Category: Articles

In March 2015, after reading an overview of Adam, The Fall and Original Sin (1* Ed. Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves, Grand Rapids, 2014) as a long-time critic of original sin I was prompted to buy the book and make my own assessment of it. Since it contains so much material and deals with so many subjects, all I can do here is to make some general observations which I hope will lead others to grapple with some of the issues at stake.

At the outset, it needs to be recognized that the book is basically an attempt to keep at bay the implications of modern science for traditional Reformed theology. My assessment is that it fails miserably. Why?

First, it makes assumptions which are not merely unproved but I believe are unprovable. A prime example is the idea that creation was originally perfect but was later marred by Adam’s sin which, given his putative original righteousness, is a mystery in itself. What Scripture teaches is that creation was ‘good’ and, according to Paul, remained good, not fallen (1 Tim. 4:3f., cf. 1 Cor. 10:26). Like Eve’s ‘apple’ it was serviceable or useful for its intended purpose (Gen. 2:9; 3:6) which was to nurture, test and reap a harvest of souls for eternity. The traditional idea that Adam was initially perfect, holy and righteous but then sinned having disastrous consequences on the creation he was called to rule over is simply unsustainable. Only God is perfect, and, in the nature of the case, like a builder he has more honour than the building (Heb. 3:3). The basic distinction between Creator and creation, between heaven and earth, between this age and the age to come is maintained throughout Scripture. Another seriously misleading presupposition that pervades the book is that Adam was the covenant or federal head and representative of mankind. The truth is that Adam was simply the first and hence representative man according to the flesh whose sin had an unexplained but fatal effect  on all his posterity.

Second, the book is littered with questionable and even false inferences ultimately based on the assumptions just mentioned. The most blatant of these inferences is original sin itself. It is certainly not to be found in Romans 5:12-21, as I shall argue below.

A third observation is that it is given to overstatement and exaggeration. We read more than once that original sin is essential to biblical theology and that this has been proven over the centuries (e.g. pp.323f.). In fact, given more space I would contend at length that it is original sin precisely that has radically vitiated traditional dogmatic theology.

Fourth, it culpably fails to deal with material manifestly militating against some of its asseverations. Here we can cite the claim, supposedly based on Romans 5:12-21, that we are born sinful and spiritually dead (p.283). Was it so with Jesus? Paul himself states quite explicitly that he himself was born alive and did not die until he like Adam and Eve broke the commandment (Rom. 7:9-11, cf. Eccl. 7:29; Ezek. 28:15). In Ephesians 2:1-3, a passage which over the years has been mischievously made to support original sin, Paul puts will before nature and teaches that we gain our sinful nature by our disobedience just as we gain our righteous nature by our obedience (cf. Rom. 6:16).  He endorses this in Ephesians 5:6 where he maintains that the sons of disobedience are those who have actually sinned. What is more, Jesus implies the same when he tells his audience that we do not become the slaves of sin until we sin (John 8:34) implying that he himself who did not sin (1 Pet. 2:22) remained free (cf. Mt. 17:26; John 8:35f.).

The role of law or commandment is critical in this area as even a superficial examination of story of Adam amply demonstrates. Furthermore, it needs to be stressed that even Jesus as man had to keep the law in order to gain righteousness (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7, etc.).

Fifthly, it fails to deal with the implications of its stance. Here we can refer again to original sin itself (properly defined on pp.251f.). I ask: if it is true (1) on what grounds and (2) how did Jesus manage to avoid it? Was he docetic, only man in appearance? If Jesus was an exception (p.282), he was thereby excluded. And to argue that God started again with Jesus as the second Adam would be to cut him off from his sinful ancestors (cf. Mt. 1:1-16) including  Adam himself (Luke 3:38). Moses recognized this when God tested him in Exodus 32:10 and Deuteronomy 9:14. The plain truth is that we all, not least Jesus (Isa. 7:15f.), begin at the beginning where Adam himself started knowing neither good nor evil (cf. Dt. 1:39, etc.). In Romans 9:11 where the subject is election both Jacob’s and Esau’s equal moral neutrality is essential to Paul’s argument. So, the idea that we sin because we are born sinners must be scouted absolutely (cf. Dt. 1:39. etc.) not least since, according to Paul, we are under a moral obligation to act in accordance with our birth nature (Rom. 1:26f.). Failure to do so implies that we are guilty of not sinning!

There can be little doubt that Romans in general but chapter 5:12-21 in particular continue to play a fundamental part in any attempt to maintain the church’s traditional stance. In light of this, it is important to make some points relating to this chapter.

First, Augustine, who epitomized and cemented the thinking of his time and has continued to condition the church’s thinking for some 1600 years, lacked an adequate knowledge of Greek. As a consequence, he translated the final clause of Romans 5:12 as ‘in whom’ (L. ‘in quo’) instead of ‘because’ or even ‘with the result that’ all sinned. Despite this, many modern writers, bent on defending the indefensible, continue to pretend that nothing has changed. A prime point to make is that the correct translation demolishes all ideas of imputation. This conclusion is further bolstered by Paul’s insistence that the effect of Adam’s sin was different from the known imputation of Christ’s righteousness (vv.15,16). In view of this we can rule out of court all ideas of an exact if contrasting parallelism beloved by some. But there is a problem: Paul nowhere explains exactly how Adam’s sin impacted on his descendants. The one thing we can be sure of is that it did not involve making them sinful at birth or Jesus himself, on the assumption that he was genuinely human, would have been implicated. Bluntly, we cannot at one and the same time have original sin and a sinless Saviour. They cancel each other out.

But all traditionalists known to me want to make Jesus an exception. In doing so, they inadvertently exclude and hence disqualify him. The simple solution to this of course is to ditch original sin. While it is true that we all, again including Jesus, receive a sinful legacy from our forebears like David (Ps. 51:5) (2* I am assuming that contrary to the tendentious NIV (2011 version), for example, Psalm 51:5 is correctly translated as “Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (p.203). On this assumption, it could, properly and soberly interpreted, apply to Jesus every bit as much as to David.), we ourselves are not guilty till we break the law in some fashion (cf. Ezek. 18, etc.). For where there is no law, there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:8), and this makes birth sin impossible.

Contrary to Pelagius, however, what Paul has to say in Romans 5:12-21 shows indisputably that Adam’s sin had a universal impact on all including Jesus. Since it could not possibly have been imputation (Protestants), transmitted sin (Catholics) or our being forensically accounted as sinful in Adam (cf. p.286), all of which would inevitably have involved Jesus in sin, it must have been something else. But this must be so for yet another reason: it would also have contravened the biblical axiom of Exodus 23:7 (cf. Gen. 20:5-7,9; 1 Sam. 22:15; 1 K. 21; Prov. 17:15; Isa. 5:23, etc.). To cut the story short, it would implicitly have involved God in transgression of his own canons of righteousness and justice (cf. Job. 34:10-12). So, bluntly, the ecclesiastical dogma of original sin is blasphemous.

For all that, the question must inexorably be posed: How exactly did Adam’s sin operate with manifestly lethal effect? What was its modus operandi? Since Paul does not tell us, we can only speculate, but in light of other biblical teaching we can reach at least one compelling conclusion, that is, that since all individual sin (and even righteousness, cf. Luke 11:13) has an impact on others only Adam’s, being first, was universal. Thus, in light of the biblical stress on solidarity Alan Cole (Exodus, Leicester, 1973) comments on Exodus 20:5f. as follows: “Since this is God’s world, and since we are all involved with one another, breaches in God’s law by one generation do indeed affect those of future generations to come” (p.156). Again, referring to Exodus 34:6f., he says: “We who live in a world full of legacies of hate between colours and cultures can see only too clearly how sin in one generation affects those who follow after” (p.228). From this I conclude that Adam’s sin inevitably had a deleterious effect on all. But not on Jesus. Why? Because according to Scripture, only Jesus in the situation implied by David in Psalm 51:5 overcame the world (John 16:33), the flesh (Rom. 8:3) and the devil (Heb. 2:14f.). On the other hand, if original sin were true, even he would have failed. He would have been unavoidably caught in the net.

To express the issue otherwise, if original sin is true, its impact affects man intrinsically, that is, it changes his nature. He is not merely born into a sinful world with a sinful heritage like Jesus but he is himself sinful by birth. But yet again we are forced to emphasize that if this were true, even Jesus would have been born sinful. If, however, Adam’s sin functions extrinsically as a powerful external or ambient force that ordinary flesh and blood cannot deal with and overcome (cf. Rom. 3:9,23; 11:32; Gal. 3:22), then in contrast with the rest of us Jesus could and indeed did overcome. Not for nothing does Scripture repeatedly stress the fact that while we are all law-breakers, Jesus, though in the flesh himself, uniquely kept the law and successfully exercised dominion. As Revelation 5:5 (cf. Rom. 15:12; Rev. 22:16) indicates, he alone conquered, and for this reason he alone must be our Saviour (Acts 4:12).

Towards the end of the book in an interesting chapter the author rejects the idea of a flaw in creation (p.310). It depends on what he means by ‘flaw’, but in spite of what he says Jesus,  the apostles and the author of Hebrews all maintain that there is what he calls ‘a fly in the ointment’. I myself have long contended that creation, like the law (Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7), is defective in the sense that it is imperfect and to that extent unlike its Creator. As has already been intimated, throughout the Bible the physical creation is depreciated as references such as Psalm 102:25-27, Isaiah 34:4; 40:6-8, 51:6, 54:10 and Hebrews 1:10-12 and many others make clear. The truth is that having had a beginning it will inevitably have an end, it is visible and therefore clearly temporary (2 Cor. 4:18), it has been intentionally subjected to futility and corruption by God himself though ‘in hope’ (Rom. 8:20; 2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 1:11), and, ‘made by hand’ (Gk cheiropoietos, cf. Heb. 9:11,24) like the temple (Mark 14:58) and the  body of dust (1 Cor. 15:47-49; 2 Cor. 5:1) it is destined not for redemption as many modern advocates of original sin would have us believe but for eventual destruction. Like the flesh which derives from it and is in fact creation in miniature, it is ultimately unprofitable (John 6:63) as are desolate  land, houses, temples and even bodies without inhabitants (Isa. 1:7; 6:11, Mt. 23:38; James 2:26), etc.). In contrast with God himself who is both immortal and incorruptible (not subject to age and decay), it is inherently destructible and transient (cf. Mt. 24:35; Luke 17:28-30; Heb. 1:10-12; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.). In these circumstances no wonder Paul tells us that our hope is an invisible one (Rom. 8:24f., cf. Heb. 7:19).

The Issue: Churchianity or Christianity

Ultimately, reduced to its bare simplicity the issue posed by the book is the choice between differing worldviews, between church dogma and Christianity, between Augustine and science, between devolution and evolution. In the Bible, where the process of perfection or maturation is fundamental, our progression from earth to heaven or from ground to glory, clearly supports the general idea of evolution if not the naturalistic variety. By contrast, the original devolution that is taught by church creeds and confessions is simply wrong. Sin is pandemic because all, apart from Jesus (Heb. 2:14-17; 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22), under the overwhelming influence of Adamic sin earn wages by breaking the law and die (Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 6:23, etc.).  (3* I further contend that Romans 5:12-21 is really an a fortiori argument. If Adam, in whose image we are made (Gen. 5:1-5), sinned in ideal conditions without any parental legacy, how much more will his posterity sin given his.) The upshot of this is that there was never any original perfection, original righteousness, original sin, fall or cosmic curse, just an innocent beginning.  Death, especially animal death which occurs apart from wages, is inherent in creation as any scientist, not to mention the Bible itself (Ps. 104:21, etc.), amply testifies. In this situation, only Jesus, who alone was fully perfected (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28, etc.), can save us.

Concluding Comments

1. Some of the writers of the book seem unduly gung-ho. But in fairness others appear to have real doubts. Writing significantly on Reformed theology Donald Macleod in particular rightly and darkly warns us that if the doctrine of original sin is as important as some of our forebears seemed to think, we ought to address contemporary challenges as a matter of urgency (p.146).

2. My own view has long been that we need a new reformation. It is not the Bible that needs to be demythologized but traditional theology.

3. I once heard Cardinal Ratzinger assert before he became Pope that original sin is central to Roman Catholicism. However, since it is clearly false, the unbiblical immaculate conception, not to mention Mariolatry in general, is redundant.

4. The perceptive reader of what I have written above will realize that the doctrine of recapitulation taught most notably by Irenaeus is fundamental to the Bible (see e.g. Gal. 4:1-7) and provides an indispensable key to its understanding. If Jesus was the second Adam, he must have recapitulated to perfection the life of the first.

5. In light of the resurgence and belligerence of the world religions, I believe that our best weapon is the truth (2 Cor. 10:4f.; Eph. 6:10-18). When this is made plain and duly propagated providing evidence that there is genuine repentance on the part of the churches (cf. 2 Chron. 7:14), then perhaps others including especially the Jews and the Muslims will be motivated to re-examine their own position.

See further various essays relevant to the issue including:

An Exact Parallel?

Are We Sinners by Birth?

Augustine: Asset or Liability?

Concerning Futility

Concerning Original Righteousness

Covenant Theology in Brief

Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?

Does Romans Teach Original Sin?

Imputation

Manufactured Or Not So

Nature Red in Tooth and Claw

Recapitulation in Outline

Romans 8:18-25

Some Arguments Against Original Sin

The Ascent of Man

The Corruptibility Of Creation

The Biblical Worldview

Two ‘Natural’ Necessities

What Fall?

Will Creation Be Redeemed?

etc.

Jesus’ Physical Origin

It is fundamental to Christian theology that Jesus was truly human. In support of this we have only to recognize the fact that he was born of woman (Mt. 1:25; Luke 2:6f.; Gal. 4:4, etc.). If this is regarded as being inadequate, it needs to be explained that according to the book of Genesis Eve, the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20), stemmed from Adam (Gen. 2:22) who was created from the ground (Gen. 2:7). In light of this all humans who are flesh (Ps. 78:39) are regarded physically as dust (Ps.103:14). So does Jesus qualify?

In light of the evidence just presented, he does. His birth of woman though virgin is evident proof of this and his genuine humanity is never seriously questioned throughout the Bible, though it certainly has in church history. Indeed, Luke goes so far as to indicate that his human father through his mother was Adam himself (3:38) who was prototypical and representative man according to the flesh. The author of Hebrews insists that in the nature of the case Jesus shared flesh and blood with his fellows (Heb. 2:14) and was like them in every respect (2:17). He also maintains that through death to which humans are naturally subject he destroyed the one who has power of death, that is, the devil. (1* This may seem contradictory but it is merely paradoxical. Man is indeed naturally mortal but he is promised life if he keeps the law, Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Mt. 19:17, cf. Rom. 8:3. In the event, the devil has the power to ensure that he does not keep the law so unlike Jesus himself who overcame the devil, John 14:30; 1 John 3:8, mortality prevails.)

Paul in particular stresses that Jesus gave his flesh in death to bring about reconciliation with God (Col. 1:22, cf. Rom. 5:10f.; 1 Pet. 3:18). But the apostle goes even further and maintains that Jesus is the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45-49). At this point especially Jesus’ recapitulation of the race is underscored. It is important to spell it out in more detail.

Son of Adam, Son of God

As a son of Adam through his mother Jesus was a genuine human being (cf. Luke 3:38) and thus, as the Son of his Father God in a more fundamental and realistic way than Adam (cf. Luke 1:35), he gestated in his mother’s womb as Adam had gestated mutatis mutandis in the Garden of Eden before coming into the world as we know it. Like a baby Adam of course knew neither good nor evil at the beginning (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22)  and it was only when he had developed into physical maturity that he gained minimal understanding and broke the single (negative) commandment that he was given. He and his immediate descendants, with the exception of Enoch and Abel in their intellectual and spiritual if not physical infancy, failed to exercise the dominion over creation (Gen. 1:26-28) which along with keeping the commandment was their calling (Gen. 2:17). Hence the curse on the ground which was not overcome till God made a covenant with obedient Noah (cf. Gen. 8:21). By contrast, Jesus as the seed of Adam ignorant of (the) law (Isa. 7:15f., cf. Rom. 4:15) enjoyed an innocent gestation (cf. Rom. 9:11), birth and infancy and resembled the animals with whom he was cradled in the stable. When in his case the parental commandment eventually registered on his mind as he verged on childhood, he kept it and went as his ancestors had done before him in fear of Herod to Egypt (cf. Mt. 2:15) as a beneficiary of the covenant with Noah and a true child of nature. Doubtless by this time, in contrast with the animals, he was able to recognize rainbows and appreciate their significance. Unlike Noah, the assumption is that in Egypt he lived sinlessly and was not guilty of worshipping false gods (cf. Jos. 24:2f.). Eventually on his return to the Promised Land he was made like all circumcised Jewish boys (but not girls) a son of the commandment at his bar mitzvah (cf. Luke 2:40-52). At this point along with the rest of Israel he was separated from the nations (Lev. 20:24,26) and holy to the Lord (Dt. 14:2,21).

If he had mastered sin during his youth in contrast with his fellows (Gen. 4:7; 8:21), it was now incumbent on him to live without sinning under the law of Moses which his circumcision now brought fully into effect (cf. Gal. 3:10; 5:3). This all Jews had universally failed to do even after leaving Egypt (cf. Jos. 24:23f.; 1 Sam. 8:8; Ezek. 20:8) as they were frequently reminded (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3; Eccl. 7:20, etc.). Though his life under the law is touched on in Scripture (e.g. his circumcision and presentation in the temple, Luke 2:21-24), there is no mention of his having come morally short in any way. Like Adam who initially knew neither good nor evil, Jesus was born innocent along with all his fellows (Dt. 1:39, cf. Isa. 7:15f.). In contrast with them, however, he is simply assumed to have avoided sin. This fact is verified specifically in Matthew 3:13-17, etc., when he is baptized by the Spirit. In other words, having kept the law he is born again in accordance with the promise of Leviticus 18:5 originally though somewhat cryptically given to Adam in Genesis 2:17. It should be noted that John the Baptist as the human agent of Jesus’ baptism was reluctant to officiate doubtless because he understood baptism as a sign of repentance and he had already presented Jesus as the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Furthermore, he realized that he himself who was merely born of woman (Mt. 11:11) needed Jesus to baptize him. Nonetheless, Jesus urges him to proceed and when he does, God pours out his spirit on him signifying that his stint under the law is ended and that he is born again. In other words, in contrast with the OT (e.g. 1 Sam. 10:6,10) the Spirit remains on him (John 1:32) and seals him (John 6:27, cf. Eph. 1:13; 4:30). As Jesus implies, this means that he is now not only commissioned for his ministry but enabled to fulfill all righteousness (Mt. 3:15), something he could not possibly do under the law as the author of Hebrews well realized (Heb. 7:18f., cf. 8:7).

Pioneering the Third Race

So having passed through the heathen period of his life under Noah as a slave and what was essentially his adolescence in bondage to the law under Moses as a servant, Jesus next led by the Spirit in his maturity was now able to lay the foundation of the church and pioneer what we call Christianity as the Son of God (1 Cor. 3:11, cf. 10:32; Gal. 4:1-7; Col. 3:11).

Jesus our Trail Blazer

If what has been averred above is correct, the reader will be well aware that while Jesus obviously followed in the footsteps of his ancestors or, to put it differently, recapitulated the life of fleshly Israel before him, he certainly did not recapitulate their life under the leading of the Spirit for the simple reason that they never succeeded in attaining to it. So we are forced to conclude that at his baptism Jesus himself became the pioneer or as Paul would put it the second Adam. From this point on all believers in him would regard him as their prototype: they would in the words of Paul be conformed to his image (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). So instead of being merely the ‘recapitulator’ of the race, Jesus now in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4) became the ‘precapitulator’ of his people. Is this important? Most certainly.

First, it is vital to recognize that Jesus died for the sins of literally all believers. He uniquely became their Saviour as Isaiah, for example, had implied when he called on all to turn to God (Isa. 45:22). Apart from Jesus who was God in the flesh and who gave his life as a sacrifice for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous (1 Pet. 3:18), all would have been left in their sins. In that state they could not possibly gain eternal life since its precondition was righteousness under the law (Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11,13,21; Mt. 19:17; Rom.10:5; Gal. 3:12, etc.). Thus it is not without good reason that we read in the best-known verse in the Bible that God so loved the world that he gave his Son so that all who believe on him should have eternal life (John 3:16). However, this verse on its own, despite its reference to the world, tends to obscure the total picture since it immediately raises the question of those who never heard of Jesus before his incarnation and could not possibly have put their faith in him as such. So John 3:16 needs to be supplemented by the rest of Scripture or, more specifically, by other passages that express the horizontal as well as the vertical, the chronological (history) as well as the extensive (worldwide) universality of the atonement.  While verses like Hebrews 9:15 bring out the retrospective efficacy of the atonement, 1 John 2:2 impresses on our minds its extent. In other words, God’s eternal covenant (Heb. 13:20) embraces the entire world of believers throughout history as Hebrews 11, for example, implies along with Romans 1-3, especially 3:21-31. Here we can see the point of references like John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 which summarize or encapsulate biblical teaching in general about Jesus as being uniquely the Saviour of the world.

Once we understand this the importance of the doctrine of recapitulation can be appreciated. First, at the beginning God promised eternal life to mankind (Adam) on condition of keeping the commandment (law). Since, on the one hand, this proved beyond the capacity of Adam and all his natural children, and, on the other, God said that he alone would save his people, God himself in the person of the Word had to keep that law, gain eternal life, die for sins, rise again from the dead and ascend transformed into heaven as his people’s pioneer (cf. Heb. 2:10-13; 6:19f.; 10:19f.; 12:2; Rev. 14:4.). In other words he had to assume and experience personally what he intended to save. Having done this successfully, his prayer is that his disciples shall be with him in glory (John 17:24, cf. 12:26) in his Father’s house (John 14:2f.).

At the heart of the doctrine of recapitulation, which was commonly held in the early church but lost to view under the pervasive influence of Augustine of Hippo, is the truth of the incarnation and the inadmissibility of Docetism. While the former in its purity has frequently been under siege not least by well-intentioned teachers who have tended to put Jesus on the wrong sort of pedestal and thus separated him from the rest of humanity, the latter as was intimated above has been all too evident during the course of church history. Once Jesus had conquered in the flesh and achieved perfection as the second or last Adam, he epitomized the doctrine of recapitulation (Heb.2:10-12).  As Paul put it, God’s plan from the start was to sum up all things in heaven and earth in him (Eph. 1:10). It is thus that he as God and Man who was creation in miniature gained permanent pre-eminence (Col. 1:15-20). He, Jesus the man, became and remains the perfect image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3) and reigns at God’s right hand forever (Rev. 4,5). In light of this we must all seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness by faith in his Son (Mt. 6:33). For, if we have the Son, we have the Father also (1 John 2:23; 5:1,11f.).

For Paul, Jesus, the Word who himself became man, is the second or last Adam who represents and encapsulates all first Adamic believers and brings them to glory as God’s children (cf. Gal. 4:4f.; Eph. 1:5f.; Heb. 2:10-13). While the first Adam was characterized by dust, death and corruption, the second is the epitome of spirit, life and imperishability (1 Cor. 15:47-53; 2 Tim. 1:10), truly the man of heaven. In the plan and providence of God, the former is replaced by the latter (Heb. 10:9) and all who believe in him are finally conformed to his glorious image (John 17:24; 1 Cor. 15:43; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21; Col. 3:4) forever safe in the Father’s house (John 14:1-3,18,28). All without exception have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb (Eph. 1:7; Rev. 5:9) and have become one man in Christ (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:15; 4:13).

See further my The Journey of Jesus, Recapitulation in Outline and Following Jesus.

If the individual man recapitulates the history of mankind, the race, or, alternatively, is regarded as the race in miniature as Jesus, the second Adam, was, then we can assume that man was created as seed (cf. 1 John 3:9) and was placed by God in the Garden of Eden or womb (Gen. 2:8,15) mutatis mutandis to gestate. On this assumption that the Garden of Eden is the womb of the race into which man(kind) was placed (Gen. 2:8,15) (1* Cf. the individual man who is the glory of God, 1 Cor. 11:7 placing his seed, cf. Heb. 7:10, in the womb of his wife where it gestates.), the period between his ‘birth’ (or ejection from the womb/Eden) and his childhood under Noah (i.e. Gen. 3-9) is the cradle period or infancy of his life. If this is in fact the case, it helps to explain the nature of the curse that God imposed on the ground. How?

First, all sin or transgression of (the) commandment is subject to a penalty (Heb. 2:2, cf. Heb. 10:28; Rom. 4:15) and the penalty for Adam and Eve after expulsion from Eden, or ‘birth’ (cf. Job 3 and Jeremiah 20:18), was the world outside the Garden and the curse on the ground. In light of Genesis 3:17-19 life outside the Garden, the real world as we know it, far from being an automatic or autonomous benefactor is hard going, intractable and unco-operative by nature and so intended by divine design to be subjected to dominion (cf. Job 7:1). (2* Not without reason, both Job, see 3; 5:6f.; 10:18f.; 14:1, and Jeremiah 20:18 who suffered much wished they had remained in the paradise of the womb!) But for those who, as adults in contrast with real babies (cf. Rom. 9:11), had been aware of the idyllic, blissful nature of Edenic paradise where all their basic animal needs were painlessly and pleasantly met, life outside was particularly difficult by contrast.

Why was this so? If we say on account of the curse we need to establish the nature of the curse for the sinless Jesus himself came into such a world where difficulty was endemic, for he too as a real man had to exercise dominion in the midst of tribulation in order to overcome the world (John 16:33). In light of this we need to unravel what is at stake.

The Nature of the Curse

First, we need to recognize the fact that man in his moral innocence was called to exercise dominion of a kind (Gen. 1:26-28) even in Eden itself (Gen. 2:15). Like an animal Adam had free access to all its trees (Gen. 2:16) until the commandment finally registered on his developing mind. This suggests that effort, though minimal (cf. a baby at it mother’s breast), was necessary from the start quite apart from the so-called cosmic curse. Thus I have contended in my Romans 8:18-25, etc., that the world which requires the exercise of dominion on the part of man is subject to futility and corruption and hence recalcitrant by nature: that was the way that it was made by divine fiat. The idea that it was once perfect but was cursed when Adam sinned is not borne out by the facts. Creation is intrinsically transient (Gen. 1:1; Mt. 24:35; 28:20; Heb. 1:11; 2 Cor. 4:18) and will eventually be destroyed irrespective of sin which is an exacerbating factor. This it clearly was in the lives of the antediluvians who were threatened by the flood.

So what in fact did the curse on the ground involve? Did it involve constitutional cosmic transformation or merely change in the environment and locale (cf. Gen. 13:10; Num. 14:7 and note especially Num. 11:5; 16:13 and 2 K.18:32)? Or was something else involved?

It is noticeable in Genesis 4 and 5 that both Cain and Lamech react negatively to the work that dominion of the earth involved. When we compare Genesis 3:17-19 with Proverbs 24:30-34 (cf. Isa. 5:5f.; 7:23-25, etc.), and note that the sluggard is faced with the same scenario as Adam, it is difficult not to conclude that failure to exercise dominion or to work brings ruin. Just as creation was made to be inhabited (Isa. 45:18), so, since for man it is not an automatic benefactor as the Garden womb had been, it was made to be cultivated. In other words, untilled land is barren and unproductive like an untended garden or a wilderness. Since it is unproductive and derelict, a desolation in fact, it is fit only for destruction of man and beast (Heb. 6:7f.). And this is surely implied by the curse of Genesis which culminated in the flood. As indicated above, however, God’s purpose in creation was not so easily frustrated (cf. Ps. 8; Heb. 2:5-9) and so the covenant with faithful Noah which like the covenant with David (Jeremiah 31:35-37 and 33:25f.) guaranteed the continuation of creation until the plan of salvation is fulfilled (cf. Gen. 8:22) when its harvest is reaped (cf. Mt. 13:36-39). In support of this we can appeal to other strands of evidence.

First, the sinless Jesus, the second Adam, came into this world with the express intention of working (Mark 10:45, etc.). Not only did he keep the law and seek the glory of God and thus overcome the world (John 16:33) but he explicitly refers to his works which like his signs indicate that he is intent on fulfilling the purpose of his Father. And at the end of his life on earth despite all his trials, tribulations and temptations he finishes to perfection the work that his Father has given him to accomplish (John 17:4; 19:30). For him his very food was to do the will of his Father (John 4:34).

If we go back to Genesis at this point we soon discover that in contrast with Cain and Lamech and their contemporaries, Noah the man of faith was like Jesus himself concerned to be obedient (Gen. 6:22; 7:5,9,16). This, however, raises the question of Abel and Enoch. They both prove that while sin, which is based on knowledge of law, is possible, by the same token so is faith (Rom. 10:17). And in a faithless generation, they were plainly faithful (Heb. 11:4f.). (At this point we might further ask why Abel’s sacrifice was acceptable in contrast with that of Cain. The conclusion may well be that it was offered in faith and hence obedience. On the other hand Abel’s animal sacrifice involving death, cf. Gen. 3:21, contrasted with Cain’s vegetable matter, cf. Gen. 3:7b, which was unacceptable because it was inadequate.)

The Importance of Work

Apart from the stress on the work of Jesus who contrasts strongly with the first Adam and general human failure to keep the law, work and the condemnation of idleness is prominent in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15. While Morris on the basis of his exegesis of this passage concludes that work is obligatory (p.255) (and not merely necessary), Bruce in reference to Paul’s assertion that he who refuses to work should not eat pointedly suggests that this may have been a proverbial saying based on Genesis 3:19. The inference I draw from this is that the curse on the ground is not so much that the ground itself is at fault (cf. Job. 5:6; Hab. 3:8; 2 Pet. 3:7) since it is naturally futile but that it is useful (‘good’) only when properly tended and tilled. This conclusion would seem to be supported by numerous other references in Scripture (e.g.  Lev. 26:31-35; Isa. 6:11f.; Ezek. 35:9) which suggest that desolation is the result of inaction (cf. Gen. 2:5) or lack of care as at the time of the exile.

An important distinction must be made here between sin and idleness. After all, while the apparently hard-working Canaanite nature worshippers left an enviable legacy for the incoming Israelites (Dt. 6:10f.), they themselves were nonetheless vomited out of the Promised Land on account of their wickedness (Dt. 9:4f.) and certainly not on account of the righteousness of the Israelites who were warned of the danger facing them if they imitated the behaviour of their predecessors (Dt. 8:20). (I understand from various modern writers that the land of Israel has prospered under the energetic regime imposed by the Israelis since 1948. Even they, however, continue in general to reject their Messiah and remain vulnerable.) What is clear, however, is that Canaan, the Promised Land, like Egypt (Gen. 13:10; Num. 11:5; 16:13, which was worked by the Israelite slaves) and Assyria (2 K. 18:32) was not involved in a putative cosmic curse (Num. 14:7; Dt. 8:7-10).

(3* It is worth meditating here on the situation which confronted the Israelites in their seventy-year exile. As I indicated in my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?, Jeremiah strongly urged them to knuckle down and work in their new surroundings, Jer. 27:11,27; 29:5,28. Jeremiah 29:5f. are reminiscent of Genesis 9:1,7. On the other hand, 29:28 ought to remind us that in NT times our exile may be long and we have to work while we await the Parousia, cf. John 6:28; 1 Cor. 15:58; 2 Tim. 2:14-26; 2 Pet. 3:14. It is also during the exile that the Promised Land became a desolation because it was uninhabited, Jer. 7:34; 44:2,22, cf. Lev. 26:31,33, etc. God did not, however, make ‘a full end’ of it, Jer. 4:27; 5:10,18, etc., and the people eventually returned as promised to make it fertile again. This will not be the case at the end of the world when there will be no going back. See further my No Going Back. )

At this point we are prompted to ask what the difference is between the fleshly antediluvians (Gen. 6:5-7,11-13), the immoral and sexually deviant Sodomites (Gen. 18:20)  and the nature-worshipping Canaanites (Dt. 9:4, etc.) who were all equally wicked. First, the evidence suggests that the antediluvians as ‘infants’ were lazy, unproductive and totally dominated by the flesh (cf. 2 Pet. 2; Jude); second, the Sodomites were immoral in a land fertile and prosperous enough to attract the somewhat materialistic Lot (Gen. 13:10, in contrast with the more spiritual Abraham) and especially his wife, while, third, the Canaanites were noteworthy for worshipping false gods in the delectable Promised Land itself. But it is their punishment that brings out the difference. Though the unproductive antediluvians themselves were destroyed to be replaced by the sons of Noah, their land after undergoing the curse of the flood was guaranteed productivity under the terms of the covenant.  The Sodomites by comparison suffered both personal loss of life and the total destruction of their land and so became proverbial for their paradigmatic punishment throughout the rest of Scripture. On the other hand, the apparently hard-working but idolatrous Canaanites were vomited out of the Promised land flowing with milk and honey leaving a wonderful legacy to the incoming children of Israel.

The question now is: are these differences important? I think so.

First, I would argue that the antediluvians are like the man with only one talent in the parable of the talents (which occurs noticeably in Matthew 25 where the last judgement is depicted). He is described by Jesus in verse 26 as both wicked and lazy and in verse 30 as being worthless.  As the parable implies, God himself is a hard taskmaster (cf. Job 7:1,17f.) who requires us to make our contribution limited though it may be. By contrast, Enoch and Abel are commended for their faith and Noah for both his faith and obedience not least in building the ark (cf. 1 Pet. 3:20f.).

Next, the Sodomites like the antediluvians appear in Luke 17:26-30 as examples of how things will pan out at the end of the world. They will lose all for in their case both inhabitants and habitat alike are destroyed (cf. 2 Pet. 2; 3:1-13; Jude).

So what about the Canaanites? Judging by the parable of the unrighteous steward (Luke 16:1-13), they serve as illustrations of those who have shown considerable shrewdness and dedication in managing this world’s affairs but on account of their idolatry and immorality suffer total loss at the end. They and their modern spiritual descendants by their hard work and industry may well become materially prosperous in this world but lose everything when they fail to enter the heavenly Promised Land. As the parable implies, God is a hard taskmaster who demands his just return with interest. Material prosperity, however, is incapable of compensating for spiritual poverty. You cannot buy your way into the kingdom of God. This point is stressed in Psalms 49 and 73 where the prosperity of the wicked is a problem, not to mention elsewhere as in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). The situation is the same today. Many in our own society cannot be faulted for their lack of industry and their management of worldly affairs, but they can certainly be charged with faithlessness, gross immorality and evil. Indeed, it will be precisely because of material prosperity and lawlessness that faith grows cold (Dt. 6:12; 8:11-20; 2 Tim. 3; 2 Pet. 2,3; Jude). According to Jesus himself this will be the end-time scenario when in the midst of widespread material wealth disaster will strike (Luke 12:13-21; 16:19-31; 17:26-30, cf. also the story of the Tower of Babel). If nothing else, global warming should remind us all of the inherent fragility or shakability (Heb. 12:27) of creation. Terra is not so firma after all!

Conclusion

If this scenario is correct, my contention that creation is naturally subject to futility and corruption as opposed to a cosmic curse is vindicated. In the circumstances as every farmer and gardener knows, where there is no work in an ultimately futile and corruptible cosmos, there is less than adequate fruit fit for the consumption of man (cf. Lev. 25:18f.; 26:3-5, etc.) as opposed to mere animal. (4* John Stott’s comment that nature is what God gives us, ‘culture’ (or cultivation) is what we do with it and that without a human cultivator, every garden or field quickly degenerates into a wilderness is highly important at this point. The tragedy is that he himself did not seem to appreciate its relevance to the so-called cosmic curse which, conditioned by his Augustinian worldview, he readily accepted.) While nature given its providential ecology may temporarily support the animal world, unaided it certainly will not support man, least of all seven billion of us in the 21st century. Needless to say, being inherently temporary, it is quite incapable of providing for us eternally.

__________________________________________________

References

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

L.L.Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, Grand Rapids, 1959.

J.R.W.Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today, London, 1999.

________________________________________________

RECAPITULATION

In light of the above, man(kind) was first created, placed to gestate as (animal) flesh in the womb (Eden), was born, experienced infancy, childhood, adolescence and mature manhood and in Christ is perfected and transformed in preparation for heaven. As made in the (potential) image of God, he begins as flesh and reaches maturity (is perfected) in spirit (1 Cor. 15:46). The ascent of man is intrinsic and the absurd idea that he began perfect and fell bringing a curse on the entire universe must be rejected out of hand. Sin of course is an exacerbating factor in an otherwise ‘good’ but futile world. It prevents man’s naturally necessary escape (2 Cor. 4:16-18) from this ‘evil’ age (Gal. 1;4) with the result that we are all totally dependent on the sinless Jesus who alone met the condition of life by keeping the law (Lev. 18:5; Mt. 19:17; Rom. 10:5, etc.).  He alone as our pioneer in the flesh achieved perfection for himself (Heb. 5:9; 7:28) and in his love and compassion atoned for the sins of the rest of us. In this way, having been glorified himself (John 17:5; Heb. 2:9), he will bring us to glory in our turn (John 17:24; Heb. 2:10; Rom. 8:30).

Notes

Cosmic Destruction

If the conclusions reached above are correct, they explain something else. Just as the curse of the flood occurred despite evidence of faith in such isolated characters as Enoch, Abel and Noah, so the final universal conflagration (Mt. 7:19; Heb. 6:7f.; 12:25-29; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12), the destruction of the created cosmos, will occur despite the faith of what is perhaps a comparative few, a remnant,  at the end (Mt. 24:12; Mark 13:19f.; Luke 17:26;18:8; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Heb. 6:7f.; Jude 18, etc.). Some at least will be brands plucked from the burning (Amos 4:11; Jude 23). Despite this, the material creation will have served its basic purpose and produced its intended harvest of the people of God (Mt. 24:29-31; Rev. 7:9-17, etc.). (On this see my The Harvest of the Earth.)

Desolation

An uninhabited land (or house/ temple/body) is desolate or deserted and thus of no further use. Just as a ‘hand-made’ and deserted temple (cf. Mark 14:58) is destroyed (see e.g. France, pp.884,886,888), so is land. At the second advent when almost all that the earth produces is thorns (2 Sam. 23:6) or fruitless branches (John 15:6), its end is to be burnt (Heb. 6:7f., cf. Mt. 22:7; Luke 17:29f.). This clearly points to the graphic picture painted in 2 Peter 3:7 (cf. 2 Thes. 1:7f.). Fortunately, as Beale says, architectural temples on earth were but copies of the heavenly temple (p.352), and though the former like the cosmic temple (cf. p.402) may fail (p.401), the latter  since it is God and the Lamb (Rev. 21:22, cf. Ezek. 48:35) remains forever free from anything accursed  (Rev. 22:3). Christ’s kingdom will never be destroyed (Luke 1:32f.; John 12:34). (Regrettably, on the basis of a false understanding of Romans 8:18-25 Beale seems to think that the new heavens and earth where righteousness dwells is the old creation redeemed, pp.153,227. He fails to realize that all ‘hand-made’ temples are defective and transient by nature and face inevitable destruction even apart from sin before they give way to the Lord of Glory himself, note especially Mark 14:58 and 2 Cor. 5:1. According to Hebrews, when the true or real reigns supreme, the shadow disappears (8:1-7,13, cf. 2 Cor. 3:7-11.)

__________________________________________________

Reference:

R.T.France, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, 2007.

Tradition has it that when Adam the divinely appointed lord of creation sinned and ‘fell’, creation fell with him and was universally cursed. As I attempted to make clear in my Cosmic Curse? and Romans 8:18-25, I believe this is based on a serious misunderstanding of the teaching of Scripture, especially of Genesis 1-3 and Romans 8:18-25. It is now (April 2015) more than a decade since I wrote my Cosmic Curse?. Though to date I have had no reason at all to change my basic view, I am still not entirely happy with my handling of Genesis 4-9 where I tended to play down the reality of the curse on the ground (Gen. 3:17-19; 5:29; 8:21). Partly in order to rectify this and to put it into perspective, I want here briefly to approach the question of cosmic curse from a different angle.

The Covenant with Noah

On the assumption that the doctrine of recapitulation (that is, that the individual recapitulates the history of the race as Jesus himself as the second Adam did) is true (1* See my I Believe in Recapitulation, Recapitulation in Outline, Epitome – Jesus The Epitome Of Recapitulation.) and that the Garden of Eden is the womb of the race rather than a temple as G.K.Beale suggests (2* See my What Was The Garden Of Eden?), just as a mother’s fruit-bearing womb or garden (cf. Gen. 3:20; Dt. 28:11; 30:9 and note Job 3; Jer. 20:14-18; Ezek. 28:13-15; 31:1-11) is the Eden of the individual, the period between Eden and the covenant with Noah represents the cradle period of mankind, the race. (3* The correspondence or comparison between individual and community occurs quite frequently in Scripture. The designation Adam can refer to both the individual and the community as can Israel, Hosea 11:1, cf. Ex. 4:22. And though the latter is a vine out of Egypt, Ps. 80:8, cf. Isa. 5:1, Jesus the individual is himself the true vine, John 15.  In Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:15 and 4:13 Paul refers to the church as one man and in the latter stresses its call to maturity, cf. Dt. 11:2; Phil. 3:12-14; Heb. 11:39. Again in Ephesians 5:25-33 he sees it as the bride of Christ, cf. 2 Cor. 11:2.) Why is this significant? Because the curse pronounced on the ground meant to be ruled by Adam in Genesis 3:17-19 is perpetuated only until it is rescinded in Genesis 8:21f. (cf. 9:11,13; Isa. 54:9). Why is this so? it may be asked. Mutatis mutandis or making the necessary adjustments, the reason is that while the cradle period of the individual is the period of the unconscious and innocent weaning of real or literal babies who like the animals are the unknowing and hence innocent beneficiaries of the covenant with Noah, for the adult antediluvians it was a time of sin and unfruitful toil as the references to Adam himself (Gen. 3:17-19), Cain (Gen. 4:12) and Lamech (Gen. 5:29) make plain. (4* To explain further, ejection from the womb of Eden, a guaranteed source of  supply, constituted a shock and introduced problems  for man not previously experienced.) This did not come to an end until God, motivated by grace and with the plan of human salvation in mind, actually made his covenant with Noah. After that, in accordance with Genesis 9:1-17, the covenant stood firm, a point not lost on Jeremiah (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:25f.), Isaiah (54:9f.), Jesus (Luke 17:26-30) and Paul (Acts 14:17; 17:27; 1 Corinthians 10:26-30; 1 Tim. 4:3f.).

Food

It can hardly pass without notice that apart from their nakedness Adam and Eve like babies did not feed on meat at the beginning of their development (cf. Heb. 5:12-14) but on the fruit of the trees (Gen. 2:16, cf. 2:9; 3:2-6). It was only after they left Eden that meat was on the menu (Gen. 9:3). (5* See further my A Double Helping and Death Before Genesis 3).

1 Peter 3:21

There is another clue in Scripture that suggests that the physically adult antediluvians were spiritual babies representative of the race in its fleshly infancy. I refer to 1 Peter 3:21 where the apostle likens Christian baptism to the washing undergone by our primitive ancestors. What is significant here is that Peter talks of the removal from the body of the dirt that features prominently with babies. Of course, Scripture refers elsewhere to the cleansing of the body of flesh by OT ritual (Heb. 9:13), but this lacks relevance to the point at issue except insofar as it also refers to the youthful minority (cf. Gen. 8:21) as opposed to the specific infancy of the race on the one hand and its maturity in Christ on the other. The author of Hebrews of course is concerned to underline the fact that animal sacrifice in contrast with the sacrifice of Christ cannot cleanse the conscience of those under the old covenant (Heb. 9:14).

Death

It is also relevant to the matter under discussion that there is great stress on both the sin and the death of the fleshly antediluvian tribes in Genesis 5 and 6, especially 6:5,11f. (cf. Jer. 17:5-9). Clearly they were paid the wages of their sin (cf. Rom. 5:12; 6:23) but, as Romans 5:13f. (cf. 2:12) indicate, their sin, which occurred before the giving of the law, resembled that of Eve more than that of Adam (cf. 1 Tim. 2:14). In other words, they established the pattern followed and illustrated by Paul in Romans 7:9-11 who sinned first like Eve (Gen. 3:6) and then like Adam who received the commandment directly from God as Moses had done. (6* It needs to be remembered at this point that a Jewish boy despite being circumcised did not become a son of the commandment until his bar mitzvah at age 13. Rom. 7:13ff. clearly portrays Paul as a Jew under the Mosaic  law which he was unable to keep. See further my Interpreting Romans 7)

Babies

On the assumption of recapitulation, it is vital to bear in mind the importance of the mutatis mutandis (making the necessary distinctions/adjustments) or the distinction between real babies and metaphorical or racial babies who are physically adult. (In clarification of this, it needs to be recognized that man’s understanding occurred later in his development or evolution than it does nowadays.)  While it is easy to attribute the death of the latter who were adults to sin, what about the former who according to Scripture are born ignorant and therefore innocent (Dt. 1:39; 1 K.3:7,9; Isa. 7:15f., cf. 8:4; Heb. 5:13f.)?  After all, many of them (especially in the ancient world) die too. However, if they are genuinely innocent, their death must be attributable to something else. Since they do not know the law, they can neither transgress it (Rom. 4:15, etc.) nor earn its wages (Rom. 6:23, cf. 5:12). By the same token, however, they cannot inherit its promise of life (cf. Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 7:10). So we are forced to conclude that they die like innocent animals (flesh) as part of a naturally corruptible creation. (7* On this see e.g. my Creation Corruptible By Nature, etc.)

Age

Though it is difficult to prove, the great age of the antediluvians also points to tribes or families rather than to individuals between whom there seems to be an element of fluidity as in the case of Adam who was both individual and race, the man who epitomized mankind according to the flesh.  While Noah for example is not strictly speaking an eponymous hero, as an individual he nonetheless belongs to and is representative of his tribe. Again, it is easy to see that the antediluvians, though adults, resembled babies who identified with and merged into the family taking on the family name.

Cosmic Curse

Denial of a permanent cosmic curse begs questions. First, it is necessary to realize that though Paul and others can tell us that creation is still good and that the earth and its fullness is the Lord’s, temporary curses still occur (Lev. 26:14-39; Dt. 28:15-68; Isa. 24-27). Indeed, all transgressions of law attract a penalty as Hebrews 2:2 asserts. And inevitably when man fails to till the ground over which he has been given dominion, problems arise as Proverbs 24:30-34 (cf. Job 31:38-40), for example, indicate. And Paul goes so far as to say that the man who will not work should not eat (2 Thes. 3:10). However, as I have argued at length in my Romans 8:18-25, Genesis 3:17-19 refer to the ground over which Adam the individual was called to rule, not over the earth in its entirety throughout history. This curse culminated in the curse of the flood which had threatened universal death but was then countered or rather obviated by the covenant with Noah which guaranteed the future productiveness of the earth to the end of the age (Gen. 8:22).  If, however, it is then maintained that even the modern world provides evidence of the cosmic curse and that Genesis 3:17-19 lies behind Paul’s teaching in Romans 8:18-25, I reply that this is a basic misunderstanding. What Scripture teaches is that God from the start subjected the creation to the futility of corruption quite apart from sin as Romans 8:18-25, Hebrews 1:10-12 and many other texts plainly indicate. Even the sinless Jesus as flesh was likewise subjected as frequent references to his age verify (Luke 2:42; 3:23; John 8:57, cf. Mt. 5:36; 6:27). The truth is that as flesh we who emanated from the ground are all subject to corruption simply because we are part of a material creation which having both a beginning and an end is itself corruptible. Physically visible, it is temporary by nature (2 Cor. 4:18), and our hope is an invisible one (Rom. 8:20,24f.). So, to confuse natural corruption (decay) with curse as the historical church has done is to make a calamitous mistake. It inevitably gives us a false worldview against which scientists, especially atheistic ones, indignantly rebel. Of course, the real fly in the ointment is the Augustinian dogma of original sin which the Bible does not and, if it is consistent with itself, cannot teach. (8* On original sin see my various articles, e.g. Some Arguments Against Original Sin, The Redundancy Of Original Sin.)

The Plan of Salvation

According to Paul, Jesus by divine design was the second Adam. And just as the intrinsically inadequate or faulty old covenant regardless of sin was always intended to be replaced by the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34, cf. Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7), so the first Adam who was flesh (dust) was always intended to be replaced by the last or second Adam (1 Cor. 15:47-49, cf. Heb. 10:9). (9* Some readers may object at this point but they do so presumably on the basis of failure to recognize that the new birth or birth from above is a natural necessity irrespective of sin, not an imperative on account of it. As Wheeler Robinson long ago remarked, we must regard regeneration as the normal and “natural” completion of the first birth, p.327.) Since sin prevented ordinary human beings from attaining to the naturally necessary new birth (Lev. 18:5, etc.), Jesus who kept the law to perfection was indispensable,  for he alone brought to light both immortality and incorruption (Gk 2 Tim. 1:10 usually mistranslated at least in the EVV). But why was the new birth (John 3:7) along with the transformation of the flesh (1 Cor. 15:53) necessary (Gk dei)? (10* See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.) The answer is that it is impossible for the natural man or woman as either temporal flesh or spirit to inherit the kingdom of God. This is so because our nature as such since it is created ‘by hand’ (Gk cheiropoietos) cannot do so. (11* See my Manufactured Or Not So.) As Paul indicates, what is (naturally) perishable cannot inherit the (supernaturally) imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50b). Just as the body of dust which is regarded pejoratively throughout Scripture must of necessity give way to the spiritual body, so must the visible creation give way to the invisible heaven. This was God’s plan from before the foundation of the earth (Eph. 1:4-6, etc., pace those who teach the redemption of the present physical creation).

Racial and Literal Babies

There is another point worth making. While literal babies live unconsciously and innocently under the covenant with Noah, the morally aware adult antediluvians were not only sinful but like irrational animals also culpably unproductive (cf. John 6:63; Rom. 7:18; 8:6-8,13; Gal. 6:8 and note 2 Pet. 2,3; Jude). It is on this account that the curse on the ground threatened ultimate destruction in the flood. It had lost its raison d’etre which was implied in Genesis 1.26,28 (12* In Genesis 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5; Mt. 19:17, man himself is called to perfection or maturity by keeping the law, Mt. 19:21.) This apparently will be the situation at the end of history. Jesus likens the state of affairs then to that which confronted both Noah and Lot (Luke 17:26-30). Furthermore, the author of Hebrews endorses this when he informs us that land that fails to produce appropriate fruit, that is, men and women (adopted sons) functioning as those who are made in the image of God (cf. Rom. 8:22f.), is on the verge of being cursed (cf. 2 Sam. 23:6f.; John 15:2a) and burnt (Heb. 6:7f.; 12:22-29, cf.  John 15:6; 2 Pet. 3:7). Just as at Sodom both the land and its inhabitants were destroyed (Gen. 19:24-29), so it will be at the end of the age.

Summary

To sum up, sin and curse do not constitute the essence of our problem, they only exacerbate it (cf. modern global warming). According to Genesis, from the start creation was ‘good’ (Gk kalos), that is, useful and serving a purpose like Eve’s ‘apple’ (Gen. 2:9; 3:6, cf. the exceedingly good but inadequate land in Num. 14:7 and the good but faulty law in Heb. 7:18f.,8:7), but certainly not perfect like God as tradition has it. ‘Hand-made’ like man himself (see e.g. Isa. 45:11f.), it was initially uncovenanted and hence inherently both transient and destructible. Thus, we in our turn as its product, like the sinless Jesus who was born of woman, are by nature mortal and corruptible apart from anything that Adam did. In fact, all that Adam’s sin as highlighted by Paul in Romans 5:12-21 did was to prevent his posterity, Christ apart, from keeping the law, gaining the life it promised and escaping from this ‘evil’ age (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17; Gal. 1:4). (13* On Romans 5:12-21 see my Does Romans Teach Original Sin?, Thoughts on Romans 5:12-14, Thoughts on Adam, The Fall and Original Sin.) On the other hand, the covenant with sinful but faithful Noah guaranteed the maintenance and continuance of the naturally corruptible material creation but only until the gracious purpose of God for sinful mankind was complete (Gen. 8:22). In the meantime, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and the like warn us of the inevitable final catastrophe to come at the end of the age when unbelieving mankind will be caught like a rat in a trap (Zeph. 1:18; 3:8; Luke 21:34-36; Heb. 12:25-29; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.). (Even as I have been preparing and writing this article, an earthquake involving many deaths has occurred in Nepal. As the author of Hebrews warns, this world is by divine design shakable, Heb. 12:25-29, and destined to pass away, Mt. 24:35.) We do well to heed the warnings (1 Thes. 5:1-3; Heb. 2:1-3; 12:25; 2 Pet. 3:11).

Note

If, as I have argued in my Are Babies Saved?, literal babies who know neither good nor evil are neither saved nor damned, what about the symbolic babies of the race, the antediluvians? Since they were clearly morally aware like Adam and Eve in their maturity, they were capable of sinning and earning their wages in death. But by the same token, they were also in a position to exercise faith (cf. Gen. 3:15). In light of this, it should not surprise us that while Cain, Lamech and the like do not appear on the roll of faith in Hebrews 11, Abel, Enoch and Noah all figure. (14* By the time Noah came on the scene he was on his own but like Jesus who epitomized faith and obedience he, in contrast with Lot’s wife (Luke 17:32) made his escape along with his  believing family, Heb. 2:10-13.) It is with good reason that it is said that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). The message of Scripture is that if responsible human beings pander to the flesh and act like irrational animals, they will certainly come into judgement. From the flesh as from the physical world all they can hope to reap is corruption (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8). This is made plain especially in 2 Peter and Jude (cf. Luke 17:26-30).

Note on Work

The importance of work in this world can be gauged from references like Genesis 1:26-28; 2:5,15; 3:19,23; 4:12-14; 5:29; Prov. 24:30-34; Eph. 4:28. Not for nothing did Paul say that the man who is unwilling to work should not eat (2 Thes. 3:10).

See further my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?, The Transience of Creation, The Destruction of the Material Creation, Romans 8:18-25, Romans 8:18-25 In Brief, Nature Red in Tooth and Claw, Creation and / or Evolution.

_______________________________________________

References

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

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

Few passages in Scripture are more misunderstood than 1 Corinthians 15, especially verses 35-58.

In trying to answer the questions he has himself posited: How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come? Paul begins with well-known easily understood illustrations intended to demonstrate that seeds, full-grown plants and bodies differ. He then adds that there are both earthly and heavenly bodies which also differ but possess their own unique kind of glory.

So, by establishing in verses 36-39 that seeds die and differ from the plants/bodies they produce and that there is variation among the different species, Paul is really stating what must have been obvious to his readers and he does not bother to illustrate his case. Had he been looking for an analogy, he might well have resorted to the marvelous metamorphosis of the butterfly, but he did not. In the course of my reading, however, I have come across writers who do use this analogy in ways that suggest that they do not fully appreciate what the apostle is teaching.

For example, in his book Classic Christianity, Bob George uses the butterfly to illustrate the new birth as follows:

“Being made into a new creation is like a caterpillar becoming a butterfly. Originally an earth-bound crawling creature, a caterpillar weaves a cocoon and is totally immersed in it. Then a marvelous process takes place, called a metamorphosis. Finally, a totally new creature – a butterfly – emerges. Once ground-bound, the butterfly can now soar above the earth. It can now view life from the sky downward” (p.78).

Unfortunately, what George has tried to do is use a physical analogy to illustrate a spiritual change, and it doesn’t quite work. The fact is that the butterfly is not “a totally new creature”. All that has happened to it is that it has undergone a physical change or mutation in form like a seed. If this is so, its illustrative and apologetic value for the Christian is very limited. As far as atheists are concerned, it comes well short of proving the existence of God and of undermining their belief in naturalistic evolution. Furthermore, it must be added that the man who experiences spiritual regeneration is not yet “a totally a new creature” since like the butterfly he remains physically the same.

By contrast, Michael Green in his book You Must Be Joking uses the metamorphosis of the butterfly to illustrate the resurrection of Jesus and says that Jesus’ body emerged from the grave clothes as a butterfly emerges from its chrysalis (pp.121f.). Again, though the illustration is superficially apt, what Green is intent on proving is that Jesus underwent a spiritual transformation at his resurrection. Apart from the fact that this has a very dubious foundation in Scripture, his use of the totally physical or natural metamorphosis of a butterfly undermines his argument that Jesus’ fleshly body had undergone the necessary spiritual change, in kind as opposed to form, to prepare it for heaven (1 Cor. 15:50-53). The point is this: Green is among the many who contend, quite contrary to the evidence in my view, that when Jesus emerged from the tomb he had been spiritually transformed even though Jesus himself explicitly maintains that he was still flesh (Luke 24:39). In fact, if he was still physical flesh like the butterfly, he could not have been changed in the way Green says he was. After all, apart from his visibility, audibility, tangibility and manifest lack of glory, he ate material food (Luke 24:41-43), and these were all signs that he had retained his first Adamic nature. While they proved his genuinely physical resurrection on the one hand, they indicated that he had not yet ascended (John 20:17) on the other, and hence, according to Paul, had not yet undergone the universally necessary change for entry into heaven (1 Cor. 15:53).

It is here that there is serious misunderstanding. The reason is that it is assumed that resurrection involves not merely bodily but fleshly continuity. This is required by the so-called Fall from original perfection characteristic of Augustinian theology. But Paul denies this idea, first, by insisting that what is naturally perishable cannot inherit what is naturally imperishable and, second, that the body of dust that stems from the perishable earth in intrinsically different in kind from the body that emanates from the imperishable heaven. The difference is that between the earthly (dust) and the heavenly (spirit), between the human and the divine.

There is no denying that the metamorphosis of the butterfly is one of nature’s wonders, but from a Christian point of view it provides a flawed illustration of resurrection transformation. The problem is that if Jesus is still flesh (Luke 24:39), he cannot as such inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). Just as Jesus says we must, that is, by divine necessity (dei), be born again (John 3:7), so Paul says that we must (dei) all be changed (1 Cor. 15:53). If the necessity is universal and Jesus had not yet ascended (John 20:17), then his still fleshly body  had not changed at all. He had simply been restored and had risen, scars and all. (1* See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.) The problem with the butterfly is that, despite its change in form, it is never more than an ordinary butterfly, one of God’s natural creatures adapted and confined to this world. By contrast, at his ascension Jesus’ body of flesh was replaced by a body of glory and was different in kind (Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 Cor. 15:47-49). Looked at from a different angle, we might say that his incarnation was reversed (cf. John 3:13) and he regained the glory he had before the foundation of the earth (John 17:5).

The Resurrection of Jesus and of the Believer

At this point it is vital for us to distinguish between the resurrection of Jesus and that of the believer. It is often said that the former provides the model or paradigm of the latter’s, but both Peter (Acts 2:29-35) and Paul (Acts 13:36) make it indubitably clear that this is not the case. They differentiate definitively between Jesus who did not experience corruption (decay) and David who did. In other words, it is David who provides the model of the resurrection of the dead and decayed who constitute the majority of us. What is true is that the resurrection of Jesus is the ground of the believer’s resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20-23), but it provides neither its manner nor its model. For how can a body that has undergone decay be restored and raised like that of Jesus? As Paul makes crystal clear, while resurrection transformation is common and necessary to both the dead and the living (1 Cor. 15:51-53), the gospels indicate that the resurrection of Jesus occurred separately from his transformation. It was a two-stage affair like the conversion regeneration of the disciples who were believers before the resurrection but were not born again till Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out. First, like Lazarus and others he rose fully restored as he had predicted (John 2:19-21; 10:17f.) but since he had already gained life by keeping the law, unlike Lazarus he was never to die again when he rose (Rom. 6:9; Rev. 1:18). In fact, the only reason why he died at all was in order to make atonement for his sheep (Acts 2:23f.). Looked at from this perspective we can say that in his unique case death and hence resurrection were aberrations or deviations from normality. Had he not freely died, he would never have experienced resurrection at all. This can only mean that resurrection was not essential to his incarnate life. By contrast, transformation, like regeneration, was a divine necessity. Both were ‘natural’ necessities to those who were flesh. Thus, later, in order to inherit his eternal heavenly kingdom (cf. Luke 1:32f., etc.), Jesus necessarily had to ascend. And it was then that he was transformed. In this way he provided the paradigm of the ascension transformation of the saints at the end of history who do not die and so do not experience resurrection. If we argue against all the evidence noted above that Jesus was changed at his re-appearance from the grave, then we are forced to make two inferences: first, that his transformation dispensed with his physical resurrection and, second, that it rendered his ascension redundant. (The idea held by many that he made sporadic appearances from heaven during the interlude between his resurrection and his ascension is surely contrary to the evidence.) This clearly undermines the gospel.

The Believer’s Transformation

The bodily transformation, like the regeneration, that the believer undergoes is much more radical than a butterfly metamorphosis; it involves a change in nature from flesh to spirit (1 Cor. 15:42-46), a change from a body of humiliation (cf. Phil. 2:7f.) to a body of glory (Phil. 3:21), in other words a change in kind not merely in form (1 Cor. 15:44). At this point the temple provides an appropriate analogy. In its natural state the “hand-made” temple (cheiropoietos, Mark 14:58) is subject to both decay and destruction and is replaced by one that is “not made by hand” (acheiropoietos. See also 1 Peter 2:4-8). Likewise the fleshly or natural body of the believer which is also “hand-made” (Job 10:8, etc.) and hence mortal and corruptible is totally replaced by one that is “not made by hand” (2 Cor. 5:1). (2* See my Manufactured Or Not So.)

To pinpoint the issue at stake, while there is continuity of body, there is definite discontinuity of flesh. Alternatively expressed, though the believer remains the same person, he becomes corporeally or somatically different in kind. Paul puts the issue in a nutshell in 1 Corinthians 15:50 where he says that flesh and blood cannot (by nature) inherit the kingdom of God. And since the perishable (corruption, decay) cannot inherit the imperishable (incorruption), it must by divine necessity be changed. The plain fact is that the butterfly, despite its manifestly marvelous metamorphosis, is perishable through and through. In the final analysis, it is nothing more than a physical phenomenon in principle perennially earthbound.

The Butterfly Misleading

Used as an illustration of regeneration, of Jesus’ resurrection and of Christian transformation the butterfly is dangerously misleading and in view of some of the false deductions made from 1 Corinthians 15 better avoided. It can easily give the impression that we simply evolve by a naturalistic process till we arrive safely perfected in heaven. This is not what either Jesus or Paul is suggesting. Rather in the words of Gordon Fee in comment on the two parts of verse 50 we must say: “Together they declare most decisively that the body in its present physical expression cannot inherit the heavenly existence of vv.47-49” (p.798). This is surely Paul’s basic theme from verse 42 through to 54. The change is not natural (verses 36-38) but supernatural, not partial but total, not earthly but heavenly, not evolutionary but revolutionary. When we see this, we also see that butterflies are inherently incapable of providing an adequate analogy.

Peter

But Paul is not alone in his views. In 1:1:23, Peter says in very similar words regarding the new birth what Paul says in 15:42 regarding the resurrection. He states categorically that believers have been born again “not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God” (cf. 1 John 3:9). In brief, a perishable physical seed cannot produce an imperishable spiritual body fit for eternity. The point is that unlike the natural metamorphosis of the butterfly the process of Christian transformation far from being merely natural is supernatural on both the moral and corporeal levels. Jesus plainly indicates in John 3:1-8 that while we remain physically the same when we are born again, we are changed spiritually. Again, John points out in 1:13 that we are born of different fathers. The seed of an ordinary or natural man decides our physical birth, but it is the ‘seed’ of our eternal God which determines our second or spiritual birth. According to Paul we even have different mothers: the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalems are categorically different (Gal. 4:25f.)! What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:6, cf. 1 Cor. 15:48). Corruptible flesh dies either naturally as in animals and innocent babies (3* It needs to be observed that even the incarnate Jesus would eventually have died if he had remained untransformed on the earth. After all, he visibly aged, John 8:57, and aging leads inevitably to death, 2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 8:13.) or as a result of sin (Rom. 5:12). So, if man is to survive death, he can only do so as spirit (Rom. 8:10). His resurrection therefore must involve bodily transformation to enable his regenerate spirit to live forever clothed in a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44, cf. 2 Cor. 5:1-5) or a body of glory (Rom. 8:30; Phil. 3:21).  As merely earthly creatures, butterflies all die and undergo permanent decay.

Composition

All this is made even plainer by Paul’s insistence in 1 Corinthians 15:47-49 that the basic composition of the natural and the spiritual bodies is different. Dust is carefully and unmistakably differentiated from spirit. While the former is perishable since it stems from Adam (man) who was formed in the (temporal) ground, the latter is imperishable because it stems from the (eternal) heaven. As his children we are necessarily destined to share God’s generic nature (2 Pet. 1:4), and like Jesus we eventually receive a spiritual body of glory like his (Phil. 3:21, cf. John 17:5,24).

It is important to note that it is widely denied by those who are conditioned by the Augustinian worldview that the redeemed or restored body is composed of spirit. Thinking that creation was originally perfect but was marred by sin and is now “fallen”, they argue that the heavenly, still physical, restored body is not composed of but is now completely motivated by the spirit. This, however, was the intention even in this life on earth as Genesis 1:26-28 make clear, but the exercise of dominion proved a failure in all cases but that of Jesus.

The Body of Jesus

This raises the question of Jesus himself. When we consider that he successfully exercised dominion throughout his earthly life, just as we are compelled to ask if he underwent the new birth so we must ask if his body needed to be changed? In view of what he himself implies in John 20:17 and what Paul says especially in 1 Corinthians 15:50 and 53, it did. To deny this is to deny his incarnation and humiliation (Phil. 2:7). As with the new birth, change is divinely and universally decreed (note the dei in both John 3:7 and 1 Cor. 15:53). Jesus was anxious that his disciples should see his glory (John 17:24) which being invisible (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18) was obviously not seen on earth. So the widely held idea that he was changed at his resurrection despite his express assertion that he was still flesh (Luke 24:39) and hence incapable, according to Paul, of inheriting the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50), is obviously wrong. If change is universally necessary, on the assumption that he was genuinely incarnate, it was as necessary in Jesus’ case as in any other. (3* See further my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.)

Conclusion

To sum up, Jesus was no butterfly. Just as he underwent transformation from spirit to flesh at his incarnation, so he underwent transformation from flesh to spirit at his ascension (John 3:13; 6:62f.; 17:5; Eph. 4:9f.). He did not take his flesh to heaven as even a careful reading of Acts 1:1-11 in light of 1 Corinthians 15 makes clear.

(See further my essays Was Jesus Born Again?, When Was Jesus Transformed?, Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?, Creation Corruptible By Nature, Short Arguments Against Original Sin in Romans, etc.)

___________________________________________

References

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

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

M.Green, You Must Be Joking in omnibus edition, London, 1997.

I have more than one book dealing with those who have never heard the gospel on my bookshelves. Though helpful at certain points, none of them in my view deals adequately with the problem. In the early church many believed that great men like the Greek pagan Socrates who gave his life for what he believed to be the truth was saved. Not all have been convinced, and, given their theological outlook, not without reason. So, can we solve this problem which becomes all the more acute when we consider that most people who have lived on the earth including those alive today are neither Jews nor Christians but heathen? How does this correlate with the most famous verse in the Bible that God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes on him will be saved (John 3:16)?

Ecclesiastical Exclusion

First, it is worth recalling what the standard view of the churches is. According to the Westminster Confession of Faith 10.4 the heathen cannot be saved and to entertain the very idea is ‘pernicious’ (sic)! This view is supported by the answer to Question 60 in the Larger Catechism which again insists that the heathen cannot be saved. The Athanasian Creed which is dear to the Church of England leads us to believe that outside the church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam non salus). After outlining basic Christian doctrine, this creed ends: “This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.”

Needless to say, many sensitive modern Christians are worried about the situation. John Stott is one such. He claims to derive much comfort from Revelation 7:9 which refers to the countless number of the saved in heaven. However, he cannot understand how this can be. (1* See Authentic Christianity, Leicester, 1995, p.404). Given his Augustinian theology, this is hardly surprising. He assumes like so many Christians that only those who commit themselves specifically to Christ can hope to be saved, the rest are doomed to hell. In a forlorn attempt to avoid this ghastly conclusion, he along with others apparently calls into question some aspects of his traditional theology, especially eternal punishment, and embraces annihilationism. Needless to say, this is unacceptable in certain quarters and consequently his own orthodoxy is put under scrutiny. But can the long-held view regarding the damnation of the heathen, not to mention the Jews who having rejected their Messiah and were savagely persecuted by the medieval church for their pains, be a reasonable proposition?

Augustine of Hippo

The fact is that given that Augustine of Hippo by whom the church in the West in particular has been so heavily influenced, the difficulties many experience today are hardly surprising. After all, Augustine, who believed strongly in the universal effects of original sin, went so far as to imagine that even unbaptized babies were damned!  For him in contrast with Abraham who interceded for Sodom (Gen. 18:22-33), the heathen were a massa damnata (a damned mass) or a massa perditionis (a mass of perdition) without distinction. What is more, since he also taught that on account of original sin it is necessary for a person to be born again in order to exercise faith, he concluded that it was necessary for babies to be baptized. Even today in the 21st century Catholics still believe in the baptismal regeneration of infants. In the past, this of course put great power in the hands of the priests who alone did the baptizing. Along with other aspects of general moral corruption like the dogma of purgatory and the sale of indulgences, it eventually led to the Reformation.

Faith in the Old Testament

If we take a global view of the Bible and develop an appropriate historical perspective, we soon become aware that God made various covenants with men providing them with a basis for faith and ultimate salvation millennia before the dawning of the Christian dispensation. The possibility of the salvation of Adam, for example, is implicit in Genesis 2:17, but it required him to keep the commandment. For all that, we are only too pleased to recognize, as in Hebrews 11, for example, that some among both pagans and Jews, were justified by faith long before baptism and the new birth came into view. In fact in the OT the new birth was never more than a promise (e.g. Dt. 30:6; Jer. 31:33) even though as early as the book of Genesis justification by faith was preached (Gen. 15:6, cf. Gal. 3:7-9). Noah was a man of faith (Heb. 11:7) but he was certainly not born again. Despite this, the apostle Peter maintains that his salvation from the flood corresponds with Christian baptism (1 Pet. 3:21) and thus implies that Noah was ultimately saved even though he could not have had what is recognizably a Christian faith. He at least, doubtless figures among those who surround the throne of God as depicted in Revelation 7:9. Diminished responsibility is not specifically referred to in the Bible but that it is frequently implied seems to be beyond reasonable question. (See e.g. Matthew 11:20-24 and 12:38-42 and further below.)

The Heathen and the Jews

The fact that the heathen were without hope (Eph. 2:12) does not mean that they were entirely devoid of faith in such manifestations of God as they had through creation and their own deliberations (cf. Acts 14:16f.; 17:24-28; Rom. 2:15). By contrast, the Jews were prisoners of hope (Zech. 9:12) and without a messiah remain so to this day. As Christians we have a better hope (Heb. 7:19), that is, Christ himself who is the hope of glory (Col. 1:5,27). But while the Jews cannot be saved as Christians are, we cannot believe that they, the chosen of God, are all to the last man and woman damned. While willful rejection of light given them may well result in final personal rejection (1 Sam. 3:14, etc., cf. Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-31), we need to reckon with the truth that in the purpose of God a veil lies over the eyes of the nation as a whole but that it will eventually be lifted.

Three Covenant Peoples

Paul intimates in 1 Corinthians 10:32 and elsewhere that there are three races or ethnic groups who each live under different covenants, respectively one with Noah, Moses and Christ, though there is obviously some overlap. (Noah’s covenant remains in place to the end of the age, Gen. 8:22; that with Abraham was not nullified when the covenant made through Moses tended to preoccupy Jewish hearts and minds, Gal. 3:17.) And it is these different peoples who become one when they commit themselves to Christ as Saviour and Messiah (Gal. 3:28; cf. Heb. 11:39f.). The inference we draw from this undeniable fact is that though the journey (or pilgrim’s progress)  to perfection is not attained by all, not least for historical, chronological and theological reasons, those who like Abraham have embarked on it are nonetheless saved (Heb. 11:39f.). As Jesus somewhat enigmatically asserted, Abraham rejoiced that he would see his day (John 8:56). And since he believed the gospel preached to him (Gal. 3:8), he was to prove a blessing to the world (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:14,28f.).

This brings us back to Revelation 7:9 which John Stott like many others cannot understand.

First, we need to recognize that only those who personally accept Christ in person are in fact saved in the present. Only they can legitimately claim eternal life now as John 3:16 (cf. Eph. 2:5; Tit. 3:5) makes indisputably clear. Only they can experience reception of the Spirit now poured out by the ascended Jesus and the assurance that comes from believing (contrast Heb. 12:21). But that does not mean that those who have never heard of Christ are therefore left out of account in a world that God himself has created with salvation in view (John 3:17). They all live under the law of nature and, if they are Jews, the law of Moses. But these can still exercise faith which, contrary to church tradition, comes first in the order of salvation (ordo salutis). (2* See further my The Order of Salvation, Cart-Before-The-Horse Theology.) It is not a little significant that Hebrews 11 starts with reference to faith in God himself as Creator (Heb. 11:1-3). The implication of this is that anyone who is rational and capable of sinning against the law/commandment can exercise faith in him (cf. Acts 14:16-18; 17:24-28). This is why faith is regarded as being of prime importance in Scripture. It appears throughout except at the very beginning, and that for good reason. What is more, the apostle Paul indicates that sometimes the heathen are more righteous than the Jews who, having the law, saw themselves as superior (Rom. 2:26-29).

This leads to another implication: there are good and evil in all societies and recognition of the difference is of paramount importance. Abraham, in contrast with Noah, realized this when he interceded on behalf of Sodom, though in the event only Lot and his daughters were rescued. So, if we think that regeneration must come first, we must also take into consideration its implication which is that it involves a case of all or nothing. You are either born again or you are not. If you are not, you are lost, hence church tradition. But if faith which is relative comes first, even a little faith is enough as Jesus intimated when he talked of faith like a grain of mustard seed (Mt. 17:20, cf. 13:31f.). Even children who are not personally capable of a credible profession of faith in Christ fitting them for baptism can exercise it.

This of course points to something else. Mankind is made up of various races, but what is frequently forgotten is that considered as one race he is like one man (cf. Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:15; 4:13). Just as in the course of the history of the race in general, a dispensational covenant is made with Noah, Moses and Christ respectively (cf. 1 Cor. 10:32), so each individual who attains to maturity progressively experiences life under these different covenants. (3* Gentiles, of course, are not specifically under the law of Moses. However, as the KJV felicitously, if somewhat inaccurately, puts it they are under a schoolmaster, Gal. 3:24.) In other words, the individual epitomizes the race, or in modern parlance, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. (4* See my Recapitulation in Outline.)

Jesus

Perhaps the best example of this is Jesus himself (cf. Eph. 1:10). Stemming originally from Adam (Luke 3:38), as a son of Abraham (Mt. 1:1) he was born to Jewish parents and as such spent time in heathen Egypt like his forebears (Mt. 2:15). Then on his return to the Promised Land he became a true son of the commandment (cf. Luke 2:42-52). Eventually as one, the only One, to keep the law which was the precondition of eternal life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5), he was confirmed as the Son of God he had been proclaimed to be at his birth (Mt. 1-2; Luke 1-2;). As such, having fulfilled all righteousness, he qualified like an unblemished Lamb to shed his blood for his people and thus inaugurate the Christian covenant (Mt. 26:28). It will be noted of course that it was as a child that Jesus lived in heathen territory, as a teenager at his bar mitzvah he came to occupy a firm place as a true Jew in the Promised Land. But it was only as a full-grown man of thirty or thereabouts who had uniquely kept the law that he became the first or foundational Christian (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20; Col. 3:11) committed to fulfilling all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) and laying down his life (spilling his blood, Heb. 9:22) in atonement for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). After his death and resurrection on our behalf, he finally ascended into heaven itself as our perfected pioneer (John 3:13; Eph. 4:9f.; Heb. 6:20; 9:24; 12:1f.). Clearly we as his brothers are called to imitate him and to follow in his steps completing our own pilgrimage from ground to glory, from minority to maturity or from slavery to sovereignty (Gal. 4:1-7; Phil. 3:12-14; Heb. 2:10-13; 3:1; 12:22-24; Rev. 3:21).

Revelation 7:9

If all this is true, it is a good idea at this point to take another look at Revelation 7:9. First, its context. (5* I am assuming that Revelation is an apocalyptic summary of the rest of the NT, and, along with commentators like Wilcock, that Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are especially relevant to it. Also like Wilcock and others I am convinced that the recapitulatory approach to the general interpretation of the book of Revelation is correct. This conviction makes admirable sense of what is otherwise an extremely enigmatic book.)

The chapter begins with reference to the ‘harming’ (cf. Rev. 6:12-17) of the earth, the sea, the trees and the rest. Clearly the reference is to creation in general. It immediately reminds me, if not others, of Romans 8:18-25 (cf. Heb. 1:10-12) where according to modern translation (6* See, for example, RSV, NIV, ESV where ‘creation’ is standard, but contrast KJV where ‘creature’ appears consistently.) and interpretation Paul has in view the effects of the so-called cosmic curse which was the result of Adam’s sin. In other words, Genesis 3:17-19 is said to provide the back drop of Romans 8:18-25. But this is pure inference from a false premise. As I have argued at length elsewhere (7* See my Romans 8:18-25; Romans 8:18-25 In Brief, etc.) Paul is pointing up the God-ordained innately temporal, provisional, corruptible and futile nature of all visible created things (implied in the book of  Ecclesiastes) as a comparison between Romans 1:20 and Hebrews 12:27, to go no further, soon makes apparent. But before this divinely orchestrated harming takes place, since it would impact with devastating effects on those who are part of creation, that is, its fleshly creatures, specifically the servants of God, on whom the sun rises and the rain falls irrespectively, these need to be sealed (given a distinguishing mark as in Ezek. 9) by the Spirit for their own ultimate safety or salvation (Eph. 1:13f.; 4:30) when the harvest of the world is reaped (Mt. 3:12; 13; 24:31, etc.).  Then, the writer John reveals the number of those who are sealed as 144,000. This is clearly an idealized number signifying the Israel of God, the twelve tribes of Israel and the church built on the foundation of the twelve apostles. (In Revelation 14:1-5 as in James 1:18 these are first fruits for God and the Lamb implying that there are others.)

But then comes Revelation 7:9 which remarkably portrays a great multitude of people from every tribe and nation gathered around the throne of God. Contrary to Wilcock, for example, this multitude and the 144,000 cannot be one and the same (p.80). On the face of it, this somewhat motley if not exactly amorphous crowd transcends the boundaries of Israel to include even the heathen, despite their traditional rejection by the church. This assumption receives even more support when we read in verses 11 and 12 that along with the angels and the twenty-four elders the mysterious four living creatures already referred to in 4:6 and 5:8,14 appear joining in praise and worship of God. Since these like Abraham, the Ninevites, the Queen of Sheba (Mt. 12:39-42), the centurion (Mt. 8:5-13) and others (e.g. Mt. 15:21-28) come from the four winds when creation is significantly harmed, they must surely represent the elect from among the heathen (Mt. 24:29-31). These are arguably the noblest (lion), the strongest (ox), the wisest (human) and loftiest (eagle) from among mankind (cf. Luke 7:9), in contrast with ‘those who dwell on the earth’ (Rev. 6:10, cf. Zech. 11:6, etc.) whose portion according to Psalm 17:14 (cf. Luke 16:25) like that of Ishmael and Esau is in this world or who, in Wilcock’s words, are irredeemably committed to the cause of evil (p.73).

However, instead of drawing what I, given my understanding of Romans 8:18-25 referred to above, would have thought was the obvious conclusion that these four living creatures are representative heathen, other commentators think otherwise (8* Mounce, for example, following Beckwith, regards them as an exalted order of angels but allows that they may represent ‘the entire animate creation’, p.124). Their view is conditioned of course by their assumption that Romans 8:21 refers to creation not to the creature (the same word in Greek). However, why the inarticulate creation as opposed to the articulate creature should be pictured as accompanying the twenty-four elders in voicing their praise to God for salvation is more than difficult to appreciate. (9* I do not deny that the entire creation, animate and inanimate testifies to the glory of God, Ps. 19:1ff.; Rom. 1:20, etc., but it hardly correlates with the four living creatures described in the book of Revelation.) If we reckon with the fact that three covenant peoples, that is the Greeks (Gentiles), Jews and Christians, constitute the human race, my submission that the four living creatures are the heathen (including children and the immature in general) makes much more sense. Indeed, the assumption that the vast number of pagan people that have constituted the bulk of the population of the earth both in history and in present experience are left entirely out of account appears to me to run counter to the entire drift of a benevolent creator God whose purpose is to redeem his creatures (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Rather, I would argue that the sovereignty of our redeeming God ultimately requires the unity of all in salvation. (Writers frequently and rightly draw inferences from examples of family solidarity in Scripture. Noah’s family is a case in point, though the defection of Lot’s wife points in the direction of separation. The truth is that the children of believers are often blessed by a genuine if child-like faith, but this does not make them Christian as infant baptism implies. We all become Christian through personal faith specifically in Christ. Judging by Acts 22:3, etc., Paul was a genuine OT believer, but he had to come to faith in Christ. In other words, he had to accept new revelation already implicit in the OT, e.g. Dt. 18:18; John 5:46f.)

The Meaning of Salvation

At this point it is perhaps useful to observe that the word ‘saved’ can be understood in more ways than one. For example, according to the NT even faithful Israelites were not saved in the Christian sense of the term since they were still waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem (Luke 2:22-38). But there can be little doubt that all the true sons and daughters of Abraham were saved in the ultimate sense of the term even though they came short of perfection (cf. Heb. 11:39f.). Thus, if we extrapolate from figures like Abel, Enoch, Noah and even Abraham who was never part of the Israelite nation, we are in a position to say the same with regard to the world’s heathen in general.

Though there is no explicit reference in Scripture to diminished responsibility, it is everywhere assumed. (10* See Acts 17:30 and Rom. 3:25, for example.)  Who can read Romans 2 and, on the assumption of impartiality (Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11), not conclude that since we are judged by our works but justified by faith, it is implicit?

An Objection

There is, however, a potential objection to this: it would cut the nerve of evangelism. It can be argued that if it is true that the heathen and the Jews who have not responded to the Christian message can ultimately be saved and will find a place along with Christians surrounding the throne of God, there is no point in supporting the missionary enterprise? This, I believe, is a totally unacceptable reaction.

First, it must be remembered that perfection or maturity is God’s aim from the start (Gen. 2:17; Mt. 5:48; Heb. 6:1, cf. 3:1, etc.). We who are created in his image are called to take on his likeness (cf. Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 5:1f., etc.) as even the devil realized (Gen. 3:5). While only Jesus achieved complete perfection in the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3), the rest of us even as Christians are called to it. Paul was concerned that he had not achieved total maturity but was pressing on toward that goal and its prize, the upward call of God in Christ (Phil. 3:12-14, cf. Heb. 3:1). Elsewhere he suggests that he disciplined his unwilling, recalcitrant fleshly body to avoid being a castaway (1 Cor. 9:27, cf. Mark 8:34-38).

Second, we must remember that even Moses, great man of God though he was, lacked the assurance that ought to characterize the Christian and in the event failed to enter the Promised Land. If his life teaches us nothing else, it teaches us to avoid complacency and presumption. We are well advised also to call to mind the Exodus story in general, since it portrays the fate of many who fell by the wayside and died in the desert (Heb. 3:17). Christians are warned not to imitate them but to enter the rest God has provided (Heb. 4:11, etc.).

Third, the same is true with regard to the heathen. While we may generalize and rightly assume the salvation of many (cf. Mt. 8:11), we do not know who they are as individuals. (11* Matthew 13:38 tells us explicitly that the field is the world and that the master’s servants are to resist the impulse to gather its weeds. That task is to be left to the reapers at harvest time, Mt. 13:28-30, that is, at the end of the age, 13:49f.) All men and women enjoy, first,  solidarity as flesh and blood and, second, in sin since we all break the law (Rom. 3:23; 5:12; Gal. 3:11), but Scripture is concerned to ensure that we all experience solidarity in faith, holiness (perfection) and good works (see espec. Rom. 2:6-11 where Paul stresses ‘everyone’, cf. 1 Pet. 1:7) desiring that all should be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). As it happens, Scripture also teaches us about separation. While on the one hand it may resemble the separation of Abraham from his compatriots in Ur, or Jesus’ separation from sin, on the other hand, it may involve the general separation of the evil from the good (cf. Mt. 25:31-46).  Scripture warns us also of eternal separation from God if we fail to respond to such revelation of himself as he gives us (2 Thes. 1:9). The truth is that all of us live in a moral universe and hence are called to live accordingly. While it is true that we are all sinners and come short, God in Christ has taken care of that aspect of life by means of justification by faith which pervades almost the whole of Scripture (cf. Heb. 11). But the time will come when our appointment with death will be kept and after it will come the judgement (Heb. 9:27; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10, etc.). Evangelism is a pandemic plea for perfection, a universal summons to all to come to maturity that all must heed on pain of death, eternal death (cf. Acts 17:30f.).  The danger of our failing as human beings made in the image of God to rise above the animals is seriously possible (2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10). However, at the end, the tree of man, the vine out of Egypt (Ps. 80:8), will be pruned and dead branches will be thrown into the fire (John 15:6) along with the earth that failed to produce (Heb. 6:7f.) as it did largely before the flood (Gen. 6:11-13) and again at Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:23-29, cf. Luke 17:26-32).

A final point must be made. I have argued that having started at the beginning in animal ignorance like Adam and Eve (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.), we must all pass through three covenant dispensations if we are to reach the maturity or manhood God calls us to (cf. Gal. 3:28; 4:1-7; Eph. 2:15; 4:13, etc.). For what is required of the race is equally required of the individual. In other words, the individual (Rom. 7-8; Gal. 4:1-7) recapitulates the history of the race (Rom. 1:16-4:8) in miniature. (*12 I also argue that the mature man according to the flesh is creation in miniature. In line with its evolving pattern we all, including animals, begin or are (pro-) created, gestate, experience birth, babyhood, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, decline and death. And just as the flesh is doomed by nature to destruction, 1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Cor. 5:1, so is creation itself, 2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 1:10-12. See my The Destruction of the Material Creation, The Transience of Creation.) But we do it together so that at the end we have ‘one man’ (or, alternatively, one woman, the bride of Christ, Eph. 5:25-33) who has attained to the stature of Christ (Eph. 4:11-16).

Concluding Postscript

This view of the matter solves some of the most troubling problems associated with the Christian faith. First, it presents us with a God who is at once Creator and Redeemer and who achieves victory through his all-conquering Son (Rom. 8:31-39; Rev. 5:5), the Saviour of the world (John 3:16, cf. 16:33). In light of this, we can freely rejoice along with John Stott in him whom he rightly calls the incomparable Christ (see The Incomparable Christ, Leicester, 2001). Second, it takes care of all the little ones of the world, the heathen, the immature adults, the slain in war, the ignorant, the poor, the persecuted, the sick, the retarded, and even the children who have died but who in the nature of circumstances have never attained to maturity (cf. Heb. 11:39f.). (*13 On babies who have not attained to rationality and self-consciousness, see my Are Babies Saved?, Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?. John Murray in comment on Romans 1:16f. rightly wrote that salvation is not accomplished irrespective of faith, p.27. What he added in a note regarding the order of salvation (ordo salutis) was less satisfactory, especially in view of his later comment on Romans 1:19 that revelation is always to those who have intelligent consciousness, p.38!) And third, it gives suffering Christians ample reason to adopt the optimistic outlook that should characterize all Christians. For the time will come when the vast majority of human kind created in the divine image will surround the throne of God and the Lamb and give voice to unstinted praise (Rev. 4:6b-11; 5:11-14; 14:1-5; 19:4). The triumph of the Christ (Rev. 5:5) who claimed to have overcome the world (John 16:33) was no pyrrhic victory (cf. Rom. 8:31-39). He did not suffer in vain (cf. 1 Cor. 15:58). His word which will never pass away (Mt. 24:35) will accomplish all for which it was sent (Isa. 55:11). And since all are sinners (Rom. 11:32), often as much sinned against as sinning, and mercy triumphs over judgement (James 2:13), we can be sure that grace will prove wonderfully victorious as Paul seems to imply in Romans 5:12-21 (cf. Gal. 4:27).

Only the deliberately wicked (Num. 15:30f.; Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:2; Mt. 25:41-46; Acts 24:15; Heb. 10:26-31, etc.) who have unconscionably and inexcusably rebelled will be missing from that mighty throng. They will dwell forever with their father, the devil (John 8:44; Mt. 25:31-46; Rev. 19:17-21; 21:8; 22:11, etc.).

See also my Concerning Futility, Further Reflection on Romans 8:18-25 – An Alternative Approach.

___________________________________________

References

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

John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, 1967 ed.

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

.

According to Scripture, it is knowledge, knowledge of good and evil that is gained through understanding of (the) law that separates man from the rest of the animal creation, though both emanate from the earth (Gen. 2:7, 19). Physically, both are dust and, following the pattern of the physical creation as a whole, they have a beginning and an end which in the latter’s case involves return to dust (note Psalm 49 and Eccles. 3:18-21). Man’s rationality or intelligent consciousness which includes his ability to communicate verbally proves that he is made in the image of God and is potentially like God. But just as he grows from immaturity as seed physically, so he grows from divine seed spiritually, for God is both the God of spirits (Num. 16:22; 27:16) and Father of the new birth (Heb. 12:9, cf. John 1:13; 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9).

Man’s Moral Infancy

Man’s spiritual growth begins with understanding of the commandment, initially a response to the word ‘no’ (Gen. 2:16f.). That babies recapitulate the experience of Adam and Eve is evident from what Paul says in Romans 7:9f. (cf. 9:11; Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 5:12-14). Initially, like animals, unaware of (the) law, they know neither good nor evil. But once the commandment dawns on their developing consciousness it produces a reaction – invariably a negative one. Why? Because human beings are flesh and prove to be slaves (John 8:34) to their animal passions (Rom. 7:14, cf. Eccl. 3:18). When they listen to the voice of the devil and rationalize the situation, they characteristically give way to the evil desires of the flesh (Gen. 3:6f.; James 1:14f.). It should be noted, however, that not all fleshly desires are evil. They are in the main purely natural. Only those that are forbidden by the commandments are evil (Gen. 2:16, cf. Gal. 5:23).

Man’s Minority

Knowledge or rationality is basic to human as opposed to animal (fleshly) life. It immediately gives man an advantage and charge over the rest of the animal world over which he is called to exercise dominion (Gen. 1:26-28, cf. 2:19) as a rider does a horse (James 3:3). From the start it enables him gradually to impose his will on his environment (Gen. 2:15). But man’s divine vocation to exercise dominion is as we have seen marred by his failure to control his own flesh. Thus armed with knowledge of good and evil Adam is cast out of the Garden to fend for himself in a hostile environment (Gen. 3:16-19). While he is physically adult, all his offspring enter this world as unselfconscious babies knowing neither good nor evil (Dt. 1:39, etc.). They recapitulate Adam and Eve’s experience but in a somewhat different way, as Paul indicates in Romans 7:9f. Though Adam was physically adult, he was nonetheless spiritually a baby. His rationality was subject to initial emergence, development and maturation just as ours is. As Paul says, he was flesh before he was spirit (1 Cor. 15:46). So it is with the second Adam who recapitulates his forebear’s experience (Eph. 4:9, cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-49). On the other hand, as he gains maturity he is faced with exactly the same challenge as the first Adam when it comes to exercising dominion (Ps. 8:5-8) in this recalcitrant and futile world (Rom. 8:18-25) on his way to glory (Rom. 2:7,10; Heb. 2:9; 1 Pet. 1:7).

Knowledge and Faith

So man begins his spiritual pilgrimage armed with knowledge of (the) law and hence as a rational creature. In order to make progress he must seek life by keeping the commandment or inevitably earn its wages in death. As both history and experience demonstrate, as flesh we all fail to keep the commandment but by the grace of God that commandment contains a promise  (Gen. 2:17, cf. Rom. 7:10) which makes faith a possibility. This is hinted at in Genesis 3:15, though nothing is said at that stage about justification. Note, however, Hebrews 11:6.

Pain

Clearly, as man gains self-consciousness he also gains moral awareness and hence knowledge of sin (Gen. 3:10; Rom. 3:20; 7:7), for where there is no law there is no sin (Rom. 4:15). But this is not the only thing that happens. While in the Garden of Eden, that is paradise or the womb of the race, Adam and Eve initially have no consciousness of either sin or pain. However, as Genesis 3:16 makes clear, with increasing knowledge comes increasing awareness of pain. Traditionally it has been assumed that sin is the cause of pain, but this is hardly the case. Just as sin does not exist apart from knowledge or law (Rom. 1:20; 2:1; 3:19f.; 4:15; 7:7; John 9:41; 15:22,24;  pace all who believe in original and birth sin), so neither does pain. In reality knowledge and pain occur concurrently or co-incidentally. Just as Adam and Eve in paradise knowing neither good nor evil were unaware of pain, so babies and animals in general are equally unaware of them. In the womb since they do not know (the) law (commandment) neither do they know good and evil (cf. Rom. 9:11) and later like Job (3:1-26) and Jeremiah (20:14-18) wish they had remained there.* Only as they develop like Eve does pain impinge on their rational consciousness. Prior to that time she must have done things instinctively like the animal (flesh) she really was. It is not until Eve develops understanding that she is able on the one hand to sin and on the other to feel pain. Bluntly, knowledge is intrinsic to both sin and pain. Since the process is gradual, Eve’s pain increases which is precisely what Genesis 3:16 strongly insists on.

From a physical point of view the nervous systems and senses of both animals and human beings are the same and they both react instinctively to external stimuli. The difference lies in the fact that as humans develop beyond the purely animal or baby stage, their perceptions are no longer confined to the merely sensory but become consciously intelligent. During the baby stage, while there may be physical sensation there is no rationality or moral awareness and therefore no appreciation of pain. (It might be added at this point that the story of Eve’s springing from Adam’s side suggests and illustrates growing understanding or mental awareness. Prior to this time animal instinct accomplished its purpose as it still does today. Only with rationality comes conscious recognition of partnership and kinship.)

The Sting of Death

In 1 Corinthians 15:56 Paul succinctly suggests that the sting of death is sin and that the power of sin is the law. What is he implying? Surely that while physical death is natural in animals which are the product of a world given over to futility (Rom. 8:18-25), it is complicated by sin in human beings who break the law and is paid wages (Rom. 6:23). To us it is appointed once to die and after death the judgement (Heb. 9:27). Since in contrast with animals we are judged on the basis of the works done in the body, we are in urgent need of a Saviour. So while animals and babies that do not know the law cannot be judged by it, all rational men and women come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23; 5:12) and can only attain to it by means of his grace in Christ. In other words, Christ is a dire necessity for all God’s rational creation. It is by him that we must be saved (Acts 4:12). (It perhaps needs to be added by way of clarification that since death is the wages of sin, Gen. 2:17; Rom.  5:12; 6:23, it applies only to rational human beings who alone are capable of breaking the law that they know, Rom. 3:19f.; 7:1,7. Animals and babies cannot break a commandment they do not know, Rom. 4:15, and so they cannot in the nature of the case earn wages, cf. Rom. 9:11. They nonetheless die because they are part of a mortal (destructible) and corruptible creation, Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12.)

So, to sum up, knowledge or law and rationality (or alternatively creation in the image of God) brings with it in rational man as opposed to irrational animal the possibility of sin, promise, faith, pain, hope and salvation.

He who simply feeds his flesh like an animal in contrast with the believer who also feeds on the word of God (Mt. 4:4) will get his reward in death (John 6:22-63) and corruption (1 Cor. 15:35-57; Rom. 8:6,13; Gal. 6:7f.) Flesh and blood cannot by nature inherit the kingdom of God. Thus all who pander to the flesh like animals (2 Pet. 2:12-22; Jude 10) in rebellion against the law will be excluded (1 Cor 6:9f.; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12:14; Rev. 21:8; 22:11,15).

* Over the years, as I have read the Bible I have become increasingly convinced that ‘good and evil’ do not have an exclusively moral or legal connotation but are sometimes to be understood more comprehensively as would appear to be the case in Deuteronomy 32:39, 1 Samuel 2:6, Lamentations 3:37f., Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Romans 8:18, 2 Corinthians 4:17, Galatians 1:4 and Ephesians 5:16, for example. This world, far from being originally perfect like heaven as Augustine contended, was subjected to futility from the start and intended to be a place/time of testing (Gen. 2:16f.; Ex. 20:20, etc.). Not for nothing was Adam’s vocation to exercise dominion (Gen. 1:26-28) and to be glorified on the basis of his works (Ps. 8; Rom. 2:7,10, cf. 1 Pet. 1:7). While Jesus uniquely proved true under trial and succeeded in overcoming the world (John 16:33; Rev. 5:5), he did not divest it of its natural corruption (Heb. 2:8f.). That was the way that it was created (Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12) and he himself as its derivative (Heb. 10:5). In light of this, restoration is out of the question. The much vaunted schema (or worldview) of creation/Fall/ restoration is as false to the Bible as it is to science.

See further my Nature Red in Tooth and Claw.

(Following a discussion I recently (April, 2014) had with some fellow preachers, the observations made below are prompted by my re-reading of Murray Harris’ From Grave to Glory, Grand Rapids, 1990, and Norman Geisler’s updated version of The Battle for the Resurrection, Nashville, 1992. The basic presupposition of Harris is that the same body of Jesus was raised from the dead and transformed (p.xxv). The central thesis of Geisler is that Jesus rose in the same material body of flesh and bones in which he died (pp.27,220). The idea entertained by Harris that Jesus was transformed at his resurrection from the dead is widespread. However, it seems to involve inherent contradiction and encounters insurmountable obstacles as indicated below. By contrast Geisler stresses bodily continuity and would have his readers believe, despite 1 Corinthians 15:50, that Jesus is flesh (incarnate) even in heaven. For him sin is the only problem (see e.g. page 122).)

First, after his resurrection Jesus himself asserts in unmistakable language that he is still flesh and bones (Luke 24:39; John 20:26-29, cf. 1 John 1:1-3, cf. Heb. 12:18-21). Since he could be seen, touched and heard, the inference is that apart from his scars he is unchanged.

Second, since Jesus does not undergo corruption (Acts 2:27,31;13:36), he clearly remains flesh throughout his stay on earth. Unless he had two bodies, this would appear to preclude the sporadic post-resurrection appearances from heaven argued for by Harris.

Third, in accordance with his fleshly nature, Jesus is visible, tangible, audible (John 20:26-29, etc.), physically mobile and eats perishable food (Acts 10:41). In light of this it is reasonable to conclude that he continues to age (Luke 2:12; 3:23; John 8:57) and, though exempt from death (that is, not subject to death on account of sin, cf. Rom.8:10), he remains both mortal and corruptible like all earthly creatures. Denial of this is docetism.

Fourth, Paul says that transformation (1 Cor. 15:53), like regeneration (John 3:7), is a universal necessity (Gk dei) for the obvious reason that perishable flesh and blood cannot inherit the imperishable kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). However, resurrection transformation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 52b-53) occurs only to those who die and undergo corruption like David (Acts 2:27; 13:36). Since Jesus did not experience corruption, he is  thereby excluded. In Acts 2 and 13 he is portrayed in patent contrast with David.
(Over the years I have been astonished at writers who claim that Jesus’ resurrection provides the model or paradigm of ours. It clearly does nothing of the sort. Jesus was raised uncorrupted and hence still corruptible. Our corrupted bodies have to be redeemed, Rom. 8:23, that is, subjected to resurrection transformation. Just as they are destroyed, so they are transformed into heavenly, 2 Cor. 5:1, or, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15, spiritual bodies, or bodies of glory, Phil. 3:21. Of course the source of so much confusion is the clearly erroneous idea that Jesus’ resurrected body remained the same, even flesh, but transformed, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one! This is what Geisler was apparently rightly railing against.)

Fifth, again according to Paul, the end-time saints who do not die and experience resurrection must be changed at their ascension (1 Cor. 15:51). Since Jesus rose uncorrupted flesh from the grave and, according to John 20:17, had not yet ascended, he too must have been transformed at his ascension. It was at this time that he put off his lowly body of flesh and put on his body of glory (Phil. 3:20f., cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-49). This we ourselves will see and be conformed to in heaven (John 17:24, cf.  Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; 1 John 3:2).

Sixth, if this is true, Jesus’ resurrection celebrates his victory over death and his ascension his triumph over corruption (2 Tim. 1:10, cf. 1 Cor. 15:53). In light of this, it is important to add here that most translations of the Bible fail to distinguish between death and corruption in Romans 1:23, 2:7, 1 Timothy 1:17 and 2 Timothy 1:10. These may be complementary (Harris, p.261) but they are certainly not synonymous*. This being so, the title of Harris’ earlier book which is named on the basis of 1 Corinthians 15:52 (it appears in Greek prior to  Contents) should have been Raised Incorruptible and not Raised Immortal (Basingstoke, 1983), since it refers to mankind’s universal ascension transformation. In 1 Corinthians 15:53 as in 2 Timothy 1:10, Paul distinguishes between death and corruption (cf. 1 Tim. 1:17 and 6:16).

This observation, however, also points up the fallacy of Geisler’s claim that only sinful flesh, not flesh as such, which being naturally corruptible is excluded from heaven. Furthermore, it undermines his attempt to argue that creation itself is redeemed since he rightly assumes that if the flesh is saved, so is the creation from which it stems (pp.32f.,41,122, etc.). However, it follows from this as surely as night follows day that if the flesh is not saved, neither is the creation from which it stems.
.
Seventh, Jesus’ resurrection was not intrinsic to his incarnation and earthly life. In order to experience resurrection he had to die, but by keeping the law as man (Lev. 18:5) he had gained (eternal) life at his baptism (John 1:32) and transcended the death which for others was the wages of sin (Rom. 5:12; 6:23). However, he freely gave his natural life (psyche, or flesh in Col. 1:22) in death for his people (John 10:17f.). In light of this we are forced to infer that his resurrection was extrinsic and not intrinsic, that is, a natural necessity, unlike his regeneration (John 3:3-8) and ascension transformation (1 Cor. 15:50-53). Had he not died and been raised on our behalf, he would have been like a sinless but nonetheless dusty Adam (1 Cor. 15:47-49) and necessarily changed at his ascension.

There is another point here. If Jesus was changed at his resurrection, he never completed his earthly life as others do despite the fact that Scripture says he was made perfect (complete) forever (Heb. 7:28). He was, in other words, docetic, that is, different from all others even apart from sin (Heb. 2:17; 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22), and not what he appeared to be.

Eighth, if Jesus was transformed at his resurrection but still flesh (cf. Luke 24:39, etc.), he could not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50) and the eternal blessings of David (Acts 13:34). The inherently contradictory nature of this line of thought ought to be plain for all to see.

Ninth, this points unerringly to the fact that Jesus’ putative resurrection transformation has no possible connection with the so-called transformation of the visible creation (cf. Harris, ch. X11). In any case, the naturally perishable (Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27; Heb. 1:10-12) cannot inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50b), pace Geisler again (pp.32f.,41,122) who like Augustine thinks sin is the only barrier. Since the visible material (Rom. 1:20) is by nature impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18) and destined to destruction (Mt. 24:35; Heb. 12:27), our hope is a better (Heb. 7:19), living, (1 Pet. 1:3) invisible hope (Rom. 8:20,24f.; 2 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11:1).

Tenth, according to both Jesus and Paul, flesh is unprofitable (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18; 8:8; 2 Cor. 4:16-18, etc.), and all it can ultimately inherit like the rest of the manufactured (made by hand) creation is corruption (decay) (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8, cf. Mt. 4:4; John 6:27,49, 58, etc.), pace Geisler. The entire animal world which is naturally, that is, apart from sin, mortal and corruptible is testament to this. There is therefore no such animal (!) as transformed or glorified flesh (cf. John 3:6; 6:63; Rom. 7:18; 1 Cor. 15:50b) pace both Harris (pp.413f.) and Geisler (pp.41,185). The very notion is intolerable, not to say absurd. It implies the erroneous and deeply misleading Augustinian worldview in which sin is the only problem. The so-called originally perfect world which was cursed as a consequence of Adam’s sin never existed except in the minds of its inventors and their uncritical followers. The present age/world like the provisional and temporary old covenant which related to it (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13) was doomed from the beginning (Gen.1:1) to ultimate removal (Isa. 51:6; 54:10; Mt. 24:35; Rom. 8:20; Heb. 12:27) and replacement by the age to come (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17; Rev. 11:15, cf. Luke 1:32f., etc.).

Finally, on reflection, there is a flaw in my own thinking. Having rightly sensed that a transformation is not a resurrection, I originally assumed that Harris’ prime error was to minimize the importance of the intrinsically necessary ascension transformation by reducing it to parable or drama (pp.423f., etc.). In fact, by asserting that Jesus went directly from grave to glory, he implicitly denies the resurrection altogether and undermines the case for Christianity (1 Cor. 15:12-19). Geisler, on the other hand, though rightly affirming the physical resurrection of Jesus argues that he remains flesh (incarnate) even in heaven apart from which God’s plan of salvation has suffered defeat (pp.33,167)!!! Clearly he has totally misunderstood the nature of creation, which is significantly referred to as temporary in contrast with its eternal Creator as early as Genesis 1:1, and misconstrued God’s plan of salvation. Furthermore, in adopting this stance he also implicitly denies the ascension transformation which Paul claims is universally indispensable because flesh is corruptible by nature (1 Cor. 15:50), that is, by divine decree (Rom. 8:20).

Conclusion

I conclude then that neither position is acceptable. They are both flagrantly flawed and catastrophically confused. Why? Because, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, they are geared to fit into a false covenant framework and into an Augustinian universe quite alien to that portrayed in the Bible.

* A story from classical mythology illustrates the difference. The goddess Aurora fell in love with Tithon and asked Jupiter to make him immortal. The request was granted. The trouble was that she forgot to ask also for his eternal youth (incorruptibility) with the result that he constantly grew older and, as the author of Hebrews puts it, was ready to vanish away (Heb. 8:13). So she put him in his chamber and changed him into a grasshopper.

(See further my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities, Death and Corruption, The Corruptibility Of Creation, The Destruction of the Material Creation, The Transience of Creation, Creation Corruptible By Nature, Cosmic Curse?, Bondage, Covenant Theology in Brief, Not Only But Also, Are Believers Butterflies?, Does Romans Teach Original Sin?, Death Before Genesis 3, Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?, Romans 8:18-25, Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?, John Stott on the Putative Resurrection Transformation of Jesus, Geisler on the Redemption of Creation, Worldview, Augustine: Asset or Liability?, Some Implications of the Redemption of Creation etc.)

I once heard Cardinal Ratzinger, later the Pope, say in a TV interview that original sin was central to Roman Catholicism. My problem is that I cannot find it in the Bible. What is more, if it were there, it would constitute massive problems for the Christian faith as I understand it, for it not only seems to involve major inconsistency in itself but also to be in blatant contradiction of other teaching which is certainly biblical.

Original Sin Unnecessary to Explain Present Universal Sin

So let me start this essay by saying that original sin, the traditional idea that we all sinned ‘in Adam’ (1* As Bengel a once highly respected Lutheran commentator put it: Omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante or All sinned, when Adam sinned.), is redundant, totally unnecessary to explain why all men and women without exception are sinners (Rom. 3:23; 5:12). And the claim frequently made by evangelicals, who purportedly accept the authority of the Bible, that on account of original sin we are born sinful on the one hand and that it is an indispensable prerequisite of the atonement on the other seems to be based on received church dogma not on biblical doctrine.

Flesh and Law

As is generally recognized, mankind was not sinful at creation; he was created ‘good’ though certainly not perfect in holiness and righteousness as has been generally held (Gen. 1:31). At the start Adam and Eve, our original progenitors, knew neither good nor evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22). It was not until the commandment impinged on their (obviously developing) minds that they broke it and became transgressors (cf. John 8:34; James 2:10). As is affirmed elsewhere in Scripture, in Romans in particular, where there is no law there is no sin (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:8). Apart from (the) law (knowledge), neither sin (Rom. 4:15; 7:8) nor righteousness exist (Rom. 6:16; 1 John 3:4). All the animals being unable by nature to apprehend the law are guiltless and since Adam and Eve were initially created flesh like them (1 Cor. 15:46), they too were innocent. Likewise, since all babies are born flesh and are totally ignorant at birth, they are in the nature of the case born both amoral and morally neutral like Adam and Eve (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f., cf. 8:4). Paul in particular makes the situation clear when in reference to himself he says he was once ‘alive’ and it was only when the commandment made its impact on his mind as one who was created in the image of God that he broke it and was constituted a sinner (Rom. 7:9f., cf. John 8:34).

Paul goes on in Romans 7 to indicate that mankind is quite unable to keep the law when it eventually and inevitably comes into collision with his flesh or unregenerate nature (Rom. 7:14). (2* The widespread received idea that Romans 7 refers to the Christian is clearly erroneous. It arises out of the logic of original sin which does not exist. See further my Interpreting Romans 7.) First, like Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:6), overwhelmed by his fleshly desires he gives way to temptation, breaks the commandment and earns its wages in death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23). Even when he is older and, like the Psalmist (119:14, 111, etc.), loves the law, he simply lacks the power (Rom. 7:18; 8:8, cf. John 6:63) to resist completely his fleshly impulses, and it is not until he receives the Spirit through faith in Christ (Rom. 8:1-4) that he is able to triumph to some degree and become more than a conqueror (Rom. 8:37).

It is a reasonable if not unchallengeable view that Paul’s theology in general centres on justification by faith (Rom. 1:16f.) since he is adamant that man cannot justify himself by keeping the law (Rom. 3:19f.; Gal. 2:16, etc.). Only one man in the entire history of the race has succeeded in offering unadulterated obedience to the satisfaction of God (Mt. 3:17, cf. 5:48), pleased his Father (Mt. 3:17) and has thus met the divine precondition of salvation (Gen. 2:17). That man is Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5), God’s own incarnate Son. He alone was without sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22, etc.) and only he was ever in a position to provide the ‘alien’ righteousness the rest of mankind needed for salvation (Lev. 18:5). Since the OT made it plain that only God could save (Isa. 45:22), so God’s mercy was exercised uniquely in Jesus his only Son as he always intended (Rom. 11:32; Acts 4:12; Phil. 2:9-11).

I conclude from this brief study of the flesh alone, apart from the role of the devil (cf. Heb. 2:14f.), that original sin as taught by the churches, their creeds and confessions is redundant. It is entirely unnecessary to account for universal human sin. The incontrovertible truth is that before God no flesh will boast (Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 1:29; Eph. 2:9, cf. John 6:63; Rom. 7:18; 8:8; Gal. 5:21) because flesh, or unregenerate humanity, is inherently incapable of keeping the law (Rom. 7:14).

The Children of Adam and Eve

As the children of Adam and Eve, our first parents, we are created in their image (Gen. 5:1-3) and inevitably, but not necessarily as the imputation or transmission of their sin implies, follow or recapitulate their pattern of behaviour when the commandment finally makes its impact on our developing minds. How do we know this? Paul as we have noted above certainly did this (Rom. 7:8-11) and so do the rest of us as both history and our own experience tell us. (3* Bruce in particular notes the implicit reference to Eve in Romans 7:11 but rejects it on the specious and clearly erroneous ground that mankind fell ‘in Adam’, p.142.) Even Jesus as the Son of Adam (Luke 3:38) began by recapitulation where Adam began, that is, at the beginning, for he too was created (born of woman who was dust, Ps. 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47-49) knowing neither good nor evil (Isa. 7:15f.). Despite being human, that is, truly flesh (cf. John 1:14), since he did not know the law (commandment), he was initially innocent (neither sinful nor righteous) like all children (Dt. 1:39). He, however, uniquely remained so and thus became the second Adam.

The Virgin Birth

Since this is so, appeal to the Virgin Birth of Jesus in a forlorn attempt to shield him from the entail of original sin said to affect all mankind is plainly misguided. First, nowhere does Scripture link original sin and the Virgin Birth. If it did, we would be forced to explain the sinlessness or immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary herself. The fact is that if the latter were true, even she would be docetic, that is, disqualified as a genuine human being. In point of fact, it is ironic that the Virgin Birth is called in to sanctify Jesus when what it really signifies is that the Word of God became flesh (John 1:14)! The Virgin Birth underlines the veracity of the incarnation, not of sanctification. Second, as Hebrews 2:14,17 indicate, Jesus was as truly man as the rest of us. The only difference between him and us was that he kept the law and never sinned (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22, etc.). So again we are forced to infer that we all like Adam and Eve by recapitulation begin at the beginning and we all with the exception of Jesus break the commandment when we are confronted by it. The supreme wonder of his life is that he succeeded in keeping the law in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.). This furnishes conclusive proof of his divine pedigree and demonstrates beyond question that he was truly the Son of God.

Recapitulation

It is essential to note at this point that Jesus is a prime, indeed the supreme, example of human recapitulation and perfection (maturation process) apart from which he could not have atoned for the sins of the whole world (Heb. 2; 1 John 2:2). He perfectly underwent the normal development of first Adamic or natural man according to the flesh: he was conceived, gestated, was born of woman, was circumcised, underwent a heathen experience like his forefathers in Egypt (Mt. 2:15), lived under the law as a son of the commandment and finally achieved what eludes all other sinful men and women, that is, eternal life at his baptism when he earned the approbation of his heavenly Father by keeping the law (Lev. 18:5; Mt. 3:17). From that point on he pioneered the regenerate life here on earth and, having atoned for our sins, paved our way into heaven itself (cf. John 3:13; Heb. 2:10). Once we ourselves are baptized by faith into his death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-11), we recapitulate mutatis mutandis (making the necessary adjustments) in essence his ascension into the Father’s house (John 6:38-40,62; 14:2f.) and thus receive our inheritance along with him (Rom. 8:17).

The Physical Transmission of Sin (Catholic)

Catholics believe that Adam’s sin was transmitted to his posterity by what is known as ‘carnal concupiscence’ which renders them evil by birth. Needless to say, this is not only not taught in the Bible but also is positively disallowed, first, by Genesis 1:27f. (cf. Mt. 19:4-6; 1 Tim. 4:3; Heb. 13:4), and, secondly, by passages such as Ezekiel 18. Augustine’s obsession with sin arising partly from his own failure in his youth to control his sexual urges has contaminated church dogma till the present day. It has doubtless contributed to the celibacy of the Roman clergy which has wreaked so much havoc even in the 21st century. Again, it must be stressed that we all begin at the beginning and mutatis mutandis repeat the experience of Adam and Eve who were created innocent (pace Article 9 of the Church of England). The comparison between their original innocence and that of all children who are ignorant of law (Dt. 1:39, etc.) puts this beyond reasonable doubt. And the idea that (abstract) human nature in general after the so-called ‘fall’ from original righteousness is permanently vitiated is alien to the Scriptures. Like original sin itself, original righteousness is a figment of our forebears’ mistaken imaginations. The two stand or fall together, for without (the) law there can be neither sin nor righteousness (Rom. 6:16). (4* See my Concerning Original Righteousness, Some Arguments Against Original Sin, etc.)

The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Protestant)

When they do not (regrettably) appeal to the Catholic view regarding the Virgin Birth, Protestants contend for the imputation of Adam’s sin to all his descendants. This is clearly illegitimate and fallacious for a variety of reasons. The imputation of sin(s) to those who have not committed any is regarded as evil throughout the Bible. To begin with, we can appeal to references like Exodus 23:7, Job 34:17, Proverbs 17:15 and 1 Samuel 22:15, but the story of Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kings 21, not to mention false charges made against Jesus in Luke 23, provides a more personal illustration of the point at issue. Again it needs to be pointed out that sin involves transgression of the law and where the law has not been broken as in the case of babies there is innocence. For reasons already given original sin as touted by church dogma is redundant. All human beings apart from Jesus fail to keep the law and hence are constituted sinners who like Adam come short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23). No one who fails to obey completely will be able to boast before him. As Paul insists in Romans 11:32 (cf. Gal. 3:22), God has consigned all to sin under the law (Rom. 3:19) so as to be able to exercise mercy on all. But it must be stressed that he did not impute Adam’s sin to them or, first, Jesus himself would have been born sinful (5* Though Jesus enjoyed solidarity with all other humans as flesh, Heb. 2:14, he remained morally separate from them because he did not sin, Rom. 8:3, Heb. 2:15; 1 Pet. 2:22.) and, secondly, God’s own holiness and righteousness would have been compromised. The suggestion is clearly blasphemous.

Covenantal Representation

It needs also to be emphasized at this point, however, that unlike Jesus who is the covenant head and representative of all who put their trust in him, Adam, with whom no covenant is made, is merely representative man according to the flesh in whose image we are all, including Jesus (Luke. 3:38), made (Gen. 5:1-3). In order for sin to be imputed, faith is as necessary as it is for the imputation of righteousness. Clearly Jesus himself freely exercised faith when our sins were imputed to him (2 Cor. 5:21). In light of this it must be strongly asserted that Romans 5:12-21 merely presents us with an analogy between the malign but unspecified legacy of the sin (cf. Ps. 51:5; Ex. 34:6f.) of Adam and the beneficial effects of the righteousness of Christ which accrue to all who have faith. The so-called ‘exact parallel’ provided by this passage implying a double imputation is a figment of the traditional imagination and quite wrongly attributed to Paul. (6* See my An Exact Parallel?) The great apostle would have been horrified at the suggestion that both he and we have Adam’s sin either imputed or transmitted to us and were thus relieved of all personal responsibility. We do well therefore to note the inclusive nature of his assertions in Ephesians 2:1-3 and Titus 3:3 where he affirms that we all including himself have gained our sinful nature not by the imputation of Adam’s sin but by personally and accountably sinning on our own part (Rom. 3:19) even if conditioned by Adam’s sin (cf. John 8:34; Rom. 6:16; 2 Pet. 2:19). And this confirms what was argued above with regard to Romans 7:9f.

Parental Sin

The idea that parental sin beginning with Adam and Eve is the source of sin in all offspring is again without foundation. The OT itself makes it clear that children can no more inherit and be punished for the sin of their parents (Dt. 24:16, cf. Jer. 31:29f.) than they can be accounted righteous on the basis of their faith (Ezek. 18, cf. 14:14). Proxy faith and repentance simply cannot be supported from Scripture. We all either sin or attain to righteousness on our own account (Ex. 32:33; Ezek. 18, etc.). Jesus specifically denies that parental sin leads to punishment in the form of disability in John 9:3. And it is nowhere suggested that it accounts for Sarah’s barrenness or Moses’ speech defect, for example. For all that, it is undeniable that parents make a powerful impact on all their children (cf. Ex. 20:5f.; 34:6f.). As Numbers 14:3,29-33 and Deuteronomy 1:39 indicate, since they are caught up in their situation, they undoubtedly suffer as a result. But that they are not punished is proved by the fact that they were permitted to enter the Promised Land. The exodus could not have occurred if the children had been sinful. If the latter were the case they would have died in the wilderness along with their parents. While there is no denying evidence of solidarity under the old covenant, there is also ample evidence of a moral and personal distinction between parent and child. Separation is also fundamental to Scripture. How otherwise could Jesus have become the second Adam? (7* See further my Solidarity and Separation.)

The Legacy of Racial Sin

Apart from our first parents, we are all, including Jesus, born into a sinful world. This would seem to be the point David is so graphically making in Psalm 51:5. Contrary to most traditional interpretation (which incidentally is denied by both the Jews and the Orthodox), David recognizes the impact of his mother’s sinfulness on himself but fails to suggest that he has himself inherited it. The obvious truth is that if Adam sinned in ideal circumstances without any moral legacy from the past, his descendants would be all the more likely to sin given that they had to deal with his. This is surely what Paul is signifying in Romans 5:12-21. The world we all now enter at birth is not merely difficult to contend with by nature (cf. Gen. 1:28) as Adam discovered once he was ousted from paradise, the womb of the race, but carries with it the added burden of the example and polluting influence of the sinful people who have preceded us (cf. Gen. 5:28f.; Prov. 24:30-34; Isa. 24:5f.; Heb. 2:2). Since Romans 5:12-21 informs us that all died, all must have personally earned the wages of death. In other words, this passage could not possibly teach the imputation of sin as has been traditionally claimed since (a)  imputation does not pay wages (Rom. 4:1-8, cf. 6:23), (b) it requires faith to activate it; and (c) if imputation were involved even Jesus himself as a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) would have been caught in its net. At this point, the Catholic dogma, though clearly false, makes more sense than the Protestant contention.

Death and Corruption

Traditionalists under the influence of Augustine of Hippo aver that the earth languishes under a curse of death and corruption on account of Adam’s original sin and they cite Romans 8:18-25 in an abortive attempt to prove their case (contrast Isa. 24:4-6). Nowhere else in Paul’s writings is there any suggestion of a cosmic curse on creation stemming from Adam’s sin. Rather in Acts 14:17, 17:27 and 1 Timothy 4:4 the apostle seems to undermine the very suggestion. Furthermore, it is deeply questionable whether he had Genesis 3:17-19 in mind when he wrote this passage in Romans as most commentators claim. (8* See e.g. Cranfield, p.413). Rather he is telling us that God of set purpose subjected the material world to futility because he had something better in mind for his adopted children. The following points at the very least must be made: first, in contrast with God himself (see e.g. Isa. 51:6,8) this world has a beginning, so it must have an end (Gen. 1:1; 8:22, etc.); second, it is visible, so it must be temporary (2 Cor. 4:18); third, since there are old and new covenants, so correspondingly there are two ages (Luke 20:34-36, etc.), and the first must give way to the second (cf. Heb. 10:9); fourth, creation was made ‘by hand’ (Gk cheiropoietos), a pejorative OT expression indicating intrinsic imperfection or defectiveness. In light of this we are compelled to conclude that death and corruption (decay) are natural, that is, they exist by divine decree. In contrast with his Father, even Jesus as flesh was mortal (he died even if on our behalf) and corruptible (he grew older, John 8:57, etc.). (9* See my Creation Corruptible By Nature.) In Romans 8:18-25, though sin is conspicuous by its absence, it is nonetheless traditionally postulated (as it is in John 3:1-7) on the basis of the false premise of original sin which destroys the synonymous parallelism between creation and creature the passage evidently displays. (10* See my Romans 8:18-25 In Brief and note Heb. 1:10-12.) Clearly, it is not necessary to account for universal corruption. If it is then asserted that Jesus did not experience corruption in the grave, it must be pointed out that as one who was not a sinner he ought not to have died but did so on our behalf. From this we conclude that neither death nor its consequent corruption had any claim on him (Acts 2:22f.). If it is then claimed that the Bible specifically tells us that death is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23), it must be replied that this is true only in the case of those who are capable of earning wages by breaking the law. What traditional theology has failed to grasp is that (a) there is no covenant with creation which is doomed to destruction once its purpose or raison d’etre (Gen. 1; Isa. 45:18) has been achieved (Gen. 8:22; Heb. 12:27, etc.), and (b) that apart from law involving understanding (cf. Rom. 7:1,7) there is no promise of either life or death. Just as in the absence of law there is no sin, so there is no righteousness and promise of life (Rom. 4:15; 7:8-10). Hence Adam and Eve were created knowing neither good nor evil. From this we are forced to infer that animals and babies die naturally apart from (the) law and sin but rather from disease or disaster. So again I conclude that original sin is redundant.

Worldview

Perfection

As was implied by my opening paragraph, the traditional worldview of the church is permeated with original sin. But the idea that an originally perfect world inhabited by perfect human beings who were at once holy and righteous was marred by Adam’s sin and consequent curse is manifestly false. Genesis 1 depicts a ‘good’ or useful world, not a perfect one. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, God made the world, both creation and creature, ‘by hand’ (Gen. 2:7; Isa. 45:11f., etc.) and hence purposely subjected it to futility from the start (Rom. 8:20) quite irrespective of sin. The reason he did this was so that he could effect man’s escape into the world to come through Christ to the praise of his glory (cf. Eph. 1:3-14). This suggests of course not that God is the author of sin as tradition implies but that sin regarded as personal human failure was intrinsically part and parcel of the plan of salvation formed before the foundation of the earth (cf. Rom. 3:19f.; 4:16; 11:32; Gal. 3:22; Rev. 13:8). In this situation, if Christ has not been raised everything is inherently futile (1 Cor. 15:14,17-19). No wonder the apostle prayed that he might count all else as rubbish and know Christ and the power of his resurrection (Phil 3:10). In other words, the apparently universally held idea of a ‘fallen’ creation is not only false, it is ludicrous. It is a pity that the churches have to be taught the truth of the matter by (sometimes atheistic) modern scientists. The so-called war between the Bible and science is largely, if not entirely, a myth. It is erroneous church dogma, not biblical doctrine, which constitutes the principal problem. If there was a state of perfection at the beginning, there was nowhere to go. Since the church turned the Bible on its head, the only course open to it was to postulate degeneration and regeneration (or regress and progress) and certainly not evolution and the ascent of man. (11* Cf. Henry Drummond’s Ascent of Man (1894) and Dr. Bronowski’s book The Ascent of Man published by the BBC in 1973. It is important to remind ourselves, however, that the Bible teaches perfection (maturity) in both good, Phil. 3:12-14; Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28, and evil, Gen. 15:16; 1 Thes. 2:16.) By contrast there is a great deal of biblical teaching relating to perfection, teleology and maturation from scratch. Even Jesus as the second Adam had to be perfected (Heb. 7:28, etc.) by beginning and finishing the work his Father had given him to do in the flesh (John 17:4; 19:30; Rom. 8:3).

Regeneration

Another basic point to be made in this connection is that regeneration has been traditionally seen as the cure of original sin. Since this is so, Jesus himself who was sinless has been deemed as not being subject to it. But if John 3 teaches us anything it is that sin is not the problem but that our fleshly nature is. This being the case, Jesus, since he was flesh, had of necessity to be born again, that is, granted eternal life which as born of woman he clearly did not have. He succeeded in gaining it because he met its precondition which was righteousness, and this was attained by keeping the law (Lev. 18:5). If Jesus did not need regeneration which John 3:7, like transformation (1 Cor. 15:53), says is naturally necessary, he was as docetic as the ecclesiastical Christ has always been. (12* On this see my The Ecclesiastical Christ, Still Docetic.)

Order of Salvation

Perhaps worse still, since original sin rendered man incapable of any spiritual progress whatsoever, regeneration has been placed first in the order of salvation (ordo salutis). The problem here is that since no one prior to Jesus met the condition of life (cf. 1 K. 8:46; Eccl. 7:20, etc.), all were damned (including babies according to Augustine). But the NT, especially Hebrews 11 indicates that many in the OT were believers. Even John the Baptist, who Jesus pointedly tells us was the greatest born of woman (Mt. 11:11), was clearly a believer who failed to attain to the new birth (cf. Mt. 3:14). In this scenario, regeneration is just another name for election altogether unrelated to moral considerations (cf. Rom. 9:11). In the NT, however, people are called on to repent of their sins and to believe in Jesus and this involves an element of synergism and hence of responsibility (cf. Phil. 2:12; 3:12). When they do, they are born again of God (divine monergism) as those who are justified by faith. (If it is complained at this point that since Abraham was justified by faith he was therefore born again, I would point out that Paul referred to him as ‘ungodly’ (Rom. 4:5) on the one hand and that he, Abraham, lived before the outpouring of the Spirit consequent on the achievement of Jesus on the other. Note also Galatians 3.)

Conclusion

The dogma of original sin which we have inherited from our forefathers is a figment of their imagination. It does not exist but for all that its acceptance has seriously distorted our theology, our evangelism and especially our worldview involving the creation, fall and restoration schema. Since it is entirely unnecessary to account for universal sin and corruption, it is radically redundant, simply superfluous. The truth is that apart from our sinful forebears whom we have in common with Jesus (Mt. 1:1-5), we are all sinners because as flesh we cannot keep the law. As a consequence we all earn the wages of death. Furthermore, we are all subject to decay because as flesh we are the product of a naturally corruptible and temporal earth where sin is only an exacerbating factor (Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). Abuse of fossil fuels may contribute to global warming as smoking may contribute to early human death, but even total avoidance will not ultimately change the situation (cf. Heb. 2:8). Thank God, however, that we are made in his image and are able to transcend both the death and corruption which characterize this world through faith in Christ who alone overcame even in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; 2 Tim. 1:10). (13* See my Death and Corruption, Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.) He fulfilled his Father’s condition of life (Lev. 18:5; John 3:3,5,7,16; 1 Cor. 15:53) and having done that died as an atonement for sin on our behalf (cf. Heb. 2:14f.) before personally rising from the dead and ascending. And this guarantees our own eventual resurrection and corporeal transformation (1 Cor. 15:50-53; 2 Cor. 5:1; Phil. 3:21) in the presence of the Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8).

________________________________________________

References

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

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

On the redundancy of original sin, see further my essays on The Flesh, The Flesh A Slave.

My background in Methodism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism.

Why was I baptized at age 40 in the Deeping St James Calvinistic (Particular) Baptist church?

(1)  Covenant: I reject the idea of the unity-of-the-covenant or of one-covenant-in-two-dispensations idea based on the so-called covenant of redemption in eternity. There are clearly three dispensational covenants (Noah, Moses Jesus) differing from each other but playing their role in a common goal. They appear in both the race (Romans 1-3) and the individual (Gal. 4:1-7) as they reach maturity. They are linked by faith which is common to all three (Heb.11, etc.).

(2)  I reject the idea that baptism is the substitute of circumcision. Circumcision signifies law (Lev. 12:3; John 7:22; Gal. 5:3); baptism signifies repentance, faith and the gift of the Spirit or regeneration.

(3)   Circumcision and baptism represent two different covenants: (a) circumcision was, first, the mark of nationhood, even Isaac was circumcised on the eighth day apart from faith (Gen. 21:4; Lev. 12:3); and second of being under the law of Moses (Rom. 2:25; Gal. 5:3); (b) Ishmael was circumcised but he was not in the (Abrahamic) covenant (Gen. 17:25); (c) Abraham was circumcised as a believer (Gen. 15:6; 17:24; Rom. 4). Since we Gentiles are not the physical children of Abraham but his spiritual children (Gal. 3:29) we Christians follow his spiritual lead.* But we are baptized not circumcised; (d) girls are not circumcised but they are baptized as believers. Abraham was promised that he would become the father of many nations and as Paul points out in Galatians 3 it is through his seed, that is, Jesus (3:16, cf. v.29), there is neither Jew nor Gk., slave nor free, male nor female but we are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).

(4)  I do not accept that regeneration precedes faith in the order of salvation as the Reformed teach (WCF, etc.). Throughout the Bible faith precedes the new birth (e.g. John 3:16). No one in the OT was born again since no one kept the law (1 K. 8:46, etc.) which was its condition (Lev. 18:5). In the OT regeneration was only a promise (Dt. 30:6; Jer. 31:33; 32:39, etc.) which was not fulfilled till the advent of Jesus. He was the first and only one to keep the law and thus meet the condition of life for man which was righteousness gained by keeping the law.

(5)  Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day like Isaac. After his heathen experience in Egypt (Mt. 2:15), he lived under the law (cf. Luke 2:39-52) and kept it until he had gained the righteousness that was pleasing to his Father who baptized him with the Spirit (Mt. 3:13-17) in accordance with the promise (Gen. 2:17; Lev.18:5). By faith, we follow the pattern that he established.

(6)  We are the spiritual children of Abraham. Just as he was justified by faith, so are we. But more than that we are born again by the Spirit of Jesus whom Paul described as a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45).

Babies cannot exercise faith and to baptize them is in effect to regard them as regenerate Christians. Needless to say, I deny proxy faith. Infant baptism is rooted in false church tradition and bad theology, and as a member of the Churches of Christ I reject that tradition.

Note:  The fact that Gentile men are not Jews and never, strictly speaking, under the law of Moses suggests that they are like Jewish women who were not circumcised but were baptized as believers.
The apostles vehemently opposed the circumcision of Gentile men (see e.g. Acts 15:1ff.) who moved directly from heathenism to Christianity in one fell swoop like uncircumcised Jewish women (Acts 10:47f.; 16:33; 26:19-23; Eph. 2:1-10, etc.).

Food for Thought

Since Jesus was the second Adam, at his incarnation he identified with the first and perfectly recapitulated the life of unregenerate Adamic man under the law. At his baptism, being the first Jesus himself set the pattern and proceeded to fulfil all righteousness under the leading of the Spirit. Far from identifying with us as the paedobaptists teach, the opposite is true. It is we who identify (or conform) with him as in the Lord’s Supper (Rom. 6:3f. See further my essay Baptism And Identification.) (It is true of course that Jesus who was made sin identified with us in the atonement.) In his baptism and reception of the Spirit he took precedence and became pre-eminent as our pioneer and Saviour. Like God in the OT (cf. Joshua) he went ahead of his people (Dt. 1:30, etc.). Jesus’ baptism was the prototypical, archetypal, paradigmatic baptism, the only true baptism that has or will ever occur in the whole history of mankind, for he alone kept the law and so eventually brought in both life and incorruption (Gk , 2 Tim. 1:10, cf. 1 Cor. 15:53). While Jesus pleased his Father by keeping the law, we please him by exercising faith in Jesus himself, the Righteous One (Acts 3:14, etc.). Indeed, faith in him is commanded (John 6:29, cf. 3:17; 1 John 3:23). If we don’t have the Son, we have neither the Father (John 14:6; 1 John 2:22-25) nor life (1 John 5:1,11f.). We follow his lead as the pioneer of our salvation.

Just as Jesus was baptized with the Spirit (= born again) after gaining righteousness by keeping the law in accordance with the promise of Genesis 2:17 and Leviticus 18:5, so we must be baptized and born again when we are accounted righteous through faith in him.

(Obviously as noted above this follows the pattern established by Abraham. As Paul strongly insists in Romans 4 (cf. Gal. 3), Abraham was justified by faith (Gen. 15:6) before he was circumcised. In other words, his circumcision sealed his faith. It is the same with us. We who are unable to keep the law (Rom. 3:19f.; Gal. 2:16, etc.) are justified by faith in Jesus who was himself uniquely justified by keeping the law and pleasing his heavenly Father. Like him (cf. John 1:32; 6:27) we are then sealed with the Spirit (1 Cor. 1:21f.; Eph. 1:13; 4:30) at our baptism. If Jesus as man had not gained life, then neither would we, as the OT amply demonstrates (1 K. 8:46, etc.). This basically is the argument of Hebrews 2. As verse 11 indicates, we believers as the children of God are the brothers of our firstborn or elder brother Jesus (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:10-13) because we are all born again members of the same family, sired by the same Father (cf. Heb. 12:9,23) and consequently joint-heirs with Jesus, Rom. 8:16f.)

Hebrews 2:17 implies that during the first or old covenant part of his earthly life Jesus identified with or recapitulated the experience of first Adamic unregenerate man except for sin (Heb. 4:15). He was conceived, gestated, born of woman, circumcised, presented, went to Egypt, became a son of the commandment at about 13 and did his stint under the law. At his baptism, however, he took the lead by ‘precapitulating’ (a word I invented some years ago) or pioneering the regenerate or heavenly life on earth. Through faith in him and baptism we now identify or conform with him not only morally but sacramentally and generically (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18, cf. Rom. 8:30).

Note that just as Jesus says that as flesh we must be born again, so Paul says that we must put to death all that is earthly in us (Col. 3:1-5). In other words, it is nature that constitutes our major problem but it is our sin that prevents us from overcoming it. The wonder of the gospel is that Jesus overcame in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.), something we find impossible (Rom. 3:19f.; 7; Gal. 2:16)

Even in the Garden of Eden Adam had three problems: (1) his vocation was to exercise dominion which included controlling his own flesh which was weak and temptable; (2) his natural mortality and hence the prospect of death which could only be overcome by keeping the commandment (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, cf. Heb. 5:7); (3) the devil. He ended up giving in to the world, the flesh and the devil. Jesus through obedience and suffering (Heb. 5:7ff., cf. 2:9f.) noticeably conquered all three. He overcame the world, subjugated his flesh and defeated the devil. Had he not been regenerate, he would have had to continue working out his own salvation as man under the law. Fulfilling all righteousness and achieving perfection would have been out of the question.

Questions

If the OT saints were born again, had eternal life and the fullness of the Spirit, why did Jesus come at all?

Why did John the Baptist, the greatest born of women (Mt. 11:11) and a burning and shining lamp (John 5:35), need* the baptism of Jesus (Mt. 3:14)?
* The Greek for need here is not the normal ‘dei’ of John 3:7 and 1 Cor. 15:53.

In his major commentary on Matthew R.T. France alludes to Davies and Allison who offer eight suggestions as to why Jesus wished to be baptized by John (p.119n.14). Regrettably, France’s own view as an Anglican is the usual identification one (p.120). However, on page 732 in his commentary on the word ‘follow’ in Matthew 19:21, he is much closer to the mark. He says following Jesus is not just another thing to do. It involves “the inauguration of a new and life-changing relationship with Jesus. To follow Jesus will lead the inquirer along the path of discipleship which entails the ‘greater righteousness’ that God requires and which is the way to ‘eternal’ life.” In light of Mt. 3:13-17 following Jesus must involve baptism and regeneration apart from which the greater righteousness is impossible. Cf. Eph. 2:10.

________________________________________________________

(In the course of church history, certain individuals have made their stand against ecclesiastical orthodoxy. For their temerity, many like the Bohemian Hus and the Italian Savonarola ended up in the flames. Others like Athanasius and Luther though contra mundum (against the world) escaped this fate, but political protection was prominent especially in Luther’s case. In the event, Luther was enabled to defy the pope and, taking his stand on Scripture, declared his famous “Here I stand”.

So far as I personally am concerned living in these more “civilized” days, I have simply been ignored by friend and foe alike. As George Orwell remarked on one occasion, a blanket of silence can prove remarkably effective. For all that, I wish here to make my own stand and issue my challenge to the church as a whole and not merely to the Roman Church. I first attempted to do this almost forty years ago while I was still in England. Fortunately, I was forewarned that formidable barriers would be erected to prevent a mere David from throwing down an effective gauntlet to a powerful Goliath. For all that, hoping for more success, I here present a mere ten theses to begin the battle.)

Original Sin

1. Like the Jews and the Orthodox, I totally reject the Augustinian dogma of original sin which states that when Adam sinned, we all sinned (as Bengel put it: omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante) and that we are sinful not merely as infants but even as embryos. This latter absurd idea is based largely on a highly questionable interpretation, and sometimes translation, of Psalm 51:5. That innocent children should be regarded as sinners on account of sin either transmitted (Catholics) or imputed (Protestants) is implicitly contradicted by Scripture time and time again (e.g. Dt. 1:39; 24:16; Ezek. 18; Rom. 4:15).

(See further my articles on original sin including the imputation of sin. See also Have We Inherited Lies?, Augustine: Asset or Liability?)

The Good But Imperfect Creation

2. The idea that God originally created a perfect world which was cursed on account of Adam’s sin and “Fall” is unscriptural nonsense. Throughout the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to the book of Revelation the difference between the perfect Creator and his manufactured creation is maintained (Ps. 102:25-27; Mt. 24:35; Heb. 1:10-12; Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 20:11). Augustine manifestly misunderstood the word ‘good’ in Genesis 1. In fact, creation was no more perfect than the “exceedingly good” Promised Land (Num. 14:7, cf. Heb. 3 & 4). According to Paul, creation is still ‘good’ (1 Tim. 4:3f.). It is imperfect by nature.

(See, for example, my articles Cosmic Curse?, What Fall?, Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?, Manufactured Or Not So, Worldview, The Biblical Worldview, etc.)

Romans 8:18-25

3. The idea that Genesis 3:17-19 lies behind Romans 8:18-25 is constantly asserted but to my knowledge is and never has been substantiated. It is based on bad exegesis and, worse still, on the theology of the sin-obsessed Augustine. Truly is Scripture nullified by tradition (Mark 7:13).

(See my Romans 8:18-25 and Another Shot at Romans 8:18-25.)

Recapitulation

4. I believe strongly in recapitulation. This doctrine was advanced by Irenaeus (c.175-c.195), the so-called father of theology, in the early church but seems to have been almost completely eclipsed by the influence of Augustine. Recapitulation teaches that we all re-cover the same ground covered previously by our parents (cf. Gen. 5:1-3). Thus, for example, a girl like her mother before her is conceived, gestates, is born, becomes an infant, a child, a teenager, develops breasts (cf. Ezekiel 16), menstruates, falls in love, gives birth, ages, declines and dies like the rest of the animal creation (cf. Ps. 49; Eccl. 3:18-21). Man’s intellectual and spiritual development or perfection (maturation) is covered by covenant theology.

According to the Bible two things are said to be the way of all the earth. They are procreation (Gen. 19:31) and death (Josh. 23:14; 1 Kings 2:2). Clearly the one counteracts the other (cf. Heb. 7:23).

(See my Recapitulation in Outline, I Believe in Recapitulation, Death Before Genesis 3, A Double Helping)

The Way of All the Earth

5. In case the reader has missed the point, procreation and death are literally ‘the way of all the earth’. Since we all like the animals emanate from the earth, we are as flesh creation in miniature. Just as creation begins, matures, ages and dies by nature, so do we as its product (Ps. 102: 25-27; Heb. 1:10-12). Arguing from what we know for certain to what is somewhat less clear (the analogy of faith), we can infer that if the individual and even the race progresses or evolves from immaturity to maturity (perfection) and then declines and dies, so does creation itself (Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 34:4; 51:6; Heb. 1:10-12). As the apostle Paul says, as those who are made in the (potential) image of God, we are first (animal) flesh and then spirit (1 Cor. 15:46).

(What Was The Garden Of Eden?, The Essence of the Case Against the Redemption of Creation, The Flesh, etc..)

Jesus our Pioneer

6. On the assumption that recapitulation is true, then clearly ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Gregory Nazianzen (330-389) maintained that what is not assumed remains unhealed. If it were not so, the atonement would be impossible (1 John 2:2), as Irenaeus even before Gregory apparently recognized. Alternatively expressed, in view of Adam’s failure, at his incarnation Jesus, the second or last Adam, had to recapitulate the history of the race up to his time (cf. Gal. 4:4; Eph. 4:9). Then after his baptism, he had to “precapitulate” or pioneer new covenant or heavenly life here on earth as he was led by the Spirit till, having died on our behalf, he ascended into heaven (Eph. 4:10) to regain his former glory (John 17:5,24). We follow in his footsteps (Heb. 2:10-13; 12:1-2; Rev. 3:21, etc.).

(See The Journey of Jesus, The Ascent of Man, Escape, Perfection.)

John 3

7. Perhaps the best known chapter in the Bible is John 3, but because Augustine taught that it related to sin, original sin in particular, it has been massively and pervasively misunderstood. In simple terms, what Jesus tells Nicodemus in verses 1-8 without even hinting at sin is that as physical or natural creatures we cannot enter the kingdom of God (which is our ultimate goal) but must be born (again) from above in preparation for heaven above. Why?, it may be asked. The answer is, as Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 15:50, that flesh and blood by nature cannot inherit the kingdom of God nor can the intrinsically perishable inherit the imperishable. If it could, then all the animals and implicitly even the material creation itself would find a place in heaven too!

(See The Correspondence Between John 3:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:35-57, Two ‘Natural’ Necessities, Will Creation Be Redeemed?, The Essence of the Case Against the Redemption of Creation, etc.).

The Flesh and Marriage

8. Contrary to what the Greeks and Augustine the ex-Manichee and neo-Platonist apparently believed, the flesh is not evil. After all, it was created by God and was the earthly tent of the sinless Jesus himself. This being so, there is no warrant whatsoever for the celibacy of the clergy which has caused so much trouble even in the 21st century. Genesis makes it abundantly clear that man and woman both were created in the image of God and intended to come together in a fleshly union. While individuals like Jesus did not marry for what ought to be obvious reasons quite unrelated to sin (cf. Mt. 19:12), all others should in the normal run of things marry as the Jewish priests did. Failure at this point suggests bad theology and constitutes a catastrophe waiting to happen.

(See further my The Flesh, The Flesh A Slave, Another Shot at Romans 8:18-25.)

The Churches

9. The Roman Catholic Church in particular (along with Protestant Churches to a greater or less extent) has scarcely extricated itself from the old covenant. Approaching the issue from a sacramental point of view we may say that it has simply (a) substituted infant circumcision (boys only) with infant baptism which reflects massive theological and covenantal error, and (b) repeated animal sacrifices with the repeated sacrifice of the mass quite contrary to the clear teaching of Hebrews 9:25f., etc.

(See my Baptism Revisited, Regarding the Baptism of Jesus, The Betrayal of the Reformation, No Going Back, Why Infant Baptism is Unchristian.)

Covenant Theology

10. Traditional covenant theology in all its forms known to me is false. First, it needs to be noted that in the Bible there is definitely no covenant with creation and hence with its product Adam (mankind) who symbolized the flesh (1 Cor. 15:45-49). The first dispensational covenant is with Noah who was justified by faith. It is temporary (Gen. 8:22; Isa. 54:9-10) and, though it embraces all creation guaranteeing its continued existence and productivity until the plan of salvation is completed (cf. Jer. 31:35-37; 33:19-22), it is obviously not understood by the animals. The second dispensational covenant is also temporary (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8). It is established with Moses and involves the law. Strictly speaking, it applies only to the Jews but is nonetheless reflected in other societies. The third covenant was inaugurated by Jesus and embraces all those who believe in him. However, its effects also clearly spill over to others especially in what might be termed a Christianized society. In contrast with the other two covenants which are temporary, the new covenant established by Jesus is eternal (Heb. 9:12-15; 13:20). The same may be said with regard to the covenants with Abraham and David. They are promises which are partially fulfilled here on earth but will culminate in eternity (cf. Gen. 12:1-3,7; 2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89; Heb. 11:39-40). The only place in the Bible where all five covenants appear together, admittedly somewhat obscurely, is in Romans 1:16-4:8.

So during childhood and the rest of our earthly lives we are blessed under the covenant with Noah (cf. Acts 14:17; 17:25-28, etc.), as adolescents we are as the KJV happily, but not entirely accurately, puts it under a schoolmaster, and then through faith in Christ we graduate to the new covenant and attain to spiritual perfection (maturity) as Jesus himself did (cf. Rev. 3:21). Our evolution or pilgrimage from flesh to spirit is then completed when we finally enter glory and the presence of God (cf. Heb. 2:10; 12:23).

(See my Covenant Theology in Brief, Covenant Theology, Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity, Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?, Have We Inherited Lies?, The Journey of Jesus, The Ascent of Man.)

Conclusion

Without going further, I conclude that the motto of Roman Catholicism semper eadem (always the same) should be changed, and that the motto of the Reformed Churches semper reformanda (always reforming) should be put into practice.