 1 Pet. 1:23. The latter is important when exegeting 1 Corinthians 15:35ff. Furthermore, if I already knew that ktisis can mean both ‘creation’ and ‘creature’ and was asked to translate Romans 8:21 in isolation from its context, I would not dream of using the word ‘creation’. See also Grudem, 1 Peter, pp.171f.) Indeed, on reflection, it seems rather odd that Paul, having alluded to ‘creation’ in verse 20 should use the expression ‘also (or even) the creation itself’ in the very next verse unless he is pointing up a difference or contrast (cf. Cranfield, 415, and Michaels, p.105). Thus, if by “the creature itself” he means man (Adam) who, as a product of the naturally corruptible creation, was created mortal but in hope of eternal life (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5, etc., which is a promise of life if the commandment is kept, and note Rom. 1:23, 2:7,10 and 1 Pet. 4:6), then what he is saying not only makes very good sense but eliminates the contradiction between his own, and indeed the rest of the Bible’s, teaching regarding the natural corruptibility of the temporal creation (cf. Burke who quotes Byrne, p.181 n.6). This point seems to gain even more pertinence when we consider that in the very next verse (22) he refers to ‘the whole creation’ as if in contradistinction to ‘the creature itself’ of verse 21. What is more, in verse 23 he again contrasts, or rather compares, ‘the creation’ with ‘we ourselves’ who, as in verse 21, look forward to adoption and its benefits. To dismiss this as mere playing with words seems to me to do injustice to the subtlety of Paul’s mind and perhaps the nuances of the Greek language he was using.

But there is more to be said. It would seem that my contention receives yet further support from verse 23, for here Paul does not allude to the resurrection of the body but to its redemption. Why? The answer must surely lie in the fact that on account of sin man normally loses his body (of flesh) through death and corruption (Gen. 3:19, cf. 8:10). In other words, as Paul, who apparently did not relish the prospect of nakedness (2 Cor. 5:3), was well aware, when physical corruption or disintegration occurs man is indeed left naked, for he has, like Adam at the start (cf. Gen. 2:17; 3:19), forfeited his body (cf. Heb. 12:23, etc.). In these circumstances, there is, strictly speaking, no possibility of a resurrection involving restoration like that of Jesus, so the body must be redeemed. And this involves the gracious gift of “a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” or a “heavenly dwelling” (2 Cor. 5:1f., cf. 1 Cor. 15:37). But to talk in this way is to point unerringly yet once more to the fact that creation, like the FLESH which stems from it, cannot be subject to redemption (cf. John 3:3-6). The inherently perishable simply cannot inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50). (Various writers have pointed out that there is no reference in the NT to the bodies of the damned. If we assume that their bodies are not redeemed, then they are reduced to naked spirits which are incapable of the bodily satisfaction on which they set so much store while in the flesh. This will be hell indeed. Note the craving of the demons for bodily habitation in the gospels, Mk 5:12f.; Luke 11:24-26.)

On the assumption that this is the essence of the matter we can now paraphrase verse 21 as follows: “… because the creature (man) himself also, who is part of and representative of corruptible creation (cf. Gen. 2:7), will be set free from his bondage to decay (cf. Rom. 2:7,10) with a view to (or, in order to gain) the liberty of the glory of the children of God (cf. Rom. 1:23).” This surely harmonises with the general tenor of the passage (8:18-25) where Paul is contrasting future glory with present suffering (cf. 2 Cor. 4:17), the present age with the age to come (v.18. Cf. Luke 20:34-36 where the two basic characteristics of this age death implying corruption, Jos. 23:14, and procreation, Gen. 19:31, figure so prominently).

Finally, if this is what Paul intends in verse 21, Barrett’s comment on verse 19 (p.165) assumes new relevance. He writes that Paul’s “main object in mentioning the creation is to emphasise the certainty of future salvation for Christians. He is not concerned with creation for its own sake ….” Cranfield, while in basic agreement, complains that this statement is too categorical. On the contrary, I think Barrett has hit the nail on the head. Creation, like the flesh as part of it, is headed for ultimate destruction, not restoration as under the old covenant, and certainly not perfection, as Cranfield seems to think (p.414). What traditional theology under the influence of Augustine has failed to realise is that salvation is precisely deliverance from the natural bondage of the material creation and/or this present (evil) age (Gal. 1:4, cf. Eph. 1:21). This was surely implicit, as I have already suggested, in the original promise made to Adam before he transgressed (Gen. 2:17, cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:9). Because of sin, however, and man’s inability to keep the law, that promise proved unrealisable until Christ came, fulfilled all righteousness and brought incorruptibility to light for the first time (2 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 2:14f.).

One final point regarding Romans 8:21. It is quite remarkable that, given his theological stance, Murray who of all people might be expected to opt for the view that the corruption of creation is a consequence of sin, correctly in my view denies its ethical nature (p.304 and n.30). True, he tries to distinguish between earth and the rest of creation, but to all intents and purposes he contradicts himself having gratuitously referred to Genesis 3:17-19 on page 303. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the fact that its corruption is natural is that creation does not require redemption. It was never intended. (See more on Murray below.)

New Heavens and the New Earth

What about the new heavens and the new earth of 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1 which some see as proof positive of a re-creation or restoration supporting the usual view of Romans 8:21? First, the expression is clearly an OT one borrowed by Peter and John from Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22. (For the Jewish background and opposing views of these, see Beasley-Murray, pp. 305ff., who, though he produces evidence to the contrary, p.309, apparently embraces the strange idea that the city of God descends to earth (sic) even though the latter has fled away, Rev. 20:11,21:1,4, p.310, cf. Twelftree, pp.201,209.) This being the case, we need to recognise, as Bruce points out (Hebrews p.339, cf. pp.298f.), that the land loomed much more largely in the eyes of pious Israelites than the life to come for reasons spelt out at length by the author of Hebrews. In view of this it should not surprise us that “The new is portrayed wholly in terms of the old, only without its sorrows; there is no attempt to describe any other kind of newness” (Kidner, NBCRev., Isaiah, p.624). This contrasts to some extent with Revelation 21 and 22, though even there the imagery is inevitably physical. Next, Lane’s claim that the principle that a new act of God makes the old obsolete (pp.cxxxiii, 210,270) receives ample justification in Hebrews, and indeed elsewhere (e.g. 2 Cor. 3). When the new (i.e. the perfect and permanent, 1 Cor. 13:10; Heb. 1:10-12; 10:9; 12:27), which being eternal already exists, arrives, appears or is revealed, it inevitably takes over. Who uses candles when electricity is available or when the sun has risen following the appearance of the morning star (Rev. 2:28; 22:16)? This is essentially Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians 3.

The New Creation

What, it may be asked however, is the new? A totally new creation? The answer is both negative and affirmative: affirmative from our point of view who have previously been earthbound but are now born from above (John 3:3,7) and are a new creation, or creature, in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17) with our citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20), but negative in the sense that the new heavens and new earth translate simply into heaven (Heb. 11:10,16; 12:22; 13:14) or the abiding eternal world (2 Pet. 1:11; 1 Pet. 1:3f.; Heb. 9:15) which Jesus has re-entered (1 Pet. 3:22, cf. John 17:5) to bring us to God (John 14:2-6; 2 Cor. 4:14; Heb. 2:10; 6:19f.; 9:24; 10:19f.; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:18, cf. 1 Thes. 3:13; 4:17; 5:9). And it is here, in this kingdom of righteousness (2 Pet. 3:13; 1 Thes. 2:12) where God’s will is done (Mt. 6:10), that we shall see our Saviour’s glory (John 17:5,24, cf. 2 Thes. 1:10). All this would seem to be borne out by the new Jerusalem (Isa. 65:18f.), which also already exists, remains (Heb. 1:11, cf. Isa. 66:22) and is preserved for us (1 Pet. 1:4) in its heavenly form (Heb. 12:22) since she is our mother (Gal. 4:26), and which was manifested to John in his vision (Rev. 21:10, cf. 3:12; 21:2). In addition, it might usefully be pointed out that if God has already begun his eternal rest (Heb. 4:1-11), his continued work (John 5:17) will not involve creating a new material universe.

Restorationism Again

But the real reason for the current obsession with restorationism and new (or fresh) creationism, apart from an erroneous covenant theology, is surely a false view of the relationship between Genesis 3 and Romans 5. Here we can again blame Augustine who, despite the triumph of grace in his thought, did more than anyone else to queer the theologian’s pitch. The truth is that original perfection, original righteousness, original sin, universal Fall in Adam and cosmic curse all represent serious distortion of what the Bible actually teaches. Thus writers like Bruce, Murray and Stott, who emphasise the Fall, go badly astray when dealing with Romans 8:18-25. All flatly deny the annihilation of the earth despite the most explicit testimony to the contrary. Indeed, while Bruce, governed by his false understanding of Romans 5:12-21, contradicts in Romans 8 (pp.160f.) what he affirms in Hebrews (see e.g. pp.21, 383f.), and Stott implicitly denies what Paul explicitly teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:50 (pp.239f.), Murray claims that “annihilation is ultimate negation” (p.304 n.28). A little reflection on the Jewish temple, however, rules this out of court: it flies in the face of the facts. For though, as Jesus warned (cf. Mark 14:58), the temple in Jerusalem was totally destroyed, it was far from being negated as the following references make clear: John 2:19; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; Rev.21:22. And the same can be said not only with regard to circumcision (Rom. 2:28f.; Gal. 6:15; Col. 2:11) but to the body (1Cor. 6:13; 15:50; 2 Cor. 4:16; 5:1; Phil.3:21; 1 John 3:2f.). While corporeality is preserved, physicality or materiality certainly is not.

To sum up, after creation has been consumed by fire (Dt. 32:22; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12), we shall receive our eternal (Heb. 9:15) or heavenly inheritance (1 Pet. 1:4, cf. 2 Pet. 1:11) and dwelling (2 Cor. 5:1) and be at home with the Lord for evermore (1 Thes. 4:17, cf. John 12:26) in fulfilment of the age-old promise first glimpsed in Genesis 17:7, implied in Genesis 2 and 3 and resoundingly confirmed in Revelation 21:3 (cf. 7:15).

More Evidence

When dealing directly with Romans 8:21 above, I suggested that modern translations in general appear to pre-empt, paraphrase and pervert its meaning. Such is the conciseness of Paul’s language that I have had to resort to paraphrase myself (1*), and it may well be argued that such statements are in danger of boomeranging on the heads of those who make them. So, it must be asked, Is there still more evidence available to substantiate my case? I am convinced there is.

Jesus in Heaven

First, according to Psalm 8:5f. God’s original purpose in creation was to subject everything to the control of man and ultimately to crown him with glory and honour (in heaven, cf. Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7). This is noted by the writer to Hebrews who, in a somewhat ambiguous argument, indicates that this intention has been properly achieved only by man’s representative, the second Adam (2:5ff.). And, as we have already seen, Jesus now exercises his dominion not on earth, from which as a priest he was legally disqualified on genealogical grounds (Heb. 7:13f.; 8:4), but in heaven (Heb. 1:6; 2:5; John 17:24) at the right hand of the Father (Heb. 1:3, etc.). In other words, having suffered death and conquered (cf. John 16:33; 17:4f.; Rev. 3:21), he is now, like David whose throne he occupies in heaven (Lu. 1:32f.; Acts 2:29-36), in the process of making his enemies his footstool (Acts 2:32-35; 13:32-37; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Phil. 2:9-11, cf Jos. 10:24) like the creation itself (Isa. 66:1). Once this is accomplished, the temporal earth, which God from the beginning, in anticipation of something better, subjected to the bondage of corruption to encourage hope, will have served its purpose by producing its harvest of the sons of God, and will consequently be dispensed with (Heb. 6:7f.; 12:27; Col. 2:22, cf. Rom. 9:28f.; Mt. 5:13).

Harvest

It is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the harvest of the earth. Normally we associate harvest with fruit, grain and the like, but in the Bible the language of harvest is often metaphorical or analogical. The implication of this is that the earth, like the field or the vineyard, is not the harvest, but its fruit is. This point is underlined in Matthew 3:12, 13:30,36ff. and Revelation 14:14ff., for example. Men and women constitute the harvest and it was on their account that Jesus came to live and die (cf. John 3:16). It is also worth noting that Revelation 14:3 talks of redemption from the earth (apo tes ges, cf. Gal. 1:4). This is surely in harmony with Paul’s comment in Romans 8:21 (cf. 2:7) where it is people, specifically (spiritual as opposed to fleshly) children of God, not the material earth from which they stemmed, who make up the harvest. And Jesus himself was the first-fruits of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:23).

So, apart from the fact that the first heaven and the first earth will pass away (Rev. 20:11; 21:1,4), Jesus’ desire is that we who have believed in him should be with him (John 12:26; 14:19; 17:24) and that can only mean in heaven (John 14:3,6; 17:5; Col.3: 4; Heb. 2:10; Rev. 3:21, cf. Mt. 25:34), not least because at God’s right hand, having passed through the created heavens (Heb. 4:14) into heaven itself (Heb. 9:24) he is permanently separate(d) from sinners in a spatial sense (Heb.7:26 on which see, for example, Bruce, Lane, De Silva, ad loc. Hughes, consistent with his obsession with sin, opts for the moral view failing to recognise that Jesus was morally separate from sinners even while on earth, as the other adjectives in this verse imply. In support of his case he quotes Moffat who alludes to Heb. 9:28. This verse leads me to draw the opposite conclusion, i.e. that Jesus, having already dealt with sin, will have no more direct dealings with the corruptible creation, cf. Acts 13:34, except to rescue his own from it and pluck them as brands from the burning, Amos 4:11; Zech. 3:12; Jude 23, cf. 1 Thes. 4:17, at his second advent (2*). Cf. Gen.19:24-29 and Lot’s rescue from Sodom and Gomorrah which were totally destroyed.)

Freedom, Bondage and Death

Secondly, in the Bible freedom from bondage is almost always gained by death (supremely in sacrifice and atonement, of course, cf. 2 Cor. 4:11f.; Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:24). This was true in the case of Paul, as noted above (2 Tim. 4:18) and of John the Baptist (see also Romans 8:31ff. and Heb. 11:35). Perhaps even more to the point it is especially true with respect to law (Gal. 2:19; Rom. 7:1-6), to sin (Rom. 6:2,13; 1 Pet. 2:24), to the flesh (Col. 3:5; Gal. 5:24; Rom. 6:6), to the rudiments of this world (Col.2:20, cf. Gal. 4:3,9; Rev. 2:10), to fear (Rom. 8:15) and to death itself which is characteristic of this temporal world (Rom. 8:21; Heb. 2:14. Cf. the famous work of the Puritan, John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ). Jesus himself said on many occasions that in order to live eternally we must die according to the flesh (Mark 8:34f.; John 12:25; cf. Col. 3:5), first metaphorically then literally. He told the devil that man cannot live on bread alone but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Mt. 4:4). Thus, even he did not please himself (Mt. 26:39,42; Rom. 15:3) but prevailed over all his fleshly temptations (cf. Rom. 8:3) in his commitment to the perfect accomplishment of the will of his Father (John 4:34; 16:33; Heb. 4:15; James 3:2).

Bondage

Thirdly, it must be argued that the very word ‘bondage’ gives the lie to traditional assumptions. The word Paul uses for ‘groaning’ (Gk. stenazo), apart from its associations with birth, would immediately ring a bell with Hellenistic or Greek speaking Jews. They would instantly be reminded of their ancestors’ slavery in Egypt and their consequent groaning referred to in Exodus 2:23f. and later in Judges 2:18. While admittedly sin figures in Judges 2:17, it does not do so in Exodus. It is not surprising therefore to find that McComiskey maintains that the word ‘groaning’ is used of the consequence “of physical affliction and distress” (NIDNTT, Vol. 2, p.423). Referring to the NT he says, “Paul uses the term exclusively of sighing in the sense of longing for something (Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 5:2,4)” (ibid.). With regard to the noun ‘stenagmos’, he says it is used of the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt and elsewhere of their times of oppression.

McComiskey goes on to note the element of progression in Romans 8 from the groaning of the believer and of creation to that of the Holy Spirit. All this militates against the traditional obsession with sin. (The reference to the groaning of the Holy Spirit is reminiscent of Jesus at the raising of Lazarus. Sin was excluded then, for the aim was to glorify God.) Paul could hardly be unaware that his reference to ‘groaning’ set in a passage dealing with bondage and pregnancy would almost certainly prompt ideas of death (cf. Ex. 12:29; 14:26-29) and destruction (Ex. 10:7).

Yet another point of vital importance must be made. The strong emphasis of Hebrews and 2 Peter on the inherent transience of creation has already been noted. It needs further to be recognised, however, that 2 Peter 2:19 (cf. Rom. 6:16) describes wicked people, like creation itself (Rom. 8:21), as being in bondage to corruption, not specifically to sin. So, what is the point at issue? Surely not so much that they sin against the law but that, like Esau in Hebrews 12:16f., the sensual and hedonistic barter an eternal inheritance for an essentially temporary and hence corruptible one (cf. Mt. 6:19f., etc.). Their reward is in this temporal, corruptible world (Ps. 17:14; Luke 16:25; 1 Cor. 9:25) and not like that of Moses in the next (Heb. 11:24-28. See note 2 below). Paul, like John in 1:2:15-17 and Peter in 1:1:3f., highlights the same point in Romans 8:13 and Galatians 6:8, for example. Just as there is no future in the flesh, so there is no ultimate future in the present world (or age) from which escape is fundamentally necessary (3*). 2 Peter 1:4 (cf. Eph. 4:22), which is reminiscent of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:6, cf. James 1:14f.), and 2:12, which underlines the essential corruptibility and destructibility of the flesh, are in complete harmony with this (4*). This brings us back to Murray who is nothing if not inconsistent. He seems to regard phthora as having an ethical connotation in Gal. 6:8; 2 Pet. 1:4 and 2:19 but, as noted above, not in Rom. 8:21, Col. 2:22 and 2 Pet. 2:12a. The truth is that physical corruption as such, like the ‘good’ creation, is not ethical at all (cf. Luke 12:33; Col. 2:22), though unethical or corrupt conduct (cf. Gen. 6:11f.; Tit. 1:15) make us vulnerable to it and/ or hastens its effect. The assumption that it is arises from a failure to understand Genesis 1 and the implication of Genesis 2:17. Augustine’s belief that creation, including man, was originally perfect led to the notion of fall and universal curse. In contrast, what the Bible teaches, and surely this is Paul’s point, is that creation is naturally corruptible and that only man made in the image of God can by keeping the commandments escape its corruption (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, cf. John 3:1-7; Rom. 2:7; 2 Pet. 2:19). The ethical connection is indisputable, but neither creation nor the flesh itself is either (morally) good or bad. Sinless (amoral) plants and animals all alike die and succumb to corruption (cf. Gen. 1; Ps. 49:12,20; 106:20; Eccl. 3:18-20; Jude 10; 2 Pet. 2:12, etc.) even when they are fed by God (Ps. 104:21, etc.). As for us, even though we die and see corruption according to the flesh because we are sinners (Rom. 8:10), yet we shall live spiritually through faith in Christ (John 11:25, cf. Ps. 49:14f.) and the promises of God (2 Pet. 1:4). The flesh, being profitless (John 6:63) and incapable of good (Rom. 7:18), finally gives way to the corruption that characterises creation. Once they have served their purpose (cf. Col. 2:22), both are removed like corpses (2 Pet. 1:14; Heb. 12:27).

In light of this, 2 Peter 2:17-22, like Galatians 6:7f. and Romans 8:13, points to the fact that moral corruption (cf. Adam) leads inevitably to failure to escape physical corruption (Gen. 3:19). As 2 Peter 1:4 indicates, the morally corrupt are incapable of overcoming physical corruption since they have failed to meet the condition of life (Gen. 2:17; Ps. 8:5f.) involving participation in the divine nature and sharing God’s glory. (At this point I am led to say that the idea that the physical creation will participate, share in or obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God is not merely absurd but also, as I have intimated above, implicitly idolatrous. It confuses the creature with the Creator, Rom. 1:25.) The plain truth is that Peter provides strong support for the interpretation of Romans 8:19-25 that I am advocating. Bondage to corruption is the hallmark of a temporal creation, and to love this world is inevitably to court its death and corruption (1 John 2:15-17). Since this is so and we all sin and fail to meet the condition of life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5), the gospel is of fundamental importance and of universal relevance (2 Tim. 1:10). With regard to the latter reference, we do well to remind ourselves that Jesus himself, who never sinned though he died on our behalf, did not, like Adam (Gen. 3:19), experience corruption (Acts 2:31, etc.); rather he put everything in subjection under his feet and thus became the perfect man (Ps. 8:6, cf. Heb. 2:5-10). In other words, having fulfilled the condition of the promise of life, he transcended or escaped from (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4) the natural corruption of the world, including his own flesh, and inherited life both for himself and all who trust in him (Heb. 2:9-15; 5:7-10). On the other hand, in his flesh Jesus was clearly mortal like Adam before him: he inevitably experienced the aging process (Luke 2:41ff.; John 8:57) and would have died had he lived long enough on the earth. As Jesus himself makes clear in John 3, the need to be born again stems primarily from the fact that we are impermanent flesh living on an impermanent earth (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50). And it was precisely he himself who, having kept the law and exercised proper dominion over creation (cf. Heb. 2:6-9), brought the life and “incorruption” (2 Tim. 1:10) God had promised from the start (Gen. 2:17, cf. Rom. 7:9f.). So, it is important to re-iterate and stress the point that the sinless Jesus himself in the flesh was clearly subject not only to death (1 Pet. 3:18) but also to corruption (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16). But his resurrection (cf. Acts 2:23f.), including his ascension, exaltation, glorification and heavenly session, was the culmination of his escape or exodus (Luke 9:31). In escaping himself, as our representative and pioneer, he also paved the way for us to escape too (cf. Heb. 2:3,10-15).

Galatians 1:4

I have already referred more than once to Galatians 1:4 which highlights Paul’s belief in two ages (cf. Eph. 1:21). This points to the fact that the age to come has always been our destiny as human beings made in the image of God even apart from sin (cf. Ps. 8:5f.; Gen. 2:17; Rom. 2:7,10). Thus, while in Galatians 1:4 (5*) and Colossians 1:13 sin figures prominently, in Romans 8:18-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:5 the need for transference, transformation or glorification arises from the nature of creation itself which belongs to the present temporal age (cf. Mt. 28:20 in contrast with Mark 10:30; Lu. 20:34-36). Jesus, like Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:50, was surely making the same point without reference to sin in John 3:1-7 where he insisted that all those born of the flesh (and he himself was born of the flesh!) needed to be born again in order to achieve transference into the kingdom of God or the age to come. In the present age because death is all-pervasive the procreation or reproduction of both plant and animal is a dire necessity (cf. Gen.1; Ps. 49:12,20; Isa. 40:6-8, etc.), in the age to come there is neither death nor reproduction (Luke 20:34-36). Because Jesus has brought life and immortality to life, we can be sure that in heaven we shall enjoy the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

This brings up another point made by Jesus. In John 12:24f. he underlines the importance of the role of death during this present age. While the need for death is evident in Genesis 1 where plants are given for food, Jesus points out its necessity for reproduction. Death bears fruit, but so does a human life lived by putting the flesh to death (cf. Mark 8:35; Col. 3:1-5). Glorifying God in our bodies necessitates their crucifixion (cf. Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24) and sacrifice on the altar of worship (Rom. 12:1). In light of this and since man was meant to exercise dominion over all earthly things including his own flesh from the beginning, it is scarcely cause for surprise that at the end the flesh is permanently cast out (Gal. 4:30; 2 Cor. 5:1) like the physical creation in general (Heb. 12:27).

Pregnancy

Before going further it is important for us to look more closely at the figure of pregnancy. This image appears quite frequently in Scripture with ‘an assortment of applications’ (Ridderbos, p.539. See, for example, Ps. 48:5-8; Isa. 13:6-13; 21:2f.; 26:16-21; 66:7-14; Jer. 6:24; 13:21; 22:23; 30:5-9; Mic. 4:9f.). In the Bible pregnancy has none of the evil connotations associated with the traditional Augustinianism. Rather it relates not to sin and curse but to the fruitfulness and the fulfilment of the creation (Gen. 1:11) and cultural mandates articulated in Genesis 1:28. With regard to John 16:21f., Carson avers that Isaiah 26:16-21 is especially important because “it contains the figure of a woman in childbirth, the words ‘a little while’ and the promise of resurrection” (p.544). Jesus himself refers not merely to the truth observable in nature that death gives rise to new life (John 12:24f.), but also to the end-times using the metaphor of birth pangs (Mt. 24:8; Mark 13:8). While in John the suffering is endured by Jesus (cf. 2 Cor. 4:12; Gal. 4:19), in Romans 8:18-25 and arguably in 2 Corinthians 5:2-4 it is creation that is involved (and we do well to remember that Jesus as part of creation suffered and conquered, John 16:33, in the flesh, Rom. 8:3; 1 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 2:9f.; 12:2, etc.). This reminds us immediately of 1 Thessalonians 5:3, which refers explicitly to destruction with joy implied in what follows (v.9, cf. Gen. 35:16-20 where the child of sorrow becomes ‘the son of my right hand’, and note Isa. 66:14).

Again, it has to be said that the world, which was created to be inhabited (Isa. 45:18); Gen. 8:21f.), was always intended to produce its harvest of the sons of God (cf. Rev. 14:14-16) despite concomitant destruction (Rev. 14:17ff.: note v.18 with its reference to ‘the angel who has power over fire’). And so in Romans 8 and 2 Corinthians 4-5. Pregnancy ultimately gives way to birth, for God’s purpose cannot be frustrated. (See further note 3 below.) This might be taken to imply that the corruptible can produce the incorruptible (cf. Stott, p. 240), but that is impossible (1 Cor. 15:50; John 3:6). What is involved is the difference in order (1 Cor. 15:23,46), the distinction, even disparity, between the physical (or natural) and the spiritual (2 Cor. 5:1, cf. Isa. 31:3; 66:7-9), the visible and the invisible (Rom. 8:18,24f.; 2 Cor. 4:18), the earthly and the heavenly (2 Cor. 5:1; Luke 16:9). And it is the latter, definitely not the former, for which we wait in eager anticipation (Rom. 8:25; 2 Cor. 4:18; 5:2,4). This is further borne out by Paul’s mention of deliverance (or rescue or escape), which would not simply recall the exodus itself but entry into the Promised Land. Assuming typologically that Egypt symbolises this present material world and the flesh (cf. Ex. 16:3), to which there was no going back (Dt. 17:16; 2 Pet. 2:21f.), and the Promised Land heaven (cf. Heb. 11:16), his readers would be inevitably reminded of the afflictions of the wilderness journey (cf. Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17). And this brings us to yet another matter of crucial importance which Augustinianism, with its exclusive focus on sin and curse, has hidden from our eyes.

Creation Imperfect

Creation itself is a problem since it constitutes for us “resident aliens in a foreign land” (Marshall, p.30, cf. Heb. 11:13; Ps. 39:12, etc.) a wilderness, which the OT constantly insists has to be subjected to the rule of man (e.g. Gen. 1:26,28; Lev. 26:3ff.; Dt. 28:1ff.). I noticed many years ago when considering Paul’s description of his own sufferings that while some of them were the result of sin – persecution, hostility and the rest – others stemmed from his earthly environment (cf. Acts 27 and Luke 13:1-5) and his personal fleshly weakness including his sickness, as 2 Corinthians 4:8-12, 6:3-10, 11:23-30 and 12:7-10 make clear. But the same is true in Romans 8:35-39 which should surely be correlated with 8:18-25. Like Jesus himself, we have to conquer not simply sin and persecution but intrinsic weakness (cf. 2 Cor. 13:4; Heb. 4:15) and the problems inherent in the futile creation (cf. Mt. 24:7f.) over which our original calling was to exercise dominion (Gen. 1:26,28). Needless to add, this was uniquely and representatively achieved by Jesus (Heb. 2:8f.) through whom alone we are more than conquerors. And just as it is surely wrong to limit the ‘world’ that Jesus conquered to the organised opposition and hostility of godless men (John 16:33, cf. Rom. 8:3), so it is wrong to suggest that all Paul is concerned with in Romans 8 is sin and its resultant curse. The plain truth is that, sin apart, the temporal, naturally futile and corruptible creation presents us with countless difficulties which have to be surmounted (cf. Gen. 1:28). But the time will come when we, who through Christ triumph over the trials and tribulations of this world (cf. Acts 14:22; 1 Pet. 1:6f.; Rom. 8:35ff.), will exchange its built-in harshness and frustration (8:20), as well as its natural but impermanent beauty, for the delights of heaven (cf. Isa. 65:18) and the presence of God (cf. Ps. 16:11; 23:6; 37:4; Rev. 22:1-5). (See further below, note 3). In other words, it is vital for us to maintain the distinction between earth and heaven, flesh and spirit and the visible and the invisible if we are to enter into the mind of Paul and the apostolic band in general. Then we can be assured that nothing in all creation (no other creature?, cf.John 10:28f.), can separate us from the love of God (1 Cor. 15:50; John 3:6, etc.).

The Correspondence between Romans 8:19-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10

Finally, an analysis of Romans 8:18-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10 reveals a remarkable correspondence between the two. Man is creation in miniature on the level of the flesh, and what applies to him applies to creation in general. (See note 1 below.)

Conclusion

Though more evidence remains to be sifted (see my separate Additional Note on Romans 8:21), I conclude that Romans 8:18-25 rightly understood teaches that the material universe, which includes our physical bodies (2 Cor. 4:7-5:5), gains its liberty from bondage to corruption by destruction (cf. the reconciliation of Col 1:20 on which see Bruce, p.75) and thereby opens up the gate to the freedom of the glory of the children of God. (Note how Paul teaches us to metaphorically put our physical bodies to death even while we are in the flesh (Col. 3:5, etc.)! Thus what Paul affirms here clearly accords with what both he (2 Cor. 4:16-5:1) and others (e.g. Mt. 24:35; Heb. 12:27) teach elsewhere. In the last analysis, the bottom line is that the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:42,50,53,54). On this point at least the Bible is entirely consistent, and Romans 8:21 can be no exception.

________________________________________________________

1* Assuming my view is correct, it may still be wondered why Paul uses such compressed language in Romans 8:21 and leaves himself open to misunderstanding. Two observations may well help to solve this problem. First, in NT times, though there had been Rabbinic intimations, the false Augustinian worldview had not been invented, and the concepts of a Fall from original perfection and a consequent universal curse did not dominate the believer’s horizon as they have done since. Secondly, the teaching of deliverance from universal frustration and bondage to corruption by the death of Christ (cf. Heb. 2:9), made necessary because we have all, like Adam, sinned, was so much part and parcel of the apostolic gospel that Paul’s meaning would have been immediately apparent.

2* It is easy to forget that God is presented in the Bible as a consuming or devouring fire (Dt. 4:24; 9:3; 32:22, cf. Isa. 33:11-14). What is more, as Dumbrell (p.47) avers, “mighty upheavals in nature attend God’s appearing (Mic. 1:3-4; cf. Judg. 5:4-5”. See also Ps. 18:7f.; Jer. 10:10f.; Nah. 1:5f., Zeph. 1:18; 3:8, etc.). We must assume then that when Jesus returns in the glory of the Father (Mt. 16:27), he will himself be a flaming fire (cf. 2 Thes. 1:7; Rev. 1:14; 19:12) consuming his enemies (2 Thes. 2:8; Heb. 10:27) and rescuing his friends (Mt. 3:12; 13:30; John 14:3; 1 Thes. 4:17, cf. Mt. 22:7-10). All this is reminiscent of Moses ruining the Egyptians and their gods and rescuing his fellows from the house of bondage.

3* Kruse says rightly enough that there is no future in “worldliness” (p.96). It is truer to say, however, and surely this is John’s point, that there is no future in this world or this age. As Moses and Paul point out, we must worship the Creator not the creature!

4* As we have seen above, Bauckham thinks that Romans 8:21 indicates the renewal rather than the abolition of creation. In comment on 2 Peter 1:4 (p.182), he highlights the contrast between the incorruptibility of the divine nature and the corruptibility of everything in this material world including man’s body. He maintains (p.183), however, that Hellenistic dualism in 2 Peter 1:4 is significantly modified by the reference to desire and asserts that “Decay and mortality are not due simply to the materiality of this world, as in Greek thought, but to sin”. This, I believe, is to misunderstand the issue. The background of Bauckham’s thinking is apparently the traditional Augustinian worldview which assumes the original perfection of creation and the immortality of man. Thus, though he correctly says that phthora is the divine judgement on sin as in 2:12, he apparently fails to recognise that physical, not to mention spiritual, death and corruption are inevitable when men fail to keep the commandments which promise life in escape from the natural and universal corruption of the material world (cf. Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:7f.). It is as false to imagine that desire brought physical corruption into being as to think that Adam’s sin was the origin of physical death (cf. Rom. 5:12). When man sins, like Adam who was dust, he relapses into his natural element, which is dust (Gen. 3:19, cf. Ps. 104:29; Eccl. 3:20; 12:7). By contrast, as Romans 2:7,10 indicate, patience in well-doing by man who is naturally mortal (Rom. 1:23) leads to spiritual immortality (cf. Ps. 8). Only Jesus, who as flesh was himself clearly subject to corruption (John 8:57, cf. Luke 12:33; Heb. 1:11; 8:13; Col. 2:22), succeeded in escaping from its clutches by keeping the commandments (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5). He thereby brought “incorruption” in a world in bondage to corruption to light for the first time (2 Tim. 1:10, cf. Rom. 6:9). Though he died in the flesh for his sheep (1 Pet. 3:18), being personally innocent he rose without seeing corruption, ascended (Acts 1:9,11) and was transformed (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50ff.).

5* In light of his reference to the present age here Paul’s language is perhaps ambiguous. While this age is tarnished by sin, it is also inherently transient, given to suffering and hence in evil contrast with the glory of the age to come (cf. 2 Cor. 4:17f.). According to BAG, Vine, etc. porneia (evil) is associated with toil, pain, etc.

Greek Dualism

It would appear that the difference between Greek dualism and Hebrew thought has been much misunderstood. The truth is that while both seem equally opposed to future materiality, the Jews thought in terms of a body (1 Cor. 15:44,46; Phil. 3:21), which for the Greeks was the prison house of the soul, and not merely of the preservation of the intellect or of the rational part of man’s nature (cf. Harris, pp.283ff.). As the incarnate Word or Logos Jesus and those who belong to him are spiritually embodied in heavenly glory (Phil. 3:21).

________________________________________________________

 

Additional Notes

Note 1 – The Correspondence between Romans 8 and 2 Corinthians 4 & 5

Romans 8:12-25		2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10
Creation or creature (v.20)		Body (creation in miniature: 4:7,11,16)
Glory (vv.17f.,24f.)		Glory (4:17-5:1,4)
Futility and bondage to decay (vv.20f.)		Futility (4:7-10) and bondage to decay (4:11,16; 5:1)
Suffering (vv.17f.)		Affliction (4:17)
*Groaning (vv.22f.)		*Groaning (5:2,4)
Adoption as sons (vv.14-17,19,21,23)		Adoption (implied:4:14,17, cf. 3:18;4:6)
Destruction (implied:vv.20f., cf.1 Thes.5:3)		Destruction (5:1, cf. 4:16)
Redemption (vv.17,21,23)		Redemption (4:14;5:1)
Hope in the unseen (vv.20,24f.)		Hope (implied:4:18;5:5, faith:5:7, cf. Heb.11:1)
Expectancy (vv.19f.,23f.)		Expectancy (4:18;5:2,4,9)
Confidence (8:15f.)		Confidence (5:6-8)
Eternity in heaven (vv.18,21,cf.24f.)		Eternity in heaven (4:17;5:1,cf.vv.6,8)
Holy Spirit the guarantee (vv.16,23)		Holy Spirit the guarantee (5:5)
Plan and purpose of God (v.20)		Plan and purpose of God (5:5)
Patience in waiting (v.25)		Patience (4:17;5:6-9)

*For instructive typology see Ex. 2:23f.;6:5 and note Judges 2:18

What is striking about both of these passages is the lack of explicit reference to sin, though it is arguably implied in Romans 8:13, 15 and 2 Corinthians 5:10. This being the case, it is reasonable to suppose that Paul, like the author of Hebrews (1:10-12, etc.), is concerned with nature or creation irrespective of sin. So, to be in this creation or this age (Gal. 1:4), in the physical body (2 Cor. 5:6,8f.), is inevitably to be separate from the Lord (Rom. 8:24f., cf. vv.35,38f.). And since creation is given over to futility, decay and ultimate destruction, to love this world (or this age, 2 Tim. 4:10; Jas. 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17), which Jesus has conquered on our behalf (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9f.; Rev. 3:21), is to sell an eternal spiritual heritage (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17) for a temporal mess of material pottage (Lu. 12:13-21; 1 Cor. 7:31; 2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 12:16; 1 John 2:15-17 and note especially the book of Ecclesiastes).

For an OT version of the above, see Psalm 102:25-28 and 103:14-18

Note 2 – The Correspondence between 2 Peter 3 and Hebrews 12:

2 Peter 3		Hebrews 12
Repentance urged (v.9)		Repentance urged (v.25a)
Divine warning (cf. 2:5ff.)		Divine warning (vv.20f.)
then (3:5f.) and now (3:7)		then and now (vv. 25f.)
Fleshly passions of the ungodly (v.3)		Ungodly passions (v.16)
Previous judgement a warning of future judgement (v.6)		Previous judgement a warning of future judgement (v.25b, cf. 2:2f.; 3:17f.; 10:28ff.)
Holiness urged (vv. 11,14)		Holiness urged (vv.10,14,28b)
Future judgement by fire (vv. 7,10-12)		Future judgement by fire (v.29, cf. v.18)
Destruction (vv.7,10-12)		Removal (v.27, cf. 1:10-12; 8:13; 10:9b)
New heavens and new earth (v.13)		City of the living God (vv.22-24; 11:10; 13:14, heavenly country (11:16)
Patience of God (vv.9,15)		Patient endurance of men (6:12; 10:36;12:25a,28) re God (note 10:37,13:5b-6)

Note 3

It should not go unnoticed that Romans 8:19ff. is strongly reminiscent of Isaiah 13:4ff., not to mention 2 Corinthians 4 and 5, and evinces some of the same features: pregnancy associated with the destruction of both sinners (cf. 1 Thes. 5:3) and their habitat along with implied redemption (see also Isa. 26:17-19, cf. 25:6-8) as at Sodom and Gomorrah (v.19). As was indicated above, the paradigm of destruction and redemption from Egypt provided by the exodus is just too plain to miss. It is strongly emphasised in the OT that going back to the house of bondage, except for punishment (Hos. 8:13, etc.), is out of the question (Dt.17:16, cf. Neh. 9:17; Ezek. 17:15; 20:32; Acts 7:39). In Christian terms, it involves return to the world (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5?) and ultimate destruction (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5(?); 2 Tim. 4:10; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31; 2 Pet. 2:20-22, and note Galatians, e.g. 5:2-6; 6:7f.).

Note 4

There is good reason for believing that Romans 8:18-25 has Jubilee overtones. If we accept the recapitulatory (or resumptive or parallelist) interpretation of the book of Revelation, the last scene is the fiftieth (7 x 7+1), which instantly reminds us of Leviticus 25 (see e.g. Wilcock, pp.202f.). As the note on Leviticus 25:8-10 in the RSV Study Bible points out, the year of Jubilee was a year of liberty (Ezek. 46:17), redemption (Isa. 63:4) and favour (Isa. 61:2, cf. Luke 4:18f.). Assuming adoption is favour (cf. Mt. 3:17, Mark 9:7 and Luke 9:35 where Jesus was openly acknowledged as God’s Son), all three terms appear in Romans 8:12ff. During the Jubilee the land was to lie fallow and produce spontaneously. In the book of Revelation, the cycle has ceased and the earth has disappeared (20:11; 21:1) but of its own accord the tree of life produces abundant fruit for the people who dwell securely in the presence of God (22:1-5. Cf. the womb whose archetype is Eden).

Note 5

I am greatly gratified by, if not indebted to, Dunn who strongly stresses Romans 8:13 and Gal. 6:8. I was somewhat belated in reading his valuable work on Paul.

It might profitably be added here that verses like Psalm 79:11 and 102:20 highlight the “theme of prisoners released and of peoples and kingdoms flocking to Zion” (Kidner, Psalms 2, p. 362). And as Webb intimates in comment on Isaiah 62, to which Kidner refers along with Revelation 21, “Descriptions of Zion in a passage like this are, at their deepest level, descriptions of the people of God in their final, glorified state” (p.238, cf. Oswalt, 2, p.590). Not without reason then does Motyer entitle his comments on Isaiah 62:10-12 “The Great Pilgrimage” (pp.508f.). What began in the ground (Gen. 2:7) ends in glory (2 Cor. 5:1-5).

________________________________________________________

References

C.K.Barrett, Romans, London, 1957.

W.Barclay, New Testament Words, London, 1964.

R.J.Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Milton Keynes, 1986.

G.R.Beasley-Murray, Revelation, London, 1981.

F.F.Bruce, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, Grand Rapids, 1984.

F.F.Bruce, Hebrews, London, 1965.

F.F.Bruce, Romans, 2nd ed., Leicester, 1985.

T.J.Burke, Adopted into God’s Family, Nottingham/Downers Grove, 2006.

C.E.B.Cranfield, Romans, Edinburgh, 1975.

W.J.Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, 2002.

J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle Paul, London/New York, 1998.

G.D.Fee, First Corinthians, Grand Rapids, 1987.

G.D.Fee, Philippians, Grand Rapids, 1995.

J.M.Frame, The Doctrine of God, Phillipsburg, 2002.

R.T.France, Matthew, Leicester, 1985.

R.Y.K.Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, Grand Rapids, 1988.

M.J.Harris, From Grave to Glory, Grand Rapids, 1990.

P.E.Hughes, Hebrews, Grand Rapids, 1977.

D.Kidner, Psalms 2, Leicester, 1973.

C.G.Kruse, The Letters of John, Grand Rapids, 2000.

W.L.Lane, Hebrews, Dallas, 1991.

I.H.Marshall, 1 Peter, Downers Grove, 1991.

J.Motyer, Isaiah, Leicester, 1993.

W.D.Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Nashville, 2000.

J.Murray, Romans, London, 1967.

J.Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66, Grand Rapids, 1998.

J.Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, London, 1959.

H.N.Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, Grand Rapids, 1997.

D.DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, Grand Rapids, 2000.

T.R.Schreiner, Romans, Grand Rapids, 1998.

Soderlund/Wright eds., Romans and the People of God, Grand Rapids, 1999.

J.R.W.Stott, Romans, Leicester, 1994.

G.H.Twelftree, Life after Death, London, 2002.

B.Webb, Isaiah, Leicester, 1996.

G.J.Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Waco, 1987.

NIDNTT, Exeter, 1975.

TDNT,1,2,3,9, Grand Rapids, 1964.

________________________________________________________

Read the follow-up article The End of the World 2

All Christians who are Protestant by conviction acknowledge their debt to the Reformers. It is not true, however, that all Protestants are now ‘Reformed’ in their theology. This has been the case for many a long year. While the Puritans saw themselves as true sons of the Reformation (though this is disputed in some quarters), the Arminians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, first under Arminius himself and then most famously under Wesley, consciously departed from Reformed standards at certain points. Wesley was apparently of the opinion that his views adhered more closely to the Bible than those of his Calvinist colleague and friend, Whitefield. Many think otherwise and not without reason.

Wilting before the onslaught of man-centred liberalism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Reformed theology went into almost total eclipse in the British Isles if not in America. In the 1950s, however, under the leadership of the Welsh doctor turned preacher, D.M.Lloyd-Jones, and theologian, J.I.Packer, it underwent a resurgence. At first, at least as I understood the issue, going back to our Protestant roots was intended to enable us to catch our breath, re-orient ourselves, gain a new appreciation of the glories of the biblical gospel and recover from the religious sterility which was the consequence of the arid scholarship of liberalism. It would appear that I was mistaken, for in due course it became apparent that the new orthodoxy was not based exclusively on the Bible but on the creeds and confessions of our forefathers. Despite all the brave talk, we were in principle going back to Egypt. Having escaped disaster on the Scylla of liberalism, we were now to be wrecked on the Charybdis of tradition. By allowing secondary standards such as the Westminster Confession of Faith to govern our understanding of Scripture, we undermined its authority and in the words of Jeremiah went backward and not forward (7:24). Viewing the Bible through the prism of Puritanism, many saw traditional heroes as ‘giants’ (cf. Gen. 6:4) who were capable of solving modern problems but who in fact blinded them to the situation as it really was and remains to this day. Despite occasional warnings that went unheeded or were shouted down, leaders like Lloyd-Jones, who himself was little more than a rediscoverer and regurgitator of an old theology, carried all before them as uncritical and impressionable young men flocked to their standard. Tragically, many of the latter have remained stuck in the rut thus fashioned for them and appear even forty or fifty years later quite incapable of seeing the camels, not to mention the gnats, they imbibed in their youth.

In all honesty I have to admit to having followed in their train for a while, especially since I had been mightily impressed by Packer’s “’Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God” (1958), with the result that in my early Christian days Packer himself was something of a hero to me. However, apart from my apparent failure to realise that a return to tradition on the part of some was in view from the start, at least five things conspired to prevent me from falling into the perennial trap of the unwary: first, as a student at university I became aware of the battle waged between the ancients and the moderns in French literature to the detriment of the former; secondly, as a Lincolnshire man I realised that admirer of Sir Isaac Newton though I was, I would never turn to him if I wanted to learn about modern science, so, if I was consistent I would not regard old theologians as infallible guides in Bible study either; third, having already done my National Service, I was not so young and impressionable as some of my contemporaries at university *; fourth, I went off to New Zealand to take up my first job and was perhaps less exposed than I might otherwise have been to the influence of devotees of Lloyd-Jones. In the event I did not hear and see him in person until I was nearly 40 and was somewhat disappointed when I did. Fifthly, right from the start I had a major problem with at least one aspect of Reformed theology – the idea of the unity of the covenant, which I could not understand. I also found original sin hard to swallow but deferred study of it till later.

According to Scripture, going back is sinful unless it means going back to the seat of authority, the Bible, the inspired word itself. Isaiah puts the matter in a nutshell when he tells his readers not to seek God among the dead but in the word and the testimony (8:19f.). Again, Jeremiah, who had much to say about false prophets (ch.23 espec.), urges his hearers to walk in the good way of Israel’s ancient prophetic tradition (6:16, cf. 1 Kings 8:36). In this he is supported by Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20:20) and of course at a later date by NT teachers (Gal.1:8f.). Since Scripture itself is our touchstone, it is clearly dangerous to rely, as the Jews did (Mark 7:1-13), on ancient interpretations of a word that, being inspired by God himself, is living or dynamic and hence, under the influence of the Spirit, constantly capable of being re-assessed (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12). This is something the Reformers apparently understood very well. Not only did they themselves take a long hard look at what Scripture, as opposed to the Church of Rome, actually said, but out of the cauldron of their own experience they concluded that perceived ‘truth’ was not ‘semper eadem’ (always the same) but ‘semper reformanda’ (always in the process of reformation). Their own approach was therefore innovative, dynamic, progressive, the exact opposite of conservative. What is more, their conclusions about basic doctrines were reached not only with much soul-searching but at tremendous personal cost. Today, though professing to be true sons of the Reformers and occasionally making token calls for reformation, the spirit of the proclaimed ‘sons’ stands in violent contrast to that of their fathers. They neither move forward themselves nor help those who would (cf. Luke 11:52). In fact, their conduct is reminiscent of that of the reactionaries, like Erasmus and Sir Thomas More, against the Reformation in more ways than one.

For a start, one of the most striking features of the modern situation is the lack of freedom of expression, the constructive interchange of ideas. Getting an article published in modern evangelical journals of one kind or another is virtually impossible even when the subject matter simply clamours for debate. Only ‘commissioned’ or well-known ‘sound’ writers get a look-in. The reason why is not far to seek. Modern ‘disciples of Moses’ relying on their forebears have already decided what the truth is, and only those who agree with them are entrusted with proclaiming what is effectively the propaganda of a mutual admiration society (cf. John 12:43; Rom. 2:29). Thus has the wheel come full circle: the so-called enemies of Rome have re-invented the Roman Index, and would-be modern prophets are to all intents and purposes silenced. Thus Jesus words come true again – for so their fathers did to the prophets (Luke 6:23,26).

What all too many modern evangelicals who claim to be true progeny of the Reformers fail to realise is that being a son implies kinship of character, as Marshall, commenting on Luke 11:48 and Matthew 23:31, indicates (p.501). In other words, actions soon establish the nature of the chip and the block from which it comes. If this is the test of identity, then we need to examine ourselves and ask how Jesus is likely to assess us and with which family he is liable to link us. Let us look further.

Fundamentalism is characterised by a crude literalism in religions other than Christianity. But more than that, it is often tied to a certain type of language as in Islam. It was the Reformers who gave us the Bible in German (Luther) and English, for example. While Erasmus was probably the first to talk of the ploughboy being able to read the Scripture in his native tongue, it was Tyndale who gave his life to ensure that this happened in England. Yet, marvellous to relate, modern traditionalists, who are usually fundamentalists masquerading as true evangelicals, would still have us read the King James Version of the Bible in 2001. As a former teacher of Shakespeare I am only too well aware of the difficulties that Elizabethan English poses for modern students. The unavoidable inference is that the same holds with regard to the Bible. It is hard indeed to imagine the Reformers, were they alive today, imposing such a burden on their protégés (cf. Luke 11:46). They were generally men of a different ilk, standing in stark contrast to the Muslim fundamentalist who is prepared to persecute and even kill in order to have his way, as we have recently become painfully aware.

Persecution of course takes many different forms. An American theologian recently pointed out that it is the habit of fundamentalists, who lack the power to do anything worse, simply to ignore those who challenge their stance on different issues. It was not without good reason that George Orwell, who knew something about hypocrisy, once pointed out that the powers that be could keep people quiet with surprising effectiveness. But it is at the price of honesty. If a particular dogma I have embraced is subject to criticism, then I must either publicly defend it or abandon it. Failure to do this is to place my own faith, as well as that of others, in jeopardy. Take, for example, dogmas like original sin or the ‘literal’ days of Genesis. Since both of these appear to be especially vulnerable, they call for open debate as a matter of immediate urgency. Yet this is frequently denied. However, the plain fact is that, if we are in the business of truth and salvation, nothing less will do.

As I have already intimated, the Reformers are known for their recognition of error and their willingness to repent at the risk of their lives. One wonders if their so-called ‘sons’ are of the same calibre. Rather, are they not in danger of crossing sea and land in order to make a single convert and make him as much a child of hell as themselves (Mt.23:15)? Let him who stands take stock lest he fall. The need for self-examination affects us all. May God grant that we respond appropriately.

The need for a prophetic voice is fundamental in Scripture. Concerned writers warn against false prophets on the one hand (Dt. 13; Jer. 23; Ezek.13) and lament when there is no genuine word from the Lord on the other (1 Sam. 3:1; Amos 8:11). In contrast with much loose thinking, modern theologians have occasionally noted that the prophets of Israel spoke their unwelcome words to their own people, not to foreigners (cf. Ezek. 3:4-7; Jonah was an exception). While it has been claimed that the repentance required of Israel (see 2 Chron. 7:14) does not apply to today’s church, the fact is that judgement still begins at the house of God (cf. 1 Pet. 4:17). It follows from this that a truly prophetic voice in our own day will be one that points up the sins of the God’s own people. Just as revival and reformation are associated with them, so is repentance.

This brings me to my own case. More than thirty years ago I myself completed a book challenging the entire church regarding its basic beliefs. Almost needless to say, I could not find a publisher, as I had fortunately been forewarned. So I had to make do with a raft of excuses. I tried a different tack and wrote a number of articles for a variety of semi-popular magazines. The very first one was strongly rejected: I had committed the heinous sin of using a modern translation of the Bible! And so the pattern continued: my list of rejections might have made it in the Guinness Book of Records had its editors become aware of it. I had another problem, however. No one seemed capable of dealing with my ‘new’ doctrines and call for reformation. In all I wrote three books (though one of these was a non-technical version of the first) and neither they nor my articles, apart from five on covenant theology that appeared in a church paper of small distribution, were published. And so it continues to the moment of writing. Scripture implicitly plays second fiddle to time-honoured tradition or confessionalism, as has so often been the case in both the Bible (cf. Jer. 8:8) and in history. It is the latter, however, which will tell the final tale.

The failure of the churches to listen to Scripture, a perennial problem which Jeremiah in particular would instantly recognise, and to encourage the voice of prophecy is bound to have various unpleasant effects. For a start the church itself becomes irrelevant. It not merely lacks vigour and vitality but it fails to make a significant impact for good on society as a whole. The salt and light, which were so much in evidence in the NT and at the Reformation, are notably lacking. Perhaps the worst insult to Protestant Britain has not simply been an observable drift towards Rome but the widespread movement away from Christianity altogether towards world religions such as Hinduism, saturated with superstition though they are. Even this week in which I write has seen George Harrison of Beatle fame make his final resting place the Ganges. Yet he was portrayed on television as seeking identity, wanting to know who he was and where he was going. But, in the words of Jeremiah, his search for meaning ended with a broken cistern quite incapable of holding the water of life (2:13). Thus has the voice of genuine Christianity been muted by liberalism on the one hand and traditionalism on the other. Both are totally unfitted for meeting modern needs.

Another point must be made. If the Bible is any guide, the present attitude of the traditionalists runs the risk of making God himself our enemy. It is one thing for our forebears to have made great progress in their understanding of the faith once delivered, another thing for us. Are we really to believe that God has had nothing to teach us since the Reformation? John Robinson, in an address delivered to the Pilgrim Fathers in 1609, once expressed his conviction that, great though Luther and Calvin were, God had yet more light to break forth from his word. In the twenty-first century we ought to be similarly convinced, that is, unless we are secret subscribers to what was known a few years ago as the God-is-dead theology! If liberalism was the great enemy of the faith in the fifties, there can be little doubt that traditionalism, along with secularism, plays that role now.

Evangelicalism today is not only hopelessly divided doctrinally, it suffers universally from the effects of trying to operate in a false frame of reference. How come? it may asked. The basic problem is its commitment to Augustinianism. While we can all rejoice at the triumph of grace in Augustine’s thought and our recognition of the sheer inadequacy of the Pelagian stress on works and free will, we must also become aware as a matter of urgency of the unbiblical and heretical nature of some of his other ideas. The worldview that stems from his belief in original perfection, original righteousness, sin, Fall (usually with a capital ‘F’) and cosmic curse is simply false and a major stumbling-block in Christian apologetics. The Bible points in a different direction, one which, in the event, is much more in accordance with the findings of modern science. Others have noticed how comprehensive a role original sin has played in Augustinian theology but how little is said in support of it in Scripture. Considering its dubious foundation in Augustine’s own thinking and the patently insoluble nature of the problems it raises, it is high time it was subjected to radical re-appraisal. But we must go still further and follow up its ramifications in our understanding of covenant, pneumatology, eschatology and so forth.

In sum, to be a son of the Reformation is, positively, to be scripturally goal-bound, negatively, anti-traditionalistic. If the Bible is to be our final court of appeal, even ancient creeds and confessions, far from being regarded as sacrosanct, must be seen to be as vulnerable to criticism as everything else that is man-made. Only by adopting the spirit of the Reformation can we hope to make progress towards the perfection** to which we are called (cf. 2 Cor. 10:5; Eph. 4:11-16; Phil. 3:12-16; Jas. 1:4; 3:14-17).

* About a year after writing the above I have read Gaius Davies’ chapter on Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. It makes instructive reading.

** Writing in1883, Bishop Westcott commented in an essay on The Gospel of Creation: “There is ‘a making perfect’ which is correlative with ‘salvation’” (p.313).

References

G.Davies, Genius Grief and Grace, Fearn, 2001.

I.H.Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, Exeter, 1978.

J.I.Packer, “Fundamentalism” and The Word of God, Leicester, 1958.

B.F.Westcott, The Epistles of John, London, 1883.

The idea that creation will be redeemed and restored, or returned to its original state (cf. 1 K. 13:6; 2 Chr. 24:13; Isa. 58:12), is based on the Augustinian notion that creation was originally perfect. In support of this it is tenaciously held by Augustinian traditionalists that following the sin of Adam creation underwent a universal curse and hence requires restoration. Genesis 3:17-19, however, point rather to the fact that only Adam and his immediate environment, that is, Eden, which was subsequently uninhabited, were affected. This view of the matter is supported by Genesis 4:12 where the same sort of ‘curse’ affects Cain when he murders his brother Abel. The suggestion is that when men fail to obey the law, their dominion over the earth, including their own fleshly bodies which are a part of it, is or may be affected. To take a later example, the field and vineyard of the sluggard in Proverbs 24:30-34 are overgrown with weeds, and so in the case of all sluggards (cf. 6:6-11; 12:11; 15:19; 28:19; Ps. 128:2, etc.). On the other hand, what do believers in a universal curse make of verses like Genesis 13:10 (cf. Num. 11:5; 16:13)? And even more to the point, what conclusions do they draw from the fact that the wicked but nature-worshipping Canaanites were cast out of what was notably a good land flowing with milk and honey (cf. Eden)? In the event, it proved to be a delectable legacy (Lev. 20:24) which the incoming Israelites were pleased to appropriate (cf. Dt. 6:10f.). Inferences drawn from Exodus 23:29 and Deuteronomy 7:22 make it crystal clear that despite defiling the land, the Canaanites exercised a significant degree of dominion. The same is true of unbelieving people today. Many atheistic scientists, for example, contribute to man’s successful dominion of the earth. They serve God’s purposes willy-nilly.

It is here that James helps us to appreciate what is involved. He indicates that it is possible to tame nature to some extent even when one is morally and spiritually compromised (Jas. 3:1ff.). In the Bible God and man work together (cf. Ps. 85:10-12), but if man fails to honour his obligation to exercise dominion, his sphere of influence may well be diminished and both he and his habitat suffer the consequences as at Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Zeph. 1:18; 2:9; 3:8). On the other hand, when the land is totally uninhabited and hence not at all under human dominion, it becomes a desolation (Isa. 6:11, etc.). In light of this, we need to constantly remind ourselves that the law promises both blessing and curse transgenerationally throughout history: blessing if it is kept, curse if it is broken (Lev. 26:1ff.; Dt. 11:26f.; 28:1ff.; 30:15-20; Isa. 1:19f.; Jer. 21:8, etc.). If creation was universally, permanently and irretrievably cursed as a consequence of one man’s (Adam’s) sin, then there could be no blessing even when there was repentance. (This problem is highlighted of course by original sin. If Adam’s sin is imputed to us apart from faith, then repentance on our part is impossible as well as inappropriate. B.B.Warfield was a fine theologian, but his attempt to deal with repentance for original sin was a notable failure, see Shorter Selected Writings, 1, pp.278ff.)

According to the Bible, however, where there is repentance, blessings are renewed or restored (e.g. Dt. 30:1-10; Ps. 107:33-38; Isa. 30:23ff.). A prime example is provided by the return of the Israelites to the Promised Land after exile. Then, the people re-inhabit the land, till it and render it fruitful again (e.g. Ezek. 36:33-36). In this sense it is restored, at least, temporarily. The same notion applies throughout the OT where restoration is at a premium. Another patent example is Solomon’s temple which was destroyed by the Babylonians. It was eventually rebuilt and restored under Ezra and Nehemiah (cf. e.g. 2 Chron. 24:13; Ezr. 6:5, the hand of Jeroboam, 1 K 13:6, cf. 2 K. 5:14, fortunes, Jer. 29:14, etc.). However, it should be carefully noted that the earthly temple that was manufactured or “made by hand” is in the NT finally destroyed, not restored, and is replaced by Christ himself (Mark 14:58, cf. John 2:19-22; Rev. 21:22) and his people (1 Pet. 2:4-9). And the same can be said with regard to the fleshly body (2 Cor. 5:1, cf. 1 Cor. 6:13; 15:35ff.).

If temporal restoration, repetition and reproduction are prime features of the OT (e.g. 1 K. 13:6; 17:17-24; 2 Chr. 24:13), they also occur in the NT (e.g. Luke 6:10; 8:41-56) since they overlap. It should be noted, however, that Jesus points up the strict limitations of earthly restoration by contrasting it with “life” (Mt. 18:9) and warns that it is better for us to lose one of our limbs than to be cast into hell (Mt. 5:29). In other words, restoration is characteristic of this world or this age and the old covenant, while removal (2 Pet. 1:14) and replacement (Heb. 10:9; Rev. 21:1) are hallmarks of the new covenant leading to the “remaining” age to come (Heb. 1:11; 12:27). Thus, in John 11, Lazarus’ body was temporarily restored only to submit to corruption at a later date. Like the temple (Mark 14:58), it was ‘hand-made’ (Job 10:8; Ps. 119:73) and so, being essentially corruptible, it required replacement with a heavenly body (2 Cor. 5:1,4f.).

Jesus’ fleshly body was also restored (cf. John 10:17f.), but in contrast to Lazarus’ body it never saw corruption since he did not personally sin and die again (Rom. 6:9). When he ascended, that is, finally escaped from corruption (Rev. 12:5) never to return (Acts 13:34), his body was clearly changed into a body of glory (cf. Phil. 3:21) since (a) like all flesh, like the earth from which it derives (Heb. 1:11; Rom. 8:18-25), it was corruptible (cf. John 8:57; 1 Pet. 3:18), and (b) flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:1-7; 8:35; Gal. 4:30).

I have already made a fleeting reference to the restoration of Israel (or its return to the Promised Land after the exile). Restoration is referred to in the NT especially in Matthew 21:43 which sums up the parable of the wicked tenants (21:33-43; Mark 12:1-9; Lu. 20:9-19). There, Jesus clearly teaches the nation of Israel’s permanent loss of the kingdom of God (cf. 23:38), though his disciples continued to misunderstand his point (Acts 1:6). This is underscored of course by Peter who in 2:9 uses words strongly reflecting Exodus 19:6 to indicate that Jewish rejection and replacement (1*) implies the establishment of the true Israel (cf. John 15:1ff.; Rom. 2:29; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 10:9, etc.) made up exclusively of believers, the true children of Abraham (Gal. 3:29) including Jewish ones. This now becomes the organ of the kingdom in the new covenant (cf. Mt. 5:13-16, etc.). In light of this, the notion still entertained by the early church of a Jewish restoration (Acts 1:6) is definitively undermined. And the fact that elements in the modern church in the third millennium still major on the restoration of Israel, and even the temple, highlights their failure to understand biblical covenant theology, particularly the difference between the materialistic old and spiritual new covenants. They do not recognise that under the new covenant the inherently obsolescent old has in principle passed away and the eternal new (to us), which by definition has always existed, has dawned (2 Cor. 3:11; 5:17; Gal. 6:15). As Acts 3:21 (see further below) and Revelation 10:7 would seem to indicate, God’s purpose announced by the prophets of both dispensations to save believers from all races will eventually be completed (1 John 2:2; Rev. 7:9).

If what has been said so far is correct, it surely renders gravely suspect, even gives the lie to, the idea of the universal restoration of the physical creation, which is the source of the corruptible fleshly body or creation in miniature. However, it is deemed to receive support from what are really OT intimations of heaven (Isa. 11:6-9, cf. Heb. 11:8-16) on the one hand and, in the NT, from the highly dubious interpretation of references like Acts 3:21, Romans 8:18-25 and Colossians 1:20. The problem here is that the very first words of the Bible point to the temporal character of all created things. Even in the OT the eternal God stands in sharp contrast with the transitoriness of all he has made (Gen. 8:22; Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27; Isa. 34:4; 51:6,8 ; 54:10, etc.). If creation has a beginning, then logically it must have an end (cf. Heb. 7:3,16, etc.). And if it was always intended, like the law (Mt. 5:18), to have an end, both a terminus and a goal, it will never be restored. In any case, its restoration would only lead to the same process being repeated with presumably the same result. (Cf. being born again by re-entering the womb, John 3:4) The fact is that when the present age gives way to the age to come (cf. e.g. Mt. 12:32; 28:18; Eph. 1:21), it will have reached its use-by date, mission accomplished, as numerous passages of Scripture clearly indicate (e.g. Gen. 8:22; Mt. 5:18; 6:19f.; 24:35; Mark 8:36; Luke 12:33; 1 Cor. 7:31; Heb. 1:10-12; 6:7f; 12:27; 1 Pet. 1:3f.;1 John 2:17; Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 20:11; 21:1,4).

The notion of the restoration of all things referred to in Acts 3:21 (cf. Mt. 19:28), for example, may refer to the completion of God’s plan of salvation (cf. Rev. 10:7), the restoration of the embryonic fellowship we all have when we are created in the womb (Job 31:15, etc., pace those who believe in original sin!) and which is pictured or symbolised in the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. This, however, is far from implying a return to a literal restored Eden (cf. Ezek. 36:35f.). Rather it reflects its spiritual enhancement and completion in the presence of God in heaven itself (Rev. 21,22, cf. Heb. 9:11,24). (It should be noted that in Scripture beginnings lead to ends, finishes, completions and/or goals. See e.g. Gen. 2:2; 2 Cor. 8:6,11; Phil. 1:6; Rev. 21:1-5.)

Regarding the physical creation, the truth of the matter is that while it was ‘good’, that is, useful and serving a purpose (Gen. 2:9; 3:6; Eccl. 3:11), it was, since it was “made by hand” (Isa. 45:12; Heb. 1:10-12) and subject to man’s dominion, by definition intrinsically imperfect. If it had been perfect, it could never, like God himself, be subject to change, repair, restoration or repetition; it could have been neither improved nor cursed. While man in general may have failed to exercise his proper dominion, Jesus as man’s representative did not fail. Rather, as the author of Hebrews indicates, not only did he not sin (Heb. 4:15), but he also subjected all within his sphere of operation to his control, especially his own flesh, and was crowned with glory and honour (Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:12f.). In his own words, he conquered (John 16:33, cf. Rev. 3:21; 5:5, etc.). As his temptations indicated, he triumphed over the world, the flesh and the devil (cf. Gen. 1-3). Certainly, as the author of Hebrews again notes, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him (2:8) but that will happen in due course (Col. 1:20; Phil. 2:10f.). Since he is now reigning on David’s throne in the heavenly world (2:5), he is in the process of subjecting all things to himself (Mt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Eph. 1:22). And the time is coming when the full number of his people will be complete (Rom. 11:25; Rev. 6:11). When this occurs, both “those who dwell on the earth” (Rev. 6:10, cf. Ps. 17:14; Luke 16:25) and their habitat will be destroyed (1 Pet. 3:7, 10-12) as Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (Gen 19:24f.; Luke 17:29, cf. Lev. 26:30f.; 2 K. 22:19; Zeph. 1:18; 2:9; 3:8). When heaven and the presence of God are attained, earth will have outlived its usefulness (Heb. 6:7f.) and be dispensed with (Rev. 16:20; 20:11; 21:1, etc.). Physical restoration will be redundant. With the arrival of the perfect, the imperfect will pass away (1 Cor. 13:10) like the moon disappearing before the sun (cf. Heb. 10:9b). Instead of restoration, there will be removal (2 Pet. 1:14), which suggests the total subjection and pacification of creation in destruction (cf. Col. 1:15-20). The temporal will have given way to the eternal, the shaken to the unshakable remaining (Heb. 1:11f.; 12:27).

(Note: Restoration in the form of organ transplantation is a feature of the 21st century life. While it can extend earthly life, no one in his right senses believes it has the power to grant eternal life. Even the donor’s organ is subject to the deterioration (or entropy) which affects all creation. The same can be said with regard to medicines, tonics, health foods and the like. Man, like the animals, simply cannot live on bread alone. Life remains the gift of the Creator, and eternal life is lived in his presence, John 12:26; 14:2f.,19; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14, etc., but certainly not in the flesh, 1 Cor. 15:50.)

Again it is worth stressing that the notion of earthly restoration is undermined in the very first verse of the Bible, for if creation has a beginning, it must also have an end (cf. Heb. 7:3). It is in direct contrast with its Creator (Heb. 1:10-12).

Redemption

There is a sense in which the land can be redeemed as the book of Ruth (ch.4) makes plain. But the idea of the whole of creation being redeemed seems to depend almost entirely on Augustinian theology and its concomitant worldview. It is because of the latter that Romans 8:18-25 is made to teach what, given the context of the whole Bible, it cannot teach. Admittedly, the passage is difficult to exegete, but unless Paul is contradicting himself, it is simply impossible to claim the redemption of the entire universe. If the latter is by nature, that is, by creation and apart from sin, temporal and corruptible (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18), it does not need and was never intended for redemption. After all, like the tabernacle/temple, it is but a reflection of the true. There is not the slightest suggestion in Scripture that Christ died to redeem inanimate matter (which by definition is amoral) from a curse (2*). Throughout the Bible flesh (dust) is distinguished from spirit (cf. e.g. Isa. 31:3, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49), and Paul tells us in no uncertain terms that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and that the impermanent (corruptible) cannot inherit the permanent (incorruptible). All Christ redeemed was sinful humanity who alone was created in the image of God. In order to do this he had to substitute for his people, triumph in their place and bear their curse (Gal. 3:13; 4:5; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Are we to assume that he was substituting for the temporal creation as well when the author of Hebrews talks in terms of an eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12)? Rather we are forced to the conclusion that the inherently corruptible or impermanent cannot inherit incorruptibility (1 Cor. 15:50).

If it is interjected at this point that Paul refers to the redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23), we must recognise that he is not suggesting the redemption of the flesh, which, being earthly, is doomed as part of the physical creation to eventual destruction (2 Cor. 5:1, cf. Gal. 4:29f.). As we have seen above, Christ did not even ‘redeem’ his own body of flesh which in accordance with the plan of salvation was destined from the start for transformation (replacement) and glorification (Gen. 2:17; Ps. 8:5; 2 Cor. 5:1-5; Heb. 2:9, cf. Phil. 3:21). The redemption of the flesh, like that of the physical creation in general, would have been diametrically contrary to the purpose of God which was always to glorify man in his own presence (cf. 2 Cor. 5:5; 4:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; 4:6, etc.) and make us his spiritual children in Christ (John 1:12; Rom. 8:21; Eph. 1:4f.; Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 4:6; 1 John 3:1). If this involved Jesus’ temporary (“a little while”) incarnation or transformation into flesh (Heb. 2:6-9), it was followed by his permanent retransformation into the glory he shared with his Father before the world began (John 17:5,24, cf. 6:62; 13:3; 16:28, etc.). As Irenaeus long ago put it: “He became what we are, in order that we might become what he is” (Against Heresies, 5, preface).

What the Bible teaches then is that as believers we shall be redeemed from the earth just as we are from the rest of humanity (Rev. 14:3f.). It is the fruit of the earth that is reaped, not the earth itself (Rev. 14:14-17).

I would make a final point. I personally hope that this earth will not be redeemed for if it is, my heavenly inheritance will be impaired (cf. Ruth 4:6).

Regeneration

Judging by the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, the flesh cannot be regenerated without re-entering the womb, ultimately the earth (cf. Ps. 139:15). And even if this could occur, the flesh would still be flesh. If this is true of our own physical nature which derives from the earth, then it must be equally true of the earth itself. To be regenerated it too must go back to the beginning of creation. God must come out of his rest and begin his work of creation again. Clearly the notion is misguided. The earth was created for a purpose – primarily to be inhabited by human beings, subjected to their dominion with a view to bringing many sons to glory (Gen. 1:26-31; 8:22; Isa. 45:12,18; Heb. 2:6-10). (According to Calvin the earth was meant to be the theatre of God’s glory or as Beale would say a worldwide temple.) Once the divine purpose of nurturing the children of God, has been fulfilled (Rom. 8:18-25), the material creation has no further use and will pass away (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12; Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 20:11; 21:1,4, etc.). Again, once it begins preponderantly to bring forth thorns and thistles (cf. 2 Sam. 23:6f., etc.), far from being regenerated, it will be dispensed with (Heb. 6:7f.). In heaven, the eternal world, it is unnecessary. The land and city the children of Abraham are looking for in response to their call (Phil. 3:14) are heavenly (Heb. 11:8-16; 13:14; Rev. 22). They are well rid of this (evil) age (Gal. 1:4) from which Christ has delivered them as the OT people were delivered from Egypt! And those who hanker after it (cf. Ps. 17:14; Luke 16:25; 2 Tim. 4:10; Heb. 12:16; 1 John 2:15-17) are classified as sinners every bit as much as those who wished to return to Egypt (Acts 7:39, etc.).

There are at least five basic reasons why the regeneration of the cosmos is so widely entertained in theology. The first arises from the erroneous notion of the (universal) curse intrinsic to Augustinian theology. The second stems from a false covenant theology. The third depends on dubious exegesis driven by a false worldview (see espec. Rom. 8:21). The fourth arises from an illegitimate transfer of epithet or confusion of category. Regeneration or being born from above relates to the spiritual not to the physical (John 3:3-13). And the fifth is the result of an implicit assumption that the physical can be spiritualised and eternalised as opposed to replaced. Jesus (Mt. 6:19f.; Lu. 12:33), Paul (Col. 2:22), Peter (1:1:3f.), James (1:10f.), John (1:2:17) and the author of Hebrews (1:10-12; 10:9) all reject the notion absolutely, and it should be permanently and definitively exorcised from all “Christian” thinking!

So far as we human beings are concerned, regeneration is necessary precisely because we derive from the earth and are therefore material, impermanent and corruptible flesh (John 3:6), and it is precisely in that condition that we cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50)! By failing to keep the commandments we have forfeited our means of escape (cf. Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). If this is true, then the very idea of the regeneration of the physical universe is an absurdity. Creation is by nature temporal (2 Cor. 4:18). Everything under heaven has its season or allotted time (Eccl. 3:1-8). Having had a beginning, it will therefore have an end like everything else under the sun (contrast Heb. 7:3). Even while it is still ‘good’ (1 Tim. 4:3f.), it is by nature impermanent as Genesis 1:1 implies.

Repristination / Rejuvenation

There are those who argue that creation will return to its original goodness or perfection despite the fact that perfection (completion) is the end, not the beginning, of the process. We have already seen, however, this would mean God’s repeating what he has already done, and this in itself implies that the original creation was defective (cf. the argument of Hebrews)! But he will not start again. He has no need to since the present creation, which has been conquered by Christ, has under him achieved its purpose of bringing many sons to glory (Rom. 8:21,23; Heb. 2). The very idea of going back to the beginning (or even of starting again, cf. Num. 14:12ff.) suggests failure, inadequacy, even sin. As the OT itself makes clear, “going back to Egypt” (Ex. 16:3; Num. 11:5,20; Acts 7:39) or entering again into one’s mother’s womb (John 3:4, cf. Job 16:22) is out of the question. All else apart, this is contrary to the will of God which is characteristically purposeful and goal-oriented (Dt. 1:8,21). Further, it suggests failure to understand that creation is still ‘good’ as Paul was at pains to indicate (1 Tim. 4:3f.; 1 Cor. 10:26,30f.). The fact that it is sometimes misused by men who fail to exercise their proper dominion does not reflect on the creation itself. It serves its purpose nonetheless. There is clearly no point in repristination. The very idea simply points to the failure of many to understand the issue.

Renewal and Rebirth

The word palingenesia (rebirth) is used in Matthew 19:28 (cf. Titus 3:5 where it is linked with human spiritual renewal) and might well lead the unwary to the conclusion that the present creation will be renewed or restored. Apart from teaching clearly opposing such a notion, it is probably true to say with Vine (Expository Dictionary) that Jesus uses the word to signify “the inception of a new state of things in contrast with the old” (Heb. 10:9, cf. 1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:15-17). This clearly fits in with the rest of the verse that indicates that “the new world” (RSV,ESV) is heaven, which, though eternal (or remaining, Heb. 12:27), is new to all those who have previously been earth-bound (cf. Rev. 21:1-4).

(In a devotional booklet my wife and I are using we came across the following: “So when Christ establishes the renewed earth, with renewed men and women, is it a stretch to imagine that He’ll surround us with renewed animals? Eden was perfect – but without animals Eden wouldn’t be Eden. And the new earth is the new Eden – paradise regained.” I leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions in reaction to this. Clearly the writer has not understood 1 Corinthians 15:50 to go no further.)

Purgation

Yet another idea that has been traditionally touted is that of the purgation or purification by fire of creation after which it will rise again (repetition!) Phoenix-like in its original purity (cf. 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). Does not the Bible itself recommend the purging of sin and sinful people from society (Dt. 13:5; 22:21-24, etc. and note Jos. 7:25)? It does indeed, but this is an entirely different kettle of fish from purging creation of sin which it does not and cannot have. Only people who have the law in some sense are capable of sin (Dt. 20:19; Hab. 3:8, cf. Rom. 4:15, etc.). Certainly it is said in 2 Chronicles 34:5,8, for example, that the land can be purged of idols and the like, but while it may be polluted and defiled (Num. 35:33f.; Dt. 21: 23) creation itself is morally unaffected since it is inanimate. (Remember the land of milk and honey inherited from the wicked Canaanites referred to above!) The fact that I use a knife for wrong purposes does not reflect on the knife, though admittedly I may blunt its edge (cf. Col. 2:22). Again it must be urged that creation is naturally corruptible even when dominion is properly exercised (3*) and is not subject to renewal by purgation (cf. Hendriksen, p.269, who refers to 2 Pet. 3 which does not speak of purgation but of destruction). While evil (Jud. 20:13), people (Ezek. 20:38) and filth can be purged by surgery, so to speak, even certain acts of purification relating to people (Heb. 9:10; Luke 2:22, etc.) have little ultimate value. On the other hand, it is necessary for consciences to undergo a spiritual purification or perfection (Heb. 9:9,14, cf. 1:3) or for people to undergo spiritual circumcision (Col. 2:11) so that they can enter God’s presence and serve him appropriately. As for creation, it is intrinsically imperfect and the imperfect cannot inherit the perfect (Heb. 9:11, cf. 1 Cor. 13:10). While Job commented that the moon and the stars were not pure in God’s eyes (25:5), Paul stressed the lowly nature of the physical body (Phil. 3:21) which even Jesus had while he was incarnate.

There are other problems associated with the purgation of creation. For example, assuming that it occurs, both creation and its inhabitants are still corruptible; they were made that way. Clearly, a temporal universe which is simply purged by fire remains fundamentally unfitted to support eternal life, yet that is what the Bible promises us as believers (John 3:16, etc.). Again, it should be noted, as was implied above, that sin is not a transmissible physical substance that can be purged by fire. It is a negative spiritual condition that can only be dealt with spiritually (cf. Heb. 1:3; 9:14,22; 10:1,12,14). The traditional notion of purgatory is false to Scripture and inevitably undermines the work of Christ.

New Creation

Some writers would have us believe that since the old creation has had to be purged or destroyed by fire, a brand new creation is needed. It is true that this idea arose out of the felt need of the OT saints who lacked the revelation that became ours through Christ (Isa. 65:17; 66:22, 4*). Not surprisingly, they had a limited conception of the heaven and the eternal world that appears in the NT, though even they on occasion realised that God inhabited eternity (Isa. 57:15) and that heaven was his throne and earth his footstool (Isa. 66:1). The truth is, however, that God has done with, or rested from, material creation. He has something better in store for us, that is, his own house which Jesus has re-entered to prepare a place for us (John 14:2f.) and for which we shall be duly fitted corporeally (Phil. 3:21; Luke 20:34-36; 1 John 3:2; I Cor. 15:35ff.; 2 Cor. 5:1-5). As was implied above, the belief that we shall be flesh, which is by its very nature corruptible, and live on a new but sinless material earth is based on a complete misunderstanding of the plan of salvation which was always to glorify us spiritually and corporeally (1 Cor. 15:42ff.; 2 Cor. 5:1; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2), not physically (John 3:6), in God’s presence (Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet. 3:18; 4:6; Heb. 9:24, etc.). New wine requires new wineskins (Mark 2:22).

Once we assume a new creation in a physical/material as opposed to a spiritual (2 Cor. 5:17) sense, we unavoidably testify to the fact that the first was not perfect (pace Augustinians). And this is precisely the point made in Scripture regarding the old covenant which was intrinsically inadequate and provisional (Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7,13, cf. 2 Cor. 3:11). But the point to note is that it was replaced (Heb. 10:9b) not simply by a new but a better (Heb. 7:22; 8:6), indeed an eternal covenant (Heb. 13:20) which provided an eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12) and an eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:15). The same holds good with regard to creation. Like the law, it belongs to the present age which is passing away (1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:8,17). It will be replaced not by a rejuvenated, repristinated, purged, regenerated, redeemed, renovated or even a newly made creation but by the age to come or the eternal world which already exists and abides forever (Heb. 1:11f.). It can no more be shaken than God himself (Heb. 12:27).

Finally, to lay stress on the point implicitly made above, a new or re-creation which has a beginning is not and cannot be eternal (cf. Heb. 7:3). But the future dwelling place, which is basic to our salvation, is not temporal and manufactured (“made by hand”) but eternal and spiritual (“not made by hand”, acheiropoietos, Heb. 9:11, cf. 2 Cor. 4:18-5:1).

Conclusion

It is quite clear that all the above-mentioned ideas founder for the same reason: they are based on the view that the problems and shortcomings of this world/age all stem from sin. They do not. The transience, imperfection and corruptibility of all material things arise out of the plan of God (Gen. 2:17; Ps. 8:5f.; Rom. 2:7,10; 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12; 2 Pet. 3:7, etc.). The reason why sin is such a problem is that we who, like Adam are born mortal (Rom. 1:23), are all unable to keep the commandments that promise us eternal life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Dt. 30:20, etc.). We have all to the very last man and woman come short of the glory of God and have no grounds for boasting (Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 1:29). Since we fail to justify ourselves by keeping the law (Gal. 2:16), we have no personal means of gaining eternal life – precisely as God intended (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22). This being indisputably so, we all need a Saviour. Thank God that he has provided us with one in Christ who, even though he was in the flesh himself (Rom. 8:3), put everything beneath his feet and conquered (Ps. 8:5f.; Heb. 2:9). As the one who always pleased God (John 8:29; Mt. 3:17, etc.), it was he who brought life and incorruption (Gk.) to light for the first time (2 Tim. 1:10). Prior to his coming everything throughout the whole creation was subject to corruption and futility (Rom. 8:19ff.). Without him we, as sinners, are lost. Unless he rose again from the dead, even our faith is futile (1 Cor. 15:17). But rise again he did (1 Cor. 15:20), and, since this is so, he alone can give us eternal life (1 Pet. 1:3).

1* I am well aware that more needs to be said on this subject (cf. Rom. 11) but replacement seems to be the appropriate word despite premillennialist opposition to it.

2* Sin and curse are constantly read into references to the destruction of the universe. Thus, in comment on Isaiah 13, J.A.Motyer (The Prophecy of Isaiah, Leicester, 1993) tells us that the whole creation is caught up in human sinfulness and since it is corrupted by sin it bears the consequences (p.138). He adds on page 139 that all that was achieved by creation will be undone in judgement. While in one sense this is true, the judgement in question is not on inanimate creation but on sinful men and women who at bottom worship the creature (creation) rather than the Creator. The ultimate destruction of creation was foreordained before man and sin appeared. Jesus himself appeared in the flesh only for a little while (Heb. 2:7)!

3* Even Jesus grew older (John 8:57) like the earth from which he was taken through his mother (Heb. 1:11). Though he conquered the world, the flesh and the devil, he did not reverse the earth’s God-ordained temporality and corruptibility (Rom. 8:18-15; Heb. 1:10-12)!

4* Isaiah 66:22 is interesting in that it refers to the ‘remaining’ so noticeably emphasised by the author of Hebrews with respect to the unshakable eternal world (1:10-12; 12:27, cf. 10:34; 11:10,16; 12:22; 13:14). While the reference to the making of the new earth may at first appear somewhat disconcerting, we must remember the limitations of OT revelation (Mt. 13:27; Eph. 3:9; 1 Pet. 1:10-12). At times, however, Isaiah, and indeed the OT writers in general, did appear to have some perception of a different world though, not surprisingly, they tended to see it very much in terms of the present one (see e.g. Isa. 24:23; 30:23-27; Dan. 7:13f., etc.). Sad to say, many Christians, who have not yet learned to appreciate the cataclysmic difference between the old and new covenants, entertain similar ideas. They stress continuity rather than discontinuity, physicality rather than spirituality and focus exclusively on sin. At the end of the day, however, the fundamental difference is that between flesh and spirit (Spirit, John 3:6), earth and heaven (cf. e.g. Heb. 12:18-24). If it is complained at this point that our physicality is basic to our humanity, it is enough to reply that while the body of flesh which derives from the temporal earth is destroyed (2 Cor. 5:1), the new spiritual body which will replace it will endure for eternity like that of Christ (Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:35ff.; 2 Cor. 4:7-5:10; 1 Pet. 4:6, etc.). Dunn succinctly sums up the situation when he comments that while soma can cross the boundary of the ages, sarx belongs firmly to this present age (Romans, p.391). It perhaps needs to be added here that Isaiah’s new creation also involves Jerusalem (Isa. 65:17ff.) which, according to NT writers, is a present if unseen reality since it is our mother (Gal. 4:26, cf. Heb. 12:22). And if we are looking for the creation of new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, we need to remember that according to Jesus it also already exists (Mt. 6:10)!

See further my Additional Note with reference to Hughes on restoration in Hebrews.
Note P.E.Hughes on 2 Corinthians, pp.80,167, 203f.,209 and Hebrews, pp. 381f

References

W.Hendriksen, Romans, Edinburgh, 1980.

P.E.Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, London, 1961.

P.E.Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids, 1977.

G.K.Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, Leicester, 2004.

In his well-regarded book “Redemption – Accomplished and Applied” John Murray tells us on page 141 that the order of the application of redemption involves progression until it reaches its consummation in the liberty of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:21,30). While there is no reason whatever to dispute this assertion, the reader may well wonder whether that goal is reached in the way Murray suggests. What is surely in view is the progressive spiritual maturation of the child of God who eventually becomes the complete or perfect(ed) man (cf. Phil. 3:12-14; Heb. 12:23). While believing mankind as a whole begins in the ground and ends in glory (Gen. 2:7; Rev. 22), the individual commences his personal pilgrimage at conception and concludes it at coronation (James 1:12, etc.). So the question confronting us is: What is the essence of this pilgrimage or perfecting process? What are the steps that the individual takes as he ascends to heaven and gains access to the presence of God (Eph. 2:18; 3:12)?

Progressive Revelation

Nowadays, we, in contrast with our forebears, virtually take for granted the idea that revelation in the Bible is progressive. Since revelation involves the history of the race we are not at all disturbed by our realization that despite Jesus’ comment in John 8:56 Abraham’s knowledge and understanding of salvation was very limited indeed. Among the NT writers Peter recognizes that the prophets delved into this salvation even if in the nature of the case their inquiries were circumscribed by the time in which they lived, that is, before the coming of Christ (1 Pet. 1:10-12, cf. Mt. 13:17).

Covenant Theology

In light of this, it comes as no surprise that the old covenant revelation was completed, fulfilled and superseded by that of the new once it was inaugurated. Indeed, covenant theology itself points to this fact (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 37:26-28). While in the early chapters of Genesis revelation was very limited indeed, the first covenant, that with Noah, was supplemented by the promise to Abraham. The latter was eventually followed by the Mosaic law to which was added in turn the promises made to David. Finally, the new or Christian covenant paved the way to glorification.

Covenant Theology Recapitulated in the Individual

Though church dogma under the domination of Augustine of Hippo has failed to recognize the fact, this progressive revelation to the community is miniaturized, telescoped or recapitulated in the individual. Since we are told that Jesus is the Saviour of the world or race (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2), we might reasonably expect that he would in himself be the supreme exemplar of biblical covenant theology and therefore equally the Saviour of Noah, Abraham, Moses and others whose path he trod in his own way (cf. e.g. Mt. 2:15; Heb. 11:39f.). In other words, if we accept with Gregory of Nyssa that what is assumed is healed, then as Irenaeus insisted Jesus, whose physical and spiritual development from human infancy is beyond question (Luke 2:41ff.), healed the sins of all who had (relative) faith. Thus we can hardly be shocked, on the one hand, when we read Hebrews 11 which highlights the salvation of the faithful like Abraham in OT times imperfect though it was (cf. Heb. 9:15; 11:39f.) and, on the other, when it is assumed that even children of limited understanding but genuine faith in our own time are capable of salvation too. Indeed, Paul sets the scene when he depicts Jesus as, first, born of woman according to nature, next, nurtured and tested under the law and then implicitly born of the Spirit (Gal. 4:4f.) so as to fit him to become the pioneer and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2).

So, in view of all this, the order of salvation is vital to our understanding of the faith and worthy of further examination.

Purpose and Calling

Since it is law or commandment that promises life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 7:9f., etc.), once human beings have attained to rationality and understanding of law in some sense, they are in a position either to keep it or break it. In the event, all follow the pattern established by our first parents Adam and Eve (cf. Lev. 26:39; Ps. 106:6; Jer. 9:13f.): all break it in their turn and earn the wages of death (Rom. 5:12; 6:23, pace Art. 9 of the C. of E.). They are thus universally in need of salvation apart from the law which they lack the ability to keep. And since God’s aim from before the foundation of the earth was to serve as man’s Saviour himself (see e.g. Isa. 45:21-25; Rom. 11:32; Tit. 1:2), he initiates the process of their salvation with his call. As Murray, for example, says, the purpose is prior to the calling (p.83). In support of this he rightly alludes to Romans 8:28-30, to what is popularly known as the golden chain of salvation. Here Paul intimates that purpose precedes calling, calling justification and justification glorification. This, however, is only an outline indicating the prime markers in the process of salvation. There are others of basic importance which require our attention.

Regeneration

For Murray, and for the Reformed in general, not to mention Roman Catholics for whom new birth is sacramentally imposed, calling is followed by regeneration. Here he seems to be governed more by the logic of Augustinian theology than by what the Bible actually teaches. Having wrongly accepted the idea quite alien to the Bible that we all sinned “in Adam” or that we all sinned when Adam sinned, he assumes that we are all fundamentally hostile to God and born (spiritually) dead in sin. In light of this, we need to be born again to enable us to exercise faith. In sum, he is led to place regeneration prior to faith and repentance (cf. WCF, 10-15). This ignores, of course, the fact that it is God himself who has the power to inspire faith in his people and give what he commands (cf. Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead). In the event, by positing the priority of regeneration he commits a theological error of mountainous proportions. Why?

Justification Logically Redundant

First we need to understand that regeneration implies eternal life (see e.g. John 3:16,36). So those who are born again are as children of God saved for all eternity (cf. John 1:12f.). If this is indeed the case, repentance, faith, justification and sanctification are to all intents and purposes redundant. Why repent and live a holy life when you are already saved? As the adage goes, once saved always saved. In dramatic contrast with Murray, John places faith before regeneration. Like other Bible writers, he presents faith as the indispensable means of appropriating salvation. In a nutshell, he insists like Paul that life, like righteousness, is a free gift received by faith (Rom. 6:23, cf. 1 Cor. 1:29). By contrast, if we accept Murray’s contention, we begin our progress to salvation, glorification apart, at the end. We start where we need to finish. Surely, if God’s objective was our salvation and its attainment by law proved impossible (Gal. 2:16), faith was the only means by which it could be appropriated (Eph. 2:8f., cf. v.5). So to place regeneration before faith is to put the cart before the horse, which is absurd.

Justification

Murray rightly argues that faith, which he regards as the instrumental means of appropriation, must precede justification. Logic apart, the biblical witness to this is overwhelming. Paul goes to great lengths to demonstrate that since justification by the works of the law is impossible, all human beings universally must resort to faith in Christ, as God always intended (Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; 3:11, etc.). And it is only when we believe in Christ that we receive his righteousness as a free gift (see espec. Rom. 5 and 6).

Justification and Life

But this raises the question of why righteousness is so important. The answer is not far to seek. If we go back to Genesis, we find that far from being created righteous as Augustine contended, Adam, like a baby who was ignorant of the law and knew neither good nor evil (cf. Dt. 1:39), was promised (eternal) life if he kept the commandment or law (Gen. 2:17). It was by keeping the law that he would become righteous (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7). On the other hand, when he broke the commandment, he became unrighteous and was cast out of the presence of God (cf. Isa. 59:2). In other words, righteousness is the gateway to life. Without it we cannot enter the presence of God who is too holy to look on evil (Hab. 1:13; Heb. 12:14). It is significant therefore that when Jesus came to be our Saviour, he had to do what Adam manifestly failed to do, that is, keep the law to perfection and thus, as man and a true son of Adam, through righteousness gain eternal life (Lev. 18:5; Rom. 5:21). When he had done this, in accordance with the divine intention he appropriately received the promised Spirit at his baptism (cf. Mt. 3:17, etc.). If this is so, then Murray’s attempt to place regeneration or life before justification is a massive blunder. For while God can and does justify the ungodly who, like Abraham, exercise faith (Rom. 4:5), he does not, as Genesis 3:22-24 indicates, regenerate them. As has already been implied, to do so would be to confirm them in eternal sin. The biblical picture is dramatically different (Rev. 22:11,15).

Sanctification and Justification

There is another problem with Murray’s analysis. He strongly insists that regeneration or eternal life is the first step in sanctification (e.g. p.118, etc.). If this is the case, then sanctification precedes justification. Needless to say, this breaks a fundamental canon of Reformation theology. For the Reformers, especially Luther, contended that justification was by faith alone. So long as sanctification or being made holy had priority, justification was neither by faith alone nor of the ungodly. The point is that justification is exclusively a work of God, a declaration of our righteousness in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21). By contrast, sanctification, like faith, though the work of the Holy Spirit, involves the co-operation (synergism) of man. The truth is that just as the righteousness of Christ is the sole or exclusive foundation of our perfect righteousness, so the life (regeneration) of Christ is the sole basis of our rebirth (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45; 2 Tim. 1:10; 1 John 5:11-13). Just as Christ was righteous by keeping the law, so are we by faith; and just as Jesus received the promise of life by keeping the law in righteousness, so we receive it by faith (Rom. 6:23, etc.). We thus experience union and communion with him (cf. Rom. 6:1-5, etc.).

Faith

What the Bible is telling us is that faith is fundamental to salvation. It inevitably takes priority as the instrumental means of all the blessings that salvation implies. While in contrast with the works of the law it underlines the grace of God (Eph. 2:8), it also, along with repentance, establishes man’s responsibility. Nowhere is this made plainer than in Hebrews 11. Regrettably, the theology based on the unbiblical ruminations of Augustine has hidden this from us.

Reconciliation

When does reconciliation take place? It needs to be remembered that reconciliation is an act of God. He has already reconciled us to himself in the death of Christ (Rom. 5:10). It is not something we do but something we receive like justification by faith (Rom. 5:11). This clearly accords with what we know of Abraham who along with Moses was justified by faith and was the friend of God (Ex. 33:11; 2 Chron. 20:7). This suggests that neither was considered a son of God by regeneration which in the OT was still a promise (Dt. 29:4; 30:6, etc.). Reconciliation is followed by life (Rom. 5:10). As we shall see below, in Paul’s thinking justification and reconciliation precede adoption.

Righteousness and Life

While the Reformers are famous for insisting that only by faith can we be justified, they regrettably clung to the view that original sin, or sin “in Adam”, so incapacitated man that he was spiritually dead and unable to exercise faith (implicitly regarded as a spiritual or good work of man). They apparently forgot that God inspires faith by his Spirit even in the ungodly like Abraham who was the prime exemplar of justification by faith. Following Augustine they saw regeneration as the antidote for original sin and thus taught that the elect are first regenerated and then justified. This view clearly does violence to the basic biblical contention that it is the righteous who will live (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). This was made plain as early as Genesis 2:17 and underlined by Leviticus 18:5 (cf. Dt. 30:15-20; 32:46f., etc.), for example, which reappears frequently even in the NT (e.g. Luke 10:28; Rom. 10:5).

The Weakness of the Flesh

Irrespective of original sin and worldly pressures in general, the Bible emphasizes the fact that since all human beings are flesh, they cannot keep the law (Gen. 3:6; 1 K. 8:46; Ps. 143:2; Rom. 7:14, etc.). (Murray, who is a powerful advocate of the imputation of Adam’s sin, asserts that in the Bible sin has its origin in the spirit of man not in his fleshly nature, p.180. If this is so, how is it that Adam, who according to Augustinian theology was created righteous and holy, sinned at all?) This means that achieving the righteousness needed to please God is quite beyond their capacity. But this is in accordance with the purpose of God, since he never intended that flesh should boast before him (1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:9) or put him in its debt (11:35, cf. Rom. 4:2).  However, Jesus, the Son of God, kept the law and remained sinless throughout his earthly career thus achieving the righteousness that God requires of man to inherit life.  As the second Adam he met the divine condition that the first Adam lamentably failed to meet and, as our covenant representative, provided all who trust in him with the means of life (John 3:16). This is clearly the order of the application of redemption that Paul outlines in Romans where he indicates that faith leads to obedience (1:5; 6:17), obedience to righteousness (5:1; 6:16), righteousness to life (5:17,21) and sanctification (6:4,19), which lead in turn to glorification (Rom. 5:2; 6:22f.; 8:17,30).

Adoption

In Romans 8, the apostle lays emphasis on the idea of adoption (cf. Gal. 4:6). Here he appears to be in contrast with John who relates family membership more closely to the new birth (John 1:12f.; 3:1-7; 1 John 3:2, though note John in Rev. 21:7 and Paul in Tit. 3:5). While it is true that John tends to refer to the regenerate as children and Paul to the adopted as sons, it may reasonably be inferred that the two concepts constitute little more than a variation on a theme not least since both Romans 8:17 and Titus 3:7 allude to the believer’s inheritance. Burke, though aware that adoption, like justification, is juridical and regeneration relational or familial, suggests that Paul probably avoids the latter concept because it was widely used by the mystery religions (p.26). So, on this assumption we may conclude that the two are complementary or correlative concepts pointing to our membership of the family of God.

It may legitimately be asked, however, where adoption (cf. regeneration) fits into the application of redemption. Murray, while insisting on the close association of regeneration with adoption, denies that they can be equated contending that the former is prerequisite, the latter consequent (p.134). This prompts the question of whether his position can be upheld? It is clearly problematic. Why? First, Murray maintains (p.133) that since God never has in his family those who are alien to its atmosphere and spirit, he renews them in knowledge, righteousness and holiness by regeneration. But then he proceeds to define adoption as an act of transfer from an alien family into the family of God himself (p.134). But if by regeneration the Christian is already in the family of God and regeneration precedes adoption, transfer by adoption can hardly be from an alien family! In light of this, it is surely safer to take the position suggested above and see regeneration and adoption as being complementary or analogous if not strictly speaking identical. As affirmed above, faith leads to righteousness and righteousness to life, that is, regeneration or adoption. (It is profitable to add here that our adoption, Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5f., corresponds with the acknowledgement by God of Jesus as his Son at his baptism, Mt. 3:13-17. See my essay “Following Jesus”.)

Perseverance and Glorification

Since regeneration or life is promised to the righteous by faith (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11), it is clear that sanctification follows on regeneration and/or adoption and involves perseverance. While the latter is disputed especially by Arminians on apparently practical grounds, it is theologically part and parcel of salvation by grace. Problems do clearly arise in experience, but it is vital to recognize that the human viewpoint of faith is essentially different from the divine viewpoint which involves predestination and sees the end from the beginning. In other words, what to us sometimes seems to depend entirely on our (weak) faith is ultimately grounded in the sovereign purpose and faithfulness of God. Human responsibility and divine sovereignty may be a paradox but they are not a contradiction. Despite all the vicissitudes of life, grace will in the end bring genuine believers safely home. At the end of the day, the perseverance of man depends on the preservation of God. This is part of the essence of the good news, and the notion that those who have undergone justification and regeneration will finally apostatize is theologically untenable. Sheer logic militates against it, for how can one have eternal life then lose it? If it is lost, it was by definition never eternal (cf. 1 John 2:19).

Purpose Achieved

It has been rightly noted that in the Bible beginnings have endings (cf. 2 Cor. 8:6,10f.), and we can be sure that the God who has begun a good work in us will bring it to completion on the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6, cf. John 6:37-40, etc.). The prophetic perfect of Romans 8:30, as Murray implies, cannot fail to end in the glorification of man in Christ. Regrettably, however, obsessed as he is with sin, Murray (p.178f.) in true Augustinian fashion posits the redemption of the transient material creation from which Adam was originally promised escape by obedience. Far from sharing our glory, like the flesh which emanates from it (2 Cor. 5:1), creation is destroyed and replaced with heaven itself (Heb. 9:24; 12:27; 2 Pet. 2:7,10-12; Rev. 20:11; 21:1, etc.). If flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither can the temporal and corruptible earth (1 Cor. 15:50).
_________________________________________________________

References

Trevor J.Burke, Adopted into God’s Family, Nottingham and Downers Grove, 2006.

John Murray, Redemption-Accomplished and Applied, Grand Rapids, 1955.

In its bare simplicity God’s plan of salvation is to take earthly men and women, who are made in his image, and make them his heavenly children and heirs in Christ (Rom. 8:14-17,29f.;1 Cor. 15:47-49; Eph. 1:4-6; Tit. 3:7; Heb. 2:10) so that they might live eternally to the praise of his glory (Eph. 1:12; Rev. 4 & 5, cf. Ps. 30:9; 115:17f.; Isa. 38:18-20; 43:7,21. For OT “salvation”, see e.g. Ex. 6:6-8; Lev. 22:32f.; 25:38,55; 26:12f.,45; Dt. 4:20, 9:29. Note how “servants” in the OT become “sons” or “children” in the NT).

The Corruptibility of Creation

The Bible teaches that man, though created in the image of God, emanates from the earth and is hence flesh. Since the earth has a beginning in time (Gen. 1:1), it is clearly temporal and inevitably has an end (Heb. 7:3; 1:10-12). It follows from this that all created things, including fleshly man, are mortal or corruptible by nature and in direct contrast to God himself who is eternal (Rom. 1:23; 8:19-25, cf. Gen. 8:22; Ps. 78:39; 90:2; 102:25-27; 103:14-16; Isa. 40:6-8; 51:6,8; 54:10; Mt. 5:18; 24:35, etc.). Thus Paul concludes that flesh and blood as opposed to spirit cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:5f. Note how in Gal. 4:29f. the son of the flesh is cast out like a slave in contrast with the true spiritual son in John 8:35 and Hebrews 3:6).

The Commandment Promising Life

Since he is made in the image of God, man is intended to be like God and so to seek immortality and incorruptibility (Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7). If he exercises his proper dominion he will be crowned with glory and honour (Gen. 1:26,28; Ps. 8:5f.; Rom. 2:10). With eternal life in view, God gave Adam a commandment. It warned of death but implicitly promised (eternal) life on the condition that it was kept (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5; Dt. 30:15-20; 32:46f.; Mt. 19:17; Lu. 10:28; Rom. 7:10; 10:5, etc.). Through the weakness of the flesh (Gen. 3:6, cf. Rom. 7:14; 8:3) Adam, the man of dust (1 Cor. 15:47), was unable to fulfil the condition, and, like him, by divine design so are all his children (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22) with the single exception of Jesus, the second Adam (Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 8:3; Heb. 2:17; 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22).

The Second Adam

Since men and women who are ‘flesh’ could not and cannot perfectly keep the commandments (Gen. 3:6; Job 4:17-19; 15:14; 25:4; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; 3:10f.), God, with the intention of being himself the sole Saviour of his people (Isa. 43:3,11; 45:21-23; 59:16; 63:5; Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22), has devised another means of bringing them into his heavenly presence (1 Pet. 3:18). He has sent his Son, the virgin-born man of heaven (1 Cor. 15:47), to serve as the second Adam, to fulfil the law in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4f.; Heb. 2:10ff.), to bring life and immortality (Gk. incorruption) to light through the gospel (2 Tim. 1:10) and thus to conquer the last enemy death (1 Cor. 15:26; Heb. 2:14f.). As both God and man it is Jesus who alone achieves dominion (Heb. 2:9; John 16:33; 17:4f.; Rom. 8:3; Rev. 5:5,12f.) and by so doing represents and saves all those who put their trust in him (Heb. 2:10-18).

The Eternal Plan’s Heavenly Consummation

According to Paul, God’s plan is eternal: it was formed in eternity and extends to eternity (Rom. 8:29f.; Eph. 1:4,9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2, cf. 1 Pet. 1:20). Thus, in the course of time, having received a heavenly call (Phil. 3:14; 1 Thes. 2:12; Heb. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:10) through the preaching of the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Thes. 2:14), we accept the promise of eternal life (Tit. 1:2; 1 John 2:25) and are justified (accounted righteous) by faith in Christ (Rom. 1:16f.; 3:22; 5:1). Then, born again (James 1:18, cf. John 3:6) and led by the Spirit, we are conformed to (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18) and perfected in the image of Christ (cf. Phil. 3:12-14; Heb. 6:1; 9:14; 10:22) who is himself the image of God (Heb. 1:3).

Finally, at death when we have finished our course in the time set by the Father (cf. Gal. 4:2), we receive complete salvation from our sin and bondage to the corruption of creation (Rom. 8:19-25; Gal. 1:4). Thus, since our flesh, like the material creation itself, cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50), both are removed (Heb. 12:27; Rev. 20:11; 21:1) and destroyed (2 Cor. 4:16-5:5; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). However, our bodies as such are redeemed (Rom. 8:23) and replaced as spiritual or heavenly bodies like that of Christ (Phil. 3:21) so that we may share eternally in the life and glory of God (Rom. 5:2; 8:18; 1 Cor. 15:42-57; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 Pet. 5:10, etc.) as his children and heirs (Luke 20:36; Rom. 8:14-17; 1 John 3:1-3). This “eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. 4:17, cf. Rom. 8:18,24f.) is variously described as the crown of life (Jas. 1:12; Rev. 2:10, cf. 3:11), the crown of glory (1 Pet. 5:4), the crown of righteousness (2 Tim. 4:8) which is doubtless eternal life in heaven (1 Pet. 1:4, cf. 1 Cor. 9:24), the inheritance of all those who finish their earthly race or pilgrimage looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of their faith (Heb. 12:2).

At this point God’s original promise of eternal life implied in Genesis 1:26,28 (cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:9f.) and 2:17 is fulfilled. As those who have received the unfading crown of glory through Christ (1 Pet. 1:4; 5:4), we shall worship at the throne of God and the Lamb, see his face and reign forever and ever (John 17:24; Rev. 22:3-5, cf. 3:21).

John Wesley on Salvation

“I want to know one thing, the way to heaven…. God himself has condescended to teach the way…. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book: At any price give me the book of God! I have it: here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be Homo unius libri * …. I sit down alone: only God is here. In his presence I open, I read His book; for this end, to find the way to heaven.”

* A man of one book.

Paul tells us that none of us hates our own bodies but that we all nourish and cherish them (Eph. 5:29). Experience and media advertising, to go no further, bear out the truth of his assertion. Yet the Bible tells us that we are meant to glorify God with our bodies (Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 6:20). Can this consistently be done if we pander to the flesh? It is worthwhile painting in some of the background to this question.

Fleshly Impermanence

Scripture distinguishes between the flesh and spirit, especially Spirit. This distinction is implicit in Genesis 1 and 2 where man is made both from the earth and in the image of God. In other words, the Bible teaches anthropological dualism (1). Since our fleshly bodies derive from the temporal earth, it is scarcely surprising that these bodies, which are intrinsic to our humanity, need to be changed to fit us to inhabit eternity and the presence of God (cf. 1 Pet. 3:18). We thus have in Scripture references to fleshly (Col. 1:22; 2:11) and spiritual (1 Cor. 15:44,46) or heavenly bodies (2 Cor. 5:1). So whatever else our natural bodies are, like the physical creation in general (Mt. 24:35; Heb. 1:10-12) they are inherently temporal and impermanent as Genesis 6:3, for those who are not dominated by the Augustinian dogma of sin, plainly implies (cf. Job 10:9; 34:14f.; Ps. 78:39; 104:29; 146:4). Paul underscores this point in 1 Corinthians 15:50 where he says that flesh and blood can no more inherit the kingdom of God than the impermanent (corruptible) can inherit the permanent. Jesus himself taught the same when he told Nicodemus that all those born of the flesh must be born again – an intrinsic necessity not an imperative! Only those spiritually regenerated could enter the kingdom of God. Though this passage (John 3:1-8) is traditionally used in Augustinian fashion to counter original sin (cf. Needham, pp.59,251, etc.), sin is no more mentioned in it than it is in 1 Corinthians 15:35ff.

Death and Corruptibility

If the fleshly body as a product of the corruptible material creation is by nature impermanent, it is naturally subject to death and corruption. Regrettably, this again under the influence of Augustine, who believed that man was created immortal, righteous and holy, yet nonetheless sinned (!), fell and brought a curse on the entire creation, has been denied. However, even before sin is mentioned in the Bible, Genesis 1 teaches us on the one hand that plants were created to reproduce (v.11) and on the other that they are to be used as food (v.29). We ought not to be surprised therefore that grass is used throughout Scripture as a symbol of death (Ps. 106:20; James 1:10; 1 Pet. 1:24, etc.). Isaiah goes a step further drawing the logical conclusion that all flesh is grass and in direct contrast to the word of God (Isa. 40:6-8). In other words, as Paul implies in Romans 1:23 (cf. 6:12; 8:11; 2 Cor. 4:11) and Peter in 1:1:23 (cf. 1 John 3:9) man as flesh is by nature mortal and corruptible. Sin is not on the horizon.

Sin and Death

Why then the traditional emphasis on sin as the cause of death? After all, it may be replied, Paul himself says that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23, cf. 5:12). Is he contradicting himself? Not at all! It was Augustine who got matters wrong. The Bible teaches that while man as flesh is, like all animal life, naturally mortal, yet as one made in God’s image in distinction from all other creatures, he was promised life and escape from the corruption of creation if he kept the commandment (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5; James 1:12, etc.). He failed and lapsed inexorably into the dust from which he was taken (Gen. 3:19).

Jesus

In contrast, Jesus, the second Adam who uniquely kept the commandment, indeed, the entire law, did not see corruption after death. While, as one born of woman he was naturally mortal and died on our behalf, he did not personally reap the wages of sin. Thus, having physically risen again from the dead (cf. Acts 2:23f.), he overcame the natural corruption of the flesh by ascending into heaven transformed (Acts 1:2,9, cf. 1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Tim. 3:16, cf. John 20:17). And, as the forerunner of all those who believe in him, he was endowed with a body of glory (Phil. 3:21; Heb. 2:9-18, cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-57).

It needs to be stressed that even Jesus in the flesh grew older (John 8:57) and would have died had he remained long enough on the earth. However, intent on doing his Father’s will (John 4:34, etc.), he kept the law and inherited its promise of life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.) by being acknowledged as the Son of God and being born from above (Mt. 3:13-17). In the words of Paul, he abolished death and brought life and immortality (incorruption) to light (2 Tim. 1:10) in a creation expressly subjected by God to futility (Rom. 8:18-25, cf. Gen. 1). He and he alone transcended earthly corruption by remaining sinless in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:9). Having himself conquered, he paved the way to life and glory for his brethren (Rev. 5:11f.; John 14:6; Heb. 2:10).

Bread Alone?

Jesus, like Moses before him, taught that man cannot live on bread alone implying that for eternal life he needs the word of God (Mt. 4:4). Even when the Israelites were fed with bread from heaven in the wilderness, they still died (John 6:49). They too needed the word of God in order to live forever (6:50f.). Paul virtually says the same thing when he implies that sowing to one’s own flesh even regardless of sin leads inevitably to corruption as it does in the sinless animal world which God himself feeds (Ps. 104:21,27f.). It can only be overcome by sowing to the Spirit (Gal. 6:8; Rom. 8:13). Given the impermanent nature of this age and our need of rescue from it (Gal. 1:4, cf. Mark 13:8), this is scarcely surprising.

Tents and Temples

Scripture points up the difference between the movable tent or tabernacle in the wilderness and the temple in Jerusalem. It is interesting to note that the body of flesh is described as a tent. For example, we are told in John 1:14 that Jesus “tabernacled” among us, implying that he came in the flesh only “for a little while” (Heb. 2:7). Paul also describes our fleshly bodies as being tents, which are destroyed by God on account of sin (2 Cor. 5:1, cf. 1 Cor. 6:13; Rom. 8:10), but underlines the fact that they are “redeemed” (Rom. 8:23) as houses “not made with hands eternal in the heavens” (ESV). 2 Corinthians 5:1, which is verbally similar to Mark 14:58 (2), reminds us that the body of Jesus was also likened to a temple. True though it is that an earthly temple was more permanent than the tabernacle, it too was subject to corruption. And while the fleshly body of Jesus was raised, as he said it would be (John 2:19), he himself ultimately became a permanent or spiritual temple for his people (Rev. 21:22).

Peter, aware of his impending martyrdom, writes to fellow believers that the putting off of his body or “tent” is fast approaching. The word he uses for putting off is ‘apothesis’ (2 Pet. 1:14, cf. 1 Pet. 3:21). It reminds us of the word ‘metathesis’ in Hebrews 12:27 which refers to the removal of all created things. Again we are led to infer that the physical body and the earth from which it derives, like all things “made by hand” (Job 10:8; Ps. 119:73; Isa. 45:12, etc.) in contrast with those that are “not made by hand” (2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 9:11,24, etc.) are, like the “hand-written” law (Col. 2:14), temporal and provisional (Heb. 8:13). It should be noted that the law in contrast with the word of God lasts only until the end of the world (Mt. 5:18; 24:35) (3).

The Flesh

Historically, the flesh has been regarded as sinful (see e.g. Art. 9 of the C of E), despite its being part of God’s still ‘good’ (i.e. useful) creation (1 Tim. 4:4). More recently, because of its close association with sin, the Greek word sarx has been translated “sinful nature” especially in the NIV. While it must be conceded that on occasion Paul virtually attributes that meaning to it (4), it is in fact seriously misleading and frequently hides what Paul is implying (e.g. in Gal. 6:8). While John refers to the flesh without Paul’s more obvious ethical overtones (John 1:13; 6:63, etc.), Paul is conscious not only of fleshly man’s inherent inability to do good (Rom. 7:18; 8:8) but also of his inexorable tendency when confronted by the law to produce sin (Rom. 7:14,19, etc.). All human beings sin not because they are in covenant with or “in Adam” but because they fail like Adam and Eve, under the influence of the devil, to control their fleshly bodies (Gen. 3:6, cf. Eph. 2:1-3, etc.). In other words, far from exercising dominion over the earth including their own bodies as they should, they allow earthly things to rule them. The flesh, which as part of creation (Gen. 1:26,28) was intended to be the slave of the spirit (Gen. 4:7; Rom. 6:16,19; 1 Cor. 9:27), in the event becomes its master, and a major reversal takes place (cf. Gen. 3:6; John 8:34; Rom. 7:14; 2 Pet. 2:19). Thus it is made plain that those who indulge the flesh and quench the spirit will not inherit God’s (spiritual) kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9, etc.).

The War

Since the flesh is a law to itself, it has its own passions and desires which are not subject to the law of the mind (Rom. 7:23; 8:13). It thus becomes an enemy in a war with the mind that is instructed by the written law (Rom. 7:14-25), and again with the spirit that is subject to the promptings of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16ff.; 1 Pet. 2:11, cf. James 4:1f.). Thus Paul completely scouts the idea that the fleshly passions are intrinsically sinful (cf. e.g. Fung, p.274). They are a law to themselves (cf. Rom. 7:23,25; Gal. 5:17). Even Jesus, as a true son of Adam who suffered temptation (Mt. 4:1-11, etc.) like the rest of his brethren (cf. James 1:14; 5:17), had to wrestle with them. But since he successfully subjected himself first to the law (Mark 1:11) in contrast with Paul (Rom. 7), for example, and then to the leading of the Spirit (Mt. 3:13-17, cf. Rom. 8.) until he achieved perfection (Mt. 3:15; 19:21), he completely overcame them (Heb. 4:15; Rom. 8:3, etc.). In fact, led by the Spirit, the normal desires of his fleshly body (Heb. 2:17; James 1:14; 5:17) did not come to maturity or completion in sin (Gal. 5:16, Gk. teleo; James 1:15, Gk. apoteleo). In his case, the lusting of the Spirit completely overcame the lusting of the flesh (Gal. 5:17, cf. John 4:34; 8:29). (It is of vital importance here to recognize that only the fleshly desires which are condemned by the law are sinful, cf. Gal. 5:19-24. There is no law against sex, eating, drinking, fatigue, urinating, defecating, etc., as such. If there were, the plan of salvation could not be put into effect!) Thus, though he himself was in the likeness of sinful flesh, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that we who believe in him might walk according to the Spirit and fulfil the just requirement of the law in our turn (Rom. 8:3f.).

Glorifying God with our Bodies

According to Genesis 1:26,28 man, who was made in the image of God, was intended to exercise dominion over the earth. In the words of the Psalmist, he was given dominion over the works of God’s hands in hope of being crowned with glory and honour (Ps. 8:5f.). Since his fleshly body derived from the earth, he was required to master it too (Gen. 4:7; cf. 1 Cor. 9:27). To do this and to inherit (eternal) life he had to keep the commandment (2:17) and at a later stage in his history the whole law (Lev. 18:5; Dt. 30:15-30, cf. Rom. 2:7). As we have already seen, it is clear from this that to glorify God man was to make his fleshly body his slave. Needless to say, he failed in this. Flesh triumphed over spirit, and to some degree this is the story of man’s earthly life. Paul, however, well aware of Jesus’ triumph in the flesh (Rom. 8:3, cf. Heb. 2:9), urges his readers to glorify God in their bodies even to the extent of laying down their lives either in service or witness in death (Mark 8:35; John 12:24). After all, they, along with their passions and desires (Gal. 5:24), have in principle already been crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6). So now they must refuse to give way to the flesh (Rom. 6:13,19; 13:14) and offer their bodies as a spiritual sacrifice as their minds are transformed and renewed (Rom. 12:1f.).

The Persecutor

We have seen how the flesh is considered an enemy that wars against the soul. In Galatians 4:29f. Paul personifies both flesh and spirit by reference to Ishmael whose birth was entirely fleshly and to Isaac who was the fruit or fulfillment of God’s promise. Here he points out that Ishmael who, though circumcised, nonetheless epitomized the flesh and was explicitly excluded from the covenant people (Gen. 17:19-21). Furthermore, he persecuted Isaac who represented the Spirit. Since in Scripture it is made apparent that ultimately all God’s enemies will be put beneath the feet of Christ (1 Cor. 15:24-28, cf. Col. 1:20), it follows that the fleshly persecuting slave will finally be cast out. In the Father’s house there is room only for spiritual sons (John 8:35, cf. 14:2f.). Neither the flesh itself (1 Cor. 15:50) nor its devotees can inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9f.; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2 Pet. 2; Jude; Rev. 21:8; 22:15). Investment in all created things, including our fleshly bodies which are doomed to pass away, brings at best minimal returns (1 Tim. 4:8; Heb. 11:25) and at worst total loss (Mt. 6:19f.; Lu. 12:15-40; 1 Cor. 7:31; Heb. 12:16f.; 1 John 2:15-17, etc.).

Difficult though it is, our universal call as human beings is to exercise dominion over and make our earthly (fleshly) bodies our slaves (Gen. 1:26,28; 4:7; Ps. 8:5f.; 1 Cor. 9:27; Rom. 2:7; Heb. 2:6ff.). Since we all fail, recognition that Jesus succeeded and was made perfect (Mt. 4:4; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:9f.,17; 4:15) is welcome news indeed. And if, even as Christians, we continue to fall short, we can be assured that on confession we shall be forgiven (1 John 1:9, cf. Heb. 2:18; 4:16).

References

See Guthrie, New Testament Theology, Leicester, 1981, p.176.

See P.E.Hughes, 2 Corinthians, London, 1961, p.164 n.22.

See R.T.France, Matthew, Leicester, 1985, p.115.

Cf. Fung’s “near-equation”, Galatians, Grand Rapids, 1988, pp.168 n.3,118,244.

In Genesis 1:26,28 man who is created by God in his image is saddled with the responsibility of exercising dominion over all his works. Since both man and beast stem from the earth God has made (Gen. 1:24; 2:7), it follows that just as man rules fleshly animals, he is intended to rule his own flesh which also stems from the earth. Intent on finding purpose for his existence, the Psalmist draws the conclusion that man, who is made a little less than God and serves as God’s vice-regent in creation, is crowned with glory and honour (8:5-8). In case we have failed to grasp the importance of this, the author of Hebrews, perhaps following clues in Psalms 103:4 and 21:5, clarifies the issue by explaining that this implies man’s ultimate glorification in the presence of God (Heb. 2:6-13).

The Problem

This prospect of final glory is underscored by Genesis 2:17 where Adam, though threatened with death, is implicitly promised eternal life if he obeys God by keeping his commandment (cf. WCF, 7:2). This, he fails to do and, like all his successors Enoch apart, he meets his end in death (Gen. 5). In other words, man having failed in his prime duty of serving his Creator, comes short of his glory (Rom. 3:23) and dies. As dust he returns to the dust (Gen. 3:19). Throughout the Bible it is made plain that man’s blessing is conditional on his keeping the commandments, especially as revealed in the old covenant. Just as the commandment given to Adam promised life, so does obedience to the law of Moses (Dt. 11:26-28; 15:4-6; 30:15ff.; Isa. 1:19f.; Jer. 21:8, etc.). But Israel, in one sense Adam recapitulated, consistently failed, but most notably at the beginning at Sinai (Ex. 32). His history was one of constant rebellion, ruin, repentance and redemption graphically and repetitiously illustrated in the book of Judges. If glory was his goal, then Israel failed lamentably to attain to it. While he was intended to live to the praise of God’s glory (Isa. 43:7,21, cf. Eph. 1:12), he did the opposite and caused the heathen to blaspheme (Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24). He needed, like the rest of the world, someone not only to stand in the breach (cf. Ps. 106:23) but also to repair it (cf. Isa. 58:12). A mediator, a second Adam acting as mankind’s representative, was urgently needed if ever man was to attain to the glory of God. In the fullness of time one came in the person of Christ who epitomised the true Israel.

Man’s Purpose in the NT

As I have already suggested with reference to Hebrews 2, the NT makes plain much that was somewhat obscure in the OT. Paul, for example, is quite clear that man’s calling is to seek for glory, honour and immortality in eternal life (Rom. 2:7,10, cf. 1 Pet. 1:7), but the picture he paints of both heathen and Jew is stark in its depiction of fleshly dominion as opposed to spiritual triumph (Rom. 1:18-3:30; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19, etc.). Peter (esp. 2:2) and Jude graphically follow suit and depict the depths of human sin. If man has received a heavenly call (Phil. 3:14; 1 Thes. 2:12; Heb. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:10) or a call to glory (Rom. 5:2; 8:18,30; Rom. 9:23; 2 Cor. 4:17; Col. 1:5), we are left in no doubt that it is Christ who is the hope of glory (Col. 1:27; 1 Pet. 5:4). How does this come about? In what way does it become a reality?

Jesus

If the OT contained hints of a messianic Saviour, it is only with the hindsight gained from reading the NT that we can appreciate his nature as a servant king. Here two points need to be made. First, in the OT, God as King (Ps. 10:16; Isa. 43:15) promised that he himself would save his people. Salvation was exclusively in his gift (Dt. 32:39; Isa. 45:21f.; 42:8; 48:11). Second, since the promise of life and glory originally made in Genesis 1 and 2 was to man, it had to be achieved by man. And since all other men had proved unsuccessful in meeting the divine condition (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 143:2), the Word of God had of necessity to be made man as Jesus, the second Adam (John 1:1-5,14; Heb. 2).

Jesus the Second Adam

It is of vital importance to note that Jesus was the second or last Adam. The word Adam, like Israel or Ephraim (Hos. 11:1-3) can refer either to an individual or to a community. Clearly, as archetypal man, Adam is representative of (though he does not as tradition teaches represent) all mankind according to the flesh (1 Cor. 15:45-49). He was a creature of God who stemmed from the earth. By contrast, Jesus was not a creature (John 1:1-4), but when he took on human or Adamic nature through his mother, God became his Father (Luke 1:35) as he had been of Adam (Luke 3:38). If this had not been the case, then, as is implied in Exodus 32:10, Numbers 14:12 and Deuteronomy 9:14, God would have had to recommence his plan of salvation de novo, wiping clean the slate of all previous history. In clarification of this we might say that, though born in the fullness of time (cf. Gal. 4:4), that is, in mid-history, Jesus recapitulated all previous Adamic history, thereby making possible the salvation of the whole world (cf. 1 John 2:2), even of those who like Abraham (about whom Moses was so desperately concerned, Ex. 32:13) had preceded him (Heb. 11) and in fact whose son he was (cf. Acts 17:30; Rom. 3:25f.; Hebrews 9:15, cf. v.26). Needless to say, the atonement provided for the salvation of all the believing sons of Adam who succeeded him (John 3:16; Heb. 11:39f.).

As a truly incarnate, genuine son of Adam (Heb. 2:14,17), Jesus was given the responsibility of fulfilling the role that the first Adam and all his posterity had lamentably failed to fulfil. All, though like Adam created in embryonic fellowship with God (cf. Eccl. 7:29; Ezek. 28:13-15; Rom. 7:9f.),* to the very last man and woman had sinned (Gen. 8:21; 1 K. 8:46; Ps. 106:6; 143:2; Jer. 3:25; 32:30, etc.), had separated themselves from the tree of life and had rendered themselves incapable of access to God (Gen. 3:22-24). As we have already seen above, in such circumstances a second Adam was indispensably necessary.

Jesus in Action

We are given few details of Jesus’ early life but the basic markers characterising his youth are clearly etched. In other words, his biography is theological and anthropological. We know that he was born of woman (cf. Gal. 4:4) and was hence a true human being. We also know he was circumcised on the eighth day and hence a genuine Israelite. Though as a child he recapitulated the experience of Israel by spending time in Egypt, unlike them (Ezek. 20:8; 23:21) he did not become a slave of sin (cf. John 8:34; Rom 1:18-32). If he was a slave at all, it was as a minor (Gal. 4:1). As he grew and matured, however, he was able to leave behind his heathen experience and at the age of 12 become personally accountable as a son of the commandment (cf. Gal. 4:4) for keeping the law of Moses. From the start he made it clear to his parents to whom he owed obedience according to the law (Luke 2:51) that his prime function was to honour his heavenly Father (Luke 2:49).

Jesus under the Law

Again, as with his “heathen” experience, we are given little information about his life under the law. The reason is perhaps not difficult to fathom: law keeping, as the modern media make plain, is hardly newsworthy or dramatic. If he does no evil, neither does he do any good. As Jesus himself intimated, the law keeper as a servant only does his duty and is not entitled to any reward (Luke 17:10). In general, it is only when we break the law that we figure prominently on the news. In any case, like John the Baptist, Jesus performed no miracles during the period of his minority (Gal. 4:4). It was not until he was baptized that he came to prominence.

The Baptism of Jesus

Jesus’ baptism is of prime importance. First, it marks the end of his stint as a servant under the law. Now he becomes the publicly acknowledged Son of God, the paradigmatic archetype of our adoption. This can only mean that he had kept the letter of the law to perfection and, as man, had reaped the promise of eternal life originally promised to (Gen. 2:17, cf. Ps. 8:5) but forfeited by the first Adam (Gen. 3:22-24). The fact that his Father is well pleased with him can signify nothing less. For the first time in the history of mankind, someone has finally kept the law and received the authority to be acknowledged as a child of God (John 1:12). Of him alone could it truly be said, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” But there is more involved. Not only is Jesus as man born again from above (John 3:6) and as the Son is in possession of eternal life, he is now bent on fulfilling all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) with a view to achieving the perfection of God himself (Mt. 19:21, cf. 5:48). What does this perfection involve?

The Saviour of the World

In the OT God is pictured variously as the King, Father, Shepherd, Judge, husband and so forth of his sinful people. If it is true that God has loved Israel with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3) and is, as we have seen, the only Saviour of his people, then Jesus as man must somehow serve as that Saviour, as Isaiah in particular intimated (ch. 53). He must fulfil both the letter and the spirit of the law (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6). The very purpose of his coming was to serve and not to be served and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). As Shepherd he would lay down his life for his sheep (John 10:11, cf. Ezek. 34:11-16,23). The old covenant which Israel broke had proved a ministry of death; it needed to be replaced with a covenant of life (Heb. 10:9). And Jesus had to inaugurate and establish that covenant (cf. Mt. 26:28, etc.). How did he do it?

Pleasing God

Pleasing God is a basic theme of Scripture. At its lowest level it involves believing in the existence and creatorship of God and seeking to please him (Heb. 11:1-6; cf. Acts 17:27; John 4:23f.; Rom. 2:14-16). So far as the children of Abraham were concerned, it meant believing his promises and walking in reliance before him and being blameless (Gen. 17:2). By and large Abraham himself succeeded in doing this but, as Paul points out, even he fell short and was classified as ‘ungodly’ (Rom. 4:5). Moses, the mediator of the old covenant also failed. While he, like Jeremiah (24:7; 31:31-34), could promise life in the future (Dt. 29:4; 30:6, etc.), he himself as a sinner could not bring it in (cf. Heb. 3:5f.). Even David, Israel’s most illustrious king, was also a failure (cf. Acts 2:29). But Jesus, having kept the law, earned his Father’s praise (Mt. 3:17, cf. 1 John 3:22) and inherited life for himself, made it his mission to please his Father throughout his ministry. He did not please himself (Rom. 15:3) but always did what pleased his Father (John 8:29). According to John his very food was to do his Father’s will (4:34; 5:30). Indeed, this was the purpose of his descent to earth (6:38). And according to the author of Hebrews he who loved righteousness and hated lawlessness (1:9) came to do the will of God in the body that God had prepared for him (10:5). This was preferable to offering sacrifices (Dt. 10:12; Ps. 40:6-8; Mic. 6:6-8), though in his case doing God’s will and offering himself as a sacrifice coincided (Heb. 10:1-10). It is scarcely surprising that before Jesus’ crucifixion God again confirmed the acceptability of his commitment at the transfiguration (Lu. 9:35; 2 Pet. 1:17).

The Crucifixion

Writing to the Romans Paul says that most of us will hardly die for righteous and good people let alone bad ones (5:7), but he adds significantly that God showed his love for us when Christ died for the ungodly or, in other words, he died as an atonement for their sins (Rom. 3:25f.: 1 Pet. 1:19, etc.). If the cross did nothing else, it pleased or glorified God. But the sheer difficulty even for Jesus who was committed to doing his Father’s will in laying down his life for his people is not skated over or blurred in the Scripture (cf. Mt. 26:38f.). Jesus’ fleshly human nature rebelled at the physical and spiritual torment his crucifixion involved (cf. Mt. 26:41). But, such was his concern to finish the work he had been given to do (John 14:31) that, strengthened by the Spirit, he overcame his natural reluctance and submitted. Ultimately, it was not a question of his (human) will but that of God (Mt. 26:39). As Paul put it, he humbled himself, became obedient to death, even death on the cross and as a consequence he was exalted (Phil. 2:8f.). In similar fashion, the author of Hebrews claims that Jesus learned obedience through what he suffered and was thus perfected (5:8f., cf. 2:10).

Perfection

The author of Hebrews lays great stress on the perfection of Jesus. The implication of his teaching is that Jesus as the second Adam had achieved the perfection of God. We have already seen that Matthew’s gospel had this in view. It may well be asked why. After all, does not Matthew himself indicate that Jesus was the very Son of God from the start of his life on earth? He does indeed (Mt. 1:23). But babies are by nature imperfect (immature, incomplete) and are required to attain to maturity, to full spiritual manhood (cf. Eph. 4:13). As B.B.Warfield once pointed out, Jesus’ development or maturation process was the only normal or proper one that ever occurred. He lived a sinless life as a slave or minor, again as a servant under the law of Moses and finally as a Son (cf. Gal. 4:1-7). To express the issue otherwise, he proved his pedigree as the Son of God by his works (John 5:36; 10:25; 14:11). In him ontology and function coincided until finally on the cross, having accomplished the works the Father had given him to do (John 17:4), he could say, “It is finished” (John 19:30). Thus he achieved perfection, the perfection of God himself (Heb. 3:6; 7:28). This being so, he received as man the right to sit at God’s right hand (Heb. 1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2, cf. 2 Cor. 4:6) on the throne of the universe (Mt. 28:18; Eph. 1:21; Heb. 1:6; 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 3:21).

The Glory of Jesus

If the author of Hebrews stresses the perfection of Jesus (though not to the exclusion of his glory, 1:3; 2:9f.; 3:3; 13:21), John emphasizes the latter. First we should note that Jesus was dedicated to glorifying his Father on the earth (7:18; 8:50,54; 13:31f.; 14:13; 15:7f.; 17:1,4, cf. 5:41). And as a consequence of this, God reciprocated by glorifying his Son, first in his works and words (John 2:11; 8:50,54; 11:4), second on the cross (John 12:23), third by his exaltation (John 17:5,24; Acts 2:33,36; Heb. 1:3,13, etc.), fourth by the Spirit (John 16:14) and thus in those who will believe in him by the power of the Spirit (John 16:14, cf. 7:39; 12:16).

It is, however, the glorification of Jesus in his exaltation to the right hand of his Father that is of supreme importance to us as believers, for it proves that man in Jesus has attained to the glory of God which, as we saw, was his (man’s) original calling. Jesus is the pioneer and trail blazer of our own glorification (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 6:20; 12:2), our very hope of glory (Col. 1:27). He was no mere mediator of a breakable and transient law but the guarantor of a new covenant that could not fail (Heb. 7:22). If he had not conquered, then neither could we. But conquer he did, and we conquer in him (Rom. 8:37; 1 John 5:5; Rev. 3:21). Thus, he is uniquely the way the truth and the life (John 14:6), our absolutely indispensable mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) apart from whom there is no access to God (Eph. 2:18; 3:12; Heb. 8:1f.; 9:24) and hence no salvation (Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:11-13). His victory spells victory for all of every tribe, tongue and nation who believe in him (Rev. 7:9f.). For all who with unveiled faces have beheld the glory of the Lord are changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10) until eventually they are totally conformed to his image and are themselves glorified (Rom. 8:29f.) as God’s children (Rom. 8:16f., cf. 1 Pet. 4:13).

The Meaning of Glorification

What does our glorification involve? Primarily, it means conformity to the image of God and accessibility to his presence (Eph. 1:18; 3:12; Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 3:18). After all, at the beginning man was made in the image of God in order that he might attain to his likeness. In the book of Leviticus especially stress is laid on man’s being holy and righteous as God himself is holy and righteous (Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2). Jesus, who in Acts is acclaimed as the Holy and Righteous One (3:14, etc.), urges man’s perfection (Mt. 5:48) which implies his own (3:15; 19:21). Then Paul tells us that God’s will is our sanctification (1 Thes. 4:3). And the author of Hebrews informs us that God disciplines us like children so that we may share his holiness (Heb. 12:10) apart from which we shall not see the Lord (12:14). In other words, it is a question of “like Father, like son”: those who are truly God’s children must become like him, “a chip off the old block.” To be glorified we must be like God as Jesus was. Ultimately our goal is not merely to conform to his moral character but to take on his generic nature (1 Pet. 4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4, cf. Col. 3:4; 1 John 3:2), that is, to share his glory (Rom. 5:2). John is overwhelmed by the amazing privilege he sees in our becoming the children of God and he associates it with our being like him (1 John 3:1-3). As Paul puts it, our present lowly bodies will resemble Christ’s glorious body (Phil. 3:21). In violent contrast, those who live for earthly things, the satisfaction of their fleshly cravings (cf. Ps. 78:17-31), will be destroyed (Phil. 3:19, cf. Col. 3:1-5). In light of this it is little wonder that we are called to glorify God in our bodies (1 Cor. 6:20), to make our bodies the vehicle of our spirits. Thus our aim is not to please ourselves (2 Cor. 5:9) but to offer our bodies as living sacrifices, for only this constitutes acceptable worship (Rom. 12:1). While it is true that only Jesus succeeded in doing this to perfection (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:9; 12:2), we in faith and gratitude seek to follow in his steps and take on his image (Rom. 8:29). And if his perfect glorification of his Father resulted in his resurrection, exaltation and glory, so does ours in him (cf. 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14). It is his desire that we should not only live because he lives (John 14:19) but be like him, be where he is (John 12:26; 14:3) and see his glory (John 17:24). Since he has breached the curtain (Heb. 6:19f.; 10:19f.) as our Saviour and is now a minister in the true tent, we can enter too (Heb. 8:1f.; 9:11,24; 10:21-23; Eph. 2:18; 3:12; 1 Pet. 3:18).

The Universal Command to Repent and Believe

If the message of the Bible from the beginning was that we who are created in the image of God should exercise dominion over creation in order to receive glory (Gen. 1:26,28; Ps. 8:4-8), then, since we all come short of that glory (Rom. 3:23), we are compelled to turn to Christ who alone succeeded (Heb. 2:9f.; Rev. 5:12). Little wonder that God, who never intended that we should save ourselves (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22), has commanded all peoples everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30f.) and put their faith in Christ (1 John 3:23, cf. John 6:29). For in him alone can we gain the crown of glory (1 Pet. 5:4, cf. 2 Tim. 4:8; Jas. 1:12; Rev. 2:10).

From Ground to Glory

In light of Genesis 2:8,15 and Luke 1:35, I am forced to infer that Eden symbolizes the womb of mankind. Since God is said to create in the womb (Job 31:15; Jer. 1:5, etc.), it is blasphemous to argue a la Augustine that babies, even fetuses, are sinful (cf. Rom. 7:9f.; 9:11). If it were true, even Jesus would be sinful. Adam, of course was created in the womb of the earth (Ps. 139:15f., cf. Gen. 2:7), then transferred like seed to Eden (cf. Ps. 139:13; Gen. 2:8) to be nurtured and to reproduce. Thus all men and women in effect go through the same process. They begin life in the earth as flesh (cf. John 1:13; 1 Pet. 1:23) enter an earthly paradise and, on being thrust into the world, undergo testing before finally attaining to the goal of their heavenly paradise (Rev. 2:7; 22:1-5). The (hi)story of mankind extends from ground to glory (cf. Ps. 139:13-16,24; 1 Cor. 15:46), and since God’s plan for the fullness of time was set forth in Christ, he summed up all in himself (Eph. 1:10). Otherwise expressed, Jesus as the second and true Adam (cf. Rom. 5:14) epitomized or encapsulated mankind in himself (Eph. 4:13,15f.). The end, both terminus and goal, of the world is the total reconciliation or the pacification/subjection of all things to God (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Eph. 1:10; Col. 1:20-22, cf. Mt. 28:18; Heb. 2:8).

The Glory of God

God himself is uniquely glorious. He has “weight” or “worthiness”, that is, intrinsic worth, and man’s basic calling from the start was to love him with all his heart, soul and mind (Dt. 6:4) by keeping his commandments (Gen. 2:17, cf. John 14:15,21,23; Rev. 12:17; 14:12, etc.). In Revelation 4:11 (cf. 7:12; 19:1) the twenty-four elders rightly declare that God as the Creator of all things, the ne plus ultra, eternal, perfect and complete, is worthy to receive glory, honour and power (cf. Dan. 4:34f.; Rom. 11:36; 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16). In John 17:4f., however, Jesus as man’s representative, who has glorified his Father through every phase of his earthly life, prays for his own glorification in his Father’s presence. The rest of the chapter then lays the basis for the progressive glorification of those who believe in him (see espec. verses 22-24, cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:6). In Revelation 5 two reasons for the glorification of the Lamb are given: first, he has conquered (5:5), and, second, he has been slain, thereby ransoming people from all the earth for God (Rev. 5:9). Like the Creator himself, he also is considered worthy to receive blessing, honour, and glory (Rev. 5:12). And thus both God and the Lamb are glorified together forever and ever (5:13, cf. 1:6; 6:16; 7:10; 21:23; 1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:11; Heb. 13:20f.; 1 Pet. 4:11). It would appear necessarily to follow from this, as the Shorter Catechism indicates, that our chief end as his creatures is to glorify God, enter his presence (Rev. 7:15; 21:3) and enjoy him forever (Ps. 16:11; 17:15; 36:7-9; Rev. 22:1-5). And this we who have personally come short of his glory (Rom. 3:23) can do through faith* in Christ the Conqueror of the world (Lu. 11:21f.; John 16:33; Rom. 8:31-39; Phil. 2:8-11; Heb. 1:2-4; 2:6-16; 12:1-4; 1 John 3:8; 5:5; Rev. 3:21; 12:11; 17:14; 19:16) and high priest after the order of Melchisedek (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 2:17f.; 4:15f.; 5:7-10; 7:23-25; 8:1f.; 9:24; 1 John 2:1).

* Those who exercise faith in Christ in the book of Revelation keep the commandments and bear witness to his word: 1:2; 12:17; 14:12; 19:10; 20:4. Cf. 22:14 mg.; John 6:29; 8:31; 14:15,21,23; 15:7,10; 1 John 2:4f.; 3:23; 5:2f.. The pattern is essentially the same in the OT: Dt. 7:9-11; 8:2; 11:1; 19:9.

I have written at some length on this subject elsewhere. The point of this essay is to be brief and to present two basic arguments to support my contention.

Creation

First, for those who are not overwhelmed by the teaching of Augustine who taught the Western world to think in terms of a “fallen creation”, the result of the “Fall of Adam” from original righteousness, proper exegesis of Romans 8:18-25 makes it clear that Paul saw creation as being naturally, that is, created, corruptible by God (cf. Mt. 6:19f.; 1 Pet. 1:3f., etc.). Not only does the apostle fail to mention sin but he also clearly contrasts the present temporal age of suffering, which has both a beginning and an end, with the glory of the eternal age to come (v.18). Having already contrasted the natural corruptibility of the creature whose origin is the earth with the Creator in Romans 1:23,25 he is clearly at one with the author of Hebrews who is quite unequivocal in contrasting the eternal God with his temporal creation (Heb. 1:10-12, cf. Gen.1:1; 8:22; Ps. 90:2; Isa. 40:6-8; 51:6,8; 54:10; Mt. 24:35, etc.).

Flesh

Second, the human body of flesh, which derives from the corruptible earth, is necessarily mortal and corruptible like the animal world in general (cf. Eccl. 3:19f.) quite apart from sin. This inference is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the sinless Jesus who was born of woman, clearly underwent normal human development (Luke 2:50ff.), daily grew older (Luke 2:52; John 8:57) and was headed for final physical dissolution (2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 8:13). (See further note below.) The fact that he experienced death but not corruption does nothing to undermine this inference; it simply illustrates his victory over them. On the one hand, Jesus was raised from the dead because he alone had kept the law which promised life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). He did not pay a penalty for his own sins, since he did not commit any (1 Pet. 2:22), but for those of his people. Having died for them and been raised he was no longer subject to death (Rom. 6:9). On the other hand, he did not undergo corruption even though he was still flesh (Luke 24:39, etc.). This being so, his ascension transformation (John 20:17) was a paramount necessity. Only in heaven could he reign forever on David’s throne (Luke 1:32f.) as the precursor of the saints still alive at the end of the world (John 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:50ff.; Phil. 3:21).

Conclusion

This highlights the basic biblical distinction between the old and new covenants. In essence, though they overlap, the old relates to this temporal world, the new to the eternal world to come (cf. Luke 20:34-36). The law, being provisional (2 Cor. 3), is effective only on this transient earth (Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1). It is in strong contrast with the word of the oath which stands forever (Mt. 24:35, cf. Isa. 51:6; 54:10, etc.).

NOTE

God		Incarnate Word (Jesus)
Eternal		Temporal (a little while, Heb. 2:7)
No beginning or end (Isa. 57:15, etc.)		Beginning and end (Luke 1:31, cf. Heb. 7:3)
Uncreated		Created (Heb. 10:5-7)
Immortal (1 Tim. 6:16)		Mortal (1 Pet. 3:18)
Incorruptible (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17)		Corruptible (John 8:57, cf. Heb. 1:11)
Unchangeable (immortal and incorruptible, cf. Heb. 1:12)		Changeable (made perfect and underwent transformation and glorification)
Invisible**		Visible (1 John 1:1)
Intangible		Tangible (John 20:24-29)
Not temptable (Jas. 1:13)		Temptable (Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 4:15)
Independent or complete (Acts 17:25)		Dependent on Father (John 6:57; 14:28)
Perfect (Mt. 5:48)		Perfectible (Luke 2:52; Heb. 2:10; 7:28, etc.)

** As C.J.H.Wright points out, while YHWH, the God of the chosen people, was invisible but audible, idols were visible but dumb (The Mission of God, Nottingham, 2006, p.381). Jesus in the flesh was both visible and audible. We must conclude from this that though his audible words were eternal (Mt. 24:35), his visible flesh was temporal and hence corruptible (2 Cor. 4:18, cf. 1 Cor. 15:50). He was incarnate only for a little while (Heb. 2:7,9).

As a little lad I had the joy from time to time of sitting on a farm cart or wagon driving the horse in front of me. In other words, I have vivid memories from early in life of looking down on the broad back of a horse pulling and hence preceding its cart. Over the years I have frequently commented in my writings that Augustinian theology in particular reverses the process and figuratively puts the cart in front of the horse. It is worthwhile looking at instances of this.

First, on the false assumption that all that our perfect God creates is perfect, Augustine inferred from the references to “good” in Genesis 1 that Adam was created perfect, immortal, incorruptible, righteous and holy. Though some rabbinic theology apparently lent support to this idea, Scripture nowhere even vaguely suggests that this is true. In fact, Paul, who almost alone deals with Adam (e.g. Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15), looks askance at him as flesh, as a product of the corruptible earth which itself is always contrasted pejoratively with its Creator (Heb. 1:10-12, etc.). Thus, in the apostle’s estimation Adam was, in contrast with his Creator (1 Tim. 1:17), mortal and corruptible by nature (Rom. 1:23; 1 Cor. 15:50). In the event, far from inheriting the eternal life that he was promised if he kept the commandment (Gen. 2:17), Adam, along with Eve, transgressed and earned his wages in death. For Paul then man is naturally mortal in strong contrast with his immortal Creator (1 Tim. 6:16) and can only gain eternal life by becoming righteous (Rom. 5:21).

Righteousness

The notion that Adam was originally righteous as opposed to innocent contradicts practically all that we know about human moral development. The book of Genesis teaches that fleshly Adam, like a baby (cf. Dt. 1:39; 1 Cor. 15:46), was created knowing neither good nor evil on the one hand and without knowledge of the law (commandment) on the other. And since righteousness is gained by keeping the law (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7, etc.), his putative initial righteousness must be dismissed as mythical. Only God himself is righteous by nature, and he always does what is right (Gen. 18:25; Job 34:10-12, etc.). Even Jesus as man was born innocent (Isa. 7:15f.) and, in violent contrast with the rest of mankind, only attained to righteousness and life by keeping the law in accordance with the original promise to Adam (Mt. 3:17). So the Augustinian assumption that Adam “fell” from a state of righteousness into sin is fundamentally unbiblical. What he did was fail to honour God as God and as a consequence came short of his glory (cf. Rom. 3:23).

Original Sin

Then, on the basis of his faulty reasoning regarding the “fall” of Adam into sin Augustine attributed that sin to all his posterity. The Bible holds a different view. It teaches not sin “in Adam” but man’s perennial susceptibility as flesh to sin (Rom. 7:14; 8:7, etc.). In other words, it teaches repetition or imitation (cf. Dt. 1:39; Lev. 26:39, etc., pace Art 9 of the C of E). Just as Adam sinned, so do we (cf. Ps. 106:6, etc.) admittedly under his influence to some degree (Rom. 5:12). Paul insists that apart from law sin does not exist (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:8). Thus when church dogma following Augustine attributes sin to babies and regards them as sinful even from conception (!), it puts the cart before the horse. It regards them as sinners before they have actually sinned, in spite of the fact that this is itself considered a sin elsewhere in the Bible (Dt. 24:16; Ezek. 18; Mt. 12:7, etc.). As in many modern societies, we are all considered innocent until proven guilty. According to apostolic teaching, while on the one hand righteousness is gained by keeping the law (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7), unrighteousness or sin is gained by breaking it. This is clearly the teaching of John (1 John 3:4; 5:17) and James (2:9-11).

At this point it may be complained that even babies die and the conclusion drawn that they must therefore be sinners since death is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23). In reply it must be insisted that since they have not broken the law, sin cannot be the cause of their death. After all, animals die apart from the law, so why not babies who are also naturally born flesh (John 1:13). It is an obvious inference that animals that lack both law and understanding die because they are naturally corruptible like the creation from which they stem (cf. Ps. 49; Eccl. 3:19f.). This Paul implies in Romans 8:18-25 where on the one hand he fails to mention sin and on the other he contrasts the present temporal age with the glory of the age to come (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50). In any case, the apostle clearly indicates that flesh is by nature corruptible (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8, cf. Heb. 1:10-12, etc.). And that is why we need to escape from it by gaining eternal life (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4, etc.).

Our conclusion therefore must be that like Adam and Eve before them babies that lack the law and knowledge of good and evil are born innocent (cf. Dt. 1:39; Num. 14:3,29-33, etc.) and acquire their moral nature when they fail to keep the commandment(s) (cf. John 8:34; Eph. 2:1-3, etc.). In other words, as true sons and daughters of our original parents we all imitate or repeat their sins as children, who are made in their image (Gen. 5:1-3) usually do. So when Augustinians try to convince us that babies are born sinful, that is, before they have broken the law in some sense, they are putting the cart before the horse. Denial of this forces us to reach the logical but unacceptable conclusion that even Jesus who was also a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) was born sinful “in him”.

Cosmic Curse

Next, Augustinians teach that on account of Adam’s sin even creation is fallen or has become subject to a cosmic curse. Evidence of this is entirely lacking. Indeed, the very idea is subverted by Genesis 1, to go no further, where mention is made, first, of a beginning implying an end, then of reproduction and food both of which imply death (cf. Heb. 7:23; Isa. 40:6-8). Furthermore, Paul maintains that creation is still good (1 Cor. 10:26,30f.; 1 Tim. 4:3f., cf. Acts 14:17) and is performing its proper function of providing a suitable habitat for the nurture of man and beast alike (cf. Gen. 8:21f.; Acts 14:17). Admittedly, it is said that the ground was cursed or defiled on account of Adam’s sin and failure to exercise proper dominion (cf. Cain in Gen. 4:12 and note Prov. 24:30f.), but later in the Bible it is made clear that God is angry not with inanimate creation but with sinful people who fail to exercise proper dominion (Dt. 20:19; Hab. 3:8). The Bible insists many times that all land that is uninhabited (and hence uncultivated and no longer under man’s dominion) becomes desolate (Isa. 6:11f., etc.). As at the time of the exile even the Promised Land enjoyed its sabbath. While it may be conceded that the flood was regarded as a curse, it was not permanent (Gen. 8:21f.). It was only a precursor or, like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, a paradigm of the final curse which will engulf the whole creation when history comes to an end (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, cf. Luke 17:26-30). But by that time the earth will be largely confined to the production of (human) thorns and thistles instead of a harvest of godly people (Heb. 6:7f.; 2 Tim. 3:1ff., cf. 1 Thes. 4:15-17; 2 Thes. 1:7-10; 2:7-12; Rev. 14:14-20). When that occurs it will have lost its raison d’etre or reason for existence (cf. Col. 1:16).

The tragedy of traditional belief is that it has placed the universal curse at the beginning instead of at the end and turned theology on its head.

Baptism

It is impossible for any alert reader of the Bible not to notice that Jesus was baptized in his maturity. Indeed, the human agent of his baptism was John the Baptist whose normal function was to baptize people, presumably adults, who repented of the sins they had committed. Though he had no sins to repent of and though John was reluctant to baptize him (Mt. 3:14), Jesus nonetheless asked to be baptised. When he was, he was endowed with the Spirit as the Son with whom his Father was well pleased. The inference we draw from this is that, in contrast with Adam who sinned and died, he had kept the law, attained to righteousness and received the life it promised (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). If this is so, then to baptize babies before they have even received the law and exercised faith is once more to subvert the order of salvation or put the cart before the horse. It is like circumcising Abraham before he was justified by faith. In the event, Abraham’s circumcision, though not that of his descendants under the law (Lev. 12:3), served as the seal of the faith and righteousness he already had before he was circumcised (Rom. 4:11). Christian baptism also seals faith and repentance. And when it does, it also serves to signify the reception of the Spirit or eternal life promised to the righteous (by faith). In other words, Jesus’ baptism, as we ought to expect, is the paradigm or archetype of all Christian baptism, and its imposition on unconscious babies is a travesty of its real intention. Little wonder that the church has been plagued by legalism, sacramentalism and sacerdotalism through much of its history. But there is more to say.

One of the principal historical motivations for infant baptism has been the idea that babies are born sinners, the victims of Adam’s sin. Had Augustine and others not taught original sin, it would surely have been assumed that babies, who like Adam and Eve at first had no knowledge of good or evil and were without the law in any form, were innocent (cf. Dt. 1:39, etc.). But since they were regarded as sinful, it seemed necessary to counteract their sin by imposing baptism and thereby conveying regeneration or eternal life! (It goes without saying that Augustine concluded that babies that were not baptized went to hell!) So we have a situation where Jesus the very Son of God had to keep the law to perfection in order to inherit life while innocent children still lacking self- consciousness inherit it merely by being presented for baptism. The very least that can be said about this is that Christian baptism has lost its meaning. It has sealed the flesh (cf. John 1:13) as circumcision came to seal the law, and inevitably produced “Christians” who have no idea of what Christianity is.

The Priority of Faith and Repentance

Yet another instance of putting the cart before the horse is the notion widespread especially in Reformed theology, where original sin is strongly asserted (Art. 9; WCF, 6), that regeneration precedes repentance, faith and justification. There could hardly be a more radically erroneous idea and, needless to say, it is repeatedly denied in the Bible. Any plausibility it has is based on Augustinian theology. For Augustine who taught that babies were born in sin and as a result of fleshly concupiscence, which he considered evil, regeneration was the necessary cure. However, a careful examination of biblical teaching makes it indisputably clear that the new birth or eternal life is granted only if the law is kept or faith is exercised (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:5, etc.). In a word, it is given exclusively to the righteous (Hab. 2:4; Gal. 3:11, cf. Rom. 5:21, etc.). To express the issue alternatively, while breaking the law leads to condemnation and death as it did in Adam’s case, keeping it leads to righteousness and life as it did in Jesus’ case. And since all Adam and Eve’s posterity, Jesus apart (Luke 3:38), follow them in sin (Rom. 3:9,12,23, etc.) and earn its wages (Rom. 5:12; 6:23), all need the righteousness of Christ apart from which they cannot be born again and enter the kingdom of our holy God (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17,21). It is precisely because the new birth, which is exclusively a work of God, is absolutely necessary that repentance and faith are commanded throughout the Bible. In other words, faith and not regeneration, even in the OT (cf. Heb. 11), is the absolutely indispensable means of achieving the righteousness (Rom. 3:19f.; Gal. 2:16) and subsequent life (Rom. 5:21; 6:22f.) apart from which we cannot be saved. That is why faith, which is the instrumental means of appropriating the righteousness of Christ, is said to save (Luke 7:50; John 3:16; Eph. 2:8). For sinners, there is no other way.

The notion that God grants us eternal life before we have been justified has horrendous implications. For instance, it implies that we can be eternally cemented in our sin. The fact is that since righteousness is the indispensable prerequisite of eternal life (Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11,13,21; Rom. 10:5) and it can only be gained through faith in Christ, who alone of all men who have ever lived was righteous (cf. Acts 3:14; 22:14; 1 John 2:1), faith and righteousness necessarily precede regeneration. While it may be true that God can and does justify the ungodly by faith (Rom. 4:5), he cannot and does not regenerate them. To argue that he can renders faith and righteousness redundant. For what man of flesh racked with temptation and desire (cf. Heb. 2:18; 4:15) wants to be bothered with righteousness and holiness if he can get to heaven without them? Why should he not enjoy the pleasures of sin while he can (cf. Heb. 11:25)?

Justification and Sanctification

One of the hallmarks of the theology of the Reformation was the belief that justification precedes sanctification. It has to be said with regret that this belief was never followed to its logical conclusion and properly implemented. As a result, even today in the twenty-first century many still believe that we must become good by doing good works before we can be saved or justified. This is a categorical denial of the biblical position which teaches the justification by faith not of the godly but of the ungodly. The truth is that like Abraham (Rom. 4:5) we are saved as sinners (Rom. 5:6,10). And once we are justified by faith in the death of Christ, we are sanctified by his life (Rom. 5:10; 6:3f.). Justification is a once-for-all legal pronouncement; sanctification is an on-going process which terminates only in heaven. It occurs when the Spirit is poured out on forgiven sinners. So, to place sanctification or moral goodness before justification, or to fuse them in such a way as to blur their distinctiveness, is yet again to put the cart before the horse. If salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8), then it has nothing to do with personal achievement. To insist that it has is to deny that grace is grace (Rom. 11:6). Justification and sanctification certainly belong together, but only as the former precedes the latter.

Resurrection, Ascension and Glorification

Yet another example of putting the cart before the horse is the notion popular at the time of writing that Jesus was glorified at his resurrection. While it needs to be recognized that Jesus was glorified or honoured by his Father at his baptism and transfiguration, the idea that he was exalted in the sense that he entered the kingdom of heaven when he rose again from the dead is surely going beyond the evidence. (The fact that he committed his spirit to his Father is beside the point. Like that of the little girl he raised it returned to his dead body, Luke 8:55; James 2:26.) Various things can be said in reaction to this. I submit the following: first, if Jesus was glorified in the sense that he was changed in such a way as to be fitted for heaven, then he was no longer flesh (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50); second, if this is so, his resurrection was not physical at all, it was a spiritual transformation; third, if his resurrection constituted his transformation, it makes nonsense of the NT references to his non-corruption for only if he was still earthly flesh could corruption be an issue. Paul, along with the author of Hebrews, makes it crystal clear that after he had died once for the sins of his people Jesus, having risen, never needed to die again (Rom. 6:9). After all, he already had eternal life as a result of keeping the law and could not legitimately remain a victim of death (Acts 2:23f.). But if he was still flesh (Luke 24:39, etc.), his ascension was a paramount necessity (cf. John 20:17) since he could not live forever on this temporal earth, least of all inherit the eternal blessings of David (Isa. 55:3; Luke 1:32f.; Acts 13:34). Furthermore, according to the apostle the transformation of those who are still alive in the flesh at his coming occurs at their ascension (1 Cor. 15:50f.). This being so, we have no alternative but to believe that it follows the pattern established by Jesus himself. As so much of the post-resurrection narrative implies, transformation/glorification occurs at the end of earthly life which in Jesus’ case was at his ascension (cf. Luke 9:51; 24:51, cf. 2 K. 2:11; Acts 1:2; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 12:5).

Perfection

It is not by accident that biblical teaching regarding perfection (1 Cor. 13:10; 14:20; Phil. 3:12-14; Heb. 5:9; 6:1, etc.) has been largely hidden from view in the West. Since the eclipse of Irenaeus by Augustine, the notion of perfection has been clearly in conflict with received cart-before-the-horse topsy-turvy theology which begins where it should end, that is, with human perfection in Adam. By contrast, as noted above, the biblical view posits initial innocence (infant-like immaturity or imperfection) followed by its loss when the (transgenerational) commandment (Gen. 2:17) which promises life is broken (Rom. 7:9f.). This pattern is followed throughout Scripture (Dt. 1:39; Heb. 5:12-14, cf. 1 K. 3:7,9; Rom. 7:9f.; 9:11, etc.) not to mention experience. While the Bible frequently tells us that we all sin in our youth, it never suggests that we sin as unself-conscious babies. Rather on receiving the commandment, we all follow first Eve then Adam in their sin. Only Jesus the second Adam remained unsullied. He too started morally from scratch (cf. Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 2:17) but succeeded in achieving the sinless perfection of spiritual maturity and completeness that his Father required (Lev. 11:44f.; Mt. 5:48; Heb. 2:10; 7:28). To express the issue differently, he recovered as man the glory that he shared with his Father before the world began (John 17:5,24) attaining to his exact moral and generic likeness (Heb. 1:3). By so doing he paved the way for those who put their trust in him to share his glory (Rom. 5:2; Heb. 2:10). He thus laid the foundation of the plan of salvation for his fellows by becoming its pioneer and perfecter (cf. Heb. 12:2).

Conclusion

Most of the criticisms of traditional theology dealt with above involve extrapolations from the erroneous speculations and preconceptions of Augustine. Of course, more could be said. For example, current convictions regarding the restoration of creation, premillennialism and the idea that Jesus will return to reign on earth though totally alien to the NT arise ultimately from the same sin-obsessed source. So far as the order of salvation (ordo salutis) is concerned, while it is generally assumed and dogmatically asserted in some places, it is not much discussed nowadays. It has been said that it is redundant – perhaps because it is an embarrassment. For all that, as I have indicated above, it is still very much with us, and, if Christians want reformation, revival and a significant impact on society at large including the world religions, the subject will have to be revisited with a vengeance. When it is, it will be of fundamental importance for us to understand that the Augustinian scheme of salvation, apart from its emphasis on grace, is a travesty of biblical teaching. The notion that creation began with perfection (completeness, maturity) and was succeeded by a “Fall” is so fundamentally at odds with biblical teaching, science, history and personal experience that it has distorted Christian perception of the truth for 1,600 years. What may reasonably be termed the evolutionary ascent of man or the progressive movement from flesh to spirit (1 Cor. 15:46, cf. v.23) is basic to the Christian worldview which is inherently teleological. For, from the beginning, the goal of man who was uniquely made in the image of God was to be conformed to both his moral and generic likeness (Rom. 8:29, cf. Heb. 1:3) as his children (1 John 3:1-3, etc.).

So, since the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is thoroughly teleological, it is vital for Christians to see themselves as pilgrims heading for the celestial city that in contrast with transient earthly ones abides forever (Heb. 12:22-24; 13:14, cf. 11:10,16). In other words, escape from the mortality and corruption that characterize this material world is paramount.

Adding to Scripture is condemned in both the Old and the New Testament as Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32 and Revelation 22:18, to go no further, plainly indicate. I personally well remember in the late fifties as a Nottingham University student attending a midland terminal conference in Birmingham at which Dr. J.I.Packer asserted that to add to Scripture had the effect of subtracting from it. He illustrated his point with reference to aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine, maintaining that they undermined the purity of the gospel.

Regrettably, Roman Catholics are not the only ones who add to Scripture. Received dogma in other churches makes it clear that they too have added to the word in order to maintain their stance on certain issues like infant baptism which is clearly alien to Scripture and undermines the doctrine of justification by faith. Thus the dogmas of original sin and traditional covenant theology, which are used to support it, are highly suspect and smack strongly of additions.  But this, as we shall see more clearly below, is to pre-empt what I have to say regarding additions to three texts in Paul’s letter to the Romans.

Romans 5:12

Romans 5:12 is regarded as the locus classicus, or the verse par excellence, where the dogma of original sin is taught. Tradition tells us that when Adam sinned we all sinned “in him”. An immediate problem confronting us at this point is that the words “in him” do not appear in the text. They derive primarily from Augustine whose knowledge of Greek was very limited but who apparently relied on a Latin text which translated the Greek words ‘eph’ ho’ by means of the Latin ‘in quo’ meaning ‘in whom’. Even older commentators like Sanday and Headlam argue that this is impossible and that the expression means “because” which “is in agreement with Greek usage and is alone satisfactory” (p.133, cf. e.g. Dunn, p.273).

Referring to Bengel’s  statement that all sinned when Adam sinned (omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante), Sanday and Headlam rightly ask why, if Paul had meant this, did he not say so? They pertinently add that the words ‘in Adam’ are too important to be left to be understood and that Paul would have removed all ambiguity by inserting them (p.134). They proceed, however, to quarrel with the Greek commentators who take the words “all sinned” to mean that all sinned in their own persons. Their objection is that this destroys the parallelism between Adam and Christ (pp. 130,134).

In reply it must be strongly asserted that while there is analogy here, there is no exact parallelism. The latter is a figment of the traditional imagination. The very language that Paul uses gives the lie to it since the apostle differentiates sharply between the free gift of righteousness and the trespass. We all know that righteousness is imputed by faith, but where does Scripture even vaguely suggest, except in the case of Christ, that sin is likewise imputed? Is it a free gift too? The very idea that sin can be transferred or imputed apart from faith runs contrary to the very essence of biblical teaching (see e.g. Ex. 32:33; Dt. 1:39; 24:16; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18:2-4,20, etc.).

Sanday and Headlam (p.131) followed by many others (e.g. Murray, pp.178f.) also present both Adam and Christ as representatives of the race. Otherwise expressed, they are implying that we are in covenant relation with both. The problem here is that there is no hint of a covenant with Adam in Scripture. Certainly he was representative man according to the flesh (1 Cor. 15:45-49), but that is a world away from saying that he served as our covenant head and representative.

Our commentators have a further difficulty. They rightly aver that the heathen who did not have the law (of Moses) could not have sinned in the same way as did Adam, who was given a clearly defined commandment. They seem to ignore fact that Paul had argued earlier that both Gentiles and Jews were regarded as guilty: while the former broke the law they knew by nature, the latter sinned against the written law (Rom. 2:12). It is therefore no surprise to read that Paul distinguished elsewhere between the sin of Eve and that of Adam (1 Tim. 2:14). Clearly the sin of the one who received the commandment at second hand and was deceived served as a model for the sins of the heathen (Rom. 1:24-27, cf. Eph. 4:22), whereas the other who received a command directly from God sinned like the Jews under the law of Moses.

If we take Paul’s “all sinned” in what Sanday and Headlam call its ordinary sense, there is no need to sever its connection with Adam (p.134). After all, we are all made in his image (Gen. 5:1-5) and, as our first parent, he has inevitably had an impact on us despite Pelagius’ denial (cf. Ex. 20:5f.; 34:6f.; Num. 14:33). It is however, one thing to be influenced by the evil, as well as the good (cf. Luke 11:13), of our parents but a wholly different thing to be punished or commended for it. (Traditionally Jews as his children derive comfort from the righteousness of Abraham. Both John the Baptist and Jesus deny that physical relationship has any value, Mt. 3:9; John 8:39.) The latter notion is repeatedly denied in Scripture (Dt. 24:16; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18:4,20 etc.). Despite stress on solidarity the sin of the individual is differentiated from the sin of the community throughout the OT (1 K. 8:46; Neh. 1:6; Ps. 106:6; Jer. 14:20, etc.). In light of this, it comes as no surprise to find that in Romans 5:15-19 there is a pervasive distinction between the one and the many (cf. Dunn, p.273). And we may well ask whether if one man sins, God will be angry with all the congregation (Num. 16:22). On the answer to this question rests the entire gospel!

Doubtless there is more to be said. But even at this point I would contend that it is dangerous indeed to add to Scripture without warrant. The dogma of original sin has done immense harm to the cause of God and truth, and the sooner we recognize its inherent blasphemy the better.

Romans 7:5

According to modern translations (RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, REB, JB, etc.) Romans 7:5 tells us that the law aroused our sinful passions, though there is no word for ‘aroused’ in the Greek. In contrast, the KJV referred to the motions (passions) of sins which were by the law working in our members to bear fruit for death. I am not sure exactly what the translators of the latter had in mind but as a translation it is infinitely to be preferred. Why?

First, we need to recognize that Paul had spent a great deal of time in chapters 1-3 cataloguing the sins of the heathen apart from the law. This being so, it is clear that he believed that the law of Moses played no part in arousing their sin. It was necessarily excluded. In any case, since Paul held that the law was “holy, righteous and good” (7:12), he would have rejected out of hand the notion that the law aroused sin. What then was he affirming?

He had already laid it down in Romans 4:15 that where there is no law there is no sin (cf. 5:13). Here in chapter 7, clearly with Adam and Eve in mind, he goes into greater detail to maintain that sin did not spring into being until the commandment (law) was given. First, in verses 1-3 he makes it pellucidly clear that a woman whose husband has died is free to remarry (cf. 1 Cor. 7:39). And the reason he gives for this is that there is no law against it (cf. Gal. 5:23). In fact, the law, which is very much alive while the husband is alive, dies when he dies (cf. v.8). This is the consistent witness of Scripture, if it is not of Augustinianism. So it bears repeating that where there is no law there is no sin.

If sin is defined by law (Rom. 4:15) and knowledge (John 9:41; 15:22,24) and the law is the power of sin (1 Cor. 15:56), the notion that the law ‘arouses’sin is ruled out of court. What the law does is render certain actions it forbids sinful. In other words, our passions are a part of our very nature as fleshly creatures and are evident in man (including Jesus) and animal alike. But whereas the latter obey their passions or instincts amorally, that is, without reference to law apprehended by mind (cf. Rom. 7:23,25) for the simple reason that they have got neither minds nor understanding (Ps. 32:9), man made in the image of God is called on to rule his passions according to the law of his mind. So while David could freely indulge his passion with Abigail whose husband was dead, he could not do so with Bathsheba whose husband was very much alive. Before God, as Nathan told him, he was guilty as a transgressor of the law (cf. James 2:11).

So what Paul is saying is that our natural passions are only constituted sinful when they involve infraction of the law, and to suggest that the law arouses sin gives a wholly false impression. While it may be true that some people, but not all, rebel like Adam as soon as they are confronted by the law, as the history of Eve and the heathen makes clear people hardly need a written law to spur them into sin (Rom. 1:18-32, etc.).

Romans 8:21

Many modern translations would have us believe that the material creation of which we are a part will one day share the glory of the children of God. Of course, the (Augustinian) argument is that when man “fell”, so did creation and as a result we live in a “fallen world” which requires redemption (cf. 8:23)! To cite but one example, the RSV avows that “the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God”. So, having noted that the words “and obtain” do not appear in the Greek, how should we react to this?

Admittedly, exegesis of this superficially simple verse is somewhat difficult and cannot be undertaken in detail here. So to cut a long story short, I would call on the reader to note the following: (1) If this verse teaches what is claimed, then it is not only unique but contrary to the teaching of the rest of Scripture which constantly differentiates between the ephemeral creation and the eternal (word of) God (Isa. 51:6; Mt. 24:35; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.). (2) As flesh, the sinless Jesus was growing older (John 8:57), so like the creation from which he derived through his mother he was subject to corruption (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16) or in the words of the author of Hebrews ready to vanish away (8:13). (3) It is disputed whether the word ktisis should be translated ‘creation’ or ‘creature’. If the verse were isolated from its context, no one would dream of using the former. (4) Paul regularly uses words in different senses (e.g. Rom. 9:6ff.). He arguably does this in verses 19-23 (cf. KJV). (5) There is no more mention of sin here than there is in John 3:1-7, but Genesis 3:17-19 is unwarrantably dragged in. (Here it must be remembered that Augustine taught that both man and creation were originally perfect!) (6) Paul tells us that the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50) and that the visible creation is naturally, that is, apart from sin, perishable (2 Cor. 4:18, cf. Rom. 8:24f.). So while Paul can say that God’s eternal power and divine nature are evident in the things that are made (Rom. 1:20), the author of Hebrews tells us that all created things will eventually be removed and replaced, not redeemed (Heb. 12:27, cf. Rev. 20:11; 21:1,4). The present age will give way to the age to come, as was always God’s intention.

A good deal more could be said, but already the suggestion that the material creation will be glorified along with God’s children is looking distinctly dubious. Obviously, there is more behind the traditional view than the mere addition of a word or two. What really drives theologians and translators is false Augustinian theology, and exegesis is made to dance to its tune. The truth is that the Augustinian worldview is false to the Bible and seriously distorts our understanding of it.

Adding to Scripture is a dangerous procedure which perverts our apprehension of Scripture as a whole. Paul’s letter to the Romans is often regarded as a summary of the essence of biblical doctrine. This being so, supplementing it with ideas that are alien to it necessarily clouds our perception of the entire plan of salvation. We have been warned and are advised to let Scripture speak for itself. To be held in thrall by Augustine in the 21st century when world religions and materialistic philosophies are resurgent is to court disaster and stifle our witness to the truth. What we need is a new reformation. The alternative is the judgement of God.

References

J.D.G.Dunn, Romans 1-8, Dallas, 1988.

J.Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, London, 1967.

W.Sanday and A.C.Headlam, ICC Romans, Edinburgh, 5th ed. 1902

1. There is no text in the NT that unequivocally teaches it. Indeed, in light of Hebrews 11 where the saints’ earthly call is re-interpreted into a heavenly one (11:10,16, cf. 3:1; 11:39f.; 10:34; 12:22; 13:14), it is astonishing that the earthly millennium if it were true is not mentioned.

2. It would appear to be almost entirely dependent on an out-of-context literal interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10 undergirded by certain OT texts which in the NT are spiritualised (cf. Heb. 11:8-16, etc.).

3. It adds to the apostolic gospel as propounded in the rest of the NT. As an addition to the apostolic foundation (Eph. 2:20), it unavoidably subtracts from and distorts it.

4. It inevitably casts doubt on the work of Christ which being finished (John 4:34; 19:30; Heb. 1:3; 9:28) does not require supplementation. An earthly millennium, the reason for which its advocates find difficult to explain, is therefore superfluous since Jesus has already overcome the world (John 16:33; 17:4f.; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 3:21; 5:5).

5. It offends against biblical typology. Moses returned to Egypt at God’s behest to judge and rescue. According to the NT, Jesus will return for precisely the same reason (1 Thes. 1:10; 4:16f.; Heb. 9:28).

6. It assumes that Jesus will return in the flesh – a theological, or more precisely and anthropological, impossibility. If it were true, it would require a re-incarnation (cf. John 3:4) since his return to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father necessitated his retransformation (1 Cor. 15:50) and a return to his former glory (John 17:5,24). See more below.

7. It fails to reckon with the fact that when Christ returns he will do so as man glorified as God (Heb. 1:3; 2:9, etc.), that is, in the power and glory of God himself (Mt. 16:27; 25:31; 26:64; Tit. 2:13, etc.). See further 14 below.

8. Bearing this in mind, it ignores even OT teaching that God cannot dwell on the earth and that the highest heaven cannot contain him (1 K. 8:27, Acts 7:48-50, cf. Eph. 1:21). See further 29 below.

9. It fails to reckon with the explicit teaching of Hebrews 7:26 which states that Christ is now spatially separated from sinners (cf. Ps. 113:4ff.; Hab. 1:13), exalted above the created heavens through which he passed (4:14) into heaven itself (9:24).

10. It offends against the rule evident throughout Scripture that there is to be no going back (e.g. Dt. 17:16, etc.). If Jesus came back to earth, it would be tantamount to returning to Egypt, suggest sin and inadequacy in his finished work. See further 27 below. Yet we are explicitly told in Luke 9:31 that Jesus’ departure constituted his exodus (cf. 9:51).

11. It implicitly denies the perfection of Christ, i.e. his glorification as God (John 17:24; 2 Thes. 1:10; Heb. 1:3, cf. 5 and 8 above).

12. On the assumption that John the Evangelist is the author of the gospel, the letters and the book of Revelation, it imports a contradiction into his teaching. For John consistently indicates that Jesus has returned to his heavenly Father (John 3:13; 6:62; 8:14; 13:1,3; 14:28; 16:5,10,17,28; 17:5,11,13,24; 20:17, etc.) to prepare a place for his people (14:2f., 1 Thes. 4:17, cf. Heb. 2:9-13) where they will see his glory (17:24; 2 Thes. 1:10) which, in light of Isaiah 33:17; 66:18 and John 17:5, is the glory of God who is a consuming fire (Ex. 24:17; Dt.4:24). Furthermore, John records Jesus as having given the apostles God’s words (15:15; 16:13; 17:8). Yet nothing is said either by John or the other apostles about a millennium of the kind deduced by some from Revelation 20. The inference from Rev. 1:1f. is that the message of Revelation is the same as that of the apostolic foundation to which Paul refers (Eph. 2:20, cf. Rev.19:10; 21:14). In other words, Revelation is a recapitulation or symbolical summary of what is taught in the rest of the NT. See further 27 below.

13. The fact that God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29, cf. Rev. 1:14,18; 19:12) torpedoes all ideas of Christ and his saints living again on the earth in the flesh, for who among us can dwell with devouring fire and everlasting burnings (Isa. 33:14) when the flesh, like all material things, is corruptible and susceptible to burning (Jas. 5:3). In any case Paul says explicitly that Jesus will return in flaming fire (2 Thes. 1:7-10; 2:8).

14. John, like Paul (1 Cor. 7:31, etc.), also teaches the essential transience of creation (1 John 2:17). There is therefore no place for the eternal on the temporal earth. Jesus came once to deal with sin: when he comes again it will be to judge his enemies and to deliver his people (1 Thes. 1:10; 4:17; Heb. 9:28). If there is to be a literal thousand-year millennium of the kind projected by premillennialists, then the world will to all intents and purposes be a different place contrasting violently with what we see at the moment. Yet Jesus in his high-priestly prayer specifically asks God not to take believers out of the world (presumably as it now is) but to keep them from the evil one (John 17:15).

15. Jesus’ return to earth falsely assumes the restoration rather than the removal of all created things (Heb. 1:10-12; 12:27; Rev. 20:11; 21:1,4, etc.).

16. The very idea of a return to earth posits a framework inconsistent with true covenant theology, which reflects the movement from flesh to spirit evident throughout the Bible (1 Cor. 15:46, cf. 15:50; John 3:6; 2 Cor. 3:18). While the covenants with Noah and Moses relate to this transitory material world, the new covenant is essentially spiritual and relates to the world to come. It alone has a surety (Heb. 7:22).

17. It is based on the Augustinian worldview which assumed original perfection and a universal curse on creation stemming from Adam’s sin. These are false to the Bible, which is thoroughly teleological, that is, it moves from a temporal material beginning to an eternal spiritual end or goal.

18. At the end of the day premillennialism operates without a proper understanding of the purpose or plan of God which is to bring us to perfection (Heb. 6:1; 7:11; Phil. 3:12-14, etc.), to make us, both Jew and Gentile, his children (Rom. 8:21; 1 John 3:1) fashioned in the spiritual image of Christ and with a spiritual body like his (Rom. 8:29, cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2).

19. Jesus explicitly taught that neither he (John 8:23) nor his kingdom was of this world (John 18:36, cf. 6:15). He is King of kings and Lord of lords in heaven (Heb. 1:6; 2:5, cf. 6:5) and occupies David’s throne in heaven (Luke 1:32f.; Acts 2:29ff.; 15:16f.). The same goes for his priesthood which the author of Hebrews indicates cannot be exercised on earth (a) because Jesus came from the wrong tribe (7:13; 8:4), and (b) because he was appointed to a Melchisedekian priesthood which is eternal or “forever” (6:20; 7:3,16,24f.,28) and is by definition excluded from the temporal earth. His ministry belongs to the “true tent” (8:1f.) and is “more excellent” (8:6).

20. It ignores the clear teaching of Scripture that Christ was the pioneer of our salvation which involves glory in heaven (John 14:2f.; Rom. 5:2; 8:30; Heb. 2:10; 4:14; 6:19f.; 9:24; 12:2, etc.) and commits the folly of imagining that the eternal incorruptible God (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16) can take up permanent residence on the temporal earth which is corruptible by nature (Acts 7:48-50; Rom. 8:21). The contrast between the Creator and his creation pervades Scripture (Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 40:6-8; 51:6, etc.).

21. It is a direct contradiction of Paul’s insistence that we should seek “incorruption” (literally) along with glory and honour (Rom. 2:7,10). In other words our call is a heavenly call (Gen. 2:17; Phil. 3:14; Col. 3:1-5; Heb. 3:1) to share God’s glory (Rom. 5:2; 2 Cor. 4:17; Col. 1:5,27; 2 Thes. 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:3f.; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:11, etc.).

22. It undermines the biblical doctrine of regeneration which relates primarily, though not exclusively (cf. Tit. 3:3-7), to nature and not to sin (the Augustinian view). The reason why we cannot enter the kingdom of God is that we are earthy, that is, corruptible flesh and blood (John 3:6; 1 Cor. 15:50). This can only mean that the new birth involving eternal life is a preparation for heaven and logically excludes or renders redundant the idea of an earthly
millennium.

23. It logically denies the teaching that we should die to the flesh (Gal. 5:24), the law (Gal. 2:19), the world (Gal. 6:14), earthly things (Col. 3:1-5), etc., and ignores the clear teaching that the flesh by its very nature is ephemeral.

24. It runs counter to the parable of the wise virgins, who unlike their foolish counterparts, went straight to the marriage feast (Mt. 25:1-13, cf. 21,23,31-33; 22:8-10; 24:40f.,46f.; Luke 12:37; 17:34ff.).

25. Acts 13:34 tells us explicitly that Jesus, who brought ‘incorruption’ to light for the first time (2 Tim. 1:10), will no more return to corruption. This must mean both that Jesus will never be incarnate, that is, corruptible flesh, again (cf. Heb. 7:16,23-25) and hence that he will have no more involvement with the natural corruption of creation. After all, having conquered (John 16:33; Rom. 8:31-39; Heb. 2:9, etc.), he has returned to the Father whose glory he shared before the foundation of the world (John 17:5,24, cf. Luke (24:26), mission accomplished (John 17:4. Repetition implies futility (cf. Heb. 10:11ff., etc.!)

26. The notion that Jesus and his saints are going to reign on the earth in the flesh constitutes an enormous problem for premillennialists for another reason. First, since the saints have already experienced fleshly corruption (cf. David, Acts 2:29) from where are they to get their flesh without entering their (dead) mother’s wombs again (Job 31:15, cf. John 3:4)? Next, it is assumed that people will not behave wickedly once the devil is bound and that the millennium will be a kind of utopia, a demonstration of man controlling creation (though Jesus has already done this, Heb. 2:9f.). Yet it is nonetheless claimed that the outbreak of evil at the end of the 1,000 years will reveal the innate wickedness of the human heart. This raises the question of the nature of this so-called wickedness. Presumably it is based on the Augustinian notion of original sin which Scripture does not teach.

In the Bible, however, there is another factor: the flesh itself. If we even as Christians cannot completely control our flesh under the leading of the Spirit now (cf. Phil. 3:12-14; 1 John 1:8-10), how shall we during the millennium? We, and even Jesus himself since he will return in the flesh, will be as vulnerable to fleshly temptation (Heb. 4:15), if not the devil’s deception, then as now! With temptation there will come sin and with sin another death – a second physical death. Yet the author of Hebrews stresses the fact that it is appointed to us to die once (9:27)! In the book of Revelation the second death is something else much more sinister. The plain truth is that a literal 1000-year earthly millennium lived out in our naturally corruptible flesh even apart from sin and weakness would be a nightmare not a dream. We might remember at this point that while the Israelites were forbidden to return to Egypt, when they did so it was for punishment (Hos. 8:13;9:3,6; 11:5)!

By contrast Scripture leads me to believe that Jesus, who made the flesh his slave (Rom. 8:3, cf. 1 Cor. 9:25) and finally cast it out (Gal. 4:29f., cf. John 8:35), has now ceased to be flesh and has done with its temptation and persecution forever (Heb. 2:17f.; 4:14f., cf. James 1:13-15). This suggests that the premillennialist millennium is a figment of the imagination.

There is another problem. The Bible talks of two ages, the present and the age to come (Eph. 1:21, etc.). To which age does the millennium belong? Premillennialists claim that their millennium precedes the eternal age. If this is so, then inevitably the millennium occurs in this present evil age (Gal. 1:4) which is characterised by temporality, materiality, aging, natural corruptibility, weakness, temptation, sin and death. As suggested above, a 1,000 years of this will be a nightmare which in any event achieves nothing that Jesus has not already achieved (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9). The picture painted in Luke 20:34-36 suggests something different.

27. Jesus came into this world physically in the flesh to bring us to glory or to God (1 Cor. 15:46; Heb. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 3:18) as our elder brother, the pioneer of our salvation. He has thus prepared our way by re-entering glory (cf. John 14:2f.) as a spiritually and corporeally (somatically) perfected human being. He applies his salvation from heaven (1 Cor. 15:25). Why would he come back to live on earth again when he has already dealt with sin and paved our path to glory (Heb. 9:28; 10:19-22)? Rather he will come back to rescue us and present us all together (cf. Heb. 11:39f.) to the Father (John 14:3; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; 1 Thes. 4:16f.). We shall thus be with him forever (John 12:26; 14:3,19; 17:24; 1 Thes. 4:17).

28. If Jesus at his ascension, exaltation and heavenly session was glorified with the Father and occupied his throne (Rev. 3:21; 22:3, etc.), his return to earth suggests a separation or rift in the glory of God. In other words, it jeopardises the doctrine of the Trinity which emphasises the unity of the Godhead. It was one thing for the incarnate Jesus to lay aside his glory and experience separation from his Father but a wholly different thing for Godhead itself to be ontologically divided. Even the OT taught that God would not share his glory with another (Isa. 42:8; 48:11) yet such a notion is implicit in an earthly millennium.

29. As intimated above (8), if the glorified Jesus now shares again the glory of his Father (John 17:5,24), he cannot still be flesh (1 Cor. 15:50, etc.). He cannot inhabit the earth (1 K. 8:27; Acts 7:48f.) or indeed anything “hand -made” (Acts 7:50, cf. Isa. 48:13; Heb. 1:10-12; 9:11,24).

30. The author of Hebrews tells us that Jesus was made lower than the angels only for a little while (2:7). After this, he was crowned with glory and honour (2:9), seated at the right hand of God and hence exalted above the (created) heavens (7:26, cf. 4:14). If this was the joy set before him (cf. John 17:24), it sits ill indeed with an eventual return to a world subject to corruption (cf. Acts 13:34; Rom. 8:21)!

31. This leads, as the author of Hebrews indicates, to the recognition that Jesus’ reign is primarily over the “coming world” not the present one (1:6; 2:5, cf. 2:9). So far as this present world is concerned, on the basis of his finished work on earth, he is completing the plan of salvation from heaven by putting all his enemies under his feet in preparation for rescuing his own at the denouement (Heb. 9:28). See 35 below.

32. If the climax of the process of salvation is the transformed resurrection spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:50ff.; 2 Cor. 4:16-5:5)*, we are prepared for life in heaven in the presence of God not on earth. Other considerations apart, an earthly millennium, like Gentile circumcision, is superfluous.

33. According to Heb. 1:11, in contrast with God who is eternal, creation is growing old. According to Heb. 8:13 what is growing old is ready to vanish away. Even Jesus as flesh was growing old (John 8:57) so he had to be transformed at his ascension into heaven (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50). And when he comes again it will be in the glory of the Father and before his presence earth and sky will flee away (Rev. 20:11;21:1,4).

34. Finally, not only does a literal millennium suggest that Christ’s work was incomplete, it also undermines the effectiveness of the work of the Spirit whom he sent to finish his work on earth on the basis of his own completed work in the flesh. The Spirit’s function involves mediating the salvation achieved by Christ to believers till the end of the world when the number of the elect will be complete. The fact is that the work of the Spirit is based on the completed work of the glorified Christ (John 7:39) who continues to subject all to his will (1 Cor. 15:24-28) rendering a literal millennium redundant.

Conclusion

What is most disturbing about many premillennialists is the arrogance implied by their insistence on a literal interpretation of Revelation 20. (G.E.Ladd, a premillennialist, strongly rejects the literalistic hermeneutic of the dispensationalists but nonetheless falls prey to it in his own interpretation of Revelation 20**) How do they know that this passage, set as it is in a highly symbolic book, must be taken literally? It is surely more humble to argue from what is known to what is unknown than the other way around. If we abandon what is known as the analogy of faith, every Tom, Dick and Harry can have his own highly subjective opinion, and any acceptable degree of certainty is impossible.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of the interpretation of Revelation knows very well that this is precisely what has happened. Needless to say, chaos and absurdity reign. Premillennialism is based on a single passage in the highly symbolical book of Revelation. It depends on an extremely questionable interpretation which, though it has affinities with the OT which tended to picture heaven in earthly terms, is fundamentally out of accord with the rest of the NT. In other words, it builds a theological edifice on a foundation of sand and not on the rock which is Christ and his apostles (Eph. 2:20, cf. Rev. 19:10; 21:14). It fails miserably to appreciate the essential spirituality and permanence of the new covenant (cf. Heb. 9:12,15;13:20) in contrast with the impermanent materiality of the old. While its stress on the second coming of Christ is to be applauded, since traditional premillennialism is at odds with biblical theology, it is a stumbling block to many and ought to be firmly and rigorously dismissed.

*Cf. J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, London/New York, 2003, p.421.

**See The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Clouse, Downers Grove, 1977, pp.18ff.

Eternity

In 2 Timothy 1:9 Paul tells us that God has purposed our salvation by grace in Christ Jesus from all eternity (REB). Again, in Titus 1:2 he informs us that God who never lies promised us eternal life before the ages began (cf. Rom. 8:28-30). The inference we draw from this is that God had our salvation in view when he created the world to be inhabited (Isa. 45:12,18). In the words of Isaiah he formed and made for his glory everyone called by his name (Isa. 43:7). They were created for himself so that they might declare his praise (Isa. 43:21; 1 Pet. 2:9). In Ephesians 1:11-14 Paul elaborates on this to some degree, but in Romans he goes so far as to say that when we are led by his Spirit, we become God’s adopted children and heirs (8:14-17).

History

In light of this, it comes as no surprise that in the course of the history of the people of God there is strong stress on the divine promises. John informs us in his first letter that the promise God has made to us is eternal life (2:25), and in his gospel that God’s love for the world was such that this would be granted to all who believe in Christ (John 3:16). Of course there were adumbrations of this in the OT.

PROMISE

According to the Psalmist (8:5f.), Genesis 1:26,28 constitute a conditional promise. The proper exercise of dominion over the temporal and hence corruptible creation by man will lead to his being crowned with glory and honour.

Genesis 2:16f. reads more like a threat than a promise, but the implication of God’s command is that obedience on the part of man (Adam) will lead to (eternal) life. This would appear to receive support from Paul’s comments in his letter to the Romans regarding future judgement by works. For in 2:7,10 he merges these two promises when he says that to all those who seek glory, honour and immortality (Gk. incorruption) God will grant eternal life. (1* The tendency of translators to imply that incorruption and immortality are equivalent involves serious misunderstanding, cf. Vine, Expository Dictionary, pp.131,320. After all, when Jesus was raised physically from the dead never to die again (Rom. 6:9), he was still corruptible flesh, Luke 24:39; John 20:24-28, aging and hence subject to decay like the temporal earth from which he stemmed, Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12. As such he necessarily had to undergo ascension and retransformation in order to regain his divine glory and splendour, John 17:5,24; 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:50ff. To go no further, this demonstrates the invalidity of premillennialism and the idea that Christ will return to corruption, that is, earth/flesh, Acts 13:34, cf. Heb. 2:9; 7:26; Rev. 20:11; 21:1, etc. See further below.)

Three Tests

Welcome though these promises may be since they provide hope for the future and counter the enigma and apparent purposeless of life on earth (see e.g. Ecclesiastes), there are tasks or tests to be undertaken and conditions or obstacles to be overcome with a view to their fulfilment. And Scripture draws attention to three in particular. From the start man faces what we may call in alliterative terms a problem, a persecutor and a pretender.

1. The Problem of the World

First, there is the problem of exercising dominion over the rest of creation or world by God’s vice-regent man who, though corruptible flesh like the rest of the animals (Gen. 6:17), is also made in the divine image. This dominion, which implicitly promises heavenly glory and honour (Ps. 8:5f.), would appear to be a tall order even in Genesis 1. Though Adam makes a propitious start in that he appears to tend the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:15) and name the animals around him (2:19f.) with some success, once the commandment of 2:17 comes he rebels against the word of God, sins and is cast out. When this occurs, it becomes evident that rei(g)ning in a recalcitrant creation, which God himself had originally reduced to order from its initial chaos (Gen. 1:2) and pronounced ‘good’, that is, suitable for his purpose (Gen. 2:9; Eccles. 3:11) is likely to be a Herculean labour which proves beyond his capacity (Gen. 3:17-19). So we may draw the conclusion that while Adam prospers to some degree in horticulture, his prospects in agriculture and the wider world in general are somewhat less sanguine.

2. A Persecutor (The Flesh)

Second, the prime source of Adam’s trouble appears to be his fleshly weakness. This is first highlighted by the seduction of Eve who, when her fleshly appetites are appealed to, succumbs to temptation. She cannot resist taking the fruit that God had forbidden on pain of death (Gen. 2:17; 3:6). The immediate gratification of her physical desires is obviously clamant and she gives way. And that Adam accedes to the same desire demonstrates the fact that the flesh is a fatal weakness in the constitutional makeup of all human beings.

Much later in Scripture Paul draws attention to the fact that the flesh is a law to itself (Rom. 7:23,25); it acts and reacts spontaneously and needs to be mastered (cf. Gen. 4:7) like the world itself. (For obvious reasons the ‘world’ becomes much more comprehensive in meaning as revelation and human development progress. See further below.) His own personal attempts at overcoming it by the law of his mind prove abortive. Like Eve before him he cannot control and tame his illicit covetousness (Rom. 7:7f.). Thus when the commandment makes its impression on his developing mind he caves in like his distant forebears and forfeits his claim to eternal life (7:9-11). In the following verses he goes on to show that his flesh wars, first, against the law, which cannot restrain it (Rom. 7). Secondly, he avers that even when the empowering Spirit comes through faith in Christ (Rom. 8:2), his flesh continues its unremitting onslaught and tempts him to sin. (Cf. Jesus’ temptations which occur after his baptism with the Spirit.) In Galatians 5:16f. (cf. James 1:4), while the apostle tells us that if we walk by the Spirit, we shall not gratify the desires of the flesh, he graphically depicts the continuing conflict and mutual opposition between flesh and Spirit. And it comes as no surprise that the warnings of Paul and the rest of the NT writers against giving in to fleshly temptation, to which their readers have previously fallen prey in their unregenerate (Gentile) state (cf. Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17; 1 Pet. 4:3, etc.), occur with frequent regularity (Rom. 13:14; 1 Pet. 2:11, etc.).

Perhaps Paul’s most graphic image of the nature of the flesh comes in Galatians 4:29 when he portrays it as a relentless persecutor personified by Ishmael. Like the world man was called on to rule over to prevent it from becoming a desolation (Isa. 6:11f., etc., cf. 45:18), so the flesh must be mastered to prevent man from descending into mere animality (Eccl. 3:18; Jer. 12:3; Phil. 3:19; 2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10).

3. A Pretender (The Devil)

(A pretender is both a dissimulator or deceiver and one who makes a claim to sovereignty like the Old and Young Pretenders of British history.)

Third, behind mankind’s temptation to indulge his flesh is the devil who, first, seduces Eve to sit loose to what was apparently her husband’s admonition regarding the word of God, and who, next, prompts Adam himself to rebel against God’s clearly defined prohibition (cf. 1 Tim. 2:14).

Readers of the Bible cannot but be aware that we, and all our forefathers, have sinned (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 106:6; 130:3; 143:2, etc.) and as a consequence have reaped the wages of death (Rom. 5:12; 6:23). In Romans 1-3, Ephesians 2:1-3 and 4:17 to go no further, Paul paints a graphic picture of universal unrighteousness and charges both Jew and Gentile with coming short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Thus, to all intents and purposes, the promises of God to mankind are in abeyance. Or are they?

PERFORMANCE

The Second Adam

Mankind made in the image of Adam (Gen. 5:1-5) and hence deriving from the earth (Gen. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:48a,49a) was, remains and will ever be a failure. Since where there is no law, there is neither sin (Rom. 4:15; 7:7-11) nor righteousness (Dt. 6:25; 1 John 3:7), Adam and all his posterity are created innocent (Gen. 3:22; Dt. 1:39; Eccles. 7:29; Isa. 53:6, etc.). But as they become aware of the law which promises life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11,13,21, etc.), all in their turn fail to keep it (Rom. 3:9). And since transgression of (the) law pays wages in the form of death, every one’s life is forfeit (3:23; 5:12, cf. Job 4:17-19). Left to himself Adamic man is without hope of glory.

The Divine Plan

Strangely, this is precisely what God intended. The Bible tells us that he himself always planned to be the Saviour of his people, that before him no flesh will boast (Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 1:29, cf. Gal. 2:16) and that eventually every knee will bend (Isa. 45:22f.). Thus Paul does not mince matters when he says in Romans 11:32 that God has consigned all to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all. And the apostle makes it crystal clear that this mercy is exercised in Christ (Gal. 3:22).

But this raises the question of how this comes about. For if the promise of life and glory and honour was originally made to man on condition of exercising dominion, of keeping the commandment and of resisting the blandishments of the devil, then it must still be so. And it is.

The Incarnation

At his incarnation Jesus became a true human being. Though ultimately deriving from heaven, through his mother his earthly (fleshly) father was Adam, the man of dust (cf. Luke 3:38). This being so, he too was dust, and like the temporal earth from which he was taken he was subject to aging, death and ultimate corruption. But since he did not sin but kept the law, he inherited, first, eternal life at his baptism, and, second, the glory and honour (splendour) implicitly promised to the first Adam at his ascension. This is essentially what the author of Hebrews is telling us in his second chapter.

The Dominion of Jesus

It needs to be noticed, however, that the NT makes Jesus’ victory specific. First, it depicts him as the one who plays Adam’s role and fulfils his original vocation of exercising dominion. Not only does Jesus himself say that he has resisted (cf. Mark 4:18f.) and overcome the world (John 16:33; 17:4f.; Rev. 5:5,12f., cf. Acts 10:38) but the author of Hebrews also spells it out (2:6-9). What is more, his victory is achieved as mankind’s covenant representative for he also delivers his fellows (2:10-13) who through the fear of death have been subject to lifelong bondage (2:14f.).

Victory in the Flesh

Next, as flesh and clearly in the process of growing older (John 8:57) like the creation from which he stemmed through his mother (Heb. 1:11), he overcame sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). He thus kept the law and inherited life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). While subject to all the worldly pressures, fleshly temptations and devilish seductions common to man, he nonetheless triumphed (Heb. 2:17f.; 4:15). (Clearly the world that Jesus had to conquer was more comprehensive than the mere physical creation that confronted Adam. With the development of the race and the march of history, just as the commandment was expanded into the law of Moses so the creation became the much more complex world of Paul and John, see espec. Rom. 8:31-39; 1 John 2:15-17. For him there were human as well as literal thorns to be overcome, cf. Mt. 13.) Weak like the rest of us in the flesh (2 Cor. 13:4), in the power of God he nonetheless made his flesh his slave using it as the vehicle of his spirit. In the end, he sacrificed it in the service of his Father and as the means of atoning for the sin of his people (1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18, etc.). It was thus that he finished the work he had been sent to accomplish (John 17:4) on the cross (John 19:30).

The Defeat of the Devil

That Jesus was subject to the devil’s temptations we are left in no doubt. Despite this, according to the NT, Jesus in contrast with all his forebears yielded not an inch (Mt. 4:1-11; 5:18; Luke 4:1-13). He himself, who came into the world with the express intention of destroying the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), insisted that Satan had no claim on him (John 14:30). We have already seen that Jesus delivered his fellows from the fear of death, but the author of Hebrews goes further and says that he partook of our nature so that he might destroy the devil who has the power of death (Heb. 2:14). In other words, like Paul (Rom. 8:3), our author maintains that his victory occurred in the weakness of the flesh. Clearly the second Adam who came from heaven had demonstrated his vast superiority over him who stemmed from the earth. Just as the new covenant eclipses the old (2 Cor. 3), grace outshines works and mercy triumphs over judgement (James 2:13), so the extent of Christ’s victory was greater than the damage inflicted by Adam’s defeat (Romans 5:12-21).

Jesus the Conqueror and King of kings

Thus, we can say without fear of contradiction that, according to the NT, Jesus overcame the world (John 16:33; 17:4f.; Heb. 2:9), the flesh (Mt. 4; Rom. 8:3) and the devil (Mt. 4; John 14:30). In view of his victory, he ascended triumphantly into heaven (1 Tim. 3:16) returning to the presence of his Father who sent him in the first place (John 3:13, etc.). His earthly performance was unique; he had achieved success where all other human beings had failed. As sole Conqueror he was glorified in splendour at the Father’s right hand (Rev. 3:21; 5:5,12f.), and crowned King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).

The Saviour

The NT tells us that while the first Adam became a living being, Jesus, the second or last Adam, became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45; Mt. 11:27; John 5:26; 17:2). It is therefore he alone who can give us access to the Father (John 14:6) and give us a seat at his right hand in glory (Rev. 3:21). In fact, he is the universal hope of glory (Col. 1:27). For no man can come to the Father except by him (John 14:6). He is the sole Saviour of all his fellows (Acts 4:12) since he alone as man gained life by keeping the law (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, cf. Mt. 3:17). It was he who having died for us uniquely paved our way to heaven (Heb. 2:9f.) as the pioneer and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 6:20; 12:2, cf. 1 Pet. 3:18). So, if we do not have the Son, we have neither the Father (1 John 2:23) nor life (1 John 5:11-13).

On the other hand, if we have him, we too conquer the world, the flesh and the devil and abide forever (1 John 2:14-17; Rom. 8:31-39).

Personal performance on the part of Adamic man comes significantly short of the divine glory (Rom. 3:23; 5:12), but God’s promises in Christ prove true (2 Cor. 1:20). The indisputable fact is that Jesus, as the unique, perfect and supreme performer, is peerless, matchless, incomparable and absolutely indispensable. He is the Man, the only man to achieve the perfection of God (Mt. 5:48) and able to give us both eternal life and an incorruptible inheritance of glory (Rom. 2:7,10; 8:17,32; 2 Cor. 4:17; Col. 3:4; 1 Pet. 1:3f.)*. He himself proved worthy to receive the power and wealth and wisdom and might and honour and glory and blessing (Rev. 5:12) of God (Rev. 4:9-11). Little wonder that we who believe in him as our representative are more than conquerors through him who loved us (Rom. 8:37).

Well may we sing: “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created” (Rev. 4:11) and “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” Amen! (Rev. 5:13f., ESV).

* When Jesus says that the meek will inherit the earth (cf. Ps. 37:11), he can only mean the (eternal) world to come (Heb. 2:5, cf. 1:6) or the heavenly country the children of Abraham hope to inherit (Heb. 11:16). The glory of this world is associated with temporality (death) and corruption (Mt. 6:19f.; Gal. 6:8; Phil. 3:19, etc.).

Here on earth we have corruptible bodies which match the corruptible things we possess or inherit (cf. Luke 12:13-21); in heaven we shall have glorious or incorruptible bodies enabling us to inherit permanent treasures, riches or possessions (Mt. 6:19f.; Rom. 8:32; Eph. 1:18; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 1:3f., etc.). In other words, life and incorruption are complementary concepts (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10) not simply synonyms as scholars, especially translators, frequently imply (cf. Fee, 1 Corinthians, p.802 n.31; Harris, Raised Immortal, p.274).

We tend to forget that when we believe and are born again we have, like Jesus, eternal life (John 3:16), but we clearly lack incorruptibility so long as we are on earth. The glory and splendour associated with our incorruptible bodies await us in the world to come (1 Cor. 15:43, cf. v.40). Quantity of life (immortality) without quality of life (glory) is of dubious value as persecuted Christians are doubtless well aware. The world to come offers much more (cf. 1 Cor. 2:9, etc.).

“Looking back is a bad habit”, said John Wayne in “True Grit”. Biblically speaking, he was dead right. Jesus warned us to remember Lot’s wife (Luke 17:32) who, we are told, looked back with fatal results (Gen. 19:26). He also said that anyone who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is unfit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62). Admonishments like these suggest that Scripture as a whole has much more to say on the issue, and it is worth further exploration.

The Bible begins at the beginning (of creation). This very fact implies it has an end, both an objective and a terminus. Creation (Genesis) leads inexorably to consummation (Revelation). For the earth was created to be inhabited (Isa. 45:12,18; Jer. 27:5) until, like the law (Mt. 5:18; 2 Cor. 3:11) but in contrast to the word of the eternal God (Mt. 24:35), it has served its purpose of producing the children of God (Rom. 8:21) and ceases to exist (Gen. 8:22), mission accomplished (Rev 21:1).

It is scarcely surprising that in this broad setting of forward movement the Bible provides many pictures illustrating conformity to the basic pattern. This assertion would appear to be contradicted almost at the start by the sin of Adam and Eve which was essentially a sign of or a bid for independence. Yet, while they can hardly be said to have made acceptable moral progress, their ejection from the Garden of Eden to which they cannot return (Gen. 3:24), has at least launched them, and indeed mankind, on a journey under the grace of God towards the unseen goal of a glorious salvation in Christ. In the event, until the covenant with Noah is put into effect, moral degeneration seems to preponderate. But, despite the judgement of the flood, God commits himself to dealing graciously with man despite his inherent tendency to sin (Gen. 8:21f.). Thus we are led to draw the conclusion, suggested in the preceding paragraph, that God will complete his purpose despite man (cf. Gen. 28:15). In other words, with him there is no going back, for as we learn later he remains faithful to the end and cannot deny himself (Jer. 31:3; 2 Tim. 2:11-13, cf. Heb. 6:17-20). Even the judgement on Babel and the scattering of the people, which thwarted man’s attempt to reach heaven by his own efforts, will contribute to the achievement of the divine objective.

Abraham

The nature of the God’s purpose is clarified by the story of Abraham. Having separated him from his background in Ur of the Chaldees, God tells Abram that he will make him a blessing to all the families of the earth by making him a great nation and giving a land to his descendants (Gen. 12:1-7). It is a question here of a divine destination and destiny from which there can be no ultimate deviation despite the ever-present tendency, characteristic of Adam and Eve and hence of all mankind, to “follow after your own heart and your own eyes” (Num. 15:39, cf. Gen. 8:21). The implication is that Abraham’s original separation from Ur of the Chaldees is permanent and the fulfilment of the promises is a dominant theme from the time Abraham first believed them till Joshua leads the people across the Jordan into Canaan. For, though, as the author of Hebrews tells us, there was opportunity to return, Abraham and his family were seeking another homeland (Heb. 11:13-16). So, if we may speak somewhat anachronistically and metaphorically, they had crossed the Rubicon, burnt their bridges behind them. The forward march of history, despite setbacks, frustrations, disappointments and above all lapses into sin, evidenced particularly in the life of Jacob, was now firmly established.

Evidence of Abraham’s refusal to return, undergirded by his deep commitment to his calling and unwavering faith in God’s promises, is provided in Genesis 24. Here it is a question of a wife for his only son Isaac who inherited the promises made to his father (Gen. 18:19; 22:16-18; 24:7; 26:3-5, etc.). In his instructions to his servant Abraham makes it palpably plain that the very idea of a Canaanite wife for Isaac is out of the reckoning (Gen. 24:3f., cf. 28:1 re Jacob). And even if a girl from his own country and people is unwilling to accept a proposal, on no account is Isaac to be taken back there (24:6,8). In the event, Rebekah commits herself and the promise remains secure. In due course, Esau and Jacob are born, and the latter’s progeny form the foundation of the nation of Israel. In contrast, the former, who is rejected, finds Canaanite wives acceptable (26:34) despite the opposition of his parents (26:35, cf. 28:8f.).

The Exodus

While the moral and social separation of Abraham’s posterity from the rest of the heathen is again brought out in the story of Dinah (Gen. 34) and the blessing (48:8- death and burial of Jacob (Gen. 49:28-50:14) despite the temporary (Gen. 48:21) return of Joseph and his brothers (50:14), it is more dramatically demonstrated in the story of the exodus. In Egypt, Israel remains distinct as an alien race (46:34; Ex. 1:9f.; 8:23; 11:7) and it is as such that they are rescued from their bondage. Throughout their sojourn, the promises of God to Abraham remain prominent (Ex. 2:24; 3:8,17; 6:4,8; 12:25; 13:11, etc.) and provide strong motivation for the exodus as such. As has already been stressed, there was to be no deviation from the divine destination (cf. Num. 15:39), and the Israelites should have pursued their goal with complete commitment (Dt. 1:8,21, cf. 41). But they did not. The people are scarcely out of Egypt and launched on their journey to Sinai before they start to complain, wishing to return (Ex. 14:10-12, cf. 13:17; 16:2f.,7f.). They are urged to go forward (14:15), however, by God himself who goes before them leading them by pillars of cloud and fire (Ex. 13:21f., cf. 23:21,23; Dt. 1:30-33) towards their intended goal (15:13,17). After the giving of the law the basic disposition of their hearts is eventually manifested by an ignominious lapse into and return to idolatry (Ex. 32, cf. Acts 7:40f.). Humanly speaking, it is only the intercession of Moses, noticeably based on the divine promise to Abraham (v.13), that saves the day.

The conflict between those who, like Moses, wish to complete their pilgrimage to the Promised Land and those who wish to return to Egypt with its wide variety of food (Num. 11:5, cf. 16:13) is a major motif in the picture painted in the book of Numbers. Confronted by his Herculean task of leading a reluctant rabble, consumed with fleshly craving (Num. 11:4; Ps. 78:18,29f.), towards their divinely appointed destination, Moses regularly intercedes with God’s promise in mind (e.g. Num. 11:12). When Israel eventually arrives on the fringes of Canaan, even the spies chosen to survey the land are divided. While the majority give a report calculated to produce a crescendo of murmuring and rebellion (14:2ff.), Caleb and Joshua are powerfully impressed by the “exceedingly good land” (14:7) they have reconnoitred and counsel faith in the God who has promised to give it to them (vv.8ff.,40). In the event, despite further rebellion, setback and testing of one kind or another, the pilgrimage is completed. Before his death on the very border of the land Moses warns regarding future kings that there must never be a return to Egypt whether for horses (Dt. 17:16) or wives – a warning that was flagrantly flouted by Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 10:28; 11:1ff.; Neh. 13:26) and others who made ungodly alliances and compromises with the surrounding nations (Ezra 9). This led inevitably, according to Jeremiah, to their going backward and not forward (7:24, 15:6, etc.), to the people becoming in some instances worse than their forefathers (Jer. 7:26; 11:10; 16:12) thus bringing judgement on themselves (cf. Jer. 15:6).

Joshua

In contrast with the perennial tendency to “return to Egypt” (Acts 7:39), there were those who showed a different spirit. Outsiders such as Rahab and Ruth (cf. the Ninevites who repented at the preaching of Jonah), like Abraham before them (Jos. 24:2f.), were prepared to move forward by leaving their ancestral idolatrous religions and link themselves with Israel and the purposes of God. Joshua, like Jacob before him (Gen. 35:2f.), provides a graphic indication of what is at issue when he challenges the people to reject the false gods of their forefathers, tear down their idolatrous altars and commit themselves unreservedly to the Lord (24:14f., cf. Gideon in Jud. 6:25-27 and Samuel in 1 Sam. 7:3).

The Rest of the Old Testament

And it is failure to do so that results in dire judgement later in Israel’s history. For the truth is that in the exiles to Assyria and Babylon the people of God do in effect go back to “Egypt”. On these occasions, however, it is not a question of rescue from famine, as it had been originally when Joseph in the plan of God had gone ahead and prepared the way (Gen. 45:5,7; 50:20), but punishment (1 K. 14:14-16; 2 K. 17:6; Hos. 7:16; 10:6; 8:13; 11:5) as Moses had warned (Dt. 28:27,58-60,64,68). Exile to Babylon meant that the people of God went back almost to Ur and recapitulated Abraham’s experience! In other words, it was like returning to childhood (cf. 1 Cor. 13:11). Even then God remained true to his purposes and, though he acted as a sanctuary to his people during their exile (Ezek. 11:16), he nonetheless fulfilled his promise of bringing them back to their land from Babylonian captivity (Jer. 25:11f.; 29:10; 32:36ff.) in a second exodus, as we learn especially in the book of Ezra (cf. Isa. 40:3-5; 41:17f.; 42:14-16; 43:1-3,14-21; 48:20f.; 49:8-12; 51:9f.; 52:11f.). Yet it has to be noted that while they are in their own land they suffer to all intents and purposes the ravages of exile as Nehemiah poignantly observes (9:36f., cf. Dt. 28:47f.), a situation that prevailed later even up to the time of Jesus when the Romans exercised their iron-fisted domination. Far from being the head they were the tail. Instead of going up, they had in effect gone down (Dt. 28:13, cf. Jer. 2:27; 7:24; 15:6).

Future Hope

While in one sense God’s people were the prisoners of hope (Zech. 9:12), eventual freedom beckoned in the form of the servant whose ear would be open, who, far from being blind and deaf (Isa. 48:8), was not rebellious and would not like Jonah turn back (Isa. 50:5). Rather, he would be totally committed to doing his Father’s will (John 4:34; 8:29) until he achieved the glory and honour of the perfection of God himself (Mt. 19:21; Heb. 1:3).

The New Testament

Though the teaching of the OT could be treated in more detail and reference made to the distant promise that the time will come when all nations will go up to Jerusalem to worship the Lord (Isa. 2:2-4; Mic. 4:1f.; Zech. 8:20-23), it is time now to find out whether the same emphasis on going forward and opposition to going backward is manifest in the NT. We have already seen in the introduction words of Jesus suggesting it is. There is, however, much more to be said.

John the Baptist and Jesus

First, we need to remember that once the Israelites were settled in the Promised Land, they came more and more, particularly in the time of David, to look forward to the coming of the Messiah and the kingdom of God. 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 89 highlight the promise made by God to David build a house for his name and establish the throne of his kingdom forever. Thus eventually John the Baptist, the messenger promised long before by Malachi, when preaching in the wilderness of Judea called on the people to repent for the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Mt. 3:1f.). He insisted that the one who came after him, that is Jesus, was greater than he and possessed a superior baptism. Consequently, being true to his word, he urged his disciples to look to Jesus while his own ministry decreased (John 3:30). Even before, as well as after, John completed his course (Acts 13:25) in death at the hands of Herod, Jesus and his disciples confirmed and expanded his ministry (John 4:1f.). Much stress fell on the idea of fulfilment especially of the law, on which the Jews set great store (Mt. 5:17f.), and of the promises (Acts 2 and 3). In the event, tradition ruled the thinking of many, especially the Pharisees and their followers. The inevitable consequence of this was at best spiritual inertia and a complete failure to recognise the day of their visitation (Luke 19:44); at worst a repetition of the sins of the fathers which had been so characteristic in the OT (Mt. 23; Luke 6:23,26; 11:48; Acts 7:51f., etc.). So just as the fathers in their stubbornness killed the prophets God sent them, the Jews finally murdered the God’s own Son (1 Thes. 2:15).

So far as Jesus himself was concerned, he made it very clear that he had a mission to accomplish and taught plainly that he had come with the purpose of serving and of giving his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45, cf. John 10:17., etc.), of putting his hand to the plough by setting his face to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51) where he would accomplish his exodus (Luke 9:31) without turning back (Isa. 50:5, cf. John 8:29; 14:31), of pioneering the regenerate life of his people (Mt. 3:15; Heb. 2:10), of finishing his course (cf. Luke 13:32; Heb. 5:9) by completing the work he had to do (John 4:34) despite his natural revulsion at the suffering that lay ahead of him (Mt. 26:39; Heb. 12:2), of returning to his Father (John 16:28), of sending the Spirit (John 16:7) and eventually of coming again to judge his enemies (2 Thes. 1:7f., cf. John 5:27; Acts 17:31) but also to bring salvation for those who love his appearing (John 14:3; 1 Thes. 4:16f.; 2 Tim. 4:8, etc.). Like Joshua and the angel of God (Ex. 33:2) in the OT, our Jesus has gone ahead of us to prepare a place for us (John 14:2f.) in anticipation of presenting us to the Father (2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Pet. 3:18). In sum, Jesus’ entire earthly life is one of progressive spiritual maturation, of complete or perfect human development in conformity with the will of God (Mt. 5:48; John 4:34; 5:30; 8:29, etc.) fitting him to become the paradigm of his people (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:3; 3:1f.). His, as B.B.Warfield correctly maintained, was “the only strictly normal human development, from birth to manhood, the world has ever seen” (Selected Shorter Writings, p.160). In other words, as the true Son of God, Jesus began his ascent to heaven, uninterrupted (except by the cross which involved the hiding of his Father’s face) from the moment of his conception until he was received in glory (Heb. 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:16).

The Apostolic Church

Once the Holy Spirit had descended on the disciples the same pattern of the progress or advance of the kingdom of God was evident among Christian witnesses as the true spiritual descendants of Abraham who God had promised would inherit the world (Rom. 4:13, cf. Gal. 3:29). Apostles and disciples imbued with the Spirit of God invaded the devil’s domain (Acts 8:1,4) as Jesus had done before them (Mt. 12:29) with the result that people turned from darkness to light (Acts 26:18; 1 Pet. 2:9; Col. 1:13) in accordance with the promise made long before in Isaiah (42:6; 49:6). Like Jesus, Paul gave himself unstintingly to his Saviour’s cause. He too, convinced that God would complete the work he had begun (Phil. 1:6), sought to finish his course (Acts 20:24; 2 Tim. 4:6f.), forgetting what lay behind and straining forward to what lay ahead (Phil. 3:12-14), confident, like Peter (1 Pet. 5:4) and James (1:12), that God would grant him the crown of righteousness (2 Tim. 4:8, cf. 1 Tim. 6:12). Needless to add, all believers who persevere in the faith once delivered to the saints have before them the prospect of conquering through Christ (Rom. 8:37, cf. 1 John 5:4, etc.), who himself overcame the world (John 16:33, cf. Heb. 2:9), and of being granted a seat at his side (Rev. 3:21).

Sound Doctrine

Emphasis on not turning back is not confined to the process of sanctification and ultimate perfection, however. While the NT certainly stresses the need to make progress and grow in faith, knowledge, holiness and above all in love (1 Cor. 3:1-3; 13; Col. 1:10; 2 Thes. 1:3; Heb. 5:14-6:1; 2 Pet. 3:18), it underlines the urgency of remaining doctrinally sound and, since creed determines conduct (2 Tim. 1:13f.; 3:14,16; Tit. 1:9,13; 2:1f.), believing the tradition or body of truth that has been given to us. In the letter to Galatians Paul indicates that there is only one gospel (Gal. 1:8f., cf. Eph. 4:4-6) just as there is only one God (1 Cor. 8:4), and deliberately to desert or pervert it has disastrous consequences. For Gentiles to relapse into heathenism like a dog returning to its vomit (2 Pet. 2:20-22, cf. Gal. 4:8f.) or Jews who make a profession of faith only to toy with the idea of reverting to Moses, circumcision and the law that can give neither righteousness (Gal. 2:21) nor life (Gal. 3:21) is potentially fatal. At the very least it signifies a relapse into immaturity and childish behaviour (cf. Gal. 3:23-4:7), reversing the movement from flesh to spirit (1 Cor. 15:46) by returning to the flesh (Gal. 3:3). For adults to behave like children is radically reprehensible (cf. 1 Cor. 13:11). Rather, all are called on to dispense with the imperfect and pursue the perfect (cf. Mt. 5:48; Rom. 8:29; Jas. 1:4), to put away childish things (1 Cor. 3:1-3; 13:11, cf. Heb. 6:1) and in understanding strive for mature manhood (1 Cor. 14:20, cf. 3:1-4) both as individuals and as a body (Eph. 4:13-16). Not surprisingly, the Christian’s armour does not protect his back (Eph. 6:10ff., cf. Phil. 3:13f.)!

Hebrews

The author of Hebrews also spells out the result of failure to persevere by contrasting the judgement that occurred under Moses (10:28) and that which will eventuate under Christ (10:26ff., cf. 6:4-8). Indeed, it is precisely this writer who graphically portrays the ascent of believers from earth to heaven, or from the temporal to the eternal (cf. Heb. 12:22-24), by comparing it with the pilgrimage of their immature pre-Christian brethren from Egypt (the world) to the Promised Land (heaven) with its interlude at Sinai (12:18-21). And just as there was to be no return to Egypt (Dt. 17:16) so there will be no return to this temporary world of the flesh where sin, death, corruption, destruction and condemnation rule (Gal. 1:4; 6:7f., cf. John 6:63; Rom. 8:13). Rather all will be perfected together when what was promised will finally be fulfilled (11:39f.). It is worth mentioning that two of the greatest characters in the OT are said in Hebrews 11 to look forward, Abraham to the city of God (v.10, cf. 12:22; 13:14) and Moses to the reward (v.26, cf. 10:34) that lay ahead. They were strangers and exiles on the earth (11:13, cf. 1 Pet. 2:11) who clearly figured among those who did not shrink back (10:38f.) but proved themselves to be true members of the fellowship of the redeemed (1 John 2:19).

The Return of Jesus

This prompts us to ask about the return of Jesus. Does not this basic belief contradict the rule of not returning? Here we need to recall that just as Moses, after meeting God at the burning bush, returned to his people in Egypt to rescue them (Ex. 3:10) and herald judgement of the Egyptians and their gods (Ex. 12:12), so Jesus will return in the glory of the Father not to rule on earth but to rescue his own from the divine wrath and judgement (1 Thes. 4:17; Heb. 9:28, cf. 2 Thes. 1:7f.; Amos 4:11; Zech. 3:2; Jude 23) and to banish idolatry for ever (cf. Zech. 13:2; Rev. 22:3)! When this occurs the wilderness pilgrimage of believing aliens and exiles (1 Pet. 2:11) who, like Abraham (John 8:56), have glimpsed from afar the eternal city (Heb. 11:8-16, cf. 1 John 2:25; John 6:40; 17:3) and refuse to love this temporal world of temptation and sin (cf. Heb. 13:14), will be brought to its glorious end in the freedom of the children of God (Rom. 8:21). The travail of pregnancy will finally give way to the joy of birth (John 16:20f.; Rom. 8:22f.). Then the pain and the tears of this present evil age (Gal. 1:4) will sink into oblivion (Rev. 21:3f.), lost to view in the glorified bride’s vision of her Saviour King in all his heavenly splendour (John 17:24; Rev. 22:4).

All this was of course summed up in the earthly life of Jesus himself. He who descended from the Father had it in mind from the start to ascend back to him who sent him (John 3:13; 6:62; 13:1,3; 16:28; 17:5, cf. 1 Tim. 3:16) but with many sons in train (Heb. 2:10). This entailed his doing his Father’s will to perfection, in other words, of finishing his work (John 17:4; 19:30, cf. Luke 13:32), of being himself perfected (Heb. 5:9; 7:28) and thereby perfecting his people (Heb. 5:9; 7:27; 10:5-10,12,14, cf. 9:9; 10:1,11). In light of this and the cloud of witnesses mentioned by the author of Hebrews, it is vital for us to lay aside every weight and sin and run with endurance the race that lies before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith who for the joy that lay ahead of him endured the cross and is now seated at the right hand of the throne of God (Heb. 12:1f.; Rev. 3:21). There he will rule until he has put all his enemies under his feet and God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

Conclusion

The old nursery rhyme had it that the pussycat had been up to London to see the queen. It is our intent as Christians, who by the grace of God have become the bride of Christ, to ascend into heaven to see the King (John 17:24; Rev. 22:4). So, as long as we are in this world, let us ever keep him in mind, steadfastly refusing to look back. John Wayne said it is a bad habit! It is more than that: it is a matter of life and death.

Footnote

What has been written above is of vital religious importance. Throughout the Bible retreat into the religious past is condemned. It is particularly noteworthy that for Abraham, Moses and Elijah, the greatest figures in the OT, going back to unadulterated heathenism was out of the question. In the NT the same is true for Paul (see especially Galatians, e.g. 3:10; 5:3 and Philippians 3, e.g. vv.7-11), Peter (1 Pet. 1:14; 4:2f.) and the author of Hebrews, e.g. 6:1-8 and 10:26:31) who warn repeatedly against returning to Judaism and heathenism alike. It is like an enlightened and responsible man deliberately returning to the ignorance and irresponsibility of childhood (cf. 1 Cor. 13:11; Eph. 4:14). So in these days of religious pluralism it is essential for Christians to stand their ground and resist the temptation to embrace the world’s religions, ideologies, philosophies and cults. Central to the biblical viewpoint is the teaching that there is one true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent to be the one and only Saviour (John 17:3, cf. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Tim. 2:5). This is the pearl of great price which must be guarded at all costs. To lose it is to lose life itself (cf. Mt. 16:26).

There is perhaps a final point to make and that is that all those who refuse to turn back follow God. It is he who goes ahead of his people like a medieval king leading his troops victoriously into battle (Ex. 14:14; 15:3; Dt. 3:22,28; Jos. 24:8,11). Thus we read in Deuteronomy 1:30 (cf. 9:3; 31:3,8) how the Lord goes before the children of Israel, fights for them and leads them unerringly to their eventual destination, the Promised Land. This scenario is repeated in the NT where Jesus, the Joshua of the new covenant, is represented as going ahead of those who put their trust in him as the pioneer of their course into heaven itself (John 14:2f.; Heb. 2:10; 4:14; 6:20; 9:24;12:1-2,22-24;13:13f.).