Author: Ken Stothard

The Bible can reasonably be described as a book of patterns. Judges in the OT and Revelation in the NT are well known for providing evidence of some of them. (Michael Wilcock has written on both of these books as well as the Psalms and Chronicles. He has done much to draw attention to the repetitive nature of human behaviour. His books are in The Bible Speaks Today series published by IVP. See also in the same series Raymond Brown on Nehemiah, pp.161-164, 242ff.). But while the conditions in which human beings live may change and while the degree of knowledge, civilisation and sophistication may vary, the pattern of conduct remains basically the same. Even where advances are achieved, the grim spectre of sudden reversal is perennial as the history of the twentieth century, to go no further, makes all too clear. (I seem to recall that the Cambridge historian Herbert Butterfield once said we are always only two generations away from heathenism.)

The pattern of sin in general has always been recognised by Bible readers, but to my knowledge it has never been appreciated in detail. If sin is defined as transgression of the law (see e.g. Gen. 2:17; 1 Sam. 15:24; James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17), while we may realise that all sinners are guilty of breaking the law in some sense, the Bible makes a distinction between those who are technically under the law and those who are not (cf. Rom. 2:12). This serves to remind us of the difference that Paul posits between the sins of the Adam and Eve (1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14). But since it was Eve who sinned first, though there is no record of her having received the commandment from God as Adam did, we need to understand what was involved in her case, and to this end we must turn to Genesis 3:6.

First, it is worthy of note that while Eve’s understanding of the commandment conveyed to her by Adam seemed reasonably clear (3:3, cf. 2:17), her confidence in it was undermined by the devil’s lie. As a consequence, the eyes being the medium of human temptation (cf. Mt. 5:28f.), Eve was tempted by what she saw had fleshly attraction, desired it and finally took it. In brief, she saw, wanted and had. By acting in this way Eve established a pattern of conduct which reappears time and again not only in the Bible but in all human beings throughout history. (Since writing this, I have heard a Greek (Orthodox?) chef say on TV that we all eat first with our eyes!) Just as we are all ‘born of woman’ (Job 15:14; 31:15; Gal.4:4), we are all true children of Eve (cf. 3:20) as the evidence presented below confirms.

Genesis 6:2 (1* I have examined this ‘hard saying’ in my essay Who are the Sons of God in Genesis 6? and concluded that it has nothing to do with sin and certainly not with angelic sexuality! Quite the contrary.) is the next verse to reflect the same ingredients as are evident in 3:6, though here desire is not explicitly mentioned. More importantly, however, we need to note that law is not involved at this point. As in Deuteronomy 21:11, seeing awakens desire which, apart from the law, leads naturally to taking with apparent divine approval (cf. Dt. 12:7, 15ff.; 14:26; 16:14f.; 26:11; Isa. 62:5; 1 Tim.4:1-4, but contrast Dt. 22:22-25,28f.). As Paul says in I Corinthians 7:36 (cf. v.9), it is not a sin for a man whose passions are strong to marry the woman to whom he has become engaged (Prov. 5:18f.; 31:10; cf. 1 Tim. 5:11-14; Heb. 13:4). After all, he is only fulfilling his creation mandate (Gen.1:28), and this is significant, as I hope to show later.

Genesis 6:5 (cf. 8:21) does not overtly follow the pattern suggested by 3:6, but the  reference to the evil imaginations of men, which are fed by their eyes, implies that  they are dominated by fleshly desires just as Adam and Eve were. As we shall see again below, the same thought is evident in Numbers 15:39, Job 31:7, Prov. 7:25 (cf. 23:26), 27:20, Jer. 9:14, Ezek. 6:9, 20:7,24, etc. Emphasis on the corruptible nature of the flesh in all animal life in verses 7 and 12 reminds us of what is said later in Scripture, that is, in 2 Peter 2:12 and Jude 10. Man, whose body is forfeit because of sin (Gen. 3:19; Rom. 8:10), and animal perish together (Ps. 49:12,20; Eccl. 3:18ff.).

In Genesis 12:14f. the Egyptians see the beautiful Sarai, recognise her sexual desirability and take her into Pharaoh’s house with obvious intent. But Pharaoh, heathen though he was, had his standards and, on learning that Sarai was Abram’s wife, sent them both on their way. There are clear lessons to be learned from this incident, as there are from chapter 20 where not surprisingly something similar occurred. Abraham, hardly ignorant of the ways of the world, anticipated problems when he insisted that Sarah should be passed off as his sister (Gen. 12:13; 20:2,11, cf. 26:7-11). Once more we need to note that Abimelech acted in ignorance (of law, 20:6) though, like Adam before him, he is threatened with death if he transgresses against the clearly defined knowledge he receives in his dream (20:7).

In chapter 13 we have a variation on the theme we are pursuing. Lot sees, desires and chooses for himself, as opposed to Abraham, the Jordan valley, which is like the Garden of Eden (despite the so-called cosmic curse Augustinians tell us is still in operation following Adam’s sin!). The question is, however, Was Lot’s choice a sin? Apparently not since he transgressed no law, but it suggested an element of covetousness and in the circumstances it was certainly unwise (cf. v.13). As a consequence, he suffered for his rashness and later had to be rescued by God, and even then he lingered (19:16). In contrast to Lot, Abraham also saw, looked and took by faith with God’s evident blessing (vv.14ff.; Num. 13:17-24, cf. Heb.11:16).

If Lot was rash though nonetheless righteous (2 Pet. 2:7), Esau, like Lot’s wife  (Luke 17:32), is regarded in Scripture as downright immoral and irreligious (Heb. 12:16, RSV) for despising and carelessly exchanging his (eternal) heritage for a bowl of soup. He was clearly a sensual man in whose scale of values the gratification of the flesh took priority. Not for him the leading of the Spirit. He was numbered among the people the book of Revelation calls ‘those who dwell on the earth’ (Rev. 6:10, etc.), whose portion in life is of this world (Ps. 17:14; Luke 16:25, contrast Heb. 11:25f.).

In Genesis 24 we have the touching account of Abraham’s servant going off to persuade Rebekah to leave her father Laban to marry Isaac. For our present purposes we need to take note of verses 62-67 which describe the seeing eyes of the betrothed pair, Isaac’s love or desire for the attractive bride (26:7), his taking her and consummating the marriage. All this is in accordance with the will and blessing of God (26:3-5), as it is later when Jacob sees (29:17), desires (v.18) and takes (vv.21,30) the beautiful Rachel (Gk. kalos), inadvertently along with Leah (29:23,25). There is not the slightest hint of sin or illicit carnal concupiscence in all this, as Augustine would have us believe (cf. 28:13f.).

There can be little doubt in our minds, at least if we are prepared to examine the evidence, that, in contrast with Jacob (Gen. 29:17f.,21,30) and Judah (38:2), Shechem (34:2) was a sinner whose failure to obey social convention was regarded by Jacob’s sons as folly (34:7). Yet for all that, since we too are men and women of like passions (cf. Jas. 5:17), it is hard not to feel a degree of sympathy for Shechem especially when we compare him as he is portrayed in 34:3 (cf. v.8) with Amnon, who is guilty of raping his half-sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:15). With regard to the latter, however, it would again be remiss of us to fail to notice the repetition of the pattern evident in Genesis 3:6 (see 2 Sam. 13:1,14).

I have already alluded to Judah above. But Genesis 38 is conspicuous for a second sexual encounter. I refer of course to verses 15f. This time, however, there is more involved than the illegitimate satisfaction of lust. It should perhaps not pass without notice that Judah’s failure to give Tamar his son Shelah according to custom is regarded as more serious, in intention at least (38:26), than his resort to a prostitute.

At this point it is wise to remind ourselves that Eve’s sin preceded that of Adam (Gen. 3:6f.). This fact highlights a basic characteristic of the pattern of sin. Yet in practically every case we have so far examined, it is men who follow Eve’s lead (cf. Gen. 3:12). How do we explain this? The answer surely lies in the fact that the law (of Moses) had not yet been given. The commandment that Adam deliberately transgressed (Gen.2:17), and Abimelech was in  danger of transgressing (Gen. 20:7), was not only clearly and unmistakably defined but it was given directly by God. It was evidently a precursor or type of the later law written by the hand of God on stone. It too was addressed primarily to men, as opposed to women, who alone were circumcised (cf. Gen. 17:10,14). Before the Mosaic law was actually delivered, however, all men (Adam apart) and women were without the law. Thus, not only was their understanding (of law) limited but they all gave way to the desires of the flesh as their original mother Eve had done (Gen. 3:20; Rom. 1:18ff.; Eph. 4:17ff.; 1 Pet. 1:4; 2:11; 4:1ff., etc.). In other words, just as Israel was Gentile (heathen) before he was under law (cf. Dt. 5:3; 26:5ff.; Jos. 24:2,14f.; Rom. 4:10), so are we all born ignorant of law in general and like Adam have to be taught it (Dt. 4:9f.; 11:2; 31:13; Ps. 78:5ff., cf. Dt. 1:39).

Chapter 39 illustrates to some extent the point just made. Here the central figure in sin is a woman, Potiphar’s wife. Like Eve before her and the men we have scrutinised above, Potiphar’s wife sees (39:6), desires (v.7) and to all intents and purposes takes (v.12). It is only Joseph’s essentially moral resistance that prevents her from having her way. It would be absurd to draw the conclusion that Joseph lacked virility or regarded sex itself as evil. This is disproved by his marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter later (41:45,50). Being a man of flesh, which is a law to itself (Rom. 7:23,25), he was doubtless strongly tempted but, unlike Eve and Esau, chose not to ‘eat’.

I have already hinted that the passions of the flesh are not sinful in themselves (cf. e.g. Cranfield, p.337 and Fung, 274). In fact, they belong intrinsically to man as created by God and he is part of God’s ‘good’ (Gk. kalos ) creation. Two points need to be made here: first, man, like the plants and animals in general, is commanded to be fruitful (Gen.1, cf. 19:31), and Genesis 17 tells us that it was God himself who made Abram exceedingly fruitful (17:2,6, cf. 16:10) much to Pharaoh’s later consternation (Ex.1). Secondly, man’s calling as one who is made in the image of God is to exercise dominion over the earth of which his own body is a part (Gen. 2:7). In other words, there is room for our passions, our sexual ones in particular, so long as they are controlled according to law. And it is only when law is infringed that our passions and desires become sinful (cf. Ex. 20:17), for apart from the law there is no sin (Rom. 4:15). (This surely gives the lie to what seems nowadays to be the standard translation of Romans 7:5. The idea that sin is ‘aroused’, which is not in the Greek text, by the law is apparently based on the pre-conversion experience of Augustine, cf. Calvin on Romans 5:20, p.214, but it is foreign to the Bible and must be rejected. As the KJV intimates ‘the motions (passions) of sins …were by the law’. In other words, the natural passions were in some instances constituted sinful by the law, cf. Ex. 20:17. On the other hand, if the law ‘aroused’ the passions, then it could hardly be described as holy, righteous and good (v.12, ESV). It would in fact be an inducement to sin, a function which is implicitly denied in such texts as Psalm 78:7. What is more, it is hard to imagine that Paul thought of the law as ‘arousing’, as opposed to ‘increasing’, Rom. 5:20; 7:13, sin when he spent so much time describing the sinful passions of the Gentiles who were not under the law, Rom. 1:18ff., cf. 5:13; Eph. 4:17-22. It is surely truer to Paul, cf. 7:14, and indeed the rest of the Bible, e.g. James 1:14f., to say that the flesh arouses the sin which is constituted sinful by the law.)

In the book of Numbers the Israelites’ desire to return to Egypt, also regarded as a land flowing with milk and honey (Num. 16:13), to satisfy their hunger is considered sinful because it threatens the purpose of God. Yet, as Riggans, for example notes, there is an element of irony in the encouragement to ‘spy out’ the land flowing with milk and honey (13:2,27; 14:7f., cf. Gen. 13:14f.; Jud. 18:2,7-10) when in 15:39 the word is used of sinfully following the whims of their own hearts like Eve (cf. Job 31:7; Gen. 8:21). The point is, of course, that God’s people are meant to see (13:17f.), desire (cf. 14:7) and take possession of what God promises to give (14:8,24, cf. Dt. 1:8,21,26), to look forward, not backward (cf. Jer. 7:24), to their divinely appointed goal, in this case the Promised Land (cf. Dt. 1:8; Num. 14; Isa. 4:2-6; 33:17ff.; John 17:24; Phil. 3:12-15) which is noticeably a ‘good’ (agathos) land (Ex. 3:8; Dt.1:25;11:8-12, etc.). What they are not to do is to desire evil or what is forbidden as Adam and Eve did (Num. 11:4,34; 15:39; Isa. 33:15; 1 Cor. 10:6). It is the latter alone which involves sin (cf. Ex. 20:17). (For a re-enactment or recapitulation of Numbers 13, see Judges 18, and note especially verse 9 for seeing, desiring and possessing.)

One of the most graphic transgressions of the covenant (Jos. 7:20, cf. v.11) in the OT is that of Achan, which dramatically highlights the nature of both Adam and Eve’s sin. As Joshua 7:21 makes clear, Achan’s sin conforms to the pattern of Genesis 3:6 where seeing the materially attractive, coveting and taking it is in violation of the divine commandment (6:17-19). What we need to recognise, however, is that the Eve component in Achan’s sin precedes that of Adam as in the Genesis 3 account. This fact will call for comment below. The book of Joshua in particular highlights the role of law. Achan transgresses an explicit command (6:17-19; 7:1,21) and pays the appropriate penalty. In 8:2, however, a concession is made and, in contrast to the disobedience of Achan, Joshua legitimately keeps the livestock and the spoil of the city of Ai (8:27, cf. 6:21). (On the three apparent exceptions to this, Numbers 16, Joshua 7 and 2 Samuel 21:1-9, see Wright, pp. 262f.) 1 Samuel 15 also draws our attention to the importance of explicit obedience to law. In light of this, with Paul we rightly draw the conclusion that where there is no law there is no sin, (Rom. 4:15; 7:8; Gal. 5:23; 1 Cor. 15:56). We can go further, however, and answer with a firm negative the question posed in Numbers 16:22. When one man sins the whole congregation does not bear the brunt of the divine anger provided it separates itself from that sin (cf. Ex. 32:33; Num. 15:26-36; 26:11; 27:3; Dt. 24:16; Ezek. 18, etc). Clearly the same holds good for the sin of Adam. If, like Jesus, we do not sin (1 Pet. 2:22, etc.), then we are not held accountable. Our problem is that we all do sin and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23; 5:12).

The OT throws up a number of other examples of the pattern of sin, which cannot be treated in detail here. Apart from Samson’s dalliances in Judges 14 (note vv. 2f.,7f., cf. 15:2) and 16 (note v.1), we might note in passing the pattern evinced in Judges 18:9 and its implication in 21:21 during a period of almost uninhibited covetousness when there was no king in Israel (17:6; 21:25). Even when there was one, David’s sin with Bathsheba is perhaps the best-known repetition of the Genesis pattern in Scripture (2 Sam. 11:2-4). In contrast, David’s wooing of the beautiful Abigail is arguably legitimate (1 Sam. 25:3,39f., cf. Dt. 21:11. With Romans 7:1-3 in mind, it is interesting to note that while Abigail’s husband was dead, Bathsheba’s was very much alive!).

Having already alluded to Amnon’s rape of Tamar (see especially 2 Sam. 13:1,14), I would draw attention to a sin of a different sort – that of Absalom recorded in chapter 15. Handsome himself and perhaps happily married (14:25-27), despite his exploitation of his father’s concubines (16:20ff.), he saw people who came for judgement (15:1ff.), got a taste for power and staged a coup to take it. The contrast between Absalom’s treatment of his father and David’s own dealing with Saul could hardly be greater (see e.g. 1 Sam. 24:6; 26:11).

Job is presented to us as a righteous man (1:1) who, though he maintains his basic integrity (e.g. 27:1-6), is certainly not a sinless one. In chapter 31 we read of his making a covenant with his eyes not to look on a virgin presumably in order to avoid unnecessary temptation or wrong thoughts (31:1, cf. v.9; Isa. 33:15). As with Eve he knows that his heart can go all too easily after his eyes (v.7, cf. Num. 15:39; Gen 8:21). The usual connection with both the legitimate and the illegitimate relationship between the eyes (cf. Esth. 2:3,7) and the heart or life is made explicit in Numbers 15:39; Ecclesiastes 2:10; 6:7,9; 11:9; Psalms 101:3f.; 119:37; Prov. 6:25, cf. 31:30; 23:26f.; Isaiah 3:16; 33:15, cf.vv.17,20; 57:17; Jeremiah 22:17; Ezekiel 6:9; 18:12,15; 20:7f.,16,24; 24:16,21,25; 33:25, for example. It is interesting to read in 1 Kings 9:3 (cf. Dt. 11:11f.) that God’s own eyes and heart are said to be on the house that Solomon has built. He is like a lover (cf. Song of Solomon) jealously watching over the people of his possession (Dt. 7:7; 1 K. 9:3; Isa. 54:5; Jer. 24:6; Ezek. 16:8), and commentators such as Motyer (p.69) and Oswalt (pp.152,154) note the sexual overtones evident in passage like Isaiah 5:1-7. To put it bluntly, God is passionate about his people as is made abundantly clear elsewhere (e.g. Hos. 3:1, cf. Motyer, p.447), though the imagery (father, mother, husband, etc.) varies.

Yet another arresting feature of the latter part of the OT is that Israel (properly masculine) is presented as a girl in his youth. Ezekiel 16 provides a graphic portrayal  of Israel’s heathen beginnings (cf. Abraham, Jos. 24:2,14), God’s covenant with her “at the age for love” (v.8) and her fall into harlotry. She is pictured as having prostituted herself with lustful Egyptians in her early days, then later with the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Her sin is said to be worse than that of Sodom and Samaria, and the proverb ‘Like mother like daughter’ will be aptly applied to her (v.44, cf. Isa. 24:2). Following the days in the wilderness, which were characterised by ‘wanton craving (Ps.106:14, RSV) leading to  envy of Moses (vv.16-18, cf. Absalom above), Israel sank into idolatry in the Promised Land itself just as Adam and Eve did in Eden. With regard to this both Jeremiah and Ezekiel resort to animal imagery to describe the gross misconduct of the chosen people. They are said to be like female camels and asses sniffing the wind in their lust (Jer. 2:23f.) (2* This highlights a fundamental difference between animals and humans. In general, the former are ‘turned on’ by scent and need to be ‘in season’ before copulation can take place. They are ruled entirely by their natures, genes or the laws of their flesh. The latter are stimulated by sight, cf. Prov. 27:20, but since they are made in the image of God, they are meant to control their fleshly passions according to the law apprehended by the mind, cf. Rom. 7:13ff.  See my essay Interpreting Romans 7. In this situation, conflict is inevitable, cf. Gal. 5:16f.; James 4:1; 1 Pet. 2:11, etc.) and remembering the days of their idolatrous youth when they dallied with the Egyptians whose sexual organs were like those of donkeys and horses (Ezek. 23:19f.). This graphic metaphorical language obviously has something to teach us.

In Ezekiel 28 (cf. 31:1-9), the reader’s attention is drawn to the paradigmatic nature of the sin of king of Tyre, though, when compared with the Genesis account, there seems to be some transfer of epithet with regard to beauty (vv.7,17, cf. 16:15), for example. Like Adam he began blameless (v.15) in Eden (vv.13f.) but was apparently tempted and led into sin by his greed in trade (vv.4f.,16,18). This, in turn, led to pride, god-like pretensions and eventually to his dreadful end in death (cf. 1 John 2:15-17).

Before leaving the OT it is worth reminding ourselves of another famous occasion when the pattern of seeing, desiring (envying, coveting) and taking is in evidence. In 1 Kings 21 (cf. Mic. 2:2) Ahab, the king of Samaria, casts longing eyes on Naboth’s vineyard. Urged on by his wife Jezebel (cf. Eve) he eventually gains what he wants by being party to false witness or what is nowadays called character assassination, murder and theft (v.16, cf. Num. 30:14f.). However, their selling themselves to evil (21:20) inevitably brought the judgement of God as it had done in the case of their distant progenitors long before.

In sum then we can safely say that so far as the OT is concerned both men and women, as true sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, have both eyes and hearts for illegitimate gain of one kind or another (Prov. 7:1ff.; 27:20; Isa. 56:11; Jer. 6:13; 8:10; 22:17; Ezek. 6:9). While it must be conceded that Solomon tells his young readers to walk in the ways of their hearts and the sight of their eyes, he does not fail to warn them that God will finally bring them into judgement (Eccl. 11:9; 12:14). Clearly the human heart, conditioned as it is by the desires of the flesh (Rom. 6:12; 1 Pet. 1:14; 4:2; 2 Pet. 2:14), is deeply deceitful and desperately corrupt (Dt. 11:16; Jer. 17:9) from youth (Gen. 8:21). The question now is, Is this assessment of the situation endorsed in the NT?

The Pattern of Sin in the New Testament

It is generally agreed that in the OT Adam and Eve were blessed by God while in their state of innocence (not, as tradition would have us believe, in their holiness, righteousness and even perfection!), but they were put under probation (Gen. 2:17) just as Israel was at a later date (Ex. 16:4; Dt. 8:2,16; Jud. 3:1,4, cf. James 1:12). It is hardly surprising then that Jesus, the second Adam, was also tested under the commandment, the law and finally, on his regeneration, under the Spirit (Mt. 3:15, cf. 19:21). Matthew 4:1-11 deals succinctly with these. First, the devil, following his strategy with Eve, tempts Jesus physically or on the level of the flesh. While Israel had certainly been tested by hunger and thirst in the wilderness, it might well be asked why Jesus is not presented as being subjected to sexual temptations as so many, like Samson and David, were in the OT. I first realised why when many years ago I was watching a TV documentary on the ill-treatment meted out to Australian prisoners by the Japanese during WW2. The interviewer asked a veteran if in their state of desperate hunger and extreme emaciation sex was a problem. The old soldier said no. It was food and survival that dominated their thoughts in those appalling times. In other words, food and drink are fundamental to physical life and lack of them presents the severest of all trials. This, incidentally, is what the Bible itself implies, for both Moses (Dt. 32:15, cf. 28:53ff.) and Jeremiah (5:7f., cf. Neh. 9:25; Hos. 10:1f.) indicate that once our hunger is satisfied, like the animals, we are, especially when young, all too inclined to turn to sex (cf. Ex. 32:6; 1 Cor. 10:7f.). For, after all, on the level of the flesh we are animal-like (cf. 2 Pet. 2; Jude). How truly then we need the commandment and God’s law as a whole, in contrast with a bridle (Ps. 32:9; cf. Jas. 3:2), to guide us on our way (Prov. 6:23f.; 31:30; Ps. 119:105). We also need to be reminded of God’s forgiveness for the sins of our youth (Ps. 25:7; Jer. 31:19, etc.). So far as Jesus was concerned, however, his first temptation reached the core of his being, but, unlike Eve then Adam, he had the strength to resist (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5) and remind the devil that he was in the hands of God. (Since writing this I heard a Stalingrad veteran on TV describe his experience of hunger as a child as being like an animal gnawing away at his insides.)

The second temptation has drawn a variety of interpretations from commentators. What is clear is that it involved breaking the spirit of the law in some sense and at the very temple where of all places it should have been kept. It would seem that for Israel in the past and Jesus in the present to test God and require him to use miraculous means to deliver a faithless son from rash presumption is radically wrong. Jesus is indeed God’s Son, and for that very reason he will continue to trust his heavenly Father despite the blandishments and incitements of the devil. (We might remember at this point what is known as the ‘temple theology’ that featured in the prophets’ time. See Jer. 7:4 and cf. Mic. 3:11, for example.) It is doubtless true, however, that the main point of this second temptation is the devil’s attempt to cause Jesus to doubt or question the word of God (cf. Eve in Gen. 3:4). The notion that as the Son of God he would not die if he defied God’s natural law was subtle but in the event futile, for Jesus remained firm.

The acme of the devil’s temptation is reached in the third. Despite the regular claim of followers of Augustine, I would argue that the appeal to pride was limited and did not weigh heavily in the sin of the naïve and childlike Eve, though the devil had it very much in view in Genesis 3:1,5. Pride is primarily an adult sin, sin come of age as Isaiah 14:12ff., Ezekiel 28 and 1 John 2:15-17, for example, suggest.  Jesus, however, refuses Satan’s offer of what amounts to personal autonomy under the devil’s own leadership (cf. Phil. 2:6), for he knows he will achieve the goal of world rule God’s way. Only he kept the law and only he exercised proper dominion over his own fleshly body (John 8:46, cf. 4:15), the world (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9) and the devil himself (John 14:30; Heb. 2:14).

In Matthew the paradigm provided by Eve surfaces once more. In 5:28-30 the eyes, ensuing desire and the grasping hand reappear with a vengeance (though see further below on 1 John 2:16). Passing on quickly to Mark 7:20f. (cf. Gen. 8:21) we may note that out of a heart conditioned by the natural but uncontrolled passions of the flesh come the defiling acts and thoughts that are  such a feature of the heathen as Romans 1:18ff., Galatians 5:19ff. and Ephesians 4:17-19, for instance, demonstrate. Romans 1:25 in particular underlines the sin of Eve where rampant lust or fleshly desire makes a substantial contribution to deception. Thus Paul in Ephesians 4:22 (cf. Phil. 3:19; Rom. 6:16; 7:23,25; 16:18 and note John 8:34), Peter in 2 Peter 1:4 (cf. 2:12,19) and James in 4:1f. all assert that it is precisely by giving way to our fleshly passions and desires against the law which promised life (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:13; 1 Pet. 1:14; 2:11; 4:2) that, like Adam and Eve, we are rendered sinful and hence susceptible to death and physical corruption (Gen. 3:19; Eph. 2:1-3).

Though there are doubtless other references which need scrutiny (Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 have been compared with Adam and Eve (cf. Achan and his family, Hamon and Zeresh, and of course Ahab and Jezebel), it is time now to turn to Romans 7, perhaps the most misunderstood chapter in Scripture. If we let it speak for itself and refuse to be stampeded by the loudly proclaimed, but never substantiated, notion that Paul teaches the dogma of original sin in chapter 5, it is not all that difficult to see what Paul is getting at. Like 1:18-3:31, Romans 7-8 is covenantal in structure (cf. John 1:10-13; Gal. 3:23-4:7). (On 7:5 see above.) In verses 7-12 Paul indicates that as a child, like the pair in the Garden before the commandment made its impact on their developing understanding, he was ‘alive’ (v.9, cf. 9:11). But when the commandment came, which gave sin its opportunity (7:8,11) and apart from which sin does not exist (4:15; 7:8, cf. 1 Cor. 15:56), he was deceived, sinned and became subject to death (v.11, cf. 8:10).

Verse 13 is presumably transitional as the NIV, which sets it on its own, implies. What is more, it probably has Adam rather than Eve in view. In any case, it leads naturally to the effect of the law of Moses (note that the word ‘commandment’ disappears) on Paul and demonstrates his complete incapacity as a creature of flesh and blood to keep it. Though, like the Psalmist (119:14, etc.), he loves the law, despite his best efforts he cannot maintain its standards. He really sums up his position and that of the rest of us when he says in verse 14 that whereas the law is spiritual, he is carnal (Gk. sarkinos. 3* Morris and Fee, for example, maintain that the distinction between the two words ‘sarkinos’ and sarkikos’ is important here and appear to have a proper understanding of the passage in question.), that is, composed of flesh which is a law to itself (7:23,25, cf. Gal. 5:17). As such he cannot cope (cf. 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16, etc.) and is a wretched man indeed. He is in urgent need of deliverance from his body of death (v.24, cf. 6:6). And the only means of rescue available to him and to all mankind is the incarnate Jesus who alone lived a sinless life here on earth and so condemned sin in the flesh (8:3).

To sum up, Paul presents himself in Romans 7 and 8 as, first, a genuine son of Eve who typified the heathen (cf. Eph. 2:3; Tit. 3:3); second, as a true son of Adam who typified Jewish men under the law; and finally as an adopted son of God redeemed by Christ (Gal. 4:5). In covenantal terms, like Jesus whose disciple he became, he was first a slave ‘born of woman’, second a servant ‘under law’ and finally a son of God under the Spirit (Gal. 4:4-7; 8:15).

Romans 16:18-20 (cf. Phil. 3:19) immediately suggests repetition of the pattern of sin established by Eve in the Garden of Eden (contrast 1 Cor. 7:5,36f.). The references to Satan, deception, simple-mindedness and the fleshly appetites (belly, cf. Phil. 3:19) put this beyond reasonable dispute, though commentators seem reluctant to say so. Cranfield, however, thinks that “walking according to the flesh and having one’s life determined by the flesh, to which 8.4 and 5 refer” is what is involved (p.800). If it is, then it provides support for my contention.

Reference to 1 Corinthians reminds us of 15:50 where Paul insists that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. If the flesh as such is by its very nature excluded from heaven, it is hardly surprising that the works of the flesh as itemised, for example, in 6:9f., Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5 and Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 (cf. 2 Peter 2 and Jude) are equally causes of exclusion. In other words, sowing to the naturally corruptible flesh inevitably leads to destruction (cf. Gal. 6:7f.; Rom. 8:13) as it does in the animal world (cf. Ps. 49:12,20, etc.). As Jesus himself intimated, eating perishable food has limited value (John 6:27, cf. 4:13f.). Man made in the image of God needs imperishable food (cf. Mt. 4:4) to achieve his divinely intended destiny of glorification as a child of God (Rom. 8:15-17,29; 1 John 3:1).

In Galatians 5:16-24 (cf. Rom. 13:14; 1 Pet. 2:11) Paul leaves us little room but to conclude that sin involves yielding to fleshly temptations in contravention of the law. What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that he describes sins as the works of the flesh reminding us of the works of the law that we fail to achieve in order to become righteous (cf. 2:16, etc.). Indeed, it is only by the Spirit, not the flesh, that we fulfil the law’s demands. These are in the event rightly seen as the fruit of the Spirit. Paul’s teaching here is reminiscent of his exposition in Romans 6 and 8.

Ephesians 2:1-3 (cf. Tit. 3:3) is widely held to support the Augustinian view of original sin, though it is difficult to see why when it so obviously presents actual sin as preceding nature as it did in the case of Eve and Adam (cf. John 8:34). Verse 2 portrays the role of the devil depicted in Genesis 3:1-6. This is followed, as it was when Eve was tempted, by idolatrous surrender in violation of the law to passions arising from fleshly desires. Paul’s very terminology suggests action prior to nature, not imputation: ‘walking’ (cf. the language of imitation in the OT, e.g. 1 K. 15:26,34), ‘conducting ourselves’ and (literally) ‘doing’ the wishes of the flesh. The consequence of our being the sons of disobedience is that we become children of wrath (cf. Rom. 2:6ff.), which would not be the case if we were born with sinful natures. It is vital for us not to miss the ‘we’ in verse 3, for Paul clearly includes himself along with the rest of mankind. It is thus hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that at bottom he has the same thought in mind as he had in Romans 7:9f. (see above). In Titus 3:3 Paul again includes himself in the reference and actually uses the word ‘deceived’  (though the word in Greek is different, planao) which instantly reminds us of Eve as it did, or should have done, in Romans 7:11 (exapatao). If we find this unconvincing,  we have to reckon with the lusts of deceit (apate) referred to in Ephesians 4:22 (cf. James 4:1; 2 Pet. 1:4). The role of the flesh is clearly paramount. In failing to control it, all human beings apart from Jesus (Heb. 2:18; 4:15) follow in the steps of Eve.

In confirmation of my view that the flesh or our earthly nature (cf. Col. 3:5) so evident in Eve BEFORE she sinned is the root of the problem, James informs us in a passage that is almost certainly harks back to Genesis 3:6, that all human beings, including Jesus (Mt. 4:1-11; Heb.2:17f.; 4:15), are tempted by their natural fleshly desires. He goes on to insinuate that it is only when we give in to them against the law that we fall into sin (1:14f., cf. 1 Tim. 6:9f.), for where there is no law there is no sin (Rom. 4:15, cf. 1 Cor. 15:56; Gal. 5:23). (4* This highlights the fallacious nature of the NIV’s insistence on translating ‘flesh’ as ‘sinful nature’, cf. “the cravings of the sinful man” in 1 John 2:16. The flesh is a law to itself and whether exacerbated by sin already committed, cf. John 8:34, or not as in the case of Jesus, it nonetheless has its natural desires which have to be controlled according to law. After all, Adam and Eve had fleshly desires or cravings before they sinned. And so did Jesus, Heb. 2:17f.; 4:15!) Once transgression has occurred and the law has been broken the inevitable result is bondage (Jer. 13:23; John 8:34) and death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:16,23; 7:9f.).  Similarly John, in a passage that weighed heavily with Augustine warns us of the dangers inherent in the lust of the eyes, the flesh and love of the world evinced by pride in material things (1 John 2:15-17, cf. Ezek. 28; Mt. 4:1-11; 6:19f.; Eph. 2:2f.). It is strange that some commentators, not appreciating the paradigmatic nature of Eve’s sin, quite gratuitously deny that there is any connection with it here. While admitting that these verses are a variation on a theme as the change in order implies, it seems to me that the burden of proof lies on them (e.g. Kruse, p.96, who labels the idea ‘ingenious’!). If we take in verse 14, the world, the flesh and the devil all make their appearance as in Ephesians 2:2f. Their first appearance in Scripture would seem to be in Genesis 1-3 where man is called to exercise dominion over the world, 1:26,28, and the flesh, 2:17, cf. 3:6, and over the devil, 3:1ff. Jesus as our representative accomplished all three: (a) John 16:33, Heb. 2:9, Rev. 5:5; (b) Rom. 8:3, Heb. 4:15 and (c) Mt. 4:1-11, 12:29, John 14:30, etc.).

It is worth noting, however, that John refers to “the lust of the eyes”. Clearly he has in mind no innocent look which awakens desire (cf. James 1:14f.) but as Matthew 5:28 and 2 Peter 2:14 suggest one that is full of intent from the start. To see a woman as a woman, a creature of God and made in his image is one thing, but to ogle her simply to see whether she would make an acceptable sexual partner is another.

Before leaving this passage it is worth noting that it is strongly reminiscent of Ezekiel 24:15-24 where the temple features prominently. In view of the fact that the temple, like the human body of flesh including Ezekiel’s wife (2 Cor. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:14) and the physical creation itself (Heb. 12:27-29), is eventually destroyed (Mark 14:58), we can draw but one conclusion: we are meant to put our trust not in perishable earthly things  (cf. Prov. 31:30; 1 Pet. 3:3f.) but in our eternal God alone.

While there is doubtless more evidence open to scrutiny (see e.g. 1 Pet. 1:14; 2:11; 4:2f.; 2 Pet. 1:4; 2:10,13ff.; 3:3; Jude, etc., and note especially the contrast between Job who made a covenant with his eyes, 31:1 and those whose eyes are full of adultery, 2 Pet. 2:14), on the assumption that the case I have presented is valid, it is time now to draw some conclusions.

Conclusions

First, under the baneful and almost universal influence of Augustine in the West, Genesis 3:6 has to a large degree been glossed over; yet it is one of the most fundamental texts in the Bible, as we have seen above. In the Bible at least three reasons for our sinning are given: first, seduction by the devil; second, the conditioning and example of Adam (5* Adam was a corporate personality, representative natural man, the race, including Jesus, Luke 3:38, encapsulated in an individual, NOT our covenant head and representative as has been traditionally held. This is surely what Paul is teaching in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.)  or, more proximately, our immediate parents (cf. Luke 11:13); and, thirdly, the temptations of the flesh and the deceitfulness of sin (Heb. 3:13). Of the three, it is the latter that is given the greatest prominence by far. Original sin does not appear at all, since the child cannot inherit and be punished for its father’s sin (Ex. 32:33; Dt. 24:16; Job 21:19-21; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek.18, etc.). Rather  he is warned against it (Zech. 1:4, etc.). Under the influence of Augustine and the history of church dogma it is simply read into certain texts that fail to withstand close examination.

Secondly, the flesh, again under the influence of the great Manichee, Augustine, has been falsely ethicised, detached from its root meaning and regarded as evil (see e.g. Barrett, who describes it as ‘radically evil’, p.148, denied by Dunn, p.391, and Murray, who says it is ‘wholly evil’, p.263). Though in my view he draws the wrong conclusion under the influence of Sanders, Dunn is right to insist that ‘flesh’ is a technical term, which should not be set aside (p.364). The truth is, of course, that the flesh or human nature becomes enslaved to sin once it has succumbed to temptation (John 8:34; Jer. 13:23; Rom. 6:16; 2 Pet. 2:19) and is subject to death (Gen. 2:17; 3:19; Rom. 8:10). In modern parlance, sin may be regarded as a kind of virus in the bloodstream over which the immune system has no control. But it is not inherited, as aids sometimes is; it is self-introduced (cf. e.g. Rom. 7:9f.).

Thirdly, if Adam and Eve, though lacking a sinful inheritance, succumbed to temptation, how much more do we who were made in their image (Gen. 5:1-3, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49. Inevitably, we are conditioned by and suffer the ill-effects of both their sin and bad example (cf. Ex. 20:5f.; 34:6f.; Lev. 26:39; Num. 14:18,33, etc.). Clearly, since children cannot be punished for the sins of their fathers unless they repeat them  (Isa. 65:6f.; Ezek.18; 20; 33; Zech. 1:4; Acts 7:51f., etc.), Paul’s argument in Romans 5:12-21 is an a fortiori one – if Adam sinned, how much more we. Alternatively expressed, both Eve’s and Adam’s sins were paradigmatic (cf. Wenham, p.90f.; Wright, Ezekiel, p.245).

Fourthly, if all human beings (with the sole exception of Jesus, despite his own weakness and susceptibility to temptation: 2 Cor. 13:4; Rom. 8:3) fail to control their flesh or earthly nature according to law, the traditional Augustinian dogma of original sin is redundant, entirely unnecessary to account for sin. Not only does it lack an adequate exegetical foundation, not least in Romans 5:12 where it is said we all have sinned (KJV, NRSV, cf. 3:23), but it involves logical absurdity. It is in fact as full of holes as Haggai’s bag (1:6). Here I need make one point only: since Eve sinned first, Adam’s sin was obviously NOT the cause of HER transgression. On this ground alone we are forced to the conclusion that original sin is superfluous. The stance of the WCF 6 is clearly an egregious and pernicious error, which has had unfortunate ramifications throughout the whole range of dogmatic theology.

Fifthly, dominion of our physical bodies, which stem from the earth (cf. Col. 3:5; Rom. 16:18; Phil. 3:19), was part of the original cultural mandate (Gen. 1:26,28). Thus Paul talks of beating and making his body his slave (1 Cor. 9:27), of sacrificing it (Rom. 12:1), of putting it to death (Rom. 8:13; Col. 3:5), of glorifying God in it (1 Cor. 6:13,20; Phil. 1:20, cf. John 17:4), James of bridling it like a horse (3:2f., cf. Ps. 32:9) and Peter of subjecting it to discipline or self-control (2 Pet. 1:5ff.). All this would have been impossible if original sin were true, since violation of in-born nature would be involved, and this is itself contrary to the will of God (cf. Rom. 1:26f.)! We are bound to infer then that just as Jesus had a life-long battle with his flesh (Mt. 4:1-11; 26:39; Rom. 15:3; Heb. 2:10f.,18; 4:15, contra Art. 1X of the C of E) so do we even when we are born again (Rom. 13:14, etc.), that is, led by the Spirit and no longer under law.

There is a sixth point to make. Eve’s deception and Adam’s rebellion against the commandment are played out not simply in individuals but also in the community of  Israel as a whole. Before the law was given, Jacob as a true son of Eve under the influence of his mother Rebekah epitomises deception in both name (Gen. 25:26) and conduct (Gen. 27:5ff.), as do his sons at a later stage (34; 37:29ff. cf. 31:7,20,41). When under the law, however, Israel, like Adam, epitomises stubbornness and rebellion and becomes in fact a rebellious house (Dt. 1:26; 9:7; Ezek. 2:5, etc.). It is only the true vine, Jesus, who overcomes temptation, keeps the commandments (Mark 1:11; John 15:10) and fulfils all righteousness to provide the grace necessary to the true Israel (Phil. 3:3) or new man (Eph. 2:15; 4:13) made up of both fleshly Gentiles (Eve) and law-bound Jews (Adam).

Seventhly, the pattern of sin elucidated above bears out the truth of the threefold character of biblical covenant theology (cf. Gal. 3:19-4:7) reflecting the similarity of human conduct before the law, under law and after the law (cf. 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6; 6:15). It does more than that, however. It also brings out the truth of recapitulation or repetition which characterised the theology of Irenaeus before Augustine arrived on the scene. But while this points to human behavioural solidarity, it does not fix it unalterably in cement as the imputation or transmission of Adam’s sin does. On the contrary, it leaves room for separation and election as portrayed, for example, in  Jesus (cf. Abraham).

Finally, Hamlet said, “Give me that man who is not passion’s slave.” History has thrown up one only, and his name is Jesus.

If what I have written above, and indeed elsewhere, is anything like the truth, then it has to be said that Augustine, on account of his enormous influence, did more than anyone else to vitiate our understanding of Scripture and saddle us with a dangerously false, even absurd, worldview. While we must remain permanently grateful to him for emphasising the need of grace, Pelagius’ stress on imitation is supported by massive biblical evidence (again contra Art. 1X of the C of E). It is neatly encapsulated in 3 John 11: imitate good not evil (cf. Rom. 12:9; 16:19; 1 Cor. 14:20; 1 John 3:6,10). Imitation, repetition and recapitulation are fundamental both to life and Scripture. In sharp contrast, the imputation of sin not personally committed is strongly condemned (Dt. 24:16, cf. Gen.18:23,25; Ex. 23:7; 1 Sam. 22:15; Pr. 17:15; 24:23-25; Mt. 12:7, etc.).

_____________________________________________________

References

C.K.Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, London, 1967.

J.Calvin, Romans, Grand Rapids, 1947.

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

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

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

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

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

L.L.Morris, 1 Corinthians, London, 1958.

J.A.Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, Leicester, 1993.

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

J.N.Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah 1-39, Grand Rapids, 1986.

W.Riggans, DSB Numbers, Edinburgh, 1983.

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

M.Wilcock, BST Judges, Leicester, 1992.

M.Wilcock, Revelation, Leicester, 1975.

M.Wilcock, Psalms, Leicester, 2001.

C.J.H.Wright, NIVC Deuteronomy, Peabody, 1996.

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

________________________________________________________

Read the follow-up article Repeating the Pattern

In 2 Kings 8:1 and 5 Elishah (cf. Elijah in 1 K. 17:17-24) is portrayed as the prophet who restored to life (resuscitated) the son of a Shunammite woman to whom he had ministered (4:32-37). While such actions as his are presented as resurrections throughout the Bible, Christians customarily distinguish between a resurrection and a restoration. For example, it may be said that Lazarus underwent restoration to natural or earthly life only to die again (cf. John 11:23-26); in contrast Jesus experienced a resurrection to immortality which implies that he was raised never to die again (Rom. 6:9; Rev. 1:18). This, as Murray Harris asserts, constitutes a move “from restoration from death to conquest over death” (Raised Immortal, pp.226f.). Though the point is valid, it is questionable whether the distinction is very helpful to our understanding of the post-resurrection body of Jesus. For whatever else was implied in Jesus’ resurrection, it certainly involved physical restoration like all the other earthly resurrections that occur in the Bible. In John 10:17f. Jesus tells us that the life he will lay down is the one he will take up (cf. John 2:19-22). (It should be noted that he uses the word ‘psyche’ here implying that what he will take up again is his fleshly, Adamic, physical, ‘natural’ or ‘psychikos’ life, which on his own account he should never have lost since he did not sin. Cf. 1 Pet. 3:18 which refers to his death in the flesh and his spirit, ‘pneuma’, in heaven.)

In light of the clear information we are given, his physical restoration is beyond reasonable dispute. The implication of passages like Luke 24:39-42, Acts 10:40f. and John 20:17,27-29 leaves us no room for manoeuvre except as disbelievers. If, however, we acknowledge Jesus’ truly physical restoration, in what way was his ‘resurrection’ different from that of Lazarus and others? It is a common assumption that his resurrected body was transformed and glorified (see e.g. Geivett and Habermas, In Defence of Miracles, pp.316,319; Packer and Oden, One Faith, pp.80,92, Downers Grove, 2004. Glorification is normally understood to mean corporeal and spiritual perfection in the presence of our immortal God, 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16). However, in view of the evidence, this is impossible to sustain. For Paul would have us believe that a permanent glorified body is at once invisible (Rom. 8:24f.; 2 Cor. 4:18) and endowed with splendour (Eph. 5:27; Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 John 3:2), fitted for heaven not earth (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17). (There is a disturbing failure among many writers to distinguish adequately between heaven and earth. Under the influence of Augustine and a false interpretation of Romans 8:18-25, many seem to think that the only problem with the earth is the effect of sin.  They seem to ignore entirely the very first verse of the Bible which indicates that the earth is temporal and in direct contrast with heaven which is eternal. God’s throne is heaven and earth his footstool, Isa. 66:1; Mt. 5:34f.; Acts 7:49f.) So, since flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, our initial conclusion must be, as John 20:17 (cf. 6:62f.) implies, that Jesus was not glorified until his ascension and exaltation. However, we must not run ahead of ourselves.

It may be observed, first, that while we are bound to associate resurrection with transformation so far as we ourselves who experience corruption are concerned (1 Cor. 15:35ff.; 2 Cor. 5:1, etc.), we must avoid attributing transformation to Jesus at his restoration from the grave on pain of denying his true physical resurrection. (Pace Habermas, who tells us that Jesus rose in a transformed but still physical body, Miracles, p.274. In contrast Tom Houston says that Jesus was no longer in the flesh but had a resurrected body, p.242. These are both contradictions in terms and reflect confusion regarding the biblical position.) For if the Jesus that rose is not restored but is fundamentally different from the one that was buried, then his resurrection never truly occurred. In fact, it is not a resurrection at all but a transformation or metamorphosis. He was in plain language ‘a ghost’ (Lu. 24:39, cf. Mt. 14:26), something he himself seems to be at considerable pains to deny. In this case, the word ‘resurrection’ is emptied of meaning. We must probe further.

Man Perfected

Next, there is a basic theological reason why we must deny the idea that the resurrected Jesus was at the same time transformed and glorified and, by implication, not restored and no longer physical. Apart from the fact that the glorification of corruptible flesh is inherently contradictory (1 Cor. 15:50), the point we must consider is that Jesus did not die on his own account but for us. This means that having died for us and risen again, he was necessarily saved from the permanent clutches of death (Acts 2:23f., cf. Rom. 6:9; Heb. 5:7; Rev. 1:18) and hence the same as he was before (cf. John 2:19; 10:17f.). Why is this so? The answer lies in the original vocation of man in the early chapters of Genesis. In the Garden of Eden, God promised mortal Adam that he would not die if he obeyed the commandment. He did not keep it and, since the wages of sin is death, he died.  Jesus, however, did indeed keep the commandment, the entire law of Moses in fact, and so inherited (eternal) life. It follows from this that since he freely gave his fleshly body on our account (Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 3:18), so he kept it, or should have kept it, on his own account! So far as he himself was concerned, since he never sinned he should never have died, least of all experienced ensuing corruption. Rather he inherited the promise of his Father by retaining his flesh or physicality as though he had never died. In other words, he would have been as Adam (or even any of his posterity) would have been if he had never sinned. He thus became the complete man who was perfected at his ascension, exaltation and heavenly session. Since flesh and blood, which are inherently corruptible (Gal. 6:8; 1 Pet. 3:4, etc.), cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:1-8), he necessarily underwent transformation at his ascension (cf. Rev. 12:5) as the pioneer of the saints who are still alive at his coming (1 Cor. 15:51). In confirmation of this, the three examples that Scripture gives us of avoidance of death (and hence of resurrection), that is, those of Enoch, Elijah and the saints at the end of history, are all transformed at their ascension. This being so, we are bound to infer that it was Jesus himself who provided the pattern or model for Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:51 (cf. 1 Thes. 4:15-17; Phil. 3:21). (See further below. Rev. 11:11f., which involves a vision, is clearly based on the physical resurrection and ascension of Jesus. The witnesses come to life, cf. John 10:17f., as he did and then ascend.)

It is here that Murray Harris (Raised Immortal) seems to have seriously misinterpreted the evidence at his disposal, for he implicitly denies the physicality of Jesus’ resurrection, as Norman Geisler (The Battle for the Resurrection), who had his own but different problems, noted and vehemently criticized. (The idea that Jesus’ resurrection body was spiritual was championed by the Alexandrian school and Origen. Ignatius and Tertullian took the view that Jesus rose again in the flesh. See e.g. art. Resurrection of Christ in EDT, p.939. By contrast,  it is an odd fact that the premillennialist view that Jesus is going to return to earth in the flesh implies that his resurrection was merely a restoration. It also necessarily implies that his ascension was fleshly which is contrary to Paul’s explicit teaching in 1 Cor.15:50, contrast Geisler, pp.194f. See further below.) Harris makes much of what are in effect Jesus’ phantasmal appearances and disappearances and the like after his resurrection failing to note that they featured in the physical or natural life of Elijah (1 K. 18:12), Philip (Acts 8:39) and Peter (Acts 12:6-11), for example. We do not draw the conclusion that Peter was transformed when he overcame locked doors, so why should we in Jesus’ case? The reason why Jesus appeared only to believers (Acts 10:41; 1 Cor. 15:5-7) was, in part, to preserve the nature of the gospel, that is, justification by faith. (The weakness of Harris’ case seems to me to become most evident when he sets side by side what he calls the ‘materialistic’ and the ‘non-materialistic’ statements in his later work “From Grave to Glory”, pp.372f. His conclusion that the glorified Jesus is still “in the flesh” and that the incarnation is irreversible, p.415, is potentially misleading and inherently contradictory unless he simply means “human”. Surely what the Bible is teaching is that when Jesus returned to heaven, he did so as man spiritually perfected in the image of God (Mt. 5:48; 19:21) corporeally (somatically) transformed and glorified. It perhaps needs to be added at this point that we achieve physical perfection or maturity in this corruptible world and then, in accord with the law of nature, decline, die and yield to total corruption. This, I contend, is what Paul is saying in Romans 8:18-25, cf. Heb. 1:10-12, etc. So Jesus was certainly not flesh, even transformed flesh when he entered heaven! Harris’ attempt to talk in terms of acted parables, p.423, seriously threatens the actuality of the truth. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus will return in like manner, Acts 1:11, does not mean that he will come back looking (physically) as he did when he ascended but that he will return from heaven, 1 Thes. 1:10, in the glory of God, Mt. 16:27; Luke 9:26, etc., and as a consuming fire, 2 Thes. 1:7f.; 2:8, cf. Rev. 1:12-18, etc.)  In both the OT and the NT faith is founded on the testimony of appointed witnesses, and we live by faith and not by sight (cf. John 20:29). For us, the ‘proofs’ of the faith never go beyond the convincing evidence provided by apostolic testimony (cf. Luke 1:2; Acts 1:3; 10:39-41; Eph. 2:20; 1 John 1-3) which we are at liberty to accept or reject.

If Jesus underwent transformation at his resurrection, why did he appear in physical form in what was apparently an earthly body unless that body was the original one he had laid down in death? The answer may be simply to indicate that he was still alive, but this hardly constitutes resurrection. If transformation is the essence of resurrection, physicality, if not corporeality, is eliminated.

Here it is useful to draw attention to an apparent contradiction in John 20. First, let us focus on Doubting Thomas. If ever there was an attempt to prove that Jesus had undergone a genuine physical restoration resurrection, this is it, for Thomas is not merely invited to touch Jesus but virtually to subject him to a careful physical examination. By contrast, in verse 17 we find Jesus asking Mary not to hang on to him, and the reason he gives is that he has not yet ascended to his Father. His implication is surely that this is his final destiny/destination (re-iterated many times in John’s gospel: e.g. John 3:13; 14:2; 16:28, etc.) and, though he is present with her at the moment, he cannot remain with her, distressing though she may find it (cf. 16:5f.). Touching, as well as seeing and hearing, him would have been pointless unless it was designed to prove that he was truly flesh and blood or bone (Luke 24:39). So, on the one hand, Jesus is underlining the genuineness of his physical resurrection from the grave and, on the other, the necessity of his coming ascension to the Father’s side which will lead to the sending of the Spirit. This is to the disciples’ advantage (John 16:7), but it cannot occur until he has been glorified (7:39, cf. John 12:16,32-34). From this we are forced to infer that Jesus was not glorified at the time of his resurrection (cf. 1 Tim. 3:16, Acts 1:2f.,22 and Rev. 12:5 where his resurrection is not mentioned, and note Heb. 1:6; 2:5). Clearly, his rising from the grave was but the beginning of his total resurrection exaltation or exodus (Luke 9:31) and permanent escape from this present evil world (Gal. 1:4) of sin and corruption  (Luke 9:51; Rev. 12:5) (1* Michael Wilcock, The Message of Revelation, p.118, sees Jesus’ ascension as his escape.  In Jesus, man achieves the escape that the naturally mortal Adam was promised in Genesis 2:17.) never more to return (Acts 13:34; Heb. 7:26) (2* See further on this verse below.) Thus he ends where he began (John 17:5) but having permanently assumed human nature and paved the way for his fellows to enter the presence of God (John 17:24, cf. Heb. 2:10). As Irenaeus said, he became what we are so that we might become what he is.

There is a further point. Many seem to assume without adequate warrant that Jesus’ glorious body in heaven (Phil. 3:21) is to be identified with his post-resurrection one which his disciples saw on earth (cf. 1 John 1:1-3). On the limited evidence at our disposal it was not a particularly prepossessing one (cf. Isa. 53:2) and certainly not worthy of description. (3* Habermas and Licona’s contention, p.161, that “if the nature of our future resurrection body is immaterial and not  physical, then so was Jesus’ resurrection body” is astonishing. They are comparing like with unlike! Jesus’ body on earth was like ours lowly, that is, fleshly, but in heaven it is gloriously transformed, Phil. 3:21, cf. Rev. 1:12-16; 2:18; 19:12.) But is this really what Jesus is referring to when he speaks of his heavenly glory he wishes us to see (John 17:5,24, cf. Isa. 33:17; 66:18)? Paul gives the strong impression that when God gives us an appropriate body in the world to come (cf. 1 Cor. 15:38), both the body and the world (or age) to come itself will be different (cf. Isa. 33:17-22). In other words, it will not be a revised form of the present creation (cf. Mt. 13:43) as is implied by Augustinian theology (see next paragraph). The present (evil) age (Gal. 1:4, cf. Mark 13:8) and the world to come are as fundamentally different as earth and heaven (cf. Luke 20:34-36). So far as man is concerned, there will be continuity certainly, but it will be bodily (somatic) not fleshly. The seed may differ from the plant (1 Cor. 15:37f.) but the genus is the same. Like produces like (Gen. 1:11f.. etc.), so if the seed is fleshly so is the body (John 3:6; 1 Cor. 15:48). However, if the seed is spiritual (1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9, cf. James 1:18), then the body is also. So while there is continuity of person, there is discontinuity of flesh if not body or house (cf. 2 Cor. 5:1; 1 Cor. 6:13). The clay jar is dispensed with but the treasure is retained (cf. 2 Cor. 4:7).

This leads to another point which has two implications. First, Augustinian tradition based on Jewish speculation has idealized Adam and fostered the idea that he was originally created perfect and glorious like the earth from which he was taken. While the biblical evidence for this is wholly lacking, it leads logically to the belief that what the first Adam lost is recovered in the second Adam. This inevitably leads to the absurd notion that the original paradise, which was, like the temple, only a type of the true, is regained (as opposed to replaced, enhanced and spiritualised) and is the goal of creation (cf. Jer. 33:7,11! This thinking is in fact cyclical and Greek. Man ends up where he started, an idea that is implicitly rejected in John 3:1-8. But, second, tradition has failed to appreciate the difference between Greek and Christian thinking which differs fundamentally with regard to the body. Whereas in Greek thinking the body as such is an unnecessary encumbrance, the prison house of the soul, and has to be dispensed with or escaped from so that the permanence of the intellect, or the immortality of the soul, may be retained, in Christian thinking it is the corruptible flesh which is superfluous, destructible and dispensable, while the body as such is retained in a different form. The essence of the matter is finely expressed by Dunn when he asserts that soma (body) can cross the boundary of the ages whereas sarx (flesh) belongs firmly to this present age (cf. 1 Cor. 15:44-50; 2 Cor. 4:7-5:5, Romans, p.391.) The assumption harboured in church dogma seems to be that the flesh and hence physicality (materiality as opposed to corporeality) is retained. This Scripture flatly denies. The notion entertained by some (e.g. Geisler) that it is only ‘sinful’ flesh that constitutes a problem, must be rejected out of hand. As deriving from the naturally corruptible earth, flesh as such, like the law to which it relates (2 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 8:13; 9:9-14, etc.), is temporal and provisional and, as we have already seen, is incapable of inheriting the spiritual kingdom of heaven (John 3:1-8; 1 Cor. 15:42-50). The basic biblical reason why we must not foster or capitulate to the flesh, or the world for that matter, is that it is by its very nature ephemeral (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8; Heb. 12:16). To be a slave of corruption is not merely to be immoral but to be under the dominion of the intrinsically transient and corruptible creation which man’s original vocation required him to rule over in his quest for glory and honour (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5f.). Like all created things (Rom. 1:20; Heb. 12:27), the fleshly body is destined for removal and replacement by the perfection of a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:35ff.; Rom. 8:24f.; 2 Cor. 4:17; 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:14, etc.).

It is here of course that Augustine made such a profound mistake: he assumed that the word ‘good’ in Genesis 1 meant morally ‘perfect’ rather than ‘useful’ or ‘suited to its purpose’ (cf. e.g. Gen. 2:9; 3:6; Eccl. 3:11). Thus instead of starting with imperfection (cf. the immaturity, incompleteness and innocence (!) characteristic of babies) Augustine began with perfection and consequently had to posit a ‘Fall’ from it! Furthermore, he failed to realize that man is by nature subject to development (evolution, if you will!), fleshly first and spiritual second (1 Cor. 15:46, cf. v.23). Creation, far from being universally cursed, is temporal by nature (Heb. 1:10-12, cf. Gen. 1:1 and contrast Heb. 7:3) and needs development or cultivation at the hands of man who inhabits it in order to exercise dominion over it. Apart from this, it is desolate (e.g. Jer. 9:11; Isa. 6:11; Acts 1:20, etc.). And once it has served its purpose, it will be dispensed with. Augustine put the cart before the horse, and regrettably his devotees continue to do so to this day.

After his resurrection Jesus appeared in physical form for the simple reason that he was still physical material. We have his own word for it (Luke 24:39; John 20:27). He had undergone a genuine resurrection which clearly involved restoration like that of Lazarus (John 11). (4* It can hardly pass without notice that just as all the resurrections referred to in the Bible that occur in this world involve restoration, so all ascension referred to involve transformation. See further below. It might usefully be added at this point that an earthly resurrection involving restoration hardly compares with the better resurrection, Heb. 11:35, of those who undergo a permanent physical death but are raised spiritually in the manner Paul describes in 1 Cor. 15:42-50) Any powers that he exercised which appeared to transcend the physical were no different from, and certainly not as dramatic as, say, his walking on water prior to his death when his physicality was not in question. (It should be remembered that even Peter walked on water briefly and he certainly had not undergone transformation, Mt. 14:29.) It was not until his ascension that he was transformed and disappeared permanently from physical view (cf. Acts 1:9; 2 Cor. 4:18, cf. Rom. 8:24f.), for earthly flesh and blood cannot by nature inherit the spiritual kingdom of heaven. While it is true that Jesus had completed his work on the cross (John 19:30), he did not ascend until the time set by the Father (cf. Gal. 4:2).

The Second Adam

The clearly erroneous notion that Jesus underwent transformation at his resurrection from the grave has other implications. On the face of it, it would seem to deny not merely that Jesus was fully a man, and was hence docetic, but also that he was the second or last, complete and fully perfected Adam. Harris rightly maintains that resurrection is only applicable to those who have died. So if the first Adam had not sinned, he would never have died and undergone resurrection. Having attained to full maturity (perfection) as a man, he would have received the eternal life originally promised to him by being transformed directly from his naturally impermanent fleshly physicality at his presumed ascension like Enoch and Elijah and the saints still alive at the end of history (1 Cor. 15:51ff.). (I have frequently puzzled over Enoch and Elijah. Perhaps the reason for their ascension was not to affirm their sinlessness but to give their contemporaries hope for the future as that of Jesus does us. Perhaps also they were intended to prove that transformation occurs at ascension!) So it would seem to follow necessarily from Jesus’ nature as the second Adam, who remained sinless, that his transformation occurred at his ascension. If it occurred at his resurrection, it is difficult not to conclude that he was not truly the second Adam but someone who differed in some respects from the first, sin apart (cf. Heb. 2:17; 4:15).

It is important to stress at this point that, in accordance with the promise made to Adam in Genesis 2:17, Jesus, as the only man in history to keep the law, inherited eternal life at his baptism. But for the fact that his purpose was to serve his people and to lay down his life for them (Mark 10:45, etc.), his continuation on the earth from a personal perspective was wholly unnecessary and simply awaited the time set by his Father for his ascension (cf. Gal. 4:2). The Augustinian view that the new birth relates purely to sin, which is not even mentioned in John 3:1-8, and that the flesh itself is sinful has led to a radical distortion of Christian theology. According to Jesus’ own dictum in John 3:6, as mortal flesh he himself had to be born again (3:5). Hence his baptism and new birth occurred when his stint under the law had been successfully completed to his Father’s satisfaction (Mt. 3:17, cf. Gal. 4:2). And as the divinely acknowledged (now regenerate) Son of God who had been permanently endowed with the Spirit (cf. John 3:34f.), he was fitted to become the pioneer and perfecter of the regenerate life of his people. Just as we depend on him for righteousness  (Rom. 5:17; Phil. 3:9), so we depend on him for new birth or eternal life (Rom. 6:23). Both are the free gifts of God in Christ. Without the former we cannot have the latter, as God made clear in his dealings with Adam (Gen. 2:17; 3:22-24). Pace Augustine!

Jesus’ Post-resurrection Appearances

Why then, it may be asked, did Jesus re-appear after his resurrection? We might argue that it was for evidential reasons even though his work (John 6:38; 17:4) and course (Luke 13:32) were completed on the cross (John 19:30), and this being so he was no longer susceptible to death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:9). Had he simply ascended and been glorified at his resurrection we would never have known. True though this is, part of the answer must be, as I have implied above, that it was to fully complete the Adamic life he had taken on. He was a true human being to the end (cf. Acts 1:22), indeed beyond the end in the sense that he remains forever man, corporeally transformed and no longer incarnate, but glorified and perfected in heaven (cf. Col. 1:19; 2:9). As such, he is the man (Adam) who has taken on (arguably retaken, John 17:5) the generic nature of God (John 17:24; Heb. 1:3), and we follow in his steps (2 Pet. 1:4, cf. 1 Pet. 4:6).

The Glory of Jesus

Before leaving Jesus there are other points to be made. In Hebrews 9:28 we read that he will appear a second time, that is, at his second coming. This, however raises the question of the nature of his first coming. Somewhat unthinkingly we tend to assume that this is a reference to his incarnation, but this can hardly be the point the author of Hebrews is making. Rather, as some commentators (e.g. Bruce) indicate, the thought behind the comment is doubtless the re-appearance of the high priest from the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement. The point is that he re-appears alive indicating that his sacrifice has been accepted. Surely the same is true of Jesus who entered the greater and more perfect tent to make his sacrifice as both priest and victim (Heb. 9:11f.). But to infer that he was glorified at his re-appearance alive (cf. John 10:17f.) is to go beyond the evidence and to jump the gun. There are two points to be made here. First, if he was glorified on his first appearance after his resurrection, his second would be a repetition suggesting that the first was imperfect, superfluous and futile. Second, since we are told specifically that at his exaltation Jesus regained the glory that he shared with his Father before his incarnation (John 17:5,24), his second appearance will necessarily be in the glory of God (Heb. 1:3). This time his glorified nature will be unmistakable, since he will return as a consuming fire (2 Thes. 1:7f.; 2:8, cf. Heb. 12:29) visible to all (Rev. 1:7).

I conclude that the idea of Jesus’ glorification at his resurrection, in effect rendering his  ascension, exaltation and even his second coming redundant, is seriously mistaken.

But there is more. According to the Bible man was made in the divine image in order to attain to the likeness of God (cf. Irenaeus above and note Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18, Col. 1:19; 2:9). Since he failed, Jesus in a rescue bid was made incarnate (flesh) for a little while (Heb. 2:7,9) in order to ensure that the divine purpose was achieved. However, if at his resurrection Jesus was forever glorified in the likeness of (sinful) flesh (cf. Rom. 8:3), God’s purpose has been reversed. For instead of man taking on the generic nature of God, God has permanently taken on the generic nature of man – an impossible scenario! Surely in spatial terms the intended movement was up not down, forwards not backwards, from earth to heaven, from flesh to spirit (1 Cor. 15:46). Man’s ascent to perfection from basic imperfection or incompleteness was in view from the start. Even the devil seemed to realize that the divine intention was that man should take on the likeness God (Gen. 3:5), hence his attempt to thwart it (cf. Mt. 4:1-11). Again I conclude that the currently widespread view that Jesus was glorified in the flesh(!) when he rose again points to serious error. The truth is that Jesus was made man so that through him we might become like God, and his children and heirs to boot. In light of this, we need to take to heart the fact that eternal life, the life of God himself, by its very nature excludes glorification in corruptible flesh.

The Resurrection of Believers

Paul goes out of his way to indicate that our resurrection, which is certainly somatic though spiritual, is different from that of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 15:37). Jesus never experienced corruption, but we do. Because flesh is corruptible and we have all personally sinned, we lose it at death. We succumb like David (Acts 13:36) to the inevitable post-mortem corruption process that Jesus avoided because he never sinned. This means, as Paul was well aware, that we are left bodiless or naked (2 Cor. 5:2-4, cf. Phil. 1:21-23). So in our case, the body, but certainly not the flesh, must be redeemed (Rom. 8:23). This constitutes our resurrection; it is based on that of Jesus apart from which we would never experience it at all (cf. 2 Cor. 4:14, etc.). (With Harris, p.93, we need to recognize that resurrection in the NT frequently implies the whole process of glorification, e.g. John 11:24f., etc. Resurrection, ascension and exaltation are so intimately related that any one of the three may embrace the other two, see e.g. 1 Pet. 3:18, etc. The ascension is not a visionary acted parable but a visual dramatization of the unseen exaltation to God’s right that was the consequence of the successful completion of Christ’s work on earth, cf. John 17:4f.,24.)

Physicality and Corruption

But the essential physicality or materiality of Jesus’ resurrection seems to be underscored by the emphasis of the NT writers on the fact that he never saw corruption even though he was still flesh. If his resurrection was not physical, there would seem to be little point in stressing this. For how can someone who has been transformed and glorified succumb to corruption (cf. Mt. 6:19f.; 1 Pet. 1:3f.)? He is by definition excluded. On the other hand, as we saw above, mere restoration or resuscitation by no means obviates corruption (cf. Lazarus).  But Jesus stands in contrast with David who succumbed to it (Acts 2,13). If we assume that Jesus was transformed at his resurrection, corruption is not on the agenda; it is simply avoided or obviated. It is no longer a live issue. What is more, it is not historical but rather trans- or supra-historical. But this is surely not what the NT writers are saying. Rather they say that he rose again in the flesh never to die again (Rom. 6:9) since, as the sinless second Adam who had given his life as a ransom for others, death had no claim on him. He had not personally earned wages (Rom. 6:23). The fact was that, because he had kept the law and had inherited eternal life in accordance with God’s original promise (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.) even before he died on our behalf, he was raised immortal, that is, never needing to die again (cf. Heb. 9:28; 10:10, etc.). Furthermore, since he had conquered death in his own case (cf. Ps. 49:7-9), so he overcame it in the case of all who put their trust in him (2 Cor. 4:14; Heb. 2:14f., etc.). In other words, he had brought life and the prospect of ultimate incorruption to light in a world naturally characterized by both death and corruption (2 Tim. 1:10, cf. 1 Pet. 1:3f.). And it is worth adding at this point that physical death and corruption will never be destroyed until the temporal earth that spawns them is destroyed. But that this will be so, there is no doubt (1 Cor. 7:31; Heb. 1:11; 8:13; 2 Pet. 3,7,10-12; 1 John 2:17; Rev. 20:11, 21:1,4, etc.).

A Problem

At this point, however, superficially at least, we encounter a massive problem. How can a deathless Jesus clothed in corruptible flesh permanently inhabit an impermanent or corruptible creation? (The difference between mortality and corruptibility is of basic importance. The failure of translations like the KJV, NIV, ESV, etc. to distinguish between them in Romans 2:7, 1 Tim. 1:17, and 2 Timothy 1:10 which is tautologous, seriously jeopardizes our understanding of what is involved. I note that Vine objects to the mistranslation of aphtharsia. See pp. 131,320. These verses suggest that immortality applies to persons while incorruptibility relates to their attributes.) The answer is that he cannot and was never intended to (cf. 2 Cor. 5:5). The Genesis story implied two promises: eternal life or immortality (2:17) on the one hand and (heavenly) glory and honour (1:26, cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:8f.; Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7) on the other.  Jesus’ call as the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, was, as ours is, a heavenly call (John 6:62; 16:28; 17:5, cf. Phil. 3:14; 2 Thes. 2:14; Heb. 3:1; 1 Pet. 1:3f.; 5:10) leading to coronation (Heb. 2:9; Rev. 19:16), as ours does (James 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:4, etc.). So I conclude that the sinless (and hence immortal) Jesus inherited those promises which included, first, life then, after death on our behalf, physical resurrection, ascension, transformation (that is, from earthly corruptibility to heavenly incorruptibility, cf. Mt. 6:19f.; 1 Pet.1:3f. and 1 Cor. 15:51), exaltation, glorification, heavenly session and coronation (he is King of kings, Rev. 19:16) at God’s right hand (cf. Acts 2:32-36). Since God is both immortal (athanasia: 1 Tim. 6:16) and incorruptible (aphthartos: 1 Tim. 1:17), both immortality and incorruptibility being not synonyms but complementary concepts are necessarily involved (1 Cor. 15:54). And, as the author of Hebrews especially emphasizes, it is in a heavenly world of glory that Jesus exercises his kingly rule as both God and man (1:3,6,13; 2:5; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2, cf. Mt. 28:18, etc.). Furthermore, it is at his side that we shall eventually rule too (Rev. 3:21, etc.). But certainly not in the flesh, since we shall be raised incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:52)! (Note how Jesus himself insists that believers have life even though they die, as he did, and see corruption, John 11:25f.)

So, as has just been intimated, it is vitally important to recognize that Jesus as man inherited, incorruption (Ps. 16:8-11; Acts 2:27; 13:35), the incorruption of God (cf. Rom. 1:23). Since eternal life cannot be lived on a temporal corruptible earth and in corruptible flesh which is profitless (cf. John 6:62f.), Jesus’ resurrection in the flesh was followed necessarily by his ascension and transformation (cf. John 20:17, cf. Acts 1:2,22; 2:32-36). In any case, mere physical resurrection, even to immortality (Rom. 6:9), leaves him with nowhere to go! If this is not the case and his resurrection constituted his transformation, his ascension was superfluous and theologically redundant. It was purely visionary. Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances were merely evidential in the sense that they testified to his being alive. But in themselves they were little more than a charade (cf. John 21:9-14). To all intents and purposes they involved blatant deception, not least since Jesus’ himself claimed that he was flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Habermas and Licona (p.163) seek to eviscerate the essence of this expression by claiming that it should not be understood as referring to a physical body but rather to our bodies in their current mortal form. The problem here is that, apart from ignoring the synonymous parallelism of 1 Corinthians 15:50, according to the Bible all physicality is by definition corruptible and hence mortal (Mt. 6:19f.; 1 Pet. 1:3f.). The material world is temporal by nature (Gen. 1:1) and will be terminated (Mt. 24:35) by annihilation (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12; Rev. 20:11; 21:1,4, etc.). All created (visible) things are destined for eventual destruction (Rom. 1:20; 8:24f.; 2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 12:27). What is ‘hand-made’ (cheiropoietos) is in fundamental contrast with what is ‘not hand-made’ (acheiropoietos). This present temporal age must necessarily give way to the eternal age to come. The first must be abolished when the second is fully established (Heb. 10:9). The reason why Jesus tells Nicodemus that it is necessary (as opposed to imperative) for all who are born of the flesh to be born again is because otherwise they cannot, that is, it is intrinsically impossible for them, to enter the (heavenly) kingdom of God. Jesus, who was himself corruptible and unprofitable flesh (John 6:62f.) since he was born of woman, is implicitly announcing his own need as one who had already gained eternal life by keeping the law and had consequently been acknowledged as God’s Son (Mt. 3:17, etc.) to be corporeally (somatically) transformed at his ascension (John 20:17, cf. 1 Pet. 3:18) and to enter his glory (Luke 24:26). Only in this way could he reign forever on the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32f.; Acts 2:29-36).

A Body of Glory

If the reader is still unconvinced, there is a further point to ponder already touched on above. If Jesus was glorified at his resurrection, why was his glory hidden? Why throughout the NT is there no physical description of him at all? The answer may well be to avoid idolatry since even Jesus in the flesh could not be a physical image of God who is spirit. But the question becomes all the more pertinent when we consider that in his high priestly prayer he specifically asked that his disciples should be permitted to see his glory (John 17:24). If he had it at his resurrection, why was it hidden? Why did he not appear in his transfiguration glory, let alone the heavenly glory that Paul fleetingly glimpsed and was blinded but not killed by (cf. Gen. 16:13; Ex. 33:20, etc.)? While it may be argued that this would have rendered redundant the ‘proofs’ referred to above, it is far more likely that he was not yet glorified. (In the Bible, glory seems to imply exaltation to incorruptible honour or splendour and majesty or both, Ps. 145:5,12; Isa. 33:14-22; 66:18, cf. John 12:23,28,31. See e.g. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 1269f. Thiselton, incidentally, reflects his dilemma regarding the resurrection body of Jesus. On pp.1278f., he first asserts that Jesus was raised transformed but goes on to argue that his bodily mode verged on but also transcended the physical. Cf. Carson who sees Jesus’ ascension as a process, John p.645.  However, the contention that Jesus’ resurrection involved transformation (a) lacks evidential substantiation; (b) implies denial of his physical or material resurrection; and therefore (c) that Paul, like Jesus in John 3:4,6, is talking about composition in spite of his indisputable references to dust and flesh and blood.) One of the promises of the book of Revelation is that we shall see his face (22:4) and that would seem to go far beyond anything that was seen on earth (cf. Isa. 52:14; 53:2f.).

It is here especially that there seems to be a strange anomaly in Harris’ reasoning. On pages 53ff. of his work “Raised Immortal” he discusses the nature of Jesus’ resurrection body which appears lowly rather than glorious. Yet on pages 119ff. where he discusses our own resurrection body he emphasizes among other things its “unsurpassed beauty” (p.124). Paul tells us that our resurrection body is patterned on that of Jesus (Phil. 3:21, cf. Isa. 33:17; 66:18). The inference from this is that if we had seen him after his resurrection, we would hardly have known that he was already glorified!

Hebrews 7:26

There is another problem. References like Hebrews 7:26 (cf. 4:14; Eph.4:10) imply that the glorified Jesus was locally or spatially separate(d) from sinners (see e.g. Bruce and especially Lane on this). However, if we insist that he was glorified at his resurrection, how do we interpret his encounters with his sinful disciples, specifically Peter who had deserted him?

Glorification a Process

The process of the glorification of Jesus is reminiscent of, first, the time lapse between conversion (repentance and faith) and the regeneration of believers in the NT. While for us the two are usually co-incident or immediately successive, for the protagonists of the gospel they were not. Though faith (and hence justification) in Jesus is evident in the apostles while he was still on earth (cf. also Heb. 11), it does not culminate in regeneration until the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. In fact, as Jesus himself points out, the Holy Spirit is not given (in fullness as the spirit of Christ, Rom. 8:9) until he himself is glorified in heaven after his ascension (John 7:39). (Some may argue differently on the basis of John 20:22, but this was essentially proleptic, a demonstration or illustration of what would properly occur later.) Second, it reminds us of the prophetic perfect of Romans 8:30, for example. There Paul implies that the completion of the process of salvation is implicit in its beginning and earlier stages (cf. Phil. 1:6, and also the seed and its fruit, sowing and reaping, etc.). But the process, though punctuated, is nonetheless real (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18). I may believe that I have eternal life now – but not (fully) yet! I have to live by faith to the end! My regeneration may be a fact but it is not yet fully realized. To argue that resurrection implies glorification may also be true, as we have seen above, but it does not involve the elimination or obliteration of the historical process which is endemic in this world and in the plan of salvation. If Jesus was truly man, the second Adam, the process had to be followed through to its appointed culmination in perfection or glorification. There were no short cuts. After all, Jesus was to all intents and purposes blazing a trail and establishing a pattern that we all in essence follow. The difference lies in the fact that we experience corruption whereas he did not. Having said that, however, the saints who are alive at the end of history will follow the path he has pioneered exactly when they, with the rest of us who have experienced corruption, take their seat on God’s right hand (Rev. 3:21). (The use of words like ‘process’ and ‘transformation’ rather than mutation are potentially misleading suggesting to the unwary naturalistic evolution. The latter is ruled out of court by 1 Corinthians 15:52. Cf. Rom. 1:23, for example. The physical or natural bodies of the dead are destroyed, 1 Cor. 6:13; 2 Cor. 5:1, while those of the living are instantly replaced with spiritual bodies, 1 Cor. 15:35ff. In other words, while there is no physical continuity, there is spiritual and somatic continuity after judgement on the basis of the deeds performed in the flesh, 1 Pet. 4:6, cf. 3:18; Heb. 12:23.)

Acts 13:34

In Acts 13:34 Paul asserts that God raised Jesus from the dead no more to return to corruption and gave him the holy and sure blessings of David. Clearly Jesus could not inherit those eternal blessings any more than he could raise up David’s tent (Acts 15:16-18) and reign on his eternal throne (Luke 1:32f.) while he was on earth and in the flesh, that is, in a state of  fleshly corruption. In light of this, it seems necessary to infer that in verse 34 Paul is referring to the complete resurrection process which precludes further contact with earthly corruption in any form just as it does with sinners in Hebrews 7:26. (It is tempting here to differentiate between anhistemi in verse 34 and egeiro in verse 37, though Harris maintains that this is futile, p.270.) When he returns in his Father’s glory as a consuming fire (2 Thes. 1:7; 2:8, cf. Rev. 1:12-16; 2:18f.; 19:12), the temporal material creation will flee away (Heb. 12:27; Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 20:11; 21:1). In any case, Jesus can hardly return to a corruption in the grave (cf. BAG, p.855) which the NT writers are at pains to deny ever took place and he ever experienced (v.37).

Exodus Typology

This raises yet another matter. Luke 9:31 refers to Jesus’ exodus which is apparently completed at his ascension (9:51; 24:51, cf. John 20:17). There are at least two points to note here. First, the suggestion is that if Jesus as the true Israel was glorified at his resurrection, he never properly completed his exodus to the heavenly Promised Land but took an illegitimate short cut! Second, when the Israelites completed their exodus to the Promised Land, they were warned never to return to Egypt again (Dt. 17:16; 28:68). But on the assumption that Jesus was transformed and glorified at his resurrection, since he returns to this world, he does precisely that! Though already perfect(ed) and incorruptible, he returns to imperfection and corruption yet again (cf. Phil. 2:6)! By contrast, it comes as no surprise that Paul states explicitly that once Jesus has made his exodus by his ascension from this Egyptian world of corruption (Rom. 8:18-25), he will never return to it again (Acts 13:34). Pace all premillennialists! Jesus has clearly undergone permanent transformation: he has passed through the heavens and his fleshly body has been replaced by a body of glory. In his divine-human perfection he is forever spatially separate(d) from sinners and exalted above the heavens (Heb. 4:14; 7:26; Eph. 1:20f.; 4:9f.) at God’s right hand (Heb. 8:1). And when he returns, it will be in the glory of God, whose generic nature he has once more assumed (John 17:5,24), to rescue his people (Mt. 16:27; Luke 9:26; Heb. 9:28) and, as a devouring fire, to wreak vengeance on his enemies (2 Thes. 1:7f.; 2:8).

In confirmation of my view that Jesus did not put off his flesh until he ascended, we have only to look at Peter. In his second epistle he makes it clear that the putting off of his earthly tabernacle, that is, his flesh, constitutes his exodus (2 Pet. 1:13-15). The same clearly applies to Jesus who likewise remained flesh to the very end of his earthly pilgrimage. While sinful Peter died and saw corruption, sinless Jesus ascended and was somatically and spiritually glorified. The latter, like John 20:17, is surely the implication of 1 Peter 3:18 and 22.

Conclusion

There is doubtless more to say (see, for example, the linguistic argument below). For the moment, however, I rest my case. I remain completely unconvinced that the dead and buried Lord came back to life (cf. Acts 2:31,34; Eph. 5:14) with a new material body, which, though not identical with the old, was not merely visionary (cf. L.Coenen, NIDNTT, 3, p.276). This would appear to be at once intrinsically contradictory and a crass denial of the resurrection as it is portrayed in the Bible. It inevitably undermines the faith. What needs to be recognized is that while Jesus was raised immortal (Rom. 6:9), since he was still in the flesh he was not raised incorruptible. (1 Cor. 15:52b applies to the dead who have experienced corruption. Almost by accident I noted that while Harris entitles his book “Raised Immortal”, the very first (Greek) text he uses as an introduction to his subject is 1 Cor. 15:52 which refers to us, not to Jesus.) Just as corruptible flesh like Nicodemus he had to be born again from above in preparation for entry into the kingdom of God which he inaugurated on earth (John 3:1-6), so as corruptible flesh after his resurrection he had to undergo transformation ascension to inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 15:50). Otherwise expressed, ascension is implicit in regeneration; the one cannot take place without the other. As indicated above, regeneration, or eternal life, are complementary concepts. (Even OT believers who did not experience regeneration while on earth were nonetheless covered by Christ’s atonement, Heb. 9:15, and are perfected along with us, Heb. 11:39f.) To argue that transformation occurred at his resurrection is in effect to deny it. So on the basis of the evidence at our disposal, I deny that Jesus was glorified as opposed to restored at his resurrection. In effect, this view obliterates the distinction between resurrection (egeiro) and ascension (anabaino) and renders the latter redundant. In John especially it is emphasized that Jesus will not only be raised from the dead (cf. 20:9) but will ascend or return to the Father who sent him (e.g. John 3:13; 13:1; 14:12,28; 16:10,17,28; 17:11; 20:17). This clearly implies that he will enter heaven as a spiritually perfected human being (cf. Heb. 12:23), but certainly not in the flesh which is imperfect, temporal, corruptible and futile by nature (John 6:62f.; Rom. 8:18-25, cf. 1 Pet. 1:3f.). As I have already intimated, glorification in (or of) the flesh is a contradiction in terms (cf. Phil. 3:19). It involves failure to understand the difference between Greek and Christian thinking. The latter requires the preservation of body and personality (cf. 2 Cor. 4:7; 1 Pet. 1:3f.) but certainly not of the flesh. Our goal, like that of Jesus, is to share the generic nature of God as his children (2 Pet. 1:4; cf. 1 Pet. 4:6), but this no more implies that we shall undergo personal obliteration by absorption than it did when we experienced our natural birth by a natural father (cf. Gen. 5:1-3).

When he died and was buried, Jesus sowed his physical body. Since in contrast with us he did not see corruption, he inevitably reaped one at his resurrection (cf. John 3:6; 1 Pet. 1:23). (As Habermas and Licona maintain, what is buried comes up in resurrection, pp.155,237. If this is true, transformation as opposed to restoration is out of the question. After all, a carrot seed produces a carrot not an orange!). And since he did not die for his own sins, he was restored to life deathless (Rom. 6:9), that is, he continued his life in the flesh which but for his freely giving it on behalf of his people he should never have lost (cf. Acts 2:24). What is more, since he never needed to die again for his people (Heb. 9:28; 10:14, etc.), as one, the only one, who had kept the law he was forever immortal (Rom. 6:9). Despite this, as he himself explicitly asserts, he was still (corruptible) flesh (Luke 24:39). This being so, he was of necessity transformed at his ascension by which he permanently escaped earthly corruption. (It might be noted at this point that Jesus underwent a double restoration: at his resurrection he was restored to the earthly life he had not forfeited by personal sin, cf. John 2:19; 10:17f.; at his ascension he was restored to his heavenly glory, which he had laid aside for only a little while, as man, John 17:5,24.) This was implied in his words to Mary in John 20:17. He had to ascend not merely to live an immortal incorruptible life impossible in the flesh and on the earth but also to receive his heavenly kingdom (Lu. 19:12, cf. 1:32f.). We must follow in his train (Lu. 22:28-30, cf. Rev. 3:21). Eternal life in a temporal creation subjected by God himself to decay (Rom. 8:18-25) is intrinsically impossible. Our high priest who is at God’s right hand operates necessarily in the true tent (Heb. 8:1f.,6) which is not hand-made and not of this creation (Heb. 9:11,24).

Conclusion Re-expressed

Since there is so much confusion in this matter, my conclusion is worth further expression.  The evidence at our disposal indicates, first, that the resurrection of all those who have not seen corruption like Lazarus is always physical, that is, it involves restoration. Jesus took up again the life (psyche) that he had laid down (John 2:19; 10:17f.). And since the physical/material, that is, flesh and blood, cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, glorification must occur at ascension. Second, while transformation glorification occurs at the ascension of all those who, like the resurrected Jesus, are alive and have not experienced fleshly corruption at the end (1 Cor. 15:51), for those who like David (Acts 2:29, etc.) have died and seen corruption, bodily redemption (Rom. 8:23) and glorification will occur at the general resurrection. So just as Jesus underwent spiritual somatic transformation at his ascension (1 Tim. 3:16; Acts 1:2; Rev. 12:5; 1 Pet. 3:18,22), so shall we at our resurrection (1 Pet. 4:6).

Then, in further support of this conclusion, it is important to recognize that the body of flesh, which derives from the earth, belongs to this world and to the old covenant. (For Paul it was first Adamic, 1 Cor. 15:45-49.) Thus it is only at his ascension that Jesus as man recovered the glory he shared with his Father before the world began (John 17:5,24). It was not until then that he was transformed and made incorruptible in the moral and generic image of the incorruptible God himself (Heb. 1:3). So we must add that with his mission accomplished, he will never return to corruption again (Acts 13:34) since as God he can neither dwell on the earth (1 K. 8:27; Acts 7:49f., cf. Phil. 2:6f.) nor among sinners (Heb. 7:26).

Additional Note on Spirit and Life

According to Genesis 1:2 it is the Spirit who animates the physical creation (dead matter, cf. Job 33:4, cf. Job 12:10; Ezek. 37:9f.; Zech. 12:1). Without the Spirit (spirit) or if God withdraws his Spirit everything dies (Gen. 6:3; Job 34:14f., cf. 10:9; Ps. 90:3; 103:14; 104:29; Eccl. 12:7; Isa. 57:15f.).

In the NT it is maintained that the Spirit gives life (John 6:63; Acts 17:25). When Jairus’ daughter dies, her spiritless body is dead (cf. James 2:26). And when Jesus wakes her up, her spirit returns (Luke 8:55).

So it is that when Jesus dies, he commits his spirit to his Father (Luke 23:46). He thus leaves his fleshly body dead ready for burial (or entombment). Clearly at his resurrection his spirit returns to re-animate his body. If this is not the case, then he did not undergo a genuine restoration resurrection, which made him a false prophet (cf. John 10:17f.). On the other hand, since he claims to be flesh (Luke 24:49), and hence truly resurrected, he cannot as such inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 20:17). So at his ascension to glory he must have undergone transformation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51-54).

Additional Note on Language

Many scholars would deny what has been set out above on linguistic grounds. They argue that Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians forbids the conclusions I have reached. So what is their argument?

Despite all appearances, it is said that in 1 Corinthians 15:37-50, Paul is not contrasting a material physical body with a spiritual or immaterial body but one with sensual appetites and one that has an appetite only for spiritual things (5* Since it is a law to itself, Rom. 7:23,25, a physical or fleshly body by its very nature has an appetite for and is tempted by sensual things. Even the life of Jesus was characterized by fleshly desire which, insofar as it was against the law, he overcame. He was tempted at all points just as we are but without sinning, Heb. 4:15. God who is spirit and not physical/material is not so tempted, James 1:13. In heaven. In heaven and in the presence of God we, as his children and in his generic as well as his moral image, will be similarly free, Rom. 8:21.) Alternatively, it is sometimes said that the ‘spiritual’ body is not ‘composed’ of spirit but is totally motivated by the Spirit. In plain language, the difference is moral. On the face of it this would appear to be doing violence to the context where the apostle is dealing with the generic nature of the resurrection body. After all, the question Paul is answering is: “With what kind of body do they come?” He then proceeds to differentiate between the man (composed) of dust and the man of heaven, that is, the natural (physical) man whose origin was the earth and the spiritual man who derived from heaven.  (Jesus as the Word of God was spirit in the eternal world which existed before the material creation came into being. This being so, spirit cannot be airily dismissed as ethereal, unreal and even Gnostic by advocates of a heavenly material body. After all, the temporal physical stems from the permanent real or spiritual, cf. Heb. 11:3, etc. For Paul real life is eternal spiritual life, cf. 1 Tim. 6:12f.,19.)

It is contended, however, that 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:4 points in a different direction. But does it? Here Paul says that while the “natural” or unspiritual man is not able, or lacks the capacity, to understand things of the Spirit, the “spiritual” man judges all things. The reason why this point is relevant to the issue is that its proponents falsely assume that the natural man is sinful. In fact, sin is not on the horizon. If it is, then it certainly affects our understanding of the meaning of “natural” (or even physical, NRSV) and “spiritual” in chapter 15. In the event, however, like is being compared with like. For in the first passage (1 Cor. 2:14-16) Paul is discussing spiritual perception unrelated to sin, in the second (15:35ff.) the nature of the heavenly or resurrection body again unrelated to sin (cf. John 3:1-8). In 2:14f. the apostle is comparing the natural man as such (a son of Adam as created by God without sin) with the spiritual man who is imbued or endowed with the Spirit of God (cf. John 3:31. By contrast, sin appears in John 8:23; 15:19; James 3:15; 1 John 4:5.

The natural or unspiritual man, like a baby that cannot understand adults because it is not an adult or a dog that cannot understand a man because it is not a man, is by nature, since he is devoid of the Spirit, incapable of understanding spiritual things (cf. 2:11). Apart from God’s self-revelation by the Spirit, he is helpless.

In verse 16, as Bruce suggests (p.130), the mind is practically synonymous with spirit (Spirit),  which the natural man does not possess by creation; not because he is sinful but because he is natural (cf. Dt. 1:39).(The idea that ‘dust’ can understand the things of the Spirit is surely intolerable.)

In verses 3:1ff. Paul changes tack or emphasis somewhat. Here he introduces the notion of the flesh which frequently has connotations of sin. He is addressing Christian men who are by definition men endowed with the Spirit but are still behaving as if they had not received him. As new Christians they are acting like babies, but whereas real babies are naturally incapable of eating solid food, these Christians are sinfully failing or refusing to eat the spiritual food which nurtures their growth towards perfection (cf. Heb. 5:11-14; 6:1; 1 Pet. 2:2). If this is true, what I would describe as the “obvious” meaning of chapter 15 is unaffected.

1 Corinthians 9:11 is arguably more to the point, for here the word Paul uses for ‘material things’ is literally ‘fleshly things’ (sarkika, cf. spiritual things or pneumatika in 12:1). So the question may be asked: why did he not use the same word in chapter 15:44? The answer is surely two-fold: first, sarkikos, though it may be distinguished from sarkinos (see Dunn, Romans, pp.387f.), is morally neutral in 9:11, but if it had been used in 15:44 it could well have been understood to have sinful overtones since it can mean characterized by as opposed to composed of the flesh. Second, the word ‘natural’ (psychikos) is the appropriate word because Paul is clearly differentiating between the physical or unspiritual man (Adam) as created by God from the (material) ground (or dust or clay) and the spiritual man of heaven (second Adam). (He is not denying of course that even Jesus was natural, psychikos, when he began his earthly life in the flesh.)

So in 15:44,46 the (corruptible) natural and the (incorruptible) spiritual are seen to be different in kind (cf. v.50) and sin is not on the horizon (cf. Fee, p.785, but pace Thiselton, p.1291, whose comment regarding the need for holiness is true but irrelevant to the point at issue. Paul was not obsessed with sin and had not read Augustine!). This being so, Paul’s point is that when a natural body (not man) of corruptible flesh and blood is sown, because it is transformed it is raised a spiritual body. In other words, it (dust or flesh which is morally neutral) is transformed into (or replaced by, cf. Heb. 10:9) something different (i.e. spiritual, supernatural, heavenly) from what it was before (cf. v.37). Consequently there is no continuity between the two. What is more, the spiritual body is in the (generic) image of the man of heaven, that is, it is modeled on Christ’s body of glory, and as such is fitted for heaven (cf. Phil. 3:21).

I conclude then that the argument based on language is empty. As in John 3:1-8, the Augustinian tradition of sin is falsely painted into the picture. Flesh (dust, clay, grass) as such is inherently incapable by nature of inheriting the kingdom of heaven. That is why Adam was put on probation. Though he was created innocent (not holy and righteous as Augustinian tradition has it!), as one who emanated from the temporal earth, he was naturally mortal and corruptible (cf. Rom. 1:23). In order to inherit eternal life and to escape from corruption, he had, on the one hand, to keep the commandment (Gen. 2:17) and, on the other, since he was promised glory and honour (Gen. 1:26,28, cf. Ps. 8:5f.; Rom. 2:7,10; Heb. 2:6-10), to be transformed, that is, be given a spiritual body to replace his fleshly body. But because he sinned and brought death to himself and to all his posterity who imitated him (Rom. 5:12; 6:23), he forfeited those promises. In contrast, Jesus as the second Adam, a true son of the first (Luke 3:38) in the same flesh (Heb. 2:17; 4:15) and in the same world of death and corruption, did not sin and thereby achieved both life and glory. In so doing, he abolished death and brought life and incorruption (Gk) to light. This was good news for all his fellows who believed in him (2 Tim. 1:10, cf. Heb. 2:9f.). It remains so today.

_______________________________________________________

References

F.F.Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Waco, 1982.

F.F.Bruce, Hebrews, Edinburgh, 1965.

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

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

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

R.D.Geivett & G.R.Habermas, In Defence of Miracles, Leicester, 1997.

G.R.Habermas & M.R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Grand Rapids, 2004.

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

Tom Houston, Characters Around the Cross, Tain, 2001.

W.L.Lane, WBC Hebrews 1-8, Dallas, 1991.

A.C.Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids and Carlisle, 2000.

M.Wilcock, The Message of  Revelation, Leicester, 1975.

BAG, Chicago and London, 1957.

NIDNTT, ed. C. Brown, Exeter, 1978.

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

I was ‘baptized’ and brought up a Methodist in the county of Lincolnshire, England, the birthplace of the Wesleys. This being the case, it was almost inevitable that I became aware that John Wesley taught a doctrine of Christian perfection. Though it was occasionally referred to and even debated, it did not appear to be given much credence in the churches I attended. Wesley never claimed that he himself was an exemplar of what he called “perfect love”, but he seemed to think that the saintly Fletcher of Madeley was. I, like others, think he was profoundly mistaken. Wesley rightly made the quest for holiness the goal of his life as he pursued God’s “imitable perfections” (Works, 8:352), but the Bible whose support he claimed tells decisively against the notion that any of us fully attain to it. We need to examine the issue more closely.

The Plan of Salvation

As I understand it, God’s plan from the beginning was to make the man(kind) he had created in his image his perfect likeness (Lev. 19:2; Mt. 5:48; Eph. 1:4). While it is true that scholars have been unable to distinguish satisfactorily between the words ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ in their Hebrew form (Gen. 1:26), Scripture in general seems to support this view (e.g. 2 Cor. 3:18, cf. Eph. 4:24). Otherwise expressed, what appears to be involved in man’s creation is not merely static ontology but also dynamic function and transformation. In Genesis 1 we read that Adam is called to exercise dominion over the creation of which he himself is the pinnacle. The Psalmist interprets this as a call to achieve glory and honour on the assumption that it is done successfully (Ps. 8:5f., cf. Heb. 2:6-9; Rom. 2:7,10). In Genesis 2:16f. Adam, who, as a product of the earth which is naturally temporal and corruptible and in conspicuous contrast with its eternal and incorruptible Creator (1* Under the baneful influence of Augustine who posited initial perfection, the church has failed to appreciate this, but the evidence for it is clear.), is promised (eternal) life if he keeps the commandment and, in the light of subsequent revelation, by implication the whole law (Lev. 18:5, cf. Dt. 30:15-20, etc.). If keeping the commandment provides the righteousness which is the condition of life (Dt. 6:25; 1 John 3:7), breaking it spells failure and consequent death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12; 6:23, cf. 6:16).

The entire OT testifies unmistakably to the fact that Adam and all his posterity failed to achieve the glory, honour and life they were promised. All to the very last man and woman came short of their vocation to be holy and righteous like God himself (Gen. 3:22-24; 17: 1; Ex. 19:5f.; Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; Rom. 3:23; 1 Pet. 1:15, etc.). All without exception were pronounced sinners (1 K. 8:46; Ezra 9:7; Job 15:14-16; Ps. 130:3; 143:2; Eccl. 7:20, cf. Rom. 3:9-20). While the new birth or eternal life was promised in the future (Dt. 29:4; 30:6; Jer. 32:39, etc.), no one in the OT achieved it (1 K. 8:46, etc.). None from Abraham, the supreme exemplar of faith, Moses, the mediator of the law, Isaiah, the visionary of the holiness of God (Isa. 6:1-6), to John the Baptist, whom Jesus calls the greatest of the prophets born of woman (Mt. 11:11), was granted life and acknowledged as God’s son. That designation was confined exclusively to Jesus (Mt. 3:13-17) and later to those who believed in him (Rom. 8:14-17).

Jesus

Though true, to say with an eye on his birth by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) that this merely confirmed his divine origin highlighted at his incarnation (Luke 1,2, etc.) is to miss the point. The author of Hebrews, not to mention Paul with his stress on the second Adam, makes it crystal clear that Jesus came into this world as a man to achieve for man what he could not achieve for himself, that is, the glory or perfection that God required of his children (Mt. 5:48; 19:21, and see espec. Heb. 2).

The Meaning of Perfection

But what does perfection entail? Until comparatively recently, the doctrine of perfection, which is clearly taught in the Bible, has had a rather poor press, and that for two main reasons: first, as I have intimated above, the Wesleyan view has been almost universally rejected as an inconsistency or aberration within the terms of Wesley’s own Augustinianism, Arminian though he was, but, second, it sits ill in general with the Augustinian view of Christianity which dominates the West. (I suspect that more latterly naturalistic evolution has caused many fundamentalists who are more Augustinian than they are biblical to steer clear of the notion of perfection.) Since Augustinianism is obsessed with sin, we all tend to associate perfection with sinlessness. So if we are all born sinful in Adam, perfection is out of the reckoning from the start. The very idea of the perfectibility of man must be regarded as erroneous in principle (cf. Chadwick, p.119). After all, man as God originally created him was, according to Augustinian tradition, holy and righteousness and from that “high estate” “fell” into ignominy, corruption and shame. In contrast, Jesus, having been born of a virgin apart from carnal concupiscence, came into this world unsullied by Adam’s sin and was as the Son of God necessarily sinless and hence perfect. The picture, as it was presented to me as a student, was, then, not one of the development, maturation, perfecting and the ascent of man to heaven and the very presence of God but one of his devolution or degeneration. How do we respond to this?

There is no question that in the Bible perfection is associated with the holiness and righteousness of God (cf. Lev. 11:44f., etc.). But to be “blameless”, as for example Noah was (Gen. 6:9), by no means puts one on a par with God. Something else is involved. It needs to be appreciated, contrary to Augustine, that while God himself is inherently righteous and does what is right, as Abraham (Gen. 18:25) and Job (8:3, cf. 34:10), for example, were well aware, man (Adam) begins life in total innocence. He knows neither the law nor good and evil. This is as true today of his posterity as it was of Adam and Eve themselves (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22; Dt. 1:39; 1 K. 3:7; Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 5:12-14, etc.). In other words, we all enter this world as babies created by God (Job 31:15) knowing nothing. And just as we are expected to develop and grow to physical perfection or maturity like all plants and animals, so, as those made in the image of God, we are called to attain to the moral or spiritual perfection or completeness (Heb. 5:12-6:1; 12:23, etc.) of which God himself is the supreme paradigm (Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; Mt. 5:48). (2* B.B.Warfield’s essay, pp.158ff., on the human development of Jesus is highly relevant to my theme. Warfield refers at length to the writings of Irenaeus who, as Denis Minns OP points out, pp.135f., was regrettably eclipsed by Augustine.) So, according to the Bible, only God is perfect, complete or fully mature (cf. Mt. 5:48; James 1:4). While the Psalmist was well aware that man was totally dependent (Ps. 104:14f., etc.), God himself was self-sufficient, needing nothing (50:12-15, cf. James 1:4). Job could say that in his hand was the life of every living thing (12:10; 33:4; 34:13-15, cf. Acts 17:28). As King over all (Ps. 103:19) his throne was the eternal heaven, and earth was merely his footstool (Isa. 66:1f.). The entire creation existed by his will (Rev. 4:11; Acts 4:24). However, for man, God’s creature, studying the way that is blameless is one thing (Gen. 17:1), attaining to it is another (cf. Ps. 101:2).

Jesus

Against the OT background of universal sin (Ps. 143:2), Jesus, as the pre-existent Word, was sent into this world like Adam knowing nothing and having to begin the journey or pilgrimage of human life like the rest of us from scratch (Isa. 7:15f.). But whereas Adam had stemmed from the corruptible earth (Gen. 2:7; Ps. 139:15) and been nurtured in an earthly paradise, the Garden of Eden, Jesus emanated from the eternal heaven and, having emptied himself (Phil. 2:7), gestated in the womb (garden) of Mary. Once he was born incarnate, that is, flesh, of earthly woman, he had to undergo all the trials and tribulations, tests (Gen. 2:16f.; Ex. 16:4; Phil. 2:8) and temptations (Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 4:15) common to man in the weakness of his flesh (2 Cor. 13:4; Heb. 2:17). As Luke testifies, having begun like all babies, he grew in wisdom and years in favour with both God and man (2:52). Having, like circumcised Israel God’s son (Ex. 4:22), spent time as a slave in Egypt (Mt. 2:15, cf. Gal. 4:1), he became a son of the commandment under which he was further tested (cf. Dt. 8:2,16).  Then, in his physical maturity (perfection), as the true Adam (cf. Rom. 5:14) and true Israel, having demonstrated undeviating commitment to the law, he was eventually acknowledged at his baptism as the true Son of his Father who was well pleased with him (Mark 1:9-11). In other words, he had matched pedigree with performance, ontology with function. So, having fulfilled all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) and achieved perfection (cf. Mt. 19:21), he uniquely completed his human pilgrimage from earthly dust (Ps. 78:39; 103:14) to his heavenly destiny/destination at his ascension (Heb. 2:6-9; 6:19; 9:24, cf. 1 Cor. 15:49; 1 Pet. 3:18,22). In violent contrast with the first Adam who at his very first test came short and returned to the dust from which he was created (Gen. 3:19), he achieved as man the perfection of eternal life and heavenly glory promised to but forfeited by all others.

To paint the picture differently, Jesus had kept the covenants (cf. Gal. 4:4). As one born of woman, he had done by nature what the law required (Rom. 2:14); as a son of the commandment like Israel (Ex. 4:22) he had kept the law revealed to Moses, gained life and confirmed his Sonship; and as the acknowledged Son of God he set out to fulfil the righteousness which meant exceeding that of the legalistic Pharisees (Mt. 3:15; 5:20; Heb. 7:18f.).  While this included living out both the letter and the spirit of the law, it specifically involved giving himself for his fellows who were completely incapacitated by their sin. He did this on the cross at Calvary laying down his life as a ransom for many. It was there that he finished the work his Father had given him to do (John 17:4; 19:30), rose from the dead and ascended transformed into heaven (1 Pet. 3:18,22, cf. 1 Cor. 15:51).  Since he had done the will of God, he received what was promised (cf. Heb. 10:36). So it was that he who had descended, ascended (John 3:13; 6:62; 16:28, etc.); he had progressed from ground to glory as a man, the pioneer and perfecter of our salvation (Heb. 6:20; 12:2). (It is important here to remember that man is an anthropological dualism, flesh and spirit. As flesh the Lord Jesus needed to be changed (1 Cor. 15:50ff.). As spirit he was perfected in the image of God.)  Having finished his work, he returned in his perfect(ed) humanity to his Father’s house (John 14:2f.) to regain the glory he had had before the world began (John 17:5). He had triumphed as the representative of his brothers (Heb. 2:10f.) so that they could be perfected with him (Heb. 10:14; 12:23) at his Father’s right hand (John 17:24, cf. 14:2f.19; Rev. 3:21).

The Apostolic Gospel

Is this the picture painted by the rest of the NT? The typology provided by the pilgrimage of the children of Abraham travelling to the Promised Land is in general not explicitly extensive, but it is nonetheless subtly pervasive (cf. Mt. 2:15; Heb. 3-4; 11:16, etc.). Just as Israel was tested in the wilderness (Dt. 8:2,16) so was Jesus, the true Israel (Mt. 4:1-11). In Luke 13:32 Jesus talks of finishing his course, and in Luke 9:31, in the context of his transfiguration, of completing his exodus. In 9:51 this is expressed in terms of his ascension which is finally accomplished in 24:51 (cf. Acts 1-11). Thus, with his exodus complete, like Israel who having reached the Promised Land was forbidden to return to Egypt (Dt. 17:16), Jesus was never to return to corruption again (Acts 13:34). (The idea that Jesus will return to earth to establish his kingdom involves a major misunderstanding. See my essays Is Jesus Coming Back to Earth?, No Return to Corruption, etc.) Having attained as man the glory he shared with his Father before the world began (John 17:5,24), he would only return in the glory of God (Mt. 16:27; Luke 9:26, etc.) to rescue his people (Heb. 9:28, etc.) and, as a consuming fire, to condemn his enemies (2 Thes. 1:8; Heb 12:29; Rev. 14:14-20).

John

John’s gospel is full of references (42, it has been said) to Jesus being sent by the Father to do his will (4:34; 5:30; 6:38), as Adam did not, before returning to his presence (John 6:62) in triumph (Heb. 1:6) with his people in train, mission accomplished (John 17:24; Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18).

Paul

Paul refers explicitly to the goal of perfection in Christ. After sketching man’s course from slavery, through servanthood to sonship (perfectly recapitulated on the one hand and pioneered on the other by Jesus, Gal. 4:1-7), he briefly presents Jesus as having humbled himself at his incarnation and through obedience having attained to glory (Phil. 2:5-11). Then in Philippians 3 the apostle claims to be striving to follow in his steps. While acknowledging that he, Paul, has not yet achieved the perfection or Christ-likeness he desires, he constantly makes that his aim (v.12, cf. 1 Cor. 9:24-27; Phil. 3:10f.). And in verse 14 he sees its culmination in the upward call of God in Christ (cf. 3:20f.; Col. 3:1-5; 2 Tim. 4:18). Elsewhere he encourages the process of sanctification in his readers urging them on to full maturity (1 Cor. 13:10f.; 14:20; Eph. 4:13-16; Phil. 3:15; Col. 1:28) with its final goal of life in the presence of God (Rom. 5:1f.; 6:22; 2 Cor. 4:17; Col. 1:5,27; 3:1-5; 2 Tim. 4:8) through Jesus, the hope of glory (Col. 1:27). In Romans in particular, the apostle portrays our predestined path to perfection as conformity to the image of Christ accomplished through calling, justification and glorification (Rom. 8:29f., cf. 2 Cor. 3:18).

Hebrews

If James and Peter see perfection in heavenly terms (James 1:4,12; 1 Pet. 1:3f., 3:18,22; 4:6; 5:4,10), how much more the author of Hebrews who spells it out in detail. First, like Paul in Philippians 2, he describes Jesus, having made purification for sins (cf. 10:12,14), as enthroned perfect at his Father’s right hand (1:3, cf. 1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). He then lays heavy emphasis on the process of his perfecting or his being made perfect (2:10; 5:9; 7:26; 12:23) by stressing Jesus’ truly fleshly or Adamic nature. He insists that he was a true human being who underwent all the challenges, tests and temptations experienced by his fellows (Heb. 2:17; 4:15). Again like Paul, he makes it clear that in responding to mankind’s heavenly call (3:1, cf. Gen. 2:17; Rom. 2:7,10; Phil. 3:14; 1 Thes. 2:12; 1 Pet. 5:10, cf. Heb. 6:1), Jesus achieved perfection and glory through obedience and suffering (Heb. 2:9; 5:7-9) and so became our elder brother (Heb. 2:10-13, cf. Rom. 8:29) and heavenly high priest (5:10; 6:20, cf. 2:17), the pioneer and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2). Our author goes yet further and tells us that Jesus passed through the heavens (4:14, cf. Eph. 1:20f.; 4:9f.) to be permanently separated (spatially) from sinners (7:26) and enthroned in the world to come (1:6; 2:5). From there (cf. Phil. 3:20) he will come again (cf. 1 Thes. 4:13-17) not to deal with sin but to rescue those who are eagerly waiting for him (9:28, cf. 1 Thes. 1:10; 4:17; Tit. 2:13). This presumably means that at the end of the age he will return in the glory of the Father (Mt. 16:27) as a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29, cf. 2 Thes. 1:7f.; 2:8; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12) in judgement. And with all his people finally made perfect (Heb. 6:1; 11:39f.; 12:23; 13:20f., cf. Col. 1:28; 4:12) and his enemies soundly subjected beneath his feet (10:13), his kingdom will be complete and unshakable (cf. Col. 1:20). The city of God, the heavenly Zion, will be perfection and journey’s end (11:10,16; 12:22-24; 13:14, cf. Ezek. 48:35; Rev. 21:22-22:5).

Revelation

The progress from ground to glory (or arguably from eternity to eternity, Rom. 8:30; Eph. 1:4,9) is also sketched in the book of Revelation. While the victory of the Lamb is central, what is especially noticeable is the replacement of the original earthly paradise in Genesis with the perfect heavenly paradise. True, God as Creator was present with man in his imperfect or embryonic state at his physical birth in Genesis 2 and 3 (cf. Acts 17:28), but he is only fully so in Revelation 21 and 22 where maturity is achieved and faith gives way to sight (22:4, cf. John 17:24; 1 Cor. 13:12). For there the people on whom he has set his seal (7:2f.; 11:1) and drawn from every tongue and tribe and people have passed through the great tribulation and now worship him in unison (7:9f.). For them grief, pain, darkness, sin, death and corruption are permanently banished along with the physical creation that spawned them (Rev. 20:11; 21:1,4). God and the Lamb himself will supply their every need as in the Garden of Eden (Rev. 22), and they will reign forever and ever in the endless glory of perfection.

Peter

This, however, raises the question of the nature of perfection. As God’s creatures and his potential sons and daughters, it involves our attaining not merely to his moral but also his generic likeness. Since John lays heavy stress on the wonder of our being the children of God (1 John 3:1f., cf. Rom. 8:14-17), it is hardly surprising that Peter insists that we are destined to live in the spirit  (1 Pet. 4:6, cf. 3:18) like God who is spirit (John 4:24) and who, as our heavenly Father, has begotten us by his Spirit (1 Pet. 1:23, cf. John 1:12f.; 3:1-8; 1 John 3:9). In his second letter Peter underscores this conclusion by asserting that those who believe in Christ become partakers of the divine nature (1:4, cf. Rom. 5:2; Heb. 12:9,23) like Jesus (1 Pet. 3:18,22, cf. John 17:5,22-24). In other words, it is a question of like father like son both morally and generically. Just as we were once like Adam both generically (flesh) and morally (sinners), so now we take on generic and moral image of the glorified Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 15:42ff.). Little wonder that Jesus tells us quoting Psalm 82:6 that we are gods (John 10:34)! We can further support this by appealing to our likeness to Christ as our elder brother (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:10-13) who the author of Hebrews tells us is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature (1:3, ESV). And Paul tells us that his glorious spiritual body is the model of our own (Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 Cor 15:44f.). Just as God himself is light (1 John 1:5, cf. 1 Tim. 6:16), so we as his children will shine as lights in the kingdom of our Father (Mt. 13:43). When that occurs we shall at last be perfect, that is, true and complete children of our heavenly Father in universal family likeness (cf. Eph. 3:15).

Conclusion

What I have tried to do above is to argue that the Bible’s concern is to sketch the story or process of human perfection or maturation which in all but Jesus’ case is a process of salvation (3* James Dunn especially lays great emphasis on the process of salvation, see ch. 6. There is a real sense in which Jesus too was not merely perfected but also divinely saved, see Heb. 5:7. John’s gospel stresses his complete dependence on his Father, 5:19f., etc. Apart from John 10:17f., for example, the NT underscores his resurrection by God, Acts 2:24; 1 Cor. 15:4, etc. Truly no flesh will boast before God.) Man who is created in the image of the eternal God is called to share his glory (Rom. 2:7,10; 5:2; 1 Thes. 2:12; 1 Pet. 5:4,10) or generic nature (1 Pet. 4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4) by achieving the perfection, completeness or full maturity of his likeness to God in Christ (Rom. 8:29, cf. 2 Cor. 3:18). This process of perfection, which begins in the womb or the earthly paradise, achieves its goal in the heavenly paradise or the presence of God. It is true of both the individual and the race (Rev. 7:9, cf. Heb. 11:39f.). In Jesus’ case it means that as the true incarnate Son of his Father, he attained to divine glory as a man and thus regained the glory he shared with the Father before the world began (John 17:5,24, cf. 1:1-3). It also means that as the second Adam he embodied all those who put their trust in him (Eph. 1:10). In our case, perfection means conformity to his image (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). While he was the ‘natural’ Son who proved his pedigree by achieving the perfection of his Father (Mt. 3:15; 5:48; 19:21; Heb. 1:3,13; 7:26,28; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2), we are adopted children saved by his blood who come to corporeal (2 Cor. 5:1), corporate (Rev. 21:9f.) and spiritual maturity in him (Heb. 12:23). And, as those who receive his generic nature (1 Cor. 15:45-50), we also share his heavenly heritage as his bride (Rom. 8:16f.; 1 Cor. 6:17, cf. Eph. 5:25-32).

The Downside

There is, however, a downside to all this. For alongside perfection in Christ there is another story of perfection or maturation in evil (Rev. 13, cf. Gen 15:16; James 1:15). While all men and women are called to be imitators of God (Lev. 11:44f., 19:2; Eph. 5:1; 1 Pet. 1:15f.), many choose to reject that call preferring to imitate the devil (3 John 11, cf. 1 John 3:10), the god of this world, who was a liar and murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). And just as the former will rule eternally in the presence of their Lord in heaven (John 14:2f.; 17:24; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thes. 4:17), so the latter will share the fate of their god (2 Cor. 4:4) in hell (Rev. 20:10, cf. 21:8; 22:15; 2 Thes. 2:9-11).

In the OT the choice between curse and blessing was depicted in unmistakable terms (Dt. 11:26f,; 30:15-20). In the NT the same reality is presented with equal starkness (Mt. 3:12; 13:30,38f.; Rev. 14:14-20). Ultimately we all achieve perfection – in Christ or Satan (Mt. 25:46; John 5:29; Gal. 6:8). There is no middle ground (Mt. 25:31-46; Rom. 2:6-11).

References

H.Chadwick, Augustine, Oxford, 1986.

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

Denis Minns OP, Irenaeus, London, 1994.

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

It seems to be universally presumed by commentators and others that the futility (1* Apart from dictionary articles, e.g. Comfort in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, pp.320ff., Downers Grove/Leicester, 1993, and commentaries on Romans there is a useful essay entitled The Answer to Futility in “The Cross of Jesus by L.L.Morris, Grand Rapids, 1988.  Morris, following Markus Barth, p.499, defines futility as emptiness, vanity, foolishness, purposelessness, etc.  Regrettably, Morris, who accepts the traditional Augustinian viewpoint, appears at times somewhat at odds with himself. He devotes his attention in the main to actual occurrences of the word ‘futile’ in the NT. However, as doubtless he would have admitted, the teaching of Scripture goes far beyond these.) to which Paul refers in Romans 8:20 is the result of the curse God imposed on creation after Adam fell (Gen. 3:17-19). It should be noticed, however, that Paul does not so much as mention sin here. On the face of it, he seems to be contrasting the present material creation with the glory still to be revealed (8:18). This view of the matter receives ample support in Scripture in general (e.g. Rom. 5:2; 2 Cor. 4:17; Col. 1:27; 3:4).

Preliminary Considerations

First, if it is true that the eternal has neither beginning nor end (Heb. 7:3), the very first verse of the Bible which refers to a beginning implies an end (cf. Rev. 21:1), and hence ultimate futility (cf. Ps. 89:47f.; Eccl. 3:19). Thus we are forced to infer that the creation stands in direct contrast with the Creator, and this, needless to add, is the pervasive teaching of Scripture (Ps. 89:11; 90:2; 102:25-27; Isa. 34:4; 40:6-8; 51:6,8,12; 54:10; Mt. 24:35; Heb. 1:10-12; 12:27, etc.). Next, in light of the promise of 2:17 (cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.), it would seem that the destiny of mortal man as one whose origin is the temporal earth but who is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-28) is escape from his natural physical corruptibility (Ps. 49:12,20; John 11:25f.) to heavenly spiritual glory and the presence of God (cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:6-10).

Genesis 1

Futility is implied in Genesis 1 in other ways. For example, if all flora and fauna, including man, derive from a temporal and corruptible earth, then it follows inexorably that they are given over to futility too, since they cannot transcend their origin or rise above their source. Further, it is scarcely surprising that since plant life is given for food (1:29f., Ps. 104:14), it is by nature perishable (John 6:27) and needs to reproduce (1:11f.) in order to replace itself. But this in its turn implies the natural corruptibility of the animal life that feeds on it (cf. Isa. 40:6-8 and note espec. Ps. 104:21). Again, in verse 28 we are told that man made in the image of God is given dominion in order to subdue the earth. But if the earth is already perfect, as some would teach, why should this be necessary? Clearly, the ‘good’ creation refers, as the word ‘kalos’ in the LXX suggests, not to perfection but to temporal usefulness (cf. Eccl. 3:11, NTSV, REB, etc. See further below.). In any case, the earth remains ‘good’ almost (2* At the end, when it produces thorns and thistles and is worthless, Heb. 6:7f., cf. 2 Sam. 23:6f., it is fit only to be burned, cf. Mt. 22:7; Luke 13:8f.) throughout Scripture and produces the material harvest of food necessary for (biological) life to continue till the end (Gen. 8:22; Num. 14:7f.; Luke 17:27; 1 Cor. 10:26; 1 Tim. 4:3f.).

Throughout the OT it is implied that God created the earth to be inhabited (Isa. 45:18, cf. Gen. 2:5,15). When it is uninhabited and hence lacks men and women to till or cultivate it, that is, exercise dominion over it, it becomes a desolation (Lev. 26:33ff.; Prov. 24:30f.; Isa. 6:11f.;.Jer. 4:7; 33:10; Zeph. 3:6, etc.). In other words, the natural futility of the earth apart from sin is again plainly apparent. Even the Garden of Eden, which according to tradition is the place of perfection par excellence, required Adam to cultivate it (Gen. 2:5,15). The presumption is that once he was cast out of Eden, it too, lacking an inhabitant, endured the curse of desolation like the Promised Land flowing with milk and honey during the exile (Lev. 26:34f.; Dt. 28:15ff.; Ezek. 36:3f.; Zech. 7:14, etc.), though not, it should be noted, while it was inhabited by the Canaanites, sinners though they were.

Contrary to traditional understanding then, Genesis 1 implies the perennial presence of death even before sin entered the world. Plant and animal alike are made to reproduce, and the mere fact that every green plant is available as perishable food ought to prepare us to recognise that grass is a symbol of death throughout the Bible (Ps. 106:20; Isa. 40:6-8; 1 Pet. 1:24; Jas. 1:10f.). Even manna and quail from heaven are corruptible and hence ultimately futile (Ex. 16:20,24). Not without reason are we told in Scripture that death is the way of all the earth (Jos. 23:14; 1 K. 2:2). It requires constant restoration by means of procreation (Gen. 1:28 cf. Heb. 7:23) which is likewise the way of all the earth (19:31).

Ecclesiastes

The book of Ecclesiastes in particular harps on the theme in question. As in Job 13:28-14:2, death, which comes to man and animal alike, underscores the futility of life (3:18-21; 8:8, cf. Ps. 49:7,12,20). While it is true that sin exacerbates the situation in which Solomon finds himself, he is convinced that everything under the sun is vanity by divine decree (3:14, cf. 1:3; 3:9; 5:7; Ps. 89:47f.; 104:29; 146:4). Everything has its time including death (3:1-8). Consequently, he recognizes that his only hope is in the eternal God (12:1ff., etc.) who is the Creator and Sustainer of all created things (Job 12:10; 34:13-15; Eccl. 12:7; Isa. 42:5, etc.).

The Teaching of Jesus

Jesus leaves us in little doubt that the present world or age is futile. In Matthew 6:19f. he refers like the prophets (e.g. Isa. 50:9; 51:6, cf. Job 13:28) to the activity of rust and moth and, as a consequence, warns his hearers to lay up for themselves treasures in heaven where neither sin nor corruption are active (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3f.,7; James 5:2f.). In Luke 12 he again implies the natural corruptibility of the physical side of man. First, he indicates that  though the body of flesh may be done to death (cf. Col. 1:22; 2:11; 1 Pet. 3:18), we need to fear Him who has the power to cast even the soul into hell. And in case we have failed to get his message at this point, he goes on in the parable of the rich fool and indeed the rest of the chapter to contrast the futile and fleeting with the profitable and permanent. It ought not to pass notice that in 12:33 he draws attention not simply to the thief and the moth but to the aging process (cf. also 16:9). The latter was something to which he himself was subject in the flesh. Being truly human, even he had a beginning which implied an end (like creation itself, Gen. 1:1. NB Luke 2:41ff., cf. 2 Cor. 4:16,18). As one who was born of woman and hence a genuine son of Adam (Luke 3:38), he would have succumbed to the natural process of physical corruption (John 8:57, cf. Heb. 1:11) and died (cf. Gen. 6:3) had he not inherited life by keeping the law and ascended in accordance with the original promise of Genesis 2:17 referred to above. (In the graphic words of Twelftree, at his incarnation Jesus became “an earth-bound, transient and perishable person”, p.341). Had he not been mortal, he could not have died on our behalf (cf. 1 Pet. 3:18). According to Jesus’ own teaching this world or age is characterized by death and corruption (Mt. 24:35, cf. 5:18; Heb. 8:13) and is hence in stark contrast with the age to come (Luke 20:34-36, etc.).

But Jesus goes much further. In John 4:10-15 and 6:27-35 he clearly indicates what was implied in Genesis 1 that natural (or perishable) water and food have limited value. As he tells the woman at the well, drinking “earthly” water quenches thirst only temporarily and involves constant repetition. (See further below on Hebrews.) By contrast, the living water that he gives leads to eternal life (cf. Isa. 55:1f.). In John 6:22ff. Jesus distinguishes between material and true bread and insists that he himself is the bread of life (vv.33,35). Plainly man can no more live on bread alone (Mt. 4:4) than can the animals even though, whether herbivore or carnivore, they are fed by God (Ps.104:21,27-30). If he attempts to do this, he denies his basic humanity and is reduced, even apart from sin, to the level of the animals whose death is by nature inevitable (Ps. 49:12,20, cf. 2 Pet. 2; Jude) even when food is plentiful (Ps. 147:9). In 6:63 he goes so far as to say that the flesh as such is (ultimately) unprofitable.

There are even other things to say which can easily be missed. Far from being perfect as Augustine taught, creation is characterized by futility in its not infrequent tendency to produce aberrations and variations: blemished animals unfit for sacrifice, human beings who cannot speak properly (Ex. 4:11), eunuchs who cannot reproduce (Mt. 19:12), women who cannot have babies even if they have husbands (cf. Sarah, Hannah, etc.), good and bad trees, fruit (Mt. 7:17) and fish (Mt. 13:48); still-born babies (Num.12:12; Job 3:16; Eccl. 6:3),  men born blind (John 9:3) and so on. The blindness of the latter Jesus specifically insists is no more related to sin than the death of Lazarus was: both were for God’s glory (John 9:3; 11:4. The implication of Paul’s thorn is the same though Paul refers to it as a messenger of Satan, 2 Cor. 12:7-9). Good and bad harvests (Gen. 41:14-36), rock and sand (Mt. 7:24-27), wheat and weeds  (cf. Mt. 13:25-40), sudden storms (Prov. 10:25; Mt. 8:24-27), rain or lack of it, some famines and earthquakes (Gen. 12:10; 26:1; Mt. 24:8, etc.), accidents (Dt. 19:5), deserts (cf. Mt. 12:43; Mark 6:31), collapsing buildings (Luke 13:4) and the like are all naturally characteristic of this world rendered futile in the main by inherent ageing, subjection to time (Eccl. 3:1-8) and death (Ps. 49:7,12,20; 89:47f.; Eccl. 3:19-21; 12:1-7, etc.) the effect of which is frequently exacerbated by sin (cf. e.g. Hag. 1:5f.). Physical seed, like gold (1 Pet. 1:7,18), is perishable (1 Pet. 1:23), and even physical perfection (maturity) is succeeded by death.  The acorn meets its inexorable end as the dying oak. The truth is that creation, like the earthly temple and the law, in fact the old covenant in general, is faulty by nature (Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7,13; 10:9, cf. Mt. 5:18; 1 Cor. 13:10). The end or purpose of all things is Christ who alone, as the exact imprint of God’s very being, is perfect and glorious (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2f.; Rev. 4 and 5). To worship or love (2 Tim. 4:10; 1 John 2:15-17) the temporal and futile creation (cf. Ps. 106:20) as opposed to the eternal Creator (cf. Heb. 3:3) is of the essence of sin (Dt. 4:15-19; Rom. 1:25).

The Teaching of Paul

Paul endorses his Master’s teaching. In Romans 7:18 he tells us that nothing good (agathos) dwells in his flesh (even though as created it is “good”, Gk. kalos) and in 8:6-8 that setting the mind on the flesh and earthly things in general leads inevitably to death (cf. 8:13; Gal. 6:8; Phil. 3:19; Col. 3:1-5, cf. 2 Pet. 2:19). For him to be in the (fleshly) body is to be away from the Lord (2 Cor. 5:6,8, cf. 1 Cor. 15:50). Having already referred to the futility of fleshly man’s thinking in Romans 1:21 (cf. Eph. 4:17) he stresses the limitations of worldly wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1:21 (Col. 2:8,20, cf. John 3:31; 8:23; Jas. 3:15; 1 John 4:5f.). Though in Romans 3:2, 7:12 and 9:4, for example, Paul can extol the excellence of the law as God-given and designed to counter the world, the flesh and the devil (cf. Mt. 4:1-11; Gal. 3:19; 1 Tim. 1:8-11), he is by no means unaware of its inherent weakness and impermanence. It cannot give life (Gal. 3:21, cf. 2:21; Rom. 8:3a) and is in fact in the process of passing away like the world it operates in (2 Cor. 3:11; 1 Cor. 7:31, cf. Mt. 5:18 and contrast 24:35). Here Paul shows himself to be completely at one with the author of Hebrews (8:13) who tells us in plain words that the law cannot perfect (7:18f.). But this had already been implied by Jesus who, having kept the law and received the approbation of his Father, himself went on to fulfil all righteousness as the acknowledged Son of God (Mt. 3:13-17) and thereby to achieve the perfection of the Father (5:48; 19:21, cf. Rev. 3:21).

Finally, Paul clearly concludes that this entire present age is subject to futility. In the words of Gordon Fee, it is “on its way out” and being done away with by God himself (p. 83). Since the rulers of this age are “coming to nothing” (p.103) and are in the process of being abolished, the implication is that that this age is too (1 Cor. 2:6; 7:31; 13:8,10; 15:24,26, cf. 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 John 2:15-17). It is in fact making way for the presently invisible eternal age to come (Luke 20:34-36, cf. Eph. 1:21, etc.), which is our hope (Rom. 8:18,24f.). So, to love this age (2 Tim. 4:10) or world (1 Cor. 7:31, cf. James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17) by pandering to the flesh (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:7f.) instead of controlling and enslaving it (1 Cor. 9:27) is to court ultimate disaster (Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5, cf. 2 Pet. 2; Jude).

According to Paul, we all need deliverance not simply from evil but from this age (Gal. 1:4).  For him, as for the writer of Ecclesiastes, everything in this world is futile apart from faith in Christ (Phil. 3:1-11, cf. Ps. 127:1).  In 1 Corinthians he goes so far as to say that even our faith is futile unless Christ has been raised (15:13f.,17). This is hardly surprising since the basic purpose of Jesus’ incarnation was that he should seek life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5) and immortality (incorruption, cf. Rom. 2:7) for himself as the second Adam and hence representatively for those who believe in him (cf. Heb. 2:9f.). In this he was gloriously successful, and, to quote Paul’s unforgettable words, Jesus abolished death and brought life and immortality (Gk. incorruption) to light through the gospel (2 Tim. 1:10, cf. John 5:21; Rom. 4:17; 1 Cor. 1:28). (There is a disturbing failure among translators to distinguish between immortality and incorruption, cf. Vine, pp.131,320. God is said to be incorruptible, 1 Tim. 1:17, and immortal, 1 Tim. 6:16. The distinction is important for our understanding of the resurrection of Jesus. See e.g. my essay Restoration and Resurrection.) All this leads to the unavoidable conclusion that what Paul is teaching in Romans 8:18-25 is that creation, being corruptible by divine decree, is futile by nature and not by any supposed curse stemming from Adam. Escape from it to divine sonship by keeping the law, having proved impossible to transgressors (Gal. 2:16, etc.), is accomplished through Christ. Having uniquely achieved dominion in this age (Heb. 2:9; John 16:33), Christ is now subjecting all to himself (Mt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-28) and exercising dominion in the age to come (Eph. 1:21, cf. Heb. 1:6; 2:5; 12:22-24; 13:8,14).

For Paul, as for Jesus (Mark 8:35; John 12:25), the way to eternal life is by way of death to all that is earthly (Col. 3:1-5, cf. 1 John 2:15-17; Gal. 5:24; 6:14). Our aim must be to please God (Dt. 6:4f.) not our fleshly selves (2 Cor. 5:9, cf. Rom. 15:3).

The Teaching of Hebrews

The author of Hebrews perhaps lays greater stress on the impermanent and hence futile nature of this world than any other writer in the NT. In 11:3 he underlines the fact that what is (physically) seen finds its origin in the permanent unseen and is by nature impermanent (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18; Rom. 1:20; 8:24f.). Thus he concludes that all created things are subject to destruction so that what cannot be shaken may remain (12:27, cf.  10:34; 13:14). In the very first chapter of his letter he had drawn attention (1:10-12) to the “remaining” nature of Son of God (Heb. 7:24, cf. 7:3,16 and Dan. 6:26) who stands in violent contrast with the perishable cosmos (cf. 1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:15-17) and who, as the precursor of his people (2:10; 12:2), has in fact overcome it (2:6-9). The obsolescent character of creation and of this age in general, illustrated by clothing that is subject to wear and tear or aging (Gk., cf. Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 16:9), is starkly underscored (1:11), as it was by Paul (1 Cor. 7:31; Col. 2:22), and by the passing away of the  Levitical cultus including the law (8:7,13, cf. 2 Cor. 3). As Lane, for example, indicates, the latter’s basic characteristic by virtue of its perennial repetition (cf. 9:25f.) was futility (pp.260,266). In 12:9 our author highlights the difference between human fatherhood (cf. John 1:13) and divine fatherhood (cf. 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9). From this we are bound to infer the paramount need of those who are born of mortal flesh to be born from above (cf. John 3:1-8), for it is the spirits, not the flesh, of just men that are made perfect (12:23, cf. 12:9; 1 Cor. 15:50).

Peter

Peter virtually begins his letter by indicating that it is the new birth that enables believers to transcend the futility that characterizes creation. Like Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 he stresses the resurrection from the dead which provides for and guarantees an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled and unfading (1:3f.). Faith, he tells his readers, is more precious than gold which, being part of a futile creation (Rom. 8:20), is necessarily impermanent (1:7,18). Again, at the end of his first chapter he contrasts our perishable fleshly with our imperishable spiritual origin in the new birth and underscores the futility of our earthly nature by distinguishing it from the abiding word of God (1:23-25). On the assumption that the author of the first letter was the author of the second, it can hardly come as a surprise that he first anticipates the putting off of his earthly tent (2 Pet. 1:14) and later graphically describes the fiery dissolution of the created universe (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). For Peter (2 Pet. 1:4), as for Paul (Eph. 4:22), moral corruption blocked the way of escape from the inevitable futility and corruption of the physical creation, a point heavily endorsed by Jude.

Made by Hand and Not Made by Hand

This brings us to another point of prime importance highlighted by Jesus himself (cf. Mark 14:58; John 2:19), Paul (2 Cor. 5:1, etc.) and the author of Hebrews: the difference between what is “made by hand” (cheiropoietos) and what is “not made by hand” (acheiropoietos). It needs to be stressed here that the point is not, as many commentators and even translators seem to think, the difference between what is made by man and what is made by God (3* See, for example, Lohse, TWNT, Grand Rapids, 1974, 9:436.) This notion is excluded by Hebrews 1:10-12 and 2 Corinthians 5:1 to go no further.  Creation, including man (Job 10:8; Ps. 119:73), like OT redemption (Ex. 3:19f.), is the work of the hand of God (cf. Ps. 90:2; Isa. 48:13, etc.), yet it perishes too. Clearly the Creator himself has more honour than what he has made (Heb. 3:3, cf. 2 Cor. 3:7-11). In fact, all that is “made by hand” (4* Cheiropoietos, like acheiropoietos, is an important technical term in Scripture. See espec. Mark 14:58 and 2 Cor. 5:1 and the comment of Hughes, p.164 n.22.), has an old covenant or this-worldly character which is defective by nature (cf. Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7) and can only be rectified by the new covenant which replaces it (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 10:9). Thus our author, like Jesus, pointedly demeans the earthly tabernacle/temple in 9:11,24 by contrasting it with the true tent and the presence of the eternal God (cf. John 2:19; Rev. 21:22). Needless to say, Paul, like Jesus (John 3:1-8) distinguishes between the corruptible natural/physical and the incorruptible spiritual body that will be ours in heaven (1 Cor. 15:35ff.; 2 Cor. 4:7-5:5).

The plain truth is that all “manufactured” things (literally things ‘made by hand’, cf. Job 10:8; 119:73; Isa. 45:12) are ultimately futile. They are by nature impermanent and will be finally removed as surely as the gods of the heathen which were the work of men’s hands (Ps. 115:4; Isa. 2:8; Jer. 1:16; Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 1:14; 3:7,10-12).

Perfection

It is the author of Hebrews in particular who emphasizes perfection. If the goal of humanity is to attain to the glory and perfection of God (Mt. 5:48; 3:15; 19:21, cf. Eph. 4:13; Phil 3:12-15), then only Jesus as man succeeded in doing so. Having been perfected through suffering (Heb. 5:7-10, cf. 2:10; 7:28), he finally took his seat glorified at the right hand of God (1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2, cf. Acts 2:33; Eph. 1:20, etc.). And it is through Jesus alone that we who have failed through sin to inherit the promise of God can hope to sit with him in the heavenly places (Eph. 2:6; Heb. 2:10; Rev. 3:21), perfected in him (Phil. 1:6; Heb.9:14; 12:2).

Fleshly Infertility and Spiritual Seed

In the OT barrenness for a woman was regarded as a tragedy, as the stories of Sarah, Hannah and others intimate. But we read elsewhere that from another point of view it is not so. With Sarah and Hagar in mind Paul quotes Isaiah 54:1 which reminds us that the desolate woman ultimately has more children than the one who has a husband (Gal. 4:27, 5* Arguably this supports the belief that grace outweighs condemnation, Rom. 5:20, and hence that the number of the saved is greater than that of the damned.) Earlier I drew attention to Matthew 19:12 where Jesus alludes to various types of eunuch (cf. Isa. 56:3ff.). It should be remembered that he himself was notably one who made himself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of God. Though he produced no fleshly seed, he nonetheless became the most spiritually fertile man that ever lived (Rev. 7:9). And the children he rescues from the grip of creation’s corruptibility and futility now live forever in his presence (Heb. 2:9-13; John 10:28f.; 11:25f.; 12:26; 14:2f.; 1 Thes. 4:17).

Conclusion

So the biblical doctrine regarding the futility of the material creation underlines the absolute indispensability of faith in the resurrected and ascended Christ for all who sin (1 Cor. 15:12-20; 2 Tim. 1:10). The attempt to confine this teaching to a few verses like John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 is simply to advertise failure to understand the essence of the teaching of Scripture. Truly is Christ in all the Scriptures as he himself indicated (Luke 24:44f.; John 5:46f.; Acts 17:11, etc.). In the end, at the resurrection of the just and the unjust every knee in the created universe will bow before him (Isa. 45:23; Phil. 2:9-11). Since all things were made through him and for him (Col. 1:16; Eph. 1:10; Rom. 11:36), all creation will finally be seen to have served his purpose and promoted his glory (Rev. 4 & 5); but far from being redeemed itself (6* The idea that Christ died to restore and/or redeem animate and inanimate creation, horses, cows, trees, flowers, fleas, microbes, bacteria, etc. strikes me as being so unutterably absurd as to be unworthy of refutation. NB Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8. It reflects the Augustinian worldview at its worst. Augustinianism has spawned other offspring, however. It must be remembered that the origins of (dispensational) premillennialism are, as Sizer says, p.255, rooted in the Reformation and Puritanism which themselves were strongly Augustinian. Thus when Schofield, following Darby, insisted that Israel’s eternal inheritance would be on earth, Sizer, p.138, which is intrinsically impermanent (!), he was in effect only pursuing the logic of the Augustinian worldview. The truth is that Augustine on account of his enormous influence did more than any other to vitiate our understanding of Scripture. His victory over Pelagius came at a price!

Though the point requires elaboration, it is worth mentioning that premillennialists, like the Reformed, function without an adequate understanding of biblical covenant theology. As a consequence they fail to grapple with the fact that just as the old covenant is provisional and temporary, 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 7 & 8, etc., so is the material world it operates in. Both will eventually be dispensed with, Mt. 5:18, contrast 24:35, cf. Heb. 1:10-12, etc. While restoration features prominently in the OT, removal and replacement characterize the NT as study of the temple in particular makes clear, Heb. 9:11,24, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-50; 2 Cor. 5:1) it will be finally dispensed with (Rev. 20:11; 21:1,4, etc. See my essay The Harvest of the Earth, etc.). In other words, it is the eternal Creator, not the futile creation, that we worship (cf. Dt. 4:15ff.; Rom. 1:25; Heb. 3:3), for “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever” (The Shorter Catechism).

____________________________________________________

References

M.Barth, Ephesians, 2, New York, 1960.

P.W.Comfort in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, ed. Hawthorne and Martin, Downers Grove, 1993.

G.D.Fee, 1 Corinthians, Grand Rapids, 1987.

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

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

S.Sizer, Christian Zionism, Leicester, 2004.

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

Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary, Nashville, 1985.

Scripture teaches that creation is inherently temporal. It has a beginning (Gen. 1:1) and therefore an inevitable end (Mt. 24:35; 28:20; Rev. 20:11; 21:1,4). This implies that in contrast with its eternal Creator it is naturally corruptible (Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12) and that when it has served its purpose of testing fleshly human beings made in the image of God, it will be destroyed (Heb. 6:7f.; 12:27). 2 Peter 3:7,10-12 (cf. Zeph. 1:2,3,18; 3:8) in particular graphically highlight its demise.

The traditional (Augustinian) view is somewhat different. It teaches that creation was originally perfect, and Adam and Eve holy, righteous and even immortal! When Adam as the deputed lord of creation mysteriously “fell” into sin, he dragged creation down with him. Thus, many, if not all, modern theologians still refer to a “fallen” creation which in the nature of the case requires redemption and restoration. But Scripture will have none of this.

While it is true that the material creation suffers from the fact that Adam and his posterity all failed to subject it fully to their dominion (cf. Prov. 24:30-34, etc.), Christ, the second Adam as the representative of his people succeeded (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9f.; Rev. 5:5). Having escaped from corruption by ascension and change (Rev. 12:5, cf. 1 Cor. 15:51ff.), he presently exercises his power at the right hand of God (Mt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-28). Having triumphed himself he is now as their representative in a position to rescue all those who trust in him (cf. Rom. 8:31-39; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Cor. 6:14, etc.).  And while it is true that as those who have capitulated to moral corruption, they have undergone physical death (Rom. 8:10) and corruption, they will nonetheless be raised spiritually and given spiritual or heavenly bodies (1 Cor. 15:44ff.; 2 Cor. 5:1; 1 Pet. 4:6).

In reaction to this, it might be objected that the Bible itself clearly refers to a new material creation and attention directed to Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22. It needs to be appreciated, however, that Isaiah, though a true prophet of God, was limited in his understanding of the future (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12). After all, restoration, as opposed to the change or replacement that characterizes the new covenant, is a major theme of the OT and, though they were aware that heaven was the throne of God and earth his footstool (Isa. 66:1, cf. 57:15), OT writers tended to think of God as dwelling with them on a reconstituted earth as he did in the Promised Land, in Jerusalem and especially in the temple. It may further be claimed that Isaiah’s new creation re-appears in the NT, that is, in 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1, demanding a transformed material universe. But this is hardly the case. While Peter refers to a new heaven and earth in which righteousness dwells, it is necessary to infer from Matthew 6:10 that what he has in mind is the eternal heaven which already exists and is not subject to re-creation (cf. Heb. 9:11,24). And the same conclusion must be drawn with regard to Revelation 21:1,4 where the first (temporal/material) creation has passed away (cf. 20:11) leaving only the permanent remaining or eternal world which has always existed and to which Jesus himself returned (Heb. 1:6, cf. v.3; 2:5; John 17:5,24). This conclusion is further supported by recognition of the fact that the new creation is no more new than the new Jerusalem (Isa. 65:18f.) which also already exists since it is our mother (Gal. 4:26, cf. Heb. 12:22f.). And despite the earthly associations of the new heavens and new earth referred to in Isaiah 66:22, the fact that they ‘remain’ like God (‘your name’) suggests their identification with the unshakable in Hebrews 1:11 and 12:27. So, given the re-interpretation of the OT by the NT (cf. Heb. 11:16), we are forced to the conclusion that the temporal material is replaced by the eternal spiritual (cf. 1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:17). In simple terms, with the destruction of the old the temporal earth finally gives way to, or is replaced by, the eternal heaven (cf. Heb. 10:9). Or again, the present age gives way to the age to come.

The Body

This inference receives ample support from a study of the human body. It is basic to biblical teaching that our fleshly bodies derive from the temporal earth. This being so, it is necessary to conclude that the flesh, being both earthly and earthy, is itself temporal and corruptible. This is why according to Jesus it is a paramount necessity for us to be born again (John 3:1-7). And, needless to say, we learn that our bodies are destroyed like the earth. Paul says this explicitly in 2 Corinthians 5:1 (cf. 1 Cor. 6:13) and implies it in other passages like 1 Corinthians 15:35ff. Indeed, he goes further and asserts that far from restoring our bodies like the body of Lazarus when Jesus raised him from the dead, God will replace them with a heavenly body. This is surely the implication of Romans 8:23 which refers to the redemption of the body as opposed to the flesh. Because of sin we lose our fleshly bodies in death and decay (Rom. 8:10; Acts 2:29) and are left naked (2 Cor. 5:2-4). But, in accordance with the divine purpose (2 Cor. 5:5), they are finally replaced with spiritual bodies of glory like that of Christ (Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-50).

In confirmation of what has just been said, we need to recognize that even the OT regards the flesh pejoratively (see e.g. Job 10:8f.; Ps. 118:8; Isa. 31:3; Jer. 17:5). In the NT we read that it is weak, corruptible, unprofitable (John 6:63), incapable of producing good (Rom. 7:18, cf. 8:8), hostile to God (Rom. 8:7) and at war with the spirit/Spirit (Gal. 5:17; 1 Pet. 2:11). Paul tells his readers that in anticipation of the end it should (metaphorically) be put to death (Col. 3:1-5, cf. Gal. 5:24) along with the world (Gal. 6:14). John implies the same in his first letter (2:15-17, cf. 2 Tim. 4:10). Jesus himself urges us to hate life (Gk. psyche) in this world in order to find eternal life (Gk. zoe, John 12:25, cf. James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17). Failure to do this and to seek holiness (Heb. 12:14) means that those who foster the flesh reap what they sow, that is, the inevitable death and corruption that characterizes the present creation (1 Cor. 6:9f.; Gal. 6:8; Eph. 5:5, etc.). (It perhaps needs to be added here that the unwarrantable tendency of the NIV to translate sarx as ‘sinful nature’ especially in Romans 8:13 and Galatians 6:8 obscures this.)

It might be objected here that Jesus’ fleshly body, though naturally corruptible, was not destroyed like that of the rest of us who die before his return (cf. David in Acts 2:25ff.). This is true enough, but Paul leaves us in no doubt whatever that Jesus did not take his flesh into heaven (1 Cor. 15:50). Rather he implies that like the saints at the second advent Jesus was changed at his ascension (1 Cor. 15:51f.) and not as is widely taught at his resurrection (cf. Luke 24:39, etc.). How otherwise could he recover the glory that he shared with his Father before the world began (John 17:5,24)? So, while fleshly destruction may imply physical annihilation, it by no means implies corporeal (somatic) negation.

The Temple

This comment reminds us of the temple. If we compare Mark 14:58 with 2 Corinthians 5:1, we become aware of a remarkable similarity. The inference we draw from it is that just as the material temple is destroyed, so is the physical body. In the OT the temple was restored; in the NT it is destroyed – totally. And even if it were to be rebuilt today, as some seem to think it will, it would still face permanent destruction at the end of the age when creation itself is destroyed. Again, however, it should be noticed that the temple is not negated. Rather it reappears in spiritual form as examination of the following references makes indisputably clear: 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Hebrews 8:2 and Revelation 21:22 (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-8).

Conclusion

Judging by the references used in my first paragraph above, physical or material corruption is a fundamental characteristic of the temporal material creation as Genesis 1:1 implies. It was “made by hand” (Isa. 45:12; 48:13, etc.) and hence in basic contrast with what is “not made by hand” (Heb. 9:11,24, cf. 1:10-12, etc.).  The tragedy is that theology in the West has been radically distorted by the views of Augustine of Hippo. He was misled by the references to the goodness of creation in Genesis 1 and consequently taught its original perfection and “fall” along with Adam and Eve who epitomized the beginnings of fleshly humanity. Assuming the truth of this many Christians contend that even though creation will be destroyed, it will be re-created! But the Bible as a whole consistently upholds the distinction between a temporal creation and the eternal Creator (Isa. 51:6,8; Mt. 24:35, etc.). Perhaps the best argument in favour of this is Jesus himself. Whereas as man (flesh) he is clearly mortal and corruptible (John 8:57, cf. 2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 1:11; 8:13), as God he is eternal and incorruptible (Heb. 7:16,25,28, cf. Rom. 1:23; 2 Tim. 1:10). Admittedly, though after his death he did not see corruption since he kept the commandment(s), his fleshly body was clearly replaced by a body of glory (Phil. 3:21, cf. John 17:5,24) at his ascension, like those of the saints at the end of the age (1 Cor. 15:51ff.).

My conclusion is then that the early chapters of Genesis promised man made in the image of God escape from the divinely intended destruction of the material universe (cf. 2 Pet. 3:7) on condition of the proper exercise of dominion (Gen. 1:26,28) and law keeping (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5; Dt. 30:15-20, etc.). Failure to meet that condition means that the promise is fulfilled only through faith in the all-conquering Christ who guarantees us embodied spiritual life with him in the presence of God in heaven (John 14:2f.; 17:24; 1 Cor. 15:44,46; Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18, cf. v.22; 4:6; Rev. 3:21, etc.).

Additional Note on Aging

I have read a number of times even since the turn of the century that aging, decay and corruption are the result of sin (1* See, for example, Heaven by Randy Alcorn, Tyndale House Publishers, 2004, p.118. Alcorn’s massive misunderstanding of the biblical position is patent and pervasive. In true Augustinian fashion, he attributes everything to sin and the curse on the one hand and their denial to what he calls Christoplatonism on the other. His book which is based on a literal hermeneutic, a false theology and avowed use of the imagination makes for painful reading.) If this is so, then we are compelled to conclude that the incarnate Jesus was a sinner, for he certainly grew older. As a fleshly product of the earth, he is clearly depicted as having a (human) beginning in the womb of his mother, of undergoing development and attaining to manhood (Luke 2:40-52) and even of showing signs of aging in his early thirties (John 8:57). The inference is then that while the aging process may be accelerated or exacerbated by sin, it is in itself purely natural. It was written into creation in hope from the start (Rom. 8:20, cf. 24f.), inherent in the plan of salvation.

The Bible teaches that just as the temporal earth in contrast with the eternal God (cf. Heb. 7:3) has a beginning (Gen.1:1) so it will have an end (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.). This view of the issue is supported by Hebrews 1:11, which tells us that creation is subject to aging like clothes or wine. Since man as flesh is a product of a naturally aging earth (Gen 2:7), he is necessarily subject to aging. So like the earth, he is naturally perishable (1 Cor. 15:50). This inference is not just a matter of logic, for Paul, like the Isaiah (e.g. 40:6-8; 51:6) insists that the outer man is wasting away (2 Cor. 4:16, cf. Ps. 49:12,20; 90:2-6; Eccl. 3:18-20; Jas. 1:10f.; 1 Pet. 1:23-25). The author of Hebrews is quite explicit when he says that what is growing old is ready to vanish away (8:13, cf. Jas. 4:14), which of course is why Jesus who by keeping the law had gained life had to ascend into heaven (John 20:17).  References such as Matthew 6:19-21, Luke 12:33 and Colossians 2:22 also testify to the same truth.

In light of this, it ought to go without saying that investment in this world and the flesh is fraught with disaster. Both are inherently ephemeral and in the nature of the case cannot provide for either the eternal life (immortality) or the incorruptibility that characterize God. Ishmael remained a fleshly slave and had no inheritance (John 8:35; Gal. 4:29). Esau sought his portion in this world  (Ps. 17:14) and paid the price by reaping corruption (Heb. 12:16f.; Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8). The only treasure ultimately worth having is heavenly (Mt. 6:19-21; Luke 12:33; 16:9; 2 Cor. 4:7; Heb. 10:34; 1 Pet. 1:3f.,7,23-25). And if the goal of man is a city (Heb. 11:10), it is of necessity celestial, the only one that lasts forever (Heb. 12:22; 13:14; Gal. 4:26; Rev. 21-22).

In view of widespread misunderstanding it is perhaps necessary to add here that since our inheritance, including our future body, is eternal, it cannot be physical. As Paul pointed out, the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50).  In other words, materialism of any kind is by nature moribund. If Christ has not been raised and exalted transformed to heaven our faith is futile.

There is yet another point of basic importance to make: Scripture consistently distinguishes between natural aging or corruptibility and sin. Jesus alludes to both in Matthew 6:19-21 (cf. Luke 12:33), Luke 13:1-5 and especially when dealing with the end of the world. Moral evil and material corruption appear together in Luke 17:22-37 and similar passages. The problem with sin is that it prevents the fulfilment of the promise of escape from death and corruption that God promised Adam in the first two chapters of Genesis.

See further my essays  Escape, The Corruptibility of Creation, Concerning Futility, Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?, The End of the World, With What Kind of Body Do They Come, Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?, etc.

Note

The following references should be noted: Gen. 1:1, cf. Mt. 24:35; Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27, cf. 103:10-19; Isa. 34:4; 54:10; Ezek. 38:20; Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 12:33; 16:9; 1 Cor. 7:31; 9:25; 15:50; 2 Cor. 4:18; 1 Pet. 1:4,7,18; 3:4; 1 John 2:15-17; Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 20:11; 21:1.

The inherent instability or shakability of material things is recognized in the OT, where God himself is his people’s refuge (e.g. Ps. 46:1f.; Hab. 3:17ff.), and emphasized especially in Hebrews (cf. 1:10-12; 9:15; 10:34; 11:8-16; 12:18-29; 13:8,14). Just as the law which relates to the present world is inherently obsolescent and soon to disappear (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13, cf. 2 Cor. 4:16) so is the world itself (Luke 12:33; Col. 2:22; 1 Pet. 1:4, cf. 1:7; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). If the world is growing old (Heb. 1:11), it is about to pass away (2 Cor. 5:17; 1 John 2:17; Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 20:11; 21:1).

Summary

1. Creation has a beginning (Gen. 1:1) and therefore an end (Gen. 8:22; Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). By contrast God as Creator has neither beginning nor end (Ps. 90:2; 102:12,27; Isa. 54:10; Heb. 7:3; Rev. 4:13, etc.).

2. It is visible and hence impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18). It will eventually pass away (Mt. 24:35; 1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:17; Rev. 21:1,4, etc.).

3. It is “made by hand” like the gods of the heathen (Isa. 2:8), the temple (Mark 14:58) and the body of flesh (2 Cor. 5:1) and is hence dispensable (Ps. 102:25; Isa. 45:12; 48:13, etc.).

4. It is shakable and in strong contrast with that which remains (Heb. 12:27).

5. The things that have been made are visible (Rom. 1:20) but destructible (Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.).

6. It has been subjected to corruption and is purposely made perishable in hope of what is presently, that is physically, invisible (Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12, cf. 1 Pet. 1:3f.).

7. Once it has been destroyed, it will be replaced by heaven and the presence of God where righteousness dwells (Mt. 6:10; 2 Pet. 3:13, cf. Rev. 20:11 and Daniel 2:34f., 44f.).

Furnaces are like gigantic crucibles used to heat metals in order to separate the dross from what is pure. The children of Abraham spent time in the fiery furnace of Egypt and had to be rescued from it. They hardly emerged unalloyed, for as Joshua 24:2,14 make plain, in their heathen state they were idolatrous like their forefathers (cf. Gen. 31:19,30,34; 35:2, etc.). Thus they were subjected to further testing and purging under the law in the wilderness and beyond. So even at this preliminary stage of our brief study we can assume that if the pilgrimage to the heavenly city is the goal of life (Heb. 13:14), a path to perfection (Heb. 6:1; Phil. 3:12-14), its inevitable companion is testing.

Adam

Genesis 1 suggests that the world as a whole is a testing ground for man made in the image of God. There we are informed that man’s basic calling is to exercise dominion and to put all created things under his feet with a view to gaining not merely earthly but ultimate heavenly glory and honour. In this man was following in the steps of God himself who when he had finished his work of creation entered his rest. Truly could it be said that if the earth was God’s footstool, heaven was his throne (Isa. 66:1). The implication is, as Psalm 8:5f. suggest, that if man exercises his rule successfully his reward will be glory and honour in the presence of God.

In Genesis 2:16f. an even more personal note is sounded. There God promises Adam (and hence mankind transgenerationally) on pain of death not to eat of the tree of good and evil. The implication of this is that if he who has been created naturally mortal (cf. Rom. 1:23) from a naturally temporal and corruptible earth is obedient, he will gain eternal life (cf. Rom. 7:9f.). In the event, however, first Eve, who is also seduced by the devil, then Adam is disobedient. Under the pressure of temptation, they both give way to their fleshly passions over which they were meant to exercise control or dominion (Gen. 3:1-6). In effect, they worship creation rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:25, cf. Dt. 4:19). The inevitable result of their surrender is loss of fellowship with God, curse and death (Gen. 3:17-19).

Outside the Garden, the womb or nursery of the race from which he has been ejected, Adam’s task of dominion is by no means abrogated. Rather, in the wider field of operation his problems are exacerbated by personal sin (Gen. 3:17-19). He now has to contend with an element of alienation both from God and the ground from which he derived. This point is underlined first by Cain (4:11f.) and then by Lamech who seeks relief from the toil of his hands through Noah, his son (5:29). Again, at a later stage in the history of man Eliphaz the Temanite complains that man is born to trouble (Job 5:7, cf. 3:17), and Job himself claims that man’s service on the earth is like the days of a hired hand or a slave (7:1f. ESV). Having complained about the brevity of life (7:6ff., cf. Gen. 6:3), he then wonders why God, the watcher of mankind, constantly tests him (7:17-20).

The Pattern

Thus the pattern established by our first parents is followed by all their posterity. All the children of Adam are faced with the task of subjecting creation to their dominion, but even as they make the attempt sin is always crouching at the door (Gen. 4:7). As Peter is to suggest much later, the devil is constantly prowling like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour (1 Pet. 5:8). Since they are made in their fleshly image (Gen. 5:1-3) and conditioned as all children are by parental example and influence (cf. Ex. 20:5f.; Rom. 5:12), they succumb inexorably to temptation just as their parents did. (1* In case the reader has missed the point I am implying here that the traditional dogma of original sin erroneously based on Romans 5:12 is fallacious. All men and women in their fleshly weakness sin in their own right, cf. Ps. 106:6, etc. and though they may suffer, Num. 14:33, they cannot, as Deuteronomy 24:16, etc., indicates, be punished for the sins of their parents. See further my essays relating to original sin.) In light of this, the list of deaths set out in Genesis 5 hardly comes as a shock. As Adam had been warned, the wages of sin is death not life. Genesis 6:11-13 indicates that universal moral corruption results in universal physical corruption. Sin invites the judgement of the flood and death is inevitable. In this situation only an act of grace on the part of God can bring redemption. Thus the covenant with Noah, who alone of his generation found favour with his Maker, is established.

Noah and the Heathen

Why is grace shown to Noah? Was he not also tested and found wanting like all his contemporaries? He was indeed, but he believed God (cf. Gen. 6:8; 7:1) and was, as the Bible later makes clear, accounted righteous by faith (Heb. 11:7). As God’s dealings with Adam had made clear, righteousness stemming from obedience was the absolute prerequisite or condition of life. Once that righteousness proved incapable of realization by men, the only option was faith in God who would provide his own or what Luther called an alien righteousness. So far as Noah was concerned, he proved his faith when he obeyed the divine command to build the ark. The consequence of this, in the perspective of Peter, was that he was saved by baptism (1 Pet. 3:20f.).

With the development and the extension of the race (cf. Gen. 6:1), the test of life on the earth continues. The call of ‘ungodly’ idolator Abraham (cf. Rom. 4:5) to the obedience or righteousness of faith is made plain (cf. Gen. 15:6). The patriarch responds to the call of God to venture into the unknown and to walk blamelessly (Gen. 17:1). Abraham’s faith was great but it was severely tested – most dramatically when he was called on to sacrifice his son Isaac, the hope of future blessing. James underlines the fact that Abraham completed his faith by his works (2:22). He was tried and proved true. He would become a blessing to the world as he had been promised.

The Israelites, the Wilderness and the Promised Land

In Paul’s thinking, the result of the test of life among the heathen in general brought failure on a massive scale. Though the evidence of the wrath of God against those who transgressed natural moral law was clear, nonetheless all broke it. All failed the test (Rom. 1:18-32). But in the grace of God Abraham’s posterity under Moses were rescued from the fiery furnace of heathen Egypt and given the covenant of law. This also, like the commandment given to Adam, proved to be a test of life as Exodus 15:26, 16:4 and especially Deuteronomy 30:19f. indicate. However, in the very shadow of Sinai, the people lapsed back into idolatry (Ex. 32). Indeed, the journey through the wilderness was in many ways a tale of catastrophe indicating the failure of the people to abide by the commandments in the wilderness and beyond (Dt. 8:2,16). The consequence was that all the older generation who wished to return to the fleshpots of Egypt from which they had been rescued perished on the way to the Promised Land. While the law promised life (Lev. 18:5, etc.), it brought death to all who refused to act in faith. Only Caleb and Joshua of the older generation survived the pilgrimage. Even Moses himself proved a casualty. Just as he only glimpsed the glory of God (Ex. 33) so he only viewed the Canaan from a distance. Yet, like Abraham, as a man of faith he died in faith not having received what was promised but had greeted it from afar (Heb. 11:13, cf. 11:39f.).

Of course, the children of those who left Egypt were like Adam and Eve who initially knew neither good nor evil (Dt. 1:39) and were not accounted guilty as their parents were (see especially Number 14:3,29-33 which, along with Ezekiel 18, etc., in my view proves conclusively the non-imputation of Adam’s sin). Thus the promise made to Abraham was fulfilled in them. They entered their promised rest under the leadership of Joshua, but their problems were by no means over. Their rest, like the earth itself, was only temporary. Their journey or pilgrimage was by no means complete as Hebrews 3 and 4 especially make clear. The land they entered had to be conquered. It was not merely a question of dispossessing the inhabitants of the land and inheriting the good things prepared by them (Dt. 6:10f.) but the Canaanites themselves as potential thorns in their eyes had to be dealt with (Num. 33:55f.). To a degree they were but not completely, and the adoption by the Israelites of their idolatrous customs led to disaster, eventually to the exile or a metaphorical return to Egypt which they had been forbidden to contemplate (Dt. 17:16).

Throughout the Old Testament the prophets inveigh against the sins of the people, urge repentance and return to the law (cf. Isa. 8:20; Jer. 6:16; Mal. 4:4). But their message falls on deaf ears. This leads inexorably to a demonstration of the wrath of God and to exile (Zech. 7:11-14). Even after the exile, though the crudities of idolatry may have been tempered, the people as a whole fail the test and remain faithless (Mal. 2:10,14, etc.). They even put God to the test as their forefathers had done in the wilderness and apparently escape (Mal.3:15). The scenario sketched by Moses (Dt. 9:7,24), Samuel (1 Sam. 8:8), Ezra (9:7), Malachi (3:7) and others (e.g. 2 Chr. 30:7) seemed to be set in stone – a reflection of the death-dealing ministry of the law (cf. 2 Cor. 3:3,6). Little wonder that it was recognized that all human beings sin (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3, etc.). As Stephen was to say at the start of the Christian era, the people received the law as delivered by angels but failed to keep it (Acts 7:51-53). For all that, though the writing was on the wall (Mal. 3:2f.; 4:1, cf. Mt. 3:12), the test was to be extended even into the Christian era (cf. Mal. 4:2f.; 2 Pet. 3:9).

Jesus

Cur Deus Homo (Why did God become man)? asked Anselm. According to the author of Hebrews, apart from the fact that the chosen people of God all broke it, the law made nothing perfect (7:18f.), so Jesus became man as the second Adam not to offer sacrifices but to do the will of God (Heb. 10:5-9). By doing so he sanctified his people (10:10,14). In other words, Jesus came into the world as man to accomplish what the first Adam and all his posterity failed to do, that is, to inherit (eternal) life and incorruptibility (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). To do this, however, he had to exercise dynamic dominion throughout his earthly career, undergo the test of life by keeping the commandments and remain permanently untarnished by sin. At his baptism, having kept the written law, Jesus was acknowledged him as God’s Son. (2* Acknowledgement is not adoption but it provides the foundation of Christian adoption with which it corresponds in the order of salvation. See my essay Following Jesus.) Having fulfilled all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) by giving his life for his unrighteous fellows (1 Pet. 3:18), his accomplishment on their behalf was confirmed by his resurrection. And on his return to his Father he was crowned with glory and honour as the one who was made perfect as the pioneer of their salvation (Heb. 2:9f.). In sum, Jesus conquered the world (John 16:33), the flesh (Rom. 8:3) and the devil (John 14:30). He had stood the test to perfection (Heb. 7:28). (3* I take it that the world that Jesus conquered was much more comprehensive than the one that the first Adam confronted in the Garden, cf. Rev. 5:1-5. It surely comprised his total environment, which included not merely the recalcitrance of a corruptible creation but the hostility of the devil and his mignons as well, cf. Rom. 8:37-39. It needs to be quickly added that his victory did not involve a reversal and redemption of the earth’s corruptible constitution which is apparently demanded by those who like Augustine believe in Adam’s “Fall” from so-called initial righteousness and a universal curse. Jesus himself as flesh was part of creation’s natural corruption. He daily grew older! And like the rest of us, though he did not personally succumb to decay, as flesh he nonetheless had to undergo transformation when he ascended, John 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:50-56; Phil. 3:21.)

Christians

During the time of the new covenant dispensation inaugurated by Jesus, while on the one hand those that have not embraced him as Saviour continue to be tested as they are called to come out of heathen or even Jewish darkness (cf. 2 Cor. 3:15) into the light (Acts 26:18, cf. Col. 1:13; 1 Thes. 1:9f.), on the other hand Christians themselves are still tested by the world, the flesh and the devil. Dominion still has to be exercised even if in principle both the flesh and the world have been crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24; 6:14). What is earthly in us has to be put to death (Col. 3:5) and justification must be followed by sanctification. So far as the flesh is concerned, its desires may be as imperious as ever, as they were in Jesus’ own case (Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 4:15), but they can be controlled by the power of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16; Rom. 8.) in a way that they were not under the law (cf. Rom. 7). Not without good reason does Paul urge his Roman readers not to make provision for the flesh and gratify its desires (13:14; 1 Pet. 2:11). In other words, just as God tested the state of heart of the Israelites who came out of Egypt and found them wanting (Dt. 8:2,16, etc.), so the genuineness of our faith as Christians is under daily duress in countless ways (Gal. 5:16f.; 1 Pet. 1:6f.; 2:11, cf. 4:12; 2 Cor. 8:8). Needless to add, we are comforted by the presence of the Spirit and the knowledge that Christ has died, has risen again and intercedes for us as the right hand of God. We have his promise that he will be with us to the end of the age. And in recognition of and response to this, we persevere in faith (1 Pet. 1:5; Heb. 10:39) believing that he who has begun a good work in us will bring it to completion (Phil. 1:6).

At the end of the day, all human beings are tested in such a way as to reveal their true character. Those who refuse as men and women made in the image of God to nurture his likeness (2 Cor. 3:18) prove their affinity with the animal creation (Eccl. 3:18) which lives on bread alone, though even that is provided by God (Ps. 104:21, etc.). Since they pander to the flesh and refuse to put to death what is earthly in them they live by instinct (2 Pet. 2; Jude). In the end, however, their inheritance is the inevitable decay of the flesh (Gal. 6:8) and the corruption of their portion in the temporal world (Ps. 17:14; Luke 12:13-21; 16:25, etc.). By contrast, the spiritual inheritance of the saints is eternal (Heb. 9:15).

Conclusion

The glorious message of grace etched in the Bible is then that in Christ, the hope of glory (Col. 1:27), we are more than conquerors. Nothing in all creation can finally separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:37-39). Despite the many trials in which God tries our faith (1 Thes. 2:4; Heb. 12:5-11), we are enabled to stand the test and receive the crown of life promised to those who love him (James 1:12, cf. 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 5:4,10; Rev. 2:7,10f.; 3:21).

Thus we come out of the great tribulation of life on earth (cf. 1 Pet. 1:6f.; James 1:3) washed by the blood of the Lamb (Acts 14:22; Rev. 7:14; 22:14). When we do so, not only will our tears be wiped away but so will the former things that prompted them and caused so much pain (Rev. 7:16f.; 21:1,4; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). The contrast between earthly corruption and heavenly glory could hardly be greater (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17).

1. We are explicitly told that Jesus was physical (Luke 24:39, etc.).

2. We are nowhere told his body had been glorified. This I always took to mean that it was endowed with splendour and transformed to fit it for heaven (Luke 24:26, cf. Mt. 19:28, John 17:24 and Heb. 1:3. In light of Heb. 1:6 and 2:5, the ‘new world’ of Mt. 19:28 would appear to be identical with heaven).

3. There is no indication of the Lord’s splendour and glory which is referred to quite gratuitously by many writers (contrast the angels at the tomb, Luke 24:4). In fact, Jesus is not described physically anywhere in the NT (though note Mt. 17:2, cf. Mt. 13:43), least of all after his resurrection.

4. After his resurrection Jesus could be seen, heard and touched (e.g. John 20:17f.,26f.). 1 John 1:1-3, cf. Acts 1:3, presumably refers to Jesus after his resurrection.

5. John says we do NOT know what we shall be but that we shall be like him (1 John 3:2f.; Phil. 3:21). The inference must be that the Jesus he saw was the untransformed physical Jesus. Contrast his vision (cf. Paul in Acts 9,22,26) in heaven in the book of Revelation, 1:12ff.; 2:18; 19:12, cf. Heb. 12:29. When Jesus returns he will do so in the glory of the Father (Mt.16:27, cf. 25:31; John 17:24; Tit. 2:13) and as a consuming fire (2 Thes. 1:7f.;2:8, cf. Heb. 12:29; Rev. 1:12ff.; 2:18; 19:12).

6. Paul says that the present physical body that is eventually buried in the ground is NOT the new body (1 Cor. 15:37, cf. v.50). He also says we hope for what is not seen which must surely include the body that is to resemble that of Jesus (Rom. 8:18,24f.; 2 Cor. 4:18; Phil. 3:21).

7. Many writers seem to think that Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances such as Luke 24:36; John 20:26; 21:4 indicate that he was already glorified. It is difficult to understand why. For a start, as writers like Geisler (The Battle for the Resurrection) maintain, these appearances are not necessarily miraculous. Even if they were, it must be asked in what way they differ from Jesus’ walking on the sea, for example, BEFORE he was crucified and raised from the dead. Note how in Matthew 14 the disciples thought they were seeing a ghost (v.26, cf. Mark 6:49; Luke 24:37,39) but Jesus himself denies this. In any case, Jesus physically rescues Peter by stretching out his hand to help him when he gets into to trouble (v.31).

8. If we claim that ordinary people can’t walk through closed doors (John 20:26), we are first begging the question and, secondly, ignoring the fact that Peter did the same later in Acts (5:17ff.; cf. 12:6ff.). Peter and the apostles were clearly NOT ‘glorified’ (cf. 2 Pet.1:14). In light of this there is no reason for imagining that Jesus was either.

9. Paul says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). If Jesus’ resurrection was physical and his body ‘flesh and bones’ (Luke 24:39), then his glorification is out of the question. Rather, as Peter said on a later occasion, glory is yet to be revealed (1 Pet. 4:13, cf. Rom. 8:18,24f.; 1 Cor.2:9). In light of John 17:24 and Matthew 19:28, not to mention Paul’s vision at his conversion and references like Rev. 1:12ff.; 2:18 and 19:12, Jesus’ transformation did not occur until he ascended, as John 20:17 implies. This accords, or rather corresponds, with Paul’s claim that those alive at Christ’s second coming (1 Cor. 15:51ff.), notably in the glory of the Father (Mt. 16:27), will also be caught up into the air and transformed in their turn (1 Thes. 4:17). (* The elevation of the saints and the descent of Jesus does not involve a contradiction. The two ideas are obviously complementary. They involve encounter. It is only when writers imagine that Christ and even the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2) descend to earth that they run into difficulty. As far as I am aware there is no reference to Christ’s return to earth in the entire New Testament. On the other hand there are plenty of references indicating that he will not. When he returns to establish his spiritual kingdom the physical heaven and earth will flee away (Isa. 34:4; Rev. 20:11; 21:1; Mt. 24:35, etc.). In other words, Jesus’ ascension transformation was the precursor and paradigm of what will occur at the end. Not without reason does the author of Hebrews talk of Jesus as being the pioneer of our salvation (12:2, cf. 2:10; 6:20). He paves the way for his people by resurrection from the dead and/or ascension transformation. Some writers make much of the grave clothes and maintain that Jesus passed through them thus proving that his body was glorified. The problem with this is that an angel is said to have rolled away the stone blocking the entrance to the tomb (Mt. 28:2, cf. Mark 16:4; Luke 24:1-4; John 20:1-8). Why should this have been necessary if Jesus could just pass through every solid object in his way? Again, it must be said that those who maintain that Jesus was no longer subject to natural law are implicitly docetic in their thinking and are in effect denying the physical resurrection.

10. The issue confronting us is this: either we accept Jesus’ physical resurrection and deny his glorification or we accept his glorification and deny his physical resurrection. We can’t have it both ways.

11. Those who say Jesus was glorified while still visible (implicitly denied by Rom. 8:18,24f.; 2 Cor. 4:18) make much of the failure of Cleopas and his companion to recognise him. Apart from the circumstances which led to the assumption that Jesus was permanently dead and buried despite Luke 24:22-24, Jesus’ appearance would almost necessarily have undergone a change. Even if it had not, we need to take Luke 24:16,31 into consideration. Hadn’t he been flogged to within an inch of his life and then undergone crucifixion and appalling suffering? (It is here that Mel Gibson’s film on the passion has value). There is no suggestion of rejuvenation in his resurrection.

12. Grudem refers to the ‘incarnate’ Christ in heaven (ST, p. 859, cf. Milne who refers to the Christians “fleshly, bodily hope”, BST John, p. 170). The plain truth is that in heaven there is no possibility of flesh, which is by nature earthly (cf. Gen. 2:7) and naturally corruptible. Paul scotches all such ideas particularly in 2 Cor. 4:7-5:10.

13. If Jesus was still flesh when he rose again from the dead but no longer subject to death (Rom. 6:9) since he had not personally sinned (cf. Rom. 6:23), his ascension and transformation were an absolute necessity (John 20:17). Why? Because as flesh he was still corruptible. He could not age (cf. John 8:57) indefinitely since age and decay eventually come to an end (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 1:10-12; 8:13). The reason why such stress is laid, especially in Acts 2 and 13, on the fact that Jesus did not see corruption is precisely because he was physical (like David who saw corruption) but was transformed at his ascension. If Jesus was already glorified at his resurrection, his putative corruption was an irrelevance. Only in his permanent glorified state could he inherit the throne and eternal blessings of David at God’s right hand (Acts 13:34). Only from heaven could he apply his victory in the flesh and put all his enemies under his feet (Mt. 28:18; John 7:39; 1 Cor. 15:24-28, etc.).

14. In heaven Jesus has recovered the glory he laid aside at his incarnation (John 17:5,24). In his glorified (or his heavenly, spiritual or supernatural, cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-55) body in which the fullness of his deity dwells (Col. 2:9), he now enjoys the generic nature, that is, the immortality and incorruptibility of his Father (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10) which was promised to man in Genesis 1 and 2. He is forever indestructible (Heb. 7:3,16,24,28).

The object of life on earth is that man made in the divine image should see God (visio dei). Early in the Bible we learn that to see God spells death (Gen. 16:13). And though some like Jacob imagine that they have seen him (32:30), it is more likely that they have seen an angel (Jud. 6:22) or a theophany. While Moses is said to speak with God face to face (Ex. 33:11, cf. Gen. 2:16f.; 3:8f.), he is firmly told that man cannot see the face of God and live (Ex.33:20). Paul testifies to the fact that even the law was delivered by angels (Gal. 3:19, cf. 1:8; Acts 7:53). The implication of this is apparently not so much that sin is a barrier (though it is, cf. Isa. 59:2, etc.) but that the flesh as flesh is. In other words, the material creation, though testifying to the power and glory of God (Rom. 1:20), hides the divine essence just as Jesus’ flesh obscured his glory during the days of his incarnation.

John tells us in 1:14 that ‘we’, that is, the apostles have seen the glory of the Word ‘tabernacled’ in flesh (cf. 1 John 1:1-3) both before and after the resurrection (Luke 24:39; John 20:29). John 2:11 intimates that Jesus’ glory is manifested by the signs or works he performs (cf. 11:4,40). Later it becomes evident that his greatest glory is revealed in his crucifixion, resurrection and exaltation to heaven (12:23; 13:32; 17:1). But as 17:24 implies, the full majesty and splendour of his glory is only displayed in heaven (cf. Rev. 5:12) when it is no restricted by earthly limitations.

In John 14:9 Jesus tells Philip that he who has seen him has seen the Father. Clearly physical vision is not involved but spiritual discernment is. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:14 the unregenerate or natural man does not understand the gifts of the Spirit since they are spiritually discerned. Since God himself is spirit, in this world he can only be seen spiritually (cf. Heb. 11:27). And those who are dominated by the physical or material of this world are blind to his reality (cf. 2 Cor. 4:3f.). In light of this, it is scarcely surprising that the glory of Christ (John 1:14; 2 Cor. 3:18; 1 John 1:1f.) and his cross though perceived by the apostles is hidden from disbelievers. Believers on the other hand who are led by the Spirit of God not only see his glory but are slowly but surely being changed into his likeness (2 Cor. 3:18) not merely morally but generically (cf. Phil. 3:21). Furthermore Paul tells us that though now we see only dimly as in a mirror, the time will come when we shall see face to face (1 Cor. 13:12).

This is clearly in harmony with Jesus’ so-called high-priestly prayer where he asks the Father that those who belong to him may see his glory (John 17:24). Even though Moses’ desire to see the divine glory was not granted and he only saw the invisible by faith (Heb. 11:27), the promise was firmly embedded in the OT revelation. While Isaiah can draw attention to the fact that God is a devouring fire in whose presence no flesh can dwell (33:14, cf. Dt. 4:24; 9:3; Jas. 5:3) and Paul insist that God is inaccessible in light (1 Tim. 6:16), nonetheless the hope is that the King or Messiah will be seen in his beauty (Isa. 33:17, cf. Ps. 27:4) and the Lord in his glory (Isa. 66:18). In light of all this it is scarcely surprising that in heaven before the throne of God and the Lamb worshippers will see his face (Rev. 22:4). Here the hurdles constituted by both the flesh and sin will have been overcome respectively by transformation and atonement. While access to God is a spiritual reality during life on earth (Eph. 2:18; 3:12; Heb. 4:16), in heaven the curtain that formed a barrier but was torn aside by the death of Jesus will have been totally obliterated (Heb. 10:19-22) and we shall be welcomed into the Father’s house (John 14:3, cf. 12:26). Truly the Lord will be there (Ezek. 48:35).

With all this in mind, we can begin to appreciate why Jesus taught the necessity of the new birth (John 3) and Paul the need for transformation (1 Cor. 15:50-55). While on the one hand the natural man even apart from sin (naturally) lacks the capacity to perceive spiritual reality (1 Cor. 2:14) as Jesus intimates in John 3:3, the deliberately sinful man blinds himself (John 8:43f., cf. 2 Cor. 4:3f.). Regrettably, under Augustinian influence, the church has put all its emphasis on sin, ignoring the fact that even Adam in his so-called righteousness and holiness could not see God. That was the goal, not the beginning, of his creation. This is implied of course by the promise that he would gain eternal life if he kept the commandment (Gen. 2:17, cf. Rom. 7:9). He failed (cf. Rom. 7:10), and his failure necessitated the arrival of a second Adam who would live the perfect(ed) human life and enter the very presence of his Father as man (1* That is, as man spiritually perfected but certainly not incarnate as some seem to imagine. This Paul specifically forbids, 1 Cor. 15:50, cf. Heb. 2:7,9.), thereby paving the way for the rest of us. While Matthew (27:51), Mark (15:38) and Luke (23:45) tell us that the temple curtain has been torn in two, the author of Hebrews indicates that Jesus entered the inner shrine behind the curtain as our forerunner (Heb. 6:19f.), or again, as we have already seen, that through the curtain of his flesh he enables us to draw near in full assurance of faith (Heb. 10:19-22).

It is then not simply sin but our creation as flesh in a material world that prevents our seeing God who is spirit. Paul was very aware of this when he wrote his letters to the Corinthians. He realized that while he was at home in the body (of flesh) he was away from the Lord and that being away from that body and at home with the Lord is better (2 Cor. 5:6,8; Phil. 1:21,23). So if we could ask him how to overcome his problem, he would doubtless reply that resurrection transformation is necessary and this he spells out in 1 Corinthians 15:42-55 (cf. Rom. 8:23). As an adopted child of the immortal God, mortal man needs a spiritual body to enable him to enter the divine presence and see his glory. But this as Paul intimates has been God’s intention from the start (2 Cor. 5:5). Man is not only to be presented blameless before his immortal and incorruptible Maker (Eph. 1:4) but he is also to be perfected or glorified generically as his child in the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21).

The expression ‘the harvest of the earth’ comes from Revelation 14:15. Since the book of Revelation is highly symbolical and difficult to interpret in places, the expression immediately prompts the question of its meaning. As it happens, apart from OT references like Joel 3:13 and Jeremiah 51:33, a harvest (cf. vintage, ampelos, in Rev. 14:19) is referred to elsewhere in the NT. In the circumstances, it might well prove worthwhile setting the scene by examining the concept in a different context, not least since I take it that the book of Revelation is an apocalyptic summary or recapitulation of biblical teaching in general.

In Matthew 3:11f. John the Baptist, in the process of warning his fellow Jews to repent, tells them that he who is coming after him, that is, Jesus, will baptize them not with water but with the Holy Spirit and with fire. He adds that while Jesus will gather his wheat into the granary, he will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. John is clearly using figurative language. Bluntly, he is implying that good people will be saved for God but that evil people will be thrown on to the garbage heap (gehenna) to be consumed by fire. This of course fits in with the OT idea that God himself is a devouring fire (Dt. 4:24; 9:3, cf. Heb. 12:29).

In Matthew 13 Jesus himself takes up the theme of harvest. First, he tells the parable of the sower, which relates to fruit bearing (13:3-9), and explains it in verses 18-23. Then in verses 24-30, rather like John the Baptist in 3:12, he tells ‘another parable’ about wheat and tares representing good people who are sown by Christ himself and evil people who are sown by ‘an enemy’ during the course of this age. However, they are not to be separated until harvest time at the end of the age (cf. John 5:28f.). Then, like the chaff, the weeds will be burnt and the wheat gathered into Christ’s barn (cf. Mt. 13:47-50).

Next, when his disciples ask him to elaborate on the parable of the weeds, Jesus explains in verses 37-43 that he, the Son of man, is the sower of good seed in the field, which is the world (v.38), and that the weeds are the sons of the evil one. He goes on to indicate that at harvest time at the end of the age he will send his angels to do the reaping and to extract from his kingdom all those who have “done lawlessness” (cf. Zeph. 1:3) or have served as stumbling blocks causing others to do so (v.41).

First Fruits

In association with harvest we may well consider the first fruits. In Exodus 23:16, for example, the Israelites are commanded to keep the feast of harvest, of the first fruits of their labour. And in verse 19 they are told to bring the first of the first fruits of the ground into the house of the Lord (cf. Num.18:12). In light of this it is not at all surprising that Paul describes the resurrected Christ himself as the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep (1 Cor. 15:20), for he entered or returned to his Father’s house as the pioneer of those who belong to him (15:23, cf. Heb. 2:10-13; 12:2). Thus in Romans 8:23 Paul asserts that Christians, who have received the Holy Spirit as believers in Christ, have the first fruits of the Spirit and, in concert with the Spirit (v.26), groan inwardly as they await in faith the full redemption of adoption. This is in essence the scenario sketched by Jesus himself in John 14:2f.

Again James remarks in his letter (1:18, cf. v.21, Rev. 14:4) that those who are brought forth by God’s word of truth are the first fruits of his creatures suggesting, like Romans 11:16, that there are others to follow in their train. The same conclusion may be drawn from Hebrews 11 where it is indicated that those believers who were the beneficiaries of the covenants made historically before that made with Christ will nonetheless form part of the total harvest (Heb. 11:39f.). What this indicates is that just as Christ’s atonement covers the sins of the whole world horizontally so it does vertically (1 John 2:2, cf. Heb. 9:15; Luke 10:2; John 4:35). In other words, redemption by the blood of the Lamb covers all believers throughout history (cf. Rev. 7:9).

In John 15 Jesus describes himself as the true vine. Originally, of course, Israel, the seed of Abraham, was the vine (Isa. 5:1-7) stemming from Egypt (Ps. 80:8) meant to bear the fruit of blessing to the nations and to be their light (Isa. 42:6; 49:6,8). Israel himself failed, though the promise of better stood firm (cf. Zech. 8:12f.), and in the event Jesus who epitomized Abraham’s seed (Gal. 3:16) brought light and blessing to the world (John 8:12; Gal. 3:14). It follows from this that all who are in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, are Abraham’s spiritual seed and heirs according to promise (Gal. 3:29).

Israel, the chosen nation, is also portrayed as an olive tree. In Romans 11 Paul, like Jesus in John 15, maintains that the root supports the branches. He stresses the fact that despite Israel’s disobedience God’s plan is served. If the dough offered as first fruits is holy, so is the whole lump (v.16). Thus believers in Christ will be where he is and live as he lives (John 14:3,19). Again, the implication is that the true Israel, that is Christ, accomplished what Israel failed to do. And in the end despite universal disobedience (v.32) “all Israel” (v.26) will be saved.

Revelation 14

If what we have gleaned from the evidence somewhat cursorily scanned above is in essence correct, then in light of it we are in a position to take a look at Revelation 14. In verse 3 we read that the forty-four thousand, that is, all believing Israel sealed by the Spirit (cf. 5:9; 7:1-8) are redeemed from the earth (apo tes ges). Then in verse 4 we are told that they are redeemed as first fruits from mankind. There appear to be at least two implications here. First, “Israel” is “first fruits” implying that there are others (cf. Mt. 25:31ff.) and, second, that as at Sodom and Gomorrah, while both wicked people and their (earthly) habitat are destroyed, righteous people are like Lot redeemed (cf. Luke 17:28-30). These conclusions would seem to receive general support from Revelation 14:14-20. For here the earth is first reaped when the harvest is ripe and then subjected to fire. This highlights the contrast between those who dwell on the earth (Rev. 6:10; 8:13; 11:10f.) whose portion is in this world (Ps. 17:14; Mt. 6:2,5,16) and those whose citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1-5, cf. Rev. 11:12).

This seems to be the pattern throughout Scripture as an examination of passages like Mark 4, 13, 1 Corinthians 15:35-57, 2 Thessalonians 1:7f., 2 Thessalonians 2:8, 2 Peter 3:7,10-12, Hebrews 6:7f. (cf. Jude 12) and 12:27-29 seem to indicate.

The Redemption of Creation?

Having said this, we are forced to recognize that modern evangelical theology governed as it is by the Augustinian worldview apparently sees things differently. It talks in terms not simply of the spiritual redemption (which surely corresponds with spiritual regeneration) or of the believing man and woman made in the image of God but of the redemption of the material and even inanimate creation. In view of this it is necessary to examine some of its perceptions.

If we go back to the beginning of the Bible, we shall find, first, that there is no covenant with creation. (1* See further my articles Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?, The End of the World, The Corruptibility of Creation, Concerning Futility, etc.) Second, the flood threatens the total destruction of the earth (Gen. 6:13), apparently because it has failed to produce the required fruit (harvest) of godly men and women (Gen. 6:11f., cf. Heb. 6:7f.; Jude 12). Destruction is in the event averted by God’s gracious covenant commitment to Noah. This covenant, however, like that with Moses (cf. Mt. 5:18; 2 Cor. 3, etc.), though referred to as everlasting (Gen. 9:16) in a this-worldly sense (cf. Isa. 54:10), relates only to this age (Gen. 8:22) and stands in direct contrast with the Christian covenant which is eternal (Mt. 24:35; Heb. 9:15; 13:20). In other words, it will be effective only until God’s purpose of human salvation is accomplished (cf. Jer. 31:35f.; 33:19-22). At this point the inference would appear to be that the physical creation, which was according to Genesis 1 good or useful (cf. Gen. 2:9; 3:6), has now served its purpose and can be dispensed with. Once its harvest has been reaped, the earth, like the uninhabited wilderness which is desolate and fruitless producing only thorns and thistles (cf. 2 Sam. 23:6), can be obliterated (Heb. 6:7f., cf. Rev. 21:1-5). The partial destruction of the flood will be complemented and completed when both people and habitat succumb to fire (Luke 17:26-30; Mt. 22:1-10; 2 Thes. 1:7f.; 2:8; Heb. 12:27-29; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12).

On reflection, this is precisely what Paul seems to be implying in Romans 8:18-25. Despite the quite unwarranted (and to my knowledge totally unsubstantiated) traditional tendency to read Genesis 3:17-19, regarded simply as a punishment for sin, into this passage, Paul is contrasting the sufferings of the present age with the glory of the age to come. He noticeably fails to mention sin. This being so, the inference is that the physical creation, which is by nature temporal since it has both a beginning and an end (Gen. 1:1; 2 Pet. 3:7, 10-12), is also by nature corruptible and never intended like its incorruptible Creator to ‘remain’ (Heb. 1:10-12. It should be noted that creation stands in contrast with its Creator throughout Scripture. See e.g. Gen. 8:22; Ps. 90:2; Isa.13:9-13; 40:6-8; 51:6; 54:10; Zeph. 1:18; 3:8; Mt. 24:35; 1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:17.).

But if creation, the earth in particular, is temporal and corruptible, so is the flesh it produces (cf. Gen. 2:7; Isa. 51:8). Here Paul again has something pertinent to say. He expressly denies that flesh and blood can inherit the (spiritual) kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50) and insists that transformation is inherent in the divine purpose and plan of salvation (1 Cor. 15:51). This is hardly surprising since Jesus, contrary to the assertions of Augustinian theology, taught the same thing. In John 3:1-8, he tells Nicodemus in no uncertain terms that it is necessary (not imperative) to be born again. And this rebirth or birth from above is, contrary to the vagaries of Nicodemus’ thinking (3:4), spiritual not fleshly. (It is sad to say that those who advocate the redemption of creation have taken their cue from Nicodemus instead of from Jesus. For the corollary of the regeneration of the flesh which stems from the earth is the redemption of the material world! See again below.) Furthermore, even the incarnate Jesus who daily grew older so long as he remained on the earth (cf. Luke 2:41-50; John 8:57) had also been subject to the same necessity. He too had had to experience new birth (= be acknowledged as God’s Son, Mt. 3:13-17, cf. our adoption, Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5f.), that is, to receive eternal life. In other words, he had to receive the fulfilment of the promise made to mortal Adam at his baptism, and this he did by keeping the commandment(s) (Gen. 2:17, cf. Dt. 30:15-20, etc.). With him his Father was well pleased and publicly acknowledged him as his Son. (Though Jesus was God’s Son by nature he had to prove himself such by action. In his case, ontology and function had to match. A sinless Father required a sinless Son. Had Jesus sinned he would have proved himself a fraud and his claims spurious.) Eventually, when he had laid down his life for his sheep, his resurrection, including his ascension, transformation, exaltation and heavenly session, made him first fruits indeed. And since this is so, we also through faith are united and belong to him. We too will undergo resurrection and change (cf. Phil. 3:21). We too, as the spiritual progeny of God (John 1:13; 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9), will have spiritual or heavenly bodies (1 Cor. 15:35-57). But since these are destroyed as flesh (2 Cor. 5:1), they will require redemption (Rom. 8:23).  (2* Those who appeal to Romans 8:23 to support the redemption of creation are surely misguided. The corollary of the latter is the redemption of the flesh, which Paul specifically denies, 1 Cor. 15:50, and implies in Col. 3:5, cf. Phil. 3:19; Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8. Dunn correctly distinguishes between sarx and soma and asserts that the force of sarx is precisely that it implies an unavoidable attachment to this age and must therefore perish before redemption can be complete, Romans p.391. See also his The Theology of Paul the Apostle, pp.70-73. He alludes appositely to Romans 8:11,23. The latter verse suggests a distinction between the groaning arising from creation’s birth pangs, Mt.24:8, and that of believers who have the first fruits of the Spirit who intercedes for them, Rom. 8:26. The Spirit no more intercedes for creation than Christ dies for it! Creation was initially uncovenanted and only perpetuated for man’s salvation. Gen. 8:22.) Colossians 3:1-5, like Luke 13:1-5 and 1 John 2:15-17, implicitly distinguishes between sin and temporality/corruptibility.)

The truth is there is nothing in the NT to suggest that creation was once perfect (“good” in a moral sense) as opposed to useful but is now “fallen” and cursed on account of Adam, and thus requires redemption. What grows old, like the law which was temporal (cf. 2 Cor. 3:11), is by nature intended to pass away (2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 8:13, cf. 1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:17) quite irrespective of sin. Even Jesus, who as incarnate became part of creation only “for a little while” (Heb. 2:7,9) and himself grew older, failed to alter its corruptible constitution (cf. Heb. 2:8). God always had human transformation or what was new (to us) in mind from the start (2 Cor. 5:5). Sin was not in the picture except insofar as it prevented the fulfillment of the promise to Adam. But Christ remedied that.

The Goal of Creation

God formed creation to be inhabited by man created in his image (Gen. 1; Isa. 45:12,18; Acts 17:26f.). And since the goal of creation was the adoption of believers as his children (Rom. 8:19-21; Eph. 1:3-6) and their conformity to his moral and generic likeness in Christ (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:24; Phil. 3:21), creation itself does not form part of the harvest. The field may be reaped (Mt. 13:38; Rom. 8:18-25) but once its harvest has been garnered its own preservation is as superfluous as it is purposeless (Heb. 6:7f.). What is inherently corruptible, cannot inherit incorruption (1 Cor. 15:50). What is ‘made by hand’ (Isa. 45:12; 48:13) must make way for what is ‘not made by hand’ (2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 9:11,24). The first is abolished so that the second may be established (Heb. 10:9).

Fruitlessness

The picture painted by the Bible is consistent. Fruitlessness leads to destruction (cf. Gen. 6:13, cf. Heb. 6:7f.; Jude 12). This is true of Israel according to the flesh (Isa. 5:1-7; Mt. 21:23; 23:38, cf. the fig tree of Luke 13:6-9 and Mt. 20:1-15; 21:28-31,33-41), of the nations classified as goats (Mt. 25:41), of branches (John 15:6), of the flesh as such (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18,24; 8:6, cf. Gal. 6:7f.) and of the earth (Luke 17:27-30; Heb. 6:7f.; 12:27). Little wonder that Paul counted as rubbish all his fleshly attachments (Phil. 3:7) and could say that both the flesh and the world were crucified so far as he was concerned (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24; 6:14f.). After all, as the slave of Christ he was but following in the steps of his Lord who epitomised slavery to his Father’s will (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; Rom. 15:3, cf. Phil. 2:7). The only apparent exception to the rule of fruitlessness that I can think of is to be found in 1 Corinthians 3:15 (cf. Jude 23) where Paul, wonderfully appreciative of the riches of God’s grace, entertains the notion of the salvation of believers who fail to produce good works (cf. Mt. 13:18-23 where only the first group, v.19, belong to the devil). Strictly speaking, only sons produce good works (Mt. 13:23; Eph. 2:10, cf. Mt. 17:26f.). Servants can only do as they are commanded, and at best they are unprofitable (Luke 17:7-10). They may be fruitless but this does not necessarily mean that they are faithless and reprobate (cf. 2 Thes. 3:2).

Salvation: Spiritual, Corporate, Corporeal and Personal

What all this points to is that salvation or redemption has to do with man as the image of God not as flesh in the image of Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49). The latter, like the physical creation as such (Heb. 12:27), is removed and replaced by the former (cf. Heb. 10:9). God so loved the world (of man) that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should have eternal life. So, as God’s children born of the Spirit (John 1:13; 3:5f.; 1 John 3:9), we shall live in the spirit like God himself (1 Pet. 4:6). When this occurs, the old creation will have passed away and the new (to us) will be eternal reality (Rev. 21:1-5). The present age will have given way to the age to come which, since it is eternal, already exists (cf. Heb. 6:5). And Jesus, in returning to his Father, has gone ahead to prepare our place (John 14:2f.).

_____________________________________________________

Reference

J.D.G.Dunn, WBC Romans 1-8, Dallas, 1988.
The Theology of Paul the Apostle, London/New York, 1998, 2003 ed.

Dispensationalists, who characteristically emphasise a literal interpretation of the Bible, frequently criticise others for adopting an allegorising or spiritualising approach. Thus Ryrie writes, “Covenant theologians are well known for their stand on allegorical interpretation especially as it relates to the prophetic Word, and they are equally well known for their amillennialism which is only the natural outcome of allegorising” (p.20). On the same page by way of contrast he writes, “… dispensationalism claims to employ principles of literal, plain or normal, interpretation consistently.” A little later he adds, “If plain or normal interpretation is the only valid hermeneutical principle, and if it is consistently applied, it will cause one to be a dispensationalist” (p.21).

My initial response to this is twofold: first, I myself am a dispensationalist of sorts, though certainly not one of the traditional variety, and I am equally certainly not led to my position by means of a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture. Second, I would want to make a distinction between allegorising and spiritualising. If allegorisation means in practice violating the original intention of Scripture and obliterating the historical element in a particular revelation, then I want none of it. On the other hand, if the Bible can have both a proximate and a more remote meaning, or, as it is often perhaps more appropriately expressed, a primary and a plenary sense, then I have no qualms with spiritualisation. (According to Mathison, p.6, even C.I.Schofield in the Schofield Bible Correspondence Course, pp.45f., once wrote: “It is then permitted – while holding firmly the historical verity – reverently to spiritualise the historical Scriptures.”) Thus in 2 Samuel 7, for example, David’s primary reference is to his son Solomon; more distantly under the inspiration of the Spirit he was referring to the Son who was also his Lord. Indeed, this seems to be fundamental to a proper understanding of the Bible, as I shall endeavour to indicate below (1* For other examples see especially G.E. Ladd, who was a classical premillennialist but not a dispensationalist, on Premillennialism in “The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. R.G.Clouse, Downers Grove, 1977.).

Before leaving this question of hermeneutics, it needs to be strongly insisted that the spiritual does not imply the non-literal but the true (cf. John 6:63; Heb. 8:2, etc.). Spiritual realities are every bit as real or literal as natural ones. Paul goes so far as to say that real life is spiritual life (1 Tim. 6:19).

Apart from its foundation in Augustinian hamartiology or doctrine of sin, the Dispensationalist criticism of spiritualisation appears to be driven by insistence on a false distinction between Israel and the Church, which leads to the idea that certain promises made to Israel must receive a literal fulfilment. This gives rise to the notion of an OT-style earthly millennium during which Christ reigns as King from the earthly Jerusalem. Without going into unnecessary detail, I, along with others, would point out that the evidence of Scripture indicates that just as some of the promises made to Abraham and David are fulfilled in Christ, so the promises made to Israel in the OT are fulfilled in the Church in the NT. There the Israel of God (Gal. 6:15) is surely to be equated with the Church (1 Cor. 10:32) which is made up of all believers Jew and/or Gentile (John 10:16; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:15; 4:13; Col. 3:11, 1 Pet. 2:9, etc., cf. Heb. 11 which has the same implication espec. in vv.39f.). If this is the biblical picture, then it ought not to be unduly difficult to find plenty of evidence for the spiritualisation of the essentially material promises of the OT.

Children of Flesh and Children of Promise

First, however, it needs to be made clear that the seeds of the spiritualisation process are found in the OT itself. Indeed, what I have just written regarding Israel requires qualification, for the Israel that forms part of the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16) is not Israel, the elect nation as a whole, whose branches are pruned, but only its spiritual core. According to the book of Genesis there is a distinction to be made between Abraham’s fleshly seed, Ishmael, and his child of promise, Isaac. In Genesis 17 it is made clear to Abraham that though both his sons are to be given the covenant sign of circumcision (17:25-27), but the everlasting covenant is established with Isaac alone (17:19-21). Thus, as Paul points out in Galatians 4:29f., the slave Hagar and her ‘fleshly’ son Ishmael, who persecuted ‘spiritual’ Isaac, are cast out (Gen. 21:10-12, cf. John 8:35). The present Jerusalem, the wicked city of Ezekiel (7:23; 9:9), corresponding as it does with Mount Sinai which is in bondage to law, is in violent contrast with the heavenly Jerusalem which is free (cf. Heb. 12:22). There is more to be said, however, for the spiritualisation process is taken even further and completed in Christ (Gal. 3:7-9,14,29). So while physical Israel, or the children according to the flesh, is cursed, the spiritual children, including Gentiles who are justified by faith, are blessed with Abraham (Gal. 3:14) and Isaac (Rom. 9:7, cf. 2:28f.).

The Land

But if Abraham’s fleshly and spiritual seed are differentiated, so is the land he, or at least his descendants, was to inherit. Here we might well infer along with the author of Hebrews that the land originally promised to Abraham never materialised in this world (cf. Acts 7:5). Far from inferring that the promise had failed, we draw the conclusion that this became part of his eternal heavenly inheritance (Heb. 11:8-16; 13:14, cf. Rom. 4:13). In other words, Abraham and all his spiritual children, both Jew and Gentile, who believe the promises of God receive a better provision and are perfected together (11:39f.). What matters in the end are not material riches, which undergo corruption, but heavenly or spiritual ones (cf. Mt. 6:19f., Luke 12:33, etc.). And it is on these that believers, whose calling (Phil 3:14; Heb. 3:1) and citizenship are heavenly (Phil. 3:20, cf. Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1-5), set their hearts (cf. Tit. 2:13).

The pattern is the same throughout the Bible as reflection on the difference between Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob and Jeroboam the son of Nebat (e.g. 1 K. 16:2f.,19,26) and David (e.g. 1 K. 9:4; 15:3-5) makes clear. And the contrast between the disobedient slaves who in disbelief refused to aspire to the land flowing with milk and honey that God had promised and those who entered it by faith is referred to repeatedly for purposes of illustration (Ps. 106; 1 Cor. 10, etc.). With regard to the latter, while it may be admitted that the Promised Land was material or physical, initially it had to be possessed by faith after the manner of Abraham, Joshua and Caleb. In light of this, it is hardly surprising that the “land”, like the “rest”, offered to Christians is also “spiritual” as the author of Hebrews strongly emphasises (see respectively chs. 11 and 3-4). Thus the difference between the temporal material and the eternal spiritual is one of the basic themes of Scripture, and failure to recognise it is to err at foundation level. In the words of the author of Hebrews, the first is abolished to make room for the second (10:9).

Jesus’ Stress on the Spiritual

Even if we are unable to appreciate the spiritual nature of God’s promise to Abraham of children (cf. Rom. 9:6-13), land (Heb. 11:8-16) and blessing to the world (Gen. 17:4-6; Isa. 42:6; Rom. 4:13; Gal. 3:29), it is almost impossible not to recognise that Jesus himself constantly distinguished between the material and the spiritual. For example, during his temptation by the devil, drawing on the book of Deuteronomy, he points out that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Mt. 4:4). Then, having already stressed the eternal quality of the water he gives (4:14, cf. Isa. 55:1f.), he distinguishes between the corruptible manna in the wilderness and the true bread from heaven (John 6:27,32-35, 48-51). In the same chapter where he had implicitly rejected an earthly kingship in favour of a heavenly one (v.15, cf. 18:36; Mt. 4:10), he insists that those who believe in him will eat his flesh and drink his blood (vv. 53-55). And that his meaning had to be taken in a spiritual sense is explicitly spelt out in verse 63 (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6). Again, even though the law commanded all Jews to honour their parents, Jesus does not hesitate to differentiate between physical and spiritual relationships by claiming believers as his true family members (Mark 3:34f.). Further, it goes almost without saying that, following the OT (e.g. Ps. 49), Jesus underlines the transitory nature of all material things (Mt. 6:19f.; 24:35; Luke 12:13-21, etc.).

The Temple

If those who spiritualise aspects of the OT like Ezekiel’s temple are accused of taking liberties with the text, they must be excused on the ground that Jesus himself did the same. Indeed, the case of the temple is of prime significance in this regard. First, in a pointed phrase in John 1:14 we read that Jesus dwelt or “tabernacled” among his people as God had done in the wilderness. Then Jesus himself told the Jews in chapter 2:19-21 that his body was the true temple implying that it was the dwelling place of the Spirit of God (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16f.; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16). This idea is extended further in Revelation 21:22 (cf. Heb. 8:2) where it is made clear that the ultimate temple is in fact the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb.

The spiritual as opposed to the physical nature of the true temple is taught elsewhere. In Mark 14:58 false witnesses who could not agree among themselves claim that Jesus said that he would destroy Herod’s temple and build another not made by hands in three days. This somewhat garbled version of what was actually said (cf. John 2:19 referred to above) bears remarkable similarity to Paul’s reference to the physical body in 2 Corinthians 5:1. In view of this, we are led to draw the inference that the mortal, corruptible body of flesh (cf. 2 Cor. 4:11), which is presently ours, will give way to a heavenly or spiritual body fit for eternity. This clearly ties in with what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:35-55. For all that, many Christians still hanker after a body of flesh in a redeemed earth! But this is no more possible than a material temple (cf. Mark 14:58 and 2 Cor. 5:1) whether made by Moses, Solomon or Herod which at best is only a shadow of the true (Heb. 8:5).

The Heavenly Priest-King

First, we need to note that the David promised by Jeremiah (e.g. 30:9; 33:15) and Ezekiel (34:23f.) is not David redivivus but his Son who is cast in a somewhat different, more spiritual, mould.

Indeed, the contrast between David and his greater Son is plain for all to see in Scripture. David was only a type who reigned physically on the throne in Jerusalem. Jesus was never king or priest in this world. The author of Hebrews goes out of way to show that Jesus, being from Judah, was disqualified on genealogical grounds from being a priest on earth (7:14; 8:4). He is nonetheless a priest who has made purification for the sins of his people and sits as their high priest at God’s right hand (Heb. 1:3; 2:17f.). He has thus rendered redundant the entire Levitical system including the tabernacle/temple. So far as his kingship is concerned Jesus does not deny before Pilate that he was born to kingship (John 18:37). But he explicitly denies that his kingship is of this world. If it were, he implies that it would follow the pattern of David’s kingship and be based on human power and fighting ability (John 18:36). It is interesting to note that in the OT David, as a man of blood, did not build the temple but left it to his son Solomon to build. A further point worthy of note is that Peter distinguishes between David and Jesus in Acts 2 where he indicates that David’s earthly remains are still entombed with them at the present time (v.29). In contrast, the body of Jesus that was raised from the dead underwent transformation (replacement) at his ascension into heaven, the realm of the spirit. His earthly grave was empty.

The angel Gabriel told the Virgin Mary that God would give her son the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32). In light of the above and of Acts 2:29-36; 15:16f. (2* The comment of F.F.Bruce, a member of the Plymouth Brethren throughout his life, on these verses is worth reproducing: “The primary sense of the MT is that the fallen fortunes of the royal house of David will be restored and it will rule over all the territory which had been included in David’s empire. But James’s application of the prophecy finds the fulfilment of its first part (the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David) in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, the Son of David, and the reconstitution of His disciples as the new Israel, and the fulfilment of its second part in the presence of believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews in the Church (cf. p.158, on Ch. 7:46)”, The Book of Acts, London, 1954, p.310.), for example, it is scarcely surprising that the Jesus who is King of kings and Lord of Lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16) exercises his sovereign mediatorial rule not on an earthly throne but seated at God’s right hand in the heavenly realm from where he is slowly but surely putting all things, including his enemies, under his feet (Mt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-28).

Jerusalem

Just as there are two Israels in Scripture, so there are two Jerusalems or Zions. The first, the earthly city, is described by Ezekiel, for example, as violent (7:23) and bloody (9:9; 24:6,9) and ripe for destruction (cf. Mt. 23:37f.). While it can, like the earthly temple, be attacked, destroyed, rebuilt and finally rendered redundant, the second, the heavenly, is permanent (cf. Joel 3:20) and not subject to the ravages of time and corruption. While Paul refers to the new Jerusalem as our mother (Gal. 4:26) and John as a bride (Rev. 21:2), the author of Hebrews describes Zion as a city of joy and festivity, the city of God (11:10; 12:22) which lasts forever (13:14). The difference between the earthly and the heavenly, the material and the spiritual is beyond dispute.

Two Adams

The contrast made by Paul between the first and second Adams is especially sharp (Rom. 5:21-21; 1 Cor. 15:45-49). The one is physical or fleshly, created from the earth (Gen. 2:7). He is naturally susceptible to weakness, temptation, sin, perishability and death. By contrast the second is spiritual and emanates from heaven. While he voluntarily becomes incarnate and is a true son of the first Adam, he is nonetheless essentially eternal (Heb. 7:3,16,24f.), immortal and even in the flesh uniquely able to overcome temptation, sin and, by resurrection, death (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 7:28). In the providence and purpose of God, we human beings who are created in the image of God are able to share in the nature of both Adams. Ultimately, the physical or natural gives way to the spiritual as moral, corporeal and generic perfection in Christ is achieved (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46; 2 Cor. 5:5).

Circumcision

If the body is subject to spiritualisation as Paul teaches explicitly, for example, in 1 Corinthians 15:44,46, cf. v.50, then so is fleshly circumcision. In the OT it is primarily a physical operation involving the removal of the foreskin to signify membership of the (physical) children of Abraham (Gen. 17:9-14,22-27); and later it is used virtually as a synonym for all Israelites who possess the law (cf. Lev. 12:3; Jos. 5:2-9; Gal. 5:2-4,11; 6:15, etc.). In the NT, however, the elect nation is made up preponderantly of uncircumcised Gentiles (cf. Eph. 2:11). For all that, the latter who exercise faith in Christ are nonetheless, according to Paul, circumcised spiritually (Col. 2:11) and comprise, along with believing Jews, the true circumcision (Rom. 2:28f.; Phil. 3:3). But, if this is so, the implication we necessarily draw is that Israel itself must be spiritualised, and this is precisely what the NT teaches. John the Baptist (Mt. 3:7-12), Jesus (John 8:34ff.; 15:1ff.) and the apostles (Rom. 9:6, etc.) all indicate that Israel is in the last analysis a spiritual rather than a physical entity (Rom. 2:29; 9:6ff.), and the description of Israel at the Exodus as a holy nation and a royal priesthood (Ex. 19:5f.) is applied in the NT to those who exercise faith in Christ (1 Pet. 2:9).

Made By Hand and Not Made By Hand

The phrase “made by hand” is quite common in the OT and frequently refers to the idols which were made by the heathen (e.g. Lev. 26:1,30). What scholars in general, even Lohse (TDNT, 1X, p. 436), seem to miss, however, is that the expression is depreciatory or pejorative (cf. Ps. 135:15-18) even when God himself is the Maker. For instance, God’s rescue of the Israelite slaves from Egypt ”by hand” falls short of his liberation of slaves from sin in the NT. For the latter is accomplished, as has just been implied in the previous paragraph, not so much by strength of hand (Ex. 3:19f.; 6:1; 13:3;15:6), arm (Dt. 4:34) or even finger (Ex. 8:19) but by spiritual means – first, by the death of Christ and, secondly, by the work of the Holy Spirit himself. In fact, the various references to “not made by hand” (acheiropoietos) in the NT are highly instructive and stand in strong contrast to whatever, including but not only the idols of the heathen (Ps. 135:15; Isa. 44; Jer. 10), is made by hand. For as Hebrews 1:10-12 (cf. Ps. 8:3) makes clear, while creation itself as made by the hand God is of limited value and duration and is subject to eventual destruction or removal (12:27), heaven, the dwelling place of God, is eternal, clearly not of this creation (9:11,24). Again, while man is “made by hand” (Job 10:8f.; Ps. 119:73), he needs to be born of the Spirit from above (cf. John 3:6), in other words made “not by hand”, that is, not manufactured as Adam originally was from the earth. (The difference between the mortal fleshly Jesus (cf. 1 Pet. 3:18, etc.), the son of Adam (Luke 3:38) and the immortal Son of God (Heb. 7:3,16,24,28) ought to be plain to all.)

The Letter to the Hebrews

All this points to a radical process of spiritualisation which is one of the basic characteristics of biblical theology. The movement from flesh to spirit is fundamental (1 Cor. 15:44,46, cf. v.23). This is nowhere made more transparent than in the letter to the Hebrews where the word ‘better’ might well be used as an indicator. Thus we are introduced to better things (6:9), a better hope (7:19), a better covenant (7:22; 8:6), a better ministry (8:6), better promises (8:6), better sacrifices (9:23), a better possession (10:34), a better country (11:16), a better life (11:35), a better something (11:40) and a better word (12:24, ESV) not to mention a city whose builder and maker is God (11:10,16; 12:22; 13:14). It is noticeable in this letter that God is portrayed as the Father of spirits in contrast with our fleshly fathers (12:9, cf. v. 23; John 1:13). And it is in this letter in particular that the types and shadows of the OT give way to the spiritual realities associated with Christ (e.g. 10:1ff., cf. 12:18-24).

Covenant

The contrast between the spirituality of the new covenant and the materiality of the old covenant is apparent even in the OT itself and is especially plain in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (cf. Ezek. 11:19; 36:26f., 37:26). The author of Hebrews (8:8-12) draws attention to this text and proceeds to indicate that the old covenant as such is obsolescent (8:13) like the material creation itself (1:11). He even goes so far as to say that the law is weak and useless and quite incapable of making anything perfect (7:18f.). Though his emphasis may differ (cf. Rom. 7:12; 8:3), Paul also teaches that the “handwritten” law (Col. 2:14) lacks the capacity to give life (Gal. 3:21) and is in the process of disappearing (2 Cor. 3). And in light of Matthew 5:18, 24:35 and 28:20 it is not difficult to believe that the apostolic stress on the contrast between the old and new covenants stemmed from the teaching of Jesus himself.

In sum, the material old (or first) is abolished so that the spiritual new (or second) may be established (Heb. 10:9, cf. 1 Cor. 13:10; 15:45-50; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 5:6; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:11, etc.). In the words of the author of Hebrews, all created things are ultimately destined for removal (12:27, cf. 2 Cor. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:14; Rev. 20:11; 21:1,4). From this we may conclude that while restoration is a basic theme in the OT, removal and replacement figure prominently in the NT.

Spiritualisation is intrinsic to Scripture, and given that our destiny is the presence of God who is spirit (1 Pet. 3:18; 4:6; Heb. 2:10), this is hardly occasion for surprise.

_________________________________________________

References

K.A.Mathison, Dispensationalism, Phillipsburg, 1995.

TDNT, 1X.

_________________________________________________

1.    Paul deals with actual sin against (the) law throughout Romans 1:18-3:20. He teaches that sin is grounded in and defined by law which holds us accountable (3:19f.). In light of this, the presumption that his assertion in 5:12 that “all (have) sinned” (cf. 3:23) refers to actual sin is immense. See further 4 below.

2.    According to Romans 1:26f., human beings are required to act according to their (birth) nature. If we are born sinful, then we are under compulsion to sin or be convicted of sinning against nature. This point is underlined by 2:14. The logic of sin by (birth) nature suggests that when the Gentiles do by nature what the law requires, they are behaving sinfully! At this point we are clearly in the realm of absurdity. The plain truth is that will precedes nature (cf. John 8:34; Eph. 2:1-3). Our moral nature is acquired by breaking or keeping the law as it was in the case of Adam and Eve who without the commandment knew neither good nor evil.

3.    Sin is a work of disobedience performed against law, while righteousness is a work of obedience performed according to law (Rom. 2:12f.,27; 9:31f., etc.).

4.    Next, the implication of Romans 4:1-8 is that if the imputation of Adam’s sin exists, it cannot by definition deserve death (4:1-8, cf. 6:23; 8:10). Bluntly, imputation (free gift) and wages are mutually exclusive. So, since according to 5:12 death is the result of sin, the latter MUST be actual not imputed. Imputation, which does not pay wages, is necessarily excluded. Thus the so-called doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin is built on a glaring fallacy.

5.    Paul consistently and persistently insists that where there is no law there is no sin (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:1-13; 9:11). Apart from law (and/or knowledge, 1:20; 2:1; 3:20; 7:1,7, cf. 1 Sam. 22:15; John 9:41; 15:22,24, etc.) sin does not exist as, for example, in the animal world (cf. Ps. 32:9). Only the Pharisees, in contrast with Jesus (John 9:3), maliciously and fallaciously imputed sin to babies (John 9:2,34).

6.    The woman whose husband had died was free to marry again since the law against her re-marriage died with her husband. Like him, it was as dead (7:2-3,8).

7.    In conformity with his basic argument that where there is no law there is no sin, contrary to most modern translations (contrast KJV) Paul is telling us in 7:5 that the morally neutral natural passions are constituted sinful only when they involve infraction of (the) law (cf. 1:26f.). It is the law precisely that gives sin its sinful character when transgression occurs (7:13). With 7:1-3 in mind we can illustrate his point by saying that David was free to give rein to his passions with Abigail whose husband was dead but not with Bathsheba whose husband was very much alive. The difference lay not in the respective passions, which were a law to themselves (7:23), but in the moral law. While the flesh follows the law of its own nature, the mind discriminates according to revealed law*.  And since even the well-disposed mind (7:22; Ps. 119:14, etc.) cannot stem the tide of fleshly sin, the empowering Spirit of Christ is a dire necessity (8:2, cf. 13:14; Gal. 5:16f.).

8.    In 7:9f. Paul implies that as a baby he did not know the law, so he could neither keep it nor break it. However, like Adam and Eve in the Garden after the commandment was given, he sinned and earned its wages  (cf. 5:12). In light of this, we are again forced to deny that babies who lack the law in any form can be either sinful or righteous (cf. Dt. 1:39, etc.). Judgement by works (2:6) is impossible for them. This inference drawn from 7:9 is reinforced by 9:11. In the womb Esau and Jacob, like Adam and Eve before they received the commandment, did neither good nor evil. Their moral innocence was essential to Paul’s argument regarding election.

9.    As he implied in 7:5, Paul tells us in 7:14 that it is the flesh in conflict with law that gives rise to sin (cf. Gen 3:6; James 1:14f.). The flesh cannot cope with the (spiritual) law. In the flesh only Jesus succeeded (8:3, contrast Ps. 143:2), as God always intended (3:20; 11:32; Acts 17:30f.; Gal. 3:22; Heb. 4:15, etc.).

10.    Animal death (cf. Ps. 49:12,20, etc.), which occurs apart from transgression of the law, proves conclusively that the futility to which Paul refers in 8:18-25 has nothing to do with original sin and its consequent curse. Since the physical creation is corruptible by nature and physical death is universal, living according to the flesh, like living on bread alone, leads inevitably to death (8:13, cf. Gal. 6:8; John 6:49). Even Jesus grew older (Luke 2:41-52; John 8:57) and would have died if he had remained flesh and blood on the earth (1 Cor. 15:50). Even he who was flesh had to be born again or from above (John 3:1-7) to enter the kingdom of heaven. The attempt to link Romans 8:18-25 with Genesis 3:17-19, based as it is on the unbiblical notion of original sin, must be regarded as abortive.

* It has been truly, if crudely, said that an erect penis has no conscience. Sex (procreation, see Gen. 1;19:31), like death (Jos. 23:14; 1 K. 2:2), is the way of all the earth  and is designed to counter the effects of death (cf. Heb. 7:23). In heaven it does not exist (Luke 20:34-36).

A brief syllogism:

First premise: Sin, which is a work, pays the wages of death (Rom. 6:23).

Second premise: Imputation, which is a free gift, excludes wages (Rom. 4:1-8).
Therefore, since according to Romans 5:12 the sin of all paid the wages of death to all,  imputation is ruled out of court.

As noted above, the very notion of the imputation of Adam’s sin apart from faith is based on a glaring fallacy.

Protestant Christians who believe in original sin frequently contend that Romans 5:12-21 portrays an exact, if contrasting, parallel between the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to his people and the sin of Adam to his posterity (1* See especially D.M.Lloyd-Jones, Romans 5, pp.189,197,199, 204f.; and J.Murray, Romans, p.184; The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, pp.20,34,40. The views of both these men are constantly repeated by uncritical admirers such as R.B.Gaffin who refers to a “contrasting parallel” between Adam and Christ in an essay entitled “Atonement in the Pauline Corpus” in “The Glory of the Atonement”, ed. C.E.Hill and F.A. James, p.148. However, they cannot withstand serious scrutiny.

L.Berkhof also refers to the “perfect parallel” between Adam and Christ (p.214). It is interesting to note here that Berkhof assumes what needs to be proved. On the basis of this manifestly imperfect parallel he posits a covenant with Adam which Scripture fails to mention. What is more, he deems Adam to be the covenant head of all his posterity. Including Christ (Luke 3:38)?). Though this thesis is strongly asserted, it is seldom if ever questioned let alone substantiated. While freely acknowledging that Paul treats the two Adams in somewhat analogous fashion, I want to suggest in the following paragraphs that the exact parallel is a delusive figment of the imagination.

Preliminary Observations

The presumption against imputed sin being on Paul’s agenda arises first from the fact that in 1:18-3:20,23 he deals with actual sin against law in some form. (It is worth noting verbs like doing, practising, working in ch. 2.) In 3:19 he claims that it is law precisely that holds all who have knowledge of it accountable, and renders justification by works impossible (3:20)

In line with this, in 2:1-16 Paul lays great stress on the fact that judgement is based on the works of the law (cf. 4:4). Since this is so, Augustine’s claim that unbaptised babies who die are damned as a result of Adam’s sin is clearly false and represents one of the great distortions of biblical teaching. For the traditional dogma of original sin undermines personal responsibility on the one hand and, contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture, hands out condemnation apart from knowledge and works on the other (cf. Mt. 12:7).

In 3:23 and 3:25 Paul’s contention is that God has proved his righteousness by setting forth the death of Christ as an atonement for the actual sins of all believers past and present (cf. 1 John 2:2).

Then in Romans 4:8 the apostle calls attention to the non-imputation of actual sins through faith in Christ’s imputed righteousness. This is arguably the central theme of his entire letter (cf. 1:16f.). The implication is therefore that Paul’s concern throughout is with the actual sin of all human beings, Jew and Gentile alike (3:9,12, 19f.,23; 11:32).

In Romans 4:15 (cf. 5:13; 7:8) the apostle asserts unequivocally that where there is no law there is no sin. Sin imputed to babies that do not know the law (cf. 3:20; 7:1,7) is therefore eliminated from consideration.

So even at this point our inference must be that there is not the faintest suggestion that imputed sin is on his horizon. If it was and Adam’s sin was imputed to all his posterity, there would be two unavoidable consequences. First, Christ himself as a true son of Adam (Lu. 3:38; Heb. 2:17) would be implicated like the rest of his brethren and thus be disqualified from acting as their redeemer. Second, all would individually have to endure its penalty, and this the prophets implicitly deny (Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18:2, cf. Ex. 32:33). As Numbers 14:3,29-33 indicate, while children may suffer on account of their parents’ sins, they are by no means punished for them (cf. Dt. 24:16, etc.). This again deals a mortal blow to the Augustinian claim that babies are tarnished with and damned on account of the original sin of their forefather Adam.

So, on the assumption of the imputation of Adam’s sin, Christ would be disqualified on the one hand and rendered redundant on the other.

For the parallel to hold, a final point needs to be made. If Adam’s sin was imputed to all apart from faith, justice would require Christ’s righteousness to be imputed to all apart from faith. This would lead to universalism which the apostle, like the rest of the biblical writers, manifestly does not hold. In contrast, in 2 Corinthians 5:14f., where the ‘all’ is the same on both sides, the parallel holds good.

In light of these observations, not to mention others, the so-called exact parallel already looks deeply suspect. However, it needs to be scrutinised in its own right.

Paul’s Analogy in Romans 5:12-21

In verse 12 the apostle tells us that because all sinned, all died. Since in 6:23, however, he tells us that death is wages of sin, the sin must be actual, that is, a work that earned the wages of death. But if we assume a parallel, we are forced to conclude that since imputed sin pays wages in death, imputed righteousness pays wages in life. However, since Paul says that life, like the righteousness that leads to it (Rom. 5:21; 6:19,22), is a free gift (6:23, cf. 4:5), we are forced to infer that the assumed parallel is wrong.

In verses 13 and 14 Paul differentiates between sin before and sin under the law of Moses as he did in chapters 1-3, especially in 2:12-16. Apart from the fact that this indicates that he is referring to actual as opposed to imputed sin, it clearly torpedoes the so-called parallelism. For if Adam’s sin is imputed, it is the same in all cases and at all times without exception (that is, not just during the period between Adam and Moses), not different.

Next, the most superficial reading of verses 15-17 highlights the difference between the free gift (of righteousness) and the effect (of Adam’s sin). If Paul was pointing up a parallel, his very language, let alone his meaning, is inexplicable since, on the imputation theory, both are free gifts. Far from producing a parallel, Paul delineates the difference between the free gift of righteousness on the one hand and the effect of Adam’s sin on the other (cf. 6:16). Clearly in Paul’s mind whatever the effect of the latter (which he fails to elucidate), it was not the result of imputation, for sin is by definition a work to which wages in the form of death are due (Rom. 1:32; 4:4; 6:16,21,23, cf. 1 Cor. 3:8,14f.; 9:17; 2 Pet. 2:13,15).

Third, in verse 16 the apostle refers to the judgement and condemnation of sin which he had argued earlier in 2:1-16 were based on works. If imputation were true, the effects would be parallel, and both merit and demerit would be excluded. Clearly they are not, and unsurprisingly in verse 17 Paul distinguishes between the dominion of death, which is wages (cf. 5:12; 6:16,23), and the reign of righteousness and life which is a gift of grace.

Fourth, the same distinction is evident in verse 18, for condemnation, which as we have just seen is earned, is always based on works in Scripture (Mt. 16:27; 25:31ff.; Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 22:12). Whatever Adam’s contribution was, it was no more imputed than that of parents in general (Dt. 24:16; Ps. 106:6; Isa. 65:7; Jer. 31:29f.; 32:18f.; Ezek. 18:2, etc.) even though they are evil (cf. Luke 11:13). As Job long before intimated, such condemnation far from being righteous (cf. Rom. 2:5) is patently unjust (21:19-21, cf. Abraham in Gen. 18:22-33). Regarding righteousness, Paul has already said that it was a free gift (v. 17) and certainly not wages.

Fifth, in verse 19 Paul contents himself by pointing up the different effects the respective actions of Adam and Jesus had on other people. Here at least there is a contrasting parallel. However, he conspicuously fails to indicate the nature of these effects (though see further below). This being the case, it is quite gratuitous to maintain that imputation is involved in both cases. Indeed, in view of what he has already said and of the fact that the imputation of sin to those who like Jesus are innocent is constantly reprobated in Scripture (cf. Ex. 23:7; Prov. 17:15), he has left no room for the inference that Adam’s sin is imputed.

In verse 20 Paul again implies that he is differentiating between sin apart from and sin under the law of Moses when he says that the law came in “to increase the trespass”. The implication here is that before he became a son of the commandment, the Jewish male though already circumcised was categorised with women who were uncircumcised and relatively ignorant of the law like the heathen. Historically and racially, of course, the children of Israel emanated from sinful heathenism. The law of Moses, which was given to them in the course of their history, was re-enacted or recapitulated in the individual. As in chapters 1-3, he is talking about actual as opposed to imputed sin. It is just as difficult to see how disobedience to the law could increase imputed sin as it is to see how obedience to it could increase Christ’s imputed righteousness. Since Adam’s sin was a clear infringement of law or commandment (Gen. 2:17) in contrast with Eve’s (cf. 1 Tim. 2:14), we can hardly fail to draw the conclusion that the law increased the liability of the Jews (Amos 3:2, cf. Rom. 3:9ff.; 5:20; 7:13) in comparison with that of the Gentiles who did not have the law. This is certainly what Jesus taught (Mt. 10:15; 11:20-24; 12:39-42; Luke 12:47f., cf. Ezek. 5:6f.; 16:47).

Seventh, Paul tells us in verse 21 that sin exercised dominion or reigned in death. But death is the wages, not the gift (imputation), of sin (cf. Rom. 4:1-8; 6:21,23). So the difference here is between the actual sin of all (v.12) paralleling or repeating Adam’s paradigmatic sin and the free gift of righteousness stemming from Christ’s keeping of the law and leading to life (6:22f.).

Eighth, all careful readers of the Bible know that the free gift of righteousness is voluntarily received by faith. On the imputation theory, we are forced to ask by what instrumentality the free gift of Adam’s sin is involuntarily received, especially by babies whose death is said to be the wages of imputed sin (even though that, according to Paul in 4:1-8, is a contradiction in terms). Again, we are forced to the conclusion that the apostle is differentiating between the free gift of righteousness which requires faith and the result or effect of Adam’s sin which does not. Whatever the latter was (and Paul fails to tell us), it did not and could not involve imputation which excludes death as wages (Rom. 4:4f.). In any case as we have already seen, Scripture denies that the child can be punished for the sins of the father (Dt. 24:16; Ps. 78:8; Jer. 31:29f.; Lam. 5:7,16; Ezek. 18:2, etc.). Furthermore, as was also intimated above, the injustice of this notion was clearly evident to Job (21:19-21, cf. 34:10-12). Time and again the OT calls attention to the sins of both fathers and sons (e.g. Neh. 1:6f.; 9:26-37; Ps. 106:6; Jer. 14:20; 16:10-12; Ezek. 20:18-21,30; Dan. 9:5,8-16, etc.). If at first sight Jeremiah 32:18 (cf. 31:29) suggests that the children are in fact being paid the wages of their parents’ sin, verse 19 makes it clear that all are rewarded according to their ways (cf. Rom. 2:6, etc.). So, the only conclusion we can reasonably draw from this is that Paul is telling us that the sin of Adam had a negative, even deleterious, effect on all his posterity (pace Pelagius) who were nonetheless personally guilty (contrast Num. 14:3,29-33). Whatever that effect was, and, given the Jewish emphasis on the solidarity of the individual with the community, it was probably the impact of parental or social influence, example, etc. (cf. Ex. 20:5f.; 34:6f.; Jer. 8:14). But we can be sure that it could not have been the result of imputation, or even Jesus, as a son of Adam (Luke 3:38), would have been unavoidably caught in the net. And that Scripture simply will not allow. (While Jesus could resist the effect of his parents’ (including Joseph’s) shortcomings, he could not possibly have overcome the universal imputation of Adam’s sin to all his posterity! (2* Cf. Luke 2:41-52; Rom. 7:13ff. Moo comments that the law has the function of turning its addressees who transgress the known law of Moses into “their own Adam“ (p. 348). This is surely an odd comment to make if they have already putatively sinned in Adam!)

This leads to a further comment regarding the injustice of the notion of the imputation of Adam’s sin. If sin is imputed apart from faith (contrast Jesus who exercised faith in obedience to his Father’s will), it is in the eyes of the biblical writers fundamentally unjust as Exodus 23:7, 1 Sam. 22:15, 1 Kings 21 and Luke 23, for example, indicate. The wonder of the gospel is that God does not impute to believers the sins that they have actually committed (Rom. 4:8). Thus, we always read about our actual sins (Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 2:13; Rev. 1:5, etc.) and those of our parents which we repeat (e.g. Ps. 106:6; Acts 7:51-53), but never about sin imputed to us as a free gift.

The upshot of all this is that if Paul is pointing up a strict parallel rather than an general analogy in Romans 5:12-21, then just as justification is by faith so also is condemnation. The problem here is that according to Scripture, except in the sole case of Jesus who exercised faith, condemnation is by works and is therefore wages (see e.g. Romans 2:1-11; 4:1-5; 6:23). To clarify the issue still further, it needs to be insisted that if the free gift, or imputed righteousness, results in the free gift of life (Rom. 6:23), the free gift (or imputed sin) cannot result in the wages of death. If it can, the so-called parallelism evaporates and betrays itself as a figment of the imagination. If by way of rejoinder it is insisted that Jesus paid the penalty when sin was imputed to him, it must be replied that Jesus exercised faith and voluntarily undertook to die for his sheep as their substitute (John 10). On the other hand, if sin is imputed to infants apart from faith, then sin becomes a gift of creation involuntarily received like the colour of the skin. This implies, first, that God creates us evil, and, second, that we are not responsible for it but that God is. However, we regard it, the traditional dogma of original sin is blasphemous.

The only way of avoiding this problem would appear to be resort to realism, the notion that we all literally and actually sinned in Adam which Scripture fails to teach. It is interesting to note that Murray (2) who strongly advocates the imputation of Adam’s sin rejects realism but nonetheless argues for corporate solidarity in Adam (pp.35f.). He then attempts to deny the injustice implied by this by claiming that the latter is by divine institution maintaining that it is not valid to insist that vicarious sin can be imputed only when there is voluntary acceptance of such imputation (p.36). (One wonders what Abraham would have thought of this, cf. Gen. 18:23-33.) In saying this he opens up a veritable can of worms, for Scripture insists on the voluntariness (3* See Ex. 32:33; Ps. 78:8; Isa. 3:10f.; Ezek. 18:4,20; Acts 8:1; Rom. 1:32; 2:9f.; 1 Tim. 5:18; 2 John 11, etc. According to the Bible sin is based on law and knowledge as Genesis 2:17 and 3:1ff. make abundantly plain. For knowledge, see, for example, Abimelech (Gen. 20:4-6), Jonathon (1 Sam. 14:27), Ahimelech (1 Sam. 22:15), Abigail (1 Sam. 25:25), David (2 Sam. 3:26,28) and Absalom’s guests (2 Sam. 15:11 and the explicit teaching of Jesus (John 9:41; 15:22,24) and Paul (Rom. 1:18-3:20). For law, see especially Romans 2:12f.,18; 3:19f.; 4:15; 5:13; 7:1-13, etc. Sin apart from law and knowledge does not exist or the entire animal creation would be guilty. Only if it can exist apart from these, as in the transmission or imputation of sin apart from faith (which itself is based on knowledge), can it be regarded as involuntary.

According to Scripture, sin is transgression of law (James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17) and hence a work (see e.g. Rom. 3:20,27f.; 9:31f.; Gal. 3:10-12). Imputed sin excludes works (Rom. 4:1-8). It might usefully be added here that even Augustine wrote somewhat inconsistently: ”No-one is punished for natural evils, but for voluntary evils” (Needham, p.53). His effort to palm off an evil birth nature on us lacks substantiation. No wonder B.B.Warfield once remarked that Augustine was not a systematic theologian.) as opposed to the imposition of sin. Contrary to his assertion that “it is not difficult to see that the imputation of sin on the basis of Adam’s representative capacity could operate with unique and universal application” it must be pointed out, first, that there is no biblical evidence supporting Adam’s covenant headship and representative role, and, secondly, if there were, then Christ himself would be implicated and hence rendered incapable of voluntarily acting on our behalf. In stressing corporate solidarity Murray fails to see that there are numerous examples in both the Bible and experience when we suffer for our representatives’ actions but do not subscribe to them. There is a biblical doctrine of separation as well as one of solidarity (cf. Num. 16:22 and verse 24! Note also 14:3,29-35; 26:11,65; 27:3; Gen. 17:14; Dt. 1:39; 24:16; 2 Sam. 24:17, etc.). Jesus was uniquely separate not by birth (Luke 3:38; Heb. 2:17) but by virtue of his remaining sinless (John 8:46; 14:30; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22, etc.) (4* If it is argued that Paul maintains in Romans 5 that Adam’s sin was in some way determinative, it may be replied that since he does not explain in what way, his argument must be an a fortiori one. If Adam sinned without any parental influence, how much more the rest of us who, made in his image (Gen. 5:1), had his (cf. Ex. 20:5f.; 34:6f., etc.). If Jesus successfully resisted all the temptations of the world, the flesh and the devil, surely he was also capable of resisting the evil influence of his parents (cf. Ps. 51:5; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 2:49; 11:13, etc.). On the other hand, if the imputation of sin apart from faith is true, then Jesus was also born a sinner (cf. Heb. 2:17)! The attempt to make him “a singular exception” (Whyte) since his was not an ”ordinary generation” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q.16, an Augustinian idea that lacks Scriptural support) must be regarded as abortive. Jesus proved his paternal pedigree (ratified his divine ontology) by not sinning (Heb. 4:15). As a true son of Adam born knowing neither good nor evil (cf. Isa. 7:15f.) like the rest of us (Dt. 1:39), he successfully kept the law he was taught while everyone else failed (Rom. 8:3f.). The problem with all exception clauses is that they make Jesus other than man and hence patently different from his brethren in contrast with Hebrews 2:17. They thus render him not only incapable of meeting man’s need but also destroy his capacity to act as their representative (Heb. 2). In the mind of the author of Hebrews, exception means exclusion. If Jesus is different, he is docetic and not a true Son of Adam (Luke 3:38).). Where Adam and the rest of us failed, he, the second Adam, succeeded (John 8:46; Rom. 8:3). What devotees of the imputation of Adam’s sin fail to perceive is that if the sin of the first Adam was universally imputed to his posterity, there could never have been a second Adam capable of acting in his place! To overcome this problem Jesus would have had to begin de novo and avoid being part of Adam’s pedigree. But this would make him to all intents and purposes docetic, that is, different from all his brethren who were the posterity of Adam. This Scripture does not, indeed cannot, allow (cf. Luke 3:38; Heb. 2, etc.).

I conclude that those enamoured of parallelism in imputation are guilty of attempting to transform a general analogy into a virtual identity. The parallel between the imputed righteousness of Christ and the sin of Adam does not exist. It is a theological mare’s nest and as full of holes as Haggai’s bag (1:6). It has done and continues to do enormous damage to the Christian faith.

So, to sum up, we need to note that the exact if contrasting parallels which the Bible presents to us are: justification by faith (believers) and condemnation by faith (Jesus) on the one hand and justification by works (Jesus) and condemnation by works (disbelievers) on the other. These form the basis of the great exchange (2 Cor. 5:21). So far as imputation is concerned, it only occurs either as a result of faith (free gift, Rom. 4:3,5f.) or works (Rom. 4:4). Imputation apart from faith or works is regarded as evil throughout the Bible (1 Sam. 22:15; 1 K. 8:32; 21; Prov. 17:15, etc.). In light of this, babies who can neither believe nor work are out of the reckoning.
________________________________________________________

References

L.Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, 1959.

R.B.Gaffin in C.E.Hill and F.A. James eds., The Glory of the Atonement, Downers Grove, 2004.

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

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

John Murray, (1) The Epistle to the Romans, London, 1967.
(2) The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, Phillipsburg, 1979.

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

A.Whyte, The Shorter Catechism, Edinburgh, repr. 1961.

________________________________________________________

Additional Note

Since writing the above I have read the very useful work, “Counted Righteous in Christ” by John Piper (Wheaton, 2002). He also regards Romans 5:12-21 as an exact parallel (see pp. 90ff.). It has to be said that Piper’s very considerable exegetical powers falter at this point. He simply assumes what needs to be proved, that is, that Paul is teaching the imputation of Adam’s sin. On the one hand, he fails to acknowledge the enormous difficulties that this notion encounters, not least that it involves Paul in self-contradiction, and, on the other, to produce convincing exegetical arguments in its support. For example, Sanday and Headlam long ago pointed out that the vital words “in Adam” do not appear in Romans 5, yet Piper quite gratuitously transfers their one and only appearance in 1 Corinthians 15:22 to Romans 5:12, completely ignoring the difference in subject matter. In their proper context they almost certainly mean “in the flesh” (cf. 15:45-49). Even Jesus died “in Adam” in this sense (cf. 1 Pet. 3:18)!

Without going into more detail, Piper gives his game away when he admits (pp.102f.) that our real sins are enough to condemn us. This in itself makes the imputation of Adam’s sin redundant. For all that, he proceeds to maintain that our deepest problem is our “mysterious connection with Adam” which he simply assumes involves imputation. In light of this, it must be asked why God should commit what according to the Bible itself is the wholly immoral and in the event unnecessary act of imputing sin to those (i.e. babies) who do not have them (cf. 1 Sam. 22:15; 1 K. 21; Luke 23)? (While it can be shown how God overcomes his own acknowledged “injustice” when he justifies the ungodly who believe, cf. Ex. 23:7; Prov. 18:5; 24:24, it cannot be shown how he deals with his patent injustice when he condemns the innocent, Christ apart, cf. Dt. 27:25; Job 34:17; Ps. 94:20f.; Prov. 17:15,26; Isa. 5:23b.) Surely it should be evident to all thinking people that if God never intended “flesh” to justify itself (Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; 3:11), actual and voluntary sin in the flesh to which all are prone is enough to guarantee that only he himself can save his people (cf. Isa. 45:21-25). And this he has done by imputing our sin(s) to Christ who, in faith and commitment to his Father’s will, died on our behalf. This was central to the plan of salvation from before the foundation of the world (cf. Phil. 2:5-11; Rom. 11:32; Rev. 13:8).

By arguing for an exact parallel between the imputation of Adam’s sin and Christ’s righteousness Piper unwittingly saws the branch on which he is sitting. He clearly undermines the case for our being “Counted Righteous in Christ” and significantly diminishes, if he does not destroy, the impact of an otherwise valuable work. If we base our case for imputation on the imputation of Adam’s sin, the answer to the question posed by Piper’s subtitle: “Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness?” regrettably has to be yes! That is a tragedy but, in the event, one that can easily be avoided by recognising that the imputation of Adam’s sin is a delusion, a blasphemous lie in fact.

There are only two acts of imputation in Scripture – Apart from the imputation of actual sin of disbelievers, of course (cf. Rom. 4:8; 2 Cor. 5:19) – and both involve faith: first, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believing sinners, and, second, the imputation of our sins to our believing Saviour. Here we have an exact if contrasting parallel involving a great exchange (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18). To add another, the imputation of Adam’s sin apart from faith is to destroy any parallel that might otherwise exist. As the old adage has it, at this point two’s company, three’s a crowd!

Though I am personally convinced that evidence for the binding of the devil referred to in Revelation 20 is provided by Matthew 12:29 (Mark 3:27, cf. Isa. 49:24-26), Luke 10:18, 13:16, John 12:31f. and is arguably buttressed by 2 Thessalonians 2:6f. (which alludes to restraining), Hebrews 2:4,14, 6:5, 9:28, 1 John 3:8; Revelation 1:6, 3:7f., 3:20, 5:10, and 12: 10f. (cf. 1:18; Mt. 16:19; 28:18; Acts 14:27; 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; Col. 2:15; 4:3; Rev. 15:2f.), many are so conscious of the clear signs of evil in the world that they cannot believe it. It seems to me, however, that this disbelief rests on basic misunderstanding. As a consequence, they reject what is usually referred to as the ‘amillennial’ view of Revelation 20, often associated nowadays with Reformed theology, in favour of a premillennial view which projects the devil’s binding to a literal thousand years in the future here on earth.

Premillennialism

According to this scenario, Jesus returns to earth in the flesh and rules with a rod of iron. During this period the powers of the devil are strictly limited and only at the end of the millennium is he finally released from his bondage to wreak brief havoc before being finally destroyed by being cast into the lake of fire (20:10). One of the most obvious problems with this view is the fact that sin and the devil appear at all. Apart from Hebrews 2:14 and 1 John 3:8 referred to above regarding the present time, it immediately prompts the question of the nature of Christ’s rule and of his sovereignty during the millennium itself. There are of course many other major difficulties associated with premillennialism (* One such problem is: How can the saints recover their flesh which decomposed or saw corruption, Acts 2:29; 13:36, when they died in order to live for 1,000 years on the earth? Clearly they can no more re-enter their mothers’ wombs, cf. John 3:4, than they can the Garden of Eden, Gen. 3:22-24, since they have died and experienced corruption.), so, assuming that they are insuperable and that the ‘amillennial’ view referred to above is in fact the true view, what else can be said in its favour?

The sort of argument used by amillennialists based on texts in the rest of the NT may appear farfetched to those attracted to premillennialism not least since it seems to deny the obvious presence of evil in a world where the devil, far from being bound, is plainly rampant. It is, however, the sort of argument that is used elsewhere in Scripture, as we shall see.

Already but Not Yet

First, it needs to be recognised that many problems of interpretation arise from the fact that we exist in a situation which reflects the dying of the old and the coming of the new. More specifically, we live in a time of overlap between the ages (cf. Eph. 1:21, etc.), between the fading of the old covenant and the consummation of the new, in the already and the not yet. To express the issue otherwise, those who have believed in Christ are no longer under law but under grace (Rom. 6:15; Gal. 5:18). They are new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). They have already got eternal life and one foot in heaven, so to speak (cf. Eph. 2:6). Does that mean that the law has been abolished and has ceased to exist? No, says Jesus: though I have fulfilled it, it will nonetheless remain to the end of the world (Mt. 5:17f.). No, says Paul, my Jewish compatriots who have not accepted Christ, are still under the law. They have failed to see that the glory of Moses (Heb. 3:3) is on the wane (2 Cor. 3:7,11, cf. Heb. 8:13) and in the process of giving way to Christ. As a result, there is a veil over their eyes which will remain until they embrace Christ (2 Cor. 3:14-16, cf. Rom. 11:27). Nonetheless, Paul is vehement in his affirmation that he and all believers in Christ are not under law but under grace (1 Cor. 9:19-23). As those whom Christ has set free from the law they should, Paul says, stand fast and refuse to submit again to the yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1, cf. Acts 15:10). Having been released from bondage to law and sin through faith in the truth, they are, according to Jesus, free (John 8:31f.,36). So far as the Gentiles are concerned, they have been delivered from the dominion of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of the Son of God (Col. 1:13, cf. 2 Thes. 2:13). It should be noted, however, that that transfer has been effected only in believers.

Justification By Faith

Our freedom in Christ is summed up in the doctrine of justification by faith. Since justification is a declaratory fact, I cannot be partly justified. I am either justified or not at all. On the assumption that my faith is genuine, I am justified, acquitted and declared righteous by God himself. What I am now pre-empts final judgement (Rom. 8:1). Having said this there is still an element of tension in my life. Why? Though I really believe I am even now righteous in God’s sight, I know that in myself I am still not righteous. I still sin and fall short even as a Christian (Rom. 3:23; 1 John 1:8). Like Luther I know I am at once “simul justus et pecccator” (righteous and a sinner at the same time). In spite of that, if I confess my sin, Jesus is faithful and just in forgiving it and cleansing me of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:8-10). So I am free after all and by no means overwhelmed by the devil. Though in one sense saved (cf. 1 John 5:13), I still remain to be fully saved. And my salvation in justification, regeneration (adoption) and sanctification still remains to be consummated in glorification. I am assured however it will be, and not for nothing did the apostle write that those whom God predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (Rom. 8:30).

So what the NT appears to be saying is that for Christians the old covenant has become obsolete (Heb. 8:13). We are no longer under the law of Moses (Rom. 6:15) but under the far more radical law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21), as the Sermon on the Mount indicates. Like the devil, however, Jews, like Muslims, who are bound by the law try to impose their standards even on Christians (Acts 15:1,5; Col. 2:16-23, etc.). But for believers both the devil and the law with its ministry of death are defeated foes whose influence has been drastically curbed. They cannot prevent the spread of the gospel and of Christianity in general (John 12:32, cf. Rev. 3:8; 5:9f.). It is only through weakness and lack of faith that Christians can be temporarily overcome.

Married to Christ

Here an illustration used by Paul is helpful. He points out that while under the law a married woman is bound to her husband (as unbelieving sinners are bound by the devil to do his will), once the husband dies the law is abolished. Thus the widow is released from the law and free to marry again without being tarnished by the stigma of adultery. And so it is with Christians. For us, the law has been superseded and the devil defeated. Now married to Christ, we are free, guiltless and led by the Spirit of God who will keep us by faith to the end (1 Pet. 1:5). For us the devil is permanently bound. Though he may frighten us as he goes around like a roaring lion (1 Pet. 5:8), he is nonetheless on a leash (cf. Rev. 20:1-3). In the book of Revelation all he does is by divine permission (e.g. 13:5,7,14f.) and, even in the time of tribulation prior to the end of history, while he may kill, he cannot conquer (John 10:28, cf. Rev. 11:7-12). On the other hand, he still holds the unbelieving world in thrall (1 John 5:19). But just as Jews bound by the law can be released through faith in Christ, so can an unbelieving world be liberated from slavery to the devil (Rom. 6:16f.; 2 Cor. 3:3-6; 2 Pet. 2:19).

Crucified With Christ

The same sort of argument is also used elsewhere in Scripture. For example, Paul tells us that our old self which was dominated by the flesh has been crucified with Christ so that the sinful body might be destroyed and we might no longer be enslaved to sin (Rom. 6:6, cf. Gal. 2:20; 5:24). My problem here is that though I am a believer I find that while I have renounced my past life in the flesh, it, that is, my flesh, seems nonetheless very much alive! Though I may not habitually give way to sin (cf. 1 John 3:9), fleshly temptation in one form or another appears to be as strong as ever. For all that, I am consoled by the fact that Jesus was subject to temptation throughout his life in the flesh (cf. Mt. 4:1-11). However, the wonder of his experience is that he conquered and remained without sin (Heb. 4:15). Had he not done so he could not have effected atonement as a sacrifice without blemish. In the event, my position is that in identifying with him by faith I have in principle crucified both the flesh and the world in which I live (Gal. 5:24; 6:14) and, given the Holy Spirit, I am not only not liable to sin as I once was (cf. 1 John 3:9, etc.) but able to overcome it in a way that I was not before when I was under its sway.

Baptised into Christ

To express the issue alternatively, in Romans 6:1-11 Paul insists that those baptised into Christ have been baptised into his death and walk in newness of life. By that he does not mean that we no longer sin – a travesty of the truth and his own teaching — yet he has no hesitation in saying that we must consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ (cf. Gal. 5:16f.). Clearly, his imperative rests on his affirmative.

Such is the apostle’s conviction that the decisive battle has been won and salvation effected that he can use the ‘prophetic past’ in Romans 8:30 (cf. 8:31ff.) and maintain elsewhere not only that our citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20, cf. Col. 3:1-5) but that we already sit with Christ in the heavenly places (Eph. 2:6). It is all a question of seeing things alternatively from the divine and human vantage points. Assuming the genuineness of my faith and that my regeneration involves eternal life which by definition cannot fail, I shall persevere to the end. From my point of view, however, the battle or the race still has to be won. I still have to persevere and conquer as Jesus did (Rev. 3:21). And this I shall surely do by the grace of God (1 Pet. 1:5). Though many deny it, this is the point that the author of Hebrews is underscoring. Far from suggesting that the truly regenerate can fall away (cf. Heb. 6:9; 10:39), as logical an absurdity as the Augustinian idea that Adam was created immortal, fell into sin and became mortal, he is insisting that we must continue the struggle through faith as the OT saints did (see Heb. 11). We persevere by persevering and that, by the grace of God (1 Pet. 1:5), to the end.

More Than Conqueror

So, just as Revelation 20 insists in no uncertain terms that the devil is now in the present bound, so despite all appearances my flesh is dead (Rom. 7:5f.). Far from being mastered by it, I am now led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:12f.; Gal. 5:16f.) and am more than conqueror (8:31ff.). While my victory may presently be far from complete (cf. Phil. 3:12), for sanctification is on-going (though even it can in one sense be regarded as definitive, Heb.10:14), it is nonetheless real. What is more, were I to die in Christ right now, it would be seen as such.

The Intercession of Christ and of the Spirit

But it might be said, since I am still weak and vulnerable to temptation and sin, how can I be sure that the devil, who is stronger than I, will not defeat me. The answer to this lies in the nature of our salvation. Not only has Jesus died for us but he ever lives to intercede for us (Heb. 7:25). In his high priestly prayer Jesus prays not that we should be taken out of the world but that we should be kept from the evil one (John 17:15). So long as I trust in him I am guaranteed his help and protection. At this point we do well to remember Peter, the so-called first pope. Jesus had to put him in his place on one occasion by telling him that he was under the influence of Satan (Mt. 16:23). On another occasion Jesus said that Satan had begged earnestly to have him and sift him like wheat but that he had prayed for him (Luke 22:32. Actually the Greek shows that Satan’s concern here was not just with Peter but also with all Christians, cf. NIV). We too can rely on the intercession of Christ which we are led to believe is all-prevailing (Rom. 8:34) and that Satan is bound by it. Having died for us Jesus has not left us as orphans but has sent his Spirit into the world to intercede for us too (Rom. 8:26f.).

I conclude therefore that the devil really is bound as Jesus said he was. While prior to the coming of Christ the devil exercised universal sway and even men of faith like Abraham were classed as ‘ungodly’ as opposed to being regenerate (Rom. 4:5), now his powers are strictly limited. He has been bound by the stronger than he and his goods have been and continue to be plundered (Mt. 12:29f.). Despite his serious opposition, the devil cannot prevail.

Christian Witness

Chapter 20 is not the only place in the book of Revelation where it is implied that the devil is bound during the here and now. In chapter 11 we have the picture of the two witnesses (see 11:3). These Christian witnesses in the guise of Elijah and Moses (11:6) have power to testify and the devil cannot stop them till they have finished their testimony and are killed (cf. John the Baptist, Jesus himself and Paul, all of whom are said to have finished their course before or at their death, Acts 13:25; Luke 13:32; Acts 20:24, etc.). Is not this the picture that Paul paints regarding the end times in his Thessalonian letters? Towards the end hearts will grow cold, the faith will be rejected, persecution will be rampant and the Man of Sin will arise. But the full number of both Gentiles and Jews will be saved (Rom.11:25f., cf. Rev. 6:11). And when that occurs, the harvest will be complete. When most of what the earth produces is thorns and thistles, that is, godless men and women (cf. 2 Sam. 23:6, etc.), it will be cursed and burnt (Heb. 6:7f., cf. Gen. 6:11-13). And out of the conflagration, the few believers that are left will be plucked like brands from the burning (Amos 4:11; Jude 23, cf. 1 Cor. 15:51ff.).

More of the Already and Not Yet

We might add other references which suggest the completion of what has been begun, the already but not yet (cf. 2 Cor. 8:6,11; Phil. 1:6). For example in 2 Timothy 1:10 Paul says that Jesus has abolished death and brought life and incorruption to light. This we firmly believe. But its reality has still to be fully revealed to us in what is still a world of death. The same comment can be made regarding Hebrews 2:14 where we are told that Jesus has destroyed him who has the power of death. But though we may feel that this is so, we take it on trust and live by faith not sight. Again in Colossians 2:15 Paul tells us that Christ disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them. Again, we believe that the battle has in principle been won, but the victory remains to be finally consummated and celebrated.
(Cf. the presence of God, salvation, new birth, etc., now but still to be consummated.)

The Devil Not Completely Disabled

It may be asked why the devil has not been permanently incapacitated during the church age (which I believe is the millennium referred to in Rev. 20) as he will be when he is finally cast into the lake of fire? The answer surely lies in the nature of the plan of salvation. God clearly has in mind to save a far greater number of men and women than a short period of history with a minimal number of generations would allow. His intention under the gospel of Christ and in the power of the Spirit (i.e. under the new covenant) is still to bring to repentance and faith those created in his image in a far more effective way than he did under the law (2 Pet. 3:9; Heb. 2:8f.; 11:39f.; Rom. 11:25; Rev. 6:11). And though the devil holds the whole world under his spell, he can do nothing to prevent God’s purpose with regard to the children of God from being fulfilled (1 John 5:19). As we saw above when referring to Revelation 11 and the two witnesses, Paul says that even in death he will be rescued (2 Tim. 4:18). It is the book of Revelation in particular that indicates that what the devil does is by permission. Dragon though he may be, his activities are severely curbed (Rev. 20:2) and while he is permitted to exercise authority over many throughout the world (Rev. 13:7f.), it is nonetheless true that “a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands” will eventually cry out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (7:9f.).

A Kingdom of Priests

But there is another point of basic importance that must not be missed and that is that the book of Revelation itself talks not simply of the devil being bound but of Christians ruling under Christ. Just as the Israelites in the OT were a kingdom of priests who testified, albeit inadequately, to the world of their day, so Christians constitute a kingdom of priests during the Christian era (1:6). In 5:10 it is said that we reign on the earth (cf. Mt. 5:16)! If this is so, then the devil is bound. Just as we ourselves have been called out of darkness into light, we now exercise our priestly royal role by calling others in our turn (1 Pet. 2:9,12). According to Paul our evangelistic function is to turn people from the power of Satan to God (Acts 26:18, cf. Col. 1:13; 1 Thes. 1:9). If the devil had not been bound this would be an impossible task, as Jesus makes plain in Matthew 12:25-29.

Church History

There is yet something else – the witness of Christian history. From very small beginnings in an obscure part of the Romans Empire, Christianity has turned the world upside down. Despite all its apparent failures, it is undeniable that the missionary drive and enterprise of the church has achieved wonders. Even in more recent times, we do well to recall the names of William Carey, David Livingstone, Hudson Taylor, Henry Martyn, Adoniram Judson, C.T.Studd, the Cambridge Seven and a multitude of others.

Again, the reader might ask him or herself the question posed by a book by James Kennedy “What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?” (cf. “How Christianity Changed the World” by Alvin J. Schmidt). It provides much food for thought. I have no doubt that despite what is happening in the world today that God is sovereign and the devil bound just as Jesus predicted. The overspill or by-product of the gospel in humanitarianism, philanthropy, education, hospital care, civilised living, science and the rest is in my view immense and undeniable. Even if the river of evangelism were to dry up over night, its success to date is irrefutable. The devil’s domain has suffered permanent violence.

Deception

Finally, perhaps the major reason why many refuse to accept the clear gospel teaching on the binding of the devil arises from failure to understand that it relates in essence to deception. In Genesis 3 the devil is presented as the arch-deceiver of Adam and Eve. In John 8:44, Jesus says he is the father of lies. It is therefore not surprising that in Revelation 20:3 it is said that he is bound so that he might not deceive the nations any longer. Jesus apparently underscores this notion when he refers in Mark 13:22 to the false Christs and false prophets who would lead astray, if it were possible, the elect. The implication of this again is that the devil’s power is limited. The undeniable truth is that though many throughout the world are under the sovereignty of God being deceived by the devil (cf. 2 Thes. 2:10-12), many are not. They cling to Christ as their Saviour, hear his voice (John 10:27) and repel the wiles of the devil by means of the whole armour of God including the shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God (Eph. 6:11,16f.). As mentioned above, Jesus said it is acceptance of the truth that makes us free, and the devil is unable to prevent the truth from being proclaimed and believed (John 18:37). We can be sure then that so long as there are converts in the world, the devil is bound. People who turn from darkness to light are released from the power of Satan to God (Acts 26:18, cf. John 1:9-13; Col. 1:13).

Conclusion

Jesus claimed to have overcome the world (which must mean his total environment, John 16:33; 17:4f.; Rom. 8:35ff.; 1Heb. 2:9; Rev. 3:21; 5:5,12f., etc.) and that the devil found nothing in him (John 14:30). This can only mean that the world, the flesh and the devil are defeated foes whose end will be finally manifested when the plan of salvation is complete and the intended harvest gathered in (cf. Heb. 2:10). The need for the devil to be specially bound during a so-called thousand-year millennium in the future is redundant. When Jesus comes again it will not be to deal with sin but to rescue his own (Heb. 9:28) and present them as his adopted bride before his Father (2 Cor. 4:14; Eph. 1:4f.; 5:27; Jude 24).

Faith, Justification and Life (Salvation, cf. Rom. 10:10)

(1) According to the Bible we all come into the world like Adam and Eve, totally ignorant (cf. Isa. 8:4), knowing neither good nor evil (Gen. 2:17; Num. 14:29-33; Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 5:13; cf. 1 K. 3:7,9).

“… your little ones … have no knowledge of good or evil ….” (Dt. 1:39).

(2) The way we learn to differentiate between good and evil is by learning law or commandment (Gen. 2:16f.; Dt. 4:9; 6:7; 31:13; Ps. 78:5-8).

Paul writes: “Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.”
(Rom.7:7, cf. 3:19f.; 7:1,13, Gal. 3:19).

(3) God’s intention is that we should be righteous and blameless (Gen. 2:17; 4:7; 6:9,22; 7:1; 18:19; Lev. 19; 22:31-33; Dt. 10:12f.; Mic. 6:8; Mt. 5:17-20, etc.).

“You shall be blameless before the Lord your God” (Dt. 18:13, cf. Gen. 17:1).
“… he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph. 1:4)

(4) In order to become righteous we must keep the whole law to perfection (Pss. 15:1ff.; 24:3-5; Isa. 33:14-17; Ezek. 18:5-9,19; Rom. 2:13; Jas. 2:10; 1 John 3:7).

“And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us” (Dt. 6:25).

(NB: Circumcision, which symbolised the law, required total obedience, Gal. 5:3, cf. Dt. 27:26; Gal. 3:10; Jas. 2:10. Though technically a Jewish boy did not become personally responsible for keeping the law until the age of 13, the mere fact that circumcision occurred on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3) meant that he was bound by what he came to know and understand, cf. Rom. 7:1.)

(5) The ultimate objective for all men and women is knowledge of God, life and salvation (John 17:3; 1 John 5:11-13), but the absolutely indispensable precondition of life, or new birth, is righteousness. It is a basic biblical axiom that only the righteous will live whether by faith (Rom. 1:17) or law keeping (Mt. 19:17). To become righteous in fact we must keep the entire law perfectly (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11,13,21; 33:15; Mt. 19:17b, Luke 10:28; Rom. 2:13; 7:10; 10:5, etc.). Mere acquittal from and pardon for sin are clearly not enough, since they do not constitute actual righteousness (cf. Rom. 5:21).

“For it (i.e. the law) is no empty word for you, but your very life” (Dt. 32:47).

(6) Since we all prove incapable of keeping the law in order to become righteous in the sight of God (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16), we are in dire need of a righteousness other than our own – what Luther called an ‘alien righteousness’ (Phil. 3:9; Rom.21-26; 10:3f.).

“For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out” (Rom. 7:18).
“Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Rom. 7:24f.; cf. 6:6).

(7) The only man in the entire history of the human race to keep the law (John 15:10, cf. Eccl. 7:20), to please God and thereby gain actual righteousness and life was Jesus (Mt. 3:17, cf. Heb. 5:7f.; Ps. 21:1-7). He thus put himself in a position to achieve perfection (Mt. 3:15; 5:48, cf. 19:21; Heb. 5:9f.) by giving himself as a ransom for his people (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 2:9ff.; John 10:11ff.; 19:30).

“He committed no sin” (1 Pet. 2:22).
“Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1; 3:5, cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14).

(8) While our sin is imputed to Christ by faith, his righteousness is imputed to us as a free gift by faith (Rom. 3:21-26; 5:15-21; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18).

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13).

(9) If we have faith in him, we are justified by divine grace as a gift (Rom. 3:24). Having accounted us righteous (i.e. justified us) in Christ, God grants us eternal life in accordance with his promise made repeatedly but most specifically in Leviticus 18:5. Thus we are born again by the Spirit (John 3:16; Gal. 3:2,5,14,21f.,26) and rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God (Rom. 5:2; 2 Cor. 4:17; Col. 1:27; Tit. 3:7, etc.).

“And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life” (John 3:36).
“Whoever has the Son has life” (1 John 5:11-13).
“… so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Rom. 5:18).

“But now that you have been set free from sin … the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:22-23).

(10) Once we are born again and have eternal life our goal is to bear the fruit of righteousness (Rom. 7:6; Gal. 5:22f.; Eph. 2:10) and to achieve the perfection in Christ which is impossible under the law (Gal. 3:21; Heb. 7:19). Even in this we depend wholly on Christ who forgives our shortcomings and cleanses us till we stand blameless before him on the Great Day (Eph. 1:4; 1 John 1:8-2:1; Heb. 12:23).

Summary and Order of Salvation

In sum, we are called as sinners, our calling leads to faith, our faith leads to justification, our justification leads to regeneration and/or adoption, and finally our regeneration leads to our complete sanctification or perfection and glorification which, by God’s grace, is our predestined end as the children of God (Rom. 8:16f.,30).

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.

Introduction

The second coming belongs to the essence of the Christian faith. In the church in which I worship it is referred to in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper at every Sunday service (cf. 1 Cor. 11:26). Since it is taught throughout the NT, all Christians ought to believe it. So far as I myself am concerned, I do so gladly. Apart from it my faith would be truncated, lacking both a terminus and a goal.

But the point at issue in this ‘essay’ is not belief in the second coming as such but Jesus’ putative return to earth. During the course of my life the question has been raised on a number of occasions usually through contact with members of the (Plymouth) Brethren who for the most part are Premillennial Dispensationalists. I have always been ready to reconsider the issue and have so far drawn negative conclusions. Apart from my reading of the Bible I must admit to having been encouraged in my rejection of this position by Professor F.F.Bruce who worshipped with the Brethren to his dying day.

Just recently, however, I have been viewing videotapes and reading books by David Pawson, a well-known English Bible teacher of no ordinary ability. He both speaks and writes with ease, clarity and persuasiveness, and it is easy to be swept along by his engaging eloquence. Not surprisingly, he has a worldwide following. Some months ago I read his booklet “Expounding The Second Coming” and discovered that his views differed radically from my own. More recently, having ploughed through all 1343 pages of his “Unlocking the Bible Omnibus” I have been forcibly struck by his strong and repeated insistence on premillennialism and the physical return of Jesus to ‘planet earth’. While I acknowledge his wide reading and learning, his appreciation of the history of the people of God, his acquaintance with the geography of Palestine (Israel) and the Middle East, his Methodist background in the north of England which is similar to my own, his occasional insights which sometimes confirm my own views, and his apparent sincerity, I am convinced that his overall understanding of the plan of salvation is seriously defective. While he is very hostile towards Augustine of Hippo for leading people away from the chiliasm of the early church, it seems to me that he has nonetheless uncritically embraced the Augustinian worldview with disastrous results. As one who is firmly convinced that the most fertile source of error in theology is false covenant theology, I cannot fail to note that DP, who maintains he is a classic premillennialist but not a dispensationalist (Omnibus, p.1342), has virtually nothing to say regarding the Bible’s teaching about the covenants. While he has a fine appreciation of justification by faith and the need for holiness (sanctification), his Arminian stance leads him logically to undermine the grace and sovereignty of God. But let us return to the subject under discussion.

Millennialism

First, the millennium is basic to understanding Christian attitudes to the second advent, so it is important for us to orient ourselves initially by putting the issue in its usual setting. There are three main views relating to the return of Christ. Premillennialists hold that when Christ returns the dead will be raised with new (physical or material) bodies, while believers who are still alive will be raptured or caught up to meet him in the air after which they will return physically transformed to earth to reign with Christ on the throne of David in Jerusalem for a (literal?) thousand years, the millennium. After this period Satan will be released from his imprisonment in the abyss and wreak havoc among the people of God. He will eventually reach the end of his tether, be defeated and cast into the lake of fire. The Great White Throne judgement will then take place and the eternal state will be ushered in. (As I was recently reminded when I received a visit from the JW’s there are various Adventist groups who hold steadfastly to the 1,000 year reign of the glorified Christ on earth.)

Postmillennialists believe that the return of Christ will take place after the millennium, a time or golden age, when God greatly blesses the earth and its people. This view was popular in the nineteenth century when missionary outreach and social improvement went on apace. However, when the evils of the 20th century, not least WW1 and 2, upset current thinking in various quarters, postmillennialism was widely rejected. It appears to remain largely in abeyance to this day.

Amillennialists (an unfortunate term implying denial of a millennium like atheists’ denial of the existence of God) regard the millennium not as a literal thousand years but as the entire period of the church’s, and hence new covenant, influence here on earth (cf. Rev. 1:5f.; 5:10), which, having begun with Christ’s own proclamation of the kingdom, closes with his return to bring history to its pre-ordained triumphant end.

Interpretation

The basic problem with the millennium is the fact that at least so far as the NT is concerned it is referred to only in the highly symbolic book of Revelation and even there only in a few verses (20:2-7). This inevitably raises questions of interpretation. In view of the fact that Jesus spent much of his earthly ministry training the twelve (e.g. Mt. 5:1f.) who were to form the foundation of the church with himself as the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), it seems passing strange that he omitted to tell anyone at the time, and John only (rather late in the piece almost certainly after the martyrdom of the rest of the apostles) about his return to a literal reign on earth. What is also odd is that on the assumption that John was the author of Revelation, this teaching appears to militate strongly against what he taught in his gospel (e.g. 13:3; 14:2f.;16:28). And why Paul who wrote specifically regarding the Jews in Romans 9-11 failed to mention it is a complete enigma.

Since the book of Revelation is replete with both OT and NT references and allusions, it is a reasonable deduction that it is a kind of recapitulation, or pictorial summary couched in apocalyptic terms, of the gospel as expounded in the rest of the NT. This inference would seem to be underlined by the fact that the symbolism is often hard to understand. Indeed, without a profound knowledge of the rest of Scripture much of it is clearly (that is, judging by the history of its interpretation) unintelligible. This being the case, one must have very strong reasons for believing that Revelation is teaching new truth. If it is insisted that it is, it begs the question of why Jesus failed to reveal it earlier and in more readily accessible terms. If the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus (Rev. 19:10), surely it is to be found in the rest of the NT, in the gospel as expounded by all the apostles, for whom difference of teaching, as Paul intimated, would have been a far more serious matter than difference in practice (cf. Gal.1 and 2). So, like Michael Wilcock (BST The Message of Revelation), to whom I am much indebted for my general understanding of the book of Revelation, I am convinced that the millennium, however it is conceived, must be a symbolic reflection of what has been taught earlier (cf. Eph. 2:20). In other words, I believe that during the church age, or new covenant era, Jesus is present with us in the Spirit (Mt. 28:20) and will not return in person until it is time to bring down the curtain on earthly history. Then he will dwell with his people not in ‘Egypt’, i.e. this world of the flesh which is his footstool, but in the ‘Promised Land’, i.e. heaven which is his throne (Isa. 66:1; Mt. 5:34f.) in his Father’s house (John 14:2f.) where he sits even now at God’s right hand (Mt. 19:28f.; Luke 22:28-30; Acts 2:33; 5:31; Heb. 1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; Rev. 3:21, etc.).

It seems to me that unless our interpretation is controlled by the rest of the NT, we are in mortal danger of giving free rein to imagination and of literalising parts of the OT which even in their own setting, because the limits to the prophets’ understanding (cf. Mt. 13:17,35; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; Heb. 1:1), were subject to re-assessment and re-interpretation in the light of the NT revelation (e.g. Heb. 11:8-16).

Problems Associated with Christ’s Return to Earth

Before dealing with the millennium as such, I will focus attention initially on the question of Christ’s return to earth. First, years ago I consulted R.A.Torrey’s “What the Bible Teaches” for biblical references supporting this view. Despite numerous references establishing the second coming, Torrey failed to elicit a single verse in the NT explicitly teaching it (see pp.193ff.). What he did allude to were passages like Zechariah 14:4f. in the OT which he lumped unceremoniously with others from the NT (p.197). The same can be said incidentally with regard to DP. In the two books mentioned above, he nowhere produces NT textual evidence to support his contention. So, while assertions abound, there is a remarkable lack of evidence to back them up. How then does he arrive at his view?

I referred above to the Augustinian worldview which sees the entire originally ‘good’, even perfect, creation as having been placed under a universal curse on account of Adam’s sin. Arising from this is the thoroughly OT idea of restoration. Just as Jerusalem, its temple, its walls and even its people had to be restored or rebuilt, for example, after the exile, so it is assumed that creation as a whole now needs to be similarly restored, regenerated or redeemed. It has to be said, however, that this is not the teaching of the Bible. What needs to be recognised is that even the OT frequently contrasts the perfect eternal Creator with his imperfect temporal creation (see e.g. Isa. 34:4; 51:6; 54:9f., etc.). The latter was ‘made by hand’ (Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 48:13) and, like the law which was ‘written by hand’ (Ex. 31:18; 32:15f.; cf. Col. 2:14), destined ultimately to pass away (cf. 2 Cor. 3:11; Mt. 5:18; 24:35, 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.). In other words, both were temporary and provisional expedients until the arrival of something better (see espec. Hebrews), that is, the perfect (cf. 1 Cor. 13:10). Contrary to widespread teaching evident among premillennialists, especially of the dispensationalist variety, who see the church as a kind of parenthesis, the boot is really on the other foot. The old covenant, including the law and even national as opposed to spiritual Israel itself, will finally disappear having served its purpose (2 Cor. 3:11). And what we shall be left with is ‘all Israel’ (Rom. 11:26) or the ‘Israel of God’ (Gal. 6:16), the ‘true circumcision’ (Phil. 3:3) ‘not made by hand’ (Col. 2:11) or the ‘new man’ made up of all believing Jews and Gentiles throughout history (Eph. 2:15) and from all creation (Mark 13:27, cf. Rev. 7:9). Israel as a race may be loved as the elect people of God but many have been, are and will remain enemies of the gospel (Rom. 11:28) and as such are rejected. In other words, the tree has been severely pruned in the past (cf. Mt. 3:12; 8:12; Rom. 11:22, etc.) and will continue to be so to the end. So while natural Israel, like the law it represents (Mt. 5:18), will endure to the end of the world it will then cease to exist.

All this is plainly contrary to the teaching of a physical return of Christ to the earth. For a start, it must be insisted that Christ is no longer physical, i.e. flesh or incarnate, though some apparently insist that he is (e.g. Grudem, ST, p.859.). Paul leaves us in no doubt at all that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:6). Certainly at his resurrection Jesus was truly restored physically (cf. John 10:17f.), like Lazarus, and was still flesh and bones (Luke 24:39; John 20:26-29, etc.). So, despite the almost universal view that his resurrection body was his glorified body (cf. DP, The Second Coming, SC below, p.11), we can safely draw the conclusion that he was not glorified until his ascension after which, as the Lord of glory, he sent the Spirit (John 7:39). This he himself implied when he told Mary Magdalene not to cling on to him (John 20:17, cf. 6:62f.).

Transformation

It is fundamental to the biblical view of man that the resurrection of the dead, except in cases like that of Lazarus and Jesus himself, is accompanied by transformation. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:35ff. and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 indicates that both the dead and the living are changed when they ascend to meet their Lord. Thus when Jesus comes again he will not come in perishable, first Adamic flesh but in the glorious body of his transformation (Phil 3:21. cf. 1 John 3:2). As is maintained in Matthew, he who is the exact image of God (Heb. 1:3) will come again in the power and glory of God (16:27, cf. Tit. 2:13), glory which he shared in eternity (John 17:5, cf. Isa. 66:18 with John 17:24). And we know from other biblical teaching that God is both a consuming fire (Dt. 4:24, cf. Ex. 24:17) and dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16). Thus it is inevitable that at his appearing when every eye will see him, disbelievers will die (Isa. 33:14: 2 Thes. 1:7f.; 2:8; Rev. 20:9) and believers will be transformed. Beginning with the book of Genesis it is assumed throughout the OT that whoever sees God will die (Gen. 16:13; 32:30; Jud. 6:22, etc.). But, even more to the point, creation itself will be dissolved (Dt. 32:22; Heb. 6:7f.; 12:27-29; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12) and, as the book of Revelation itself makes clear, creation, which has by then served its purpose of nurturing the children of God (cf. Rom. 8:18-25, cf. Heb. 6:7f.), will have fled away (Rev. 20:11; 21:1).

Premillenialism

The tragedy of the position opted for by premillennialists like DP (SC, p.33) is that

(a) it fails to recognise that creation, though ‘good’, i.e. useful, is naturally (that is, apart from sin) corruptible and futile (Mt. 6:19f.; Rom. 8:19ff. Note 1 Tim. 4:3f., cf. 1 Cor. 10:26,31, where Paul tells us that it is still ‘good’). Having had a beginning, it must inevitably have an end (cf. Heb. 7:3,16,24f. etc.); it is temporal and not eternal. Thus, since first Adamic man who as part of creation springs from the earth is flesh, he is also temporal and naturally corruptible. And if like a sinless animal he panders to the flesh as opposed to the Spirit, he will inevitably die like the rest of creation (Gal. 6:7f.; Rom. 8:13). Even Jesus aged (John 8:57) and would have died naturally had he continued to live long enough on the earth. But God’s intention from the start was to give corruptible man, made in his image, the promise of eternal, heavenly, incorruptible life conditional on his keeping the commandment or law (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). Jesus, the man, sought incorruptibility (Rom. 2:7,10, cf. Heb. 2:9), kept the law, inherited eternal life (Mt. 3:17), fulfilled all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) and, having been perfected (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 2:10), finally ascended to the Father. But prior to that, since the rest of us are utterly incapable of keeping the law to gain the righteousness which is the indispensable precondition of life (Lev. 18:5, etc.), in his great love, grace and mercy he died in our stead. He thus provided us with the righteousness necessary for us to inherit the promised eternal life (Phil. 3:9) in the presence of our righteous God (1 Pet. 3:18, etc.).

(b) They fail to make the critical distinction between a ‘natural’ body of flesh (cf. Col. 1:22), which is dust, and a ‘spiritual’ (1 Cor. 15:44,46) or heavenly (2 Cor. 5:1f.) or ‘supernatural’ (Fee) or ‘super-earthly’ (Thiselton) body. DP repeatedly argues that those who adopt a view contrary to his are governed by the Greek dismissal of the body as evil (cf. SC, p.33). This is to misunderstand the issue. The biblical view is that even the body of flesh is not evil in itself (if it were then God would be guilty of sin for creating it and Jesus would be guilty because he ‘tabernacled’ in it!). However, the natural body is, first, the seat of temptation and hence prone to sin, and, next, naturally, that is apart from sin, weak and corruptible. Even Jesus in the flesh was weak (2 Cor. 13:4), temptable (Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 4:15) and susceptible to death (1 Pet. 3:18, or he could not have died! Cf. Heb. 7:16). But the wonder of his life was that he conquered the world, the flesh and the devil by living sinlessly in the flesh (cf. Rom. 8:3) and giving his life for those who believe in him. Contrary to Greek thinking, he did not become a mere Platonic idea or mere intellect, but was transformed into the gloriously embodied God/man whose ‘face’ we shall be able to see in heaven (Rev. 22:4).

(c) DP, like others in his camp, then wants to eternalise the flesh (see SC, p.11). It needs to be stated categorically that this is impossible. Paul tells us that the naturally perishable, or corruptible, cannot inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50). In 2 Corinthians 5:1 he indicates that the flesh is destroyed like the Jewish material temple (cf. Mark 14:58 where the Greek terminology is remarkably similar, as P.E.Hughes has strongly stressed in comment on 2 Corinthians, p.164) which is spiritualised (1 Cor. 3:16f.; 6:17,19; Rev. 21:22). DP, like N.L.Geisler in his “The Battle for the Resurrection”, also seems to think that if man is not flesh in heaven he is no longer man. (Logically, of course, this denies the biblical distinction between earth and heaven.) This is to misunderstand the goal of salvation which is corporeal as well as spiritual perfection (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; 5:5; Phil. 3:21). It cannot mean physical or material perfection which is clearly achieved here on earth by all those who live to maturity. After all, the acorn becomes the oak, the lamb the sheep, the baby the man or woman, and so forth. It clearly misses the point of what Paul teaches in 1 and 2 Corinthians (15 and 4-5 respectively). God never intended that we should live forever in the flesh. The flesh, which stems from the earth, is adapted to living on the earth (why else the incarnation – Cur Deus Homo?); the spiritual or supernatural body is what is required for living in heaven as God’s children which is the point of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:35ff. and Jesus’ in John 3:1-13. At the moment our treasure is in ‘handmade’ earthen vessels (Job 10:3,8f.; Ps. 119:73; 2 Cor. 4:7) which, being naturally corruptible, are headed for destruction, but then in a heavenly building significantly ‘NOT handmade’ (acheiropoietos, 2 Cor. 5:1, cf. 1 Pet. 1:3f.), not of this creation (cf. Heb. 9:11,24).

(d) If it is argued that Jesus was glorified at his resurrection, where is the evidence for it? I have already alluded to Jesus’ prayer in John 17. There we read that his wish was that his people should be with him (cf. John 14:2f.) and that they should see his glory (v. 24, cf. Isa. 66:18). In the event, we are given no physical description of him on earth at all. Rather we are led to believe that he underwent no change, apart from natural growth (Luke 2:41-52), and that, in the words of Isaiah, “he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him” (53:2 ESV). Strangely, even DP in one place in his “Omnibus” refers to Revelation 1:12ff. (cf. 2:18; 19:11ff.), but in SC (p.11) he informs us a la Justin: “When he returns, his body will be no older, still in its prime, still thirty-three – except that his hair will be snow-white (Revelation 1:14), a symbol of his sharing the nature of the Father, the ‘Ancient of Days’ (Daniel 7:13)”! He then goes on to say that we too will have ‘glorious bodies’ just like his. My problem here is twofold: first, we are given no indication of his glory, and, second, I am well past my prime and have no desire to come back as I am. When I was younger I gather I was the proverbial ‘tall, dark and handsome’. But now! I hardly dare contemplate eternity in the flesh! Think of the eternal fate of the ugly and repulsive, not to mention our appalling fleshly habits including frequent visits to the toilet (cf. Mt. 15:17)! Thank God that according to Jesus perishable food and water will be gone forever (John 4:13f.; 6:27). We shall not live on material bread at all but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (cf. Rev. 22:1f.).

Regarding Jesus, I always assumed that his ‘glorious’ body implied among other things visible majesty and splendour (cf. Heb. 1:3; Rev. 4 & 5). Thiselton has something to say about this in his massive commentary on the Greek text of 1 Corinthians 15:40f. (pp.1269f.) and, having suggested that glory implies weight or impressiveness, refers to the variety of beauty and radiance in creation, and rightly draws the conclusion that God is quite capable of providing us with bodies suited to our new environment.

But there is more to be said. The plain truth is that Jesus’ resurrection body was both visible (John 20:18) and tangible (John 20:27). We are then forced to conclude that it was not in its permanent, glorious state since, if it were, it would be invisible to the physical eye (2 Cor. 4:18, cf. Rom. 8:18,24f.). This brings up the question of the vision experienced by Paul which occurred after Jesus’ ascension. What he saw apart from dazzling light we do not know, but in harmony with the Bible’s teaching that death was the normal consequence of seeing God (cf. Rev. 1:17), he was completely overwhelmed and temporarily blinded. Doubtless he was partially protected, as Moses was long before (Ex. 33:17-23).

The idea that only renewed physical bodies will suffice for living on earth during the millennium brings with it yet more confusion (SC, p.14). According to DP these bodies, like that of Jesus, are equally at home in heaven and on earth. Apart from the fact that this erodes the distinction between heaven and earth, this is an impossible position to hold. The reason given for the need of regeneration is not sin, as Augustinians have traditionally held (though note Tit. 3:3-7), but nature (John 3:6). The flesh is inherently unsuitable for heaven (1 Cor. 15:50) and hence ultimately unprofitable (John 6:63, cf. Mark 8:36). So since Jesus had himself undergone incarnation, he also needed to be born again of the Spirit (cf. Mt. 3:13-17, etc.) in preparation for his return to and embodiment at his Father’s side. This necessarily involved bodily or corporeal transformation.

This last comment raises another point. Jesus clearly had to undergo transformation in the form of incarnation at his initial descent to earth (cf. Phil. 2:5-11). If his return to his former glory was a reversal of his incarnation (cf. John 6:62; 13:3; 16:28, etc.) and hence involved re-transformation, on the assumption that his second advent involves coming back to live on earth, he will need to be re-incarnated! Since God creates in the womb, originally the earth (Ps. 139:15) he has no other alternative (cf. John 3:4; Isa. 44:2; Jer. 1:5, etc.). The mistake involved in this scenario is two-fold: first, we are told in Acts 13:34 that Jesus will not return again to corruption, i.e. the flesh. Next, at his first advent he came as corruptible man, that is, in the flesh; at his second, though still man perfected forever in the divine image (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 1:3; 7:28), he will come as God, or Lord, and in his glory (Mark 8:38, etc.).

(e) Again, according to DP, at the second coming which takes place before the earthly millennium, living saints ascend to meet the Lord in the air and then return with him to earth still in the flesh (cf. Torrey, p.197)! Once more, it must be pointed out that the impermanent naturally corruptible body cannot inherit incorruptibility (1 Cor. 15:50), so how do saints like David (Acts 2:25ff.), who have already died and succumbed to corruption and dust (cf. Gen. 3:19) regain their fleshly bodies? According to the Bible their original source was the earth (Gen. 2:7; Job 4:19, etc.); more proximately it is their fleshly parents (John 1:13). So if the dead are going to live again in the flesh, they will have to re-enter their mothers’ wombs, as, given his assumption, Nicodemus correctly saw (John 3:4, though apparently some of his commentators who denigrate him do not). The problem here is that they too have experienced corruption. So we are bound to conclude that the clock will have to be turned back and the whole process of creation repeated! Restoration with a vengeance! Thus, DP tells us that “God’s purpose will not be fulfilled until the entire universe has been restored to its original condition” (p.35)! Apart from noting once more that this is like going back to Egypt (which we might remind ourselves was also a land flowing with milk and honey, Num. 16:13), it is intrinsically impossible, as we shall see further below. The truth is, of course, as Jesus indicated and Paul implied (1 Cor. 15:37,46), that the second birth is not fleshly at all but spiritual, precisely because flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God. It is by its very nature permanently excluded.

So whatever problems we may have with the word ‘spiritual’ (Gk pneumatikos) regarding the composition as opposed to the character of our transformed bodies (1 Cor. 15:44,46), they will certainly not be first Adamic dust, clay, flesh (1 Cor. 15:47-49). The contrast made by both Jesus and Paul is too pointed to allow it, as indeed is that of the rest of the Bible (e.g. Ps. 78:39; 103:14; Isa. 31:3). The flesh, like creation in general, is inherently defective or inadequate (John 6:63. See Fee, and espec. Thiselton who rejects out of hand the view of Justin, apparently accepted by the premillennialists, that “we expect to receive again our own bodies, though they be dead and cast into the earth”, Omnibus, p.1281).

The Finished Work of Christ

In light of the strong emphasis on the finished work of Christ in the NT, one is left wondering why the notion of Christ’s returning to earth is ever entertained. Has not Jesus sat down (note the word) at God’s right hand (Heb. 1:3; 8:1;10:12; 12:2, cf. Acts 2:33; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20, etc.). Since the author of Hebrews tells us that Jesus has already dealt with sin, all that remains for him to do is to rescue those who are eagerly waiting for him (1:3; 9:28, cf. John 14:3; 1 Thes. 4:17. Cf. Moses’ return to Egypt.). In other words, there is no point in his coming to rule on earth. Since his work at his first coming was complete, accomplishing all that the Father intended (John 17:4), there is nothing left for him to do.

The Throne of David

Another plank in the premillennial platform is the throne of David which it is generally admitted Jesus will occupy in Jerusalem. It is immediately apparent in view of what is taught in Luke 1:32f. that this did not happen during the time of Jesus’ incarnation, so it must occur in the eternal kingdom of God. This is borne out by the teaching in Acts 2:34f. Jesus sits on David’s throne in heaven and he does so till all his enemies have become his footstool (cf. 1 Cor. 15:27f., cf. Rev. 20:11-15). As Leon Morris says commenting on Luke 1:32f., “It is not a temporal kingdom, an earthly realm, but God’s kingly rule” (Luke, rev. ed. p.81, cf. Dan. 2:44). Again the rebuilding of David’s fallen tent (Amos 9:11) is not fulfilled literally but spiritually. It is great David’s greater Son who, in contrast with David himself, did not see corruption but underwent resurrection, exaltation and heavenly session at God’s right hand (Acts 15:16f.). As F.F.Bruce puts it in comment on Hebrews and Psalm 110, ”the throne of David is now absorbed in the heavenly throne of glory and grace” (This is That, p.79). He goes on to point out that in the book of Revelation Jesus is, like David in Psalm 89, “the firstborn”, that is, the firstborn in resurrection, “the ruler of kings on earth”, the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” and the root of David whose victory was achieved not by force of arms but by the sacrifice of his life.

The Kingdom

Jesus himself in his encounter with Pilate before his crucifixion indicated that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). Pilate, like one of the executioners (Luke 23:47), apparently accepted this though, perhaps to spite the Jews, had the title ‘King of the Jews’ displayed on the cross (John 19:19-22). Even before this, Jesus had resisted efforts to turn him into a military-style king who would drive the Romans into the sea (John 6:15). In the event, how different he proved to be from his forefather David, a man of blood! Again we are forced to draw the conclusion that Jesus will never be king on earth. This is further borne out by the author of Hebrews who, first, indicates that the angels worship him in the heavenly realm (1:6) which is subject to him rather than to the angels themselves (2:5). Furthermore, at Jesus’ disposal are the powers, e.g. the Holy Spirit, of the age to come which make their impression on the present evil (Gal. 1:4) age (Heb. 6:5; 10:29, cf. John 7:39) not yet passed away (1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:17, etc.). Thus, in conformity with this teaching, we learn that those who have received Jesus as their Messiah (King) replace national Israel as a kingdom of priests (1 Pet. 2:9) and rule on the earth under his heavenly direction (Rev. 1:6,9; 5:10). Note also Ephesians 2:6 and Revelation 20:6 which point to the saints heavenly reign.
(DP is strongly opposed to what he calls ‘replacement theology’. His quarrel is, however, with the NT itself. See espec. Mt. 21:43. Cf. Acts 1:6 where there is obvious lack of understanding on the part of the disciples).

The Heavenly High Priest

If Jesus, though a son of David, was never made King on the earth, neither was he appointed a priest. Here the author of Hebrews goes into some detail. He points out that Jesus was excluded from the earthly priesthood because he was not a Levite but belonged to the tribe of Judah. He was not appointed by the law but by the oath. Thus his priesthood was of a different order, that of Melchisedek (Heb. 7:3, cf. vv.13f.; 8:4). Why? There are at least three basic reasons. First, the law (itself in the process of becoming obsolete, Heb. 8:13) by which the Levites were appointed was incapable of bringing perfection (7:18f.); secondly, the sacrifices they offered needed constant repetition; and, thirdly, the priests themselves were subject to death and needed constant replacement (!, pace DP). In contrast, Jesus had the power of ‘indestructible life’ and having made a once-for-all perfect sacrifice entered the very presence of God in heaven where he ever lives to intercede for his people. Clearly, if Jesus is to reign on the throne of David on earth, his intercession in heaven must cease!

Perfection

One of the doctrines of Scripture most neglected among Christians over the years has been the teaching on perfection. Historically, it has been hidden by Augustine’s misunderstanding of the early chapters of Genesis which has given us a false worldview involving degeneration (from an initial perfection) rather than development. In more recent times, fear of Wesleyan perfectionism has also contributed to modern blindness in relation to it. For all that, it is basic to our understanding of man. Because perfection is usually associated with sinlessness, its more biblical meaning, that is, completeness or maturity (James 1:4), has been lost to view. Jesus, like all the men and women he came to save, may have been born like Adam innocent, i.e. he knew neither good nor evil (Isa. 7:15f.), but certainly not mature (see Luke 2:40ff.). I have already mentioned how trees, animals and the rest achieve physical maturity. But it was fundamental to Jesus who was “created” in the image of God like the rest of us to take on his likeness by growing and developing in all aspects of human life, especially on the level of the spirit, until he attained perfection (maturity) in the likeness of his heavenly Father (cf. Mt. 3:15; 5:48; 19:21). In the event, he became the perfect man (cf. James 3:2), the exact imprint of God (Heb. 1:3, cf. John 14:9) and we in him (Eph. 4:13). As Paul indicates in Philippians 3:14 (cf. Heb. 3:1) perfection is the culmination of our heavenly call (Rom. 5:2; 8:29f.; 1 Thes. 2:12; 1 Pet. 5:10). In other words, it terminates through resurrection in the presence of God in accordance with the divine plan of salvation (Eph. 1:4; Heb. 2:5-10).

Why the Gathering of the Saints?

Premillennialists tell us that we shall rise to meet Christ in the air in preparation for returning to the earth to rule for a thousand years. On the contrary, what the Bible teaches is that we shall all meet together in order to be perfected together (Heb. 11:39f.) and presented together (1 Cor. 15:24-28; 2 Cor. 4:14; 11:2; Eph. 5:27; 2 Thes. 2:1, etc.). Thus Hughes comments, “The inference is clear … that the Church of the New Testament, which is the bride of Christ, is continuous with the Church of the Old Testament, which is the bride of Jehovah. Hence Paul elsewhere describes the Church as ‘the Israel of God’ (Gal. 6:16; cf. Gal. 3:7ff.,29; Rom. 2:29, 4:6ff., 9:6ff.; Phil. 3:3)” (Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p.375). The plain truth is that before the wedding banquet is celebrated in the kingdom of heaven, the earthly city, like Sodom, is burned (Mt. 22:7, cf. Jos. 8:8) along with its mob of murderers (cf. Jos. 7:24-26) some of whom belong to national Israel (Mt. 8:11f.; John 8:44).

No Going Back

Jesus warned us to remember Lot’s wife (Luke 17:32). Why? To all intents and purposes, she went back to Sodom and paid the penalty. Going back is reprobated throughout the entire Bible (see attached essay), and returning to ‘Egypt’ is regarded as one of the most heinous sins in the OT (Dt. 17:16; Ezek. 17:15; cf. Acts 7:39). Thus, to argue that Jesus is coming back in fleshly form to rule on earth is not merely to misunderstand the nature of salvation (rescue) from this present age (cf. Gal. 1:4) but to participate in this very sin.

Typology

Bible typology helps us to glimpse the true picture. Though he had earlier left Egypt Moses reluctantly went back because he was commanded to do so by God (Ex. 3:10). But far from returning to rule as the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter (cf. Heb. 11:24-27), he went to rescue his people by means of the exodus and to pronounce judgement on the Egyptians and their gods (Ex. 12:12). Jesus will do the same. Having completed his own exodus (cf. Luke 9:31 where the same word is used) and gone back to heaven, he will, on the one hand, come back to destroy both “the people that dwell on the earth” (Rev. 6:10, etc.) and their habitat as God did at Sodom (Gen. 19, cf. Luke 17:29f.) and, on the other, to rescue his own so that they may be glorified with him forever (1 Thes. 4:17; 5:10; Rom. 5:2; 8:17; Heb. 2:10). What is more, we learn from Hebrews 7:26 that having ascended into heaven transformed, Jesus is forever separated spatially from sinners just as the Israelites were first made distinct and separated from the Egyptians (cf. Ps. 11:4; 18:6; 103:19; Isa. 57:15; 66:1, etc.). So, to contend that he will return to earth to live among them until their final rebellion under the leadership of Satan is a deep misunderstanding and an imposition on Scripture, something that the book of Revelation warns us explicitly against (22:18f.). Apart from putting his enemies under his feet (like Joshua before him, Jos. 10:24f.) and completing their destruction, Jesus has finished with rebellious sinners (Heb. 9:28).

Conclusions

While doubtless much more could be written on this issue, before dealing with the millennium as such and offering an exposition of Revelation 20, it is appropriate at this point to draw some conclusions.

Principles of Interpretation

First, the basic problem with premillennialism is its hermeneutical principles and methodology. Its literalistic approach to the Bible, especially the OT, has the inevitable tendency to give it an authority it was never meant to have for Christians. If it is true with respect to the two testaments that the New is latent in the Old and the Old patent in the New, then it is absolutely vital that we interpret the Old in the light of the New, and what is obscure by means of what is clear. And where symbolism is involved, as in Zechariah and Revelation for example, if this rule is not applied we lack an adequate canon of judgement. Since they lived before the coming of Christ the prophets’ vision was unavoidably limited (1 Pet. 1:10-12). What is more, the people as a whole were inevitably earthbound and largely materialistic in their thinking. (This was apparently the reason why Augustine turned against Chiliasm in the early church.) They saw heaven largely in terms of earth as even we by force of necessity do to some extent. And it needs to be said that that overworked term, the new heavens and a new earth (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1,5), which certainly refers to heaven, emanates from the OT (Isa. 65:17; 66:22).

(It has to be said in fairness that G.E.Ladd, a classic premillennialist whom DP recommends, strongly repudiates the excessive literalism of Dispensationalism. For all that, he himself does not emerge unscathed. In my view, his essay “Historic Premillennialism” in “The Meaning of the Millennium” ed. Clouse, can only serve to encourage amillennialism. In his concluding paragraph, he comes close to admitting that his case is weak. (Cf. M.J.Erickson, Christian Theology, who does the same but, like Ladd, unaccountably opts for premillennialism, p. 1217.) The problem that he feels is constituted by the millennium in Rev. 20 appears to arise (a) out of his insistence on a literal interpretation which (b) unavoidably adds to the apostolic gospel as revealed in the rest of the NT. By contrast, it is perfectly intelligible if it is interpreted, as by amillennialists, in accordance with the NT revelation in general.)

Covenant Theology

Next, as I mentioned earlier, I am convinced after over 40 years of reading theology that the most prolific source of misunderstanding and error throughout the Christian world is failure to develop a proper covenant theology. The literalistic bent that characterises premillennialists, and especially dispensationalists, would be counteracted if they had one. What I believe to be true covenant theology demonstrates beyond question that the old covenant was temporary, provisional and obsolescent (see especially Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7,13 and 2 Corinthians 3). Just as the moon must yield to the greater glory of the sun, so must the law give way before the word of the oath. While the law terminates at the end of the world (Mt. 5:18), the words of God (Christ) will never pass away (Mt. 24:35).

Third, though premillennialists point the finger of accusation at Augustine for denying early church chiliasm, they seem nonetheless to have swallowed his manifestly false worldview hook, line and sinker. Augustine posited the original perfection of creation, the original righteousness of Adam, the Fall, original sin imputed to all his posterity and a universal curse on creation. The result of this is that they teach not just the restoration of fellowship between God and man through Christ but the restoration, redemption or regeneration of the entire creation as well! DP writes: “… if God once made a universe that was good in every way, he can surely do it again” (SC, p.42). But if he has to do it again, it could not have been perfect in the first place (see Hebrews again). A perfect natural world is, biblically speaking, a contradiction in terms not least because it was (a) temporal, and (b) required man to exercise dominion over it. In any case, to argue creation’s perfection, ruin and redemption has catastrophic consequences for soteriology or our doctrine of salvation. For it logically brings under suspicion the validity of Christ’s sacrifice which, according to the author of Hebrews, being perfect, never needed to be repeated. It was once for all (10:10,14)! DP goes on, “And if the purpose of redemption is to restore creation, he will surely do it again” (SC, p.44). In reply to this it must be asked where such an impossible idea is taught in the Bible. The fact is that the redemption of creation is as alien to Scripture as is the regeneration of the flesh (cf. John 3:4), which is creation in miniature. What is intrinsically temporal, like the law, was never intended to last forever but to be replaced by the eternal (cf. Heb. 9:11; 10:9, etc.). DP suggests that the new creation emerges (Phoenix-like?) from the ashes of the fire referred to in 2 Peter 3:10 (p.49) and that God is going to vacate his eternal throne in heaven to live on the temporal dust and ashes of earth (p.50)! Apart from the fact that what is for us the new creation already exists (John 14:2f.; Gal. 4:26, etc.) and God rested long ago from physical creation, it must be asked how the temporal can house or accommodate the eternal. Even Solomon knew better than to ask such a question (1 K. 8:27). It needs to be laid down as firmly as possible that everything in this world was subjected by God to futility and decay in hope (Rom. 8:18-25), and in accordance with that hope Christ came, abolished death and brought life and immortality (incorruption, Gk aphtharsian corresponding with acheiropoietos) to light (2 Tim. 1:10). This says Paul is his gospel, and the premillennialists by insisting on a repetition of Christ’s earthly rule (cf. Heb. 2:6-9) are in effect denying it (cf. Gal. 1:6-9). Are they suggesting that Jesus did not effectively overcome the world, the flesh and the devil after all (John 16:33; Rev. 3:21, etc.)?

Finally, it must be stressed that the basic plan of God for man is precisely his perfection, which inevitably involves advance, progress, development, growth, and maturation until it is finally consummated in heavenly ascent. And in Jesus, the second Adam, the pioneer of our salvation (Heb. 2:10) it was fully achieved (Heb. 9:24), for he alone went forward and not backward (Jer. 7:24), up and not down (Dt. 28:13; John 6:62). So, it is no wonder that in the early church it was maintained that “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

The Millennium

As mentioned above the millennium appears only in Revelation 20:2-7 and nowhere else (except arguably in the OT). If it refers to a literal reign on earth, it raises problems far beyond some of those already referred to above. DP tells us that we need to live on earth a second time (p.32). If this is true, we have never been perfected, but worse, neither has Christ (cf. Heb. 2)! As Hebrews in particular teaches us, repetition is the hallmark of imperfection (cf. repeated sacrifices). Yet our author tells us that both Christ (7:28) and his people have been perfected forever (10:14, cf. 2 Tim. 4:6-8, 18, etc.). Repetition is out of the question.

Restoration and Redemption

Then DP believes that we need to be restored to our original condition (p.32)! In plain terms, that means going back to the beginning, returning to childhood (1 Cor. 13:11), even babyhood (John 3:4) not progressing to mature manhood (1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:13-16). Adam and Eve may have had adult bodies but like babies who did not know the law they knew neither good nor evil. While they were created in the image of God, they clearly had not taken on his likeness. In contrast, this is precisely what Jesus, the second Adam, did (Heb. 1:3) – and we do in and through him (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:5). We are complete at death, though not before (cf. Phil. 3:12), as Jesus himself was (John 19:30), and as believers we inherit the crown of life (Jas. 1:12).

As already mentioned, Premillennialists are obsessed by the OT idea of restoration (cf. SC, pp.33-35,43f.) and the redemption of creation. DP argues on page 49 that by returning to planet earth for the millennium Christ will have done all that is necessary to make this possible. “He will have completed the saints, converted the Jews, conquered the devil, commanded the world and condemned the ungodly.” A little Bible study will soon reveal that he did this in principle before his ascension and does not need to repeat it (see, e.g., Heb. 10:10,14; Rom. 11:25f.; Heb. 2:14-18; 1 John 3:8; John 16:33; Heb. 2:9; John 16:8-11, etc.). The main battle is already won; Christ’s work on earth is finished and on that basis the work of the Spirit continues. All that remains to be done is to put all his enemies under his feet and destroy death itself (1 Cor. 15:24-28). The very idea that Jesus needs to supplement his finished work on earth (John 19:30, cf. Ex. 40:33) in some way inevitably suggests failure. As I distinctly remember J.I.Packer stressing at a Midland Terminal Conference in Birmingham when I was a student, to add to the gospel is to subtract from it. And this is precisely what premillennialism does.
Note on Romans 8:23 (cf. DP p.34)

In Romans 8:23 Paul clearly refers to the redemption of the body. Are not our bodies part of creation? So if the body needs redeeming then logically so does creation. Must I now eat my words?

Commentators like F.F.Bruce tell us bodily redemption means the resurrection (Romans, rev. ed. p.165). I suggest that there is more to it or Paul would not have used this word. Why does he? The answer is implied in the promise of life first made in Genesis 2:17 (cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.). Clearly that life was eternal life which Adam did not have and which could not have been lived out on the temporal earth in the flesh in any case. It was clearly intended to be lived in the presence of the eternal God in heaven. We have only to consider the case of Jesus. He, in contrast with Adam who relapsed physically into the dust, met the condition of life by fulfilling the law. As a consequence, he did not die but ascended bodily to be transformed in heaven. In other words, since he never died on account of his own sin, his body did not undergo corruption (Acts 2:29ff.; 13:34-37). In contrast, the bodies of the rest of us who are sinners like Adam do experience corruption and we are left naked (cf. 2 Cor. 5:1-5). So then, our bodies, with the exception of those of the saints at the end who ascend as Christ himself did (1 Cor. 15:51ff.; 1 Thes. 4:17), have been forfeited (Rom. 8:10) and destroyed (2 Cor. 5:1) and we are left naked (5:3). In the circumstances, what is required is not just resurrection but redemption. It is worth noting here that Paul refers to the redemption of our bodies and says nothing about the redemption of the flesh. And it is a reasonable inference from this alone that those who argue for a redemption of creation from which the flesh derives have missed the point. Creation does not need redemption: by its very nature it is perishable and impermanent, like the law and the old covenant, and must in the end give way to heaven (cf. 2 Cor. 3).

There seems to be some difference of opinion among premillennialists regarding the bodies of the saints during the millennium, and no wonder. If the dead are raised transformed (though remarkably still in the flesh!), their bodies will arguably be different from those of the saints who are raptured when Christ returns to earth. There is a mass of confusion here.

Then there is the question of continuing sin during the millennium which, since the devil is totally incapacitated in the abyss, argues for continuance in the flesh as presently experienced (cf. Rom. 7:14, etc.) rather than for its metamorphosis (SC, p.34).

This in turn raises the question of sin in the presence of our glorified Saviour who, having dealt with it (Heb. 9:28) is, according to Hebrews 7:26, now permanently separated from sin (cf. 1 K. 8:27,30; Ps. 11:4; Acts 7:49; 17:24). How can he possibly tolerate it if he is ruling as he should be (cf. Hab. 1:13)? This is a mystery that premillennialists seem unable to answer, all the more so when we consider that the devil has been put under lock and key. In blatant contrast, in heaven the devil, sin and curse have disappeared forever (Rev. 22).

Then there is the issue of the devil’s final revolt. If this is seen in the light of the antichrist and the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 1 and 2 in a world where good and evil grow and come to maturity together (Mt. 3:12; 13:30; Rev. 14:14-20, cf. Gen 15:16) it makes good sense, but hardly as the prelude to the end of the millennium. After all, while ruling with his saints on the earth, should not Jesus have gained complete ascendancy over and obliterated evil? Didn’t he come originally to destroy the devil and all his works (1 John 3:8)? That he didn’t and does not during the millennium suggests inadequacy, a failure to count the cost and recognise the strength of his enemies (Luke 14:28-32). Sad to say, this reminds us of what Jesus says in Matthew 12:43-45. During the millennium the unclean spirits will have been cast out only to return and make the situation worse than it was before!

The Binding of the Devil

This brings us back to the question of the binding of the devil in Revelation 20:2-7. If we assume that the entire book is a reflection of the rest of the NT we have no difficulties with it. It is clearly taught in Matthew 12:28f., Mark 3:27 and Luke 11:21 and implied in Luke 10:18; 13:12f.,16; John 12:31; 2 Thes. 2:6f.; Hebrews 2:14f.; 6:5 and 1 John 3:8. It is a plain fact of both the Bible and history that the devil’s goods have been extensively plundered since the coming of Christ (cf. Acts 26:18; Col. 1:13; Rev. 3:8,20, etc.) and they continue to be so. And it is only by means of an excessively literal interpretation of Revelation 20 that we can deny this. There is another point. The essence of the binding of the devil would appear to be the limitations placed on his ability to deceive (20:3, cf. 12:9). After all, at the moment the gospel is freely available to millions and the Bible distributed worldwide (cf. Col. 1:23). But many choose to ignore its message and so are without excuse. They both deceive and are deceived even before Satan makes his final bid for power through the antichrist (2 Thes. 2:9-12). In other words, the power of the prince of this world (John 12:31) over deliberate disbelievers (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Pet. 5:8; 1 John 5:19) remains secure, and we don’t need a millennium to prove to us the basic wickedness of the human heart.

Interpreting the first and second resurrections and the first and second deaths is somewhat more difficult. Arguably the first resurrection is conversion and regeneration (cf. John 5:24ff.), but, given its setting, it might well be the resurrection of life from the dead in which case the second resurrection would refer to the resurrection of judgement (cf. Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10) where for believers there is no condemnation and hence no second death.

An Exposition of Revelation 20:1-10 in Light of the Rest of the NT

John saw Jesus descending from heaven like an angel armed with the strength to deprive the devil of what was previously his universal power over mankind (Rev. 12:9, cf. 1 John 5:19). As the one who has the key of David (Rev. 3:7f.), and is the light of the world, he prevents him from deceiving the nations throughout the gospel age. Towards the end, however, Satan is permitted to recover some of his former power and succeeds in deceiving all who refuse to love the truth but take pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thes. 2:10f.; 2 Tim. 3:1ff.).

Then John saw thrones of judgement (1 Cor. 6:2f.) on which sat the saints and martyrs who had not given in to the world but had kept the commandments of God and borne testimony to Jesus. They lived and reigned with Christ (cf. Rev. 3:21) both on earth (Rev. 1:6) and in heaven (Eph. 2:6, cf. Phil. 3:20) during the time of witness. This is the first resurrection and those who share in it are blessed and holy. Since for them there is no condemnation (Rom. 8:1), they are not liable to the second death. However, they serve as priests of God and reign with Christ at God’s right hand (Rev. 3:21).

(The rest of the dead, that is the disbelieving wicked, did not come to life until after the gospel age.)

At the end of the gospel age Satan is permitted to regain some of his former universal ascendancy over men and women who reject the message of truth, indulge the flesh and submit to the Godless world system (2 Thes. 2; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 2 Pet. 2; Jude). They band together to annihilate the saints, but after a short while (Mark 13:20-22), the Lord Jesus suddenly intervenes and destroys them with the breath of his mouth (2 Thes. 2:8f., cf. Rev. 19:11-16) as God had destroyed Sodom long before (Luke 17:29f.). The arch-deceiver, the devil himself is finally thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone to share the company of the all who loved this world and falsehood. There they will endure torment forever (cf. Mt. 25:41,46).

The Plan of Salvation

Finally, I would stress that the plan of salvation involves among other things our gaining access to and knowledge of our Father in heaven (John 14:6;17:3; Heb. 9:24; 1 Pet. 3:18) from whom we have received a heavenly call (Phil. 3:14; Heb. 3:1). As one who was brought up in the Methodist Church, DP ought to take a cue from John Wesley who once wrote:

“I want to know one thing, the way to heaven …. God himself has condescended to teach the way …. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book: At any price give me the book of God! … I read His book; for this end, to find the way to heaven …. And what I thus learn, that I teach.”

And as the hymn writer expressed it at a later date:

“He died that we might be forgiven,
He died to make us good,
That we might go at last to heaven,
Saved by his precious blood.”

Cecil Frances Alexander

Professor Packer’s essay, Doing It My Way – Are We Born Rebels?, appears in “This We Believe”, pp.43-58. The book was written to elaborate a section of “The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration” drafted by a number of leading evangelicals including Timothy George, John Stott, Don Carson and others and published in ‘Christianity Today’ in June 1999.

In general, the document is highly commendable. So far as sin is concerned the Statement reads as follows:
“Through the Gospel we learn that we human beings who were made for fellowship with God, are by nature – that is, ‘in Adam’ (1 Cor. 15:22) – dead in sin, unresponsive to and separated from our Maker. We are constantly twisting his truth, breaking his law, belittling his goals and standards, and offending his holiness, so that we are truly ‘without hope and without God in the world’ (Rom. 1:18-32; 3:9-20; Eph. 2:1-3,12).

We affirm that the Gospel diagnoses the universal human condition as one of sinful rebellion against God, which, if unchanged, will lead each person to eternal loss under God’s condemnation.

We deny any rejection of the fallenness of human nature or any assertion of the natural goodness, or divinity, of the human race.”

As it stands I have no quarrel with this, though when I read it for the first time I wondered about its interpretation. (It is admitted in the introduction to the book, p.13 n.3, that this may vary.) Regrettably Packer’s exposition of it confirmed my worst fears. What is the problem?

First, Packer is a rank Augustinian and is consequently thoroughly committed to the traditional dogma of original sin. He would have no hesitation in maintaining with the WCF, V1,3 and 4 that since the guilt of our first parents’ sin is imputed to all their posterity, they are “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil”. Indeed, on page 44 he makes the remarkable statement that “the entire human race, from the moment of each person’s conception in the womb, is offensive to God.” (*If this is so, how to we account for the NT doctrine of REconciliation? If original sin is true, men and women were never in fellowship with God as Adam was and so the ‘re’ should not appear. The obvious truth is that all babies as creatures of God enjoy embryonic or rudimentary fellowship with their Creator (cf. Job 31:15) just as Adam did in the Garden, the womb of the race. It is not until they sin like Adam and Eve that they are ‘disfellowshipped’ or alienated from him as their first forebears were (cf. Rom. 7:9f.; 9:11).)

Apart from such texts as Psalm 22:9f. and 71:6, one of the most obvious problems with this is that Jesus himself, as a son of Adam (Luke 3:38), happens to be a member of the human race. This being the case, we are led remorselessly to the conclusion that he, like Seth (Gen. 5:1-3), even though he was created as man in the image of God, was therefore offensive to God! A sentence or two later Packer maintains that the only prospect divine justice (sic!) holds out (for man as born ‘in Adam’) is of eternal repudiation by God and separation from him, and concludes that we therefore “deserve (sic!) condemnation because of the fact and fruit of our original sin” (his italics). A reasonable reaction to this, however, would surely be that there is neither justice nor desert (Rom. 4:1-8 excludes this) involved despite what both Catholics and Protestants have traditionally maintained.

Not surprisingly, Packer as a committed Anglican appeals to Article IX of the Church of England which, in dealing with original sin, alludes to (a) original righteousness, (b) the lusting of the flesh against the spirit (and/or Spirit), (c) the consequent demerit arising from this leading to God’s wrath and damnation, and (d) sinful passionate lust.

In response to this, it must be categorically denied that original righteousness ever existed on the one hand, and strongly insisted that it represents one of Augustine’s basic misunderstandings of Scripture on the other. According to the Bible, man (Adam), lacking the commandment (law), was created knowing neither good nor evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22) and was therefore innocent or morally neutral. Again, according to the Bible the same holds true of all his descendants (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.; Rom. 9:11, etc.). Righteousness was not his starting point but his goal, and it was to be acquired by keeping the law (Gen. 2:17; Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7) just as sinfulness was to be acquired by breaking it (Gen. 2:17; 3:6f.; James 2:9-11; 4:17; 1 John 3:4; 5:17). As Paul, following Genesis, insisted, where there is no law, knowledge or understanding there is neither sin nor righteousness (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:1-8, cf. Gal. 3:19; 5:23; Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 15:56). Even Jesus as man had to acquire righteousness by keeping the law (Mt. 3:17; 19:17-19, 21; John 4:34; 8:29; 15:10) and avoid sin by not breaking it (John 8:46; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22, etc.).

Secondly, the lusting of the flesh against the spirit is pandemic; it characterises all mankind, including Jesus, who was created flesh (cf. Mt. 4:1-4; Heb. 2:17f.; 4:15). It is part of the human condition and is only sinful when it contravenes law (cf. Gen. 3:6; Ex. 20:14,17, etc.). The truth is that the flesh understood simply as our physicality, that part of man that emanates from the dust, is there to be mastered (cf. Gen. 4:7), subjected as part of the cultural mandate to dominion by all who are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26,28). And it is not until we fail in this that we, like Eve first then Adam, fall prey to ‘God’s wrath and damnation’.

Thirdly, the passions are also part of man’s constitution by creation, and provided they are restrained according to (the) law, they remain morally neutral (see Cranfield, p. 337; Fung, p.274). Again, it must be said that Augustine’s false views regarding ‘carnal concupiscence’, based apparently on his misunderstanding of 1 John 2:15-17, must be rejected.

Packer next tells us that original sin is a mystery (p.45). Indeed, since it lacks unequivocal exegetical support and defies the laws of logic at point after point, it can hardly be anything else. Little wonder that one writer, Bavinck, referred to it (though apparently in a more general context) as ‘the greatest riddle and cross of reason’ Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 3:2,27, quoted by Berkouwer in Man the Image of God, p.340), another as ‘insoluble’ (Young, p.47) and others as a ‘riddle’ (Berkouwer, pp.130ff.; Blocher, subtitle). While it must be acknowledged that even Scripture alludes to ‘the mystery of iniquity’ (see on this e.g. Berkouwer, p.130), this hardly relates to the dogma under discussion. Any mystery or riddle that appears, which Packer admits the Bible does not enlarge on (p.45), is of the theologians’ own making, since the reason why man is sinful is made abundantly clear – at least for those whose horizons are not dominated by Augustine. And it is surely a gross exaggeration, based presumably on a profound misunderstanding, to say (the devil’s role apart) that the first human sin defies rational explanation (p.45). On the assumption that original righteousness (see above) is a theological mare’s nest, the reason why Eve then Adam sinned is given first in Genesis 3:1-6, and, in case we missed the point, clarified by Paul in Romans 7:7ff. where he makes it evident that he himself re-enacted or recapitulated their sins in his own experience (see also Eph. 2:3; 4:22; Tit. 3:3, cf. 2 Pet. 1:4; Jas. 1:13f.; 4:1f.). In other words, he allowed, as we all do, the flesh to exercise dominion, all the more so since he was not only made in the same image as Adam (cf. Gen. 5:3; 1 Cor. 15:21f.,45-49) and not unnaturally followed his example, but also suffered the effects of his parental influence and the consequences of the conditions created by him. These made his sin inevitable (cf. Ps. 51:5; Ex. 20:5f.; 34:6f.; Rom. 5:12ff.). This scenario is constantly repeated, for whenever flesh and law collide (see espec. Rom. 7:14) sin occurs somewhere if not everywhere (Jas. 2:10, cf. Mt. 5:19). There was, of course, one exception. Even though he was entirely like the rest of humanity in the flesh, that is, in Adam (which he could not have been if he had been illegitimately exempted from original sin) and tempted at all points like his fellows, Jesus did not sin (Heb. 2:17f.; 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22). In fact, since he kept the law and was therefore declared righteous by his heavenly Father (Mt. 3:17), in accordance with the oft-repeated promise (Gen.2:17; Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11,13,21; Luke 10:28; Rom. 2:13; 10:5, etc.) he was granted eternal life or born again (Mt. 3:16f., cf. 19:16-21).

It will be seen at once that all this is substantially different from the Augustinian framework embraced so uncritically by Professor Packer and many others. Part of the problem is, of course, the long tradition of the church. Augustinianism is learnt by rote (Isa. 29:13, RSV) and never subjected to the scrutiny it so manifestly requires. Since Romans 5 is supposed to teach the imputation of Adam’s sin, Romans 7 inevitably suffers inadequate analysis and distortion (Packer’s views on Romans 7 are set out in Keep in Step With the Spirit, pp.263ff. and again in Romans and the People of God, pp.70ff.). This brings us to the basic flaw in Packer’s thinking, his covenant theology which receives graphic expression in his introduction to H.Witsius’ The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, repr. Escondido, 1990. (See also Packer, Vol. 1, pp.9-22). This ‘federal theology’ posits an original covenant with Adam in which he was regarded as mankind’s representative and covenant head. Though historically this view has had a wide and influential impact through the WCF and the theology of Scotland in particular, it is false to Scripture where there is no reference to either Adamic headship or covenant (cf. Ridderbos, p.386). Far from being our (covenant) representative, in the Bible Adam is merely the first or archetypal and hence representative man, as Paul clearly indicates in 1 Corinthians 15 (see e.g. Fee, p.791). The very fact that we do not exercise faith in Adam as we do in Christ the second Adam gives the lie to federal theology and to the imputation of Adam’s sin in particular.

Regarding the latter, it is noticeable that the Celebration does not allude to Romans 5:12ff. as is usually done but to 1 Corinthians 15:22 where the words ‘in Adam’, absent from Romans though frequently read into it, do in fact appear. However, this verse can hardly be regarded as covenantal in light of what has been said above and hence does nothing to bolster the idea of original sin. Verse 22 is but an echo of the preceding verse, and the words ‘in Adam’ can only be reasonably interpreted in a physical sense, all the more so when they are compared with verses 45-49. To be ‘in Adam’ is to be ‘in the flesh’, and though they may indicate that such a condition is determinative insofar as they lead to sin and death, they cannot be ultimately deterministic or Jesus himself would have been implicated (cf. Rom. 5:12-21 and 8:3). There is a further problem. If it is insisted that a universal imputation is involved in the analogy, it logically requires universal salvation too (cf. Barth’s view of election on which see e.g. Brown, pp.103ff., 130ff.). But this we know to be out of harmony with what Paul, not to mention the rest of Scripture, teaches elsewhere.

It may be countered, however, that despite the lack of an explicit reference to a covenant, the Adamic arrangement, as evinced in Genesis 2:17 has all the hallmarks of one (cf. the missing allusion to covenant in 2 Samuel 7 in contrast with Psalm 89). This may be readily conceded so long as it is recognised that the putative covenant is the Mosaic law in embryonic or rudimentary form (note that the issue is one of life or death as in Deut. 30:15-20 and Jer. 21:8, for example). The point to recognise then is that ‘the covenant’ or commandment is an imposition, like circumcision and the law (cf. Deut. 4:13; Jos. 7:11) apart from faith (Gen. 17:25-27; Lev. 12:3), which has ‘genealogical continuity’ or ‘trans-generational inclusiveness’ (Deut. 29:14, Thompson, p.281, Wright, p.287), and only accomplishes its purpose for good or ill when it is personally kept or broken (Ex. 32:33; Dt. 7:10; Ezek. 18, etc.). In other words, there is no evidence at all in Scripture that either sin or righteousness can be imputed apart from faith, the condition of the Abrahamic and Christian covenants, and the only person who was ever in a position to receive Adam’s sin by faith was Jesus himself (2 Cor. 5:21, contrast Ex. 32:32f.; Ezek 14:12-14; Rom. 9:3), who alone could atone for it. With regard to the rest of us it is explicitly taught that the son cannot be punished for the sin of the father (Dt. 24:16; 2 K. 14:6; 2 Chr. 25:5; Job 21:19-21; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18:2f., cf. Num. 14:3,31-33 and 32:11ff., etc.), unless complicity, repetition, participation or approval is involved (see e.g. Mt. 23:19-32; Luke 6:23,26; 11:48; John 8:44; Acts 7:51f.; 8:1; Rom. 1:32; 2 John 10f. On exceptions such as Numbers 16; Joshua 7 and 2 Samuel 21:1-9 see Wright, pp.262f.). And the Scriptural evidence for the repetition or imitation of sin against the quite gratuitous assertion of Article 1X that “Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam” is massive (see e.g. 2 K. 17; John 8:38-44 and 3 John 11 to go no further).

Packer’s advocacy of original sin then is part of the Augustinian package which he admits to holding (p.45). It is debatable, however, whether Augustine ever emancipated himself from his early Manicheism before he became a Christian. One has only to examine his views on sex to realise that there is something radically wrong with his thinking (see e.g. Rist, pp.321ff., Cunliffe-Jones, pp.162ff.). It is in my view deeply regrettable that Professor Packer, who was the ‘hero’ of my early Christian years not least for his magnificent defence of the authority and inspiration of Scripture, should be so uncritically governed, contrary to Scripture, by the semi-pagan ideas of Augustine. It therefore has to be said with reluctance that it is difficult to understand how anyone reading the Bible as a whole can conclude that we are all offensive to (p.44) and rebels against our Creator God at birth (p.57), rather than from our youth (Gen. 8:21; Ps. 25:7; Job 13:26; Prov. 13:24; 22:15; 23:13f.; Jer. 3:25; 22:21; Rom. 7:9; 9:11; Gal. 4:3; 1 Cor. 13:11; 14:20; Eph. 2:3; Tit. 3:3; Heb. 5:13), even bearing in mind that sadly abused utterance of David in Psalm 51:5. (**Psalm 51:5 has been the cause of much erroneous thinking. I would briefly make the following observations:

The Jews (and the Orthodox) never derived original sin from it.

Its translation is often tendentious and is made to assert what needs to be proved.
If a legitimate literal translation is: “Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (J.P.Green, cf. ESV), depending on our interpretation and the conclusions we draw, it could relate to Jesus himself. After all, Protestants deny the immaculate conception. One thing the overtly doctrinal passages of the Bible will not allow is that David was conceived sinful, for on the one hand where there is no law there is no sin (Rom. 4:15; cf. 7:7-12; 9:11) and on the other he could not be charged with his parents’ sin (Dt. 24:16; Ezek. 18, etc.). If this were not so, then the God, who is presented to us as so holy as not to tempt us (Jas. 1:13), would be guilty of creating us evil (cf. Ps. 22:9f.; 71:6, etc.).

David clearly feels he has been a sinner for as long as he can remember (cf. Gen. 8:21, etc.), a sinner from his youth but not like Israel a rebel from birth (Isa. 48:8, cf. Ex. 32) and his outburst should be seen not as a basic doctrinal statement implying original sin but as an anguished expression of emotion arising from recognition of his sin (v.9, cf. Rom. 7:24) and his urgent need of a clean heart (v.10, cf. Rom.7:25a). In truth, knowing neither good nor evil (cf. Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11), David could no more be a sinner at conception than he could speak lies (Ps. 58:3, cf. Isa. 8:4) or Job could guide widows (Job 31:18)!) Such ideas pose not only acute problems of exegesis but raise theological problems which have already proved insoluble for 1600 years and will presumably remain so for ever. A more biblical conception of sin, however, which involves active transgression of known law (Rom. 2:12; 3:19f.; 7:9f.; 1 John 3:4, 5:17), dispenses with much of this and points to the fact that we all begin essentially where Adam and Eve began, that is, wholly ignorant of law and hence knowing neither good nor evil (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.; Rom. 9:11), and like them at creation blessed (Gen. 1:28,31; Mark 10:16). (Commenting on Genesis 1:22 Wenham writes (p.24): “The blessing of God is one of the great unifying themes of Genesis … God’s blessing is most obviously visible in the gift of children, as this is often coupled with ‘being fruitful and multiplying’.” It is hard indeed to harmonise this with Packer’s views. See also on verse 28, p.33. One might also draw inferences from Hos. 11:1 and Dt. 7:7f.). Like Paul we are innocent or ‘alive’ until the law, apart from which there is no sin (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:1-8; 9:11; 1 Cor. 15:56, cf. Gal.5:23), makes its impression on our developing minds and proves us weak in the flesh (Rom. 7:9-11), all the more so since we have Adam (and Eve for that matter) as our sinful forebear who left us not only with a bad example but the consequences of his and his descendants’ sin (cf. Ezra 9:6f; Job 35:8 NRSV; Jer. 3:25; 7:24ff.; 11:10; Ezek. 2:3; Acts 7:51, etc.). In such a situation and against this background our own failure in our native fleshly weakness is inevitable but not fatalistically predetermined as original sin implies (Rom. 5:12ff., cf. Ex. 20:5f. 34:6f.).

In conclusion, to obviate misunderstanding other points must be made. First, it is quite erroneous to suggest, as Augustinians frequently do, that there is no explanation for sin apart from ‘sin in Adam’ or native depravity (see e.g. Hodge, ST 2, p.240; Murray, p.191). The constantly repeated cry is that we sin because we are sinners. If this is said of unself-conscious babies, it is a blatant lie. It is, however, true of those who have become sinful through personal transgression (John 8:34; Rom. 6:16; Eph. 2:3; 2 Pet. 2:19, cf. 1 Pet. 2:22). Packer himself seems to imply that any denial of our heritage of original sin insinuates a less than adequate view of sin in general (p.57). But as we have just seen, since we are all created in the image of Adam (Gen. 5:1-3; 1 Cor. 15:48f.), we follow his pattern of life under his influence and are conditioned by his sin. Consequently, our ‘fall’ is as true as his was (Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 6:23). And one does not have to believe in original sin in order to accept total depravity.

In light of this, the need for justification and regeneration remains as great as ever, in a sense more so since our sin, far from being alien like our righteousness, is our own (Ex.32:33; 2 Sam. 24:17; Ezek.18:4,20, etc.). (Murray, in his work on imputation, p.86, tries to have it both ways!) As Scripture ever insists, sin is a work involving transgression of law (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 3:10,12; 5:19-21) on the basis of which we are justly judged (Gen. 18:25; Ps. 119:142; Rom. 2:6,9, etc.).

Secondly, the Augustinian worldview is simply false. It posits perfection at the start instead of at the end and thus puts the cart before the horse. Or to put the issue another way, it is restorationist in a way admirably expressed by Milton as Paradise Lost and Regained, an idea which in the light of the doctrine of perfection imports a basic contradiction into Scripture. But restorationism is not only Puritan, it is fundamentally and typically Old Testament in outlook. (In fairness to the Puritans it was the Puritan John Bunyan who produced The Pilgrim’s Progress.) While Ezekiel in Babylon might well look forward to restoration in earthly Jerusalem (e.g. 36:33-38), Christians who are expecting a renewed material universe purged of sin have simply got it all wrong (cf. Heb. 12:18ff.). The temporal world, which conspicuously had a beginning in time, stands in blatant contrast to the eternal God, and, as made ‘by hand’, is inherently imperfect quite apart from sin (Heb. 9:11,24). A renewed, repaired or purged earth is a repeated earth and one that, according to the theology of Hebrews, resembles the constantly repeated sacrifices of the OT priesthood; it is intrinsically imperfect or inadequate and is hence incapable of perfection (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:3-6). The Augustinian view is in open conflict with other sadly neglected, frequently misunderstood but nonetheless clear teaching of Scripture (see especially de Silva, pp.27ff.).

Thirdly, it needs to be recognised that the Augustinian antipathy to ‘Pelagianism’ (see Art. 1X) verges on the pathological. Heretic though he was, Pelagius’ stress on imitation (or, better, repetition) was unquestionably correct, though admittedly he wrongly denied any Adamic input. On the other hand, Augustine’s vindication of grace came at tremendous cost, and it is high time that this was appreciated and acknowledged. It should perhaps be added that to repudiate Augustine at various points is not necessarily to embrace Pelagianism as a whole. Personal sin requires grace every bit as much as the imputed variety is said to do.

Fourthly, Packer is correct to observe that evangelicals are at one on our lostness by nature (though he probably meant by birth) and our inability to save ourselves. He then suggests, however, that there is universal agreement on the ‘realities’ he has written about. This is hardly true. (*** Since writing the above, I have read some of the results of the latest survey of the Barna Research Group (USA) in Australia’s weekly “New Life” (7/11/02). The editor commented: ”Barna found it shocking that 74% of adults say that ‘when people are born they are neither good nor evil – they make a choice between the two as they mature’. The researchers said that 52% of evangelicals agreed with this statement.” (Interested to find out his reaction I mentioned this to our new minister, a former missionary and Bible translator. His reply was prompt and to the point: “Good. There is hope for us yet!”) Indeed, without going into further detail, Genesis 2:17, Deuteronomy 1:39, 1 Kings 3:7, Hebrews 5:13f., cf. Deuteronomy 11:26 and 30:15,19, for example, are convincing evidence that this is what the Bible, as opposed to Augustinianism, teaches. If sin by definition requires either law (Rom. 4:15) and/or knowledge (Rom. 1:20; John 15:22,24), then it follows remorselessly that babies, who know neither good nor evil, are innocent. And the sooner we rid ourselves of the notion that they are sinful at birth and offensive to God in violent contrast to Jesus (Mark 10:16) the better. (It is noticeable that while the Psalmist tells us that God loathed the adult generation in the wilderness, 95:10, he clearly did not loath their children, Num. 14:3,29-35).) There have long been voices raised questioning WCF V1, for example, but they have usually been suppressed or dismissed. However, if reformation is ever to come to the church, such voices must be given a hearing, and I for one am confident that when they are, our tradition will be seen to be in direct conflict with Scripture which does not and cannot teach the Augustinian dogma of original sin. It is exegetically, logically and theologically unsustainable. It is sometimes said or implied that to attack ideas like original sin is to resort to ‘human logic’. The problem here is, however, that we have no other logic to appeal to. The plain fact is that if we cannot apply the law of non-contradiction to false teaching as Jesus and Paul in particular did, then we are lost in incoherence and irrationality. In such a situation our only appeal will be to authority, and this will take us back willy-nilly to Romanism. While it is not illegitimate or even inadvisable to appeal to appropriate authority to bolster an argument in certain circumstances as we all do, nonetheless the Luthers (prophets) of this world must not be afraid to take their stand on Scripture alone. Sometimes this is the only way forward and failure to take it is dereliction of duty (cf. Ezek. 3). At the very least, the mere fact that the dogma in question has proved (a) an insoluble riddle to theologians; (b) a massive stumbling block to outsiders as well as to many insiders; and (c) has such devastating logical implications and ramifications (not usually perceived or at least acknowledged) in theology as a whole ought to give us pause. The truth is that at the end of the day there is an air of dogmatic desperation characterising the usual Reformed expositions of Romans in particular and, to my knowledge, their validity has never been demonstrated. The time is overdue for the Augustinian ideas which permeate them to be thoroughly and dispassionately investigated. They are a millstone round our neck and one that Scripture itself has not imposed. For why should our God, who is too holy to tempt us (Jas. 1:13), compromise himself by unjustly attributing our father’s sin to us at conception when all he had to do to achieve the intention alluded to by Paul in Romans 11:32 (cf. Gal. 3:22) was to make us flesh and impose his law on us (Rom.7:14, cf. Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; 3:11f.)? This strategy worked in the case of Adam and Eve, why not ours – all the more so considering that as children we all suffer the effect of our parents’ sin and the conditions they create (Rom. 5:12ff.; Ex. 20:5f.; 34:6f.; Num. 14:18)? The biblical consensus is that while the whole congregation suffers for the sins of its forebears, it is not punished for them (Num. 16:22; 14:3,29-35; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18:2f.; Rom. 14:7), unless it repeats them (Zech 1:4, cf. Num. 32;1 K. 19:4b; Neh. 13:18,26; Jer. 17:21-23, Acts 7:51f. etc.). The reality is that the radical demands of the law and the self-evident weakness of the flesh make original sin redundant (Rom. 7:7ff.; cf. Job 4:17-19; 2 Cor. 4:7).
_______________________________________________________

References:

J.N.Akers, et al., eds., This We Believe, Grand Rapids, 2000.

G.C.Berkouwer, Sin, Grand Rapids, 1971.

G.C.Berkouwer, Man: the Image of God, Grand Rapids, 1962.

C.Brown, Karl Barth and the Christian Message, London, 1967.

H.Blocher, Original Sin, Leicester, 1997.

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

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

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

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

J.P.Green, The Interlinear Bible, 2nd ed., Peabody, 1986.

C.Hodge, Systematic Theology 2, repr. London, 1960.

J.Murray, Romans, London, 1967.

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

J.I.Packer, Collected Shorter Writings 1, Carlisle, 1998.

H.Ridderbos, Paul, Grand Rapids, 1975.

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

D.de Silva, Perseverance in Gratitude, Grand Rapids, 2000.

S.K.Soderlund and N.T.Wright, Romans and the People of God, Grand Rapids, 1999.

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

C.J.H.Wright, Deuteronomy, Peabody, 1998.

E.J.Young, Genesis 3, London, 1966.

English Standard Version of the Bible, Wheaton, 2001.

The Articles of Religion.

Westminster Confession of Faith.

It is hotly debated in Christian circles whether the resurrected bodies of believers will be flesh (physical) or spirit (spiritual). For a start, it needs to be acknowledged that an examination of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:35ff. does not appear to give an indisputable answer to this question. Part of Paul’s problem arises from the same difficulty that faced John when he attempted to describe the heavenly world in Revelation 21 and 22, and, like John, Paul could well have written, “It does not yet appear what we shall be but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). Of necessity he had to use physical imagery since that is all we as human beings presently know. He uses a series of illustrations highlighting physical differences and particularly that between the seed and the plant. This has been rightly employed by some to argue for obvious differentiation but wrongly to settle the nature of the future body’s composition. For if the seed is corruptible, so is the plant (1 Pet. 1:23, cf. 1 Cor. 15:42; John 1:13 and 1 John 3:9).

A casual reading of 1 Corinthians 15:44 might well be taken to provide a definite solution. Regrettably, scholars recognise that from a linguistic point of view, this verse is less specific than we might wish. The Greek words psychikos and pneumatikos refer, it is maintained, not so much to composition as to ruling or governing principle (see e.g. Harris, pp.195, 402, Morris and Fee ad loc., Wright, p.144). Thus the ‘spiritual’ body can be deemed to be physical but ruled by the spirit or Spirit. The problem with this view, as Harris indicates, is that Jesus had such a body before his resurrection (p.198), and this constitutes his uniqueness as a human being (cf. Rom. 8:3). Indeed, the truth is that as those who are made in the image of God we should all rule our fleshly bodies just as we exercise dominion over the earth. However, through weakness and/or rebellion, we all fail, and instead of the spirit dominating the flesh the flesh dominates the spirit (Rom. 1:18ff.; Gal. 5:19ff.; Eph. 2:1-3, etc.). Clearly there is more to be said on the issue, especially in light of Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 15:46.

Even though we refuse to opt for a simplistic reading of 1 Corinthians 15:44 in isolation, it is difficult, in view of Paul’s strong differentiation between earth (dust) and heaven (vv.47ff.), not to think in terms of composition, all the more so when he says that flesh and blood (i.e. our physical constitution on which see Harris, p. 198 and n.10; Fee pp. 798f.; Morris, pp. 231f.) cannot inherit the (spiritual) kingdom of God, the perishable the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50). In verses 51ff. Paul refers to change which on the face of it is from physical or material corruption to spiritual incorruptibility (NB v.46, cf. 2 Cor. 4:7-5:5; 1 Pet. 1:23). This was surely our goal from the beginning (Gen. 2:17; Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:6-9; Rom. 2:7). In other words, we are to become Christ-like in both body and spirit (Rom. 8:29; 1 John 3:2f.; Phil. 3:21) who is himself God-like (Heb. 1:3; 1 Tim. 6:14-16). Even more to the point, Jesus, on his return to heaven, is glorified with the glory that he shared with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5, cf. v.24; 2 Thes. 1:10). This being so, it is more than difficult to understand how we can share God’s glory (Rom. 5:2; 1 Thes. 2:12; 2 Thes. 2:14; 1 Pet. 5:10), his rule (Rev. 3:21; 2 Tim. 2:12) and his nature (2 Pet. 1:4) if we remain as we are, that is physical flesh and blood beings. Thus it must be said that the transformation to which Paul alludes would appear to go far beyond the regeneration, restoration, even repristination, touted by some! Indeed, physical, as opposed to corporeal (somatic), regeneration of any kind would seem to be excluded by Jesus’ reaction to Nicodemus’ suggestion regarding a man re-entering his mother’s womb (John 3:4-6). (Re-incarnation is pagan not Christian! The future life for pagan religions in general, e.g. the Celts, would appear to have been not only physical but extremely materialistic in conception. Hence, food, armour, horses and even chariots were in some cases buried with dead heroes!)

It is not altogether surprising then that Harris in his extensive work “From Grave to Glory” should take a spiritualising tack. What is perhaps surprising, however, is that he adopts a spiritual view of the body of Christ immediately after his resurrection in spite of pointed references like John 10:17f.; 20:19ff.; Luke 24:39ff. and Acts 10:41 (pp.372ff. Cf. Hughes, who asserts that Christ was raised physically from the dead with a spiritual body, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one, Image, p.373). This, of course, raises the question of his orthodoxy regarding the traditional conception of the physical resurrection of Christ, which is surely fundamental to the truth of the Christian faith (cf. 1 Cor. 15:12-19).

Norman Geisler, with whom Harris was involved in rather acrimonious controversy in the early 90s, clearly considers Harris is both unorthodox and at odds with Scripture. But while Harris ‘spiritualises’ the resurrection body of Jesus, Geisler heads in the opposite direction by ‘materialising’ his heavenly body (pp.127, 215. Cf. the ‘resurrection of the flesh’ characteristic of the early church.)! Though both Harris (pp.245ff.) and Geisler inhabit an Augustinian universe, with the latter it is especially predominant. For him the corruptibility of the flesh has nothing to do with nature but is wholly attributable to sin, and once sin is taken care of through faith in Christ, the flesh or the physical body takes on incorruptibility. Thus having been redeemed (Rom. 8:23, cf. Luke 21:28), it can find its place in heaven (see pp. 122f.; 194f.)!

As was noted above, Harris and others disallow Geisler’s misguided attempt to distinguish between mortal and immortal flesh and blood in 1 Corinthians 15:50 (cf. John 3:6). Sin is no more in the picture here than it is in John 3:1-8, though our spiritual forefathers thought it was (see e.g. Hodge, ST 2, p.242). Paul is in fact dealing with our physical or Adamic constitution as created by God from the temporal earth, the one even Jesus inherited from his human forebear (Luke 3:38, cf. Heb. 2:14ff.) through his mother. Be that as it may, Geisler criticises Harris’ spiritualising tendencies as Platonic on the ground that they involve Greek dualism (pp, 191f.).(1*) In reaction he goes as far as to say that a man who is not flesh even in heaven is not a human being at all (pp.164,190, etc. Cf. Hughes who rightly says that without a body man ceases to be properly man, p.171). This, however, is surely to ignore (a) the plan of God which was always to perfect (bring to completion or maturity) his image in man (2 Cor. 5:5, cf. 1 Cor. 15:46), and (b) to glorify him (cf. Rom. 5:2) in his own presence in Christ (2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Pet. 3:18). If this is so, it surely suggests that our corporeal transformation involves something much different from physical regeneration, purification (cf. Heb. 9:13) or repristination. Not without reason did C. Hodge write, “Everything in the organisation or constitution of our bodies designed to meet our present necessities, will cease with the life that now is .… If blood be no longer our life, we shall have no need of organs of respiration and nutrition. So long as we are ignorant of the conditions of existence which await us after the resurrection, it is vain to speculate on the constitution of our future bodies. It is enough to know that the glorified people of God will not be encumbered with useless organs” (ST, 3, p.780, quoted by Harris, p.323). In light of references like Matthew 15:17, John 4:13f., 6:27, 1 Corinthians 6:13, Philippians 3:19 and Colossians 2:22 (cf. Heb. 1:11), Hodge’s view has much to commend it. The evidence points to the fact that the heavenly body (2 Cor. 5:2) is different in kind from the earthly, physical body (1 Cor. 15:42ff.).

Geisler, however, clearly fails to appreciate the difference between earth and heaven, flesh and spirit, this age and the age to come, creation by hand and not by hand and God and man (cf. Rom. 1:23) constantly maintained throughout the Bible where the movement or progression from flesh to spirit is made especially clear in the NT (1 Cor. 15:23,46). But more on this below.

Having said this, it is not without surprise that we encounter N.T. Wright adopting a somewhat similar stance to that of Geisler and maintaining that man remains ‘physical’ even in heaven. Like Geisler himself Wright wants to distinguish between ‘the corruptible and decaying present state of our physicality’ and a ‘non-corruptible physicality’ (p.143). This, however, begs a very large question. (In fairness to Wright I once heard him remark on a TV program that our resurrection brings us ‘a different sort of physicality’. What, it may be asked, might that be? It simply begs the question. In any case, where is it taught in Scripture?) Like Geisler he claims that ‘spiritualisation’ introduces ‘a Hellenistic worldview that is quite out of place in this most Jewish of chapters’ (he is referring to 1 Cor. 15). Finally, he objects like others to the translation of 1 Corinthians 15:44 adopted by the RSV and NRSV which refer to a ‘physical body’ instead of a ‘natural’ one (p.144). So, what can be said in reply to all this?

First, it is evident that behind the stress of many on the incorruptibility of the flesh lies the false worldview palmed off on the church by Augustine, who arguably remained under the influence of his early Manicheism and Neo-Platonism all his life. Geisler and Wright, like so many other traditionalists, are heavily influenced by the view that creation as it came originally from the hand (note the word, cf. Ps. 8:6; Isa. 48:13) of God was ‘good’, ‘very good’, in fact, perfect. Had Adam kept the commandment he would have been confirmed in his ‘goodness’ or perfection and lived forever in the flesh and presumably on the present material earth unaffected by sin (cf. Geisler, p.167)! This, however, is manifestly not the biblical picture which frequently highlights the inadequacy and imperfection of nature as such, for at best it is, like the law (Heb. 7:18f.), purely temporal (Heb. 1:10-12), serves a limited purpose and in the last analysis proves unprofitable (John 6:63, cf. Mark 8:36; Rom. 7:18; Heb. 6:7f.). In truth, the days of the material creation, which had a beginning (Gen.1) and will therefore have an end (cf. Heb. 7:3), were numbered long before sin made its appearance. It stood in strong contrast to the eternal God (Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 40:8; 51:6,8, etc.) and once it had served its strictly temporal purpose (note Gen. 8:22) it was to be destroyed as Isaiah 34:4; 51:6,8, 54:10; Mark 13:31; Hebrews 12:26f.; 2 Peter 3:7-13 (cf. 2 Thes.1:8; 2:8), for example, intimate. This, I would contend, is precisely what Paul is teaching in that much misunderstood passage in Romans 8:18-25 where, despite the wholly unwarrantable assumption that it relates to Genesis 3:17-19 and the so-called ‘cosmic curse’, sin is not on the horizon (contra Wright, Romans and the People of God, p.31).

Creation Naturally Corruptible

This leads to another point. If creation itself, including the earth, is subject to corruption (cf. Mt. 6:19f.; 24:35), how much more man who is dust or of the earth (Gen. 2:7; Job 4:19; 10:8f.; 1 Cor. 45-50; 2 Cor. 4:7, etc.)! Thus we inexorably reach the conclusion that man’s physical constitution, which is NOT part of the divine image, is intrinsically mortal and corruptible as a comparison between Romans 8:12-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10 puts beyond reasonable doubt. Like the cosmos itself (Mt. 5:18; 24:35, etc.) man’s physical nature (cf. Jesus’ incarnation which was only for a little while, Heb. 2:7) serves a purely temporary purpose till he gains immortality (incorruption, Rom. 2:7. It is worth pointing out here that scholars, translators in particular, frequently fail to distinguish as they should between mortality and corruptibility.). As an Australian semi-popular commentary on Romans puts it, the story of man is “Dust To Destiny” (Seccombe).

Romans 8:21

There is a difficulty, however. Romans 8:21 has usually been understood by those for whom sin is exclusively the fly in the ointment of the material universe that creation will be redeemed from its so-called curse arising from the sin of Adam! I would claim, however, that 8:19-25, like Romans 5:12ff., has been sadly misinterpreted. The fact is that verse 21 can be made to refer to a redeemed, purified and regenerated creation only on the basis of (a) a highly questionable paraphrase; (b) the imposition of a dubious ideology or worldview which necessitates either the purgation of the old or the creation of a new universe (cf. 2 Pet. 3:13), and (c) the neglect of a great deal of other quite explicit teaching which points in a different direction.

The Impossibility of Physical Regeneration and/or Re-incarnation

To take the last point first, apart from references like Psalm 102:25-27, Isaiah 34:4, 51:6 and Hebrews 12:27 (Gk. metathesis, cf. 1 Pet. 3:21 and 2 Pet. 1:14, apothesis) which would appear to exclude it, the NT does not admit the notion of physical (fleshly) redemption or regeneration. In fact it positively disallows it. As was mentioned above, Jesus, in his conversation with Nicodemus dismissed the idea (John 3:4-6), and Paul strongly insists that inherent corruption cannot inherit incorruption (1 Cor. 15:48-50).

Augustinian Dogma

Next, it is on the uncertain foundation of a highly questionable acceptance of the Augustinian dogmas of original perfection, original righteousness, original sin, universal Fall in Adam and consequent cosmic curse that the idea of a renewed universe can be entertained. If the argument is ‘marred therefore remade’, like Jeremiah’s vessel (18:1ff.), then all sorts of difficulties arise. We are immediately confronted with the problem of repetition which the author of Hebrews in particular indicates points to initial inadequacy (7:18f.; 8:7,13; 10:9, cf. John 4:13; 6:27, etc.). In other words, had creation been originally perfect, the need for another would never have arisen (cf. Heb. 7:23f.; 8:7; 10:9). If this is denied, then logically we have to regard Christ’s finished or perfect work on the cross as possibly unfinished, imperfect or incomplete. How much safer it is with Scripture to see the ‘good’, i.e. useful (cf. Gen. 2:9; 3:6), material creation as designed from the start to achieve a purpose which, once accomplished, will lead to its disposal and removal so that the abiding may remain (Heb. 12:27). (As Westcott observed long ago, “The very act of Creation is a self-limitation of Omnipotence”, p.312.)

The word ‘abiding’ in itself suggests that what is perfect, i.e. heaven, the throne of the eternal God (Isa. 57:15; 63:15; 66:1) as opposed to the temporal creation, remains forever (cf. Isa. 66:22). If our destination is the presence of God (John 17:24; 1 Pet. 1:3f.; 3:18; 4:6, etc.), then a new creation, that is, a fresh one that is regarded as a replacement of the present one, is rendered redundant. In fact, it is clearly to an already existing or eternal heaven (cf. the new Jerusalem: Isa. 65:18; Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:2) that the ‘regeneration’ (Mt. 19:28), or ‘the new heavens and new earth’ where righteousness dwells, refers (cf. Mt. 6:9f.). We are fitted for it by being born from above (John 3:3,7) of a heavenly mother (Gal. 4:26) or Father (John 1:13) and by the ‘redemption’ of our bodies (Rom. 8:23). (In the latter reference, the word ‘redemption’ is frequently regarded as a synonym for a physical resurrection like that of Jesus. This, however, is inadequate, as I shall indicate below when dealing with ‘corruption’.)

Romans 8:21 reads literally: “because even creation (or the creature) itself will be freed from the bondage of corruption to the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” If we refuse to be stampeded by traditional Augustinian theology, that is, refuse to read into this verse what is not there, we can translate the word ‘to’ as ‘with a view to’ (cf. Col. 1:16, etc.). Then in light of the fact that freedom from bondage in Scripture almost always involves death and destruction (see, for example, Romans 7:1-6 for law; 6:2,13 for sin; Col. 3:5 for flesh; Col. 2:2 for the elemental spirits, and 1 Cor. 15:26,54f.; Heb. 2:14f. (cf. Rom. 8:15); Rom. 3:24f.; 8:1 and Eph.1:7 for death itself), we can paraphrase as follows: “because even creation (or perhaps better, ‘the creature’, KJV) itself will be freed from its bondage to corruption by being destroyed and thus make way for the children of God to gain the freedom of glory.” If this is allowed and due consideration is given to the redemption/transformation of the body as opposed to the resurrection of the flesh (v.23, cf. Eph. 1:14), its similarity to 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:1 becomes immediately apparent. (It is worth mentioning that there is a strong biblical connection between travail, death and birth. Note Gen. 35:17f.; Isa. 13:6ff.; 21:3; 26:17ff.; 1 Thes. 5:3; Gal. 4:19, cf. 2 Cor. 4:11f.)

To sum up this part of the argument, my conclusion is that since like can only produce like, flesh or biological life can produce nothing but biological life and even then only for its allotted span. It is Spirit that gives birth to spirit and this for eternity (John 1:13; 3:6, cf. vv. 16,36; 1 Cor. 15:48; 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9). The difference is the difference between the old and the new (Heb. 8:7,13; 2 Cor. 3:11; Mark 3:21f.), the perishable and the imperishable, earth and heaven, the temporal and the eternal, first Adam and second, mortal man and immortal God (Rom. 1:23), what is made by hand (Ps. 119:73; Isa. 45:12) and what is not (NB. Heb. 9:11,24), the visible and the invisible, the material or physical and the spiritual, flesh and spirit in fact (Isa. 31:3; John 4:22-24).

If it is insisted that the new creation is not simply new to us who are earth-bound but must be taken literally, another problem arises. Far from already existing and forever continuing to exist, as the eternal world must do by definition (cf. Heb. 1:11; 12:27), the new creation will have a beginning like the old one (Gen. 1:1) and presumably be as subject to the ravages of age, wear and tear as the first (Heb. 1:10-12; Mark 2:21f.; Luke 12:33; Col. 2:22). Again it must be insisted that anything that needs repair, replacement, renovation or repetition is inherently defective. If it is then replied that God can eternalise the newly created heavens and earth, it is more than difficult to see how. For, if they have a beginning, they are by definition not eternal (Heb. 7:3,16; 13:8). But if they are not eternal, they are temporal, and it is axiomatic for both Peter and Paul that the impermanent or imperfect is inadequate and must give way to the permanent or eternal (1 Cor. 13:10; 15:50; 2 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 10:9; 1 Pet. 1:4, etc.). In any case, we must always remember that the present creation is but a copy, type or shadow of the eternal like the temple (cf. Heb. 9:11). And just as the Jewish temple was destroyed (Mark 14:58) to be replaced by God himself (Rev. 21:22), so it is with the physical creation in general, for it is in God that we live and have our being (cf. Rev. 21,22, cf. Dt. 33:27; Ps. 90:1; 91:1f.,9). The new heavens and new earth envisaged by OT writers simply reflects the limits of their revelation and their largely earth-bound vision (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12, and Bruce, pp. 298f., 339; Twelftree, p.41). In the NT, however, we are led to see that what was ‘made by hand’ is replaced with or rather makes way for what is ‘not made by hand’ (cf. Heb. 9:11,24). (Cf. Lane’s dictum that a new act of God makes the old obsolete, pp.cxxxiii, 210). In other words, hermeneutically speaking, the material or the physical is spiritualised, and in view of Mark 14:58; Colossians 2:11 (cf. Eph. 2:11); Acts 7:48,50 and Hebrews 1:10-12; 9:11,24, for example, this conclusion can hardly be avoided. If we have any doubts, they ought to evaporate when we encounter the overt distinction made by Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:1 referring directly to the earthly body.

2 Corinthians 5:1

Dealing with 5:1 specifically, Hughes (p.164, n.22) maintains that it is virtually certain that Paul’s terminology reflects Mark 14:58. My inference is then that if the material temple which was made by hand was destroyed and spiritualised (1 Cor. 3:16; 3:19), or replaced by the spiritual, so is the physical body. What is true of the one must be true of the other, all the more so when we consider that if the God in whose presence we are to spend eternity does not live in a house made with hands (Acts 17:24, cf. v. 25), neither will we. (It is worth mentioning that the death and corruption of the physical body constituted a real problem in the OT. See Job 10:8; 14:14f.; Pss. 6:5; 30:9;119:175; Isa. 38:18f. On the latter, see Oswalt, pp.687ff.)

Do we enter God’s kingdom as incorruptible flesh and blood? Biblically speaking, the very idea is intolerable. There is no such commodity in a temporal material universe which by nature is given over to corruption (cf.1 Cor. 15:42,50b,53,54 and Heb. 1:10f.). All flesh is grass (Isa. 40:6, cf. Ps. 106:20) is a truth that pervades the whole of Scripture. Even in Genesis 1, where man is depicted as created in the image of God, there is an implicit distinction between flesh and spirit, earth and heaven. If we accept that Genesis 2:17 is a promise of life (WCF, 7.2, cf. A.A.Hodge, pp.120ff.) made to Adam in an environment subjected to corruption, then heaven or perfection is the ultimate goal of man – something that the devil seemed all too aware of and intent on preventing (Gen. 3:5).

According to 2 Corinthians 5:1 ‘not made with hands’ (acheiropoietos) is eternal, and according to Hebrews 9:11 it means ‘not of this creation’. There would appear therefore to be no room for dust in heaven (cf. Ps. 78:39; 103:14), especially when we recall that even the created heavens are not clean in God’s sight (Job 15:15; 25:5).

Greek Dualism

At one stage of his argument Geisler charges Harris with the adoption of an unbiblical ‘anthropological monism’ (pp.189f.) and follows this up with the claim that there are Platonic tendencies implicit in Harris’ stance (pp.191f.). Wright also rejects what he calls the Hellenistic worldview, which opposes physicality (does he mean corporeality?) and is contrary to the essentially Jewish character of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 (p.144). Generally speaking, Christian fear of Greek dualism is longstanding and widespread. It doubtless contributes to Ladd’s highly questionable but extremely influential comment that biblical thought “always places man on a redeemed earth, not in a heavenly realm removed from earthly existence” (quoted by Mounce, p.379, from A Commentary on the Revelation, p.275, cf. A Theology of the New Testament, pp.630ff.; Jesus and the Kingdom, pp.59f.,89,97,110f.). As a premillennialist lacking an adequate appreciation of biblical covenant theology, Ladd was unduly conditioned by the Old Testament. Anyhow, there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about the issue, and it requires further examination.

Harris (see also Bauckham, pp.179ff.; Hughes, pp.154f.,170; Kelly, pp.302f.) provides us with a very useful analysis of the situation when he contrasts first Greek and Christian then Jewish and Christian thought (pp.283-287). In particular he notes that Plato repudiates the body and regards death as release from corporeality. “For one (the Greek), a person is an incarcerated soul; for the other (the Christian), a person is and will remain a body-spirit unity.” Though Plato can entertain the idea of personal immortality and even reincarnation, he leaves no room for resurrection. “For Paul, however, there is no incompatibility between the ideas of immortality and resurrection. Immortality is gained through resurrection transformation (Ac 13:34; Ro 6:9; 1 Co 15:42, 51-54)” (p.285). Painted starkly the picture seems to be this: for Plato, in heaven there is no body physical (material) or spiritual; for the Christian, there is a body. (G.A.Williamson writes, “Plato’s Ideal world is not a heaven that could be entered by Jesus; it can be penetrated only by the intellect,” SJT 16:419, quoted by DeSilva, p.283). The question is then whether the body is physical or spiritual. While some like Geisler regard the physical as ‘an essential dimension of what it means to be human’ (p.190), others like Harris deny it and insist on a spiritual body. Who is right?

First, it should be noticed that Harris’s view is not Greek since he clearly accepts the body. When Geisler accuses him of platonising on account of his tendency to ‘spiritualise’ material reality (p.192), he sounds like a Dispensational Premillennialist intent on propagating his chosen ideology based on a crass literalism. (It is somewhat ironic that Robertson charges that “A form of Platonism actually permeates the hermeneutical roots of dispensationalism”, p.214.) Apart from Harris’ questionable understanding of Jesus’ resurrection appearances, which on the evidence are indisputably physical including the moment of his visible ascension (Acts 1:6-11, cf. 2 Cor. 4:18), his stress on the spiritual would appear to be amply justified as we have seen above. What all too many Christians like Geisler apparently fail to appreciate is that if Jesus’ resurrection was physical, he must have undergone the change that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 15:51ff. at (note Acts 1:9) or immediately after his ascension (cf. John 17:5,24). In other words, physical resurrection in this world does NOT imply physical glorification which, judged by biblical norms, is a contradiction in terms. (Note that Jesus’ glory, John 17:24, is that which he had before the foundation of the world, 17:5). It is only on Augustinian presuppositions that the flesh can be regarded as sinful: in the Bible it is simply unprofitable and temporal (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18), and since it stems from corruptible seed (1 Pet. 1:23, contrast 1 John 3:9), it is naturally corruptible (1 Cor. 15:42ff.) like the corruptible earth from which it is taken. (Green, commenting on 2 Peter 1:4, misunderstands the situation when he generalises, “In contrast to Hellenistic ideas, Peter maintains that corruption and mortality are not due to matter, but to sin” (p.74). However, the fact that Adam was corruptible by nature is evident from Genesis 2:17 and 3:19. The point is that in the grace of God he was promised life if he kept the law (cf. Rom. 7:10). Once he failed, he lost access to the tree of life (Gen. 3:22-24) and so succumbed to the law of the material creation of which he was a part (5:5; Rom. 8:20. Twelftree, p.174, is undoubtedly right to reject Irenaeus’ (and Augustine’s) view that we are created immortal but melt back into the earth if we break the commandments. Apart from any other consideration, it is thoroughly illogical since immortality by definition cannot be forfeited.) Since he and all his successors failed (Pss. 130:3; 143:2), a second Adam was necessary as God had always intended (Isa. 45:21f.; Rom. 3:19f.; 11:32; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 3:22). Green’s view, of course, is like that of Augustine who wrote: “We are burdened with this corruptible body; but knowing that the cause of this burdensomeness is not the nature and substance of the body, but its corruption, we do not desire to be deprived of the body, but to be clothed with its immortality,” Civ. Dei, XIV, 3, quoted by Hughes, p.171).

The truth is that practically the entire Bible opposes the notion of a physical body suited to a material heaven (2*) especially one characterised by the sensual delights anticipated by Muslims (cf. Mt. 22:30; Luke 20:34-36. In Buddhism we are simply absorbed in Nirvana and lose our personal identity, while in Hinduism our personality is dissolved in the unimaginable abyss of Brahman). These latter references alone ought to dispel all such ideas, but commentators are inclined to limit their obvious implications for dogmatic reasons (see e.g. Hendriksen, p.806). If angels are ministering spirits (Heb. 1:14), then more than marriage is involved (cf. the comments of C. Hodge above and note Dt. 23:12f.; Job 20:7; 25:5f.; Mt. 15:17; 1 Cor. 6:13; Phil. 3:8). In Luke 20:36 Jesus explicitly links our likeness to angels with immortality and our being equally the sons of God (cf. John 1:13), who is spirit, and sons of the resurrection. In light of this it is hard indeed not to be reminded of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15.

Mention of marriage brings up yet another important consideration that Paul touches on in Ephesians 5:22ff. It is fundamental to the Bible and to this material world that husband and wife become one flesh when their marriage is consummated. But the union between Christ and his church cannot be physical (cf. 1 Cor. 6:17). It is not so on earth and it cannot be so in heaven. The mystery to which Paul refers is ‘spiritual marriage union’ (O’Brien, p. 438). Though husband and wife experience fleshly union they retain their own individuality and their own roles (cf. the Trinity). The same is true with regard to the relationship between Christ and his body, the church. Indeed, the evidence points to the fact that human marriage is but a type of the heavenly which is first in order of precedence and priority (cf. the temple). Though the imagery Paul uses in describing the bride is physical, there is no hint that the union is other than spiritual.

While scholars like Bauckham (p.183), Wright (p.144) and Kelly (p.302) all attribute the corruptibility of both the world of men (kosmos) and the material creation (ge) (3*) to sin or desire (epithumia), others like Lane and DeSilva, with a much more accurate understanding of the state of play based on Hebrews rather than Augustine, recognise that material corruptibility is natural (i.e. it was written into the universe, which being temporal has a beginning and an end, cf. Gen. 1:1 and Mt. 28:20, by God himself who always had something better in mind for those of his creatures who were made in his image) and so apart from sin. Thus DeSilva, for example, writes perceptively as follows: “Once more the author’s amalgamation of Platonic categories and Jewish and Christian cosmology becomes apparent: he borrows from the Platonic distinction between the changing, impermanent material realm and the eternal realm of ideas and interprets this through the Jewish and Christian apocalyptic view of history and the cosmos. Thus the ‘visible’ remains ‘temporary’ and inferior because it is destined for removal at God’s coming intervention in history; the ‘abiding’ realm already exists, but as the realm of God that will be the sole remaining realm after this ‘shaking’” (p.408 and note also pp.283,400,439, etc.).

If DeSilva is right, then Christian antipathy to Greek dualism has been somewhat misguided. The ‘platonising tendency’ detected in those who advocate a heavenly spirituality is in fact derived from the Bible itself – and not simply from Hebrews. After all, God himself is spirit (John 4:24) and heaven, not earth, is his throne (Isa. 66:1; Mt. 5:34). And those who are obsessed with the idea that ‘flesh’ (as opposed to ‘sinful flesh’) and ‘physicality’ or ‘materiality’ are in no way inferior to spirit (surely a gross misreading of Scripture whose source is Augustinian dogma and, it would seem in recent times, New Age thinking) but are indispensable to humanity have in fact misconstrued the divine plan of salvation. This always presupposed our becoming the children of God who is spirit. Hence the ultimate perfection and glorification of man were God’s moral and generic image (cf. Rom. 2:7; 8:29; 2 Cor. 5:5; Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 1:3; 1 John 3:2), and these necessarily involved the movement or change from flesh to spirit evident throughout the Bible (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:46; 1 Pet. 3:18; 4:6; Heb. 12:23). The plain fact is that the (spiritual) perfection of the material world, which is inherently subject to corruption, is impossible: the intrinsically perishable or imperfect cannot inherit the imperishable or perfect (cf. 1 Cor. 13:10; 15:50). When the permanent (Gk. ‘remaining’) comes (that is, from our point of view though in fact, since it is eternal, it already exists and always has existed), the impermanent fades away (2 Cor. 3:11, cf. 1 Cor. 13:10; Heb. 1:11; 8:13; 10:9; 12:27; 13:8; 1 Pet. 1:4). The present age gives way totally to the age to come (Luke 20:34-36; 1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:15-17, cf. Col. 3:5; Tit. 2:11-14). On the other hand, corporeality involving a body of glory is essential to individuality and personal identity (cf. Col. 1:19; 2:9). Thus Nirvana, like re-incarnation, is excluded. However, this raises the question of what is meant by our sharing the nature of God in 2 Peter 1:4 (cf. Rom. 5:2; Col. 1:27, 1 Thes. 2:12; 1 Pet. 5:10, etc.).

Summary

Reminding ourselves that man is a body by nature and is incomplete without one (2 Cor. 5:2-4; Phil. 1:21-23), we may sum up by stating that viewed as body and soul man is monistic but as flesh and spirit he is dualistic. His body is intrinsic to him as man but his flesh is expendable like the material creation he presently inhabits. In contrast with the body which is positively affirmed, the flesh is always regarded pejoratively in Scripture (Jer. 17:5; John 6:62, etc.).

Sharing God’s Nature

The idea that we share God’s personal being or essence and thus to all intents and purposes become God (cf. Christ), or are absorbed Nirvana-like, must be rejected out of hand. As early as Genesis 1:26 we read that man is created in the image of God in principle, but increasing likeness to God is implied in 3:5 and 22 (cf. Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). On the other hand, as those who are born of God (John 1:13, cf. 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9), from above (John 3:3,7), of the Spirit, become children of God (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 4:5f.; 1 John 3:1), have fellowship with him (1 John 1:3) and share his glory (Rom. 5:2; Col. 3:4; 2 Thes. 2:14) we undergo what the Orthodox Church calls ‘divinisation’ (cf. John 10:34). Here in 2 Peter 1:4 it is not simply a question of God’s ethical nature; rather the language is metaphysical (see e.g. Kelly, p. 304, cf. Harris, p. 330 n.12). If this is so, then again it is reasonable to conclude that our earthly bodies, which we are urged to (metaphorically) put to death even while we are still in the flesh (Col. 3:5; Rom.; 8:13; 2 Cor. 4:10f., cf. 6:6; Gal. 5:24), will not re-appear purified and immortalised in a new or purged physical universe. Rather, just as Christ once took on our nature and became flesh (Heb. 2:14) so we, like him, will take on his spiritual nature in order to enter the presence of God to which he returned (John 17:5; Heb. 1:3; 9:11,24; 1 Pet. 3:18, cf. 4:6; Eph. 2:18; John 14:1-6; 17:24; 1 Cor. 15:37,42-44; 2 Cor. 4:16-5:1; 8:9). Indeed, we do well to remind ourselves at this point that in him the whole fullness of God dwells in bodily (Col. 1:19; 2:9), not fleshly (Col. 1:22), form (cf. 2 Cor. 5:16 and see Harris, p.388).

It must be further emphasised that physicality or materiality as created, in contrast to spiritual corporeality, is combustible and therefore vulnerable to fire (Mal. 3:2f.; Jas. 5:3). How then, in the words of Isaiah, will it withstand ‘devouring fire’ and ‘everlasting burnings’ (33:14, cf. Jer. 15:14)? Apart from what we are taught in 2 Peter 3:7,10-12 (cf. 2 Thes. 1:7), we have to remember that since God himself is a consuming fire he necessarily consumes all created things (Heb. 12:27,29; cf. 1 Pet. 1:7; Dt. 32:22) which is why believers who are alive at the second coming are brands plucked from the burning (Amos 4:11; Jude 23a). (Even in this world the scientists tell us we have to be ‘sheltered’ from the sun.) Furthermore, it is frequently insisted early in the Bible that no human being can see God and live (Gen. 16:13; Jud. 6:22; 1 Tim. 6:16, cf. Ex. 33:17ff.). Clearly a radical change must take place if we are to dwell in his presence forever. Physicality or flesh seems to be out of the question.

Geisler on Romans 8 and 2 Peter 3

Mention must be made at this stage of the dubious interpretation of Harris (pp.245f.,327) and especially Geisler (p.192) of Romans 8:18-25 and 2 Peter 3:7,10-13. Geisler writes that a careful study of these passages will show that the new heaven and earth will be ‘just as physical and material (though everlasting) as the first ones were’. As a philosopher Geisler really ought to have noticed that everlastingness or rather eternality (4*) is impossible for something that is intrinsically temporal (Gen. 1:1), perishable (1 Cor. 15:50; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.) and impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18; 1 Pet. 1:7, cf. v.4). He goes on: “Paul refers to ‘the creation’ that was subjected to bondage as ‘the (same) creation itself (that) also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption ….’” Yes, but how will it be freed from its corruption? On the evidence at our disposal, unless Paul is contradicting himself, its liberty will come, as was suggested above, by death and destruction (Heb. 1:11, cf. 2 Cor. 4:16). Since the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable, it will obviously be removed and replaced like Peter’s physical body (Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 1:14). Geisler then adds: “Indeed, he ties it to the physical resurrection of believers, saying, it is ‘eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of the body’ (v.23 NKJV).” This is hardly correct since a comparison with 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:1 would appear to exclude a physical resurrection as was noted above. Freedom for the believer comes by material destruction or corruption (4:16) and spiritual corporeal transformation (5:1). Since the temple made by hand (cheiropoietos) was destroyed and spiritualised (Mark 14:58; Rev. 21:22), so by parity of reasoning must a body made by hand (Gen. 2:7; Ps. 119:73; Isa. 64:8; 2 Cor. 5:1).

A little later on the same page Geisler then tells us that we know Christ’s resurrection body was physical and concludes on the basis of this that believers’ new bodies and the new heaven and earth will be just as physical. It is here of course that he makes a move common, if not universal, among writers on this theme. (Another who uses what I believe to be a false model ignoring the uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection is Twelftree, pp.121 passim). It is assumed, though I have still to discover why, that Jesus’ resurrection body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) is the same as his glorified body (see e.g. Hughes, Hebrews, p.285). Surely, if Jesus’ body was truly physical, it must have been subject to the same change (cf. John 17:5,24; Rev. 1:12ff., etc.) that Paul insists takes place in us, or at least in those who are left at his return (1 Cor. 15:50ff.). (Geisler goes out of his way to prove that Jesus’ body was physical and is so even in heaven, pp. 108ff., 215ff. However, the evidence he produces of Jesus’ physicality and the non-miraculous nature of his appearances would appear to me to prove conclusively that Jesus was not glorified until his ascension. In contrast, Thiselton appears to want it both ways. While he also provides abundant evidence for Jesus’ post-resurrection physicality, he says his “‘bodily’ mode verged on, but also transcended, the physical”. (5*) This begs a number of questions, see e.g. Geisler, pp.215ff., but he is surely near the truth when he says: “In the event of the ascension … the ‘body’ would transcend physical limitations”, pp.1278f. Perhaps Geisler’s Christ is docetic after all! (6*) It might well be added here that the rather enigmatic statement that appears in John 20:17 points to the fact that the physical Jesus has not yet ascended and hence has not been glorified, cf. 7:39, except by his death, 3:14, cf. 12:32, on which see e.g. Morris, pp.225f.).

The Two Adams

This brings up another matter. Jesus’ resurrection was unique in that though his body really died, in contrast with that of Lazarus it did not see corruption (Acts 2:27,31; 13:34f.). Why not? The primary answer would seem to be that while he died for others, he himself did not sin. This being the case, the promise implied in Genesis 2:17 regarding the first Adam’s death (and corruption, cf. 3:19) was fulfilled in him. While our physical bodies are forfeited and become subject to corruption on account of sin (Rom. 8:10) and hence need redemption (Rom. 8:23), Jesus’ body was simply transformed at his ascension (1 Cor. 15:51ff.). So, since he personally kept the original commandment, indeed the whole Mosaic law, he transcended the universal rule of physical death and corruption (2 Tim. 1:10) in accordance with the promise. To put the issue otherwise, had the first Adam kept the law, he too would have gained (eternal) life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Mt. 19:16ff., etc.). Once he had successfully completed the test, in God’s good time (cf. Gal. 4:2) he would have ascended into heaven. Physically? Not according to Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15:45ff. Even though, or rather since, he had gained life, he would have been changed. As Paul indicates in verses 44 and 46, he would have been transformed from the physical to the ‘spiritual’ which, given the context, must surely refer not simply to ruling principle but composition. (It is worthy of note that Augustine apparently saw this clearly when he wrote, “If Adam had not sinned, he would not have been divested of his body, but would have been clothed (superinvested) with immortality and incorruption, that his mortal (body) might have been absorbed by life; that is, that he might have passed from his natural body to the spiritual body,” De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, 1,2, quoted again by Hughes, p.171. Regrettably Augustine makes it clear in another quotation by Hughes (ibid.) that the natural body was simply immortalised. Like Irenaeus and other church fathers he believed in the resurrection of the flesh, see Geisler, pp.217f. But according to Paul this is impossible and hence is rightly rejected by modern writers like Fee and Thiselton.)

Geisler’s reference to 2 Peter 3 leaves a good deal to be desired too. Unless one has a hidden agenda, the only reasonable inference from it is that what is involved is the destruction of the entire created order (cf. Zeph. 1:2,18; 3:8; Heb. 12:26-29). According to Kelly, this is ‘demanded’ (p.365), and it is difficult not to agree.

Appeal is sometimes made to 2 Corinthians 5:4 which suggests in the minds of some that to be ‘further clothed’ (RSV) is to put a new body on over the old one like an overcoat. But this is surely to assign more to the Greek word than is intended. Behind Paul’s thinking is his desire to avoid death (cf. Phil. 1:21-23) with the body’s subsequent corruption leaving him in a state of ‘nakedness’. Yet even if he were alive at the parousia (1 Cor. 15:51ff.), his mortal body would be swallowed up, i.e. it would disappear (cf. Acts 1:9) or be dissolved like death itself (1 Cor. 15:54), and be replaced with a heavenly ‘building’ from God (2 Cor. 5:1). In the event, he died a martyr convinced that God would save him for his heavenly kingdom despite the disintegration of his earthly body (2 Tim. 4:18).

Concluding Comments

While there are other in the main minor points to be cleared up (see e.g. Geisler, pp.194f. (7*), I conclude that on the basis of the evidence the glorified body is spiritual (or supernatural (Fee) or super-earthly (Thiselton), that is, heavenly (2 Cor. 5:1f.), and certainly beyond our present experience (1 John 3:2). In any case, the physical body is perfected or brought to maturity in this world (cf. the acorn and the oak). Behind the stance of those who take the opposite view that our bodies will be eternally physical (a blatant contradiction in terms) lies the false Augustinian frame of reference or worldview which attributes the inadequacy of the present visible material world solely to sin instead of to nature as God created it at the beginning (Gen.1:1). Indeed, the mere fact that it had a beginning proves conclusively that it was not eternal and therefore not perfect (cf. Heb.7:3. It is worth noting that this reference highlights the difference between Jesus’ mortal flesh in which he grew older and was subject to natural corruption, John 8:57, and his eternal spiritual nature, cf. John 17:5,24; Heb. 7:16,2428;1 Pet. 3:18, etc.) Apart from texts like Matthew 5:18; 24:35; 2 Corinthians 4:18, cf. Rom. 8:18,24f.; Hebrews 1:10-12 and 12:26-29, we must note the difference between:

flesh and spirit (Rom. 8:13)
corruption and eternal life (Gal. 6:8)
earth and heaven (Heb. 12:25; Mt. 5:34f.)
creation and God (Ps. 102:26f.)
present age and the age to come (Luke 20:34-36; Eph. 1:21)
kingdom of the world and kingdom of our Lord (Rev. 11:15)
made by hand and not made by hand (Mark 14:58; 2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 9:11,24)
visible and invisible (1 Cor. 2:9; 2 Cor. 4:18; Rom. 8:18,24f.)
temporary and permanent splendour (2 Cor. 3;7-1; Hag. 2:9)
death and life (2 Cor. 3:6, cf. 4:16-5:1)
first Adam and last Adam (1 Cor. 15:47)
immortal God and mortal man (Rom. 1:23)
physical birth (generation) and spiritual rebirth (regeneration: John 3:6)
bondage and freedom (Gal. 4:21-31)
servanthood and sonship (Gal. 4:7; Heb. 3:1-6)
law and the word of the oath (Heb. 7:21)
material and spiritual promises (Heb.8:6)
old and new covenants (Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7,13)
corruptible seed (spora, 1 Pet. 1:23) and spiritual seed (sperma, 1 John 3:9).

We could go on, but a false covenant theology and hence failure to appreciate the contrast between the old and new covenants has done as much as anything to vitiate a true understanding of Scripture. Had there been greater insight in this area, it would have been much easier for theologians to perceive the forward movement and the perfecting process with its concomitant transformation and spiritualisation that characterises the NT, indeed, the whole Bible (but see espec. Hebrews, e.g. 11:8-16).

So far as the present subject, the heavenly body, is concerned, given the correct biblical premises the issue can be settled by appeal to plain logic. If physicality or materiality is created in time, then it is intrinsically impermanent (Heb. 11:3, cf. Eccl. 3:1-8). Being temporal, by definition it cannot therefore be eternal (cf. Ps. 102:15-27; Isa. 40:6-8; 50:9; 51:6,8,12, etc.). And if like can only produce like (John 3:6; 1 Cor. 15:48), future physicality is necessarily excluded. The perishable can neither beget nor inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50). Thus it becomes clear that even God cannot produce an eternal new (i.e. fresh) creation, since, if it is new and has a beginning, it is not eternal. The adjectives new (fresh as opposed to new to us) and eternal are mutually exclusive unless the law of non-contradiction is false. (This proves, incidentally, that the biblical new creation is heaven, the regeneration or the eternal world that permanently abides. The new heavens and the new earth, like the age to come and the new Jerusalem which is our mother, ALREADY exist. They have always existed and need not, indeed, cannot be freshly created. They are new only from our earthly human point of view.) As was suggested above, from a biblical perspective eternal materiality is a contradiction in terms (cf. Heb.12:27). A mass of evidence tells against it as do universal history, experience and science.

The wonder of the gospel, according to John, is that we should be called the children of God (1 John 3:1), who is spirit (John 4:24). If like begets like (John 3:6), this entails our being born of the Spirit (John 1:12f.), receiving his Spirit, being conformed to his image (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 4:4), having a body like that of Christ (Phil. 3:21) who will return in the glory of the Father (Mt. 16:27, cf. John 17:5) which we will share (Rom. 5:2; 1 Thes. 2:12; 2 Thes. 2:14) along with his fellowship (1 John 1:3), his life (Col. 3:4) and his throne (2 Tim. 2:14; Rev. 3:21). Above all, we shall share the perfection of his own nature (Mt. 5:48; 2 Pet. 1:4, cf. Heb. 1:3; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:17; 1 Pet. 4:6; 5:1,10) as was implicitly promised when we were made in his image (Gen. 1:26. Cf. Westcott: “… man was made in God’s image to gain His likeness, p.306).

On reflection, our own background is not this world but eternity (cf. Mt. 25:34). Not without reason did Paul write to Titus about hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began (1:2, NKJV, cf. 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:4,11; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet. 1:2). Thus Calvin also had good cause to write a book entitled “Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God”, for he was not unaware of the amazing “purpose of the gospel to make us sooner or later like God; indeed it is, so to speak, a kind of deification” (Peter, p.300, quoted by Lucas and Green, p. 51). If this is so, then we cannot but conclude that far from being ‘flesh’ possessing nothing more than immortality and incorruptibility (Bauckham, p.181), we shall shine forever like the sun in the presence of the Father and of the Lamb (Mt. 13:43, cf. John 17:5,24; 1 Cor. 2:9; 15:43a; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:17f.; 1 John 3:2).

In light of this, part of R.P.Martin’s straightforward summary of his commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 is appropriate: “The Spirit, the pledge from God, is the basis for believing that God has something better in store for his people. There will come the day when the Christian will receive his or her permanent dwelling, the spiritual body, from God” (p.116).

It might finally be observed that the body of flesh like the temporal creation from which it derives was always intended to be the slave of the spirit as it was in Jesus’ case (Gen. 1:26,28; Ps. 8:5f.). When it has served its purpose, it will be cast out (Gal. 4:29f.). Only the son remains in the house forever (John 8:35).

________________________________________________________________________________

Notes

1* Theologians frequently charge others with Greek dualism. All too often the charge is based on a radical misunderstanding. For instance, O.P.Robertson claims correctly that man was created “as a physical/spiritual complex.” From this, however, he draws the wholly inaccurate conclusion that man’s redemption involves “the renewal of his total being in the context of his total environment” (p.215). And in case we have misunderstood his meaning he says on the previous page: “From the beginning, Christ’s goal is the restoration of the total man in his total creational environment. Nothing less than bodily resurrection in the context of new heavens and a new earth where the entire curse of the fall has been removed can satisfy the biblical concept of redemption” (p.214). Restoration (repetition) is an OT or old covenant idea and is alien to the new covenant which requires the death, destruction, replacement or transformation of the old. As Paul says, the old body is not the body which is to be (1 Cor. 15:37). If restoration is entertained at all in a new covenant setting, it involves spiritual reconciliation or the restoration of the “fellowship” (cf. Adam in the Garden) we enjoy with our Creator when we are created in the womb (cf. Job 31:15, etc.).

Surely there is nothing more clearly taught in the NT than that the fleshly body (2 Cor. 5:1, etc.), like the temporal/material earth from which it derives (Gen. 1:1), is perishable by nature. It will be destroyed to make way for a spiritual body fitted for heaven. In other words, man will be incomplete without a body, but he was never intended to retain his flesh as Paul emphasises in 1 Corinthians 15:35ff.

2* For all that Grudem tells us that Christ is incarnate (meaning?) in heaven (p.859) and Milne that the Christian’s hope is a “fleshly bodily hope” (p.170). Nothing could be further from biblical truth.

3* Lucas and Green say (p.133 n.26) that the NIV meticulously observes the distinction between kosmos (world – 1:4; 2:5,20; 3:6) and ge (earth – 3:5,7,10,13). When they also say (p.53) that the corruption we are to flee is not our physical bodies but sin, they are implicitly contradicting themselves. They correctly hold that the physical universe will be destroyed but fail to recognise that our physical bodies are part and parcel of its corruption. In contrast, Paul clearly teaches that we are to put to death not merely sin but what is earthly in us (Col. 3:2,5, cf. Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:17,24; 1 Pet. 2:11 and note Rom. 16:18; Phil. 3:19; 1 Cor. 6:13). In other words, our physical bodies are naturally corruptible and must not be pampered. To sow to the flesh is certain death (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8) irrespective of sin. Just ask your cat and/or dog (cf. Isa. 31:3)! They live on bread alone! (When I wrote this, I had not read James Dunn’s “The Theology of Paul the Apostle. I note with gratitude Dunn’s frequent reference to Romans 8:13 and Galatians 6:8, and his succinct assertion that the body or soma can cross the boundary of the ages but that the flesh or sarx belongs to this present age, Romans, p.391. Cf. 6* below.)

4* I take it that eternality is qualitatively superior to everlastingness. See Salmond, pp. 391f., quoted by Morris, John, p.227. M.M.Thompson writes, “This ‘eternal life’ or ‘life of the age to come’ is the very life that God has, God’s own kind of life, divine life. We may see how the adjective ‘eternal’ fits the noun ‘life’, for God alone exists eternally …. And yet it seems almost a contradiction in terms to speak of having ‘eternal life’, the life of the age to come in the present …. Thus eternal life is also the appropriation by faith of unseen yet present realities that shape one’s life in this world and become more fully realised in the next” (pp.380f.). See also art. Eternal in New 20th Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. Douglas, Grand Rapids, 1991.

5* On pp.372f. Harris sets out what he terms the materialistic and nonmaterialistic statements regarding Jesus’ resurrection side by side. It strikes me that the latter are remarkably imprecise compared with the former and are open to a materialistic interpretation. He then alludes to Sparrow-Simpson’s reference to the “ethereal and intangible state” of Jesus’ body. One wonders what Sparrow-Simpson made of John 20:17 to go no further. Harris’ further comments ought to be read carefully. However, I still find fundamental difficulties with the notion that Jesus’ resurrection body was the same but now glorified (p.399).

6* It would appear that the majority of writers confuse the corporeal (somatic) with the physical/material. Fee, who not without reason refers to a supernatural body, pertinently brings out the distinction. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:50 he writes: “The two lines … Together … declare most decisively that the body in its present physical expression cannot inherit the heavenly existence of vv.47-49” (p.798). Again he comments on Philippians 3:21 as follows: “… Christ’s present existence is ‘bodily’ in the sense of 1 Corinthians 15, that the ‘body’ is the point of continuity between the present and the future; but the ‘form’ that body has taken is the point of discontinuity ” (p.383). See also Dunn, Romans 1-8, p.391.

7* According to Geisler (pp.201,232f.), Origen denied the material nature of the resurrection body and his views were condemned by the Council of Toledo (A.D.447). He then quotes with approval from the Fourth Council (A.D.663), which asserted the resurrection of ‘the same flesh wherein we now live’. This is manifestly false to Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:50 and betrays a failure to distinguish between the resurrection of Christ, whose body did not undergo corruption, and that of those which did (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51ff.; 1 Thes. 4:13ff.). While Origen must be treated with great circumspection in general, he seemed to have had a better understanding of the import of what is ‘not made by hand’ and the ‘invisible’ than Geisler himself (see p.232). While Origen’s ‘spiritual’, ‘celestial’ or ‘ethereal’ body may have been ruled out of court by the Council of Toledo, it nonetheless reflects more nearly the teaching of Scripture. In any case, John tells us that the ‘spiritual body’ is beyond our present comprehension (1 John 3:2. It might usefully be added that when writers pour scorn on an ‘ethereal’ or ‘spiritual’ body, they ignore the fact, first, that the material stems from the invisible spiritual world, Heb.11:3, and, second, that present invisibility is not necessarily intrinsic but arises out of our fleshly limitations, cf. Rev. 22:4. Note also angels who enjoy individual existence but are for us invisible ‘ministering spirits’, Heb. 1:14, cf. Luke 20:36). We need further to bear in mind that what is true on the moral level is doubtless true with regard to the corporeal – spiritual things are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14). What is more, the author of Hebrews would have us believe, and with good reason, that the spiritual is more real than the physical (cf. Heb. 8:2; 9:24; 10:1; 1 Tim. 6:19). One thing seems to be clear and that is that in the next world we shall retain our personal identity. This being so, we shall have recognisable bodies and an appropriate degree of splendour, Mt. 13:43.).

Again it must be urged that much of the discussion is marred by an inability to perceive that Jesus rose again physically but, in accordance with Paul’s dictum in 1 Cor. 15:50, he must have been transformed at or immediately after his initially visible ascension. If not, he remains in essence ‘hand-made’ (Heb. 10:5; Luke 3:38; Job 10:3,8; Ps. 119:73, etc.). To reply that he is now physically immortalised ignores Paul’s plain assertion that the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable.

Because it is so widely ignored or misunderstood, this point requires elaboration and repetition. Since Jesus’ fleshly or incarnate body as deriving from the temporal earth was necessarily mortal and impermanent, his permanent heavenly body must be spiritual or, to use Fee’s word, supernatural (cf. Thiselton’s ‘super-earthly’, p.1267). To argue as many do that this body is physical, which by definition is temporal, involves them in logical absurdity. For, how can the permanent heavenly Jesus permanently have an impermanent physical body? The very idea is a contradiction in terms. As Paul says, the impermanent cannot inherit the permanent. (Acts 7:56 where Jesus is noticeably standing as opposed to sitting, cf. e.g. Heb. 1:3, can hardly be used to support Jesus’ physicality. The vision is clearly given to Stephen for his encouragement. It contrasts with that given to Paul later for a different purpose, see Acts 9, 22, 26.)

To counter this by saying Jesus was not subject to corruption (Acts 2:24-28; 13:34f.) is to invite charges of docetism on the one hand and to misunderstand the biblical position on the other. Like the creation from which he emanated through his mother, Jesus was visibly aging (John 8:57, cf. Luke 2:41ff.) and hence subject to corruption (2 Cor. 4:16, cf. Heb. 8:13). The promise in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:17) was that if Adam, though naturally mortal and subject to corruption like the earth from which he was taken, kept the law, he would not die. The inference from this must be that he would thus avoid, that is, escape from, the corruption characteristic of the entire natural creation. This is borne out by the case of Jesus who, as the second Adam, succeeded where the first failed. To be sure, he died but certainly not for his own sins and so did not see corruption. Thus when he had finished his course, like the saints at the end of history (1 Cor. 15:50ff.), he was caught up in the air (i.e. ascended) to return to the Father and sit at his right hand. In the process, however, he had to undergo transformation, that is, be glorified (cf. John 17:5,24), as Paul makes abundantly clear (cf. 2 Thes. 1:10).

Finally, there is the question of Jesus’ return when every eye will see him (Rev. 1:7). Many argue that he will return in the same bodily form as he left. But this is surely to misunderstand Acts 1:11 which tells us that he will return in the same manner, i.e. from heaven on the clouds in divine glory (Luke 21:27, cf. Dan. 7:13). There is not the slightest hint in the NT that he will resemble a nondescript Galilean peasant sitting on a cloud. Rather he will come as God (Tit. 2:13) whose glory he shared before the foundation of the earth (John 17:5). He will thus come as both light to rescue (Luke 17:24, cf. 1 Tim. 6:16) and fire to destroy (Luke 17:29f.; 2 Thes. 1:7f.; 2:8). Paul tells us that we believers will have a body of glory like his (Phil. 3:21) but beyond that we know almost nothing (cf. 1 John 3:2; 1 Cor. 2:9). It is interesting to note, however, that the only description that we have of the righteous in heaven is that they will shine like the sun (Mark 13:43).

The plain fact is that our fleshly bodies, like grass (Isa. 40:6-8,24; Ps.106:20; 1 Cor.7:31; 1 John 2:15-17, etc.), are intrinsically temporary and provisional like the law that regulates them (Heb. 8:13), in fact, like the material creation in general (Mt. 5:18). As Paul insists, to be present in our physical or earthly body is to be absent from the Lord (2 Cor. 5:6,8). Again, the difference between earth (creation) and heaven (eternity, cf. Isa. 57:15; Mt. 5:34f.; 6:19f.;2 Cor. 5:1; 1 Pet. 1:4) must be given its full weight.

________________________________________________________________________________
References

R.J.Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Waco, 1983. Milton Keynes, 1986.

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

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

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

G.D.Fee, 1 Corinthians, Grand Rapids, 1987.

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

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

M.Green, 2 Peter and Jude, 2nd ed., Leicester, 1987.

W.Grudem, Systematic Theology, Leicester, 1994.

J.N.D.Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, repr. Grand Rapids, 1981.

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

W.Hendriksen, The Gospel of Matthew, Edinburgh, 1974.

A.A.Hodge, The Confession of Faith, repr. London, 1958.

C.Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols, repr. London, 1958.

P.E.Hughes, Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians, London, 1962.

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

P.E.Hughes, The True Image, Leicester/Grand Rapids, 1989.

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

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

W.L.Lane Hebrews, 2 vols., Dallas, 1991.

D.Lucas and C.Green, The Message of 2 Peter and Jude, Leicester, 1995.

R.P.Martin, 2 Corinthians, Waco, 1986.

B.Milne, BST The Message of John, Leicester, 199

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

L.L.Morris, 1 Corinthians, London, 1958.

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

P.T.O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, Grand Rapids, 1999.

O.P.Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, Phillipsburg, 1980.

S.D.F.Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, Edinburgh, 1913.

D.Seccombe, Dust to Destiny, Sydney, 2000.

A.C.Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, 2000.

M.M. Thompson, art. John, Gospel of, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Greenand McKnight, Downers Grove, 1992.

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

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

N.T.Wright, ed. Romans and the People of God, Grand Rapids, 1999.

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

________________________________________________________________________________
Additional Note (1)

Whereas Harris implicitly denies the physical restoration, demanded by Genesis 2:17 (cf.Acts 2:24) of Jesus at his resurrection, Geisler implicitly denies his corporeal transformation at his ascension. It should be recognised that the physical or natural body belongs to this world (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50), therefore resurrection in this world necessarily involves restoration (cf. Lazarus, etc.). In view of this we are forced to conclude that Jesus experienced both physical restoration at his resurrection and transformation at his ascension (as Adam would have done if he had not sinned). In contrast, we who die and experience corruption like David (Acts 2:29) do not experience restoration but we do enjoy resurrection to both immortality and incorruptibility (1 Cor. 15:52).

Additional Note (2)

It is perhaps useful at this point to highlight the difference between the resurrection of Lazarus and that of Jesus. First, Jesus tells us explicitly that Lazarus did not die for his sin but for the glory of God (John 11:4. Cf. 9:3 where any part that the sin of both the congenitally blind man and his parents is explicitly excluded. This surely indicates yet once more that our physical nature is naturally imperfect or corruptible. See also Gen. 11:30; Ex. 4:11; Mt. 19:12.) But there is an implicit assumption that at a later date Lazarus died again, this time because he was a sinner, and so saw corruption. By contrast, Jesus, who did not die for his own sin but for ours, rose again (took back the life he had laid down, John 10:17f.; 2:19-22, that is, underwent restoration) immortal (Rom. 6:9). But since, as he himself was at pains to make clear he was still flesh (Luke 24:39; John 20:17, 24-29; 21:4-14; 1 Cor. 15:4-7), he had necessarily to undergo transformation at his ascension. In other words, Jesus was raised immortal but not incorruptible. And it is precisely because he was not yet glorified that he told Mary not to hang on to him (John 20:17).

Additional Note (3)

Geisler and “The Battle for the Resurrection”

Especially as a philosopher, Geisler should not be caught writing his conclusions into his premises. He ought to have noted that Paul’s question in 1 Cor. 15:35 is: “With what kind of body do they come?” This cannot be determined in advance. Thus when he says in the glossary (p.234) that corporeal means having a physical body, he is begging a very large question. In tandem with this he tells us that the body is the physical organ of interaction with the external world. How true so far as the physical here and now is concerned (cf.Hodge quoted above), but the situation must change on the assumption that the next world is essentially spiritual.

1. According to Paul there is a movement or progression from the physical to the spiritual (1 Cor. 15:44,46,49, cf. v.23, contrast Gal. 3:3).

2. That the entire material world is headed for destruction is extensively and clearly taught and/or implied throughout Scripture (e.g. Gen. 8:22; Isa. 51:6; 54:10; Mt. 5:18; 6:19f.; 24:35; Heb. 1:10-12; 6:7f.; 12:27; 1 Pet. 1:3f.; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.). Furthermore, this destruction manifestly includes the physical body (Gen. 3:19; Ps. 49:12,20; 1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Cor. 4:16-5:1; 1 Pet. 1:23).

3. The physical body shares the same fate as the physical temple. The latter is totally destroyed as a material entity yet nonetheless re-appears in a different, that is, a ‘spiritual’ form (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19). Elsewhere we learn that God and the Lamb are their people’s temple (Rev. 21:22). The similarity between Mark 14:58 and 2 Cor. 5:1 is striking and can hardly be adjudged coincidental (see Hughes, 2 Corinthians, p.164 n.22). It might usefully be added that the house God inhabits is not a house built ‘by hand’ (Acts 7:48; 17:24) but a spiritual temple made up of his people (Isa. 57:15; 66:1f., cf. 1 Pet. 2:4f.).

4. Except in Jesus’ case, the resurrection body is not flesh, as Geisler frequently maintains. Morris and others explicitly deny it. But then they are not guilty of predetermining the issue by insisting that flesh and blood have moral connotations. They see them (it?) as referring to the natural man, as formed by the hand of God from corruptible earth, before he knows either good or evil and hence before he is capable of sin (Gen. 2:17; Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.; Rom. 9:11).

5. Geisler fails to recognise that Jesus’ resurrection was unique. He died on behalf of others so that both he and they are raised (John 14:19; Rom. 6:5; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14). Since Jesus himself did not sin, his body, though dead and buried, did not yield to corruption in accordance with the original promise made to Adam (Gen. 2:17, cf. 3:19). In other words, the penalty of sin is death and Jesus underwent it on behalf of his people. But this did not entail the corruption that personal sinners normally experience. Thus death had no permanent hold over him (Acts 2:24). As he himself said, he laid down his life so that he might take it again (John 10:17f.). Having died once for his sheep, he was raised immortal (Rom. 6:9) but still in corruptible flesh. Hence his ascension was like the new birth (John 3) an absolute natural necessity (cf. John 20:17) not an imperative.

So far as Jesus’ ascension and transformation are concerned, they pave the way and serve as a paradigm for those who avoid death by surviving till the parousia as Paul hoped to do (1 Cor. 15:51ff.; 2 Cor. 5:8; 1 Thes, 4:14ff.).

Arguably Geisler’s biggest blunder, like that of many others, is to assume that our Lord’s resurrection body, which he correctly insists against Harris is flesh and blood, is also his glorified body. This is impossible for the simple reason that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, the realm of glory. But then he argues that only ‘sinful’ flesh is thus inhibited (p.122)!

Geisler and the Flesh

In true Augustinian fashion, Geisler ethicises the flesh. It is this which enables him to make an illegitimate distinction between corruptible and non-corruptible flesh (pp. 43f.,122). According to the Bible all flesh, including that of Jesus who was a true son of Adam and hence derived from perishable earth, is corruptible by nature irrespective of sin (cf. Rom. 1:23). The reason why Jesus after his death did not succumb to corruption was, as indicated above, that as one who never personally sinned, he met the divine requirement of keeping the law and hence inherited the promise of life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Luke 10:28, etc.). Like Adam, every child that attains to rationality, i.e. can understand the commandment mediated by its parents, encounters two trees: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life (Gen. 2:9). Failure to obey the law has the same result as it had for Adam and Eve and, for example, Paul; it means expulsion from ‘paradise’ and deprivation or forfeiture of access to the tree of life (Gen. 3:22-24; Rom. 7:7-11). (F.F.Bruce’s comment on Romans 7:11, Romans, rev. ed. p.142, while revealing great insight is nullified by his false understanding of Romans 5 and belief in original sin, pp.122f. For a commentator of his stature to maintain that mankind fell ‘in Adam’, which phrase is NOT in the text, underlines human fallibility, see pp.123,142. The truth Paul is setting forth in Romans 7 is NOT sin in Adam but recapitulation.* As those who are made in the image of both Adam and God, Gen 5:1-3, we are all born knowing neither good nor evil. Then we are first deceived like Eve and, secondly, rebel open-eyed against the law like Adam. As a Jew and a son of the commandment, Paul next goes on to provide a graphic description of the struggles, exacerbated by sin already committed, cf. John 8:34; Eph. 2:1-3, of his own fleshly nature with the law. He acknowledges his defeat, v.24, but finds release in Christ, v.25, through faith in whom he has received life by the Spirit , 8:1ff.)

Even according to the OT, not to mention Romans 5:12, all other human beings sinned (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 106:6; 130:3; 143:2, etc.), and therefore forfeited the opportunity to overcome the universal subjection to corruption characterising the creation.

The notion that our fleshly passions are necessarily sinful, an idea based on original sin, is erroneous and will not bear scrutiny (see e.g. Cranfield, Romans, 1, p.337; Fung, Galatians, p.274. I have dealt with this issue at some length elsewhere in an essay entitled The Pattern of Sin). Clearly, as the author of Hebrews insists, Jesus, in contrast with his Father (James 1:13) was as vulnerable to temptation as the rest of humankind (4:15). Matthew 4:1-11 makes it plain that the war between flesh and spirit (Spirit) afflicted Jesus just as it does us (Gal. 5:16ff.; 1 Pet. 2:11, etc. Art. 1X of the C. of E. is a theological disaster!). And we follow in his steps when we attempt to crucify the flesh (cf. Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24) or put to death what is earthly in us (Rom.8:13; Col. 3:2,5. Strictly speaking, since we have died with Christ, Rom. 6:1-8, the flesh is already crucified, but we have to be what we are or become what God intends us to be! Ontology and function must harmonise as in Jesus’ case). Admittedly, sin exacerbates the situation as Jeremiah (13:23), Jesus (John 8:34), Paul (Rom. 6:16) and Peter (2 Pet. 2:19) all pointed out.

As those who are weak in the flesh, which by its very nature is incapable of producing good (Rom. 7:18; 8:8; John 6:63), we are enabled to overcome by means of the Spirit of God within us (Rom. 8:4f.; cf. 1 John 3:9).

In sum, the ‘flesh’ is basically our unregenerate Adamic nature. It is ‘soulish’ rather than ‘spiritual’. Initially, it is morally neutral; later, when we have sinned and become the slaves of sin (Jer. 13:23; John 8:34), its inherent weakness (Rom. 7:14) and attraction to earthly, material things becomes all the more manifest in a fleshly mind-set (Rom. 8:6f.; 1 John 2:15-17). (At this point it should be pointed out that the so-called Pauline view of the flesh as sinful, see e.g. NIV especially, is dangerously misleading. What writers frequently ignore, or are perhaps even unaware of if they uncritically accept the Augustinian view of things, is that the ‘flesh’ is inherently pejorative, defective or imperfect, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49, like the rest of the created universe from which it stems, Heb. 1:10-12, etc. When this is understood it becomes plain that the flesh as such, not simply as sinful, is opposed to the spirit/Spirit. If this is not so, there is no explanation for the transgressions of Adam and Eve in the Garden. They at least could not have inherited their sin!)

The flesh is naturally earthly (1 Cor. 15:48a; 2 Cor. 4:7), that is, material or physical, weak (Mt. 26:41; Rom. 8:3; 2 Cor. 13:4), mortal (Gen. 2:17, cf. Rom. 8:13a; Gal. 6:8a), corruptible (1 Cor. 15:50), visible and impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18), like the old covenant that is losing its glory and fading away (2 Cor. 3:11), eclipsed by what excels it (2 Cor. 4:16ff.), imperfect and in the process of giving way to the perfect and heavenly (1 Cor. 13:10; 15:42-44; 2 Cor. 5:1), temporary and provisional like the law (cf. Heb.1:11; 8:13), vulnerable to temptation and a veritable bridgehead for sin leading to death (Gen 3:1-6; James 1 :13f.; Rom. 7:14; 6:23), profitless and incapable of good at best (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18; 8:8), and opposed to, in fact, at war with the spirit (Spirit) at worst (Gal. 5:17; 1 Pet. 2:11). In short the flesh belongs to this world, this present (evil) age (Gal. 1:4), which is passing away (Luke 20:34-38; 1 Cor. 2:6; 7:31; 1 John 2:8,17) as was ever the divine intention (Eph. 1:4,11; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 1:4).

________________________________________________________________________________
* Numerous texts underline our tendency to repeat the sins of our forebears – not surprisingly since we are made in their image (cf. Gen. 5:1-3), are conditioned by them, inherit the consequences of their good (Gen. 22:18; Luke 11:13) or bad (Num. 14:33) conduct (note Rom. 5:12ff.) and follow their example, though not necessarily (Ezek. 18; 3 John 11). See Jer. 3:25; 7:22-26; 32:30; 1 Sam. 8:8; 2 K. 18:3; 2 Chr. 30:7; Dan. 9:11; Zech. 1:2,4f.; Acts 7:51, etc.

First, it should be realised that Romans 5:12 on which the dogma is based is flanked
by Romans 4:4-5 and by 6:23. It is vitally important to note what these verses actually say (as per the ESV).

First, Romans 4:4-5:
“Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.”

Second, Romans 6:23:
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Paul’s contention is then that death is the wages of sin which itself is work that is actually done against (the) law. In light of this, it is perhaps not surprising that many Christians (e.g. D.M.Lloyd-Jones, Romans 5, London, 1971) argue that since babies, who it is universally admitted cannot actually sin on their own account, sometimes die, their death must be the result of Adam’s sin imputed to them.

This argument is fatally flawed. Why? Because Paul lays it down in Romans 4:4f. that gifts (imputation) and wages are mutually exclusive. Throughout Scripture wages are paid to deserving workers (1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Pet. 2:15, etc.). In other words, even if Adam’s sin were imputed, it could not involve the payment of wages, that is, death. To argue that it could is not simply to contradict Paul’s express statement but to suggest that the imputation or gift of Christ’s righteousness is also wages and involves merit. But Paul denies this (Rom. 6:23).

The argument may be alternatively expressed as follows: If actual sin earns the wages of death, imputed sin must lead to the free gift of death as in the case of Christ. Again we may argue that if imputed righteousness leads to the free gift of life (Rom. 6:23), then by parity of reasoning imputed sin must lead to the free gift of death. In other words, wages are necessarily excluded.

The plain unassailable truth is that imputation or gift rules out all forms of desert, both merit and demerit. Consequently, both righteousness and condemnation are excluded apart from faith which itself is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8; cf. Ezek. 14:14ff., etc.). Thus all babies, including Jesus himself, are born like Adam knowing neither good nor evil (Gen. 2:17; Dt. 1:39; Num. 14:3,29-33; Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 5:13, etc.).

Parallelism (cf. A Question of Symmetry below)

This last point highlights the fallacy of an appeal to an exact parallel between the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and that of Adam’s sin (see Lloyd-Jones, pp.189,197,199,204f.; Murray, Romans, pp. 184,186, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, e.g. pp.20,34,40). Two points need to be made here. First, babies cannot exercise faith. This being so, they cannot receive Adam’s imputed sin as at a later stage they can Christ’s righteousness. Secondly, Paul, obviously well aware of this, distinguishes between the free gift of righteousness and the result or effect of Adam’s sin. So, this so-called parallel is far from exact. Indeed, the real parallel is not between the imputation of Adam’s sin and Christ’s righteousness to us but between the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us and the imputation of our sin to Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21). Both of the latter involve faith. Our sin was imputed to Christ by faith (John 10:17f.), his righteousness is imputed to us by faith (Phil. 3:9). This is the great exchange. A third act of imputation is not only superfluous but deeply unbiblical and problematical (pace B.B.Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies, p.263).

The argument at its simplest:

According to Paul, wages and imputation are mutually exclusive (Rom. 4:1-8). Therefore, even if it were true that Adam’s sin was imputed to babies, their death could not be the wages of sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23). The reason for their death clearly lies elsewhere. The logic is irrefutable! What is more, it is in line with the crystal clear teaching of Scripture that the child cannot be punished for the sin of the father (Dt. 24:16, cf. Ex. 32:33; Num. 14:29-35; 26:11; 27:3; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18, etc.).

The Imputation of Sin to the Innocent

If sin is imputed, wages are excluded (Rom. 4:4f.); therefore its effect cannot be death (Rom. 6:23). (I deny, of course, that sin, like righteousness, can be imputed apart from faith. Throughout the Bible, to impute sin without just cause is evil (Ex. 23:7; Dt. 24:16; 1 Sam. 22:15; 1 Kings 8:32; 21:13; Prov. 17:15, cf. Jer. 23:17; Ezek. 13:19; Luke 23:4,14f.,22, 41,47; Acts 23:29; 25:11,25; 26:31; 28:18, etc.). This is yet another argument against the imputation of sin to babies who have done nothing (cf. Rom. 9:11; 2 Sam. 24:17). Again, if it were true, it would bring into suspicion the impartiality of God who always imputes sin to those who commit it (Rom. 2:6,11, etc.) unless it is covered (Rom. 4:7f.). In fact there is a blatant contrast between tradition and Scripture at this point. While traditionalists charge God with imputing sin to those (babies) who do not have it, Paul claims that in the event God does not impute sin to those (believers) who do have it (Rom. 4:7f.).

Yet another attempt at simplicity by means of a syllogism:

First premise: Sin is a work (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:10; 5:19) which earns wages (Rom. 6:23).

Second premise: Imputation is a gift (Rom. 4:4f.).

Therefore, wages cannot be paid by means of or as a gift. The two are mutually exclusive. So, the idea that the imputation of Adam’s sin results in the death of babies is not only illogical but it involves a major confusion of categories.

Another syllogism

In Romans 5:12 Paul says that as a result of sin all men died, so:

First premise: Sin which is a work is paid the wages of death (Rom. 6:23).

Second premise: Imputation excludes wages (Rom. 4:1-8).

Therefore in 5:12 Paul must be referring to actual sin which paid wages in death.
The upshot of this is that Murray’s “The Imputation of Adam’s Sin” is based on a glaring fallacy.

______________________________________________________

Additional Note

If the congenitally blind man is not guilty for not seeing (John 9:3, cf. v.41), then the congenitally ignorant cannot be blamed for not knowing. That knowledge (of law) is indispensable to guilt is made evident by such texts as Lev. 4:13f.,22f.,27f.; 5:3-5,17; 1 Sam. 19:4f.; 20:32; 22:15; 25:25; John 3:19-21; 9:41; 15:22,24; Rom. 3:19f.; 7:1-13. The plain teaching of Scripture is that babies, like Adam and Eve before they received the commandment (Gen. 2:17), know neither good nor evil. They are therefore innocent. There is, however, a difference in their situation as Paul makes clear in Romans 5:12. While Adam and Even had no parental moral inheritance, all their children, including us, have theirs! So while all children suffer to some extent from their parental inheritance of evil (or, if you like, from evil parents, cf. Luke 11:13 where, somewhat ironically, Jesus says they do good), they are not punished for it (Num. 14:3,29-35; 26:11; Dt. 24:16; Job 21:19-21; Ezek. 18, etc.). To impute the parents’ sin, or righteousness for that matter, to their children is manifestly contrary to Scripture, for it is the soul who actually sins who dies (Ex. 32:33; Ezek. 18:4, etc.) just as it is the soul who does righteousness who lives (Ezek. 18:5-9; 20:11; 1 John 3:7; Rom. 2:13; 10:5; Gal. 3:12).

If sin were imputed to us apart from faith, it would be a gift of nature like the colour of our skin. Apart from the fact that this does not imply guilt, liability or accountability, it does imply that God who creates us in the womb (Job 31:15; Jer. 1:5, etc.), creates us evil. But if he creates us with an evil nature he expects us to act according to that nature (Rom. 1:26f.). In this case, doing evil is good and obeying the law (2:14) is evil! Clearly the dogma of original sin leads to blasphemous absurdity. It is high time it was abandoned as being what it plainly is, an appalling error on the part of Augustine.

Murray in his “The Imputation of Adam’s Sin” makes the point (p.71) that in Scripture, both OT and NT, the notion of imputation is negative, i.e. actual sin is not imputed to believers, and he refers to Leviticus 17:4; Ps. 32:2; Romans 4:8 and 2 Corinthians 5:19. He rightly says that this implies that God does impute actual sin to disbelievers. What he does not say, however, is that the one and only occasion in Scripture when God imputes sin apart from works is when our sin is imputed to Christ by faith. As indicated above, the imputation of the sin of the father to the child is explicitly ruled out (see e.g. Num. 26:11; Dt. 24:16; Ezek. 18, etc.). To merit wages the son has to imitate and/or repeat (John 8:41,44; Acts 7:51f.; Luke 6:23,26), approve (Luke 11:48; Acts 8:1; 22:20), applaud (Rom. 1:32), participate or be complicit in (Jud. 9:24; Prov. 29:24; 2 John 11) the sin of the father (Isa. 65:6f.; Jer. 7:26;16:10-12; 31:29f.; 32:18f.; Ezek. 20:18-21, etc.). If he separates himself as Jesus did, then he is not guilty (cf. Ezek. 18:14-17, etc.) and can only be accounted guilty by faith.

Since babies cannot work, i.e. transgress the commandment or law, they cannot commit sin which is a work (Rom. 4:4, cf. 9:11). By the same token they cannot be righteous.

Furthermore, they cannot be accounted righteous by faith (Rom. 4:5) since they cannot receive the promises on which faith is based. They are clearly morally innocent or neutral and, contrary to Augustine, cannot come into judgement, least of all condemnation (cf. Rom. 2:2-11). Again the reason for their death in some cases lies in the fact that like the earth from which they are taken, they are naturally corruptible (Rom. 8:18-25). It is God who in accordance with his purpose gives and extends life.

While human physical solidarity is beyond dispute (Heb. 2) since we are all born of woman (Job 31:15; Gal. 4:4, etc.), moral or spiritual solidarity is arrived at only by imitation or repetition. See refs. above and note Mt. 23:29-36; Luke 11:47f. Jesus obeyed Ezekiel 20:18 and Zech. 1:4. Unlike all his forebears (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3; 143:2, cf. Mt. 1:1ff.), he did not sin (1 Pet. 2:22). For, unless he was sinless, he could not have been the second or last Adam, the unblemished Lamb of God.

If imputation is true, Jesus sinned as Adam sinned, indeed, ‘in Adam’. If, as is frequently though wrongly claimed, Adam’s sin is his children’s sin since he is their covenant head and representative, separation even for Jesus is impossible. He is necessarily implicated. It is not without reason that Scripture records no covenant with Adam. Biblical covenants, though sovereignly administered by God, are basically mutual or bilateral, but where there is no understanding, there can be no mutuality. A covenant with creation would therefore be unilateral, which is contradictory. See further below. See further my essay “Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?”

But if, on the supposition that imputation is true, Jesus cannot separate himself morally from Adam, we are forced to conclude either that Jesus was a sinner (which Scripture explicitly denies) or that the imputation of Adam’s sin is a lie (and this is indubitably the case).

Other syllogisms

First premise: Sin, like righteousness (Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7), is a work (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16; 3:10; 5:19, etc.) .

Second premise: Babies can’t work.

Therefore, babies cannot be judged by their works (Rom. 2:6). Since they know neither good nor evil, they are neither righteous nor wicked (cf. Dt. 1:39; Num. 14:29-35).

First premise: Wages are earned by work (Rom. 4:4; 1 Tim. 5:18).

Second premise: Babies can’t work.

Therefore they cannot earn the wages of death (Rom. 6:23).

First premise: Sin is breaking the law (James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17, etc.).

Second premise: Babies, like animals, do not know the law (Ps. 32:9, etc.).

Therefore they can neither keep it so as to be righteous (1 John 3:7) nor break it so as to be sinners.

A Question of Symmetry

All Reformed Protestants that I know freely acknowledge that the imputation of righteousness is a gift that is appropriated by faith. So it follows by parity of reasoning that the imputation of sin must be a gift appropriated by faith! But if faith is lacking, so is imputation. In the event, only Jesus, who did not personally sin, received our sin by faith (see espec. John 10:15,17f.).

The argument simply put:

Just as the imputation of righteousness, being a gift, excludes life as wages, so the imputation of sin excludes death as wages (cf. Rom. 4:1-8; 6:23).

In any case, if faith is required to appropriate righteousness, so it is required to appropriate sin. However, it is universally acknowledged that babies cannot exercise faith. Therefore, babies are neither sinful not righteous, neither good nor evil (Dt. 1:39). The reason why babies die has nothing whatsoever to do with personal sin or righteousness.

The plain truth is that only Jesus received by faith the sin of his people and, though personally innocent, died on their behalf to pay the penalty of their actual sin.

Clearly symmetry is achieved at this point, and this being so we are forced to deduce that there are only two, not three, acts of imputation taught in Scripture involving a straight exchange (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21).

The imputation of Adam’s sin to babies is clearly asymmetrical and must therefore be rejected. It falters (a) because babies cannot exercise faith to appropriate imputed sin as by universal consent imputed righteousness is appropriated, and (b) since imputed righteousness is a gift of grace which excludes wages, so must imputed sin exclude wages. In other words, the contention of many (e.g. D.M.Lloyd-Jones, Romans 5) that the death of babies proves original sin is a major, if elementary, error which must be unequivocally repudiated.

Babies that die do so not as a consequence of sin but as a result of their fleshly nature which is intrinsically corruptible (cf. John 1:13; Rom. 8:19-25; 2 Cor. 4:16-5:1). Like animals, as flesh (John 1:13) they form part of a naturally mortal creation (Heb. 1:10-12, etc.) which, lacking the promise of life (cf. Gen. 2:17; Rom. 7:9f.) not to mention the faith by which to appropriate it, they cannot transcend. (It should be noted that the first covenant is with Noah, a man of knowledge and faith. There is no mention of a covenant with Adam who initially did not know the law or the commandment.)

If life is not the wages of imputed righteousness (cf. Rom. 6:23), then death is not the wages of imputed sin.

Re Luke 17:7-10

Life is always a gift of grace (Rom. 6:23). Though it is promised on condition of righteousness (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.), even this condition is by grace since righteousness or obedience to God is the basic duty of a creature and so does not merit wages (Luke 17:7-10). In other words, even if we keep the law, God does not owe us life (cf. Rom. 11:35). He is not our debtor and we have no meritorious claim on him even if we keep the law flawlessly (cf. Gal. 3:21). Rather he graciously grants us life if the condition is fulfilled. And only Jesus fulfilled it, which makes him indispensable.

In contrast death is earned by breaking the law. It does merit wages since we have failed to meet our obligation.

So unless death is earned by breaking the law (cf. Rom. 5:12 and Paul’s assertion that “all (have) sinned”, cf. 3:23), death must be a gift. The problem with this is that if the gift is not appropriated by faith as in Jesus’ case, it remains in abeyance. The reason why innocent babies die is that they are part of a temporal and corruptible creation (1*) to whom God has not extended the promise of life (Gen. 2:17). Since they do not know the commandment, they have neither kept nor broken it and die naturally like the animals (cf. Ps. 49: Eccl. 3:18-20).

1* According to Paul, in a naturally corruptible cosmos, life and immortality (Gk. incorruption) did not make their appearance until Jesus abolished death (2 Tim. 1:10). In other words, he alone met the condition of life (Lev. 18:5). And it is he who was not the slave of sin who will give his brothers freedom (John 8:34-36; Heb. 2:11). Just as our righteousness depends on the righteousness of Jesus, so our regeneration depends on his. In other words, if Jesus who was flesh was not himself born again (John 3:1-7; 1 Cor. 15:50), he was in no position to grant us life (cf.Rom. 5:10). Apart from him, it is impossible for us to be born again since we cannot meet the condition of life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Neh. 9:29; Ezek. 20:11,13,21, etc.).

Paul shows that both Gentiles (1:18ff.) and Jews (2:1ff.) have broken the law in some sense and are without excuse (1:20; 2:1, etc.). Thus he concludes that all are under the power of sin (3:9).

We need to note that he quotes extensively from the OT regarding the Jews (3:10ff.) clearly assuming that sin is defined as transgression of known law (cf. Gen. 2:17; Jos. 7:11; 1 Sam. 15:24; Neh. 1:6f.; 9:16,26,29; Dan. 9:5,11; Mt. 15:3f.; John 15:22,24; Rom. 1:21,32; 2:1f.,12,27; 3:19f.; Heb. 2:2; 9:15; Jas. 2:9-11; 4:17; 2 Pet. 2:20f.; 1 John 3:4; 5:17, etc.).

The law promised life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 2:13; 10:5) but brought in death (Rom. 7:9f., cf. Dt. 30:15-20). Why? Because it was not kept (Rom. 9:31, cf. John 7:19). All, apart from Jesus (John 8:46; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22), have sinned (Rom. 2:12; 3:9,23; 5:12; Acts 15:10).

Even Abraham, the father of the faithful, was an ‘ungodly’ sinner and had nothing to boast about before God (4:2,5).

While Romans 5:12-21 is regarded as the locus classicus of original sin, it fails lamentably to substantiate it.

First, it is universally agreed that Augustine mistranslated this verse (see e.g. N.R.Needham, The Triumph of Grace, pp.49f.,n.4. Even John Murray admits that linguistically the “Pelagian” view is justified, Romans, p. 182).

Next, Paul specifically links sin with law and/or knowledge (vv.13f., cf. 1:19-22,25,28,32; 2:1f.,12-14; 3:19f.; 4:15; 5:13; 7:1-11, etc., cf. 1 Cor. 15:56; Gal. 5:23).

Third, in verse 14 Paul refers to the heathen who lived before Moses and says that their sin differed from that of Adam (cf. 1 Tim. 2:14). But if Adam’s sin is universally imputed to all without exception, that is, both Gentile and Jew, all sin ‘in Adam’ in the same way and there is no difference. Imputed sin therefore is a flat contradiction of what Paul says. If “all sinned” (or “have sinned”, see e.g. NRSV) does not mean all actually sinned (cf. 3:23) either apart from or under the law (cf. 2:12), Paul’s discussion is pointless. Furthermore, it raises questions as to why he spent so much time cataloguing and differentiating between the actual sins of both Gentiles and Jews at the beginning of his letter.

Fourth, the latter phrase ‘in Adam’ is significantly missing from the Romans 5, though it has frequently been read in to it. If it is replied that it appears in 1 Corinthians 15:21f., we need to recognise that there the subject is different, and, in view of vv. 45ff., it can hardly be denied that Paul is there differentiating between the natural and the spiritual man apart from sin which is NOT mentioned. The only reasonable inference from this is that as natural or fleshly creatures, who are by definition weak and/or rebellious (Rom. 8:7f.), we all sin when confronted by the law. And this is precisely what Paul asserts in Romans 7:14 which sums up the issue in a nutshell. So while Paul says we die in Adam (1 Cor. 15:21f.), which in the light of vv.45-49 must mean “in the flesh”, he significantly does not say that we are dead in him but in our own sins (Rom. 4:25; Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 1:21; 2:13, cf. John 8:24).

Fifth, in Romans 4:15 (cf. 5:13; 7:8) Paul tells us that where there is no law there is no transgression or violation. In other words, it is impossible to violate a non-existent law (cf. Rom. 7:1-3,8f.; Gal. 5:23). It might be countered that the law already exists when a baby is born. While that may be true, babies, like Adam and Eve in the Garden and the rest of the animal creation (Ps. 32:8f.; 73:22; Job 39:17, cf. 18:3 and Prov. 30:2; Eccl. 3:19f.; Isa. 31:3), have no knowledge or understanding of the law (cf. Rom. 3:20) and need to be taught it (Dt. 4:9;6:7; Ps. 78:5-8,etc.) as Adam did (Gen. 2:17). (Note Lev. chs. 4 & 5 where the law may be transgressed unwittingly. It is only when this is recognised or ‘known’ (see 4:13f.,22f.,27f.; 5:3-5,17) that there can be any semblance of guilt and atonement made.) Apart from it, they know neither good nor evil (Gen. 2:17, cf. Dt. 1:39; 1 K. 3:7; Rom. 3:20; 7:7) *. Thus it comes as no surprise to us that Paul says that the law speaks (only) to those who are under the law (Rom. 3:19; 7:1,7, cf. Jas. 4:17). If a boy under the age of 13 prior to his bar mitzvah did not take personal responsibility for keeping the law, how much less a baby who knows nothing! According to the Bible, total or natural, but not culpable, ignorance of law points to total innocence (Rom. 1:20; 2:1, cf. John 15:22,24). Apart from (the) law sin does not and cannot exist, as in the animal world where there is no understanding (Ps. 32:9)!

Sixth, in verses 5:15-17 Paul differentiates explicitly and unmistakably between the free gift of righteousness and the effect of Adam’s sin. If imputation is true, why does he do this? The fact is that imputed sin is a free gift too and this being so all difference is obliterated! We are thus led inexorably to the conclusion that those who posit a parallel between righteousness and sin are in direct conflict with Paul himself (see e.g. Murray, pp.184,186). The plain truth is that the loudly proclaimed parallel does not exist. It is entirely in the imagination of those who slavishly and uncritically follow Augustine (cf. Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, pp. 6 passim).

Seventh, this conclusion is reinforced when we note the fact that righteousness is imputed by faith. By what instrumentality, it must be asked, is sin imputed? Since it is universally agreed that babies lack faith, it is out of the reckoning. So once more the parallel proves to be a chimera.

Eighth, since imputed righteousness is a free gift, it is devoid of merit. So, if sin is imputed, it also is a free gift and by parity of reasoning is devoid of demerit. It cannot therefore be argued that imputed sin is the cause of infant death. If death is wages, it must be earned (6:23, cf. 2 Sam. 12:5); but imputation excludes wages (4:1-8). So if infants die, it cannot be on account of sin inherited from Adam. So Lloyd-Jones’ argument in his exposition of Romans 5 lies in tatters.

Next, if the imputation of sin holds for all Adam’s progeny, then Jesus is necessarily implicated (Luke 3:38). If not, then he is different from all the rest of his brethren. Apart from the horrendous theological implications of this, the author of Hebrews explicitly and Paul implicitly disallow the notion (Heb. 2:11,17f.; 4:15; Rom. 8:3).
What then differentiates Jesus from the rest of us on the human level? The answer is clear and irrefutable. It is not his flesh or physicality, since he too was a son of Adam and hence subject to temptation, but his obedience or keeping of the law (Mt. 3:17; Rom. 5:18f.), something that proved beyond the capacity of the rest of us (Rom. 3:20; 9:31f.; Gal. 2:16, etc.). Peter spells this out in the simplest of terms: “he committed no sin” (1 Pet. 2:22, cf. John 8:34). And as Paul was well aware, this could be said of no one else (Rom. 8:3). In this Jesus was absolutely unique, and on this uniqueness depends our salvation (see espec. Heb. 2).

So, since Jesus did not break the law, he was not a sinner; and, since he kept it, he was constituted righteous (Dt. 6:17f.,25; 12:25,28; 1 John 3:7, etc.). Thus, in contrast with the first Adam and all the rest of his offspring, he received the promised eternal life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Mt. 3:17; 19:17, cf. Ps. 21:1-7) so abjectly forfeited by the first Adam.

It is important to draw attention to the fact that Paul talks of reconciliation in Romans 5. What does the word mean? At the very least it points to restoration of fellowship. But if the imputation of Adam’s sin is true, there was never a time when there was even a semblance of fellowship. Rather, as is sometimes actually claimed, we have always been the objects of God’s wrath (WCF, 6:6; Art. 1X of the C of E). How then can reconciliation or restoration of fellowship take place? Surely, as Jesus makes clear when he blesses children (Mark 10:16, cf. Gen. 1:28; 5:2), there is a time in our lives when, like Adam and Eve in the Garden, we are not hostile to God our Creator and are like Paul ‘alive’ (Rom. 7:9). It is only actual sin that disrupts that fellowship (7:10,cf. Isa. 59:2) minimal or principial though it may be.** As Isaiah affirms, we all like sheep have gone astray (53:6; 65:2; Rom. 3:12, cf. Eccl. 7:29). So yet again I conclude that original sin implies either a denial that God is our Creator or that he created us evil, which is tantamount to blasphemy. The truth is that the God who was present in Eden is still present and active in the womb (Gen. 30:2; Job 31:15; Jer. 1:5, etc.).

This point receives further support from an examination of Romans 1:26f. Here Paul contrasts the natural or legitimate with the unnatural or illegitimate passions (pathe) and plainly expects the former to operate in a legitimate manner. But on the assumption of original sin, the passions, like the flesh (cf. Hodge, ST 2, p.242; Murray, CW 2, p.185), are necessarily evil at the outset (cf. Murray, Romans, p.245) and cannot operate legitimately as Augustine’s view of sex made abundantly clear (see e.g. Rist, pp. 321ff.). Thus Paul’s distinction between the natural and unnatural passions is rendered vacuous like his distinction between the free gift and the effect in Romans 5:12-21.

In light of all this we are forced to the conclusion that sin and righteousness always relate to law in Scripture. Without law neither exists as in the animal world (cf. Ps. 32:9; Isa. 31:3, cf. James 3:3). Thus we necessarily infer that until law is apprehended and broken, babies, knowing neither good nor evil (cf. Dt. 1:39: Isa. 7:15f.), are as innocent as Adam and Eve before they received the commandment *** (cf. Rom. 9:11). This being so, the dogmas of both original sin and original righteousness are at best redundant, at worst dangerous perversions of biblical doctrine.

In 11:32 (cf. Rom. 3:19f.; Gal. 3:22) Paul claims that God has imprisoned us all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to us. Apart from the fact that disobedience implies transgression of known law (see e.g. Jos. 7:11; 1 Sam. 15:24; Neh. 1:6f.; 9:29; Dan. 9:5,11) for which we certainly need forgiveness, how can mercy be exercised towards those who are sinful by birth? (It might equally be questioned how we can repent for original sin or any other natural endowment. Pace B.B.Warfield, pp.278ff. who manifestly struggles unsuccessfully with this problem.) It suggests that God is seeking to repair or rectify what he should not have done in the first place. Clearly the blame is his, not ours. We had no more choice in the matter than we had in deciding who we should be or the colour of our skin (Dt. 32:8; Acts 17:26). Once more it is necessary to conclude that sin in Romans and elsewhere is related directly to law (knowledge and understanding) and our failure to keep it.

Commentators (e.g. Walton, p.171) sometimes practically deny the moral implication of the reference to good and evil and urge that what is meant is “discerning or discriminating wisdom.” Given the context this interpretation is surely far too vague and general, for among other things (cf. 2 Sam. 19:35) wisdom necessarily involves moral discernment as perhaps its basic ingredient? While it may find support in 1 K. 3:9 and Heb. 5:14, for example, it seems to me that there is real danger here of failing to appreciate how Scripture handles the issue. The truth is that Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22) and children (Dt. 1:39) who are without commandment or law are morally innocent, totally naïve, and need the law in order to give them a standard by which they may learn to discriminate (cf. e.g. Ps. 78:5-8; 105:45, etc.) and ultimately make them wise and discerning people (Dt. 4:6; 28:1,10,12f.; 29:9; Job 28:28; Heb. 5:14). It was primarily the law that set the Israelites apart from all other peoples and enabled Jesus, who obeyed it, to grow in wisdom and understanding (Luke 2:52).

________________________________________________________________________________
* In light of this, I regard Wenham’s denial (p.63) that moral discernment, that is, knowing the difference between right and wrong, is involved as far too cavalier. And his assertion that “it is absurd to suppose that man was not always expected to exercise moral discretion” is somewhat mystifying since where there is no law there is neither sin nor righteousness. In other words, such discretion can only be exercised in a given context like that of Genesis 2 and 3, not in a vacuum. (Some, like the Puritans, argue that the law was written on the heart at creation. This is manifestly not the case, Dt. 1:39, etc.) Surely this was the very reason for the giving of the commandment and later the law. Indeed, it was the commandment precisely which provided Adam and children in general with the opportunity to exercise discriminating (moral) wisdom. As Paul argues so powerfully in Romans 7, where there is no law there is neither promise of (eternal) life nor sin, neither good nor evil, as in the animal world. To exclude the moral element is surely to misunderstand the role of law in providing standards which lead to discriminating wisdom and finally to mature understanding (1 Cor. 14:20; Heb. 5:14).

I conclude then with Kidner (p.63) that the knowledge of good and evil must include moral discrimination (1 K. 3:9; Is. 7:15), that is, ethical experience which is prompted by the commandment. What was intended, as Atkinson implies, was knowledge of God by participation through the obedience of faith (1:5; 16:26). In the event, Adam sought rather knowledge by detachment based on human autonomy (p.67). In the words of Hamilton “the knowledge of good and evil means the ability and power to determine what is good and what is evil. Of course, this is God’s prerogative alone. He has never delegated moral autonomy to any of his creatures…. Anytime a person believes he can decide for himself what is right and wrong, he becomes a god. He has usurped the divine prerogative” (Baker Commentary on the Bible, pp.13f.).

We must never forget that the Jews were a distinct or separate people and what made them separate above all was the law (cf. Dt. 4:6,8,32ff.; Ps. 147:19f.).

** Romans 7:9 clearly refers not to the tenth commandment as in v. 7 but to the original commandment given to Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17) and hence to all children usually by their parents (pace Moo, pp.437f.). The parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 highlights what Scripture teaches, i.e. that the son is one (‘alive’) with his father till he sins against him and deserts ‘Eden’, cf. v.17. Note espec. vv. 24,32

*** If it is asked why babies sometimes die, the answer is the same as if we ask why animals die. Not knowing the law they are innocent, i.e. neither good (righteous) nor evil (sinful) (Dt. 1:39, cf. Ps. 32:9). But since they are flesh (John 1:13, cf. Isa. 31:3) they are as naturally corruptible and mortal as the earth from which they are taken (cf. Rom. 1:23; Ps. 102: 25-27). If creation has a beginning (Gen. 1:1), it must have an end (both a terminus and a goal, cf. Rev. 21:1-4).

________________________________________________________________________________
References

D.Atkinson, BST Genesis 1-11, Leicester, 1990.

Baker Commentary on the Bible, Grand Rapids, 1989.

C.Hodge, Systematic Theology 2, repr. London, 1960.

D.Kidner, Genesis, London, 1967.

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

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

J.Murray, Romans, London, 1967.

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

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

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

J.H.Walton, Genesis NIVAC, Grand Rapids, 2001.

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

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