Author: Ken Stothard

Ascent

Years ago I read with great interest “The Ascent of Man”, first published in 1973 (BBC), by Jacob Bronowski. As a humanist he took the view that man ascended both biologically and culturally to his present point without divine aid. Though I had no quarrel with the notion of man’s ascent, I disagreed with the naturalism which underlay his view of evolution. However, many Christians deny the very idea of the ascent of man. They argue that man originally had, in the words of Milton, a “high estate” at his creation and lost it through the sin of Adam. The idea is that creation, including man, as the work of God was perfect from the beginning. Thus even today in 2008 Christian writers still talk of the “Fall”, of a fallen creation and of a cosmic curse, all of which seem to be conspicuous by their absence in the Bible. Behind their thinking lie the ideas of Augustine of Hippo, d. 430 AD, and his schema of creation, fall and redemption, which reflect his erroneous interpretation of the biblical evidence.

Perfectibility

Also a number of years ago I read John Passmore’s “The Perfectibility of Man”. This too I found very stimulating, but again I seem to recall that a Christian reviewer adopted the idea that perfectibility for man was out of the question since he had fallen “in Adam” and was born sinful! Apart from scriptural denial of this (see e.g. Dt. 1:39; Rom. 4:15, etc.), my problem here was that the Bible seems to have a good deal to say about perfection especially in the book of Hebrews. While it says on the one hand that Jesus was perfected (Heb. 2:10; 5:9), it implies on the other that the goal of all human beings is perfection (Heb. 6:1) or glory (2:10) in the presence of the God of glory whose moral and generic nature we are intended to share (Rom. 5:2; 2 Pet. 1:4) as his spiritual children (Eph. 1:5, etc.). On reflection this appears to be the objective set before Adam, his physical son (Luke 3:38), in Genesis 1 and 2 but which he failed to attain because he sinned. 

So what the Bible really appears to be saying is not that man is intrinsically unperfectible but that as one who is created both mortal and corruptible (Rom. 1:23) he always comes short of the glory of God by his own efforts (Rom. 3:23, cf. 8:3). Like Adam, but not “in Adam” which idea is an illegitimate addition to Scripture, he fails to keep the law (commandment) which promises escape if it is kept (Rom. 7:8-10), sins, and experiences death and decay (Gen. 3:17-19) in direct contrast with his immortal, incorruptible Creator (cf. Rom. 1:23). And since all men apart from Jesus sin (Rom. 5:12), they fail to meet God’s condition of life. Instead of ascending to heaven, to the presence of God as Jesus did, they all, Enoch and Elijah apart, lapse into the earth from which they came in the first place. Clearly Christian ideas of perfection and ascension require closer inspection.

Man in the Bible

According to the book of Genesis man, though created in the image of God, is born like the animals without knowledge of (the) law and of good and evil. However, he is implicitly challenged, first, to gain honour and glory by exercising dominion over creation (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5f.; Rom. 2:7,10) and, second, to keep the law (a single commandment in the first place for one who is to all intents and purposes a spiritual child) in order to gain life (Gen. 2:17). Adam is thus presented as the first man who fails and all his progeny like him (Gen. 3-5; Rom. 3:23; 5:12). However, in his grace and mercy God makes a covenant with Noah and thus obviates the destruction of the earth which has failed to produce its intended harvest (Gen. 6:11-13).

Covenant Theology

Regrettably, in the course of church history biblical covenant theology has been much misunderstood, but it is highly relevant to the theme of man’s maturation, perfection and ascent and/or descent. Properly appreciated it deals with man’s intrinsic development from innocent immaturity and to perfect adulthood. All babies who attain to knowledge and/or of law begin, like Adam and Eve, by learning to respond (negatively in the event) to their parental ‘no’. Like the race as a whole in its heathen stage, they share as they mature the blessings of the covenant with Noah (cf. Acts 14:16f.) which remains in permanent operation (cf. Gen. 8:21f.; Acts 14:17, etc.). Clearly this covenant provides the stage of man’s development whether good or evil. The fact was and is that man in his heathenism lacking adequate knowledge of God descends into ignominious sin, as Paul indicates especially in Romans 1:18-32 (cf. Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19). It is precisely because of this that God first made a covenant with Abraham (later expanded and supplemented by that with David) through whom he promised to bless the world (Gen. 12:1-3,7; Ps. 89:1-4, etc.). Then he made a covenant of law with Moses by means of which he set the standard of righteousness to which all his chosen people were urged to attain in order to gain life (Dt. 30:15-30, etc.). In the event, all this was apparently to no avail because, unbelief apart, no one was capable of keeping the law (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3; 143:2; Rom. 3:9,12, etc.). This is essentially the theme of Paul’s letter to the Galatians (see e.g. Thielman, pp.262-275).  In the end God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3) who, as Paul indicates (Gal. 4:4f.), perfectly recapitulated the covenant experiences of his forebears (cf. Mt. 2:15), kept the law, gained righteousness and life, inaugurated his own covenant by his death and achieved perfection (Mt. 3:15; 5:48; 19:21; John 19:30). As a result of this he ascended and took his seat at his Father’s right hand. All was done on behalf of those who were to believe in him so that by faith they too might achieve righteousness, perfection and ascent to heaven and the presence of God (Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18, etc.). In the famous words of Irenaeus, he became what we are so that we might become what he is.

It would seem then that the biblical covenants reach their climax and fulfillment in Christ who serves as the author and pioneer of the salvation of his people. (See further my Covenant Theology.)

The Perfection and Ascent of Jesus

Since the perfection and ascent of man have been basic to God’s plan from eternity, it is important at this point to focus on Jesus in more detail.

For a start we must recognize that Jesus, the Son of God, came into a world that had failed to produce what it was in principle intended to produce. (The difference between the preceptive, Mt. 5:48, and decretive, Rom. 11:32, will of God is important here.) In order to be the second Adam or the second representative man, he had like Adam and start from scratch (cf. Phil. 2:7). Biologically, like Adam he was fathered by God (Luke 3:38, cf. Ps. 139:15f.), underwent gestation in his mother’s womb (Ps. 139:13) and was created (Heb. 10:5) knowing neither good nor evil (Isa. 7:15f.). Clearly, as a developing infant, he did not like Adam break the paternal commandment to eat symbolically of the forbidden fruit. In contrast with his forebears (Jos. 24:2,14), he remained unscathed by sin during the heathen part of his life in Egypt and, as both a spiritual and physical son of Abraham, kept the law of Moses after his bar mitzvah (cf. Luke 2:40-52; Gal. 3:17-22). The result of this was that his Father acknowledged him as his true Son, a chip off the old block, so to speak, at his baptism. As one who had achieved righteousness by keeping the law, he was endowed with the Spirit and given the eternal life (regeneration) promised to (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.) but forfeited by Adam and the rest of his progeny. In other words, he pioneered what for us is the regenerate life here on earth (cf. Mt. 5-7) and proceeded to inaugurate the kingdom of God in his people by his death, resurrection and gift of the Spirit (John 7:39).

In view of the fact that as mortal, corruptible flesh it was necessary for him to leave this earth, that is, ascend to heaven as an individual (John 20:17) and be glorified at God’s right hand (Phil. 2:9-11; Rev. 3:21), it is here that his and apostolic teaching is of paramount importance.

The Teaching of John

First, it is made unmistakably clear that Jesus descended from the Father in heaven at his incarnation. John begins his gospel by underscoring Jesus’ pre-existence and divine nature (John 1:1-5, cf. Phil. 2:6f.). Then against this background he claims that the Word became flesh, dwelt with men as man (1:14, cf. Heb. 2:10-18) and made God known (1:18). Jesus himself is portrayed as teaching this. He insists on his descent from heaven and proclaims his eventual return there both implicitly and explicitly (John 3:13; 6:38,42,62; 5:30,37f.; 7:16,18,28f.,33-38; 8:14,16,18,23,26,38, 42, 55f.; 14:2f.,19,28; 15:15;  16:27f.; 17:5,24, etc.). Earlier Jesus had apparently seen himself as a bridge or ladder between heaven and earth (John 1:51) and this viewpoint is underscored by his claim that he is the way, the truth and the life (14:6). Clearly, he who had gained righteousness by keeping the law and gained eternal life (Lev. 18:5) was the paradigm of the spiritual birth (regeneration) of all who believed in him (cf. Heb. 2:11). And just as he eventually ascended into heaven after his death and resurrection, so would they (though the majority who died and suffered decay like David would do so by a somewhat different route, cf. Acts 2 and 13).

Luke and the Apostolic Writers

This testimony is not, however, confined to John. Luke describes Jesus’ ascension into heaven in both his gospel and at the start of Acts. In the latter, the outpouring of the Spirit, promised in John’s gospel on Jesus’ ascension (7:39), is graphically portrayed  (ch. 2,3,10, etc.). Again, Paul strongly asserts both the descent and ascent of Jesus in Ephesians 4:9f. He also insists that believers are sealed as Jesus himself was (John 3:34; 6:27) by the Spirit (Eph. 1:13; 4:30).  In other words, they are prepared as those who have  received spiritual birth (John 3:1-8) through faith in Christ to inherit the eternal life (John 3:16) impossible in mortal, corruptible flesh (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:1-8). While Paul has little to say about the original descent of Jesus at his incarnation (cf. Gal. 4:4; 1 Tim. 3:16), he implies his ascent when he announces his second descent from heaven at his coming in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Titus 2:13, for example. This time, however, Jesus comes in his divine glory (Luke 9:26) to rescue his people by raising them to heaven (1 Thes. 4:17, cf. John 14:3; 12:26) on the one hand, and to wreak vengeance on his enemies (2 Thes. 1:8; 2:8) on the other. (1* Note the typological lessons of history, e.g. the rescue of Noah and the drowning of his mockers in the flood; the rescue of Lot and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; and Moses’ rescue of his people from Egypt and the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea. Bearing Luke 17:28f. in mind, we might also recall the rescue from fire in Daniel 3.)  For Paul (2 Tim. 4:8), as for James (1:12), Peter (1:5:4,10, cf. 1:1:3f.) and John (Rev. 2:10), the goal of life is the prize of the heavenly call in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:14).

Hebrews

The author of Hebrews thinks similarly (cf. Heb. 3:1; 6:1). While he portrays Jesus, having dealt definitively with sin, as seated at the Father’s right hand and reflecting the radiance of his glory (1:3), he also portrays him as returning to rescue his people (Heb. 9:28). The implication of this is that we who have received a heavenly calling (3:1) will be with him in the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22-24; 13:14, cf. John 12:26; 14:2f.; 17:24; Rev. 3:21, etc.).

Conclusion

Of course, there is more evidence to appeal to, but on the basis of what has been outlined above we can conclude that the ascent and perfection of man were in the plan of God from the beginning, indeed, from before the foundation of the world (Mt. 25:34; Rom. 8:29f.; Eph. 1:4f.; 4:15!). Man who was uniquely created in the God’s image was always intended to achieve his likeness as his child (Rom. 8:12-17; 1 John 3:1-3). In the event, while Jesus served as our prime prophet on earth, he became our high priest and king at his ascension to heaven. And it is to his image that we are conformed (Rom. 8:29). We are led to believe that even now he sits on the throne of the universe (cf. Mt. 28:18) applying the redemption he achieved while on earth and putting his enemies under his feet in preparation for the grand finale involving the full tally of his people (Rev. 6:11; 7:9). Then, when all is accomplished, he will present his kingdom to God (1 Cor. 15:24-28), and the ascent of man will be complete.

In light of this certain things must be said. While naturalism must be rejected, biological, intellectual, cultural and spiritual evolution, or development, are facts of life inherent in the plan of salvation. What has a beginning must have an (eschatological) end or goal (cf. Phil. 1:6). While the temporal material creation serves the purpose of nurturing the growth of man to physical and spiritual maturity, it is in itself futile and corruptible (cf. Ecclesiastes, Heb. 1:10-12; 12:26-29; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12), understandably in the eyes of unbelievers the work of a blind watchmaker. But then we have to reckon with the fact of anthropological dualism. While as flesh man ascends briefly from the ground to physical maturity only to descend futilely to decay (or, alternatively expressed, progresses from the womb to death in the tomb) like the rest of the animal creation (cf. Eccl. 3:18-21; Ps. 49:12,20), as spirit he progresses from the image of God to his likeness in Christ (Rom. 8:29f.; 2 Cor. 3:18) and takes on his generic nature (2 Pet. 1:4) and glory (Phil. 3:21; John 17:5,24) as his spiritual children (Rom. 8:14-17; 1 John 3:1-3).

In the early 1960s Professor G.E.Ladd, a classical premillennialist, produced a highly influential book entitled “Jesus and the Kingdom”. Despite maintaining that salvation did not include all Israel but only a believing, purified, remnant (p.68), what the NT refers to as the spiritual seed of Abraham, he nonetheless maintained that the earth must share in God’s final redemption (p.56). The following essay represents a rather cursory attempt designed to show that even the somewhat ambivalent OT itself provides plenty of evidence militating against this view.

According to the OT God inhabits eternity in heaven (Isa. 57:15, cf. Ps. 11:4; 14:2); it is his throne. By contrast, earth is his footstool  (Isa. 66:1; Mt. 5:34f.). This clearly implies that it must eventually be completely subjected beneath his feet like the enemies of Joshua (10:24f.). As the NT Joshua and second Adam, Jesus executed the charge God gave to man at the beginning (Gen. 1:26-28); he exercised appropriate dominion and overcame the world (John 16:33). Though we do not yet see everything in subjection to him (Heb. 2:8), having been crowned with glory and honour at God’s right hand in heaven (Heb. 2:9), he is slowly completing the intended subjection (Ps. 110:1; 1 Cor. 15:24-28).   

Though made in the image of the eternal God, man as a son of Adam is flesh and derives from the earth. As such he is in the providence of God (Dt. 32:8; Acts 17:26) given temporal life and his allotted space (Ps. 74:17; Acts 17:26). As part of God’s temporal creation man is mortal and corruptible (Rom. 1:23) but is promised escape from death and corruption on condition of exercising dominion and keeping the commandment (Gen. 2:17). While this is never lost sight of in the OT (Lev. 18:5, etc.), the law, which promises life, never delivers because man cannot keep it. Man never succeeds in subjecting the earth to his dominion and he never wholly keeps the law. On the other hand the law is necessary to regulate human life on the earth until the end (Mt. 5:18). Thus, throughout his life on earth, when he falls into sin and repents or is sick or injured, man looks for healing or restoration to a previous condition (see e.g. 1 K. 13:6). Clearly, what is needed is something more permanent which the old covenant, lacking the revelation of Jesus, does not supply. For all that, though the teaching about life after (permanent) death is vague (cf. John 3:31f.), it does contain intimations of heavenly immortality or eternal life

Hoping in God

One of the hopes of the OT people of God is that God will dwell with them on the earth in what they see as the land of the living. Writers frequently wonder how in Sheol, the place of the departed, they who were created to glorify God (Ps. 102:18; Isa. 43:21, cf. 1 Cor. 10:31; Rom. 11:36) will praise him after death (Ps. 6:5; 30:9). Job has difficulty in understanding how the God who created him and is so clearly different from him (10:4f.) can so readily return him to the dust (10:8f.). It all seems so contradictory. For all that, he cannot fully accept that he is permanently separated from God even in death (cf. vv.12f.), and, groping for greater understanding like the OT saints in general (1 Pet. 1:10-12), he has the conviction that he will eventually see God (19:25f., cf. Ps. 17:15; 73:24). Occasionally, apart from the rest of the Promised Land which is inadequate (Heb. 3,4), prophets like Micah hope for better things when every man will sit in peace under his vine and under his fig tree and walk in the name of the Lord forever and ever (Mic. 4:3-5). Doubtless at bottom he trusts he will find his dwelling place and a refuge in God (Ps. 90:1), in the shadow of his wings as the title of Psalm 17 has it. Isaiah’s idyllic picture of the wolf living with the lamb and the lion eating straw like the ox points to or symbolizes heaven rather than earth where knowledge of God is universal (Isa. 11:6-9; 65:25, cf. John 17:3; 1 Cor. 13). Clearly here there will be no more death (cf. Rev. 21:4). Like Paul at a later date Isaiah was hoping for what is presently invisible (Rom. 8:24f.).   

The Prophets

Much aware of his weakness and vulnerability Moses craved God’s presence with him and the people he was leading in the wilderness (Ex. 33:12-16). The pillar of fire by night and the cloud by day were tokens of it. It is not therefore surprising that his successors required God’s presence on reaching the Promised Land (Jos. 1:5,9) when their mission was to oust and replace the wicked Canaanites. Later, the manifestation of God’s glory in the completed temple is one of the highlights of Scripture (1 K. 8). Later still, Isaiah and Micah in a noteworthy passage anticipate the streaming of the nations to Zion (2:2-4; Mic.4:1-3, cf. Isa. 25:6ff.; 27:12f.; 35:1-10; 62:10-12) and a worldwide extension of knowledge of Israel’s God (cf. Isa. 11:9; Hab. 2:14) involving even Egypt and Assyria (19:23f.).  In 25:6-9 Isaiah whose appreciation of the uniqueness and sovereignty of God is second to none makes so bold as predict blessing for all peoples and even the swallowing up of death and sorrow. And this expression of his faith is taken up in the NT (1 Cor. 15:54; Rev. 21:4). It hardly needs to be added that seen against this background exile and assumed separation from God is regarded as catastrophic. In the event, God himself is a sanctuary for his people even in a foreign land (cf. Ezek. 11:16). Though Abraham’s intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah pointed in that direction (Gen. 18:25), the only unequivocal teaching regarding final judgement and the separation of the good from the bad in the OT is to be found in Daniel 12:2. 

Eternal Life

As noted above, man was implicitly promised eternal life from the start (Gen. 2:17). Despite universal sin and the lack of clear teaching about heaven and God’s presence, OT believers nonetheless entertained hope even if they were prisoners of it (Zech. 9:12). In view of this, while intimations of heaven are sparse early in the Bible, they are certainly implied (see e.g. Gen. 5:21-24, Enoch, and 2 K. 2:1-12, Elijah). Apart from the obvious distinction between the eternal Creator and his temporal creation in Genesis 1 (cf. Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 40:6-8), the promises God makes to Abraham are highly instructive and are noted in the NT. The fact is that Abraham himself does not inherit the fullness of the promises in this world (cf. Acts 7:5; Rom. 4:16f.) and to that extent they appear to come short. In other words, since the blessings he was promised like the sure mercies of David (Isa. 55:3f., cf. Ps. 132:11f.; Acts 13:34) were received by faith and not by sight (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18; 5:7), they were spiritual not material, eternal not temporal and they would not be perfect(ed) till the end (Heb. 11:39f.). (1* Though, as believers, Caleb and Joshua did reach the physical Promised Land, not having seen it they received it earlier by faith and not by sight. Those who did not believe died in the wilderness. Moses of course, though a man of faith, was excluded on account of his disobedience.) This is underscored by the author of Hebrews who informs his readers on the one hand that Abraham obtained the promise (6:15, cf. 11:33) and on the other that along with others he did not. The paradox is resolved by the recognition that God had provided something better so that Abraham and all his believing children should be made perfect together (11:39f.) In light of this it is scarcely surprising that Jesus himself points out, first, that Abraham rejoiced that he would see his day (John 8:56) and, second, that he is still alive (Luke 20:37f.). Only those who live forever can inherit eternal blessings (cf. Ps. 89:1-4,29,36; Luke 1:32f.; 20:34-36; Acts 13:34) which in the nature of the case are heavenly. Thus Abraham the father of all who have faith looked for a heavenly city or country (Heb. 11: 10,16) and we his spiritual descendants do the same (Phil. 3:20; Heb. 12:22-24; 13:14, cf. 10:34).

Perhaps it was continual suffering, death and failure linked with an undying belief in national purpose as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation that helped to give rise to notions of heaven in the course of Jewish history. Thus Isaiah doubtless with teaching like 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 89 pictures a shoot coming from the stump of Jesse bringing judgment, righteousness and faithfulness on the one hand and an idyllic existence on the earth (Isa. 11:1-9). Later he depicts a return to Zion and a salvation which, though couched in earthly terms, clearly transcends the merely earthly (35).

This somewhat “unearthly” or rather non-earthly picture emerges in various OT passages.  The prophets frequently picture the nations streaming to Jerusalem (Isa. 2:2; 66:18-21; Mic. 4:1; Zech. 8:20-23) the city of the one true God who is the Creator of all the earth (Ps.96:5; Jer. 10:12; Isa. 45:12,18) in the latter days. But the Jerusalem in question is somewhat different from the present (cf. Isa. 62:6-9). Indeed, in Isaiah it eventually becomes Jerusalem in a new heavens and new earth  (Isa. 65:17-20, cf. 66:22f.). Thus the way is prepared for the new or heavenly Jerusalem of the NT referred to by Paul (Gal. 4:26), the author of Hebrews (12:22, cf. Phil. 3:20) and John (Rev. 3:12; 21:2,10).

Other intimations of heaven occur elsewhere in the OT, and it is difficult not to be powerfully impressed by some of them even though, not surprisingly since the revelation brought by Jesus was not yet available, they often retain a somewhat earthly or materialistic character. So while Zechariah 14:9 (cf. Hab. 2:14) states explicitly that the Lord will become king over all the earth other passages like Habakkuk 3:17-19 suggest that the earth itself is transcended. Its material pleasures are dwarfed by experience and enjoyment of God himself (cf. Ps. 16:11). While Amos 9:8 depicts the destruction of the sinful kingdom from the face of the earth, the house of Jacob will be preserved. A verse or two later, however, the emphasis falls on the restoration (a familiar OT theme) of the tent of David (9:11f.). In the NT this is clearly subject to transformation (Acts 15:16f.). For, as we have seen, the blessings of David, which are absorbed into the eternal throne of Jesus his Son, can only be enjoyed in heaven (cf. Acts 13:34). In Ezekiel 48:35 if the city described earlier may in some sense be regarded as earthly, it is transformed by the very presence of God himself. This in itself suggests its heavenly nature, and this is supported by the idea as old as Solomon that God is too great to dwell on the earth (1 K. 8:27, cf. Acts 7:49). In Joel, God’s people are said to dwell forever in Judah and Jerusalem, and their eternal character receives confirmation when it is said that the Lord dwells in Zion (3:14ff.). This is important in that it is taught early in the Bible that to see the invisible God on earth in the flesh is lethal but in the heavenly Jerusalem (Isa. 33:20f.), he will be seen in all his glory (Isa. 33:17; 66:18; Rev. 22, cf. John 17:24). 

While idols are said to be as ephemeral as the morning mist (Hos. 13:3, cf. Ex. 12:12; Num. 33:4), the redemption of Israel or Ephraim from Sheol and Death itself is clearly posited (Hos. 13:14, cf. 1 Cor. 15:54f.). In the next chapter the prophet teaches that their disloyalty will be healed and that they will dwell in surroundings not unlike Eden (14:4-7, cf. Isa. 11:6-9; Ezek. 36:33-36). But an earthly Eden like the rest of the Promised Land requires consummation in heaven for it to be of permanent value (cf. Heb. 3 & 4). The promise of being planted permanently on their land has the same implication (Amos 9:15).

Resurrection

While resurrections occur in the OT (e.g. 2 K. 4:32ff.), they are restorations to physical life on the earth like that of Lazarus (John 11). Nonetheless, they point to the significantly different or better resurrection to which the NT looks forward  (Heb. 11:35). The latter involves bodily replacement (Rom. 8:23) and eternal life in heaven in the presence of the glorified Jesus (John 17:5,24; Phil. 3:21). 

The resurrection of Ezekiel 37 may also be said to be graphically terrestrial, but it also points beyond itself to the final chapters of the book of Revelation. For Israel as a whole is said not only to be spiritually renewed but also to live in their land forever in an eternal sanctuary under the terms of an everlasting covenant of peace. What is more it is said to do so under the rule of David, their prince (37:24-28). Perhaps Obadiah had a somewhat similar idea in mind when he said that those who had been saved would go up Mount Zion to rule Mount Esau under the kingship of God himself (21).

The Day of the Lord

The Day of the Lord is mentioned frequently but contrary to the expectations of the Jews (cf. John 6:15), it is not primarily a day of vindication but of destruction (Isa. 13:5f.,19; 24: 33:14; Amos 5:18-20; Joel 1:15; 2:31; 3:14ff.. 29:23) in essence a repetition or recapitulation of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17: 29f., cf. 2 Pet. 2:6; 3:6-12). It nonetheless makes way for heaven itself as for example in Isaiah’s little apocalypse (Isa. 24-27), which pictures the return of the tribes of Israel from Egypt and Assyria (27:12f., cf. Jer. 23:3f., etc.). This symbolises God’s worldwide harvest of the true Israel (Israel restored) depicted in the NT at the return of Jesus (Mt. 24:31). In Haggai where the heavens and the earth are shaken the temple will be filled with a splendour greater than that of the former one (Hag. 2). This clearly leads to new heavens and new earth or heaven where God dwells in righteousness (2 P. 3:13, cf. Mt. 5:10,20; 6:10,33; Heb. 12:23). In the picture of heaven described in Revelation the throne is that of God and the Lamb (chs. 4 & 5) and they themselves mysteriously provide the habitat of the people in what may be termed a spiritual marriage relationship (Rev. 21:22-27, cf. Eph. 5:30-33).           

The Inheritance of the Levites

In light of all this the Levites’ immaterial inheritance under the old covenant is not so surprising (Num. 18:20; Dt. 10:9; 18:2; Jos. 13:14). God himself was to be their portion (cf. Dt. 32:9) and he stood in sharp contrast with the material blessings which were often the lot of the wicked (Ps. 17:14, cf. 73:3-7). The same is true under the new covenant where treasure in heaven is at a premium (Mt. 6:19-21, etc.).

So despite the earthly character of so much of the OT we are led willy-nilly to appreciate the permanent nature of the blessings inherited by the spiritually faithful like Abraham. They are in fact identical with those of believers in the NT (Heb. 11:39). While the physical descendants of Abraham are not guaranteed a place in the eternal kingdom of God (Mt. 8:11f.), his spiritual children certainly are (Gal. 3:14,29, cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11, etc.). Thus, as F.F.Bruce contends (p. 298), we may discern in the promise made to Abraham that the earthly Canaan would be his and his descendants’ an underlying promise of a richer eternal inheritance. And according to the author of Hebrews, it is the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22; 13:14) in the eternal spiritual realm that has been made accessible by the completion of Christ’s high-priestly work. All men and women of faith are enrolled there as free citizens. Thus Bruce quotes with approval the words of C.J.Vaughan (The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1908, p.221): “There is an instinct of immortality in saintship. He who lives to God knows that he must live forever…. Canaan could not be the goal of one who walked with God.” This comment is amply justified by Jesus’ assertion that Abraham (and implicitly all his spiritual children, Mt. 8:11; Gal. 3:28f.) is alive to God as one who has inherited the kingdom and entered God’s eternal rest (Luke 20:37f., cf. 9:30). 

Restoration or Replacement?

If what has just been said is true then the widespread idea that the material creation, the earth in particular, will be redeemed and restored is false. While it may be freely acknowledged that restoration is characteristic of old covenant thinking, the old covenant in itself is subject to replacement (cf. Heb. 3,4). Both Paul and the author of Hebrews leave us in no doubt about this (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8). Had not Jesus himself taught that the law would function only until the end of the world (Mt. 5:18, cf. Rom 7:1). On the other hand, he stressed the permanent or eternal nature of his words under the new covenant (Mt. 24:35). We may therefore draw the conclusion that just as the temporal law comes to an end (Heb. 8:13), so does the shakable world it regulates (Heb. 12:27-29, cf. 2 Pet. 2:6; 3:7,10-12). Both give way to the kingdom of heaven where righteousness dwells (Mt. 5:10,20; 6:10,33; 2 Pet. 3:13; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 21:1).

Old Testament Theology

If heaven in the OT is in some sense a refurbished earth where God dwells with his people, in the NT the teaching of Jesus makes it clear that heaven is the presence of God which his people enter to dwell with him (John 14:2f.; Eph. 2:18; 3:12; Heb. 4:16, etc.) and share his glory (Rom. 5:2; 8:17; 2 Cor. 4:17). The latter was unthinkable under the old covenant, for how could man who is flesh see God and live (Gen. 16:13, etc.)? The answer is provided by our recognition of progress in revelation and extension of covenant theology. In the OT the new birth or birth from above is never more than a promise (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 11:19; 36:25f.) which was not properly understood (John 3:4). Furthermore, the transformation, which Paul insists is paramount for all (1 Cor. 15:54f.), was only vaguely hinted at (Hos. 13:14; Ezek. 37:12). However, in Deuteronomy 30, for example, Moses looks forward to a time when God will gather his people from the ends of the world, restore their fortunes and circumcise their hearts (30:1-6). And the implication of his people enjoying length of life in the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (30:20) is as we have seen heaven itself. If God fully confirmed his oath to the fathers (Acts 3:22-25; Rom. 4:16-25; 15:8f.; Gal. 3; Heb. 11:10,16,39f.), then nothing less was involved. 

So even in the OT God had in more ways than one truly put eternity into the heart of man (Eccles. 3:11).

______________________________________________________

Reference

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

Earlier this year (2008) in a letter to an editor I mentioned that a book entitled “Heaven” by Randy Alcorn was one of the worst books I had read for a long time. I said in effect that I regarded it as a mixture of fiction, fancy and fallacy, in general a massive misunderstanding of Scripture. Imagine then my astonishment and consternation when I began reading the learned Bishop of Durham on “Surprised by Hope” (London, 2007) and discovered that he recommended Alcorn’s book (p.310) along with Chris Wright’s “The Mission of God” (p.326, Nottingham, 2006) which also centres attention on the redemption of creation. So what are my problems?

Background

It is vital to realize that behind Wright’s book lies the traditional Augustinian worldview which asserts the original perfection of creation and of Adam and Eve, the first human beings. However, according to the Bible perfection (maturity, completeness, cf. Jas. 1:4) is the end or eschatological goal of mankind not its beginning (cf. Mt. 5:48; 19:21; Rom. 8:29f.; 2 Cor. 3:18). Though Adam and Eve may have attained to physical perfection (maturity) as individuals, their spiritual perfection, as those who were made in the image of God in contradistinction to the rest of the animal creation, constituted their challenge and objective (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:16f.; Ps. 8:5f.). Thus, as created from the temporal earth and regarded physically as dust (Ps. 78:39; 103:14, etc.), they were promised (eternal) life if they kept the commandment (Gen. 2:16f., cf. Rom. 7:9f.). They failed, died and underwent decay in the very ground from which they were taken (cf. Eccl. 3:19f.).

Second, Wright like practically all writers known to me believes that Genesis 3:17-19 lies behind Romans 8:18-25. This view, apparently universal in the West, conspicuously lacks substantiation. In the event, however, what it is taken to mean is that an originally perfect creation that has been marred or cursed as a result of Adam’s sin now needs redemption like Adam himself who was the image of God (Gen. 5:1-3).

Next, Wright like many others has a morbid fear of Platonic dualism and Gnosticism. For Plato the body was the evil prison house of the soul. He therefore believed that at physical death the soul or intellect could go to heaven but that there would be no resurrection of the body. For Wright as a Christian, dualism of any kind is therefore taboo. The problem here is that the Bible begins with dualism and remains intensely dualistic almost to the end (cf. 1 Cor. 15:24-28). Genesis 1:1 testifies to the inherent difference between the Creator and his creation and hence to the cosmological dualism which is the basis of the anthropological dualism which features so strongly throughout the Bible. Dualism pervades Scripture and is one of its hallmarks. The reader’s attention to the difference between the creation and (the word of) God is drawn time and time again (cf. Gen. 8:22; Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27; Isa. 40:6-8; 51:6,8; Mt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25, etc.).

Then, less obviously, Wright lacks an adequate covenant theology and appreciation of the distinction between the somewhat materialistic earth-centred old and the spiritualistic heaven-centred new covenant. In effect, he fails to recognise the progression from flesh to spirit involved in the divinely ordained development or maturation of man(kind) noted by Paul (1 Cor. 15:46, cf. espec. Phil. 2:5-11).

Fifth, his false understanding of the resurrection of Jesus is the “key” (or “paradigm” or “prototype”) to his view of the world to come. First, he simply assumes that Jesus’ resurrection involved his transformation despite the fact that this is a blatant contradiction in terms and a denial of what appears to be incontrovertible evidence. In this world as opposed to the next, all resurrections are physical (cf. Lazarus, etc.). We are plainly taught in the NT that Jesus did not see corruption on the one hand (Acts 2:27-31; 13:34-37) and that he remained flesh on the other (Luke 24:39, cf. John 20, etc.). But second, given his wholly unsupported assertion, Wright concludes that at his resurrection from the dead Jesus was neither flesh nor spirit, but apparently a hybrid or a homogenization of both.  This then is for him the key that unlocks the mystery of the nature or composition of the world to come. At death, despite John 14:2, for example, we do not go to a spiritual heaven (a temporary resting place) where we gain a spiritual body or body of glory like Jesus (Phil. 3:21), we go rather to what Isaiah called the new heavens and the new earth. (Wright is not happy with Alcorn at this point because he thinks he fails to differentiate adequately between heaven and the new earth, p. 310.) Since Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20,23), it should be noted that for Wright the Isaianic references (65:17; 66:22), admittedly re-appearing in 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1, assume an importance they certainly do not have in the NT. The truth is, surely, that Isaiah, since he lived before Jesus who alone brought heavenly things to light (John 3:31f.), had only a vague idea of heaven (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12) and like all OT writers saw it in very earthly terms. So far as they were concerned, as the recipients of the Promised Land which was their temporary rest (Heb. 3,4), God came down to them, especially to Jerusalem and the temple. This descent reached its climax when Jesus temporarily “tabernacled” with them (John 1:14). But then, Jesus, having accomplished his work of  human redemption (Luke 12:50; John 17:4), ascended back to heaven from where he had descended in the first place (John 3:13; Eph. 4:9f.) and resumed his former glory, this time as man (John 17:5,24). As a true pioneer, he prepared his people’s path to spiritual and corporeal perfection in the presence of God. In other words, he blazed a trail from earth, God’s footstool, to heaven, God’s throne (cf. John 1:51). It is here, however, that Wright’s rejection of biblical dualism, unlike James Dunn emeritus professor  at Durham, who distinguishes strongly between flesh (sarx) and spirit (pneuma) (Romans, p. 391; Theology, p.73), lands him in trouble, for he opines that Jesus, in direct contradiction of John 3:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:50, takes his (modified) flesh (dust) to heaven or ultimately to the new heavens and new earth which is a “marriage” (p.29, etc.) between the two like his resurrection body.

So whereas the Bible presents us with a way of escape from bondage to the physical creation with its inherent corruption exacerbated by the suffering and evil of this age (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17; Gal. 1:4), Wright would have us forever wedded to it, even though it is a much worse marriage than that portrayed in Daniel 2:43! This I freely confess is not the invisible hope of glory and the heavenly paradise that I entertain (Col. 1:5,27; 1 Pet. 1:3f., etc.). Though it is apparently anathema to the bishop, I hope to go to heaven when I die, to the new Jerusalem, which already exists as the seat of God’s kingdom (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22), for God and the Lamb are there (Rev. 22:3, cf. Ezek. 48:35)! At the last day, I expect Jesus to descend from heaven (1 Thes. 1:10; 4:16f.), as Moses returned to Egypt, to rescue his people (Heb. 9:28) from the dissolution of the visible material world (Heb. 12:27-29; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12) and gather together all believers (Mt. 24:31) prior to presenting his kingdom to his heavenly Father (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

Conclusion

The reader will have to come to his own conclusions regarding Wright’s new perspective on eschatology. For me it is theologically flawed like his new perspective on Paul. It should be added in fairness, however, that the bishop is rightly concerned about aspects of the judgement, which he handles sensitively, and many Christians’ failure to live out their faith as they should. Too many, he feels, are satisfied with the (false) assurance that as baptized members of the church they will automatically go to heaven when they die and as a result lapse into (social) apathy beforehand. However, I suggest that the biblical teaching on the destruction of the material creation and our escape from it is not its cause as references like 2 Peter 3:11; 1 John 2:15-17 and 3:3, make plain. Wright’s view could well be an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For while he has much to say about the confusion of others, he is in my view confused himself. His fundamentalist (Augustinian) presuppositions make this inevitable.

(See further my Biblical Dualism, Romans 8:18-25, Perfection, Escape, Will Creation be Redeemed?, Thoughts on the Redemption of Creation, The Destruction of the Material Creation, Restoration and Resurrection, When Was Jesus Transformed?, Old Testament Intimations of Heavenly Immortality, etc.).

Belief in the redemption of the material creation is widespread and deeply held by many Christians professing faith in the authority and inspiration of the Bible. The evidence, however, points to the fact that their real authority is not the Bible but Augustine. Under his influence they believe that when Adam, the designated lord of creation, sinned the whole originally perfect world was subjected to the curse of corruption and futility. Thus the apostle Paul is said (though I have still to see the assertion substantiated) to endorse the teaching of Genesis 3:17-19 in Romans 8:18-25. In light of this, the idea that creation requires redemption is not only regarded as acceptable but also intrinsically necessary. And when Isaiah in the OT (Isa. 65:17; 66:22) refers to new heavens and a new earth in the future, references such as 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1 are deemed to support the idea. (On these verses see my essay Will Creation Be Redeemed?).

A Problem

The problem is that other teaching in the Bible appears to militate against it. For a start, the very first verse of the Bible implies the temporality of creation and the eternality of God who brought it into being. Hebrews 1:10-12, which quote the OT, underline this implication. Furthermore Paul teaches that what is inherently perishable, that is, the material creation including man, cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 15:50) and that what is (physically) visible is by nature temporary (2 Cor. 4:18). In view of this, the author of Hebrews unsurprisingly informs us that all created things will at the fulfillment of the plan of salvation be removed (12:27, cf. 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12; Rev. 20:11; 21:1).

It is a reasonable inference from the limited evidence presented above that there have been serious misunderstandings regarding Christian eschatology in the course of church history. Since I have dealt with some of them in other essays (see e.g. The End of the World, The Corruptibility of Creation, Will Creation Be Redeemed?, From Here To Eternity, Restoration and Resurrection, etc.), and have subjected to criticism the notion that the resurrection of Christ implies a new heaven and a new earth in which the physical universe is restored to its pristine state of responsiveness to the Spirit of God  (Harris, GG, pp.251f.) in the writings of M.J. Harris in particular (see his Raised Immortal and From Grave to Glory in my Thoughts on the Redemption of Creation), I find it necessary to take a further look at the arguments of N.L.Geisler as expounded in his book The Battle for the Resurrection (Nashville, 1992). The reason for this is that Geisler strongly criticizes Harris’ views on the resurrection of Christ yet strangely arrives at some of what I believe to be his erroneous conclusions, not least that there is a direct link between Jesus’ resurrection and the renewal of the material creation. 

The Physical Resurrection of Jesus from the Dead

First, Geisler’s main gripe is that Harris in essence denies the resurrection of Jesus when he (Harris) argues that Jesus’ physical body of flesh underwent transformation into a spiritual body. In other words, the body that was raised was not numerically the same as the one that was buried. Geisler produces extensive and powerful evidence (see espec. pp.42ff., 129ff.) to show that the NT writers intended their readers to infer a genuine physical resurrection. In my view this evidence is incontrovertible and can only be denied on pain of charging the apostles with deceit. 

Regrettably, since he holds some highly questionable views on related matters, Geisler fails to build convincingly on his foundation. For a start (pp.32f., cf. p.167), he simply assumes the Augustinian worldview and the redemption of creation ignoring completely teaching like Isaiah 51:6, 54:10, Zephaniah 1:18 and Hebrews 1:10-12. Against this background he equates body (soma) and flesh (sarx), denies the distinction recognized by Harris between Philippians 3:21 and Colossians 1:22 (p.184) and attempts to differentiate between mortal and immortal flesh oblivious of the fact that the Bible regards all flesh as inherently mortal and corruptible since it stems from a naturally corruptible earth whether sin is involved or not (pp. 40,44, 109, 184f.). Thus without any sense of contradiction he can refer to glorified flesh as opposed to a glorified body. (The contrast between his view and that of Dunn, for example, Romans, p.391, is striking.) The Bible knows of no such animal! Both Paul and Jesus make the situation crystal clear when they deny the possibility that naturally temporal flesh can enter the eternal heaven (1 Cor. 15:50f.; John 3:1-8).

Change

Both Geisler and Harris seek to use the resurrection of Jesus as a paradigm. There are insuperable difficulties in this, however. For a start the NT distinguishes between the resurrection of Jesus who did not undergo corruption and that of David who did (Acts 2 and 13). In other words, it is obvious that the resurrection of Jesus who rose bodily from the grave cannot serve as a model of the resurrection of David who lost his fleshly body to corruption. If David is to be raised it must necessarily be in a spiritual body which is discontinuous with his corrupted flesh.

But whereas Harris wants to argue that Jesus was transformed when he rose from the grave, Geisler wants to deny change altogether despite what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:51f. Indeed, as I have already intimated he wants to have the flesh glorified without fundamental change. For him the flesh as such is not the problem but sin is. Once sin is taken care of, then restoration can take place and man will be as he was when Adam was created! Apart from the non-teleological nature of this scenario (cf. 2 Cor. 5:5), Geisler opines that the resurrection of Jesus in the flesh guarantees the restoration of creation from which it derived in the first place. The new heavens and the new earth will be just as physical as the first despite the fact that the physical by its very nature is created (by hand, cheiropoietos, Job 10:8; Ps. 119:73) and therefore temporal (Gen. 1:1). Indeed, he argues that unless we accept Jesus’ permanence in the flesh then God’s plan for both man and creation has failed (pp.32,170,192). It would appear that for Geisler heaven is just the present earth revised and those who argue otherwise can be branded as Platonists. (Cf. Randy Alcorn who in his “Heaven” denominates all who deny perpetual materiality and physicality as “Christoplatonists”.)    

Geisler’s basic problem like that of all Augustinians is that he does not understand the plan of salvation which relates to both sin AND corruption. In contrast with the immortal incorruptible God (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16), Adam was created both mortal and corruptible (Rom. 1:23) and needed to escape (cf. Rom. 2:7,10). Thus, as one who was made in the image of God he was promised freedom from death if he kept the commandment (Gen. 2:17). He failed and so relapsed into the earth from which he was taken. Since all human beings under the influence of the devil and of Adam himself (cf. Rom. 5:12-21) succumb to the flesh (Rom. 7:14, cf. Gen. 3:6), they need a Saviour who conquered the world (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9), the flesh (Rom. 8:3), the devil and even death itself (Heb. 2:14). It was he who uniquely brought life and incorruptibility (Gk.) to light (2 Tim. 1:10) and made eternal life possible for those who put their trust in him. If this is true then, as Paul obviously realized (1 Cor. 15:51f.), transformation is every bit as necessary for fleshly human beings as, according to Jesus, regeneration is and for the same basic reason (John 3:1-8). But whereas Harris wants to spiritualise Jesus before he has completed his full Adamic life, Geisler wants him to remain permanently in the flesh in heaven even though it is mortal and corruptible by nature (p.173).

In plain words, while Harris wants a spiritual heaven of sorts, Geisler wants a material one. For both of them their understanding of the resurrected body of Christ is crucial. Yet the truth is that the Bible fails to link it with the world to come. While on the one hand Harris does not recognize that Jesus rose because as one who did not sin his fleshly body was not forfeit (Acts 2:23f.), on the other Geisler ignores the plain fact that corruptible flesh whether sinful or not cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Even the sinless Jesus could not regain his pre-incarnate glory (cf. John 17:5,24) without change precisely because in his incarnate state he was mortal, corruptible flesh. In other words, since he did not see corruption after death and was therefore still flesh, he had, as Paul implies, to be transformed at his ascension (1 Cor. 15:51f.). This implication is supported and endorsed by Jesus himself when he urges Mary not to cling to him because he had not yet ascended to his Father (John 20:17) who according to Scripture dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16) and is a consuming fire. As such he engulfs not simply sinners (Isa. 33:14; James 5:3) but the earth too as at Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Luke 17:28-30; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). All impermanent material things, which have been created by hand (cheiropoietos), will be removed and make way for what is not made by hand (Heb. 9:11,24) and cannot be shaken (Heb. 10:9; 12:27). Our hope lies in the invisible spiritual things (that is in the being of God himself) which remain forever (Rom. 8:24f.; 2 Cor. 4:18).

Other points could be made but the plain fact is that for all their differences both Harris and Geisler are seriously astray in their understanding of Scripture and especially the plan of salvation.

It is quite incredible that Geisler can believe that we who are born of the flesh and are the seed of the flesh (John 1:13) which is by nature impermanent (1 Pet. 1:23) can enter the kingdom of heaven when Jesus tells us that it is necessary for all flesh (i.e. all men and women) to undergo a spiritual birth in order to do so (John 3:1-8).

Since Geisler believes in glorified flesh (pp.173,185, cf. 122) and Harris in transformed flesh and hence in the resurrection of the flesh (GG, pp.413-415), they are both clearly mistaken. In heaven we shall have a body of glory (cf. 2 Cor. 5:1), which is by definition non-fleshly, after the pattern of Jesus (Phil. 3:21) who was clearly changed and glorified at his ascension (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51f.). How otherwise could he again share the glory of the God who is Spirit (John 4:24) that he had before he became incarnate (John 17:5,24) and sit forever on the throne of David (Luke 1:32f.)? By the grace of God believers escape the bondage to corruption that characterises this world and share the heavenly glory of God themselves (Rom. 5:2, etc.) as his spiritual children (1 John 3:2) or seed (1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9) in his generic likeness (2 Pet. 1:4).

In the world/age to come the sufferings of this present time, which are associated with its natural corruption as well as sin, will be gone forever (Rev. 21:1-5, cf. Isa. 65:17). Tragically, what so many Christians fail to recognize is that just as there is continuity of body (Rom. 8:23) but not of flesh (2 Cor. 5:1; Gal. 6:8), temple but not of shadow (that is, earthly or handmade, cf. Mark 14:58; Heb. 8:2; 9:11,24), so there is continuity of world (Heb. 2:5) or age  (Luke 20:34-36) but not handmade or material (Isa.. 45:12; Heb, 1:10-12, etc.). The picture presented by the Bible, especially by the contrast between the old and new covenants, is one of movement from the material to the spiritual (1 Cor. 15:46; Heb. 10:9) or from the temporal earth, God’s footstool, to the eternal heaven, God’s throne. Salvation means escape from what is made by hand (cheiropoietos) to what is not made by hand (acheiropoietos). (See further my Manufactured or Not So). And this can only be achieved in Christ (cf. Col. 2:11). 

______________________________________________________

References

Randy Alcorn, Heaven, Wheaton, 2004. 

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

N.L.Geisler, The Battle for the Resurrection, Nashville, 1992.

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

M.J.Harris, Raised Immortal, Basingstoke, 1983.

The Bible tells us that God made Adam and Eve in his image; but it was not until he gave them the commandment that they learned to differentiate between good and evil (Gen. 2:17, cf. 3:5,22). This inference is supported by Paul who tells us that as a baby born in the image of Adam (Gen. 5:1-3) he was alive apart from the law, but once the commandment came (registered on his developing mind) that sin sprang to life and like Adam and Eve before him he earned the wages of sin in death (Rom. 7:9f.; 6:23).

Elsewhere Paul is even more specific. With the teaching of Genesis in mind he makes it crystal clear that where there is no law there is no sin (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:1-13; 1 Cor. 15:56; Gal. 5:23). It follows necessarily from this that all babies that are born flesh (John 1:13; 1 Cor. 15:46) like the rest of the animal world do not know the law and are therefore morally innocent (Dt. 1:39; Num. 14:31; Isa. 7:15f.; 8:4, etc.). It is only when the law makes its impact on the minds of human beings that the law is transgressed and sin comes into being (Rom. 7:9f.).(1* This being so, the usual modern translation of Romans 7:5 which suggests that sin is “aroused” by the law is seriously misleading. It is clearly at odds with the context which demonstrates that apart from law sin does not and cannot exist.) If this is true, then the notion of the imputation of both sin and righteousness requires careful analysis.

First, Scripture makes it plain that sin is imputed, accounted or reckoned to those who have actually broken the commandment/law (e.g. Gen. 2:17; Ex. 32:33; 1 Sam. 15:24; Ps. 106:6; Dan. 9:5; Ezek. 18:4,10-13,18,20; Rom. 2:6,8,12; 1 John 3:4; 5:17).

Second, righteousness is imputed to those who have actually kept the commandment/law (e.g. Lev. 18:4f.; Dt.6:25; 30:16; Ezek. 18:5-9,14-17; Mt. 3:17; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7).

Third, just as sin cannot be imputed to those who have no knowledge (of the law), neither can righteousness. (2* The traditional Augustinian notion of the original righteousness as opposed to innocence of Adam who initially did not have the commandment is therefore ruled out.) Scripture endorses this conclusion time and again. For example, Jonathon who did not hear Saul’s command in 1 Samuel 14:27 is adjudged innocent. The same goes for Abigail (1 Sam. 25:25) and David (2 K. 2:32). In 1 Samuel 22:15 the non-imputation of sin to Ahimelech is grounded in the fact that he knew nothing (cf. John 9:41; 15:22,24). By contrast, Saul is regarded as guilty precisely because he knowingly imputes sin to him and has him and his fellow priests slaughtered despite their ignorance. In this Saul transgresses the law not to kill the innocent expressly stated by Moses (Ex. 23:7). The author of Proverbs sums up the Scriptural position when he says that one who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous (cf. 1 K. 21) are both alike an abomination to the Lord (17:15). Clearly transgression of the law is involved.

Fourth, according to Scripture there are two ways of being justified before God: first, by actually keeping the law (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.) and failing that, second, by imputation through the exercise of faith (Gen. 15:6). Paul alludes to both of these methods in Galatians 3:2 and 5, for example, which assume that righteousness is the condition of life (Lev. 18:5, etc.).

Fifth, the same holds with respect to sin. But whereas man cannot attain to righteousness by actually keeping the law, he is quite capable of breaking it and being personally constituted a sinner thereby (Rom. 3:23; 5:12, etc.). This is precisely what God intended (Rom. 3:19f.; 11:32; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; 3:22, etc.) and it obviously renders the imputation of Adam’s sin as a free gift unnecessary. All men and women who attain to knowledge of law in some sense become sinners by their own action and are without excuse (Rom. 1:20; 2:1). They are paid the penalty of death for the work they have done (Rom. 5:12; 6:23). In the words of Jesus, the labourer deserves his wages (Luke 10:7).

However, while on the one hand we need to be in a situation where the sins we have actually committed are forgiven and not imputed to us (cf. Rom. 4:7f.), on the other hand we need to have the righteousness we have not achieved reckoned to us (Rom. 4:6).
So the question is: how can this come about? The Bible’s answer is plain: our sins are forgiven as they are covered by the blood of Christ (Rom. 3:25; Rev. 1:5), while the righteousness he gained by keeping the law is imputed to us by faith. In other words, the price of our redemption, which involves the imputation of our sins to Christ and his righteousness to us, is his death (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18).

The question then arises as to how Christ who kept the law and was thereby constituted righteous can become our sin-bearer without injustice on the part of God. There is an obvious parallelism involved at this point: by parity of reasoning from justification by faith we are compelled to draw the conclusion that our sin can only be imputed to him by faith on his part. At his Father’s behest (Mt. 26:39; John 10:18; Heb. 5:8), he freely accepts responsibility for the sins of his people and dies for them as a shepherd for his sheep (John 10:11; 15:13; Eph. 1:7, etc.). In this way God proves himself to be both just and the justifier of those who exercise faith in Christ (Rom. 3:26).

Sixth, if what has just been written is true, the traditional “exact parallelism” of Romans 5:12-21 involving the imputation of Adam’s sin to all his descendants and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers is flagrantly false. As we have already seen, the imputation of sin apart from faith to those who have not sinned is an abomination in the eyes of God. It is infinitely worse when Adam’s sin is imputed to babies who have neither knowledge nor understanding of (the) law nor the ability to do anything either good or bad (cf. Rom. 9:11). For babies to receive Adam’s sin justly they would like Jesus have to exercise faith, but of this it is universally agreed they are incapable.

So, to sum up:

(1) apart from law and/or knowledge, sin and righteousness do not exist (John 9:41; 15:22,24; Rom. 4:15; Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7);

(2) sin is directly imputed only when law is broken (James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4);

(3) sin is not imputed when it is covered by faith in the death of Christ (Rom. 4:7f.);

(4) righteousness is imputed when law is kept (Dt. 6:25; 1 John 3:7);

(5) sin can only be imputed (transferred) by faith (John 10:17; 1 Pet. 3:18);

(6) righteousness can only be imputed (transferred) by faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3);

(7) where in the absence of law there is neither sin nor righteousness, there is innocence (Dt. 1:39).

Note

It perhaps needs to be remembered that actual sin includes participation (2 John 11); encouragement (Rom. 1:32); approval (Acts 8:1; 22:20) and association (1 Cor. 5:11-13).

Unless a son repeats the sins of his father he remains innocent (Dt. 24:16; Isa. 3:10f.; Ezek. 18:4,20). Thus Jesus, who did not repeat the sin of Adam and did not break the Mosaic law (Heb. 4:14; 1 Pet. 2:22), remained innocent on the one hand and achieved righteousness by obedience on the other (Ezek. 18:5-9; John 10:11,18; Phil. 2:8-11, cf. Rom. 2:13; 6:16).

It is a common belief among Christians that in the end God will renew, restore, transform, repristinate, redeem or regenerate creation, which, it is claimed, is suffering from the curse imposed on it when Adam sinned. Much of the polemic in favour of this belief is based on 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1 despite the fact that according to the Lord’s prayer righteousness is already done in heaven (Mt. 6:10). The problem is that this polemic appears to be in basic conflict with much else that the Bible teaches. For example, 2 Peter 3 itself vividly describes the ultimate fiery destruction of creation (see vv.7,10-12) and the book of Revelation pictures heaven and earth passing away, even fleeing before the presence of the Lord (20:11; 21:1) who will return in the glory of God (Mt. 16:27; 24:30, etc.) as a consuming fire (2 Thes. 1:7; 2:8). Of course, the corollary of the destruction of the material creation is the destruction of the flesh which stems from it, and this also is clearly taught in Scripture (2 Cor. 5:1, cf. 1 Cor. 15:50-52). For all that, most commentators misinterpret Romans 8:23 through failure to distinguish between ‘flesh’ (sarx) and ‘body’ (soma) and make it mean what it obviously does not mean. While there is other evidence to appeal to (e.g. 2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 12:27-29) (1* See for e.g. my essay Regarding the Restoration of Creation), for the moment I wish to concentrate attention on the two verses cited at the start of this piece.

Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22

Reference Bibles usually direct the reader’s attention at these points to Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22. The conclusion we reasonably draw from this is that the NT writers are using an OT concept to make their point. The question is, however, are they saying the same thing? It must be remembered that the OT prophets lacked the revelation given by Jesus to the NT writers and to that extent they were labouring under a distinct disadvantage. The NT makes no bones about stating this. Peter himself, who had an acute awareness of the difference between the temporal and the eternal (see espec. 1 Peter 1), tells us that the OT prophets searched and enquired regarding certain matters relating to Christ and that it was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but their NT spiritual descendants (1 Pet. 1:10-12). In light of this it is not difficult to presume that their understanding of matters was less than clear. After all, it is frequently maintained that the OT prophets were somewhat earth-centred in their thinking. While it can be shown that they could entertain the idea of God inhabiting eternity (e.g. Ps. 90:2; Isa. 57:15; 66:1), they tended to think of him primarily as being present with them in the sanctuary of the Promised Land and especially in the temple in Jerusalem. And, having problems with what happened at death (see e.g. Ps. 30:9; 115:17), they felt that they themselves had to be in “the land of the living”, even the flesh (cf. Job 19:26) to worship him (Ps. 27:13; 116:9). They also had a somewhat ambivalent conception of eternity and tended to measure it by or attribute to it what might be termed earthly chronological dimensions (e.g. Ps. 89:4,29,36f.). In other words, they conveyed its everlasting or permanent nature by means of what they experienced in this world. In view of this, it is less than surprising that such descriptions as we have of the heavenly world in the OT are couched in very earthly terms. Thus, in comment on Isaiah 11:6-9, Kidner not unnaturally resorts to spiritualization in order to explicate its underlying intention. Again commenting on Isaiah 65:17 he avers that the new is portrayed wholly in terms of the old and that there is no attempt to describe any other kind of newness (NBCR, p.624). In response to this view of the matter, Oswalt (p.657), supposing that Isaiah is talking about a coming existence in a completely new world that is absolutely unlike anything we now know, suggests that the use of analogous terms is almost inevitable. It may, however, be an indication of his own questionable theology when he refers to this new world as having a composite nature like the oxymoronic “spiritual body” and the new Jerusalem descending from heaven (Rev. 21:1). He then goes on to deny the appropriateness of asking whether the new Jerusalem is brand new or transformed. Perhaps it is neither!

Revelation 21:1

Commenting on Revelation 21:1, Beasley-Murray helpfully fills in some of its OT background (cf. Harris, RI, pp.168-170). In tune with Kidner he tells us that Isaiah describes the new earth almost wholly in terms of the present order of things. He says the prophet has in view not a different world but an earth freed from the sorrows of sin and renewed for the joy of the people of God (cf. G.E.Ladd, p.57. Ladd, a classical premillennialist, redemptionist and transformationist seemed to be obsessed with the earth and OT physicality, Theology, pp.631f. A more recent writer like Randy Alcorn regards earthly problems as solely the consequence of the sin of Adam and its resultant curse and the coming ‘heaven’ as a revised form of earth, see “Heaven”, pp.158,254, etc.) Beasley-Murray then claims that Jewish writers elaborated Isaiah’s teaching in two different directions. The first group focused attention on sin and its cleansing and for them the new world or new creation meant transformation. The second group, however, regarded the new heavens and new earth as literal. This meant that for them the old order underwent destruction and that the new creation was a completely new universe. The question that then confronts us is how John as the author of Revelation 21:1 viewed the matter. Beasley-Murray, having directed attention to other NT teaching such as Matthew 5:18, Mark 13:31, 1 Corinthians 7:31, 1 John 2:17 and noted that the sea was no more, concludes that “John’s language, therefore, seems to demand the recognition that he viewed the new heavens and the new earth as newly created, in the strictest sense of the term, and that they replace a creation that has ceased to exist” (p.307). It has to be said, however, that in the light of other NT teaching, this scenario is pregnant with problems though they frequently go unrecognized. (2* See further my Biblical Dualism and Harris who denies the dualism between spirit and matter, p.170, also G to G, pp.250f.). As we shall see, there is perhaps a third alternative.

Towards A Third Alternative

For a start it should be noted that while Beasley-Murray refers to Matthew 5:18 and the end of the world, he fails to allude to Matthew 24:35 which France (Matthew, p.115) recognises as significantly different. In other words, there is strong contrast here, as there is throughout the Bible, between the eternal God and the “good” or useful or purposeful (cf. Ps. 119:91; Eccl. 3:11 NRSV) but temporal and provisional creation and law (see e.g. Gen. 1:1; Ps. 90:2; Isa. 40:6-8; 51:6; 54:10; Hab. 3:17-19; Rom. 7:12; 2 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 1:10-12).

God’s Rest

Next, we need to bear in mind the fact that when God finished creation he entered his rest (Gen. 2:1-3), and it is into this rest that we are called (Heb. 4:1,3,6,9-11). (Note also the evidence for our heavenly calling in Phil. 3:14; Heb. 3:1; 2 Tim. 4:18; 1 Pet. 5:10, etc.) The inference that must be drawn from this is that the rest already exists and has existed eternally. If we have any doubts about this, we have only to consider Jesus who himself entered his rest once his work on earth was finished. (We do well to remind ourselves here that there are frequent references to beginnings and endings in the Bible, e.g. Luke 13:32f.; John 4:34; 17:4; 2 Cor. 8:6,10f.; Phil. 1:6, etc. They suggest teleology or development to maturity, completion or perfection.) He returned to heaven as conqueror and sat at God’s right hand (1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 3:21) reclaiming as man the glory that he shared with the Father before the world began (John 17:5,24). Now, having gained the immortality and incorruptibility that characterise God (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16) originally promised to the first Adam (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:17; Ps. 8:3-6; 2 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 2:9), he was in a position to do this and serve as our trailblazer (Heb. 2:10; 6:20; 12:2).

There is another point of crucial importance. Unless the “world” (cf. Heb. 1:6; 2:5) or rest to which Jesus returned is eternal, it must be temporal like the original creation. A brand new creation will inevitably have a beginning; and this means it will inevitably have an end (cf. Heb. 7:3). And this spells disaster. The eternal life we have been promised (e.g. John 3:16; 1 John 2:25) turns out on examination to be an illusion! In fact, however, the NT refers repeatedly to the existence of the eternal world which by definition has always existed and will never cease to exist. This being so, God’s kingdom is eternal (2 Pet. 1:11; Heb. 12:28, cf. Col. 1:13) and by the blood of an eternal covenant (Heb. 13:20) it guarantees us an eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12, cf. 5:9) and an eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:15) through the eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14).

This evidence compels us to draw the conclusion that since the new creation is eternal and already exists, it is new only in the sense that it is new to us as viewed from our earth-bound vantage point. In other words, Isaiah’s somewhat earthly Old Testament conception of heaven is spiritualised (though certainly not allegorized) in the New Testament in light of the revelation given by Jesus.

Heavenly Treasure

When we see this, it is not difficult to find other references which underline the eternal nature of the “new” creation. For example, Jesus tells us that in his Father’s house there are many mansions (3* Jesus uses the word ‘mone’ which according to Morris, p.638 n.6, and Vine, is cognate with ‘menein’ meaning to remain which is important in Hebrews. See further below.), and that he is returning there (cf. John 13:1,3; 16:28, etc.) to prepare a place for those who believe in him to be with him there (John 14:2f., cf. 14:19; 17:24). (The implication seems to be that the “house” or city, Heb. 11:10; 13:14, already exists but it needs inhabitants. Cf. the present world which was created to be inhabited, Gen. 1; Isa. 45:12,18.) In Luke 16:9 he urges his followers to take steps to ensure that they may be received into the eternal dwellings (ESV) where their treasure in the heavens does not fail (Luke 12:33). Like his Lord before him (Mt. 6:19-21; 19:21) Peter also refers to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled and unfading kept in heaven for us (1 Pet. 1:3f., cf. vv.7,18) and like Isaiah (40:6-8) distinguishes between the perishable earthly and the imperishable heavenly (vv.23-25, cf. 1 Cor. 9:25; 15:50-57). Regarding the latter, Paul contrasts what is obviously eternal spiritual treasure with the clay jars in which it is housed in this world (2 Cor. 4:7). Then in 5:1 he follows this up with a reference to our earthly tent which will be destroyed and replaced with “a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”. And in 1 Corinthians 15 he refers to our future spiritual (replacement) bodies (cf. 1 Pet. 4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4,14) of glory like that of Jesus (Phil. 3:21).

The New Birth

Another point of critical importance is the sadly misunderstood teaching of Jesus regarding the new birth in John 3. Traditionally, under the influence of Augustine, we have been taught that the prime purpose of regeneration is to counteract original sin. The problem here is that sin is not even mentioned in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus. The point at issue is the flesh or our earthly nature. The implication is as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that it cannot inherit the eternal kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). A second physical birth imagined by Nicodemus is no use here, for it, like the present body of flesh, would be temporal by nature and would still keep us away from the Lord (2 Cor. 5:6,8). Thus Jesus says it is necessary (as opposed to imperative) to experience a spiritual birth, or a birth from above, to fit us for the above (cf. Col. 3:1-5; Gal. 4:26; Phil. 3:20). To express the issue somewhat differently, we need to be regenerate in order to enter the regeneration (Mt. 19:28) which is clearly a different order of existence (cf. 1 Cor. 7:31, etc.).

The ‘New Jerusalem’ and the ‘Remaining’

When reading Isaiah it is easy to miss his references to ‘Jerusalem’ (65:18f., cf. Rev. 21:1f.) and to ‘remaining’ (66:22). (Note also the references to the glory of God in 66:18f., cf. 33:17; John 17:24, and to Jerusalem in 66:20). Both themes are taken up by the author of Hebrews and form part of the essence of his letter as the following references make plain: 1:10-12; 7:24; 10:34; 12:27; 13:14 (Gk menein: to remain) and 11:10,16; 13:14 (city), Jerusalem specifically in 12:22. More to the point they clearly refer to the eternal (abiding, unshakable) heavenly (cf. Paul in 2 Cor. 3:11 and Gal. 4:26). In light of this we are again led to infer that Isaiah’s new heavens and new earth serve to depict heaven, the eternal throne of God, in the NT. If this is so, we are compelled to draw the conclusion that those whose views are conditioned by a literal understanding of the OT, an inadequate covenant theology and an Augustinian worldview dominated exclusively by sin are mistaken. The plain fact is that the notion of a new or fresh material creation reflects a deep misunderstanding of the biblical data. (As I have intimated in my essays on The End of the World and The Destruction of the Material Creation, for example, I believe that a correct appreciation of Romans 8:18-25, not to mention other references like Hebrews 1:10-12, also rules out of order any idea of the material world’s participation in heavenly transcendence. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that the Paul who wrote that the perishable (corruption) cannot inherit the imperishable (incorruption) could hold such a view, 1 Cor. 15:50. For him it would have been anathema!)

The Permanent and the Impermanent

There is doubtless a good deal more evidence to appeal to but my point has been made. On the assumption that it indicates that there is a basic difference between the perishable earth and the imperishable heaven (cf. Heb. 9:11,24) which is God’s throne, it must be insisted, first, that those who take the OT literally and refuse to recognize that it is frequently re-interpreted and spiritualised in the NT are swimming against the tide, or, to put it more dramatically, are going “back to Egypt” (Num. 14:4; Acts 7:39). (On this see further my essays No Going Back and Regarding the Restoration of Creation.) Second, it points to the fact that a truly biblical covenant theology though reflecting elements of continuity makes a basic distinction between the two covenants. This is made plain especially by the author of Hebrews and by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3, for example. The law which was itself provisional regulated the temporal creation, the world of the OT which overlaps the NT but is in direct contrast with heaven where the Christian’s citizenship is located (Phil. 3:20, cf. Col. 3:1-5). As Matthew 5:18 implies, both the law and the creation, though “good”, that is, useful and purposeful (Gen. 1; Ps. 119:91; Rom. 7:12), eventually reach their point of culmination (cf. France, p.114). Then, since both are provisional and cannot give (eternal) life (Heb. 1:10-12; 7:18; 8:13; Gal. 3:21) they are dispensed with (Heb. 8:13) and replaced with a better hope (Heb. 7:19) which according to Paul was intended from the beginning (Rom. 8:20,24f.; 2 Cor. 5:5, cf. Gen. 1:28; 2:17).

So, without going into more detail I propose that in 2 Peter 3:13, Peter is simply using a limited OT description of the age or world to come to describe heaven or the kingdom of God, the place where righteousness already dwells (cf. Mt. 6:10,33). If this is the case with Peter, surely the same must be true of John whose book of Revelation is replete with OT references. In the latter, the spiritualization process is plain for all to see. Symbolism, which necessarily exploits material images and metaphor, points unerringly to the fact that earth and heaven are as radically different as flesh and spirit or an earthly and a heavenly temple even if there are points of continuity. How otherwise can the invisible be made “visible” to readers whose present earthly nature unavoidably hinders perception (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12, cf. 2 Cor. 3:18). We live by faith not be sight (2 Cor. 5:7).

The fact is that old covenant metaphor based on the present material creation becomes new covenant spiritual reality. If this is so, the verses in question support the belief that creation was subjected by divine fiat to corruption and futility with the hope of heaven or the divine presence in view from the start (Gen. 1, 2; Rom. 8:18-25; 2 Cor. 5:5). And this clearly precludes any suggestion of redemption, regeneration, renewal, transformation, restoration or recreation. (See further my The Corruptibility of Creation, Concerning Futility, etc.)

Some Implications

Of course, this view of the matter has serious implications for some of the highly questionable theology that presently pervades the churches. For example, not only will creation not be redeemed, since that was never intended in the first place, but it will never again be the home of Christ least of all during a literal thousand years earthly millennium. After all he has already conquered the world (John 16:33; 17:4; Rev. 3:21, etc.) and entered heaven as Adam was intended to do at the start. Having definitively dealt with sin, he will return only to rescue as brands plucked from the burning those who are waiting for him (Heb. 9:28). And at their ascension they will be changed (1 Cor. 15:51) as Jesus himself was (cf. John 20:17). (It is not a little interesting to note that Elijah and Elishah were separated by a chariot and horses of fire when the former ascended to heaven in a whirlwind, 2 K. 2:11, and the latter was left to continue his work.) Furthermore, when he comes again, he will be in his glory and that of the Father (Luke 9:26; Tit. 2:13, etc.), which means, as even Solomon recognized, that the earth is not able to “house” him (1 K. 8:27, cf. Acts 7:49). Again Paul tells us that he will not return to corruption (Acts 13:34), and since the only corruption that he ever knew was during the period of his incarnation when like all his brethren he grew daily older, this can only mean that he will come as God to save his people and sweep away the temporal intrinsically corruptible creation forever (Mt. 24:35; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). For as both Eliphaz and Bildad realised long ago, dust (cf. Ps. 103:14) is no cleaner in his sight (Job 15:15; 25:4ff.) than it is in ours. (Pace “Rabbi” Duncan who according to A. Ross in an article on the ascension said: “The dust of the earth is on the throne of the majesty on high”, EDT, p.87.)

The Body

Some, however, will object and claim that there is not only obvious continuity of world but also of flesh. With regard to the latter they will point to 1 Corinthians 15 and insist on OT-style restoration (cf. e.g. 1 K. 13:6; 2 Chr. 24:13) and that the present body will be continuous with the spiritual body since it is its “seed”. They will argue that just as the seed is different from the mature plant so the seed of the present body will be different from its “spiritual” counterpart. In reply I have to say that this view seems to involve a serious misinterpretation of Paul’s argument. In 1 Corinthians 15:39-41 the apostle is simply maintaining by way of illustration that there is plenty of evidence for a wide variety of bodies but definitely not that our present bodies of flesh are the “seed” of the future heavenly body which he is at pains to indicate is different. Peter makes the picture plain when he says that we have been born anew not of perishable (corruptible) seed but of imperishable (1 Pet. 1:23-25, cf. 1 Cor. 15:42). And John tells us that our regeneration arises from our being the product of God’s seed (1 John 3:9, cf. John 1:13). Otherwise expressed, a physical seed begets a physical body while a spiritual seed begets a spiritual body. In brief, like begets like (cf. John 3:6). So the notion touted by some that any random surviving molecule of our present flesh will suffice clone-like to provide the means by which our bodies are redeemed or resurrected is hugely mistaken (cf. Grudem, p.835). Our resurrection as Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 15:37 and 42-44 is not physical (or natural) but spiritual. The redeemed future body referred to by Paul in Romans 8:23 is manifestly discontinuous with earthly flesh. The biblical position is that the first is abolished so that the second may be established (Heb. 10:9) as the apostle clearly indicates in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (cf. the temple, John 2:19-21, Jerusalem, Gal. 4:26, Heb. 12:22, the city, Heb. 11:10,16; 13:14, etc.). (It is important to note here that the butterfly image used by some, e.g. Bob George in “Classic Christianity”, p.78, to illustrate transformation is in fact highly misleading. Despite clear evidence of dramatic metamorphosis the butterfly belongs to the material earth from beginning to end. On the body, see my essays With What Kind of a Body Do They Come?, The Flesh, Our Fleshly Bodies, etc.)

Conclusion: The Third Alternative

I conclude then that the kingdom of this world will in the time set by the Father finally give way to the kingdom of God or heaven (cf. Rev. 11:15, cf. 12:10; Dan. 2:44; 7:14,27). If this is so, then the redemption of creation is a heresy of the first order. Its potential is to foster the materialism that plagues the history of man. (The sensuous paradise inhabited by voluptuous virgins, the hope of Muslims, is an illusion.) In true Augustinian fashion it obscures and undermines the goal of our salvation which is that we should be not only holy, righteous and perfect like our heavenly Father but also generically like him as children normally are (Gen. 5:1-3; Rom. 8:12-17; 1 John 3:1-3, cf. Phil. 3:21; 1 Pet. 4:6).

A Brief Note on Acts 3:21

Some may argue that the conclusions I have reached above are overturned by the notion of the restoration of all things referred to in Acts 3:21 (cf. 1:6). Both Bruce (p.91 n.36) and Stott (pp.93f.), for example, link it with the regeneration in Matthew 19:28 and with Romans 8:19-23. (John 3 ought to have slain forever the idea that regeneration is physical. Even Nicodemus was apparently astonished at the prospect and not so dull-witted as many commentators suggest he was! I contend that the regeneration of Mt. 19:28 is as spiritual as the regeneration referred to by Jesus in John 3 and by Paul in Tit. 3:5.) However, as one who believes that (a) Romans 8:18-25 has been abjectly misunderstood; (b) physical restoration relates to this world, that is, the world of the old covenant (1 K. 13:6, etc.), and (c) that physical regeneration of any kind is implicitly excluded by the teaching of Jesus in John 3:1-8 (cf. Luke 20:34-36), I am unimpressed. Perusal of articles like that of Oepke (TDNT, 1, pp.389ff.), Link (NIDNTT, 3, pp.146ff.) and Bietenhard on Elijah (NIDNTT, 1, pp.543ff.) makes aspects of this difficult verse less opaque than they otherwise might be. These authors suggest that the prophets’ prime interest was human political and national relations, not cosmology. Discussing John the Baptist as Elijah, Bietenhard says that Jesus did not take the restitution in a political or national sense but in a religious one. And this, it is reasonable to say, is true of Acts 3:21. Marshall (p.94), for example, talks in terms of fulfillment which, he claims, appears to fit the context admirably. He maintains that we should take the phrase to signify God’s perfect realization of the things that he had promised through the prophets, the chief one of which was the setting up of his rule or kingdom (cf. Luke 18:31; 24:44; Rev. 10:7 and note Link, p.148, who stresses the universal significance of the Christ event.).

So far as cosmology is concerned, it would appear that we owe obsession with it primarily to Origen whose hermeneutical prowess and literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12 led him to castrate himself! According to Link (p.148), he claimed that the aim of God’s salvation was the removal of all the disorder in creation which was the consequence of sin. Had Origen paid more careful attention to Hebrews 12:27 (cf. 2 Pet. 1:14) he might have realized that creation itself was subject to removal so that the kingdom of this world might become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rev. 11:15, cf. Heb. 10:9)!

Without going into further detail it seems to me that other references like 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Colossians 1:20, Philippians 2:10 and Ephesians 1:10 sometimes used to support the redemption of creation point in the same direction. If the last enemy to be destroyed is death, then the physical creation whose basic (natural) characteristics are temporality, futility, death and corruption must also be destroyed. Here at least the Bible and modern science, if not the Augustinian worldview, are in accord.
(See further my articles at on this website including The Essence of the Case Against the Redemption of Creation.)

___________________________________________________

References:

Randy Alcorn, Heaven, Tyndale House Pubs., 2004

F.F.Bruce, The Book of the Acts, London, 1954.

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

Bob George, Classic Christianity, Oregon, 1989. UK ed. 1994.

W.Grudem, Systematic Theology, Leicester/Grand Rapids, 1994.

M.J.Harris, Raised Immortal, Basingstoke, 1983.

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

D.Kidner, Isaiah in New Bible Commentary Revised, London, 1970.

G.E.Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, London, 1964.

G.E.Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1974.

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

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

J.N.Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah 40-66, Grand Rapids, 1998.

J.R.W.Stott, The Message of Acts, Leicester, 1994.

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. W.A.Elwell, Grand Rapids, 1984.

New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. C.Brown, Exeter/Grand Rapids, 1975.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1, Grand Rapids, 1964.

Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Nashville, 1985.

It is commonly held that the Genesis flood was worldwide. We are told that a literal view of the teaching of Scripture compels the reader to accept this. However, it may be replied that what appears to be taught as literal in the OT is sometimes re-interpreted and spiritualised in the NT. (See further my essay on Spiritualisation.) For example, in Genesis 32:30 Jacob claims he has seen God, but the NT declares that no one apart from the Son has seen God (John 1:18; 6:46). Again, the literal son of David (Solomon) becomes his “spiritual” son at a later date (cf. Rom. 1:3; Luke 1:32f., etc.). Yet again the physical land or city that looms so large in the OT becomes the heavenly land or city of the NT (Heb. 11:10,16; 12:22; 13:14). Expressing the issue differently, theologians are surely right to argue that the literal often gives way to a sensus plenior or fuller sense as revelation progresses. Or again, types are eventually fulfilled in antitypes. Here Adam is a case in point. Paul tells us in Romans 5:14 that Adam, the earthly or fleshly man, was a type of Christ, the heavenly or spiritual man. (See further my essays The Days of Creation and Twenty-Four Hours? Reasons Why I Believe the Genesis Days are Undefined Periods of Time.)

In Luke 17 Jesus teaches about his second coming. To illustrate his point he refers to the flood and the holocaust of Sodom and Gomorrah. The latter was clearly local and Lot and his daughters escaped from it and lived first in Zoar and then in a cave (Gen. 19:20-22, 30). It is thus a reasonable inference that the flood, though a mighty cataclysm extending far beyond the limits of the cities of the valley, was also, relatively speaking, local as Genesis 10:32-11:1 would seem to imply. This, however, is often denied. For all that, it would seem that the grounds on which this denial is made are deeply suspect.

For a start, it may legitimately be argued that the account of the Genesis flood is based on eyewitness. Otherwise expressed, it is described phenomenologically or from the writer’s point of view. Anyone who like myself has sailed in a ship across the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans might well arrive at the conclusion on the basis of what he sees that the whole world is covered by water. He knows, however, on other grounds that this is not so. By contrast Noah would have had no appreciation of the wider world. This is made clear by what is said about language in Genesis 11:1.

Apart from Matthew (24:37-39) and Luke 17 where the focus is exclusively on people, the flood is referred to in 2 Peter (cf. 1 Pet. 3:20). In verse 5, Peter tells us that God did not spare the ancient world (kosmos) when he brought a flood on its ungodly people. By contrast, in the next verse he clearly refers to the destruction of the physical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. To be more specific, he appears to draw attention to the destruction of people in Noah’s case but of both habitat and inhabitants in the latter. If it is complained I am drawing too fine a distinction, I can only urge the reader to consult the next chapter.

In 2 Peter 3:5 in contrast with 2:5 the author’s reference is clearly to the physical creation, that is, earth (ge), yet strangely, if we accept the literal interpretation, he alludes to people (kosmos) in verse 6. If we go back to Genesis at this point, we immediately become aware that when the flood occurred man had not yet spread over the globe (9:1,7; 9:18; 10:32). Numerical increase and geographical (this word is in essence a Greek compound!) dispersion occurred after Noah’s day. We are thus forced to conclude that a worldwide flood was not necessary to destroy the world of the ungodly in Noah’s time. In light of this it seems reasonable to infer that Peter by choosing his words carefully is pointing up this fact. This inference is supported by what Peter says in verse 7 (cf. v.5) where he refers once more to creation (ge).

There is a further point to make. In Hebrews 11:7 the author tells us that Noah condemned the world of his time. Here again, the word used is kosmos apparently meaning people as opposed to their habitat as in the time of Lot. At the end of the world, apart from the rapture of believers (1 Cor. 15:51), both people and habitat will be destroyed. This seems to be beyond reasonable dispute the view of Jesus (Mt. 24:35), Peter (2 Pet.3:7,10-12) and the author of Hebrews (12: 26-29). Paul apparently held the same view (1 Cor. 7:31; 2 Cor. 4:18, John, 1 John 2:17). In fact, in Romans 9 while acknowledging that a remnant will be saved, he specifically refers to judgement on the earth (ge) (9:27f.).

I conclude that the notion that a literal worldwide flood is taught by Scripture is open to serious question.

Acknowledgement and additional note

I am indebted to my reading in 1995 of Dick Lucas and Christopher Green’s “The Message of 2 Peter and Jude” (p.133) for my recognition that in 2 Peter kosmos always refers to the world of man (1:4; 2:5,20;3:6) and the ge is always the material earth (3:5,7,10,13).

It has to be said with regret, however, that Lucas and Green, like E.M.B.Green, pp.73f.,142f.), are right in what they affirm but wrong in what they deny. They say, p.53, that the corruption we are to flee is not our physical bodies, but sin. In fact it is both. They seem to forget that the call of man who is made in the image of God is to exercise dominion over the physical creation, which is both temporal (Heb. 1:10-12) and corruptible (Rom. 8:18-25) by cultivating the spirit (cf. a horse that is controlled by its rider who is not merely flesh like the horse, Isa. 31:3, but also spirit, cf. James 3:2f.). Paul makes no bones about the issue when he tells his readers to put to death what is earthly in them, that is, their flesh (Col. 3:5). Elsewhere he says, in violent contrast to Esau (Heb. 12:16) and Ishmael (Gal. 4:29f.), that he has crucified both the flesh and the world (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24; 6:14) not because they are evil as such but because they are temporal and ultimately unprofitable (John 6:63).

Tragically, Christians misunderstanding what is at stake have attributed denial of the flesh to Greek dualism or Manicheism. That is completely to miss the point. The truth is that man is by constitution an anthropological dualism: he is both flesh and spirit. And the flesh as a product of the earth is subject to the control of the spirit (Gen. 1:26-28, cf. 1:2; Heb. 11:3). Jesus was flesh, so the body of flesh could not possibly be evil, as the Greeks thought, without making him evil (cf. God as Creator). What he did, as his temptations show (Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 4:15) was control his flesh, which is a law to itself (Rom. 7:23,25) as it is in animals, according to the law of God and thus avoid sin. In other words, in contrast with the rest of us who like both Eve and Adam give way to the flesh (Gen. 3:6), he kept the law and by so doing attained to righteousness and hence to (eternal) life in accordance with God’s original promise (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 7:9f., etc.).

As the second Adam, Jesus alone in the entire history of man conquered the world (John 16:33), the flesh (Rom. 8:3) and the devil (John 14:30, cf. Rev. 5:5). On the assumption of justification by faith, he is therefore universally indispensable (John 14:6, etc.).

__________________________________________________

References:

E.M.B.Green, 2 Peter and Jude, rev, ed. Leicester, 1987.

Dick Lucas and Christopher Green, The Message of 2 Peter & Jude, Leicester, 1995.

With the publication of C.J.H. Wright’s The Mission of God (Nottingham, 2006) which, along with his Knowing the Holy Spirit through the Old Testament (Oxford, 2006) and Knowing God the Father through the Old Testament (Oxford, 2007), strongly stresses the redemption of the material creation, I have been prompted (in Jan. 2008) to reread works like Jesus and the Kingdom (London, 1966) and A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1974) by G.E.Ladd and Raised Immortal (Basingstoke, 1983) and From Grave to Glory (Grand Rapids, 1990) by M.J.Harris which support his belief.

As a professing if somewhat unconvincing premillennialist (see his essay in The Meaning of the Millennium ed. Clouse, Downers Grove, 1977) Ladd’s stance was predictable. Influenced strongly by the Old Testament (see espec. ch. 2 of his Jesus and the Kingdom) he inevitably supported the notion that since man was a creature he needed a new material creation on which to live his eternal life. He wrote, for example, “Man is a creature, and God created the earth to be the scene of his creaturely existence. Therefore, even as the redemption of man in the bodily aspect of his being demands the resurrection of the body, so the redemption of the very physical creation requires a new earth as the scene of his perfected existence” Theology, p.631). This speculative assertion begs a variety of questions and, other things apart, suggests a radical failure to appreciate biblical covenant theology. Further, though it runs counter to so much of what the Bible explicitly teaches, it has proved very influential. However, since I have dealt with it somewhat summarily in my essay From Here to Eternity, I propose to direct my attention here more specifically to Harris’ work even though I have alluded to some of its shortcomings in my essay The End of the World.

Harris’ views were vehemently attacked by Norman Geisler in his work The Battle for the Resurrection (Nashville, 1992). For all that, despite the validity of some of his criticisms, Geisler’s own views were in my opinion suspect in certain areas and hardly succeeded it solving many of the problems thrown up by biblical eschatology. So here I prefer to paddle my own canoe as I seek to discover the basic reasons why Harris comes to support the idea of the redemption of the material creation.

Immortality and Incorruptibility

First, we need to be aware that Harris accepts the traditional Augustinian worldview of creation, fall, curse, redemption though it does not overtly play a major role in his work on eschatology. Against this background, however, he recognizes a number of important distinctions in the NT but fails to appreciate their critical importance.

The very title, Raised Immortal, of Harris’ work raises questions. It is apparently derived from the Greek of 1 Corinthians 15:52 (quoted prior to the Table of Contents) where what Paul actually says is that the dead are raised incorruptible. Though as the highly competent Greek scholar that he is Harris is aware of the difference between immortality and incorruptibility he seems to assume throughout his work that the two words can safely be regarded as synonymous (see e.g. p. 164, cf. Grave to Glory, p.261). Here he stands in contrast with Vine who complains that the word aphthartos translated immortal in 1 Timothy 1:17 (KJV, cf. Rom. 2:7 and 2 Tim. 1:10) does not bear that significance (pp. 131,320). In the event, the point is theologically vital. Why? Because the NT makes it abundantly clear that we believers who have already gained spiritual immortality by regeneration (John 3) die and decay physically but nonetheless receive bodily or somatic incorruption by resurrection. In other words, John’s writing makes it clear that as born again believers we already have eternal life (3:16; 1 John 5:11-13) while we are still clothed in mortal and corruptible flesh. This view of the matter is clearly supported by Jesus in John 11:25f. where he tells Martha paradoxically that though we die we shall never die (cf. Luke 12:4f.). The implication must be that true believers are spiritually immortal but have to submit to physical death and corruption nonetheless (Rom. 8:10).

The Flesh Not Redeemed

This latter point is highly relevant to the issue of creation’s redemption. For it indicates that while the spirit is redeemed, the flesh is not (cf. Rom. 8:10,13; Gal. 6:8). So if the flesh, which, because it derives from the inherently corruptible dust of the ground, is not redeemed, then neither is its corollary the material creation. Failing to appreciate the natural corruptibility of creation (Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12), Harris says explicitly, “Death is inexorably linked with sin, so where there is sin there is death” (GG, p. 263). It can be stated categorically that this is a misunderstanding. If for man death is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23), sin is transgression of the law (James 2:9; 1 John 3:4, etc.). But where there is no law as in the case of mortal animals there is no sin (Rom. 4:15, etc.). The biblical view is that death and corruption are inherent in the temporal material creation of which man is physically a part. But since he is made in the image of God and has a spiritual dimension he is offered escape on condition of keeping the law (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). His problem here is that he cannot keep the law (Rom. 3:19-20; Gal. 2:16, etc.) and, since this is so, his need of Christ is absolute. Apart from him salvation is impossible (John 14:6; Acts 4:12, etc.).

Anthropological Monism

Of course, it may be replied that Paul explicitly states that the body will be redeemed (Rom. 8:23, cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-49). This, however, brings us to another flaw in the thinking of Harris. He is an anthropological monist (pp.140,239) who specifically rejects dualism (GG, p. 251) and regards man as a psychosomatic or a unified whole. Expressed thus the notion can be accepted. As Bultmann is reputed to have said, man is a body. The problem starts for Harris, in contrast with Dunn for example (Romans, p.391; Theology, p.73), when he fails to distinguish adequately between the body (soma) and the flesh (sarx) and ends up denying the dualism that exists between flesh and spirit though it is fundamental especially to Pauline theology (pp.120,170, cf. Guthrie, Theology, pp.171-176). Thus while Paul, like Jesus in John 3, can deny the flesh access to heaven to (1 Cor. 15:50), he has no hesitation in saying that the body can be redeemed (Rom. 8:23). As he says in the 1 Corinthians 15:44 there are two sorts of body: a natural and a spiritual one. And it is only the latter that is raised or put on (2 Cor. 5:2-4). (On Jesus, see below.) To contend as Harris does (cf. Ladd above) that man’s body (soma) as opposed to his flesh (sarx) is one with the material creation and so to link creation with resurrection (pp.165-171, GG, pp.245-252) is to blunder badly and to commit radical theological error. To my knowledge, the Bible overtly omits making any connection between resurrection and creation.

Augustinian Worldview

This problem is further complicated and exacerbated by Harris’ theological background. As intimated above, like Ladd and Wright he adheres to the clearly erroneous Augustinian worldview which assumes original perfection followed by fall, curse, ruin and redemption. As a consequence of his uncritical acceptance of this creation-fall-redemption schema he fails utterly (like Wright, Spirit, p. 32) to appreciate that the material creation is corruptible by nature. Genesis 1:1 implies this and Hebrews 1:10-12 certainly teach it. Not only is creation impermanent and provisional (it has a beginning therefore an end), it is inherently corruptible, and corruption cannot inherit incorruption (1 Cor. 15:50). Despite this, in a forlorn effort to correlate resurrection with creation (pp. 165-171), Harris appeals to Romans 8:18-25, Philippians 3:20-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. Since he himself appears to have little confidence in the latter it can safely be left out of account here.

Romans 8:18-25

In the Romans passage, however, Paul is pointing up the contrast between the present age of suffering and the future age of glory, yet Harris in true Augustinian fashion alludes unwarrantably to sin. (The traditional idea that Paul has Genesis 3:17-19 in mind here lacks both exegetical and theological support. See further my essays The End of the World, Romans 8, etc.) The problem is that Paul no more mentions sin here than he does in 1 Corinthians 15, where the fleshly body of the first Adam makes way for or is replaced by the spiritual body of the second Adam (v. 46), and in 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:5, where he explicitly says that our present hand-made (cheiropoietos) tent (Job 10:8; Ps. 119:73) is destroyed (like the temple, Mark 14:58) and is replaced by a house not made by hands (acheiropoietos) eternal in the heavens (5:1). (The fundamental contrast between what is hand-made and not-hand-made seems to be missed by practically all writers. See further my Manufactured or Not So.) Thus we are forced to conclude that just as the naturally corruptible material creation having served its purpose is finally destroyed (Mt. 24:35; 2 Pet. 3:7, 10-12, etc.), so is its corollary the material body of flesh. (It is well to note at this point that more and more scholars are prepared to concede that the word ‘good’ in Genesis 1 means ‘useful’ or ‘suited to its purpose’. Indeed, Paul says creation is still good, 1 Tim. 4:4, etc.) Little wonder that both Jesus in John 3:1-8 and Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:50 imply and/or insist that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Philippians 3:20-21

Harris also appeals to Philippians 3:20-21 though at first blush it is difficult to understand why since he appears to be comparing apples with oranges. Here his false inferences seem to stem from his failure to understand that when Paul says that Jesus will transform our lowly bodies (of flesh) to be like his body of glory he means, as he does elsewhere, that our unredeemed flesh which has died and seen corruption (see above) will be replaced by a (spiritual) body like Christ’s in its heavenly glory. As the author of Hebrews puts it, as one of the things that have been made our body of flesh will be removed (cf. 2 Pet. 1:14) so that what cannot be shaken may remain (Heb. 12:27, cf. 10:9b).

The Resurrected Body of Jesus

This prompts the question as to why Harris appeals to Philippians 3:21. The answer appears to be his extremely dubious but strong conviction that when Jesus himself rose from the dead he did so in a transformed body. On this Harris is quite insistent (pp.53-57, and GG, pp.xxv, 129,142f.,153, etc.). Almost the last thing he says in From Grave to Glory is that Christ rose from the grave in a transformed body (p.446). Lacking an explicit scriptural statement to this effect, Harris suggests reasons why he thinks it is so (RI, pp. 53-57). While there is an air of plausibility about them, they fall well short of compelling conviction. And the idea that after his resurrection transformation Jesus was located primarily in heaven but made sporadic appearances to his disciples on earth to provide them with evidence that he was alive seems to contradict the NT data supporting the genuineness of the continuation of his incarnate life which Jesus had appeared to predict (John 2:19-21 and 10:17f.). The problem with Harris’ view is that Jesus after his resurrection was clearly not all he seemed to be and despite Harris’ adamant denial his thesis smacks of deceit and/or docetism. Surely the truth is that Jesus’ earthly physicality after his resurrection from death was genuine but, as with Christians later, his citizenship was in heaven (Phil. 3:20). Since he had completed his work on the cross he was spiritually seated in heaven (Eph. 2:6). If we accept with B.B.Warfield (pp. 1-21) that the entire earthly life of Jesus was imbued with the supernatural, the flimsy foundation on which Harris builds his case is betrayed by the simple fact that if it is true, then, first, Jesus never underwent a truly physical resurrection from the grave at all, and, second, he never lived a complete(d) Adamic life. And in the words of Gregory Nazianzen, what he had not assumed, he could not redeem. In explanation of the latter point I would draw the reader’s attention to the fact that if Adam had never sinned he would not have died and apart from death he could never have experienced resurrection. So, clearly, he would have gone to heaven by ascension transformation (cf. 1 Cor 15:51ff.). The same must hold true of Jesus after his vicarious death and resurrection. Since flesh, though not evil, is regarded pejoratively throughout Scripture the notion of flesh of glory as opposed to body of glory is a contradiction in terms. As even Harris admits, the two Adams are representative men who differ fundamentally by nature, and sin plays no part in that difference (1 Cor. 15:45-49).

Confusion

Clearly Harris is involved in basic confusion. He (see e.g. GG, p. 239) recognizes but fails to appreciate adequately the significance of the difference between the resurrection of Jesus who did NOT experience corruption and David who did (see Acts 2:25-31 and 13:34-37). He asserts that Jesus’ resurrection is the model or paradigm of our resurrection (p.238, GG, p.275) rather than David’s where transformation is indeed involved. While the resurrection of Jesus is obviously the ground of resurrection in general since he is its first fruits (1 Cor. 15:20,23), it was initially a true restoration comparable with that of Lazarus (see further my Restoration and Resurrection). But while the latter rose to die again, Jesus did not. Harris interprets Romans 6:9 as a reference to Jesus’ attainment to immortality (pp.270, etc.). But surely Paul’s studious avoidance of expressions like “raised immortal” or “raised incorruptible” is highly significant here. His point is that since in contrast with the first Adam Jesus had kept the commandment/law and gained life and/or the Spirit (Mt. 3:13-17, etc.), his flesh though mortal and corruptible like all flesh was exempt from death in accordance with the promise of Genesis 2:17. In light of this, Scripture links Jesus’ resurrection not with transformation and creation but with his death on the cross. As Peter, like Paul (Rom. 6:9), implies in Acts 2:23f., since Jesus had freely waived his exemption from death in order to make atonement on behalf of his fellows, when that was once for all accomplished (Heb. 7:27; 9:12, etc.), death no longer had any hold over him. Having dealt definitively with sin, there was nothing else left for him to die for (cf. Heb. 9:28). Thus his spirit which he had committed to his Father on the cross returned to his mangled body in the grave (cf. Luke 8:55) and he rose again in the self-same body he had laid down (cf. John 10:17f.; 20:26-28). To posit its transformation is in effect to deny its resurrection. But it does more. On the one hand it renders his appearances ‘ghostly’ which Jesus himself specifically denies (Luke 24:39, cf. Mt. 14:26); on the other hand it reduces their evidential impact by turning them into a charade. If his appearances are not what they claim to be, they are calculated to deceive. Furthermore, they render redundant the ascension, which Harris regards merely as an acted parable or drama despite the fact that Jesus taught that he who descended was precisely the one who ascended (John 3:13, cf. Eph. 4:9f.).

The Corrupted Body of David

In contrast with the body of Jesus which did not submit to decay, the bodies of those of us who like David die and undergo corruption require redemption or replacement with a spiritual body of glory which is clearly discontinuous with our decomposed, disintegrated and dispersed flesh. (This is why anthropological dualism involving flesh and spirit which Harris strongly denies, is so important, see GG, 251.) Like the creation from which it emanates, the flesh is corruptible by nature and cannot inherit incorruption (1 Cor. 15:50). Thus, according to Jesus we need to be born again, and according to Paul our bodies, in violent contrast with our flesh, need redemption and transformation to be like Jesus’ heavenly body of glory.

The Transformation of the Body of Jesus

It may be objected at this point that by denying the transformation of the body of Jesus at his resurrection, I have cut the ground from beneath my feet. In reply, I would insist, first, that while Jesus really died, the NT makes it indisputably plain that he did not experience corruption. It follows from this that he rose in exactly the same unchanged physical body that he had before his crucifixion. In other words, it patently lacked the glory that Harris attributes to it. It was only at his ascension that it was transformed into or replaced by a body of glory after which he sent the Spirit (John 7:39). On his return to the Father he regained the glory, majesty and splendour he shared with him before the foundation of the world (John 17:5,24, cf. Heb. 1:3). So when Harris contends that the resurrection transformation of Jesus rather than that of David is the paradigm or the model of ours, I am compelled to demur. The truth according to Paul is that resurrection transformation is confined to those who like David experience corruption; for those who do not experience corruption Jesus’ ascension transformation provides the paradigm. It models the rapture and transformation of the saints at the end of history who neither die nor experience corruption nor resurrection (1 Cor. 15:51f.).

Immortality and Incorruptibility

It is here that the distinction between immortality and incorruptibility is profoundly important. Contrary to Harris who claims that Romans 6:9 signals Jesus’ attainment to immortality, as already noted Paul significantly does not say that Jesus was raised incorruptible or even immortal. What he implies is that because Jesus was already personally immortal (by his baptismal regeneration and acknowledged sonship which are the basis of ours, cf. Rom. 8:12-17, and apart from which he could not have atoned for us) once he had died for his people he was never to die again (Rom. 6:9, cf. Rev. 1:18). Since he had kept the law and was not personally liable to death, he had dealt definitively with sin on the cross (cf. Heb. 9:28). However, his resurrection in the flesh, which was necessary to fulfil the original promise made to Adam and to obviate injustice, clearly involved his fleshly restoration which in turn clearly involved continued corruptibility. If this is the case, the problem then is that deathlessness or eternal life cannot be lived in a state of corruption and on a corruptible earth. It necessitates ascension transformation (John 20:17). As Paul says, transformation, like regeneration, is an absolute natural necessity for all flesh even that of Jesus. As I mentioned above, while regeneration brings spiritual immortality, only ascension transformation can bring incorruptibility as the end-time saints prove (1 Cor. 15:51ff.).

To express the point more succinctly, while believers like David who are already spiritually immortal see corruption and need to be raised incorruptible, Jesus, who did NOT see corruption and hence remained corruptible, needed to be changed at his ascension so as to become incorruptible.

The Argument Simply Stated

The argument can be simply and succinctly expressed as follows:

Jesus did not see corruption, therefore he was still flesh; therefore he was still corruptible; therefore he remained unchanged; therefore he still needed to be changed; therefore he was changed at his ascension; therefore he provided the paradigm of the rapture and transformation of the saints at the end of history.

Like Jesus (Rom. 6:9), the latter do not die but according to Paul they necessarily have to be changed like every other believer (1 Cor. 15:51). That change will occur at their ascension. So far as Jesus is concerned, it was only at his ascension that he entered fully into his glory, the glory he had shared with his Father before the world began (John 17:5). It was this glory certainly not evident on earth that he prayed his disciples would see in heaven (17:24).

Other Difficulties

Harris’ view that Jesus was changed at his resurrection is beset by other difficulties. For instance, Paul says that after being raised from the dead Jesus would no more return to corruption (Acts 13:34). (On this verse see my No Return to Corruption). But if he repeatedly returned to earth from heaven in a physical yet spiritual body as Harris contends, then he did precisely that. Again, the author of Hebrews (7:26, cf. 4:14) tells us that when Jesus was exalted above the heavens he was (spatially) separate(d) from sinners. On Harris’ thesis that he reappeared on the earth and spent time eating with and talking to his disciples, Peter in particular, he was far from being separate from them. Yet again, Paul says that what is permanent is invisible (2 Cor. 4:18) and can only be seen by faith (5:7) before we ourselves are fully redeemed and changed. So how could Jesus’ resurrection transformation body, which was his permanent spiritual body, become visible? Harris has to posit materializations for which there is only highly questionable support in the NT. Then there is the question of glorified flesh (dust). According to Paul this is a contradiction in terms (1 Cor. 15:50). Our Adamic corruptible flesh is shed and replaced by spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:45-49). And since our untransformed flesh is the product and corollary of creation, we are compelled to conclude that the earth, the footstool of God, far from being redeemed is destroyed and replaced by heaven, the throne of God (2 Cor. 5:1; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12).

God and Man

There is another important point to make. Man in contrast with God is created both mortal and corruptible (Rom. 1:23,25). As Genesis 2:17 indicates, Adam was promised life, or escape from death, if he kept the commandment (cf. Rom.. 2:7,10). (See further my article Escape.) Unlike Jesus the second Adam he failed (cf. Ezek. 17:15) and having thus earned death as wages (cf. Rom. 6:23) he sank back into the dust from which he emanated in the first place. From this we are forced to infer that while life is a gift, death for man is penal. It has a sting that is entirely lacking in the animal creation that does not know the law (1 Cor. 15:56). Corruptibility, in other words, is natural (Heb. 1:10-12). It is the way God who subjected creation to corruption and its consequent futility made us. But he did so in hope (Rom. 8:18-25). Thus when Adam, like Paul later (cf. Rom. 7:9f.), omitted to maintain the natural life he had and attain to eternal life by obedience, the death he had earned led inexorably to his total physical corruption in the ground. Jesus on the other hand met the condition of life by keeping the law (cf. Lev. 18:5) but could only live that (eternal, immortal) life by being changed. In other words, spiritual regeneration and ascension transformation are indispensable natural necessities totally unrelated to sin (pace Augustine). The latter is surely the point at issue in John 20:17. Mary could not hang on to the still physical and hence corruptible Jesus because he had of necessity to ascend and be transformed to enter the presence of his immortal and incorruptible Father. If he had remained on the corruptible earth in corruptible flesh, he would have got progressively older. In this situation he would have wasted away (2 Cor. 4:16) and disappeared (Heb. 8:13)! The inference we must draw from this is that immortality and incorruptibility are not always synonyms but complementary concepts. (Cf. Harris, RI, p.273. In GG, pp.271-273, Harris stresses the complementary nature of resurrection and immortality. On p.415 he misleadingly comments that the incarnation was irreversible and that the glorified Jesus is still in the flesh. What is undeniably true is that Jesus is still human though corporeally perfected.) As characteristics of God they stand or fall together. So if Jesus as man is to attain to the glory of God, he must acquire both. In the event, he received immortality at his baptism, incorruptibility at his ascension.

Concluding Points

All sinners, including believing ones, die and decay physically (cf. Rom. 5:12; 8:10). In view of this we are forced to infer that our flesh, like that of the animals (cf. Isa. 40:6-8), is not redeemed. Therefore, since all flesh is the product and corollary of the earth, we are compelled to believe that creation is not redeemed. On the other hand, since man in contrast with the animals is created in the image of God (cf. Isa. 31:3) and is a flesh/spirit dualism, he can await in eager anticipation the redemption of his spirit and a body of glory. (See further my Biblical Dualism.)

Resurrection and Creation

Clearly, there is no connection between the resurrection of Jesus and the redemption of creation. Jesus’ resurrection constituted his physical restoration in conformity with the promise made to man in the first place. If not and he underwent transformation, then the promise failed. On the other hand, if the Jesus, who was never to die again after his atonement and resurrection, had to be transformed to escape from the corruption of creation, that transformation occurred at his ascension (cf. John 20:17). What is more, it proved to be the paradigm of those who at the end of the age neither die nor experience corruption nor resurrection.

The Crux

This is the crux of the matter. It is essential for us to recognize that but for the vicarious nature of his work Jesus would neither have died nor experienced resurrection. If he had not died for us, he could only like a sinless Adam have been changed at his ascension. Resurrection transformation would have been impossible for him for the simple reason that he would never have died. Only the dead rise as Harris himself emphasises. We are thus compelled to infer that the notion of his resurrection transformation is theologically untenable. This inference is further bolstered by the recognition that after his death he did not see corruption, and this can only mean that he remained corruptible flesh throughout his earthly career as he in fact maintained (Luke 24:39).

In light of all this, it has to be said once again that the notion that the resurrection of Jesus guarantees the redemption of creation is without foundation. Scripture plainly teaches that once it has served its purpose of nurturing the full tally of the spiritual children of God creation has no further use. (Cf. the frequent OT references to the desolation of the land without inhabitants, and note Isaiah 45:18). When the ground ceases to bear fruit (cf. Heb. 6:7f.), it will be useless. Thus it will be destroyed (Heb. 12:26-31; 2 Pet. 3:7, 10-12) and pass away (Mt. 24:35; 1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:17). (See further my essays Fruitlessness and Destruction and The Destruction of the Material Creation.) Apart from (intelligent) man, creation is purposeless and meaningless. The same is true of the flesh, of course. Its infecundity and death are provisionally offset by reproduction and recapitulation (cf. Heb. 7:23). But the time will obviously come when even these will cease (cf. Luke 20:34-36).

From Grave to Glory

This section of my essay, that is, that on Harris began with a query regarding the title Raised Immortal. While the title From Grave to Glory is innocent enough in itself, in light of the views it expresses it also can be questioned. For what it implies is that Jesus went straight from the grave to heaven by-passing his physical resurrection and ascension. This I suggest is false to Scripture.

Wright on the Redemption of Creation

Wright’s claim that God’s mission is to redeem creation appears to be based almost entirely on inferences he draws from the limited revelation of the OT (cf. Ladd) and his uncritical acceptance of the clearly false Augustinian worldview. He makes his position plain when he writes: “We live as fallen humanity in a cursed earth” (p.395 and see index under curse). Wright’s failure to recognize that God did not make a covenant with creation at the beginning leads him, typologically speaking, to take us back to Egypt at the end. But God has forbidden this. (See further my essays Did God Make a Covenant with Creation? and No Going Back.)

The Importance of the Controversy

Is the controversy important? Fundamentally so. Without going into detail I would argue that while my view presents Christianity as unique and exclusive in its truth, the view expressed by Ladd, Harris and Wright lends life to premillennialism (cf. Ladd), cults like Mormonism and to world religions like Islam which posit a sensual paradise. Truth may be exclusive but it remains ever open in its appeal (Isa. 55:1; Acts 17:30f.; Rev. 3:18).

Food for Thought

How could Jesus at one and the same time (a) teach the necessity of the new birth for all who were born of the flesh himself included, and (b) epitomize the restoration of the material creation by his physical resurrection? Clearly the two are inherently contradictory.

John 3:1-8

A true (non-Augustinian) understanding of John 3 would put paid permanently to the idea that creation, which is epitomized by the flesh, is subject to redemption.

The Ascension of Jesus

If Jesus did not undergo corruption in the grave and was raised physical flesh as he claimed (Luke 24:39), he was still corruptible. This being so, he clearly had to be changed at his ascension (1 Cor. 15:51).

The Immortality of Jesus

If Jesus as man rose never to die again (Rom. 6:9) he must have been become immortal (gained eternal life) at his baptism when he received the Spirit (Mt. 3:13-17). Clearly the atonement by which his work was perfected (John 17:4;19:30) was efficacious and did not require repetition (Heb. 9:28; 10:1,14, etc.). In light of this, death had no hold on him (Acts 2:23f.; Rom. 6:9).

A False Framework

In many ways Ladd, Harris and Wright are superb scholars and exegetes, but they are trying to fit the pieces of the biblical crossword puzzle into a false theological framework. In their case, the pieces do not match the picture.

Common Features

Speaking in general, Ladd’s weakness is his dubious speculation about the body’s connection with creation; Harris’ Achilles heel is his insistence on the transformation of Jesus at his resurrection and Wright’s nemesis is his unwarrantable stress on sin and curse. The chief characteristics shared by all three are (a) the traditional but erroneous, even absurd, Augustinian worldview, (b) an inadequate covenant theology and (c) failure to distinguish properly between body and flesh. So long as these continue to be accepted in the name of Scripture, the truth of Christianity is, humanly speaking, in mortal danger.
Doctrinal reformation is a paramount necessity.

______________________________________________________

References:

R.G.Clouse ed., The Meaning of the Millennium, Downers Grove, 1977.

J.D.G.Dunn, Romans, Dallas, 1988.

J.D.G.Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, London/New York, 2003 ed.

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

M.J.Harris, Raised Immortal, Basingstoke, 1983.

N.Geisler, The Battle for the Resurrection, Nashville, 1992.

G.E.Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, London, 1966.

G.E.Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1974.

B.B.Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies, Philadelphia, 1952.

C.J.H.Wright, Knowing God the Father through the Old Testament, Oxford, 2007.

C.J.H.Wright, Knowing the Holy Spirit through the Old Testament, Oxford, 2006.

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

W.E.Vine, Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Nashville,1985.

If Romans 5:12 refers to the imputation of Adam’s sin, why:

(1) the long list of actual sins universally committed (1:18-3:20,23)?

(2) the stress on law and knowledge (4:15; 7:1,7)?

(3) the emphasis on works including the repeated use of verbs expressing action like doing (poiein: 1:28,32, etc.), practising (prassein: 1:32; 2:1-3, etc.) and working (katergazomai: 1:27; 2:9)? Cf. 1 Sam. 20:1,32, cf. 19:5; Luke 23:15,41, etc.

(4) the difference between justification by works and by faith (3:21f.; 4:2-6)?

(5) the distinction between imputation and wages in 4:1-8 (cf. 6:23) ?

(6) the difference between (actual) sin committed before Moses and sin like that of Adam after Moses (5:14, cf. 2:12f.)?

(7) the distinction between the sin of Eve and that of Adam (1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Cor. 11:3)?

(8) the distinction between the free gift (righteousness) and the unspecified effect of Adam’s sin leading to death in 5:15-21?

(9) the distinction between wages (death) and the free gift (life) in 6:23?

The traditional Protestant assertion is that Adam’s sin was imputed to all human beings at birth (with the apparent exception of Jesus despite Luke 3:38; Heb. 2:17, etc.) making them liable to the wages of death. This is a contradiction in terms since imputation excludes wages (Rom. 4:1-8). It should further be noticed that infants lack both law and knowledge and are hence incapable of faith and action leading to obedience or disobedience. Thus, we are bound to infer that since they are not under law, they cannot be held accountable by it (3:20), and since they are incapable of works, they cannot be judged by them (2:1-13).

For infants there is no law (Dt. 4:10; 31:12f.), no knowledge (Dt. 1:39; Ps. 78:5-8, cf. Isa. 7:15f.; 8:4), no faith, no truth (Rom. 2:20), no works of obedience or of disobedience (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 6:16-18; 1 John 3:4,7) and hence no judgement (Rom. 2:1-13; 3:20). In light of this we are forced to the conclusion that they are innocent like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before they became aware of the commandment (Gen. 2:17). For where there is no law or knowledge (John 9:41; 15:22,24) there can be no transgression (4:15; 5:13; 7:1-11). Thus Jonathon (1 Sam. 14:27), Ahimelech (22:15), Abigail (25:25) and David (2 Sam. 3:26,28) being ignorant were all guiltless.

The truth is that Romans 5:12 and 6:23 are in basic harmony. Both refer to the death of all on account of the sin of all (cf. 3:9,12,23) as God intended (3:20,23f.; 4:2; 11:32; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16;3:11,22; Eph. 2:9). In the flesh (Rom. 8:3) only Jesus kept the law (1 Pet. 2:22), inherited the life it promised (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Mark 1:11) and died for his people’s sins (1 Pet. 2:24), the righteous for the unrighteous (3:18).

Throughout Scripture the imputation of sin to those who, like infants (cf. Num. 14:3,29-33; Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.), have not committed it is evil (Ex. 23:7; 32:33; Dt. 24:16; 1 Sam. 19:5; 20:32; 2 Sam. 24:10,17; 1 K. 21; Ezek. 18:4,20; Mt. 27:23; Luke 23:14f.,22, etc.). It was uniquely by faith that sin was imputed to Jesus enabling him to die on our behalf (John 10:17f.; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18).

It is a commonly held belief that when we die we go to heaven and the presence of God. On the other hand, many Christian writers tell us our destination is not heaven but the new creation or new heavens and new earth. Like OT prophets, they talk of either the transformation of the present creation or of its destruction and replacement by a brand new physical creation. (See my “The Redemption of Creation”.) The basic problem with these views is that they are not taught in the NT. The new creation referred to by NT writers relates to men and women made in the image of God (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15, cf. 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6, etc.). It relates in other words to the spiritual transformation that occurs as a result of the new birth or birth from above. Indeed, as John 3:1-8 makes clear it specifically excludes the physical or material. It may be asked why is this so. The answer is that while the spiritual is eternal, the physical is temporal.

The Temporal and the Spiritual in Contrast

The very first verse of the Bible differentiates between the Creator and his creation indicating that creation is not eternal. Since the material creation has a beginning it must also have an end. This point is clearly made by the author of Hebrews who contrasts creation with its Creator in 1:10-12. Since creation is subject to age (v.11), he draws the conclusion that like the old covenant it is becoming obsolete and ready to vanish away (8:13). Some object to the inferences drawn from this author on the ground that they reflect a “twist of Platonic dualism” which destroys the “organic continuity” between the two Testaments (Wright, p. 279). This, however, is hardly the case. The pejorative and transient nature of the physical creation is too pervasively entrenched in Scripture to be dismissed in this way. For a start, while it may be freely admitted that there are elements of continuity linking the Old and New Testaments (e.g. sin and justification by faith), there are also fundamental features of discontinuity. If the Old Testament enshrines the provisional old covenant and the New Testament embraces the eternal new covenant, discontinuity is bound to be prominent and dominant.

The Bible reflects a basic dualism somewhat similar but nonetheless different from Greek dualism. Apart from Hebrews 1:10-12, which is essentially OT teaching, Genesis 8:22 points to the eventual demise of the physical creation. Though the covenant with Noah is referred to as everlasting (9:16), in light of what is said later we are forced to conclude that this is only in this-worldly terms. Apart from Psalm 102:25-27 and Isaiah 34:4 which appear in Hebrews 1:10-12, references such as Psalm 92:2f.; 103:14-16; Isaiah 13:6-13; 40:6-8,26; 51:6,8; 54:10; Haggai 2:6,21; Zephaniah 1:2f.,18,3:8; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 13:1; 14:2f.12; 17:5,24; Romans 1:23,25; 1 Corinthians 7:31; 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:7f.; 2:8; Hebrews 6:7f.; 10:34; 11:10,16; 12:26-29; 13:14; 2 Peter 3:7,10-12; 1 John 2:8,17; Revelation 20:11 and 21:1 to go no further all explicitly or implicitly testify to the natural temporality and transience of the created world. The difference between the Creator and his works, between heaven and earth and flesh and spirit are indelibly etched in Scripture.

Sin and Transience

It may be objected by those who have adopted the worldview Augustine of Hippo that the reason for creation’s transience is sin. Usually they argue that the original creation was perfect like God. Implicitly blasphemous though it is to equate the two (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:23), they contend that when Adam, the appointed lord of creation, “fell” from original perfection into sin, creation “fell” with him, and the reason why it manifests signs of corruption today is that it is a victim of sin. In view of this, like man himself it clearly needs redemption though writers are not always agreed on the form that this will take. The contention is that if the body needs redemption (Rom. 8:23), so does creation. It is further maintained that when Jesus rose from the grave in a glorified fleshly body, he was the first fruits not merely of the resurrection of men (1 Cor. 15:20,23) but of creation itself. As a recent writer put it: “And if Jesus was raised from the dead as a forerunner of the renewal of all the material and physical world, then it gives Christians both the incentive to work to restore creation … as well as infinite hope that our labours will not be in vain” (Tim Keller in Evangelicals Now, Nov. 2007).

Eternal Replacement

The problem here is that the NT fails to teach this. Physical restoration belongs to the OT (e.g. 1 K. 13:6), and if it occurs in the NT it relates to the present world which still exists. (See further my essays Restoration and Resurrection and Restoration and Replacement.) What is more, Jesus’ resurrection is nowhere connected with the renewal of creation. Apart from the deeply suspect notion that Jesus was glorified when he rose from the grave rather than at his ascension, his resurrection stemmed from the fact that he was “illegitimately” put to death. In other words, he died for our sin not his own (1 Pet. 3:18). This being the case, as one who was personally sinless, he could not be bound by death (Acts 2:23f., cf. Rom. 6:9; Rev. 1:18). He had already met the condition of life promised to (the first) Adam by keeping the law (cf. Mark 1:11). However, since his resurrection was physical or fleshly (Luke 24:39), as a product of the aging earth through his mother he needed not simply immortality but incorruptibility as well, and that could only be found in the presence of his incorruptible Father in heaven (cf. Rom. 1:23; 2:7). Thus not surprisingly Paul says that Jesus uniquely brought (divine) immortality and incorruption to light (2 Tim. 1:10, cf. Rom. 2:7; 1:23), and but for false Augustinian thinking it would be needless to add that through Christ, after undergoing the necessary change that even Jesus experienced (1 Cor. 15:50f.), we too gain immortality and incorruption (1 Cor. 15:53f.).

Re-creation and/or Transformation

All this points to the fact that the redemption of creation is not on the agenda. Or does it? Some argue that since we have gained eternal life we need a new or transformed world in which to live it out. Unfortunately, neither of these ideas is tolerable. Why?

First, if we posit a new or freshly created world we have to reckon with the fact that it will be as temporal as the first. A new creation involves a new beginning and implicitly an end. It cannot therefore be eternal since the eternal has neither beginning nor end (Isa. 57:15; 66:1; Heb. 7:3). Clearly creation by nature stands in contrast with God.

Second, like the Jewish Rabbis before them some Christians hold passionately to the idea that the new heavens and the new earth referred to in 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1 suggest not so much a brand new creation but a re-created or transformed one, one where the ravages of sin have been obliterated. The view of the premillennialist scholar G.E.Ladd has proved very influential and been endorsed by many in the Reformed camp (e.g. Reymond, p.1037. 1* In his work on Paul, despite his emphasis on the eternal which already exists, e.g. p.345, this author talks of “the recovery of the entire cosmos”, pp.309, 352.). He maintains “that man’s ultimate destiny is an earthly one. Man is a creature, and God created the earth to be the scene of his creaturely existence. Therefore, even as the redemption of man in the bodily aspect of his being demands the resurrection of the body, so the redemption of the very physical creation requires a renewed earth as the scene of his perfected existence” (p.631. See also Ladd’s Jesus and the Kingdom, pp.179,331, etc.). Apart from the fact that Paul flatly denies that the corruptible material creation can be eternalized (1 Cor. 15:50b), a transformed physical world will be no more eternal that the first one, such a view is not only not taught in the NT but is explicitly denied. Ladd’s mistakes are clear. First, he fails to appreciate the inherent temporality of the physical creation and hence of its product, the natural or physical body. The body that is redeemed (Rom. 8:23) is spiritual (1 Cor. 15:44,46). Next, he fails to recognize that Isaiah 66:17 and 66:22 which appear in 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1 were clearly among others OT intimations of heaven on which OT writers were decidedly unclear. In the NT these verses require re-interpretation or spiritualization (cf. 11:10,16; 12:22-24). (See further my “The Redemption of Creation”.) Third, he fails to give due weight to the NT teaching that the present earth will pass away and yield to or be replaced by heaven itself, the throne as opposed to the footstool of God (Isa. 66:1; Mt. 5:34f.). In the words of the author of Hebrews he (God) abolishes the first in order to establish the second (10:9). And given the context, the latter can only mean the unshakable remaining (1:10-12; 6:7f.; 12:26-29; 13:14, cf. 13:8) or the eternal.

Fourth, Ladd has failed to heed the NT teaching that when we as perfected spirits (cf. Heb. 12:23) leave this temporal world, we shall enter the eternal world (2 Pet. 1:11) in accordance with our heavenly calling (Phil. 3:14; 1 Thes. 2:12; Heb. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:10). Like Jesus we shall enter heaven itself (Heb. 9:11f.,24) for we shall be with him in his Father’s house (John 14:2f.). Thus our eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12) by the blood of the eternal covenant (Heb. 13:20) guarantees us an eternal heavenly inheritance (1 Cor. 15:50; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 1:3f.) of glory (2 Cor. 4:17; 1 Pet. 5:10) in an eternal body (2 Cor. 5:1) of glory (Phil. 3:21) in the eternal age to come (Mark 10:30, cf. Luke 20:34-36; Eph. 1:20f.).

There is yet a fifth point worth making which, as far as I am aware, is ignored by Ladd and many others like him, that is, the fundamental difference between what is “made by hand” (cheiropoietos) and what is “not made by hand” (acheiropoietos). The first relates to the OT, the second to the NT or more specifically to the new covenant. A simple illustration is the redemption by hand of the Israelites from Egypt and the spiritual redemption of believers from this world which is not by hand. (See further my article Manufactured or Not So.)

A Problem

There is a problem, however. How can we who are products of a temporal earth and notable for our birthdays inherit eternal life. Does not Paul specifically deny that the perishable (corruptible) can inherit the imperishable (incorruptible)? The answer to this lies in the nature of our salvation. First, while it is corporeal (somatic) (Rom. 8:23), it is not physical but spiritual. Second, as spiritual we were made in the image of God and had to achieve his likeness. (2* Anthropological dualism, which surely relates to eschatological dualism, is clearly and extensively taught in the Bible. Though he strongly stresses the latter, pp.75ff.,530ff., Reymond, dominated as he is by sin, with blatant inconsistency denies the former, Paul, p.323.) Though failures ourselves we achieve the perfection of God through Christ who, as flesh, was himself made perfect (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 1:3; 5:9, etc.). Third, as the song has it we were on the mind of God before the world began (cf. Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2). (3* On the eternal nature of our salvation, Reymond, inconsistent though he is, has helpful things to say, Paul, pp.332-354.) Fourth, we are born of God and/or of the Spirit (John 1:13) and are therefore the seed of God (1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9). And as Jesus points out in John 3:6 like produces like. It was Mary not God who gave birth to the baby Jesus! Fifth, this means that we share the eternal life that characterizes God himself alone. In elaboration of this it is vital for us to note that we are not as physically corruptible human beings immortalized and eternalized, that is, merely granted extended or everlasting life which Paul says is impossible. Rather, as flesh we are destroyed (1 Cor. 6:13; 2 Cor. 5:1) or changed (1 Cor. 15:50ff.) But as his children we participate in the glory of God (Rom. 5:2; 2 Cor. 4:17; Col. 1:27) and share his nature (1 Pet. 4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4).

Conclusion

So what the Bible teaches is that we human beings created in the image of God can achieve his likeness in Christ and thus share his glory. In simple terms, it means that we, unlike the animals which are merely flesh (Isa. 31:3), can escape from the corruption of this created world (Rom. 8:18-25) and enter the presence of the eternal God himself. It was precisely to make this possible (Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18) that our Saviour became man with the intention of regaining as man his former glory as God (John 1:1f.; 17:5,24).

Truly may it be said that believers in Christ travel from here to eternity.

_______________________________________________________

References

G.E.Ladd. Jesus and the Kingdom,

R.L.Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Nashville, 1998.
Paul Missionary Theologian, Fearn, 2000.

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

According to Hebrews 2:10-13 the work that the Father gave to Jesus to accomplish was that of bringing many sons to glory (cf. John 4:34; 5:36; 6:38; 10:11,15,17f.,37; 17:4). In order to do this Jesus himself had to be made perfect. What was involved?

1. We must understand that our perfect Creator is both immortal (1 Tim. 6:16) and incorruptible (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17). (The failure of most versions of the Bible to distinguish between incorruptibility and immortality is regrettable. See e.g. Rom. 1:23; 2:7; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2 Tim. 1:10.)

2. All human beings as creatures of God stem from the temporal earth and are flesh. As such they are mortal and corruptible by nature (Rom. 8:20; Gal. 6:8; Heb. 12:27) and need to seek glory, honour, incorruptibility and immortality by patience in well-doing (Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7).

3. From the start Adam and all his posterity were promised escape from corruption to (eternal) life and glory on condition of exercising dominion (Gen. 1:26-28, cf. Ps. 8:4-6) and of keeping the commandment(s) (Gen. 2:17).

4. All failed, came short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), died (Rom. 5:12), saw corruption (Gen. 3:19; Job 10:9; Ps. 104:29; Eccl. 3:20; 12:7) and hence needed a representative rescuer or Saviour, a second Adam.

5. Jesus exercised dominion, kept the law and so met the condition of life. He was thus the first man (flesh) in history to gain eternal life or to be born again (Mt. 3:13-17; John 3:1-8).

6. As representative man and the covenant representative of all who exercised faith in him Jesus freely gave his flesh in death for sin on our account (1 Pet. 3:18; Col. 1:22).

7. On his own account he was not subject to death since he had met the condition of life. So after making atonement he was necessarily raised from the dead (Acts 2:23f.) never to die again (Rom. 6:9, cf. Heb. 9:28).

8. However, since, as he had predicted (John 2:19-21; 10:17f.), he was raised as flesh (Luke 24:39, etc.), he was still corruptible. So, having finished his work, in order to gain glory (or regain his former glory, John 17:5,24) he had to ascend (John 20:17) where he was before (John 3:13; 6:62) and be transformed (cf. John 6:63).

9. Jesus thus served as the pioneer to glory of all who believed in him (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 6:20; 9:24; 10:20; 12:2). He died to cover their sins, he was raised for their justification and he ascended as the first fruits of their resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20,23, cf. Heb. 2:9).

10. Since all human beings who know the law break it and are thereby constituted sinners, all come short of the glory of God, die and experience corruption (Rom. 3:23; 5:12). This being the case, their bodies need redemption (Rom. 8:23). When they are redeemed, they will resemble Jesus’ body of glory (Phil. 3:21). Only those at the end of history who do not die and do not undergo corruption will be glorified like Jesus at their ascension (1 Cor. 15:51,52a).

In sum, then, for man, who is by nature mortal and corruptible flesh, regeneration (life) and ascension (transformation glory) are natural necessities inherent in the purpose of God which is thwarted only by sin (1 Cor. 15:56). Only Jesus did not sin ( John 15:10; Rom. 8:3; 1 Pet. 2:22, etc.) so it was he who brought life and incorruption to light (2 Tim. 1:10) thereby paving the way to glory and victory for the rest of his brethren (1 Cor. 15:53-55,57; Rom. 8:31-39).

Truly is Jesus the hope of glory (Col. 1:27), the sole and exclusive agent of man’s attainment to the perfect image and generic likeness of the glorious immortal and incorruptible God (Heb. 1:3; Phil. 3:21; Rev. 3:21).

Sin

If the definition of sin is transgression of the law (Gen. 2:17;1 Sam. 15:24; Jas. 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17), it follows that where there is no law there is no sin or violation (Rom. 4:15; 7:8f.).

If sin is imputed, it must be a free gift like imputed righteousness (Rom. 4:1-8; 5:15ff.). If imputed righteousness lacks merit, it follows that imputed sin lacks demerit. The dogma of original sin is then a myth. As the Bible plainly teaches, the sins of the father cannot be imputed to the son (Dt. 24:16; Job 21:19-21; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18, etc.). Repetition, participation, support and/or complicity must be involved (Zech.1:4; Acts 7:51; Rom. 1:32; 2 John 11, etc.).

Judgement

Judgement is by works (Rev. 22:12). Sin, according to Scripture, is a work (Rom. 2:6-11; Gal. 5:19). As we have seen above where there is no law there is no transgression. The law speaks only to those who are under it (Rom.3:19; 7:1,7, etc.), therefore babies which are flesh (John 1:12f.), like the animal creation at large (Isa. 31:3), are excluded. Being ignorant of the law and knowing neither good nor evil (Gen. 2:17; Dt. 1:39, cf. Ps. 32:9), they are therefore capable of doing neither good nor evil (Rom. 9:11). So, since they have done no works, they cannot be judged by them.

The Temporal Creation

Creation is intrinsically temporal and temporary. It had a beginning (Gen,1:1) so it must have an end (cf. Ps. 102:25-27; Heb. 7:3,16). Since we originate physically from the temporal earth, we also as creation in miniature must be inherently mortal (cf. Rom. 1:23, etc.) and as a consequence we are necessarily in the process of seeking incorruptibility (Rom. 2:7,10). The same is true for both the first and the second Adam. However, the law (or commandment, Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.) promises life on the condition that it is kept. Failure means we sin and earn its wages which is death (Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 7:9f.).

Jesus, however, kept the law (Mt. 3:16f.). While he died for OUR sin, he did not see corruption. In other words, when he arose from the dead, he took up his earthly life again (cf. John 10:17f.). His was a genuine physical resurrection, a physical restoration. Had it not been, he would have suffered corruption.

Jesus’ Body

Had he continued to live on earth, Jesus, in accordance with the laws of nature, would have grown progressively older (cf. Luke 12:33; John 8:57; 2 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 1:11; 8:13; Col. 2:22; 1 Pet. 1:4), that is, experienced corruption. But God’s intention was always, as it had been with Adam, to grant eternal life to all who kept the law (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). But eternal life is impossible in temporal flesh on a temporal earth. In other words, the plan of salvation from the start involved the perfection (maturity, completion) of man both spiritually and corporeally. Thus, at the appropriate time when God’s standards had been met (cf. Gal. 4:2) and his work on earth had been completed Jesus was taken up into heaven, transformed and glorified (John 7:39; 14:2f.; 16:28; 17:5,24; Acts 2:33; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2, etc.).

The Glorification of the Flesh Impossible

It seems to be accepted teaching nowadays that when Jesus rose again he did so in a glorified body. This is impossible for various reasons. First, resurrection and glorification are distinguished in Scripture not identified. Next, according to Paul we cannot be glorified in the flesh since like the earth from which it derives it is corruptible and subject either to transformation (1 Cor. 15:50-52) or destruction (Rom. 8:10; 1 Cor. 15:35ff.; 2 Cor. 4:16-5:1); again, the bodies we hope for are unseen (Rom. 8:24f.); fourthly, if Jesus’ resurrection body was glorified he was no longer genuinely flesh. In other words, despite his insistence that he was flesh (Luke 24:39), his resurrection was really a transformation. If this was so, he had failed to take his life again as he had laid it down (John 10:17f., cf. 2:19-21). The obvious truth is that his transformation occurred at his ascension (cf. John 20:17) like that of those who are still alive at his coming. It was not until then that he was endowed with a body of glory which would become visible only in heaven in accordance with his prayer (John 17:5,24). As man Jesus continues to live in the spirit like God (1 Pet. 4:6, cf. 3:18f.) but in a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44,46).

See in more detail my essays The Corruptibility of Creation, Concerning Futility, With What Kind Of A Body Do They Come?, etc.

While writing the article The Harvest of the Earth, I came to realise that fruitlessness and destruction are very closely related in Scripture. Here I seek to explore the issue in more detail.

Creation

It is noticeable that though the earth is fruitful during the time of God’s creative activity (Gen. 1:11,20,24, cf. 2:7), it continues to be so only so long as man exercises his proper dominion over it and tills it (Gen. 2:8,15). This is true even before the advent of sin and indicates that creation is far from perfect. It has to be ruled as the spirit is intended to rule the body which itself is a product of creation (Gen. 2:7). The implication is that unsupervised and uncultivated the earth undergoes reversal, descending rapidly from the relative order of the Garden into the wilderness and desolation of uninhabited land (Gen. 3:17-19, cf. Isa. 6:11; Jer. 6:8, etc.). In simple terms, the need for dominion implies inherent deficiency.

The initial purpose of the earth is obviously to produce vegetation and animal life including man. But this is jeopardized when man who is called to exercise dominion over it runs morally amok. The consequence is the temporary and doubtless local curse experienced by Adam (Gen. 3:17-19, cf. 13:10), then by Cain (Gen. 4:11f.), and then by Noah’s generation at the flood. The effect of the latter is mitigated by the rescue of Noah and his family with whom a covenant is established guaranteeing the earth’s basic fecundity until the end of the world despite sin (Gen. 8:21f., cf. Luke 17:27f.; Mt. 5:45). God himself, however, as both Creator and spirit, was not looking primarily for material food despite the fact that he nurtures all animal life (Ps. 104, etc.) and maintains its existence (cf. Job 12:10; 34:14f.). If he were hungry he would have proclaimed the fact. The cattle on a thousand hills belong to him (Ps. 50, cf. Dt.10:14). He is clearly in anticipation of something else.

Man

Man is special; he is made in the image of God. This suggests that the Creator is looking for fruit from man apart from physical reproduction. What is this fruit? The answer would appear to be spiritual development evidenced by, first, proper dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:26,28) promising eventual glory and incorruptibility (Ps. 8:4-6, cf. Heb. 2:9) and, second, sinless obedience leading to deathlessness or immortality (Gen. 2:16f.). In other words, the aim seems to be man’s ever-increasing spiritual likeness to God himself as befits his future children (1 John 3:1-3). In simple terms, God is seeking steadfast love and knowledge of himself (Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:8, cf. Dt. 10:12f.; 1 Sam. 16:7; Ps. 147:10f.; 149:4; Heb. 11:6) or, as Jesus expressed it, thanksgiving, worship and knowledge (cf. John 4:23; 17:3). However, all readers of the Bible soon become aware that Adam’s sin and defective development made him unlike God and lead to his inevitable death. The same was true of all his posterity who all sinned in their turn (Rom. 5:12, cf. 1 K. 8:46; Ps. 106:6; Dan. 9:5, etc.). This being the case, the need for a second Adam was paramount. So it comes as no surprise when the author of Hebrews tells us that Jesus came not to offer sacrifices (cf. Mic. 6:6f.) but to do God’s will (10:1-10), not to please himself (Rom. 15:3) but the Father who sent him (John 8:29). He was to fulfil the original purpose of man by subjecting everything to his control in sinless obedience and to be crowned with glory and honour. Even more to the point, on account of his fellows’ failure, he was to suffer death on their behalf and bring them to glory as his brethren (Heb. 2:10) and thereby please his Father (cf. John 8:28f.). His fruit bearing which involved service and good works (Mark 10:45; Acts 10:38) would ensure that the condemnation and destruction that overwhelmed the first Adam would be avoided.

But destruction is also the lot of Adam’s immediate descendants. Why? Because their corrupt conduct brought inevitable corruption in its train (Gen. 6:11-13) thwarting the Creator’s purpose. At this stage as immorality abounded, the cultural mandate was being neglected (cf. Gen. 5:29). In this situation God showed his grief (Gen 6:7) and displeasure through the curse of the flood. He threatened both man and the earth with destruction. However, the divine purpose, implicit in creation itself, gave rise as noted above to the covenant with Noah which promised the ultimate fulfillment of God’s plan (Gen. 8:21f.). This can be said in spite of the continuing sinfulness of mankind who was clearly going to be in need of further rescue in the future (cf. Jer. 31:35f.; 33:19-22).

Sodom and Gomorrah

Events that transpired during the life of Lot and Abraham are repeatedly referred to throughout the Bible (e.g. Dt. 29:16-29; Rom. 9:29). As in Genesis 6:11-13, the corrupt conduct of the licentious and godless Sodomites leads not merely to their own destruction but to that of their habitat as well (Gen. 19:24-28). Only righteous Lot (2 Pet. 2:7f.) and his daughters are rescued from the fiery holocaust.

The Chosen People

While the destruction of the earth threatened by the flood was temporarily deferred, Scripture has a good deal more to say about man’s general failure to bear fruit and its consequent punishment. One can highlight the elimination by death of the generation of Israelites who left Egypt at the exodus. Instead of conforming with the divine command to take possession of the promised land, they preferred to return to forbidden Egyptian fleshpots and bondage (Num. 14:3f.; Acts 7:39). Again, it was on account of their descendants’ rebellious failure to produce the fruits of obedience that led to the exile. God’s honour was at stake (Jer. 14:7,21), so like their predecessors the Canaanites who had defiled the land, God cast them out, sending them first into Assyrian and then into Babylonian captivity (cf. Zech. 7:8-14). He did not, however, make a full end of them (Jer. 4:27, cf. 1 Sam. 12:22).

The moral failure of the Canaanites who defiled the land calls for comment. It is made especially clear that in their case the land itself remained a good land (cf. Gen. 13:10; 1 Tim. 4:4), and was inherited as such by the incoming Israelites (Num. 14:7, etc). Why wasn’t it destroyed as it was temporarily in Noah’s time and at Sodom? The answer seems to lie in the fact that despite their idolatry and immorality, as nature worshippers the Canaanites nonetheless cultivated their land to good effect. James (see 3:3,7) has something pertinent to say on this issue. In apparent contrast with the antediluvians who wanted to “play” while Noah worked (cf. Gen. 5:29; 6:11-16), even morally bad people and active disbelievers can be diligent workers in the material realm. A farmer, or even a scientist, as such is judged by what he produces not by his morals. Even Esau became wealthy and had his portion in this world (Ps. 17:14)! To claim that modern technology is largely the work of unbelievers even if true is no argument against the truth of Christianity. Furthermore, as we shall see below, some Christians, despite the genuineness of their faith, are very ineffective workers and will suffer loss in the judgement to come.

It was not until their rejection of Jesus that the most radical destruction of the elect nation took place. If Nebuchadnezzar razed Jerusalem and the temple, how much more the Romans. The failure of the chosen people to produce good fruit was regarded in the eyes of God as a serious defect which had to be punished and rectified. And it was Jesus himself who, as the true Israel and a true Son of Abraham, was promised as a blessing and a light to the Gentiles (Mark 10:45; John 8:12; Gal. 3:14,18,29). It was he who bore the fruit that the elect nation failed to bear (cf. Mark 10:43-45; John 4:34-38; Acts 10:38). It was, however, because they rejected not only the prophets but also Jesus the Son himself that they were finally partially (cf. Rom. 11:25) cast off (Mt. 21:33-46; Acts 7:51-53). Their house was left to them forsaken and desolate (Mt. 23:38) like a barren land (Jer. 12:10f.).

Trees

Failure to produce fruit is highlighted in various ways throughout Scripture as, for example, in the parable of the talents (e.g. Mt. 25:14-30). John the Baptist taught his Jewish audience that trees that fail to bear are cut down and burnt (Mt. 3:10, cf. v.12; 13:30) and Jesus endorsed his teaching on this point (Mt. 7:19). The prophet Isaiah had propounded the same view with regard to the chosen people symbolized as a vine long before (Ps. 80:8; Isa. 5:1-7). However, it was in a different context that he specifically mentioned fire (Isa. 33:11-14). The prophet Malachi did not mince words either and warned his audience that purifying fires were on their way (3:2f.). In 4:1 (cf. Joel 2:31) he refers to the day of the Lord when evildoers will burn like stubble so that neither root not branch are left (cf. Amos 2:9).

In view of OT teaching it is hardly surprising that Jesus takes up the theme of fruit bearing and of good and bad trees (Mt. 7:16-20). In one of his parables (Luke 13:6-9, cf. 21:29-33) he refers significantly to a fig tree that failed to produce its expected crop and was threatened with destruction (cf. the exile which was not the ‘full end’ experienced by the heathen, Jer. 4:27, 30:11, cf. 33:10f.) if it did not improve when it was fertilized. And we know the result. On another occasion Jesus gave special emphasis to his teaching by acting out a parable on a fruitless fig tree by causing it to wither (Mt. 21:19f.). The fig tree could only symbolize the rejected Jewish nation. On the other hand, when Paul refers to the olive tree in Romans 11 he assumes that election cannot ultimately fail since the gifts and call of God are irrevocable. Divine mercy will ensure that the divine purpose will be accomplished (11:32, cf. Ps.57:2; 138:8; Phil. 1:6).

Branches

It is because he always did his Father’s will that the life of Jesus bore spiritual fruit (John 4:34; 17:4, etc.), and we also for whom he died can in contrast with Adam be fruitful in our turn. We are told that if we abide in him just as he abided in his Father’s will (John 5:30), we can bear much fruit (John 15:5). This fruit consists of a life of faith commanded by God (John 6:29; 1 John 3:23) which in turn produces the fruit of good works, service and righteousness (Gal. 5:22f.; Eph. 2:8-10, cf. James 2:18-25). On the other hand, while pruning leads to increased fruit bearing, failure to abide leads to withering like a branch and to eventual burning (John 15:6, cf. Heb. 26f.). Those who deliberately reject Christ and the work of the Spirit and by contrast kowtow to the flesh and the world necessarily reap the corruption which characterizes them (Gal. 6:7f., cf. 5:21; 1 John 2:15-17).

The World and the Flesh

The world and the flesh are both frequent topics in the epistles. Paul tells us that so far as he is concerned both have been crucified (Gal. 5:24; 6:14). We may ask why. The answer surely lies in the fact that while they may be fertile, even prolific, in (re)producing material or physical things (Gen. 8:21f.; 9:1; 16:10; 17:20, etc.), they are not so with regard to spiritual things. Jesus himself tells us that worldly treasure (Mt. 6:19f.), like the world itself (Mt. 24:35), is subject to rust and decay (corruptibility) not to mention its vulnerability to theft (sin). Peter harps on the same theme when he strongly stresses that an imperishable, undefiled and unfading inheritance is to be found only in heaven (1 Pet. 1:3f.,7,18,23-25). Paul especially underlines that spiritual bankruptcy of the flesh maintaining that it is incapable of producing good (Rom. 7:18; 8:8). By contrast he asserts as he did in Galatians 6:8 that those who live according to the flesh will die (Rom. 8:13). Living by (material) bread alone is a certain recipe for death (cf. John 6:49). After all, the entire animal creation, which lacking the law cannot sin, survives on perishable food (Ps. 106:20; Isa. 40:6-8, cf. John 6:27) provided by God (Ps. 104:21, etc.) but dies nonetheless (v.29).

Both John and James underline the danger involved in loving this world or this age (2 Tim. 4:10). John reminds his readers that it is passing away along with its lusts and desires (1 John 2:15-17, cf. 1 Cor. 7:31). While James warns that uncontrolled and misdirected passions prompt the enmity of God, he adds significantly that friendship with the world does the same thing (4:1-4). It is like loving Egypt rather than the Promised Land. Little wonder that Jesus taught his disciples that as followers of him they did not belong to this world either as people (John 15:19) or as permanent inhabitants (contrast those that dwell on the earth in the book of Revelation 6:10, etc., cf. Ps. 17:14).

It is perhaps pertinent to add here that Jesus, like the eunuch and the barren woman of Isaiah 56:4f. and 54:1 respectively, failed to produce physical fruit. He makes clear the reason why in Matthew 19:12: his personal preoccupation was with the spiritual kingdom of God (John 4:34, cf. Mt. 6:33; 1 Cor. 7:1,8,26). For him the flesh, like the ‘good’ (that is, useful or serving a purpose, Ps.119:91; 1 Tim. 4:4) physical creation from which it derives (Gen.1) is ultimately unprofitable (John 6:63). While reproduction under the terms of the Noachian covenant plays a part in or serves the scheme of salvation, it has no ultimate value in itself (Luke 20:34-36). Once the kingdom of God is established (cf. Heb. 10:9), creation having played its part is dispensed with (Isa. 54:10; Hab. 3:17-19; Zeph. 1:2,3,18; 3:8; Heb. 1:10-12; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). (In light of this it would seem that traditional “Augustinian” interpretation of Romans, which suggests that the material creation will share in the freedom of the children of God, 8:21, is seriously astray and stands in direct contradiction of what Paul says in I Cor. 15:50, 2 Cor. 4:18 and Rom. 8:20,24f. See further my essays on The End of the World, The Destruction of Creation, etc.)

The New Creation

Contrary to much traditional and even modern thought, the new creation relates to man not to matter, to the spiritual not to the physical (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). The notion that God will redeem or restore the material creation reflects a woeful misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches. Just as the flesh fails to bear spiritual fruit, so does the earth from which it emanates. So when their purpose of playing their part in producing the harvest of the children of God (Rom. 8:19-25) is finally accomplished, they have no further use (cf. Gen. 8:21f.). (1* God’s children are spiritual or heavenly, not physical or earthly. Though originally created by him from the earth, they are now ‘sired’ by him from heaven, John 1:13, cf. Gal. 4:26, and hence are nurtured in his generic image, 1 Pet. 1:23-25; 2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 3:9. The need to be born again from above is a paramount necessity arising primarily from nature, not sin, John 3:1-8.) Not only is this mortal coil sloughed off but so also is the temporal, corruptible earth that spawned it. If the limited revelation of the rather earth-centred OT prophets seems somewhat equivocal in places, the fact remains that the destruction of creation is pervasively taught in Scripture (Isa. 34:4; Nah. 1:6; Zeph. 1:2f.,18; 3:8; Rev. 6:13f., etc.). The contrast between the eternal God himself and the temporal creation appears in Genesis 1:1; 8:22; Psalm 90:2; 102:25-27; Isaiah 51:6; 54:10; Habakkuk 3:17-19; Matthew 24:35; Hebrews 1:10-12 to go no further. Paul tells us in Romans 8:18-25 that God subjected creation to corruption in hope from the start. (2* It should be noted that sin is no more mentioned in this passage than it is in John 3:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:45-50.) And Peter (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12) and the author of Hebrews (12:27-29) have no doubt whatever about the fiery demise of all created things (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18). After all, once it has ceased to bear fruit it has no further use or raison d’etre (Heb. 6:7f.).

(3* One can only assume in light of the evidence that 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1(cf. v.5) do not refer to a literal new creation, though it may be new to us. In view of the fact that these verses hark back to and echo Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22 where both the ‘new Jerusalem’, 65:18f., and the ‘remaining’, cf. 2 Cor. 3:11, appear, they must be regarded as OT intimations of heaven. Both of them occur in Hebrews, e.g. 1:11; 10:34; 12:25-27 and 12:22, where they clearly refer to the eternal world, or the world to come, Heb. 1:6; 2:5, which already exists, Heb. 6:5, and cannot be shaken. The idea held by many that God will create a new material world in place of the present one which has been simply spoiled by sin defies logic. Apart from the fact that God has entered his eternal rest, Gen. 2:1-3, if it has a beginning like the first it will not be eternal, cf. Heb. 7:3. In confirmation of this it must be added that Isaiah, despite his limited understanding, like the apostle John proposes that the former things will not be remembered and that we, as those who are born from above, John 3:3, will dwell in the heavenly Jerusalem which is our mother, Gal. 4:26. According to the NT, the material world of the temporal present age and the old covenant, Heb. 8:13, is replaced by the spiritual world of the eternal age to come and the new covenant, Heb. 13:20. See further my essay on the Interpretation of 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1.)

The Earth Again

This brings us back to the teaching of Genesis. As I noted above the flood threatened both the earth and its inhabitants with destruction for failure to bear acceptable fruit. However, faithful Noah and his family were rescued and the original purpose of creation was prolonged under a covenantal but chronologically impermanent guarantee (Gen 8:22). At a later date Sodom and Gomorrah, inhabitants and habitat alike, were destroyed. In the NT Jesus refers to this as a picture of the end of history (Luke 17:28-30). Then when apostasy and wickedness abound and the love of men grows cold (Mt. 24:9-14, cf. 2 Tim. 3:1-5, etc.), the fire of judgement will bring destruction to all who refuse to love the truth (2 Thes. 1:8; 2:1-12). It will also spell the end of the entire material creation. It is not only the fleshly old man who will have passed away but also the world itself (1 John 2:17, cf. Zeph. 1:2f.,18; 3:8; 1 Cor. 7:31; Heb. 9:11; Rev, 20:11; 21:1).

Fruitlessness and Salvation

Despite what has been said above, such are the riches of God’s grace to sinful men and women that there is at least one clear exception to the idea that fruitlessness leads to destruction. Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 that the work of some Christians will prove defective when it is tested by fire on the day of judgement. He says that while the sound work of some will be rewarded, the unsound work of others will be rejected and burnt. This, however, does not mean that the genuine believer will not be saved. The implication of this is that in accordance with the gospel we are saved by grace not by works. So far as believers, who are justified by faith apart from works, are concerned there is no condemnation (Rom. 8:1). For them works relate purely to reward. For unbelievers, however, the story is different. For them, though their dead works cannot lead to salvation, they can certainly lead to their condemnation and damnation (Rom. 2:6-11, etc.). If salvation is a free gift received by faith, damnation is earned. It is wages paid for works actually done (Rom. 4:4f.; 2:9).

In light of this teaching of Paul, we are perhaps given an inkling into what Jesus is getting at in the parable of the sower. There, only the first group belongs to the devil (Mt. 13:19). The superficial second group and the pre-occupied third group while remaining fruitless are not necessarily faithless and wicked (cf. 2 Thes. 3:2). If this is so, then they may be saved at the last judgement. Strictly speaking, only dedicated Christians, as true children of God who do not need to justify themselves, are capable of producing good works (Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 2:14, cf. the Roman Catholic idea of works of supererogation.) But it does not follow from this that those who come short of specific faith in Christ are necessarily damned. The judgment scene portrayed in Matthew 25:31-46 (cf. Rev. 20:11-15) testifies against this. A deficiency of good works does not imply a superfluity of wicked works, though sins of omission reflecting callous indifference threaten catastrophe (cf. Luke 16:19-31). However, sheep are not goats. As Jesus teaches elsewhere good and evil appear in many forms. And in view of the sovereignty of God on the one hand and the limited historical spread of the gospel on the other this is hardly surprising. Fundamentally important though it is to embrace Christ as Saviour, it is a completely unwarranted inference that all who are not specifically Christian are facing a “Christless eternity”. If that were true, Hebrews 11 could never have been written. A proper understanding of covenant theology would dispel any such idea. Even Jesus himself under the law failed to produce good works let alone, like John, do any miracles. As a servant he was preoccupied with doing his duty (Luke 17:7-10). In the event, he was the only one to do it acceptably (Mt. 3:17) and so meet the condition of life which God in his grace had promised Adam.

Though there is doubtless more to be said on this subject, it is important here to warn professing Christians, who claim to base their “gospel” on the infallible word of God yet remain firmly entrenched in their received tradition which undermines and even contradicts it, that there is a price to pay if this is done knowingly. We need to bear constantly in mind the fact that Jesus was scathing in his criticism of those who like the Pharisees remained committed to their tradition. On the other hand, genuine ignorance is always a mitigating factor in Scripture, thank God, but it is dangerous indeed to maintain a position whose falsity has been revealed. Failure to listen to what Jesus (cf. John 13:13) and his appointed apostles teach (Eph. 2:20) threatens destruction (Dt. 18:18-20; Rev. 22:18f.). We have been warned, and it behoves us all to search the Scriptures in diligent humility and respond appropriately to what we find. Fruit borne by the false prophet (Mt. 7:15-20) as well as the false believer (Mt. 7:21-23) is fraught with disaster in OT (Dt. 13; Jer. 23; Ezek. 13) and NT alike (Gal. 1:6-9).

Finally, to argue as I have done above that the earth is destroyed once it ceases to bear fruit prompts the question of its original purpose in the first place. For example, at the end of a TV film on his life Stephen Hawking, the British scientist, commented that the biggest question of all facing science was why there was anything at all. The Bible has an answer or rather two related answers. First, creation exists to declare to man the glory of God (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:20). Second, it is designed to produce a harvest of souls (Rev. 14:14-20) or as Paul would say it was created in hope of something better (Rom. 8:20,24f.; 2 Cor. 5:4f.). Otherwise expressed, earth is the threshold of heaven (Gen. 28:12; John 1:51), of the kingdom of God (Rev. 11:15), of true life in the presence of the Creator himself (1 Tim. 6:19). Once its purpose is achieved, earth ceases to have any reason for being and can be dispensed with.

The two most adamant and powerful contenders for the imputation of Adam’s sin in the twentieth century known to me were Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Professor John Murray. If one ignores his belief in original righteousness (Romans 5, p.194, cf. 191), an exact parallel between Adam and Christ (pp.189,197,199,204f.) and his denial of the moral neutrality of man at birth (pp.317f), one does not have to read many of Lloyd-Jones’ sermons to realise that his case rests entirely on the death of infants (see e.g. pp.203ff.,229,249,268). This renders him extremely vulnerable for two main reasons: first, his case collapses if another reason for the death of infants can be given; and, secondly, Murray, in contrast with Lloyd-Jones, apparently had serious doubts about a case built exclusively on infant mortality (Romans, pp.190f.).

So far as the first point is concerned, it is plain from the teaching of Scripture that when a baby is born it is ‘flesh’ (John 1:13, cf. 1 Cor. 15:46), and, like Adam at creation (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22), knows neither good nor evil (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f., cf. 8:4). It is hence morally neutral. If it dies without knowledge of (the) law it can neither transgress it so as to earn its wages nor keep it so as to receive its promise of life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 7:9f.). It must therefore succumb to the law of nature imposed on all creation, man and beast alike, by God himself (Ps. 49:12,20; Eccl. 3:18ff.; Rom. 8:19-25). As in the case of the congenitally blind man, sin is not involved (John 9:3, cf. Mt.19:12; Ex. 4:11; John 11:4). If, as Lloyd-Jones admits, a baby does not actually sin, i.e. commit an overt act of sin (p.203), then it can neither earn the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23) nor become subject to judgement (Rom. 2:6, etc.). Furthermore, to say that sin is imputed to it makes sin a free gift which in the nature of the case cannot be paid wages (Rom.4:1-8, cf. 6:23). If it can, then the parallel requires that we consider our imputed righteousness capable of earning wages as well! A baby’s lack of knowledge of the law on the one hand and its lack of faith on the other (required to make imputation possible) should have made it clear to all that babies are indeed morally neutral (Dt. 1:39; Num.14:31, etc.) and that sin plays no more part in their (natural) death than it does in that of sinless animals.

But Lloyd-Jones has an even greater difficulty to face. While he notes that a large number of infants died in the time between Adam and Moses (p.203), unlike Murray he fails to recognise that if infants are in fact in view, there is no obvious reason why Paul refers exclusively to this particular period for “the same holds true for infants in every period and no one period is a better example than another” (Murray, Romans, p.191n.). In the event, Murray himself fails abysmally to provide an answer. To be reduced to saying lamely that “the apostle is thinking of the universal reign of death and of the solidarity of the whole pace (sic) in this affliction” is hardly good enough. It is nothing more than a totally unsupported assertion of the kind of which he is guilty elsewhere (see e.g. his denial of the legitimacy of any attempt to interpret the Mosaic covenant in terms of the Adamic institution, Collected Writings 2, p.50). And when he adds that “The only sin that provides the explanation is the sin of Adam and the participation of all in that sin” (cf. p.187), he is saying no more than Lloyd-Jones. He has evidently got a rope of sand in his hands.

The plain truth is, of course, that Murray’s dissatisfaction with Lloyd-Jones’ position at the outset identifies a fatal flaw in the argument of both. For Paul’s reference to the period between Adam and Moses is meaningless on the assumption that he had infants in mind. In fact, it indicates beyond doubt that Paul is talking about actual sin in Romans 5:12 just as he was in 3:23 where the same Greek word is used.

That Murray is governed by dogma is further discovered by his earlier comment when he admits the validity of the Pelagian interpretation of verse 12 which could have been “stated admirably well in these terms” (p.182). And the reasons ‘factual, exegetical, and theological’ (pp.183f.) he adduces for rejecting it prove on examination quite inadequate. What he terms the ‘most conclusive refutation’, i.e. “the explicit and repeated affirmations of the context to the effect that condemnation and death reign over all because of the ONE SIN of the ONE MAN Adam” (p. 183) is not a refutation at all. Since Paul nowhere makes specific what the effect, apart from death (cf. 6:23), of this one sin is (cf. Moo, p.323), mere repetition, even ad infinitum, proves nothing, least of all imputation. There are, however, at least three things we need to bear in mind: first, we are all made in the image of Adam (Gen. 5:1-3, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49); second, Adam and Eve established a pattern of sin which is imitated or repeated frequently throughout Scripture; third, all parents make an impact for good and/or evil on their children (Exodus 20:5f., 34:6f.; Numbers 14:18; Dt. 5:9f., cf. Gen. 22:17f.; 26:3-5 for blessing, and 1 K. 12:30; 13:33f.; 14:16; 15:30,34, etc., for curse). If that is true of us (cf. Rom. 14:7), how much more it must be true of Adam, the progenitor of the entire race. It might be usefully added that Adam’s solidarity or seminal identity with the race is comparable with that of Abraham with Israel. But just as there were two Israels one according to the flesh and another according to the promise (Rom. 2:28f.; 9:6f., etc.), so there were two Adams evincing both solidarity in nature (Heb. 2:14,17f.) and separation in conduct (Heb. 2:9), both similarity and contrast. If imputation were true, this would be impossible, since the second Adam would have been caught up willy-nilly in the sin of the first. As Pelagius, for all his serious error, correctly pointed out, imitation, or better repetition (which Murray, following Augustine, Needham, pp.49-51, predictably denies, CW 2, p.50) as opposed to generation (again Augustine), is of the essence of sin (pace Art. 9 of the C. of E. and note John 8:38ff. espec. v.44, cf. 1 John 3:8-10. See further a multiplicity of other texts in both Testaments like Jer. 3:25; Acts 7:51f.; 3 John 11, etc.).

So, in sum, we may say that: (a) infants, as deriving physically from a temporal material creation destined for extinction (Mt. 24:35; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.), die as a result of disease or disaster quite naturally; (b) imputation and wages are mutually exclusive categories (Rom.4:1-8); (c) only actual sin, which is a work involving transgression of the law, can deserve or earn the wages of death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 2:6; 6:23); (d) the so-called parallel between Christ and Adam in Romans 5:12-21 proves on examination to be far from exact and is in fact a contrast; (e) if the imputation of Christ’s righteousness requires faith as its instrumental means, then so does the imputation of Adam’s sin. Since, however, faith is lacking in the latter, it is clearly an error. The parallel simply does not hold. (1* It might usefully be added that Murray failed to recognise, even denied, CW 2, p.50, that the Adamic administration (commandment), which led to either blessing or curse, was a rudimentary or embryonic form of, and hence was paralleled by, the Mosaic covenant of law imposed apart from faith though rationally accepted, Ex. 24:3,7. The true precursor or parallel of the Christian covenant, which makes faith an absolute requirement, is that of Abraham, cf. e.g. Gal. 3:29; 4:21-31.)

The Augustinian dogma of original sin should be abandoned. It is false to the Bible and not surprisingly it is, according to Cardinal Ratzinger (on TV), central to the Roman Catholic faith. (Since I wrote this Cardinal R. has become Pope!)

Professor Murray’s views on the imputation of sin constitute a serious problem for his entire theology. Those who have read extensively through his works must be aware that (a) he denied the Adamic administration covenantal status (see CW 2, p.49); he adopted a one-covenant as opposed to a federal theology (see his The Covenant of Grace); and yet (c) he argued, as we have seen above, for a double imputation in his interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 (see both his Romans and his The Imputation of Adam’s Sin). But more must be said. In the latter work, Murray notes the following references to imputation in the Bible: Lev. 17:4: Psalm 32:2; Romans 4:8 and 2 Corinthians 5:19 (p.71). He rightly says that these are more specifically expressions of the non-imputation of actual sin. Yet, in obvious contrast, the view he is promoting is an expression of the actual imputation of non-existent sin (cf. Dt. 24:16; 1 Sam. 22:15; Ezek. 18, etc.). This being so, his case is clearly as vacuous as his conclusion that babies are born sinful is fatuous. In fact, his entire work is based on the unproved, indeed the unprovable, assumption that Paul has imputation in mind in Romans 5:12-21. If Paul is teaching imputation then he is involved in self-contradiction, since one of the foundations of his argument in Romans, relating to its basic theme (1:17), is that where there is no law there is no sin (e.g. 3:20; 4:15; 5:13; 7:8f., cf. 1 Cor. 15:56; Gal. 5:23). This is true even of the heathen (Rom. 2:12, etc.) though they lacked the law of Moses (cf. 5:13). And that children do not know (the) law is implied by the constant stress placed on teaching it to them (Dt. 4:9; Ps. 78:5f.; Isa. 28:9; Heb. 5:12f.).

Perhaps the most obvious flaw in Murray’s entire thesis is that the imputation of Adam’s sin depends for its validity not on exegesis but on federal theology! This arose in part out of Augustine’s dogma of original sin based on his Latin Bible with its erroneous translation of the Greek words ‘eph’ ho’ in Romans 5:12 (cf. Vulgate’s ‘in quo’) meaning ‘because’ not ‘in whom’, i.e. in Adam (cf. Needham, p.49 n.4). The truth, however, is that the words ‘in Adam’, which are crucial to the imputation theory, do not appear. (In 1 Corinthians 15:22 where Paul is dealing with the body and its resurrection they clearly refer to our physical nature, see espec. vv. 45-50, not our covenantal status. Note also the distinction between dying ‘in Adam’ which we all do, even Jesus (1 Pet. 3:18), and being dead in our trespasses, Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 2:13, cf. John 8:24). Thus having deprived himself of both exegetical (he admits, see above, that the Pelagian view is the natural one) and theological grounds (only a federal theology, if it were true, would support a double imputation) for his understanding of the passage in question, his imposition of the words ‘in Adam’ on the text is quite gratuitous. (2* This might seem to be a distortion of Murray’s position since in his commentary on Romans 5:12 he explicitly rejects the translation “in whom all sinned”, p.183. Nonetheless on p.186, he arrives precisely at that conclusion. Thus Needham, p.50, says that Murray’s position is virtually the same as Augustine’s. On pages 186f., Murray alludes to 1 Corinthians 15:22 and asserts that the only adequate explanation for the fact that “in Adam all die” is provided by Romans 5:12. This of course is formally correct, but it begs a serious question: What does Paul mean when he says that all die in Adam? In view of the rest of 1 Corinthians 15, especially vv.47-49, where, like Jesus in his conversation with Nicodemus in John 3, his concern is with nature not sin, we cannot but conclude that he intends us to draw the conclusion that we die as creatures (even babies) of flesh and blood like the rest of a temporal and corruptible creation, cf. e.g. Ps. 49; Rom. 8:18-25. Even Jesus died in the flesh, 1 Pet. 3:18, which is mortal by definition. It is worth adding at this point that in 1 Corinthians 15:21f., as in 15:50, we have an example of synonymous parallelism. In any case, there is not the slightest suggestion that when Paul uses the phrase ‘in Adam’ he has covenant (federal) theology in mind.) Murray is clearly governed more by dogma than exegesis. And further, it points up the unsystematic, incoherent and unbiblical nature of his entire theology as can be shown at point after point.

Lack of space prevents extensive elaboration of this here, so I will confine my attention briefly to the question of the order of salvation (ordo salutis). Since, following Augustine, Murray holds that we are born in sin and are sinful by nature (CW 2, p.58, etc.), he believes in true Augustinian fashion that only the new birth will put matters right. (3* Schreiner, cf. Moo, pp.323-328, rightly rejects imputation but somewhat enigmatically says that the reason all sin is that they enter the world spiritually dead because they are descendants of Adam, p.148. In reaction, two points must be made immediately: (1) Jesus was a son of Adam, and (2) there is an obvious sense in which all, including Jesus himself who knew neither good not evil, cf. Isa. 7:15f., are born spiritually ‘dead’! However, Schreiner fails to allude to Romans 7:9f., where Paul states that he was ‘alive’ until he broke the commandment. The reason why all sin, Jesus apart, 1 Pet. 2:22, is simply that in their fleshly weakness they commit sin, cf. John 8:34; Rom. 7:14, as God intended, Rom. 3:19f.; 11:32; 1 Cor. 1:29; Eph. 2:9, etc. The fact that Adam sinned guaranteed, pace Pelagius, see Murray, see Imputation, p.12, that all his descendants who were made in his image, Gen. 5:3; 1 Cor. 15:49a, and had to contend with his parental legacy of bad example and influence would do so unless they had the power to resist. None apart from Jesus, the stronger man, Mt. 12:29, had. Only he defeated sin in the flesh, Rom. 8:3. No wonder that Paul insists that no flesh will boast before God, Gal. 2:16; 3:22 – a comment which implies (a) that keeping the law is still a theoretical if not a practical possibility, and (b) that original sin is not on the horizon. If original sin were true, reference to boasting would be both superfluous and absurd.) This means that regeneration takes priority in the traditional order of salvation (see Redemption Accomplished and CW 2, espec. 194ff.; Romans, p.27 n.21).

Unfortunately, this is impossible since the indispensable prerequisite of regeneration or new (eternal) life is righteousness (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5 and many similar texts such as Rom. 5:17,18,21; 6:19,22). It is an incontrovertible biblical axiom that only the righteous will live whether by faith (Rom. 1:17) or by keeping the law (Mt. 19:17), a point re-iterated time and time again by the OT writers (e.g. Dt. 30:15-30; Pss. 15,24; Is. 1:19f.; 33:14ff.). Even Murray would admit that faith, being instrumental, comes before righteousness. This means then that despite his strong assertions to the contrary, faith, necessary for justification, precedes the new birth (Rom. 5:18,21) and establishes human responsibility, which has always been threatened by the unilateral and arbitrary acts of original sin and the priority of regeneration. (The manifest inconsistency of Murray’s thinking becomes all the more apparent when we read his comments on Romans 5:18 and 21. He tells us on page 202, cf. pp.209f., that “justification … is unto life and issues in life”.)

Since Murray was usually regarded as the very epitome of Reformed orthodoxy, the weakness inherent in his thinking begs big questions for all who claim to be Reformed. Once more it is evident that the Reformation of the sixteenth century was, as some to their credit realised, only a half-way house. It is now surely time that this was recognised, more widely acknowledged and something done to complete what was as far as it went a wonderful work of the Spirit of God. The inadequacies of the Puritans, admittedly under stress, need now to be made up to allow justification by faith to come into its own.

References

D.M.Lloyd-Jones, Romans 5, London, 1971.

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

John Murray, Collected Writings 2, Edinburgh, 1977.

John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, Phillipsburg, 1979.

John Murray, The Covenant of Grace, London, 1954.

John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, London, 1961.

John Murray, Romans, London, 1967.

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

T.R.Schreiner, Paul, Downers Grove, 2001.

This much-disputed passage continues to be a thorn in the flesh of commentators even in the twenty-first century (see e.g. Motyer, pp.130,215f. n.57). Since the usual interpretations of it are less than convincing, and even bring the veracity of Scripture as a whole into question, another attempt at arriving at a more satisfactory conclusion seems worthwhile.

Most problems in the passage seem to arise because commentators read into it what is not there. What might be rejected as a superficial reading elicits no suggestion of sin, and Wenham admits, even after close scrutiny, that Cassuto correctly insists that the words can apply to perfectly proper marriages: “The passage contains not a single word … alluding to rape or adultery or any act against the LORD’s will” (quoted by Wenham, p.141, from U.Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies 1, Jerusalem, 1973, 1:194. This statement is in direct collision with D.Clines’ reference to the “violent and polygamous lust of the ‘sons of God’”. See Atkinson, p.131.) So it is reasonable to suggest that these verses act as an additional comment elaborating the information given in the previous chapter (5) which is notable for its emphasis on the propagation of the race on the one hand and the universality of death on the other. They stand in complete contrast with verses 5-8 where sin changes the atmosphere. (One fancies that had our medieval forebears ended chapter 5 with 6:4 and begun chapter 6 with 6:5, they would have saved our more immediate predecessors, not to mention modern commentators, a deal of misapprehension!) It would appear that what we are told about the development and propagation of the human race in 5:1 to 6:4, the reference to the Nephilim apart, is a necessary prelude to what is said later, and verses 1-4 of chapter 6 are basically transitional.

Difficulties arise, however, once the first four verses of chapter 6 are given ethical content and imbued with notions of transgression. Verse 1 is not a problem, since it appears simply to state that the race multiplied in accordance with the will of God announced in Genesis 1:28. ‘Men’ (or ‘people’, NRSV) is a generic term and entirely natural (cf. Murray, p.244). However, verse 2 refers rather mysteriously to the “sons of God” (the context excludes ‘gods’) and to the “daughters of men” apparently bringing them into sharp contrast and raising questions as to their meaning.

Common views of the “sons of God” have been: first, that they are angels or divine beings. Support for this is said to be found in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 and perhaps Daniel 3:25. But these references look decidedly less determinative when other texts like Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5f.; Psalm 73:15; 82:6; Isaiah 1:2; Hosea 1:10 and Malachi 1:6 are brought into view. Reasons for thinking that the “sons of God” are human as opposed to angelic surely arise from the recognition that angels are spirits (Heb. 1:14) and that they do not marry (Mt. 22:30). Appeal to the virgin birth (see Wenham, p140) in support of this angelic interpretation would seem to be entirely irrelevant, since it bears no comparison with what is being advocated. And since it has other implications, the less said about it the better. Furthermore, the close verbal affinity between Genesis 6:2 and 3:6, which describes Eve’s temptation, suggests powerfully that the flesh is very much in evidence on both sides (cf. James 1:14; 1 John 2:16f.).

These considerations seem to be decisive, and they do not appear to be undermined in the least by the highly questionable suggestion that 1 Corinthians 11:10 is an allusion to Genesis 6:2 (see e.g. Morris and Fee, who reject it, in their respective commentaries on 1 Corinthians, ad loc.). It is difficult not to believe that if the angelic interpretation had not been promoted by the apocryphal book of Enoch (probably under pagan influence), it would never have been advocated by Christians.

It is doubtless the inherent incredibility of the above, especially in the context of a book which Atkinson admits is remarkably free of mythological features (p.130), that has driven many to tout the idea that the “sons of God” were godly Sethites, and the “daughters of men” Cainites. But writers like Murray (pp.243ff.) seem to protest too much and, having unwarrantably saturated the passage with sin, exaggerate the distinction between the two lines of people. In any case, as Kidner says with his usual terseness, “nothing has prepared the reader to assume that ‘men’ now means Cainites only” (p.84). At the very least, it must be said that more evidence is needed. So while the distinction between families is valid, it hardly warrants designating Seth’s line “sons of God” and Cain’s “mere men”.

Also canvassed by some is the royal interpretation which envisages antediluvian leaders adopting Near Eastern titles as “sons of God” or “sons of nobles”, and taking up polygamy into the bargain, as Lamech is said to do though with some degree of exaggeration (Gen. 4:19). While this is a much more rational idea, Blocher thinks that Jude 6f. tells decisively against it (p.202). But that is questionable, since Jude is in all likelihood using an ad hominem argument and not necessarily endorsing the angelic view. Blocher apparently prefers to run the angelic and royal interpretations together, thus producing “a dangerous mixture of heavenly and earthly rebellions” (p.203). Apart from the inherent improbability of this in the context, it is rather speculative and again lacks support. So far as the “giants” (KJV) or “men of renown”, the mysterious Nephilim (cf. Num. 13:33), are concerned, there is no indication that they are to be regarded as especially sinful.

Kaiser (p.108), who describes the three lines of interpretation as the comologically, the religiously and the sociologically mixed race views, opts strongly for the latter. He claims that there are five lines of evidence supporting it. First, the ancient Aramaic Targums render “sons of God’ as “sons of nobles”. Second, the word “gods” (elohim) is used in Scripture for men who served as judges (Ex. 21:6; 22:8; Ps. 82:1,6). Third, structurally, the account of the Cainite, Lamech (Gen. 4:19-24), and that of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are similar. Fourth, Near Eastern discoveries point to pagan use of the names of “gods and goddesses” to give rulers added prestige and, fifth, the Nephilim means not ‘giants’ but something like ‘princes’ or ‘great men’.

There is little question in my view that Kaiser’s offering is superior to the other two. Superficially, its cumulative force is impressive, yet when each strand of evidence is analysed separately, it fails to convince. Its relation to the rest of Scripture is in the main extrinsic rather than intrinsic, and it is surely going beyond the evidence to claim that there is any real resemblance between Genesis 4:19-24 and 6:1-4. So there seems to be no good reason why we should not see 6:2 and 4 as corresponding with 2:18 and 24 rather than with 4:19.

What shall we say then to all this? If we reject the usual views, is it possible to find another? I think so.

Initially, I would refer back to my first comment that a natural reading of the passage elicits not the slightest hint of sin. NT references to the time of the flood bear this out. In Matthew 24:38 and Luke 17:27, in what is surely an allusion to Genesis 6:2 and 4 (cf. Marshall, ad loc.), Jesus simply states that people got married and had children in the normal run of events (cf. Luke 20:34). The only suggestion of sin, if there is one, must lie in the attitude of the antediluvians who, like modern secularists, carried on their activities without reference to God. In other words, they lived as though he did not exist or had any claims on them (contrast 1 Cor.10:31). Jesus’ terminology is arresting: he makes a clear distinction between marrying and being given in marriage. To be sure, it could be argued that his language reflects an interest in parallelism on the part of Matthew and Luke (cf. Gundry, Matthew, ad loc.). But is it not far more likely that the marrying echoes the activity of the “sons of God” and being given in marriage that of the “daughters of men” in Genesis 6:2 and 4? If this is so, the question that immediately prompts itself is, Why are the men and women referred to in such a way? And the answer must presumably lie in the creation story of Genesis 2 where it is taught that Adam was the first to be formed by God from the earth (2:7 and note 5:1-3), and then Eve from Adam’s side or rib. This point is taken up in the NT to underline man’s priority or primacy. Adam is designated a son of God in Luke 3:38, and in John 10:34f. Jesus, referring to Psalm 82:6f., clearly sees ordinary men, in this case Israelites, as sons of God (cf. Ex. 4:22; Dt. 14:1, etc.). What is more, as law-breakers they are typically sons of Adam.

Paul, of course, draws a distinction between Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2:13f. in a matter relating to the question of authority, and in 2 Corinthians 11:3 he implies what is explicit in the former passage.

But, next, it is quite astonishing that certain scholars have claimed to see, surely erroneously, an allusion to Genesis 6 in the reference to angels in 1 Corinthians 11:10, yet have failed to note the far more obvious and inherently more relevant reference to man’s primacy in the rest of the passage,. What Paul is saying here is that Adam was a son of God (see vv. 7-9) in a way that Eve was not his daughter. She was rather the daughter of man (i.e. Adam). While Paul’s appeal is doubtless primarily to Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:18-24 (and perhaps 5:1-3), he could well have had 6:1-4 in mind too. (1* Sherlock, following Barth, stresses the differentiation in the unity of man as the image of God in the early chapters of Genesis, pp. 34ff.)

Whatever the deficiencies of this line of interpretation, it is in accord with the analogy of faith. What is more, it suits the general and particular contexts in a way that other views do not and, above all, it is sensible and rational.

Finally, I argued earlier, in violent contrast with more traditional interpretations which steeped the issue in sin (see especially Murray, and also Payne, pp. 204ff.), that the verses lacked ethical content. In support of this contention it must be said that while Genesis 6:2 and 3:6 are similar in language and thought, it is quite gratuitous to assume that they both involve transgression. Eve, like David (2 Sam. 11:2-4, cf. Gen. 12:14f.), was breaking a divine command, but there is no evidence that the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” were doing likewise, at least, not at this point (cf. Dt. 21:11). Further, it is unwarrantable to see 6:3, where human life is subjected to a maximum limit, as implying a special punishment for sin in addition to the death sentence already imposed. And it is far better with Wenham to see ‘flesh’ as referring not to man’s moral weakness and propensity to sin but to his natural mortality and total dependence on God for survival. (2* This comment requires the more extensive elaboration I have attempted elsewhere.)

So I conclude that the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” in Genesis 6:1-4 are true children of Adam and Eve, ordinary men and women marrying and procreating in fulfilment of the will of God who created them (Gen. 1:27f.; Dt. 21:11). It should perhaps be added at this point that while little is said in the Bible about monogamy and that our first parents were not obviously married, as Sherlock intimates (p.272 n.18), nonetheless the fundamental relationship between man and woman is at least being strongly endorsed in Genesis 6:1-4. But further, and Jesus’ comment recorded in Matthew 24:38 and Luke 17:27 appear to support this view, marriage as we conceive of it as a formal and public commitment only began at this stage of man’s social development. Even if this could be proved not to be the case, far from conveying the absurd notion that angels had dealings with women, which is implicitly contradicted by Jesus himself (Mt. 22:30, cf. Dan. 2:11), Genesis 6:1-4 nevertheless underlines the perpetuation of the pattern of relationship established between Adam and Eve. While the difference between male and female is maintained, so is their unity, and, we might add, continues to be to this day despite the attempts of some to nullify it.

Postscript

Long after completing the first draft of the above, as a matter of interest I consulted Bauckham’s extensive commentary on Jude and 2 Peter. With regard to Jude 6, having referred to the Jewish tradition that angels (Watchers) descended from heaven to marry human wives, Bauckham adds that “ in the mid-second century A.D., the traditional exegesis (of Gen. 6:1-4) was replaced in Judaism by an insistence that the “sons of God” were not angels but men. In Christianity, however, the traditional exegesis had a longer life, questioned only in the third century and disappearing in the fifth century” (p.51).

In view of this, one is left wondering why modern scholars, on dubious linguistic grounds, revert to conclusions that their ancient predecessors came to consider, with good reason, were inadequate. Perhaps an inordinate obsession with language, a notable legacy of liberalism, is the problem. Regrettably, it seems to exercise a baneful influence on other difficult texts like 1 Peter 3:19, which is often associated with Genesis 6:1-4.

________________________________________________________

References

David Atkinson, The Message of Genesis 1-11. Leicester, 1990.

H.Blocher, In the Beginning, Leicester, 1984.

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

R.H.Gundry, Matthew, Grand Rapids, 1994.

W.C.Kaiser Jr in Hard Sayings of the Bible, Downers Grove, 1996.

D.Kidner, Genesis, London, 1967.

I.H.Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, Exeter, 1987.

L.Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, London, 1958.

J.A.Motyer, Look to the Rock, Leicester, 1996.

J.Murray, The principles of Conduct, London, 1957.

J.B.Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament, Grand Rapids, 1962.

C.Sherlock, The Doctrine of Humanity, Leicester, 1996.

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

In the Western world, theology remains to this day dominated by Augustine. By and large the church still teaches that God created a perfect world to be ruled by perfect human beings, Adam and Eve. This assumption, which is based on a misunderstanding of the word ‘good’ in Genesis 1 (*1 As writers on the OT frequently acknowledge nowadays, e.g. Collins, p.69, the word ‘good’, as Gen. 2:9 and 3:6 imply, means ideally suited to its purpose, cf. Ps. 119:91; Eccl. 3:11 NRSV) and the idea that a perfect God can only create perfection, is clearly contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture where the Creator is sharply distinguished from his creation (Ps. 103:14-18; Isa. 40:6-8; Rom. 1:23,25; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.). Even Jesus as flesh was part of creation and had to be perfected both physically (Luke 2:40-52) and spiritually (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). Furthermore, this notion raises immediate and insoluble problems. For if Adam and Eve were by nature perfect and hence immortal, as Augustine taught, how could they possibly fall into sin and die? If they could, then the inference must be that God himself could also! The thought is blasphemous. (*2 Apart from Collins, the most recent author I have read stressing original holiness, righteousness and “Fall” is M. Horton in his “God of Promise”. His book epitomizes the dangers of a false covenant theology.) So what is the true, the biblical, view?

According to the very first verse of the Bible creation had a beginning. This implies that it must also have an end (e.g. Mt. 28:20; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12; Rev. 21:1,4). And since this is so, it stands in direct contrast with its Creator who has neither beginning nor end (Isa. 57:1; 66:15, cf. Heb. 7:3). Far from being temporal, he is eternal (Mt. 24:35; Heb. 1:11; Rev. 4:11).

Adam

It is against this background that Adam, a creature of God who derives like the animals from the temporal earth (2:7) and is hence naturally mortal, is, as one who is also created in the image of the immortal God, promised (eternal) life if he keeps the commandment (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.). This conditional promise thus implies that in order to escape or overcome his natural mortality and corruptibility he must avoid all taint of moral corruption. Failure at this point means that he inevitably returns to the earth from which he was physically taken. So, since in the event Adam breaks the commandment, which promised life (cf. Rom. 7:10), and fails the test (Eccl. 3:18), he earns the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23, cf. 5:12) and returns inexorably to the dust (Gen. 3:19). To express the issue alternatively, both Adam and Eve yield to their fleshly desire (Gen. 3) and suffer inevitable death and corruption (cf. Eph. 4:22; 2 Pet. 1:4). In this they are of course like the animals for which as mere flesh escape is impossible. As part of the temporal and hence corruptible creation, they unavoidably succumb to the law of the created universe (e.g. Eccl. 3:19f.; Ps. 49:12,20). (3* Ladd, a premillennialist whose views have proved highly influential, denies escape from the physical world, pp.59f. His reference to Greek dualism, as opposed to cosmological and anthropological dualism as set forth in the Bible, is beside the point since the temporality and corruptibility of creation is inherent and has nothing to do with sin, Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12. See further below.)

The Big Question

But if this is true, how is man to achieve eternal life? How can he escape inevitable death and corruption if he cannot keep the commandments? While we are not told that Adam as an individual escaped from his natural mortality, hope for him and his posterity (e.g. Enoch) was at least hinted at in the promise of Genesis 3:15.

Noah

First, though threatening universal curse and destruction by means of the flood, God in his mercy and grace, rescues sinful Noah (Gen. 8:21), who is righteous by faith (Gen. 6:9; 7:1; Heb. 11:7), by means of the ark and establishes a covenant with him. He promises him fruitfulness and fertility so long as the earth remains (8:22), and, in a fashion reminiscent of his original command to (but definitely not covenant with) Adam (Gen. 1:26,28), calls on Noah to be fruitful, multiply and to fill the earth (Gen. 9:1). In contrast with Adam, Noah and his posterity at least have a covenantal guarantee that their efforts will not be in vain till God’s purposes are fulfilled. There will be no more curse on the ground until they are (Luke 17:30; 2 Thes. 1:8; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12; Rev. 20:11; 21:1,4, etc.).

It is important to stress at this point that Noah’s escape from the flood was achieved through faith (Heb. 11:7). His sinfulness is plain for all to see who read the rest of the story, for there it is clearly established (Gen. 9:20f.). But, as Peter is to affirm at a much later date, Noah escapes from the consequences of his sin in a way similar or analogous to Christians who escape from theirs – by faith and baptism into Christ (1 Pet. 3:21). While for Noah in mankind’s infancy the water served to wash off dirt, for Christians it is used for baptism which symbolises confession of faith in Christ and cleansing from heathen (1 Cor. 6:9-11) or even Jewish uncleanness (Acts 22:16, cf. Heb. 10:22; James 1:21).

However, if Noah was justified by faith, he fell well short of the perfection or maturity which was basic to his calling. While he had retained the image of God (Gen. 9:6), he had certainly not attained to his perfect likeness (cf. Mt. 5:48) or glory (Rom. 3:23). Nonetheless his justification was vital for his ultimate escape and his inheritance of life in the presence of God (Heb. 11:7, cf. Prov. 10:2,16,28; 11:4,19,21; 12:13,28, etc.).

Abraham

Abraham, the friend of God, owed his escape from heathendom entirely to divine initiative. Though it was Terah who took him from his home in Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11:31) where he worshipped idols (Jos. 24:2), he was but a human instrument serving the divine plan (Gen. 24:7; Jos. 24:3). Once again we must beware of thinking that Abraham was especially righteous or holy. On the contrary, Paul goes so far as to call him ungodly and wholly devoid of grounds for boasting before his Maker (Rom. 4:1-5). From time to time God had to rescue Abraham from danger as when Abimelech took Sarah his wife (Gen. 20). But by faith and trust in the promises of God Abraham overcame many obstacles, even the sacrifice of his son Isaac. Believing that his God could even raise the dead (Rom. 4:17), his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:22; Gen. 15:6). Thus, refusing to return to his place of origin, he made his escape convinced that a better country, that is, a heavenly one lay ahead of him (Heb. 11:16). While apparently thwarted in this world, he and his spiritual descendants were well attested by their faith and sure of being made perfect together (Heb. 11:40, cf. Mt. 8:11).

Jacob and Joseph

Jacob and his sons escaped famine and presumable death when God sent Joseph ahead (Gen. 45:5-7; 50:20) into Egypt. There they were nurtured into nationhood in what was in effect a temporary promised land (cf. Ex. 16:3; Num. 11:4-6; 16:13). This eventually gave rise to the need of a further escape not simply from slavery there but so that the ancient promises God had made to Abraham might be fulfilled. These were very much on Joseph’s mind at the time of his death (Gen. 50:24).

Moses and the Wilderness

After many a long year, God eventually took the initiative (cf. Ex. 2:24) and engineered flight from the house of bondage under the leadership of Moses. Moses himself had fled Egypt many years before, but his return involved judgement on the heathen gods, freedom for his compatriots and the ruin of Egypt (Ex. 10:7; 12:33. Cf. the return of Jesus, Heb. 9:28). The journey through the wilderness with all its attendant problems and difficulties is seen in Scripture as typological of our own pilgrimage through this world, for we too are but sojourners and exiles (1 Pet. 2:11, cf. John 15:19). As the epitome of the law, which itself, like the flesh, implied bondage (Gal. 3:23, etc.) and which he himself broke, Moses was not permitted to enter the Promised Land. But the journey was finally completed under the leadership of obedient Joshua (1:6-9) who also aided the escape of aliens like Rahab (cf. Ruth). For all that, the rest it brought, like the covenant to which it related (2 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 8:13), clearly fell short of perfection (cf. Heb. 4:1,6,8-10). The people of God, even when they did not undergo exile, were frequently slaves in their own land (cf. Neh. 9:36; Jer. 2:14) not least under the domination of Rome. Something more radical and permanent was needed. Thus both a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) and a new leader or servant became a prime requisite (Rom. 15:8f.). The scene was set for the arrival of the Messiah.

Jesus

Needless to say, the Israelites frequently held false views of their Messiah, for he was not concerned with gaining earthly political power (John 6:15; 18:36, cf. Mt. 4:8-10), which at best could only be a temporary half-measure. His aim was to liberate his people permanently from sin (Mt. 2:15) and bondage to the power of the devil and death (Heb. 2:14f.). Thus Jesus taught that his disciples would know the truth and that the truth would make them free (John 8:31ff.). But this again did not immediately bring complete freedom. For, according to Jesus himself, physical death still had to be endured (John 11:25). As Paul says in Romans 8:10, the body is (subject to) death because of sin. Why? Because death was the penalty God had imposed on Adam and all his posterity if they did not keep his commandments. None did (1 K. 8:46, etc.) until Jesus himself kept the whole law, gained his Father’s commendation and was acknowledged as his Son (Mt. 3:13-17). While Jesus proceeded to fulfil all righteousness (cf. Acts 10:38) by pioneering the regenerate life, he finally and gratuitously laid down his flesh to redeem those who put their trust in him (Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:5). When he had done this, his work was complete (John 19:30, cf. 17:4f.). He rose from the grave because, as one who had himself never sinned, his life was not forfeit (cf. Gen. 2:17) and death had no hold over him (Acts 2:24).

Eternal Life

But if he was never to die again (Rom. 6:9; Rev. 1:18), the question arises as to how he could live forever, least of all in the flesh, on a naturally impermanent earth? He could not. His intention from the moment he came from the Father was to return to him (John 3:13; 6:62; 17:5; Eph. 4:9f., etc.), ultimately with his (spiritual) siblings in train (Heb. 2:10). So, having once begun his exodus (Luke 9:31), he completed it at his ascension (Luke 9:51; 24:51; Acts 1:1-9; Rev. 12:5, cf. 2 Pet. 1:13-15). Like the children of Israel who were forbidden to return to Egypt (Dt. 17:16), he was never again to return to corruption (Acts 13:34, cf. Eph. 1:20f.; 4:9f.; Heb. 4:14, 7:26) even if, like Moses, he would return in the glory of God to rescue his own (1 Thes. 1:10; Heb. 9:28) as brands plucked from the burning (Jude 23; Amos 4:11). Though throughout his earthly life he had been constantly threatened by temptation, sin and death (cf. Heb. 5:7), in conspicuous contrast with the first Adam he had made his final escape a conqueror (Rev. 12:5; 3:21; 5:5; Rom. 8:3, etc.).

Believers

If this is true of Jesus, the Joshua of the new covenant, then it is true of all who put their trust in him. His own prayerful desire was that those who believe in him (John 17:20) should be with him to behold his glory (17:24, cf. Isa. 33:17,21f.; 66:18). But how can they do so if they have died and experienced corruption? While they cannot escape physical death and corruption (unless they are among those who are still alive at the end of the world, 1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thes. 4:13-17), their spirits will be saved and their bodies redeemed, that is, transformed and replaced (cf. Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 15:35ff.). In other words, their escape from sin, wrath (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thes. 1:9f) and corruption is assured. As Paul affirms, since God raised Christ, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2), he will also raise us (1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14, etc.). And we will be forever with the Lord (John 14:2f.,19; Rom. 6:8; 1 Thes. 4:17).

Our Pilgrimage

The author of Hebrews in particular emphasizes the pilgrim nature of our earthly life and our need to escape from it if we are to live eternally in the presence of God as just men made spiritually perfect (Heb. 12:23). As true children of Abraham, we need to keep our eyes on the heavenly city ahead of us (Heb. 11:8-16; 12:22-24; 13:14) not least because all shakable, that is, all created, things will eventually be removed (12:27). Even rest in an earthly Promised Land provided by God himself is inadequate (Heb. 3-4). Paul teaches similarly. He warns us to seek the things that are above (Col. 3:1-5) for our hope and calling are heavenly (Eph. 1:18; 4:4; Phil. 3:14, cf. Heb. 3:1; 9:15) like our commonwealth (Phil. 3:20). And John warns us not to love the world which is passing away along with its earthly desires (1 John 2:17, cf. 1 Cor. 7:31).

Peter’s support can likewise be cited for he tells us that our inheritance is “imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven” (1 Pet. 1:4, NRSV, ESV). In his second letter he makes it plain that submission to sinful desire leads to the bondage of corruption that afflicted Adam when he sinned (cf. Gen. 3:19). But Peter goes on to state that escape is gained by our becoming partakers in the divine nature, which is the result of faith in the promises of God (2 Pet. 1:4, cf. 1 Pet. 4:6). He further asserts that a refusal to believe leads to the dehumanization of people who behave like animals or creatures of (fleshly) instinct whose destiny is unavoidable destruction, as we noted above (2:12, cf. Jude 10). Claiming to be free they are in fact the slaves of both the physical and moral corruption (cf. 2 Pet. 2:19; 1 Cor. 6:9f.; Eph. 5:5f., etc.) that characterizes this temporal world (2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 1:11). Inevitably they will perish with it, for those who deliberately ignore the salvation offered escape is impossible (Heb. 2:3; 12:25).

The picture painted in the book of Revelation is in harmony with this. Along with 11:12 and 12:5 we need to note that in 14:3 the apostle refers to the redeemed from the earth, and in verses 14-20 to the reaping of the harvest alluded to in Matthew 3:12, 13:30,37-43 (cf. James 5:7). It should also be noted that in Matthew 13:38 the world is portrayed as a field which produces both good seed and weeds. The good is preserved, but not the weeds or chaff which perish like Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24-29, cf. Mt. 3:12; 13:30; Luke 17:28f.) in the general eschatological inferno (Heb. 6:7f.; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). While the physical/material will burn, the spiritual can exist in the very presence of him who is a consuming fire (Isa. 33:14-16, cf. Heb. 12:25-29).

Romans 8:18-25

Needless to say, this is precisely what Paul implied in Romans 8:18-25. This present world or age (cf. 1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:17) in contrast with the glory of the age to come (v.18) is by nature subject to corruption. That is the way God made it long before the entrance of sin. But he had done so in hope so that when the creation (creature? KJV) is freed from universal material corruption by eventual destruction (Mt. 24:35; 2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 1:10-12; 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.), we who believe will escape like Jesus our pioneer and elder brother (Luke 9:31,51; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:21; Heb. 2:10-13; 4:14; 7:26) by attaining to the liberty of glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:21) and becoming his heirs (Rom.8:17). And this, says John, demonstrates God’s love like nothing else (1 John 3:1, cf. 4:10; John 3:16).

In the words of Paul, “ … those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30). Escape indeed! Well may we conclude that our God is a God of salvation and that to him belongs escape from death (Ps. 68:20, 49:7,15) and this present (evil) age (Gal. 1:4, cf. Mark 13:8).

Summary

In order to escape from earthly temporal corruption man was originally called to exercise dominion over the world and to keep God’s commandments. In the event, all the children of Adam failed and allowed creation to rule them to some degree. And so it is today. As a consequence, we all become its slaves (Rom. 6:16; 2 Pet. 2:19). Jesus, the second Adam, has proved to be the only exception. He alone has conquered (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 3:21; 5:5, etc.). Since God always intended to save his people himself (Isa. 45:22-25; Phil. 2:9-11), he justifies them by faith in Christ. Christ is thus absolutely indispensable; he is our only means of escape from corruption. Eternal life and glory can be gained through him alone (John 3:16; 1 John 5:11-13, etc.). There is salvation in no one else (Acts 4:12).

See further my essays The Corruptibility of Creation, Concerning Futility, The End of the World, The Destruction of the Material Creation, etc.

_______________________________________________________

Reference

C.J.Collins, Genesis 1-4, Phillipsburg, 2006.

M.S.Horton, God of Promise, Grand Rapids, 2006.

G.E.Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, London, 1964.

The Danger of ill-considered Literalism

In light of the fact that the Bible itself transcends or spiritualises aspects of the OT in particular (see e.g. John 2:19-21; Col. 2:11; Hebrews, 11:10-16), literalistic interpretations must always be subject to careful scrutiny. It has been contended many times that both Genesis and Revelation are highly symbolic books. This apart, the word ‘day’, like the word ‘hour’ (cf. 1 John 2:18), is often used very generally as in English. The reasons for adopting a literal interpretation of the Genesis days must be compelling, and, as I shall try to show below, they are not. Writers often point out that the context is a useful guide in helping us to interpret texts. How true – provided we recognise that the whole Bible is the ultimate context, and this is important in dealing with the word ‘day’ in Genesis.

Scripture Usage

The danger of tying the word day to a literal solar day first becomes evident in Genesis 1 and 2 themselves. W.J.Dumbrell points out that “The Hebrew word for ‘day’ is used in three senses between Genesis 1:1 and 2:4: for evening and morning taken together (e.g. v.5), for light as opposed to darkness (v.5), and in the broader sense of ‘when’ (2:4)” (p.15).

In his article on Last Days, Days in Evangelical Dictionary (p.619, cf. pp.294f.) R.G.Gruenler highlights the unspecific nature of the day of the Lord in Joel 2:11 when he notes that it spells a time of judgement for some but becomes “those days” and “that time” of salvation for survivors in 3:1. (See also O.P. Robertson, pp. 272f., who notes the reference to the ‘eternal day’ in 2 Pet. 3:18). In Isaiah 49:8 “a day of salvation“ is “a time of favour” reminding us of the year of Jubilee (cf. Lev. 25:10; Isa. 61:2; Luke 4:19). Admittedly, in Isaiah 63:4 (cf. 9:4) “the day of vengeance” seems to be deliberately contrasted with “my year of redemption”, but the chronologically non-specific nature of both terms would seem to be obvious as it is, for example, when Jesus refers to “my day” in John 8:56. Then the latter is followed up by a reference to day and night in 9:4, both of which are manifestly non-specific but are strongly reminiscent of Genesis 1:5. Again, the same conclusion must be drawn from what Hebrews 4:7f. where “today” is “a certain day” which must extend beyond twenty-four hours as 4:1,6,9 indicate. In fact this day of promise of entering God’s seventh day or Sabbath rest, which is eternal, remains throughout the gospel age (cf. 2 Cor. 6:2).

E.A.Martens appropriately sums up his survey of the word day in the Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology as follows: “With regard to the history of redemption the word ‘day’ is shorthand for a particular event (such as the exodus), but more often for an era as a singular stage in the progress of God’s plan for salvation” (p.145, col. 2).

Theology

While it may be freely conceded that the Bible nowhere directly specifies the chronological duration of the Genesis days, there are fundamental theological reasons for doubting that they necessarily imply twenty-four hours. For a start, the creation of man himself raises pertinent questions

The Meaning of Adam

The word ‘Adam’ means man as both individual and community, and what is true of the one is presumably true of the other. Since we know that procreation mirrors creation (Gen. 5:1-3, cf. 1:28 and 9:1,7) and that the individual begins as seed, fetus, etc., we are surely meant to conclude that the same is true in all cases.

The first Adam

It may, of course, be argued that, as the first, Adam was different, but since all his progeny undergo a period of preconscious development, it is a reasonable deduction that Adam both as individual and community did likewise. This is supported by the fact that he is first presented to us as not knowing the law or commandment. Like a baby he had no knowledge of good or evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22). (In other words, like Melchisedek, who lacked a genealogy, Heb. 7:3, he had a navel if not a ‘history’. I gather Ken Ham of ‘Answers in Genesis’ has a book on this subject and presumably concludes that Adam lacked a belly button!) His predecessors (pre-Adamites) were purely fleshly (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46, cf. John 1:13; 3:6) and fell short of the image of God, which differentiated Adam from the animals (cf. Ps. 32:9; Isa. 31:3, etc.). We do well to remember that it is only on the physical plane that babies are recognisable as human beings. There is no evidence in their early months that they are created in the image of God. This is a very important consideration, for if they are still-born or die before they understand the commandment which promises life (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 7:9:f.), then their death, clearly apart from sin, must be a natural phenomenon characteristic of the entire temporal creation (cf. Eccles. 3:19-21). Since Genesis refers to things being created according to their kind (Gen. 1:11ff.), and in man’s case according to ‘image’ (cf. Gen. 5:1-3), we are almost compelled to draw the conclusion that the offspring replicates or recapitulates the parent. (Other things apart, this surely implies that if the parent is created in one day so is the child! That such is not the case is manifest to all. Clearly it is safer to argue from the known to the unknown rather than vice versa.) As we shall see below, this is of prime importance to our understanding of Scripture.

The Correspondence between Adam and Eve and Children

We read how Adam was created from the dust and placed in Eden where he and Eve lived in blissful and child-like ignorance of the commandment (cf. Dt. 1:39, etc.). Once the commandment was given, however, they both sinned though, as Paul indicates, in somewhat different ways (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13). Later in Scripture we recognise that their experience is repeated in the lives of us all as children. Deuteronomy 1:39 (cf. Num. 14:3,31-35; Isa. 7:15f.; 1 Kings 3:7; Rom. 9:11; Heb. 5:13f.) makes it indisputably clear that so long as we are ignorant of law, we are innocent (Rom. 4:15, cf. 9:11) or in Paul’s words ‘alive’ (Rom. 7:9). But once that ignorance is dispelled by knowledge and understanding of the commandment, we are first, like Eve, deceived (cf. Rom. 7:11); then, as we get older and acquire a deeper appreciation of the law, we sin like Adam with our eyes open, just as the Jews, a rebellious house (Ezek. 2:6, etc.) in contrast with the heathen, did (cf. Rom. 5:13).

There is an obvious lesson to be drawn from this. If Adam was physically an adult when, like a child, he became acquainted with the commandment, his infancy was necessarily longer than a 24-hour day. If we deny this, we have to conclude that time was telescoped in his case; but this raises another problem. How can he be regarded as truly human when he failed to undergo the development, including the learning process, that is intrinsic to man?

The Second Adam

Jesus was the second Adam and the perfect human being. His incarnate life clearly conformed with the pattern of human development that is common to all of us and was equally clearly ordained by God (cf. Luke 2; Heb. 2). So, extrapolating from this known fact, we are bound to conclude that the pattern he followed at conception and birth was that of the first Adam whose son he was (Luke 3:38, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45ff. and Job 4:19; 10:8,9,11; 34:15; Ps. 78:39; 103:14; 139:13,15). It might be remembered at this point that the first Adam was a type of Christ (Rom. 5:14), not vice versa.

The Image of Adam

We are all, like Seth, born in the physical and spiritual image of Adam (Gen.5:3) as Jesus was. But that image is potential and hence dynamic in both cases. To put it otherwise, as I have indicated above, our status as human beings is purely potential at the start (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46) and is meant to be fulfilled or to reach its fullness or maturity in the course of time. Thus, on the spiritual level, having begun in infancy, (cf. the new birth and 1 Cor. 3:1f.), we are progressively conformed to the image of Jesus as mature adults (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:13-16). It might be added at this point that Jesus himself was perfected (see below) in the image of God as Adam should have and would have been had he not sinned (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 1:3). In this respect Jesus stands in violent contrast to the first Adam (Rom. 5:12-21). So, at this point we might reason as follows: If it was necessary for Jesus to be like his brethren in all respects (Heb. 2), then it was equally so for Adam. If intrinsic difference would have disqualified Jesus from acting as representative man, then it would have disqualified Adam too. It is theologically impossible to posit an instantly created Adam in whose image we are made (Gen. 5:1-3; 1 Cor. 15:45ff.) who was inherently different from all his posterity. In any case, it is only like that produces like.

Perfection

The doctrine of perfection, which is frequently understood in terms of flawlessness or sinlessness, normally means completeness or maturity (see e.g. James 1:4) and is fundamental to the Bible. (Sadly it has been distorted by, and neglected in reaction to, Wesleyan perfectionism.) Just as the acorn achieves physical maturity in the oak tree, so the offspring of man likewise achieves maturity first in the flesh. In contrast to the animal world (cf. Ps. 32:9; Isa. 31:3), however, man is also created in the image of God and has another dimension. Thus he is called to achieve spiritual maturity like Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of his faith, who was himself conformed to the image of his heavenly Father by a spiritual process (Mt. 5:48; 19:21; Heb. 2:9f.; 5:9; 7:28, cf. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22; John 17:5,24). Perfection, however, is true not simply on the individual plane (cf. 1 Cor. 15:11; 14:20; Phil. 3:14, etc.) but on the community level too (Eph. 2:15; 4:13). If Jesus was necessarily subject to the perfecting process, then clearly Adam was also. Denial of this has catastrophic implications for our theology, as we shall see further.

The Development or Maturation of the Second Adam

It has been said, not without reason, that man is creation in miniature (cf. Gen.1:2; Ps. 139:15f.; Luke 1:35). (1* If this is so, by parity of reasoning we might well conclude that our 7 x 24-hour week is God’s creation week in miniature.) With respect to this, it is useful to recognise that there is a correlation between Genesis 1:2 (cf. Ex. 40:35; Ps. 104:30; Isa. 32:15) and Luke 1:35. Since we know that it took God nine whole months to bring Jesus from conception to birth and prepare a body for him (cf. Heb. 10:5b), we unavoidably infer that it took him at least the same amount of time to bring Adam, the individual, into the world and mankind even longer. Indeed, he is still doing the latter (cf. Gen. 30:2, etc.). No wonder Jesus said that his Father was working still (John 5:17), not hours but millennia later!

The Atonement

If the incarnation suggests that the Genesis days were more than 24 hours, so does the atonement. John tells us that Jesus Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Whatever else this involves, it means that the atonement covered the past, present and future sins of mankind (cf. Acts 17:30; Rom. 3:25f.; Heb. 9:15). If it is true, as Gregory of Nazianzus maintained, that what is not assumed is not healed (cf. Heb. 2, esp. v. 17), then Jesus had to go back to the start of mankind’s history. But how could he do this when he was born in the fullness of time (Gal.4:4)? When God tested him by suggesting that he should make of him a great nation, Moses was horrified (Ex. 32:10; Dt. 9:14; Num. 14:12) because it would imply that God’s original promise had failed, that his honour was tarnished and his chosen nation lost. How then could Jesus atone for the sins of his own forebears including David and Adam himself (cf. Heb. 7:25; 9:15; 10:14), both of whose son he was? How could he go back to the beginning without going back to the beginning of history and starting de novo? How could he, in other words, be a second or last Adam and eventually a new or rather the true Israel (cf. John 15:1ff., etc.)? There can be only one answer to this question – the virgin birth and recapitulation. In plain terms, as mankind in summary Jesus re-enacted the first Adam’s experience in his own life (cf. Eph. 1:9f.). He was ‘created’ in his image by the same Father, for both were sons of God (Luke 3:38. This is not to deny, of course, that Jesus was the Son of God in a way that Adam certainly was not.). Like him he spent time naked in the womb, i.e. Eden (cf. Job 3:3;10:18f.; Jer. 20:14ff., and note Ps. 139:15 and 13 where the latter verse is a recapitulation or symbolic re-enactment of the former, cf. Job 10:8,9,11; 31:15; 33:6). At birth he knew neither good nor evil (Isa. 7:15f. cf. Dt. 1:39; Num. 14:31). Then, as he developed consciousness as a child, he received the commandment from his parents (cf. Dt. 4:9, etc.) as Adam had done from his Father (Gen. 2:17; Luke 3:38). In contrast to Eve, Adam and Paul (Rom. 7:7-14), however, he kept it. And, having undergone his heathen experience like Israel in Egypt (Mt. 2:15), he went on to keep the whole law, which again Paul, like Israel as a whole, did not (cf. John 7:19; Rom. 7:13-23; 9:31). Thus, in accordance with the original promise (Gen. 2:17), he inherited life (Lev.18:5; Ezek. 18:5-9; Mt. 3:17; John 15:10) and pioneered the regenerate or ‘Christian’ life here on earth (cf. Mt. 3:15; 19:21; Heb. 5:9; 12:2). This culminated in his death on the cross for men and women of every race and nation throughout history (Rev. 7:9, cf. Heb. 11). In other words, in Jesus, the second Adam, we have the only perfect man ever to live on this earth and, as B.B.Warfield well recognised, “a normal human development, the only strictly normal human development, from birth to manhood, the world has ever seen” (p.160). The unavoidable corollary of this is, as H.W.Robinson expressed it, that “if regeneration be entrance into the life of conscious sonship to God, we must regard regeneration as the normal and ‘natural’ completion of what was begun in the first birth” (p. 327. Cf. Bishop Westcott: “… man … was made in God’s image to gain his likeness” (p.306) and “We must look to the perfection and not only to the redemption of man”, p.311). This is surely the implication of what Jesus says to Nicodemus in John 3 especially verse 6. The wonder of Christ’s accomplishment is that it was achieved in the flesh (Rom. 8:3) despite its weakness even in his case (2 Cor. 13:4). In sharp contrast, the first Adam’s spiritual development came a cropper at the first hurdle. It required only one commandment to up-end him. And the same is true of the rest of us, for we, like Paul, also sin in childhood (Gen. 8:21; Job 13:26; Ps. 25:7; Jer. 3:24f.; Rom. 7:9; Eph. 2:3; Tit. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:22).

How does this bear on the days of Genesis? The point is that in order to make atonement Jesus had to identify with his brethren in every respect (Heb. 2:9f.,14,17). This necessitated his ‘reliving’ or re-enacting the creation and life of Adam and all his progeny (cf. 139:13ff. referred to above). Since Jesus’ preconscious life of fleshly development took more than 24 hours, the conclusion must be drawn that Adam’s own creation took more than a solar day. To deny it is not merely to destroy the pattern so widely and deeply etched and so constantly referred to in Scripture (see e.g. Jer. 2:21; Mark 4:28f., and note Rev. 14:15) but to posit a fundamental difference or hiatus between Adam, the biblical prototype and epitome of the natural man, and all his successors. If, as Paul clearly indicates in 1 Corinthians 15:21f., 45-49, Adam is representative man according to the flesh (cf. e.g. Fee, pp.789,791), the notion that he was different from all his posterity is intolerable. The very idea can only spell disaster for Christian theology.

The Genesis Days

Mention of a solar day reminds us of the fact that according to the Genesis account the sun was not created till the fourth day. How then can we be sure that days 1-3 were of 24 hours’ duration? This coupled with the fact that the seventh day is still with us makes dogmatic literalism inappropriate. If it is replied that the text refers to morning and evening, apart from the fact that these are part of the symbolism, they indicate separation, which Wenham informs us is synonymous with election elsewhere in Scripture (p. 18). And this idea, like the seven-day week and its sabbath, was fundamental to Israel. It is therefore most fitting from the literary, religious, didactic and pragmatic points of view that, assuming the Genesis days are not literal, they should be used to teach about a progressive creation (cf. Gen. 1:2). Considering the minority of the race and the lack of sophistication that characterises many readers even in modern times, Genesis 1 constitutes truly inspired writing. Thus, still assuming that ages (cf. 1 Cor. 2:7; 1 Tim. 1:17), long or short, were involved, the importance of man’s working week being modelled on God’s can hardly be overestimated. When we consider that it would have been readily accepted by all Israelites that God worked on a far grander scale than his creatures, the notion of ‘days’ of undefined length would not have caused great concern. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that the Psalmist (e.g. 33:6-9; 104:1ff.; 139:13ff.), the prophet (e.g. Jer. 10:10-13) and the apostle (2 Pet. 3:8) would have been unduly limited in their perception. So neither should we in our day (cf. John 8:56!), not least because we, as Christians, are more fully aware of the difference between natural and supernatural processes than Isaiah ever was (see Isa. 66:7f.). In other words, we can be sure that if our mother Zion (Gal. 4:26) gives birth in a day (cf. 1 Cor. 15:52), it took mother earth a good deal longer (cf. Ps. 139:15)!

It is worth considering another point here. The OT writers set no little store on the divine commitment to human creation. Man’s body appears to them fearfully and wonderfully made in the womb (Ps. 139:13-16, ESV), the result of a process like a work of art (Ps. 119:73), not the product of instant sleight of hand. It is this apparently that helped to make his destruction so mystifying (Job 10:8-13,18-22; Ps. 30:9; Isa. 38:18). By the grace of God we in NT times are better informed (though note Ps. 138:8).

Growth in Knowledge and Intellectual Maturity

This raises another question, that is, our own increase in knowledge. Even if it can be proved conclusively that the intention of the writer of the Genesis account was to describe literal days and that this was the way he was originally understood, we still have to make room for the increase in knowledge and maturity that is our own experience. There are two points to be made here. First, what Peter says in 1 Peter 1:10f. indicates that the OT prophets were necessarily limited in their understanding since revelation is progressive. Next, Paul talks on the one hand of the mystery that was revealed to him but not to earlier generations, and on the other of the need to grow in our understanding as we mature (1 Cor. 13:11; 14:20, cf. Eph. 4:13-16). Since nature itself is revelatory (Ps. 19; Rom. 1:20, etc.), increasing knowledge of it can reasonably pave the way to greater comprehension of aspects of Scripture. This does not necessarily make us prey to the latest scientific theory. It is no more dangerous than unexamined creeds and confessions, which consist of ancient interpretation and imprison us intellectually and spiritually in outdated traditions. Mention of this should remind us that Pharisaic traditionalism did more to oppose the gospel than anything else in NT times. What is more, it received withering condemnation from both Jesus and Paul. (Even as I write I pause from time to time to catch up on the news following the Bali bombing and become increasingly aware of just how dangerous an uncritical fundamentalism is. I once heard Professor Don Carson say that all views should be expressed in the open forum and become subject to proper criticism. What he forgot to add is that there is no open forum in traditional fundamentalism where the Bereans are an alien race, cf. Acts 17:10ff. As always with traditionalists, who think they have got the truth sewn up and “Moses” has spoken the final word (John 9:28f.), there is nothing else to learn. Thus their message is the always the same (semper eadem not semper reformanda): agree or be pilloried, stoned, burnt at the stake, shot or, where that is not possible, as I myself am so painfully aware, be ignored.

From Beginning to End

The whole Bible testifies to the maturation process; it begins with genesis (creation, birth, inauguration) and ends with revelation (perfection, consummation or goal achieved). (As in Romans 10:4 we ourselves often use the word ‘end’ ambiguously; it may mean either terminus or goal or both.) The process pervades the entire temporal creation (Rom. 8:19-25): it occurs in all flora (acorn-oak, cf. Gen. 1:11; Mt. 13:1ff.) and fauna (lamb-sheep), in man the individual (child-adult, 1 Cor. 13:11) who is called to complete or finish his course (Luke 13:32; Acts 13:25; 20:24; Phil. 3:14; 2 Tim. 4:7, Heb. 12:1, etc.), mankind as a whole (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:15; 4:13) and Israel (Isa. 43:1,7; 44:2; 46:3; Jer. 1:5; Hos. 11:1, cf. Gal. 3:19-4:7, etc.). We see it also in the Levites whose origin was in the loins of Abraham, the heathen (Heb. 7:10), and in the regenerate life which by definition begins with new birth and ends in Christ-like maturity (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18) in contrast with the life of sin (Gen. 15:16; James 1:14f.) which ends in death (cf. Rom. 6:16, 21-23, etc.). Jesus himself was born of woman (Gal. 4:4) in order to be perfected in his Father’s image (Mt. 5:48; 19:21; 2 Cor. 4:4b; Heb. 1:3; 5:9, etc.) in contrast with the first Adam whose growth, evident in his creation from the dust, his ignorance then his knowledge of and probation under the commandment, was stunted or, in effect, terminated by sin. Indeed the story of the whole Bible (cf. salvation history or heilgeschichte) is one of progression from flesh to spirit (1 Cor. 15:46, cf. v.23), from earth to heaven (John 1:51), from darkness to light (2 Cor. 4:6, cf. Col. 1:13; 1 Pet. 2:9), seed to harvest (Mt. 3:10,12; Rev.14:15), ground to glory, dust to destiny (1 Cor. 15:45ff., cf. 1 K. 16:2), and land to life. In other words, evolution in the sense of development is intrinsic to the Bible and hence to creation and the procreation which mirrors or recapitulates it (cf. Isa. 45:9f.). Though a man (Adam) cannot enter again into his mother’s womb (John 3:4,6, cf. Gen. 3:23f.), as an imitator of God (Gen. 2:8,15), whose image and glory he is (1 Cor. 11:7), he can be pro-creatively fruitful and implant his seed in his wife’s womb, the Eden of procreation, to produce children who are created as he was in the image of God (Gen. 5:1-3).

The Adult Adam

Adam, our original human progenitor is clearly presented to us as an adult. If we say he was created as such in one 24-hour day, we are then at odds with the entire Scripture, as we have just seen. Given that man by definition is subject, like all creation, to the maturation process, the truth is that a 24-hour-old adult Adam is not recognisably a man at all, least of all the fleshly paradigm of the rest of us as Paul clearly sees him to be. (2* I am painfully conscious of the claim by popular writers that Adam was created an adult, that is, he appeared to be between 20 and 30 years old! If they are right, it may well be asked why God did not create the rest of us fully mature (perfect) in the same way. Surely if he did this once, he could so easily have done it again making procreation, creation in the womb, Isa.44:2,24, etc., and development from seed superfluous. The only reasonable inference we may draw from the Bible is that he created us and indeed all flora and fauna as seed bearers (cf. Gen. 1:11) clearly intending that the pattern once established should be repeated. The inference from this in light of Hebrews 7:23 and from created things in general, is again that death is natural in nature as Romans 8:18-25 implies. Otherwise expressed, creation, evolution or development, though not the naturalistic variety, and death are intrinsic to the material universe, Heb. 1:10-12. The tragedy is that traditional Christianity has made false deductions from Romans 5:12 and has seen all death as the consequence of sin – an impossible conclusion to draw from the biblical evidence. It is clearly not the case. Man, as deriving from the corruptible earth, was himself unavoidably corruptible according to the flesh, but, as created in the image of God, was promised eternal life if the kept the commandment, Gen. 1:17, cf. Lev. 18:5; Dt. 30:20; 32:47. The only reason why Jesus, who clearly aged, Luke 2:40,52; John 8:57, did not see corruption is that he met the condition of life and kept the commandments, John 15:10. It was impossible for death, which he underwent on our behalf, to retain its hold over him, Acts 2:23f. Thus he rose from the dead and was transformed as he ascended into heaven.) He is reminiscent of the age of fable, of classical mythology, which pictured motherless Minerva, the goddess of wisdom springing fully mature from the head of Jupiter. He is in fact as docetic as the false Christs that we are so frequently presented with, a freak, a contradiction in terms, a square circle that, given the definition of man, even God could not create. At best he is a miracle like Aaron’s rod that blossomed overnight and was recognisably abnormal or supernatural. Far from being our fleshly archetype, he is different in kind from us. To speak in this way, however, raises questions. Why do intelligent Christian men in our own age insist on such an Adam?

Augustinian Theology

While Irenaeus, whose intention was above all to be biblical, made recapitulation integral to his theology, Augustine, whose roots were in Manicheism and Neo-Platonism, presented a different view. He assumed that creation was perfect (see Ham, et al. pp.50,240, etc.) and that Adam was originally holy and righteous despite the clear teaching of Genesis 2 and 3 to the contrary. For there we are plainly told that Adam, like a child lacking the commandment, knew neither good nor evil (Gen. 2:17, cf. 3:5,22; Dt. 1:39, etc.) and was hence certainly not righteous (cf. Col. 3:10 where knowledge is a prime requisite). Indeed, it was precisely because this was the case that he was put under probation by the commandment (Gen. 2:17). There are three points to be made here: first, the commandment gives knowledge and is in fact a promise of life if it is kept (cf. Luke 10:25-28) as well as a warning of death if it is not (cf. Rom.3:19, cf. Neh. 10:28; Jas. 4:17); second, it reveals what is the heart of those who are put to the test (cf. Ex. 15:25f.; Dt. 8:1f.,16; 13:1-4); and, third, it establishes the moral status of the one to whom it is given. For, just as it is impossible to be a sinner without breaking the law (Rom. 4:15; James 2:9-11; 4:17; 1 John 3:4; 5:17), so it is impossible to be righteous without keeping it (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7). But for Augustine, Adam’s fall from original righteousness and perfection involved the entire creation in a so-called cosmic curse. His view was, however, based on a patently erroneous interpretation of Genesis 3:17-19 and Romans 8:18-25. In other words, assuming that perfection was the starting point rather than the goal of creation, he put the cart before the horse, the harvest before the seed, the chicken before the egg, the sheep before the lamb, the adult before the baby, and, irony of ironies, last Adam before first, at least in principle. (3* Righteousness, like holiness, far from being native to Adam, became the hallmark of the second Adam, see Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 John 2:1. For him, however, having been born like all human beings knowing neither good nor evil, cf. Isa. 7:15f., it had to be acquired by keeping the whole law, both its letter, cf. Mt. 3:17; 1 John 3:7, etc., and its spirit, Mt. 3:15; 19;19:21; John 15:10. The latter culminated, of course, when he lay down his life for his sheep. It was not until then, having fulfilled his Father’s will without compromise, that he achieved perfection, John 19:30, cf. 17:4, and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2.) The tragedy is, however, that his influence on the church has been enormous. Even in Protestantism his victory over Pelagius regarding grace and works has blinded our eyes to monumental errors in the rest of his thinking. For example, as Article 1X of the Church of England makes clear, he denied Pelagius’ contention that we imitate Adam in his sin (cf. Rom. 5:12) just as the Jews imitated or repeated the sins of their fathers (Jer. 3:25; Dan. 9:16; Acts 7:51, etc., and note Gen. 3 and Ex. 32 in particular). The result of all this is that modern evangelicals, even those who are not fundamentalists, read Scripture through Augustinian eyes and attribute ‘adult’ sin to unconscious infants, even embryos! But the real problem, as I have already hinted, is that he has left us with a palpably false worldview involving “the Creation/Fall/Restoration framework within which the gospel is presented in the Bible” (Ham, et al. p..90). This picture was in essence the brainchild of Augustine, and that it is contrary to the NT can be demonstrated time and time again. (It has to be admitted, however, that restoration figures extensively in the OT, but it is clearly superseded in the new covenant.) It is based on woeful exegesis, bad theology and defiance of elementary logic. But the power of tradition to blind our eyes is immense, as Jesus was far from loath to make clear (e.g. Mark 7).

The True View

What is the true view? Surely it is, as the very first words in our Bibles intimate, that our world, created ‘by hand’ (Ps. 8:6, cf. Heb. 9:11) and hence irrespective of sin, is purely temporal, a creature of time, an impermanent tool being used for a purpose (cf. Ps. 119:91) (4* This is surely what is intended by the word ‘good’, cf. 2:9; 3:6, kalos, literally ‘beautiful’, in the LXX. See, e.g. Wenham, p.18, cf. p.38.) like flesh and blood which derives from it (1 Cor. 15:50). As it has had a beginning, so it will have an end (cf. Heb. 7:3), that is, a terminus as well as a goal. In this alone it is shown to be intrinsically impermanent, imperfect and corruptible in violent contrast to the eternal Creator himself (see Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 34:4; Mt. 5:18; 24:35; Heb. 7:3,16; 10:9, etc.). And Peter (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12), Paul (1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Cor. 4:18, etc.) and the author of Hebrews (6:7f.;12:25-29) draw the unavoidable conclusion regarding its final end, which is destruction. If our goal is knowledge of God (John 17:3) and access into his presence (Heb. 9:24; 1 Pet. 3:18, etc.), then once this has been achieved in Christ, who himself for the first time “brought life and immortality (incorruption) to light” (2 Tim. 1:10), the present world will be superfluous (Rev. 20:11; 21:1-5). Having produced its harvest of the sons of God (Mt. 13:38-43; Rom. 8:19-23; Rev. 14:15f., cf. 11:15) it will have reached its use-by date (cf. Heb. 6:7f.). Once it has, like the temple (Mark 14:58), been destroyed, shadow will give way to substance (Rev. 21:1-5). In other words, relative to the subject under discussion, history, in which Adam as both individual and community will have played his part, will be brought by the grace of God to its glorious consummation as was intended from the start (2 Cor. 5:1-5). But if we insist on perfect one-day-old men, who would appear to be a contradiction in terms, we nullify the historical process and reduce it to absurdity.

Adamic Development

Of course, the literalists tell us that unlike Jesus, who clearly grew, learned to speak and so forth (see esp. Luke 2:41ff.), Adam was ‘programmed’ as an adult, rather like a robot. This, however, simply emphasises his freakish nature and by so much divorces him from humanity as we know it. Paul, however, sees him as being truly man, our fleshly forerunner just as Jesus was our spiritual one (1 Cor. 15:45ff.; Heb. 12:2). Those who subscribe to federal theology and the Augustinian concept of original sin would seem to have special difficulties at this point since they believe that we are in covenant with Adam at birth, even conception! Still more to the point, how one who is to all intents and purposes an automaton and a perfect one at that could fall into sin must ever remain an insoluble mystery. How much simpler it is to believe what the Bible teaches and recognise that Adam (along with Eve) is the paradigm and prototype of fleshly man in whose fleshly image we are made and whose pattern of sin we so obviously follow. In other words, the Pelagian interpretation of Romans 5:12 is not only possible, as even Professor John Murray was prepared to concede (p. 183), it is clearly the correct one. His own ‘conclusive objections to this view’ prove on examination to be lamentably inadequate. (It is surely ironic that Murray who was the twentieth century’s greatest advocate of the imputation of Adam’s sin denied the Adamic administration covenantal status, Collected Writings 2, pp.47ff. This logically undermined his entire case.)

The Creation of the Animals

Yet another issue of great importance and relevance must be addressed, for if Adam was created adult in 24 hours, so were the animals. This means that predators were created full-grown killing machines and nature was ‘red in tooth and claw’ from the start. And since Adam and Eve manifestly ate before they received the law and sinned, so did animals like lions and tigers. Instead of recognising that God provides the predators he has created with food (Ps. 104:21, cf. vv.27f.; 145:15f.; Job 38:39-41), the advocates of a literal six-day creation are forced to assume that carnivores first lived on green plants (Gen. 1:29f.) and that meat eating stemmed from sin and the curse of Genesis 3:17-19. But how? If predators were not created as such, then they must have developed their weapons of destruction by a naturalistic evolutionary process. That is the last inference traditionalists want to draw. After all, their entire polemic is based on anti-evolutionism and Augustinian theology.

A Confusion of Categories

Before reaching a conclusion, it needs to be stressed that the advocates of a 24-hour -old Adam are involved in a confusion of categories. While it may be conceded that the entire cosmos is a miracle stemming from the supernatural (Heb. 11:3), biblically speaking, creation as such is natural and ‘hand-made’ (Ps. 19:1; Isa. 48:13; Heb. 1:10) in character not supernatural and not ‘not hand-made’ (cf. Heb. 9:11). The same is true with regard to man who on the natural level is ‘made by hand’ (Job 10:8f.; Ps. 119:73; 138:8; Isa. 19:25; 60:21; 64:8; 2 Cor. 4:7, etc.) but supernaturally reborn, that is, ‘not by hand’ (John 1:13; 3:6; 6:63; Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13, cf. 2 Cor. 5:1). In essence, this point was made by Isaiah when he differentiated between natural and supernatural birth long before the inauguration of the new covenant (66:7f.).

Conclusion

So I conclude that to posit a 24-hour-old adult man is at worst to enter either the realm of fable or magic or at best to put Adam, who is the very epitome of the ‘hand-made’ natural man (Gen. 2:7; 3:19), illegitimately among the supernatural, that is, with the last Adam whose conception, but certainly not his gestation, was miraculous. This suggests a basic failure to differentiate between the man of dust and the man of heaven (1 Cor. 15:45ff.). In this situation science, anthropology in particular, seen as the legitimate study of the natural or normal, is undermined. In the final analysis, the picture painted by traditional theology, which was based on a somewhat simplistic and literalistic hermeneutic, is an argument from silence and moves from the unknown to the known rather than the other way around. As such it is highly suspect. In contrast, the Bible presents a different and a more rationally coherent view.

(It would appear that another reason why traditionalist fundamentalists insist on the 24-hour days in Genesis is their quite unwarranted assumption that denial entails evolution. Evolution is a loaded term, however, and requires definition. All sane Christians believe in evolution in the sense of development. After all, their own biography, not to mention history, insists on it. But since they accept divine creation and providence, they uncompromisingly deny naturalistic evolutionism.)

Covenant Theology

Finally, as has been hinted above, the most basic reason why theological writers palm off on us a one-day old Adam is that they fail to understand the biblical doctrine of the covenants. Traditional theology, headed by Augustine rather than by Irenaeus, stood man on his head and made both him and the creation from which he stemmed perfect, complete or adult from the beginning (5* This, of course, gives rise not merely to the unwarrantable and unsustainable notion that OT believers were born again before the coming of Christ and the Spirit consequent on it but that John the Baptist, for example, experienced rebirth before natural birth!). This inevitably had the effect of reducing him to a flat uniformity and gave rise to the monolithic undifferentiated unity of the covenant of grace. (Dispensatinalists rightly complain that covenant theologians who are Augustinians cannot accommodate progressive revelation and development. See e.g. Ryrie, p.188.) The fact is, however, that he, as both individual and community, is by nature a creature subject to development and hence to different covenants as he matures. Nowhere is this made more plain than in Galatians 3:23-4:7 where like Jesus we are, first, born of woman (nature/slaves), next, especially if we are Jews, subjected to the law (servants) and finally recipients of the promised life by the Spirit (sons). To put the issue somewhat differently, creation is teleological; it moves (under the direction of a God who is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last) from A to Z, from its beginning in immaturity (genesis) to its predestined end in maturity or completion culminating in revelation. And to confuse the two is to destroy the essence of the plan of salvation and what is nowadays recognised as salvation history. I submit that Adam was created like the rest of us by a process that required more than 24 hours.

Additional Note

Antediluvian Age

There are other matters to consider in our assessment of the length of the Genesis days. First, the great age of the antediluvians begs questions. If with Augustine we assume, despite its intrinsic absurdity, that man was created perfect, i.e. righteous and fully mature, in 24 hours but then entered into slow decline as his sin took effect, we might well be ready to believe that one man could attain to the age of approximately a thousand years. But if we accept the known development of the individual as reflected in Jesus, for example, from immaturity or imperfection to maturity, the Augustinian scenario looks a good deal less likely. Assuming that Adam, like all human beings began his fleshly existence without self-consciousness and understanding (cf. his ignorance of law) and underwent a period of preconscious fleshly development like a baby, then it seems much more likely that Adam (mankind) and Adam (individual) are not readily differentiated (cf. Wenham, p.91). In other words, the individual Adam as he appears in the Genesis 2 and 3 (cf. Rom. 5:12ff. and 1 Cor. 15:21f., 45-49) symbolises the race or, more specifically in 5:5, the family or tribe (cf. Seth, etc.) which obviously has a greater life-span than the individual. The notion of the eponymous hero has relevance here. If this is indeed the picture, then once again immediate creation in twenty-four hours devoid of development looks highly unlikely. Having said this, however, it must be conceded that specific evidence is lacking.

Eve

Further to this, however, commentators in general do not seem to take seriously what Scripture actually says about Eve. What Genesis 3:16 tells us is that Eve’s pain in childbirth will greatly increase. Again, if we assume with Augustine that Eve, like Adam, is simply an individual, the point is extremely difficult to understand since at this stage Eve has never given birth. So, we must ask how her pain can be multiplied or increased? I always thought that 10×0=0. On the other hand, if Eve is not simply an individual but mirrors women in general who underwent slow fleshly as opposed to moral development before they achieved full self-consciousness, then it can be assumed that they had children, like animals, with minimal pain (cf. the old saying no brain, no pain). Again we need to remember with Paul that flesh precedes spirit (1 Cor. 15:46, cf. v.23).

_____________________________________________________

References

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

W.A.Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Grand Rapids, 1996.

W.A.Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, 1984.

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

Ken Ham, et al., The Answers Book, Brisbane, 1999.

J.Murray, Romans, London, 1967.

J.Murray, Collected Writings 2, Edinburgh, 1977.

O.P.Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, Grand Rapids, 1990.

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

C.C.Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, Chicago, 1965.

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

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

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