More on Docetism

 

Concerning Identity and Nature

Perhaps the most pervasive of all heresies affecting the Christology of the church is Docetism, the idea that Jesus was not truly man but only appeared to be.  (1* On this see my Still Docetic.)  The problem is frequently referred to but almost never properly addressed. Even Evangelicalism tends in the direction of Apollinarianism which taught that the eternal Word replaced the rational soul in Jesus.  I would argue that the basic reason for this, and central to generally received theology, is the almost universal belief enshrined in the Chalcedonian Creed which teaches that in becoming man Jesus retained his divine nature in what is known as hypostatic union. In other words, despite denial and the claim that the two natures were united ‘unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably’, in true Nestorian style Jesus had at one and the same time two separate natures, one fully divine and one fully human, hence Chalcedonian Dyophysitism and Dyotheletism. Though this hypostatic union seems to fly in the face of John 1:1-18; Philippians 2:5-11 and Hebrews 1 and 2 to go no further, all of which underline the fundamental truth of the incarnation, that is, that the Word did in fact become a genuine man, denial leaves us with a Jesus who was different from all other human beings that ever lived.  And if this is true, we are forced to recognise that the second Adam was not really man and hence that, since atonement was made by one who was not like us in every respect (Heb. 2:17), it was therefore ineffective. (It is worth adding here that Hebrews 5:7 gives the impression that Jesus as a genuine human being relied totally on his Father and not on his putative divine nature. See also my Did Jesus Perform Miracles?.)

Assuming that this inference is correct, we are forced to ask why the church has historically made such a basic mistake. I would argue that the problem stems primarily from failure to distinguish between identity and nature. In becoming man the Word did not cease to be who he was for clearly he retained his identity. (2* Cf. Boice who says that Jesus is the Logos who speaks the word of God, p.65. Again he says that he speaks the words of God because he is the Word, pp.67,71. Then he refers to the twofold identification of Christ: his ontology and is activity, p.68. On p.69 he says that Jesus reveals God because he is God and follows Barrett when he describes him as an ontological mediator between God and man. Then on p.72 he says that Jesus is the self-communication of God. On p.74 he sums up by saying that the revelation communicated in Christ is by its very nature a mediated revelation providing no direct vision of the Father but creating the human possibility of recognizing the Father. It is therefore self-authenticating and saving.) But he manifestly changed his nature (Heb. 2:14, cf. Rom. 8:3). If he did not, he never really became man. And this according to John constitutes horrendous heresy (1 John 4:2f.; 2 John 7).

The basic reason why Chalcedon taught the hypostatic union or two natures in one person was that it was deemed impossible for the Word to be fully divine if when he took on flesh he dispensed with his divine nature. However, if this is regarded as a truism of universal application, it leaves us with big problems in other areas, for we ourselves as human beings made in the image of God necessarily, that is, by divine decree, change our natures. Both Jesus himself and Paul insist on this. While Jesus teaches that we must be spiritually born again (John 3:7) to enter heaven, Paul tells us in no uncertain terms that since flesh and blood (=human nature or the physical natural man) cannot by nature inherit the kingdom of God, we must all be corporeally transformed (1 Cor. 15:50,53). Stated baldly, we must dispense with our flesh and blood just as Jesus divested himself of his divine nature at his incarnation. It must be noticed at this point that sin does not figure in either scenario. Both regeneration and transformation are natural necessities inherent in the plan and purpose of God. So if man can change his nature in order to be perfected in the image of God, so could the Word himself in becoming man. Furthermore, having become man with the express intention of attaining to the glory intended for man but prevented by sin (cf. Heb. 2:10), he had to change his nature again and become the complete and acknowledged image of God as man (John 3:13; Eph. 4:9f. and note John 20:17.) (3* See further my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.)

 

Man Created Perfect

The underlying problem here would seem to be that traditional theology has held that man as created was fully formed devoid of development (though noticeably involving the change from dust to flesh) and thus implying that apart from sin he was immutable, fixed and static, apparently in accord with Greek philosophy. Augustine of Hippo whose views have done so much to fashion the thinking of the churches especially in the West held that Adam was created perfect, immortal, holy and righteous but ‘fell’ when he sinned. Creation also was regarded not simply as good and serving a temporal purpose (cf. Ps. 102:25-27; 2 Cor. 4:18, etc.) but initially perfect despite Genesis 1:2. But it was then radically, even constitutionally, affected by the ‘fall’ and its consequent curse. The result of this was that creation is now regarded as ‘fallen’ rather than simply futile by nature, that is, by divine decree (Rom. 8:18-25). (4* Regrettably Romans 8:18-25 has been massively misunderstood. It surely corresponds with passages like Hebrews 1:10-12, and 8:21 clearly refers to the creature who is differentiated from creation though derived from it. See further my Romans 8:18-25 and Romans 8:18-25 In Brief. The traditional view reflects Augustinian theology on the one hand and exegetical ineptitude on the other.) In other words, tradition has it that man’s nature has changed for the worse because of sin. What the Bible really teaches, however, is that man was created imperfect or immature knowing neither good nor evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22) with a view to attaining to the maturity or the perfection of God himself (Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; Mt. 5:48; Heb. 6:1; 1 Pet. 1:16, etc.). (5* See my Perfection.)  In view of our present subject it is useful to add here that it was ‘made by hand’ (usually cheiropoietos in Greek) which is a pejorative term characteristic of the OT. Man, like the physical creation in general (Isa. 45:11f.), was thus created defective (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:16-18, etc.) and naturally in contrast with God himself (Heb. 1:10-12; 3:3). So if he was to take on his Creator’s generic nature and be glorified (cf. Rom. 5:2; 8:30; 1 Pet. 1:3; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:4, etc.), he had to be changed on that account alone. Ideas of restoration, however, belong to the temporary old covenant and are contrary to the new covenant which is concerned with replacement and transformation (cf. Heb. 10:9b, etc.). (6* See further my Manufactured Or Not So.)  Otherwise expressed, man as the image of God was potentially like him but was prevented from becoming fully so by sin and the devil.

 

Beginning at the Beginning

The truth is that God began at the beginning and made man, that is, Adam imperfect or immature like all babies in both the animal and vegetable world. Failure to recognise that Adam began as seed created in the ground and was translocated to the womb or the Garden of Eden simply reveals traditional blindness (Gen. 2:8,15; Ps. 139:13-16). He was not merely capable of growth, development or evolution but inherently perfectible, that is, designed to attain to the completeness or perfection of God himself (Mt. 5:48, cf. James 1:4). As made in the divine image man was expected or rather required to become his complete likeness. (7* See again my Perfection.) In the event, since God always planned to be the Saviour of man (Isa. 45:22-25; Rom. 11:32; 1 Cor. 1:29, etc.) whom he deliberately consigned to sin so that he could exercise his mercy (Rom. 3:19; 11:32; Gal. 3:22) and display the glory of his grace (Rom. 3:24-26; Eph. 1:6,12,14), he sent his Son Jesus who uniquely met the precondition of salvation by keeping the law as man himself (Lev. 18:5; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.). And so it was as man that Jesus eventually became the exact image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). In light of this we as sons or daughters are called to be conformed to the image of the one true Son (Rom. 8:29) who is our elder brother (cf. Heb. 2:11-13). Bluntly, as created, man was not statically perfect, as Augustine taught, but naturally immature and hence subject to dynamic development and providential change. While as flesh, like the earth from which he derived he was capable of attaining to physical perfection or maturity only to lapse into final dissolution like the rest of the animal, indeed the whole physical creation (cf. Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12), as spirit he could be born from above (John 3:3,7) and achieve perfection in the presence of God (Rom. 5:2; Eph. 2:18; 3:12). This was the course pioneered by Jesus (Luke 13:32; Heb. 12:2) who was not so much the perfect man as the progressively perfected man as Hebrews in particular makes clear (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). As man, he not only acquired the complete image of his Father himself (Heb. 1:3, etc.) but ensured that his sheep did so too by dying to cover their sins (Heb. 2:10-13, etc.) and thereby opening up for them the door of heaven and the presence of God (John 14:1-3, cf. Eph. 2:17f.).

 

Change from Word to Man and Man to Divine Image

It is vital to point out again that the Word not only changed his nature in order to become man but as man’s trail blazer into heaven also changed it as man. At his incarnation, though the ‘natural’ Son of God, he began his earthly career as a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) born of woman, that is, of the dust of the earth (Gen. 3:20; Gal. 4:4) thereby recapitulating to perfection the career of the first Adam, his original human progenitor (cf. 1 Cor. 15:47-49). As such he passed through the entire gamut of human development as Irenaeus taught long ago. “Created” (Heb. 10:5) first by God and conceived in the womb of Mary (cf. Eden), he then gestated and after birth experienced life as animal flesh in the stable at Bethlehem. After that he became a child of nature under the covenant with Noah and as such experienced heathenism in Egypt like his forebears before him (Mt. 2:15). Then like all Jewish boys he served his adolescence as a servant under the law (Lev. 25:42,55) till, having kept it flawlessly in accordance with Leviticus 18:5 (cf. Gen. 2:17), he gained eternal life at his naturally necessary baptismal regeneration (Mt. 3:13-17, etc.). Had he not done so, he would have been in no position to give his flesh in death (Col. 1:21f.) for his people (cf. Gal. 4:1-7). For it is only as a spiritually regenerate son that he could freely offer his fleshly life (cf. Mt. 17:25-27) and take it again (John 10:17f.). So long as he remained under the law (Gal. 4:4) he remained under obligation himself, and his death under it would have been permanent and irretrievable since it would have implied debt and sin (Rom. 5:12; 6:23). At best, like Noah, Daniel and Job, none of whom experienced new birth, he would only have been able to save his own life by his righteousness (Ezek. 14:14). In the event, however, as one who had personally and perfectly kept the law, was sinless (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22) and therefore born again (Lev. 18:5) but had died on behalf of his people, he was necessarily raised from the dead (Acts 2:24, cf. 1 Pet. 3:18).

 

Jesus the Son of God and the Son of Man

In further clarification of this it needs to be appreciated that Jesus’ ‘natural’ sonship of God (cf. 1 John 5:18b) which involved his incarnation and birth of Mary should not be confused with his development as a genuine man. As he himself so plainly taught, all, including himself even though he was the ‘natural’ son of God, who were born of the flesh, that is, as sons of Adam, had of necessity to be born again (John 3:3,7). So far as the latter is concerned, as man he himself had to attain to sonship by his obedience, for this was the human precondition of life (Lev. 18:5, etc.). Then, having laid down his life in atonement for the sins of his people and been physically raised from the dead, Jesus did not undergo corruption (Acts 2:27, etc.). This being so he remained flesh but as such, as Paul indicates, he could not enter the kingdom of heaven, for flesh and blood are excluded by nature (1 Cor. 15:50). So in order to regain his former glory, he had to be changed (John 17:5,24). As the author of Hebrews makes plain, he remained flesh only for a little while (Heb. 2:7,9). However, to be glorified he needed a body of glory (cf. John 17:24; Phil. 3:21) to match his regenerated spirit and this he gained at his ascension transformation which served as the paradigm of those who at the end of the world neither die nor undergo resurrection as he did (1 Cor. 15:50-53).

 

Glorification

But the all-important point is that he was glorified as man (John 17:5). Though clearly retaining his identity throughout his earthly pilgrimage, far from regaining his divine nature again, as man he gained God’s generic nature (Mt. 28:18; Rom. 1:4, etc.). He was not merely designated Lord to the glory of God (Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9-11) but was recognised as the exact image of God (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 4:4; Heb. 1:3). It was as such that having had all things subjected to him, he himself was finally subjected so that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). In other words, his own manhood is and remains in subjection to his deity, for though man cannot become God, he can share his generic nature as his son (2 Pet. 1:4, cf. Mt. 28:18; Rom. 1:4).

 

Immutability

Of course, it may be objected at this point that Jesus remains ever the same and that his traditional immutability must not be questioned. But the assertion that he remains the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8) refers to his identity and character not to his nature. If his nature never changed, if God never became man, we should still be in our sins. Atonement had to be made by man and Jesus the man was not only our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) but also the propitiation of our sins (Rom. 3:25, ESV). As Paul says, he was made sin even though he knew no sin so that in him we believers might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21, cf. 1 Pet. 3:18).  And it is as such that we are his children (1 John 3:2f.) and hence his heirs along with Jesus (Rom. 8:17).

 

Necessary Change

Now if change is fundamental to man and inherent in the plan of salvation, then it must be true of Jesus or he never truly became man. In fact, in order to be our pioneer and trail blazer his manhood was indispensably necessary, for God’s original promise of eternal life (salvation) was made to man (Gen. 2:16f.; Lev. 18:5, etc.) and therefore had to be fulfilled by man. Of course, it can be claimed that God as our omnipotent Creator and Ruler can have mercy on whomever he pleases (Ex. 33:19; Rom. 9:15f.), but this ignores his character as a holy and righteous God. The truth is that he saves in accordance with his promise and character and to the praise of his glory. The wonder of the gospel is that our triune God so loved the world that he sent his Son born of woman to be our Saviour. This can only mean that the Word was willing to humble himself, change his nature and become man, that is, one of us (Heb. 2:10-13) in order to save us. And it is as glorified man that he is forever King of kings and Lord of lords to the glory of God (Phil. 2:11) through whom we inherit all things (Rom. 8:17,32).  Not for nothing is it said that God is love (1 John 4:7-12; John 3:16). (8* See my The Ecclesiastical Christ.).

 

Additional Note

On re-reading the above I am conscious that I have not made enough of 1 Kings 8:27 and Acts 7:49f. In my article Manufactured Or Not So I sought to draw attention to the basic difference between what is ‘made by hand’ (cheiropoietos, referring to created things) and what is ‘not made by hand’ (acheiropoietos, that is, what is not created, cf. Heb. 9:11,24; 12:27). This is surely the point at issue in 1 Kings 8:27 and Acts 7:49f. These texts implicitly deny that the nature of the eternal Word who was uncreated God could be contained in the frail, fleshly, ‘manufactured’ body of Jesus born of woman. To maintain that it could is to beggar belief and to contradict Solomon’s point. Jesus, having overcome the world in the flesh (John 16:33), had of necessity to be transformed and take his seat at this Father’s right hand before he could possibly exercise universal control (Mt. 11:27; 28:18) and serve as Lord (Phil. 2:9-11). So while the identity of Jesus remained intact throughout, his nature as flesh was necessarily changed (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50).

It is only as transformed, notably as the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18), that the fullness of deity could indwell him bodily (Col. 1:19; 2:9). The idea that a clay jar (2 Cor. 4:7), let alone a destructible tent (2 Cor. 5:1) not to mention a temple (1 K. 8:27), could contain the fullness of the  nature of the omnipresent God would surely have been shocking to Paul.

In The Message of The Person of Christ (Nottingham, 2013) Robert Letham asks in an appendix (pp.229-246) dealing with Nicaea and Chalcedon, Did the church get it wrong? My blunt answer is: Yes, it did.

 

_____________________________________________________

References:

J.M.Boice, Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John, Grand Rapids, 1970 (British Ed.).

What’s Wrong with the Church and Evangelicalism

 

A thorough analysis of what is wrong with the Church and with evangelicalism in particular would take me far beyond my intentions, my research facilities, my energy and indeed my expertise. All I am concerned with here is theology or doctrine. Convinced way back in the 1950s (1* It was at that time that I realized that liberalism was devastating the Methodist Church in which I had been brought up. It was with great gratitude that I discovered as a student at Nottingham that belief in the authority and inspiration of the Bible could be cogently defended. Two publications in particular were godsends to me: ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God by J.I.Packer and Our Lord’s View of the Old Testament by J.W.Wenham. Both of these can still be read with profit at the time of writing this (August 2011). Would that the authority of the Bible be more widely recognized and appreciated today. The Bible is a blessed and wonderful book, a miracle in itself.) that so-called experts biased by denominational allegiance and enlightenment presuppositions were dubious guides, I have endeavoured over the years to arrive at my own understanding of what the Bible teaches. (It would seem that scholars in general accommodate themselves to their environment. This is perhaps a survival strategy. However, as I was reminded by an email recently, while the ark was built by amateurs and stayed afloat, the Titanic was built by experts and sank!) It did not take me all that long to discover, even within evangelicalism where the Bible is purportedly regarded as the final court of appeal, that there are serious discrepancies between biblical and generally received teaching. Eventually, after having dismissed Pelagius in favour of Augustine, I discovered that Augustine himself, whose impact on the churches both Catholic and Protestant has been enormous, was susceptible to radical criticism. So now with England my home country in turmoil (August 2011) I venture to suggest that Christian influence which has been gradually diminishing is likely to continue to do so unless Christians are prepared to question their beliefs, repent and seek God’s blessing in these tumultuous days (cf. 2 Chron. 7:14). After all, unexamined and uncorrected tradition was a problem throughout both the OT and NT (cf. Mark 7:1-13), and it remains so today. So, what is radically wrong with our basic thinking? What have we inherited from our forebears (cf. 1 Pet. 1:18) that is poisoning our relationship with God and with our fellow man? Why has God himself apparently become our enemy (cf. Isa. 63:8-10, etc.)?

(For more extended treatment of the following topics the reader should consult the articles listed on the Home Page)

Original Perfection

The traditional ‘Christian’ worldview is built on the idea of original perfection. Augustine of Hippo misunderstood Genesis 1 and assumed that references to the goodness of creation meant perfection. But this is to turn the Bible on its head. Only the eternal God is perfect and, as created, temporal man is by nature imperfect or immature (cf. Heb. 3:3). He is only potentially made like God or in his image, but his ultimate goal is to be completely like him (Mt. 5:48), a feat quite beyond the capacity of fleshly animals. Because they sin, Adam and all his posterity fail to inherit the promise of eternal life (Gen. 2:17) – with One exception, the second Adam (Rom. 8:3, Heb. 2:14f.). He alone achieves man’s full potential, is perfected (Mt. 19:21; Heb. 2:10; 7:28, etc.) and becomes the exact imprint of the nature of God (Heb. 1:3 ESV). In him God completes his plan of salvation as believers are conformed to his image (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18).

See further my:

The Goodness of Creation

Perfection.

 

Original Righteousness

If Adam was not a sinner until he broke the law (commandment) of which he was initially ignorant, he could not possibly have been originally righteous since righteousness can only be gained by keeping the law (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7, etc.). In his ignorance, like Jesus the second Adam (Isa. 7:15f.), he was neither good nor evil (cf. Rom. 9:11). He knew neither the one nor the other until he had first learned and then broken the commandment (Gen. 3:22). Original righteousness is thus an absurdity. Even Jesus himself as a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) was also born in ignorance (Isa. 7:15f., cf. Luke 2:40-52) and was not acknowledged as the Holy and Righteous One, the true Son of God, until he had finished his work (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 John 2:1).

See further my:

Adam – Part 1 – Adam’s Pedigree And Goal

Does Romans Teach Original Sin?

Concerning Original Righteousness

and various essays on original sin.

Original Sin

The dogma of original sin, which teaches that we all sinned ‘in Adam’, seems to be almost universally accepted in the West, though not by the Jews and the Orthodox. The problem is that it is nowhere to be found in the Bible and, if it were, the Bible would contradict itself. Texts like Psalm 51:5 are not only misinterpreted, they are frequently mistranslated. If original sin or sin ‘in Adam’ is taught in Romans 5:12 which is flanked by Romans 4:1-8 and 6:23, then Paul is at odds with himself. In Romans 7:9f. he clearly teaches that he himself ‘imitated’, or rather repeated, Adam and Eve’s sins at the beginning (pace Art 9 of the C of E). If original perfection, as opposed to original goodness, that is, usefulness (cf. 1 Tim. 4:3f.), is a myth, so original sin and ‘fall’ are likewise myths. These are clearly alien to Scripture. For (a) we are all born like Adam ignorant of law (Dt. 1:39; Heb. 5:12-14) apart from which there is no sin (Rom. 4:15; 7:9f.), (b) we all learn the commandment/law from our parents (Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20, etc.), and then (c) when the commandment eventually dawns on our consciousness (Rom. 7:9f.), we all break it, sin on our own account (Ps. 106:6; Rom. 5:12; 6:23) and thus lose our innocence.

See further my:

An Exact Parallel?

J.I.Packer on Original Sin

Thoughts on Romans 5:12-14

Are Babies Saved?

Some Arguments Against Original Sin

etc.

Covenant Theology

Traditional covenant theology in its various forms is at odds with what the Bible itself teaches. The idea that God made a covenant with creation which lacks conscious intelligence is manifestly false. The word ‘covenant’ implies at least minimal agreement or response. Thus a unilateral covenant is a contradiction in terms. In light of this it is less than surprising that in the Bible creation is commanded (Gen. 1, cf. Rev. 4:11). And animals which are part of creation are so too (e.g. Ps. 1 K. 17:4; Mt. 10:29; Luke 8:24f., etc.). This ought to alert us to the fact that initially Adam, though physically adult, received a single divine commandment like an infant. Thus the first covenant was established with Noah by which time mankind had developed somewhat from original infancy and animal ignorance. It was a temporal not an eternal covenant (Gen. 8:22). The law too was temporal (Heb. 8:7,13) and also related to this world and the flesh (Rom. 7:1; Heb. 7:16; 9:8-10). By contrast, the promises made to Abraham and David (Ps. 89:28,34) had eternity in view and were fulfilled in Jesus who himself established an eternal covenant (Heb. 9:14f.; 13:20). The new covenant has a heavenly orientation but because it overlaps the old, misunderstanding is ready to hand. We need to note that believers in Jesus are spiritually reborn before they have sloughed off their flesh.

See further my:

Covenant Theology

Covenant Theology in Brief

Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity

Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?.

Fall

Traditional theology is dominated by a so-called disastrous Fall. But if Adam, not having kept the law, was never righteous, from what did he fall? Obviously at worst he lost his innocence as all children do. This is proved by the fact that the sinful parents in the wilderness all died but their innocent children entered the Promised Land (Dt. 1:39; Num. 14:3,29-33). So the word ‘Fall’ used with respect to Adam is quite inappropriate. After all, all children eventually lose their innocence and become sinners as Jesus indicated (John 8:34, cf. James 2:10). Just as Adam and Eve (after a fashion) broke the commandment and became transgressors, so did Paul (Rom. 7:9f.) and the rest of us (Rom. 3:23). Since all fail to gain life by keeping the commandment that promises life (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16), all sin by breaking that commandment and so earn its wages in death (Gen. 5; Rom. 5:12).

What Fall?

Curse and Corruption

Since it had a beginning in time, creation was subjected by divine decree to corruption (decay) from the beginning (Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). Land was only ‘cursed’ to the extent that it was abused or neglected (Gen. 3:17-19; Prov. 24:30ff.) by man whose job it was to tend and care for it, that is, to exercise dominion over it (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:15). Since it has a beginning (Gen. 1:1), creation must by divine decree have an end (Mt. 24:35; 28:20), and since it is physically visible (Rom. 1:20), it is transient by nature (2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 12:27). From the start it was therefore neither capable of nor intended to be restored or redeemed (1 Cor. 15:50b). It is by nature ephemeral (cf. Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 12:33; 2 Cor. 4:18).

See further my:

Romans 8:18-25

Cosmic Curse?

Will Creation Be Redeemed?

Regarding the Restoration of Creation

The Transience of Creation

The Destruction of the Material Creation

Thoughts on the Redemption of Creation.

The Flesh

Contrary to Manichean and Greek teaching, Scripture teaches that the flesh which derives from the earth is good, that is, serviceable (cf. 1 Tim. 4:3f.). Like the earth, however, it is inherently transient (Gen. 6:3). The flesh being intrinsically mortal (Rom. 6:12; 2 Cor. 4:11) is fed by perishable food and so perishes; the spirit is fed by spiritual food and endures (Mt. 4:4; John 6:22-63). This being so, our natural bodies need transformation by necessity (2 Cor. 5:1; 1 Cor. 15:50-54; Phil. 3:21).

See further my:

The Flesh

The Flesh A Slave

Another Shot at Romans 8:18-25.

Two Necessities

First, traditionally, regeneration has been regarded as the antidote of original sin. Two points need to be made here. First, as we have seen, original sin as traditionally conceived does not exist and in any case cannot be either transmitted or legitimately imputed to the innocent (Ex. 23:7; 1 K. 21; Prov. 17:15; Ezek. 18; Luke 23, etc.). Second, regeneration in Scripture is seen as a necessity not because of sin but because we are mortal, corruptible flesh by nature. The clear implication of John 3:1-8 is that  the fleshly or natural man as such cannot go to heaven (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50), thus rebirth, birth from above or spiritual birth is a ‘natural’ necessity. Second, precisely because the flesh, like the earth, is inherently corruptible, futile or subject to decay (Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12), it must be replaced by a spiritual (1 Cor. 15:44) or heavenly body, one that is ‘not made by hand’ (2 Cor. 5:1). In other words, since all material (visible) things are ephemeral, the NT points to the eternal or what is ‘not made by hand’ (cf. Mark 14:58). And since man cannot keep the law which promises life (Rom. 3:20), he must look to Jesus who did keep it for salvation (Heb. 2:9-13).

See further my:

Two ‘Natural’ Necessities

Manufactured Or Not So

Concerning Futility

The Transience of Creation

The Destruction of the Material Creation.

Restoration

The prophets of the OT were given only limited revelation and were naturally earth-centred in their outlook (Heb. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:10-12). In light of this it is not at all surprising that faced with universal corruption and decay they thought in terms of healing and restoration (1 K. 13:6, etc.), even of the restoration of the earth (Isa. 65:17-25; 66:22). In other words, they had an understanding of earthly but not of heavenly things (cf. John 3:12,31). Since chronologically they preceded Jesus, they lacked the revelation that he brought (Heb. 1:2, cf. John 8:23). However, the covenant that Jesus inaugurated was, in contrast with the temporal old covenant, eternal and could only be fully implemented or consummated in eternity. So in the NT the new creation is not the old restored but the eternal heaven, the throne of God (Mt. 5:34, cf. Heb. 9:11,24). For example, when Peter refers to the world to come he does so by quoting Isaiah (65:17) but significantly adding the words ‘where righteousness dwells’ (2 Pet. 3:13). If we ask where righteousness dwells, all we have to do is recall the Lord’s prayer to remind ourselves that it dwells in heaven (Mt. 6:10, cf. v.33; 5:10,20). (On righteousness, see F.F.Bruce, Hebrews, p.20.) Corresponding with the new heavens and new earth is the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2) which, since it is the reality and not a shadow, is also not the old restored. Rather, like the temple (Mark 14:58), it is the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22, cf. 11:16; 13:14) and since we are born from above, it is our mother (Gal. 4:26). Needless to add therefore our citizenship is heavenly (Phil. 3:20; Eph. 2:19; Col. 3:1).

So the currently (2011) widespread notion that the present creation will be redeemed because it was once perfect but is now ‘fallen’ is a palpable error.  The truth is that the present material creation which was ‘made by hand’ (Ps. 102:25; Isa. 45:11f.; 48:13) and hence plainly transient (Ps. 90:2; Mt. 24:35) will be replaced by one that is ‘not made by hand’ (2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 1:12; 9:11,24; 11:13-16).

See further my:

Regarding the Restoration of Creation

The Case Against the Redemption of Creation, etc.

The Resurrection Transformation of Jesus

It is widely held that since Jesus was transformed at his resurrection, so the present creation also will be transformed. The idea is a complete fallacy contingent on the ideas of original sin, fall and curse referred to above. There is in fact no connection in Scripture between the resurrection of Jesus and the redemption of creation. As already noted, just as it is necessary (Gk dei) for flesh, and therefore the incarnate Jesus, to undergo new birth (John 3:7), so it is necessary (Gk dei) for flesh to be replaced at ascension transformation (1 Cor. 15:53). This was decreed by God from the beginning and gloriously fulfilled in Jesus. But since all men and women sin, they are completely unable to gain life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5) and achieve the immortality and incorruption needed to inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:53). Jesus, however, kept the law (Mt. 3:17; John 8:29; 15:10), died on our behalf and brought both to light for the rest of us (2 Tim. 1:10).

See further my:

Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?

John Stott on the Putative Resurrection Transformation of Jesus

When Was Jesus Transformed?

Death and Corruption

Creation Corruptible By Nature.

The Order of Salvation

Because they believed in original sin our forebears assumed that regeneration was its cure and, not surprisingly, placed it first in the order of salvation (ordo salutis) and so baptized babies. This, however, is to stand theology on its head. Regeneration is our goal not our beginning. Adam was promised life if he kept the commandment (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5). Along with all his posterity (Rom. 3:23; 5:12), he failed (cf. Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16, etc.). Jesus, however, was an exception and succeeded, but he had to keep not only the one commandment of his early childhood but  the ‘law’ of his time of testing in heathen Egypt (cf. Eve), then, following his bar mitzvah (Luke 2:40-52), the entire law of Moses (cf. Adam). In this way he pleased his heavenly Father, received the Spirit at his baptism and was born again. Thus, having gained life in accordance with the promise (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.), he then fulfilled all righteousness (Mt. 3:15). This involved his dying voluntarily and vicariously for his sheep and preparing himself for his return to glory at his ascension having finished the work he had been sent to do (John 17:4). In this way he became our pioneer (though unless we are among the end-time saints our pattern or paradigm is David, Acts 2:29,34; 13:36) into heaven itself (Heb. 2:9f.; 12:1f., cf. John 17:24). Since he is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6), as his disciples we follow him wherever he goes (John 12:26; 14:3,19). And as the redeemed from humankind we are first fruits for God and the Lamb (Rev. 14:4).

See further my:

The Order of Salvation

The Order of Salvation in Romans

Redemption Applied (Order of Salvation)

Cart-Before-The-Horse Theology.

Justification and Sanctification

It is imperative to realize that if what has just been sketched above is correct, then justification which for sinners is achieved by faith precedes sanctification which in the NT relates primarily to regeneration. While our forebears believed that because of original sin, faith was the fruit of the new birth, Scripture clearly implies that despite personal sin faith is always possible as Hebrews 11 would seem to show. Not for nothing did Paul say that the law, on which sin is necessarily founded and defined (Rom. 4:15; 7:8; 1 Cor. 15:56), promised life (Rom. 7:9f., cf. Gen. 2:17). In other words, if we are capable of sin, we are also capable of faith (cf. Rom. 4:5) for both are based on knowledge (law). Recognition of this is hugely important since it shows that though sin and death are rampant throughout the OT, so is faith (Heb. 11) and therefore justification (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:1-8). By the grace of God faith is relative (cf. Eph. 2:8) and therefore possible to all, even the heathen and children who attain to knowledge (Heb. 11:6) and understanding of (the) law (Rom. 7:1,7). According to Revelation 7:9, for instance, the number of the saved is massive and worldwide.

The Implication of Tradition

Since regeneration has traditionally occupied first place in the order of salvation, inevitably those who are not born again have been considered to be eternally lost. For Augustine who taught infant baptism and hence infant regeneration, all who were not baptized were damned as sinners ‘in Adam’. Hence the heathen were considered a massa damnata (or perditionis) or a damned mass. In line with such views it was almost inevitable that both the heathen and especially the Jews were persecuted by the medieval church and the Inquisition, though sometimes with the best of intentions. The truth is that while only those who put their faith explicitly in Christ can be assured of their salvation in this life (1 John 5:13, cf. Heb. 12:21), it is by no means certain that those who do not are damned in the next. After all, they may exercise a relative faith in God especially in their minority as many under the old covenant did.

Recapitulation

This brings me to the doctrine of recapitulation barely referred to in the Bible (cf. Rom. 13:9; Eph. 1:10) but everywhere implied. It was of course taught by Irenaeus only to be virtually expunged from the ecclesiastical map by Augustine. The truth is, however, that we all begin at the beginning (cf. Dt. 1:39; Rom. 7:9f.; 9:11) and as individuals, like Jesus himself, recapitulate the covenant experience of the race (cf. Rom. 1-3; 7-8; Gal. 4:1-7). When Jesus spoke to his disciples after his resurrection, he made it plain that he interpreted for them the things about himself in all the Scriptures (Luke 24:27, 44f.). His concern was not merely with prediction of his coming but with his relationship with the world throughout the whole of history. To embrace the world in his atonement (1 John 2:2, cf. Heb. 9:15) he had as the second Adam to assume what needed to be saved (Heb. 2, cf. Gregory Nazienzen). In light of this we can readily believe that the time will come when a great multitude that no one can number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb will cry out “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb” (Rev. 7:9f. ESV).

See further my:

I Believe in Recapitulation

Recapitulation in Outline

What About The Heathen?.

Baptism

Those who believe in infant baptism which implies regeneration in Christ and is part and parcel of the new covenant have to all intents and purposes cut the old covenant out of their canon. If Jesus as the second Adam began at the beginning (cf. Isa. 7:15f.) and first recapitulated his forefathers’ heathen experience (Mt. 2:15) and life under the law (Luke 2:40-52) then, after his baptism, pioneered the future history of the race (cf. Eph. 4:9f.), so do those who believe in him today.

See further my:

Baptism Revisited

Regarding the Baptism of Jesus

Why Infant Baptism is Unchristian

The Theology Behind Baptism

Circumcision and Baptism

Adam – Part 2 – Individual and Community.

Worldview

My basic quarrel with tradition is that it presents us with a radically erroneous worldview and is far from being an adequate presentation of what the Bible teaches. Augustine of Hippo’s obsession with sin blinded him to the recognition that the material creation was inherently imperfect and defective quite apart from sin. (Note how Paul deals with the natural difference between the body of flesh and the body of glory, 1 Cor. 15:42-53.) After all, there are two ages, the first giving way to the age to come. Thus his teaching regarding original perfection, sin, fall and restoration led to his providing a thoroughly distorted framework which has perverted the understanding of the church ever since his day and, in effect, put the church at odds with history, experience and the genuine findings of modern science. He seems to have completely missed the fact that development, diminished responsibility and recapitulation are intrinsic to the biblical worldview.

See further my:

Not Only But Also

Concerning Futility

Worldview

The Biblical Worldview

Romans 8:18-25.

The reader who wants fuller support for my contentions should consult the articles listed on the Home Page

Some of my essays are not yet on my website but can be received on application via the Contact page

Jesus the Man

 

Introduction

I have argued elsewhere that, according to Scripture, the Word of God became flesh or man (John 1:14; Phil. 2:7), specifically Jesus, the son of God born of woman in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4) (see my Still Docetic, The Ecclesiastical Christ.) . I deliberately express the issue this way since I am intent on denying that the person or Word of God in becoming incarnate retained his divine nature. Rather, contrary to the Chalcedonian creed, he became a genuine human being, a man like us in every respect (Heb. 2:14,17). In changing his nature he became totally dependent on his heavenly Father as ultimately all human beings are. (1* See further my Did Jesus Perform Miracles?.)

 

Jesus the Son

The Virgin Birth

Since he became truly and fully human, the second Adam, Jesus’ sonship like ours was progressive or subject to development. It began by his being conceived by and born of the Virgin Mary (Mt.1:20f.; Luke 1:31; Heb. 10:5). As such he was inevitably made a little lower than the angels (Heb. 2:7,9) with the intention of doing the will of God in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.; 10:7,9) in a way that no one had previously proved capable of doing (cf. e.g. 1 K. 8:46; Eccl. 7:20). The reason for this is that he purposed by keeping the law as man to gain the righteousness which was the precondition of eternal life. This God had originally promised Adam, who was the first man made in the divine image, in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5). So, just as God had spoken to his people by the prophets, he finally sent his own Son not merely to speak and reveal but ultimately to redeem (Heb. 1:1-3, cf. Gal. 4:4).

 

Baptism

Jesus then like Adam was the Son of God by physical birth (cf. Luke 3:38), and like all children he was subject to perfection, that is, development, growth and maturation (Luke 2:42-52, cf. Gal. 4:1-7). As a child he necessarily passed through the stages of infant ignorance (Dt. 1:39, cf. Isa. 7:15f.; 8:4) and childlike ‘heathenism’ under the covenant with Noah by recapitulating the history of his forebears. Like Israel the vine (Ps. 80:8), Jesus the true vine (John 15:1) spent time in and was called out of Egypt (Mt. 2:15). On his return to the Promised Land he underwent his bar mitzvah and lived as a Son of the Commandment. As such he was called to total obedience to the whole law. By achieving this to perfection he pleased his Father who acknowledged and confirmed him as his Son at his baptism (Mt. 3:13-17). In this way, as man he uniquely and permanently received the Spirit, that is, eternal life (John 1:32, cf. 3:34), new birth or birth from above. His baptism signified the first fulfillment of the promise originally made by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:17, cf. Leviticus 18:5, etc.).

In view of traditional misunderstanding it is vital to stress and clarify this. Like all human beings Jesus had natural, animal* or temporal life at his birth of woman (Gal. 4:4, cf. Rom. 7:9) but like Adam (Gen. 2:17) needed eternal life if he was to achieve perfection and attain to heaven. This he gained when he fulfilled the God-ordained precondition which involved keeping the commandment/law (Lev. 18:5, etc.).

* It should not go unnoticed that as a baby, as flesh born of woman, Jesus was nursed in a manger (Luke 2:7,12) and categorized with the animals (Luke 13:15; 14:5, NRSV).

 

Transfiguration

Jesus’ Sonship was further confirmed at his transfiguration described in Matthew 17:1-8. Here God refers to him and bears testimony to him as his beloved Son (cf. 2 Pet. 1:17). That he is his human Son emerges from the fact that his Father claims to be well pleased with him (17:5) as he had been at his baptism. This inference is confirmed by Jesus’ double self-designation as the Son of Man who is to suffer (v.12) and be raised from the dead (v.10). But before he could serve as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of his people, he had to qualify himself by remaining completely unblemished and acceptable in the sight of his Father (cf. 1 Pet. 1:19). This the first Adam had failed to do.

 

Resurrection

The resurrection of Jesus is the resurrection of the human Son by his Father (Acts 2:24). Of course, it might be argued on the basis of John 10:17f., where Jesus says he has the power to take his life again, that he has retained his divine nature but even here he claims to have the authority of his Father to do so. A dead man cannot be raised apart from the authority of God. He must be divinely vindicated (Acts 2:22-24, cf. Rom. 4:25) and the vindication in question is that of his Father. However, the situation is clarified in Acts 13:32f., for example, where it is the Son, begotten in time (today) not in eternity, who is raised in accordance with the promise God made to the fathers. That this passage has the human Son in view is further emphasized by the fact that he is said to be raised from the dead no more to return to corruption (13:34). It is only as the incarnate Son that Jesus experienced corruption (aging, decay) and, once he had ascended to heaven, his days of corruption and contact with it were terminated forever (Heb. 7:26, cf. 4:14). He had been made flesh only for a little while (Heb. 2:7,9, cf. 5:7) with the salvation of his people in view.

 

Ascension

Paul tells us that flesh and blood cannot (by nature) inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:6) and that we must all be changed (1 Cor. 15:51). Now since Jesus was truly flesh, he too had to be changed even as he had been spiritually born again at his baptism and this change clearly took place at his ascension (cf. John 20:17) and not, as is widely claimed, at his resurrection from the dead (pace e.g. Stott, pp.70ff., Harris, pp.xxv, etc., Carson, p. 557, and many others). It is as the incarnate Son of God that Jesus fully achieved the image and likeness of God (Heb. 1:3, cf. 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15), indeed his very perfection (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). If this were not the case, how could he be regarded as our pioneer and trail blazer into the very presence of God (Heb. 6:20; 9:24; 12:2, cf. Dan. 7:13f.), our elder brother (Heb. 2:10-13) to whose image we must be conformed (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18).

 

The Second Adam

Since Adam was the human son of God, so is Jesus or he could not possibly have been the second Adam. If Adam was a type of the one who was to come (Rom. 5:14), it follows that the antitype was also human flesh and blood by nature and divine only in person or identity (cf. Luke 3:38). If Adam was made from the ground or mother earth, Jesus derived from his mother’s flesh whose original source through Adam was the ground (Ps. 78:39; 103:14, cf. Job 10:8f., etc.). Mary was not theotokos or mother of God since God is eternal (cf. Heb. 7:3) but the mother of the human Jesus, genuine flesh and blood. Thus it was in the flesh that Jesus, God’s human Son born of woman, overcame (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.,17f.).

So we can safely conclude that just as Jesus the Son attains to heaven and the presence of his Father God (Eph. 2:18) as our pioneer (Heb. 9:24; 12:2), so do we, his fellows. By faith in him, the Son of God, and by regeneration (cf. 2 Pet. 1:3f.) we overcome the world (1 John 5:4f.) as he himself overcame (John 16:33). So, as a Son himself he brings his brothers to glory (Heb. 2:10) and guarantees them a share in the inheritance (Rom. 8:17).

 

Ecce Homo, Behold the Man

At the beginning of his gospel John tells us in clear language that in the beginning was the Word (cf. Gen. 1:1), and that the Word was with God and was God. In verse 14 he adds that this Word who brought creation into being came to his own (John 1:11), became flesh and lived (tabernacled) with men and women. We learn elsewhere that as flesh and descended from David (Mt. 1:1; Rom. 1:3) he was born of the Virgin Mary (cf. Luke 1:27; John 7:42). Through her he clearly became a son of man, God incarnate. Since he is born of woman (cf. Gal. 4:4) who herself is dust, he too is truly a Son of Adam, the archetypal man, who was created from the earth in the image of God (Luke 3:38). In this way he became the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45-49), the replacement of the first (cf. Heb. 10:9). As such he was both God in person and man in nature (Heb. 2:14,17; 10:5-7). John goes on significantly to inform his readers that he and his fellow apostles have seen his glory as the only Son from the Father, and in verse 17 he noticeably differentiates between the old and the new covenants when he says that the law was given through Moses but grace and truth through Jesus Christ. Again, in a passage reminiscent of John 1, the same apostle (we assume) claims to have physically heard, seen and touched the life which was with the Father (as the Word was with God) on the basis of which eternal life is proclaimed (1 John 1:1-3). This stress on hearing, seeing and touching, highlighted in John 20:27-29 and Hebrews 12:18-21, is of prime importance since it points to the genuineness of Jesus’ human nature as flesh and blood prior to his ascension transformation and glorification (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50-53).

 

Conqueror in the Flesh

It was then as man that Jesus of Nazareth is presented to us in Scripture as going about doing good (Acts 10:38) overcoming sin in the flesh (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22, cf. Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14) and as a man (Gk andra) being approved by God (Acts 2:22). Since God had originally promised Adam, the man made in his image, eternal life if he kept the commandment, only in this way could Jesus triumph over the devil and deliver those enslaved by him (Heb. 2:14f.). Thus in the book of Revelation it is Jesus the man, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, but significantly also the root of David, who conquers (Rev. 5:5). And it is as a Lamb who has been slain that he stands among the elders (5:6. cf. v.9), sits at God’s right hand and receives glory along with him (5:13, cf. 4:11; John 17:5,24), for he, the man, is now King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).

 

The Mediator

The apostle Paul who like John described Jesus as having shared the nature of God in eternity (Phil. 2:6) in 1 Timothy 2:5 describes him as a man (Gk anthropos) who is the mediator between God and man. The author of Hebrews goes further and adds that Jesus is the guarantor or surety of a better covenant (Heb. 7:22) than that served by Moses (cf. Gal.3:19). A guarantor bears a greater burden than a mediator because he is responsible for the fulfillment of his obligation (see e.g. Bruce, p.151 n.70). As both God in person and man by nature Jesus fulfils his role to perfection.

 

The Priest

It is as man that Jesus became a priest replacing Aaron. At first blush it might be assumed that this was impossible because he belonged to the wrong tribe of Israel (Heb. 7:14). But this problem is overcome by a change in the law as well as the priesthood (Heb. 7:12) and Jesus is appointed a priest by an oath after the order of Melchisedek (Heb. 7:21). As the Word in eternity, like Melchisedek Jesus had neither father nor mother, neither beginning nor end whereas as man on earth he had both. And it was as man the Son of God that he gained an eternal priesthood (Heb. 7:3) because he continues forever (Heb. 7:16,24,28).

 

Propitiator, Intercessor and Sympathizer

Paul makes it clear in Romans 3:25 that it is by shedding his (human) blood that Jesus serves as the propitiator of his Father whose wrath was revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Rom. 1:18). The mere fact that all died reflected the fact that all personally sinned (Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 6:23) and did not simply fall prey to original sin as our baleful (Augustinian) tradition would have it. Thus all were in need of someone to make propitiation for them (1 John 2:2, cf. Heb. 1:3), to intercede on their behalf (Rom. 8:34) and to sympathize with them (Heb. 2:17).

 

The Inheritor, the Messiah, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords

If the Word played his part in the creation of the world, clearly all belonged to him as Creator (cf. John 1:11). In the words of Paul, all things were created through him and for him (Col. 1:17). The last asseveration, like that of the ultimate reconciliation referred to in verse 20, is pregnant with significance. For if all was his by creation, the implication is that he was to inherit all as man (Rom. 8:17, cf. Gen. 17:4-6; Gal. 3:14,29; Rom. 4:13). The devil himself seemed to realize this (Mt. 4:9) as he had when he tempted the first Adam (Gen. 3:1-6). That this promise was fulfilled is made clear in Hebrews 1:3f. where we learn that having made purification for sins Jesus sat down at the right hand of God, regained his superiority to the angels (Heb. 1:4) temporarily forfeited (cf. Heb. 2:7,9) and inherited a more excellent name than theirs. He who once endured extreme humiliation on earth (Phil. 2:7f.) is now exalted above the heavens (Heb. 4:14) as King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).

 

Jesus the Righteous One and the Author of Life

It is worthy of note that Jesus the man is designated the Righteous One on various occasions (3:14; 7:52; 22:14, cf. 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:1). This of course harmonizes with his sinlessness (cf. 1 Pet. 2:22, etc.). In Acts 3:15 he is called the Author of life. This also presumably relates to his humanity for it was as man that he spilt his blood on our behalf and brought to light immortality and incorruption (2 Tim. 1:10). Apart from him we would all have been left in our sins, incapable of achieving the righteousness necessary for life (Lev. 18:5). It is by him that we must be saved or not at all (Acts 4:12). To have him is to have the Father also (John 14:6; 1 John 2:23; 4:15; 2 John 9)

 

Life Giver and Judge

In John 5:26 we read that Jesus was given life in himself (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45) along with the power to judge (John 5:22,27; Acts 17:31). This can only mean that he received these delegated powers as man (John 3:34f, 5:20), the human Son of God since in his eternal state as Creator he already had them (cf. John 1:4, pace e.g. Carson, The Son, pp.62ff.; John pp.256f.)

 

The Perfecter

It is a sad fact that our Augustinian tradition has taught us that creation, including man the creature, was created perfect rather than ‘good’, that is, useful or fit to serve a purpose (cf. Gen. 3:6 where food is portrayed as being edible, cf. 2:9). In other words, Augustine confused the beginning with the end. The truth is that man like a baby was created imperfect, that is, immature, knowing neither good nor evil. As such he had to be made perfect. Since the law being weak and useless could not make anything perfect, mankind was forced to find a better hope by which to draw near to God (Heb. 7:11,18f.; 8:7). That better hope was provided by Jesus, the man, who in accordance with the divine purpose uniquely achieved perfection (Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; Mt. 5:48, cf. Phil. 3:12-14), the perfection of God (Heb. 1:3; 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). He thus became the pioneer and perfecter of his people (Heb. 12:2). Through him and in him we also attain to the presence of God (Heb. 12:22-24; Rev. 3:21, cf. John 14:2f.), the fullness of our salvation.

 

__________________________________________________________

 

References:

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

D.A.Carson, Jesus The Son of God, Wheaton, 2012.

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

 

______________________________________________________

 

Outline of the Word’s Incarnation and his Exaltation as Man

1. The Word was God (John 1:1) and therefore equal with God (Phil. 2:6).

2. Superior to angels by nature as eternal Creator.

3. Became flesh (man) (John 1:14) and so changed his nature (Phil. 2:7).

4. Made less than angels for a little while (Heb. 2:7,9).

5. Sought glory and honour (Rom. 2:7,10; Acts 10:38, cf. 1 Pet.1:7).

6. Succeeded, so was raised in power (Rom. 1:4) and crowned with glory and honour (Heb. 2:9).

7. Superior to angels (Heb. 1:4,6; 1 Pet. 3:22).

8. The exact image of God (Heb. 1:3; 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15).

9. Jesus the man is the Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8. cf. James 2:1) who sits with God on his throne (Rev. 3:21, cf. Mt. 28:18; Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 4:11-14).

10. At his return he exercises as man the power of God (Mt. 28:18; Rom. 1:4) and sends out his angels to gather the elect from the four winds (Mt. 24:30f.; Heb. 9:28).

See further my The Journey of Jesus, The Exaltation Of Jesus.

Towards a Theodicy

 

I have argued over the years that the main reason why the present world must be regarded as pejorative in relation to heaven or the world to come is not on account of the sin of Adam, his fall from original perfection and the consequential curse on all creation but because God himself purposely subjected it to futility and corruption in hope of the world to come (Rom. 8:20). (1* See my Romans 8:18-25.) Rather than regard sin as the sole cause of all earthly ills, I maintain that it is only an exacerbating factor. (2* Cf. my Not Only But Also.) This seems to be demanded by the mere fact that both Jesus and the apostles in accordance with Jewish belief teach that there are two ages, the present one and the age to come (Mt. 28:20; Luke 20:34-36; Eph. 1:21, etc.). (3* See my The Two Ages.) As early as Genesis we gain hints of the world to come from 1:26,28, cf. Ps. 8:5f., and 2:17. In other words, eternal life which cannot be lived on a temporal earth which has a beginning (Gen. 1:1) and an end (Gen. 8:22; Mt. 24:35) is in prospect from the start. On the assumption, however, that my contention that Romans 8:18-25, like Hebrews 1:10-12, for example, point up the futility and corruptibility, the transience and potential destruction of this world in which sin also figures prominently, it is necessary for us as human beings made in the image of God to seek to justify the ways of God to man. So, on the assumption that it is a benevolent God who has brought creation into being, why all the pain, distress and suffering? Why didn’t the Creator simply make us as he made the angels who do not apparently undergo all the trials and tribulations common to man?  While it is comparatively easy to account for the sufferings of the Saviour as being necessary because of human sin, it is not so regarding suffering in general. So, given my premise that the creation has been subjected to futility by divine decree irrespective of sin, what can be said?

 

Suffering as the Purpose of God

First, to take the bull by the horns, suffering seems to be part of the plan and purpose of God (cf. Rom. 8:18a). Why do we read in Romans 8 itself that we are to be glorified with Christ only if we suffer with him (verse 17)? This question becomes especially acute when we reflect on the fact that so much pain seems purposeless. Apart from anything else we need to recognize the fact that creation itself in the form of heat and cold to go no further (cf. Ps. 147:17; 2 Cor. 11:27; Rev, 7:16) gives us problems.  If like Jesus, we suffer for sin (even if in his case it was on our account), that seems reasonable. Peter who has quite a deal to say about suffering in his first letter stresses that while we have no cause to complain if we suffer for evil conduct, we should nonetheless be prepared to suffer even unjustly. This in itself suggests that our heavenly Father sees something positive even beneficial in our suffering. And when we read on the one hand that we must (Gk dei) enter the kingdom of God through tribulation (Acts 14:22, cf. John 16:33) and on the other that we ought to count it all joy when we are tested and put under trial (James 1:2-4), this thought is confirmed.

 

Character Training

Why then are we tested? According to the OT man was called to exercise dominion over an intractable creation from the start (Gen. 1:26,28). This in itself required commitment, discipline and hard work beyond the capacity of ordinary men and women, and they were far from being forthcoming in our early ancestors as the brief allusions to Adam (Gen. 3:17-19), Cain (4:12) and Lamech (Gen. 5:29) make clear. There is no suggestion that even Noah was wholly committed even though as a man of faith he responded magnificently and obediently (Gen. 6:22) in contrast with his contemporaries. And others later, like Job (ch. 3) and Jeremiah (20:14-18) who were so sorely tried that they wished they had never been born, found it difficult to understand why they should be tested at every moment by the watcher of humanity (Job 7:18f.) even beyond their capacity to bear it.  But in case we have failed to appreciate it, the law itself, like the single commandment given to Adam, was clearly designed to humble those under it and to reveal what was in the heart of man (Dt. 8:2, cf. Ex. 16:4). Verse 16 of the same chapter goes somewhat further and indicates that along with the humbling and testing process there was the promise of good in the end (cf. Jer. 32:39-42).

 

Under the Law

This is a familiar theme in connection with the law. While Christians can hardly be unaware that Paul taught that the law was in effect a ministry of death (2 Cor. 3), it is frequently stressed in the OT that the law’s intention was the ultimate good of the elect nation (Dt. 4:40; 5:16,29,33, etc.). God required that his chosen people should be a disciplined (Dt. 4:36) and a righteous people (Lev. 26:1-13; Dt. 28:1-14) and as such they would not only be greatly blessed themselves but also a blessing to others worldwide (cf. Gen. 12:2f.; 18:18, etc.). This they could not be so long as they remained stiff-necked and stubborn in their sin (cf. Acts 7:51-53). Yet for all that they had not been chosen for their own righteousness but to demonstrate to the nations that their God was himself a righteous God who was intent on fulfilling his promise to their ancestors (Dt. 9:5). And that promise was ultimately the demonstration of the mercy of God to the nations including Israel itself (cf. Rom. 15:7-13). This, however, in Moses’ time was a long way ahead, but the plan was already being put into effect.

So while Israel should have been humble under the law and a demonstration to the heathen of the righteousness and mercy of God, it was not until Christ as the vine who epitomized Israel  came as the end of the law (Rom. 10:4) that the  objective of God was achieved.

 

Christians

If Israel as the kingdom of priests and a holy nation failed under the law, we as Christians under the leading of the Spirit are meant to be more successful (1 Pet. 2:9, cf. Mt. 5:13-16; Acts 26:18; Col. 1:13). In light of this James suggests that as Christians we should be more ready than Israel under the law was of being tested, disciplined (Heb. 12:3-11), humbled and rendered more patient in our aim to be more Christ-like and hence made perfect  as he was (James 1:2-4). Clearly Paul had the same idea in mind in Phil 3:12-15.

 

Becoming the Children of God

Why is all this necessary? Though it is true that God is our Creator and we are hence his offspring in that sense (Acts 17:29), in light of the fact that eternal life as the children of God is in view, the main reasons seem to be: character training (Rom. 5:3-5, cf. 2 Pet. 1:5-8), humility as epitomized by Jesus and the pursuit of perfection (maturity) or God-likeness (Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; Mt. 5:48, cf. Rom. 8:29). (4* It is significant that throughout Scripture it is the humble, Mt. 23:12, etc., who will be exalted as Jesus was, Phil. 2:5-11.)

 

Overcoming the World

The Bible presents our Creator God as being sovereign over creation and all his handiwork. Since he has made us in his image, his intention is that we should under him exercise a delegated dominion too (Gen. 1:26,28). In this Adam and his immediate posterity signally failed and suffered curse as a consequence (Gen. 3:17-19; 4:12; 5:29). While still in the Garden of Eden our first forebears rather than ruling creation allowed created things to rule them (cf. Rom. 1:25). Consequently the triumph implied in Psalm 8 failed to be realized. This is in striking contrast with Jesus who was able to tell his disciples at the end of his life that he had overcome the world (John 16:33, cf. Rev. 5:5,12) despite his own trials and temptations (Heb. 4:15, cf.  5:7f.). This point is underlined by the author of Hebrews who tells us that at the end of  his period of incarnation Jesus was not only crowned with honour and glory (cf. Rom. 2:7, 10; 1 Pet. 1:7) but also by the grace of God  tasted suffering and death for his fellows (2:9).

 

The Flesh

Contrary to received Augustinian theology we were not perfect to start with (5* Perfection was our goal, Mt. 5:48, not our beginning!) as Adam was reputed to be nor were we born sinful as a consequence of his sin, but as we gained God-likeness as those made in the image of God we were required to rule creation or exercise dominion even over our own flesh. But the flesh has its own powerful passions and desires (Rom. 7:18f.,23; Gal. 5:17; James 4:1) and inevitably acts as persecutor (Gal. 4:29). Thus overcoming the world, the flesh and the devil in the flesh constituted our greatest challenge and one that all failed to conquer. According to Paul setting our minds on the flesh is death and enmity with God, and with such an attitude it is impossible to please him (Rom. 8:5-8). In the event, only Jesus as the Word made flesh succeeded in conquering specifically in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.). Only he progressed unsullied from ground to glory (Eph. 4:9f.), and in doing so paved the way of us his fellows or neighbours. In other words, he loved his neighbour as himself in accordance with his Father’s commands and in fulfillment of the law. We are now called to do the same in faith presenting our bodies (flesh) as a living sacrifice in spiritual worship (Rom. 12:1). Given this scenario, suffering is unavoidable.

 

The Devil

According to the Bible, not only did the devil succeed in deceiving Eve and the heathen in general (Rom. 1:24-32; Eph. 4:19) but in the event he gained mastery over Adam and the Jews as well despite their having the law. Even we as Christians are reminded that the devil is the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4) and that the whole world lies in his power (1 John 5:19, cf. John 14:30). We must therefore keep ourselves from idols (1 John 5:21). However, the glory of the gospel is that Jesus overcame the devil and was able to say that he, the devil, had no claim on him (John 14:30). This was apparent from his temptations recorded in Matthew 4, for example. And James is able to say that if we as believers in Christ resist the devil (4:7),   he will flee from us rampant roaring lion though he is (1 Pet. 5:8).

 

Sin

So, if we are to be like God and conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18) and not that of the devil (cf. John 8:44), sin must be overcome as mankind was warned as early as the book of Genesis (4:7). The light of the glory of the gospel of Christ who is the image of God is manifested in us as we overcome by the grace of God.

But while testing and temptation in the course of our pilgrimage through this world would appear to be reasonable in training, disciplining, humbling, sanctifying and perfecting us, can the same be said about the fiery trials, persecutions and hostilities that affect us so readily. Peter is convinced that it can. Like the law (Dt. 8:2,16) these reveal what the true state of our hearts is (1 Pet. 1:6f.). They also do something else, that is, reveal whether like the Israelites longing to return to Egypt (e.g. Num. 11:4-6), we prefer this world to the next as Esau apparently did (Heb. 12:16). After all, since some like Demas, having shown some semblance of commitment to the Christian cause, relapse and go back to the world (2 Tim. 4:10) as the Galatians were tempted to go back to Judaism (Gal. 5:1, etc.), John’s warning that we should not love this world is timely (1 John 2:15-17, cf. James 4:4). The basic reason given for this is that this world for all its genuine goodness is nonetheless purely temporary; it is a testing ground in preparation for the real world, that is, the age to come, that lies ahead of us. The question is whether or not we shall be considered worthy of attaining to that age (Luke 20:35). The danger of being waylaid and weighed down by dissipation and drunkenness and the cares of this life is acute and to yield is a recipe for ultimate disaster (Luke 21:34-36). In the circumstances, however, God has deemed it necessary (Gk dei) for trial and tribulation to try us (Acts 14:22) before we enter the kingdom. Even as he was called Paul was warned that suffering was to be his lot (Acts 9:16). This was verified by what happened to him later ( e.g. 2 Cor. 6:4-10; 11:23-29; 12:7-10). However, he was buoyed up by the promise of good to come (2 Tim. 4:18) which after all was a familiar Scriptural theme as numerous references make clear: Gen. 12:2,7; 28:13-15; 32:12; Ex. 3:8; 6:7f.; 18:9; Lev. 26:3-13; Num. 10:29-32; 14:7;  Dt. 6:24; 28:63; Jud. 8:35; 1 Sam. 25:30f.; 1 K. 8:66; Isa. 55:3; Jer. 29:10f.; 31:17,33; 33:9; Ezek. 36:11, etc.). The heavenly call (Phil. 3:12-14, cf. Heb. 3:1) and eternal life constituted no small considerations.

 

Natural Evil

Natural evil like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, violent storms, tsunamis and the rest are doubtless designed to impress on us the shakability (Heb. 12:27), uncertainty and temporality of creation and the need to escape from this world into a safe haven where God is our refuge (cf. Gal. 1:4). Like the human body of flesh which is part of it, the visible creation is not only temporary but also corruptible (Rom. 8:20). This being the case, our recognition that it is so should serve as a stimulus to seek triumph over and deliverance from it. And the only way to do this is by committing ourselves to Christ.

 

Is the Suffering Warranted?

The question of whether the degree of suffering specifically for Christ experienced by some is warranted persists. In our weakness we are all inclined to think not (cf. Heb. 12:11), but the apostles warn us not to falter but rather to follow in the steps of Jesus. They remained convinced that in light of the glory to come pain paled into insignificance (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17). Indeed, Paul was prepared to say that the surpassing worth of knowing Christ and the power of his resurrection which involved his sharing of Christ’s suffering and becoming like him in his death was gain (Phil. 3:8-11). We doubtless need to adopt the same attitude even if we recognize with the author of Hebrews that all discipline is painful rather than pleasant (Heb. 12:11). After all, God is treating us as his children and this according to John demonstrates his love (1 John 3:1-3). If he treated Christ, the Righteous One, in this way (Heb. 5:7-9), then we must expect him to do the same with us. (6* It is noticeable that in his high priestly prayer Jesus does not ask that we should be taken out of the world but that God should keep us from the evil one, John 17:15.)  Training which yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness produces family likeness (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11f.) and in this way eternal harmony is achieved (1 Cor. 15:27f.).

 

Producing Fruit

Fruit-bearing, of course, is basic to the Christian life but it involves suffering. Lack of it threatens destruction (7* See my Fruitlessness and Destruction.). In his discourse in John 15:1-11 Jesus indicates the importance of our being productive. He illustrates his point with reference to the vine which in order to be fruitful is subject to pruning by God himself. The pruning process is, however, painful but it glorifies God and brings us eventual joy as it did to Jesus (Heb. 12:2). Of course, the same is said with regard to holiness and righteousness by the author of Hebrews (12:10f.) who tells us that short-term discipline for those who are God’s children is for their good. (8* It is worth noting that the shortness of the time of discipline correlates with Rom. 8:18 and 2 Cor. 4:17.)

 

The Vindication of God

While the gospel enables us as believers in Christ to approach the throne of grace boldly (Heb. 4:16), it certainly does not suggest that we do so boastfully (1 Cor. 1:29, etc.). This world is so difficult to navigate that we are all forced to rely on an alien righteousness, as Luther put it, to achieve our heavenly goal (Heb. 2:9f.; 3:1). Jesus alone successfully kept the law (Gal. 2:16) and fulfilled all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) despite his own difficulties (Heb. 4:15, etc.). This is exactly as God intended (Phil. 2:10f.). And the time will come when despite the severity of the struggle (Acts 14:22, cf. Rom. 8:35-39; Heb. 11:32-40) which resembles the pilgrimage of the Israelites through the wilderness, we shall all fall before the throne of God and give praise (Rev. 5:13f.). When this occurs, God will be amply justified (Rev. 4:9-11).

 

The Love of God Ultimate

Behind all the pain and suffering of this world we are constantly assured not least in the OT that behind it is the purposeful love of God. Job who lived long before the coming of Christ was perhaps not as aware of this as we are, yet even he maintained his faith.

 

Perfection

At the end of the day, as creatures made in the image of God we are called as his children (Eph. 1:4-6; 1 John 3:1-3) to be perfect like God (Lev. 11:44f.; Mt. 5:48, cf. Phil. 3:12-14). In other words, God himself is not only our praiseworthy Creator (Rev. 4:11) but our model. His greatness is reflected in both creation (cf. Job 38-42; Ps. 19; Rom. 1:20) and redemption (Phil. 2:9-11). His love is manifested in his grace and humility. Our aim then is perfection in Christ (Mt. 19:17,21; Rom. 8:29). Of this Paul and the rest of the apostles were well aware and strove despite or rather through or by means of their sufferings to be conformed to the image of Christ (Phil. 3:10, cf. 2 Cor. 1:5f.; 3:18) who himself was the supreme image of God (Heb. 1:3, cf. Col. 1:15). The apostles, like Christ himself (Heb. 12:1f.), were clearly convinced that the temporary pains of this world were well worth enduring for eternal ends (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:16-18).

 

Food for Thought

If Jesus thought that his sufferings on our behalf were worth his subsequent glory (cf. Luke 24:26; Acts 3:18; 1 Pet. 1:11; Heb. 12:2), how much more ought we to regard ours in the same light (cf. Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17). Clearly, where there is no pain, there is no ultimate gain.

On animal suffering, see my Nature Red in Tooth and Claw.

Note: Andersen, Job, pp.66-70,148f.

Human Nature

 

What according to the Bible is human nature? A simple answer is flesh and blood which man shares with the animal world (cf.  Gen. 6:17; Ps. 49:12,20; Eccles. 3:18-21; Heb. 2:14). In addition, however, man is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26; 5:1-3).

Historically the church, though denying that he was initially so, has maintained that man also has a sinful nature. And in case there is any misunderstanding at this point it contends that man is born sinful because Adam his first father was sinful. This belief begs big questions which it is worthwhile subjecting to serious if brief criticism.

First, according to Jesus man becomes the slave of sin not by inheritance but by actually sinning (John 8:34, cf. Gen. 3:6; James 1:13-15; 2:10) in his youth (Gen. 8:21) but definitely not his infancy (Dt. 1:39, etc.)

Second, Paul says that he himself was born alive (like Adam and Eve) and did not die until he, like them, had actually broken the commandment (Rom. 7:9-11).

Third, he also says that where there is no law there is no sin (Rom. 4:15, etc.). In light of this, since babies do not know the law, they cannot break it. Of course, it follows from this that they cannot earn its wages which is death (Rom. 5:12; 6:23).

(Infant Mortality: If at this point it is asked why babies sometimes die, the answer is plain. Since there is no covenant with creation (and hence the creature) which is by divine decree destructible and corruptible (cf. Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12), they die naturally like animals in general. Since God has made to them neither threat nor promise, they die in the normal course of nature from disease or disaster. In their case, death cannot be the wages of sin for the simple reason that where there is no law there is no sin, Rom. 4:15, etc.)

Fourth, the apostle says that we acquire our sinful nature by our disobedience (Eph. 2:1-3). This he had obviously learned from his knowledge of Adam who did the same. In other words, like Paul in the course of our development we all repeat the sins of first Eve then Adam (Rom. 7:9-11, cf. 9:11).

For, fifth, all acknowledge that Adam was ‘born’ knowing neither good nor evil. He acquired his sinful nature by breaking the commandment and as a consequence was cast out of the Garden never to return (Gen. 3:24). My assumption is that the Garden was the womb of the race. Adam was, however physically adult while we, his offspring, are genuine babies when we are born. Once Adam was outside the Garden like Nicodemus, he could not re-enter it (John 3:4). According to Ezekiel 28:13, like the King of Tyre we all begin life innocent in the Garden (or womb) till in due course unrighteousness is found in us (cf. Eccl. 7:29). It is the story of Adam repeated or recapitulated (pace Art. 9 of the C of E).

Sixth, again according to Paul we become sinful or righteous by disobedience or by obedience (Rom. 6:16) which again indicates that we follow in the steps of Adam or of Jesus, the second Adam. In the event, as flesh we are able to follow Adam, in whose image we are made (Gen. 5:1-3), readily enough but we prove incapable of keeping the law like Jesus (1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16, etc.). In light of Hebrews 2:17 we are forced to conclude that the only difference between him and us is that, though sorely tempted, he did not sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22, cf. Rom. 3:19f., etc.) while the rest of us all do (1 K. 8:46; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:23; 5:12, etc.).

Seventh, if we are sinful at birth, like the leopard we cannot change our spots (cf. Jer. 13:23). So, according to Romans 1:26f., we are under natural compulsion and moral obligation to act according to  our nature. If original sin is true and we are also sinful by nature, we sin by not sinning. To illustrate briefly, herbivorous leopards in contrast with bulls (Ps. 106:20) are freaks, contradictions in terms. According to Psalm 104, however, God himself feeds the carnivorous lions he has created (Ps. 104:21, cf. v.27; Job 38:39,41). In other words, animals act according to their God-given nature not contrary to it, and we are expected to do the same.

 

The Future

This raises the question of the future. Does human nature go to heaven? As flesh which is unprofitable (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18; 8:6-8) man is like all animals mortal and corruptible and hence cannot by nature inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). However, as a believer made in the image of God he is given eternal life and a spiritual body like that of Jesus himself (1 Cor. 15:46-53; Phil. 3:21).

Redemption or Replacement

 

Going to Heaven

When I was a child I learnt that if I was a good boy I would go to heaven and be with Jesus when I died. However, in recent 21st century times much has been made of the putative redemption of creation and I have been roundly told that earth not heaven is my real home. According to Tom Wright’s Surprised by Joy, for example, Isaiah 65:17-25 and 66:22f., which lie behind 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1-4, inform us that the new heavens and the new earth are my ultimate destination. (1* See my A Brief Critique of ‘Surprised by Hope’ by Tom Wright.) In light of this it is widely held that the present earth which is said to have ‘fallen’ when Adam ‘fell’ will be redeemed, purged of sin and made fit for habitation by regenerate humanity. (2* Others like Chris Wright, Harris (ch.12) and Stott (ch. 4) hold similar views.)

 

Heaven and Jesus

An obvious problem with this view is that Jesus is portrayed as having returned to heaven from where he came in the first place (John 3:13; Eph. 4:9f.) and he promises that he will return to fetch his people to be with him for ever (John 14:2f.; 1 Thes. 4:17).

One may wonder why it is necessary to go to heaven if we can gain eternal life while we are on earth. The problem is of course that eternal life is spiritual (cf. John 3:1-8) while the temporal flesh and the earth from which it derives are not. If it countered at this point that man is not fully man without a body and an appropriate realm (kingdom) in which to live, it may be replied that though the body of flesh is headed for destruction a new and spiritual or glorified body ‘made without hands’ is promised us (2 Cor. 5:1, cf. 1 Cor. 15:46-54). So just as Jesus’ body of flesh was dispensed with at his ascension transformation, so will ours be (Phil. 3:21).

 

The Physical Creation

As has already been implied, creation is a purely temporary phenomenon. It had a definite beginning (Gen. 1) and hence a certain end (Mt. 28:20). The latter is vividly portrayed as occurring in a fiery holocaust resembling Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28f.; Heb. 12:27-29; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). Heaven or from our point of view the world to come is eternal. In contrast with the earth which is God’s footstool, it is the also throne of God (Mt. 5:34f.).

Matthew 5:35 highlights something else: Jesus refers here to Jerusalem as the city of the great King. The inference we draw from this is that the earthly Jerusalem is also temporary. As the author of Hebrews intimates, here on earth we have no lasting city (13:14, cf. Mt. 22:7) which in any case compares unfavourably with the city that is to come in the world to come (Heb. 1:6; 2:5; 6:5). It is in fact set in contrast with Sinai in Hebrews 12:22, and Sinai and all it represents is not only terrifying but also obsolescent (Heb. 8:13, cf. 2 Cor. 3:7-11).

 

The Kingdom of Heaven

According to the general teaching of the NT the kingdom of the earth (or all earthly kingdoms) will finally give way to the Kingdom of heaven. This is expressly stated in Revelation 11:15 (cf. 12:10-12; Luke 1:33). Certainly there is an element of comparison between this perishable world and the eternal next, between earth and the kingdom of heaven (cf. John 3:3,5; 1 Cor. 15:50). For example, in Hebrews earth like much else is seen as a type or shadow of that which is to come. However, Abraham and his fellow believers are said in Hebrews 11 to desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one where a city has been prepared for them (Heb. 11:14-16, cf. John 14:2).

 

The Two Ages

Jesus himself like his fellow Jews distinguished strongly between this age and the age to come. For instance, in Luke 20:34-36 he pertinently notes fundamental difference. Physical or fleshly mankind, like the animals in general in the present age, marry in order to propagate the species. This is necessary not simply to extend the number of people on the earth but to overcome the ravages of death (cf. Heb. 7:23). And in case his hearers have failed to grasp the point he asserts that those who qualify for the age to come cannot die anymore. However, as the author of Hebrews indicates, while believers die only once (Heb. 9:27), a second death pointing up eternal spiritual death comes to those who have rebelled irretrievably against God and are as his inveterate enemies destroyed. Again, in John 11 Jesus talking to Mary at the time of Lazarus’ death and resurrection emphasizes death in this age and permanence in the next (John 11:25f.). (See further my The Two Ages.)

 

Natural and Supernatural

What Scripture points to is the temporality and of all that is natural and our goal is the supernatural. Visible created things, though expressing the power and glory of God (Rom. 1:20), are intrinsically impermanent and will eventually be destroyed (Heb. 12:27). It is the invisible supernatural that is permanent and it is our destination. And we can only reach it by ourselves being given eternal life (the life of God) through faith in Christ and subsequent corporeal transformation after death.

 

The Lesson

On reflection this simply underlines the nature of our eternal God. While he himself is by nature both immortal (1 Tim. 6:16) and incorruptible (1 Tim. 1:17; Rom. 1:23), in contrast we his creatures are by nature both mortal (Rom. 6:12; 2 Cor. 4:11) and corruptible (2 Cor. 4:16; 1 Cor. 15:52). Real life (cf. 1 Tim. 6:19) is eternal life or divine life. If we would have it, then we must build on the rock which is Christ (Mt. 7:24; 1 Cor. 10:4). It alone is unshakable (Heb. 12:26-28). In light of this the idea that what is natural can be redeemed is lamentably false. As Paul says the perishable by nature cannot be rendered imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50b). It was the Lord Jesus himself who brought to light   immortality and incorruption (1 Tim. 1:10). By faith in him we have been given both and the death by which this age is characterized is swallowed up in victory (1 Cor. 15:53f.).

_________________________________________________________

 

References:

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

J.R.W.Stott, The Contemporary Christian, Leicester, 1992.

C.Wright, The Mission of God, Nottingham, 2006.

N.T.Wright, Surprised by Hope, London, 2007.

Jesus and the Plan of Salvation

 

The plan of salvation is implied somewhat obscurely early in the Bible even before Adam has sinned. In light of this we are forced to infer that as created (Gen. 2:7) from the temporal earth (Gen. 1:1; 8:22; Heb. 1:11) Adam, in contrast with his Creator (Rom. 1:23, etc.), is by nature mortal and corruptible like the rest of the animal creation and hence naturally in need of salvation or eternal life even apart from sin. While still in the Garden of Eden he is told that in order to transcend the death to which he is subject by nature, or, to put it more positively, in order to gain (eternal) life, he must keep the commandment (Gen. 2:16-17). This, as we all know, he failed to do (cf. Gen. 3:6) and so he was paid the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23), died (Gen. 5:5) and returned to the dust from which he was taken (Gen. 3:19). Considering the fact that as the first and hence representative man according to the flesh he did as he did, it is hardly surprising that his posterity did likewise, all the more so since they had his sinful example and influence to contend with. In other words, they repeated if they did not actually imitate his sin (pace Art. 9 of the C of E). In the circumstances, as Paul intimates in Romans 5:12-21 they inevitably, but not necessarily as church dogma would have us believe, capitulated.

The point being made is one of the most common assertions in Scripture that if a man keeps God’s statutes he will live (Lev. 18:5, cf. Ezek. 20:11.13,21; Luke 10:28; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12, etc.). If he does not, he will die (Gen. 2:17; James 1:15). Jesus apparently believed this to be axiomatic, for when questioned by the rich young ruler about how to gain eternal life Jesus bluntly asserts that it is necessary to keep the commandments (Mt. 19:17).

 

Keeping the Law

This of course is as we all know a tall order quite beyond the capabilities of ordinary men and women. For all that, in Mark 10:20 the young ruler boldly asserts that he has kept the commandments from his youth. Strangely, Jesus does not attempt to contradict him but simply takes him at his word. Perhaps we haven’t been told the whole story but in any case Jesus makes it clear that keeping the commandments is not enough. First, he recognizes that love of material riches is a stumbling block for his interlocutor and that he should sell all he has and give to the poor. In this way he will lay up treasure for himself in heaven. Secondly, Jesus tells him to follow him, and this according to Jesus’ teaching elsewhere will involve radical self-denial (Mark. 8:34).

 

The Inadequacy of (Keeping) the Law

There is doubtless another point Jesus is making. When he himself, having pleased his heavenly Father by keeping the law to perfection, permanently (John 1:32) received the Spirit and gained eternal life at his baptism, he pointed out to John the Baptist that he had to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:13-17). In other words, keeping the law of Moses was not enough. Something more was necessary for him to achieve the perfection required by God (Mt. 5:48). To meet this requirement he would need the Spirit without measure (John 3:34). And as God’s Son he would doubtless receive this as Scripture implies (John 1:32, cf. Luke 1:32f.; Acts 13:34b).

The author of Hebrews makes the same point in a different way in 7:18f. and 8:7. While keeping the letter of the law was the precondition of salvation or regeneration, perfection demanded something more, that is, his total commitment to his heavenly Father and love for his neighbour as himself. As we all know Jesus himself achieved this (Heb. 5:9; 7:28) by giving himself (his flesh, Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 3:18) as a sacrifice for his people according to the will of God (Heb. 2:9f., cf.  3:1-5). In this way he attained to perfection. After making purification for sins he sat at God’s right hand becoming the exact imprint of his nature (Heb. 1:3) and upholding the universe by his power (cf. Mt. 28:18; Rom. 1:4).

 

Following Jesus

It is at this point that we realize how important it was for the rich young ruler as it is for us that keeping the law (of which we are incapable in any case) is inadequate. We need above all to follow Jesus, to accept him as our Saviour. In this way we receive by faith his righteousness, the precondition of eternal life (Lev. 18:5, cf. Gal. 5:5). He alone fulfilled all righteousness. He alone achieved the perfection which was God’s standard (Mt. 19:21) and he alone was in a position to lay down his life in atonement for our sins (John 10:17f.). In light of this we must understand that following Jesus implies trusting in him alone for salvation (John 14:6). As Peter strongly asserts in Acts 4:12, there is no other name under heaven among men by which we must be saved.

 

Conclusion

Paul underlines the fact that our call as human beings is to keep the law and seek glory and honour (Rom. 2:7,10, cf. 1 Pet. 1:7) in accordance with the original mandate given to Adam in Genesis and accomplished by Jesus (Heb. 2:9). As the second Adam Jesus paved our way, conquered in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.), brought to light both life and incorruption (2 Tim. 1:10) and provided us with the perfection we needed (Mt. 5:48) to enter into the very presence of the holy God of heaven (Heb. 6:19f.; 9:11f., 24; 10:19f.; 12:2).

Jesus and Creation

 

I have long argued that the physical creation or the present age is a purely temporary phenomenon by nature, that is by divine decree, and, unlike us who are made in the image of God, not subject to redemption (1* See my Will Creation Be Redeemed?, Thoughts on the Redemption of Creation, etc.) . With this in mind, I want to examine here the relevance of both the person and the teaching of Jesus.,

 

The Person of Christ

Mortality

My first assumption is that if Jesus was truly human, flesh, born of woman, the son of Mary (Mt. 1-2; Luke 1-2) and hence the son of Adam (Luke 3:38) who stemmed from the ground (Gen. 2:7), he was, in contrast with his heavenly Father (1 Tim. 6:16), intrinsically mortal (destructible). (2* See my Creation Corruptible By Nature.) This is proved conclusively by the mere fact that he died for our sins (1 Pet. 3:18). Had he been immortal by nature he could not possibly have destroyed the power of the devil through death (Heb. 2:14). (3* This reminds us of John Owen’s famous work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.) In any case both Herod and Joseph assumed Jesus’ mortality, for while the former sought to kill him, the latter, prompted by a dream inspired by an angel of the Lord himself (Mt. 2:13-15), took evasive action by whisking him away along with his mother to Egypt. In this way, of course, he recapitulated the physical pattern of life experienced by his ancestors. In any case, since he was the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), he had to begin at the beginning and go over the same ground as the first Adam. But whereas the first Adam proved a spiritual failure and earned death as wages, Jesus was a success and so eventually gained life or new covenant status by keeping the commandments (Lev. 18:5). As a consequence of this, after laying down his life for his fellows, he rose from the grave and was corporeally transformed at his ascension. In other words, just as Jesus initially shared the mortal nature of Adam as a product of the temporal creation under the old covenant, so by spiritual rebirth intrinsic to the new covenant which he inaugurated he finally changed his corporeal nature and became a life-giving spirit, the man of heaven (1 Cor. 15:45-49).

 

Corruptibility

Second, again in contrast with his Father (Rom. 1:23, Gk), but nonetheless as the son of Adam through his mother (Luke 3:38), Jesus was corruptible like the earth from which man originally emanated (Ps. 102:25-27; Heb. 1:10-12). Otherwise expressed, on the assumption that he derived as flesh from the intrinsically obsolescent creation, he was necessarily subject to ageing. After all, water cannot rise above its source. In light of this it is not in the least surprising that his age is from time to time referred to quite categorically (Luke 2:42; 3:23, cf. John 8:57). Like creation itself he had a physical beginning (Mt. 24:21) and an end (Mt. 24:3; 28:20), and even for him, since he lived under heaven, there was a time to be born and a time to die (Eccl. 3:2). As the author of Hebrews, who refers to the days of his flesh (Heb. 5:7), states, Jesus was incarnate only for a little while (Heb. 2:7,9, ESV). Having overcome death by resurrection, he gained incorruption by transformation at his ascension (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51-53).

 

Visibility

Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 4:18 that what is seen is temporary. Thus the visible creation, though testifying to the power of God (Rom. 1:20, cf. Heb. 11:3), is by divine appointment destined to eventual destruction (Heb. 12:27, cf. Luke 17:26-30; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). As physically part of creation Jesus, the truly human son of Mary, was clearly visible. After his resurrection from the dead he was seen even by Doubting Thomas (John 20:26-28). He was also tangible and audible, physically OT in character (cf. Heb. 12:18-21, cf. 1 John 1:1). (4* I refer deliberately to the Old Testament and not to the old covenant, which strictly speaking refers to the Mosaic law, for the simple reason that the latter is somewhat misleading. Initially, creation was commanded not covenanted. The first covenant was with Noah, not Adam. However, like the legal covenant with Moses, 2 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 8:13, etc., it was temporary, that is, it endured only while the earth remained, Gen. 8:22. See further my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?. ) Since flesh and blood which are organically related to creation cannot enter heaven (1 Cor. 15:50), this can only mean that Jesus had to be transformed and assume God’s generically incorruptible nature at his ascension like all the rest of his fellows, even those who never die and experience resurrection here on earth (1 Cor. 15:51-53).

 

Tradition

This of course raises questions in the minds of those brought up on traditional thinking. For them Jesus was immortal since he was neither prey to original sin nor did he sin on his own account and so could not inherit the wages of sin in death (Rom. 5:12; 6:23). It must be pointed out therefore that the Augustinian dogma of original sin, which is rejected by both the Jews and the Orthodox, is not and cannot be taught in the Bible, that is, unless it contradicts itself. According to Scripture where there is no law (or commandment) there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15; 7:8). So since babies are born like Adam and Eve ignorant of (the) law and knowing neither good not evil (Dt. 1:39, etc.), like Paul himself (Rom. 7:9f.) they cannot be sinful. This is certainly true of Jesus who, if we are prepared to accept the testimony of Isaiah, was also born ignorant of (the) law (Isa. 7:15f.) and was hence innocent. Yet innocent babies sometimes die. Why? The obvious answer is that death can occur irrespective of sin: it may be the result of disease, disaster or natural corruptibility, for example. In this situation babies, like animals, are no more guilty than the congenitally blind man (and his parents) was of his blindness, as Jesus plainly intimated in John 9:3.

The truth is that the church has traditionally misunderstood the biblical position. Though disobedience undeniably leads to death (Rom. 5:12; 6:23; Eph. 2:1-3; 5:6), obedience promises life (Gen. 2:16f., cf. Rom. 6:16). Jesus kept the (spiritual, Rom. 7:14) law and so gained life (Lev. 18:5). This being the case he was also enabled to transcend the corruption which characterized the material creation. (5* It would seem to be a matter of logic that if Jesus who as the Word was spirit could become incarnate, he could also regain his former glory, John 17:24.) He not only evaded permanent death by his obedience but also overcame permanent corruption (subjection to decay) by gaining glory and honour when he was transformed at his ascension (Heb. 2:9). And it is surely with this in mind that Paul claims that Jesus abolished death and brought incorruption (Gk) to light (2 Tim. 1:10, cf. 1 Cor. 15:50-53).

 

The Teaching of Jesus

In general Jesus does not have much to say about creation, though he reminds his disciples of aspects of its temporary beauty displayed by the lilies of the field (Mt. 6:28,30, cf. 1 Pet. 3:4) and the natural limitations of water (John 4) and food (John 6, cf. Ex. 16:20; Mt. 4:4). He also points out its natural corruption (decay, aging) when referring not merely to sin but to moth and rust in Matthew 6:19-21 and more specifically in Luke 12:33f. (cf. 13:1-5). Again in Matthew 6 he points up the natural aging (decaying) process when he tells his listeners that they can no more add to their span of life (v.27) than they can prevent their hair from turning white (Mt. 5:36). While in verse 26 he highlights God’s providential care of animal and bird life, in Matthew 10:28-31 he clearly regards human physical death as on a par with that of sinless sparrows but draws attention to the importance and greater value of human (spiritual) life (cf. Mt. 12:12). In Matthew 12:13 in demonstration of doing good he restores the withered hand of a man indicating that temporary restoration or physical healing is a feature of this present age. This is made all the more clear in Mark 14:58 (cf. John 2:19-21) where instead of suggesting an Old Testament-style restoration of the temple, he predicts its eventual destruction (or removal, cf. Heb. 12:27) and replacement (Rev. 21:22). Thus when in 2 Corinthians 5:1 Paul uses almost exactly the same terminology with regard to the fleshly body, the implication is that in heaven restoration is unnecessary, for the transformed body, like the temple, is eternal (Luke 20:34-36, cf. 16:9). It is different in kind.

 

Two Ages

In Luke 20:34-36 (cf. Mt. 13:39; 28:20, etc.) in particular, Jesus confirms Jewish belief in two ages implying that the present one precedes the one to come by divine design. Though he comes short of using the pejorative terms of Paul in Romans 8:18 and 2 Corinthians 4:17, he nonetheless implies that the second as their ultimate goal is infinitely preferable and to be earnestly sought after. And on the assumption that the age to come comprises the kingdom of God, its attainment is the pearl of great price (Mt. 13:46, cf. 6:33).  One thing is clear and that is that the age to come is not Plan B, the consequence on account of sin of the inadequacy of the first. In other words, the temporary nature and corruptibility characteristic of the first age was integral to the plan of God from the start irrespective of sin (pace those whose worldview is Augustinian). As a purposeful prelude, a temporary testing ground for man (cf. Luke 20:35; Acts 14:22; 2 Thes. 1:5), it was always intended to precede and eventually give way to the age to come just as the provisional old covenant was designed to give way to the permanent new (cf. 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8). In the words of the author of Hebrews, like the old covenant to which it relates, the first is abolished in order to establish the second (Heb. 10:9b, cf. 11:10,16). (6* It is worth mentioning by way of clarification at this point that while both Paul and the author of Hebrews recognize that sin reveals the soteriological inadequacy of the old covenant, the latter in particular stresses its inherently faulty nature, 7:11,18f.; 8:7. Paul, however, is less than loath to underline the greater glory of the second covenant, 2 Cor. 3:10f.,18.)

 

Death and Sin

In Matthew 19:17 Jesus apparently assumes that death is natural to man as the offspring of Adam who was inherently mortal like the earth from which he was taken (Gen. 2:16f.). Thus, in line with Leviticus 18:5, Jesus bluntly tells the rich young ruler that the precondition of eternal life is keeping the law (Mt. 19:17). Earlier he had stressed the need to be perfect like God (Mt. 5:48) and does the same again in Matthew 19:21. Here he significantly tells his interlocutor to follow him (Jesus, that is) who alone among men succeeds in living a life of perfect obedience and hence gains eternal life (cf. Mt. 3:13-17).

Jesus’ stress on natural human and animal corruption (decay) apart from sin thus gives the lie to the widespread Augustinian idea that creation was originally perfect but ‘fell’ when Adam sinned. The so-called universal or cosmic curse that pervades our world is the miserable misconception of our forefathers who failed to appreciate the temporary nature of all things visible (2 Cor. 4:18). For, as Paul says, our ultimate hope is invisible or spiritual (Rom. 8:20,24f.) like our transformed bodies (1 Cor. 15:44-49). Earth-derived flesh by its very nature cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50a, cf. Gal. 4:29f.). Old covenant obsolescence (Heb. 8:13) is written into the temporary creation which having had a beginning will inevitably have an end (Ps. 102:25-27, etc.). The inherently temporary or perishable simply cannot inherit the eternal (1 Cor. 15:50b). And just as Jesus’ goal after his incarnation was to return to the glory he had enjoyed with his Father before the world began (John 3:13; 16:28; 17:5,24), so is ours. After all, that is why he came, and it is by him that we are brought to glory (Heb. 2:10) and enabled to attain to the age to come (Luke 20:35).

 

The Subtlety of Jesus’ Thinking

But Jesus’ attitude to creation is more subtle than we might realize if we are used to thinking superficially along traditional lines. For instance, if we juxtapose Jesus’ references to God’s feeding of the birds (Mt. 6:26) and his knowledge of their death (Mt. 10:29, cf. John 6:49), we might well, in view of Psalm 104:21,27-29, infer animal predation. After all, the God who feeds the birds, even the vultures (Mt. 24:28), also feeds the lions and other predatory creatures (cf. Job 38:39f.). In other words, Jesus sees this as naturally characteristic of the present age, not the result of Adam’s sin and curse. The same conclusion may be drawn from the story of the congenitally blind man which as we have already seen Jesus refuses to connect with sin. Again, when we consider the story of Lazarus we might well conclude that his death simply gave Jesus the opportunity to perform a miracle. If this was all that was at stake, why did Jesus weep apparently in genuine grief? The truth is that in the case of both the blind man and of Lazarus, Jesus says that all is for the glory of God (John 9:3; 11:4). Just as the material creation in general displays the God’s glory (Ps. 19; Rom. 1:20), so do the incidents just referred to along with violent storms and other disturbances in nature (cf. Luke 21:11). In light of this it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that when Paul tells us that God himself subjected creation, including the creature, to the futility of corruption (Rom. 8:18-25) (7* See my Romans 8:18-25.), he had not got sin in mind, Jesus would agree. When the evidence is dispassionately assessed, we are led to conclude that Jesus like the apostle believed that creation remained ‘good’ (cf. 1 Tim. 4:3f.) despite its natural futility and would continue to perform its native function of sustaining fleshly life to the end (Luke 17:27f., cf. Gen 8:22). And in light of his own victory over the world (John 16:33), we are almost compelled to accept it, all the more so when we read Romans 8:31-39 (cf. 1 John 5:4f.).

 

The Destruction of the ‘Good’ Creation

But there is obviously more to be said. For the Jesus who refers to the material productivity of the ‘good’ creation to the end, also tells of its destruction when the Son of Man is revealed (Luke 17:26-30) implying, as Paul plainly asserts, that he himself will be instrumental in bringing about its final demise (cf. 2 Thes. 1:7-10; 2:8). This, however, immediately prompts the question of why a ‘good’ creation should be dispensed with. The answer, apart from its natural corruption, is clearly that it has ceased to produce its intended harvest of righteous men and women (cf. Mt. 3:12; 13:30,38-43). When this happened in man’s early history, the flood threatened total destruction. But the gracious purpose of God intervened, and a covenant was made with Noah, who found favour in his sight (Gen. 6:8), guaranteeing the continuation of creation to support future inhabitants and their salvation (cf. Jer. 31:35-37; 33:14-26). When fire engulfed Sodom and Gomorrah, both land and people were destroyed with the sole exception of believing Lot and his daughters who escaped (cf. Amos 4:11; Jude 23). From this I infer that Jesus did not believe in the redemption of the material creation. Rather, he endorsed the contention of the author of Hebrews who taught that when land that is blessed produces only thorns and thistles (cf. 2 Sam. 23:6f.) instead of an acceptable crop, it is worthless and hence ready for burning (Heb. 6:7f., cf. Mt. 22:7; 2 Pet. 3).

 

The End of Creation

As Job (8* See further my Job And Romans 8:18-25.) discovered long before the time of Jesus, pain, suffering and affliction, not to mention vanity or futility (Eccl.), in this world occur apart from sin though he did not seem to understand why as Paul apparently did when he wrote Romans 8:18-25. The plain fact is that in this present ‘evil’ age (Gal. 1:4; Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17) God displays his glory and power of deliverance (Isa. 43:5-7) in a way that guarantees that no flesh will boast before him (1 Cor. 1:29; Eph. 2:9, etc.). (9* In Galatians 1:4, is Paul pointing up sin or is he graphically endorsing the contrast between the two ages he depicts in Romans 8:18 and 2 Corinthians 2:17? It is not without significance that in Galatians 4:29f. the apostle portrays the flesh (and the world, cf. 4:25) symbolized by Ishmael as a natural persecutor of the spirit. As he strongly stresses in 5:16f., flesh and spirit (Spirit) are at war with each other, cf. Rom. 7:23; 1 Pet. 2:11; James 4:1-4, and both the flesh and the world must be crucified, Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24; 6:14, as it was in Jesus’ case, cf. Rom. 12:1.) For he saves through Christ and him alone (Acts 4:12, cf. Isa. 45:22; Phil. 2:9-11). But since this is so, it is no wonder that Jesus could state categorically that heaven and earth like the law would pass away (Mt. 5:18) but that his words would not pass away (Mt. 24:35).

In heaven or the age to come when we like Jesus are glorified (Phil. 3:21), grief, pain, suffering and affliction along with all created things (Heb. 12:27) have disappeared. As Isaiah predicted and John echoed, these former things associated with a world divinely subjected to futility shall not be remembered (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21:4). Sin, which prevented our escape from this age (cf. Gal. 1:4), was never more than a part of the problem.

 

The Person of Christ Again

Jesus’ own teaching apart, the Bible leads us to believe that Jesus at his ascension left earth to return to heaven, his Father’s house, permanently. Though he will return like Moses to Egypt, his purpose will not be to reign on earth (10* See my A Summary of Reasons Against the Return of Christ to Earth.) but to gather his people from the four corners of the globe (Mt. 24:31; John 14:2-4; 1 Thes. 4:17.) and take them to glory (cf. Heb. 2:10). There is no real suggestion in the NT that either Jesus or we will ever inhabit a redeemed creation. It is as redundant as original sin that inspires it.  (11* See my The Redundancy Of Original Sin.)

See also my Not Only But Also.

The Book of Revelation and Romans 8:18-25

 

On the assumption that the book of Revelation is an apocalyptic summary of the gospel, it can doubtless make its contribution in helping us to understand Romans 8:18-25. (1* See my Romans 8:18-25.)

 

The Four Living Creatures

Many commentators would have us believe that the four living creatures of 4:6, etc., represent nature or the entire animate creation (e.g. Beasley-Murray, p.117). Wilcock, to whom I am indebted more than to anyone else for my understanding of the book as a whole, is particularly strong in his adoption of a similar view. He suggests that just as the twenty-four elders stand for the church, the four living creatures with which they are associated stand for the world (p.64). On page 68 he baldly asserts that “The world of nature, which was cursed when man was cursed (Gn. 3:17), is also to be redeemed when man is redeemed (Rom. 8:19-21). So nature joins the church in praising God, and for both he is not only Creator (4:11) but also Redeemer (5:9,10). Their song is even more glorious than that of the angels, who though they praise the slain Lamb, yet ‘know not Christ as Saviour, but worship him as King’”.

 

Reactions

In response, I would make the following observations. First, man insofar as he is flesh epitomizes the creation from which he stems. Jesus and Paul tell us that it is indispensably necessary (Gk dei) for us to be born again (John 3:7) and transformed (1 Cor. 15:53) since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). Second, Wilcock’s assertion prompts the question: Does creation know him as Saviour? In contrast with the angels who are differentiated from the four living creatures (cf. 5:11; 7:11), nature, both animate and inanimate apart from man, knows nothing at all and can be said to praise God only metaphorically (cf. Ps. 19; Rom. 1:20). Third, it is noticeable that in Revelation 5 the four living creatures join with the twenty-four elders (cf. 4:4-11; 5:8,14; 19:4, cf. 7:11) in singing a new song (5:9) giving glory to God and the Lamb who was slaughtered. By his blood he ransomed saints who serve as a kingdom and priests drawn “from every tribe and language and people and nation”. These are then joined by the angels and together they sing with full voice. In verse 13 a climax is reached when every creature in the universe (not ‘all creation’, pace Mounce, p.138, cf.124), both the living and the dead (Beasley-Murray, p.128), forms an apparently undifferentiated group of good and evil alike to praise God and the Lamb. This reminds us of John 5:28f., Acts 24:15, Ephesians 1:20f., Philippians 2:9-11 and  Colossians 1:20.

 

The Heathen

In Revelation 7 where sealing and salvation are the theme, that representative members of the heathen majority of mankind are included can hardly be doubted. Keener suggests (p.175) that their ceaseless praise (4:8) indicates divine empowerment and the worthiness of God (7:15). Wilcock himself points out (p.208) that ‘ungodly’ Abraham (Rom. 4:5), Isaac and Jacob (who significantly, though for chronological reasons, did not belong to the twelve tribes of Israel) will be joined by many, like the queen of Sheba, for example (Mt. 12:42), from the ends of the earth (Mt. 8:11, cf. Mal. 1:11). On the other hand, many of the heirs of the kingdom who have lived under the aegis of the twelve Israelite elders will be cast out (Mt. 8:12). This conforms with what Paul teaches in Romans 2 where the uncircumcised heathen sometimes do by nature what the law requires and hence are righteous in God’s sight (2:13, cf. vv.26f.; James 2:14-26). Though the Israelites were meant to be a covenant and a light to the nations (Isa. 42:6; 49:6; Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47), their conduct in fact often prompted blasphemy among the heathen (2:24). It is hardly surprising therefore that some that are last will be first (cf. Luke 13:28-30, to which Wilcock alludes). It would seem that one of the most fundamental problems involved in Jewish and Christian interpretation of the Bible has arisen from persistent failure to appreciate diminished responsibility (cf. Amos 3:2; Acts 17:30; Rom. 3:25, etc.). This in turn has  doubtless stemmed from the idea of a “Fall” from initial perfection, failure to understand biblical covenant theology, recapitulation or what might be called genealogical or transgenerational repetition.

 

The Identity of the Four Living Creatures

While Revelation 19:17f.,21, which refer to the destruction of all flesh, might lead us to think that along with the beast and the false prophet all the heathen are finally damned, Revelation 21:24-27, which refer to the nations and their honour and glory, suggest otherwise. This brings us back to what is meant or symbolized by the four living creatures. (2* I have already suggested that they represent the heathen of the world, but it is dangerous to jump to conclusions. According to Mounce, p.124, Lenski referred to twenty-one efforts at a solution!) Morris (p.91) quotes Swete as follows: “The four forms suggest whatever is noblest, strongest, wisest and swiftest in animate Nature, including Man, is represented before the Throne, taking its part in the fulfillment of the Divine Will, and the worship of the Divine Majesty”. But why unreasoning nature rather than rational man made in the image of God? It might be remembered at this point that the early church held such men as Socrates in high regard. Again, if as Rabbi Abahu taught the mightiest of the birds is the eagle, the mightiest among domestic animals is the ox, the mightiest among wild animals is the lion and the mightiest among them all is man (Beasley-Murray, p.117), why cannot they all together represent the best of heathen mankind? Since they all have one face and speak, sing and worship as one, why should they not reflect the glory of the nations (21:24,26)? Morris himself thinks they suggest the most important of created beings (p.90). If so, it is a safe inference that they are technically heathen men/women of faith who surround the throne of God along with the cloud of witnesses in Hebrews 11 and the Christians who follow them. All three, that is, heathen, Jew and Christian, the three covenant peoples of the world, are perfected together (Heb. 11:39f., cf. 1 Cor. 10:32) and form a new creature (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17) born from above who eventually descends from heaven as the bride of Christ and is presented to him as a pure virgin (2 Cor. 11:2).

 

Revelation 19 and 21

These two passages from Revelation 19 and 21 also suggest something else. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So when the ‘supper of God’ (19:17, contrast v.9) takes place and the birds are gorged with the ‘flesh of all’, the presumption is that they are human beings who, having sown to their flesh (Gal. 6:8) like animals, die like animals (cf. 2 Peter 2, Jude). “Those who dwell on the earth” (Rev. 3:10, etc.) are such. Their portion is in this world (Ps. 17:14; 49:13; John 15:19) and they will not enter the kingdom of God (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5). On the other hand, not all are tarred with the same brush as Abraham was acutely aware when he interceded on behalf of Sodom (Gen. 18:25). Admittedly, at that time only Lot and his daughters were rescued but fleshly though they were at that stage of mankind’s (covenantal) development (Gen. 19:30ff.), they eventually produced Ruth who was a Moabite and an ancestor of the Lord Jesus himself (Mt. 1:5). This surely indicates that the heathen cannot be cavalierly and indiscriminately dismissed as being of no account (cf. the Athanasian Creed, WCF 10:4 and Question 60 of the Westminster Larger Catechism).

 

Creature and Creation

At the end of the day it seems very odd that the book of Revelation should refer explicitly to creatures (3* Morris, p.90, says the word ‘zoon’ emphasizes life. This is reminiscent of Paul’s claim that before he, like Adam, came to understand the law, he was ‘alive’, ezon, Rom. 7:9.), yet many moderns, in contrast with the KJV, translate ‘creature’ as ‘creation’ in Romans 8:19-21, thereby rendering verse 21 at least absurd. The problem would seem to arise from traditional Augustinian theology which contrary to the implication of John 3:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:50 dubiously seeks to redeem creation from the curse of Genesis 3:17 but rejects out of hand the morally self-conscious heathen who are made in the image of God. A better appreciation of biblical covenant theology would surely do much to bring such ideas into question. (4* See my Covenant Theology, Covenant Theology in Brief) What needs to be noted is that at the beginning, creation as such is not covenanted at all. But when after a period of human development it eventually is, the covenant with Noah only guarantees its preservation until the plan of human salvation is completed at the end of the world (cf. Gen. 8:22). (5* See further my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?) As I understand it, the present creation will be permanently and completely destroyed (e.g. Mt. 24:35; Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12), that is, subjected to the ban (cursed by fire) as Jesus implies in Luke 17:28-30. By contrast, heaven, or what is for us the already existing eternal world or age to come, will never be so subjected (herem, Rev. 22:3). In the circumstances, I suggest that the close association of the 24 elders (the church including Israel) and the four living creatures (the heathen) arises from covenant theology seen as a triad, that is, as the (dispensational) covenants of Noah (heathen, cf. Eve), Moses (Jews, cf. Adam) and Jesus (Christians) apparent in Romans 1-3 and John 1:9-12, for example. They are summed up or recapitulated in the individual as child, adolescent and adult (cf. Rom. 7-8; Gal. 4:1-7). If human beings, who know the law which promises life however minimally, can sin (break the law) in their youth (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:24f., etc.), by the same token they can also exercise faith in their youth. Only as babies, lacking all understanding of (the) law like the animals and creation at large, are they excluded.

 

Three Ascensions

There is another point worthy of consideration. There are three ascensions (cf. the three measures of meal in Mt. 13:33) described in Scripture, those of Enoch, Elijah and Jesus respectively. Why? It is difficult to be certain, but the suggestion seems to be that they are representative of the Gentiles, the Jews and Christians. (While adult Enoch admittedly walked with God prior to the covenant with Noah, he was like Abraham at a later date nonetheless heathen, but he preceded him in the course of mankind’s spiritual evolution.)

 

Romans 1-3

In Romans 1-3, Paul teaches that despite their gifts and calling the Jews are every bit as sinful as the heathen (3:9), indeed, arguably more so since they are more accountable (Rom. 2:24, cf. 4:15; Amos 3:2). The covenantal divisions in Romans are not between heathen Gentiles on the one hand and Jew and Christian on the other (6* Murray in comment on Romans 2:12-16, p.69, says that there is no suggestion that any who are “without law” attain to the reward of eternal life. In other words, he assumes in typical Westminster Standards fashion the universal damnation of the heathen. However, he maintained earlier that revelation is always to those possessed of intelligent consciousness, p.38, cf. his The Covenant of Grace, pp.13,15. The inference I draw from this is that faith as well as sin both of which require knowledge is therefore a possibility even among the heathen, cf. Heb. 11:1-22. And Abraham who was simul justus et peccator, at once righteous and sinful, was a prime case in point.) but between heathen and Jew who are classified together as sinful under law on the one hand (3:9,19, cf. 1 Cor. 7:19) and Christian (believing Gentile and Jew) on the other (Gal. 5:6). In light of this, the attempt to exclude the heathen while including nature which is totally devoid of intelligent consciousness in the plan of redemption not least in the book of Revelation is more than questionable. Indeed, the NT seems to exclude the very possibility of material redemption of any kind (Rom. 1:20; 1 Cor. 3:12-15; Heb. 1:10-12; 12:27; Rev. 21:1). It is man made in the image of God who is the object of salvation, and it is surely sheer presumption to assume that the heathen who live solely under the covenant with Noah are to be casually and callously dismissed as an Augustinian mass of perdition (massa perditionis) (cf. Acts 14:17; 17:22-31).

 

Children and Recapitulation

Perhaps even more to the point is the fact that even boys (not to mention uncircumcised girls who as daughters of Eve were often classed with the heathen) in Israel were not strictly under the law of Moses until they reached their bar mitzvah at age 13. Does that mean then that like the heathen they were all indiscriminately damned if they died? Assuming that the individual (the one) recapitulates the history of the race (the many), are we not compelled to recognize that children as those born of woman, the true offspring of Eve and deceived by the lusts of the flesh like the heathen (cf. Rom. 1:24ff., etc.) were included under the covenant with Noah along with the Gentiles in general. Judging by what Paul teaches in Romans 7 this is certainly the case. There he sees himself as, first, a child of Eve (cf. 7:11, and note especially 7:14 and Gen. 3:6), second, a son of Adam who like the Jews had the law in specific form (7:12-25), and then, third, a believer in Christ in chapter 8 (cf. 7:25). I conclude therefore that if all the heathen are damned, all children are likewise. And baptism imposed on them shortly after birth apart from faith is hardly calculated to save them (pace Augustine).

 

Judging and Ruling

Another question is pertinent to the issue. In 1 Corinthians 6:2f. Paul claims that the saints are to judge the world. But if the heathen are universally damned, apart from degrees of retribution what is the point of judging it?  Since Abraham (Gen. 18:25) and Jesus discriminate among the peoples (Mt. 10:14f.; 11:20-24; Luke 10:12-16; 11:30-32), are not the saints to do the same? Again, according to Revelation 12:5 (cf. 1:5; 2:27) Jesus is to rule all the nations. The apostles also, along with Christian believers, are to rule in the world to come (Luke 22:29f.; Heb. 2:5; Rev. 2:26f.; 3:21). The book of Revelation teaches us that the saints already rule both on earth (5:10, cf. 1 Cor. 6:3b) and in heaven (20:4,6). But who are they to rule and judge if all the nations are indiscriminately damned in what Augustine termed a damned mass (massa damnata)? Revelation 5:9 tells us that the saints derive from every tribe, tongue and nation (cf. Rev. 1:6). But it should not pass without notice that the four living creatures are included with them (v.8). Again, as we saw above, in chapter 7, after delineating the 144,000 who are sealed as Israel, that is, the church consisting of Jew and Christian together, verses 9f. refer emphatically to “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (ESV) who loudly confess that their salvation belongs to God and to the Lamb. Then in verse 11 the angels join with the elders and the four living creatures in praising God (cf. 4:6-11). This clearly suggests that the church and the living creatures are lumped together as recognizable redeemed people. And this ties in well with Jesus’ assertion in Matthew 24:31 that the angels will gather his elect, who surely comprise many of the heathen, from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

Creation Redeemed?

Regarding the redemption of the material creation that is so frequently touted in the twenty-first century, there is not a smidgeon of real evidence in the entire NT. In the book of Revelation, rather the contrary (7:3; 6:14; 16:20; 20:11; 21:1). The temporal, visible, corruptible, obsolescent, manufactured world/creation, like the ‘hand-made’ body of flesh (2 Cor. 5:1) and the hand-built temple (Mark 14:58) which are regulated by the hand-written law (Col. 2:14), far from being redeemed is replaced by the eternal kingdom of God (Rev. 11:15; Dan. 2:44; 7:14, not ‘renewed’ as Wilcock suggests, p.198), by the new heaven and new earth in which righteousness dwells (cf. 2 Pet. 3:13). The latter can be none other than heaven (cf. Heb. 11:16), the throne of God or what Jesus calls his Father’s house (John 14:2, cf. Rev. 21:3) where God and his children will live forever in perpetual harmony along with the Lamb (John 14:3; Rev. 21:1-7; 22:1-5).(Wilcock correctly, it seems to me, claims that 21:1-7 and 22:1-5 are identical, p.198. If the world is no more, pp.171,194, they clearly depict eternity, but this is hardly creation redeemed and restored! When the antitype or reality is revealed the type or shadow disappears.)

 

Conclusion

So, once more I conclude that the idea of the redemption of creation to the exclusion of the heathen stems primarily from bad theology which has given rise to egregious exegesis especially of Genesis 1-3 and Romans 8:18-25, calamitous covenant theology and the intrinsically inadequate OT. (7* The traditional attempt to posit both physical and spiritual perfection at the beginning leading to the idea of “Fall” and curse vitiates theology from the start and gives Christians a thoroughly distorted worldview. See my Worldview, The Biblical Worldview. What is more, it has inevitably meant that the very idea of development, growth, evolution, perfection (perfecting or completing process) and recapitulation intrinsic to man and most especially to Jesus, the Saviour of the world, has blinded theologians’ eyes for centuries.)  Though it contains what I call intimations of heaven, the OT, lacking the revelation brought by Jesus, was basically earth-centred. The truth is, however, that the ‘good’ creation like the ‘good’ law, both of which were defective (Heb. 1:10-12; 7:18f.; 8:7), is inherently obsolescent (Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13) like the body of flesh (dust) which derives from it (1 Cor. 15:42-50). God, whose aim has always been to deliver his children from this present evil age (Gal. 1:4), has something better in store for us (2 Cor. 4:17; 5:5; Heb. 7:19,22) as Revelation 21 and 22 make clear.

 

Note

In the book of Revelation there are seven ‘no mores’: sea (21:1), death (21:4, cf. Luke 20:36), mourning, weeping, pain (21:4), curse (22:3) and night (22:5) all of which are features of this ‘evil’ age (Gal. 1:4).

_____________________________________________________

 

References:

G.R.Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, London, 1974, rev.ed.1978, pb 1981, repr. 1983.

C.S.Keener, NIVAC Revelation, Grand Rapdis, 2000.

L.L.Morris, Revelation, London, 1969.

R.H.Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev.ed., Grand Rapids, 1998.

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

J.A.Thompson, Deuteronomy, Leicester, 1974.

M.Wilcock, The Message of Revelation, Leicester/Downers Grove, 1975.

Re the Heathen

N.L.Geisler, The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, art.  “Heathen”, Salvation in, Grand Rapids, 1999.

K.N.Schoville in The Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, art. Nations, the, Grand Rapids, 1996.
See J.A.Thompson on Jeremiah 16:19f., and refs.

J.A.Motyer and Webb (pp.185f.,197), Oswalt, pp.218ff., on Isaiah 45:14-25; 49:22f.,66:18ff.
Acts 4:25-28; 14:16,17; 17:27,30; Rom. 3:25; Rev. 5:13; 15:4.

The Relevance and Importance of the Covenant with Noah

 

Considering the prominence of covenant to the theology of the Bible, that with Noah seems to have suffered serious neglect. The comment is often made that since it applied to the heathen it did not provide grounds for salvation (see e.g. WCF, 10:4; Larger Catechism, qu.60). (1* Strangely, however, in the 21st century when so many assume and advocate the redemption of creation, though there is no evidence for it whatsoever, various modern theologians postulate a covenant with creation including Adam. See my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?.)  Furthermore, since there are two testaments, there has been a historical tendency to think in terms of two covenants, the old and the new or one covenant in two dispensations. The result of this is has been to regard both Moses and Christ as part of the covenant of grace despite John 1:17 (cf. Luke 16:16) suggesting otherwise, with the result that the covenant with Noah has been marginalized. Commentary on Romans 1-3 usually results in the implicit separation of chapter one from chapters 2 and 3 which are lumped together as though the former is outside the bounds of and unrelated to salvation. In fact, careful analysis of 3:21-31 suggests that all who live under the covenant with Noah (nature) as well as that with Moses (law), Gentile and Jew alike both of whom, though tarnished by sin but capable of faith, come short of salvation which is only acquired in Christ. (2* Hebrews 11 also surely indicates that though sin is universal, even the heathen, that is, all those mentioned prior to Moses, are capable of faith. However, all alike come short of perfection or salvation as 11:39f. indicate.) Indeed, precisely because the law is so explicit the Jew is more obviously in need of salvation than the ignorant heathen Gentile (cf. Rom. 2:14; Amos 3:2). Otherwise expressed, if Eve, the mother of all including the heathen (Gen. 3:20), who did not receive the commandment as Adam did, sinned by succumbing to deception (cf. Rom. 1:21-32; Eph. 4:17-19), Adam all the more (cf. 1 Tim. 2:13f.).

So why is the covenant with Noah so important?

 

From Adam to Noah

First, on the assumption of recapitulation, that is, that the individual recapitulates the history of the race, it is essential to realize that it succeeds or follows on man’s uncovenanted infancy. (3* On recapitulation see my I Believe in Recapitulation, Recapitulation in Outline, Epitome – Jesus The Epitome Of Recapitulation.) Prior to Noah, there was no covenantal guarantee of future development, not least because sin and death were so prominent (Gen. 5 & 6) and threatened complete cataclysmic destruction (Gen. 6:13). Though Adam and his immediate posterity were created with a view to exercising dominion (Gen. 1:26-28) and keeping the commandment (2:16f.) but failed, Noah as a man of faith and obedience received covenantal support for future success in subduing the earth (Gen. 9:1,7). Even though he and his posterity too were all sinners, God explicitly informs him that he will curse the earth no more (Gen. 8:21) but underwrite future productivity and fertility to the end of the age (Gen. 8:22, cf. Isa. 54:9f.). By implication this will undergird God’s plan of human salvation until it is finally fulfilled (cf. Jer. 31:35-37; 33:19-26).

 

The Rainbow

Next, the covenant sign of the rainbow is important because man has now matured in his understanding and in contrast with the animals and his predecessors is thus capable of appreciating its significance. In other words, he has by now clearly left behind the animal or preponderantly fleshly stage of his development and can respond to the covenant that God has made with him. Prior to this, man like an infant could only react, negatively in the event, to commands, a point emphasized by Paul, for example, in Romans 7:9f. where the commandment precedes the full-blown law of Moses which, when it was announced, elicited a definite response of commitment by the chosen people (Ex. 19:8; 24:3,7). (4* See further my Interpreting Romans 7.) The inference we are surely forced to draw from this is that a covenant implies at least minimal agreement even if it is sovereignly disposed by God. So by Noah’s time man had reached a stage of mental development (childhood) when he was capable of responding to a covenant in faith. And Noah’s faith and obedience (Gen. 6:22; 7:5,9,16; Heb. 11:7) are underscored in a way that even Enoch’s and Abel’s were not.

 

The Curse

The rainbow as the covenant sign is important also because it signified the end of the curse on the ground which began as indicated in Genesis 3:17 when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden which was clearly the womb of the race. (5* The womb in which man is formed seems to have been neglected historically, but note Isaiah 44:2, 49:1 and Jeremiah 1:5. In Psalm 139:13-16 the earth as the original womb in which Adam was formed precedes David’s mother’s womb. It needs to be noted that to be ‘born of woman’ in Scripture is to be flesh which stems ultimately from the earth (dust).) Tragically the church has historically failed to recognize this and has implicitly perpetuated the curse to modern times. Indeed, in light of it, even today many Christians assume the redemption of creation which they argue has been ruined by sin. The truth is, however, that since creation had a beginning (Gen. 1:1) which implied an end (Gen. 8:22), it is naturally transient (Mt. 24:35, etc.) quite apart from sin. It is manufactured or ‘made by hand’ (cheiropoietos) which indicates that though ‘good’ it is intrinsically pejorative by nature and is not to be compared with the Creator himself who alone is complete or perfect. Of this Paul was obviously well aware when he wrote that much misunderstood passage Romans 8:18-25 (cf. Heb. 1:10-12) where he asserts that the creature man (a product of creation but certainly not the creation itself) will be freed from his subjection to futility and decay and gain the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:21). It may be pointedly added here that the mere fact that there was a curse at all suggests, first, that there was no covenant involved at the start and, second, that Adam and his immediate descendants, like the sluggard in Proverbs 24:30-34, failed to adequately till the ground over which they were called to exercise dominion (Gen. 4:11f.; 5:29). After all, ‘babies’ like Adam and his immediate posterity do not profitably work hence the curse, but they nonetheless die as breakers of the commandment.

 

The Covenant

The covenant promise of future fertility and (re-)production to the end of the age makes sense only if in accordance with man’s original call he is prepared in faith to tend and till the earth over which he has been given dominion. During the rest of history though man remains sinful, that does not prevent him from exploiting the ‘good’ creation that God has given him and deriving great benefit from it (Lev. 26:1-13; Dt. 28:1-14; Isaiah 1:19, cf. 1 Cor. 10:26,30f.;  1 Tim. 4:3f.). In what other way could he physically sustain himself and that with considerable success especially in the Western world where the so-called Protestant work ethic has made many societies extremely prosperous? It is surely significant by contrast that where the divine mandate has not been heeded, superstition, idolatry, immorality and lack of purpose have led to indolence, neglect, backwardness and poverty. The life of faithful and obedient Noah and his descendants has much to teach us.

 

Overcoming the World

In accordance with the covenant with Noah and the guarantee of successful effort to subdue the naturally futile creation, man’s call to subject the world to his will was fully accomplished only by Jesus (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9). It needs to be noted, however, that even he was not able (not least because he was not intended) to subject everything to his control. Even he was incapable of altering the very constitution of the created world which had been subjected to futility and corruption from the start by God himself (Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.). (6* On Romans 8:18-25 see Romans 8:18-25, Romans 8:18-25 In Brief.) Indeed, the wonder of his victory is that it was achieved in the flesh (that is, as one who was born of woman) which was itself part and parcel of creation’s natural corruption (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14). And, just as he, as (created) flesh, could not enter the kingdom of heaven, so neither could creation itself be transformed, since the naturally corruptible cannot inherit the incorruptible or imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50). This of course had been made clear as early Genesis 1:1 but especially by Genesis 8:22 which stresses the fact that the covenant with Noah like the law (Mt. 5:18) was to endure only till the end of the age. At this point, the eventual destruction of the material creation was in view. (7* See my The Destruction of the Material Creation, The Transience of Creation.)

 

Sealing

The limited duration only to the end of the age of the covenant with Noah (Gen. 8:22) implies both, first, the lack of a prior covenant with Adam when creation was under immediate threat of annihilation and, second, the eventual destruction of creation. This latter point receives further confirmation from the book of Revelation which refers to the sealing of believers when God is depicted as ‘harming’ creation at the end (Rev. 7:3; 9:4; 14:1; 22:4). Not surprisingly, Jesus points to both Noah’s and Lot’s escape, respectively from the flood and Sodom, as illustrative precursors of eschatological events when God’s anger is manifested against sin by his destruction of creation (Luke 17:26-30). But, as Paul intimated in 2 Timothy 2:19, believers build on a firm foundation since they are known by God and are marked by his own seal (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13f.; 4:30, cf. John 10:14,27).

 

Conclusion

If the above is a true reflection of biblical teaching, it proves yet once again that the Bible is all of a piece. Though there are undeniably sixty-six books on view, they are ultimately all one. The book of Genesis may indeed be difficult to interpret, but the evidence suggests that it relates basically to what follows. To approach Scripture like Marcion in the early church or some modern liberals invites meaninglessness and despair. Jesus himself taught a better way which we do well to follow. To excise the covenant with Noah from the plan of salvation, or even to diminish its importance, is ultimately to make the modern world, especially the modern scientific world unintelligible. Rightly understood the Bible and genuine science are friends not enemies. If there is creation, there is inevitably evolution or at least eventual perfection though it needs careful spelling out, for the natural must be distinguished from supernatural.

See further my Cosmic Curse?, Supplement to ‘Cosmic Curse?’.

The Pejorative Nature of the Flesh and Materiality

 

In these days (2011) when so much is being made in scholarly circles of the redemption of creation on the dubious basis of the resurrection transformation of Jesus (1* See my Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?, When Was Jesus Transformed?, John Stott on the Putative Resurrection Transformation of Jesus.), we do well to reconsider the difference between flesh and spirit, natural birth (from below) and spiritual rebirth (from above), earth and heaven, this present age and the age to come, visible and invisible, old and new covenants and between the manufactured (Gk cheiropoietos) and the not manufactured (acheiropoietos).  While in contrast with Greek dualism the flesh including the fleshly body is not evil per se, it is certainly temporary and subject to change or replacement (1 Cor. 15:50-54).

 

Temporal Not Eternal

The first thing to notice is that creation is precisely that, creation. In contrast with its uncreated Creator it is not eternal. It has a beginning (Gen. 1:1) and therefore by implication an end (Mt. 24:35; 28:20). Rather it is his work, work from which after six days or ages of creation he finally rests.

 

Visibility and Physicality

According to Paul, all that is physically visible is temporary (2 Cor. 4:18). This can be inferred from the very first verse of Scripture which teaches us that creation has a beginning and implicitly an end. It is noticeable that the covenant with Noah endures only to the end of the world (Gen. 8:22). Alternatively expressed, all that is covered by the covenant with Noah is mortal and/or destructible. Human flesh which is a product of the earth endures only for 120 years (Gen. 6:3) and that of animals usually less. In other words, it is intrinsically ephemeral, corruptible by nature like the grass which temporarily sustains it (Isa. 40:6-8; 1 Pet. 1:23-25, etc.). Throughout the Bible fleshly man who is sometimes described as dust (Ps. 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47-49), is regarded as transient and weak (Job 4:19; 10:9; 2 Cor. 4:7; 5:1, etc.), definitely not to be relied on (Ps. 118:8; 146:3; Jer. 17:5). Needless to say, the same applies with regard to animals which as flesh are contrasted with spirit (Ex. 15:1; Isa. 31:3, cf.  Ps. 147:10, etc.).

 

Manufactured

One of the most important contrasts in Scripture is that between what is made by hand (cheiropoietos) and what is not made by hand (acheiropoietos). The former is characteristic of the transient old covenant (cf. 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13), while the latter relates only to the new and better covenant. Whatever is ‘made by hand’ even by God himself (Isa. 45:11f., etc.) is inherently defective. A glaring example is the fleshly body of Jesus who was incarnate only for a little while (Heb. 2:7,9, cf. 5:7). (See my Creation Corruptible By Nature.) Even he was mortal and corruptible and in order to be glorified or regain the glory he had before the foundation of the earth (John 17:5,24) he had to keep the law, gain life (Mt. 3:13-17) and be transformed (1 Cor. 15:50-53; Phil. 3:21). After all, having been rich he became poor for our sakes. So we may assert categorically that whatever is ‘made by hand’, even by the hand of God, is regarded depreciatingly and denotes transience or susceptibility to wear, decay and age (Col. 2:22; Heb. 1:10-12, cf. Mt. 6:19f.).

 

Two Ages

Jesus himself maintains that there are two ages or two worlds (cosmological dualism). In Luke 20:34-36, for example, he points out that in the age or world to come there is significant change or replacement. He implies that the present physical body of dust which is subject to death and corruption will be replaced by a heavenly or spiritual body (cf. 1 Cor. 15:44) like that of the angels which makes both marriage and death redundant. (Pace some interpretations of Genesis 6:4 on which see my Who Are the Sons of God?) Apart from 1 Corinthians 15 Paul also draws attention to two ages epitomized by these two different bodies in Romans 8:18 and 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:5, for example.

In Romans 8:18-25 (cf. Heb. 1:10-12) Paul indicates that the corruption of creation is by divine design. Temporary by nature it is slated for final destruction (Mt. 5:18; 24:35; 2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.)  Only the creature man made in the image of God, not creation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50), can gain glory (8:21) even as Jesus regained the glory he had before the foundation of the world (John 17:5,24).

In the event, the flesh which derives from the temporal/temporary earth is unprofitable (John 6:63; Rom. 3:20; 7:18; 8:8; 1 Cor. 15:50). All it ultimately spawns is corruption (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8, cf. 1 Cor. 15:21f.). Thus, corporeal transformation is as necessary as spiritual new birth (note the Greek dei of 1 Cor. 15:53 and John 3:7).

It is a biblical axiom that the first (old) always gives way to the second (new, Heb. 10:9). So this present creation, age (or world), body (flesh, dust) and temple, etc., are replaced by a second.

See further my Death and Corruption.

__________________________________________________________

 

Notes

Note FFB, John, p.13, and Lane on spirit
Flesh gives birth to flesh, Spirit to spirit (John 3:6, cf. John 1:12f.).
Note the difference between God and Jesus in my Creation Corruptible By Nature.
God is both immortal and incorruptible (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16).

Ten Points to Bear in Mind When Considering the Redemption of the Material Creation

 

(1) Creation has a beginning (Gen. 1:1) and therefore an end (Mt. 24:35; 28:20). Though it is ‘good’, even very good (Gen. 1:31; Eccl. 3:11a), like the exceedingly good Promised Land (Num. 14:7) it is intrinsically transient (Heb. 3,4).

(2) It is visible and in direct contrast with our invisible God (Rom. 1:20; Heb. 11:3).

(3) The visible is impermanent by nature (2 Cor. 4:18). Our hope is better (Heb. 7:19), sure (Heb. 11:1) living (1 Pet. 1:3) and invisible (Rom. 8:24f.). Since our calling is heavenly (Heb. 3:1, cf. Phil. 3:14), like Abraham we look for a heavenly city or land (Heb. 10:34; 11:10,13-16, cf. Phil. 3:20).

(4) Since the flesh which is naturally visible and hence perishable cannot be redeemed (1 Cor. 15:50a), neither can the visible and hence perishable creation from which it stems (1 Cor. 15:50b; Heb. 1:10-12).

(5) The present naturally ‘evil’ age (Rom. 8:18a,20; Gal. 1:4, cf. Eccl. 7:13; Rev. 7:14) must give way to the glorious age to come (Luke 20:34-36; Rom. 8:18b; 2 Cor. 4:17; Eph. 1:21; 4:9-10, etc.). So we must escape from the first to gain entry into the second (Luke 20:35; Phil. 3:14; 2 Thes. 2:14; 1 Pet. 5:10, etc.).

(6) The physical creation is ‘manufactured’ or ‘made by hand’ (Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 45:11-12). It is therefore to be regarded as pejorative and like the old covenant which relates to it as provisional and temporary (Heb. 8:13). It stands in basic contrast with what is ‘not made by hand’ (Heb. 9:11,24, etc.), that is, the eternal (2 Cor. 4:17-5:1; Heb. 12:27).

(7) Since creation is intrinsically ephemeral (Heb. 1:11) and finally futile (Rom. 8:20), the flesh which stems from it is likewise (John 6:63; Rom. 8:6,13; Gal. 6:8). It dies naturally and universally, and unless law is broken it has no sting (1 Cor. 15:56).

(8) While the flesh (dust) is derived from (Gen. 2:7) and confined to this material world (1 Cor. 15:50), the body can be redeemed (Rom. 8:23) as spiritual (1 Cor. 15:44) and glorious in character (Phil. 3:21, cf. Rom. 8:21) in the world to come.

(9) Creation requires dominion or cultivation by man or it becomes a wilderness, even a desolation (cf. Isa. 6:11, etc.) and a curse (Jer.7:12-14; 22:5; 26:9), fit only for destruction (Heb. 6:7f., cf. Dt. 29:22-28; Jer. 4:23-28), like the temple deserted by Jesus ( Mt. 23:38f.). The mere fact that it requires replacement by heaven or the age to come signifies that like the inadequate OT sacrifices it is inherently defective and futile.

(10) Of course, the earth which was created to be inhabited (Gen. 1; Isa. 45:18) was meant to produce a harvest of people who are ‘wheat’ not weeds (Mt. 13; Rom. 8:19, etc.). Under the covenant with Noah the world like the field (Mt. 13:38) will achieve its purpose (Mt. 13:43; 24:31; Rev. 7:9) before it is finally removed (Isa. 51:6; 54:9f.; Heb. 12:27; Rev. 20:11, etc.).

See further my Thoughts on the Redemption of Creation.

Law and Sin

 

“So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12 ESV).
“What then shall we say? That the law is sin?” (Rom. 7:7).

One of the apparent contradictions or paradoxes of the OT is that it is dominated by a holy law on the one hand and by sin on the other (cf. Rom. 3:9-20). Why is this so?

(The) law first appears in the embryonic or rudimentary form of the commandment given to Adam in Genesis 2:17. While it warns of death, it is in fact a promise of life (WCF, 7.2. A.A.Hodge, The Confession of Faith, repr. London, 1958 and E.J.Young, Genesis 1, pp.113ff., strongly insist on this). The point is heavily underscored in Deuteronomy 11:26-31 and supremely in 30:15-30 (cf. e.g. Isa. 1:19f.; Jer. 21:8f.). Since God’s basic requirement of his people is that they should be holy and righteous like him (Gen. 17:1; Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; 1 Pet. 1:16), we should not be surprised to find Moses claiming that the law is no empty word but their  very life by which they will live (Dt. 32:46f., cf. 30:15-20; Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11,13,21; Mt. 19:17; Luke 10:28; Rom. 10:5, etc.). On the other hand, transgressing the covenant or breaking the law brings spiritual and ultimately physical death (Rom. 8:10), the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23). Clearly this is no trifling matter (Dt. 32:47 NRSV), and, in view of that fact, it is worth exploring the connection between law and sin.

First, Scripture normally defines sin as breaking the commandment or transgressing the covenant (e.g. Dt. 28:15; Jud. 2:20; Neh. 1:6f.; 9:16f., 26,29,34; Isa. 24:5; Dan. 9:5,11), but in 1 John 3:4 (cf. v.8; 5:17; Jas. 2:9-11; 4:17) it is described as lawlessness suggesting defiance, even refusal to recognise the very existence, of (the) law. The seriousness of deliberate transgression of the covenant (Jos. 7:11,15) or rebellion against the commandment (1 Sam. 13:13f.; 15:11,19,22-24,26) is highlighted by the harsh punishment meted out to Achan and Saul.

In Romans 1:18-3:20 Paul goes to great pains to show that both Gentile and Jew have failed to keep the law in whatever form they know it (cf. 3:23). In 3:19-20 (cf. 2:12f.) he terminates his demonstration by asserting that it is precisely by the law that all without exception are held accountable to God and that by it no one will be justified before him (cf. 9:31f.). Thus he concludes that justification is by faith in Christ alone (3:21-31) who is the end of the law (10:4).

Since sin assumes in principle a definite legal standard and is defined by law even in the case of the heathen (Rom. 2:14-16), it follows logically that where there is no law there is no sin; and this is precisely what Scripture teaches (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:1-13; Gal. 5:23, cf. John 9:41; 15:22,24; 1 Cor. 15:56). Thus children who do not know the law until they are taught it (Dt. 4:9f.; Ps. 78:5-8, cf. 1 Kings 3:7,9; Isa. 7:15f., cf. 8:4; 28:9; Heb. 5:12-14, etc.) are necessarily innocent until they learn it and break it. This is borne out first by the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Later, in Numbers 14 it is made plain in verses 3 and 29-33 (cf. Dt. 1:39) that, though children suffer for the sins of their guilty fathers, they are not punished for them (cf. Dt. 24:16; 29:19ff.; 2 Chr. 25:4; 2 Sam. 24:10,17 and note Ex. 20:5f.; 34:6f.; Lev. 26:39; Num. 14:18; Ps. 103:8). It is exclusively the soul that sins that dies (Ex. 32:33; Dt. 7:9f.; 18:19ff.; Ezek. 3; 18; 33, etc.). Wages can only be earned by personal transgression (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 4:4; 6:23; 2 Pet. 2:15), by what is actually done (Luke 23:14f.,22,41, etc.), and the vicarious punishment implied by the imputation of Adam’s sin is out of the question (Job 21:19-21; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18:2, cf. 14:14,16, etc.). Only Jesus, in voluntary submission to the will of his Father (John 10:11,17f.) and as a lamb without blemish (John 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:19) was capable of receiving by faith the sins of his people and bearing them (Isa. 53:12; 1 Pet. 3:18). Or, to express the issue another way, just as we who are sinners are justified by faith so he who was innocent was condemned by faith as our sin-bearer and so effected atonement. This is the essence of the great exchange (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18).

In Romans 7 Paul is at pains to underline the fact that sin does not exist apart from (the) law. First, in verses 1-6 he calls attention to the fact that a widow who remarries does so without guilt (cf. 1 Cor. 7:39). The death of her husband has brought about the abolition of the law that bound them together, so a charge of adultery is nullified at the outset. Of course, Paul’s basic point here is that we who have died to the law and are now married to Christ serve under the Spirit (v.6, cf. 8:2; 2 Cor. 3:6).

Next, the apostle states explicitly that sin apart from the law lies dead (v.8, cf. vv.2f.). Indeed, it cannot come to life until it is given its opportunity by the advent of the law (vv. 8,11). In verses 9 and 10 he uses his own experience to highlight the fact that, like Adam and Eve in the Garden, he was “alive” so long as he was without (understanding of the) law; but when it came, presumably through his parents, again like Adam and Eve he was deceived, broke it and earned its wages in death (cf. 9:11). The implication of this is that we all follow suit (John 8:34; Rom. 3:23; 5:12), that is, all apart from Jesus who as the second Adam committed no sin (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15, etc.), kept the law in its entirety and thereby pleased his heavenly Father (Mt. 3:17; John 8:29; 15:10). By this means he was constituted righteous (Dt. 6:25; 1 John 3:7, but note Heb. 7:19) and ultimately, having fulfilled all righteousness (Mt. 3:15; 19:21), was made perfect (Heb. 2:9; 7:19; 9:28; 5:9, cf. James 3:2 and Mt. 5:48).

It is commonly held that law restrains sin or, as the Jews maintained, forms a hedge against it (cf. Ps. 78:7; 1 Tim. 1:8ff.). In many cases it does. Most of us are in general law-abiding citizens. But even with the best of intentions (cf. Rom. 7:15ff.) we all come short, and the attempt to justify ourselves in the flesh is fraught with failure (1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; Rom. 7:14ff.) as God intended (Gal. 3:22; Rom. 3:20; 11:32). While we may avoid adultery, we do not necessarily avoid murder, robbery, lying or cheating (cf. Jas. 2:10f.). The chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In view of this, it is not all that surprising to find Paul asserting in 1 Corinthians 15:56 that the law is the power of sin (cf. Rom. 3:19f.; 7:1,7). Indeed, he emphasises his point by maintaining in Romans 5:20 that it actually increases sin (cf. 7:13). While the letter kills, the Spirit gives life (Rom. 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6, cf. John 6:63).

In view of all this we might well be prompted to think that the law is itself sinful (cf. Rom. 7:7). So we must ask with Paul, Why then the law (Gal. 3:19)? The apostle’s answer is that it was added (to the Abrahamic covenant) because of transgressions. What did he mean? Perhaps it is best with the RNEB to say that it made transgression a legal (or technical) offence showing it up for what it was, that is, disobedience of the express word of God (Rom. 3:20; 7:7) leading inexorably to increased liability (cf. Amos 3:2; Jer. 22:6-9; Rom. 2:9).

In this same passage of Galatians 3 Paul indicates that in salvation history the law had another purpose: it not only increased (the seriousness of) sin (cf. Rom. 5:20) but imprisoned all who were bound by it so that they might ultimately receive their inheritance through faith in Christ (3:22; Rom. 11:32). In other words, the law acted as a custodian or guardian pending the coming of Jesus who was the end of the law, that is, both its terminus and its goal (Rom.10:4; Gal. 3:24f.).

If this is so, then it is crystal clear that the law, though spiritual, was not eternal but merely provisional and transitory (2 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 8:13). It exercised its influence only during the lifetime of those who were under it (Rom. 3:19; 7:1). When a person died it ceased to apply (Rom. 7:2, cf. Mt. 5:18 with 24:35). One of the remarkable features of NT theology, however, is that we can die to the law (Gal. 2:19) through faith in Christ even while we are still alive in the flesh (Rom. 6:3,5). This means that as Christians we are no longer under law but under grace (Rom. 6:15; 7:6; Gal. 5:18). Paul makes this plain also when he refers to the provisional nature of the old covenant with its ministry of death (e.g. 2 Cor. 3:11, cf. Heb. 8:13). So long as people are under the law, however, sin reigns, and only cleansing through the blood of Christ can bring, first, redemption (Heb. 9:15), then sanctification by the power of the Spirit.  It follows from this that sin and grace are like oil and water – they cannot mix. Since God’s nature or seed remains in the believer who is born of God (John 1:13), he cannot live habitually in sin (1 John 3:9); like flesh and Spirit (Gal 5:16f.; 1 Pet. 2:11) sin and grace are mutually antithetic (Rom. 6:12-14). Sin and the law that spawns it through the weakness of the flesh (Rom. 8:3, cf. Gen. 3:6) belong exclusively to this present evil age (Gal. 1:4) which is passing away (1 Cor. 7:31; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 John 2:17; Rev. 21:1-4), and believers in Christ die to both as they prepare for a sinless eternity in the presence of their holy God.

It is vitally important to recognise that in principle both justification (Ezek. 5-9; Rom. 2:13; 10:5; 1 John 3:7) and condemnation (Ezek. 18:10-13; Rom. 2:1-12) in Scripture are by the works of the law (Rom. 2:6-11, etc.). However, since our works are universally defective and we all come short (Rom. 3:9,19f.,23; 5:12), this would normally lead to universal condemnation. But as Paul strongly emphasises, God has displayed his righteousness by justifying us by grace through faith in Christ (Rom. 3:21-26; 2 Cor. 5:21) apart from the law (Phil. 3:9). Does this mean that the law is sinful after all? Not at all! Faith in fact upholds the law (Rom. 3:31) not least because God is at once just and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus who fulfilled the law (Rom. 1:17; 3:26; Mt. 5:17f.). In fact, Jesus himself as a true son of Abraham was uniquely justified both by works and faith (cf. Jas. 2:14ff.; 1 Sam. 26:23).

Finally, it is necessary to assert that if sin is a work that involves active transgression of the law in some sense, its imputation apart from faith is a contradiction in terms. (Note that Jesus vicariously bore our sin by faith, John 10:17f.; 1 Pet. 3:18.) It should occasion no surprise therefore that it is implicitly denied in Scripture (e.g. Num. 26:11; Dt. 24:16; 2 K. 14:6, etc.). As Paul indicates in Romans 4:1-8, imputation (free gift) and wages (earnings or desert) are mutually exclusive (cf. Rom. 6:23). While we are clearly all too capable of earning and deserving our own condemnation by the works of the law (Rom. 2:6; Gal 5:19-21, etc) thus rendering the imputation of sin redundant, we are equally clearly incapable of achieving our own righteousness (Jer. 4:22) thus making an “alien righteousness” indispensable (Phil. 3:9). That is why it is the righteous by faith who will live (Rom. 1:17).

Note: It needs to be insisted that just as sin does not exist apart from the law (Rom 4:15) neither does righteousness (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7, cf. Rom. 9:11). The idea that Adam who at first like a baby (cf. Dt. 1:39) did not know the law was righteous but “fell” is therefore nonsense. Like children who are made in his image (Gen. 5:1-3) he simply lost his innocence.

Recapitulating Old Testament Miracles

 

As I have indicated in an essay on the subject, like Irenaeus the father of theology I believe in recapitulation. (See my other articles at www.kenstothard.com, in particular I Believe in Recapitulation). I argue that in order to save his fellows Jesus had to recapitulate their human experience and, as a son of the first (Luke 3:38),  become the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:47f., cf. Heb. 2:17; 4:15). Here I attempt to show that many of the miracles that Jesus performed are recapitulations, as opposed to repetitions, of miracles that appear in the OT. (According to Twelftree, p.127, of all the healing miracles in the NT the only category not having an OT precursor is the giving of sight to the blind.)

 

Recapitulating the Actions of Men

 

(1) Changing Water into Wine

I begin with Jesus’ first miracle or sign, the changing of water into wine at Cana. In Numbers 13:23 we read that the first evidence of blessing in Canaan was a cluster of grapes. Just as grapes signified blessing under the old covenant, so they do in an enhanced form under the new. While in the OT God had given his people water (Ex. 17; Numbers 20), in the NT he gives them wine. Elsewhere in the NT Jesus’ emphasizes the change from the old to the new wine (Mark 2:22). And the difference between living water and water that merely quenches thirst in this world is clearly etched (John 4:13f.). The wine or blood of Jesus who is the true vine (John 15:1-5) is indispensable (John 6:55) and is surely symbolized at Cana (John 2:11).

 

(2) Multiplication

Jesus’ multiplication of the five loaves and two fish (Luke 9:16f.) recalls the multiplication of the widow’s oil by Elisha (2 K. 4:1-7).

 

(3) Bread from Heaven

John 6 depicts the need for bread from heaven. In the OT the Israelites in the wilderness were fed with manna from heaven (cf. John 6:30f.). In the NT Jesus spreads a table in a desolate place (Mt. 14:13, cf. Ps. 78:19) and multiplies bread like Elisha (2 K. 4:42f.) when he feeds the 4,000 and the 5,000 (Mt. 16:8-10; John 6:1-14). But more importantly as a prophet greater than Elisha he also portrays himself as the true bread from heaven, the bread of life (John 6:35,48,51). There is a true sense in which he is fed on at the Communion Table (John 6:51-58; 1 Cor. 11:23-26).

 

(4) Transfiguration

Exodus 34:29-35 describes how the face of Moses shone because he had been talking with God. What is known as the transfiguration occurs when Jesus prays to his heavenly Father who bears visible witness to him (Luke 9:28f., cf. Mt. 17:1-8, 2 Cor. 3:12-18; 2 Pet.1:16-18).

 

(5) Floating Iron

In 2 Kings 6:1-7 Elisha makes a borrowed iron axe head float. Jesus does something greater when he provides a coin to be used for taxation purposes from a fish’s mouth (Mt. 17:27).

 

(6) Raising the Dead

Just as Elijah (1 K. 17:17-24) and Elisha (2 K. 4:18-37) raise the dead, so does Jesus. More to the point, Jesus makes no physical contact but merely speaks a word to the son of the widow of Nain and raises him (Luke 7:11-15). He does the same with regard to Lazarus who is called out of his tomb (John 11:43). However, the fact that he takes the hand of Jairus’ daughter is perhaps a gesture of kindness to a child (Luke 8:54-56).

 

(7) Healing the Blind Man

Elisha’s miraculous cure of Naaman’s leprosy in the Jordan (2 K. 5) is eclipsed by Jesus’ healing of the blind man at the pool of Siloam (John 9:6-12). As the passage indicates (9:32) this miracle surpassed any that had occurred in the OT.

 

(8) Touching

According to 2 K. 13:21, a dead man whose corpse touched the bones of Elisha came to life and stood on his feet. The lady who suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years touched the fringe of Jesus’ garment and was healed (Luke 8:43-48). As was indicated above, Jesus took the hand of Jairus’ daughter.

 

(9) Restoration

The miracle involving the restoration of king Jeroboam’s hand recounted in 1 K. 13:4-6 is recapitulated by Jesus  (Mt. 12:13, cf. 11:5; 15:30f.; 21:14; John 5:3-9) and by Peter who restores the limbs of the man lame from birth (Acts 3:1-9).

 

(10) Elisha

Dillard has noted the similarity between the miracles of Jesus and those of Elisha. Jesus sends messengers to John the Baptist in prison to tell him that the blind receive sight, the lame walk, lepers are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised and good news is preached to the poor (Mt. 11:2-5). This list is a recapitulation of incidents recorded in 2 Kings 4-8 which are conflated with those of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 61:1-3. As Dillard comments, Jesus is in effect telling John that he is Elijah’s successor as Elisha who had been given a double portion  of the Spirit had been before him (p.12).(Note Alan Richardson’s Introduction, pp. 21f.)

 

(11) Calming the Storm

Jesus does what God does in the OT and calms the storm. In Luke 8:25 we read of him rebuking the stormy sea which threatened to overwhelm his disciples as God had rebuked the Red Sea at the time of the exodus (cf. Ps. 106:9). Again, just as God is said to rule the waves (Ps. 65:7; 89:9; 107:25-29), so does Jesus in the power of God.

 

(12) Walking on Water

When the Saviour walks on water he reminds us of what God had done before him in OT times (Job 9:8; Ps. 77:19; John 6:19). In Matthew 14:26-33 it is not merely Jesus who walks on the sea but so does Peter reminding us of Psalm 37:24 and perhaps again of 107:25-29.

 

(13) Jonah and the Resurrection

According to Matthew 12:40 Jesus’ resurrection was a recapitulation of the miracle of Jonah’s three days spent in the belly of a great fish (Jon. 1:17).

 

(14) Entering the Promised Land

The truth of this is underlined by Jesus’ entering heaven, the Promised Land of the NT (cf. Heb. 11:16), which recapitulated Joshua’s (not Moses’) securing possession of the OT Promised Land (cf. Dt. 1:38). It is significant that Joshua, the Jesus of the OT, is presented to us as one who was always obedient and is never said to sin (Jos.1:1-9; 11:15, etc.). By contrast, Moses who was the law’s representative certainly sinned and failed to enter the Promised Land. Truly, like Adam we cannot get to heaven by keeping the commandment/law.

 

(15) Adam recapitulated by the second Adam

Jesus’ life like ours and the race’s is covenantal. It begins uncovenanted like that of Adam, proceeds under Noah in Egypt (cf. Mt. 2:15), and under the law of Moses (cf. Luke 2:40-52). However, when he had kept the law and gained eternal life (Lev. 18:5), he himself pioneered  regenerate life here on earth until he ascended transformed into heaven (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50-53).

 

(16) Jesus the Pioneer

If Jesus initially recapitulated to perfection the life of mankind as flesh in the image of Adam and then pioneered the regenerate life (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.), we now recapitulate or follow the path he trod (Rom. 13:14; 1 Pet. 3:9, etc.).

If Jesus was perfected so are we and are:

Baptized by the Spirit

Born again

Sanctified

Sealed

Anointed

Ascended

Transformed (1 Cor. 15:50-53) and made perfect along with all the saints throughout history (Heb. 11:39f.).

If Jesus was glorified as an individual, so are we (Rom. 8:30). Though together forming the body of Christ, we are separate entities and not absorbed Nirvana-like into God. As the sons of God (Rom. 8:14; Eph. 1:5) we are gods (John 10:34), Jesus’ brothers (Heb. 2:11) and, conformed to his image (Rom. 8:29), we are fellow-heirs with him (Rom. 8:17).

 

Differences

When Jesus rose again from the grave he was physically restored; we who suffer corruption like David (Acts 2,13) are raised corporeally and given a new spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:42-53). While Jesus recapitulated first Adamic man to perfection in the flesh and so gained life (cf. Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5), we recapitulate the regenerate life of Jesus as we are led by the Spirit. If Adam was in some sense our pioneer in the flesh, Jesus is our pioneer in the Spirit (Heb. 2:10; 6:19f.; 10:20; 12:2). We thus become imitators of him (1 Cor. 11:1, etc.) and conformed to his image (Rom. 2:29; 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18).

 

Why Recapitulation?

Why, it may be asked, did Jesus recapitulate various miracles performed by God in the OT? The answer must surely be that he was implicitly answering the question he posed to his disciples and in effect to all of us regarding his identity (Mt. 16:13,15). Even though he apparently did not fully understand his own confession at the time, Peter’s reply, according to Jesus himself, was supplied by the inspiration of God himself. The point here is that Jesus’ miracles provided undeniable evidence of his identity as the Son of God (cf. John 10:25,37f.). As Nicodemus testified no one was capable of doing the things that he did apart from God. (John 3:2). According to Schreiner, the central theme of Mark’s gospel is the recognition that Jesus is God’s Son (p.461). In other words, Jesus’ identity is of fundamental importance and it is certainly underscored by his recapitulation of miracles which in the OT were performed by God himself.

__________________________________________________________

 

References:

Raymond B. Dillard, Faith in the Face of Apostasy, Phillipsburg, 1999.

T.R.Schreiner, The King in his Beauty, Grand Rapids, 2013.

G.Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, Downers Grove, 1999.

Topsy-Turvy Theology

 

I have long argued that traditional Augustinian theology, which assumes an original perfect rather than a ‘good’ creation including Adam and Eve, is seriously mistaken. With perfection as a premise theology really had nowhere to go. However, the plain facts of history, life and experience demanded an explanation. Thus, ideas of original righteousness and holiness were assumed to have been followed by original sin and fall and a cosmic curse on creation. This necessitated its redemption and restoration but involved a serious distortion of Genesis 1-3 and Romans 8:18-25 in particular. Regrettably, such ideas as these continue to dominate ecclesiastical and even evangelical thinking in third millennium leading to the promotion of a wildly false worldview. The problem is that if the Bible is to be believed perfection or maturity is our goal, and to confuse it with our beginning inevitably results in a topsy-turvy theology in general.

 

Personal Experience

So far as we personally are concerned, we begin at the beginning. We start in complete immaturity and develop slowly to maturity (perfection). The truth of this on the physical level is so obvious as barely to require justification. We are conceived, gestate, are born as babies, pass through infancy, childhood, adolescence and eventually reach adulthood. And the same is true on the intellectual and spiritual levels. In the realm of education, for example, we begin in kindergarten, graduate to primary, then secondary and finally achieve a college education. To attempt to reverse this process would expose us to ridicule, yet theologically this is precisely what tradition has us do. Instead of appreciating that mankind (Adam) as a race is epitomized in the individual (also Adam, especially the second Adam) and recognizing the individual and general maturation process, we somehow dissociate the two. The consequence of this is that recapitulation which in the early church was quite widely recognized especially in the writings of Irenaeus is almost totally ignored today. As a result there is catastrophic confusion, and Christians become the butt of ridicule by atheistic scientists who believe that what the church teaches the Bible also teaches – a profoundly dubious proposition.

 

Sin

The first thing to notice is that according to Scripture our first parents Adam and Eve are flesh created from the earth like the rest of the animals. As such they are ‘born’ innocent and at the start they know neither good nor evil (cf. Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22). It is only when the commandment impinges on their developing minds that they break it and become sinners by nature (cf. John 8:34). As such they are cast out of the Garden, the womb or cradle of the race. The same pattern of innocence followed by transgression characterizes babies, even modern ones. There is a noticeable difference, however. Adam and Eve are presented to us as physical adults. The inference from this must be that their mental development occurred late by our standards. This sometimes occurs in modern times and we freely refer to retarded individuals.

But the point to note is that development from immaturity to maturity is basic to the nature of man as created (and indeed to the animal world in general). To begin with maturity or perfection is a certain way of torpedoing the Christian ship and causing it to keel over. (1* The Augustinian worldview is founded on false assumption and silence. The false assumption is that God in one fell swoop made every thing perfect (both sinless and mature) as opposed to ‘good’ or useful from the start. The literal interpretation of the days of Genesis 1 virtually guaranteed that the idea of (evolutionary) development remained almost completely absent until the nineteenth century. But the idea that Adam did not develop as babies in general develop devoid of conscious experience and hence history is an inference from silence. After all, if he had no self-consciousness, he had no history. Paul states that we are first flesh, then spirit, 1 Cor. 15:46, and this was doubtless true of Adam. In other words, Adam was not in fact created full-grown but developed from immaturity as we all do, first in animal ignorance knowing neither good nor evil, cf. Dt. 1:39, then in the light God grants all human beings as those made in his image, cf. Gen. 2:16f.; John 1:9. The mere fact that Jesus was the second Adam, the antitype, indicates that the first Adam, the type, Rom. 5:14, followed the human pattern we all know so well. How else could he be our first parent? Clearly since like begets like, cf. John 3:6, we follow the pattern established by Adam as his offspring, cf. 1 Cor. 15:48f. This is virtually proved by Jesus who is presented to us as the second Adam, the son of the first, cf. Luke 3:23-38.)  Furthermore, the assumption of initial perfection or maturity makes nonsense of the quite extensive teaching in the Bible which presents it (perfection, that is) as a goal to be reached, not as something we have lost (cf. Heb. 6:1; Phil. 3:12-14, etc.).

 

Original Sin

If it is true that there is no such thing as original perfection and righteousness, it is also true that there is no such thing as original sin. The Bible itself teaches beyond cavil that sin (like righteousness) cannot be transferred from parent to child, from the guilty to the innocent except by faith (see e.g. Ezek. 18). As has already been asserted we all begin at the beginning. Despite certain differences we all as babies follow the pattern established by Adam and Eve (pace Art. 9 of the C of E). We too are born innocent before the commandment dawns on our minds (Dt. 1:39, etc.). We too in our turn break it (Ps. 106:6; Rom. 3:12, etc.) when it eventually registers and prove incapable like every one else, with the exception of the Lord Jesus himself, of keeping the law (Gal. 2:16, etc.). In other words, like Adam, we become sinners when we sin (John 8:34; Rom. 3:19f.) and definitely not because we are born such. This is not of course to deny the impact made on us by parents including Adam. Just as the children in the wilderness suffered as a result of their parents’ sins (Num. 14:33), so do we (cf. Ex. 20:5f.; Rom. 5:12-21). But neither they nor we are blamed and punished for sins we have not personally committed (Dt. 24:16).

 

Infant Baptism

It is generally agreed that the traditional ecclesiastical dogma of original sin has been a major contributor to infant baptism which on the face of it suggests a topsy-turvy theology. By contrast, before Jesus himself was baptized he had experienced like his ancestors a period in heathen Egypt and had then done his stint under the law (cf. Luke 2:41-52). And it was as a result of his achievement under the law which he kept to perfection (cf. Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22) that he proved himself to be and was acknowledged as God’s true Son. By uniquely keeping the commandments, he proclaimed his pedigree, pleased his Father and was granted the eternal life originally promised to Adam on condition of perfect obedience (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). The problem with the rest of us is that we cannot keep the law which promises life (cf. Rom. 7:9f.), so in our case we have to believe in order to be accounted righteous by faith in Christ the Son who becomes our elder brother when we in our turn are born of the Father (John 1:12f.).

The progression or maturation process in our spiritual lives clearly involves initial immaturity followed by covenantal development and growth which is punctuated and highlighted by ceremony including, but not initially, baptism. As individuals we follow the pattern from babyhood to adulthood etched by Jesus who in recapitulating the history of the race was first to all intents and purposes heathen (cf. Mt. 2:15) like his forefather Abraham before he was regarded as a true Jew under the law after his bar mitzvah (cf. Luke 2:41-52). (2* It may be pointed out that Jesus like all Jews was circumcised as a baby. This is true but initially circumcision was merely a national marker, cf. Gen. 17:12, not a sign of personal moral obligation under the law, Gal. 5:3.) In this way he became a son of the commandment and took personal responsibility for keeping the law. And it was only after he had successfully completed his training under the law that he was enabled by his reception of the Spirit granted to him by his Father at his baptism to embark on the regenerate life to which we are all called (John 3:7). As Paul indicates in Galatians 4:4f., he, though the Son and heir, was thus shown to be first a slave under Noah (cf. Mt. 2:15), a servant under the law of Moses, then a son, the Son, as led by the Spirit of his Father. While it may be true that we Gentiles are never strictly under the law of Moses as the Jews were (cf. Gal. 3:24f., KJV), we nonetheless like uncircumcised Jewish women are born again through faith in Jesus and recapitulate his pattern of life.

If this is true, infant baptism reflects basic misunderstanding. It repeats the mistake referred to above of beginning with the end, of starting with perfection or salvation and then looking for a means of gaining it – a topsy-turvy world indeed (cf. Gal. 3:1-30)!  If we accept with the Roman Catholic church that baptism confers regeneration even in infancy, we have nowhere to go. We have arrived before we have set off. Little wonder that the (evolutionary) ascent of man causes problems with Christians, fundamentalists in particular. (See further below.)

 

Churchianity

Having begun with perfection, however, the church has devised a non-biblical worldview. First, it has failed to understand the transient and destructible nature of the material creation. The Bible tells us that it was created in time (Gen. 1:1, cf. Eccl. 3:2) and that it will eventually, when its purpose has been fulfilled, have an end and be dispensed with (Mt. 24:35, etc.). In other words, it is temporal not eternal by divine intention. This would appear to be what Paul teaches in Romans 8:18-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10 and the author of Hebrews in 1:10-12. Failing to recognize this, the church has invented a completely different scenario. For it, the originally perfect world has suffered calamity. It has succumbed to a cosmic curse following the sin of Adam and now labours in anticipation of redemption and restoration. It is true that certain sections of the Bible depending on their interpretation appear to provide grist for the church’s mill, but apart from anything else this scenario is ludicrous. For how could the child-like sin or peccadillo of one man have such cosmic implications? While acknowledging the exacerbating effect of sin, it is vital to recognize that the obvious reason why this world is difficult to navigate is because God himself made it that way, as surely Genesis 1:26-28 imply. And the mere fact that he made us flesh complete with all its temptations, weakness and vulnerability testifies to this. Clearly, his intention has always been that we should be tested in the body (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10) before escaping into the world (age) to come (cf. Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17; Gal. 1:4). This age or world, far from being perfection gone wrong is, in other words, only the threshold of or the prelude to heaven or the eternal world which we access by right conduct (Luke 20:35; Rom. 2:7,10;  James 1:2-4; 1 Pet. 1:6f.; Rev. 2:9f.), in the event by the grace we are shown in Christ. For only Jesus by express divine intention proved capable of meeting the condition of eternal life in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.) and thus ensured that all the rest of us should rely totally on him (Heb. 2:9, cf. Acts 4:12).

 

The Redemption of Creation

Whereas the Bible teaches the eventual annihilation of the visible created world, the present temporary age (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18), traditional Augustinian theology, given its presuppositions, virtually demands its redemption. One of the arguments presently (2014) used to support this contention is the resurrection of the body. It is contended that when Jesus rose again from the dead he had a glorified body. If this is so, then it would seem to follow that since he was still flesh and blood which derived from the earth in the first place, the earth likewise could be glorified. The problem here is that Paul specifically tells us on the one hand that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and on the other that we must all be changed at ascension (1 Cor. 15:50-53). Luke 24:39 (cf. John 20:26-29) leaves us in no doubt that when Jesus rose again he was still flesh and blood, the same as he was when he died. This being the case he was clearly not glorified and had not ascended (John 20:17). Indeed, the very idea that earthly flesh and blood can be glorified is contrary to the essence of biblical teaching which draws a radical distinction and makes a profound disjunction between earth and heaven, between the present and the age to come.

I conclude then that the inference in favour of the redemption of creation based on the resurrection of Jesus is invalid, indeed radically mistaken. Furthermore, it is nowhere supported by Scripture. The truth is that the material world is headed by divine decree to dissolution as texts like Hebrews 12:27 and 2 Peter 3:7,10-12 indicate. (3* See further my The Destruction of the Material Creation, The Transience of Creation.)

 

Human Habitat

Despite the strange quirks and superstitious vagaries that characterize ecclesiastical thought, most of us think in terms of going to heaven when we die. But along with the notion of a redeemed creation also goes the idea that we human beings go not to heaven and the eternal world when we die but to the redeemed new heavens and the new earth. While this denotation appears only twice in the NT suggesting that it is but an OT way of referring to heaven where righteousness dwells, as 2 Peter 3:13 in particular implies, it is given an essentially earthly meaning which appears to be out of kilter with its intended  designation. If however it is accepted, we end up living our eternal lives on a temporal earth instead of in an eternal heaven. This is either naked contradiction or an attempt to eternalise the naturally perishable which Paul says is impossible (1 Cor. 15:50b). But topsy-turvy theology is bound to lead to such confusion.

 

The Order of Salvation

What has been written above makes it clear that the traditional order of salvation is out of kilter with what the Bible teaches. Once original sin is assumed, salvation for those who do not become Christian is out of the question. Augustine himself believed that all unbaptized and hence all unregenerate babies went to hell. This ghastly conclusion arose out of failure to understand biblical covenant theology and its implied diminished responsibility on the one hand and the view that faith follows regeneration, not vice versa, on the other. But in the Bible both sin and faith are based on knowledge. While Paul says that where there is no law (or knowledge) there is no sin (Rom. 4:15), he implies that there is also no possibility of faith for the simple reason that without law or knowledge there is no promise either (cf. Rom. 7:9f.). However, once the commandment comes, both sin and faith become possibilities (cf. Adam, Gen. 2:17). In the event only Jesus avoided sin, and by uniquely exercising unbroken faith went on as man to inherit eternal life. But though the rest of his fellows sinned one and all, under the prompting of the non-regenerating influence of the Spirit many of them nonetheless exercised faith, not least Abraham who was regarded as the father of the faithful. In clarification of this I would point out that the very fact that they sinned proved beyond all reasonable doubt that they were not born again, for when they sinned they thereby failed to meet the condition of life which was keeping the law to perfection (Lev. 18:5). Paul sums up the situation in Romans 7:9f. where he indicates that when the commandment came to him personally as it had done to Adam long before, though it promised life it led to sin. But this by no means eliminated faith as the rest of his career amply demonstrates. Had it done so, no one in the OT would have been justified, let alone born again. The truth is that regeneration remains a promise throughout the OT (e.g. Dt. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-34) which is not fulfilled until Jesus meets its condition of total obedience.

 

Jesus and Christians

This brings us to a comparison between Jesus as the first and paradigmatic Christian and modern Christians as they have been usually been conceived by the (traditional) churches.

First, Jesus like his forebears was:

(1) Flesh, born of woman and as such an innocent son of Adam (Luke 3:38);

(2) Heathen, as a child under the covenant with Noah (cf. Mt. 2:15);

(3) Jewish son of the commandment (Luke 2:40-52).
Since he kept the law to perfection and pleased his Father (Mt. 3:17; Luke 3:22) Jesus met the condition of eternal life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, cf. Mt. 19:17) and so

(4) was baptized with the Spirit and became the first or model Christian. As such he

(5) pioneered the regenerate life as he was led by the Spirit (John 1:32; 3:34, cf. Mt. 5-7; Acts 10:38).

(6) Gave his life for his sheep and was raised from the dead.

(7) Was glorified at his ascension and seated at his Father’s side.

In strictly baptismal terms he recapitulated the baptism of (1) Noah (1 Pet. 3:20f.), (2) of Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), and (3) inaugurated the baptism of the Spirit (Mark 1:8) after being baptized himself (John 1:32).

By contrast ecclesiastical Christians vary according to denomination but are:

(1) Born sinful of woman.

(2) Baptized and usually regenerated by water as babies apart from repentance and faith.

(3) Confirmed as members of their church.

Conversion may or may not be required as an act of God dependent on church affiliation.
(Baptists of course accept believer’s baptism on the basis of a credible profession. For all that, many call themselves Reformed Baptists since they accept the essence of Reformed theology and its false (Augustinian) worldview. See for example S.E.Waldron’s A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Darlington, 1989. They thus end up confused like the rest of the churches.)

Perhaps more obviously than anything else baptism highlights topsy-turvy theology.

(See further my Covenant Theology in Brief, Cart-Before-The-Horse Theology, Will Creation Be Redeemed?Why Infant Baptism is Unchristian.

The Biblical Doctrine Of Human Evolution

 

Does the Bible teach evolution? The question is often posed and equally often denied. Creation or creationism is usually seen by modern humanists and Christian fundamentalists alike to deny the very idea of evolution. Of course, if we are talking of a purely naturalistic process, the Christian who of necessity believes in creation must deny it. But then the question must be posed: Does creation eliminate evolution? As I understand them, some modern evolutionists seem to think that evolution is a mysterious self-generating or self-creating force that does indeed do away with the need for creation by God as depicted in the Bible.

 

Problem 1

At this point I have a problem. Naturalistic evolution seems to have become a substitute for and to have displaced the aseity of God (1* The aseity of God is the notion that God stems from himself and from nothing external to him. He is deemed to be ontologically eternal.) which Christians attribute to the Creator God who is eternal and hence without beginning or end and has life in himself (John 5:26). So if the one causes problems, so does the other, and atheists are in no better case than Christians who try to answer the question of who made God (2* Cf. the book by Edgar Andrews entitled Who Made God?).

 

Problem 2

But I have another problem. Apart from its modus operandi and details like natural selection and the survival of the fittest, essential to evolution as I understand it is the idea of development. But for development to take place it must have a beginning or so our natural environment would appear to teach us (e.g. Mark 4:1-9, 26-28). In light of this I fail to understand how uninitiated evolution, unless it is regarded as an inexplicable, impersonal, self-creating force as suggested above, can take place. So while the Bible refers to a beginning of creation brought about by the eternal God followed by what is clearly providential and purposeful development or evolution especially with regard to man, naturalistic evolution seems to be a truly marvelous but inexplicable self-generating process without evident beginning or end. It appears to come literally out of the blue! While the Bible presents the Creator God as being eternal and unique (cf. Rev. 4:11), I myself am procreated as a product of creation and in the process of following its pattern on a smaller scale. I have had a beginning followed by growth and development leading inevitably to decline and eventual physical death (cf. Heb. 1:10-12). As flesh I travel from the womb to the tomb by divine design and can only escape, according to the Bible, by keeping the law to perfection and thereby gaining eternal life (Gen. 2:16f.; Lev. 18:5). Since I am incapable of this, I look to Christ to rescue me (John 3:16, etc.).

 

Problem 3

There is yet a third problem which is perhaps the biggest problem of all. Since the church in general has uncritically accepted the unbiblical worldview foisted on it by Augustine of Hippo (d. 430 A.D.), it has assumed that like Athene in classical mythology who sprang full-grown out of the head of Zeus, man, that is, Adam was also created full-grown within a single 24-hour day and hence devoid of either physical or spiritual development. (3* See my Twenty-Four Hours? – Reasons why I believe the Genesis days are undefined periods of time) While on the one hand creation as it was originally made by God was deemed to be perfect (and not simply ‘good’ or useful as Genesis has it, cf. 1 Tim. 4:3f.), Adam was also held to be perfect, holy and righteous and even immortal from the very start. However, from this ‘high estate’ (Milton) he is said to have ‘fallen’, and, since he was the designated lord of creation, he brought a curse on the world as a consequence. So even creation was and is still in the 21st century regarded by many as ‘fallen’. Given this scenario, evolution regarded as the ascent of man is out of the question. (4* See my The Ascent of Man.) But not so descent or devolution! On Augustinian assumptions, general declension is evidenced by degeneration from the so-called “Fall” to the flood, by idolatry in Canaan and Egypt, abject apostasy in Israel during the period of the kings, spiritual backsliding after the exile in Babylon, general stubbornness in reaction to the ministry of the prophets and even to that of Christ himself (Acts 7:51-53), and the pervasive corruption of mankind as outlined by Paul in Romans 1 and Ephesians 4:17-19. (5* See Packer, p. 149.)

So while science, or at least scientism, seems to want evolution without creation, the church apparently wants creation without evolution yet opts instead for devolution. (6* In relation to this see my Romans 8:18-25.) In the Bible, however, the evidence in favour of evolution, or at least teleology or perfection (maturation, completeness), would appear to be overwhelming as I shall seek to show below. (7* See, for example, my Perfection.) The only real question is the nature of this evolution and, given certain boundary marks like the exclusion of naturalism, only science with its knowledge of genetics, DNA, etc., can give us the answer in detail.

Before going further, however, it is vitally important for us to bear in mind not only cosmological dualism (earth and heaven) but also anthropological dualism (flesh and spirit). If the latter is true and man is both flesh and spirit, he evolves both physically and spiritually. But more on this below.

So, what then can be adduced as evidence for evolution in the Bible? Let us begin at the beginning.

 

The Physical Beginning

After the creation of the earth out of water (Gen. 1:2,6,9, cf. 2 Pet. 3:5) Adam is said to have been derived from it (Gen. 2:7) along with animals (flesh) in general (Gen. 2:19, cf. Eccl. 3:18-20) in accordance with the word of God. This prompts the question of his condition. On the assumption of recapitulation, if we take our cue from David in Psalm 139:15 the suggestion is that he was initially formed in the depths of the earth (cf. Job 4:17-19; 10:8f.; 2 Cor. 4:7; 5:1) as we are later formed in our seed-bearing fathers’ loins (Heb. 7:10). When we recognize that the same thing is said of great David’s greater Son, the Second Adam and incarnate Word (Eph. 4:9), we are in a position to conclude by logical deduction or parity of reasoning that Adam was first created not fully formed or mature as traditional church dogma has led us to believe but as seed subject to growth (Mt. 13:3-8; Mark 4:28, cf. John 12:24). As such, like David his son at a later date (Ps. 139:13), he (Adam) was then transferred as seed to the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8,15), the racial antitype of a woman’s womb (cf. Ezek. 28:13-15; 31:2-9). (8* Paul apparently sees reproduction as following the pattern of creation in 1 Corinthians 11:1-12. Just as God placed Adam as seed to gestate and grow in the Garden of Eden, so the individual man Adam, who was the image and glory of God, transferred his seed to gestate in Eve’s womb, cf. John 12:24. She thus became the mother of all human beings who are universally born of woman.) Similarly, Jesus himself, as the second Adam and son of the first (Luke 3:38) was made in his image (Gen. 5:1-3; Heb. 2:14). As such he gestated in the womb of a woman who was also dust since she derived from Adam (Gen. 2:21-23, cf. 1 Cor. 15:47-49). He was thus formed as a fetus and underwent embryonic development prior to his birth (Luke 1:35; Gal. 4:4, cf. Eccl. 11:5; Jer. 1:5). (9* Canonical reflection on this clearly undermines the traditional ideas, first, that Adam was righteous, holy and perfect at creation which even the sinless second Adam was not, and, second, that the days of Genesis were literal 24-hour days.)

On the assumption of recapitulation (10* By recapitulation I mean that the individual recapitulates the history of the race or that the individual is the race in miniature, or, again, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. See my I Believe in Recapitulation, Recapitulation in Outline.), however, we are forced to recognize that Adam differed somewhat from his seed-bearing offspring who, though still dust as deriving from him (Ps. 78:39; 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47-49), do not literally begin in the ground (Gen. 1:11 passim). Adam himself, however, clearly went through an animal experience during which he knew neither good nor evil even to physical adulthood. Alternatively expressed, in contrast with babies as we know them today, during the early history of the race man did not acquire the image of God as one who had understanding of the commandment (cf. Ps. 32:9; 119:34, etc.) until he was physically mature (Gen. 2:16f.; 3:5,22). Or again we might say that like a baby at the start he did not understand the minimal negative commandment, that is, the word ‘no’, until he had already acquired physical maturity. How do we know this?

There are various indications in Genesis and elsewhere. First, initially he knew neither good nor evil. (11* As with all animals, this would have been true both physically and morally. See further my Nature Red in Tooth and Claw.) Second, though like a fleshly animal he was unconscious of the fact, he had acquired Eve as a companion (Gen. 2:18,21-23) and with her he was able to produce other offspring in his own image (Gen. 5:1-3). Third, in Genesis 3:16 Eve’s pain on giving birth is said to be increased, but if she had never had offspring before, this was impossible and mathematically absurd since 10×0 = 0. Thus, we are forced to infer that as a mother she had initially given birth like an animal, that is, unconsciously and hence relatively painlessly. In other words, the suggestion here is that mankind went through a baby-like transition from being merely animal (flesh) to conscious human being made in the image of God, as Paul apparently recognized (1 Cor. 15:46). If man, as epitomized in Adam, was eventually able to sin, he must have had knowledge of the commandment apart from which sin does not exist (Rom. 4:15; 7:8, etc.). This being so, he must have gradually become conscious (gained knowledge) of pain and of good and evil in a way that he had never experienced before. Fourth, this is further borne out by Genesis 3:17-19 on which the traditional notion of cosmic curse is based. What these verses really teach is that having become a conscious human being made in the image of God (cf. Gen. 3:22a), rather than merely functioning like an animal and foraging or living off the land, as it were (cf. Gen. 2:16), he now had to till the ground he had as man been called to exercise dominion over (Gen. 1:26-28). His idyllic animal or baby-like life in the Garden of Eden, the womb of mankind, was now transcended and he had to work his passage, something to which both exiled Cain and rebellious Lamech were obviously averse (Gen. 4:12-14 and 5:29). After all, mutatis mutandis (making the necessary adjustments) we ourselves all go through a similar experience as we develop and mature. Repetition or recapitulation is basic to human life as was recognized in the early church (cf. Heb. 2:10-18) even if sin is avoided (Heb. 4:15). Fifth, it is worth making the point here that until he acquired understanding of the commandment, man had no more history than an animal or a baby has. The fact is that where there is no knowledge of good and evil, there is no conscious experience to record. Only the modern scientist or paleontologist can produce convincing evidence of death apart from moral evil prior to the arrival of self-consciousness. But the Bible itself, as Genesis 1:1 to go no further implies, teaches that death is a natural  characteristic of the physical creation which was subjected to corruption from the start (Rom. 8:20, cf. Heb. 1:11). Since this is so, the creature that stems from it is also. Only Jesus ever overcame it (John 16:33) because he alone met its precondition (Lev. 18:5). So, the fundamentalist assumption, usually based on a misunderstanding of the import of Romans 6:23 that there was no death prior to Adam’s sin, is false.

 

The Cosmic Curse

It is at this point that the so-called ‘cosmic’ curse raises its head and demands answers. According to tradition, creation remains under the curse brought about by Adam’s sin to this 21st century day in November 2015. But is this a viable proposition? There are powerful, in fact, incontrovertible biblical reasons for rejecting this idea. First, the putative ‘cosmic’ curse is clearly brought to an end by the covenant with Noah (Gen. 8:21; Isa. 54:9f.) which guarantees the general fertility and productivity of the ‘good’ creation (Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 10:26,30; 1 Tim. 4:3f.) to the end of this age (Gen. 8:22; Luke 17:27f.). Despite minor curses that feature in reaction to minor sins alongside blessings (Heb. 2:2, cf. Lev. 26; Dt. 28, etc.), the covenant with Noah stands firm and is not rescinded (cf. Acts 14:17; 17:27; etc.). Next, in Romans 8:18-25 (cf. Heb. 1:10-12) where sin is not mentioned, Paul apparently pictures the physical creation as having been subjected to futility in the purpose of God from the start (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16f.). It was made that way. Why? Because the Creator has something better in view which Paul refers to as an invisible hope (Rom. 8:18,20,24f.). Obviously recognizing that whatever has a beginning (Gen. 1:1) also has an end (Gen. 8:22; Dt. 11:21; Heb. 1:11), Paul tells us that all that is visible is by nature temporary (2 Cor. 4:18). Elsewhere we learn that whatever is “made by hand” (Gk. cheiropoietos) even by God the Creator must be regarded pejoratively since it stands in direct contrast with what is “not made by hand” (Heb. 9:11,24, etc.). At this point it is useful to compare Mark 14:58 (which refers to the destruction of the physical temple) and 2 Corinthians 5:1 (which refers to the human body of flesh) which, though created by God, Peter like Paul dismisses as a tent (2 Pet. 1:13f.). Clearly, if this fleshly body which derives from the ground is corruptible by nature (cf. Job 4:19; 10:8f.; 2 Cor. 4:7), it follows inexorably that the ground itself is likewise. And this is precisely what the Bible teaches (e.g. Mt. 24:35; Heb. 1:10-12; 12:26-29; 2 Pet. 3:5-12). Without going into more detail here (12* See further my Manufactured Or Not So), we can safely draw the conclusion that historically the church has confused divinely instigated natural corruption apart from sin with curse on account of sin. An appalling consequence of this is that many argue even in the 21st century that the temporary visible creation (2 Cor. 4:18) is subject to redemption because its evident corruption is deemed to stem not from the intention and purpose of God but from sin. If at this point it is complained that apart from sin there is no death (Rom. 6:23), it must be promptly replied that Adam, who derived from the corruptible earth and so was naturally mortal and corruptible, was promised life if, and only if, he kept the commandment (Gen. 2:16f.; Lev. 18:5). When he failed, he earned the wages of death like Paul, for example, at a later date (Rom. 7:9f.). It is at this point that we see the difference between the two Adams: though the second was the son of the first (Luke 3:38), and created in his image (Gen. 5:1-3), he did not sin. As indicated above, this difference is implicitly pinpointed in Hebrews 2:14-18 and made certain by Hebrews 4:15.

 

The Nature of the Adamic Curse

However, the temporary curse that Adam brought on the ground is indisputable and it culminated in the flood that threatened to destroy the earth. So, the question we have to answer is: What did that curse involve? What do we understand by it? If we bear in mind that man’s (Adam’s) original call was to exercise dominion over the earth and gain perspective from the idea of recapitulation, we can make some convincing inferences. First, Adam’s ejection from Eden, the womb of the race, needs to be seen as his birth. Though comparable with our own birth, it differed significantly in that it occurred when he was physically adult. If as suggested above he had gestated and developed as an animal among animals (cf. even Jesus in his infancy in the stable), his transition from mere animal (flesh) to human (made in the image of God) (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46), would have been traumatic. Outside the womb (Eden) he had to fend for himself and work for a living, something he seemed like Cain (Gen. 4) and Lamech (Gen. 5) disinclined to do. In other words, during the infancy of the race exercise of dominion over the earth was minimal and, given modern knowledge of their part in the ecology, little better than that of animals. After all, infants as we know them today don’t work at all for three simple reasons: (1) they cannot; (2) since they do not know the law (commandment) and hence neither good nor evil, they are still lacking in self-consciousness, and (3) in contrast with Adam but like Jesus, the second Adam, they have parents to care for them. So far as they are concerned, the difficulties involved in exercising dominion do not begin until like obedient Noah they are able to recognize rainbows, appreciate their significance and so have the divine guarantee of success. Prior to this, there is conspicuously no covenant and until recently infant mortality was rife. (13* See my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation? and Nature Red in Tooth and Claw.) My conclusion is then that untilled ground like that of the sluggard in Proverbs 24:30-34 and God’s own vineyard in Isaiah 5:1-7 is desolate, fruitless like the temple (Mt. 23:38) and the fig tree (Mt. 21:19-22). In other words, it is cursed (cf. Mark 11:21). At a later stage in the evolution of man when it is expected to produce a harvest of faithful souls committed to its Creator (cf. 2 Sam. 23:6; Isa. 5:7; 7:23-25; 9:18; 10:17; 27:4; 32:13), it is fit only for burning (Heb. 6:7f.). And this is the predicted end of the present creation (Luke 17:28f.; Heb. 12:27-29; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12) and of faithless men (Mt. 3:12; 13:42; 22:7; 2 Th. 1:8; 2:8, etc.) who like Ezekiel’s vine wood (Ezek. 15:4) are useless (John 15:6). (14* See also my Cosmic Curse?, Supplement to ‘Cosmic Curse?’, Understanding the Curse, Observations on The Curse.)

 

Intellectual and Spiritual Evolution After Noah

The covenant with Noah was made when he was already fully developed physically (he had a family) as Adam and Eve had been. On that level, however, like all flesh as an individual he was subject by divine decree to aging, decline and death. From this we infer that normal human physical development, like that of all animals which also follows the pattern of the transient creation, leads to natural corruption or aging (Heb. 1:11; 8:13). At this point it should be emphasized that even the sinless Jesus who was also born of woman and was dust got older and would have died naturally had he not kept the law which was the divine precondition of eternal life. (15* See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.)  Despite physical maturity (or perfection), Noah, though ‘blameless’ in his generation (Gen. 6:9) was far from being perfect intellectually, morally, culturally, technologically, economically and spiritually. It was only after the inauguration of the covenant with Noah by which success on the earth was guaranteed that mankind as a whole continued on its evolutionary career towards maturity. Noah’s obedience, like that of Abraham later, gave it impetus and man began to spread throughout the earth (Gen. 10). Despite the Tower of Babel episode when man in true humanistic fashion sought to take matters into his own hands apart from reliance on God, that is, build his own earthly utopia, God in pursuit of his own purpose made a covenant with Abraham promising him that he would become a blessing to the entire world (Gen. 12:1-3). This was clearly a first step away from universal heathenism (=childhood). This being so, Abraham’s faith and obedience eventually led to both the establishment not merely of a new covenant of law under Moses but also to the formation of a new nation and a new dispensation in addition to that of Noah which continued to function (cf. Gal. 3:17). Though it was later supplemented and expanded by the kingship and covenant promises made to David, it remained under the law, and there it has remained to this day. In fact, the nation of Israel, despite its vicissitudes, is still prominent on our horizon in the 21st century, testament to the enduring faithfulness of the God who called it into being (cf. Rom. 9-11). In the meantime, before this occurred, the rest of mankind, the Gentiles, was confined to general revelation under Noah and, though aware of God (Rom. 1:19-21), wallowed in heathen superstition like children (cf. Eph. 4:14). To overcome this, greater revelation was necessary and this was provided under Moses after long years in heathen Egypt. It was the God-given law of Moses that made the elect people of God no longer slaves but servants (Lev. 25:42,55, cf. Gal. 4:1-4). This action on God’s part set them apart from the rest of the world (Ps. 147:20), for the law became a wall of separation, a dividing line, recapitulated in the individual, between childhood and adolescence.  This in itself, partly on account of Israel’s own misunderstanding and rebellion, often became a significant stumbling block to the heathen (Rom. 2:24). While it was clearly meant to counteract the gross immorality and idolatry that characterized the universally pagan world that surrounded the Israelites, the law abjectly failed to change the Jews let alone the world they were intended to bless (Gen. 12:2f.; Isa. 42:6; 49:6). What was wrong?

 

The Inadequacy of the Law

The influence of God’s law given through Moses was meant to be felt universally (cf. Dt. 4:35,39) but the elect nation itself, though called to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19:5f.), made painfully slow progress being weaned away from heathenism, as the book of Judges amply demonstrates. Part of the problem was ignorance and lack of communication. Sometimes even priests did not know the law as in the time of the Judges (2:10; 2 Chr. 15:3, cf. Ezra 7:10,25; Neh. 8:1-12; 9:3). (16* Compare the Middle Ages during the Christian dispensation. The discerning reader will probably realize that in line with the recapitulatory nature of history my point here is that after general Hellenisation and Judaisation, complete Christianisation is always a goal to be achieved. Both the race and the individual graduate through heathenism (childhood) under Noah, and through Judaism (adolescence, cf. Gal. 3:24f., KJV) under the school master, to Christianity, or perfection, that is, maturity.) Even under the kingship of David and Solomon, the intention was that all the peoples of the earth should know God’s name (1 K. 8:43,60, cf. 18:39), but it did not happen. Why? As Paul was well aware the elect people of God themselves have proved wayward and, imprisoned under law (Gal. 3:19-24), they have failed to attain to the end or objective to which the law pointed (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:25-29).

The plain truth is that the law was incapable of bringing to perfection the people who lived under it. There were two reasons for this: first, no one could keep it (1 K. 8:46; Jer. 31:32, etc.), but, second, even if they could, the law like creation itself was inherently defective and, as the author of Hebrews in particular well recognized (Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7), it was incapable of enabling the people attain to the perfection which was the goal of life (Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; Mt. 5:48; 19:21; 1 Cor. 14:20; Phil. 3:12-15; Heb. 5:9; 6:1; 7:26,28, etc.). Even Jesus had to fulfill all righteousness above and beyond the law (Mt. 3:15, cf. Mt. 5:20).

 

The Need

Since the law, though keeping it is the precondition of life (Lev. 18:5, etc.), was inherently incapable of bringing human beings created in the image of God to perfection, the evolution of man was stymied. It simply ended in the death which characterizes the entire animal world. So, as we have seen above, while physical evolution in accordance with the pattern of creation was fully achieved (cf. Gen. 1:31-2:2), spiritual evolution or eternal or real life proved to be beyond the capability of ordinary man. H.W.Robinson once claimed that regeneration was the normal and “natural” completion of what was begun at our first birth (p.327) but since man was unable to keep the law, he simply could not take the next step and thereby bring the first birth to completion. In this situation, God himself had to act by means of a new covenant and a new creation (John 1:13; 3:1-8; 2 Cor. 5:17). If he was to be true to his word to Adam (Gen. 2:16f.), that evolution or perfection had to be achieved by man, but there was no man capable of achieving it. So again in accordance with his own word to Isaiah that he alone would be man’s Saviour (Isa. 45:22), God came into the world as the Word made flesh and accomplished what had proved beyond the capacity of all others. From this we are forced to infer that naturalism is a dead end. Left to himself man is lost.

 

A New Creature

So while the physical evolution of both the individual and the race is regularly though not universally accomplished, it inevitably terminates in death. This is verified, as has already been intimated, by the entire animal world which as flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). However, since Jesus, the second Adam, kept the law, he thereby broke the barrier and fulfilled the promise originally made to Adam (Gen. 2:16f., cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.). Thus, as spiritually born again himself at his baptism, he was able by his freely given physical death to inaugurate a new and eternal covenant which made a new or spiritual creation possible for all who put their trust in him (2 Cor. 5:17).

 

The Perfection of Jesus

It is vital to note, however, that the new birth itself is subject to development (cf. note 16 above).  Though it is possible to argue that once we are saved we are always saved, growth or progressive spiritual sanctification is fundamental to the perfection which is our goal (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 6:1, etc.). Of this Paul was well aware both with regard to himself (e.g. Phil. 3:12-15) and to his children in the faith (Eph. 4:11-16). But it is the perfection of Jesus which is of prime importance. While tradition has underlined his ‘sinless perfection’ as a static attribute, the author of Hebrews in particular stresses the fact that he was progressively or dynamically perfected (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28, etc.) until he achieved as man the perfection of God (Mt. 5:48; 19:17,21; 28:18). Thus, at his exaltation transformation, he was seated at God’s right hand (Heb. 8:1) from where he will eventually return on the clouds of heaven (Mt. 26:64) to judge (2 Thes. 1:6-8) and to save (John 14:3; Heb. 9:28). To clarify, we must recognize that Jesus as man, the sinless second Adam, ascended from earth to heaven, evolving under God from dust, to animal, to child, to adolescent, to adult as our pioneer or trail blazer (Heb. 2:10; 12:2 NRSV). In other words, evolution defined minimally as development is absolutely fundamental to humanity and is far from being a problem to a truly biblical theology. (17* On this, see briefly my Thoughts On ‘Adam, The Fall And Original Sin.) And B.B.Warfield, who apparently did not fully appreciate the significance of his own contention, was unmistakably correct when he pointed out that Christ’s development as man has proved to be the only normal human development known to man (pp.158-166). (18* See further my Epitome – Jesus The Epitome Of Recapitulation.) But what is also of equal importance is that it is not merely a ‘natural’ process but a God-ordained one. With God creation, like procreation, is necessarily followed by evolution, development, growth towards maturity, and without it the plan of salvation is necessarily aborted as was threatened at the flood.  As for the rest of us, as redeemed sinners under the leading of the Spirit we follow or recapitulate the experience of Jesus and like him are finally seated at God’s right hand (2 Cor. 4:14; Rev. 3:21). It is as his brothers (and sisters) that we finally attain to glory, an impossibility apart from him (Heb. 2:10-13; 11:40, cf. Rev. 6:11; 14:13).

So while naturalistic evolution ends in oblivion, divinely engineered and controlled evolution carries us into heaven and eternal life in the presence of God. There we shall prove to be more than conquerors (Rom. 8:31-39).

 

Conclusion

If my contentions above are justified, we must wonder why the church has gone so badly astray in the past. The answer is, of course, that following Augustine of Hippo it has operated with a false worldview. Like a person doing a jigsaw puzzle, it has sought to fit the pieces into a false framework with disastrous results. The truth is that traditional dogmas like original perfection, holiness, righteousness, sin, fall and cosmic curse are all gross distortions of what the Bible really teaches. The only real quarrel that the church should have with science is over the latter’s commitment to naturalism. Evolution itself, admittedly requiring definition and clarification by genuine scientific and theological enquiry, is simply not a problem for those who read the word of God with an open mind. After all, as a well-known book affirmed in its very title some years ago, all truth is God’s truth. And the truth of evolution accomplished in the providence of God is no more in question than creation itself. The two are indissolubly linked. If we have any doubts, we have only to reckon with our own individual pilgrimage from babyhood to adulthood, both physical and spiritual. It reflects or recapitulates that of the race. (19* Compare my Creation and / or Evolution.)

 

Our Evolution in Summary

If our physical evolution can be summed up as a journey from apeman to spaceman (as physicist Professor Brian Cox of TV fame would express it) or, more fundamentally, from the womb to the tomb, our spiritual evolution or perfection is one which begins with conception and new birth (cf. 1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12f.; 1 Pet. 1:23; 2:2; 1 John 3:9) and ends with the crown of life (James 1:12; Rev. 2:10), of righteousness (2 Tim. 4:8) and of glory (1 Pet. 5:4). Viewed holistically, as believers who reach maturity (perfection) we undergo a pilgrimage progressing from ground to glory, from earth to heaven, from dust to destiny, from Eden to eternity, from Egypt (this world) to the heavenly Promised Land (Heb. 11:13-16), from the temporal terrestrial to the eternal celestial city (Heb. 13:14), from the earthly Garden (Eden) to the heavenly paradise (the Father’s house, John 14:2f., or bosom, John 1:18; Rev. 22), from distance to presence (Acts 2:39; Eph. 2:17-22), from darkness to light, and from blindness (John 1:18) to the vision of God (John 17:24; Rev. 22:4). As a race (cf. Rom. 1-3) we graduate from earthly bondage to heavenly sonship (Rom. 8:21. Regrettably, this verse is usually mistranslated on the basis of the traditional assumption of a cosmic curse stemming from the sin of Adam. It clearly refers to the ‘creature’ not the ‘creation’, though the Greek word is the same. See e.g. my Romans 8:18-25 in Brief.), (20* Note how the Israelites ceased to be slaves when they left Egypt, became servants, Lev. 25:42,55, and were collectively regarded as a son, Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1; Jer. 31:9. Both true individual and corporate sonship were eventually attained through faith in Jesus who was the true vine, John 15.), and, as individuals, we follow or recapitulate its pattern on the road to glory (Rom. 7-8; Gal. 4:1-7). In a word Jesus, the trail-blazing individual is the epitome of the community and he, having begun in the ground as born of woman, now sits at God’s right hand in heaven (Eph. 4:9f.; Gal. 4:1-7) but certainly not as flesh (1 Cor. 15:50). Despite his death which in any case was vicarious, he ascended as a sinless Adam and hence a conqueror (John 16:33; Rev. 3:21; 5:5; 17:14) to the glory he was promised at the beginning (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:16f.; Lev. 18:5; Ps. 8:4-6; Rom. 2:7.10; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:6-9). So, needless to add, we believers are glorified with him as those who, conformed to his image (2 Cor. 3:18; Rom. 8:29), recapitulate the journey he has pioneered (Rom. 8:30; John 17:24, cf. Heb. 6:19f.). In him alone we are all fully perfected, our corporate, corporeal and spiritual evolution complete (Phil. 3:20f.; Rom. 8:31-39; Rev. 7:9).

I conclude then that Darwin, far from being the grand discoverer of evolution though to him must be given the credit for its scientific appreciation, was pre-empted long before 1859 by the Bible. Not for nothing is God regarded as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last (Rev. 1:8). But understanding of the Bible was cataclysmically obfuscated by the imposition on it of the false Augustinian worldview which remains a powerful agent of ecclesiastical confusion to this very day in 2015. (21* On this see for example my Topsy-Turvy Theology.)

 

Note on Devolution

While the Bible’s main concern is with man’s ascent, there is also a concomitant descent or degenerarion. Some who give themselves to evil are perfected in the image of the devil (John 8:44, cf. Gen. 15:16; Ezek. 13; 1 Thes. 2:16; Rev. 13), not that of God. And it is with the devil that they reach their final destination (Rev. 21:8; 22:15) and achieve their final destiny (Rev. 22:11). They are also likened to animals which achieve physical devoid of spiritual maturation (2 Pet. 2:12-22; Jude 10-23).

 

Food for Thought

On the assumption of recapitulation:

Creation without evolution is like procreation without development.

Creation without evolution is like procreation stillborn.

Creation without covenant is like procreation without a future. It is intrinsically futile and doomed to destruction as at the time of the flood.
Since creation is accomplished by a purposeful God (Isa. 14:26f.; 44:24-28; 46:10) who has a plan of salvation in mind (Heb. 6:17-20, cf. Rev. 4:8-11; 5:9-14), it implies evolution by its very nature. Earth was created to be inhabited (Gen. 1; Ps. 8; Isa. 45:18). Once creation has produced its harvest of ripened wheat, it will be destroyed (Mt. 3:12; 13:30; Heb. 6:7f.; 12:27-29, etc.).

Evolution fulfils creation.

 

For further clarification of aspects of the above see my Fruitlessness and Destruction, Biblical Dualism, Worldview, The Biblical Worldview, Correspondences, Death and Corruption, Death Before Genesis 3; Creation Corruptible By Nature, The Journey of Jesus, The Human Pilgrimage from Ground to Glory, Augustine: Asset or Liability?, Animal Rights.

 

Human Evolution Tabulated:

Creation/dust

Seed/gestation/fetus/animal flesh

Birth/baby /infant

Child (baptized into Noah, cf. 1 Pet. 3:20)

Adolescent (baptized into Moses, cf. 1 Cor. 10:2)

Adult/regeneration (baptized into Christ, Mt 3:13-17)

Sanctification/perfection (Heb. 11:39f.)

Physical death/transformation/resurrection/spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44; 2 Cor. 5:1, cf. Phil. 3:21)

Glorification (Rom. 8:30) and session in the presence of God (Rev. 3:21; cf. 7:9).

 

____________________________________________________________

 

References

Edgar Andrews, Who Made God?, Darlington, 2009.

J.I.Packer, ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God, London, 1958.

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

B.B.Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings, ed. Meeter, Nutley, 1970.

 

________________________________________________________

 

Three Creations

 

1. Initial creation.

The first creation is that of mankind. He is formed by God in the ground (mother earth) (Gen. 2:7, cf. Ps. 139:15f.; Eph. 4:9) and is dust (Job 10:9; Ps. 78:39; 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47a). So it is as seed that he is transferred to the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8,15), the womb of the race (cf. Ps. 139:13) to gestate and develop physically. When he reaches physical maturity and learns like a baby to understand the commandment promising (eternal) life (Gen. 2:17), he breaks it and is ‘born’ by being ejected from the Garden (womb) to begin his ‘infancy’ in a harsh and intractable world subjected by God to corruption (Rom. 8:20, cf. Heb. 1:11). Apart from Abel’s and Enoch’s faith (Heb. 11:4f.), little progress is made under the curse until God makes a covenant with faithful and obedient Noah. From then on success is guaranteed until the plan of salvation is complete (Gen. 8:22).

(On the curse see my Cosmic Curse?, Supplement to ‘Cosmic Curse?’, Understanding the Curse, Observations on The Curse.)

 

2. Physical procreation (recapitulates creation).

The second creation is that of the modern individual. He (she) begins in the loins of his fertile father (Gen. 1:11; Heb. 7:10), is transferred to the womb of his equally fertile mother (Gen. 3:15, cf. 1 Cor. 11:7f.) and, after gestation, is born a baby who knows neither good nor evil (Dt. 1:39; Rom. 7:9f.; 9:11, etc.). Once at the end of infancy when the animal phase of his life nears completion and he understands the trans-generational commandment (cf. Prov. 1:8-10; 2:1-15; 4:10; 6:20), he begins his pilgrimage to glory depending less and less on his parents whose experience he largely recapitulates and whose ‘history’ (culture, etc.) he largely inherits (cf. Ps. 51:5 ESV. Contrary to the NIV, according to the Septuagint Psalm 51:5 should read: I was brought forth in iniquities (pl.) and in sins (pl.) my mother conceived me. The Jews and the Orthodox do not believe in original sin. See my Thoughts on Adam, the Fall and Original Sin.) Along with physical there is mental development as in Jesus’ case (Luke 2:40-52). Thus Jesus like Israel before him developed from seed (cf. Ps. 80:8f.) and was nurtured in the womb through birth, infancy, heathen childhood in Egypt to servanthood under the law (Lev. 25:42,55.  Note also Ezekiel 16, Hos. 11:1.) This led in turn to baptism and spiritual birth (Mt. 3:13-17). All this is summarized by Paul in Galatians 4:1-7.

 

3. Spiritual creation.

The third creation is the new creation or regeneration (2 Cor. 5:17). As Jesus taught in John 3, man must be born again or from above in order to gain eternal life. Though supernaturally achieved, it is a ‘natural’ creation in that its indispensable precondition is fulfillment of the law (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5). (See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities. However, since sin is universal, no one apart from Jesus, God’s own incarnate Son, could keep it and as a consequence all must by faith in him accept his righteousness (Phil. 3:9, etc.) in order to be saved.

Like our physical birth our new or spiritual birth begins with seed (John 1:13; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9, cf. Gal. 4:19). Thus the baby Christian is first fed milk (1 Pet. 2:2), then meat as it grows to maturity ((Heb. 5:12-14, cf. Gen. 9:3). In this way believers become the first fruits of the harvest (James 1:18, cf. Rom. 8:22; Rev. 4:4).

 

Evolution/Development

It should be noted that all three of these creations begin as seed and are succeeded by growth, development, evolution and ultimate maturation or perfection. Above all, it is vital for us to note that Jesus as man was like all the rest of us created imperfect (cf. Heb. 10:5), that is, immature but was finally fully perfected (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). He thus regained the glory that he had laid aside at his incarnation (John 17:5).

 

Corporeal Transformation

Our bodily transformation is not referred to as a creation though it is as intrinsically necessary as our new birth (1 Cor. 15:53). Whereas at our initial creation we are first flesh then spirit (1 Cor. 15:46), in the second as Christians we are first spirit then body (but certainly not flesh, 1 Cor. 15:50, cf. Gal. 3:1-3). In other words, our spiritual regeneration (John 3:7) is necessarily succeeded by our bodily transformation (1 Cor. 15:53).

Did Jesus Perform Miracles?

 

What a question! The reader might regard it as absurd and reply that Jesus routinely performed miracles or, as John has it, signs. One of the evident differences between Jesus and John the Baptist, the greatest of the OT prophets (Mt. 11:11) and a burning and shining light (John 5:35), is that the latter by contrast is said not to have performed any (John 10:41). However, there is more to the question than might initially appear obvious. For it may well be asked how a man who was genuinely human flesh and blood could possibly walk on water and calm storms? (1* I am assuming that Jesus’ incarnation was genuine and that he was truly human and not docetic.) I myself and doubtless the reader would have to admit to a distinct lack of capacity at this point though Jesus did once point out that faith can remove a mountain (Mark 11:22, cf. 1 Cor. 13:2). So how could Jesus as a real man possibly perform miracles?

 

The OT Prophets

First we must recognize the fact that he was not unique. Some of his miracles were repetitions or rather recapitulations of miracles done in the OT, the feeding of the 5,000, for example (cf. Ex. 16; Ps. 78:19). Various OT prophets had worked wonders among the people to whom they ministered. Moses, Elijah and Elisha stand out in this regard. Despite this they were persecuted by some. Even Moses had his troubles and had to justify himself or rather be vindicated by God himself. The story of Miriam and Aaron’s revolt is a case in point (Num. 12). But it is important to note that the prophets were ordinary flesh and blood like Elijah (James 5:17f.) yet, as prepared and sent by God (e.g, Jeremiah 1:5; James 5:10), they depended on him both for their message and occasional miracles. Was Jesus any different?

 

Jesus

Traditionally Jesus is regarded as exceptional because he has been deemed to be not merely an ordinary prophet, even though the one promised by Moses (Dt. 18:15-22), but God in the flesh. While this comment is formally true, it harbours a misconception. In general the church has held to the two-nature (Dyophysite) theory of Chalcedon, to the idea that when the Word became flesh as the Son of God born of woman he retained his divine nature. This notion is deeply suspect since it is a tacit if cryptic denial of the incarnation. For how can a genuine human being have at one and the same time two natures? If it is contended that he can, then he is inevitably docetic, not truly but only apparently man. (2* Here I have to agree with Harold O.J.Brown that conservative Protestantism is implicitly Apollinarian. In confessing Christ as God it finds it difficult to assert that Jesus was really man. As Brown says, the NT presents Jesus as a real man, not a divine being who simply reveals himself in human form, p.170. See further my Jesus the Man.) To overcome this problem it is necessary to point out that the Bible teaches that these natures were consecutive not contemporaneous. The eternal Word (3* It is important to stress this epithet or designation. Jesus is touted by widespread church tradition to be the eternal Son of God. This implicitly denies his original deity and equality with God as taught in John 1 and Philippians 2. See further my Still Docetic.) became flesh and as such, like Adam before him (Luke 3:38), was a genuinely human son of God like the rest of us (cf. Acts 17:28f.; Heb. 2:17). But whereas the first Adam was a created being who stemmed directly from the ground (Gen. 2:7), the second Adam enjoyed pre-existence in heaven as the eternal Word (John 1:1-18). He became man by his birth of a woman who as flesh was dust like Adam himself (Gen. 2:18-25; Ps. 78:39; 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47-49).

 

Jesus as God

Docetism is not the only problem that arises at this point. For, if Jesus retained his divine nature when he became a man, why did he fail like the Baptist (John 10:41) to perform miracles while he was still under the law? (4* The very idea that he had a divine nature while he was being tested under the law would seem to render his victory as man deeply suspect, cf. Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f. Moreover, it hardly accords with James’ denial that God as opposed to his incarnate Son could be subject to temptation, James 1:13. It appears to deny the genuineness of Jesus’ trials as a true man and militates against verses like Hebrews 4:15, cf. 2:14,17.) Why in other words did he begin to show his apparent miraculous abilities only after his baptism? The answer must lie in the purpose of God who intended to demonstrate, first, that Jesus uniquely kept the written law as a once-born or natural man in the flesh (Mt. 3:13-17) and, second, that he was enabled to overcome the world, the flesh and the devil (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.; 1 John 4:4f.) as twice-born or born again of the Spirit whom he had received without measure (John 3:34, cf. 1:32). In other words, once Jesus was born from above and was led by the Spirit he meticulously fulfilled all righteousness above and beyond the written law (Mt. 3:15). He always did what was pleasing to his Father who remained constantly with him (John 8:29) as he accomplished the work that he, that is, his Father gave him to do (John 17:4). This leads to the next point.

 

Jesus the Miracle Man?

Jesus strongly asserts that he always does what he sees the Father doing and that of himself he can do nothing (John 5:19,30, cf. 5:20; 9:33; 15:5). What does he mean? Surely he intends us to draw the conclusion that as a genuine human being he does not generate and depend on his own natural strength. After all, he himself taught that the flesh is weak (Mt. 26:41, cf. 2 Cor. 13:4) and even that it is unprofitable (John 6:63, cf. Rom. 7:18). Rather he relies totally on his Father in unbroken fellowship (cf. Heb. 5:7f.). Even while he is being arrested, far from using his putative inherent ability to resist, he asserts that he can call on his Father to send twelve legions of angels to rescue him (Mt. 26:53, cf. Luke 22:43). And his failure to come down from the cross when challenged to do so (Mt. 27:40-44) is rich in irony for the simple reason that Jesus was intent on fulfilling his Father’s will. Furthermore, it is noticeable that when he performs a miracle like that of raising Lazarus he prays believing in faith that his Father always hears him (John 11:41f.) and that his capability comes from him. But even before this he has already recognized that fact that Lazarus’ death is for the glory of God (John 11:4). So after a delay pregnant with significance (John 11:6), he eventually performs a remarkable miracle which in reality is a work of God through his instrumentality. (5* We might compare this with his own baptism by John. After all, John was merely the greatest of those born of woman, Mt. 11:11, the human instrument in what was plainly a divine action, Mt. 3:13-17. At this point the Baptist did indeed perform his one and only miracle.) This inference is confirmed by his comment in 5:36 where he states that his works are those that his Father has given him to complete. They provided the evidence on which his hearers should base their faith (John 10:38; 14:11). Denial of this seems to suggest that Jesus was a magician, a mere wonder-worker of whom tall stories were told.

 

Jesus the True Prophet

This line of thought may be pursued further for Jesus not only claims to do the works of God for which he is acknowledged by Nicodemus (John 3:2, cf. 9:16,33) but to speak the very words of God. (6* Cf. the ‘thus says the Lord’ of the OT prophets). In John 8:28 he says that he not only does nothing of his own accord but also that he speaks only as his Father has instructed him. In endorsement of this he asserts that the Father who sent him gave him a commandment about what to say and to speak (John 12:49f.). The importance of this is that just as he was a true, even the prophet (Dt. 18:18, cf. John 1:49), and was given his Father’s authority (cf. John 14:10; 17:8), so would those who followed him (cf. Eph. 2:20) and were led by the Spirit after his ascension (John 7:39; 16:13-15). (7* Paul, for example, was adamant that his gospel had been revealed to him by God, Gal. 1:12,16. Earlier, when Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, Jesus himself tells him that flesh and blood has not revealed this to him but his, that is, Jesus’ Father in heaven, Mt. 16:17.) Jesus did as the Father commanded him so that the world would know by both his works and words that he loved the Father (John 14:31) and was loved by him in return (John 5:20; 15:9; 17:23,26). In light of this, it is hardly surprising that in the NT Jesus does and says what God does and says. Thus, just as God’s word endures, so will his (Mt. 24:35) for the simple reason that they are one and the same. Jesus and his Father are one (John 10:30).

 

The Resurrection of Jesus

Writers in general usually acknowledge the fact that it was God the Father who raised Jesus from the dead. After all, it is extremely difficult to conceive of a dead man doing anything. However, in John 10:17f. (cf. 2:19-21) Jesus appears to imply that he has the personal power to raise his body. So, does this give the lie to my contention that he divested himself of his divine nature during the period of his incarnation not to say permanently?  Hardly! On the assumption that John has faithfully recorded his words Jesus is careful to insist not that he has natural independent power but that he has divine authority for his resurrection. As Carson, for example, indicates the stress here is on command and obedience (p.389). Jesus will rise again because the Father has ordained it. It is intrinsic to his plan.

 

Forgiveness of Sins

Again it might be argued that when Jesus forgave sins, the Jews’ contention that only God has that prerogative was correct. Therefore Jesus was God. He was indeed, that is precisely who he was, but that does not warrant the inference that he still retained his divine nature while he was incarnate any more than it warrants the inference that I shall cease to be human without my flesh and blood in heaven (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50). If he did not change his nature as Paul says (Phil. 2:5-7), he was not a true human being and man’s salvation has not been gained in the manner planned from eternity, that is, first by law-keeping and second by redemption. As both Genesis and Hebrews in particular show, the promise of human salvation was by way of the law (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5; Mt. 19:17). It was Jesus the man in the flesh who uniquely kept the commandment/law (Rom. 8:3), gained (eternal) life and opened up the gate of heaven for the rest of us by freely offering himself as a sacrifice for our sins. In contrast with all others, as God’s regenerate Son he was personally free and therefore had something to give (cf. Mt. 17:26b). In the event he gave himself, his very own flesh and blood (cf. Eph. 1:7). But this was all for the glory of God in fulfillment of his eternal plan of redemption (cf. Rev. 13:8).

 

Jesus and Power

But this prompts another thought. Rather than exhibiting divine power while he was still in the flesh, Jesus is portrayed as achieving it or being granted it by his Father (John 5:26; 6:57; 17:2). It is only after he has conquered in the weakness of his flesh and been vindicated by his resurrection from the dead that he is able to say that all power in heaven and earth has been given to him (Mt. 28:18, cf. 11:27; Rom. 1:4; 1 Pet. 3:22, etc.). Clearly, it is as man that this is the case (cf. Heb. 1:4) and it is as man that he regains the glory that he had before the foundation of the world (John 17:5,24).

If he really was God the Word who changed his nature and became incarnate, how did he achieve this? The answer is that he relied totally on his Father with whom his relationship was never disrupted (Mt. 3:17, cf. Heb. 5:7f.).  Thus he was empowered (John 1:32; 3:34; 6:27b) to accomplish what for the rest of us has proved impossible because we have all in contrast with Jesus (1 Pet. 2:22) committed sins. Sinners are disqualified since they come short of the glory of God. If they cannot gain their own salvation, how can they accomplish that of others? But Jesus though initially God the Word who shared the nature of God, in the flesh becomes not God but the exact image and likeness of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). And it is as man, having attained to the likeness of God and received his generic nature that he exercises all the powers of his Father.

 

Conclusion

So, to answer the question posed at the beginning of this essay, I maintain that Jesus’ miracles were acts of God performed through him. (8* This may be compared with the so-called Acts of the Apostles which followed Jesus’ own ministry. A.J.Thompson rightly in my view claims that the apostles’ acts were really the acts of the risen Lord Jesus and he entitles his fine book accordingly.) No mere wonder-worker could have done what he did as Nicodemus and others realized. All who were willing to allow the evidence of both his works and his words were bound to recognize that he was the man sent by God to be the one mediator between God and man. The same remains true today. Believers are not blind but people who respond to the evidence presented to them. They exercise their faith on the basis of the evidence not against it. Indeed, the evidence is such that disbelievers have a great deal to contend with. Little wonder that so many simply try to ignore it. However, they are in dire danger of making a liar of the God who testified so extravagantly to his Son and set his seal on him (John 6:27). And it is on this basis that they will be condemned if they persist in their rejection (cf. John 5:42-46). What we think of Jesus is a question that all rational people must face (Mt. 22:42, cf. 16:13,15). If he was not God in the flesh, who was he?

 

Note

It is not without significance that we are told that it was God who kept Jesus hidden from general view after his resurrection (Acts 10:41, cf. John 14:21). In other words, there is no need to think of Jesus as performing miracles when he appeared to his disciples but remained hidden from others (John 20:29, cf. Luke 24:13-34).

_____________________________________________

 

References

Harold.O.J.Brown, Heresies, New York, 1984.

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

A.J.Thompson, The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus, Nottingham/Downers Grove, 2011.

Job And Romans 8:18-25

 

In my Romans 8:18-25 and Romans 8:18-25 In Brief I have argued that God of express purpose subjected the material creation he had ‘made by hand’ (1* Gk cheiropoietos which has pejorative overtones in the OT. See my Manufactured Or Not So.) to the futility of corruption quite apart from sin in hope of the age to come. In other words, I reject outright the traditional Augustinian idea that an originally perfect creation is now fallen, ‘imperfect’, intractable, hostile, recalcitrant and hence labouring under a cosmic curse as a consequence of Adam’s sin. Rather I contend that it is ‘evil’ by nature or by divine intention (cf. Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17; Gal. 1:4; James 1:2-4; 1 Pet. 1:6f.; 4:12;  Rev. 2:10).

Of course, this in itself requires explanation. Like many others I have always tended to think that when it is taught in Genesis that Adam and Eve like babies in the Garden knew neither good nor evil that the point at issue is moral. However, there is ample reason to think that the term ‘good and evil’ is ambiguous: it refers not merely to morals but to what is natural. After all, as I have suggested in my Nature Red in Tooth and Claw, to be ignorant like a baby of the law, which defines the difference between moral good and evil, is also to be ignorant of natural good and evil. While it is obvious that babies (cf. Dt. 1:39, etc.) and animals alike feel and re-act to pain, it is more than questionable whether they actually know it as adult men and women who are characterized by intelligent self-consciousness do. To illustrate this point we have only to contrast the conscious pain a human mother experiences in childbirth and the apparently unconscious pain that a baby must feel as it is born. But if babies like animals are unconscious of pain, so they are of the natural good and evil by which the world outside the womb is characterized.

If we accept on the assumption of recapitulation (on which see my articles) that the Garden of Eden is the womb, or cradle which is a kind of extension of the womb, of mankind the race, the place where initially Adam and Eve, after being taken out of the ground as seed (Gen. 2:8,15), gestated and dwelt in ignorant baby-like  bliss, then their ‘birth’ or expulsion from the Garden once they gained the knowledge necessary to break the commandment was doubtless a traumatic experience introducing them to the harsh and hostile world outside (cf. Job 5:7; Jer. 20:18). It is one that mutatis mutandis Paul experienced and recapitulated as a child when the commandment dawned on his developing mind (Rom. 7:9f.). And if it is true of Paul, it is doubtless true of the rest of us including the Lord Jesus himself, though he did not break the commandment. (2* The mutatis mutandis or making the necessary changes is important. Adam and Eve are portrayed as physically adult. This suggests that conscious intelligence came to them late by our standards.) It would seem then that the physical development or evolution of our first parents took place long before they gained the knowledge implied by and intrinsic to the image of God (cf. Job 32:8; 35:11; Ps. 32:9). This is precisely the point made by Paul who tells us in his discourse on the body in 1 Corinthians 15 that the natural (flesh) precedes the spiritual (15:46). To express the point another way, prior to their gaining or developing understanding of the commandment Adam and Eve, who were doubtless corporate personalities or archetypal and representative human beings according to the flesh, had fleshly or pre-adamic forebears who  like babies knew neither good nor evil in either sense. In other words, there is no need whatever, as biblical fundamentalists would have us believe, to infer that our first parents were created full grown in one literal day. Rather they developed like babies who recapitulate mutatis mutandis their experience in miniature to this day. The picture we gain from Scripture is far from that painted for us by Augustine. It is one where the development of man from ground to glory (cf. John 3:13; Eph. 4:9f.) is planned and ordained by the Creator, not from initial perfection to fall, curse and eventual restoration but from infant imperfection precisely with a view to ultimate perfection or complete maturity (cf. 1 Cor. 13:10f.; 14:20; Eph. 4:11-16) most signally achieved by Jesus (cf. Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). What Adam and Eve lost was not their original righteousness, which since they lacked all knowledge of law they could not possibly have had (Rom. 6:16; 1 John 3:7), but like babies their initial innocence. While so far as sinful Adam himself who had  enjoyed the bliss of the Garden of Eden was concerned, the harsh reality of the outside world into which he was thrust was a curse but, apart from Genesis 5:29 after the flood there is no more curse (Gen. 8:21, cf. 9:11) and hence no general or so-called ‘cosmic’ curse. On the contrary the earth is recognized as good (Ps. 24:1; 1 Tim. 4:3f., etc.). Curse (or rather curses like sins, pl.) comes only when we disobey the law (cf. Heb. 2:2) and refuse to work (exercise dominion over) the ground in accordance with the cultural mandate (Dt. 28:11f., 15-68; 30:15-20; Prov. 24:30-34, etc., cf. Rom. 2:7,9; 1 Pet. 17). The plain fact is that modern evolutionary science shed of its naturalism stands much closer to the biblical view than the church has traditionally done and unfortunately fails to do to this day (2014). And since babies lack phenomenal knowledge (cf. Job 38-41) and have no history, the six days of creation are clearly a convenient summary of prehistory into which modern scientists can peer in a way impossible to man in the process of emerging from his fleshly (animal) infancy. Indeed, early man was in even worse case than Noah for whom the entire world was from a phenomenological point of view at least covered by a flood.

 

Job

This brings us to the book of Job with its various problems. First, we need to bear in mind that it was written long before the Christian era. This being the case, Job’s understanding was somewhat limited old covenant not new covenant revelation (cf. John 3:31). However, the book makes it plain that Job himself was a good man (Job. 1:1) who was subject to much suffering. While we the readers are ‘in the know’ since we are specifically informed that Job was being tested and proved by God who considered him righteous (Job 1:8), Job himself was entirely ignorant of the fact (cf. 7:17f.; 10:2f.). While his comforters, like Augustine much later, were all convinced that he was reaping what he had sown and that his pain was directly related to, even caused by his sin, Job though not pretending to be sinless (cf. Job 13:23-26) was convinced that having maintained his basic integrity before God (2:3; 27:5f.) his suffering was out of all proportion to his desert, indeed apparently not directly related to it.

 

Both Good and Evil Come from God

It was not that he was entirely unaware of the ways of God. In 2:10 for example, he makes it plain that he realizes that his Creator can send both (natural) good and evil and that both should be received in a spirit of humility and acceptance (cf. 1:21). He would doubtless have received with equanimity Jesus contention that God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall indiscriminately on the morally good and evil alike (Mt. 5:45). This suggests that Job does not believe that man’s problems stem from what Andersen calls a fictitious depravity (p.148) like original sin (p.66) but from the nature of the world in which he lives (Job 5:6f.; Eccl. 2:23) including his own weakness and transience (14:1), an intractable, difficult and even hostile environment (Job. 7:1) and from man’s moral disorientation leading to his lack of understanding on the other (12:23-25). But such is his own personal pain that he is even prepared to remonstrate with God somewhat as Moses and Jeremiah did (cf. Job 3 and Jer. 20:14-18). Why has God created him if he is apparently going to destroy him (10:3,8f.)? Despite all his suffering Job retains his belief that he will one day see God in his flesh (sic! 19:25-27, cf. Ps. 71:20). (Taken literally this appears to contradict the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:50 but we know what he means. We who are the recipients of greater revelation accept that his conviction is justified. And Job would doubtless be loath to deny that all the things that God works according to the counsel of his will, Eph. 1:11, work for the good of those who love God, Rom. 8:28, despite what he says in Job 9:22-24, cf. Eccl. 9:1-3).

In the end of course, God acknowledges that while his comforters are in the wrong, Job himself is basically in the right. What Job has done, however, is to darken counsel by words without knowledge (38:2). He has failed to recognize in the words of Isaiah that God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts and his ways higher than our ways (55:9). So Job confesses God’s greatness, his own limited knowledge, his relative insignificance and his failure to speak appropriately (40:4f.; 42:2-6).

 

Romans 8:18-25

If this is a true representation of Job’s position, how does it square with Paul’s asseveration in Romans 8 that God has himself subjected creation to futility and corruption quite apart from the exacerbating factor of sin? Surely it supports it to the hilt.

First the biblical evidence other than that provided by Job that creation is indeed corruptible and problematic by nature is quite extensive. For a start, man is called to exercise dominion over it and if he fails, it becomes desolate as at the time of the exile (cf. Isa. 51:1-3; Ezek. 36:33-36). Psalm 102:3,25-27, Isaiah 34:4, 40:6-8, 51:6,8 and 54:10 to go no further supply relevant information. But if the earth is intrinsically corruptible and readily, even spontaneously, lapses into dereliction even when it is properly superintended, so is man who derives from it. Thus it is no surprise to learn that Scripture teaches explicitly that man and beast alike are susceptible to corruption (Ps. 49:12,20; Eccl. 3:18-20). Since they derive from a corruptible creation (Heb. 1:11, etc.), one and all get older. Furthermore, even manna which was bread from heaven did not prevent death (John 6:49 contrast 6:50f.). Given information like this it would appear to follow that man suffers as a result and that all seems vanity (Eccl. 1:2, etc.). As a real human being even Jesus had to contend with creation’s inadequacy which involved him like his fellows in constant repetition (cf. John 4:13f., 6:27), not to mention his own physical fatigue, weakness, aging and mortality. Natural good and evil are divinely written into the created universe and are experienced by all.

 

Old Testament Teaching

But there is other teaching which indicates that the Creator God himself has determined nature’s vanity. Isaiah whose conception of God as sovereign is perhaps matched only by that depicted by Job does not hesitate to assert that it is God who creates both light and darkness, well-being and calamity (Isa. 45:7) Others like Amos who claims that disaster comes to a city because the Lord has done it (3:6, cf. Lam. 3:37f.) join in the chorus. Indeed, the God who urges obedience to the law for the good of the people (e.g. Dt. 4:40) is precisely the one who warns of trouble even from nature when disobedience is rampant (e.g. Lev. 26; Dt. 28). But as both Job and the Psalmist indicate trouble is not simply the result of sin any more than blessing is always the consequence of righteousness (see e.g. Pss. 71:20; 73:24f.; 90:10,14f.; 94:12-15; Eccles. 7:14f.; 8:14).

 

Job and Paul

In the NT careful scrutiny soon reveals that sin which is primarily an exacerbating factor is not the only, often not even the main source of trouble in this world. In Luke 13:1-5 it is not merely sinful assassins that wreak havoc but also corruptible towers which collapse naturally as they age and wear (cf. Col. 2:22). Jesus underlines the danger from what is symbolized by the latter when he tells his hearers to lay up for themselves treasure in heaven away from rust and moths as well as from thieves (Mt. 6:19-21; Luke 12:32-34). While Job had problems with lightning (the fire of God!), windstorms (Job 2:16,19) and skin sores, Paul on his missionary journeys had to contend with temperature fluctuations, sea storms and his thorn in the flesh (Acts 27; 2 Cor. 6:4ff.; 11:21-29; 12:7-10, etc. Note that things like these will not be a problem in the world to come, Rev. 7:16; 21:4,23-25; 22:3,5). Like the Israelites we all have to pass through the furnace of affliction and suffering on the way from Egypt through the wilderness of this world to the heavenly Promised Land (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1; 2:11; Heb. 11:10-16), not to mention possible even probable persecution (cf. Phil. 3:8-11). The constant tribulation of this entire present age not simply its end is the necessary and unavoidable prelude to the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22; Rev. 7:14.) At the end of the world as at the end of our human lives in the flesh much of the distress its inhabitants will experience will stem from corruptible and aging nature itself.  (3* According to Paul, the flesh, symbolized by Ishmael is in itself a persecutor, Gal. 4:29f., and fosters the war between flesh and spirit, Gal. 5:16f.) For what happens on a personal or microcosmic level will eventually happen on a macrocosmic level too (Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, Rev. 6:14, etc.).  People all over the earth will be caught as in a trap from which there will be no escape except through faith in a saving God (Luke 21:34-36; 1 Thes. 5:1-11, etc.). In other words, as human beings of any era we are vulnerable to both the physical death and corruption that characterize this world. Just as Jesus said that heaven and earth will pass away (Mt. 5:18; 24:35), so will we. We even use the expression ‘pass away’ as a euphemism for dying. (4* See further my Death and Corruption.) And in this situation only Christ Jesus who has uniquely brought immortality and incorruption to light can serve as our deliverer (2 Tim. 1:10, cf. 1 Cor. 15:53-55).

 

The Glory of God

But there is another category of evidence pointing to God-ordained ‘evil’ which we often miss because we are blinded by traditional ideas of original sin and curse. For example, many (sinless) animals are naturally blemished and inappropriate for sacrifice (e.g. Lev. 22:17-25). Sarah, like Hannah, is barren, but no where are we led to believe that this is on account of sin. Moses has speech problems, and the eunuch (Isa. 56, cf. Mt. 19:12) and the barren woman (Isa. 54:1) alike encounter uncooperative nature. But if we fail to draw appropriate conclusions from these, how do we re-act when Jesus refuses to countenance sin in the case of the congenitally  blind man and claims all is for the glory of God (John 9:2). The same point is made when Lazarus dies (John 11:4,40). While he was certainly a sinner, his first death was clearly no more related to his sin than Paul’s thorn in the flesh was. Obviously something more was afoot, and Paul’s claim that God works all things according to the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11) is supported by his further claim that all these things also work for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28). But this was made apparent as early as the book of Genesis by Joseph in Egypt (cf. Gen. 45:5,7; 50:20) who experienced  the seven ‘good’ and the seven ‘bad’ years which though integral to the plan of God had no connection with either sin or righteousness. Clearly it is incumbent on us to make the right inferences.

Various clues about creation’s subjection to corruption (decay) are given us throughout Scripture but perhaps the most important is the teaching about the unique saving power of God who will allow no one to steal his glory (Isaiah 42:8). Isaiah 45:21-25 lay the foundation of what is taught in the NT about salvation in Christ who achieved as man the perfection of God in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). He alone as a genuine man triumphed over the world (John 16:33), the flesh and the devil (John 14:30; Heb. 2:14f.). In contrast, all other men and women throughout history have failed to do any better than Adam and Eve did at the start; they have all proved incapable of exercising adequate dominion and of keeping the law and so have come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Gaining eternal life by keeping the commandments has proved beyond their capability (Rom. 9:31). This being the case, they have all to the very last one been shut up to salvation by Christ Jesus to the glory of God (Phil. 2:9-11, cf. Rom. 14:10-12). As Acts 4:12 underlines, it is by him who claimed that he alone was the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6) that we must be saved.

 

Conclusion

Even on the basis of this rather limited evidence we are surely entitled to draw the conclusion that, apart from sin, this world is a very uncertain and dangerous place in which to live out our fragile fleshly lives. The present age is an ‘evil’ age but one from which God from the beginning intended us to escape and transcend (Gal. 1:4) not by our own efforts but by giving us an invisible (Rom. 8:18-25), living (1 Pet. 1:3), penetrating (Heb. 6:19), better (Heb. 7:19), sure (Heb.11:1) and blessed hope (Tit. 2:11-14). (5* See my Escape.) In fact the promised age to come already exists and Jesus himself has returned to it to prepare a place for us (John 14:3; Heb. 9:28, cf. Eph. 6:9). God’s purpose has always been to test us (Gen. 2:16f.; 4:7; Dt. 8:2,16; Job 7:18; Heb. 12:3-17; James 1:2-4,12-15; 1 Pet. 1:6-9, etc.) with a view to finding us universally wanting but nonetheless to save us by perfecting us as his sons and daughters in Christ (Heb. 6:1; 12:14). His plan has ever been to make us his children, give us eternal life (1 John 2:25) and to glorify us in his own presence in heaven itself to the praise of his glorious grace (Eph. 1:3-6; 1 John 3:1-3). On the other hand, the subjection of the material creation to decay, far from indicating its redemption, signifies that it is destined for destruction. For this we may be profoundly grateful since despite its undeniable good, for most people on the earth it is the source of so much trouble (cf. Acts 14:22; Rev. 7:14). For all that both Job (13:15) and Habakkuk (3:17-19)  like the author of Ecclesiastes (8:12f.) were convinced that their hope lay in God himself. (6* See my The Destruction of the Material Creation, The Transience of Creation. Note that in chapters 21 and 22 of the book of Revelation the sea, death, mourning, weeping, pain, sun, moon, earthly temple, night, things unclean  and curse, all features of the first ‘evil’ world have passed away.) And we, who have fed on the word of God and not on bread alone like animals, will find our place among the throng that surrounds the throne of God (Rev. 7:9). We shall be gathered from the four winds throughout history (Mt. 24:31), and not one who has committed him or herself in faith no matter how minimal (Mt. 17:20, contrast 2 Thes. 3:2; 2 Pet. 3:3) will be missing (John 6:39f.; Rev. 7:9). What is more, all will be perfected together (Heb. 11:39f.), and the human race in its essence will be saved, a fitting bride for a glorious bridegroom. Gloria Soli Deo.

Finally, in case the point has been missed, it needs to be emphasized that while it is ever true that Jesus came into the world to save sinners, it is because sin prevents our escape from this ‘evil’ age (Gal. 1:4) which is in bondage to corruption by nature. But for Jesus’ resurrection and triumph over death, futility would reign undisputed and we would all be without hope in the world (1 Cor. 15:12-19).

 

Additional Observation

A study of Job’s enigmatic problems, which at the end of the day relate to the rest of us, surely supports the view that our received Augustinian tradition is false. In fact, ideas like original perfection, immortality, righteousness and holiness followed by original sin and cosmic curse necessitating the redemption of the material creation are myths manufactured by the church. It is church dogma not biblical doctrine that is in urgent need of demythologization. In the last analysis the Bible and modern science are not so far apart after all.

______________________________________________

Reference

F.L.Andersen, Job, Leicester, 1974.

Congenital Considerations

 

Contrary to our Augustinian tradition which assumes that practically all the problems we experience in this world stem from sin, fall and the so-called Adamic or cosmic curse, I have long argued at length that the main root of our difficulties is not sin, which is primarily an exacerbating factor, but the plan and purpose of God our Creator. According to even Jesus himself there are two ages (Luke 20:34-36), and the first is by divine design visible, pejorative and fundamentally different from the glorious age to come (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17). It is an age of testing (Acts 14:22; James 1:2-4,12-15; 1 Pet. 1:6f., cf. Rev. 2:10) where death and corruption are endemic. Since creation is visible, it is intrinsically temporary (2 Cor. 4:18) and intended ultimately to pass away (Mt. 5:18; 24:35; Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). Briefly, the temporal will give way to the eternal, earth will yield to heaven and the presence of God. If this is true, it is hardly surprising that congenital and associated problems are evident in Scripture, and sin with its wages of death is not one of them as we shall see.

First, it must be stressed that in contrast with the eternal God himself (Ps. 90:2; 93:1f.; Isa. 66:1) creation has a beginning and therefore an end (Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 34:4; 51:6,8; Heb. 1:10-12). This being the case it is inevitable that we, the offspring of Adam who stemmed from the earth as flesh and blood, also have both a beginning and an end or terminus. Biblically speaking, it is simply impossible for us who are created in the fleshly image of Adam (Gen. 5:1-3) to live forever. Even before he sinned, Adam’s natural mortality as flesh is made apparent by the somewhat cryptic promise of Genesis 2:17. According to Paul, God himself of express purpose subjected the entire creation to the futility of corruption (decay) from the start (Rom. 8:18-25). And if the creation is so subjected, it follows necessarily that we creatures of flesh and blood who derive from creation are similarly affected. In other words, it is a biblical axiom that the visible material is temporary (2 Cor. 4:18, cf. Mt. 6:19-21; Luke 12:32-34) and that our hope as those who are also made in the (spiritual) image of God is an invisible one (Rom. 8:24f.). The question is then: Does this harmonize with other teaching of Scripture? It is here that examination of other congenital matters requires attention.

 

OT Animals

In the OT, animals are used as sacrifices at God’s direction. They formed part of the divinely ordained worship (cf. Rom. 9:4). Though certain restrictions were imposed, they were also used for food and eaten with joy (e.g. Dt. 12:15-19). However, with regard to the point at issue, it needs to be carefully noted that only unblemished animals were to be used (cf. Ex. 12:5). Though Leviticus 21 and 22 refer repeatedly to these, it has to be conceded that they do not explicitly indicate whether congenital deficiencies as opposed to accidental ones are involved, though verses like Leviticus 21:18,20 and 22:22 (cf. Mal. 1:8) suggest that they are. If we have reservations on this score, however, we can allay them by noting not merely the promises made to barren women (Isa. 54:1) and eunuchs (Isa. 56:4f.) but also to Matthew 19:12 where Jesus refers to eunuchs who have been so from birth. To clarify the point, our Lord is saying that in a world that is divinely subjected to futility defects can be congenital. This leads us naturally to the next comment.

 

The Congenitally Blind Man

Many writers over the years have been troubled by the story of the congenitally blind man described in John 9. The problem arises because, as we have seen, it has been traditionally believed that congenital defectiveness is ultimately the result of sin, original sin in particular. (1* Augustine of Hippo whose influence over his successors has been pervasive misunderstood Genesis 1 where creation is said to be ‘good’ and assumed that it was originally perfect and subsequently marred by Adam’s sin. Not only did he posit fallen man but a fallen creation too. See further below.) But Jesus whose words are regarded as authoritative flatly denies that sin is involved. Indeed, he goes so far as to say that the man’s congenital blindness is so that the works of God might be displayed in him (John 9:3).  Again in John 11 he makes it clear that Lazarus’ death is not the wages of sin but for the glory of God (John 11:4). (If it is claimed that the devil is at work as in the case of the crippled woman, Luke 13:16, cf. Job 1-2, we need to remind ourselves that God is still sovereign and that the devil operates only by permission. In any case, Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil to the glory of God, 1 John 3:8, cf. Mt. 12:28f.)

So what does this imply? Surely that Paul’s contention in Romans 8:18-25 that creation has been subjected to futility by God himself irrespective of sin is correct (2* See my Job And Romans 8:18-25.). The plain truth is that the entire creation is for the glory of God (cf. Ps. 19; Rom. 1:20). It is a temporary phenomenon geared to producing a harvest of men and women conformed to the image of God in Christ (Rom. 8:29) whose purpose as his children is to worship him (John 4:22, cf. Rev. 4 & 5; 7:9-12). Even Jesus himself became man with a view to being fully perfected in his likeness (Heb. 1:3) but even he as man will be subjected so that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).

 

Suffering and Sin

But this implies something else, that is, that this world is a place where suffering (3* And arguably death, cf. Ps. 49:12,20; Eccles. 3:18-21.) are endemic even apart from sin as the book of Job and the life of Jesus amply illustrate.  At the very start, man is charged with exercising dominion over an intractable even recalcitrant creation – a hard task indeed as any farmer will acknowledge. (4* Cf. Lamech who begs for relief from painful toil, Gen. 5:29. For him the ground was cursed as it was for Adam who had lived in the naturally prolific Garden of Eden. When God made his covenant with Noah, however, he specifically denies that he will ever again curse the ground because of man, Gen. 8:21. On the assumption of recapitulation, the implication of this would seem to be that during infancy ample provision is made for him naturally. But then as he is ‘weaned’ there is a transition period when things get difficult. Later in life, creation’s natural, that is, God-ordained, futility makes its impression. But this is not a curse. See further my Romans 8:18-25.) Needless to say, he comes short of his calling. As flesh, that is, as part of creation himself, man is also required to keep the commandment or law which is the condition of eternal life (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5) but this in the event proves to be beyond his capability. While he is called to seek honour and glory (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5-8; Rom. 2:7,10), far from mastering the sin that is constantly crouching at his door (Gen. 4:7), he repeatedly gives way to temptation in violent contrast with Jesus who does not (Heb. 5:7, cf. 4:15). Only one sin is enough to ensure that he comes short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23; John 8:34; James 2:10). Thus not without reason does Paul tell us that it is only through tribulation that we shall enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22). James (1:2-4) and Peter (1 Pet. 1:6f.) and John (Rev. 2:10) tell the same story though in the latter the work of the devil is prominent. This of course should not surprise us for Jesus himself had to suffer in order to overcome the temptations of the flesh, the mind and the spirit (Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 5:7). In light of all this it is little wonder that only he, God’s unique Son purposely sent to redeem those under the law (Gal. 4:4), succeeded in triumphing in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.) and paving our way to heaven (Heb. 6:19f.; 10:19f.; 12:1f.).

 

Congenital Sin

According to church tradition which is denied by the Jews and the Orthodox, since the so-called fall of Adam and the cosmic curse that he brought on creation, man is born sinful and hence has a sinful nature by birth. (5* On Psalm 51:5 see additional note below.) The consequence of this is that he can achieve no good least of all save himself. His efforts are stymied from the start. The problem here is that Scripture defines sin as transgression of the law (James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4, etc.) and that where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15; 7:8). (6* Rom. 5:13, cf. 2:12, clearly relates, as verse 14 indicates, to Gentile sin apart from the law of Moses which was of the same sort as that of Adam against a specific commandment.) In light of this babies who are born in total ignorance are regarded as being innocent like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the womb of the race (cf. Rom. 9:11). Parents and their children are clearly and constantly differentiated (cf. Ps. 106:6; Dt. 24:16, etc.). While sinful parents earn the wages of sin in death as, for example, in the wilderness even though they are given manna or bread from heaven to eat (John 6:31,49), their innocent children (Dt. 1:39) arrive safely at the Promised Land. (Num. 14:3,31).

Of course, it may be countered that Isaiah 48:8 refers specifically to birth sin. In reply it must be stated that the metaphorical birth of Israel who sinned within sight of Mount Sinai (Ex. 32) was not literal like that of a baby completely devoid of knowledge of the law. Indeed, Israel had just received the law from God himself through his servant Moses, had even committed himself to obedience  (Ex.24:7) and was manifestly guilty as Moses made abundantly clear as he ‘broke’ the law and ground the golden calf to powder (Ex. 32:19f.).

 

Congenital Ignorance

This raises the question of ignorance. In the Bible it is always a mitigating factor. Jesus himself distinguishes between those with much light and those with little (e.g. Mt. 11:20-24). Even on the cross he pleads with his Father to forgive those who are doing something they do not fully understand. But total ignorance implies total mitigation. Thus the Augustinian idea long touted by some that babies that are not baptized go to hell is manifestly false. Indeed, the very idea that babies should be baptized at all is rendered entirely redundant by infantile ignorance. For where there is no law or knowledge there is neither sin (Rom. 4:15, etc.) nor righteousness (Rom. 2:13; 6:16). In any case baptism, which by definition involves repentance, faith and regeneration, requires knowledge of both sin and salvation. Whereas the Bible in principle distinguishes between culpable, relative and congenital ignorance, the church has over the millennia failed to do this. The plain fact is that where there is no knowledge there is no guilt as numerous examples like that of Abimelech which occurs as early as Genesis 20:4,6 indicates (7* Cf. also Pharaoh, Gen. 12:10-20, Jonathan, 1 Sam. 14:27, Ahimelech, 1 Sam. 22:15, Abigail, 1 Sam. 25:25, David, 2 Sam. 3:26,28,36f.). But even before that, the Bible makes it plain that Adam and Eve though physically adult were spiritually like babies in that they initially lacked knowledge of good and evil and so were regarded as innocent (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22) and certainly not righteous.

 

Romans 6:23

The Bible clearly teaches that the wages of sin is death. This is made plain in the death of Adam and Eve who suffered the consequences of their sin in the Garden. Paul tells us in Romans 5:12, a verse that in his ignorance of Greek Augustine massively misunderstood, that all died because all sinned. But at this point we encounter a problem. Why if there is no law there is no transgression do ignorant babies die? The traditional answer has been on account of the original sin of Adam either transmitted or imputed to all his posterity. This, however, is impossible for it is basic to the teaching of Scripture that children cannot be charged with the sins of parents (Dt. 24:16; Ezek. 18, etc.). Just as Jesus was born innocent (cf. Isa. 7:15f.) so are we (cf. Dt. 1:39, etc.). In light of this we are compelled to recognize that babies who are flesh die like animals not on account of sin but on account of the natural corruption of creation. In other words, we are all like Adam and Eve born both mortal and corruptible and as a result some whose life is not divinely maintained die irrespective of sin.

 

The Present Age

This brings us back to my thesis that the present age is a ‘manufactured’ age extrinsic to the eternal age or what is for us the age to come. Doubtless because of our received tradition, writers on biblical themes seem to have missed the point that what Scripture describes as being ‘made by hand’ (cheiropoietos) is qualitatively different from what is ‘not made by hand’ (acheiropoietos). (8* See my Manufactured Or Not So.)

 

Conclusion

The ultimate point to be made is that whatever is congenital, that is, associated with birth, is by that very fact inherently defective. (9* Here, the argument of Hebrews 7 is relevant. The author differentiates between the OT Aaronic priesthood and that of Melchisedek. The latter has no parental legacy for the simple reason that he has no parents! This I would argue puts paid to the traditional idea that Jesus was the eternal Son of God. In heaven, Jesus was the Word who was equal with, Phil 2:6, in fact, he was God, John 1:1. See my Still Docetic.) Only God himself is perfect and he has neither beginning nor end (Ps. 90:2; Isa. 43:10; 44:6; 57:15; 66:1f., cf. Heb. 7:3). Historically the church has confused the creation with the Creator by contending for the perfection of both and thereby failing to appreciate that the builder of the house has more honour than the house itself (Heb. 3:3). The idea that Adam was originally perfect and righteous is manifestly false. Since he was imperfect by nature, his calling was to perfection. Even the Lord Jesus as created flesh was defective as he himself implied in John 3:6 and 6:63, for example, and as Paul implied in his comments on the body in 1 Corinthians 15:42-53. Here the apostle without mention of sin differentiates between dust and spirit and insists on the impossibility of flesh (dust) inheriting the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). On the other hand, if Christ was merely a creature as Arius contended, he could never have become Lord to the glory of God (Phil 2:9-11). The truth that he was the Word of God made flesh is essential and unique to Christianity properly conceived. (10* The Ecclesiastical Christ, Still Docetic.)

 

Additional Notes

 

Psalm 51:5

Given its presuppositions it is less than surprising that the church in contrast with the Jews has criminally exploited Psalm 51:5. Its exegesis has had to dance to the tune of church dogma. Apart from the fact that this famous verse is often mistranslated (see, for example, NIV) assuming what needs to be proved, it can surely be interpreted in such a way as to exclude any reference to original sin as the Jews maintain. After all, we are all, including Jesus whose mother (not to mention his more distant ancestors referred to at the beginning of Matthew’s gospel) was obviously a sinner (pace Catholics) born of sinful parents and into a sinful world. (It is worth noting that in the LXX both iniquity and sin are plural.) If this is denied, we are forced to acknowledge in view of what Paul says in Romans 1:26f. that we are under an obligation, even under compulsion to sin by divine decree. To disobey our birth nature is sinful, in which case failure to sin would be sinful! But our birth nature may vary. Just as some animals are born blemished or physically defective, so are some humans like the congenitally blind man. What if after all some humans are naturally homosexual? Since I personally am strongly heterosexual, indulgence in homosexual acts would be sinful. But can the same be said of all? For some this may not be so.

 

Romans 6:23

It is still widely assumed that since death is said to be the wages of sin, all death is the result of sin. This of course is clearly false. Man as flesh like the animals is naturally mortal and corruptible as the entire creation amply testifies. Only as he breaks the law and thereby earns wages does his sin become the cause of his death (Rom. 3:23; 5:12, cf. 1 Cor. 15:56). Even Jesus as man was mortal, or he could not have died, and corruptible (subject to decay) or he would not have got older (Luke 2:42; 3:23, etc.) and needed transformation at his ascension. The point made in Scripture is that since he did not personally sin, he gained eternal life (cf. Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5). Moreover, he did not earn his own death but gave his (natural) life freely in atonement for his people (Acts 2:23f.).

Observations on The Curse

 

According to tradition this world is fallen and under a curse brought about by Adam’s sin (1* See, for example, Chris Wright, pp.198,395). However, there seem to be serious problems with this view as I have indicated in my Cosmic Curse?, Romans 8:18-25 and Romans 8:18-25 In Brief.

For a start, it is important to distinguish between a permanent cosmic curse and ordinary curses that follow on any infraction of law (cf. Heb. 2:2). Even a superficial examination of Scripture will reveal that the latter abound. Good examples are provided by Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. It should be noted, however, that in both of these books blessings appear alongside curses. On the assumption of a general cosmic curse the presence of blessings is difficult to explain, not to mention a Promised Land flowing with milk and honey (Ex. 3:8; Num. 13:27; Ezek. 20:6). At the very least they are viewed in violent contrast with curses in general. Indeed, they are usually presented as alternatives dependent on moral conduct (e.g. Dt. 11:26-28; 30:15-20; Jer. 21:8).

 

Paradise

First, the garden of Eden as portrayed in Genesis 2 and 3 is a place of blessing and remains so throughout scripture (Gen. 13:10; Isa. 51:3; Ezek. 28:13, cf. 31:8f.; Joel 2:3). It re-appears in enhanced form in Revelation 21-22 and provided we allow for the difference, we can readily regard salvation as involving paradise lost and paradise regained. But there is a wilderness in between.

 

Recapitulation

So far as the individual rather than the race is concerned, on the assumption of recapitulation the Garden of Eden appears to be the antitype of the womb which serves as a place of idyllic blessing. Both Job (ch. 3) and Jeremiah (20:14-18) who suffered much wished they had remained permanently in their mother’s womb. Whereas in Genesis 3 it is sin that causes Adam and Eve’s ejection from the womb or Garden to confront the harsh world outside, it is not necessarily so with his offspring. Was it so with the Lord Jesus who was also born of woman? In Job (5:6f.) Eliphaz claims that though trouble does not sprout from the ground, man is nonetheless born to trouble. His thesis is that sin is the problem but Job himself whom God has already declared to be righteous more accurately insists that man has to endure hard service on the earth (Job. 7:1) and that man who is born of woman is few of days and full of trouble even apart from sin (14:1, cf. 10:18; Eccl. 2:18-23). Could this not stem from the cultural mandate that required man to exercise dominion over the earth? After all, even the sinless Lord Jesus had to toil under the sun and experience hunger and thirst and other trials that characterize every-day human life. And Paul who was also the object of persecution had problems with nature quite unrelated to sin as passages like 2 Cor. 6:4-10 make plain. It is interesting to note that in the world to come the pains associated with the physical universe disappear. There the suffering, the curses and the afflictions are forgotten (cf. Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17).

 

The Law

After Genesis 8:21 there is no mention of the curse on the ground. Why? The impression gained is that the covenant with Noah spelt the end of it (cf. Isa. 54:9f.).  Clearly this covenant is a covenant of grace and blessing as all the covenants with man are. Even the heathen were blessed as Paul roundly told them in Acts 14 and 17. While the covenant of law with Moses led to curse if broken, it was clearly meant to be a blessing if kept (Dt. 5:33). It separated the Israelites from the heathen (cf. Rom. 3:2; 9:4) and it was intended to set the former above the latter (Dt. 28).  When it was kept as it was in Jesus’ case it proved a blessing of no small importance, for to him and those who followed him it was the gateway to life (Mt. 7:13, cf. Lev. 18:5).

 

The Promised Land

The Promised Land, like bountiful Egypt (Num. 11:5; 16:13) and Assyria (2 K. 18:32; Isa. 36:17), would surely have been impossible if a universal curse was in operation. Psalm 65:9-13 among other references makes it plain that God rewards obedience with blessing. Even more to the point, the pleasant land which resembled  Eden (Isa. 51:3) only became a desolation when the people rebelled and went their own way even into exile (Zech. 7:14, cf. Jer. 7:24,34). While the latter was punishment like a return to Egyptian slavery (Hos. 8:13), it was not permanent but involved eventual restoration to the Promised Land. (Jer. 29:10f.).

 

Romans 8:18-25

All this raises the question of the interpretation of Romans 8:18-25. After all 2 Cor. 4:17 clearly points to the fact that this age is an ‘evil’ age (cf. Gal. 1:4) which will pass away (Heb. 1:10-12). In other words, whatever is made ‘by hand’ (all created things) are by nature problematic for humankind. Adam’s sin reflected knowledge, for apart from law sin doesn’t exist (Rom. 4:15), but knowledge of good and evil is not just moral but natural. In the womb we know nothing (cf. Rom. 9:11). Even as infants we know nothing (Dt. 1:39) but when law, knowledge, sin and faith come, we become aware of creation including our own bodies (2* Clearly, the fleshly precursors of Eve who knew nothing did not know pain. If Eve was capable of transgression, she must have known the commandment (law), and if she knew the commandment she must have known pain, Gen. 3:16. See further my Nature Red in Tooth and Claw.) and its need to be controlled and subdued. A cosmic curse is quite unnecessary to explain many of its difficulties which include natural disasters. For this is a defective, ‘hand-made’ (cheiropoietos) and shakable world by nature even apart from sin as Hebrews 12:26-28 plainly shows. It will eventually pass away (Mt. 24:35), since that is the destiny for all created things (cf. Rom. 1:20 and Heb. 12:27). Its temporary nature was implied in the very first verse of the Bible, for a beginning implies an end in direct contrast to the eternal God who has neither (Ps. 102:27; Isa. 43:10; Heb. 7:3). For Paul all that is visible is temporary (2 Cor. 4:18), so that our hope of glory in necessarily an invisible one (Rom. 8:24f.).

 

The Covenant with Noah

So the question must be posed: why is there a covenant with Noah if there is a permanent universal curse in place? The truth is that the so-called cosmic curse is a temporary phenomenon. It culminates in the flood which is manifestly not intended to bring creation to a full end (Jer. 4:27; 5:10,18, cf. 30:11) or the salvation of all who were destined to follow it would be impossible (cf. Jer. 31:35-37; 33:19-26). By the grace of God the end is stayed until the plan of salvation is complete (cf. Luke 17:26-30). Only then does consuming fire do its work (cf. Heb. 12:25-29). In clarification of this we need to recognize that, first, creation is temporary and transient by nature; second, that we to the extent that we are fleshly human beings who are the products of creation need to escape (be rescued) from it (cf. Gal. 1:4), and, third, that its shakable and destructible nature exacerbated by sin will be used to punish the wicked. This is made especially clear in Luke 21, Hebrews, 2 Peter and Jude.

 

The Curse

But why was there a putative cosmic curse in any case at Adam’s exodus from the Garden of Eden if sin was not its cause? Certainly Adam (seen as an individual epitomizing mankind the race) is told that his sin will result in a (temporary) curse on the ground (Gen. 3:17) and by implication that his dominion will be difficult. Why? Why, we might further ask, Adam’s change of circumstance and indeed location or environment? If we see the idyllic Garden of Eden or paradise as the womb of the race, then we can make some convincing deductions. Outside of Eden (regarded as the womb of the race) we infer that life is difficult by divine design (cf. Gen 1:26-28). We know this from our own experience. For us, however, gestation and infancy occur in blissful ignorance. It is only as we develop the understanding of childhood that we become aware of problems and the difference between pain and pleasure or, as the Bible puts it, the difference between good and evil. Prior to that time we do not know these (Rom. 9:11, cf. Job 3; Jer. 20:14-18) either on the moral or physical level. But while all this may be plain in our own personal experience, what about the early chapters of Genesis where man is physically adult and cognizant to a degree, and the curse is prominent?

 

Cain

Let us look first at Cain. He is presented to us as the offspring of Adam and is traditionally regarded as sinful ‘in Adam’ at least according to a dubious inference from Genesis 5:1-3. The problem here is that sin like all moral qualities cannot be transferred (see e.g. Ezek. 18 pace believers in original sin!). Cain appears to sin for himself, that is, on his own account (cf. John 8:34; Rom. 7:9f.), but the question is: how? Since he was a worker of the ground (Gen. 4:2), his offering would surely appear to be in order or appropriate. His failure to figure in the roll of the faithful in Hebrews 11, however, suggests that his problem is his attitude or frame of mind – an important consideration in light of later scriptural teaching like Proverbs 15:8; 21:27; Isaiah 1:11,15, etc.

Once he has failed to master sin (4:7), murdered his brother Abel and polluted the earth with his blood (Num. 35:33) all of which reveal his character, his punishment involves his alienation not only from God but from the ground that he was called (Gen. 1:26-28) to work (4:11-13). But land that is not tilled or cultivated is inevitably a desolation and a wilderness (Isa. 6:11f., etc.) as it was during the exile later on in Israel’s history.

It is useful at this point to gain perspective. While Adam (mankind) lived in Eden knowing neither good nor evil, he clearly experienced an animal-like existence and lived off the land, so to speak (cf. Gen. 2:16). When like a child he eventually came to knowledge, that is, an understanding of the commandment and broke it, such a manner of living was no longer acceptable or even viable. As today, mankind has to work the resources of creation to attain the kind or style of life that befits our status as mature creatures made in the image of God. If he does not work, he does not eat (2 Thes. 3:10, cf. Gen. 3:19). To illustrate this we have merely to remind ourselves that initially man lived as a herbivore as a baby lives on milk. Only later as he developed did meat come on the menu (Gen. 9:3f., cf. Heb. 5:12-14). Nowadays we think of ourselves as being omnivores rather than merely carnivores.

In the circumstances it would be reasonable to conclude that Cain’s exile and failure to work led to territorial neglect or curse as when Adam left Eden. We also need to recognize that Cain belonged to the infancy of the race and infants in normal life are hardly noted for their industry. They rely on the nurture of their adult parents, but Cain’s parents though physically grown up were also infants on the spiritual level. Judging by Abel and Enoch who were also immature in understanding, they could offer little more than faith like children trusting their parents, as Hebrews 11:4-6 suggest. But faith according to the Bible brings the all-important righteousness.

 

Lamech

The Bible says little about Lamech. Genesis 4:23f. suggest that he is in the same mould as Cain but worse. Genesis 5:29, however, implies the second Lamech’s distinct aversion to work and he looks for eventual relief from Noah as we look to Christ. This being so, in light of the description of the sluggard in Proverbs 24:30-34 we can safely conclude that the curse he like Cain experiences stems from his failure to work the earth as he should. He simply illustrates the fact that untilled ground results in a wilderness or desolation (cf. e.g. Ezek. 36:26-36). That desolation remains unrelieved until obedient (Gen. 6:22; 7:5,9,16) and faithful (Heb. 11:7) Noah takes over. From his time on, by the grace of God the threat of another cataclysm is permanently removed (cf. Is. 54:9f.). But that does not mean, as Jesus himself indicates, that there is no threat at all. On the contrary, though the flood did not completely destroy the unproductive earth at the beginning because God chose to make a covenant of grace with Noah until his plan of salvation was fulfilled (Gen. 8:22), cosmic fire at the end will (Luke 17:26-30; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12).

This prompts the question of why. The answer seems to lie, first, in the fact that creation is by divine intention temporary and transient (Gen. 1; Mt. 24:35; 2 Cor. 4:18, etc.) and, second, that when it is untilled (as when it is uninhabited) it is useless. This requires further explanation. At the beginning, the earth was barren or under a curse because it was not worked. At the end, however, as Jesus clearly intimates in line with Genesis 8:22, while it will continue to produce food and drink, it will largely fail to produce its intended harvest of souls (cf. 2 Sam. 23:6f.; 2 Thes. 1:7-9; 2:7-11; 2 Tim. 3:1-9, etc.). As the author of Hebrews asserts, ground that is blessed but unproductive is fit only for burning (Heb. 6:7f., cf. Mt. 22:7). Jesus makes basically the same point in Luke 13:6-9 where the fig tree symbolizing the Jews is unfruitful (cf. Mt. 21:19; 7:19; Mark 11:13; Luke 3:9; 14:35; Isa. 5:1-7). The truth is that this world is meaningless apart from man made in the image of God.

 

A Transitory Creation

The reason why it is necessary for us to avoid laying up for ourselves treasures on earth to the exclusion of those in heaven is simply that the former are transitory (Mt. 6:19f.). As the secretary of the church of which I was a minister in Melbourne used to say: a shroud has no pockets. At the end of the day, neither flesh nor world is profitable (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18). Not without reason did Paul claim to have crucified both (Gal. 5:24; 6:14) and chosen to know Christ and the power of his resurrection (Phil 3:8-11).

 

Recapitulation

In the early church the idea of recapitulation, the belief that the experience of the individual re-enacted the history of the race, was, according to Kelly (pp. 170-174,187f.,376, etc.), quite widespread and not confined merely to Irenaeus of Lyons. However, when Augustine arrived on the scene and propounded his views, even Catholic writer Denis Minns admits that Irenaeus underwent an eclipse from which he has not yet recovered (see espec. pp.134ff.). However, if we accept the idea that the individual is in some sense the race in miniature, we can then begin to appreciate aspects of the early chapters of the Bible which are otherwise difficult to understand. Just as Jacob epitomized Israel, so did Jesus as the true vine (John 15). But we can go further. Jesus was man perfected in a way that no one else was and as the second Adam he epitomized the race. The author of Hebrews in particular stresses this. What Jesus did was to sum up mankind in himself (cf. Eph. 1:10 and note Phil. 3:12-14). Gregory Nazianzus is famous for saying that what has not been assumed cannot be healed. And that is why it was necessary for Jesus to become man. For he was not only perfected himself but having made universal atonement for our sins (1 John 2:2), he embodied our own perfection and thus opened up for us the door of heaven itself (John 14:3; Heb. 2:10f.; 5:9). Thus his prayer was that we should be with him to see his glory (John 17:24). And we can be sure that that prayer will eventually be answered. (3* For a brief summary of Irenaeus’ doctrine of recapitulation, see B.B.Warfield’s chapter on The Human Development of Jesus, ch. 22.)

 

See further my Epitome – Jesus The Epitome Of Recapitulation.

______________________________________________

References

J.N.D.Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, London, 1958.

Denis Minns OP, Irenaeus, London, 1994.

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

C.J.H.Wright, The Mission of God, Nottingham, 2006.