Who Goes to Heaven?

Who Goes to Heaven?
1. In Luke 13:1-5 Jesus tells us that all who refuse to repent will perish. Repentance would appear to be the precondition of forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4). When Jesus began his ministry after John’s imprisonment, he also stressed repentance but added faith (Mark 1:15). The two would seem to be complementary and taken together they constitute conversion.
Believers in Christ are granted eternal life (John 3:16,36; Heb. 11, etc.). It is our faith which overcomes the world (1 John  5:4). The outcome of our faith is the salvation of our souls (1 Pet. 1:8).
2. Unless we are righteous we cannot receive the Spirit and life (Lev. 18:5; Pss. 15;24; Isa. 1:19f.; 3:10f.; 33:14-16; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:2,5, etc.). Since we cannot keep the law which is the basic way to become righteous (Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7), we can be accounted righteous through faith in Christ (Gal. 2:16).
3. We cannot go to heaven (enter the presence of God) in our natural bodies which are by nature subject to decay (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:1-8).
See also Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8 and note Isa. 66:24; Zech. 14:12; 1 Pet. 3:4. The flesh like all material things is also susceptible to burning and God is a consuming fire (Isa. 33:14; Heb. 12:29; James 5:3).
Note that those who live for the flesh will inherit corruption (Gal. 6:7f., cf. 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Rom. 8:5f.f;16:18; Phil. 3:19; Rev. 21:8; 22:15; Heb. 12:14, cf. 1 John 2:15-17. The selfish will likewise be condemned (Mt. 25:41f.; Luke 16:19ff.).
Note also that those who rely on the flesh are inevitably cursed (2 Chr. 32:8; Ps. 118:8; Isa. 30:1-3; Jer. 17:5). See also Luke 12:4f. (cf. Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24).
Earthly, that is, temporal, not merely sinful, things including the flesh and the world itself are to be put to death (Col. 3:1-5, cf. 1 John 2:15-17). Paul, like Jesus, rejected the temptations and the blandishments of both the flesh and the world (Gal. 5:24; 6:14; Phil. 3:2-11).
4. Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, we need to be changed (1 Cor. 15:50-52). It is our spirits not our flesh that is saved. Our aim and hope must be to gain a spiritual body like that of Christ (Phil. 3:21) to replace our corruptible flesh.
5. We must be holy like God (1 Pet. 1:14f., cf. like father like son). If we are not, we shall never see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).
6. We need treasure in heaven. This is achieved by our creation in Christ for good works (Eph. 2:10) which are the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25). We are meant to be a people zealous of good works (Tit. 2:14).
OT: Gen. 18:19; Dt. 10:12f.; Pss. 15; 24:3-5; 34:12ff. Isa. 33:14f.; Mic. 6:8; Zech. 7:10; 8:16f.
NT: Mt. 6:19-21; 25:34f.; Rom. 8:14-17; Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 1:3f.; 3:6; 2 Pet. 1:5-11.
7. Our hope is the hope of glory which is at present invisible (Rom. 8:20,24f.) but it will be realized when we see Jesus as he is (1 John 3:2), that is, as King.
(Isa. 33:17, 66:18; Ezek. 48:35; John 17:24; Rev. 22:1-5.)
8. We shall always be with the Lord (John 12:26; 14:3; 1 Thes. 4:17; 5:10; 2 Cor. 4:14; 11:2, cf. Rom. 5:2; Heb. 2:10; 3:6; 1 Pet. 3:18, and live eternally in God’s house (Rev. 22:3-5) in the spirit (1 Pet. 4:6) in redeemed spiritual bodies (Rom. 8:23) as his children (John 1:12f.; 1 John 3:1-3)
NOTE
Faith and Law
It is vitally important for us to recognize that it is those who have faith, not just those who are born again, that enter the presence of the Father. Traditionally, it has been believed that the new birth is the necessary first step, the sine qua non of salvation, and that all who are not born again are damned (cf. Westminster Confession, ch 10:4, Larger Catechism, qu. 60,   Athanasian Creed and the idea that outside the church there is no salvation, extra ecclesiam non salus). This, however, cannot be true since no one was born again before advent and victory of the Lord Jesus himself, yet it is evident that the OT saints were indeed saved if not in the NT sense. Indeed, that was the basic OT problem. The old covenant, as the author of Hebrews especially makes manifest, was incapable of bringing the fullness of salvation because it was itself inherently defective. There were two basic problems: first, those under it could not keep it (Jer. 31:32; John 7:19) and, second, even if they could, it could not in itself give life (Gal. 3:21; Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7). Keeping the commandments was the condition of life, but life could not be earned; it was always the gift of divine grace. Certainly, life was promised to all who kept the commandment (Gen. 2:17, Adam) or law (Lev. 18:5, Israelites). But nobody succeeded as a variety of references indicate (e.g. 1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3; 143:2; Eccl. 7:20; Prov. 20:9, etc.).
Augustinian Theology and Original Sin
Traditional Augustinian theology was seriously in error. Why? Because it taught the clearly erroneous doctrine of original sin. This false foundation formed the essence of its thought. Apart from the fact that it was in any case unbiblical, its remedy was held to be the new birth. In view of this it is less than surprising that the new birth was deemed to be capable of being conveyed by sacrament. Hence infant baptism. Thus, according to Augustine all who were not baptized were damned. But it must be repeated that original sin, or the imputation or transmission of sin, is quite contrary to the teaching of Scripture. The son cannot inherit either his father’s sin or his faith (Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18). And since this is so, he can inherit neither his punishment (Dt. 24:16) nor his reward (cf. Gen. 15:1). If he is to be saved, his only recourse is to walk in the steps of his believing forebear. This is why following or walking after such heroes as Abraham or David is seen to be so important in the OT.
The Order of Salvation
Once we see this, we can also see that regeneration does not come first in the order of salvation (as, for example, in the Westminster Confession of Faith or in the 39 Articles of the Church of England) but that faith and repentance do. They are necessarily preliminary to it. The reason for this is that righteousness (which is gained by fulfilling the commandment/law) was from the start made the condition of life. Again, the reason for this is made clear in Genesis. For, if Adam had been granted eternal life after he had broken the commandment, he would have been eternally in bondage to his sin (cf. John 8:34). This was an impossible situation, as Genesis notes (3:22)! By contrast, Abraham the great exemplar of faith, though pronounced by Paul to be ungodly (Rom. 4:5), was nonetheless justified by faith. In other words, his lack of righteousness was overcome by Christ who died to cover his sins and to provide him with his own righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9, etc.). But like John the Baptist who was the greatest born of woman (Mt. 11:11), Abraham could not experience regeneration for historical reasons. He had to wait until the Saviour had paved the way and sent the Holy Spirit to apply his own righteous work to all who put their trust in him. John himself clearly recognized this (Mt. 3:14). It is therefore paramount that we recognize that all believers will be perfected together (Heb. 11:39f.).
Faith and Regeneration
While faith is in evidence almost throughout Scripture (cf. Heb. 11), regeneration appears only in the NT. It is the gift of the new covenant which existed only as a promise in the OT (cf. Dt. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-34; 32:39; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26).
Salvation
So when we ask questions about the salvation of those who are not Christians, we are forced to take into account the fact that many, indeed, most never experience regeneration in this world. In fact, many have never heard of Christ and cannot therefore put their faith in him. However, many nonetheless have a somewhat naïve faith in God and order their lives accordingly. In light of this we can argue on the assumption that recapitulation is part of the essence of life, that just as we ourselves were once children who exercised immature faith of a kind and eventually accepted Christ as Saviour, so do many, but not all, others (cf. 2 Thes. 3:2).
The Salvation of Children
But the question we need to ask is this. If I as a youngster had died unregenerate, would I have been eternally condemned? Not necessarily. I had a faith of sorts in God, and, since I was brought up in a society which had been heavily influenced by Christianity, I accepted  Christ after a fashion even if I was not consciously committed to him. In other words, my faith immature as it was, was like that of Abraham who never heard of Christ but was nonetheless saved as Jesus himself testifies (e.g. Mt. 8:11). When Jesus talked of the necessity of being born again he was not addressing children but people like Nicodemus who had spent a life time under the law. When Paul wrote Romans and Galatians he did not have me at age seven, for example, in mind but physically mature adults who were ready to move on to the next stage of their spiritual lives. Now they needed to recognize the shortcomings of Moses and the perfection of Christ. The law may serve as a useful guardian of the immature, but only the Christian faith can meet the needs of those who wish to attain to adulthood or perfection (cf. Gal. 4:1-7, etc.). The perfection (maturation, completion) of both the individual (Phil. 3:12-14; Heb. 6:1; 7:11) and the community (Eph. 4:13) is the goal of faith (Heb. 11:39f.).
Covenant Theology
To express the issue alternatively, biblical covenant theology is somewhat different from that touted by various churches in 2010. As children whether literal or spiritual, Noah meets our needs (cf. Acts 14:17; 17:27) and Noah himself was a believer (cf. Heb. 11:7). As adolescents Moses serves as our guardian (Gal. 3:19ff.). Even if we are not Jews in these days of universal education this is largely if not entirely true. As adults, for whom the law is unnecessarily constricting, only Christ is adequate. In him we are free, provided we do not use our liberty to give rein to licentiousness (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:16).

1. In Luke 13:1-5 Jesus tells us that all who refuse to repent will perish. Repentance would appear to be the precondition of forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4). When Jesus began his ministry after John’s imprisonment, he also stressed repentance but added faith (Mark 1:15). The two would seem to be complementary and taken together they constitute conversion.

Believers in Christ are granted eternal life (John 3:16,36; Heb. 11, etc.). It is our faith which overcomes the world (1 John  5:4). The outcome of our faith is the salvation of our souls (1 Pet. 1:8).

2. Unless we are righteous we cannot receive the Spirit and life (Lev. 18:5; Pss. 15;24; Isa. 1:19f.; 3:10f.; 33:14-16; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:2,5, etc.). Since we cannot keep the law which is the basic way to become righteous (Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7), we can be accounted righteous through faith in Christ (Gal. 2:16).

3. We cannot go to heaven (enter the presence of God) in our natural bodies which are by nature subject to decay (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:1-8).

See also Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8 and note Isa. 66:24; Zech. 14:12; 1 Pet. 3:4. The flesh like all material things is also susceptible to burning and God is a consuming fire (Isa. 33:14; Heb. 12:29; James 5:3).

Note that those who live for the flesh will inherit corruption (Gal. 6:7f., cf. 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Rom. 8:5f.f;16:18; Phil. 3:19; Rev. 21:8; 22:15; Heb. 12:14, cf. 1 John 2:15-17. The selfish will likewise be condemned (Mt. 25:41f.; Luke 16:19ff.).

Note also that those who rely on the flesh are inevitably cursed (2 Chr. 32:8; Ps. 118:8; Isa. 30:1-3; Jer. 17:5). See also Luke 12:4f. (cf. Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24).

Earthly, that is, temporal, not merely sinful, things including the flesh and the world itself are to be put to death (Col. 3:1-5, cf. 1 John 2:15-17). Paul, like Jesus, rejected the temptations and the blandishments of both the flesh and the world (Gal. 5:24; 6:14; Phil. 3:2-11).

4. Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, we need to be changed (1 Cor. 15:50-52). It is our spirits not our flesh that is saved. Our aim and hope must be to gain a spiritual body like that of Christ (Phil. 3:21) to replace our corruptible flesh.

5. We must be holy like God (1 Pet. 1:14f., cf. like father like son). If we are not, we shall never see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).

6. We need treasure in heaven. This is achieved by our creation in Christ for good works (Eph. 2:10) which are the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25). We are meant to be a people zealous of good works (Tit. 2:14).

OT: Gen. 18:19; Dt. 10:12f.; Pss. 15; 24:3-5; 34:12ff. Isa. 33:14f.; Mic. 6:8; Zech. 7:10; 8:16f.

NT: Mt. 6:19-21; 25:34f.; Rom. 8:14-17; Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 1:3f.; 3:6; 2 Pet. 1:5-11.

7. Our hope is the hope of glory which is at present invisible (Rom. 8:20,24f.) but it will be realized when we see Jesus as he is (1 John 3:2), that is, as King.

(Isa. 33:17, 66:18; Ezek. 48:35; John 17:24; Rev. 22:1-5.)

8. We shall always be with the Lord (John 12:26; 14:3; 1 Thes. 4:17; 5:10; 2 Cor. 4:14; 11:2, cf. Rom. 5:2; Heb. 2:10; 3:6; 1 Pet. 3:18, and live eternally in God’s house (Rev. 22:3-5) in the spirit (1 Pet. 4:6) in redeemed spiritual bodies (Rom. 8:23) as his children (John 1:12f.; 1 John 3:1-3)

NOTE

Faith and Law

It is vitally important for us to recognize that it is those who have faith, not just those who are born again, that enter the presence of the Father. Traditionally, it has been believed that the new birth is the necessary first step, the sine qua non of salvation, and that all who are not born again are damned (cf. Westminster Confession, ch 10:4, Larger Catechism, qu. 60,   Athanasian Creed and the idea that outside the church there is no salvation, extra ecclesiam non salus). This, however, cannot be true since no one was born again before advent and victory of the Lord Jesus himself, yet it is evident that the OT saints were indeed saved if not in the NT sense. Indeed, that was the basic OT problem. The old covenant, as the author of Hebrews especially makes manifest, was incapable of bringing the fullness of salvation because it was itself inherently defective. There were two basic problems: first, those under it could not keep it (Jer. 31:32; John 7:19) and, second, even if they could, it could not in itself give life (Gal. 3:21; Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7). Keeping the commandments was the condition of life, but life could not be earned; it was always the gift of divine grace. Certainly, life was promised to all who kept the commandment (Gen. 2:17, Adam) or law (Lev. 18:5, Israelites). But nobody succeeded as a variety of references indicate (e.g. 1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3; 143:2; Eccl. 7:20; Prov. 20:9, etc.).

Augustinian Theology and Original Sin

Traditional Augustinian theology was seriously in error. Why? Because it taught the clearly erroneous doctrine of original sin. This false foundation formed the essence of its thought. Apart from the fact that it was in any case unbiblical, its remedy was held to be the new birth. In view of this it is less than surprising that the new birth was deemed to be capable of being conveyed by sacrament. Hence infant baptism. Thus, according to Augustine all who were not baptized were damned. But it must be repeated that original sin, or the imputation or transmission of sin, is quite contrary to the teaching of Scripture. The son cannot inherit either his father’s sin or his faith (Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18). And since this is so, he can inherit neither his punishment (Dt. 24:16) nor his reward (cf. Gen. 15:1). If he is to be saved, his only recourse is to walk in the steps of his believing forebear. This is why following or walking after such heroes as Abraham or David is seen to be so important in the OT.

The Order of Salvation

Once we see this, we can also see that regeneration does not come first in the order of salvation (as, for example, in the Westminster Confession of Faith or in the 39 Articles of the Church of England) but that faith and repentance do. They are necessarily preliminary to it. The reason for this is that righteousness (which is gained by fulfilling the commandment/law) was from the start made the condition of life. Again, the reason for this is made clear in Genesis. For, if Adam had been granted eternal life after he had broken the commandment, he would have been eternally in bondage to his sin (cf. John 8:34). This was an impossible situation, as Genesis notes (3:22)! By contrast, Abraham the great exemplar of faith, though pronounced by Paul to be ungodly (Rom. 4:5), was nonetheless justified by faith. In other words, his lack of righteousness was overcome by Christ who died to cover his sins and to provide him with his own righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9, etc.). But like John the Baptist who was the greatest born of woman (Mt. 11:11), Abraham could not experience regeneration for historical reasons. He had to wait until the Saviour had paved the way and sent the Holy Spirit to apply his own righteous work to all who put their trust in him. John himself clearly recognized this (Mt. 3:14). It is therefore paramount that we recognize that all believers will be perfected together (Heb. 11:39f.).

Faith and Regeneration

While faith is in evidence almost throughout Scripture (cf. Heb. 11), regeneration appears only in the NT. It is the gift of the new covenant which existed only as a promise in the OT (cf. Dt. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-34; 32:39; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26).

Salvation

So when we ask questions about the salvation of those who are not Christians, we are forced to take into account the fact that many, indeed, most never experience regeneration in this world. In fact, many have never heard of Christ and cannot therefore put their faith in him. However, many nonetheless have a somewhat naïve faith in God and order their lives accordingly. In light of this we can argue on the assumption that recapitulation is part of the essence of life, that just as we ourselves were once children who exercised immature faith of a kind and eventually accepted Christ as Saviour, so do many, but not all, others (cf. 2 Thes. 3:2).

The Salvation of Children

But the question we need to ask is this. If I as a youngster had died unregenerate, would I have been eternally condemned? Not necessarily. I had a faith of sorts in God, and, since I was brought up in a society which had been heavily influenced by Christianity, I accepted  Christ after a fashion even if I was not consciously committed to him. In other words, my faith immature as it was, was like that of Abraham who never heard of Christ but was nonetheless saved as Jesus himself testifies (e.g. Mt. 8:11). When Jesus talked of the necessity of being born again he was not addressing children but people like Nicodemus who had spent a life time under the law. When Paul wrote Romans and Galatians he did not have me at age seven, for example, in mind but physically mature adults who were ready to move on to the next stage of their spiritual lives. Now they needed to recognize the shortcomings of Moses and the perfection of Christ. The law may serve as a useful guardian of the immature, but only the Christian faith can meet the needs of those who wish to attain to adulthood or perfection (cf. Gal. 4:1-7, etc.). The perfection (maturation, completion) of both the individual (Phil. 3:12-14; Heb. 6:1; 7:11) and the community (Eph. 4:13) is the goal of faith (Heb. 11:39f.).

Covenant Theology

To express the issue alternatively, biblical covenant theology is somewhat different from that touted by various churches in 2010. As children whether literal or spiritual, Noah meets our needs (cf. Acts 14:17; 17:27) and Noah himself was a believer (cf. Heb. 11:7). As adolescents Moses serves as our guardian (Gal. 3:19ff.). Even if we are not Jews in these days of universal education this is largely if not entirely true. As adults, for whom the law is unnecessarily constricting, only Christ is adequate. In him we are free, provided we do not use our liberty to give rein to licentiousness (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:16).

Nullified by Tradition

NULLIFIED BY TRADITION
In Mark 7:13 Jesus charges the Jews with making void the word of God by their tradition (cf. Mt. 23). He was not the first to do so, for the same charge was made by the prophets in OT times (see e.g. Jer. 23 and Ezekiel 13). Later the apostle Paul having first been freed from the toils of Pharisaic tradition himself soon learnt that the most persistent enemies of his new-found faith in Christ were traditionalists.
In our own day it has been said that any good heresy which becomes orthodoxy is beyond challenge. I personally have discovered the truth of this.
During my student days at Nottingham University in the late fifties, evangelicalism in its war with liberalism reasserted the inspiration and authority of the Bible so ably defended earlier in the century by B.B.Warfield (reprinted London, 1959). Among other works two books that exerted a powerful influence on me personally were “‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God” by J.I. Packer (London, 1958) and “Our Lord’s View of the Old Testament” by J.Wenham (London, 1953). From them I drew the conclusion that our tradition had in various ways nullified the truth set forth in the Bible and that the task that lay before us was the correct interpretation of Scripture with a view to a new reformation not a return to the old one.
In the event many who claimed the Bible as their authority simply went back to the Reformers and to the Puritans apparently assuming that they had plumbed Scripture’s depths. Though far from denying that our spiritual forebears had much to teach us, I found this assumption impossible to accept. As a consequence I decided to devote myself to reading the Bible and theology in general for myself. The conclusion that I soon drew from my studies was that even our evangelical traditions left much to be desired. One thing that stood out like a sore thumb was the widespread and uncritical acceptance of infant baptism. Even on the most superficial view it seemed to undermine the doctrine of justification by faith and so I concluded that the theology behind it must be false. It was against this background that over the years I surveyed the faith once delivered and became convinced that misunderstanding in the course of church history had been extensive. Regrettably this misunderstanding had been cemented in church traditions and especially in confessions and creeds which tended to serve as an independent authority nullifying the word of God.
To date (2010) I have spent forty years trying to challenge Reformed orthodoxy in particular, but such is commitment to received dogma that I seem to have made little impression on its traditional devotees. Yet, having just read (Jan. 2010) “Risking the Truth” edited by Martin Downes (Fearn, 2009) I am astonished at the assumption (or should I say presumption?) that evangelical orthodoxy as portrayed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, is a true and correct presentation of what the Bible teaches.
So what are my problems? As intimated above, it was infant baptism that first made me question the stance of the mainline churches. One of the first works I read was P.Ch. Marcel’s “The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism” translated by P.E.Hughes, an Anglican of unquestioned Reformed orthodoxy. This book only exacerbated my unease since I failed to understand the covenant theology which Reformed theologians claimed was the foundation of infant baptism. It was my rejection of traditional covenant theologies and acceptance of a different view that gave rise to my questioning of various other doctrines propounded by the churches.
Covenant Theology
To reject received covenant theology in its various forms is one thing, providing another is different. For all that, on the basis of my assiduous scrutiny of Scripture I came up with another. I argued, first, that Scripture revealed no covenant with Adam though the advocates of federal theology contended that there was one. They “acquired” it from the so-called covenant or counsel of redemption which it was and still is claimed was made in eternity before the plan of salvation was put into operation. However, whatever the truth of this, it does not manifest itself as such in Scripture. What is apparent in the Bible is that the first covenant was made with Noah. It was the basis of other covenants that followed it but was not itself annulled. It was to exercise the role of preserving creation until the plan of salvation was complete at the end of the world (Gen. 8:22). The next covenant was a covenant of promise made with Abraham. It was not, however, dispensational and hence did not usher in a new era or stage in human salvation. Then followed the covenant of law given through Moses. This exercised a powerful influence over the Jews and separated them from the nations. It formed the basis of a new dispensation under the continuing covenant with Noah. It was later succeeded by another promissory covenant, that with David which extended the one already made with Abraham. These latter three were all fulfilled by Christ who inaugurated a new and permanent covenant with all who believed in him. Of course, not all did, but those that did not were still bound by nature and law, even non-Jews who did not have the full benefit of the law (cf. Rom. 2). So it remains at the time of writing (Aug. 2010). The Jews are still under the law of Moses and Gentiles are under the unwritten law of nature. Needless to say, in these days of mass communication and travel, they are affected by the impact of the covenant of Christ and to a degree are accountable with regard to it.
Individual and Community
Is this taught specifically in the Bible? The answer is yes. Romans 1:16-4:8, for example, relates to all men and women universally. All five covenants embrace the race. It is also true on the individual level. This is evident from Romans 7-8 where Paul sees himself first as the child of Eve, then of Adam and the law and finally as a believer in Christ of the Holy Spirit. And Jesus himself as a true human being was also the perfect(ed) or fully mature man (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28) who lived out the full complement of covenant life as Galatians 4:1-7 implies.
Recapitulation
If this is true, then certain things follow. First, as Irenaeus taught long ago in the early church there is a scriptural doctrine of recapitulation. We all begin at the beginning and head for the end, that is, perfection (cf. 1 Cor. 13:9-13; Phil. 3:12-14; Heb. 6:1; 11:39f.) even though we are heavily influenced and conditioned by our spiritual and physical environment. Next, since we all prove incapable of keeping the law by which salvation is attained (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.) we are compelled to accept justification by faith in Christ. There is no other way of gaining salvation. Then, even when we become believers in Christ, the journey is by no means over. As those who are deemed righteous in Christ it is necessary for us to be born again and sanctified by the Spirit on our journey towards the celestial city.
The Priesthood of Christian Believers
Other things follow. Since as Christians under the new covenant we have taken the place of the Jews as the people of God, we are constituted a holy nation and a royal priesthood (Mt. 21:43; 1 Pet. 2:9). In other words, we are all priests and no longer need a Levitical priesthood as under the old covenant. And instead of offering animal sacrifices which since the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ have become redundant, we offer a sacrifice of praise to God and seek to please him (Rom. 12:1f.; Heb. 13:15; 1 Pet. 2:5).
The Churches
Does all this suggest the abolition of the Churches as we now know them? Not necessarily. Just as we have different characteristics and personalities as individuals and nations, so there is no reason why we should not express our congregational worship in different ways. Again, while different forms of church government may arguably serve both the individual and the people in general, it is vital that all come to doctrinal maturity as portrayed in the Bible. There is simply no room for ecclesiastical primacy or ascendancy. The notion of “the one true church” or of sacerdotal infallibility must be regarded not only as obsolete but positively erroneous. The motto of all the churches must be semper reformanda or always in the process of reformation. This applies not only to doctrine but also to practice where we are all prone to come short.
Note
Re damnation by tradition? Knowledge, law, understanding vitally important. We cannot be judged for what we do not know (Rom. 4:15, etc.). It is infraction of known law that causes sin to come into existence. See the final page of my Fruitlessness and Destruction. Ignorance always a mitigating factor: total ignorance as in babyhood means sinlessness (Dt. 1:39) and certainly not original sin.

In Mark 7:13 Jesus charges the Jews with making void the word of God by their tradition (cf. Mt. 23). He was not the first to do so, for the same charge was made by the prophets in OT times (see e.g. Jer. 23 and Ezekiel 13). Later the apostle Paul having first been freed from the toils of Pharisaic tradition himself soon learnt that the most persistent enemies of his new-found faith in Christ were traditionalists.

In our own day it has been said that any good heresy which becomes orthodoxy is beyond challenge. I personally have discovered the truth of this.

During my student days at Nottingham University in the late fifties, evangelicalism in its war with liberalism reasserted the inspiration and authority of the Bible so ably defended earlier in the century by B.B.Warfield (reprinted London, 1959). Among other works two books that exerted a powerful influence on me personally were “‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God” by J.I. Packer (London, 1958) and “Our Lord’s View of the Old Testament” by J.Wenham (London, 1953). From them I drew the conclusion that our tradition had in various ways nullified the truth set forth in the Bible and that the task that lay before us was the correct interpretation of Scripture with a view to a new reformation not a return to the old one.

In the event many who claimed the Bible as their authority simply went back to the Reformers and to the Puritans apparently assuming that they had plumbed Scripture’s depths. Though far from denying that our spiritual forebears had much to teach us, I found this assumption impossible to accept. As a consequence I decided to devote myself to reading the Bible and theology in general for myself. The conclusion that I soon drew from my studies was that even our evangelical traditions left much to be desired. One thing that stood out like a sore thumb was the widespread and uncritical acceptance of infant baptism. Even on the most superficial view it seemed to undermine the doctrine of justification by faith and so I concluded that the theology behind it must be false. It was against this background that over the years I surveyed the faith once delivered and became convinced that misunderstanding in the course of church history had been extensive. Regrettably this misunderstanding had been cemented in church traditions and especially in confessions and creeds which tended to serve as an independent authority nullifying the word of God.

To date (2010) I have spent forty years trying to challenge Reformed orthodoxy in particular, but such is commitment to received dogma that I seem to have made little impression on its traditional devotees. Yet, having just read (Jan. 2010) “Risking the Truth” edited by Martin Downes (Fearn, 2009) I am astonished at the assumption (or should I say presumption?) that evangelical orthodoxy as portrayed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, is a true and correct presentation of what the Bible teaches.

So what are my problems? As intimated above, it was infant baptism that first made me question the stance of the mainline churches. One of the first works I read was P.Ch. Marcel’s “The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism” translated by P.E.Hughes, an Anglican of unquestioned Reformed orthodoxy. This book only exacerbated my unease since I failed to understand the covenant theology which Reformed theologians claimed was the foundation of infant baptism. It was my rejection of traditional covenant theologies and acceptance of a different view that gave rise to my questioning of various other doctrines propounded by the churches.

Covenant Theology

To reject received covenant theology in its various forms is one thing, providing another is different. For all that, on the basis of my assiduous scrutiny of Scripture I came up with another. I argued, first, that Scripture revealed no covenant with Adam though the advocates of federal theology contended that there was one. They “acquired” it from the so-called covenant or counsel of redemption which it was and still is claimed was made in eternity before the plan of salvation was put into operation. However, whatever the truth of this, it does not manifest itself as such in Scripture. What is apparent in the Bible is that the first covenant was made with Noah. It was the basis of other covenants that followed it but was not itself annulled. It was to exercise the role of preserving creation until the plan of salvation was complete at the end of the world (Gen. 8:22). The next covenant was a covenant of promise made with Abraham. It was not, however, dispensational and hence did not usher in a new era or stage in human salvation. Then followed the covenant of law given through Moses. This exercised a powerful influence over the Jews and separated them from the nations. It formed the basis of a new dispensation under the continuing covenant with Noah. It was later succeeded by another promissory covenant, that with David which extended the one already made with Abraham. These latter three were all fulfilled by Christ who inaugurated a new and permanent covenant with all who believed in him. Of course, not all did, but those that did not were still bound by nature and law, even non-Jews who did not have the full benefit of the law (cf. Rom. 2). So it remains at the time of writing (Aug. 2010). The Jews are still under the law of Moses and Gentiles are under the unwritten law of nature. Needless to say, in these days of mass communication and travel, they are affected by the impact of the covenant of Christ and to a degree are accountable with regard to it.

Individual and Community

Is this taught specifically in the Bible? The answer is yes. Romans 1:16-4:8, for example, relates to all men and women universally. All five covenants embrace the race. It is also true on the individual level. This is evident from Romans 7-8 where Paul sees himself first as the child of Eve, then of Adam and the law and finally as a believer in Christ of the Holy Spirit. And Jesus himself as a true human being was also the perfect(ed) or fully mature man (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28) who lived out the full complement of covenant life as Galatians 4:1-7 implies.

Recapitulation

If this is true, then certain things follow. First, as Irenaeus taught long ago in the early church there is a scriptural doctrine of recapitulation. We all begin at the beginning and head for the end, that is, perfection (cf. 1 Cor. 13:9-13; Phil. 3:12-14; Heb. 6:1; 11:39f.) even though we are heavily influenced and conditioned by our spiritual and physical environment. Next, since we all prove incapable of keeping the law by which salvation is attained (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.) we are compelled to accept justification by faith in Christ. There is no other way of gaining salvation. Then, even when we become believers in Christ, the journey is by no means over. As those who are deemed righteous in Christ it is necessary for us to be born again and sanctified by the Spirit on our journey towards the celestial city.

The Priesthood of Christian Believers

Other things follow. Since as Christians under the new covenant we have taken the place of the Jews as the people of God, we are constituted a holy nation and a royal priesthood (Mt. 21:43; 1 Pet. 2:9). In other words, we are all priests and no longer need a Levitical priesthood as under the old covenant. And instead of offering animal sacrifices which since the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ have become redundant, we offer a sacrifice of praise to God and seek to please him (Rom. 12:1f.; Heb. 13:15; 1 Pet. 2:5).

The Churches

Does all this suggest the abolition of the Churches as we now know them? Not necessarily. Just as we have different characteristics and personalities as individuals and nations, so there is no reason why we should not express our congregational worship in different ways. Again, while different forms of church government may arguably serve both the individual and the people in general, it is vital that all come to doctrinal maturity as portrayed in the Bible. There is simply no room for ecclesiastical primacy or ascendancy. The notion of “the one true church” or of sacerdotal infallibility must be regarded not only as obsolete but positively erroneous. The motto of all the churches must be semper reformanda or always in the process of reformation. This applies not only to doctrine but also to practice where we are all prone to come short.

Note

Re damnation by tradition? Knowledge, law, understanding vitally important. We cannot be judged for what we do not know (Rom. 4:15, etc.). It is infraction of known law that causes sin to come into existence. See the final page of my Fruitlessness and Destruction. Ignorance always a mitigating factor: total ignorance as in babyhood means sinlessness (Dt. 1:39) and certainly not original sin.

Baptism Revisited

BAPTISM REVISITED
In 1972 I completed a book, which I eventually entitled “A Challenge to the Church”,  claiming to solve basic problems associated with Christian baptism. At the time, in reaction to the liberalism that dominated the church till the sixties, there was a mad scramble on the part of evangelicals to return to tradition, to the Reformers and the Puritans in particular. Though there were those who apparently assumed that it was misguided to think that our somewhat distant spiritual forebears could adequately address the modern situation and pave the way to revival, others felt much more comfortable with tradition and in effect denied that a new theology was needed. For them reformation entailed returning to the old Reformation despite the fact that it was fast approaching its 500th birthday. In this climate my book, which offered something new, failed to find a publisher, though its importance was grudgingly acknowledged from time to time.
However, the publication in 2007 of “Understanding Four Views on BAPTISM”, edited by John H. Armstrong, Grand Rapids, demands a response. According to the blurb on the back cover, the book considers in depth four historic views: baptism by immersion of those professing regeneration (Baptist); believer’s baptism by immersion on the occasion of regeneration (Churches of Christ); infant baptism by sprinkling as a regenerative act (Lutheran), and the baptism of children of the covenant (Reformed). As the editor implies in the conclusion of the book none of the views presents a compelling case for all Christians. Clearly the subject requires pertinent if brief revisiting.
Infant Baptism
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that no matter how it is defended infant baptism smacks of sacramentalism which implies that rites conducted by men function mechanically (ex opere operato) and have automatic efficacy (Gen. 17:10f., cf. Eph. 2:11; Col. 2:11). The very idea that physically born infants should require spiritual rebirth before they have even experienced self-consciousness is difficult to swallow. This apart, the Reformed case put by Richard L. Pratt founders because it is based on a false covenant theology. According to Scripture, infants, who like Adam know neither good nor evil (Dt. 1:39, etc.), are no more in covenant than Adam was, least of all in the Christian covenant. (See my Covenant Theology, Covenant Theology in Brief at www.kenstothard.com /) The essay by Lutheran Robert Kolb for all its merits is clearly out of accord with justification by faith for which Luther himself is still famous. In view of this and to cut a long story short, even after close analysis I am led to conclude along with Menno Simons that “We have not a single command in the Scriptures that infants are baptized, or that the apostles practiced it. Therefore we confess with good sense that infant baptism is nothing but a human invention and notion.” (p.198). If this is true, we have no option but to conclude that the theology behind infant baptism is deeply suspect.
Believer’s Baptism
That the theology behind baptism needs to be addressed more radically is made plain principally by the failure even of the advocates of believer’s baptism to be convincing. The essay with which the book kicks off is that of Baptist, Tom Nettles.
Circumcision
First, I would draw attention to Nettles’ stress on circumcision as a rite that typifies regeneration. This seems to be characteristic of those who call themselves Reformed Baptists (cf. Kingdon, who devotes a whole chapter to the subject, pp.23-37). What Nettles fails to recognize, or at least to acknowledge, is that the emphasis of the Bible falls not on texts like Deuteronomy 30:6, for example, but, first, on circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith on the one hand (cf. Rom. 4) and, secondly, on circumcision as a symbol of the law on the other (Gal. 5:1-6). (It is noticeable that even when Paul acknowledges the spiritual connotation of circumcision as in Philippians 3:3 he immediately reverts to its normal association with the law and the flesh.) It is evident that Paul derives his understanding of circumcision from Genesis 17. There, following the circumcision of Abraham it is made clear that Ishmael and the men of Abraham’s house, though circumcised, are not in the covenant. And while it is stressed that the covenant will be established with Isaac, even he is circumcised on the eighth day, that is, apart from faith (Gen. 21:4, cf. 17:12; Lev. 12:3). In other words, as we shall see below, Nettles seems to be driven primarily by Reformed theology but demurs when it comes to baptism. Is he fully aware that, as P.Ch. Marcel indicated half a century ago, the term Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Reformed covenant theology leads remorselessly to infant baptism. Like so many Baptists, Nettles makes far too many concessions to his opponents and by so doing undermines his own case. Though he deals with John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins which precedes the baptism of the Spirit by Jesus (pp.27,29) and insists that our baptism is a reenactment of our participation with Christ in his historical death on the cross (p.32), the evidence to which he alludes in general is largely circumstantial and has as a matter of historical fact proved less than compelling to his opponents. Indeed, they agree with much of it insofar as it relates to the NT itself. At the end of the day, Nettles fails dismally to get to grips with both the theology and the perspective of the NT.
Needless to say, however, Nettles is largely in agreement with John Castelein of the Churches of Christ whose essay is in my view the most impressive of the four. But even Castelein’s case has to be ultimately designated superficial. Though, for example, he questions original sin (p.136), which historically has been a prime motivating force in the adoption of infant baptism, and insists that fleshly circumcision is in strong contrast with circumcision of the heart (p.86), his case is weakened more by what it does not say than by what it does say. A glaring inadequacy, as with the Baptists, is his failure to deal with covenant theology.
The Baptism of Jesus
What is common to all the writers, however, is that they all omit to deal properly with the baptism of Jesus (on which see further my essays Regarding The Baptism of Jesus). In view of the fact that it occupies such a prominent place in the gospels, it is astonishing that writers on baptism fail to recognize its intrinsic importance for understanding the whole subject of Christian baptism. Their failure suggests that false presuppositions lurk in the background. This is in fact amply demonstrated by comments made by Nettles. On page 28 he tells us that baptism did not confer any status on Jesus that he did not have before, and goes on to assert that unlike us Jesus did not receive baptism as testimony to personal salvation but as his personal commitment to effect it for others. This begs a number of fundamental questions, not least, why Jesus was baptized at all.
Docetism
First, according to the NT, a basic heresy is the denial that Jesus has come in the flesh (1 John 2:22; 4:1-3; 2 John 7). Despite this, it is apparent that all the churches in the West are docetic in their outlook and even more so in their tradition. Their natural tendency to put Jesus on a pedestal as Saviour unfortunately leads them to separate him from the rest of humanity. In fact, we owe it to liberalism for doing much to give us a more human Christ today. The NT makes it manifest that Jesus was as human as we are (Heb. 2:17). As the second Adam he was obviously, through his mother, a son of the first (Luke 3:38) and was tempted just as he was (cf. Gen. 3:1-6; Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 4:15). Why then should Jesus who as a Jew was circumcised and made a son of the commandment like all other Jews differ from them in his baptism? History has failed to find an answer. This being so, it is difficult, as has already been intimated, not to suspect aberrant theology or more specifically spurious Christology.
To say that Jesus’ baptism did not convey any status on him that he did not have before is quite amazing. Was not the life of Jesus characterized by the markers common to the Jews? (See my essay Following Jesus.) Had Jesus not been circumcised on the eighth day? Had he not like his forebears before him been a slave in Egypt (Mt. 2:15)? Had he not undergone his bar mitzvah and been made personally responsible for keeping the law (cf. Luke 2:41ff.)? Surely if it did nothing else, his baptism marked the end of his stint as a servant under the law which he had fulfilled (Mt. 5:18). From then on he lived the life of a son, a regenerate Son (cf. John 3:6). If he who was flesh was not now spiritually regenerate, he was in no position to do good works (Eph. 2:10, cf. Luke 17:7-10) least of all to lay down his life for his fellows. All this is summarized by Paul in Galatians 4:1-7. If this was not his experience as a human being, he would not have been qualified to save his people. In the event, he had kept the commandments in such a way as to please his heavenly Father who publicly acknowledged him as his Son and sealed him with his Spirit (Mark 1:9-11; John 1:33; 6:27, cf. 3:35; Eph. 1:13; 4:30). As the regenerate Son he was at last able to do the good works (cf. Acts 10:38) like the miracles notably absent while he was under the law. Once we see this it is easy to understand the role played by Paul’s doctrine of adoption and Jesus’ own doctrine of regeneration, or birth from above, in Christian theology. If Paul could write that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counted for anything (Gal. 6:15) but only a new creation, then logic tells us that since the old (life under the law) had passed away, Jesus himself was a new creation  (2 Cor. 5:17). (See further my article Was Jesus Born Again?). His status was that of a new creature fitted for heavenly glory. Why is the evident truth of this hidden from the churches and from modern Christians in general?
Regeneration
The answer is clear once we realize that traditional dogma has been based on the Augustinian notion that regeneration is the remedy of sin or, more specifically, original sin (Needham, p.251). Yet even a cursory examination of John 3 makes plain two points inescapable to those whose eyes are not blinded by tradition: first, there is no more mention of sin in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus than there is in Paul’s discourse on the two Adams in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54; second, there is specific, in fact emphatic, mention of the flesh. So what was Jesus getting at?
At the beginning of the Bible we read how Adam, who was naturally mortal (pace Augustine) since he emanated from the temporal (Heb. 1:10-12) and corruptible earth (Rom. 8:18-25), was promised glory (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5f.; Heb. 2:6-9) and eternal life if he kept the commandment (Gen. 2:17). He failed on both counts, so he died as he had been forewarned. Jesus, the second Adam, however, succeeded (cf. Heb. 2: 6-9). For he too, as one who was born of woman and was hence flesh, was challenged with keeping the commandment, the entire law of Moses in fact on pain of death (cf. Heb. 5:7). Indeed, this was the very reason why he became flesh (Heb. 10:9a). The unavoidable inference from the fact that he kept the law to perfection is that in contrast with Adam who reaped death, he inherited life (cf. Lev. 18:5). To complain that as God he was already immortal is entirely to miss the point that at his incarnation he was made man. As such he was, like Adam, mortal. The truth of this is indisputable since he gave his fleshly life for us on the cross (John 10:17f.; 1 Pet. 3:18). So the life that Jesus had in eternity was put “at risk” in his incarnation. Since they are indissolubly linked, the truth that he committed no sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22) is every bit as important as the truth that he died and rose again. (See further my Restoration and Resurrection, for example.) When we read in Hebrews 5:7 that in the days of his flesh Jesus agonized in prayer to his Father to save him from death, we too easily assume that he was concerned about his resurrection. Rather he was vulnerable to death throughout his earthly life, and since his flesh like ours was unprofitable (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18) and weak (Mt. 26:41; 2 Cor. 13:4), he depended totally on his heavenly Father (John 6:38; Heb. 10:5-7). If he had sinned, he would, apart from proving that he was not God in the flesh, have reaped his reward in death just as the first Adam did before him.
To sum up this section, it is vital to recognize that Jesus despite his weakness and susceptibility to temptation overcame sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). And since righteousness, which is attained by keeping the law (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7, etc.), was its indispensable prerequisite or precondition, he inherited eternal life at his baptism (Lev. 18:5). He was in other words the first man in history to be born again (cf. Rom. 8:29) and enabled to bring life and incorruption (Gk) to light in this temporal world (2 Tim. 1:10).
John the Baptist’s Baptism of Repentance
Despite all this, the whole subject of baptism is complicated by the baptism administered by John the Baptist. It presents us with two major problems. First, we are specifically told that this baptism involved repentance in preparation for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4). For all that, John baptized Jesus. How do we account for this? We need to note that it was John who first declared Jesus to be greater than he himself was (John 1:15), indeed to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). In view of this it is less than surprising that he appeared reluctant to baptize Jesus. Implicit in this reluctance was John’s recognition that Jesus had no sins to repent of (Mt. 3:14). So why did Jesus override John’s reservations? The answer he gives is that it was fitting for him to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15, cf. Acts 10:38). What did Jesus mean? Clearly, in view of later NT teaching (e.g. Mt. 5-7), while Jesus had already kept the letter of the law, he had still to keep its radicalized form in the power of the Spirit  (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6), and this included attaining to the perfection of God (Mt. 5:48, cf. 19:21) by spilling his blood on behalf of his followers or giving his life for his friends (John 10: 11-18; 15:13).
So we are forced to conclude that when he baptized Jesus, for the first and only time in his life John was the human agent in a baptism of the Spirit. Otherwise expressed, the first Christian baptism was carried out by John the Baptist (cf. John 1:29-34). And it was his baptism of Jesus that, as we ought to expect, established the pattern or paradigm of subsequent Christian baptism. (Note it was after his baptism and anointing by the Spirit that Jesus went about doing good, Acts 10:28. And so it is was with the apostles in their turn, Acts 2:1-4; 3:1-10; 5:12-16, and intended to be with Christians in general if not on the same scale, Eph. 2:10; Tit. 2:14.)
Second, if righteousness is the precondition of regeneration (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.), John’s baptism of repentance is a paradox. A moment’s reflection will make it clear to us that sin, which is implied in repentance, bars the way to the new birth, as it did in Adam’s case. How then can believers who acknowledge their sin undergo John’s baptism yet still gain life? Or again, how can repentance lead to life (Acts 11:18; 2 Cor. 7:10)? The answer is, first, that we need forgiveness for our sins for which repentance is a preparation, and, second, we also need righteousness in order to gain life. But since we are sinners and under (the) law we have neither forgiveness (Heb. 2:2; 10:28) nor righteousness (Gal. 2:16), from where do we derive them? The NT is unequivocal on this point: we derive them from Christ (Rom. 3:21-26; 9:30; 10:6; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Phil. 3:9, etc.). Not for nothing did he say that he was the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). The forgiveness of sins must necessarily precede our justification or acquittal on the one hand, and our justification or righteousness by faith in Jesus must precede the granting of life on the other (cf. John 3:16). Once we have been justified, we have in principle gained life and glory (cf. Rom. 8:30). This is because Jesus as man has met the condition of life, atoned for our sin, pioneered our way into the presence of the Father, and endowed us with his Spirit. Thus, led by the Spirit, we follow in his steps (Rom. 6:4-8; John 14:2f.19; Heb. 12:2, etc.).
The Order of Salvation
In his sharp critique of Castelein (pp. 145-148), Nettles, as a Reformed Baptist, pulls no punches when he accuses him of embracing a false order of salvation. He strongly castigates him for holding “that regeneration is the result of faith” rather than that faith is the consequence or fruit of regeneration. But if what I have written above is true, then it is Nettles himself who has blundered badly. At this point in particular we see just how indebted he is to Reformed belief in the Augustinian dogma of original sin and its consequent order of salvation (ordo salutis). The fact is that, like President Kennedy in a TV film I have just seen, Nettles is in bed with the opposition. And since this is so, it is little wonder that his claimed support for believer’s baptism lacks compulsion. The sad truth is that his theology militates against and undermines his own case which is clearly riddled with contradiction. It is his belief in original sin that requires him to place regeneration as its cure prior to faith. But original sin is as much man-made myth as the covenant theology advocated by the Reformed and it is absolutely impossible to justify on biblical grounds. Indeed, it militates against the essence of Paul’s teaching in Romans. (See my Does Romans Teach Original Sin? etc.) So when Nettles tells us that all faith flows from regeneration, he is also telling us that all the sinful believers mentioned in Hebrews 11 were born again before the advent of Jesus. Yet it is clear to the author of Hebrews himself who informs us that all the heroes of faith to whom he has alluded did not receive what was promised (cf. Gal. 3:18; Rom. 8:16f.) but that they would nonetheless be made perfect (Heb. 11:39f.). In reality no one prior to Jesus who alone kept the law was born again. How otherwise could he be pre-eminent and the second Adam (cf. Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11)? Why otherwise was regeneration never more than a promise in the OT (Dt. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:26f., etc.)? That Abraham, like all his believing posterity in the OT, was a man of faith who was not born again ought to be apparent to all. For, while Paul could say with respect to him that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), he certainly could not say that God regenerates the ungodly. If he had done so, he would have implicitly locked sinners eternally in their sin and rendered righteousness and holiness redundant.
Nettles, like the Reformed in general, has confused the end or goal of regeneration (= eternal life) with the beginning in mortal flesh. His unwarrantable Augustinian assumption is that Adam lost what in fact he never had, that is, original righteousness. Since, initially, he had no knowledge of law, Adam could be neither good nor evil. However, when he transgressed the commandment he was given, he was constituted a sinner and cast out of the Garden, permanently prevented from re-entering it in order to gain access to the tree of life (Gen. 3:22-24). He had come short of the (promised) glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and lost the innocence and embryonic fellowship with God characteristic of babies who are created and made in the divine image (Gen. 1:26; 30:2; Job 31:15, etc.). Only by faith, justification and rebirth could he possibly regain his initial or infantile fellowship with God. The same is true of all his posterity. All as the creatures of God are created “good” (Gen. 1; 1 Tim. 4:4) and in fellowship with God (Job 31:15; Rom. 7:9; 9:11, etc.), yet all like Adam sin (Rom. 3:23; 5:12; Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 2:13, etc.), partly because they are made in his (fleshly) image (cf. Gen. 5:1-3; Rom. 7:14) and partly because they follow the pattern he established and under his (parental) influence (cf. Rom. 5:12). Imitation or repetition is endemic in Scripture as it is in history and experience: like father like son (2 K. 17:41; Zech. 1:4f.), like mother like daughter (Ezek. 16:44), like people like priest (Isa. 24:2; Hos. 4:9. Pace Article 9 of the Church of England.). Thankfully, there is a doctrine of separation in Scripture, and Jesus subscribed to it! On the other hand, if Adam’s sin had been either transmitted or imputed, as tradition would have us believe, Jesus’ moral solidarity with his brethren in sin would have been unavoidable.
Of course, Nettles is correct to say (p.147) that our faith is not the cause of our new birth. But since it is the instrument of our justification and sanctification, it is its indispensable prerequisite. So, since babies cannot exercise faith, their baptism is meaningless and useless. Nettles is also justified in denying that baptism is necessarily the occasion of regeneration, for “grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it” (Westminster Confession, 28:5). This view strays dangerously in the direction of sacramentalism (cf. Art. 27 of the C of E).
In his conclusion the editor of the book, John Armstrong, claims that the most important question remains clear: “What is the meaning and significance of baptism?” (p.162). For Christians who are the spiritual seed of Abraham, it can be nothing less than the seal of our faith and righteousness like his circumcision. But since Christ has come, kept the law which promised life, died for our sins and sent the Spirit, it is also the sign of our regeneration (cf. Gal. 3 espec. vv.14,29). It thus sets believers apart from others and from all non-Christian faiths and practices (p.164). In light of this, the crucial importance of baptism, which epitomizes the essence of NT soteriology, must not be minimized (cf. p.165). Indeed, it might be said that the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are NT theology in summary. To be wrong with respect to either of them threatens disaster everywhere. As it happens, there is little wonder that the churches, which have been historically divided over the sacraments, have abysmally compromised their witness. The way forward is clear. Doctrinal reformation is an absolute priority. Above all, if Baptists wish to testify convincingly to the need of faith in baptism, they must terminate their adulterous relationship with Reformed theology. I myself consciously did this when, against a Methodist and Presbyterian background and substantial Anglican teaching, I was baptized at age 40 in the Deeping St James Strict (Calvinistic) Baptist Church, England.
See further my essays at www.kenstothard.com / on Covenant Theology; Regarding the Baptism of Jesus; The Journey of Jesus; Following Jesus; Concerning Infant Salvation; Was Jesus Born Again?; Promise and Performance; The Order of Salvation; Redemption Applied; Cart-Before-the-Horse Theology; Does Romans Teach Original Sin?; J.I.Packer on Original Sin; The Plan of Salvation, etc.
References
D.Kingdon, Children of Abraham, Worthing, 1973.
P.Ch. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, London, 1953.
N.R.Needham, The Triumph of Grace, London, 2000.
Additional Note on “BAPTISM Three Views” ed. David F.Wright, Downers Grove, 2009.
This work is characterized largely by the same weaknesses as the above: its Augustinian assumptions, failure to deal adequately with circumcision and covenant theology, the baptism of Jesus, and so forth.
It has to be said that S.Ferguson’s learned but convoluted and unconvincing essay purporting to support infant baptism is based in the last analysis on bad theology and silence. It appeals significantly to the circumcision of Abraham (see pp.87,93, etc.), even though it is manifestly an exception, as Paul makes plain in Romans 4. Both Jesus in John 7:22f., and Paul in Galatians 5:3 and 6:15, for example, relate normal, that is, infant circumcision to law (cf. Lev. 12:3). (See further my Circumcision and Baptism.) In light of Genesis 17, which refers to the circumcision of Ishmael who is explicitly excluded from the covenant (17:21) and leads to that of Isaac on the eighth day (21:4), this is hardly surprising. Rightly appreciated circumcision sounds the death knell of infant baptism as signifying anything but law (cf. Acts 15). (Not surprisingly, infant baptism had political importance during the Middle Ages, the era of the Constantinian synthesis and Christendom par excellence, similar to that of infant circumcision in the Jewish theocracy.) On the other hand, if there is an analogy between the circumcision of Abraham the believer and Christian baptism, that baptism must obviously be believer’s baptism (cf. Phil. 3:3). Otherwise expressed, since unlike Isaac we Gentiles are not Abraham’s natural and legal but his spiritual offspring, it follows that our baptism must be believer’s baptism like his believer’s circumcision. If it is countered at this point that Isaac as the child of promise was also Abraham’s spiritual offspring we have to recognize with Paul that there are two Israels, one natural, the other spiritual (Rom. 4:11f.; 9:6f.; Gal. 3:14,28f. etc.) and the natural (fleshly) as sinners are under an obligation to repent and believe in order to gain eternal life. And while Jews may remain culturally Jews, when they become Christians they still need to be baptized as believers. As Christians their infant ‘hand-made’ circumcision is largely redundant (Gal. 5:6; 6:15) since they have become citizens of heaven (Phil. 3:20, cf. Heb. 11:10,16; 13:14) by means of a spiritual circumcision that is ‘not hand-made’ (Col. 2:11-13).
Ferguson also believes in original sin which does not exist, at least in the Augustinian sense of the term, and in what he calls the covenant of grace. Regarding the latter, he apparently takes the same view as Murray (cf. his The Covenant of Grace, London, 1954). The problem here is that Murray’s view is clearly unbiblical, not least because it fuses nature, law and grace into an undifferentiated monolith and fails to maintain necessary distinctions. It even turns law into grace and thus becomes Pelagian (cf. Gal. 3:12). The so-called organic unity of the covenant (or one covenant in two dispensations) is a major error. The truth is that the different covenants as portrayed in the Bible always remain themselves but since they all appear successively without involving the cancellation of those preceding them (cf. Gal. 3:17) or are epitomized in the individual (as well as the race) who reaches maturity, they are linked by faith which is common to all (cf. Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and of course Christ) as the author of Hebrews 11 was obviously well aware.
In the Bible baptism which does not involve the obliteration of the covenants with Noah and Moses (cf. Gal. 3:17) (1* It is true, of course, that the law is superseded if a Jew becomes a Christian believer, for Christ is the end of the law, Rom. 10:4; 2 Cor. 3:11, etc., but note Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1), despite their evident temporality is clearly an ‘adult’ affair dependent on an appreciation of the doctrine that it signifies. Its assumptions are: first, nature or birth according to the flesh (Noah); second, law (Moses, especially if one is a Jew); and, third, life or rebirth received by faith in Christ (cf. John 3:6). In other words, one who is born of the flesh cannot be born a (spiritual) Christian (cf. John 1:12f.; 3:6). One becomes a Christian or is born again either by keeping the law as Jesus did or by faith in him (Gal. 3:2,5). Strictly speaking, the only true baptism was that of Jesus himself, hence its paradigmatic nature. It occurred as a result of his keeping the law and was crowned by his reception of the Spirit in accordance with the original promise made to Adam (Gen. 2:17; cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.). (The reader should note that infant baptism by implication dispenses with human development, fails to recognize diminished responsibility and abandons the entire historical process evident in the race, cf. Rom. 1-3, and epitomized in the individual, Rom. 7,8; Gal. 4:1-7. In effect, it telescopes or reduces all to a flat uniformity. No wonder ideas of perfection (maturation) and evolution constitute such a problem for Christians who are more under the influence of Augustine than of the Bible! After all, even Adam according to many was created full grown in one day!)
So I maintain that a correct understanding of flesh as naturally transient, sin as involving personal transgression even though under the influence of Adam (Rom. 5:12-21, cf. Ps. 106:6; Isa. 65:7, etc.), of circumcision as signifying law and of the new covenant as reflecting grace and spiritual rebirth leaves us no room for anything other than believer’s baptism, that is, the reception of the Spirit consequent on repentance and faith in Christ. The imposition of baptism on babies mirrors legal circumcision ‘by hand’ (cf. Lev. 12:3) and highlights basic theological misunderstanding. Not without reason did the Catholic church of the Middle Ages reflect Judaism in more ways than one. And those who are still in bed with her even in the Protestant camp manifest many of the same characteristics.
Concluding Thought
As circumcision signifying law (Lev. 12:3; John 7:22; Rom. 2:25; Gal. 5:3) sealed the righteousness of Abraham by faith (Gen. 17:10f.; Rom 4:11), so baptism signifying new birth sealed the regeneration of Jesus who kept the law (Lev. 18:5; Mt. 3:13-17; John 1:32; 6:27).

In 1972 I completed a book, which I eventually entitled “A Challenge to the Church”,  claiming to solve basic problems associated with Christian baptism. At the time, in reaction to the liberalism that dominated the church till the sixties, there was a mad scramble on the part of evangelicals to return to tradition, to the Reformers and the Puritans in particular. Though there were those who apparently assumed that it was misguided to think that our somewhat distant spiritual forebears could adequately address the modern situation and pave the way to revival, others felt much more comfortable with tradition and in effect denied that a new theology was needed. For them reformation entailed returning to the old Reformation despite the fact that it was fast approaching its 500th birthday. In this climate my book, which offered something new, failed to find a publisher, though its importance was grudgingly acknowledged from time to time.

However, the publication in 2007 of “Understanding Four Views on BAPTISM”, edited by John H. Armstrong, Grand Rapids, demands a response. According to the blurb on the back cover, the book considers in depth four historic views: baptism by immersion of those professing regeneration (Baptist); believer’s baptism by immersion on the occasion of regeneration (Churches of Christ); infant baptism by sprinkling as a regenerative act (Lutheran), and the baptism of children of the covenant (Reformed). As the editor implies in the conclusion of the book none of the views presents a compelling case for all Christians. Clearly the subject requires pertinent if brief revisiting.

Infant Baptism

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that no matter how it is defended infant baptism smacks of sacramentalism which implies that rites conducted by men function mechanically (ex opere operato) and have automatic efficacy (Gen. 17:10f., cf. Eph. 2:11; Col. 2:11). The very idea that physically born infants should require spiritual rebirth before they have even experienced self-consciousness is difficult to swallow. This apart, the Reformed case put by Richard L. Pratt founders because it is based on a false covenant theology. According to Scripture, infants, who like Adam know neither good nor evil (Dt. 1:39, etc.), are no more in covenant than Adam was, least of all in the Christian covenant. (See my Covenant TheologyCovenant Theology in Brief) The essay by Lutheran Robert Kolb for all its merits is clearly out of accord with justification by faith for which Luther himself is still famous. In view of this and to cut a long story short, even after close analysis I am led to conclude along with Menno Simons that “We have not a single command in the Scriptures that infants are baptized, or that the apostles practiced it. Therefore we confess with good sense that infant baptism is nothing but a human invention and notion.” (p.198). If this is true, we have no option but to conclude that the theology behind infant baptism is deeply suspect.

Believer’s Baptism

That the theology behind baptism needs to be addressed more radically is made plain principally by the failure even of the advocates of believer’s baptism to be convincing. The essay with which the book kicks off is that of Baptist, Tom Nettles.

Circumcision

First, I would draw attention to Nettles’ stress on circumcision as a rite that typifies regeneration. This seems to be characteristic of those who call themselves Reformed Baptists (cf. Kingdon, who devotes a whole chapter to the subject, pp.23-37). What Nettles fails to recognize, or at least to acknowledge, is that the emphasis of the Bible falls not on texts like Deuteronomy 30:6, for example, but, first, on circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith on the one hand (cf. Rom. 4) and, secondly, on circumcision as a symbol of the law on the other (Gal. 5:1-6). (It is noticeable that even when Paul acknowledges the spiritual connotation of circumcision as in Philippians 3:3 he immediately reverts to its normal association with the law and the flesh.) It is evident that Paul derives his understanding of circumcision from Genesis 17. There, following the circumcision of Abraham it is made clear that Ishmael and the men of Abraham’s house, though circumcised, are not in the covenant. And while it is stressed that the covenant will be established with Isaac, even he is circumcised on the eighth day, that is, apart from faith (Gen. 21:4, cf. 17:12; Lev. 12:3). In other words, as we shall see below, Nettles seems to be driven primarily by Reformed theology but demurs when it comes to baptism. Is he fully aware that, as P.Ch. Marcel indicated half a century ago, the term Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Reformed covenant theology leads remorselessly to infant baptism. Like so many Baptists, Nettles makes far too many concessions to his opponents and by so doing undermines his own case. Though he deals with John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins which precedes the baptism of the Spirit by Jesus (pp.27,29) and insists that our baptism is a reenactment of our participation with Christ in his historical death on the cross (p.32), the evidence to which he alludes in general is largely circumstantial and has as a matter of historical fact proved less than compelling to his opponents. Indeed, they agree with much of it insofar as it relates to the NT itself. At the end of the day, Nettles fails dismally to get to grips with both the theology and the perspective of the NT.

Needless to say, however, Nettles is largely in agreement with John Castelein of the Churches of Christ whose essay is in my view the most impressive of the four. But even Castelein’s case has to be ultimately designated superficial. Though, for example, he questions original sin (p.136), which historically has been a prime motivating force in the adoption of infant baptism, and insists that fleshly circumcision is in strong contrast with circumcision of the heart (p.86), his case is weakened more by what it does not say than by what it does say. A glaring inadequacy, as with the Baptists, is his failure to deal with covenant theology.

The Baptism of Jesus

What is common to all the writers, however, is that they all omit to deal properly with the baptism of Jesus (on which see further my essay Regarding the Baptism of Jesus). In view of the fact that it occupies such a prominent place in the gospels, it is astonishing that writers on baptism fail to recognize its intrinsic importance for understanding the whole subject of Christian baptism. Their failure suggests that false presuppositions lurk in the background. This is in fact amply demonstrated by comments made by Nettles. On page 28 he tells us that baptism did not confer any status on Jesus that he did not have before, and goes on to assert that unlike us Jesus did not receive baptism as testimony to personal salvation but as his personal commitment to effect it for others. This begs a number of fundamental questions, not least, why Jesus was baptized at all.

Docetism

First, according to the NT, a basic heresy is the denial that Jesus has come in the flesh (1 John 2:22; 4:1-3; 2 John 7). Despite this, it is apparent that all the churches in the West are docetic in their outlook and even more so in their tradition. Their natural tendency to put Jesus on a pedestal as Saviour unfortunately leads them to separate him from the rest of humanity. In fact, we owe it to liberalism for doing much to give us a more human Christ today. The NT makes it manifest that Jesus was as human as we are (Heb. 2:17). As the second Adam he was obviously, through his mother, a son of the first (Luke 3:38) and was tempted just as he was (cf. Gen. 3:1-6; Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 4:15). Why then should Jesus who as a Jew was circumcised and made a son of the commandment like all other Jews differ from them in his baptism? History has failed to find an answer. This being so, it is difficult, as has already been intimated, not to suspect aberrant theology or more specifically spurious Christology.

To say that Jesus’ baptism did not convey any status on him that he did not have before is quite amazing. Was not the life of Jesus characterized by the markers common to the Jews? (See my essay Following Jesus.) Had Jesus not been circumcised on the eighth day? Had he not like his forebears before him been a slave in Egypt (Mt. 2:15)? Had he not undergone his bar mitzvah and been made personally responsible for keeping the law (cf. Luke 2:41ff.)? Surely if it did nothing else, his baptism marked the end of his stint as a servant under the law which he had fulfilled (Mt. 5:18). From then on he lived the life of a son, a regenerate Son (cf. John 3:6). If he who was flesh was not now spiritually regenerate, he was in no position to do good works (Eph. 2:10, cf. Luke 17:7-10) least of all to lay down his life for his fellows. All this is summarized by Paul in Galatians 4:1-7. If this was not his experience as a human being, he would not have been qualified to save his people. In the event, he had kept the commandments in such a way as to please his heavenly Father who publicly acknowledged him as his Son and sealed him with his Spirit (Mark 1:9-11; John 1:33; 6:27, cf. 3:35; Eph. 1:13; 4:30). As the regenerate Son he was at last able to do the good works (cf. Acts 10:38) like the miracles notably absent while he was under the law. Once we see this it is easy to understand the role played by Paul’s doctrine of adoption and Jesus’ own doctrine of regeneration, or birth from above, in Christian theology. If Paul could write that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counted for anything (Gal. 6:15) but only a new creation, then logic tells us that since the old (life under the law) had passed away, Jesus himself was a new creation  (2 Cor. 5:17). (See further my article Was Jesus Born Again?). His status was that of a new creature fitted for heavenly glory. Why is the evident truth of this hidden from the churches and from modern Christians in general?

Regeneration

The answer is clear once we realize that traditional dogma has been based on the Augustinian notion that regeneration is the remedy of sin or, more specifically, original sin (Needham, p.251). Yet even a cursory examination of John 3 makes plain two points inescapable to those whose eyes are not blinded by tradition: first, there is no more mention of sin in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus than there is in Paul’s discourse on the two Adams in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54; second, there is specific, in fact emphatic, mention of the flesh. So what was Jesus getting at?

At the beginning of the Bible we read how Adam, who was naturally mortal (pace Augustine) since he emanated from the temporal (Heb. 1:10-12) and corruptible earth (Rom. 8:18-25), was promised glory (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5f.; Heb. 2:6-9) and eternal life if he kept the commandment (Gen. 2:17). He failed on both counts, so he died as he had been forewarned. Jesus, the second Adam, however, succeeded (cf. Heb. 2: 6-9). For he too, as one who was born of woman and was hence flesh, was challenged with keeping the commandment, the entire law of Moses in fact on pain of death (cf. Heb. 5:7). Indeed, this was the very reason why he became flesh (Heb. 10:9a). The unavoidable inference from the fact that he kept the law to perfection is that in contrast with Adam who reaped death, he inherited life (cf. Lev. 18:5). To complain that as God he was already immortal is entirely to miss the point that at his incarnation he was made man. As such he was, like Adam, mortal. The truth of this is indisputable since he gave his fleshly life for us on the cross (John 10:17f.; 1 Pet. 3:18). So the life that Jesus had in eternity was put “at risk” in his incarnation. Since they are indissolubly linked, the truth that he committed no sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22) is every bit as important as the truth that he died and rose again. (See further my Restoration and Resurrection, for example.) When we read in Hebrews 5:7 that in the days of his flesh Jesus agonized in prayer to his Father to save him from death, we too easily assume that he was concerned about his resurrection. Rather he was vulnerable to death throughout his earthly life, and since his flesh like ours was unprofitable (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18) and weak (Mt. 26:41; 2 Cor. 13:4), he depended totally on his heavenly Father (John 6:38; Heb. 10:5-7). If he had sinned, he would, apart from proving that he was not God in the flesh, have reaped his reward in death just as the first Adam did before him.

To sum up this section, it is vital to recognize that Jesus despite his weakness and susceptibility to temptation overcame sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). And since righteousness, which is attained by keeping the law (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7, etc.), was its indispensable prerequisite or precondition, he inherited eternal life at his baptism (Lev. 18:5). He was in other words the first man in history to be born again (cf. Rom. 8:29) and enabled to bring life and incorruption (Gk) to light in this temporal world (2 Tim. 1:10).

John the Baptist’s Baptism of Repentance

Despite all this, the whole subject of baptism is complicated by the baptism administered by John the Baptist. It presents us with two major problems. First, we are specifically told that this baptism involved repentance in preparation for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4). For all that, John baptized Jesus. How do we account for this? We need to note that it was John who first declared Jesus to be greater than he himself was (John 1:15), indeed to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). In view of this it is less than surprising that he appeared reluctant to baptize Jesus. Implicit in this reluctance was John’s recognition that Jesus had no sins to repent of (Mt. 3:14). So why did Jesus override John’s reservations? The answer he gives is that it was fitting for him to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15, cf. Acts 10:38). What did Jesus mean? Clearly, in view of later NT teaching (e.g. Mt. 5-7), while Jesus had already kept the letter of the law, he had still to keep its radicalized form in the power of the Spirit  (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6), and this included attaining to the perfection of God (Mt. 5:48, cf. 19:21) by spilling his blood on behalf of his followers or giving his life for his friends (John 10: 11-18; 15:13).

So we are forced to conclude that when he baptized Jesus, for the first and only time in his life John was the human agent in a baptism of the Spirit. Otherwise expressed, the first Christian baptism was carried out by John the Baptist (cf. John 1:29-34). And it was his baptism of Jesus that, as we ought to expect, established the pattern or paradigm of subsequent Christian baptism. (Note it was after his baptism and anointing by the Spirit that Jesus went about doing good, Acts 10:28. And so it is was with the apostles in their turn, Acts 2:1-4; 3:1-10; 5:12-16, and intended to be with Christians in general if not on the same scale, Eph. 2:10; Tit. 2:14.)

Second, if righteousness is the precondition of regeneration (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.), John’s baptism of repentance is a paradox. A moment’s reflection will make it clear to us that sin, which is implied in repentance, bars the way to the new birth, as it did in Adam’s case. How then can believers who acknowledge their sin undergo John’s baptism yet still gain life? Or again, how can repentance lead to life (Acts 11:18; 2 Cor. 7:10)? The answer is, first, that we need forgiveness for our sins for which repentance is a preparation, and, second, we also need righteousness in order to gain life. But since we are sinners and under (the) law we have neither forgiveness (Heb. 2:2; 10:28) nor righteousness (Gal. 2:16), from where do we derive them? The NT is unequivocal on this point: we derive them from Christ (Rom. 3:21-26; 9:30; 10:6; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Phil. 3:9, etc.). Not for nothing did he say that he was the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). The forgiveness of sins must necessarily precede our justification or acquittal on the one hand, and our justification or righteousness by faith in Jesus must precede the granting of life on the other (cf. John 3:16). Once we have been justified, we have in principle gained life and glory (cf. Rom. 8:30). This is because Jesus as man has met the condition of life, atoned for our sin, pioneered our way into the presence of the Father, and endowed us with his Spirit. Thus, led by the Spirit, we follow in his steps (Rom. 6:4-8; John 14:2f.19; Heb. 12:2, etc.).

The Order of Salvation

In his sharp critique of Castelein (pp. 145-148), Nettles, as a Reformed Baptist, pulls no punches when he accuses him of embracing a false order of salvation. He strongly castigates him for holding “that regeneration is the result of faith” rather than that faith is the consequence or fruit of regeneration. But if what I have written above is true, then it is Nettles himself who has blundered badly. At this point in particular we see just how indebted he is to Reformed belief in the Augustinian dogma of original sin and its consequent order of salvation (ordo salutis). The fact is that, like President Kennedy in a TV film I have just seen, Nettles is in bed with the opposition. And since this is so, it is little wonder that his claimed support for believer’s baptism lacks compulsion. The sad truth is that his theology militates against and undermines his own case which is clearly riddled with contradiction. It is his belief in original sin that requires him to place regeneration as its cure prior to faith. But original sin is as much man-made myth as the covenant theology advocated by the Reformed and it is absolutely impossible to justify on biblical grounds. Indeed, it militates against the essence of Paul’s teaching in Romans. (See my Does Romans Teach Original Sin? etc.) So when Nettles tells us that all faith flows from regeneration, he is also telling us that all the sinful believers mentioned in Hebrews 11 were born again before the advent of Jesus. Yet it is clear to the author of Hebrews himself who informs us that all the heroes of faith to whom he has alluded did not receive what was promised (cf. Gal. 3:18; Rom. 8:16f.) but that they would nonetheless be made perfect (Heb. 11:39f.). In reality no one prior to Jesus who alone kept the law was born again. How otherwise could he be pre-eminent and the second Adam (cf. Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11)? Why otherwise was regeneration never more than a promise in the OT (Dt. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:26f., etc.)? That Abraham, like all his believing posterity in the OT, was a man of faith who was not born again ought to be apparent to all. For, while Paul could say with respect to him that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), he certainly could not say that God regenerates the ungodly. If he had done so, he would have implicitly locked sinners eternally in their sin and rendered righteousness and holiness redundant.

Nettles, like the Reformed in general, has confused the end or goal of regeneration (= eternal life) with the beginning in mortal flesh. His unwarrantable Augustinian assumption is that Adam lost what in fact he never had, that is, original righteousness. Since, initially, he had no knowledge of law, Adam could be neither good nor evil. However, when he transgressed the commandment he was given, he was constituted a sinner and cast out of the Garden, permanently prevented from re-entering it in order to gain access to the tree of life (Gen. 3:22-24). He had come short of the (promised) glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and lost the innocence and embryonic fellowship with God characteristic of babies who are created and made in the divine image (Gen. 1:26; 30:2; Job 31:15, etc.). Only by faith, justification and rebirth could he possibly regain his initial or infantile fellowship with God. The same is true of all his posterity. All as the creatures of God are created “good” (Gen. 1; 1 Tim. 4:4) and in fellowship with God (Job 31:15; Rom. 7:9; 9:11, etc.), yet all like Adam sin (Rom. 3:23; 5:12; Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 2:13, etc.), partly because they are made in his (fleshly) image (cf. Gen. 5:1-3; Rom. 7:14) and partly because they follow the pattern he established and under his (parental) influence (cf. Rom. 5:12). Imitation or repetition is endemic in Scripture as it is in history and experience: like father like son (2 K. 17:41; Zech. 1:4f.), like mother like daughter (Ezek. 16:44), like people like priest (Isa. 24:2; Hos. 4:9. Pace Article 9 of the Church of England.). Thankfully, there is a doctrine of separation in Scripture, and Jesus subscribed to it! On the other hand, if Adam’s sin had been either transmitted or imputed, as tradition would have us believe, Jesus’ moral solidarity with his brethren in sin would have been unavoidable.

Of course, Nettles is correct to say (p.147) that our faith is not the cause of our new birth. But since it is the instrument of our justification and sanctification, it is its indispensable prerequisite. So, since babies cannot exercise faith, their baptism is meaningless and useless. Nettles is also justified in denying that baptism is necessarily the occasion of regeneration, for “grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it” (Westminster Confession, 28:5). This view strays dangerously in the direction of sacramentalism (cf. Art. 27 of the C of E).

In his conclusion the editor of the book, John Armstrong, claims that the most important question remains clear: “What is the meaning and significance of baptism?” (p.162). For Christians who are the spiritual seed of Abraham, it can be nothing less than the seal of our faith and righteousness like his circumcision. But since Christ has come, kept the law which promised life, died for our sins and sent the Spirit, it is also the sign of our regeneration (cf. Gal. 3 espec. vv.14,29). It thus sets believers apart from others and from all non-Christian faiths and practices (p.164). In light of this, the crucial importance of baptism, which epitomizes the essence of NT soteriology, must not be minimized (cf. p.165). Indeed, it might be said that the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are NT theology in summary. To be wrong with respect to either of them threatens disaster everywhere. As it happens, there is little wonder that the churches, which have been historically divided over the sacraments, have abysmally compromised their witness. The way forward is clear. Doctrinal reformation is an absolute priority. Above all, if Baptists wish to testify convincingly to the need of faith in baptism, they must terminate their adulterous relationship with Reformed theology. I myself consciously did this when, against a Methodist and Presbyterian background and substantial Anglican teaching, I was baptized at age 40 in the Deeping St James Strict (Calvinistic) Baptist Church, England.

See further my essays on Covenant TheologyRegarding the Baptism of JesusThe Journey of JesusFollowing JesusConcerning Infant SalvationWas Jesus Born Again?Promise and PerformanceThe Order of SalvationRedemption Applied (Order of Salvation)Cart-Before-The-Horse TheologyDoes Romans Teach Original Sin?J.I.Packer on Original SinThe Plan of Salvation – in outline (1), etc.

Additional Note on “BAPTISM Three Views” ed. David F.Wright, Downers Grove, 2009.

This work is characterized largely by the same weaknesses as the above: its Augustinian assumptions, failure to deal adequately with circumcision and covenant theology, the baptism of Jesus, and so forth.

It has to be said that S.Ferguson’s learned but convoluted and unconvincing essay purporting to support infant baptism is based in the last analysis on bad theology and silence. It appeals significantly to the circumcision of Abraham (see pp.87,93, etc.), even though it is manifestly an exception, as Paul makes plain in Romans 4. Both Jesus in John 7:22f., and Paul in Galatians 5:3 and 6:15, for example, relate normal, that is, infant circumcision to law (cf. Lev. 12:3). (See further my Circumcision and Baptism.) In light of Genesis 17, which refers to the circumcision of Ishmael who is explicitly excluded from the covenant (17:21) and leads to that of Isaac on the eighth day (21:4), this is hardly surprising. Rightly appreciated circumcision sounds the death knell of infant baptism as signifying anything but law (cf. Acts 15). (Not surprisingly, infant baptism had political importance during the Middle Ages, the era of the Constantinian synthesis and Christendom par excellence, similar to that of infant circumcision in the Jewish theocracy.) On the other hand, if there is an analogy between the circumcision of Abraham the believer and Christian baptism, that baptism must obviously be believer’s baptism (cf. Phil. 3:3). Otherwise expressed, since unlike Isaac we Gentiles are not Abraham’s natural and legal but his spiritual offspring, it follows that our baptism must be believer’s baptism like his believer’s circumcision. If it is countered at this point that Isaac as the child of promise was also Abraham’s spiritual offspring we have to recognize with Paul that there are two Israels, one natural, the other spiritual (Rom. 4:11f.; 9:6f.; Gal. 3:14,28f. etc.) and the natural (fleshly) as sinners are under an obligation to repent and believe in order to gain eternal life. And while Jews may remain culturally Jews, when they become Christians they still need to be baptized as believers. As Christians their infant ‘hand-made’ circumcision is largely redundant (Gal. 5:6; 6:15) since they have become citizens of heaven (Phil. 3:20, cf. Heb. 11:10,16; 13:14) by means of a spiritual circumcision that is ‘not hand-made’ (Col. 2:11-13).

Ferguson also believes in original sin which does not exist, at least in the Augustinian sense of the term, and in what he calls the covenant of grace. Regarding the latter, he apparently takes the same view as Murray (cf. his The Covenant of Grace, London, 1954). The problem here is that Murray’s view is clearly unbiblical, not least because it fuses nature, law and grace into an undifferentiated monolith and fails to maintain necessary distinctions. It even turns law into grace and thus becomes Pelagian (cf. Gal. 3:12). The so-called organic unity of the covenant (or one covenant in two dispensations) is a major error. The truth is that the different covenants as portrayed in the Bible always remain themselves but since they all appear successively without involving the cancellation of those preceding them (cf. Gal. 3:17) or are epitomized in the individual (as well as the race) who reaches maturity, they are linked by faith which is common to all (cf. Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and of course Christ) as the author of Hebrews 11 was obviously well aware.

In the Bible baptism which does not involve the obliteration of the covenants with Noah and Moses (cf. Gal. 3:17) (1* It is true, of course, that the law is superseded if a Jew becomes a Christian believer, for Christ is the end of the law, Rom. 10:4; 2 Cor. 3:11, etc., but note Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1), despite their evident temporality is clearly an ‘adult’ affair dependent on an appreciation of the doctrine that it signifies. Its assumptions are: first, nature or birth according to the flesh (Noah); second, law (Moses, especially if one is a Jew); and, third, life or rebirth received by faith in Christ (cf. John 3:6). In other words, one who is born of the flesh cannot be born a (spiritual) Christian (cf. John 1:12f.; 3:6). One becomes a Christian or is born again either by keeping the law as Jesus did or by faith in him (Gal. 3:2,5). Strictly speaking, the only true baptism was that of Jesus himself, hence its paradigmatic nature. It occurred as a result of his keeping the law and was crowned by his reception of the Spirit in accordance with the original promise made to Adam (Gen. 2:17; cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.). (The reader should note that infant baptism by implication dispenses with human development, fails to recognize diminished responsibility and abandons the entire historical process evident in the race, cf. Rom. 1-3, and epitomized in the individual, Rom. 7,8; Gal. 4:1-7. In effect, it telescopes or reduces all to a flat uniformity. No wonder ideas of perfection (maturation) and evolution constitute such a problem for Christians who are more under the influence of Augustine than of the Bible! After all, even Adam according to many was created full grown in one day!)

So I maintain that a correct understanding of flesh as naturally transient, sin as involving personal transgression even though under the influence of Adam (Rom. 5:12-21, cf. Ps. 106:6; Isa. 65:7, etc.), of circumcision as signifying law and of the new covenant as reflecting grace and spiritual rebirth leaves us no room for anything other than believer’s baptism, that is, the reception of the Spirit consequent on repentance and faith in Christ. The imposition of baptism on babies mirrors legal circumcision ‘by hand’ (cf. Lev. 12:3) and highlights basic theological misunderstanding. Not without reason did the Catholic church of the Middle Ages reflect Judaism in more ways than one. And those who are still in bed with her even in the Protestant camp manifest many of the same characteristics.

Concluding Thought

As circumcision signifying law (Lev. 12:3; John 7:22; Rom. 2:25; Gal. 5:3) sealed the righteousness of Abraham by faith (Gen. 17:10f.; Rom 4:11), so baptism signifying new birth sealed the regeneration of Jesus who kept the law (Lev. 18:5; Mt. 3:13-17; John 1:32; 6:27).

___________________________________________________________

References

D.Kingdon, Children of Abraham, Worthing, 1973.

P.Ch. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, London, 1953.

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


Animal Rights

ANIMAL RIGHTS
In these twenty-first century days when Australian Professor Peter Singer of Princeton along with others would have us believe that animals are on a par with humans, some Christians contend that there are major biblically-based objections to the eating of meat. While there is doubtless good cause to question certain practices adopted by the meat industry and the amount of meat that we humans consume, the attempt to deny the legitimacy of meat eating as such from a Christian standpoint is in my view quite forlorn. It is based on a false theology, an aberrant worldview and a general failure to understand the basic teaching of the Bible.
Genesis 1 tells us that God created the world ‘good’. Traditionally, under the influence of Augustine this word has been given a moral connotation and regarded as a synonym for ‘perfect’. All the evidence suggests that this is profoundly mistaken and many today recognize that the word (Gk kalos) means beautiful, useful or fit for service like all material things (cf. Ps. 119:91). (1* See, for example, Collins who says that ‘good’ means “pleasing to him, answering his purpose, Gen. 1:4,10,12,18,21,25,31”, p.69, and Berry, who denies perfection and appropriately says “God judged creation as fit for his purposes”, p.10.) The very first verse of Genesis indicates that creation in contrast with its Creator is temporal as opposed to eternal (cf. Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27). This is confirmed by Paul who tells us that all visible, that is, all material things being temporary (2 Cor. 4:18) will ultimately reach their use-by date (cf. Col. 2:22) and be destroyed (compare Rom. 1:20 with Heb. 12:27 and note 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). In other words, only the Creator is perfect and what he has manufactured or ‘made by hand’ (Gk cheiropoietos) is necessarily imperfect (cf. Heb. 3:3). (2* See my Manufactured or Not So at www.kenstothard.com /.)
As flesh all animals including man stem from the earth and are inherently corruptible as Paul emphasizes in Romans 8:18-25 (cf. Heb. 1:10-12) (3* Under Augustinian influence this passage which like John 3:1-8 does not even mention sin has been sadly misinterpreted. See further my Romans 8:18-25 Revisited, Another Shot at Romans 8:18-25.) It is because we are flesh (dust) that our life span is limited to 120 years (Gen. 6:3). In other words, man was created both mortal and corruptible (cf. Rom. 1:23; 6:12; 2 Cor. 4:11) and it was not until Jesus had completed his work on earth that immortality and incorruption (Gk.) were revealed (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). Man was created like a baby without knowledge of (the) law (Dt. 1:39, cf. Rom. 9:11) and was thus amoral like the animals. He was also made potentially in the image of the God. This meant that when the commandment eventually registered on his emerging mind, he was able to receive the promise of (eternal) life. However, its precondition was that he gained righteousness by keeping that commandment (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). In the event he failed, so he died and underwent final corruption as a sinner (Rom. 5:12; 6:23). And it was not until in the fullness of time the Lord Jesus came as the second Adam that anyone succeeded in keeping the law, becoming legally righteous and gaining promised life. He uniquely received the Spirit at his baptism and thus made it possible for all who put their faith in him to become (be accounted) righteous like him and so gain eternal life. (4* It is absolutely vital to understand that justification by faith must of necessity precede regeneration. See my The Order of Salvation in Romans, The Order of Salvation, Cart-Before-the- Horse Theology,  etc.)
The Flesh
As animated dust (Ps. 78:39; 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47-49), even when it is not directly associated with sin, flesh is regarded pejoratively throughout Scripture (see e.g. Isa. 31:3; Jer. 17:5). Isaiah informs us that all flesh is grass (40:6-8). John’s gospel notes the fundamental difference between being born according to the will of man (flesh) and being born of God (1:13). Then in John 3:1-8 Jesus tells us that it is necessary for us to be born again to enter the kingdom of God. In 6:63 he adds that flesh in itself is profitless. Paul says more or less the same thing when he tells us that there is nothing good in his flesh (Rom. 7:18). While we cannot please God in the flesh (Rom. 8:8), we can, however, do so when we exercise faith which is his gift (Heb. 11:6, cf. Rom. 7:5; 2 Cor. 5:7). Almost needless to add, Paul emphasizes the fact that flesh and blood along with all that is naturally perishable (corruptible) cannot inherit the (spiritual) kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50).
In light of this, traditional attempts to argue that sin (5* Sin is defined as transgression of the law, James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4. As indicated above, Adam like a baby did not receive the commandment until he had undergone some development. In view of this, we are compelled to infer that the idea that he “fell”, rather than lost his innocence, is yet another Augustinian invention totally alien to the Bible. When Paul himself went through the same experience and sinned in his turn, Rom. 7:9f., he did not call his sin a “Fall” as if he had been created righteous. He implies that he simply recapitulated first Eve’s, 7:11, then Adam’s experience, 14-25, as we all do in effect. See my Interpreting Romans 7.) led to a cosmic curse that altered the very constitution of creation are profoundly misguided. When Adam sinned, he lost any hope he had of eternal life. His moral delinquency and disorientation (cf. Heb. 2:2) also meant that his immediate environment, outside the Garden of Eden where he had been carefully nurtured, proved unduly recalcitrant and difficult to work (Gen. 3:17-19). It did the same when Cain sinned (Gen. 4:12, cf. Prov. 24:30, etc., and note Gen. 5:29). The same is true today in what Paul tells us is still a ‘good’ creation (1 Tim. 4:4, cf. 1 Cor. 10:26-30, etc.). Abuse and/or neglect have inevitable consequences on an earth that from the start required habitation and cultivation (Gen. 2:15, cf. Isa. 6:11, etc.). On the other hand, if we are willing and obedient, we eat the good of the land (Dt. 28:1-14; Ps. 128:1f.; Isa. 1:19; 3:10, etc.). We who have benefited from the work ethic of the Christianized West have much to be grateful for.
The Destruction of the Land
This brings us back to the question of animals and meat eating. God’s displeasure with Adam’s immediate offspring arose from the fact that they matched their natural corruptibility with moral corruption. They were in other words even as adults spiritually barren (cf. Isa. 5; Heb. 6:7f.). And this spelt death. (See additional note below.) But there was a problem. If God dispensed with man himself, he would necessarily have to dispense with his environment since the land would be useless without him (cf. Ezek. 36:34f., etc.). It would in fact be desolate like Sodom and Gomorrah and the temple which was destroyed by the Babylonians and again by the Romans in NT times (Mt. 23:38). Why, it may be asked, should the land be destroyed? The answer is implied in the accounts of both the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah as Jesus indicates in Luke 17:26-30 – because without man it loses its very purpose, its raison d’etre. If Christ was to redeem man, then the creation by which man was sustained and nurtured had to remain until that redemption had been achieved. In this sense all material things were created for him (cf. Col. 1:16). The earth was created to be inhabited (Gen. 1:26-28; Isa. 45:18) and to be the testing or proving ground of man’s spiritual development in the image and likeness of God (cf. Ps. 8; Heb. 2:9). Without man creation is futile and meaningless. Noticeably, it is initially uncovenanted. This suggests that until man begins to take on the image of God, to bear God’s likeness and to produce spiritual fruit, it lacks basic significance. So with man’s salvation ultimately in mind, God made a covenant with Noah guaranteeing creation’s preservation, but only until that plan of salvation was fulfilled (Gen. 8:22, cf. Isa. 54:9f.; Jer. 31:35-37; 33:20-26). In other words, animals along with their environment at best serve the interests of man. In themselves, like all flesh they are profitless. As Jesus was at pains to point out, birds (Mt. 10:29,31; Luke 12:24) and sheep (Mt. 12:12) lack the intrinsic value of man who can be destroyed both body and soul (Mt. 10:28). That it is why it is legitimate to kill animals but not man who acquires the image of God and is potentially like God (Gen. 9:6) as his child (Rom. 8:12-17; 1 John 3:1-3). When a man’s animal is killed, it is just a question of money (Ex. 21:33). In the same way only a fine is imposed when a foetus is killed (Ex. 21:22, contrast v.29. Note also the a minori ad maius (from the less to the greater) argument in Luke 14:5). This would seem to prove conclusively, despite what many anti-abortionists say, that an unself-conscious baby is not a person. It is only potentially so. (6* See further my Creation and or Evolution at www.kenstothard.com /.)
Animal Mortality
In case we have missed the point, Jeremiah 12:3, 2 Peter 2:12 and Jude 10,13 (cf. Phil. 3:19) all indicate that exclusively fleshly animals were made to be caught and killed. After all, in the last analysis all flesh is grass (Isa. 40:6-8). As a famous Lincolnshire poet, near whose birthplace I myself was born, once pointed out, nature is red in tooth and claw. Thus, not only do profitless animals (cf. Heb. 9:9-14) serve as sacrifices in Israel’s cultic system, but both priests and people eat them with joy before God (Dt. 12:15-27, etc.). Like the carnivores themselves they receive their food from God (Job 38:39; Ps. 104:21, etc.). From this we must draw the conclusion that while animals as sentient beings have nervous systems similar to ours and clearly feel pain without which they could not survive, like babies they do not know it. They manifestly do not have self-consciousness. Their perceptions are purely sensory. If this is denied, it is hard indeed not to charge God with cruelty on a massive scale.
Human Development
It may be replied of course that originally man was intended to feed solely on green plants (Gen. 1:29). This is hardly surprising since as children (7* In Genesis it would seem that Adam gained physical maturity, cf. 1 Cor. 15:46, but was never more than childlike spiritually, as Irenaeus suggested long before he was eclipsed by Augustine. Initially, like a baby Adam knew nothing, and since he lacked knowledge of (the) law, he was amoral like the rest of the animal creation. Later, however, as he developed like a child he received only one commandment which he broke. Since he was the paradigm, cf. Gen. 5:1-3, of all his posterity, they in their turn followed transgenerationally in his tread. In their childhood they are taught the commandment by their parents, cf. Dt. 4:9; Ps. 78:5f.; Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20, and, needless to say, they break it. Paul is a case in point, Rom. 7:9f. Pace those who say he teaches original sin!), after being initially nourished on milk, they tend to find meat-eating somewhat beyond their capacity. It was because like all animals he had developed physically that man was later granted the privilege of extending his diet. That same development was evident earlier in the case of Eve who as she gained self-consciousness and moral awareness became increasingly aware of pain in childbirth. After all, how could her pain ‘increase’ if she had never experienced any (Gen. 3:16)? Clearly as a corporate figure in the flesh she had experienced minimal birth pangs as all animals apparently do. In other words, sin has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation except in the sense that awareness of good and evil reflects growth in both moral and physical self-consciousness. The two are concurrent and interconnected.
The Two Adams
It is at this point that we recognize just how ludicrous is the fundamentalist idea that God created Adam in one literal day yet made him appear to be fully mature. If he did, deception apart, then he was not the father of the second Adam who was born in his image as a baby (Luke 3:38, cf. Gen. 5:1-3). The obvious truth is that Adam, like Eve, though conveniently portrayed as an individual, was also a corporate figure who had fleshly forebears lacking self-consciousness like babies. The development or evolution of both the individual and the corporate man (Adam) is intrinsic to the human condition. If the one is subject to development and growth, so is the other (cf. 1 Cor. 13:11; Eph. 4:11-16). In scientific language, ontogeny reflects phylogeny and recapitulates it. Denial of this implies that the individual does not belong to the race. Worse still, if the individual Jesus did not paradigmatically portray and represent the race, he could not have died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2, cf. Eph. 1:10) which happens to include an innumerable multitude from every nation, tribe, people and language (Rev. 7:9).
Adult Omnivorousness
So when it is announced in Genesis 9:3 in contrast with 1:29 that meat is on the menu the reason is not the effect of the “Fall” and the Flood as Augustinians argue but human development. Furthermore, it is not exactly without significance that spiritual food is metaphorically regarded as flesh in Scripture (John 6:55, cf. 1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12,14). Nowhere is it suggested that human carnivorousness is a concession like divorce to sinful man. After all, Jesus himself was accused by his enemies of being a wine bibber and a glutton, and it was precisely he who declared all meats (food) clean (Mark 7:19, cf. Acts 10:12, etc.). He was by no means under an OT Nazirite oath as John the Baptist was. Furthermore, like Paul who clearly learned from him, he was not one of those spiritually immature people who thought that human diet should be purely vegetable (cf. Rom. 14:13-23; 1 Cor. 8-10), though, as we saw above, at the end of the day all flesh is grass (1 Pet. 1:24). (According to Paul a person has a right to be vegetarian provided he/she is not critical of those who do not wish to be.)
Conclusion
Sensitive Christians who love animals are not unnaturally anthropomorphic in their attitude. But while abuse of animals ought to be offensive to us who are intended to be the stewards of creation, as Christians we must guard against unbiblical thinking. The picture of the animals painted by Isaiah in chapter 11:6-9 may appeal to the sentimental but it is symbolic not literal. It is an OT intimation of the harmony of heaven, the ultimate restoration (Acts 3:21), but hardly realistic in itself. For in the kingdom of God, corruptible flesh cannot dwell (1 Cor. 15:50), not ours and certainly not that of Jesus who though he is still man shares the glory of God (John 17:5,24; Phil. 3:21, etc.). (See additional note below.)
The tragedy of the church is that it is governed more by tradition than the Bible. The sin-saturated Augustinian worldview is manifestly false. It needs to be recognized that the physically visible ‘hand-made’ material creation including man and animal alike (Is. 45:11f.) is temporary, corruptible and destructible by nature irrespective of sin (Rom. 8:18-25; 1 Cor. 15:42-50; Heb. 1:10-12; 12:27, etc.). Far from needing to be redeemed because it has been marred by man’s rebellion, the temporary creation which includes all flesh was destined to destruction from the start. What has a beginning must have an end. And the sooner we realize this, the better. With massive earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and the rest, the sheer shakability of creation ought to be obvious to all who read the Bible, especially the book of Hebrews. We have been amply warned and like the OT saints we ought to find our refuge in God himself (Ps. 18:2,31,46, etc.). Now is the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2).
Finally, with animal predation in the wild displayed almost daily before our eyes on TV (Sir David Attenborough and his ilk), we need to learn its lesson while there is time.
Additional Note
Parents, mothers especially, are obviously distressed by the death of their babies. However, their death has no moral significance. Since unself-conscious babies do not know the law, they are not accountable (Rom. 3:19; 4:15). Like animals, they are simply victims of a corruptible creation (Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). Like Adam and Eve, by definition they initially have no knowledge of law and of good and evil (cf. Dt. 1:39). So while as flesh they are certainly not damned as Augustine imagined, by the same token they are not ‘saved’ since (a) they do not know the law that promises life, and (b) they cannot exercise faith in order to please God (Heb. 11:6). They are at the start unprofitable flesh (John 6:63) and flesh does not go to heaven (John 3:1-8; 1 Cor. 15:50).
On the other hand, the Bible presents God as being distressed by his ‘babies’ in Genesis 6:6. Why? Because they were adult rational ‘babies’ and clearly sinners. They were like fruitless trees even in autumn, the time of harvest (Jude 12, cf. 2 Pet. 2:12-16). As such they deserved to be destroyed (cf. Heb. 6:7f.). The same will be true at the end of the age when all those who have pandered exclusively to their flesh like animals will reap inevitable corruption (Gal. 6:8; 1 Cor. 6:9f., etc.).
References
R.J.Berry, Real Scientists Real Faith, Oxford, 2009.
C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4, Phillipsburg, 2006.

In these twenty-first century days when Australian Professor Peter Singer of Princeton along with others would have us believe that animals are on a par with humans, some Christians contend that there are major biblically-based objections to the eating of meat. While there is doubtless good cause to question certain practices adopted by the meat industry and the amount of meat that we humans consume, the attempt to deny the legitimacy of meat eating as such from a Christian standpoint is in my view quite forlorn. It is based on a false theology, an aberrant worldview and a general failure to understand the basic teaching of the Bible.

Genesis 1 tells us that God created the world ‘good’. Traditionally, under the influence of Augustine this word has been given a moral connotation and regarded as a synonym for ‘perfect’. All the evidence suggests that this is profoundly mistaken and many today recognize that the word (Gk kalos) means beautiful, useful or fit for service like all material things (cf. Ps. 119:91). (1* See, for example, Collins who says that ‘good’ means “pleasing to him, answering his purpose, Gen. 1:4,10,12,18,21,25,31”, p.69, and Berry, who denies perfection and appropriately says “God judged creation as fit for his purposes”, p.10.) The very first verse of Genesis indicates that creation in contrast with its Creator is temporal as opposed to eternal (cf. Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27). This is confirmed by Paul who tells us that all visible, that is, all material things being temporary (2 Cor. 4:18) will ultimately reach their use-by date (cf. Col. 2:22) and be destroyed (compare Rom. 1:20 with Heb. 12:27 and note 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). In other words, only the Creator is perfect and what he has manufactured or ‘made by hand’ (Gk cheiropoietos) is necessarily imperfect (cf. Heb. 3:3). (2* See my Manufactured Or Not So)

As flesh all animals including man stem from the earth and are inherently corruptible as Paul emphasizes in Romans 8:18-25 (cf. Heb. 1:10-12) (3* Under Augustinian influence this passage which like John 3:1-8 does not even mention sin has been sadly misinterpreted. See further my Romans 8:18-25Another Shot at Romans 8:18-25) It is because we are flesh (dust) that our life span is limited to 120 years (Gen. 6:3). In other words, man was created both mortal and corruptible (cf. Rom. 1:23; 6:12; 2 Cor. 4:11) and it was not until Jesus had completed his work on earth that immortality and incorruption (Gk.) were revealed (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). Man was created like a baby without knowledge of (the) law (Dt. 1:39, cf. Rom. 9:11) and was thus amoral like the animals. He was also made potentially in the image of the God. This meant that when the commandment eventually registered on his emerging mind, he was able to receive the promise of (eternal) life. However, its precondition was that he gained righteousness by keeping that commandment (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). In the event he failed, so he died and underwent final corruption as a sinner (Rom. 5:12; 6:23). And it was not until in the fullness of time the Lord Jesus came as the second Adam that anyone succeeded in keeping the law, becoming legally righteous and gaining promised life. He uniquely received the Spirit at his baptism and thus made it possible for all who put their faith in him to become (be accounted) righteous like him and so gain eternal life. (4* It is absolutely vital to understand that justification by faith must of necessity precede regeneration. See my The Order of Salvation in RomansThe Order of SalvationCart-Before-The-Horse Theology,  etc.)

The Flesh

As animated dust (Ps. 78:39; 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47-49), even when it is not directly associated with sin, flesh is regarded pejoratively throughout Scripture (see e.g. Isa. 31:3; Jer. 17:5). Isaiah informs us that all flesh is grass (40:6-8). John’s gospel notes the fundamental difference between being born according to the will of man (flesh) and being born of God (1:13). Then in John 3:1-8 Jesus tells us that it is necessary for us to be born again to enter the kingdom of God. In 6:63 he adds that flesh in itself is profitless. Paul says more or less the same thing when he tells us that there is nothing good in his flesh (Rom. 7:18). While we cannot please God in the flesh (Rom. 8:8), we can, however, do so when we exercise faith which is his gift (Heb. 11:6, cf. Rom. 7:5; 2 Cor. 5:7). Almost needless to add, Paul emphasizes the fact that flesh and blood along with all that is naturally perishable (corruptible) cannot inherit the (spiritual) kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50).

In light of this, traditional attempts to argue that sin (5* Sin is defined as transgression of the law, James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4. As indicated above, Adam like a baby did not receive the commandment until he had undergone some development. In view of this, we are compelled to infer that the idea that he “fell”, rather than lost his innocence, is yet another Augustinian invention totally alien to the Bible. When Paul himself went through the same experience and sinned in his turn, Rom. 7:9f., he did not call his sin a “Fall” as if he had been created righteous. He implies that he simply recapitulated first Eve’s, 7:11, then Adam’s experience, 14-25, as we all do in effect. See my Interpreting Romans 7) led to a cosmic curse that altered the very constitution of creation are profoundly misguided. When Adam sinned, he lost any hope he had of eternal life. His moral delinquency and disorientation (cf. Heb. 2:2) also meant that his immediate environment, outside the Garden of Eden where he had been carefully nurtured, proved unduly recalcitrant and difficult to work (Gen. 3:17-19). It did the same when Cain sinned (Gen. 4:12, cf. Prov. 24:30, etc., and note Gen. 5:29). The same is true today in what Paul tells us is still a ‘good’ creation (1 Tim. 4:4, cf. 1 Cor. 10:26-30, etc.). Abuse and/or neglect have inevitable consequences on an earth that from the start required habitation and cultivation (Gen. 2:15, cf. Isa. 6:11, etc.). On the other hand, if we are willing and obedient, we eat the good of the land (Dt. 28:1-14; Ps. 128:1f.; Isa. 1:19; 3:10, etc.). We who have benefited from the work ethic of the Christianized West have much to be grateful for.

The Destruction of the Land

This brings us back to the question of animals and meat eating. God’s displeasure with Adam’s immediate offspring arose from the fact that they matched their natural corruptibility with moral corruption. They were in other words even as adults spiritually barren (cf. Isa. 5; Heb. 6:7f.). And this spelt death. (See additional note below.) But there was a problem. If God dispensed with man himself, he would necessarily have to dispense with his environment since the land would be useless without him (cf. Ezek. 36:34f., etc.). It would in fact be desolate like Sodom and Gomorrah and the temple which was destroyed by the Babylonians and again by the Romans in NT times (Mt. 23:38). Why, it may be asked, should the land be destroyed? The answer is implied in the accounts of both the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah as Jesus indicates in Luke 17:26-30 – because without man it loses its very purpose, its raison d’etre. If Christ was to redeem man, then the creation by which man was sustained and nurtured had to remain until that redemption had been achieved. In this sense all material things were created for him (cf. Col. 1:16). The earth was created to be inhabited (Gen. 1:26-28; Isa. 45:18) and to be the testing or proving ground of man’s spiritual development in the image and likeness of God (cf. Ps. 8; Heb. 2:9). Without man creation is futile and meaningless. Noticeably, it is initially uncovenanted. This suggests that until man begins to take on the image of God, to bear God’s likeness and to produce spiritual fruit, it lacks basic significance. So with man’s salvation ultimately in mind, God made a covenant with Noah guaranteeing creation’s preservation, but only until that plan of salvation was fulfilled (Gen. 8:22, cf. Isa. 54:9f.; Jer. 31:35-37; 33:20-26). In other words, animals along with their environment at best serve the interests of man. In themselves, like all flesh they are profitless. As Jesus was at pains to point out, birds (Mt. 10:29,31; Luke 12:24) and sheep (Mt. 12:12) lack the intrinsic value of man who can be destroyed both body and soul (Mt. 10:28). That it is why it is legitimate to kill animals but not man who acquires the image of God and is potentially like God (Gen. 9:6) as his child (Rom. 8:12-17; 1 John 3:1-3). When a man’s animal is killed, it is just a question of money (Ex. 21:33). In the same way only a fine is imposed when a foetus is killed (Ex. 21:22, contrast v.29. Note also the a minori ad maius (from the less to the greater) argument in Luke 14:5). This would seem to prove conclusively, despite what many anti-abortionists say, that an unself-conscious baby is not a person. It is only potentially so. (6* See further my Creation and / or Evolution)

Animal Mortality

In case we have missed the point, Jeremiah 12:3, 2 Peter 2:12 and Jude 10,13 (cf. Phil. 3:19) all indicate that exclusively fleshly animals were made to be caught and killed. After all, in the last analysis all flesh is grass (Isa. 40:6-8). As a famous Lincolnshire poet, near whose birthplace I myself was born, once pointed out, nature is red in tooth and claw. Thus, not only do profitless animals (cf. Heb. 9:9-14) serve as sacrifices in Israel’s cultic system, but both priests and people eat them with joy before God (Dt. 12:15-27, etc.). Like the carnivores themselves they receive their food from God (Job 38:39; Ps. 104:21, etc.). From this we must draw the conclusion that while animals as sentient beings have nervous systems similar to ours and clearly feel pain without which they could not survive, like babies they do not know it. They manifestly do not have self-consciousness. Their perceptions are purely sensory. If this is denied, it is hard indeed not to charge God with cruelty on a massive scale.

Human Development

It may be replied of course that originally man was intended to feed solely on green plants (Gen. 1:29). This is hardly surprising since as children (7* In Genesis it would seem that Adam gained physical maturity, cf. 1 Cor. 15:46, but was never more than childlike spiritually, as Irenaeus suggested long before he was eclipsed by Augustine. Initially, like a baby Adam knew nothing, and since he lacked knowledge of (the) law, he was amoral like the rest of the animal creation. Later, however, as he developed like a child he received only one commandment which he broke. Since he was the paradigm, cf. Gen. 5:1-3, of all his posterity, they in their turn followed transgenerationally in his tread. In their childhood they are taught the commandment by their parents, cf. Dt. 4:9; Ps. 78:5f.; Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20, and, needless to say, they break it. Paul is a case in point, Rom. 7:9f. Pace those who say he teaches original sin!), after being initially nourished on milk, they tend to find meat-eating somewhat beyond their capacity. It was because like all animals he had developed physically that man was later granted the privilege of extending his diet. That same development was evident earlier in the case of Eve who as she gained self-consciousness and moral awareness became increasingly aware of pain in childbirth. After all, how could her pain ‘increase’ if she had never experienced any (Gen. 3:16)? Clearly as a corporate figure in the flesh she had experienced minimal birth pangs as all animals apparently do. In other words, sin has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation except in the sense that awareness of good and evil reflects growth in both moral and physical self-consciousness. The two are concurrent and interconnected.

The Two Adams

It is at this point that we recognize just how ludicrous is the fundamentalist idea that God created Adam in one literal day yet made him appear to be fully mature. If he did, deception apart, then he was not the father of the second Adam who was born in his image as a baby (Luke 3:38, cf. Gen. 5:1-3). The obvious truth is that Adam, like Eve, though conveniently portrayed as an individual, was also a corporate figure who had fleshly forebears lacking self-consciousness like babies. The development or evolution of both the individual and the corporate man (Adam) is intrinsic to the human condition. If the one is subject to development and growth, so is the other (cf. 1 Cor. 13:11; Eph. 4:11-16). In scientific language, ontogeny reflects phylogeny and recapitulates it. Denial of this implies that the individual does not belong to the race. Worse still, if the individual Jesus did not paradigmatically portray and represent the race, he could not have died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2, cf. Eph. 1:10) which happens to include an innumerable multitude from every nation, tribe, people and language (Rev. 7:9).

Adult Omnivorousness

So when it is announced in Genesis 9:3 in contrast with 1:29 that meat is on the menu the reason is not the effect of the “Fall” and the Flood as Augustinians argue but human development. Furthermore, it is not exactly without significance that spiritual food is metaphorically regarded as flesh in Scripture (John 6:55, cf. 1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12,14). Nowhere is it suggested that human carnivorousness is a concession like divorce to sinful man. After all, Jesus himself was accused by his enemies of being a wine bibber and a glutton, and it was precisely he who declared all meats (food) clean (Mark 7:19, cf. Acts 10:12, etc.). He was by no means under an OT Nazirite oath as John the Baptist was. Furthermore, like Paul who clearly learned from him, he was not one of those spiritually immature people who thought that human diet should be purely vegetable (cf. Rom. 14:13-23; 1 Cor. 8-10), though, as we saw above, at the end of the day all flesh is grass (1 Pet. 1:24). (According to Paul a person has a right to be vegetarian provided he/she is not critical of those who do not wish to be.)

Conclusion

Sensitive Christians who love animals are not unnaturally anthropomorphic in their attitude. But while abuse of animals ought to be offensive to us who are intended to be the stewards of creation, as Christians we must guard against unbiblical thinking. The picture of the animals painted by Isaiah in chapter 11:6-9 may appeal to the sentimental but it is symbolic not literal. It is an OT intimation of the harmony of heaven, the ultimate restoration (Acts 3:21), but hardly realistic in itself. For in the kingdom of God, corruptible flesh cannot dwell (1 Cor. 15:50), not ours and certainly not that of Jesus who though he is still man shares the glory of God (John 17:5,24; Phil. 3:21, etc.). (See additional note below.)

The tragedy of the church is that it is governed more by tradition than the Bible. The sin-saturated Augustinian worldview is manifestly false. It needs to be recognized that the physically visible ‘hand-made’ material creation including man and animal alike (Is. 45:11f.) is temporary, corruptible and destructible by nature irrespective of sin (Rom. 8:18-25; 1 Cor. 15:42-50; Heb. 1:10-12; 12:27, etc.). Far from needing to be redeemed because it has been marred by man’s rebellion, the temporary creation which includes all flesh was destined to destruction from the start. What has a beginning must have an end. And the sooner we realize this, the better. With massive earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and the rest, the sheer shakability of creation ought to be obvious to all who read the Bible, especially the book of Hebrews. We have been amply warned and like the OT saints we ought to find our refuge in God himself (Ps. 18:2,31,46, etc.). Now is the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2).

Finally, with animal predation in the wild displayed almost daily before our eyes on TV (Sir David Attenborough and his ilk), we need to learn its lesson while there is time.

Additional Note

Parents, mothers especially, are obviously distressed by the death of their babies. However, their death has no moral significance. Since unself-conscious babies do not know the law, they are not accountable (Rom. 3:19; 4:15). Like animals, they are simply victims of a corruptible creation (Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). Like Adam and Eve, by definition they initially have no knowledge of law and of good and evil (cf. Dt. 1:39). So while as flesh they are certainly not damned as Augustine imagined, by the same token they are not ‘saved’ since (a) they do not know the law that promises life, and (b) they cannot exercise faith in order to please God (Heb. 11:6). They are at the start unprofitable flesh (John 6:63) and flesh does not go to heaven (John 3:1-8; 1 Cor. 15:50).

On the other hand, the Bible presents God as being distressed by his ‘babies’ in Genesis 6:6. Why? Because they were adult rational ‘babies’ and clearly sinners. They were like fruitless trees even in autumn, the time of harvest (Jude 12, cf. 2 Pet. 2:12-16). As such they deserved to be destroyed (cf. Heb. 6:7f.). The same will be true at the end of the age when all those who have pandered exclusively to their flesh like animals will reap inevitable corruption (Gal. 6:8; 1 Cor. 6:9f., etc.).

__________________________________________________

References

R.J.Berry, Real Scientists Real Faith, Oxford, 2009.

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

Correspondences

If ‘Adam’ means both man the individual (the one) and mankind the race (the many) implying that the individual recapitulates and encapsulates the race, the correspondence must be borne out in Scripture. The following is a brief attempt to trace this correspondence.

1. Far from being created full-grown in one literal day as literalistic fundamentalists would have us believe, Adam must have been created by God the Father as seed (cf. Ps.139:15f.; 1 Pet. 1:23) in mother earth (Gen. 2:7). If this is not so, he could not have been a type of the one who was to come (Rom. 5:14) whose mother we know was fertilized by God (cf. Luke 3:38).

The second Adam as incarnate (Jesus) was created (Heb. 10:5b) in the earth (Eph. 4:9) through his mother and it was from there that to all intents and purposes he also began his earthly pilgrimage. To express the matter alternatively, he was born of woman (Gal. 4:4, cf. Job 31:15; Jer. 1:5) who as flesh symbolized the earth (dust, cf. Gen. 1:24-30; 3:20). As God’s Spirit hovered creatively over the waters in Genesis 1:2 so he overshadowed the Virgin Mary’s womb in Luke 1:35.

(It is worth noting that in Scripture women like Jephthah’s daughter, Jud.11:37, and Tamar, 2 Sam. 13:20, who do not have a husband are desolate, Isa. 54:1; Gal.4:27, like land that is not sown, Jer. 2:2.)

2. As seed Adam was transferred by God from the earth to the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8,15) to gestate, mature and to procreate transgenerationally.

Since procreation mirrors, imitates or recapitulates creation (cf. Rom. 8:18-25 and 2 Cor. 4:7-5:10), we can infer that man as the glory of God (1 Cor. 11:7) transfers his seed to his wife’s womb, which symbolizes the Garden of Eden, to gestate, mature and so to procreate. Jesus says that God continues to work (John 5:17) despite having finished what he originally began at creation (Gen. 2:1-3). In procreation, he builds on and extends this initial creative work, as Bible characters are well aware (Gen. 30:2; Job 31:15; Isa. 44:2; 49:1,5).

The correspondence or parallelism between God and man is brought out in Isaiah 45:9-10. Just as God created originally but did not repeat his action (cf. Gen. 2:1f.), so man procreates transgenerationally in accordance with the divine purpose (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,7; Mt. 19:5f.).

3. Since Adam derived from the earth, Eve who was created from his side (Gen. 2:23) was also earthy (clay/dust/grass/flesh, Ps. 78:39; 103:14; 1 Pet. 1:23). According to Scripture, as Adam was created first (1 Tim. 2:13), so we begin in our father’s loins (Heb. 7:10) and gestate in our mother’s wombs (cf. 1 Cor. 11:8-12). Thus Eve, who symbolizes the earth which was originally created and fertilized by God, is fertilized by Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 11:7b) and is hence the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20).

4. God, like Abraham at a later date, is our Father in two senses. First, he creates us physically ‘by hand’ (Job 10:8f.; Ps. 119:73; Isa. 64:8) and all human beings are by nature his physical offspring (Acts 17:28). Second, he re-creates us spiritually or ‘not by hand’ (John 1:13; 3:6, cf. 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9) to prepare us for his heavenly kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Cor. 5:1).

5. It is clear that though physically adult while he was still in the Garden of Eden (the womb of the race) Adam was mentally and spiritually like a baby emerging from total ignorance of (the) law and without knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22, cf. Dt. 1:39). It was not until he had like a child transgressed the one commandment (cf. Dt. 4:9b; Ps. 78:5-8; Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20, etc.), which promised eternal life if he kept it (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.) and death if he did not, that he was cast out of the Garden and sent into the harsher world outside. Once there, there was no more going back for Adam (Gen. 3:22-24) than there was for Nicodemus (John 3:4).

Babies as we know them are physically immature or imperfect. In the womb they remain totally ignorant (Rom. 9:11) and without the law they can be neither sinful nor righteous (Rom. 4:15; 6:16, etc.). Furthermore, they do not encounter the problem of exercising dominion over the outside world until after birth and weaning. Thus Paul, whose experience recapitulated, first, that of Eve (Rom. 7:11) then that of Adam (Rom. 7:13-25), says that he had ‘life’ until he broke the commandment and ‘died’. This meant that he who was born naturally mortal and corruptible (Rom. 1:23; 6:12; 2 Cor. 4:11) had failed to gain the eternal life which the commandment promised if it was kept (Rom. 7:9f.). (See my Interpreting Romans 7) As a consequence, like Adam, he was headed for certain death and corruption in the ground from which he was taken. In light of this, he needed rescue from his body of death by Jesus Christ as a matter of urgency and necessity (Rom. 7:25). The same holds true with regard to all who are sinners like him. (See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities)

6. Knowing that they have broken the commandment, Adam and Eve sense their guilt and lack of excuse (cf. Rom. 1:20f.). So though still in Eden they sew fig-leaves together to hide their shame (Gen. 3:7). A little later we read that as physical adults they are clothed by God in skins (Gen. 3:21) apparently to prepare them for combating the rigours of life outside of the Garden of Eden after their expulsion from it (cf. the ‘womb’). Correspondingly, Jesus as a baby who was born of woman was wrapped in swaddling cloths (Luke 2:7).

7. With the failure of Adam, with whom God had not made a covenant but to whom he had simply given a command, followed a period of rampant sin in his immediate adult successors. They behaved like babies, who are unprofitable flesh (John 6:63, cf. Rom. 7:18a; 8:8) in the process of being weaned, and failed to produce appropriate spiritual fruit. So they were destroyed by the flood (Gen. 6:11-13, cf. Heb. 6:7f.). Here, we must distinguish between real babies (cf. 1 Cor. 13:11; Eph. 4:13-16) and adults who act like babies but refuse to grow up and act responsibly (cf. Jer. 9:25f.; 1 Cor. 3:1-3; Heb. 5:11-6:8). These immediate descendants of Adam though individually adult acted like animals (Gen. 6:5-13; 2 Pet. 2:5), and proved spiritually fruitless (Jude 12). As they were destroyed by the flood, so their fleshly successors will be by fire at the end of the age (2 Pet. 2:12-22; 3:5-12, cf. Luke 17:26-30; Heb. 6:7f.; Jude). Of course, Jesus who was a genuine baby needed like Noah to have his body cleansed from his infantile filth as he began conscious life under the covenant with Noah (1 Pet. 3:21).

8. Under Noah began the rational and responsible heathen period of the history of mankind. It re-enacted the deception of Eve in the worship of false gods and capitulation to the sins of the flesh (Gen. 3:1-6; Rom 1:24ff.). Otherwise expressed, fleshly heathenism with its limited revelation bred large scale idolatry and immorality. Clearly God did not intend that this heathenism which characterizes childhood should be permanent, so during Noah’s covenant dispensation he interposed the call of Abraham to whom promises of world blessing were made (Gen. 12,15,17). These were eventually to be realized in Jesus (Gal. 3:8,14,29).

9. If heathenism reflected Eve who was uncircumcised, Israel reflected Adam who had received the commandment directly from God in Eden. Thus Israel was circumcised shortly after birth on the eighth day in preparation for life under the law at a later date. Jesus like all Jewish boys was too. This was followed by the heathen bondage of the children of Israel in Egypt where they worshipped false gods (Jos. 24:14f.), the exodus and release from childhood with a view to adolescence under the law of Moses delivered at Sinai. For Jesus this meant recapitulating Israel’s heathen experience if not its sin (Mt. 2:15, cf. Gal 4:1-3). After this ensued his bar mitzvah at age 13 which made him a son of the commandment and under personal obligation is keep the entire law.

10. Adam (mankind) as epitomized in Israel failed to keep the law (Ps. 106:6, etc.) and hence to gain eternal life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5). But Jesus as the True Vine having recapitulated Israel’s experience in Egypt (Mt. 2:15, cf. Ps. 80:8; Isa. 5:1-7), kept the law, was baptized and gained life, that is, was as man born again from above. Thus endowed with the Spirit, he went on to redeem Israel by his blood and enable all under law who trusted in him to receive adoption as sons (Gal. 4:4f.). Just as the Spirit had fallen on Jesus himself after he had kept the law and gained the righteousness which was the precondition of eternal life promised to Adam in Eden, so the Spirit later fell on all who put their trust in Jesus and so gained righteousness by faith (cf. Gal. 4:6). Consequently, all who acknowledge Christ as Saviour are no longer slaves but sons and heirs of God into the bargain (Gal. 4:7).

Prior to developing moral consciousness and self-awareness, Adam, like a baby, including Jesus, did not know:
(a) the law/commandment and hence good and evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22, cf. Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.; Rom.9:11);
(b) that he was naked (cf. Gen. 3:11);
(c) significant pain (3:16f., cf. animals). This suggests that increasing pain and growing moral self-awareness are concurrent in all children and not directly related to sin as such. A sense of sin occurs only because we have knowingly broken the commandment. The idea that unself-conscious babies and animals suffer as self-conscious and morally aware adult humans do reflects anthropomorphism. (See further my Creation and / or Evolution)

It was only after Adam had transgressed that he sought to cover his guilt and hide his shame by sewing fig leaves together (Gen. 3:7). By contrast, God himself provided him with skins (Gen. 3:21) apparently in preparation for combating the rigours of life outside of Eden which like a womb had provided all he needed. Jesus, of course, as a genuine baby born of woman was, like all babies who do not know the law (Rom. 4:15), sinless (Dt. 1:39). Nonetheless, since he was outside the womb, he was wrapped in swaddling cloths.

(It should be noted here that if this is so, animal death which must have taken place in order to provide the skins, is unrelated to sin. It was in fact an act of provision and grace by God for man outside the womb (Garden of Eden). Later of course animal sacrifice is used in atonement for sins. Even this shows that animal death as such is unrelated to sin, first, because it is ineffective (Heb. 7:27, etc.), and second, because if it was sinful, then its use would be like setting a thief to catch a thief or using sin to combat sin. Evil is only overcome by good. That animal death in itself is morally insignificant is demonstrated (a) by nature, which is red in tooth and claw (Ps. 104:21, etc.), and (b) by the legitimate exploitation of animals for food by humans.)

Note

Clarification of aspects of the above may be gained by reading my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?, The Correspondence Between Romans 8:12-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10Death Before Genesis 3, Animal Rights, etc.

Imitation

IMITATION
Some years ago I skimmed rapidly through the Bible and produced a substantial list of references to imitation,  following and walking, and so forth, in a very short time.
Imitation in the OT
Even a cursory examination will reveal that imitation is a prime feature of the OT. In Leviticus 11:44f. and 19:2, for example, we are told to be holy as God is holy. This admonition is repeated in the NT (1 Pet. 1:15f.). Having come out of heathen Egypt where they had been involved in the worship of false gods (cf. Jos. 24:2,14,23), the children of Israel had a constant tendency to relapse and were warned not to imitate the nations   (Lev. 18:3,24, cf. 2 K. 16:3). However, the Israelites proved to be inveterate sinners (1 Sam. 8:8; Ps. 106:6; Jer. 3:25) and were prompted in part by the desire to be like the nations to appoint a king (1 Sam. 8:5,20, Saul). On account of their sin they were frequently punished (Isa. 63:10). Like the Canaanites before them, they were eventually cast out of the Promised Land and sent into exile on account of their sin (see espec. Jeremiah).
Imitation in the NT
In the NT the imitation of Christ is part of the fabric of the gospel, yet this is frequently forgotten except perhaps on the moral level (1 Pet. 2:21, cf. Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). While Jesus tells us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5:48, cf. 19:21), Paul urges us to imitate God (Eph. 5:1), Christ (Eph. 5:2) and even himself (1 Cor. 4:16; 1 Thes. 1:6).  John reminds his readers that their goal is to be like God and that all who have hope in him must purify themselves just as he is pure (1 John 3:2f.). Thus he counsels us to imitate good and not evil (3 John 11). To all intents and purposes Jesus does the same when he accuses the Jews as the physical descendants of Abraham of imitating the devil rather than Abraham himself in John 8:39-59.
The evidence for imitation is extensive, but my point has been made.
Imitation of the Fathers
The children of Israel were specifically warned not to imitate the behaviour of their errant fathers as texts like 2 Chronicles 30:7f., Jeremiah 7:25f., Ezekiel 20:18, Zechariah 1:4 and Acts 7:51-53 indicate. In the NT pagan converts are reminded that they have been ransomed from the futile ways inherited from their forefathers (1 Pet. 1:18, cf. Eph. 4:17). Clearly the implication is that they were not to return to them. Going back rather than forward is always regarded as being reprehensible in the Bible (cf. Jer. 7:24, and see further my No Going Back at www.kenstothard.com /). In light of this, it is somewhat surprising to read Article 9 of the Church of England which begins as follows:
Article 9
Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness ….
Apart from noting in passing the fact that initially Adam did not know the commandment and therefore could not have been righteous by keeping it (cf. Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7), in view of the extensive teaching of Scripture on imitation, we are bound to query the idea that the Pelagians were talking “vainly” when they insisted that we all follow or imitate Adam, our first father. Indeed, we may go further and state that Augustine’s teaching on original sin, involving transmission (Catholics) or imputation (Protestants) rather than imitation,  insofar as it is based on Romans 5:12, is demonstrably false. Of course, this sweeping assertion demands substantiation.
So, first, we need to note that this verse fails to support the view that we sin “in Adam” as has been traditionally held. The idea classically summed up in the words of Bengel: omnes peccarunt Adamo peccante (all sinned when Adam sinned) is manifestly mistaken since if it were true, Jesus himself as a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) would have been born a sinner. Little wonder therefore that Sanday and Headlam, who quote Bengel (p.134), also acknowledge that the Jews (not to mention the Orthodox) did not accept the dogma in question and cite the Jewish Christian scholar Edersheim (p.137) as follows: “So far as their opinions can be gathered from their writings the great doctrines of Original sin and the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient Rabbis” (Life and Times, 1,165).
Second, even John Murray, the author of “The Imputation of Adam’s Sin” and a major commentary on Romans conceded that the Pelagian view was “compatible” with and could have been stated “admirably well” in the terms used by the apostle (see Romans, p.182).  Of course, while denying the translation “in whom all sinned” (Augustine), Murray also strenuously, but I would argue somewhat speciously, denied that Paul was referring to actual sins. However, the application of a little logic can demonstrate conclusively that Romans 5:12 must refer to sins actually committed and not to sin imputed. I offer the following syllogism:
First premise
In Romans 4:1-8, intent on showing that sinners like Abraham and David were justified by grace through faith (Gen. 15:6) and not by the works of the law, Paul argues that since righteousness is reckoned or imputed by faith, it is a gift which in the nature of the case excludes works and wages.
Second premise
In Romans 6:23 the apostle leaves his readers in no doubt at all when he states categorically that in contrast with the free gift of eternal life the wages of sin, which involves by definition transgression of the law apart from which sin does not exist (Rom. 4:15; 7:8f., cf. Gen. 2:17; James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17), is death.
Conclusion
So when he tells us in Romans 5:12 that all died because all sinned we have no option but to conclude that he is referring to actual sin because it is only actual sin involving transgression of the law which pays wages in death.
To express this syllogism more concisely:
First premise: In Romans 4:1-8 the gift (imputation) of righteousness by faith excludes wages.
Second premise: In Romans 6:23 sin earns the wages of death.
Conclusion: Therefore, in Romans 5:12 since all who sin die, their sin must be actual wage-earning sin.
If this is true, then Article 9, like chapter 6 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, is seriously astray. The plain truth is that at this point, if not at others, Pelagius was right. In their famous dispute it would appear that Augustine misunderstood Pelagius who used the word ‘imitate’ which Augustine on the specious plea that many had not even heard of Adam maintained was impossible (see Needham, pp.49f.). Perhaps if Pelagius had used the word ‘repeat’ or ‘recapitulate’, his point would have been clearer.  But Augustine’s powerful and pervasive influence swept away all ideas of recapitulation which Irenaeus had preached before his day. And though it would appear to be integral to Scripture, it does not usually merit even a mention in modern theological dictionaries. (See my I Believe in Recapitulation at www.kenstothard.com /.)
The plain truth is that there are only two acts of imputation in the entire Bible: the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers and the imputation of the sin of believers to Christ. Faith is involved in both instances: while on the one hand we receive justification by faith, on the other hand Jesus received and bore our condemnation by faith. In other words, there was a straight exchange as the apostle indicates in 2 Corinthians 5:21. A third act involving the imputation (Protestants) or transmission (Catholics) of Adam’s sin to us so that even in our infant innocence (cf. Dt. 1:39, etc.) we are considered sinners who are liable to death is not only superfluous but deeply erroneous. Jesus died for sins actually committed (Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 1:14; 2:13; 1 Pet. 3:18; 2 Pet. 1:9, etc.) not for sin in the abstract. If the latter were true, then so would universalism be true. Furthermore, it is vital for us to recognize that the imputation of sins to those who do not have them is regarded as evil throughout the Bible. We have only to consider Abimelech (Gen. 20, cf. 18:25), Jonathan (1 Sam. 14:24ff.), Ahimelech (1 Sam. 22:15), Abigail (1 Sam. 25:25), David (1 K. 2:32), Naboth (1 K. 21) and Jesus (Luke 23) to go no further to realize that to impute sins to those who have not committed any is itself sinful. How much more so, then, to babies who know neither the law nor good and evil (Dt. 1:39). In Romans 9:11 Paul’s argument regarding election depends for its efficacy on the moral neutrality of Esau and Jacob in the womb. In any case, while the child caught up in the situation engineered by his father may suffer (Num. 14:33), he cannot be punished for his father’s sins (Dt. 24:16). If this is not so, how did the children of the sinful fathers who died in the wilderness arrive at the Promised Land (cf. Dt. 1:39; Num. 14)?
So when we ask what Paul meant when he clearly implied in Romans 5:12ff. that Adam had an impact (noticeably unspecified) on his offspring, we should reject with alacrity notions of transmission and imputation without further ado. Clearly what the apostle meant is that all parents have an influence for good (cf. Luke 11:13) or evil (cf. Ex. 20: 5f.; 34:6f.) on their offspring, but this is something that even Jesus had to deal with. In other words, whatever it is, it comes short of being fatalistically deterministic as Ezekiel 18 clearly implies. A son does not have to follow in his father’s sinful footsteps as he would if sin was transmitted or imputed. While solidarity is important in Scripture, it does not destroy individuality and prevent separation (cf. Num. 16:22; 1 Chr. 21:17; Jer. 32:18f.).
(There is, of course, a good deal more to be said on the issue of original sin, but since I have dealt at some length with the issue elsewhere, there is little point in going over the same ground again. I would simply direct readers to my articles on original sin on my website www.kenstothard.com /. They include An Exact Parallel?, J.I.Packer on Original Sin, D.M.Lloyd-Jones and J. Murray on the Imputation of Adam’s Sin, Straightforward Arguments against the Imputation of Adam’s Sin to his Posterity, Short Arguments against Original Sin in Romans, Thoughts on Romans 5:12-14, Thoughts on Sin in Romans,  etc.)
Additional Note
D.M.Lloyd-Jones along with J. Murray was one of the most powerful contenders for original sin in the twentieth century (see espec. his sermons on Romans 5 and on Ephesians 2). For all that, it is not a little interesting to note that while in one of his posthumously published works, “The Gospel in Genesis”, he could write that “we all sinned with him and we all fell with him” (p.26), he could also say “each of us in our turn repeats what was done at the beginning, and we go on repeating it” (p.62). On p. 80 he says, “For the astounding fact is that every one of us repeats the action of Adam and Eve”. Whether or not the truth regarding the issue was slowly dawning on Lloyd-Jones’ mind I do not know, but what is clear is that if we all repeat Adam’s sin (that is break the commandment in some sense) the imputation of his sin is rendered redundant. In other words, as Scripture emphasizes, we all sin for ourselves, on our own account, and are therefore held responsible (Rom. 3:19, cf. 2:12; John 8:34). On the other hand, we cannot be held accountable for Adam’s sin, least of all die on account of it (cf. Dt. 24:16, etc.). As God said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book” (Ex. 32:33). Or again, it is the soul who sins who dies (Ezek. 18:4,20) not the son who does not repeat his father’s iniquity (Ezek. 18:17). Clearly Jesus did not sin as Adam sinned (cf. 1 Pet. 2:22), therefore he did not die on his own account but for us (1 Pet. 3:18). The imputation (and/or transmission) of sin is an Augustinian fabrication supported and maintained only by ecclesiastical tradition. It is quite alien to the Bible and should be abandoned with rigour and dispatch.
(NOTE: On the paradigmatic nature of Adam’s sin see, for example, Craigie, Ezekiel, p. 208; Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel, p.24; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p.91; Chris Wright, Ezekiel, p.245.)
REFERENCES
D.M.Lloyd-Jones, Romans 5, London, 1971.
D.M.Lloyd-Jones, Ephesians 2, London, 19 ?
D.M.Lloyd-Jones, The Gospel in Genesis, Wheaton, 2009.
J.Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, repr. Phillipsburg, 1979.
J.Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, London, 1967.
N.R.Needham, The Triumph of Grace, London, 2000.
Sanday and Headlam, ICC on The Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed. Edinburgh, 1902.

Some years ago I skimmed rapidly through the Bible and produced a substantial list of references to imitation,  following and walking, and so forth, in a very short time.

Imitation in the OT

Even a cursory examination will reveal that imitation is a prime feature of the OT. In Leviticus 11:44f. and 19:2, for example, we are told to be holy as God is holy. This admonition is repeated in the NT (1 Pet. 1:15f.). Having come out of heathen Egypt where they had been involved in the worship of false gods (cf. Jos. 24:2,14,23), the children of Israel had a constant tendency to relapse and were warned not to imitate the nations   (Lev. 18:3,24, cf. 2 K. 16:3). However, the Israelites proved to be inveterate sinners (1 Sam. 8:8; Ps. 106:6; Jer. 3:25) and were prompted in part by the desire to be like the nations to appoint a king (1 Sam. 8:5,20, Saul). On account of their sin they were frequently punished (Isa. 63:10). Like the Canaanites before them, they were eventually cast out of the Promised Land and sent into exile on account of their sin (see espec. Jeremiah).

Imitation in the NT

In the NT the imitation of Christ is part of the fabric of the gospel, yet this is frequently forgotten except perhaps on the moral level (1 Pet. 2:21, cf. Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). While Jesus tells us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5:48, cf. 19:21), Paul urges us to imitate God (Eph. 5:1), Christ (Eph. 5:2) and even himself (1 Cor. 4:16; 1 Thes. 1:6).  John reminds his readers that their goal is to be like God and that all who have hope in him must purify themselves just as he is pure (1 John 3:2f.). Thus he counsels us to imitate good and not evil (3 John 11). To all intents and purposes Jesus does the same when he accuses the Jews as the physical descendants of Abraham of imitating the devil rather than Abraham himself in John 8:39-59.

The evidence for imitation is extensive, but my point has been made.

Imitation of the Fathers

The children of Israel were specifically warned not to imitate the behaviour of their errant fathers as texts like 2 Chronicles 30:7f., Jeremiah 7:25f., Ezekiel 20:18-31, Zechariah 1:4 and Acts 7:51-53 indicate. In the NT pagan converts are reminded that they have been ransomed from the futile ways inherited from their forefathers (1 Pet. 1:18, cf. Eph. 4:17). Clearly the implication is that they were not to return to them. Going back rather than forward is always regarded as being reprehensible in the Bible (cf. Jer. 7:24, and see further my No Going Back). In light of this, it is somewhat surprising to read Article 9 of the Church of England which begins as follows:

Article 9

Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness ….

Apart from noting in passing the fact that initially Adam did not know the commandment and therefore could not have been righteous by keeping it (cf. Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7), in view of the extensive teaching of Scripture on imitation, we are bound to query the idea that the Pelagians were talking “vainly” when they insisted that we all follow or imitate Adam, our first father. Indeed, we may go further and state that Augustine’s teaching on original sin, involving transmission (Catholics) or imputation (Protestants) rather than imitation,  insofar as it is based on Romans 5:12, is demonstrably false. Of course, this sweeping assertion demands substantiation.

So, first, we need to note that this verse fails to support the view that we sin “in Adam” as has been traditionally held. The idea classically summed up in the words of Bengel: omnes peccarunt Adamo peccante (all sinned when Adam sinned) is manifestly mistaken since if it were true, Jesus himself as a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) would have been born a sinner. Little wonder therefore that Sanday and Headlam, who quote Bengel (p.134), also acknowledge that the Jews (not to mention the Orthodox) did not accept the dogma in question and cite the Jewish Christian scholar Edersheim (p.137) as follows: “So far as their opinions can be gathered from their writings the great doctrines of Original sin and the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient Rabbis” (Life and Times, 1,165).

Second, even John Murray, the author of “The Imputation of Adam’s Sin” and a major commentary on Romans conceded that the Pelagian view was “compatible” with and could have been stated “admirably well” in the terms used by the apostle (see Romans, p.182).  Of course, while denying the translation “in whom all sinned” (Augustine), Murray also strenuously, but I would argue somewhat speciously, denied that Paul was referring to actual sins. However, the application of a little logic can demonstrate conclusively that Romans 5:12 must refer to sins actually committed and not to sin imputed. I offer the following syllogism:

First premise

In Romans 4:1-8, intent on showing that sinners like Abraham and David were justified by grace through faith (Gen. 15:6) and not by the works of the law, Paul argues that since righteousness is reckoned or imputed by faith, it is a gift which in the nature of the case excludes works and wages.

Second premise

In Romans 6:23 the apostle leaves his readers in no doubt at all when he states categorically that in contrast with the free gift of eternal life the wages of sin, which involves by definition transgression of the law apart from which sin does not exist (Rom. 4:15; 7:8f., cf. Gen. 2:17; James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17), is death.

Conclusion

So when he tells us in Romans 5:12 that all died because all sinned we have no option but to conclude that he is referring to actual sin because it is only actual sin involving transgression of the law which pays wages in death.

To express this syllogism more concisely:

First premise: In Romans 4:1-8 the gift (imputation) of righteousness by faith excludes wages.

Second premise: In Romans 6:23 sin earns the wages of death.

Conclusion: Therefore, in Romans 5:12 since all who sin die, their sin must be actual wage-earning sin.

If this is true, then Article 9, like chapter 6 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, is seriously astray. The plain truth is that at this point, if not at others, Pelagius was right. In their famous dispute it would appear that Augustine misunderstood Pelagius who used the word ‘imitate’ which Augustine on the specious plea that many had not even heard of Adam maintained was impossible (see Needham, pp.49f.). Perhaps if Pelagius had used the word ‘repeat’ or ‘recapitulate’, his point would have been clearer.  But Augustine’s powerful and pervasive influence swept away all ideas of recapitulation which Irenaeus had preached before his day. And though it would appear to be integral to Scripture, it does not usually merit even a mention in modern theological dictionaries. (See my I Believe in Recapitulation)

The plain truth is that there are only two acts of imputation in the entire Bible: the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers and the imputation of the sin of believers to Christ. Faith is involved in both instances: while on the one hand we receive justification by faith, on the other hand Jesus received and bore our condemnation by faith. In other words, there was a straight exchange as the apostle indicates in 2 Corinthians 5:21. A third act involving the imputation (Protestants) or transmission (Catholics) of Adam’s sin to us so that even in our infant innocence (cf. Dt. 1:39, etc.) we are considered sinners who are liable to death is not only superfluous but deeply erroneous. Jesus died for sins actually committed (Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 1:14; 2:13; 1 Pet. 3:18; 2 Pet. 1:9, etc.) not for sin in the abstract. If the latter were true, then so would universalism be true. Furthermore, it is vital for us to recognize that the imputation of sins to those who do not have them is regarded as evil throughout the Bible. We have only to consider Abimelech (Gen. 20, cf. 18:25), Jonathan (1 Sam. 14:24ff.), Ahimelech (1 Sam. 22:15), Abigail (1 Sam. 25:25), David (1 K. 2:32), Naboth (1 K. 21) and Jesus (Luke 23) to go no further to realize that to impute sins to those who have not committed any is itself sinful. How much more so, then, to babies who know neither the law nor good and evil (Dt. 1:39). In Romans 9:11 Paul’s argument regarding election depends for its efficacy on the moral neutrality of Esau and Jacob in the womb. In any case, while the child caught up in the situation engineered by his father may suffer (Num. 14:33), he cannot be punished for his father’s sins (Dt. 24:16). If this is not so, how did the children of the sinful fathers who died in the wilderness arrive at the Promised Land (cf. Dt. 1:39; Num. 14)?

So when we ask what Paul meant when he clearly implied in Romans 5:12ff. that Adam had an impact (noticeably unspecified) on his offspring, we should reject with alacrity notions of transmission and imputation without further ado. Clearly what the apostle meant is that all parents have an influence for good (cf. Luke 11:13) or evil (cf. Ex. 20: 5f.; 34:6f.) on their offspring, but this is something that even Jesus had to deal with. In other words, whatever it is, it comes short of being fatalistically deterministic as Ezekiel 18 clearly implies. A son does not have to follow in his father’s sinful footsteps as he would if sin was transmitted or imputed. While solidarity is important in Scripture, it does not destroy individuality and prevent separation (cf. Num. 16:22; 1 Chr. 21:17; Jer. 32:18f.).

(There is, of course, a good deal more to be said on the issue of original sin, but since I have dealt at some length with the issue elsewhere, there is little point in going over the same ground again. I would simply direct readers to my articles on original sin. They include An Exact Parallel?,  J.I.Packer on Original SinD.M.Lloyd-Jones and J.Murray on the Imputation of Adam’s SinStraightforward Arguments against the Imputation of Adam’s Sin to his PosterityShort Arguments Against Original Sin in RomansThoughts on Romans 5:12-14Thoughts on Sin in Romans,  etc.)

Additional Note

D.M.Lloyd-Jones along with J. Murray was one of the most powerful contenders for original sin in the twentieth century (see espec. his sermons on Romans 5 and on Ephesians 2). For all that, it is not a little interesting to note that while in one of his posthumously published works, “The Gospel in Genesis”, he could write that “we all sinned with him and we all fell with him” (p.26), he could also say “each of us in our turn repeats what was done at the beginning, and we go on repeating it” (p.62). On p. 80 he says, “For the astounding fact is that every one of us repeats the action of Adam and Eve”. Whether or not the truth regarding the issue was slowly dawning on Lloyd-Jones’ mind I do not know, but what is clear is that if we all repeat Adam’s sin (that is break the commandment in some sense) the imputation of his sin is rendered redundant. In other words, as Scripture emphasizes, we all sin for ourselves, on our own account, and are therefore held responsible (Rom. 3:19, cf. 2:12; John 8:34). On the other hand, we cannot be held accountable for Adam’s sin, least of all die on account of it (cf. Dt. 24:16, etc.). As God said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book” (Ex. 32:33). Or again, it is the soul who sins who dies (Ezek. 18:4,20) not the son who does not repeat his father’s iniquity (Ezek. 18:17). Clearly Jesus did not sin as Adam sinned (cf. 1 Pet. 2:22), therefore he did not die on his own account but for us (1 Pet. 3:18). The imputation (and/or transmission) of sin is an Augustinian fabrication supported and maintained only by ecclesiastical tradition. It is quite alien to the Bible and should be abandoned with rigour and dispatch.

(NOTE: On the paradigmatic nature of Adam’s sin see, for example, Craigie, Ezekiel, p. 208; Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel, p.24; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p.91; Chris Wright, Ezekiel, p.245.)

__________________________________________________

References

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

D.M.Lloyd-Jones, Ephesians 2, London, 19 ?

D.M.Lloyd-Jones, The Gospel in Genesis, Wheaton, 2009.

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

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

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

Sanday and Headlam, ICC on The Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed. Edinburgh, 1902.

Creation and / or Evolution

Genesis 1:26 tells us of God’s intention to create mankind in his (‘our’) image and likeness and to give him dominion over the rest of creation. Traditionally Christians have believed that God did this in one 24-hour day, but this view is based on a highly questionable interpretation of the word ‘day’ and a dubious exegetical and theological perspective. (1* See further my Twenty-Four Hours or Rather More at www.kenstothard.com /). However, on the assumption that the word ‘Adam’ means both mankind as race and man as individual and we base our view of mankind on what we know to be true of the individual, that is, that the latter once (pro)created is observably subject to development, we necessarily conclude that the individual recapitulates and encapsulates the race. (2* On recapitulation, see my I Believe in Recapitulation, Recapitulation in Outline.) In other words, in trying to understand the limited and somewhat symbolic or parabolic (Goldingay, p.27) information given us in Genesis 1-3, we can resort to the analogy of faith (analogia fidei) and gain light by recognizing that mutatis mutandis the perfected individual serves as the paradigm of the race, and that individual is supremely Jesus himself (cf. Eph. 1:10). (3* The ‘mutatis mutandis’, or the making of the necessary changes, is important since Adam is presented to us in the Garden of Eden, the womb of the race, in apparent physical maturity but spiritual infancy. To that extent he differs from all his descendants including Jesus who was nonetheless made in Adam’s image, Gen. 5:1-3; Luke 3:38.) To express the issue somewhat negatively, if the individual is the paradigm or epitome of the race, the idea that the race did not develop or evolve physically is ruled out of court. If the perfected Jesus, the second Adam, the antitype, who began in the womb, underwent a nine-month gestation period and proceeded to mature through childhood, adolescence, etc., we are compelled to conclude that the first Adam, the type (Rom. 5:14), developed too. Denial of the correspondence between the two Adams is to drive a wedge between them and to render both our theology and anthropology unintelligible. (Cf. Psalm 139:13-16; Eph. 4:9f., and see further below.) The Bible, theology, science, history, personal experience and logic all militate against the traditional idea that Adam was created physically and spiritually mature in one 24-hour day. Indeed, it may legitimately be asked why if he was created righteous and holy, Adam was ever put on probation at all? Does not Genesis 2:17 imply that his goal, like that of all human beings, was eternal life which could not be attained apart from righteousness achieved by keeping the law?

Man and Animal

Though Hebraists have apparently found it impossible to distinguish definitively between image and likeness, nonetheless the terminology suggests that man acquires these characteristics by a gradual process of development. First, like the rest of the animal creation man (Adam) begins life as ‘flesh’ created from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7; 6:17, cf. John 1:13). (4* On the creation of man and animal, see e.g. Chris Wright, pp.26ff.) Second, also like the animals among which he lives man begins life in ignorance (Ps. 32:9; Job 35:11) and knows neither good nor evil until, after undergoing some development under the Spirit of God (cf. Luke 2:40), he is able to receive the commandment (Gen. 2:16f., cf. Rom. 4:15; 6:16; 7:9f.; 9:11). (5* One early sign of man’s link with but separation from the animals is his infant/child-like ability to name them and implicitly to exercise authority over them, Gen. 2:19.) So far as the individual is concerned this is beyond dispute and Adam’s development from ignorance to knowledge is recapitulated in all his progeny (Dt. 1:39, cf. Rom. 7:9f., etc.) but certainly not in twenty-four hours!. That it occurred in ourselves and in our children is verified by personal experience. (It might usefully be stressed at this point that this development is the work of the Spirit of God and not to be attributed to naturalistic evolution or Nature! Note Genesis 1:2 and Luke 1:35.)
The Development (Maturation, Perfection) of Jesus
Second, this development from ignorance to knowledge clearly occurred in the second Adam (cf. Isa. 7:15f.; Luke 2:40-52) who is the antitype of the first Adam, his type (Rom. 5:14). The maturation or process of development that occurred in Jesus is evident from the biblical data. He was conceived (made flesh, John 1:14; Luke 1:35, cf. Gen. 1:2), underwent gestation, was born, became an infant, then an adolescent and eventually attained to both physical and spiritual maturity. (6* On man as both flesh and spirit, see my Biblical Dualism, The Flesh, at www.kenstothard.com /.) While his physical adulthood was paralleled by all animals that reach maturity and was basic to his fleshly manhood since it occurred ‘naturally’ with the passage of time (cf. Luke 2:40-52; 3:23; 1 Cor. 15:46), Jesus’ spiritual maturity or perfection was achieved, first, as a ‘slave’ in Egypt in childhood, second, as a servant who was tested under the law and, third, as a son (the Son) after his anointing by the Spirit (John 1:33; 6:27; Acts 4:27; 10:38). In this way he achieved full covenant maturity (cf. Gal. 4:1-7). (On this, see below.) But the point to note above all is that like Adam before him, as a baby he knew neither good nor evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22: Isa. 7:15f., cf. 8:4) and like all infants he began from scratch, that is, from moral neutrality (Dt 1:39, cf. Rom. 4:15). It was only as he developed and became conscious of the commandment that he reacted to it like Adam before him and established his own moral nature (something he could not have done if Adam’s sin was either imputed or transmitted to him). But whereas Adam broke the commandment as Paul, like all others (Rom. 3:23; 5:12), was to do later (Rom. 7:9f.), Jesus kept it and established his righteousness by his obedience (Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7). In remaining unaffected by sin despite the reality of his fleshly temptations (Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 4:15) and his dubious human pedigree (Mt. 1:1-5; Luke 3:38), he was unique (Rom. 8:3; 1 Pet. 2:22) and was thus uniquely fitted to serve as the Saviour of mankind (Heb. 2:17f.). (Verses like John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 are not isolated texts but succinct summaries of the essence of biblical Christology.)
Personhood
If this is so, then personhood, which implies the possession of recognizable human characteristics, is not evident either at conception, during gestation or even immediately after birth. As Paul intimates, we are, first, (animal) flesh, and, second, spirit (1 Cor. 15:46, cf. John 1:13; 3:6). At birth a baby, like all mammals, feeds only on milk or perishable food (cf. John 6:22ff.; Heb. 5:13) and is incapable of ingesting the word of God by which alone man is able to live eternally (Mt. 4:4). Furthermore, Jesus himself says nothing explicit about either the salvation or the damnation of the very young when like his Father (Gen. 1:31) he blesses them. He simply says that of such (not of all in their present condition) is the kingdom of God (Mark 10:14-16). (See further below.) To pinpoint the issue, at birth our difference from the rest of the animal creation with which we are linked (Gen. 2:19; 6:17) is evident only on the physical level. It is not until we acquire moral consciousness after a process of development (cf. the work of the Spirit of God, cf. Gen. 1:2; Luke 1:35,80; 2:40-52?) that we as those whose goal or destiny is to be like God and his children are properly distinguishable from the rest of the animal creation. This becomes even more patent in the Bible when we examine covenant revelation.
Covenant Theology
First, it is plain that initially there is no covenant agreement made with creation. (7* See my Did God Make a Covenant With Creation? Covenant Theology, Covenant Theology in Brief.) After all, since it is inarticulate, like Adam himself during the period of his ignorance, a covenant or unilateral agreement, as opposed to a sovereign imposition or command, is a contradiction in terms. (8* Cf. J. Murray, pp.47ff., who denied that the Adamic arrangement had covenantal status.) Thus the first covenant is not established until Noah comes on the scene by which time a process of anthropological development has occurred and mankind, whether as community or individual, has gradually acquired what are clearly human characteristics including speech, understanding, the ability to think, reason, make choices (cf. Heb. 5:13f.), appreciate the significance of rainbows, control bodily functions (cf. 1 Pet. 3:21), express gratitude (cf. Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 10:30, etc.) and above all understand the commandment (law) and hence become morally conscious.
Then, after promises are made to Abraham and his offspring, the next dispensational covenant following that with Noah is a covenant of law made through Moses. This is clearly an extension of the single commandment given to Adam in his (spiritual) infancy (cf. Israel on leaving Sinai, Ex. 32; Isa. 48:8). Again, it should be noted that by this time the Hebrews had undergone yet further development and were ready to progress beyond bondage to child-like heathenism (cf. Gal. 4:1,3; Col. 2:8,20). But the same is true of the individual, for it can hardly pass without notice that while girls remained uncircumcised (and were often regarded in Judaism as little better than the heathen), boys became responsible for keeping the law when they reached their bar mitzvah at the age of thirteen (cf. Luke 2:40-52) as sons of the commandment. According to Leviticus 25 this established Jewish men as the servants rather than the slaves of God which they had been both literally and metaphorically in Egypt.
Then again, following the promise to David there was a further stage in dispensational covenant theology which was paralleled by more development in both the community and the individual. Jesus as man, or more specifically as a circumcised Jewish man, having already served his stint like all Jewish boys as a son of the commandment attained to life (received the Spirit, cf. Gal. 3:3:1-5) at his baptism and gained the status of a son, the Son, the first-born (cf. Rom. 8:29; Ps. 89:27; Col. 1:15) who would inherit all things (Heb. 1:2; Rom. 8:32), by flawlessly keeping the law (Lev. 18:5, cf. Gen. 2:17). So it was as the spiritually regenerate Son of God that, after fulfilling all righteousness (Mt. 3:15; 19:21), Jesus attained to full maturity (Mt. 5:48) at his glorification. It was then that he finally achieved the pinnacle of perfection (cf. Mt. 5:48; 19:21) and became the exact imprint of God’s nature, the bodily fullness of deity (Heb. 1:3; Col. 2:9, cf. John 17:5,24). (Some readers whose outlook is dominated by Augustine and sin are bound to object to this presentation of the life of Jesus on the grounds that he was already the Word of God made flesh at birth. So, to emphasize my point, if he was truly incarnate, a true man, the Man, I maintain that he had to go through the mill like the rest of his fellows, cf. Heb. 2. There were no short cuts. Though virgin born, he was, like Adam, Luke 3:38, nonetheless initially God’s ‘natural’ son for whom it was necessary, not imperative a la Augustine, to be born again like the rest of his fellows, John 3:1-6. If not, the charge of docetism applies.)
Personhood Again
So, it may be asked, what is the relevance of all this to the issue in question? The answer is that man becomes the image and likeness of God not by being instantaneously stamped with it as a kind of donum superadditum but by a process of development or evolution (cf. the idea that God creates in the womb, Job 31:15). Initially, he is profitless flesh (cf. John 1:13; 6:63; Rom. 7:18), and like the rest of the animal creation he undergoes a period of unconscious (prehistorical) gestation (cf. Gen. 6:17; 1 Cor. 15:46.). In this state like Adam at the beginning he knows neither (the) law nor good and evil (cf. Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11, etc.). In light of this it is necessary to infer that the image of God in which man is made initially is only potential. (The reader might find it helpful at this point to meditate on the implications of Romans 7-8 and Galatians 4:1-9.) If this is so, it is quite wrong for anti-abortionists, for example, to argue on the basis of Genesis 1:26 that babies, even fetuses, are persons. Not only do the latter fail to evince all the normal characteristics of persons as we know them but they also fail to measure up theologically. (As a lad, I once heard a Methodist minister describe a baby as a creature with a loud noise at one end and a complete lack of responsibility at the other. Those who have ever been with cows, for example, will recognize the similarity.) What I mean is that while abortion on demand and without adequate reason is doubtless reprehensible, it is not well supported by appeal to the suggestion that a foetus is a person and that killing it is tantamount to the murder of a man or woman who has attained to full personhood of which Jesus is the prime example! This conclusion would appear to have biblical support, for Exodus 21:22f. seem to differentiate between the ‘murder’ of a wife and the concomitant death of her child. While the penalty for the death of the wife is apparently death in accordance with the lex talionis, a fine is sufficient to cover the harm done to the fetus. (It is interesting to compare this with Dt. 22:6f.). In sum, to abort or kill a baby is to kill a potential person not a person who is already being recognizably conformed to the image of God. (8* See further on this my essays on Concerning Infant Salvation at www.kenstothard.com /.)
The Genesis Days
With the above in mind it is imperative for us to reconsider Genesis 1:26 which has traditionally been understood as though the Genesis days were literal 24-hour days and man was created holy, righteous and even perfect without any process of development (cf. Job 31:15; Rom. 9:11). The reasons for questioning this are vital. For example, as has already been noted Scripture talks of God creating or forming in the womb (Job 31:15; Jer. 1:5, cf. Gal. 1:15, etc.) and Psalm 139:13-16 (cf. Eph. 4:9f.) certainly suggest a process. Now if the individual recapitulates the race (or ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) as a truly biblical covenant theology surely indicates, we are compelled to conclude in the absence of a definite time scale in Genesis 1 (unless of course we unwarrantably insist on interpreting ‘day’ literally) that our creation in the image of God is developmental or evolutionary (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18, etc.). As was suggested above, as embryos and even in the early stages of infancy we are only potentially, though, on the assumption that we attain to maturity, also predestined persons (cf. (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:5,11; 1 Pet. 1:2), who are called to be the children of God (1 John 3:1-3). This inference would appear to be supported, first, by God who blesses man in the process of his early development (Genesis 1:28) but fails to make a covenant with him, then, secondly, by Jesus who blesses little children only as potential members of the kingdom who as individuals may or may not eventually exercise faith apart from which they cannot be saved (Mark 10:14-16, cf. Luke 18:15-17 on which see e.g. Bock, ad loc.).
Man’s Evolution
All this suggests that when modern scientific theory tells us that mankind as a race was first (animal) flesh before he became recognizably human (or that Adam had fleshly precursors who were pre-Adamites but not monkeys (!) who came short of being truly human), it has biblical backing. The traditional idea associated with Augustinian theology that man was created perfect and/or completely adult is beyond question a contradiction in terms. For all the evidence at our disposal tells us that undeveloped he is not (a) man at all but a freak like Minerva (Athene) who sprang fully mature from the head of Jupiter (Zeus) in classical mythology. The truth is that man who is both flesh and spirit develops on both levels, that is, first physically and second spiritually under the aegis of God (1 Cor. 15:46, cf. Heb. 5:11-6:1; 1 Pet. 2:2). Man (and indeed creation as a whole it would appear) is the end result of a teleological process.  (Pace supporters of naturalistic evolutionism who ridicule purposive design. It must be conceded, however, that there is a sense in which so-called intelligent design is open to criticism in that even the Bible teaches that the visible creation, Rom. 1:20, is ultimately futile and after reaching maturity is headed for final destruction, Heb.12:27. Note Ecclesiastes, Romans 8:20, 1 Corinthians 15:17. On the other hand, we need to acknowledge as believers that all things work together for good for those who love God, Rom. 8:28.) To express the issue differently, if Jesus the ideal man, the antitype of Adam began his earthly life imperfect, that is, immature, then so did both Adam and the rest of his posterity. If this is not so, it is difficult to acknowledge Adam as man at all, least of all representative man according to the flesh. (The reader should note again that in this scenario Adam the race, mankind, is epitomized or miniaturized in Adam the individual. Thus Jesus is depicted as the last Adam, the true vine or Israel, etc. And it is worth noting that national Israel who is sometimes personified as an individual, Gen. 46:4; Ex. 13:8, experiences birth, youth, and so forth, Isa. 48:8; Jer. 3:24f. Note also how Christians are epitomized all together as one mature man in Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:15 and 4:13, and elsewhere as the bride of Christ, Rev. 21:2,9.)
Perfection
The evidence for the development or perfection (perfecting process) of Jesus is incontrovertible. Against the background of both his physical and spiritual development alluded to in Luke 2:40-52, for example, the process of his spiritual maturation appears especially in Hebrews (e.g. 2:10; 5:9; 7:26,28, cf. 6:1; 7:11; 10:1; 12:23; Mt. 5:48; 19:21). Thus, since Jesus as man was initially spiritually as well as physically imperfect (immature, incomplete, cf. James 1:4) and dependent (it is worth noting that it was Joseph who had a dream warning him to go to Egypt out of Herod’s reach), the traditional idea that Adam began life perfect, holy and righteous and proceeded to lose his ‘high estate’ in “the Fall” is manifestly absurd (cf. my What Fall?). While Adam failed to keep the commandment, lost his innocence and became unrighteous (cf. Eccl. 7:29; Isa. 53:6), by contrast Jesus kept it – the entire law in fact – and thereby became righteous (Lev. 18:5;. Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7, etc.) However, he was not accepted as legally righteous until he had successfully been tested under and had kept the law. At that point, at his baptism in fact, his Father expressed his pleasure in him, acknowledged him as his Son and gave him the Spirit or eternal life (Mt. 3:13-17) in accordance with the promise (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). (9* The traditional Reformed order of salvation or ordo salutis which arises out of the unbiblical dogma of original sin is clearly false. See further my essays on The Order of Salvation, The Order of Salvation in Romans, Cart-Before-the-Horse Theology.) Furthermore, it was not until he had undergone death, resurrection and ascension that he was recognized as the Righteous One (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 1 John 2:1; 1 Pet. 2:22) and the Author of life (Acts 3:15; 22:14, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45), that is, on a par with God. Perfection, or rather the perfecting or maturation process, is at the heart of the Christian gospel and is part of the essence of man’s calling (Mt. 5:48; 19:21, cf. Heb. 6:1; 1 Pet. 1:14-16) as Paul, for example, was well aware (Phil. 3:12-16). Little wonder that he calls on his converts to become mature in understanding (1 Cor. 13:11; 14:20) with the goal of being presented mature in Christ (Col. 1:28) both as individuals and as a body (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 2:15; 4:13). (10* See further my essay Perfection.)
Literalism
If all this is true, the claim of literalists that the Genesis days are literal 24-hour days is plainly false. It represents a complete failure to think theologically as mature men. The days of Genesis are an inspired way of sketching pre-history for all conditions of people who eventually achieve consciousness in actual history. What is indisputably true is that as human beings, in contradistinction from other animals, we are created with the potential of becoming the image of God like Jesus who at the end of his earthly course and ascension into heaven became the exact imprint of his nature (Heb. 1:3). Not for nothing is he called the founder or pioneer and perfecter of our salvation (Heb. 2:10; 21:2, ESV). (Note how when earlier in his earthly pilgrimage Jesus is called ‘good’ in Mark 10:17f., he claims that only God is good, that is in the absolute sense. Like Paul he might well have said that he was not already perfect, Phil. 3:12, cf. Heb. 5:9, etc.) And this potential or process does not culminate for us until we achieve his likeness (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21, cf. Rev. 3:21) and, after shedding our animal flesh, gain spiritual bodies as the children of God (John 1:13; Rom. 8:12-17; 1 Cor. 15:42-50; Gal. 4:1-7; Eph. 1:5f.; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:1-3). Our progress or evolution is therefore from ground to glory as his was (Eph. 4:9f.).
Animality
However, there is a down side to this. Where this process is deliberately resisted and men foster the corruptible (animal) flesh in which they are first made (cf. Gal. 6:8 and note 1 Cor. 6:9-11), Scripture not unnaturally likens them to animals, creatures of instinct whose end is to be caught and killed (2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10, cf. Eccl. 3:18). Self-control is basic to the sanctification process (2 Pet. 1:6-11) apart from which we shall not see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). Spirit is intended to rule flesh (James 3:3) but only Jesus achieved this to perfection (James 3:2b, cf. Mt. 5:48). What is more, he freely gave his flesh on our behalf (Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 3:18, cf. 4:6).
In sum, the truth is that the image of God in us is the result of a process of sanctification and perfection, the progressive work of the Spirit of God which culminates or reaches its fulfillment in the perfect man, in Christ who was himself crowned with glory and honour (Heb. 2:9, cf. 1:3). That goal first implied in Genesis 1:26-28 (cf. Ps. 8:3-8) and 2:17 remains for us to achieve (Rom. 2:7,10; Heb. 5:14-6:1; 1 Pet. 1:7) by his grace and in his footsteps (Heb. 2:9-13, etc.). He became like us so that we might become like him as Irenaeus, who strongly stressed recapitulation, maintained.
Old Testament Indicators
In Psalm 139:13-16 (cf. Job 10:11) David, like Paul in Romans 7:9f., clearly recognizes his own recapitulation of Adam’s experience referred to in Genesis 2 and 3. (In Ephesians 4:9f., cf. John 3:13, Paul also arguably sees the descent of Jesus at his incarnation as a recapitulation of Adam’s creation.) In verse 15 David apparently sees himself as seed that is sown to gestate in the womb, v.13. This vividly reflects Adam who is taken out of the ground and put into the garden of Eden to be nurtured there, Gen. 2:8,15.) On the racial level man is placed in the Garden of Eden which surely represents the womb of mankind. So, to all intents and purposes, we all begin in the ground and are dust (Job 34:15; Ps. 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47-49). But it is only as we develop physically and especially spiritually that we become recognizably human. This is not only what the Bible itself seems to teach in Genesis with respect to Adam and Eve but is evident in our own observation of babies. The death of the stillborn or the infant (cf. Job 3; Jer. 20:14-18) like that of animals is the consequence not of (its) sin but of the natural corruptibility of creation (cf. Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). It is manifestly paralleled in the early history of the race prior to the giving of the commandment, hence the fossil record and archeological evidence. The arrested development of potential human beings, however, has no moral significance. After all, death could not be the wages of sin until the law was proclaimed and understood. (11* See further my Death Before Genesis 3.) By the same token, life was not promised (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, cf. Rom. 7:9f.)! And to posit either the damnation or the salvation of infants who never achieve self-awareness and moral consciousness is out of the reckoning (pace Augustine). Thus I no more believe in either the damnation or the salvation of the stillborn (cf. Job 3) than I do of a foetus or even an infant which has failed to experience at least a degree of moral consciousness (cf. Jeremiah 20:14-18).
Consequences of Rejecting Human Teleology
If some readers reject all this because it seems too theoretical and arguably appears to threaten their literal/traditional/fundamentalist understanding of Scripture, they have to reckon with the difficulties   their stance involves. First, the idea that man was created full-grown, righteous, holy and perfect undermines the very essence of biblical teleology and is in any case belied by the baby Jesus himself who quite clearly as a son of Adam began with an imperfect (immature) beginning. (If Adam was created holy and righteous as tradition has it, why was he not, having met the condition of eternal life, Lev. 18:5, regenerate? Why, in other words, was he ever put on probation?) It was he above all who Scripture says was not initially perfect (mature, complete) but had to be perfected (Mt. 3:15; 5:48; 19:21; Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:26,28, cf. 1:3; 6:1; 7:11; 10:1; Acts 2:36; John 17:5,24, etc.). It was precisely he who eventually became the perfect man after successfully undergoing the test of life (Heb. 2:10) and consequently became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). (12* See further my articles on Perfection, The Testing Ground.)  Second, as we have already seen, an undeveloped man is a contradiction in terms, a freak. Third, if it is true that infants not to mention embryos are persons who are according to tradition sinners by nature as the victims of original sin and are hence susceptible to redemption as covenant children, then heaven, in contrast with the teaching of John 1:13, 3:1-8 and 6:63 (cf. Rom. 7:18) will be filled with corruptible flesh (cf. Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8). In other words, we are forced to believe contrary to the explicit teaching of Paul that flesh and blood can indeed inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). What the Bible teaches, however, is that only those who demonstrate their creation in the image of God as persons and who are righteous either by law keeping or by faith can gain eternal life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.).
Faith
The wonderful thing about faith is its relativity. Note especially Hebrews 11 and Mt. 17:20. Even young children can exercise it. And the idea that all the heathen are headed for damnation – extra ecclesiam non salus, cf. WCF, 10, The Larger Catechism, Qu. 60 — rests on a foundation of sand. It should be carefully noted by the same token that just as innocent babies that do not know the law cannot be righteous by keeping it, neither can they be unrighteous by not keeping it (cf. Rom. 6:16). They are morally neutral like the animals that likewise do not know the law. Clearly, if those who do not know the law (commandment) and hence neither good nor evil are in that category (cf. Dt. 1:39; Heb. 5:12-14), Augustine’s idea that all babies that are not baptized are damned is a grotesque error. The truth is that Scripture differentiates between man as genuinely infant and man as indulging in infantile “still-in-the-flesh” behaviour during maturity (Heb. 5:11-6:1; 1 Cor. 2:14-3:3, cf. 1 Pet. 2:1-3). There is in other words a scriptural doctrine of diminished responsibility, but this does not apply to those who are mature and know better (cf. 2 Pet. 1:6), yet who nonetheless choose to indulge the flesh and conduct themselves as if they are children.
I conclude then that babies are not recognizably persons capable of being saved and baptized. (13* It perhaps needs to be stated here that the ecclesiastical dogmas of original sin and infant baptism which are alien to Scripture play a fundamental role in concealing the recapitulation, development and perfection of human beings as portrayed in the Bible and evident in human experience. The quarrel of true science is not with the Bible but with church dogma.)   Just as we assume that an animal that has never known either good or evil dies and yields to permanent corruption apart from sin, so we must assume that human babies who have not reached the age of spiritual discernment are likewise perishable like the material creation from which they emanate (Isa. 51:6,8; 54:10; Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 12:33; Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12; 6:7f.; 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, cf.1 Pet. 1:4,7,18,23; 3:4, etc.). But if this is true, on the assumption that the individual recapitulates the race, we are compelled by parity of reasoning to conclude that the latter, that is, prehistoric man also developed and perished without ever attaining to a recognizable human status. In other words, the Bible itself implies evolution from animal to man (1 Cor. 15:46). The whole process from creation in the ground to completion in glory is God-ordained and is epitomized in Jesus (cf. Eph. 4:9f.), the perfect(ed) man (cf. Eph. 1:10). As I have already put it above, the human journey is from ground to glory.
Concluding Note
The fact that we are regularly considered dust throughout the Bible (Gen. 2:7; 3:19; 1 K.16:2; Job 10:9; 34:15; Ps. 90:3; 103:14;  Eccl. 12:7; 1 Cor. 15:47-49, cf. 2 Cor. 4:7) points to recapitulation. While the human ‘animal’ that attains to maturity completes the pilgrimage from dust to destiny (Seccombe) or from ground to glory (Rom. 8:30) only after shedding its flesh (1 Cor. 15:50), the natural animal which is merely flesh and not spirit (Isa. 31:3, etc.) dies a natural death and suffers total corruption and destruction in the earth from which it was taken in the first place (Ps. 49, cf. Eccl. 3:18-21; Gal. 6:8).
The Human Pilgrimage
If this construction is correct, our human course in this world is, first, dust (as emanating from Adam, Gen. 2:7, cf. Ps. 139:15f.; 1 Cor. 15:47-49); second, animal flesh as stemming from the seed of Adam and nurture in the womb (cf. Gen. 2:8,15,19; Ps. 139:13; Job 31:15; 34:14f.,19; Ps. 104:27-30; John 1:13; 3:6; Rom. 9:11; 1 Cor. 15:46); third, knowledge of the commandment followed by reaction to it establishing moral status (Gen. 3:22; Rom. 7:9f. We can only be good or evil in reaction to the commandment, something to which the dogma of original sin has blinded us, cf. Rom. 6:16); fourth, heathen life lived under the first dispensational covenant, that is, that of Noah (see e.g. Acts 14:15-17; 17:24ff.; Rom. 1:18-32); fifth, servanthood for Jewish men under the law of Moses, sixth, adoption or sonship through faith in Christ (Rom. 8:12-25, cf. Gal. 4:1-7), and, finally seventh, glorification in the presence of God. The pattern is familiarly biblical (cf. Luke 13:32; Acts 13:25; 20:24) and in essence covenantal! (14* See again my essays on covenant theology. It is a matter of general interest that Shakespeare posited seven stages of man!)
In contrast with Jesus, and the end-time saints who undergo a transformation ascension like that of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:51f.), we who die like Adam (Gen. 3) and David (Acts 2:29,34) before the second advent dispense with our corruptible animal flesh on account of sin (Rom. 8:10) since it cannot enter the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). But because Jesus conquered death and was glorified, we shall also be raised and changed at the general resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50-55). Glory is our goal and Jesus is our hope (Col. 1:27, cf. v.5; Rom. 8:20,24f.; 1 Pet. 1:3f.). Since God’s purposes and promises are fulfilled in him (2 Cor. 1:20-22), we shall always be with him (John 12:26; 1 Thes. 4:17) in his Father’s house (John 14:2f.) and will see his glory (John 17:24, cf. 14:19) in spiritual bodies like his (Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49; 2 Cor. 5:1).
As was intimated above, those who reject him and cultivate the flesh like animals rather than the spirit like Christ are forever cursed (Jer. 17:5; 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Rev. 21:8). They permanently retain the character they have fitted themselves for throughout their earthly lives (Rev. 22:11, cf. Rom. 9:22; 2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10; Eccl. 3:18).
Supplementary Comments
I have always tended to think of creation, or procreation, as the beginning of life and its later development as the work of Providence, though the two overlap (cf. again Job 31:15, for example). Thus, assuming the truth of recapitulation and using what is known, that is, the fleshly individual as creation in miniature as our template or paradigm, I arrive at the following conclusions. First, my contention is that the early procreation and physical development or gestation of the individual recapitulates mutatis mutandis (making the requisite changes) the prehistory of the race. Second, the early development of the infant/child recapitulates the race’s protohistory. This would seem to be demanded by the fact that while initially there is no covenant with creation, once one (i.e. that with Noah) has been established, we go on to achieve covenant maturity as both race and individual. This would appear to be the necessary inference we draw from passages like John 1:9-13, Romans 1-3 (race) on the one hand, and Romans 7-8 and Galatians 4:1-7(individual) on the other. The basic difference between what I see as the biblical view and the atheistic theory of evolution is the former’s intolerance and rejection of naturalism and the latter’s exclusive acceptance of it. While for the Christian believer (as against all other religions except for Judaism and Islam) a uniquely transcendent Creator God is at work, for the atheist there is only an unexplained force which is continuous with and arising out of an inexplicable creation. Needless to say, for the believer spontaneous generation/creation simply does not make sense.
It ought to be clear to the perceptive reader that the prime reason that the church (as opposed to the Bible) finds itself so at odds with science, history and even personal experience is that it is governed by traditional Augustinian theology. The so-called creation/fall/restoration schema, which posits perfection instead of ‘good’ at the start followed by a “fall” and universal curse leading in turn to eventual restoration, results in a devastating distortion of what the Bible actually teaches and to all intents and purposes destroys biblical teleology. So, for further clarification of my thesis, the reader is urged to read my essays on Covenant Theology, Covenant Theology in Brief, Creation Corruptible By Nature, I Believe in Recapitulation, Recapitulation in Outline, Perfection, The Journey of Jesus, The Ascent of Man, Romans 8:18-25 Revisited, The Biblical Worldview, Baptism Revisited, Regarding the Baptism of Jesus, Concerning Infant Salvation, etc.   Perhaps most important of all are my articles on original sin which, on the assumption that they are valid, undermines the traditional idea that the corruptible nature of this world stems from Adam’s sin, consequent “Fall” and curse (on which see my What Fall?, Cosmic Curse?). The truth is, as a correct understanding of Romans 8:18-25 (cf. Heb. 1:10-12) makes clear, that creation is naturally corruptible (perishable) and requires man to exercise dominion over it with a view to escaping from it by gaining eternal life and transformation ascension (cf. Gal. 1:4; Eph. 6:12). Obviously man’s sin or moral disorientation leads to the exacerbation of nature’s corruptibility and his total failure or absence (e.g. in exile, cf. Jer. 26:6,9) leads inevitably to desolation (see e.g. Isa. 6:11, etc., cf. Ex. 23:29). The inference I draw from this is that when the harvest of the world is reaped, since it no longer has inhabitants the world becomes a total desolation and, like the desolate ‘hand-made’ temple (Mt. 23:38; Mark 14:58), is destroyed (Heb. 12:27, etc.). (For excellent comment on Mt. 23:38, see France, pp.883f.)
Additional Note (1)
The attempt of many to argue on the basis of bad theology that as individuals we are persons from conception is in my view absurd. References like Psalm 51:5 and Jeremiah 1:5 do nothing to help their cause. Psalm 51:5 as translated in ESV and NASV, apart from the fact that it could apply to Jesus, is at worst a prime example of hyperbole like Psalm 58:3 (cf. Isa. 8:4) and Job 31:18. In any case, since at birth David did not know the law, he could not have been born ‘guilty’ (NRSV) or sinful (NIV), or by the same token righteous (cf. Rom. 6:16; 9:11). This error is in the same category as the idea that Adam was created holy, righteous and perfect while still in ignorance of the law (commandment).
On the assumption that my view of the issue is correct, it inevitably raises the question of the status of foetuses and small children who die before attaining to the age of understanding. The obvious answer is that in the words of Ecclesiastes 12:7: “the dust (flesh) returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit (or breath) returns to God who gave it”. Clearly moral considerations are no more involved than they are in the death of animals (cf. Ps. 49:12,20; Eccl. 3:19f.; 9:11f.). In saying this I am taking it for granted that the attempt to make death (which in the case of morally aware human beings involves breaking the law and earning wages) on account of sin a universal principle is massively misguided. It fails to reckon adequately with the evidence and is characteristic of the Augustinian worldview not the Bible. (15* See further my Death Before Genesis 3, Not Only But Also, Thoughts on Sin in Romans, Some Arguments on Original Sin, More Arguments on Original Sin,  J.I.Packer on Original Sin, etc.).
Additional Note (2)
Shortly after completing the above I read Who Made God by Edgar Andrews. On page 259f., he takes issue with what he calls “standard TE” (theistic evolution) on the grounds that it “implicitly assumes a form of emergence”. While it involves, he claims, the creation of man’s physical form by a thoroughly naturalistic evolutionary process (for which Andrews rightly gives the credit to God), his unique nature as man is the result of a special intervention by God. Thus he comments, “In other words, true man only came into being when God injected a soul or spirit into selected members of a pre-human race” and attributes this view to C.S.Lewis (The Problem of Pain, p.65 Fontana ed.) whom he quotes as follows (slightly abridged):
“For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers …, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed in this state for ages before it became man…. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism … a new kind of consciousness which could say ‘I’ and ‘me’ which could look upon itself as an object which knew God….”
Andrews then proceeds to make comments on this which I find somewhat difficult to follow and leave me wondering what exactly his point is. However, I suspect that since his worldview is thoroughly Augustinian and clearly unbiblical (he believes in original perfection and the “Fall” of man, p.243, on which see above and further my Worldview, The Biblical Worldview, Perfection), it arises from it. However, if the reader has followed my own reasoning above, he/she will not be at all surprised that the first thought to strike me was that Lewis was describing (making the necessary changes) the development of a baby which I claim recapitulates the history of the race! If this inference is justified, then Andrews’ objections to what he calls ‘emergence’ is belied by all children including himself as a child and hence by our corresponding racial history. But even more to the point this is precisely what Scripture itself teaches. Does not Paul indicate in 1 Corinthians 15:46 that we are (animal) flesh before we are spirit (cf. various other texts which point to the same conclusion, e.g. Dt. 1:39; Ps. 139:13-16; Isa. 7:15f.; 8:4; John 1:13; 3:6; 6:63; Rom. 9:11)? Does not the entire Bible describe the progressive advance (cf. revelation) or ascent of man from Genesis to Revelation, from ground to glory (see my The Ascent of Man, The Journey of Jesus), from earth to heaven, from flesh to spirit? Does not a truly biblical covenant theology point in the same direction? And does not the incarnate Jesus himself, the pioneer of our salvation, reflect exactly the same process (cf. Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7 with Heb. 2:9)? If he as the second Adam is our model or paradigm, he began like his father the first Adam (Luke 3:38, cf. Gen. 5:1-3) knowing neither good nor evil (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.). As he grew, he was progressively perfected in the image of God (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 2:10; 5:9, etc.) until he finally regained as man his own former glory (John 17:5,24) and sat at his Father’s right hand (Heb. 1:3, etc.). If all this is true, then we have no alternative but to accept Lewis’ basic point even if we reject his questionable theology elsewhere.
The reader must come to his/her own conclusions on this. However, my basic contention remains: if we want to know something about mankind as race, the most effective way to do it is to study the individual. With regard to this, judging by some excerpts from his posthumously published writings on Genesis, D.M.Lloyd-Jones, despite his commitment to the traditional dogma of original sin (pp.25-27, and see his well-known sermons on Romans 5, etc.), maintained that “All of us, as it were, in addition to inheriting certain things, repeat what was done at the beginning by Adam and Eve” (pp.44ff., cf. 61f.,80). From this I am forced to infer by sheer logic, first, the redundancy of original sin, and, second, recapitulation which is at the heart of Scripture, as Irenaeus indicated long ago. At this point the relevance of B.B.Warfield’s essay on The Human Development of Jesus becomes obvious for he freely alludes to Irenaeus. It is also interesting to note that Warfield’s next essay is on 1 John 2:2 and entitled Jesus Christ The Propitiation for the Whole World. On the assumption that what is not assumed is not healed (Gregory Nazianzen, cf. Hebrews 2) 1 John 2:2 would be an impossibility if recapitulation were not true. Clearly the Bible implies that Jesus was the perfect embodiment of the race (cf. Eph. 1:10). And his journey was unquestionably from ground to glory (Eph. 4:9f.).
My rereading in July 2010 of Lewis’ The Problem of Pain reminds me of something else. In his chapter on animal pain Lewis, rightly in my view, differentiates between what he calls ‘sentience’ and ‘consciousness’ (pp.118ff.). In doing so, he supports my own long held view that while animals feel pain, they do not know it.* On this basis Lewis deduces that the appearance of reckless divine cruelty in the animal kingdom is illusion (p.118). One might almost say, no brain no pain. What Lewis does not do, however, is draw another conclusion, that is that if we are animal flesh (cf. John 1:13; 6:63; Rom. 7:18a; 8:8; 1 Cor. 15:46) when we are babies, then the same applies. Babies may appear to suffer and in a sense doubtless do, but they have neither consciousness nor recollection of it. It is only as consciousness ‘emerges’, to use Prof. Andrews’ word, that the situation changes and that quite dramatically. Again I urge the reader to meditate on this.
But we may go even further. Traditionalists tell us that Eve was simply an individual, the first woman God created from Adam’s side, whose first child was Cain (Gen. 4:1). If that is so, how do we explain Genesis 3:16? How could God increase the pain of one who had never had any children? Ten times no pain equals no pain at all! If, however, we recognize that Adam and Eve are also corporate personalities and had fleshly or animal forebears who resembled babies before they gradually arrive at self-consciousness, then the problem evaporates. If flesh precedes spirit (1 Cor. 15:46), then pre-Adamic ‘man’ like babies belongs to prehistory. For most of us conscious life begins roughly at a time subsequent to weaning when we learn to recognize animals and rainbows and to manage our own bodily functions (cf. 1 Pet. 3:21). Little wonder that the book of Genesis has so little to say about “prehistoric” human beginnings. But what it does say is quite remarkable, a model of condensation for people all over the world at different stages of their growing perception and proving yet once again what an amazing book the Bible is.
Before leaving the subject of pain, we must consider the fact that millions of Jewish baby boys are circumcised on the eighth day. While this may be distressing for their mothers in particular, it does not seem to bother the babies themselves who have no recollection of the ceremony. To my knowledge there has been no move to ban it on grounds of cruelty. The same goes for circumcision for “hygienic” reasons common in my own childhood. I have no recollection of it at all. So if I felt pain and cried, I had no consciousness of it. How different from the situation described in Genesis 34. Circumcision for Shechem and his men (vv.24f.) proved not only painful but acutely incapacitating!
There is another point. Pain begins and increases as we gain self-consciousness and moral awareness. This is precisely what Genesis implies. Just as where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15; 7:8, etc.), so where there is no knowledge, there is no pain.
* I must have read Lewis first in 1958 when his book was given to me as a birthday present and inscribed by a female student friend, now Mme M.Dolmazon who lives in St. Etienne, France. While I do not remember being impressed with his view at the time, I certainly remember arriving at it on the basis of my own experience and reflection.
References
Edgar Andrews, Who Made God? Faverdale North, 2009.
Darrell L.Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, Grand Rapids, 2002.
R.T.France, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, 2007.
John Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone, Louisville, 2010.
D.M.Lloyd-Jones, The Gospel in Genesis, Wheaton, 2009.
Romans 5, London, 1971.
J.Murray, Collected Writings 2, Edinburgh, 1977.
B.B.Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings 1, ed. Meeter, Nutley, 1970.
C.J.H.Wright, Knowing the Holy Spirit through the Old Testament, Oxford, 2006.

The Image

Genesis 1:26 tells us of God’s intention to create mankind in his (‘our’) image and likeness and to give him dominion over the rest of creation. Traditionally Christians have believed that God did this in one 24-hour day, but this view is based on a highly questionable interpretation of the word ‘day’ and a dubious exegetical and theological perspective. (1* See further my Twenty-Four Hours? – Reasons why I believe the Genesis days are undefined periods of time). However, on the assumption that the word ‘Adam’ means both mankind as race and man as individual and we base our view of mankind on what we know to be true of the individual, that is, that the latter once (pro)created is observably subject to development, we necessarily conclude that the individual recapitulates and encapsulates the race. (2* On recapitulation, see my I Believe in RecapitulationRecapitulation in Outline) In other words, in trying to understand the limited and somewhat symbolic or parabolic (Goldingay, p.27) information given us in Genesis 1-3, we can resort to the analogy of faith (analogia fidei) and gain light by recognizing that mutatis mutandis the perfected individual serves as the paradigm of the race, and that individual is supremely Jesus himself (cf. Eph. 1:10). (3* The ‘mutatis mutandis’, or the making of the necessary changes, is important since Adam is presented to us in the Garden of Eden, the womb of the race, in apparent physical maturity but spiritual infancy. To that extent he differs from all his descendants including Jesus who was nonetheless made in Adam’s image, Gen. 5:1-3; Luke 3:38.) To express the issue somewhat negatively, if the individual is the paradigm or epitome of the race, the idea that the race did not develop or evolve physically is ruled out of court. If the perfected Jesus, the second Adam, the antitype, who began in the womb, underwent a nine-month gestation period and proceeded to mature through childhood, adolescence, etc., we are compelled to conclude that the first Adam, the type (Rom. 5:14), developed too. Denial of the correspondence between the two Adams is to drive a wedge between them and to render both our theology and anthropology unintelligible. (Cf. Psalm 139:13-16; Eph. 4:9f., and see further below.) The Bible, theology, science, history, personal experience and logic all militate against the traditional idea that Adam was created physically and spiritually mature in one 24-hour day. Indeed, it may legitimately be asked why if he was created righteous and holy, Adam was ever put on probation at all? Does not Genesis 2:17 imply that his goal, like that of all human beings, was eternal life which could not be attained apart from righteousness achieved by keeping the law?

Man and Animal

Though Hebraists have apparently found it impossible to distinguish definitively between image and likeness, nonetheless the terminology suggests that man acquires these characteristics by a gradual process of development. First, like the rest of the animal creation man (Adam) begins life as ‘flesh’ created from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7; 6:17, cf. John 1:13). (4* On the creation of man and animal, see e.g. Chris Wright, pp.26ff.) Second, also like the animals among which he lives man begins life in ignorance (Ps. 32:9; Job 35:11) and knows neither good nor evil until, after undergoing some development under the Spirit of God (cf. Luke 2:40), he is able to receive the commandment (Gen. 2:16f., cf. Rom. 4:15; 6:16; 7:9f.; 9:11). (5* One early sign of man’s link with but separation from the animals is his infant/child-like ability to name them and implicitly to exercise authority over them, Gen. 2:19.) So far as the individual is concerned this is beyond dispute and Adam’s development from ignorance to knowledge is recapitulated in all his progeny (Dt. 1:39, cf. Rom. 7:9f., etc.) but certainly not in twenty-four hours!. That it occurred in ourselves and in our children is verified by personal experience. (It might usefully be stressed at this point that this development is the work of the Spirit of God and not to be attributed to naturalistic evolution or Nature! Note Genesis 1:2 andLuke 1:35.)

The Development (Maturation, Perfection) of Jesus

Second, this development from ignorance to knowledge clearly occurred in the second Adam (cf. Isa. 7:15f.; Luke 2:40-52) who is the antitype of the first Adam, his type (Rom. 5:14). The maturation or process of development that occurred in Jesus is evident from the biblical data. He was conceived (made flesh, John 1:14; Luke 1:35, cf. Gen. 1:2), underwent gestation, was born, became an infant, then an adolescent and eventually attained to both physical and spiritual maturity. (6* On man as both flesh and spirit, see my Biblical DualismThe Flesh) While his physical adulthood was paralleled by all animals that reach maturity and was basic to his fleshly manhood since it occurred ‘naturally’ with the passage of time (cf. Luke 2:40-52; 3:23; 1 Cor. 15:46), Jesus’ spiritual maturity or perfection was achieved, first, as a ‘slave’ in Egypt in childhood, second, as a servant who was tested under the law and, third, as a son (the Son) after his anointing by the Spirit (John 1:33; 6:27; Acts 4:27; 10:38). In this way he achieved full covenant maturity (cf. Gal. 4:1-7). (On this, see below.) But the point to note above all is that like Adam before him, as a baby he knew neither good nor evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22: Isa. 7:15f., cf. 8:4) and like all infants he began from scratch, that is, from moral neutrality (Dt 1:39, cf. Rom. 4:15). It was only as he developed and became conscious of the commandment that he reacted to it like Adam before him and established his own moral nature (something he could not have done if Adam’s sin was either imputed or transmitted to him). But whereas Adam broke the commandment as Paul, like all others (Rom. 3:23; 5:12), was to do later (Rom. 7:9f.), Jesus kept it and established his righteousness by his obedience (Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7). In remaining unaffected by sin despite the reality of his fleshly temptations (Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 4:15) and his dubious human pedigree (Mt. 1:1-5; Luke 3:38), he was unique (Rom. 8:3; 1 Pet. 2:22) and was thus uniquely fitted to serve as the Saviour of mankind (Heb. 2:17f.). (Verses like John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 are not isolated texts but succinct summaries of the essence of biblical Christology.)

Personhood

If this is so, then personhood, which implies the possession of recognizable human characteristics, is not evident either at conception, during gestation or even immediately after birth. As Paul intimates, we are, first, (animal) flesh, and, second, spirit (1 Cor. 15:46, cf. John 1:13; 3:6). At birth a baby, like all mammals, feeds only on milk or perishable food (cf. John 6:22ff.; Heb. 5:13) and is incapable of ingesting the word of God by which alone man is able to live eternally (Mt. 4:4). Furthermore, Jesus himself says nothing explicit about either the salvation or the damnation of the very young when like his Father (Gen. 1:31) he blesses them. He simply says that of such (not of all in their present condition) is the kingdom of God (Mark 10:14-16). (See further below.) To pinpoint the issue, at birth our difference from the rest of the animal creation with which we are linked (Gen. 2:19; 6:17) is evident only on the physical level. It is not until we acquire moral consciousness after a process of development (cf. the work of the Spirit of God, cf. Gen. 1:2; Luke 1:35,80; 2:40-52?) that we as those whose goal or destiny is to be like God and his children are properly distinguishable from the rest of the animal creation. This becomes even more patent in the Bible when we examine covenant revelation.

Covenant Theology

First, it is plain that initially there is no covenant agreement made with creation. (7* See my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?Covenant TheologyCovenant Theology in Brief) After all, since it is inarticulate, like Adam himself during the period of his ignorance, a covenant or unilateral agreement, as opposed to a sovereign imposition or command, is a contradiction in terms. (8* Cf. J. Murray, pp.47ff., who denied that the Adamic arrangement had covenantal status.) Thus the first covenant is not established until Noah comes on the scene by which time a process of anthropological development has occurred and mankind, whether as community or individual, has gradually acquired what are clearly human characteristics including speech, understanding, the ability to think, reason, make choices (cf. Heb. 5:13f.), appreciate the significance of rainbows, control bodily functions (cf. 1 Pet. 3:21), express gratitude (cf. Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 10:30, etc.) and above all understand the commandment (law) and hence become morally conscious.

Then, after promises are made to Abraham and his offspring, the next dispensational covenant following that with Noah is a covenant of law made through Moses. This is clearly an extension of the single commandment given to Adam in his (spiritual) infancy (cf. Israel on leaving Sinai, Ex. 32; Isa. 48:8). Again, it should be noted that by this time the Hebrews had undergone yet further development and were ready to progress beyond bondage to child-like heathenism (cf. Gal. 4:1,3; Col. 2:8,20). But the same is true of the individual, for it can hardly pass without notice that while girls remained uncircumcised (and were often regarded in Judaism as little better than the heathen), boys became responsible for keeping the law when they reached their bar mitzvah at the age of thirteen (cf. Luke 2:40-52) as sons of the commandment. According to Leviticus 25 this established Jewish men as the servants rather than the slaves of God which they had been both literally and metaphorically in Egypt.

Then again, following the promise to David there was a further stage in dispensational covenant theology which was paralleled by more development in both the community and the individual. Jesus as man, or more specifically as a circumcised Jewish man, having already served his stint like all Jewish boys as a son of the commandment attained to life (received the Spirit, cf. Gal. 3:3:1-5) at his baptism and gained the status of a son, the Son, the first-born (cf. Rom. 8:29; Ps. 89:27; Col. 1:15) who would inherit all things (Heb. 1:2; Rom. 8:32), by flawlessly keeping the law (Lev. 18:5, cf. Gen. 2:17). So it was as the spiritually regenerate Son of God that, after fulfilling all righteousness (Mt. 3:15; 19:21), Jesus attained to full maturity (Mt. 5:48) at his glorification. It was then that he finally achieved the pinnacle of perfection (cf. Mt. 5:48; 19:21) and became the exact imprint of God’s nature, the bodily fullness of deity (Heb. 1:3; Col. 2:9, cf. John 17:5,24). (Some readers whose outlook is dominated by Augustine and sin are bound to object to this presentation of the life of Jesus on the grounds that he was already the Word of God made flesh at birth. So, to emphasize my point, if he was truly incarnate, a true man, the Man, I maintain that he had to go through the mill like the rest of his fellows, cf. Heb. 2. There were no short cuts. Though virgin born, he was, like Adam, Luke 3:38, nonetheless initially God’s ‘natural’ son for whom it was necessary, not imperative a la Augustine, to be born again like the rest of his fellows, John 3:1-6. If not, the charge of docetism applies.)

Personhood Again

So, it may be asked, what is the relevance of all this to the issue in question? The answer is that man becomes the image and likeness of God not by being instantaneously stamped with it as a kind of donum superadditum but by a process of development or evolution (cf. the idea that God creates in the womb, Job 31:15). Initially, he is profitless flesh (cf. John 1:13; 6:63; Rom. 7:18), and like the rest of the animal creation he undergoes a period of unconscious (prehistorical) gestation (cf. Gen. 6:17; 1 Cor. 15:46.). In this state like Adam at the beginning he knows neither (the) law nor good and evil (cf. Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11, etc.). In light of this it is necessary to infer that the image of God in which man is made initially is only potential. (The reader might find it helpful at this point to meditate on the implications of Romans 7-8 and Galatians 4:1-9.) If this is so, it is quite wrong for anti-abortionists, for example, to argue on the basis of Genesis 1:26 that babies, even fetuses, are persons. Not only do the latter fail to evince all the normal characteristics of persons as we know them but they also fail to measure up theologically. (As a lad, I once heard a Methodist minister describe a baby as a creature with a loud noise at one end and a complete lack of responsibility at the other. Those who have ever been with cows, for example, will recognize the similarity.) What I mean is that while abortion on demand and without adequate reason is doubtless reprehensible, it is not well supported by appeal to the suggestion that a foetus is a person and that killing it is tantamount to the murder of a man or woman who has attained to full personhood of which Jesus is the prime example! This conclusion would appear to have biblical support, for Exodus 21:22f. seem to differentiate between the ‘murder’ of a wife and the concomitant death of her child. While the penalty for the death of the wife is apparently death in accordance with the lex talionis, a fine is sufficient to cover the harm done to the fetus. (It is interesting to compare this with Dt. 22:6f.). In sum, to abort or kill a baby is to kill a potential person not a person who is already being recognizably conformed to the image of God. (9* See further on this my essays on Concerning Infant Salvation)

The Genesis Days

With the above in mind it is imperative for us to reconsider Genesis 1:26 which has traditionally been understood as though the Genesis days were literal 24-hour days and man was created holy, righteous and even perfect without any process of development (cf. Job 31:15; Rom. 9:11). The reasons for questioning this are vital. For example, as has already been noted Scripture talks of God creating or forming in the womb (Job 31:15; Jer. 1:5, cf. Gal. 1:15, etc.) and Psalm 139:13-16 (cf. Eph. 4:9f.) certainly suggest a process. Now if the individual recapitulates the race (or ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) as a truly biblical covenant theology surely indicates, we are compelled to conclude in the absence of a definite time scale in Genesis 1 (unless of course we unwarrantably insist on interpreting ‘day’ literally) that our creation in the image of God is developmental or evolutionary (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18, etc.). As was suggested above, as embryos and even in the early stages of infancy we are only potentially, though, on the assumption that we attain to maturity, also predestined persons (cf. (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:5,11; 1 Pet. 1:2), who are called to be the children of God (1 John 3:1-3). This inference would appear to be supported, first, by God who blesses man in the process of his early development (Genesis 1:28) but fails to make a covenant with him, then, secondly, by Jesus who blesses little children only as potential members of the kingdom who as individuals may or may not eventually exercise faith apart from which they cannot be saved (Mark 10:14-16, cf. Luke 18:15-17 on which see e.g. Bock, ad loc.).

Man’s Evolution

All this suggests that when modern scientific theory tells us that mankind as a race was first (animal) flesh before he became recognizably human (or that Adam had fleshly precursors who were pre-Adamites but not monkeys (!) who came short of being truly human), it has biblical backing. The traditional idea associated with Augustinian theology that man was created perfect and/or completely adult is beyond question a contradiction in terms. For all the evidence at our disposal tells us that undeveloped he is not (a) man at all but a freak like Minerva (Athene) who sprang fully mature from the head of Jupiter (Zeus) in classical mythology. The truth is that man who is both flesh and spirit develops on both levels, that is, first physically and second spiritually under the aegis of God (1 Cor. 15:46, cf. Heb. 5:11-6:1; 1 Pet. 2:2). Man (and indeed creation as a whole it would appear) is the end result of a teleological process.  (Pace supporters of naturalistic evolutionism who ridicule purposive design. It must be conceded, however, that there is a sense in which so-called intelligent design is open to criticism in that even the Bible teaches that the visible creation, Rom. 1:20, is ultimately futile and after reaching maturity is headed for final destruction, Heb.12:27. Note Ecclesiastes, Romans 8:20, 1 Corinthians 15:17. On the other hand, we need to acknowledge as believers that all things work together for good for those who love God, Rom. 8:28.) To express the issue differently, if Jesus the ideal man, the antitype of Adam began his earthly life imperfect, that is, immature, then so did both Adam and the rest of his posterity. If this is not so, it is difficult to acknowledge Adam as man at all, least of all representative man according to the flesh. (The reader should note again that in this scenario Adam the race, mankind, is epitomized or miniaturized in Adam the individual. Thus Jesus is depicted as the last Adam, the true vine or Israel, etc. And it is worth noting that national Israel who is sometimes personified as an individual, Gen. 46:4; Ex. 13:8, experiences birth, youth, and so forth, Isa. 48:8; Jer. 3:24f. Note also how Christians are epitomized all together as one mature man in Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:15 and 4:13, and elsewhere as the bride of Christ, Rev. 21:2,9.)

Perfection

The evidence for the development or perfection (perfecting process) of Jesus is incontrovertible. Against the background of both his physical and spiritual development alluded to in Luke 2:40-52, for example, the process of his spiritual maturation appears especially in Hebrews (e.g. 2:10; 5:9; 7:26,28, cf. 6:1; 7:11; 10:1; 12:23; Mt. 5:48; 19:21). Thus, since Jesus as man was initially spiritually as well as physically imperfect (immature, incomplete, cf. James 1:4) and dependent (it is worth noting that it was Joseph who had a dream warning him to go to Egypt out of Herod’s reach), the traditional idea that Adam began life perfect, holy and righteous and proceeded to lose his ‘high estate’ in “the Fall” is manifestly absurd (cf. my What Fall?). While Adam failed to keep the commandment, lost his innocence and became unrighteous (cf. Eccl. 7:29; Isa. 53:6), by contrast Jesus kept it – the entire law in fact – and thereby became righteous (Lev. 18:5;. Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7, etc.) However, he was not accepted as legally righteous until he had successfully been tested under and had kept the law. At that point, at his baptism in fact, his Father expressed his pleasure in him, acknowledged him as his Son and gave him the Spirit or eternal life (Mt. 3:13-17) in accordance with the promise (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). (10* The traditional Reformed order of salvation or ordo salutis which arises out of the unbiblical dogma of original sin is clearly false. See further my essays on The Order of SalvationThe Order of Salvation in RomansCart-Before-The-Horse Theology) Furthermore, it was not until he had undergone death, resurrection and ascension that he was recognized as the Righteous One (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 1 John 2:1; 1 Pet. 2:22) and the Author of life (Acts 3:15; 22:14, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45), that is, on a par with God. Perfection, or rather the perfecting or maturation process, is at the heart of the Christian gospel and is part of the essence of man’s calling (Mt. 5:48; 19:21, cf. Heb. 6:1; 1 Pet. 1:14-16) as Paul, for example, was well aware (Phil. 3:12-16). Little wonder that he calls on his converts to become mature in understanding (1 Cor. 13:11; 14:20) with the goal of being presented mature in Christ (Col. 1:28) both as individuals and as a body (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 2:15; 4:13). (11* See further my essay Perfection)

Literalism

If all this is true, the claim of literalists that the Genesis days are literal 24-hour days is plainly false. It represents a complete failure to think theologically as mature men. The days of Genesis are an inspired way of sketching pre-history for all conditions of people who eventually achieve consciousness in actual history. What is indisputably true is that as human beings, in contradistinction from other animals, we are created with the potential of becoming the image of God like Jesus who at the end of his earthly course and ascension into heaven became the exact imprint of his nature (Heb. 1:3). Not for nothing is he called the founder or pioneer and perfecter of our salvation (Heb. 2:10; 21:2, ESV). (Note how when earlier in his earthly pilgrimage Jesus is called ‘good’ in Mark 10:17f., he claims that only God is good, that is in the absolute sense. Like Paul he might well have said that he was not already perfect, Phil. 3:12, cf. Heb. 5:9, etc.) And this potential or process does not culminate for us until we achieve his likeness (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21, cf. Rev. 3:21) and, after shedding our animal flesh, gain spiritual bodies as the children of God (John 1:13; Rom. 8:12-17; 1 Cor. 15:42-50; Gal. 4:1-7; Eph. 1:5f.; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:1-3). Our progress or evolution is therefore from ground to glory as his was (Eph. 4:9f.).

Animality

However, there is a down side to this. Where this process is deliberately resisted and men foster the corruptible (animal) flesh in which they are first made (cf. Gal. 6:8 and note 1 Cor. 6:9-11), Scripture not unnaturally likens them to animals, creatures of instinct whose end is to be caught and killed (2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10, cf. Eccl. 3:18). Self-control is basic to the sanctification process (2 Pet. 1:6-11) apart from which we shall not see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). Spirit is intended to rule flesh (James 3:3) but only Jesus achieved this to perfection (James 3:2b, cf. Mt. 5:48). What is more, he freely gave his flesh on our behalf (Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 3:18, cf. 4).

In sum, the truth is that the image of God in us is the result of a process of sanctification and perfection, the progressive work of the Spirit of God which culminates or reaches its fulfillment in the perfect man, in Christ who was himself crowned with glory and honour (Heb. 2:9, cf. 1:3). That goal first implied in Genesis 1:26-28 (cf. Ps. 8:3-8) and 2:17 remains for us to achieve (Rom. 2:7,10; Heb. 5:14-6:1; 1 Pet. 1:7) by his grace and in his footsteps (Heb. 2:9-13, etc.). He became like us so that we might become like him as Irenaeus, who strongly stressed recapitulation, maintained.

Old Testament Indicators

In Psalm 139:13-16 (cf. Job 10:11) David, like Paul in Romans 7:9f., clearly recognizes his own recapitulation of Adam’s experience referred to in Genesis 2 and 3. (In Ephesians 4:9f., cf. John 3:13, Paul also arguably sees the descent of Jesus at his incarnation as a recapitulation of Adam’s creation.) In verse 15 David apparently sees himself as seed that is sown to gestate in the womb, v.13. This vividly reflects Adam who is taken out of the ground and put into the garden of Eden to be nurtured there, Gen. 2:8,15.) On the racial level man is placed in the Garden of Eden which surely represents the womb of mankind. So, to all intents and purposes, we all begin in the ground and are dust (Job 34:15; Ps. 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47-49). But it is only as we develop physically and especially spiritually that we become recognizably human. This is not only what the Bible itself seems to teach in Genesis with respect to Adam and Eve but is evident in our own observation of babies. The death of the stillborn or the infant (cf. Job 3; Jer. 20:14-18) like that of animals is the consequence not of (its) sin but of the natural corruptibility of creation (cf. Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). It is manifestly paralleled in the early history of the race prior to the giving of the commandment, hence the fossil record and archeological evidence. The arrested development of potential human beings, however, has no moral significance. After all, death could not be the wages of sin until the law was proclaimed and understood. (12* See further my Death Before Genesis 3) By the same token, life was not promised (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, cf. Rom. 7:9f.)! And to posit either the damnation or the salvation of infants who never achieve self-awareness and moral consciousness is out of the reckoning (pace Augustine). Thus I no more believe in either the damnation or the salvation of the stillborn (cf. Job 3) than I do of a foetus or even an infant which has failed to experience at least a degree of moral consciousness (cf. Jeremiah 20:14-18).

Consequences of Rejecting Human Teleology

If some readers reject all this because it seems too theoretical and arguably appears to threaten their literal/traditional/fundamentalist understanding of Scripture, they have to reckon with the difficulties that their stance involves. First, the idea that man was created full-grown, righteous, holy and perfect undermines the very essence of biblical teleology and is in any case belied by the baby Jesus himself who quite clearly as a son of Adam began with an imperfect (immature) beginning. (If Adam was created holy and righteous as tradition has it, why was he not, having met the condition of eternal life, Lev. 18:5, regenerate? Why, in other words, was he ever put on probation?) It was he above all who Scripture says was not initially perfect (mature, complete) but had to be perfected (Mt. 3:15; 5:48; 19:21; Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:26,28, cf. 1:3; 6:1; 7:11; 10:1; Acts 2:36; John 17:5,24, etc.). It was precisely he who eventually became the perfect man after successfully undergoing the test of life (Heb. 2:10) and consequently became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). (13* See further my articles on PerfectionThe Testing Ground)  Second, as we have already seen, an undeveloped man is a contradiction in terms, a freak. Third, if it is true that infants not to mention embryos are persons who are according to tradition sinners by nature as the victims of original sin and are hence susceptible to redemption as covenant children, then heaven, in contrast with the teaching of John 1:13, 3:1-8 and 6:63 (cf. Rom. 7:18) will be filled with corruptible flesh (cf. Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8). In other words, we are forced to believe contrary to the explicit teaching of Paul that flesh and blood can indeed inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). What the Bible teaches, however, is that only those who demonstrate their creation in the image of God as persons and who are righteous either by law keeping or by faith can gain eternal life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.).

Faith

The wonderful thing about faith is its relativity. Note especially Hebrews 11 and Mt. 17:20. Even young children can exercise it. And the idea that all the heathen are headed for damnation – extra ecclesiam non salus, cf. WCF, 10, The Larger Catechism, Qu. 60 — rests on a foundation of sand. It should be carefully noted by the same token that just as innocent babies that do not know the law cannot be righteous by keeping it, neither can they be unrighteous by not keeping it (cf. Rom. 6:16). They are morally neutral like the animals that likewise do not know the law. Clearly, if those who do not know the law (commandment) and hence neither good nor evil are in that category (cf. Dt. 1:39; Heb. 5:12-14), Augustine’s idea that all babies that are not baptized are damned is a grotesque error. The truth is that Scripture differentiates between man as genuinely infant and man as indulging in infantile “still-in-the-flesh” behaviour during maturity (Heb. 5:11-6:1; 1 Cor. 2:14-3:3, cf. 1 Pet. 2:1-3). There is in other words a scriptural doctrine of diminished responsibility, but this does not apply to those who are mature and know better (cf. 2 Pet. 1:6), yet who nonetheless choose to indulge the flesh and conduct themselves as if they are children.

I conclude then that babies are not recognizably persons capable of being saved and baptized. (14* It perhaps needs to be stated here that the ecclesiastical dogmas of original sin and infant baptism which are alien to Scripture play a fundamental role in concealing the recapitulation, development and perfection of human beings as portrayed in the Bible and evident in human experience. The quarrel of true science is not with the Bible but with church dogma.)   Just as we assume that an animal that has never known either good or evil dies and yields to permanent corruption apart from sin, so we must assume that human babies who have not reached the age of spiritual discernment are likewise perishable like the material creation from which they emanate (Isa. 51:6,8; 54:10; Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 12:33; Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12; 6:7f.; 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, cf.1 Pet. 1:4,7,18,23; 3:4, etc.). But if this is true, on the assumption that the individual recapitulates the race, we are compelled by parity of reasoning to conclude that the latter, that is, prehistoric man also developed and perished without ever attaining to a recognizable human status. In other words, the Bible itself implies evolution from animal to man (1 Cor. 15:46). The whole process from creation in the ground to completion in glory is God-ordained and is epitomized in Jesus (cf. Eph. 4:9f.), the perfect(ed) man (cf. Eph. 1:10). As I have already put it above, the human journey is from ground to glory.

Concluding Note

The fact that we are regularly considered dust throughout the Bible (Gen. 2:7; 3:19; 1 K.16:2; Job 10:9; 34:15; Ps. 90:3; 103:14;  Eccl. 12:7; 1 Cor. 15:47-49, cf. 2 Cor. 4:7) points to recapitulation. While the human ‘animal’ that attains to maturity completes the pilgrimage from dust to destiny (Seccombe) or from ground to glory (Rom. 8:30) only after shedding its flesh (1 Cor. 15:50), the natural animal which is merely flesh and not spirit (Isa. 31:3, etc.) dies a natural death and suffers total corruption and destruction in the earth from which it was taken in the first place (Ps. 49, cf. Eccl. 3:18-21; Gal. 6:8).

The Human Pilgrimage

If this construction is correct, our human course in this world is, first, dust (as emanating from Adam, Gen. 2:7, cf. Ps. 139:15f.; 1 Cor. 15:47-49); second, animal flesh as stemming from the seed of Adam and nurture in the womb (cf. Gen. 2:8,15,19; Ps. 139:13; Job 31:15; 34:14f.,19; Ps. 104:27-30; John 1:13; 3:6; Rom. 9:11; 1 Cor. 15:46); third, knowledge of the commandment followed by reaction to it establishing moral status (Gen. 3:22; Rom. 7:9f. We can only be good or evil in reaction to the commandment, something to which the dogma of original sin has blinded us, cf. Rom. 6:16); fourth, heathen life lived under the first dispensational covenant, that is, that of Noah (see e.g. Acts 14:15-17; 17:24ff.; Rom. 1:18-32); fifth, servanthood for Jewish men under the law of Moses, sixth, adoption or sonship through faith in Christ (Rom. 8:12-25, cf. Gal. 4:1-7), and, finally seventh, glorification in the presence of God. The pattern is familiarly biblical (cf. Luke 13:32; Acts 13:25; 20:24) and in essence covenantal! (15* See again my essays on covenant theology. It is a matter of general interest that Shakespeare posited seven stages of man!)

In contrast with Jesus, and the end-time saints who undergo a transformation ascension like that of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:51f.), we who die like Adam (Gen. 3) and David (Acts 2:29,34) before the second advent dispense with our corruptible animal flesh on account of sin (Rom. 8:10) since it cannot enter the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). But because Jesus conquered death and was glorified, we shall also be raised and changed at the general resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50-55). Glory is our goal and Jesus is our hope (Col. 1:27, cf. v.5; Rom. 8:20,24f.; 1 Pet. 1:3f.). Since God’s purposes and promises are fulfilled in him (2 Cor. 1:20-22), we shall always be with him (John 12:26; 1 Thes. 4:17) in his Father’s house (John 14:2f.) and will see his glory (John 17:24, cf. 14:19) in spiritual bodies like his (Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49; 2 Cor. 5:1).

As was intimated above, those who reject him and cultivate the flesh like animals rather than the spirit like Christ are forever cursed (Jer. 17:5; 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Rev. 21:8). They permanently retain the character they have fitted themselves for throughout their earthly lives (Rev. 22:11, cf. Rom. 9:22; 2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10; Eccl. 3:18).

Supplementary Comments

I have always tended to think of creation, or procreation, as the beginning of life and its later development as the work of Providence, though the two overlap (cf. again Job 31:15, for example). Thus, assuming the truth of recapitulation and using what is known, that is, the fleshly individual as creation in miniature as our template or paradigm, I arrive at the following conclusions. First, my contention is that the early procreation and physical development or gestation of the individual recapitulates mutatis mutandis (making the requisite changes) the prehistory of the race. Second, the early development of the infant/child recapitulates the race’s protohistory. This would seem to be demanded by the fact that while initially there is no covenant with creation, once one (i.e. that with Noah) has been established, we go on to achieve covenant maturity as both race and individual. This would appear to be the necessary inference we draw from passages like John 1:9-13, Romans 1-3 (race) on the one hand, and Romans 7-8 and Galatians 4:1-7(individual) on the other. The basic difference between what I see as the biblical view and the atheistic theory of evolution is the former’s intolerance and rejection of naturalism and the latter’s exclusive acceptance of it. While for the Christian believer (as against all other religions except for Judaism and Islam) a uniquely transcendent Creator God is at work, for the atheist there is only an unexplained force which is continuous with and arising out of an inexplicable creation. Needless to say, for the believer spontaneous generation/creation simply does not make sense.

It ought to be clear to the perceptive reader that the prime reason that the church (as opposed to the Bible) finds itself so at odds with science, history and even personal experience is that it is governed by traditional Augustinian theology. The so-called creation/fall/restoration schema, which posits perfection instead of ‘good’ at the start followed by a “fall” and universal curse leading in turn to eventual restoration, results in a devastating distortion of what the Bible actually teaches and to all intents and purposes destroys biblical teleology. So, for further clarification of my thesis, the reader is urged to read my essays on Covenant TheologyCovenant Theology in BriefCreation Corruptible By NatureI Believe in RecapitulationRecapitulation in OutlinePerfectionThe Journey of JesusThe Ascent of ManRomans 8:18-25The Biblical WorldviewBaptism RevisitedRegarding the Baptism of JesusConcerning Infant Salvation, etc.   Perhaps most important of all are my articles on original sin which, on the assumption that they are valid, undermines the traditional idea that the corruptible nature of this world stems from Adam’s sin, consequent “Fall” and curse (on which see my What Fall?Cosmic Curse?). The truth is, as a correct understanding of Romans 8:18-25 (cf. Heb. 1:10-12) makes clear, that creation is naturally corruptible (perishable) and requires man to exercise dominion over it with a view to escaping from it by gaining eternal life and transformation ascension (cf. Gal. 1:4; Eph. 6:12). Obviously man’s sin or moral disorientation leads to the exacerbation of nature’s corruptibility and his total failure or absence (e.g. in exile, cf. Jer. 26:6,9) leads inevitably to desolation (see e.g. Isa. 6:11, etc., cf. Ex. 23:29). The inference I draw from this is that when the harvest of the world is reaped, since it no longer has inhabitants the world becomes a total desolation and, like the desolate ‘hand-made’ temple (Mt. 23:38; Mark 14:58), is destroyed (Heb. 12:27, etc.). (For excellent comment on Mt. 23:38, see France, pp.883f.)

Additional Note (1)

The attempt of many to argue on the basis of bad theology that as individuals we are persons from conception is in my view absurd. References like Psalm 51:5 and Jeremiah 1:5 do nothing to help their cause. Psalm 51:5 as translated in ESV and NASV, apart from the fact that it could apply to Jesus, is at worst a prime example of hyperbole like Psalm 58:3 (cf. Isa. 8:4) and Job 31:18. In any case, since at birth David did not know the law, he could not have been born ‘guilty’ (NRSV) or sinful (NIV), or by the same token righteous (cf. Rom. 6:16; 9:11). This error is in the same category as the idea that Adam was created holy, righteous and perfect while still in ignorance of the law (commandment).

On the assumption that my view of the issue is correct, it inevitably raises the question of the status of foetuses and small children who die before attaining to the age of understanding. The obvious answer is that in the words of Ecclesiastes 12:7: “the dust (flesh) returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit (or breath) returns to God who gave it”. Clearly moral considerations are no more involved than they are in the death of animals (cf. Ps. 49:12,20; Eccl. 3:19f.; 9:11f.). In saying this I am taking it for granted that the attempt to make death (which in the case of morally aware human beings involves breaking the law and earning wages) on account of sin a universal principle is massively misguided. It fails to reckon adequately with the evidence and is characteristic of the Augustinian worldview not the Bible. (16* See further my Death Before Genesis 3Not Only But AlsoThoughts on Sin in RomansSome Arguments Against Original SinMore Arguments on Original Sin,  J.I.Packer on Original Sin, etc.).

Additional Note (2)

Shortly after completing the above I read Who Made God by Edgar Andrews. On page 259f., he takes issue with what he calls “standard TE” (theistic evolution) on the grounds that it “implicitly assumes a form of emergence”. While it involves, he claims, the creation of man’s physical form by a thoroughly naturalistic evolutionary process (for which Andrews rightly gives the credit to God), his unique nature as man is the result of a special intervention by God. Thus he comments, “In other words, true man only came into being when God injected a soul or spirit into selected members of a pre-human race” and attributes this view to C.S.Lewis (The Problem of Pain, p.65 Fontana ed.) whom he quotes as follows (slightly abridged):

“For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers …, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed in this state for ages before it became man…. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism … a new kind of consciousness which could say ‘I’ and ‘me’ which could look upon itself as an object which knew God….”

Andrews then proceeds to make comments on this which I find somewhat difficult to follow and leave me wondering what exactly his point is. However, I suspect that since his worldview is thoroughly Augustinian and clearly unbiblical (he believes in original perfection and the “Fall” of man, p.243, on which see above and further my WorldviewThe Biblical WorldviewPerfection), it arises from it. However, if the reader has followed my own reasoning above, he/she will not be at all surprised that the first thought to strike me was that Lewis was describing (making the necessary changes) the development of a baby which I claim recapitulates the history of the race! If this inference is justified, then Andrews’ objections to what he calls ‘emergence’ is belied by all children including himself as a child and hence by our corresponding racial history. But even more to the point this is precisely what Scripture itself teaches. Does not Paul indicate in 1 Corinthians 15:46 that we are (animal) flesh before we are spirit (cf. various other texts which point to the same conclusion, e.g. Dt. 1:39; Ps. 139:13-16; Isa. 7:15f.; 8:4; John 1:13; 3:6; 6:63; Rom. 9:11)? Does not the entire Bible describe the progressive advance (cf. revelation) or ascent of man from Genesis to Revelation, from ground to glory (see my The Ascent of ManThe Journey of Jesus), from earth to heaven, from flesh to spirit? Does not a truly biblical covenant theology point in the same direction? And does not the incarnate Jesus himself, the pioneer of our salvation, reflect exactly the same process (cf. Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7 with Heb. 2:9)? If he as the second Adam is our model or paradigm, he began like his father the first Adam (Luke 3:38, cf. Gen. 5:1-3) knowing neither good nor evil (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.). As he grew, he was progressively perfected in the image of God (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 2:10; 5:9, etc.) until he finally regained as man his own former glory (John 17:5,24) and sat at his Father’s right hand (Heb. 1:3, etc.). If all this is true, then we have no alternative but to accept Lewis’ basic point even if we reject his questionable theology elsewhere.

The reader must come to his/her own conclusions on this. However, my basic contention remains: if we want to know something about mankind as race, the most effective way to do it is to study the individual. With regard to this, judging by some excerpts from his posthumously published writings on Genesis, D.M.Lloyd-Jones, despite his commitment to the traditional dogma of original sin (pp.25-27, and see his well-known sermons on Romans 5, etc.), maintained that “All of us, as it were, in addition to inheriting certain things, repeat what was done at the beginning by Adam and Eve” (pp.44ff., cf. 61f.,80). From this I am forced to infer by sheer logic, first, the redundancy of original sin, and, second, recapitulation which is at the heart of Scripture, as Irenaeus indicated long ago. At this point the relevance of B.B.Warfield’s essay on The Human Development of Jesus becomes obvious for he freely alludes to Irenaeus. It is also interesting to note that Warfield’s next essay is on 1 John 2:2 and entitled Jesus Christ The Propitiation for the Whole World. On the assumption that what is not assumed is not healed (Gregory Nazianzen, cf. Hebrews 2) 1 John 2:2 would be an impossibility if recapitulation were not true. Clearly the Bible implies that Jesus was the perfect embodiment of the race (cf. Eph. 1:10). And his journey was unquestionably from ground to glory (Eph. 4:9f.).

My rereading in July 2010 of Lewis’ The Problem of Pain reminds me of something else. In his chapter on animal pain Lewis, rightly in my view, differentiates between what he calls ‘sentience’ and ‘consciousness’ (pp.118ff.). In doing so, he supports my own long held view that while animals feel pain, they do not know it.* On this basis Lewis deduces that the appearance of reckless divine cruelty in the animal kingdom is illusion (p.118). One might almost say, no brain no pain. What Lewis does not do, however, is draw another conclusion, that is that if we are animal flesh (cf. John 1:13; 6:63; Rom. 7:18a; 8:8; 1 Cor. 15:46) when we are babies, then the same applies. Babies may appear to suffer and in a sense doubtless do, but they have neither consciousness nor recollection of it. It is only as consciousness ‘emerges’, to use Prof. Andrews’ word, that the situation changes and that quite dramatically. Again I urge the reader to meditate on this.

But we may go even further. Traditionalists tell us that Eve was simply an individual, the first woman God created from Adam’s side, whose first child was Cain (Gen. 4:1). If that is so, how do we explain Genesis 3:16? How could God increase the pain of one who had never had any children? Ten times no pain equals no pain at all! If, however, we recognize that Adam and Eve are also corporate personalities and had fleshly or animal forebears who resembled babies before they gradually arrive at self-consciousness, then the problem evaporates. If flesh precedes spirit (1 Cor. 15:46), then pre-Adamic ‘man’ like babies belongs to prehistory. For most of us conscious life begins roughly at a time subsequent to weaning when we learn to recognize animals and rainbows and to manage our own bodily functions (cf. 1 Pet. 3:21). Little wonder that the book of Genesis has so little to say about “prehistoric” human beginnings. But what it does say is quite remarkable, a model of condensation for people all over the world at different stages of their growing perception and proving yet once again what an amazing book the Bible is.

Before leaving the subject of pain, we must consider the fact that millions of Jewish baby boys are circumcised on the eighth day. While this may be distressing for their mothers in particular, it does not seem to bother the babies themselves who have no recollection of the ceremony. To my knowledge there has been no move to ban it on grounds of cruelty. The same goes for circumcision for “hygienic” reasons common in my own childhood. I have no recollection of it at all. So if I felt pain and cried, I had no consciousness of it. How different from the situation described in Genesis 34. Circumcision for Shechem and his men (vv.24f.) proved not only painful but acutely incapacitating!

There is another point. Pain begins and increases as we gain self-consciousness and moral awareness. This is precisely what Genesis implies. Just as where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15; 7:8, etc.), so where there is no knowledge, there is no pain.

* I must have read Lewis first in 1958 when his book was given to me as a birthday present and inscribed by a female student friend, now Mme M.Dolmazon who lives in St. Etienne, France. While I do not remember being impressed with his view at the time, I certainly remember arriving at it on the basis of my own experience and reflection.
____________________________________________________

References

Edgar Andrews, Who Made God? Faverdale North, 2009.

Darrell L.Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, Grand Rapids, 2002.

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

John Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone, Louisville, 2010.

D.M.Lloyd-Jones, The Gospel in Genesis, Wheaton, 2009.

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

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

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

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

Circumcision and Baptism

CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM
Much has been made by supporters of infant baptism of the analogy between circumcision and baptism (cf. Col. 2:11-13). But beyond the fact that they are both initiatory rites they have comparatively little in common.
First, we need to note that the covenants of which they are the sacraments are different covenants. The difference between the old and new covenants is radical (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8) as we shall see further below. (1* See also my Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity at www.kenstothard.com /)
Next it is noticeable that paedobaptists and even some credobaptists apparently see circumcision as being essentially spiritual in meaning since it began with Abraham who was circumcised as a believer (cf. Rom. 4:11). However, while recognizing its origin with the fathers Jesus clearly associates it with law (John 7:22f.). After all, the OT itself also subsumes circumcision under the law as Leviticus 12:3 (cf. Gen. 17:12) indicates. And Paul obviously accepts this connection as Galatians 5:1-6, not to mention his entire polemic against the Judaizers, makes clear (cf. 6:15; Acts 15). In Acts 7:8 Stephen refers to the covenant of circumcision. In view of the fact that Abraham circumcised Isaac on the eighth day as a consequence of being given this covenant, it seems necessary to infer that law was involved even though he himself was a believer. (2* The reader should note, of course, that along with the Bible itself I differentiate between circumcision, or physical circumcision tout simple, Eph. 2:11, and circumcision of the heart, Dt. 30:6; Jer. 4:4, spiritual circumcision, Col. 2:11, and true circumcision, Rom. 2:29; Phil.3:3. Physical circumcision is visible, spiritual circumcision is invisible.)
The fact that all the men of Abraham’s household, (Gen. 17:23) including Ishmael who was explicitly denied covenant membership (Gen. 17:18f.), were normally circumcised on the eighth day (Gen. 17:12-14) established a fundamental hiatus or dichotomy between fleshly circumcision and spiritual baptism which is recognized in the NT. Genesis 17:14 indicates that failure to be circumcised involved transgression of the legal covenant and merited being cut off from the people, that is, Israel according to the flesh. In light of this we should not be at all surprised that even the child of promise, Isaac, was likewise circumcised (Gen. 21:4). In Paul’s eyes he belonged proleptically to two Israels (cf. Rom. 9:6). Thus, we are compelled to conclude that infant circumcision spells law and requires completion in spiritual circumcision (cf. Dt. 30:6; 29:4; Jer. 24:7; 32:39) every bit as much as physical birth ideally requires consummation in spiritual rebirth (John 3:1-8)! So, I conclude that to substitute infant circumcision with infant baptism like substituting repeated animal sacrifices with repeated masses reflects major misunderstanding. Not for nothing did Paul underline the fact that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything but that a new creation is everything (Gal. 6:15; 5:6; 2 Cor. 5:17).
Another pointer in this direction is the absence of female circumcision. In Israel girls were virtually ranked with children and the heathen who were deceived like Eve. She received the commandment only at second hand from Adam (cf. Gen. 3:6; 1 Tim. 2:14; Rom. 1:18-32; Eph.4:17-19). Furthermore, unlike boys who at their bar mitzvah became sons of the commandment (cf. Luke 2:40-52), girls were never considered to be personally responsible for keeping the law of Moses. On the other hand, Jesus regards women as daughters of Abraham by faith (Luke 13:16, cf. 1 Pet. 3:1-6). And, as everyone knows, girls were and are (properly) baptized as believers in Christ (Gal. 3:27f.).
Yet another factor needs to be taken into account. Circumcision, since it occurs on the eighth day, takes place before boys have done either good or evil (cf. Rom. 9:11). In other words, since it signifies law, it puts boys in exactly the same position as innocent but (spiritually) infantile Adam who necessarily received the commandment before he sinned (cf. Gen. 2:16f.). Indeed, on the assumption that where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15) it could do no other. By contrast, baptism, which signifies regeneration whose indispensable precondition is righteousness (Lev. 18:5) (3* On this see my The Order of Salvation, The Order of Salvation in Romans.) takes place only after testing under (the) law (cf. Ex. 15:25b;16:4; Dt. 8:2,16, etc.), as Jesus’ own case proves (4* See further my Regarding the Baptism of Jesus, Cart-Before-The-Horse Theology, etc.). Whereas both Gentile and Jew failed the test (cf. Rom. 1-3), Jesus passed it with flying colours, for his Father was well pleased with him. This is confirmed by his reception of the Spirit at his baptism when as God’s natural Son (through the Virgin Mary, cf. Luke 3:38) he was acknowledged as his regenerate Son (Mt. 3:13-17, cf. John 3:1-8) and given eternal life as man in accordance with the promise (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.).
This brings us to the radical difference between circumcision and baptism. Circumcision is a surgical operation performed by a priest signifying membership of the (legal) covenant community as Abraham’s physical progeny (Gen. 17; Mt. 3:9; John 8:33,39, cf. Acts 13:26; Rom. 4:1,16) to whom the law was uniquely given, but baptism by the Spirit (cf. Mark 1:8, etc.) is a work of God whose condition is conversion (repentance and faith) to Christ (cf. John 1:17). Paul clearly recognizes this in Colossians 2:11-13. The former is done “by hand”, the latter, that is, spiritual circumcision, is done “not by hand” (acheiropoietos), or, otherwise expressed, it is a monergistic act of God. In the eyes of Paul, not to mention John the Baptist who baptized merely with water (John 1:29-33), this “spiritual circumcision” (cf. Col. 2:11-13; Eph. 2:11) is fundamentally different from the legal variety. Failure to recognize this leads inexorably to the merging of old covenant with new covenant and the untenable idea of one covenant in two dispensations or the organic unity of the covenants. Furthermore, not only can we not attribute spiritual circumcision to Ishmael, but neither can we attribute it to the Jews in general, including John the Baptist (cf. Mt. 3:14 ;11:11), as Paul makes clear in his allegory in Galatians 4:21-31. Unbelieving Jews are still at Sinai, that is, under law and are related to Ishmael. They are still in bondage to the stoicheia or elementary principles (ESV) of the universe (Gal. 4:9; Col. 2:20).
Another point of immense importance is the contrast between life and death implied by the sacraments. Whereas baptism signifies Spirit and life, circumcision signifies law and death. In Paul’s eyes the ministry of the law which is signified by circumcision is death (2 Cor. 3). (5* It is worth noting at this point that in Joshua 5 all the circumcised older men die in the wilderness. Not so the uncircumcised younger ones who according to Numbers 14:3,29-35 were not guilty even though they suffered as a result of their parents’ sin. Pace those who believe in original sin!) So to attempt to substitute circumcision with baptism as the Reformed do is in effect to put babies under an obligation not merely to keep the law with a view to life but to fulfil in the flesh all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) as Jesus did after being sealed by the Spirit at his baptism (cf. Mt. 19:21). The very idea reflects fundamental theological and especially covenantal misunderstanding. This becomes yet more apparent once we note the differences between the respective covenant blessings.
Covenant Blessings
Examination of the Bible reveals that the blessings of the old covenant, real though they are, come well short of those of the new covenant (cf. 2 Cor. 3). They are contrasted in the NT especially by Paul in Romans and the author of Hebrews. (6* See again my Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity.)
Old Covenant Blessings
The inheritance of the Jews included the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2, cf. 2:17-20), collective physical adoption (Ex. 4:22), circumcision, temporary animal sacrifices, tenuous earthly redemption (long life), the glory, the covenants including the temporary law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs and the Messiah according to the flesh, (cf. Rom. 9:4f.), etc. Justification comes only by faith in the promises (Gen. 15:6; Heb. 11) but it is not provided by the covenant. Regeneration remains a promise (Dt. 29:4; 30:6; Jer. 31:33, etc.), conditioned on perfect obedience (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). Only Jesus met this condition and was thereby enabled to fulfil all righteousness and inaugurate the new covenant.
New Covenant Blessings
We receive salvation by grace through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8). The new covenant is eternal (Heb. 13:20) and involves eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12) and an eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:15), justification, regeneration (adoption) (John 3:16; Eph. 2:8, etc.), the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2, etc.), sanctification, perfection, transformation and glorification (Rom. 8:30; Heb. 9:11-15; 13:20). In a word, it saves.
To blur the distinction between circumcision and baptism is to blur the distinction between Jew and Christian, between old covenant and new. It is in effect not merely to excise the letter to the Galatians from the NT, but it is also to deny the essence of the gospel. We are saved by grace through faith, not law.
So I conclude that as circumcision signifying law (Lev. 12:3; John 7:22; Rom. 2:25; Gal. 5:3) sealed the righteousness of Abraham by faith (Gen. 17:10f.; Rom. 4:11), so baptism signifying new birth (Mt. 3:11,16f.; John 1:32f.; Acts 1:5; 11:16) sealed the regeneration of Jesus who kept the law (Lev. 18:5; Mt. 3:13-17; John 1:32; 6:27).
See further my Baptism Revisited, Regarding the Baptism of Jesus, The Theology Behind Baptism at www.kenstothard.com /.

Much has been made by supporters of infant baptism of the analogy between circumcision and baptism (cf. Col. 2:11-13). But beyond the fact that they are both initiatory rites they have comparatively little in common.

First, we need to note that the covenants of which they are the sacraments are different covenants. The difference between the old and new covenants is radical (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8.) as we shall see further below. (1* See also my Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity)

Next it is noticeable that paedobaptists and even some credobaptists apparently see circumcision as being essentially spiritual in meaning since it began with Abraham who was circumcised as a believer (cf. Rom. 4:11). However, while recognizing its origin with the fathers Jesus clearly associates it with law (John 7:22f.). After all, the OT itself also subsumes circumcision under the law as Leviticus 12:3 (cf. Gen. 17:12) indicates. And Paul obviously accepts this connection as Galatians 5:1-6, not to mention his entire polemic against the Judaizers, makes clear (cf. 6:15; Acts 15). In Acts 7:8 Stephen refers to the covenant of circumcision. In view of the fact that Abraham circumcised Isaac on the eighth day as a consequence of being given this covenant, it seems necessary to infer that law was involved even though he himself was a believer. (2* The reader should note, of course, that along with the Bible itself I differentiate between circumcision, or physical circumcision tout simple, Eph. 2:11, and circumcision of the heart, Dt. 30:6; Jer. 4:4, spiritual circumcision, Col. 2:11, and true circumcision, Rom. 2:29; Phil.3:3. Physical circumcision is visible, spiritual circumcision is invisible.)

The fact that all the men of Abraham’s household, (Gen. 17:23) including Ishmael who was explicitly denied covenant membership (Gen. 17:18f.), were normally circumcised on the eighth day (Gen. 17:12-14) established a fundamental hiatus or dichotomy between fleshly circumcision and spiritual baptism which is recognized in the NT. Genesis 17:14 indicates that failure to be circumcised involved transgression of the legal covenant and merited being cut off from the people, that is, Israel according to the flesh. In light of this we should not be at all surprised that even the child of promise, Isaac, was likewise circumcised (Gen. 21:4). In Paul’s eyes he belonged proleptically to two Israels (cf. Rom. 9:6). Thus, we are compelled to conclude that infant circumcision spells law and requires completion in spiritual circumcision (cf. Dt. 30:6; 29:4; Jer. 24:7; 32:39) every bit as much as physical birth ideally requires consummation in spiritual rebirth (John 3:1-8)! So, I conclude that to substitute infant circumcision with infant baptism like substituting repeated animal sacrifices with repeated masses reflects major misunderstanding. Not for nothing did Paul underline the fact that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything but that a new creation is everything (Gal. 6:15; 5:6; 2 Cor. 5:17).

Another pointer in this direction is the absence of female circumcision. In Israel girls were virtually ranked with children and the heathen who were deceived like Eve. She received the commandment only at second hand from Adam (cf. Gen. 3:6; 1 Tim. 2:14; Rom. 1:18-32; Eph.4:17-19). Furthermore, unlike boys who at their bar mitzvah became sons of the commandment (cf. Luke 2:40-52), girls were never considered to be personally responsible for keeping the law of Moses. On the other hand, Jesus regards women as daughters of Abraham by faith (Luke 13:16, cf. 1 Pet. 3:1-6). And, as everyone knows, girls were and are (properly) baptized as believers in Christ (Gal. 3:27f.).

Yet another factor needs to be taken into account. Circumcision, since it occurs on the eighth day, takes place before boys have done either good or evil (cf. Rom. 9:11). In other words, since it signifies law, it puts boys in exactly the same position as innocent but (spiritually) infantile Adam who necessarily received the commandment before he sinned (cf. Gen. 2:16f.). Indeed, on the assumption that where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15) it could do no other. By contrast, baptism, which signifies regeneration whose indispensable precondition is righteousness (Lev. 18:5) (3* On this see my The Order of SalvationThe Order of Salvation in Romans) takes place only after testing under (the) law (cf. Ex. 15:25b;16:4; Dt. 8:2,16, etc.), as Jesus’ own case proves (4* See further my Regarding the Baptism of JesusCart-Before-The-Horse Theology, etc.). Whereas both Gentile and Jew failed the test (cf. Rom. 1-3), Jesus passed it with flying colours, for his Father was well pleased with him. This is confirmed by his reception of the Spirit at his baptism when as God’s natural Son (through the Virgin Mary, cf. Luke 3:38) he was acknowledged as his regenerate Son (Mt. 3:13-17, cf. John 3:1-8) and given eternal life as man in accordance with the promise (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.).

This brings us to the radical difference between circumcision and baptism. Circumcision is a surgical operation performed by a priest signifying membership of the (legal) covenant community as Abraham’s physical progeny (Gen. 17; Mt. 3:9; John 8:33,39, cf. Acts 13:26; Rom. 4:1,16) to whom the law was uniquely given, but baptism by the Spirit (cf. Mark 1:8, etc.) is a work of God whose condition is conversion (repentance and faith) to Christ (cf. John 1:17). Paul clearly recognizes this in Colossians 2:11-13. The former is done “by hand”, the latter, that is, spiritual circumcision, is done “not by hand” (acheiropoietos), or, otherwise expressed, it is a monergistic act of God. In the eyes of Paul, not to mention John the Baptist who baptized merely with water (John 1:29-33), this “spiritual circumcision” (cf. Col. 2:11-13; Eph. 2:11) is fundamentally different from the legal variety. Failure to recognize this leads inexorably to the merging of old covenant with new covenant and the untenable idea of one covenant in two dispensations or the organic unity of the covenants. Furthermore, not only can we not attribute spiritual circumcision to Ishmael, but neither can we attribute it to the Jews in general, including John the Baptist (cf. Mt. 3:14 ;11:11), as Paul makes clear in his allegory in Galatians 4:21-31. Unbelieving Jews are still at Sinai, that is, under law and are related to Ishmael. They are still in bondage to the stoicheia or elementary principles (ESV) of the universe (Gal. 4:9; Col. 2:20).

Another point of immense importance is the contrast between life and death implied by the sacraments. Whereas baptism signifies Spirit and life, circumcision signifies law and death. In Paul’s eyes the ministry of the law which is signified by circumcision is death (2 Cor. 3). (5* It is worth noting at this point that in Joshua 5 all the circumcised older men die in the wilderness. Not so the uncircumcised younger ones who according to Numbers 14:3,29-35 were not guilty even though they suffered as a result of their parents’ sin. Pace those who believe in original sin!) So to attempt to substitute circumcision with baptism as the Reformed do is in effect to put babies under an obligation not merely to keep the law with a view to life but to fulfil in the flesh all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) as Jesus did after being sealed by the Spirit at his baptism (cf. Mt. 19:21). The very idea reflects fundamental theological and especially covenantal misunderstanding. This becomes yet more apparent once we note the differences between the respective covenant blessings.

Covenant Blessings

Examination of the Bible reveals that the blessings of the old covenant, real though they are, come well short of those of the new covenant (cf. 2 Cor. 3). They are contrasted in the NT especially by Paul in Romans and the author of Hebrews. (6* See again my Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity)

Old Covenant Blessings

The inheritance of the Jews included the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2, cf. 2:17-20), collective physical adoption (Ex. 4:22), circumcision, temporary animal sacrifices, tenuous earthly redemption (long life), the glory, the covenants including the temporary law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs and the Messiah according to the flesh, (cf. Rom. 9:4f.), etc. Justification comes only by faith in the promises (Gen. 15:6; Heb. 11) but it is not provided by the covenant. Regeneration remains a promise (Dt. 29:4; 30:6; Jer. 31:33, etc.), conditioned on perfect obedience (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). Only Jesus met this condition and was thereby enabled to fulfil all righteousness and inaugurate the new covenant.

New Covenant Blessings

We receive salvation by grace through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8). The new covenant is eternal (Heb. 13:20) and involves eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12) and an eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:15), justification, regeneration (adoption) (John 3:16; Eph. 2:8, etc.), the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2, etc.), sanctification, perfection, transformation and glorification (Rom. 8:30; Heb. 9:11-15; 13:20). In a word, it saves.

To blur the distinction between circumcision and baptism is to blur the distinction between Jew and Christian, between old covenant and new. It is in effect not merely to excise the letter to the Galatians from the NT, but it is also to deny the essence of the gospel. We are saved by grace through faith, not law.

So I conclude that as circumcision signifying law (Lev. 12:3; John 7:22; Rom. 2:25; Gal. 5:3) sealed the righteousness of Abraham by faith (Gen. 17:10f.; Rom. 4:11), so baptism signifying new birth (Mt. 3:11,16f.; John 1:32f.; Acts 1:5; 11:16) sealed the regeneration of Jesus who kept the law (Lev. 18:5; Mt. 3:13-17; John 1:32; 6:27).

See further my Baptism RevisitedRegarding the Baptism of JesusThe Theology Behind Baptism

The Theology Behind Baptism

THE THEOLOGY BEHIND BAPTISM
I read somewhere just recently (2010) that two basic problems relating to the Christian faith remain unsolved – baptism and the millennium. I categorically deny this. If it is true that a rite as important as the sacrament of baptism appears to be beyond our ability to solve, the inference must be drawn that the theology behind it has not been adequately understood. On the assumption that all the doctrines of the NT lie behind baptism, what I take to be a more adequate biblical theology can, I believe, provide a  solution to both of these problems. Here I want to take a look at baptism. (On the millennium, see my Preunderstandings of the Millennium; A Summary of Reasons Against the Return of Christ to earth; Is Jesus Coming Back to earth? etc.,  at  www.kenstothard.com /.)
Biblical Theology in General
Given an adequate appreciation of biblical theology as a whole, there is not the faintest suggestion, even including references to the baptism of households (e.g. Acts 16:33), that infants lacking all moral awareness are appropriate subjects of baptism. First, it should be noted that baptism as such does not appear till we reach the NT, more specifically the new covenant. Then, if baptism signifies as is generally agreed repentance, faith and regeneration by the Spirit of God poured out by Jesus after his glorification (John 7:39; Acts 2), it would appear to be an inescapable inference that infants were automatically excluded. Admittedly, straws in the wind emanating from bad theology and a predisposition to support traditional church practice have been perceived during the course of church history, hard evidence has been conspicuously lacking. To my knowledge only one potentially serious theological argument purporting to support the practice of paedobaptism has ever been mounted, and that is based on covenant theology. However, since all traditional covenant theologies known to me are in my view false, even this argument proves unsustainable on examination. (See further my Covenant Theology, Covenant Theology in Brief.)
False Practice
Traditionally it has been held on the basis of OT practice that since parents are “in the covenant”, even  participators in the covenant of grace, so are their children. Does not the promise of Acts 2:39 relate to believing parents, their children and those who are far off? A little reflection makes it clear that since those who are “far off” are usually the heathen Gentiles (Eph. 2:13,17; Heb. 11:13, cf. John 8:56) who are not included in the (new) covenant until they believe (cf. Eph. 2:12f. Col. 1:11-13, etc.), so the same must apply to children who are incapable of belief. The notion that children born during new covenant times can be regarded as new covenant children does not hold up. This idea derives from old covenant practice where parents who were themselves Jews by birth (Gal. 2:15) were under a legal obligation to circumcise boys on pain of breaking the covenant (Gen. 17:14). But this was a different covenant applied to the chosen people redeemed from Egypt (Ex. 20:2) as the conspicuous exclusion of girls indicates (contrast Acts 2:18; Gal. 3:28). The very fact that circumcision occurred on the eighth day excludes faith and underlines its legal nature (Gen. 17:12), for even Isaac, the child of promise, was subjected to it (Gen. 21:4). This proves beyond reasonable doubt that his circumcision was different in kind from that of Abraham his father for whom it was a seal of the righteousness he already had by faith (Gen. 15:6, cf. Rom. 4:11). Certainly, in due course Isaac became a believer in the covenant of promise, but it was his faith not his circumcision that differentiated him from others in his father’s household like Ishmael who despite circumcision (Gen. 17:23,25f.) was explicitly excluded from the covenant people (Gen. 17:18-21). And the Scripture makes it abundantly clear that, Abraham apart, circumcision relates to law not to grace (cf. John 7:22f.; Gal. 4:21-31; 5:3). (1* It is arguable that incomers like the slaves and aliens referred to in Exodus 12:44,48 were motivated by faith, cf. Rahab and Ruth, but it is doubtful whether this was usually the case.) This is made crystal clear by the fact that it was eventually subsumed under the law (Lev. 12:3, cf. Gal. 5:3).
The attempt has been made historically to equate, or at least to substitute, circumcision in the old covenant with baptism in the new. For example, Colossians 2:11 has been frequently appealed to. However, it seems to be properly recognized nowadays (2010) that circumcision performed “without hands” is categorically different from the surgical operation performed on babies “with hands” (2* See further my Manufactured or Not So at www.kenstothard.com /.). The difference is that between flesh and spirit, no less (cf. Gal. 4:21-31). Clearly two different covenants with different implications are involved. (Cf. my Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity.)
False Covenant Theology
Indeed, the real point at issue is covenant theology. The so-called organic unity of the covenant of grace traditionally embraced by many blurs, even erodes, the underlying distinction between the different covenants as propounded by Scripture. (3* On the unity of the covenant of grace, see e.g. John Murray.) Indeed, it makes a highly misleading monolith out of the rich and variegated character of the covenants as they are presented to us in the Bible. What is more, it plainly erodes the biblical differences evident in the races (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:32), individuals and even in the individual as such as we shall see below. Again, federal theology which suggests that there was a covenant of works made with Adam as the covenant head and representative of all mankind as reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith and taught by various theologians in the Reformed tradition is a serious deviation from what is actually taught in the Bible. The assumption that from the beginning God made a covenant with creation is not valid since it manifestly lacks a biblical foundation (4* See my Did God Make A Covenant With Creation?). It is thus a figment of man’s imagination comparable to the teachings of the false prophets (Jer. 14:14; 23:16, etc.).
Original Sin
It follows that when the assumption that there was an original covenant with creation is erroneously extended to the idea that God made a covenant with Adam, we are clearly in the realm of fantasy. Historically, this has had disastrous repercussions on the church’s understanding of biblical theology. It has led to the notion that Adam’s sin was imputed to all his offspring so that they were born sinners in spite of its implicit denial in Scripture (e.g. Dt. 1:39; Num. 14:3,31-33) and the fact that where there is no law there can be no transgression (Rom. 4:15, etc.). For all that, original sin remains to this day one of the main supports of infant baptism. (5* See further my articles mentioned below on original sin including An Exact Parallel.) However, if it is deemed correct, Jesus as a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) and a true human being (Heb. 2:17; 4:15) must have been born a sinner like all his fellows, and this Scripture rigorously disallows. (6* I find it impossible to take seriously the so-called covenant theology of the Dispensationalists. It is little more than an amalgam of elements of Scripture which though they have value in themselves hardly contribute to a coherent full-fledged theology. On Dispensationalism see, for example, Dispensationalism Today by C.C.Ryrie, Prophecy and the Church by O.T.Allis, Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow by C.I. Crenshaw and G. E.Gunn, Dispensationalism by K.A.Mathison.)
True Covenant Theology
It is widely agreed that according to the Bible there are five divine covenants made with man. They constitute those with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. Of these, the ones with Abraham and David are purely promissory and are accepted by faith as part of God’s revelation to Israel (cf. Rom. 4:1-8). By contrast the other three are dispensational. Though the covenant of law made through Moses applied strictly speaking to the Jews alone, since, however, it relates to human nature it has historically “spilled over” into Gentile territory. And it is worth noting that the reference to “schoolmaster” in Galatians 3:25 (KJV) though not exactly accurate is a reflection of God’s dealings with his chosen people, the Jews. These covenants, which apply to the race though they are not mentioned as such, appear in the first three chapters of Paul’s letter to the Romans. The Gentiles were the beneficiaries of the foundational covenant with Noah and remain so to the end of the world (Gen. 8:22; Acts 14:17, cf. Luke 17:26f.). Obviously the Jews who began in heathendom as Gentiles continued to enjoy the benefits of the covenant with Noah too, but they had the added advantage of the law of Moses (e.g. Rom. 2:17-3:2; 9:4). However, since they proved incapable of gaining the eternal life promised by the law (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 7:10, etc.) which they constantly and universally broke (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3; 143:2, etc.), they were promised a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34), and this was eventually established by Jesus. But while the Mosaic law was essentially exclusive and was imposed (7* I use the word ‘imposed’ guardedly since it needs to be recognized that a covenant involves at least a degree of agreement. An entirely unilateral covenant is a contradiction in terms. Hence there could be no covenant with an inarticulate creation. At Sinai, the Israelites positively accepted the terms of the covenant even if they promptly proceeded to renege on it, Ex. 19:8; 24:3,7.),  on them alone (Dt. 4:32-40; Ps. 147:19f.), the new covenant proved gloriously inclusive for all who exercised faith in Christ (John 3:16,36). It broke down the barrier built by the law between Jew and Gentile and made one man out of the two (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:15; 4:13).
So I contend that just as the history of the race is covenantal, so is the experience of the individual. Recognition of this is basic to our understanding of Christian baptism.
Recapitulation
It is occasionally pointed out that the word ‘Adam’ in Scripture means both man the individual and man the race, though in the early chapters of Genesis differentiating between the two is apparently somewhat difficult even for scholars. This being so, it is hardly surprising that the covenant theology which embraces the race as set out above is epitomized or recapitulated in the individual. Alternatively expressed, what is true of the race is mutatis mutandis (making the requisite adjustments) true of the individual. This becomes apparent when we compare Romans 1-3 and John 1:9-13 with Romans 7-8 and Galatians 4:1-7. Regrettably this insight, which was clearly perceived by Irenaeus, the so-called father of theology in the early church, has been almost completely lost to view in the theology of Augustine which has dominated the church since the fifth century. For all that it is of vital importance if we are to understand the doctrine of baptism. As we saw above, just as the race (Adam) like creation itself was initially devoid of covenant status and but for the grace of God manifested to Noah would have been obliterated by the flood, the same is true of babies which are born unprofitable flesh without a covenant guarantee (John 1:13; 6:63). It is only after undergoing a degree of development or maturation that they are “baptized” into Noah (1 Pet. 3:19). In other words, as children in contrast with the rest of creation who have learned to name animals and recognize rainbows, they are capable of living a life of faith just as he was (cf. Heb. 11:7).
Later, of course, like Abraham in his heathen state under Noah, they are in a position to believe the promise of God if and when it is explained to them (cf. Eph. 2:12). Later still in the course of their development Jewish boys undergo their bar mitzvah and become sons of the commandment. In this way, they are according to Paul “baptized” into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2). An obvious example of this was Jesus who as a Jew was circumcised on the eighth day and after living like his forebears as a slave in Egypt (Mt. 2:15) under the covenant with Noah at the age of thirteen took personal responsibility for keeping the law (cf. Luke 2:40-52). And it is while playing his role as a servant rather than a slave under the law (cf. Lev. 25:39ff.) that an understanding of the promise made to David regarding the Messiah would have impinged on his mind and that of all well taught and faithful Jews. This would of course undergird Jesus’ understanding of his mission to the world.
The Order of Salvation
Before being in a position to accomplish this mission, however, Jesus had meet certain preliminary requirements relating to the order of salvation. (8* It is usually forgotten that Jesus as man had from the start to seek glory and honour like all the rest of his brethren, Ps. 8; Rom. 2:7,10. See my The Order of Salvation, Cart-Before-The-Horse Theology, etc.) The primary one was to flawlessly keep the law by which God had initially promised life to Adam in the Garden (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.). For the first and only time in the history of man, he succeeded (Isa. 53:9; 1 Pet. 2:22) and in doing so met the precondition of life which was righteousness (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7, etc.). It was thus that Jesus earned the approbation of his heavenly Father and was acknowledged and confirmed as his Son. It was here that ontology complemented action. Consequently, he was baptized and thereby received the regenerating Spirit of God which remained on him (John 1:32, cf. 6:27). In plain words, in accordance with his own teaching, Jesus was born again and proclaimed as the true Son of God (John 3:1-8, cf. Gal. 4:1-7). Just as he was the first and only man in history to keep the law and gain righteousness before God (Mt. 3:13-17, cf. Job 4:17), so he was the first to experience regeneration (Lev. 18:5, cf. 2 Tim. 1:9f.), and eventually the immortality and incorruption of his Father (2 Tim. 1:10).
“Precapitulation”
It is at the baptism of Jesus, the second Adam, however, that his recapitulation of the history of the race, the Jewish race in particular, came to an end. Prior to his coming, no son of Adam had managed to go further along the path to perfection (Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2) precisely because they all failed to keep the law (1 K. 8:46, etc.). Since he had succeeded, however, he was at last able to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15), pioneer new covenant or regenerate life himself (cf. Mt. 5:48; 19:21; Heb. 6:1, etc.) and finish the work his Father had given him to do (John 17:4).
Regeneration/Adoption Universally Necessary
This prompts the question as to why it was necessary. Since the time of Augustine it has been insisted that regeneration is necessary only for sinners especially as those who had fallen prey to original sin (see e.g. Needham, p.251). But apart from the fact that original sin has a very dubious foundation in Scripture (9* See my Does Romans Teach Original Sin? Some Arguments Against Original Sin, More Arguments on Original Sin, Short Arguments Against Original Sin, etc., at www.kenstothard.com /)    John 3:1-8 makes no mention of sin at all, and there is not the slightest evidence indicating that it was a consideration. What is brought to the fore in this passage is the natural condition of human beings as flesh. So we must ask what the point is that Jesus is trying to make to Nicodemus.
Surely he is trying to impress on his mind the fact that the human goal of perfection or likeness to God (Mt. 5:48; 19:21) can only be fully achieved in heaven in the presence of God (cf. Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). But getting to heaven depends, first, on moral perfection which is every human being’s challenge (Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; Mt. 5:48; Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 3:7, cf. Acts 14:22; Col. 1:13; 2 Pet. 1:11), and, second, on generic perfection which cannot by its very nature be achieved in the flesh (1 Cor. 15:50). Jesus, however, had uniquely achieved legal perfection and gained life, that is, immunity to death by keeping the written law. But in order to finish the work his Father gave him to do (John 17:4; 19:30) he had to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) and freely give his life in death for his sheep. In the event, his death was vicariously offered and was not the consequence of wages personally earned. This being so, it could not retain its hold over him (Acts 2:22-24). Thus Jesus rose again not having experienced the corruption which follows in the normal course of nature. For all that, he could not live forever in naturally transient flesh (Ps. 78:39) or on the temporal earth which he himself had taught would eventually pass away (Mt. 24:35) like everything else that is physically visible (2 Cor. 4:18). Since this was so, the transformation that he had undergone at his incarnation had to be reversed or overcome (e.g. John 13:3; 16:28). Having permanently assumed human nature he now had to take his place once again at his Father’s side but this time as man. In order to be glorified, however, he had to be retransformed (John 17:5, cf. 24) – a point implicitly hammered home time and time again (5 times at least in the letter to the Hebrews alone: 1:3;13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). In brief, his glorification necessarily involved his transformation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:53), and if this is true of him, it is necessarily true of us (Phil. 3:21, cf. Rom. 8:30; 1 Cor. 15:50-54). As Paul told the Corinthians, flesh and blood cannot by nature inherit the kingdom of God nor can the naturally perishable inherit the imperishable (15:50).
Christians
What is the relevance of all this to Christian baptism? It must be that just as Jesus as the second Adam recapitulated the history of the race (the Jewish race in particular, cf. Gal. 4:1-7), so do we. But whereas he served as the trailblazer of the Christian life, we follow in the steps he pioneered. This cannot occur, however, until we have undergone the same sort of preliminary experiences and process of maturation that he had. So like him who was born of woman, we also must begin at the beginning, and that beginning is manifestly not Christian. Indeed, it is not covenantal at all. For we all begin life in the womb (cf. the Garden of Eden) and successively become babies, children, adolescents and finally adults, as Irenaeus taught. As babies, like Adam and Eve at the beginning, we initially know neither good nor evil since we do not know the law, or, more specifically, the commandment (cf. Dt. 1:39). (This being so, we cannot be sinners since where there is no law there is no transgression, Rom. 4:15; 7:8, etc.) But what is this commandment? Clearly the parental ‘no’ that all of us inevitably encounter in the course of our early development (cf. Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20). This was obviously Paul’s own experience as he makes clear in Romans 7:9-10. Prior to receiving the commandment he claims that like Adam and Eve in their (spiritual) infancy he was “alive”. But when the commandment eventually made its impression on his developing mind, like his first parents he failed to keep it and so ‘died’! First, as a child like Eve and the heathen who did not have the written law (Rom. 2:14-16, cf. 1 Tim. 2:14), he gave way to temptation and deception (Gen. 3:6, cf. Rom. 1:18-32; 7:11; Eph. 4:17-19). Next, like Adam and later the circumcised Jews who knew the law he rebelled against it (cf. Ex. 32) and/or failed miserably to keep it, even though like the Psalmist (119) he loved and prized it. This meant he needed a means of escape (cf. Rom. 7:14-25).
But neither the heathen, who like children were far off (Acts 2:39), nor the Jews, who like adolescents were near (Eph. 2:17), were baptized as Christians were to be. Why? Because, so long as both Gentiles and Jews remained unbelievers in Christ, they lacked proper access to God and the spiritual maturity and Trinitarian fullness that it brought (Eph. 2:18, cf. John 14:6). They were under law or, to express the issue more relevantly to the issue of baptism, they were under more primitive and different covenants suited to their immaturity (diminished responsibility, cf. Gal. 4:1ff.) which they failed to keep (see Rom. 1-3). It was only when they repented and confessed Christ as Saviour that they gained the righteousness necessary to receive eternal life (John 3:16; Rom. 3:21-26; 6:22f.) and became Christians by baptism (Rom. 6:3) in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:19).
So it is now clear that we are, first, “baptized” as children (not babies) into Noah (1 Pet. 3:19, cf. Acts 14:17; Gal. 4:1f.), second if we are Jews, “baptized” into Moses as spiritual adolescents under law (1 Cor. 10:2, cf. Gal. 3:23f.), and, third, baptized into Christ as believers in him (Rom. 6:3). Of course, it may well be complained at this point that Gentiles come to Christ apart from circumcision and the law. But so did Jewish women. So our inference must be that the Gentiles who did not have the law of Moses as such and were deceived like Eve (Gen. 3:6; Rom. 1:24ff.; Eph. 4:22, cf. 1 Tim.2:14) were nonetheless saved by faith apart from the law. This was true even of the heathen Abraham who was justified as a sinner by faith before he was circumcised. Little wonder that Jesus refers to the woman with the issue of blood as a daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:16)!
It is interesting to reflect that the Jews would have been extremely unlikely to consider children as fit subjects for baptism when they considered circumcision necessary (Acts 15:1,5). But more to the point, since Paul saw himself as deceived like Eve in his childhood (Rom. 7:11) before he took responsibility for keeping the law as a son of the commandment at age thirteen, he would have dismissed infant/child baptism out of hand as Galatians 4:1-7, which clearly reflects growing maturity, suggests. So too would the author of Hebrews who saw the law as only the shadow of the good things or realities to come (Heb. 10:1).
If all this is true, the tragedy of history is that the church has failed to reckon with the development or maturation of man both as community and individual. Just as Christianity came to the race in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4) and at the end of the ages (1 Pet. 1:20), so it comes to the individual in his relative maturity. To eliminate development, maturation or evolution is radically to misunderstand  baptism, covenant theology and recapitulation. It is reduce the Bible to a flat uniformity and treat Gentiles like Abraham who lived under the covenant with Noah as though they were Christians even though Jesus himself saw matters differently (John 8:56).
The Meaning of Baptism
This of course prompts another basic question: what is the meaning of baptism? In light of the prior ministry of John the Baptist who maintained that his baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4; John 1:6f., etc.) would be followed by Jesus’ baptism of the Spirit, Christian baptism’s prime significance is clearly the reception of the Spirit or regeneration. How then is the Spirit received? How in other words are we born again? First, in Matthew 3:13-17 Jesus as man, the quintessential man, the last Adam, the author and pioneer of our faith (Heb. 5:9; 12:2), having gained righteousness (pleased his Father) by keeping the law, is paradigmatically portrayed at his baptism receiving the Spirit and therefore eternal life. This was in accordance with the original promise made first to Adam (Gen. 2:17) and then to the chosen people (Lev. 18:5; Neh. 9:29; Ezek. 20:11,13,21, cf. Rom. 10:5, etc.). Secondly, Paul answers the question in Galatians 3:1-5, for example. We are born again not by personally keeping the law, of which we are incapable (Gal. 2:16; 3:11, etc.), but through faith in Jesus. Why is this so vitally important? Because man was never meant to be his own saviour (cf. Isa. 45:22f.; Phil. 2:9-11) and be in a position to boast about it (1 Cor. 1:29; Eph. 2:9, etc.). So it was precisely Jesus the Son of God who as man, the second Adam in fact, gained life and glory and honour and was able to serve as our Saviour by laying down his life for the forgiveness of our sins (Heb. 2:9f.; 10:14-18). Since he himself had to achieve righteousness (Rom. 2:13) in order to receive life (Mt. 19:17) and perfection (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:26,28), so through faith in him do we (Phil. 3:9,12-14; Heb. 6:1; 9:14). In other words, if perfection, or to be like God (cf. Gen. 3:5), is the goal of human life (Mt. 5:48, cf. Heb. 6:1; 7:11), we have no option but to commit ourselves to him who laid down his life for us and redeemed us by his blood (Eph. 1:7). Thus through faith in him as our covenant head and representative, we gain forgiveness for our sins, and being accounted righteous (justified by faith) we are baptized and receive the Spirit just as he did. It is in this way that we are born again in accordance with the original promise made to Adam (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Mt. 19:17; Rom. 10:5-13). All this – repentance, faith, baptism in water and reception of the Spirit – constitutes, in the words of Bruce, “one complex experience” (p.281). Otherwise expressed, since we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8), it is divine not human action (cf. Col. 2:11-13) that ultimately gives baptism its effective meaning. Needless to say, this rules out infant baptism which for its recipient is in any case meaningless.
Baptism in the New Testament
As I have already noted there is no evidence of infant/child baptism in the NT. The prime reason for this is that baptism, so far as we ordinary mortals are concerned, requires both repentance for sins actually perpetrated (cf. John the Baptist and washing with water, Mark 1:4) and faith in Christ (John 3:16) which leads to the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 2:38). Since as early as Genesis 2:17 it is taught that eternal life for mortal man can only be gained on the condition of fulfilling the commandment, and later the whole law (Lev. 18:5), failure must be overcome through faith in Christ who as man’s representative and covenant head lived a sinless life and achieved the perfection that his Father required. (Alternatively, we may say that he matched his divinity with his humanity and proved who he was by his actions.) He died on our behalf for the forgiveness of sins and provided the righteousness apart from which salvation is impossible (Phil. 3:9, cf. Acts 4:12).
So it is only those capable of making a credible profession of faith in and confession of him as Lord (Rom. 10:10) who are the proper subjects of baptism. To baptize babies/children is to deny biblical teaching with regard to recapitulation, sin personally committed, covenant theology, repentance, faith, regeneration and perfection – all of which are integral to complete human experience and hence to the plan of salvation. Again, alternatively expressed, infant baptism is in effect a denial of our humanity.
Jesus Our Paradigm
At the end of the day, Jesus, the Man, the only man to keep the law, serves as our paradigm (cf. Heb. 2:17). And he does so not least in baptism. The onus probandi or burden of proof rests on those who deny it.
Postscript
Among the various reasons why infant baptism was adopted historically lay the concern about the salvation of babies. The question of whether they are saved or not is not directly broached in the Bible, though they are clearly regarded as innocent (Num. 14:3,33ff.; Dt. 1:39; 1 K. 3:7,9; Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 5:12-14). So while they could not be damned a la Augustine, by the same token they could not be saved. Since they lack knowledge of the law which promises life, they are unprofitable flesh (John 6:63). As such like animals they cannot exercise faith and so cannot please God (Heb. 11:6). On the other hand, in view of a great deal of OT teaching summed up in Hebrews 11 we should have no qualms about the salvation of those who exercise an immature kind of faith like Noah but never embrace Christ for historical/chronological/covenantal reasons. For just as those who lived before Christ were by faith ultimately made perfect through him (cf. Abraham, Mt. 8:11), so are children who fail to exercise faith in Christ as ‘adults’ do (Heb. 11:39f.). The order of salvation (ordo salutis) is of prime importance here. To put regeneration before faith in order to overcome the imagined effects of original sin which does not exist is not only to pervert baptism but also much of the rest of our theology, as history amply demonstrates.
It should never be forgotten that Jesus taught that despite physical death all (believers) are alive to God (Luke 20:38).  Certainly the idea embraced by Augustine that apart from baptism children are damned is totally alien to the Bible. It is to posit a rift between creation and salvation. Indeed, it is in effect to render creation meaningless. In any case, regeneration cannot be conveyed by sacrament administered by man any more than it could by a ‘hand-made’ circumcision. (See further my articles on Concerning Infant Salvation and Are Babies Saved? at www.kenstothard.com ).
Reference
F.F.Bruce, Paul Apostle of the Free Spirit, Exeter, 1977.
On the subject of baptism see further my Baptism Revisited and Circumcision and Baptism at www.kenstothard.com /.

I read somewhere just recently (2010) that two basic problems relating to the Christian faith remain unsolved – baptism and the millennium. I categorically deny this. If it is true that a rite as important as the sacrament of baptism appears to be beyond our ability to solve, the inference must be drawn that the theology behind it has not been adequately understood. On the assumption that all the doctrines of the NT lie behind baptism, what I take to be a more adequate biblical theology can, I believe, provide a  solution to both of these problems. Here I want to take a look at baptism. (On the millennium, see my Preunderstandings of the Millennium?, A Summary of Reasons Against the Return of Christ to Earth, Is Jesus Coming Back to Earth?)

Biblical Theology in General

Given an adequate appreciation of biblical theology as a whole, there is not the faintest suggestion, even including references to the baptism of households (e.g. Acts 16:33), that infants lacking all moral awareness are appropriate subjects of baptism. First, it should be noted that baptism as such does not appear till we reach the NT, more specifically the new covenant. Then, if baptism signifies as is generally agreed repentance, faith and regeneration by the Spirit of God poured out by Jesus after his glorification (John 7:39; Acts 2), it would appear to be an inescapable inference that infants were automatically excluded. Admittedly, straws in the wind emanating from bad theology and a predisposition to support traditional church practice have been perceived during the course of church history, hard evidence has been conspicuously lacking. To my knowledge only one potentially serious theological argument purporting to support the practice of paedobaptism has ever been mounted, and that is based on covenant theology. However, since all traditional covenant theologies known to me are in my view false, even this argument proves unsustainable on examination. (See further my Covenant TheologyCovenant Theology in Brief)

False Practice

Traditionally it has been held on the basis of OT practice that since parents are “in the covenant”, even  participators in the covenant of grace, so are their children. Does not the promise of Acts 2:39 relate to believing parents, their children and those who are far off? A little reflection makes it clear that since those who are “far off” are usually the heathen Gentiles (Eph. 2:13,17; Heb. 11:13, cf. John 8:56) who are not included in the (new) covenant until they believe (cf. Eph. 2:12f. Col. 1:11-13, etc.), so the same must apply to children who are incapable of belief. The notion that children born during new covenant times can be regarded as new covenant children does not hold up. This idea derives from old covenant practice where parents who were themselves Jews by birth (Gal. 2:15) were under a legal obligation to circumcise boys on pain of breaking the covenant (Gen. 17:14). But this was a different covenant applied to the chosen people redeemed from Egypt (Ex. 20:2) as the conspicuous exclusion of girls indicates (contrast Acts 2:18; Gal. 3:28). The very fact that circumcision occurred on the eighth day excludes faith and underlines its legal nature (Gen. 17:12), for even Isaac, the child of promise, was subjected to it (Gen. 21:4). This proves beyond reasonable doubt that his circumcision was different in kind from that of Abraham his father for whom it was a seal of the righteousness he already had by faith (Gen. 15:6, cf. Rom. 4:11). Certainly, in due course Isaac became a believer in the covenant of promise, but it was his faith not his circumcision that differentiated him from others in his father’s household like Ishmael who despite circumcision (Gen. 17:23,25f.) was explicitly excluded from the covenant people (Gen. 17:18-21). And the Scripture makes it abundantly clear that, Abraham apart, circumcision relates to law not to grace (cf. John 7:22f.; Gal. 4:21-31; 5:3). (1* It is arguable that incomers like the slaves and aliens referred to in Exodus 12:44,48 were motivated by faith, cf. Rahab and Ruth, but it is doubtful whether this was usually the case.) This is made crystal clear by the fact that it was eventually subsumed under the law (Lev. 12:3, cf. Gal. 5:3).

The attempt has been made historically to equate, or at least to substitute, circumcision in the old covenant with baptism in the new. For example, Colossians 2:11 has been frequently appealed to. However, it seems to be properly recognized nowadays (2010) that circumcision performed “without hands” is categorically different from the surgical operation performed on babies “with hands” (2* See further my Manufactured Or Not So). The difference is that between flesh and spirit, no less (cf. Gal. 4:21-31). Clearly two different covenants with different implications are involved. (Cf. my Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity)

False Covenant Theology

Indeed, the real point at issue is covenant theology. The so-called organic unity of the covenant of grace traditionally embraced by many blurs, even erodes, the underlying distinction between the different covenants as propounded by Scripture. (3* On the unity of the covenant of grace, see e.g. John Murray.) Indeed, it makes a highly misleading monolith out of the rich and variegated character of the covenants as they are presented to us in the Bible. What is more, it plainly erodes the biblical differences evident in the races (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:32), individuals and even in the individual as such as we shall see below. Again, federal theology which suggests that there was a covenant of works made with Adam as the covenant head and representative of all mankind as reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith and taught by various theologians in the Reformed tradition is a serious deviation from what is actually taught in the Bible. The assumption that from the beginning God made a covenant with creation is not valid since it manifestly lacks a biblical foundation (4* See my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?). It is thus a figment of man’s imagination comparable to the teachings of the false prophets (Jer. 14:14; 23:16, etc.).

Original Sin

It follows that when the assumption that there was an original covenant with creation is erroneously extended to the idea that God made a covenant with Adam, we are clearly in the realm of fantasy. Historically, this has had disastrous repercussions on the church’s understanding of biblical theology. It has led to the notion that Adam’s sin was imputed to all his offspring so that they were born sinners in spite of its implicit denial in Scripture (e.g. Dt. 1:39; Num. 14:3,31-33) and the fact that where there is no law there can be no transgression (Rom. 4:15, etc.). For all that, original sin remains to this day one of the main supports of infant baptism. (5* See further my articles mentioned below on original sin including An Exact Parallel?) However, if it is deemed correct, Jesus as a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) and a true human being (Heb. 2:17; 4:15) must have been born a sinner like all his fellows, and this Scripture rigorously disallows. (6* I find it impossible to take seriously the so-called covenant theology of the Dispensationalists. It is little more than an amalgam of elements of Scripture which though they have value in themselves hardly contribute to a coherent full-fledged theology. On Dispensationalism see, for example, Dispensationalism Today by C.C.Ryrie, Prophecy and the Church by O.T.Allis, Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow by C.I. Crenshaw and G. E.Gunn, Dispensationalism by K.A.Mathison.)

True Covenant Theology

It is widely agreed that according to the Bible there are five divine covenants made with man. They constitute those with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. Of these, the ones with Abraham and David are purely promissory and are accepted by faith as part of God’s revelation to Israel (cf. Rom. 4:1-8). By contrast the other three are dispensational. Though the covenant of law made through Moses applied strictly speaking to the Jews alone, since, however, it relates to human nature it has historically “spilled over” into Gentile territory. And it is worth noting that the reference to “schoolmaster” in Galatians 3:25 (KJV) though not exactly accurate is a reflection of God’s dealings with his chosen people, the Jews. These covenants, which apply to the race though they are not mentioned as such, appear in the first three chapters of Paul’s letter to the Romans. The Gentiles were the beneficiaries of the foundational covenant with Noah and remain so to the end of the world (Gen. 8:22; Acts 14:17, cf. Luke 17:26f.). Obviously the Jews who began in heathendom as Gentiles continued to enjoy the benefits of the covenant with Noah too, but they had the added advantage of the law of Moses (e.g. Rom. 2:17-3:2; 9:4). However, since they proved incapable of gaining the eternal life promised by the law (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 7:10, etc.) which they constantly and universally broke (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3; 143:2, etc.), they were promised a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34), and this was eventually established by Jesus. But while the Mosaic law was essentially exclusive and was imposed (7* I use the word ‘imposed’ guardedly since it needs to be recognized that a covenant involves at least a degree of agreement. An entirely unilateral covenant is a contradiction in terms. Hence there could be no covenant with an inarticulate creation. At Sinai, the Israelites positively accepted the terms of the covenant even if they promptly proceeded to renege on it, Ex. 19:8; 24:3,7.),  on them alone (Dt. 4:32-40; Ps. 147:19f.), the new covenant proved gloriously inclusive for all who exercised faith in Christ (John 3:16,36). It broke down the barrier built by the law between Jew and Gentile and made one man out of the two (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:15; 4:13).

So I contend that just as the history of the race is covenantal, so is the experience of the individual. Recognition of this is basic to our understanding of Christian baptism.

Recapitulation

It is occasionally pointed out that the word ‘Adam’ in Scripture means both man the individual and man the race, though in the early chapters of Genesis differentiating between the two is apparently somewhat difficult even for scholars. This being so, it is hardly surprising that the covenant theology which embraces the race as set out above is epitomized or recapitulated in the individual. Alternatively expressed, what is true of the race is mutatis mutandis (making the requisite adjustments) true of the individual. This becomes apparent when we compare Romans 1-3 and John 1:9-13 with Romans 7-8 and Galatians 4:1-7. Regrettably this insight, which was clearly perceived by Irenaeus, the so-called father of theology in the early church, has been almost completely lost to view in the theology of Augustine which has dominated the church since the fifth century. For all that it is of vital importance if we are to understand the doctrine of baptism. As we saw above, just as the race (Adam) like creation itself was initially devoid of covenant status and but for the grace of God manifested to Noah would have been obliterated by the flood, the same is true of babies which are born unprofitable flesh without a covenant guarantee (John 1:13; 6:63). It is only after undergoing a degree of development or maturation that they are “baptized” into Noah (1 Pet. 3:19). In other words, as children in contrast with the rest of creation who have learned to name animals and recognize rainbows, they are capable of living a life of faith just as he was (cf. Heb. 11:7).

Later, of course, like Abraham in his heathen state under Noah, they are in a position to believe the promise of God if and when it is explained to them (cf. Eph. 2:12). Later still in the course of their development Jewish boys undergo their bar mitzvah and become sons of the commandment. In this way, they are according to Paul “baptized” into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2). An obvious example of this was Jesus who as a Jew was circumcised on the eighth day and after living like his forebears as a slave in Egypt (Mt. 2:15) under the covenant with Noah at the age of thirteen took personal responsibility for keeping the law (cf. Luke 2:40-52). And it is while playing his role as a servant rather than a slave under the law (cf. Lev. 25:39ff.) that an understanding of the promise made to David regarding the Messiah would have impinged on his mind and that of all well taught and faithful Jews. This would of course undergird Jesus’ understanding of his mission to the world.

The Order of Salvation

Before being in a position to accomplish this mission, however, Jesus had meet certain preliminary requirements relating to the order of salvation. (8* It is usually forgotten that Jesus as man had from the start to seek glory and honour like all the rest of his brethren, Ps. 8; Rom. 2:7,10. See my The Order of SalvationCart-Before-The-Horse Theology, etc.) The primary one was to flawlessly keep the law by which God had initially promised life to Adam in the Garden (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.). For the first and only time in the history of man, he succeeded (Isa. 53:9; 1 Pet. 2:22) and in doing so met the precondition of life which was righteousness (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7, etc.). It was thus that Jesus earned the approbation of his heavenly Father and was acknowledged and confirmed as his Son. It was here that ontology complemented action. Consequently, he was baptized and thereby received the regenerating Spirit of God which remained on him (John 1:32, cf. 6:27). In plain words, in accordance with his own teaching, Jesus was born again and proclaimed as the true Son of God (John 3:1-8, cf. Gal. 4:1-7). Just as he was the first and only man in history to keep the law and gain righteousness before God (Mt. 3:13-17, cf. Job 4:17), so he was the first to experience regeneration (Lev. 18:5, cf. 2 Tim. 1:9f.), and eventually the immortality and incorruption of his Father (2 Tim. 1:10).

“Precapitulation”

It is at the baptism of Jesus, the second Adam, however, that his recapitulation of the history of the race, the Jewish race in particular, came to an end. Prior to his coming, no son of Adam had managed to go further along the path to perfection (Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2) precisely because they all failed to keep the law (1 K. 8:46, etc.). Since he had succeeded, however, he was at last able to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15), pioneer new covenant or regenerate life himself (cf. Mt. 5:48; 19:21; Heb. 6:1, etc.) and finish the work his Father had given him to do (John 17:4).

Regeneration/Adoption Universally Necessary

This prompts the question as to why it was necessary. Since the time of Augustine it has been insisted that regeneration is necessary only for sinners especially as those who had fallen prey to original sin (see e.g. Needham, p.251). But apart from the fact that original sin has a very dubious foundation in Scripture (9* See my Does Romans Teach Original Sin?, Some Arguments Against Original SinMore Arguments on Original SinShort Arguments Against Original Sin in Romans)   John 3:1-8 makes no mention of sin at all, and there is not the slightest evidence indicating that it was a consideration. What is brought to the fore in this passage is the natural condition of human beings as flesh. So we must ask what the point is that Jesus is trying to make to Nicodemus.

Surely he is trying to impress on his mind the fact that the human goal of perfection or likeness to God (Mt. 5:48; 19:21) can only be fully achieved in heaven in the presence of God (cf. Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). But getting to heaven depends, first, on moral perfection which is every human being’s challenge (Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; Mt. 5:48; Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 3:7, cf. Acts 14:22; Col. 1:13; 2 Pet. 1:11), and, second, on generic perfection which cannot by its very nature be achieved in the flesh (1 Cor. 15:50). Jesus, however, had uniquely achieved legal perfection and gained life, that is, immunity to death by keeping the written law. But in order to finish the work his Father gave him to do (John 17:4; 19:30) he had to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) and freely give his life in death for his sheep. In the event, his death was vicariously offered and was not the consequence of wages personally earned. This being so, it could not retain its hold over him (Acts 2:22-24). Thus Jesus rose again not having experienced the corruption which follows in the normal course of nature. For all that, he could not live forever in naturally transient flesh (Ps. 78:39) or on the temporal earth which he himself had taught would eventually pass away (Mt. 24:35) like everything else that is physically visible (2 Cor. 4:18). Since this was so, the transformation that he had undergone at his incarnation had to be reversed or overcome (e.g. John 13:3; 16:28). Having permanently assumed human nature he now had to take his place once again at his Father’s side but this time as man. In order to be glorified, however, he had to be retransformed (John 17:5, cf. 24) – a point implicitly hammered home time and time again (5 times at least in the letter to the Hebrews alone: 1:3;13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). In brief, his glorification necessarily involved his transformation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:53), and if this is true of him, it is necessarily true of us (Phil. 3:21, cf. Rom. 8:30; 1 Cor. 15:50-54). As Paul told the Corinthians, flesh and blood cannot by nature inherit the kingdom of God nor can the naturally perishable inherit the imperishable (15:50).

Christians

What is the relevance of all this to Christian baptism? It must be that just as Jesus as the second Adam recapitulated the history of the race (the Jewish race in particular, cf. Gal. 4:1-7), so do we. But whereas he served as the trailblazer of the Christian life, we follow in the steps he pioneered. This cannot occur, however, until we have undergone the same sort of preliminary experiences and process of maturation that he had. So like him who was born of woman, we also must begin at the beginning, and that beginning is manifestly not Christian. Indeed, it is not covenantal at all. For we all begin life in the womb (cf. the Garden of Eden) and successively become babies, children, adolescents and finally adults, as Irenaeus taught. As babies, like Adam and Eve at the beginning, we initially know neither good nor evil since we do not know the law, or, more specifically, the commandment (cf. Dt. 1:39). (This being so, we cannot be sinners since where there is no law there is no transgression, Rom. 4:15; 7:8, etc.) But what is this commandment? Clearly the parental ‘no’ that all of us inevitably encounter in the course of our early development (cf. Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20). This was obviously Paul’s own experience as he makes clear in Romans 7:9-10. Prior to receiving the commandment he claims that like Adam and Eve in their (spiritual) infancy he was “alive”. But when the commandment eventually made its impression on his developing mind, like his first parents he failed to keep it and so ‘died’! First, as a child like Eve and the heathen who did not have the written law (Rom. 2:14-16, cf. 1 Tim. 2:14), he gave way to temptation and deception (Gen. 3:6, cf. Rom. 1:18-32; 7:11; Eph. 4:17-19). Next, like Adam and later the circumcised Jews who knew the law he rebelled against it (cf. Ex. 32) and/or failed miserably to keep it, even though like the Psalmist (119) he loved and prized it. This meant he needed a means of escape (cf. Rom. 7:14-25).

But neither the heathen, who like children were far off (Acts 2:39), nor the Jews, who like adolescents were near (Eph. 2:17), were baptized as Christians were to be. Why? Because, so long as both Gentiles and Jews remained unbelievers in Christ, they lacked proper access to God and the spiritual maturity and Trinitarian fullness that it brought (Eph. 2:18, cf. John 14:6). They were under law or, to express the issue more relevantly to the issue of baptism, they were under more primitive and different covenants suited to their immaturity (diminished responsibility, cf. Gal. 4:1ff.) which they failed to keep (see Rom. 1-3). It was only when they repented and confessed Christ as Saviour that they gained the righteousness necessary to receive eternal life (John 3:16; Rom. 3:21-26; 6:22f.) and became Christians by baptism (Rom. 6:3) in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:19).

So it is now clear that we are, first, “baptized” as children (not babies) into Noah (1 Pet. 3:19, cf. Acts 14:17; Gal. 4:1f.), second if we are Jews, “baptized” into Moses as spiritual adolescents under law (1 Cor. 10:2, cf. Gal. 3:23f.), and, third, baptized into Christ as believers in him (Rom. 6:3). Of course, it may well be complained at this point that Gentiles come to Christ apart from circumcision and the law. But so did Jewish women. So our inference must be that the Gentiles who did not have the law of Moses as such and were deceived like Eve (Gen. 3:6; Rom. 1:24ff.; Eph. 4:22, cf. 1 Tim.2:14) were nonetheless saved by faith apart from the law. This was true even of the heathen Abraham who was justified as a sinner by faith before he was circumcised. Little wonder that Jesus refers to the woman with the issue of blood as a daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:16)!

It is interesting to reflect that the Jews would have been extremely unlikely to consider children as fit subjects for baptism when they considered circumcision necessary (Acts 15:1,5). But more to the point, since Paul saw himself as deceived like Eve in his childhood (Rom. 7:11) before he took responsibility for keeping the law as a son of the commandment at age thirteen, he would have dismissed infant/child baptism out of hand as Galatians 4:1-7, which clearly reflects growing maturity, suggests. So too would the author of Hebrews who saw the law as only the shadow of the good things or realities to come (Heb. 10:1).

If all this is true, the tragedy of history is that the church has failed to reckon with the development or maturation of man both as community and individual. Just as Christianity came to the race in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4) and at the end of the ages (1 Pet. 1:20), so it comes to the individual in his relative maturity. To eliminate development, maturation or evolution is radically to misunderstand  baptism, covenant theology and recapitulation. It is reduce the Bible to a flat uniformity and treat Gentiles like Abraham who lived under the covenant with Noah as though they were Christians even though Jesus himself saw matters differently (John 8:56).

The Meaning of Baptism

This of course prompts another basic question: what is the meaning of baptism? In light of the prior ministry of John the Baptist who maintained that his baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4; John 1:6f., etc.) would be followed by Jesus’ baptism of the Spirit, Christian baptism’s prime significance is clearly the reception of the Spirit or regeneration. How then is the Spirit received? How in other words are we born again? First, in Matthew 3:13-17 Jesus as man, the quintessential man, the last Adam, the author and pioneer of our faith (Heb. 5:9; 12:2), having gained righteousness (pleased his Father) by keeping the law, is paradigmatically portrayed at his baptism receiving the Spirit and therefore eternal life. This was in accordance with the original promise made first to Adam (Gen. 2:17) and then to the chosen people (Lev. 18:5; Neh. 9:29; Ezek. 20:11,13,21, cf. Rom. 10:5, etc.). Secondly, Paul answers the question in Galatians 3:1-5, for example. We are born again not by personally keeping the law, of which we are incapable (Gal. 2:16; 3:11, etc.), but through faith in Jesus. Why is this so vitally important? Because man was never meant to be his own saviour (cf. Isa. 45:22f.; Phil. 2:9-11) and be in a position to boast about it (1 Cor. 1:29; Eph. 2:9, etc.). So it was precisely Jesus the Son of God who as man, the second Adam in fact, gained life and glory and honour and was able to serve as our Saviour by laying down his life for the forgiveness of our sins (Heb. 2:9f.; 10:14-18). Since he himself had to achieve righteousness (Rom. 2:13) in order to receive life (Mt. 19:17) and perfection (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:26,28), so through faith in him do we (Phil. 3:9,12-14; Heb. 6:1; 9:14). In other words, if perfection, or to be like God (cf. Gen. 3:5), is the goal of human life (Mt. 5:48, cf. Heb. 6:1; 7:11), we have no option but to commit ourselves to him who laid down his life for us and redeemed us by his blood (Eph. 1:7). Thus through faith in him as our covenant head and representative, we gain forgiveness for our sins, and being accounted righteous (justified by faith) we are baptized and receive the Spirit just as he did. It is in this way that we are born again in accordance with the original promise made to Adam (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Mt. 19:17; Rom. 10:5-13). All this – repentance, faith, baptism in water and reception of the Spirit – constitutes, in the words of Bruce, “one complex experience” (p.281). Otherwise expressed, since we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8), it is divine not human action (cf. Col. 2:11-13) that ultimately gives baptism its effective meaning. Needless to say, this rules out infant baptism which for its recipient is in any case meaningless.

Baptism in the New Testament

As I have already noted there is no evidence of infant/child baptism in the NT. The prime reason for this is that baptism, so far as we ordinary mortals are concerned, requires both repentance for sins actually perpetrated (cf. John the Baptist and washing with water, Mark 1:4) and faith in Christ (John 3:16) which leads to the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 2:38). Since as early as Genesis 2:17 it is taught that eternal life for mortal man can only be gained on the condition of fulfilling the commandment, and later the whole law (Lev. 18:5), failure must be overcome through faith in Christ who as man’s representative and covenant head lived a sinless life and achieved the perfection that his Father required. (Alternatively, we may say that he matched his divinity with his humanity and proved who he was by his actions.) He died on our behalf for the forgiveness of sins and provided the righteousness apart from which salvation is impossible (Phil. 3:9, cf. Acts 4:12).

So it is only those capable of making a credible profession of faith in and confession of him as Lord (Rom. 10:10) who are the proper subjects of baptism. To baptize babies/children is to deny biblical teaching with regard to recapitulation, sin personally committed, covenant theology, repentance, faith, regeneration and perfection – all of which are integral to complete human experience and hence to the plan of salvation. Again, alternatively expressed, infant baptism is in effect a denial of our humanity.

Jesus Our Paradigm

At the end of the day, Jesus, the Man, the only man to keep the law, serves as our paradigm (cf. Heb. 2:17). And he does so not least in baptism. The onus probandi or burden of proof rests on those who deny it.

Postscript

Among the various reasons why infant baptism was adopted historically lay the concern about the salvation of babies. The question of whether they are saved or not is not directly broached in the Bible, though they are clearly regarded as innocent (Num. 14:3,33ff.; Dt. 1:39; 1 K. 3:7,9; Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 5:12-14). So while they could not be damned a la Augustine, by the same token they could not be saved. Since they lack knowledge of the law which promises life, they are unprofitable flesh (John 6:63). As such like animals they cannot exercise faith and so cannot please God (Heb. 11:6). On the other hand, in view of a great deal of OT teaching summed up in Hebrews 11 we should have no qualms about the salvation of those who exercise an immature kind of faith like Noah but never embrace Christ for historical/chronological/covenantal reasons. For just as those who lived before Christ were by faith ultimately made perfect through him (cf. Abraham, Mt. 8:11), so are children who fail to exercise faith in Christ as ‘adults’ do (Heb. 11:39f.). The order of salvation (ordo salutis) is of prime importance here. To put regeneration before faith in order to overcome the imagined effects of original sin which does not exist is not only to pervert baptism but also much of the rest of our theology, as history amply demonstrates.

It should never be forgotten that Jesus taught that despite physical death all (believers) are alive to God (Luke 20:38).  Certainly the idea embraced by Augustine that apart from baptism children are damned is totally alien to the Bible. It is to posit a rift between creation and salvation. Indeed, it is in effect to render creation meaningless. In any case, regeneration cannot be conveyed by sacrament administered by man any more than it could by a ‘hand-made’ circumcision. (See further my articles on Concerning Infant Salvation and Are Babies Saved?).

On the subject of baptism see further my Baptism Revisited and Circumcision and Baptism.

_________________________________________________________

Reference

F.F.Bruce, Paul Apostle of the Free Spirit, Exeter, 1977.

Are Babies Saved?

ARE BABIES SAVED?
The salvation of babies (and in view of a false interpretation of Psalm 51:5 even foetuses) has proved problematic in the history of the church. As the consequence of the patently unbiblical dogma of original sin the question has clearly spawned spurious theology, anthropology and worldview. So it is important for us to try and discover what the Bible actually teaches.
1. John 1:13 implies that babies, like animals, are born flesh and blood by the will of the flesh. This is in sharp contrast with being born of God (1:13, cf. 3:1-8; Heb. 12:9).
2. Jesus with his own ascension into heaven in mind tells his disciples in John 6:63 that the flesh is unprofitable by nature (cf. Isa. 31:1-3; Jer. 17:5; Rom. 7:18; 8:8, etc.). It should thus occasion no surprise that it cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5). Thus, a second or spiritual birth is indispensably necessary if we are to be saved (John 3:1-8).
3. Paul, seeking to answer the question regarding the nature of the bodies of the resurrected dead (1 Cor. 15:35), reminds us that we are, first, flesh or dust like Adam and have perishable, dishonourable, weak (Rom. 8:3; 2 Cor. 13:4), natural or physical bodies but need, second, spiritual bodies like the glorified Jesus (1 Cor. 15:42-49; Phil. 3:21). He then states categorically that flesh and blood and the perishable as such cannot inherit the imperishable kingdom of God (15:50). In other words, transformation, like the new birth, is a ‘natural’ necessity irrespective of sin if we are to enter the presence of God who is a consuming fire (1 Cor. 15:51-54). (1* See further my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities at www.kenstothard.com /.)
4. It follows from this that we need to be born again, that is spiritually, in order to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:1-8; Heb. 9:14). Since it is the law that promises life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5), regeneration is necessarily preceded by righteousness (justification) gained either by keeping the law (Jesus, Mt. 3:13-17) or by faith (sinners). (2* It is vital to bear in mind the fact that faith which features almost throughout the Bible is necessarily relative as Hebrews 11 implies. Genuine faith whether of youth or adult is always valid. This holds true on the level of both the race and the individual who recapitulates it.) Neither is within the reach of babies that know neither the law nor good and evil (Dt. 1:39, cf. Rom. 9:11). They resemble Adam and Eve who initially did not know the law (commandment) which promised life if they kept it and death if they did not (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, cf. Rom. 7:9f.).
5. Like the animals that feed exclusively on perishable food like milk, babies, who do not know the law and hence good and evil, are therefore neither saved nor damned (cf. Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11). Like Adam prior to his receiving the commandment they are untested (cf. Ex. 15:25b; 16:4; Dt. 8:2,16) and therefore cannot receive the crown of  life (James 1:12). (As the saying goes, you have to be in it to win it!) However, once the (parental, Prov. 1:8, etc.) commandment dawns on their developing minds (cf. Rom. 7:9f.), they have the potential to mature into persons and like Jesus to be perfected in the image of God (Heb. 1:3, cf. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). This is presumably what Jesus is implying when he blesses little children (Mark 10:13-16) as his Father had blessed Adam and Eve at creation (Gen. 1:28).
6. Jesus tells us that John the Baptist was the greatest born of woman (Mt. 11:11). Clearly he was not born again (of the Spirit, cf. Mt. 3:14) as was Jesus who had already received the Spirit and gained life by keeping the commandments (Lev. 18:5; Mt. 3:13-17). Despite this, John had faith like the OT saints before him (Heb. 11) and would therefore gain the inheritance (James 2:5). Like Abraham he obtained the promise (Heb. 6:15) but not its fullness since he died before the inauguration of the new covenant and the outpouring of the Spirit of God (Heb. 11:39f.). Faith is indispensably necessary since it precedes the new birth whose precondition is righteousness, and babies do not have it. (3* Pace those who embrace the traditional order of salvation on which see e.g. my Cart-Before-the- Horse Theology, The Order of Salvation, etc. at www.kenstothard.com /.)
7. Scripture tells us that no flesh will be justified or boast before God (John 6:63; Rom. 3:19f.; 4:2; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; 3:12, etc.). Since babies are flesh and do not know the law, they have neither works nor faith, and so are out of the reckoning.
8. Men and women who like animals (cf. Isa. 31:3) nurture the naturally corruptible flesh (Rom. 8:7; Gal. 6:8) and not the spirit (cf. Phil. 3:19; 2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10) will not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 2:9). Neither will babies who also like animals nurture their own physical appetites since they can do no other. However, in contrast with those who like Adam and Eve eventually gain a degree of moral consciousness through knowledge of the commandment (cf. Gen. 2:17), they are not accountable since they do not know the law (Dt. 1:39, cf. Rom. 3:19; 4:15), and hence they are not subject to judgement (cf. Rom. 2). At this point the falsity of baptismal regeneration becomes obvious. There is no question of babies being damned as Augustine seemed to think.
9. As flesh, babies are profane (they belong to this world) not sacred (spirit, cf. 1 Cor. 15:46). Like Adam and Eve (and Paul, for example, Rom. 7:9f., cf. Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11) at the start they do not know the law and are neither holy nor righteous (cf. Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2). Since both righteousness and holiness are essential, they will not see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).
10. In light of the above to go no further, the baptism of babies is theologically indefensible. It rides roughshod over biblical covenant theology which does not begin until Noah, that is, when mankind in general has already undergone some degree of development or evolution and gained a modicum of moral awareness (4* See further my Did God Make a Covenant With Creation? Covenant Theology in Brief, Recapitulation in Outline.) What is more, it makes nonsense of history, experience and the findings of science. Above all, it implicitly denies the progressive recapitulation of the race undertaken by Jesus who as the second Adam epitomizes the race (cf. Eph. 1:10) and who, as Gregory Nazianzen taught, had to assume what he healed (cf. Heb. 2; 1 John 2:2). Baptism, which signifies regeneration, is necessarily preceded by testing and maturation under both natural and moral law (cf. Dt. 8:2,16), and by faith and justification (Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:5, etc.). (5* See my Baptism Revisited, Regarding The Baptism of Jesus, Circumcision and Baptism, etc.)
Conclusion
So I conclude that the salvation implied by the baptism of babies who like Adam have never achieved covenant status of any kind must be denied. (6* It may of course be legitimately asked at this point how it was that Abel and Enoch were justified by faith before the covenant with Noah, Heb. 11:4-6. The answer surely lies in the fact that they in contrast with literal babies attained to the maturity that pertained to their generation.) By contrast, the salvation of many of the heathen (historically the majority of mankind) who are capable of faith (cf. Acts 14:17; 17:27; Rom. 2:14-16,26; 1 Cor. 13:10; Gal. 4:1-3; Heb. 11:1-22; James 2) must be accepted (contra Westminster Larger Catechism, Qu. 60, WCF, 10: 4, and some interpretations of “outside the church there is no salvation”, extra ecclesiam non salus). The latter is clearly implied by the order of salvation which places faith and hence righteousness before regeneration (cf. Hebrews 11 and Revelation 7:9). Though the ungodly Abraham (Rom. 4:5) could be justified by faith (Gen. 15:6), he manifestly could not be born again (eternally saved) before the coming of Jesus and the out-pouring of the Spirit. If he could, we are forced to conclude that he remained ungodly forever!
Additional Note on the Four Living Creatures
There seems to be some question as to the identity of ‘the four living creatures’ in the book of Revelation, 4:6, etc. Without going into unnecessary detail, I would suggest that since they are in heaven speaking, singing and praising God (4:8f.; 5:6ff.), they are people, as distinct from angels (5:11), epitomized, like ‘Adam’, as individuals (4:7). Since the identity of the twenty-four elders (4:10) with whom they are associated would appear to be fairly obvious, the inference is that the four living creatures are embodiments of the heathen from the four corners of the earth (cf. 7:9). Scripture clearly teaches that in accordance with the plan of salvation every knee will eventually bow before our Creator God (Isa. 45:23; Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:10; Rev. 5:13). While many will do so unwillingly and necessarily  (7* To assume that these include all the heathen en masse who according to Augustine constituted an undifferentiated mass of damned people reflects failure to differentiate between good and evil people in all societies, cf. Gen 18:25; Job 8:3,20,  and, in principle, to ignore the warning of Jesus in the parable of the weeds, Mt. 13:30, cf. 3:12.), on the assumption that grace triumphs over sin (Rom. 5:20) and mercy over judgement (James 2:13), many more will do so gladly. According to Peter, the promise is to both the Gentiles (heathen) and children (not uncomprehending infants) who together are ‘far off’ (Acts 2:39), and who, according to Paul, along with those who are near (the Jews), ultimately have access by faith to the Father (Eph. 2:18).
(See further my Concerning Infant Salvation at www.kenstothard.com /.)

The salvation of babies (and in view of a false interpretation of Psalm 51:5 even foetuses) has proved problematic in the history of the church. As the consequence of the patently unbiblical dogma of original sin the question has clearly spawned spurious theology, anthropology and worldview. So it is important for us to try and discover what the Bible actually teaches.

1. John 1:13 implies that babies, like animals, are born flesh and blood by the will of the flesh. This is in sharp contrast with being born of God (1:13, cf. 3:1-8; Heb. 12:9).

2. Jesus with his own ascension into heaven in mind tells his disciples in John 6:63 that the flesh is unprofitable by nature (cf. Isa. 31:1-3; Jer. 17:5; Rom. 7:18; 8:8, etc.). It should thus occasion no surprise that it cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5). Thus, a second or spiritual birth is indispensably necessary if we are to be saved (John 3:1-8).

3. Paul, seeking to answer the question regarding the nature of the bodies of the resurrected dead (1 Cor. 15:35), reminds us that we are, first, flesh or dust like Adam and have perishable, dishonourable, weak (Rom. 8:3; 2 Cor. 13:4), natural or physical bodies but need, second, spiritual bodies like the glorified Jesus (1 Cor. 15:42-49; Phil. 3:21). He then states categorically that flesh and blood and the perishable as such cannot inherit the imperishable kingdom of God (15:50). In other words, transformation, like the new birth, is a ‘natural’ necessity irrespective of sin if we are to enter the presence of God who is a consuming fire (1 Cor. 15:51-54). (1* See further my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities)

4. It follows from this that we need to be born again, that is spiritually, in order to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:1-8; Heb. 9:14). Since it is the law that promises life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5), regeneration is necessarily preceded by righteousness (justification) gained either by keeping the law (Jesus, Mt. 3:13-17) or by faith (sinners). (2* It is vital to bear in mind the fact that faith which features almost throughout the Bible is necessarily relative as Hebrews 11 implies. Genuine faith whether of youth or adult is always valid. This holds true on the level of both the race and the individual who recapitulates it.) Neither is within the reach of babies that know neither the law nor good and evil (Dt. 1:39, cf. Rom. 9:11). They resemble Adam and Eve who initially did not know the law (commandment) which promised life if they kept it and death if they did not (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, cf. Rom. 7:9f.).

5. Like the animals that feed exclusively on perishable food like milk, babies, who do not know the law and hence good and evil, are therefore neither saved nor damned (cf. Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11). Like Adam prior to his receiving the commandment they are untested (cf. Ex. 15:25b; 16:4; Dt. 8:2,16) and therefore cannot receive the crown of  life (James 1:12). (As the saying goes, you have to be in it to win it!) However, once the (parental, Prov. 1:8, etc.) commandment dawns on their developing minds (cf. Rom. 7:9f.), they have the potential to mature into persons and like Jesus to be perfected in the image of God (Heb. 1:3, cf. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). This is presumably what Jesus is implying when he blesses little children (Mark 10:13-16) as his Father had blessed Adam and Eve at creation (Gen. 1:28).

6. Jesus tells us that John the Baptist was the greatest born of woman (Mt. 11:11). Clearly he was not born again (of the Spirit, cf. Mt. 3:14) as was Jesus who had already received the Spirit and gained life by keeping the commandments (Lev. 18:5; Mt. 3:13-17). Despite this, John had faith like the OT saints before him (Heb. 11) and would therefore gain the inheritance (James 2:5). Like Abraham he obtained the promise (Heb. 6:15) but not its fullness since he died before the inauguration of the new covenant and the outpouring of the Spirit of God (Heb. 11:39f.). Faith is indispensably necessary since it precedes the new birth whose precondition is righteousness, and babies do not have it. (3* Pace those who embrace the traditional order of salvation on which see e.g. my Cart-Before-The-Horse TheologyThe Order of Salvation in Romans, etc.)

7. Scripture tells us that no flesh will be justified or boast before God (John 6:63; Rom. 3:19f.; 4:2; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; 3:12, etc.). Since babies are flesh and do not know the law, they have neither works nor faith, and so are out of the reckoning.

8. Men and women who like animals (cf. Isa. 31:3) nurture the naturally corruptible flesh (Rom. 8:7; Gal. 6:8) and not the spirit (cf. Phil. 3:19; 2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10) will not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 2:9). Neither will babies who also like animals nurture their own physical appetites since they can do no other. However, in contrast with those who like Adam and Eve eventually gain a degree of moral consciousness through knowledge of the commandment (cf. Gen. 2:17), they are not accountable since they do not know the law (Dt. 1:39, cf. Rom. 3:19; 4:15), and hence they are not subject to judgement (cf. Rom. 2). At this point the falsity of baptismal regeneration becomes obvious. There is no question of babies being damned as Augustine seemed to think.

9. As flesh, babies are profane (they belong to this world) not sacred (spirit, cf. 1 Cor. 15:46). Like Adam and Eve (and Paul, for example, Rom. 7:9f., cf. Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11) at the start they do not know the law and are neither holy nor righteous (cf. Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2). Since both righteousness and holiness are essential, they will not see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).

10. In light of the above to go no further, the baptism of babies is theologically indefensible. It rides roughshod over biblical covenant theology which does not begin until Noah, that is, when mankind in general has already undergone some degree of development or evolution and gained a modicum of moral awareness (4* See further my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?Covenant Theology in BriefRecapitulation in Outline) What is more, it makes nonsense of history, experience and the findings of science. Above all, it implicitly denies the progressive recapitulation of the race undertaken by Jesus who as the second Adam epitomizes the race (cf. Eph. 1:10) and who, as Gregory Nazianzen taught, had to assume what he healed (cf. Heb. 2; 1 John 2:2). Baptism, which signifies regeneration, is necessarily preceded by testing and maturation under both natural and moral law (cf. Dt. 8:2,16), and by faith and justification (Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:5, etc.). (5* See my Baptism RevisitedRegarding the Baptism of JesusCircumcision and Baptism, etc.)

Conclusion

So I conclude that the salvation implied by the baptism of babies who like Adam have never achieved covenant status of any kind must be denied. (6* It may of course be legitimately asked at this point how it was that Abel and Enoch were justified by faith before the covenant with Noah, Heb. 11:4-6. The answer surely lies in the fact that they in contrast with literal babies attained to the maturity that pertained to their generation.) By contrast, the salvation of many of the heathen (historically the majority of mankind) who are capable of faith (cf. Acts 14:17; 17:27; Rom. 2:14-16,26; 1 Cor. 13:10; Gal. 4:1-3; Heb. 11:1-22; James 2) must be accepted (contra Westminster Larger Catechism, Qu. 60, WCF, 10: 4, and some interpretations of “outside the church there is no salvation”, extra ecclesiam non salus). The latter is clearly implied by the order of salvation which places faith and hence righteousness before regeneration (cf. Hebrews 11 and Revelation 7:9). Though the ungodly Abraham (Rom. 4:5) could be justified by faith (Gen. 15:6), he manifestly could not be born again (eternally saved) before the coming of Jesus and the out-pouring of the Spirit. If he could, we are forced to conclude that he remained ungodly forever!

Additional Note on the Four Living Creatures

There seems to be some question as to the identity of ‘the four living creatures’ in the book of Revelation, 4:6, etc. Without going into unnecessary detail, I would suggest that since they are in heaven speaking, singing and praising God (4:8f.; 5:6ff.), they are people, as distinct from angels (5:11), epitomized, like ‘Adam’, as individuals (4:7). Since the identity of the twenty-four elders (4:10) with whom they are associated would appear to be fairly obvious, the inference is that the four living creatures are embodiments of the heathen from the four corners of the earth (cf. 7:9). Scripture clearly teaches that in accordance with the plan of salvation every knee will eventually bow before our Creator God (Isa. 45:23; Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:10; Rev. 5:13). While many will do so unwillingly and necessarily  (7* To assume that these include all the heathen en masse who according to Augustine constituted an undifferentiated mass of damned people reflects failure to differentiate between good and evil people in all societies, cf. Gen 18:25; Job 8:3,20,  and, in principle, to ignore the warning of Jesus in the parable of the weeds, Mt. 13:30, cf. 3:12.), on the assumption that grace triumphs over sin (Rom. 5:20) and mercy over judgement (James 2:13), many more will do so gladly. According to Peter, the promise is to both the Gentiles (heathen) and children (not uncomprehending infants) who together are ‘far off’ (Acts 2:39), and who, according to Paul, along with those who are near (the Jews), ultimately have access by faith to the Father (Eph. 2:18).

(See further my Concerning Infant Salvation)

Not Only But Also

NOT ONLY BUT ALSO:
Not just either/or but both/and
Original Perfection
The notion that things are not always monochromatic in character appears from time to time in the course of Scripture. 1 Kings 5:4 and Philippians 2:12f., for example, indicate that at least two factors are involved. However, since it is saturated with sin, Augustinian theology attributes everything that appears to come short of perfection solely to sin. For example, it depicts creation, including Adam and Eve, as originally perfect instead of ‘good’, that is, useful or fit for its intended purpose, and is forced to think in terms of what it calls “the Fall” and its consequent curse on the entire creation. (1* It is difficult to see how Adam who at the start like a baby, Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22, cf. Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 5:12-14, did not know the law (commandment) by which good and evil are established and judged could be originally righteous. Righteousness is gained by keeping the law, Dt. 6:25; 24:13; Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7, just as unrighteousness or sinfulness is acquired by breaking it, Gen. 3:6; 1 Sam. 15:24f.; Rom. 6:16; James 2:9-11, etc.) And needless to say, the corollary of this is restoration which is a prime characteristic of the old covenant (cf. e.g. 2 K. 8:1; 2 Chr. 24:4; Jer. 29:14, etc.) and relates to this world. In this way we arrive at the creation, fall, restoration schema characteristic of Reformed theology (see e.g. the book under that title by A.S.Kulikovsky.)
Adam and Eve
This schema is manifestly false. One has only to consider the fact that morally speaking Adam and Eve far from being originally perfect, holy and righteous were in the event characterized on the moral level solely by their sin. Initially like infants they knew neither good not evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22; Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11), then like all children they broke the first commandment they received. (The Bible refers frequently to the fact that we sin in our youth, not while we are babies when we do not know the law, e.g. Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:25.) In this way they lost what was obviously their innocence (cf. Dt. 1:39; Eccl. 7:29; Isa. 53:6; 1 Pet. 2:25). In truth, they were challenged as those who were in the process of creation in the likeness of God to achieve righteousness by keeping the commandment that God had given them and thereby meet the condition of (eternal) life (Gen. 2:17). To pinpoint the issue, only the righteous can achieve the goal of eternal life in heaven as the frequent and pervasive repetition of Leviticus 18:5 and many similar verses (e.g. Ezek. 20:11,13,21) indicates. This is of the essence of biblical teleology. In plain words then I conclude that all who follow Augustine confuse the beginning with the end. (2* See further my articles on The Order of Salvation, Cart-Before-The-Horse Theology, etc. at www.kenstothard.com  /.)
Creation
But if Adam and Eve were far from naturally perfect, the same is true of creation. While it may be freely acknowledged that creation as the finished product, including man, is described in Genesis 1:31 as “very good”, that is, like the completed tabernacle (Ex. 39:32-43; 1 K. 7:51), ideally suited to its purpose, it was far from being perfect as God who needs nothing (Ps. 50:10-12; Acts 17:25, cf. Job 41:11 ESV; Rom. 11:35) is perfect (cf. Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; Mt. 5:48). In contrast with its Creator, creation which is “hand-made” (3* On this see my Manufactured Or Not So.) needs to be constantly sustained by the sovereign providence of God (not to mention its dominion by man) apart from which it lapses into chaos and becomes subject to dissolution (Jer. 4:23ff.; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, cf. Job 34:14f.; Ps. 104:29, etc.). If we deny this, we in effect deny the transcendence or holy otherness of God and put both him and his creation in the same category as the gods of the heathen who are continuous with, or immanent in, nature. (It is worth remembering at this point that when Egypt was ruined, Ex. 10:7, so were her gods, Ex. 12:12, cf. 18:11, and so in the end with all other false gods, cf. Dt. 33:27 NRSV, Isa. 45:20; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 4:8. By contrast, the one true God remains when creation ceases to exist, Ps. 102:25-27, etc.) The argument that creation was originally ‘perfect’ because it was made by God is in light of biblical teaching quite fallacious, as I shall endeavour to demonstrate below.
While we may freely concede that creation was good in the above-mentioned sense of the term, it was not merely good but as the product of time it was by divine design temporal (Gen. 1:1), even temporary (2 Cor. 4:18), and hence in strong contrast with its eternal and transcendent Creator. Creation has both a beginning and an end but God has neither (see, e.g., Ps. 102:27; 113:4-6; Isa. 43:10b; 57:15; 66:1f.; Heb. 7:3,6; Rev. 5:13.) Furthermore, as “manufactured” or “made by hand” (Ps. 102:25; Isa. 48:13, etc.), it was naturally subject to ageing and obsolescence (Ps. 90; Heb. 1:11) and hence inherently corruptible and destructible (Mt. 6:19-21; Luke 12:33; Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.).(4* On this see again my Manufactured or Not So.) Accordingly, the things that are made and seen (Rom. 1:20) are precisely the things that are ultimately destroyed so that the permanently unshakable may remain (Heb. 12:27, cf. 2 Cor. 4:18). At the end, when the plan of salvation is complete and all things have been subjected under his feet, God will be all in all as he was before creation began (1 Cor. 15:28). In this sense we may gladly acknowledge the idea of restoration (Acts 3:21).
The Law/Old Covenant
In view of the fact that the old covenant relates to the present world (cf. Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1), it is scarcely surprising to find that it too is considered “good” (2 Cor. 3:7, cf. Rom. 7:12). For all that, like creation itself (Heb. 1:10-12), it is nonetheless temporary, and provisional (2 Cor. 3), and since it is inherently obsolescent it eventually becomes totally obsolete (Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1; Heb. 8:13). This point is underlined by the fact that it was “written by hand” (cheirographon, Col. 2:14), visible and hence temporary (2 Cor. 4:18). (5* I am indebted to James Dunn for stress on the visibility of the law. See further my Faith and Invisibility.)
Flesh
As the product of creation the flesh is also “good”, and certainly not evil as in Greek dualism. It too was created by God and was the earthly tent not only of Adam but of Jesus himself (cf. John 1:14) “for a little while” (Heb. 2:7,9). It was also “made by hand” (Job 10:8; Ps. 119:73; Isa. 45:11f.; 64:8, etc.) and hence naturally corruptible (Gal. 6:8, etc.) and destructible (Rom. 8:13, cf.vv. 18-25). As animated dust (Ps. 78:39; 103:14), apart from the spirit the flesh dies (Job 34:14f.; Ps. 104:29; Eccl. 3:20; 12:7; James 2:26). In contrast with the living God, it is intrinsically mortal (cf. Rom. 1:23).
According to Augustine the flesh was sinful (cf. the tendentious NIV which translates sarx as ‘sinful nature’ even where sin is obviously not involved as in Galatians 6:8 and Romans 8:13). He maintained that Jesus, though flesh, was not sinful because he was Virgin born and not the product of carnal concupiscence. Though the flesh is intimately associated with sin since it provides its primary bridgehead in temptation (cf. Rom. 8:3), it is not, as we have seen, evil as such (cf. Greek dualism). However, as part of creation it was meant to be under the dominion of man and hence his slave. As the case of Ishmael makes plain, a fleshly slave irrespective of sin cannot inherit along with the child of promise who is the child of the free woman (Gal. 4:30). Jesus had made his flesh his slave and gave it for his people in death (Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 3:18), but when risen from the dead never to die again (Rom. 6:9), even he, the Son of God, could not take it to heaven without change (John 8:35; 1 Cor. 15:50f.). After all, it was naturally corruptible. (6* See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.)
It is a sad fact that most Christians seem to be totally unaware that in exercising dominion over the earth, they are thereby meant to be controlling their own earth-derived flesh which stems from it and is inherently temporary and subject to ageing even apart from sin (cf. Luke 3:23; John 8:57). As temporary, our visible flesh (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18) is intended to be the slave of our invisible and generically incorruptible spirits (cf. James 3:3, etc.). (Our spirits are of course subject to moral corruption and vulnerable to the judgement of God, cf. Heb. 9:14.)
Jesus
All Christians acknowledge Jesus Christ as both God and man. According to Hebrews 7:16 (cf. vv.3,24f.,28) he had an indestructible life, but not according to the flesh. As temporal flesh he suffered from the same natural defectiveness as all his fellows (cf. Phil. 2:6f.). (According to the OED the word ‘defect’ means lack of something essential or required. So the body (flesh) without the spirit is dead, James 2:26, cf. Job 34:14f.; Ps. 104:29; Eccl. 12:7). He also was born of woman (Gal. 4:4) or ‘manufactured’ in the womb of the Virgin Mary (cf. Heb. 10:5) and through her he was hence physically clay or dust like Adam whose son he was through his mother (Luke 3:38). Since he could not rise above his source, as flesh he was as mortal as his mother or he could not have died.  Again, since he was raised from the dead fully restored (John 10:17f.), he must have remained flesh as he himself intimated (Luke 24:39, cf. John 20:17,26-29, etc.). As such, though he was no longer susceptible to death since he had kept the law which promised life (Rom. 6:9; 1 Pet. 1:18; Rev. 1:18), he was still corruptible and hence still lacking his Father’s incorruptible (Gk) heavenly perfection (Rom. 1:23). So, to avoid permanent bondage to corruption and gain the freedom of the glory of his sonship (Rom. 8:21), he had to be (re)transformed on his ascent to heaven (John 6:62; 1 Cor. 15:50f., cf. John 17:5,24). (7* On Romans 8:18-25 see my Romans 8:18-25 Revisited.) When we see this, we can appreciate that while Romans 6:9 points to his eventual immortality, Acts 13:34 underlines his incorruptibility. In other words, he had reassumed his Father’s generic nature (cf. John 17:5,24) but this time as man (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). (8* See further below on God, and note my No Return to Corruption.)
Arianism
This prompts the ancient question raised by Arius (cf. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Islam): was Christ God or was he a creature? With passages like John 1 in mind the church has held that he was the eternal Word and hence not a creature. For all that, there is a sense in which Arius was right. As flesh born of the Virgin Mary, Jesus was clearly created (Gal. 4:4; Heb. 10:5) like Adam before him (Luke 3:38). This raises yet another question: was Mary the mother of God (theotokos)? The question is apt to mislead, but taken at face value we are bound to say no. Created herself, she could only be the mother of her fleshly baby, of Jesus, the human being, not the Word. The perishable cannot produce the imperishable (John 3:6; 1 Cor. 15:50b)!
There is yet another vital point that should not be missed. The author of Hebrews refers to Jesus’ prayers in “the days of his flesh” (5:7). If we resist the impulse engendered by some commentators and reference Bibles to confine these days to the Garden of Gethsemane, we can then appreciate the fact that like Adam before him Jesus too was prone to death (Gen. 2:17) and constantly threatened by sin (Gen. 4:7, cf. 1 Pet. 5:8) whose wages were death. Consequently, if Jesus had failed to master the evil that lurked at his door (cf. Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 4:15) he too would have died for his own sin and been disqualified from dying for ours. In the event, he succeeded in controlling his flesh with all its potential for evil (cf. Rom. 8:3) when confronted by the law (cf. Rom. 7:14), along with the world and the devil. In a word, he triumphed overcoming all temptation and trial (Heb. 4:15). By doing so he proved his pedigree as the true Son of God, the one and only Saviour of man (Acts 4:12, etc.). As such he was able to serve as our pioneer into heaven itself (Heb. 6:19f.; 9:24; 12:1f.).
Nature
Nature in its entirety is prone to corruption as is evident from Genesis 1 (cf. Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). Grass is perhaps the primary symbol of death and corruption throughout the Bible (Isa. 40:6-8; James 1:10, etc.). All things animal (Ps. 49:12,20), vegetable (Gen. 2:9) and mineral (1 Pet. 1:7,18) eventually yield to corruption. Little wonder that Paul, not to mention Jesus (e.g. Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 12:33; 16:9), Peter (1 Pet. 1:3f.) and John (1:2:15-17), teaches us to focus on things that are above and to put to death what is earthly (Col. 3:1-5).
Man-made Objects
Since they stem from a corruptible and futile creation (Rom. 8:18f.; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Heb. 1:10-12) all man-made objects show evidence of being naturally perishable and ultimately futile. Like everything else ‘hand-made’ (cheiropoietos) they are only temporary servants used for a temporary purpose (cf. Ps. 119:91; Col. 2:22). Thus in Luke 13 Jesus indicates that men die not only as a result of the sinful acts of others (v.1) but also because as sinners themselves they are prone to fall foul of what insurance companies call “acts of God” (v. 4, cf. 1 K.5:4; Eccl. 9:11f.). One of the greatest contrasts in the Bible is that between the man-made (or better “hand-made”) temple and the body of Christ (Mark 14:58; John 2:19-21). Even Samson was crushed by a man-made temple!
Animals
Since animals are not made in the image of God and cannot understand the law, they cannot break it and thereby become wage-earning sinners (cf. Rom. 4:15, etc.). Though they are fed by God himself (Ps. 104:27-29), since their food is perishable and not living bread (John 6:51), it can only sustain their physical life temporarily, as Psalms 104:21 and 106:20, for example, imply. It follows from this that when fleshly man refuses to eat bread from heaven (cf. Mt. 4:4; John 6:32f.), he ranks himself with the animals which are confined by nature to perishable food (Ps. 106:20; Eccl. 3:19-21; Ps. 49; 2 Pet. 2; Jude 10). Since they sow only to the flesh, they reap inevitable corruption (Gal. 6:8).
The Wages of Sin
The Bible teaches in unmistakable language that for man the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23, cf. 5:12). Tragically, however, Augustinians exalt this element of our creed to a universal principle and make sin the cause of all death. They fail to realize that (a) if death is wages it cannot be the result of imputation which excludes wages (Rom. 4:1-8, cf. 5:12); (b) since sin is defined as transgression of the law (cf. 1 Sam. 15:24; Rom. 4:15; James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4, etc.) only those who break the law can earn wages (Rom. 4:15; 5:12, etc.), and (c) procreation, which countered the effects of death, was scheduled or on the cards before sin entered the world (Gen. 1:11, etc.). When we consider the animal world (including babies) that by nature does not know the law yet is still susceptible to death and corruption, we have no alternative but to conclude that death and corruption are also the result of an amoral natural condition purposely and deliberately ordained by God. He always had an invisible hope in mind for those who put their trust in him (cf. Romans 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12; 11:1, etc.).
Flesh and Spirit
In contrast with his Creator who is spirit (John 4:24) man as created in the image of God is, first, flesh and, second, spirit (1 Cor. 15:46). This contrast is emphasized by the difference between a man and an animal which is flesh but not spirit (Isa. 31:3). While as flesh man like the animals, as we have noted above, is fed by God (Gen. 2:9; Ps. 104:21,27f.), he nonetheless dies (John 6:49) and suffers corruption. On the level of the spirit, however, the situation is different. Man can feed on the word of God (Mt. 4:4), even on the Word himself (John 6:56), the living bread whose very words are spirit and life (John 6:63). How important it is then to recognize the need of those who are first born of the flesh to be born again of God (John 1:13) by his word (James 1:18, cf. John 1:12). Only in this way can they live forever (John 3:1-8).
It is here that Abraham’s dual role as father of both his physical and his spiritual children assumes importance (Rom. 4:11f.). John the Baptist’s somewhat scathingly derogatory remark in Matthew 3:9 (cf. John 6:63) brings out the pejorative nature of the flesh in comparison with the spirit. In John 8 Jesus himself distinguishes between those who rightly claim to have a physical relationship with Abraham but fail to exercise faith as he did (cf. Rom. 2:28f.).
Death
While Joshua 23:14 and 1 Kings 2:2 tell us that death is the way of all the earth, Genesis 19:31 informs us that procreation, which counteracts death (cf. Gen. 1:11; Heb. 7:23), is also the way of all the earth. This stands in sharp contrast with the world or the age to come where according to Jesus himself there is neither death nor procreation (Luke 20:34-36). On this basis we are forced to infer that death and corruption are natural and not necessarily associated with sin. (Confusion arises when we fail to recognize that while Adam was created mortal, pace Augustine, he was promised life if he kept the law. He didn’t, therefore having sinned, he earned wages in death. If he had kept the law and achieved the righteousness which was its consequence, he would, like Jesus, have gained life, Lev. 18:5, etc., and escaped from the natural mortality characteristic of this evil age, Gal. 1:4.)
God
The Bible makes it clear beyond dispute that God is not only immortal but also incorruptible. Though these characteristics are closely related, it is vital for us to recognize that they not synonymous.  So when we read in 1 Timothy 1:17, NIV, for example, that God is ‘immortal’ (cf. Rom. 1:23; 2:7) we need to be aware of the fact that the word is aphtharsia which means ‘incorruptible’. On the other hand, in 1 Timothy 6:16 we read correctly that God is immortal (athanasia).  Regrettably this distinction is eroded by most translations with the result that Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 1:10 in the NIV, for example, is reduced to a tautology. (9* Sad to say Harris entitles one of his books “Raised Immortal”, yet the text on which he bases this is 1 Corinthians 15:52 which refers to incorruption – aphthartoi.) Since life and immortality are virtually synonymous it repeats itself. But in fact the word translated ‘immortality’ is aphtharsia not athanasia. The importance of this is fundamental for understanding Jesus’ incarnation, resurrection and ascension. For when he became incarnate Jesus also became subject to the death and corruption which characterize the flesh by nature. But when he rose physically from the dead, even though he was still flesh (Luke 24:39) he had conquered death and was no longer subject to it (cf. Rom. 6:9; Rev. 1:18). On the other hand, it is of paramount importance to recognize that, since he had been restored as flesh (cf. John 10:17f.) but had not experienced corruption (Acts 2:27,31; 13:35,37), he was obviously still corruptible. In this condition he was daily growing older and hence about to disappear (Heb. 8:13). So, in order to overcome his fleshly bondage and liability to corruption he had of necessity to be set free and escape (cf. Rom. 8:21). This was achieved by his ascension transformation (cf. John 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:50f.). In this way, he gained complete generic as well as moral and spiritual conformity with his Father at whose right hand he sat. Alternatively expressed, he regained as man the glory he shared with his Father before the world began (John 17:5,24). As Paul intimates, having brought life and incorruption to light (2 Tim. 1:10) and inherited the sure or eternal blessings of David, he would no more return to corruption (Acts 13:34, cf. Heb. 7:26; 9:28), which would have been, metaphorically speaking, tantamount to returning to Egypt. This of course is the essence of Paul’s gospel.
So, to emphasize my point, when Jesus was glorified, he had as man gained both his Father’s immortality and his incorruptibility and was fitted to sit at his right hand (cf. Phil. 3:21; Heb. 1:3). If we accept Christ as Saviour, we can do the same (Rev. 3:21, cf. Heb. 2:10ff.).
Justification By Faith and Judgement By Works
There is no question that justification by faith is the heart of the gospel (Rom. 1:16f., etc.). Fortunately, since the Reformation this has received a great deal of emphasis in Protestantism, but, regrettably, it has not always been fully applied. The mere fact that many churches still implicitly deny it by baptizing babies which cannot by nature exercise faith provides ample evidence of this. This point having been made, however, it needs to be remembered that Luther himself not only loudly proclaimed that he had been baptized (baptizatus sum) as a baby also cast aspersions on the letter of James as an epistle of straw. Bluntly, he failed to give due emphasis to the importance of works not only in the Christian life but in the lives of non-Christians. The latter point is seldom if ever made, but it appears clearly enough in Scripture. Paul himself points out that the heathen man’s uncircumcision becomes circumcision when he keeps the law by nature (Rom. 2:26-29). The implication is that though the heathen may lack the written law and the informed faith based on the promises peculiar to the Jew, yet since faith is relative it is nonetheless on occasion demonstrated by works, and  flowers when Christ is received (Eph. 2:12f.,17). After all, ultimately the promise embraces believers, their children and all those who are far off (Acts 2:39). And we must never forget that the ‘gospel’ was preached to Abraham the great exemplar of faith (Gal. 3:8f.) who was certainly among the “far off” (cf. John 8:56; Heb. 11:13). If this is so, the idea that all the heathen are indiscriminately damned is not supported by Scripture (contrast e.g. Qu. 60 of the Larger Catechism and sometimes the idea that extra ecclesiam non salus, that is, outside the church there is no salvation. Little wonder, for if it were true, it would imply the universal damnation also of children! Again, we must infer diminished responsibility even if the term is not actually used in the Bible (cf. e.g. Mt. 12:38-42; Luke 11:29-32). Recognition that Scripture teaches recapitulation (or what might be variously called trans-generationalism or genealogical continuity) would rid us of many problems regarding this subject. (10* See my Recapitulation in Outline, I Believe in Recapitulation at www.kenstothard.com /. Christopher Wright refers to “trans-generational inclusiveness”, p.287, and J.A.Thompson to “genealogical continuity”, p.281.)
End Times
In describing his trials and tribulations in passages like 2 Corinthians 6:4f. and 11:23-29 Paul makes it plain that though sin is often involved, so too are outward circumstances associated with nature and this age. From time to time he uses general words like thlipsis and ananke which frequently relate to the end-times. Thus while the Bible makes it clear that at the end of history comes the judgement (cf. Heb. 9:27) more than one factor is involved. Jesus likens the end to Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-30) where it is noticeable that along with the judgement of man (cf. Heb. 9:27) there is also the destruction of the land (Rom. 9:28, cf. Luke 13:1-5 referred to above and also the temple, Mt. 23:38). Two factors are also in evidence in Luke 21:9-36 and parallel passages: on the one hand, there is evidence of judgement on human wickedness and, on the other, signs of creation’s natural corruptibility and destructibility even if it is exacerbated by sin. It may be claimed, of course, that the two are interconnected and that the one leads to the other as is maintained by Augustinians who believe in a universal curse following the Fall. But there is some powerful evidence militating against this. For example, despite being inhabited by the wicked Canaanites, the Promised Land remained nonetheless an “exceedingly good” land (Num. 14:7), a type of heaven in fact, and one (compulsorily) to be desired by the Israelites as the promised gift of God. (Would God have deliberately given his chosen people a bad inheritance? Cf. Rom. 8:32.) Again, after the flood it is made clear that seedtime and harvest will continue while the earth remains (Gen. 8:22. See further my Cosmic Curse?)  So though, at the end, creation like the material temple will be desolate or uninhabited on account of man’s malevolent rejection of Christ, it needs to be recognized that it (creation) was slated for destruction from the start in that it was “made by hand” (Ps. 102:25, cf. Mark 14:58) and was hence shakable and destructible irrespective of sin. (Pace modern translators of Romans 8:18-25 who make this passage mean the redemption of creation which is surely the polar opposite of what the apostle intended. See further my Romans 8:18-25 Revisited. Note also Galatians 4:21-31 where the present Jerusalem, the home of bondage, is implicitly dispensed with. France’s comments on Matthew 23:38 are appropriate at this point.) The same is true of the human body of flesh which derives from the corruptible earth. It will be either destroyed on account of sin (2 Cor. 5:1, cf. Rom. 8:10; 1 Cor. 6:13) or changed, that is, replaced as in the case of Jesus and the end-time saints (1 Cor. 15:50f., cf. Heb. 1:12).
Galatians 1:4
It is all too easy to assume that when Paul refers to this evil age in Galatians 1:4 he has only sin in mind. But has he? We have no sure way of knowing though we may note references like 1 Kings 5:4 where evil may be both natural (cf. Isa. 45:7; Amos 3:6) and moral. (11* It is arguable, however, that Galatians in its entirety is an explanation of how we can escape from this present age. See further my Escape). In light of what he says in Romans 8:18-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10, for example (12* Cf. my The Correspondence between Romans 8:12-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10), where sin is not mentioned, Paul suggests that, like creation itself and the lowly (cf. Phil. 2:7f.; 2 Cor. 8:9) body or tent subject to destruction or change (i.e. replacement), which we presently inhabit, this age is inherently defective. (13* It is doubtless failure to appreciate the natural corruption of creation which led to Job’s perplexity, see e.g. 10:8f. He rightly maintained his integrity and could not accept that his sin provided an adequate explanation of all his troubles.) If this were not so, there would be no need for a second (cf. Heb. 8:7; 10:9b). In John’s gospel, not to mention the Pauline epistles where we must concede that sin is often in evidence, the flesh as such is constantly regarded in depreciatory fashion (cf. 3:6; 6:63). Thus this (present) age is set in strong contrast with the glorious age to come (Mt. 12:32; Luke 20:34-36; Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Eph. 1:20f.; 1 Tim. 6:17, etc.). Without going into more detail, I conclude that not only is sin characteristic of this age but so also is its inherent defectiveness or corruptibility (cf. 1 K. 5:4, KJV; Eccl. 9:11f.). And this is surely by divine design as Paul teaches in Romans 8:18-25 (cf. Heb. 1:10-12). If this is so, then escape is paramount and it can be achieved only through faith in Christ, our pioneer into heaven itself (cf. Heb. 2:10). (14* Commentators often refer to the frustration of creation as if it is the result of sin. But this is to miss the point that creation, including the flesh which stems from it is inherently corruptible, futile and unprofitable, cf. Ecclesiastes, John 1:13; 3:1-8; 6:63. It simply serves a temporary purpose and will eventually disappear having outlived its usefulness, cf. Heb. 1:11; 8:13. The whole of nature, not to mention modern scientific theory, testifies to this. See again my Romans 8:18-25 Revisited.)
Creation and Evolution
In the dispute between (atheistic) scientific theory and Christian insistence on creation by God there is a good deal of misunderstanding on both sides. While the former emphasizes evolution as if it in itself (inexplicably) possesses inherent creative power, Christians stress the beginning of creation (Gen. 1:1) out of nothing (cf. Rom. 4:17) but usually ignore its intrinsic developmental or evolutionary nature under the Spirit of God. (15* I reject the literal 24-hour days of Genesis 1 out of hand. It runs contrary to everything we know by science, by history, by experience and above all by theology. See further my Twenty-Four Hours, The Two Ages.) On the one hand, time, chance and spontaneous generation are difficult to swallow regarded as sources of this world; on the other hand, “Christian”, especially fundamentalist, denial that man has an animal beginning (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46, etc.) is also surely beyond the pale. (16* See further my Creation and/or Evolution.) The God who created the world also sustains it until it has served its purpose (cf. Gen. 8:22) and then brings it to its appointed end in destruction (Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:10). Since man is a product, even a miniaturization of creation (dust) on the natural level, he inevitably follows the pattern of creation (cf. 1 Cor. 6:13; 15:50; 2 Cor. 5:1). However, since he is also created in the image of God, he is able to transcend his flesh on the spiritual level through faith in Christ who serves as his pioneer into the age to come (cf. Heb. 2:10; Phil. 3:21; Col. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:3f., etc.). Naturalistic physical evolution is, as is freely admitted by many, aimless, purposeless, meaningless and ultimately futile. But this is precisely as God intended it to be (Rom. 8:20, cf. Eccles.; 1 Cor. 15:12-19). Not for nothing did Paul talk of crucifying to himself the world (Gal. 6:14) and the flesh (Gal. 5:24, cf. Rom. 6:6) and Jesus of being in the world but not of it (John 17:14f., cf. 6:63). My assumption on the basis of the evidence is that man is the subject of both creation and evolution (perfection) on both the physical and spiritual levels. While the former is merely temporal (cf. animal life in general) and is subject to age (Heb. 1:11; Luke 3:23; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Heb. 8:13, etc.) and ultimate demise, the latter is permanent. When faith in Christ is exercised, a new (spiritual) creation is involved (John 3:3-7; 2 Cor. 5:17) by which man is fitted for heaven and the presence of God. (17* The distinction between creation and physical development in the old covenant and spiritual recreation and sanctification in the new covenant should be noted. Whereas in the former the end is universal death and destruction, cf. 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13, in the latter the end is eternal life, cf. Rom. 6:22.  See further my Creation and/or Evolution).
Conclusion
I began this article by denying that sin is the sole cause of ‘evil’ in this present age (Gal. 1:4). The truth is that the contrast between this world and world to come stems primarily from the divine decree, plan and purpose. Even the Pharisees, if not the Sadducees, believed that this present ephemeral age was to be followed by the permanent (eternal) age to come (Luke 20:27-40, cf. Eph. 1:20f.; Heb. 1:6, 2:5; 6:5, etc.). While it is true beyond equivocation that sin exacerbates the situation in this present age, it also ensures that God alone will be our Saviour or Rescuer (Isa. 45:20-25; Phil. 2:9-11) as he always intended to be (Rom. 3:19f.; 11:32; Gal. 2:16; 3:22, etc.). Unless we take both factors, that is, not only sin but also natural corruption, into consideration, understanding the Bible and the world in which we live becomes impossible. The Augustinian worldview which is dominated by sin is frankly absurd and represents a massive distortion of what the Bible actually teaches. (18* See further my Worldview, The Biblical Worldview at www.kenstothard.com /.)
REFERENCES
J.D.G.Dunn in Covenant Theology Contemporary Approaches, ed. Cartledge and Mills, Carlisle, 2001.
R.T.France, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, 2007.
A.S.Kulikovsky, Creation, Fall, Restoration, Geanies House, Fearn, 2009.
J.A.Thompson, Deuteronomy, Leicester, 1974.
Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy, Massachusetts, 1996.

Not just either/or but both/and

Original Perfection

The notion that things are not always monochromatic in character appears from time to time in the course of Scripture. 1 Kings 5:4 and Philippians 2:12f., for example, indicate that at least two factors are involved. However, since it is saturated with sin, Augustinian theology attributes everything that appears to come short of perfection solely to sin. For example, it depicts creation, including Adam and Eve, as originally perfect instead of ‘good’, that is, useful or fit for its intended purpose, and is forced to think in terms of what it calls “the Fall” and its consequent curse on the entire creation. (1* It is difficult to see how Adam who at the start like a baby, Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22, cf. Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 5:12-14, did not know the law (commandment) by which good and evil are established and judged could be originally righteous. Righteousness is gained by keeping the law, Dt. 6:25; 24:13; Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7, just as unrighteousness or sinfulness is acquired by breaking it, Gen. 3:6; 1 Sam. 15:24f.; Rom. 6:16; James 2:9-11, etc.) And needless to say, the corollary of this is restoration which is a prime characteristic of the old covenant (cf. e.g. 2 K. 8:1; 2 Chr. 24:4; Jer. 29:14, etc.) and relates to this world. In this way we arrive at the creation, fall, restoration schema characteristic of Reformed theology (see e.g. the book under that title by A.S.Kulikovsky.)

Adam and Eve

This schema is manifestly false. One has only to consider the fact that morally speaking Adam and Eve far from being originally perfect, holy and righteous were in the event characterized on the moral level solely by their sin. Initially like infants they knew neither good not evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22; Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11), then like all children they broke the first commandment they received. (The Bible refers frequently to the fact that we sin in our youth, not while we are babies when we do not know the law, e.g. Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:25.) In this way they lost what was obviously their innocence (cf. Dt. 1:39; Eccl. 7:29; Isa. 53:6; 1 Pet. 2:25). In truth, they were challenged as those who were in the process of creation in the likeness of God to achieve righteousness by keeping the commandment that God had given them and thereby meet the condition of (eternal) life (Gen. 2:17). To pinpoint the issue, only the righteous can achieve the goal of eternal life in heaven as the frequent and pervasive repetition of Leviticus 18:5 and many similar verses (e.g. Ezek. 20:11,13,21) indicates. This is of the essence of biblical teleology. In plain words then I conclude that all who follow Augustine confuse the beginning with the end. (2* See further my articles on The Order of SalvationCart-Before-The-Horse Theology)

Creation

But if Adam and Eve were far from naturally perfect, the same is true of creation. While it may be freely acknowledged that creation as the finished product, including man, is described in Genesis 1:31 as “very good”, that is, like the completed tabernacle (Ex. 39:32-43; 1 K. 7:51), ideally suited to its purpose, it was far from being perfect as God who needs nothing (Ps. 50:10-12; Acts 17:25, cf. Job 41:11 ESV; Rom. 11:35) is perfect (cf. Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; Mt. 5:48). In contrast with its Creator, creation which is “hand-made” (3* On this see my Manufactured Or Not So) needs to be constantly sustained by the sovereign providence of God (not to mention its dominion by man) apart from which it lapses into chaos and becomes subject to dissolution (Jer. 4:23ff.; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, cf. Job 34:14f.; Ps. 104:29, etc.). If we deny this, we in effect deny the transcendence or holy otherness of God and put both him and his creation in the same category as the gods of the heathen who are continuous with, or immanent in, nature. (It is worth remembering at this point that when Egypt was ruined, Ex. 10:7, so were her gods, Ex. 12:12, cf. 18:11, and so in the end with all other false gods, cf. Dt. 33:27 NRSV, Isa. 45:20; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 4:8. By contrast, the one true God remains when creation ceases to exist, Ps. 102:25-27, etc.) The argument that creation was originally ‘perfect’ because it was made by God is in light of biblical teaching quite fallacious, as I shall endeavour to demonstrate below.

While we may freely concede that creation was good in the above-mentioned sense of the term, it was not merely good but as the product of time it was by divine design temporal (Gen. 1:1), even temporary (2 Cor. 4:18), and hence in strong contrast with its eternal and transcendent Creator. Creation has both a beginning and an end but God has neither (see, e.g., Ps. 102:27; 113:4-6; Isa. 43:10b; 57:15; 66:1f.; Heb. 7:3,6; Rev. 5:13.) Furthermore, as “manufactured” or “made by hand” (Ps. 102:25; Isa. 48:13, etc.), it was naturally subject to ageing and obsolescence (Ps. 90; Heb. 1:11) and hence inherently corruptible and destructible (Mt. 6:19-21; Luke 12:33; Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.).(4* On this see again my Manufactured Or Not So) Accordingly, the things that are made and seen (Rom. 1:20) are precisely the things that are ultimately destroyed so that the permanently unshakable may remain (Heb. 12:27, cf. 2 Cor. 4:18). At the end, when the plan of salvation is complete and all things have been subjected under his feet, God will be all in all as he was before creation began (1 Cor. 15:28). In this sense we may gladly acknowledge the idea of restoration (Acts 3:21).

The Law/Old Covenant

In view of the fact that the old covenant relates to the present world (cf. Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1), it is scarcely surprising to find that it too is considered “good” (2 Cor. 3:7, cf. Rom. 7:12). For all that, like creation itself (Heb. 1:10-12), it is nonetheless temporary, and provisional (2 Cor. 3), and since it is inherently obsolescent it eventually becomes totally obsolete (Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1; Heb. 8:13). This point is underlined by the fact that it was “written by hand” (cheirographon, Col. 2:14), visible and hence temporary (2 Cor. 4:18). (5* I am indebted to James Dunn for stress on the visibility of the law. See further my Faith and Invisibility – Seeing the Invisible)

Flesh

As the product of creation the flesh is also “good”, and certainly not evil as in Greek dualism. It too was created by God and was the earthly tent not only of Adam but of Jesus himself (cf. John 1:14) “for a little while” (Heb. 2:7,9). It was also “made by hand” (Job 10:8; Ps. 119:73; Isa. 45:11f.; 64:8, etc.) and hence naturally corruptible (Gal. 6:8, etc.) and destructible (Rom. 8:13, cf.vv. 18-25). As animated dust (Ps. 78:39; 103:14), apart from the spirit the flesh dies (Job 34:14f.; Ps. 104:29; Eccl. 3:20; 12:7; James 2:26). In contrast with the living God, it is intrinsically mortal (cf. Rom. 1:23).

According to Augustine the flesh was sinful (cf. the tendentious NIV which translates sarx as ‘sinful nature’ even where sin is obviously not involved as in Galatians 6:8 and Romans 8:13). He maintained that Jesus, though flesh, was not sinful because he was Virgin born and not the product of carnal concupiscence. Though the flesh is intimately associated with sin since it provides its primary bridgehead in temptation (cf. Rom. 8:3), it is not, as we have seen, evil as such (cf. Greek dualism). However, as part of creation it was meant to be under the dominion of man and hence his slave. As the case of Ishmael makes plain, a fleshly slave irrespective of sin cannot inherit along with the child of promise who is the child of the free woman (Gal. 4:30). Jesus had made his flesh his slave and gave it for his people in death (Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 3:18), but when risen from the dead never to die again (Rom. 6:9), even he, the Son of God, could not take it to heaven without change (John 8:35; 1 Cor. 15:50f.). After all, it was naturally corruptible. (6* See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities)

It is a sad fact that most Christians seem to be totally unaware that in exercising dominion over the earth, they are thereby meant to be controlling their own earth-derived flesh which stems from it and is inherently temporary and subject to ageing even apart from sin (cf. Luke 3:23; John 8:57). As temporary, our visible flesh (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18) is intended to be the slave of our invisible and generically incorruptible spirits (cf. James 3:3, etc.). (Our spirits are of course subject to moral corruption and vulnerable to the judgement of God, cf. Heb. 9:14.)

Jesus

All Christians acknowledge Jesus Christ as both God and man. According to Hebrews 7:16 (cf. vv.3,24f.,28) he had an indestructible life, but not according to the flesh. As temporal flesh he suffered from the same natural defectiveness as all his fellows (cf. Phil. 2:6f.). (According to the OED the word ‘defect’ means lack of something essential or required. So the body (flesh) without the spirit is dead, James 2:26, cf. Job 34:14f.; Ps. 104:29; Eccl. 12:7). He also was born of woman (Gal. 4:4) or ‘manufactured’ in the womb of the Virgin Mary (cf. Heb. 10:5) and through her he was hence physically clay or dust like Adam whose son he was through his mother (Luke 3:38). Since he could not rise above his source, as flesh he was as mortal as his mother or he could not have died.  Again, since he was raised from the dead fully restored (John 10:17f.), he must have remained flesh as he himself intimated (Luke 24:39, cf. John 20:17,26-29, etc.). As such, though he was no longer susceptible to death since he had kept the law which promised life (Rom. 6:9; 1 Pet. 1:18; Rev. 1:18), he was still corruptible and hence still lacking his Father’s incorruptible (Gk) heavenly perfection (Rom. 1:23). So, to avoid permanent bondage to corruption and gain the freedom of the glory of his sonship (Rom. 8:21), he had to be (re)transformed on his ascent to heaven (John 6:62; 1 Cor. 15:50f., cf. John 17:5,24). (7* On Romans 8:18-25 see my Romans 8:18-25) When we see this, we can appreciate that while Romans 6:9 points to his eventual immortality, Acts 13:34 underlines his incorruptibility. In other words, he had reassumed his Father’s generic nature (cf. John 17:5,24) but this time as man (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). (8* See further below on God, and note my No Return To Corruption)

Arianism

This prompts the ancient question raised by Arius (cf. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Islam): was Christ God or was he a creature? With passages like John 1 in mind the church has held that he was the eternal Word and hence not a creature. For all that, there is a sense in which Arius was right. As flesh born of the Virgin Mary, Jesus was clearly created (Gal. 4:4; Heb. 10:5) like Adam before him (Luke 3:38). This raises yet another question: was Mary the mother of God (theotokos)? The question is apt to mislead, but taken at face value we are bound to say no. Created herself, she could only be the mother of her fleshly baby, of Jesus, the human being, not the Word. The perishable cannot produce the imperishable (John 3:6; 1 Cor. 15:50b)!

There is yet another vital point that should not be missed. The author of Hebrews refers to Jesus’ prayers in “the days of his flesh” (5:7). If we resist the impulse engendered by some commentators and reference Bibles to confine these days to the Garden of Gethsemane, we can then appreciate the fact that like Adam before him Jesus too was prone to death (Gen. 2:17) and constantly threatened by sin (Gen. 4:7, cf. 1 Pet. 5:8) whose wages were death. Consequently, if Jesus had failed to master the evil that lurked at his door (cf. Mt. 4:1-11; Heb. 4:15) he too would have died for his own sin and been disqualified from dying for ours. In the event, he succeeded in controlling his flesh with all its potential for evil (cf. Rom. 8:3) when confronted by the law (cf. Rom. 7:14), along with the world and the devil. In a word, he triumphed overcoming all temptation and trial (Heb. 4:15). By doing so he proved his pedigree as the true Son of God, the one and only Saviour of man (Acts 4:12, etc.). As such he was able to serve as our pioneer into heaven itself (Heb. 6:19f.; 9:24; 12:1f.).

Nature

Nature in its entirety is prone to corruption as is evident from Genesis 1 (cf. Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). Grass is perhaps the primary symbol of death and corruption throughout the Bible (Isa. 40:6-8; James 1:10, etc.). All things animal (Ps. 49:12,20), vegetable (Gen. 2:9) and mineral (1 Pet. 1:7,18) eventually yield to corruption. Little wonder that Paul, not to mention Jesus (e.g. Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 12:33; 16:9), Peter (1 Pet. 1:3f.) and John (1:2:15-17), teaches us to focus on things that are above and to put to death what is earthly (Col. 3:1-5).

Man-made Objects

Since they stem from a corruptible and futile creation (Rom. 8:18f.; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Heb. 1:10-12) all man-made objects show evidence of being naturally perishable and ultimately futile. Like everything else ‘hand-made’ (cheiropoietos) they are only temporary servants used for a temporary purpose (cf. Ps. 119:91; Col. 2:22). Thus in Luke 13 Jesus indicates that men die not only as a result of the sinful acts of others (v.1) but also because as sinners themselves they are prone to fall foul of what insurance companies call “acts of God” (v. 4, cf. 1 K.5:4; Eccl. 9:11f.). One of the greatest contrasts in the Bible is that between the man-made (or better “hand-made”) temple and the body of Christ (Mark 14:58; John 2:19-21). Even Samson was crushed by a man-made temple!

Animals

Since animals are not made in the image of God and cannot understand the law, they cannot break it and thereby become wage-earning sinners (cf. Rom. 4:15, etc.). Though they are fed by God himself (Ps. 104:27-29), since their food is perishable and not living bread (John 6:51), it can only sustain their physical life temporarily, as Psalms 104:21 and 106:20, for example, imply. It follows from this that when fleshly man refuses to eat bread from heaven (cf. Mt. 4:4; John 6:32f.), he ranks himself with the animals which are confined by nature to perishable food (Ps. 106:20; Eccl. 3:19-21; Ps. 49; 2 Pet. 2; Jude 10). Since they sow only to the flesh, they reap inevitable corruption (Gal. 6:8).

The Wages of Sin

The Bible teaches in unmistakable language that for man the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23, cf. 5:12). Tragically, however, Augustinians exalt this element of our creed to a universal principle and make sin the cause of all death. They fail to realize that (a) if death is wages it cannot be the result of imputation which excludes wages (Rom. 4:1-8, cf. 5:12); (b) since sin is defined as transgression of the law (cf. 1 Sam. 15:24; Rom. 4:15; James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4, etc.) only those who break the law can earn wages (Rom. 4:15; 5:12, etc.), and (c) procreation, which countered the effects of death, was scheduled or on the cards before sin entered the world (Gen. 1:11, etc.). When we consider the animal world (including babies) that by nature does not know the law yet is still susceptible to death and corruption, we have no alternative but to conclude that death and corruption are also the result of an amoral natural condition purposely and deliberately ordained by God. He always had an invisible hope in mind for those who put their trust in him (cf. Romans 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12; 11:1, etc.).

Flesh and Spirit

In contrast with his Creator who is spirit (John 4:24) man as created in the image of God is, first, flesh and, second, spirit (1 Cor. 15:46). This contrast is emphasized by the difference between a man and an animal which is flesh but not spirit (Isa. 31:3). While as flesh man like the animals, as we have noted above, is fed by God (Gen. 2:9; Ps. 104:21,27f.), he nonetheless dies (John 6:49) and suffers corruption. On the level of the spirit, however, the situation is different. Man can feed on the word of God (Mt. 4:4), even on the Word himself (John 6:56), the living bread whose very words are spirit and life (John 6:63). How important it is then to recognize the need of those who are first born of the flesh to be born again of God (John 1:13) by his word (James 1:18, cf. John 1:12). Only in this way can they live forever (John 3:1-8).

It is here that Abraham’s dual role as father of both his physical and his spiritual children assumes importance (Rom. 4:11f.). John the Baptist’s somewhat scathingly derogatory remark in Matthew 3:9 (cf. John 6:63) brings out the pejorative nature of the flesh in comparison with the spirit. In John 8 Jesus himself distinguishes between those who rightly claim to have a physical relationship with Abraham but fail to exercise faith as he did (cf. Rom. 2:28f.).

Death

While Joshua 23:14 and 1 Kings 2:2 tell us that death is the way of all the earth, Genesis 19:31 informs us that procreation, which counteracts death (cf. Gen. 1:11; Heb. 7:23), is also the way of all the earth. This stands in sharp contrast with the world or the age to come where according to Jesus himself there is neither death nor procreation (Luke 20:34-36). On this basis we are forced to infer that death and corruption are natural and not necessarily associated with sin. (Confusion arises when we fail to recognize that while Adam was created mortal, pace Augustine, he was promised life if he kept the law. He didn’t, therefore having sinned, he earned wages in death. If he had kept the law and achieved the righteousness which was its consequence, he would, like Jesus, have gained life, Lev. 18:5, etc., and escaped from the natural mortality characteristic of this evil age, Gal. 1:4.)

God

The Bible makes it clear beyond dispute that God is not only immortal but also incorruptible. Though these characteristics are closely related, it is vital for us to recognize that they not synonymous.  So when we read in 1 Timothy 1:17, NIV, for example, that God is ‘immortal’ (cf. Rom. 1:23; 2:7) we need to be aware of the fact that the word is aphtharsia which means ‘incorruptible’. On the other hand, in 1 Timothy 6:16 we read correctly that God is immortal (athanasia).  Regrettably this distinction is eroded by most translations with the result that Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 1:10 in the NIV, for example, is reduced to a tautology. (9* Sad to say Harris entitles one of his books “Raised Immortal”, yet the text on which he bases this is 1 Corinthians 15:52 which refers to incorruption – aphthartoi.) Since life and immortality are virtually synonymous it repeats itself. But in fact the word translated ‘immortality’ is aphtharsia not athanasia. The importance of this is fundamental for understanding Jesus’ incarnation, resurrection and ascension. For when he became incarnate Jesus also became subject to the death and corruption which characterize the flesh by nature. But when he rose physically from the dead, even though he was still flesh (Luke 24:39) he had conquered death and was no longer subject to it (cf. Rom. 6:9; Rev. 1:18). On the other hand, it is of paramount importance to recognize that, since he had been restored as flesh (cf. John 10:17f.) but had not experienced corruption (Acts 2:27,31; 13:35,37), he was obviously still corruptible. In this condition he was daily growing older and hence about to disappear (Heb. 8:13). So, in order to overcome his fleshly bondage and liability to corruption he had of necessity to be set free and escape (cf. Rom. 8:21). This was achieved by his ascension transformation (cf. John 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:50f.). In this way, he gained complete generic as well as moral and spiritual conformity with his Father at whose right hand he sat. Alternatively expressed, he regained as man the glory he shared with his Father before the world began (John 17:5,24). As Paul intimates, having brought life and incorruption to light (2 Tim. 1:10) and inherited the sure or eternal blessings of David, he would no more return to corruption (Acts 13:34, cf. Heb. 7:26; 9:28), which would have been, metaphorically speaking, tantamount to returning to Egypt. This of course is the essence of Paul’s gospel.

So, to emphasize my point, when Jesus was glorified, he had as man gained both his Father’s immortality and his incorruptibility and was fitted to sit at his right hand (cf. Phil. 3:21; Heb. 1:3). If we accept Christ as Saviour, we can do the same (Rev. 3:21, cf. Heb. 2:10ff.).

Justification By Faith and Judgement By Works

There is no question that justification by faith is the heart of the gospel (Rom. 1:16f., etc.). Fortunately, since the Reformation this has received a great deal of emphasis in Protestantism, but, regrettably, it has not always been fully applied. The mere fact that many churches still implicitly deny it by baptizing babies which cannot by nature exercise faith provides ample evidence of this. This point having been made, however, it needs to be remembered that Luther himself not only loudly proclaimed that he had been baptized (baptizatus sum) as a baby also cast aspersions on the letter of James as an epistle of straw. Bluntly, he failed to give due emphasis to the importance of works not only in the Christian life but in the lives of non-Christians. The latter point is seldom if ever made, but it appears clearly enough in Scripture. Paul himself points out that the heathen man’s uncircumcision becomes circumcision when he keeps the law by nature (Rom. 2:26-29). The implication is that though the heathen may lack the written law and the informed faith based on the promises peculiar to the Jew, yet since faith is relative it is nonetheless on occasion demonstrated by works, and  flowers when Christ is received (Eph. 2:12f.,17). After all, ultimately the promise embraces believers, their children and all those who are far off (Acts 2:39). And we must never forget that the ‘gospel’ was preached to Abraham the great exemplar of faith (Gal. 3:8f.) who was certainly among the “far off” (cf. John 8:56; Heb. 11:13). If this is so, the idea that all the heathen are indiscriminately damned is not supported by Scripture (contrast e.g. Qu. 60 of the Larger Catechism and sometimes the idea that extra ecclesiam non salus, that is, outside the church there is no salvation. Little wonder, for if it were true, it would imply the universal damnation also of children! Again, we must infer diminished responsibility even if the term is not actually used in the Bible (cf. e.g. Mt. 12:38-42; Luke 11:29-32). Recognition that Scripture teaches recapitulation (or what might be variously called trans-generationalism or genealogical continuity) would rid us of many problems regarding this subject. (10* See my Recapitulation in OutlineI Believe in Recapitulation. Christopher Wright refers to “trans-generational inclusiveness”, p.287, and J.A.Thompson to “genealogical continuity”, p.281.)

End Times

In describing his trials and tribulations in passages like 2 Corinthians 6:4f. and 11:23-29 Paul makes it plain that though sin is often involved, so too are outward circumstances associated with nature and this age. From time to time he uses general words like thlipsis and ananke which frequently relate to the end-times. Thus while the Bible makes it clear that at the end of history comes the judgement (cf. Heb. 9:27) more than one factor is involved. Jesus likens the end to Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-30) where it is noticeable that along with the judgement of man (cf. Heb. 9:27) there is also the destruction of the land (Rom. 9:28, cf. Luke 13:1-5 referred to above and also the temple, Mt. 23:38). Two factors are also in evidence in Luke 21:9-36 and parallel passages: on the one hand, there is evidence of judgement on human wickedness and, on the other, signs of creation’s natural corruptibility and destructibility even if it is exacerbated by sin. It may be claimed, of course, that the two are interconnected and that the one leads to the other as is maintained by Augustinians who believe in a universal curse following the Fall. But there is some powerful evidence militating against this. For example, despite being inhabited by the wicked Canaanites, the Promised Land remained nonetheless an “exceedingly good” land (Num. 14:7), a type of heaven in fact, and one (compulsorily) to be desired by the Israelites as the promised gift of God. (Would God have deliberately given his chosen people a bad inheritance? Cf. Rom. 8:32.) Again, after the flood it is made clear that seedtime and harvest will continue while the earth remains (Gen. 8:22. See further my Cosmic Curse?)  So though, at the end, creation like the material temple will be desolate or uninhabited on account of man’s malevolent rejection of Christ, it needs to be recognized that it (creation) was slated for destruction from the start in that it was “made by hand” (Ps. 102:25, cf. Mark 14:58) and was hence shakable and destructible irrespective of sin. (Pace modern translators of Romans 8:18-25 who make this passage mean the redemption of creation which is surely the polar opposite of what the apostle intended. See further my Romans 8:18-25. Note also Galatians 4:21-31 where the present Jerusalem, the home of bondage, is implicitly dispensed with. France’s comments on Matthew 23:38 are appropriate at this point.) The same is true of the human body of flesh which derives from the corruptible earth. It will be either destroyed on account of sin (2 Cor. 5:1, cf. Rom. 8:10; 1 Cor. 6:13) or changed, that is, replaced as in the case of Jesus and the end-time saints (1 Cor. 15:50f., cf. Heb. 1:12).

Galatians 1:4

It is all too easy to assume that when Paul refers to this evil age in Galatians 1:4 he has only sin in mind. But has he? We have no sure way of knowing though we may note references like 1 Kings 5:4 where evil may be both natural (cf. Isa. 45:7; Amos 3:6) and moral. (11* It is arguable, however, that Galatians in its entirety is an explanation of how we can escape from this present age. See further my Escape). In light of what he says in Romans 8:18-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10, for example (12* Cf. my The Correspondence Between Romans 8:12-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10), where sin is not mentioned, Paul suggests that, like creation itself and the lowly (cf. Phil. 2:7f.; 2 Cor. 8:9) body or tent subject to destruction or change (i.e. replacement), which we presently inhabit, this age is inherently defective. (13* It is doubtless failure to appreciate the natural corruption of creation which led to Job’s perplexity, see e.g. 10:8f. He rightly maintained his integrity and could not accept that his sin provided an adequate explanation of all his troubles.) If this were not so, there would be no need for a second (cf. Heb. 8:7; 10:9b). In John’s gospel, not to mention the Pauline epistles where we must concede that sin is often in evidence, the flesh as such is constantly regarded in depreciatory fashion (cf. 3:6; 6:63). Thus this (present) age is set in strong contrast with the glorious age to come (Mt. 12:32; Luke 20:34-36; Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Eph. 1:20f.; 1 Tim. 6:17, etc.). Without going into more detail, I conclude that not only is sin characteristic of this age but so also is its inherent defectiveness or corruptibility (cf. 1 K. 5:4, KJV; Eccl. 9:11f.). And this is surely by divine design as Paul teaches in Romans 8:18-25 (cf. Heb. 1:10-12). If this is so, then escape is paramount and it can be achieved only through faith in Christ, our pioneer into heaven itself (cf. Heb. 2:10). (14* Commentators often refer to the frustration of creation as if it is the result of sin. But this is to miss the point that creation, including the flesh which stems from it is inherently corruptible, futile and unprofitable, cf. Ecclesiastes, John 1:13; 3:1-8; 6:63. It simply serves a temporary purpose and will eventually disappear having outlived its usefulness, cf. Heb. 1:11; 8:13. The whole of nature, not to mention modern scientific theory, testifies to this. See again my Romans 8:18-25)

Creation and Evolution

In the dispute between (atheistic) scientific theory and Christian insistence on creation by God there is a good deal of misunderstanding on both sides. While the former emphasizes evolution as if it in itself (inexplicably) possesses inherent creative power, Christians stress the beginning of creation (Gen. 1:1) out of nothing (cf. Rom. 4:17) but usually ignore its intrinsic developmental or evolutionary nature under the Spirit of God. (15* I reject the literal 24-hour days of Genesis 1 out of hand. It runs contrary to everything we know by science, by history, by experience and above all by theology. See further my Twenty-Four Hours? – Reasons why I believe the Genesis days are undefined periods of time, The Two Ages) On the one hand, time, chance and spontaneous generation are difficult to swallow regarded as sources of this world; on the other hand, “Christian”, especially fundamentalist, denial that man has an animal beginning (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46, etc.) is also surely beyond the pale. (16* See further my  Creation and / or Evolution) The God who created the world also sustains it until it has served its purpose (cf. Gen. 8:22) and then brings it to its appointed end in destruction (Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:10). Since man is a product, even a miniaturization of creation (dust) on the natural level, he inevitably follows the pattern of creation (cf. 1 Cor. 6:13; 15:50; 2 Cor. 5:1). However, since he is also created in the image of God, he is able to transcend his flesh on the spiritual level through faith in Christ who serves as his pioneer into the age to come (cf. Heb. 2:10; Phil. 3:21; Col. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:3f., etc.). Naturalistic physical evolution is, as is freely admitted by many, aimless, purposeless, meaningless and ultimately futile. But this is precisely as God intended it to be (Rom. 8:20, cf. Eccles.; 1 Cor. 15:12-19). Not for nothing did Paul talk of crucifying to himself the world (Gal. 6:14) and the flesh (Gal. 5:24, cf. Rom. 6:6) and Jesus of being in the world but not of it (John 17:14f., cf. 6:63). My assumption on the basis of the evidence is that man is the subject of both creation and evolution (perfection) on both the physical and spiritual levels. While the former is merely temporal (cf. animal life in general) and is subject to age (Heb. 1:11; Luke 3:23; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Heb. 8:13, etc.) and ultimate demise, the latter is permanent. When faith in Christ is exercised, a new (spiritual) creation is involved (John 3:3-7; 2 Cor. 5:17) by which man is fitted for heaven and the presence of God. (17* The distinction between creation and physical development in the old covenant and spiritual recreation and sanctification in the new covenant should be noted. Whereas in the former the end is universal death and destruction, cf. 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13, in the latter the end is eternal life, cf. Rom. 6:22.  See further my Creation and / or Evolution).

Conclusion

I began this article by denying that sin is the sole cause of ‘evil’ in this present age (Gal. 1:4). The truth is that the contrast between this world and world to come stems primarily from the divine decree, plan and purpose. Even the Pharisees, if not the Sadducees, believed that this present ephemeral age was to be followed by the permanent (eternal) age to come (Luke 20:27-40, cf. Eph. 1:20f.; Heb. 1:6, 2:5; 6:5, etc.). While it is true beyond equivocation that sin exacerbates the situation in this present age, it also ensures that God alone will be our Saviour or Rescuer (Isa. 45:20-25; Phil. 2:9-11) as he always intended to be (Rom. 3:19f.; 11:32; Gal. 2:16; 3:22, etc.). Unless we take both factors, that is, not only sin but also natural corruption, into consideration, understanding the Bible and the world in which we live becomes impossible. The Augustinian worldview which is dominated by sin is frankly absurd and represents a massive distortion of what the Bible actually teaches. (18* See further my WorldviewThe Biblical Worldview)

_________________________________________________

References

J.D.G.Dunn in Covenant Theology Contemporary Approaches, ed. Cartledge and Mills, Carlisle, 2001.

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

A.S.Kulikovsky, Creation, Fall, Restoration, Geanies House, Fearn, 2009.

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

Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy, Massachusetts, 1996.

Another Shot at Romans 8:18-25

ANOTHER SHOT AT ROMANS 8:18-25
I have examined this passage in greater detail elsewhere (1* See e.g. my Romans 8:18-25 Revisited at www.kenstothard.com /), assuming that a purely exegetical approach to it is inconclusive. Here I set out five arguments seeking to prove that sin could not possibly have been behind Paul’s thinking, least of all Genesis 3:17-19 (2* As suggested, for example, by C.E.B.Cranfield, ICC Romans, p.413, and practically all commentators under the influence of Augustine of Hippo).
(1) Jesus
The sinless Jesus himself as incarnate, that is, flesh, was unavoidably in bondage to the futility and corruptibility that characterize creation. He was mortal or he could not have died, and he was subject to decay or he could not have got older (Luke 3:23; John 8:57, cf. Heb. 1:11). He stood in patent contrast to his Father in heaven (Ps. 102:26f.) who was both immortal (1 Tim. 6:16) and incorruptible (1 Tim. 1:17). As a son of Adam through his mother (Luke 3:38) his earthly life in effect began where Adam’s began (Eph. 4:9, cf. Ps. 139:15). As one who was also made in the image of God (Gen. 5:1-3), his main object was to achieve perfection by conquering the world, the flesh and the devil (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 6:1;7:11). With regard to the world, he had to overcome its natural futility in order to regain his former glory, but this time having assumed human nature (John 17:5,24). Once his work was successfully completed (Luke 13:32; John 17:4) and he had ascended transformed into heaven (John 17:5), he was in a position (Heb. 1:3,13, etc.) as a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) to bring many children to glory (Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). On their side, faith in him was both imperative and necessary. And the reason why Paul so strongly emphasized the resurrection of Christ was that if he had not been raised, mankind would have been doomed like the animals (Ps. 49; Eccl. 3:18-21) to the inevitable futility and corruption that characterizes creation (1 Cor. 15:17, cf. Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8).
(2) A Manufactured Creation
Creation, including man, was manufactured or “made by hand” (Gk cheiropoietos) as many texts make clear (e.g. Job 10:3,8; Ps. 102:25; 119:73; Isa. 45:11f.; 48:13; 64:8). The visible material creation which includes our fleshly bodies relates exclusively to the visible, hand-written (Col. 2:14, Gk) and hence temporary old covenant (2 Cor. 4:7,16-18, cf. Heb. 8:13). Heaven, which is “not made by hand” (Gk acheiropoietos), is “not of this creation” (Heb. 9:11, cf. v.24).  It is the heavenly kingdom, obliquely referred to in Daniel 2:34f.,44f., of which Jesus as the (living) stone  not cut by hand was the foundation (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-8). Since it was not like the temporary manufactured earthly temple (Mark 14:58) but eternal (Dan. 4:3,34; 7:14), it replaced not only all earthly kingdoms with feet of clay but finally the entire kingdom of this world, as Revelation 11:15 (cf. 6:14; 8:5; 16:20; 20:11; 21:1-4) indicates. Again, like the spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44) that is heavenly and “not made by hand” (2 Cor. 5:1), it relates exclusively to the eternal new covenant (Heb. 9:15,24, cf. Luke 20:34-36). The difference is that between the transient present age and the eternal age to come (cf. Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:16f.). While the former like the old covenant is passing away (1 Cor. 7:31;1 John 2:8,15-17; Rev. 20:11) because it is inherently temporary (2 Cor. 3; 4:18), the latter, which already exists (cf. Gal. 4:26) remains eternally unshakable (Heb. 1:11f.; 12:27). Though still invisible to us it remains nonetheless in prospect (Heb. 6:5, cf. 4:1). (3* Note Rom. 1:20 and Col. 1:16 where things visible and invisible are distinguished. See further my Manufactured or Not So, Faith and Invisibility, The Case Against the Redemption of Creation, at www.kenstothard.com /.)
Flesh, Death and Sin
(3) In John 8:34f., Jesus talks of those who are the slaves of sin and asserts that unlike the son they do not remain in the house forever. By contrast, in Galatians 4:21-31 Paul conspicuously ignores sin and focuses attention on the fleshly nature of Ishmael the son of the slave woman Hagar. He goes on to assert that Ishmael, the natural-born son who symbolizes the flesh and the old covenant, persecuted Isaac, the potentially (or proleptically) reborn child of promise, and was cast out of the house. From this the apostle infers that Ishmael, as one who is in the permanent bondage of his flesh, will not inherit the heavenly Jerusalem. This ties in with his assertion in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and with Jesus’ insistence that all of us who are born naturally as (physical) flesh (like Ishmael) must be born again, that is, undergo a spiritual birth from above, if we are to enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:1-8, cf. 1:13; 6:63). (4* The importance of the ordo salutis or order of salvation is important at this point. See my The Order of Salvation, The Order of Salvation in Romans, Cart-Before-The-Horse Theology, Redemption Applied at www.kenstothard.com /.) Here, significantly, like Paul in Galatians, Jesus does not mention sin, but instead focuses on what we are as unprofitable flesh (John 1:13; 6:63) who emanate from the visible, temporary, manufactured and corruptible earth. Again by contrast, Augustine of Hippo, obsessed with sin as he was, taught that sin, and especially original sin, constituted the essence of this passage (cf. e.g. Needham, p.251, etc.). And even today many commentators and ordinary Christians wrongly follow his lead instead of that of, for example, Bishop Westcott (5* The Gospel of John, 1880, pp.50f., cf. L.L.Morris who stresses man’s earthiness p.219. We may compare this with Paul’s reference to the perishable man of dust in 1 Cor.15:47-49.). (It is worth adding here that Jesus’ argument in John 6:49 regarding the Israelites in the wilderness brings out the fact that perishable food, even manna from heaven (v.31), cannot sustain man eternally. Sin is not the only factor involved in death. See again below.)
But this passage from Galatians has more to teach us. Trying to spell it out as briefly as possible, I draw attention to the two covenants referred to in Paul’s anachronistic allegory (4:24). The only covenant in existence prior to Abraham was the covenant with Noah. After the flood which had threatened universal death, it guaranteed future natural, that is, physical or fleshly life but only until the plan of salvation was completed (Gen. 8:22, cf. Jer. 31:35-40; 33:19-26; Isa. 54:10). The animals in the ark were saved only to reproduce, propagate and then to die. In contrast, as a believer Noah was saved by his “baptism” which prefigured or heralded his regeneration (1 Pet. 3:21).
Now in contrast with Abraham and his son Isaac, no covenant was made with Ishmael, though both he (Gen. 17:20) and Hagar his mother were promised great fruitfulness (Gen. 16:10) under the covenant with Noah which still operates today (cf. Acts 14:16f.; 17:24ff.). On the other hand, the covenant of promise made with Abraham also embraced Isaac (Gen. 17:21; 26:2-5) and Jacob (Gen. 28:3f.) and indeed all Abraham’s spiritual seed (Gal. 3:14,29), though the sensual and faithless Esau repudiated it (Heb. 12:16f.). What this clearly implies is that just as there was no salvific covenant with the fleshly slave Ishmael, so at the beginning there was no covenant with creation or with Adam who also epitomized the flesh (1 Cor. 15:47-49). (6* See further my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?) The inference I draw from this is that just as the flesh is ultimately unprofitable (John 6:63, cf. 1:13; Rom. 7:18; 8:7f.,13; Gal. 6:7f.), so is the material creation from which it stems. Consequently, like the flesh (1 Cor. 6:13; 2 Cor. 5:1), once it has served its purpose, it is finally destroyed (Heb. 12:27). So, whatever Romans 8:18-25 teaches it certainly does not teach the redemption of creation, least of all from sin and curse. I conclude that the idea that Genesis 3:17-19 lies behind Paul’s thinking in Romans 8 is a figment of commentators’ imaginations.
According to Paul, then, so long as Ishmael as the representative of legalistic Jews is still allegorically at Mount Sinai in mortal flesh (2 Cor. 4:11, cf. Rom. 7:14), he is unable as such to attain to the heavenly Jerusalem by means of a faulty law (Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7), that cannot give life (Gal .3:21, cf. 2:21; 5:2-6). In fact, he along with the unbelieving Jews he represents (cf. Acts 15:1,5) is doomed to death, like a wild ass (Gen. 16:12), even apart from sin.
A third point can be made. Both the Romans and the Galatians passages stress freedom. Just as the law kept  those under it in bondage (Gal. 3:23, cf. Rom. 7:1-3,6), so does creation itself especially as flesh (Ps. 49: 12,20; Eccl. 3:18-21, cf. Gal. 6:8; Rom. 8:13), and just as we must escape from the law either by dying to it (Gal. 2:19; 5:1; Rom. 8:2, cf. 7:3) or by keeping it as Jesus did, so we must escape from the corruptible temporal creation by dying to it (Col. 3:1-5) and committing ourselves to Christ (Gal. 6:14, cf. 5:24; John 8:23; 1 John 2:15-17, contrast 2 Tim. 4:10). Failure to find this freedom means inevitable death as Adam was warned in Genesis 2:17. (7* See my Escape.) Whereas Jesus escaped at his ascension transformation having in contrast with Adam kept the law, which promised life (Lev. 18:5), and achieved perfection, we, since we are incapable of keeping it (Gal. 2:16; 3:12), are forced to accept the salvation that he alone can offer (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Gal. 3:13f., etc.). In support of this we have only to consider such passages as Matthew 3:7-10 and especially John 8:31-59 where the difference between being merely the fleshly children of Abraham (like Ishmael) and his spiritual children (like Isaac) is stressed. Refusal to believe inevitably means that that we cannot be saved, for we are all fleshly sinners who have failed to keep the law which promised life (cf. Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22). Not for nothing did Jesus say that it is a natural necessity (not imperative) for us to be born again to enter the kingdom of God. Why? Because flesh and blood, as opposed to spirit, are intrinsically incapable of inheriting the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 15:50). (8* When Jesus died on the cross he committed his spirit to his Father, Luke 23:46, cf. v.43; John 19:30, but left his body in the tomb. When he rose again his spirit returned to his lifeless body as the spirit of the ruler’s daughter had done to her body when Jesus earlier raised her from the dead, Luke 8:55. In view of the fact that many nowadays erroneously insist that Jesus was glorified at his resurrection, it should also be carefully noted that when the latter was raised, at Jesus’ direction she was given something to eat. As flesh, Luke 24:39, Jesus also ate when he was raised, John 21:9-14; Acts 10:41.) As human beings made in the image of God we have to feed not merely on material bread but on the word of God to live forever (Mt. 4:4). (9* See further my Biblical Dualism.) By contrast, animals which are only flesh, and sinless because they do not know the law (cf. Rom. 4:15), are by nature confined to perishable food even though it too is provided by God (Ps. 104:21, etc.). Ishmael, a wild ass of a man, is like them and the Israelites who, though fed by manna (cf. v.31), died in the wilderness (John 6:49, cf. Isa. 31:3). As we saw above, sin is not part of the picture. (10* It has to be said with great regret that the churches even today hold a false view of the order of salvation. Assuming original sin and regeneration as its cure a la Augustine, they have put the new birth first and hence have “sinful” babies baptized in order to regenerate them! Needless to say in this scenario, development or evolution and the perfecting process from flesh to spirit are hidden, even abolished, 1 Cor. 15:46. See further my articles on the order of salvation referred to above.)
It should further be noticed that both Romans 8:18-25 and Galatians 4:21-31 indicate the nature of the freedom that is anticipated in the age to come. In the Romans passage freedom involves adoption and invisible glory (vv.21,24f.); in Galatians it involves birth according to the Spirit and a place in the invisible heavenly Jerusalem. Clearly the two are one and the same and they are both attained by faith and not by sight (cf. 2 Cor. 5:6-8). Creation (Rom. 8:18-25) and its corollary the flesh (Col. 3:1-5) spell bondage and both are necessarily excluded.
I conclude then that these two factors, sin on the one hand and natural physical corruption on the other, are, though closely related, separate categories of permanent relevance and validity (cf. Job). To confuse flesh and spirit (1 Cor. 15:35-55) with sin and grace (Rom. 5:12-21) as the church has constantly done for centuries is to court theological disaster. In Romans 8:18-25, as in Galatians 4:21-31 (cf. John 3:1-8; 1 Cor. 15:42-55 and 2 Cor. 4:7-5:9), sin is not on the horizon: the focus of Paul’s attention is natural physical corruption followed by spiritual adoption/regeneration (cf. 1 Cor. 15:48f.), and to drag sin into the picture is eisegesis not exegesis. In Matthew 6:19f., Mark 13:8, Luke 12:33, 13:1-5, 16:9 (cf. 21:23,35), and so forth, Jesus clearly makes the same distinction. In these verses he focuses on both sin and the corruption naturally inherent in all created things, and these obviously include man according to the flesh (Isa. 45:11f.; 51:6; Heb. 1:10-12). (11* Natural corruption is surely the unmistakable implication of the comparison between Romans 1:20 and Hebrews 12:27.)
Hope
(4) Paul says that as the product of the temporal creation the creature was subjected by God to futility not on account of sin (which obviously could not occur until the commandment (law) had been given) but in hope (Rom. 8:20). That hope turns out to be an invisible (cf. Heb. 11:1), that is, a spiritual and hence an immaterial, hope (Rom. 8:24f.). In light of Romans 1:20 and Hebrews 12:27 this hope must be the better (Heb. 7:19) or living hope (1 Pet. 1:3) of sharing the heavenly glory of God (Rom. 5:2; 8:30; 2 Cor. 4:17; Gal. 5:5; Col. 1:5,27) where bodily corruption (decay) does not figure (Luke 20:34-36; 1 Pet. 1:4). Little wonder that Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:44 talks of a “spiritual” as opposed to a natural or physical body (cf. Luke 20:34-38; Rom. 8:23)! Along with the rest of the material creation (Zeph. 1:18; Heb. 1:11, etc.), the latter is in fact destroyed (1 Cor. 6:13; 2 Cor. 5:1, cf. Phil. 3:19; Rom. 16:18) by death and corruption on account of sin (Rom. 8:10) as Adam’s was when he failed to meet the condition of life by keeping the commandment (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5).
Corruption and Incorruption
(5) Creation has both a beginning (Gen. 1:1) and, because it is temporal, a necessary end (1 John 2:17; Rev. 21:1). The eternal God has neither (Job 36:26; Ps. 90:2; 102:27; Isa. 41:4; 48:12; 57:15; 66:1, cf. Isa. 43:10b; Heb. 7:3). So while the material creation is inherently perishable (Ps. 102:26), its Creator is imperishable (12* Rom. 1:23, Gk. The Greek is important since practically all English translations fail to translate Rom. 1:23; 2:7 and 2 Tim. 1:10 accurately.) In other words, visible created things (Rom. 1:20) are not only temporary, as Paul asserts explicitly in 2 Corinthians 4:18, but as such they are by nature shakable and will be removed (Heb. 12:27, cf. 2 Pet. 1:13f., Gk). Since God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29) and Christ himself will return in fire (2 Thes. 1:7f.; 2:8; Rev. 20:9) both to rescue and destroy (cf. Amos 4:11; Jude 23), the material cosmos will be subject to combustion quite apart from sin (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, and note also 1 Cor. 3:12-15; Heb. 6:7f., 12:27). Genesis 19:24,25 and 28 (cf. Luke 17:28-30) indicate that both  the inhabitants (cf.. Gen. 6:11-13 and “those who dwell on the earth” in the book of Revelation) and their habitat (cf. Heb. 6:7f.) were destroyed as in Revelation 6:14; 20:11; 21:1, etc.
In Luke 21:9,23 distress, which stems from earth’s natural corruption, is the necessary means by which God expresses his wrath against the people (cf. Hab. 3:8; Rev. 6:12-17; ch.16.). As the Jewish Book of Wisdom (5:17, JB) says, “He will arm creation to punish his enemies” (quoted by Wilcock, p.143). When the final storm comes those who have failed to build on the rock of the words of Christ (cf. Mt. 24:35) are doomed (Mt. 7:24-27).
In light of these arguments alone, I conclude that Romans 8:18-25, like 2 Corinthian 4:7-5:9 with which it corresponds (13* See my The Correspondence Between Romans 8:18-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10.), has nothing to do with sin. Creation is naturally subject to decay and destruction quite apart from sin (Heb. 1:11), and since the corruptible (perishable) cannot inherit the incorruptible (imperishable) (1 Cor. 15:50b), English translations referring to ‘creation’ as opposed to ‘creature’  like the NIV and ESV currently in use in 2010 are highly misleading. (14* It must be added here that the NIV consistently translates ‘flesh’ as ‘sinful nature’ even in Romans 8:13 and Galatians 6:8. With its Augustinian bias, it clearly misses the point.) Referring to the ‘creation’ instead of the ‘creature’, they are by implication suggesting the redemption/transformation of the material ‘creation’ as opposed to the spiritual ‘creature’ made in the image of God. To that extent, they are denying the plain teaching of Scripture. It is not the ‘creation’ which includes the flesh, but the ‘creature’ as the image of God who will be set free from (escape from) its bondage to decay and exchange it for the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:21, 23, cf. John 8:32,36; 11:25f.; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Gal. 5:1; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2). The contrary view suggesting that creation is subject to adoption is, all else apart, plainly absurd. Furthermore, it flies in the face of typology and the escape of the children of Israel from ‘ruined’ Egypt (Ex. 10:7) to which they were under strict orders never to return (15* Dt. 17:16; 28:68, cf. Acts 13:34 on which see my No Return to Corruption.). The old KJV translation is clearly correct at this point. As Jesus implied in Matthew 6:19f., 24:35, etc., the transience of all material things which is even recognized from time to time in the somewhat materialistic OT (e.g. Isa. 51:6; 54:10), is basic to the NT. Bluntly, the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50b). (16* See my Biblical Dualism.)
There is a final point to make. The earth is obviously older (a significant word!) than man as both Genesis and modern scientific research plainly indicate (cf. Job 15:7, contrast Ps. 90:2; Prov. 8:25), and it was clearly subject to decay before corruptible man who emanated from it came on the scene. It had to produce perishable food for both man and animal in preparation for their arrival or they would have starved to death (Gen. l; John 6:31-58). Grass is a symbol of death throughout Scripture. If it is argued that vegetable death is different from animal death (nephesh), we have to reckon with the fact that Isaiah says all flesh is grass (40:6-8, cf. John 6:49). (17* In 1 Peter 1 in contrast with the word of the Lord, v.25, cf. vv.3f., reference is made to animal, vegetable and mineral death.) This being the case, sin was no more involved than when God fed the lions (Ps. 104:21, etc.). The Augustinian worldview is manifestly false and is clearly a perversion of biblical teaching. In fact, sin is alien to crucial passages like John 3:1-8, Romans 8:18-25, 1 Corinthians 15:35-55 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10 whose ‘obvious’ meaning many under the spell of Augustine distort. (18* On these see along with my “Correspondence” articles my Worldview, The Biblical Worldview, Death Before Genesis 3, A Double Helping, Did Jesus Rise Physically From the Grave?,  etc. at www.kenstothard.com /.)
Notes
1. It is worth noting with regard to the physical/material creation that reference is made not to its redemption, purification by fire or transformation (except in the sense of replacement, e.g. Heb. 1:12), which according to Paul is impossible (1 Cor. 15:50b), but to the revelation, the appearance and the parousia (presence or arrival) of Christ when creation flees away (Rev. 20:11, cf. Dan 2:34f.,44f.).  The inference I draw from this is that the kingdom of the world is destroyed and replaced by the kingdom of our Lord (Rev. 11:15, cf. 21:1-5).  Perfection (maturity, completeness) has always been the goal or telos of man, and perfection is found in God alone (Mt. 5:48) whose throne is heaven. By contrast, the earth, over which man is called to exercise dominion, is his footstool (Mt. 5:34f.). (19* Physical perfection or maturity is of course achieved in this world but it is followed by the inevitable but natural ageing, decline and death of all created things, Rom. 1:20; Heb. 1:11; 12:27. Sin is not directly involved though it can be a potent exacerbating factor.) Jesus was our pioneer to a ‘remaining’, hence pre-existing, eternal and ‘unshakable’, glory (Col. 1:27; Heb. 2:10; 12:28, cf. John 17:5,24). In this scenario humans are given a spiritual, heavenly or glorious body like that of Jesus himself (Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49). So continuity is bodily not fleshly. Dunn accurately and succinctly sums up the situation when he says that soma can cross the boundary of the ages, whereas sarx belongs firmly to this present age (20* James Dunn, WBC Romans, p. 391, Theology, pp.70ff. In note 92 on p.71 of his Theology, Dunn writes, “Possibly … Paul assumed the transmutation of Jesus’ dead body into a spiritual body” a view with which I respectfully beg to differ and which in any case appears to depend on his false assessment of Romans 8:18-25, p.488, cf. pp.100f., WBC Romans pp. 470ff. In fact, his interpretation of Romans 8:18-25 is plainly at loggerheads with his understanding of the status of the flesh which he implicitly admits shares creation’s natural futility, p.391. What is true of the one is true of the other. My contention, in contrast with Dunn’s, is that since man as flesh shares in creation’s natural corruptibility and futility, Rom. 1:23, his pursuit of worthless things, Jer. 2:5,13; Rom. 1:21-23; Dt. 4:15-19; Luke 12:33f.; 16:9; 1 Pet. 1:18, etc., renders him worthless. Otherwise expressed, for man who is spirit, there is no final future in either creation or the fleshly creature. See further my essays listed below.). So far as the new heavens and new earth are concerned (Isa. 65:17ff.; 66:22ff.), they are not a new edition of the first (cf. Morris, Revelation, p.243). Since they are parallel with the new or heavenly Jerusalem which already exists (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22-24, etc.), this OT concept must be a periphrasis for heaven where righteousness permanently dwells (Mt. 6:10,33; 2 Pet. 3:13). And the hope of our righteousness (Gal. 5:5) through faith in Christ is heavenly glory.
2. One of the chief arguments for the redemption of creation popular today (2010) is the so-called resurrection transformation of Jesus. It can be briefly put as follows: If Jesus at his resurrection from the dead was glorified as earth-derived flesh, then it clearly follows that creation can likewise be glorified. The two ideas stand or fall together. Therefore, if the one proves false, so does the other. So, since the resurrected Jesus was physically visible, tangible and audible (1 John 1:1-3, cf. Heb. 12:18-21), we are compelled to conclude that he was not glorified (John 20:29; 2 Cor. 4:18). But once he was restored to his normal state as flesh (Luke 24:39, cf. John 10:17f.) thereby proving his physical resurrection, he was ready to be glorified at his ascension (John 20:17, cf. 1 Cor. 15:51f.).
What is written above demonstrates the falsity of the ‘resurrection’, transformation, rejuvenation, regeneration, salvation, redemption or repristination of creation as opposed to the spirit of man made in the image of God (John 3:1-8; 1 Pet. 1:9; 4:6; Heb. 12:23). Having said this, in these days of global warming, deforestation, loss of species and the like, we need to keep in mind the importance of healing and restoring creation in accordance with widespread OT teaching. After all, until we die we have to live here on earth and there is no reason why we should not do so as comfortably as is reasonably possible.
(I have sought to deny the resurrection/transformation/glorification of Jesus especially in my essays Re the Body of the Resurrected Jesus; Restoration and Resurrection, When Was Jesus Transformed?, Did Jesus Rise Physically From the Grave?, Romans 8:18-25 Revisited,  etc., at www.kenstothard.com /).
Two Questions
1. Galatians 4:27 (Isa. 54:1) surely leads to the conclusion that despite her physical infecundity, the children of the free woman, whose spiritual offspring are through faith made up of both Gentiles and Jews, are greater in number than the natural children of the slave woman. If this is so, can we draw the conclusion that at the last judgement the number of the saved (Rev. 7:9) will be greater than the number of the lost? Since even a little faith like that of a mustard seed is enough to remove mountains (Mt. 17:20; Mark 4:30-32), I remain optimistic on this issue believing that ultimately grace will outweigh sin (cf. Rom. 5:20). (On the order of salvation see my essays referred to above. The attempt to put regeneration first on account of original sin, which does not exist, has disastrous consequences for our understanding of the plan of salvation.)
2. As I write in July 2010 there is yet more evidence of disturbance in nature, this time in China and Pakistan. Though now that I am getting old and my reading is limited, I have come across very little by way of Christian comment on this type of thing. Perhaps this is because it is now recognized that to attribute natural disaster including global warming exclusively to sin, as has been the habit in the past, is both offensive and incredible to many. But on the assumption that disturbances in the physical realm, though often man-made as crimes and wars are, reflect in the main natural corruption, we do well to take note and reread the teaching of Jesus on the issue (e.g. Mt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 17:22-37; ch.21). They really may be signs, distresses (Luke 21:23, 34f.), birth pangs if you like (Mt. 24:8; Rom. 8:22, cf. John 16:21f.; 1 Thes. 5:3), of the end of the physical world, no matter how far away that final end may be.
There is another point: the kingdom of God, as described, for example, in Matthew 13:32, would appear to replace the heathen kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:12,21. (For comment see France, p.527, Bock, p.1226.) If so, little wonder that John wrote Revelation 11:15 (cf. Phil. 2:9-11). Furthermore, we do well to remember that God so loved the world (John 3:16), even if many, if not most, appear to reject his Son (John 1:10-13).
REFERENCES
D.L.Bock, Luke, 9:51-24:53, Grand Rapids, 1996.
C.E.B.Cranfield, ICC Romans, Edinburgh. 1975.
J.D.G.Dunn, Romans 1-8, Dallas, 1988.
The Theology of Paul the Apostle, London/New York, 1998, 2003 ed.
R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, 2007.
L.L.Morris, The Gospel According to John, Grand Rapids, 1971.
Revelation, London, 1969.
N.R.Needham, The Triumph of Grace, London, 2000.
M.Wilcock, The Message of Revelation, Leicester/Downers Grove, 1975.
B.F.Westcott, The Gospel of St.John, repr. London, 1958.

I have examined this passage in greater detail elsewhere (1* See e.g. my Romans 8:18-25), assuming that a purely exegetical approach to it is inconclusive. Here I set out five arguments seeking to prove that sin could not possibly have been behind Paul’s thinking, least of all Genesis 3:17-19 (2* As suggested, for example, by C.E.B.Cranfield, ICC Romans, p.413, and practically all commentators under the influence of Augustine of Hippo).

(1) Jesus

The sinless Jesus himself as incarnate, that is, flesh, was unavoidably in bondage to the futility and corruptibility that characterize creation. He was mortal or he could not have died, and he was subject to decay or he could not have got older (Luke 3:23; John 8:57, cf. Heb. 1:11). He stood in patent contrast to his Father in heaven (Ps. 102:26f.) who was both immortal (1 Tim. 6:16) and incorruptible (1 Tim. 1:17). As a son of Adam through his mother (Luke 3:38) his earthly life in effect began where Adam’s began (Eph. 4:9, cf. Ps. 139:15). As one who was also made in the image of God (Gen. 5:1-3), his main object was to achieve perfection by conquering the world, the flesh and the devil (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 6:1;7:11). With regard to the world, he had to overcome its natural futility in order to regain his former glory, but this time having assumed human nature (John 17:5,24). Once his work was successfully completed (Luke 13:32; John 17:4) and he had ascended transformed into heaven (John 17:5), he was in a position (Heb. 1:3,13, etc.) as a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) to bring many children to glory (Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). On their side, faith in him was both imperative and necessary. And the reason why Paul so strongly emphasized the resurrection of Christ was that if he had not been raised, mankind would have been doomed like the animals (Ps. 49; Eccl. 3:18-21) to the inevitable futility and corruption that characterizes creation (1 Cor. 15:17, cf. Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8).

(2) A Manufactured Creation

Creation, including man, was manufactured or “made by hand” (Gk cheiropoietos) as many texts make clear (e.g. Job 10:3,8; Ps. 102:25; 119:73; Isa. 45:11f.; 48:13; 64:8). The visible material creation which includes our fleshly bodies relates exclusively to the visible, hand-written (Col. 2:14, Gk) and hence temporary old covenant (2 Cor. 4:7,16-18, cf. Heb. 8:13). Heaven, which is “not made by hand” (Gk acheiropoietos), is “not of this creation” (Heb. 9:11, cf. v.24).  It is the heavenly kingdom, obliquely referred to in Daniel 2:34f.,44f., of which Jesus as the (living) stone  not cut by hand was the foundation (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-8). Since it was not like the temporary manufactured earthly temple (Mark 14:58) but eternal (Dan. 4:3,34; 7:14), it replaced not only all earthly kingdoms with feet of clay but finally the entire kingdom of this world, as Revelation 11:15 (cf. 6:14; 8:5; 16:20; 20:11; 21:1-4) indicates. Again, like the spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44) that is heavenly and “not made by hand” (2 Cor. 5:1), it relates exclusively to the eternal new covenant (Heb. 9:15,24, cf. Luke 20:34-36). The difference is that between the transient present age and the eternal age to come (cf. Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:16f.). While the former like the old covenant is passing away (1 Cor. 7:31;1 John 2:8,15-17; Rev. 20:11) because it is inherently temporary (2 Cor. 3; 4:18), the latter, which already exists (cf. Gal. 4:26) remains eternally unshakable (Heb. 1:11f.; 12:27). Though still invisible to us it remains nonetheless in prospect (Heb. 6:5, cf. 4:1). (3* Note Rom. 1:20 and Col. 1:16 where things visible and invisible are distinguished. See further my Manufactured Or Not SoFaith and Invisibility – Seeing the InvisibleThe Case Against the Redemption of Creation)

(3) Flesh, Death and Sin

In John 8:34f., Jesus talks of those who are the slaves of sin and asserts that unlike the son they do not remain in the house forever. By contrast, in Galatians 4:21-31 Paul conspicuously ignores sin and focuses attention on the fleshly nature of Ishmael the son of the slave woman Hagar. He goes on to assert that Ishmael, the natural-born son who symbolizes the flesh and the old covenant, persecuted Isaac, the potentially (or proleptically) reborn child of promise, and was cast out of the house. From this the apostle infers that Ishmael, as one who is in the permanent bondage of his flesh, will not inherit the heavenly Jerusalem. This ties in with his assertion in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and with Jesus’ insistence that all of us who are born naturally as (physical) flesh (like Ishmael) must be born again, that is, undergo a spiritual birth from above, if we are to enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:1-8, cf. 1:13; 6:63). (4* The importance of the ordo salutis or order of salvation is important at this point. See my The Order of SalvationThe Order of Salvation in RomansCart-Before-The-Horse TheologyRedemption Applied (Order of Salvation)) Here, significantly, like Paul in Galatians, Jesus does not mention sin, but instead focuses on what we are as unprofitable flesh (John 1:13; 6:63) who emanate from the visible, temporary, manufactured and corruptible earth. Again by contrast, Augustine of Hippo, obsessed with sin as he was, taught that sin, and especially original sin, constituted the essence of this passage (cf. e.g. Needham, p.251, etc.). And even today many commentators and ordinary Christians wrongly follow his lead instead of that of, for example, Bishop Westcott (5* The Gospel of John, 1880, pp.50f., cf. L.L.Morris who stresses man’s earthiness p.219. We may compare this with Paul’s reference to the perishable man of dust in 1 Cor.15:47-49.). (It is worth adding here that Jesus’ argument in John 6:49 regarding the Israelites in the wilderness brings out the fact that perishable food, even manna from heaven (v.31), cannot sustain man eternally. Sin is not the only factor involved in death. See again below.)

But this passage from Galatians has more to teach us. Trying to spell it out as briefly as possible, I draw attention to the two covenants referred to in Paul’s anachronistic allegory (4:24). The only covenant in existence prior to Abraham was the covenant with Noah. After the flood which had threatened universal death, it guaranteed future natural, that is, physical or fleshly life but only until the plan of salvation was completed (Gen. 8:22, cf. Jer. 31:35-40; 33:19-26; Isa. 54:10). The animals in the ark were saved only to reproduce, propagate and then to die. In contrast, as a believer Noah was saved by his “baptism” which prefigured or heralded his regeneration (1 Pet. 3:21).

Now in contrast with Abraham and his son Isaac, no covenant was made with Ishmael, though both he (Gen. 17:20) and Hagar his mother were promised great fruitfulness (Gen. 16:10) under the covenant with Noah which still operates today (cf. Acts 14:16f.; 17:24ff.). On the other hand, the covenant of promise made with Abraham also embraced Isaac (Gen. 17:21; 26:2-5) and Jacob (Gen. 28:3f.) and indeed all Abraham’s spiritual seed (Gal. 3:14,29), though the sensual and faithless Esau repudiated it (Heb. 12:16f.). What this clearly implies is that just as there was no salvific covenant with the fleshly slave Ishmael, so at the beginning there was no covenant with creation or with Adam who also epitomized the flesh (1 Cor. 15:47-49). (6* See further my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?) The inference I draw from this is that just as the flesh is ultimately unprofitable (John 6:63, cf. 1:13; Rom. 7:18; 8:7f.,13; Gal. 6:7f.), so is the material creation from which it stems. Consequently, like the flesh (1 Cor. 6:13; 2 Cor. 5:1), once it has served its purpose, it is finally destroyed (Heb. 12:27). So, whatever Romans 8:18-25 teaches it certainly does not teach the redemption of creation, least of all from sin and curse. I conclude that the idea that Genesis 3:17-19 lies behind Paul’s thinking in Romans 8 is a figment of commentators’ imaginations.

According to Paul, then, so long as Ishmael as the representative of legalistic Jews is still allegorically at Mount Sinai in mortal flesh (2 Cor. 4:11, cf. Rom. 7:14), he is unable as such to attain to the heavenly Jerusalem by means of a faulty law (Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7), that cannot give life (Gal .3:21, cf. 2:21; 5:2-6). In fact, he along with the unbelieving Jews he represents (cf. Acts 15:1,5) is doomed to death, like a wild ass (Gen. 16:12), even apart from sin.

A third point can be made. Both the Romans and the Galatians passages stress freedom. Just as the law kept  those under it in bondage (Gal. 3:23, cf. Rom. 7:1-3,6), so does creation itself especially as flesh (Ps. 49: 12,20; Eccl. 3:18-21, cf. Gal. 6:8; Rom. 8:13), and just as we must escape from the law either by dying to it (Gal. 2:19; 5:1; Rom. 8:2, cf. 7:3) or by keeping it as Jesus did, so we must escape from the corruptible temporal creation by dying to it (Col. 3:1-5) and committing ourselves to Christ (Gal. 6:14, cf. 5:24; John 8:23; 1 John 2:15-17, contrast 2 Tim. 4:10). Failure to find this freedom means inevitable death as Adam was warned in Genesis 2:17. (7* See my Escape) Whereas Jesus escaped at his ascension transformation having in contrast with Adam kept the law, which promised life (Lev. 18:5), and achieved perfection, we, since we are incapable of keeping it (Gal. 2:16; 3:12), are forced to accept the salvation that he alone can offer (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Gal. 3:13f., etc.). In support of this we have only to consider such passages as Matthew 3:7-10 and especially John 8:31-59 where the difference between being merely the fleshly children of Abraham (like Ishmael) and his spiritual children (like Isaac) is stressed. Refusal to believe inevitably means that that we cannot be saved, for we are all fleshly sinners who have failed to keep the law which promised life (cf. Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22). Not for nothing did Jesus say that it is a natural necessity (not imperative) for us to be born again to enter the kingdom of God. Why? Because flesh and blood, as opposed to spirit, are intrinsically incapable of inheriting the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 15:50). (8* When Jesus died on the cross he committed his spirit to his Father, Luke 23:46, cf. v.43; John 19:30, but left his body in the tomb. When he rose again his spirit returned to his lifeless body as the spirit of the ruler’s daughter had done to her body when Jesus earlier raised her from the dead, Luke 8:55. In view of the fact that many nowadays erroneously insist that Jesus was glorified at his resurrection, it should also be carefully noted that when the latter was raised, at Jesus’ direction she was given something to eat. As flesh, Luke 24:39, Jesus also ate when he was raised, John 21:9-14; Acts 10:41.) As human beings made in the image of God we have to feed not merely on material bread but on the word of God to live forever (Mt. 4:4). (9* See further my Biblical Dualism) By contrast, animals which are only flesh, and sinless because they do not know the law (cf. Rom. 4:15), are by nature confined to perishable food even though it too is provided by God (Ps. 104:21, etc.). Ishmael, a wild ass of a man, is like them and the Israelites who, though fed by manna (cf. v.31), died in the wilderness (John 6:49, cf. Isa. 31:3). As we saw above, sin is not part of the picture. (10* It has to be said with great regret that the churches even today hold a false view of the order of salvation. Assuming original sin and regeneration as its cure a la Augustine, they have put the new birth first and hence have “sinful” babies baptized in order to regenerate them! Needless to say in this scenario, development or evolution and the perfecting process from flesh to spirit are hidden, even abolished, 1 Cor. 15:46. See further my articles on the order of salvation referred to above.)

It should further be noticed that both Romans 8:18-25 and Galatians 4:21-31 indicate the nature of the freedom that is anticipated in the age to come. In the Romans passage freedom involves adoption and invisible glory (vv.21,24f.); in Galatians it involves birth according to the Spirit and a place in the invisible heavenly Jerusalem. Clearly the two are one and the same and they are both attained by faith and not by sight (cf. 2 Cor. 5:6-8). Creation (Rom. 8:18-25) and its corollary the flesh (Col. 3:1-5) spell bondage and both are necessarily excluded.

I conclude then that these two factors, sin on the one hand and natural physical corruption on the other, are, though closely related, separate categories of permanent relevance and validity (cf. Job). To confuse flesh and spirit (1 Cor. 15:35-55) with sin and grace (Rom. 5:12-21) as the church has constantly done for centuries is to court theological disaster. In Romans 8:18-25, as in Galatians 4:21-31 (cf. John 3:1-8; 1 Cor. 15:42-55 and 2 Cor. 4:7-5:9), sin is not on the horizon: the focus of Paul’s attention is natural physical corruption followed by spiritual adoption/regeneration (cf. 1 Cor. 15:48f.), and to drag sin into the picture is eisegesis not exegesis. In Matthew 6:19f., Mark 13:8, Luke 12:33, 13:1-5, 16:9 (cf. 21:23,35), and so forth, Jesus clearly makes the same distinction. In these verses he focuses on both sin and the corruption naturally inherent in all created things, and these obviously include man according to the flesh (Isa. 45:11f.; 51:6; Heb. 1:10-12). (11* Natural corruption is surely the unmistakable implication of the comparison between Romans 1:20 and Hebrews 12:27.)

(4) Hope

Paul says that as the product of the temporal creation the creature was subjected by God to futility not on account of sin (which obviously could not occur until the commandment (law) had been given) but in hope (Rom. 8:20). That hope turns out to be an invisible (cf. Heb. 11:1), that is, a spiritual and hence an immaterial, hope (Rom. 8:24f.). In light of Romans 1:20 and Hebrews 12:27 this hope must be the better (Heb. 7:19) or living hope (1 Pet. 1:3) of sharing the heavenly glory of God (Rom. 5:2; 8:30; 2 Cor. 4:17; Gal. 5:5; Col. 1:5,27) where bodily corruption (decay) does not figure (Luke 20:34-36; 1 Pet. 1:4). Little wonder that Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:44 talks of a “spiritual” as opposed to a natural or physical body (cf. Luke 20:34-38; Rom. 8:23)! Along with the rest of the material creation (Zeph. 1:18; Heb. 1:11, etc.), the latter is in fact destroyed (1 Cor. 6:13; 2 Cor. 5:1, cf. Phil. 3:19; Rom. 16:18) by death and corruption on account of sin (Rom. 8:10) as Adam’s was when he failed to meet the condition of life by keeping the commandment (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5).

(5) Corruption and Incorruption

Creation has both a beginning (Gen. 1:1) and, because it is temporal, a necessary end (1 John 2:17; Rev. 21:1). The eternal God has neither (Job 36:26; Ps. 90:2; 102:27; Isa. 41:4; 48:12; 57:15; 66:1, cf. Isa. 43:10b; Heb. 7:3). So while the material creation is inherently perishable (Ps. 102:26), its Creator is imperishable (12* Rom. 1:23, Gk. The Greek is important since practically all English translations fail to translate Rom. 1:23; 2:7 and 2 Tim. 1:10 accurately.) In other words, visible created things (Rom. 1:20) are not only temporary, as Paul asserts explicitly in 2 Corinthians 4:18, but as such they are by nature shakable and will be removed (Heb. 12:27, cf. 2 Pet. 1:13f., Gk). Since God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29) and Christ himself will return in fire (2 Thes. 1:7f.; 2:8; Rev. 20:9) both to rescue and destroy (cf. Amos 4:11; Jude 23), the material cosmos will be subject to combustion quite apart from sin (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, and note also 1 Cor. 3:12-15; Heb. 6:7f., 12:27). Genesis 19:24,25 and 28 (cf. Luke 17:28-30) indicate that both  the inhabitants (cf.. Gen. 6:11-13 and “those who dwell on the earth” in the book of Revelation) and their habitat (cf. Heb. 6:7f.) were destroyed as in Revelation 6:14; 20:11; 21:1, etc.

In Luke 21:9,23 distress, which stems from earth’s natural corruption, is the necessary means by which God expresses his wrath against the people (cf. Hab. 3:8; Rev. 6:12-17; ch.16.). As the Jewish Book of Wisdom (5:17, JB) says, “He will arm creation to punish his enemies” (quoted by Wilcock, p.143). When the final storm comes those who have failed to build on the rock of the words of Christ (cf. Mt. 24:35) are doomed (Mt. 7:24-27).

In light of these arguments alone, I conclude that Romans 8:18-25, like 2 Corinthian 4:7-5:9 with which it corresponds (13* See my The Correspondence Between Romans 8:12-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10), has nothing to do with sin. Creation is naturally subject to decay and destruction quite apart from sin (Heb. 1:11), and since the corruptible (perishable) cannot inherit the incorruptible (imperishable) (1 Cor. 15:50b), English translations referring to ‘creation’ as opposed to ‘creature’  like the NIV and ESV currently in use in 2010 are highly misleading. (14* It must be added here that the NIV consistently translates ‘flesh’ as ‘sinful nature’ even in Romans 8:13 and Galatians 6:8. With its Augustinian bias, it clearly misses the point.) Referring to the ‘creation’ instead of the ‘creature’, they are by implication suggesting the redemption/transformation of the material ‘creation’ as opposed to the spiritual ‘creature’ made in the image of God. To that extent, they are denying the plain teaching of Scripture. It is not the ‘creation’ which includes the flesh, but the ‘creature’ as the image of God who will be set free from (escape from) its bondage to decay and exchange it for the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:21, 23, cf. John 8:32,36; 11:25f.; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Gal. 5:1; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2). The contrary view suggesting that creation is subject to adoption is, all else apart, plainly absurd. Furthermore, it flies in the face of typology and the escape of the children of Israel from ‘ruined’ Egypt (Ex. 10:7) to which they were under strict orders never to return (15* Dt. 17:16; 28:68, cf. Acts 13:34 on which see my No Return To Corruption). The old KJV translation is clearly correct at this point. As Jesus implied in Matthew 6:19f., 24:35, etc., the transience of all material things which is even recognized from time to time in the somewhat materialistic OT (e.g. Isa. 51:6; 54:10), is basic to the NT. Bluntly, the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50b). (16* See my Biblical Dualism)

There is a final point to make. The earth is obviously older (a significant word!) than man as both Genesis and modern scientific research plainly indicate (cf. Job 15:7, contrast Ps. 90:2; Prov. 8:25), and it was clearly subject to decay before corruptible man who emanated from it came on the scene. It had to produce perishable food for both man and animal in preparation for their arrival or they would have starved to death (Gen. l; John 6:31-58). Grass is a symbol of death throughout Scripture. If it is argued that vegetable death is different from animal death (nephesh), we have to reckon with the fact that Isaiah says all flesh is grass (40:6-8, cf. John 6:49). (17* In 1 Peter 1 in contrast with the word of the Lord, v.25, cf. vv.3f., reference is made to animal, vegetable and mineral death.) This being the case, sin was no more involved than when God fed the lions (Ps. 104:21, etc.). The Augustinian worldview is manifestly false and is clearly a perversion of biblical teaching. In fact, sin is alien to crucial passages like John 3:1-8, Romans 8:18-25, 1 Corinthians 15:35-55 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10 whose ‘obvious’ meaning many under the spell of Augustine distort. (18* On these see along with my “Correspondence” articles my WorldviewThe Biblical WorldviewDeath Before Genesis 3A Double HelpingDid Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?)

___________________________________________________________________

Notes

1. It is worth noting with regard to the physical/material creation that reference is made not to its redemption, purification by fire or transformation (except in the sense of replacement, e.g. Heb. 1:12), which according to Paul is impossible (1 Cor. 15:50b), but to the revelation, the appearance and the parousia (presence or arrival) of Christ when creation flees away (Rev. 20:11, cf. Dan 2:34f.,44f.).  The inference I draw from this is that the kingdom of the world is destroyed and replaced by the kingdom of our Lord (Rev. 11:15, cf. 21:1-5).  Perfection (maturity, completeness) has always been the goal or telos of man, and perfection is found in God alone (Mt. 5:48) whose throne is heaven. By contrast, the earth, over which man is called to exercise dominion, is his footstool (Mt. 5:34f.). (19* Physical perfection or maturity is of course achieved in this world but it is followed by the inevitable but natural ageing, decline and death of all created things, Rom. 1:20; Heb. 1:11; 12:27. Sin is not directly involved though it can be a potent exacerbating factor.) Jesus was our pioneer to a ‘remaining’, hence pre-existing, eternal and ‘unshakable’, glory (Col. 1:27; Heb. 2:10; 12:28, cf. John 17:5,24). In this scenario humans are given a spiritual, heavenly or glorious body like that of Jesus himself (Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49). So continuity is bodily not fleshly. Dunn accurately and succinctly sums up the situation when he says that soma can cross the boundary of the ages, whereas sarx belongs firmly to this present age (20* James Dunn, WBC Romans, p. 391, Theology, pp.70ff. In note 92 on p.71 of his Theology, Dunn writes, “Possibly … Paul assumed the transmutation of Jesus’ dead body into a spiritual body” a view with which I respectfully beg to differ and which in any case appears to depend on his false assessment of Romans 8:18-25, p.488, cf. pp.100f., WBC Romans pp. 470ff. In fact, his interpretation of Romans 8:18-25 is plainly at loggerheads with his understanding of the status of the flesh which he implicitly admits shares creation’s natural futility, p.391. What is true of the one is true of the other. My contention, in contrast with Dunn’s, is that since man as flesh shares in creation’s natural corruptibility and futility, Rom. 1:23, his pursuit of worthless things, Jer. 2:5,13; Rom. 1:21-23; Dt. 4:15-19; Luke 12:33f.; 16:9; 1 Pet. 1:18, etc., renders him worthless. Otherwise expressed, for man who is spirit, there is no final future in either creation or the fleshly creature. See further my essays listed below.). So far as the new heavens and new earth are concerned (Isa. 65:17ff.; 66:22ff.), they are not a new edition of the first (cf. Morris, Revelation, p.243). Since they are parallel with the new or heavenly Jerusalem which already exists (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22-24, etc.), this OT concept must be a periphrasis for heaven where righteousness permanently dwells (Mt. 6:10,33; 2 Pet. 3:13). And the hope of our righteousness (Gal. 5:5) through faith in Christ is heavenly glory.

2. One of the chief arguments for the redemption of creation popular today (2010) is the so-called resurrection transformation of Jesus. It can be briefly put as follows: If Jesus at his resurrection from the dead was glorified as earth-derived flesh, then it clearly follows that creation can likewise be glorified. The two ideas stand or fall together. Therefore, if the one proves false, so does the other. So, since the resurrected Jesus was physically visible, tangible and audible (1 John 1:1-3, cf. Heb. 12:18-21), we are compelled to conclude that he was not glorified (John 20:29; 2 Cor. 4:18). But once he was restored to his normal state as flesh (Luke 24:39, cf. John 10:17f.) thereby proving his physical resurrection, he was ready to be glorified at his ascension (John 20:17, cf. 1 Cor. 15:51f.).

What is written above demonstrates the falsity of the ‘resurrection’, transformation, rejuvenation, regeneration, salvation, redemption or repristination of creation as opposed to the spirit of man made in the image of God (John 3:1-8; 1 Pet. 1:9; 4:6; Heb. 12:23). Having said this, in these days of global warming, deforestation, loss of species and the like, we need to keep in mind the importance of healing and restoring creation in accordance with widespread OT teaching. After all, until we die we have to live here on earth and there is no reason why we should not do so as comfortably as is reasonably possible.

(I have sought to deny the resurrection/transformation/glorification of Jesus especially in my essays Re The Body of The Resurrected Jesus, Restoration and ResurrectionWhen Was Jesus Transformed?Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?Romans 8:18-25).

Two Questions

1. Galatians 4:27 (Isa. 54:1) surely leads to the conclusion that despite her physical infecundity, the children of the free woman, whose spiritual offspring are through faith made up of both Gentiles and Jews, are greater in number than the natural children of the slave woman. If this is so, can we draw the conclusion that at the last judgement the number of the saved (Rev. 7:9) will be greater than the number of the lost? Since even a little faith like that of a mustard seed is enough to remove mountains (Mt. 17:20; Mark 4:30-32), I remain optimistic on this issue believing that ultimately grace will outweigh sin (cf. Rom. 5:20). (On the order of salvation see my essays referred to above. The attempt to put regeneration first on account of original sin, which does not exist, has disastrous consequences for our understanding of the plan of salvation.)

2. As I write in July 2010 there is yet more evidence of disturbance in nature, this time in China and Pakistan. Though now that I am getting old and my reading is limited, I have come across very little by way of Christian comment on this type of thing. Perhaps this is because it is now recognized that to attribute natural disaster including global warming exclusively to sin, as has been the habit in the past, is both offensive and incredible to many. But on the assumption that disturbances in the physical realm, though often man-made as crimes and wars are, reflect in the main natural corruption, we do well to take note and reread the teaching of Jesus on the issue (e.g. Mt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 17:22-37; ch.21). They really may be signs, distresses (Luke 21:23, 34f.), birth pangs if you like (Mt. 24:8; Rom. 8:22, cf. John 16:21f.; 1 Thes. 5:3), of the end of the physical world, no matter how far away that final end may be.

There is another point: the kingdom of God, as described, for example, in Matthew 13:32, would appear to replace the heathen kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:12,21. (For comment see France, p.527, Bock, p.1226.) If so, little wonder that John wrote Revelation 11:15 (cf. Phil. 2:9-11). Furthermore, we do well to remember that God so loved the world (John 3:16), even if many, if not most, appear to reject his Son (John 1:10-13).

___________________________________________________________________

References

D.L.Bock, Luke, 9:51-24:53, Grand Rapids, 1996.

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

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

The Theology of Paul the Apostle, London/New York, 1998, 2003 ed.

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

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

Revelation, London, 1969.

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

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

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

Why and How We Must Be Born Again

The Fact
In John 3:1-8 Jesus maintains that the need to be born again is paramount. He insists that apart from the new birth it is impossible for anyone to enter the kingdom of God (= gain eternal life) which is the goal of man made in the image of God (Gen. 2:17, cf. John 3:3,5; Acts 14:22; Col. 1:13; 2 Pet. 1:11; 1 John 2:25). While all Christians who have reasonable understanding of the Bible realize that the way to gain eternal life is through faith in Jesus (John 3:16), prior to the preaching of the gospel Jesus himself made it plain that keeping the law to perfection was its indispensable precondition (Mt. 19:16, cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.). The issue requires clarification.
The Reason Why
Traditionally, under the prevailing influence of Augustine of Hippo it has been assumed in the churches that that the need for regeneration or eternal life arises because we are born sinful ‘in Adam’ and are hence doomed to eternal death under the wrath of God. (Romans 5:12 is traditionally held to teach this, but it has been long noted that the words ‘in Adam’ based on Augustine’s ‘in quo’ or ‘in whom’ are missing.) Thus the new birth conveyed even in infancy by baptism is regarded not simply as the antidote of the sins we personally commit but primarily of the original sin in which we are born. However, this poses a problem since in John 3:1-8 neither Jesus nor Nicodemus mentions sin which does not appear to be on their horizon. Rather, their emphasis falls exclusively on the flesh (though Augustine regarded even this as sinful) or on what man is physically by nature. Clearly the background of the new birth requires further exploration.
Christian Orthodoxy
According to Augustine by whom the church in the West has been so pervasively and deeply influenced, at the beginning God created a ‘good’ even perfect world (Gen. 1). Adam and Eve as those who were created in the image of God and called to exercise dominion over the rest of creation were assumed to be characterized by holiness, righteousness, perfection and even immortality by nature. Despite this, they mysteriously gave way to temptation, ‘fell’ into sin and thereby brought a curse on the very creation over which they were intended to exercise lordship. Against this backcloth it has been assumed that sin is the only problem to be overcome and hence the new birth has to all intents and purposes been  regarded as a moral imperative like repentance (Mark 1:15).
The Biblical Background
The Bible itself teaches something substantially different. For a start we must recognize that Augustine failed to appreciate that the meaning of the word ‘good’, even ‘very good’ (cf. Num. 14:7), in Genesis 1 was not ‘perfect’ but ‘serviceable’ or ‘useful’. (1* The material creation is said to be the work of God’s hands, Ps. 102:25, cf. Isa. 45:12; 48:13, etc. This in itself indicates its intrinsic imperfection, profanity or secularity, cf. Heb. 9:11,24.  See further my Manufactured or Not So at www.kenstothard.com /. ) In other words, he did not perceive that the visible creation was a temporary tool (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18, etc.) in the hands of God serving a purpose rather like Eve’s ‘apple’ which was good for food (Gen. 3:6, cf. 2:9,18). Since it had a beginning, it surely had to have an end (Genesis 1, Revelation 21f., cf. Heb. 1:10-12). This in itself constituted a problem for man who as dust or clay was clearly formed from the temporal earth and was by nature mortal and subject to corruption (cf. Job 10:8f., 2 Cor. 4:16-18, etc.). How could he who was himself naturally temporal and inherently imperfect like his material source gain eternal life and attain to glory (Gen. 1:26; Ps. 8:5)? Genesis 2:17, while significantly pointing up man’s mortality, supplies the answer. The condition he must meet is perfect obedience to the commandment which was the road to righteousness (cf. Rom. 2:13, etc.). Of course, a single commandment resembling a prohibition imposed by a parent on a child with diminished responsibility was all that was required to test the spiritually infantile Adam (cf. Dt. 8:2,16) who at the start knew neither good nor evil. However, as both physical and mental development took place so the greater became the requirements (cf. Luke 2:40-52; Mt. 3:15). In the end the entire law of Moses was to provide the test which man had to pass if he was to gain life (Lev. 18:5; Dt. 30:15-20, etc.). But as the OT itself makes abundantly plain, though the trans-generational condition of eternal life remained (Dt. 30:6; Jer. 31:33; 32:39-31, etc.) no one proved capable of meeting it (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3; Eccl. 7:20, etc.). And it was precisely this situation which made necessary the coming of Christ, the second or last Adam. It was he who was to achieve what all the natural offspring of the first Adam failed to do (1 Pet. 2:22, cf. Rom. 5:12) and thus fulfil the promise.
Jesus
In becoming incarnate or flesh Jesus’ primary objective was to do his Father’s will and to keep his commandments (Heb. 10:7). But to what end? Initially, his purpose was to achieve personal righteousness (cf. Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7), the precondition that Adam failed to meet. Ultimately of course Jesus’ intention was to save his people by giving them eternal life (cf. John 17:2f.), but in order to do this he himself had to be qualified as a genuine member of the race to whom the promise had originally been made (Gen. 2:17; Heb. 2:17f.). So whereas the first Adam disqualified himself by breaking the commandment and was paid wages in death, Jesus the man, the second Adam, succeeded in keeping all the commandments, the entire law in fact, and thereby gained eternal life for himself. Thus having met his Father’s requirements, as man he became his spiritual Son at his baptism (Mt. 3:13-17). In his case, who he was (ontology) was matched by what he did (function). Truly did his reception of and sealing with the Spirit (cf. John 6:27) at his baptism testify to the fact that he had kept the law to perfection. He had proved himself to be righteous by meeting the indispensable precondition of eternal life or regeneration (Lev. 18:5). So, once he had attained to eternal life as a man he was in a position to grant it to all his fellows who believed in him (cf. Heb. 2:10-13, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45). He did this, first, by dying on their behalf to achieve the forgiveness of their sins, and, secondly, he sent the Spirit to sanctify them (John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7) just as his Father had done for him. So, the redemption he had accomplished on the cross was then applied to those who put their trust in him.
The author of Hebrews explains that Jesus as the Son of God came into the world not to offer ineffective sacrifices according to the law but to do God’s will (cf. John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:29), ultimately by making the supreme sacrifice of his body once for all (Heb. 10:9f., cf. Rom. 8:3; 1 Pet. 3:18). Why was this so important?  The answer is that he had to do for man what all men had previously proved incapable of doing for themselves (cf. Mark 10:45). The blunt truth was that all sinned by breaking the law in some sense and came short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23; 5:12). Thus Jesus was crowned with glory and honour after suffering death on behalf of those who believed in him (Heb. 2:9). In further explanation and clarification our author maintains that it was fitting that God in bringing many sons to glory should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering (2:10) and thus make him a merciful high priest (2:17f.). Needless to say, this was a far cry from anything the first Adam achieved.
Jesus the Regenerate Son
The idea that Jesus himself had to attain to life and be born again in order to spearhead or pioneer salvation for the rest of mankind has not been exactly popular in the history of the church despite its clear implication in Hebrews 2. Obviously, if with Augustine we associate regeneration primarily with sin, the idea is anathema, for Jesus, as is acknowledged by all, was sinless (1 Pet. 2:22, cf. Mt. 3:14). But if he was truly incarnate and John 3:1-8 does not allow for exceptions, even though he was the physical Son of God as the virgin birth implied (cf. Luke 3:38; Heb. 10:5), Jesus must have been born again too.
So, assuming what I have suggested above is correct, we must expect it to be supported elsewhere in the New Testament.
Galatians 3
First, we need to recognize that Jesus’ own baptismal reception of the Spirit which was the consequence of his keeping the law is implied whenever the apostle discusses the salvation of all others. When he states categorically in Galatians 2:16 that no one (Gk flesh, cf. 1 Cor. 1:29) will be justified by works of the law, Paul implies not only that ordinary men and women are incapable of attaining to righteousness by obedience (cf. Rom. 3:19f.; Gal. 2:16; Tit. 3:5) but also that they need Jesus to supply for them what Luther called an ‘alien righteousness’. What is more, it is vital to appreciate that justification (getting right with God) precedes regeneration in the order of salvation. This truth becomes evident when he asks his readers specifically in Galatians 3:2 whether they received the Spirit, that is, eternal life by the works of the law as we noted above that Jesus had done or by hearing with faith (cf. Rom. 10:17). Again in 3:5 he implies that faith in Jesus (and hence justification), not the works of the law, occurs before the granting of the Spirit (cf. Lev. 18:5). Now, since it is accepted universally among Protestants that we are justified by faith, it follows that justification or righteousness precedes regeneration and is not its fruit. To re-iterate what was asserted above, righteousness is the indispensable prerequisite of life as Scripture plainly teaches (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). In any case, plain logic should teach us that to be born again, that is, granted the Spirit and eternal life before we are justified or accounted righteous would mean that we would be eternally characterized by sin (cf. Rev. 22:11). This idea is implicitly repudiated in Genesis 3:22-24.
Reformed and Evangelical Theology
Strangely this latter inference is denied especially in Reformed circles. The classic Calvinist view which is enshrined in the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, is plainly Augustinian. Here original sin, despite its patently unbiblical nature (2* On this see my articles relating to original sin, including An Exact Parallel, Imputation, J.I.Packer on Original Sin, etc.), looms so large that the new birth is called in to overcome it even in infancy. (3* Catholics believe in regeneration by means of baptism and are unquestionably more consistent at this point than Protestants who baptize infants but usually deny their regeneration. Protestant failure to deal adequately with baptism at the Reformation continues to cause trouble in the Christian camp to this day. See further my articles Concerning Infant Salvation, Regarding The Baptism of Jesus, Baptism Revisited.) In this scheme of things it is little wonder that the doctrines of election and predestination play such an important role and logically undermine man’s responsibility. It has been traditionally held, for example, that elect infants can be saved apart from faith and justification, (see Westminster Confession of Faith, ch.10.3). However, according to Scripture, while both faith (Eph. 2:8) and repentance (conversion) leading to life (Acts 11:18; 2 Cor. 7:10) are said to be the gift of God, they are nonetheless gifts that man must exercise (cf. Phil. 2:12f.) on pain of death (Luke 13:5). Here divine sovereignty and human responsibility clearly harmonize even if we have difficulty in understanding exactly how. And it is important that they do since, while it is beyond dispute that regeneration (cf. physical birth) is exclusively the work of God, a clear example of divine monergism, salvation does not dispense with human accountability (synergism).
Why?
But why is the new birth so vitally necessary if sin is not the reason as John 3 surely implies? (4* It is important here it recognize that the new birth does indeed have an important role in overcoming sin. On the assumption that regeneration is the first step in sanctification, then along with the work of the Spirit in general it plays its part in combating the works of the flesh in the justified sinner. See, for example, Romans 8:11, Galatians 5:22-25, Titus 3:4-8, etc.) The answer to this question is given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 and is succinctly summarized in verse 50. Here the apostle maintains that the flesh (dust), as opposed to the spirit, by its very nature as created by God from the corruptible earth is quite incapable of inheriting eternal life. Once we see this we gain insight into the meaning of other texts, not least Romans 8:18-25 (5* On this passage see my article.) where Paul teaches that the temporal material creation as such, and hence the creature which derives from it, was subjected to the futility of corruption (decay) from the start. And the reason he gives for this is that God always had in mind something better than earthly life in the flesh for the creatures made in his image. His plan from the foundation of the world was to give them an invisible hope (Rom. 8:24f.), the hope of glory (Col. 1:27), in fact to make them his children and joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:14-17; Eph. 1:4f.; 1 John 3:1-3).
Jesus
In further support of this we have only to consider Jesus. It is clearly taught in Scripture that having died for the sins of his people he was physically raised from the dead, never to die again (Rom. 6:9, cf. Acts 2:23f.). Since by keeping the law he had gained immortality (6* As the acknowledged Son, Jesus was of course spiritually immortal (regenerate) after his baptism but he freely laid down his life (psyche) for his sheep, John 10; 1 Pet. 3:18, etc.), it is possible to infer that he should literally have rebuilt David’s tent (Acts 15:16) and established his eternal throne on earth (Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Luke 1:32f., etc.). In the event he did nothing of the sort. Rather he ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of the throne of God (Heb. 1:13; Rev. 3:21, etc.). Why? The answer to this question is obviously that as corruptible (perishable) flesh himself operating in a temporal corruptible creation (Gen. 1:1, cf. Rom. 8:18-25) he had of necessity to return to the eternal world from which he had originally emanated and regain the glory he enjoyed prior to his incarnation (John 17:5,24). To do this he had to undergo the change that Paul says is universally necessary if man is to reign forever in the presence of God (1 Cor. 15:51ff.). (6* See further my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.) Thus it is of the essence of Paul’s gospel that Jesus abolished death and brought life and incorruption (Gk) to light (2 Tim. 1:10).
On reflection Jesus had implied this himself not merely in John 3 but in John 11, for example, when he paradoxically told Mary that though we die yet shall we live. Jesus’ audience was every bit as aware as we ourselves are that when we die we undergo permanent physical decay, decomposition and disintegration (Acts 13:36, cf. John 11:39). Since physical rebirth (re-entering our mother’s wombs, cf. John 3:4) is impossible, the unavoidable conclusion we draw from this is that we are raised spiritually even as we are born again spiritually and given what the apostle calls spiritual (1 Cor. 15:43-53) or glorified bodies like that of Jesus (Phil. 3:21, cf. Rom. 8:23).
Conclusion
Without categorically denying that the new birth relates to sin to some degree (Eph. 2:1-10; Tit. 3:3-8), I conclude that its prime purpose is to prepare us for heaven and eternity as purified or perfected spirits (Heb. 12:23; 1 Pet.4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4; cf. 1 Pet. 1:3f.; 3:4). Thus regeneration is the pearl of great price. In the words of Peter, Christ suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous in order to bring us to God (1 Pet. 3:18, cf. Heb. 2:10). If access to God is possible for us by prayer in this world (Eph. 2:18; 3:12), how much more is it in the world to come (John 14:2f.; Rev. 22:1-5, etc.). But this access can only be achieved by meeting God’s condition, that is, perfect holiness and righteousness (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 6:1). Since this is beyond our personal capabilities, all human beings made in the image of God are compelled as sinners to rely on Christ (Heb. 9:14) who alone achieved perfection (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28) and pioneered our way into the divine presence (Acts 2:33; 5:31; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:19,25; 9:11f.,24; Rev. 3:21) in a body of glory (Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:42-49; Rev. 3:21). Truly may it be said that no one comes to the Father but by him (14:6).
(In case it is assumed that only specific faith in Christ will bring ultimate salvation, it must be remembered that faith in God and his promises was exercised long before Jesus came into the world. So while full salvation eluded all who preceded him, nonetheless, since his atonement covered all history, cf. 1 John 2:2, all who exercised faith before his coming, cf. Heb. 11, will nonetheless find a place in heaven. Along with Abraham, and even John the Baptist, cf. Mt. 3:14, who preceded Christ chronologically in this world, there will be many who exercised a faith like his, Mt. 8:11. While like him they fell short of perfection, they will nonetheless be ultimately perfected along with all the rest, Heb. 11:39f. The order of salvation, see my The Order of Salvation, etc., at www.kenstothard.com /, which begins with repentance and faith, not regeneration as has been traditionally held, is of prime importance at this point.)

The Fact

In John 3:1-8 Jesus maintains that the need to be born again is paramount. He insists that apart from the new birth it is impossible for anyone to enter the kingdom of God (= gain eternal life) which is the goal of man made in the image of God (Gen. 2:17, cf. John 3:3,5; Acts 14:22; Col. 1:13; 2 Pet. 1:11; 1 John 2:25). While all Christians who have reasonable understanding of the Bible realize that the way to gain eternal life is through faith in Jesus (John 3:16), prior to the preaching of the gospel Jesus himself made it plain that keeping the law to perfection was its indispensable precondition (Mt. 19:16, cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.). The issue requires clarification.

The Reason Why

Traditionally, under the prevailing influence of Augustine of Hippo it has been assumed in the churches that that the need for regeneration or eternal life arises because we are born sinful ‘in Adam’ and are hence doomed to eternal death under the wrath of God. (Romans 5:12 is traditionally held to teach this, but it has been long noted that the words ‘in Adam’ based on Augustine’s ‘in quo’ or ‘in whom’ are missing.) Thus the new birth conveyed even in infancy by baptism is regarded not simply as the antidote of the sins we personally commit but primarily of the original sin in which we are born. However, this poses a problem since in John 3:1-8 neither Jesus nor Nicodemus mentions sin which does not appear to be on their horizon. Rather, their emphasis falls exclusively on the flesh (though Augustine regarded even this as sinful) or on what man is physically by nature. Clearly the background of the new birth requires further exploration.

Christian Orthodoxy

According to Augustine by whom the church in the West has been so pervasively and deeply influenced, at the beginning God created a ‘good’ even perfect world (Gen. 1). Adam and Eve as those who were created in the image of God and called to exercise dominion over the rest of creation were assumed to be characterized by holiness, righteousness, perfection and even immortality by nature. Despite this, they mysteriously gave way to temptation, ‘fell’ into sin and thereby brought a curse on the very creation over which they were intended to exercise lordship. Against this backcloth it has been assumed that sin is the only problem to be overcome and hence the new birth has to all intents and purposes been  regarded as a moral imperative like repentance (Mark 1:15).

The Biblical Background

The Bible itself teaches something substantially different. For a start we must recognize that Augustine failed to appreciate that the meaning of the word ‘good’, even ‘very good’ (cf. Num. 14:7), in Genesis 1 was not ‘perfect’ but ‘serviceable’ or ‘useful’. (1* The material creation is said to be the work of God’s hands, Ps. 102:25, cf. Isa. 45:12; 48:13, etc. This in itself indicates its intrinsic imperfection, profanity or secularity, cf. Heb. 9:11,24.  See further my Manufactured Or Not So ) In other words, he did not perceive that the visible creation was a temporary tool (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18, etc.) in the hands of God serving a purpose rather like Eve’s ‘apple’ which was good for food (Gen. 3:6, cf. 2:9,18). Since it had a beginning, it surely had to have an end (Genesis 1, Revelation 21f., cf. Heb. 1:10-12). This in itself constituted a problem for man who as dust or clay was clearly formed from the temporal earth and was by nature mortal and subject to corruption (cf. Job 10:8f., 2 Cor. 4:16-18, etc.). How could he who was himself naturally temporal and inherently imperfect like his material source gain eternal life and attain to glory (Gen. 1:26; Ps. 8:5)? Genesis 2:17, while significantly pointing up man’s mortality, supplies the answer. The condition he must meet is perfect obedience to the commandment which was the road to righteousness (cf. Rom. 2:13, etc.). Of course, a single commandment resembling a prohibition imposed by a parent on a child with diminished responsibility was all that was required to test the spiritually infantile Adam (cf. Dt. 8:2,16) who at the start knew neither good nor evil. However, as both physical and mental development took place so the greater became the requirements (cf. Luke 2:40-52; Mt. 3:15). In the end the entire law of Moses was to provide the test which man had to pass if he was to gain life (Lev. 18:5; Dt. 30:15-20, etc.). But as the OT itself makes abundantly plain, though the trans-generational condition of eternal life remained (Dt. 30:6; Jer. 31:33; 32:39-31, etc.) no one proved capable of meeting it (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3; Eccl. 7:20, etc.). And it was precisely this situation which made necessary the coming of Christ, the second or last Adam. It was he who was to achieve what all the natural offspring of the first Adam failed to do (1 Pet. 2:22, cf. Rom. 5:12) and thus fulfil the promise.

Jesus

In becoming incarnate or flesh Jesus’ primary objective was to do his Father’s will and to keep his commandments (Heb. 10:7). But to what end? Initially, his purpose was to achieve personal righteousness (cf. Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7), the precondition that Adam failed to meet. Ultimately of course Jesus’ intention was to save his people by giving them eternal life (cf. John 17:2f.), but in order to do this he himself had to be qualified as a genuine member of the race to whom the promise had originally been made (Gen. 2:17; Heb. 2:17f.). So whereas the first Adam disqualified himself by breaking the commandment and was paid wages in death, Jesus the man, the second Adam, succeeded in keeping all the commandments, the entire law in fact, and thereby gained eternal life for himself. Thus having met his Father’s requirements, as man he became his spiritual Son at his baptism (Mt. 3:13-17). In his case, who he was (ontology) was matched by what he did (function). Truly did his reception of and sealing with the Spirit (cf. John 6:27) at his baptism testify to the fact that he had kept the law to perfection. He had proved himself to be righteous by meeting the indispensable precondition of eternal life or regeneration (Lev. 18:5). So, once he had attained to eternal life as a man he was in a position to grant it to all his fellows who believed in him (cf. Heb. 2:10-13, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45). He did this, first, by dying on their behalf to achieve the forgiveness of their sins, and, secondly, he sent the Spirit to sanctify them (John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7) just as his Father had done for him. So, the redemption he had accomplished on the cross was then applied to those who put their trust in him.

The author of Hebrews explains that Jesus as the Son of God came into the world not to offer ineffective sacrifices according to the law but to do God’s will (cf. John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:29), ultimately by making the supreme sacrifice of his body once for all (Heb. 10:9f., cf. Rom. 8:3; 1 Pet. 3:18). Why was this so important?  The answer is that he had to do for man what all men had previously proved incapable of doing for themselves (cf. Mark 10:45). The blunt truth was that all sinned by breaking the law in some sense and came short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23; 5:12). Thus Jesus was crowned with glory and honour after suffering death on behalf of those who believed in him (Heb. 2:9). In further explanation and clarification our author maintains that it was fitting that God in bringing many sons to glory should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering (2:10) and thus make him a merciful high priest (2:17f.). Needless to say, this was a far cry from anything the first Adam achieved.

Jesus the Regenerate Son

The idea that Jesus himself had to attain to life and be born again in order to spearhead or pioneer salvation for the rest of mankind has not been exactly popular in the history of the church despite its clear implication in Hebrews 2. Obviously, if with Augustine we associate regeneration primarily with sin, the idea is anathema, for Jesus, as is acknowledged by all, was sinless (1 Pet. 2:22, cf. Mt. 3:14). But if he was truly incarnate and John 3:1-8 does not allow for exceptions, even though he was the physical Son of God as the virgin birth implied (cf. Luke 3:38; Heb. 10:5), Jesus must have been born again too.

So, assuming what I have suggested above is correct, we must expect it to be supported elsewhere in the New Testament.

Galatians 3

First, we need to recognize that Jesus’ own baptismal reception of the Spirit which was the consequence of his keeping the law is implied whenever the apostle discusses the salvation of all others. When he states categorically in Galatians 2:16 that no one (Gk flesh, cf. 1 Cor. 1:29) will be justified by works of the law, Paul implies not only that ordinary men and women are incapable of attaining to righteousness by obedience (cf. Rom. 3:19f.; Gal. 2:16; Tit. 3:5) but also that they need Jesus to supply for them what Luther called an ‘alien righteousness’. What is more, it is vital to appreciate that justification (getting right with God) precedes regeneration in the order of salvation. This truth becomes evident when he asks his readers specifically in Galatians 3:2 whether they received the Spirit, that is, eternal life by the works of the law as we noted above that Jesus had done or by hearing with faith (cf. Rom. 10:17). Again in 3:5 he implies that faith in Jesus (and hence justification), not the works of the law, occurs before the granting of the Spirit (cf. Lev. 18:5). Now, since it is accepted universally among Protestants that we are justified by faith, it follows that justification or righteousness precedes regeneration and is not its fruit. To re-iterate what was asserted above, righteousness is the indispensable prerequisite of life as Scripture plainly teaches (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). In any case, plain logic should teach us that to be born again, that is, granted the Spirit and eternal life before we are justified or accounted righteous would mean that we would be eternally characterized by sin (cf. Rev. 22:11). This idea is implicitly repudiated in Genesis 3:22-24.

Reformed and Evangelical Theology

Strangely this latter inference is denied especially in Reformed circles. The classic Calvinist view which is enshrined in the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, is plainly Augustinian. Here original sin, despite its patently unbiblical nature (2* On this see my articles relating to original sin, including An Exact Parallel?ImputationJ.I.Packer on Original Sin, etc.), looms so large that the new birth is called in to overcome it even in infancy. (3* Catholics believe in regeneration by means of baptism and are unquestionably more consistent at this point than Protestants who baptize infants but usually deny their regeneration. Protestant failure to deal adequately with baptism at the Reformation continues to cause trouble in the Christian camp to this day. See further my articles Concerning Infant SalvationRegarding the Baptism of JesusBaptism Revisited) In this scheme of things it is little wonder that the doctrines of election and predestination play such an important role and logically undermine man’s responsibility. It has been traditionally held, for example, that elect infants can be saved apart from faith and justification, (see Westminster Confession of Faith, ch.10.3). However, according to Scripture, while both faith (Eph. 2:8) and repentance (conversion) leading to life (Acts 11:18; 2 Cor. 7:10) are said to be the gift of God, they are nonetheless gifts that man must exercise (cf. Phil. 2:12f.) on pain of death (Luke 13:5). Here divine sovereignty and human responsibility clearly harmonize even if we have difficulty in understanding exactly how. And it is important that they do since, while it is beyond dispute that regeneration (cf. physical birth) is exclusively the work of God, a clear example of divine monergism, salvation does not dispense with human accountability (synergism).

Why?

But why is the new birth so vitally necessary if sin is not the reason as John 3 surely implies? (4* It is important here it recognize that the new birth does indeed have an important role in overcoming sin. On the assumption that regeneration is the first step in sanctification, then along with the work of the Spirit in general it plays its part in combating the works of the flesh in the justified sinner. See, for example, Romans 8:11, Galatians 5:22-25, Titus 3:4-8, etc.) The answer to this question is given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 and is succinctly summarized in verse 50. Here the apostle maintains that the flesh (dust), as opposed to the spirit, by its very nature as created by God from the corruptible earth is quite incapable of inheriting eternal life. Once we see this we gain insight into the meaning of other texts, not least Romans 8:18-25 (5* On this passage see my article Romans 8:18-25) where Paul teaches that the temporal material creation as such, and hence the creature which derives from it, was subjected to the futility of corruption (decay) from the start. And the reason he gives for this is that God always had in mind something better than earthly life in the flesh for the creatures made in his image. His plan from the foundation of the world was to give them an invisible hope (Rom. 8:24f.), the hope of glory (Col. 1:27), in fact to make them his children and joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:14-17; Eph. 1:4f.; 1 John 3:1-3).

Jesus

In further support of this we have only to consider Jesus. It is clearly taught in Scripture that having died for the sins of his people he was physically raised from the dead, never to die again (Rom. 6:9, cf. Acts 2:23f.). Since by keeping the law he had gained immortality (6* As the acknowledged Son, Jesus was of course spiritually immortal (regenerate) after his baptism but he freely laid down his life (psyche) for his sheep, John 10; 1 Pet. 3:18, etc.), it is possible to infer that he should literally have rebuilt David’s tent (Acts 15:16) and established his eternal throne on earth (Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Luke 1:32f., etc.). In the event he did nothing of the sort. Rather he ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of the throne of God (Heb. 1:13; Rev. 3:21, etc.). Why? The answer to this question is obviously that as corruptible (perishable) flesh himself operating in a temporal corruptible creation (Gen. 1:1, cf. Rom. 8:18-25) he had of necessity to return to the eternal world from which he had originally emanated and regain the glory he enjoyed prior to his incarnation (John 17:5,24). To do this he had to undergo the change that Paul says is universally necessary if man is to reign forever in the presence of God (1 Cor. 15:51ff.). (7* See further my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities) Thus it is of the essence of Paul’s gospel that Jesus abolished death and brought life and incorruption (Gk) to light (2 Tim. 1:10).

On reflection Jesus had implied this himself not merely in John 3 but in John 11, for example, when he paradoxically told Mary that though we die yet shall we live. Jesus’ audience was every bit as aware as we ourselves are that when we die we undergo permanent physical decay, decomposition and disintegration (Acts 13:36, cf. John 11:39). Since physical rebirth (re-entering our mother’s wombs, cf. John 3:4) is impossible, the unavoidable conclusion we draw from this is that we are raised spiritually even as we are born again spiritually and given what the apostle calls spiritual (1 Cor. 15:43-53) or glorified bodies like that of Jesus (Phil. 3:21, cf. Rom. 8:23).

Conclusion

Without categorically denying that the new birth relates to sin to some degree (Eph. 2:1-10; Tit. 3:3-8), I conclude that its prime purpose is to prepare us for heaven and eternity as purified or perfected spirits (Heb. 12:23; 1 Pet.4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4; cf. 1 Pet. 1:3f.; 3:4). Thus regeneration is the pearl of great price. In the words of Peter, Christ suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous in order to bring us to God (1 Pet. 3:18, cf. Heb. 2:10). If access to God is possible for us by prayer in this world (Eph. 2:18; 3:12), how much more is it in the world to come (John 14:2f.; Rev. 22:1-5, etc.). But this access can only be achieved by meeting God’s condition, that is, perfect holiness and righteousness (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 6:1). Since this is beyond our personal capabilities, all human beings made in the image of God are compelled as sinners to rely on Christ (Heb. 9:14) who alone achieved perfection (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28) and pioneered our way into the divine presence (Acts 2:33; 5:31; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:19,25; 9:11f.,24; Rev. 3:21) in a body of glory (Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:42-49; Rev. 3:21). Truly may it be said that no one comes to the Father but by him (14:6).

(In case it is assumed that only specific faith in Christ will bring ultimate salvation, it must be remembered that faith in God and his promises was exercised long before Jesus came into the world. So while full salvation eluded all who preceded him, nonetheless, since his atonement covered all history, cf. 1 John 2:2, all who exercised faith before his coming, cf. Heb. 11, will nonetheless find a place in heaven. Along with Abraham, and even John the Baptist, cf. Mt. 3:14, who preceded Christ chronologically in this world, there will be many who exercised a faith like his, Mt. 8:11. While like him they fell short of perfection, they will nonetheless be ultimately perfected along with all the rest, Heb. 11:39f. The order of salvation, see my The Order of Salvation, which begins with repentance and faith, not regeneration as has been traditionally held, is of prime importance at this point.)

Some Arguments Against Original Sin

 

 

First, there is general agreement among evangelicals at the moment (2006) that the best commentaries on Romans are those of Moo and Schreiner. The standard view among Protestants is that Adam’s sin was imputed to all his descendants, but Moo admits that Paul does not make explicit “how the sin of one man, Adam, has resulted in death for all” (except Jesus) (pp.323,328 n.61, cf. Murray, p.71).

 

Second, according to Scripture sin is defined as transgression of (the covenant of) law or commandment (Dt. 17:2; Jos. 7:11; 1 Sam. 15:24; Neh. 1:6f.; 9:26,29f.,34; Dan. 9:5,10f.; Jas. 2:9-11; 4:17; 1 John 3:4; . 5:17, etc.). This of course was implied in Genesis 2:17. Paul elaborates on this in Romans. First, he says that where there is no law there is no sin (4:15, cf. 5:13), and then proceeds to draw the conclusion that sin depends on law for its very existence (note 7:1-13. I would argue that this is what he is saying in 7:5, but this verse really needs separate treatment since modern translations suggest that the law ‘arouses’ sin, though this is certainly not in the Greek text.). This view would appear to be confirmed by 1 Corinthians 15:56 where he tells us that the law is the power of sin. And again in Galatians 5:23 he pointedly avers that the fruits of the Spirit are legitimate since there is no law against them!

 

When I was at university I remember one lecturer in philosophy telling us that it was a philosophical principle that where there is no knowledge (or law), there is no guilt. The same holds true in the Bible. Jesus tells us in John 9:41, 15:22 and 24 that if he had not spoken to and performed his works before those who opposed him, they would not be sinful. But in view of his words and actions they had no excuse (cf. 9:41). In Romans 1:18-32 Paul says the rejection of truth and knowledge by the heathen left them without excuse too (v.20, cf. 2:1). Since partial, as opposed to culpable, ignorance is always a mitigating factor in Scripture (see e.g. Mt. 11:20-24; Lu. 12:48, etc.), the total ignorance of babies implies total mitigation. While the term ‘diminished responsibility’ does not appear in the Bible, the concept certainly does. Again I conclude that sin is impossible where there is no law.

 

Third, in confirmation of all this we might note that at the beginning Adam and Eve knew neither good nor evil. It was only after they had been given the commandment and broken it that their state of innocence and ‘life’ became one of sinfulness and death. And it was on that account that they were ejected from the Garden of Eden and by implication excluded from heaven (Gen. 3:22-24). In other words, they became subject to death both physically and spiritually. From that point on they were dependent on the divine promise of Genesis 3:15. Justification is always by faith. Even though Jesus himself kept the law, it is quite plain that as a true son of Abraham he lived by faith (cf. Rom. 3:31).

 

Fourth, the experience of Adam and Eve is clearly paradigmatic in that it is true of all human beings in their childhood as texts like Deuteronomy 1:39, Numbers 14:3,29-35, 1 Kings 3:7, Isaiah 7:15f. and Hebrews 5:12-14 indicate (cf. also Ezek. 28:13-15). We are all born knowing neither good nor evil. Then like Adam and Eve we break the commandments of our parents. (Only one is referred to in Genesis, i.e. 2:17, but, as James was later to indicate, one is enough, 2:10, cf. Gal. 5:3.) Later, like the Jews who were uniquely under the law of Moses (Dt. 4:32-40; Ps. 147:19f.), we are subjected to extended teaching at (Sunday) school, for example (cf. Ps. 78:5-8). Eventually we experience the call of the gospel and achieve maturity in Christ. This is essentially the picture painted by Paul in Galatians 3:23-4:7. But as he makes clear in Galatians 3:22 (cf. Rom. 11:32), it is the law which promises life that consigns us to sin since we can’t keep it (Rom 3:19f.). In effect, he has already said the same in 2:16 where he states that no man (no flesh) will be justified by the works of the law (cf. 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 3:10f.).

 

Scripture also makes it evident that Jesus was a true human being and to that extent he was flesh (Heb. 2, etc.). If we accept Isaiah 7:15f. as a reference to him, he too as a baby knew neither good nor evil since he did not know (the) law. But in order to become righteous and gain life he had to keep not only his parents’ commandments (cf. Luke 2:51) but the entire law (cf. Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7). And it was only after he had received the approval of his heavenly Father under the law that he received the Spirit and eternal life (Mt. 3:13-17). How was it then that he who was flesh succeeded in keeping the law in the flesh (Rom. 8:3, cf. Heb. 2; James 3:2)? There can be only one answer: he was the Son of God. He fulfilled the prophecies of the OT which indicated that God himself would save his people (see e.g. Isa. 45:22f.; 59:16, etc.), and he clearly did this in Christ who was the pioneer and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2).

 

It might be pointed out at this juncture that while small children or little ones are apparently regarded as innocent in Scripture (see refs. above), it is noticeable that we are said to sin in our youth (Gen. 8:21; Job 13:26; Ps. 25:7, cf. Eph. 2:3; 4:14; 2 Tim. 2:22; Tit. 3:3 and Jer. 3:25, 31:19 and 32:20 re Israel). It is quite obvious that Psalm 58:3, like Job 31:18, involves hyperbole, since babies can’t speak lies. Arguably the same holds of Psalm 51:5 where the rest of the Psalm implies personal responsibility. In any case, unless David’s mother was sinless, as RC’s say Mary was, his mother certainly did conceive him in sin. Only a highly questionable translation like that of the NIV and of the NRSV (contrast RSV, ESV) suggests that David himself was born sinful. (It is interesting to note that Jesus refers to evil parents giving good gifts to their children, Luke 11:13.) The implication is, of course, that children receive both good and evil from all their forebears, cf. Abraham in Gen. 26:3-5, who was also evil, ungodly according to Paul in Rom. 4:5. If Deuteronomy 24:16, etc. is true and neither sin nor righteousness can be inherited, the inheritance of children is evil parents! And this has always been the case since Adam and Eve who alone were without a parental moral inheritance. There is a hint of this in Hebrews 12:9.)

 

Sixth, again according to Scripture death is the wages of sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23). So if babies die, it cannot be because of sin since it is universally admitted that they haven’t committed any. If we say that the sin of Adam is imputed to them (Rom. 5:12), we have to remember that imputation excludes wages (Rom. 4:1-5). On the other hand, if we say with Romans Catholics that sin is transmitted, it is difficult to see how Jesus avoided it even if “carnal concupiscence” was not involved. The RC solution is to sanctify Mary with the unbiblical dogma of the immaculate conception, i.e. she was born sinless. But if that is so, we have to ask how she managed this. In other words, we are caught up in a process of infinite regress, which is both absurd and contradictory, since if we follow its logic to its conclusion, we are left with a sinless Eve!

 

Seventh, the Bible says time and time again that it is the soul that sins that dies (Ex. 32:33; Ezek. 18, etc.), again implying that death is the wages of sin. Even the heathen Pilate was concerned to know what Jesus had actually DONE to deserve death (see Luke 23:4,14f.,22 and note 40f.,47,51). There are many references in Scripture, especially in 1 & 2 Samuel and Acts, indicating that death has to be deserved. It is the result or wages of what is actually done (cf. 1 Tim. 5:18).

 

Following on from this, judgement throughout Scripture is always on the basis of works (Job 34:11; Ps. 62:12; Ezel. 7:3,8f.,27; Rom. 2:2-11; 2 Cor. 5:10, etc.). The problem here is that babies are incapable of works and imputed sin is by definition not a work (Rom. 4:1-5) which can earn wages (cf. Rom. 6:23). So the only conclusion we can safely draw is that they won’t come into judgement, let alone be damned for sinning “in Adam” as Augustine maintained.

 

Scripture also lays it down that the son cannot be punished for the sins of the father (Dt. 24:16; 2 K. 14:6; 2 Chr. 25:4) as was implied by Dt. 1:39 and Numbers 14:3,29-35, etc. referred to above. But traditionalists maintain that babies die because they sinned “in Adam”!

 

I have yet to read exegesis of verses like Romans 5:12 or Psalm 51:5 which convincingly demonstrates that original sin is propounded by the Bible. The plain truth is that the church, though not the Jews or the Orthodox, inherited Augustine’s false understanding of Romans 5:12, based on an inadequate Latin text and canonised it. It is high time that the dogma was seen for what it is and rejected once and for all.

 

 

Finally, it is sometimes claimed that there is no other way of accounting for universal sinfulness if original sin is rejected. This is an astonishing claim, for, first, original sin cannot account for the sin of Adam and Eve, and, second, their sin, being prototypical and paradigmatic, accounts for its repetition in all their offspring who are made in their image (Gen. 5:1-3, cf. Isa. 24:2 and like mother like daughter, and implicitly like father like son, Ezek. 16:44. I am not unaware, and certainly not seeking to deny, as Pelagius did, that in Romans 5:12ff. Paul is saying more is involved than mere repetition. But so did Isaiah 65:6f. and Jeremiah 14:20; 16:10-12; 32:18f.). And this is precisely what the NT writers imply. Among a wealth of material I would refer simply to one verse, Romans 7:14. Paul, having already stated that there was a time when like Adam (1* Moo (pp.437ff.) disputes this but in my judgement without conviction. He claims that Paul is referring to the tenth commandment (as he certainly is in verse 7). His assertion that Paul was relatively alive (!) until he became responsible for keeping the law of Moses is belied by his repeated contention that all, including Paul, having sinned in Adam are dead in him (pp.326,364,394, etc.). I humbly suggest that unlike faith, life is not relative. One is, in the final analysis, either alive or dead. According to Scripture, we die not in Adam’s sin but in our own (Ezek. 33:8-10; John 8:24; Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 2:13). (If it is argued that we die “in Adam”, 1 Cor. 15:22, it needs to be pointed out that in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is dealing with the composition of the body. The conclusion then must be that we die, as even Jesus did (1 Pet. 3:18), in our naturally corruptible Adamic flesh, not in Adam’s sin.)) he was alive (v.9), says here in verse 14 that his sin stemmed from his carnal (2* The Greek word here (sarkinos) means composed of, not characterised by flesh (sarkikos)) or fleshly nature. Apart from the machinations of the devil, it did this in the case of Adam and Eve (see espec. Gen. 3:6, cf. James 1:14f.) and it does so in all other cases (Eph. 2:1-3, etc.). Clearly, as Jeremiah long ago pointed out, we, who are flesh, don’t need help to sin (4:22, cf. Rom. 3:12). As I noted above God never intended fleshly man to justify himself by the works of the law (which would be self-salvation or auto-soterism). Though the theoretical possibility is there (Mt. 19:17-21), the practical capability is lacking in all but Jesus. He alone, though weak in the flesh himself (cf. 2 Cor. 13:4), condemned sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). He alone proved strong enough (cf. Mt. 12:29) to defeat the world (John 16:33), the flesh (John 8:46; 1 Pet. 2:22) and the devil (Mt. 4:1-11, cf. Heb. 2; 4:15). For those who are flesh original sin is redundant, so why should God compromise his holiness by imputing Adam’s sin to them? Further, this raises the question of how Jesus avoided such putative imputation especially in view of Hebrews 2 (cf. 4:15) where his humanity (cf. Luke 3:38) is so strongly stressed. As far as I know, no satisfactory answer to this has yet been offered.

 

See further my More Arguments on Original Sin and Short Arguments Against Original Sin in Romans.

 

REFERENCES

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

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

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

 

Two ‘Natural’ Necessities

TWO ‘NATURAL’ NECESSITIES
I was brought up a Methodist and part of my staple diet was the evangelical revival of the eighteenth century. Essential to understanding of its message was the idea that the new birth was an absolute moral imperative for salvation. Later in life I realized that Jesus’ teaching in John 3 involved not so much a moral imperative like repentance but a natural necessity. The difference is of basic importance. Arminian though Wesleyan Methodism has always been in its thinking, it has been deeply influenced like the rest of the Western Church by the teaching of Augustine of Hippo for whom the new birth provided the remedy for sin, original sin in particular.
Against my background where sin was so evangelistically important, it was a long time before I came to understand the plan of salvation as it is taught in the Bible. Wesley himself was convinced that whatever else it involved it meant going to heaven at death. He wrote:
“I want to know one thing, the way to heaven …. God himself has condescended to teach the way ….He has written it down in a book. O give me that book: At any price give me the book of God ! I have it: here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be Homo unius libri (a man of one book) …. I sit down alone: only God is here. In His presence I open, I read His book; for this end, to find the way to heaven ….”  (Quoted by J.I.Packer, ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God, p.75.)
I eventually realized that the first indication of salvation in the Bible occurs in Genesis 2:16f., before Adam had even sinned. There, in a rather negative sort of way, by means of a death threat in fact, he is promised eternal life which as a product of a temporal corruptible creation he obviously did not have. This is borne out especially by Paul who implicitly claims that as a child, he recapitulated Adam and Eve’s experience. He was born ‘alive’ (cf. Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f., etc.) but when the (transgenerational) commandment dawned on his consciousness promising  eternal life, it led to death. Like his distant forebears Paul broke the commandment (Rom. 7:9f.) and thus earned the wages of death (Rom. 6:23). (In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul points out that the ministry of the law is a ministry of death, cf. 1 Cor. 15:56.)
It needs to be stressed, however, that Adam received the promise of life before he sinned. In light of this, we are compelled to conclude that man as created from a perishable earth, though in the image of God, is naturally mortal and perishable (corruptible) like all animal life, indeed like all created things (cf. Rom. 1:20; Heb. 1:11; 12:27) animal (Ps. 104:21,27-29, etc.), vegetable (James 1:10), mineral (1 Pet. 1:7,18). If this is so, two things immediately become apparent: first, man must somehow overcome his natural mortality or proneness to death; second, he must also triumph over his natural corruptibility which ensures that in contrast with God (1 Tim. 1:17, Gk incorruptible), but like the earth from which he stems he grows older (cf. Heb. 1:10-12; 8:13).
Of course, in Adam’s case the promise of eternal life was nullified by his sin. But what if he had never sinned? How would he have got to heaven and the presence of God where alone eternal life can be lived? It is here that the Bible’s two natural necessities come to our aid.
(1) John 3
First, pace Augustine, in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus there is no mention of sin. Jesus is clearly highlighting a ‘natural’ necessity* not a moral imperative like repentance and faith (cf. Mark 1:15). He is trying to inform Nicodemus that to gain eternal life and enter heaven that rebirth or birth from above is absolutely indispensable. If it was true of Adam before he sinned, it is true of everyone else including the incarnate Jesus himself who never sinned. Not surprisingly, Jesus as the second Adam achieved righteousness, which was the precondition of life (Lev. 18:5, etc.), by obeying the law, received the Spirit at his baptism and was acknowledged as God’s Son. Otherwise expressed, having pleased his Father by his obedience he was born from above when he saw the dove descending and the heavens open (Mt. 3:16f.). (The fact that Jesus at his incarnation was sent by the Father and was God’s natural son by creation, Heb. 10:5, is beside the point. As man he had to make his way to heaven as our pioneer, our elder brother in fact, cf. Heb. 2:10f. The truth is that he confirmed his divine pedigree by his obedience.)
It is evident that in Jesus’ view, as earth(l)y flesh we cannot even see let alone enter the spiritual kingdom of heaven and the presence of God who is a consuming fire. This is strongly implied even in the OT. For example, in Isaiah 33:14 the prophet pointedly asks “Who among us can dwell with everlasting fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?” The prophet then answers his own questions by asserting that those who can have certain spiritual as opposed to physical qualities (cf. e.g. Ps. 15; 24:3-6). Though according to the OT just to see God is a death sentence, Isaiah nonetheless tells us in verse 17 (cf. vv.21f.; 66:19) that these righteous people will see the king in his beauty in a land that stretches far. This instantly reminds us of Jesus prayer that his believing, hence justified and regenerated people should be where he is to see his heavenly glory (John 17:24). In the meantime, as in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, it is not simply sin that serves as a barrier but the physical creation as such including the flesh. After all, the visible is by nature temporary (2 Cor. 4:18, cf. Rom. 1:20) and subject to burning (Heb. 12:27-29; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, cf. 1 Cor. 3:12-15).
So since our native flesh is naturally weak, temporary, provisional, mortal and corruptible (Rom. 8:13; 1 Cor. 15:45-50; 2 Cor. 2 Cor. 5:1; 13:4; Gal. 6:8, etc.), I conclude that the birth from above is a natural necessity for entry into heaven. As Jesus implied, just as earthly birth fits us for life on the earth, so heavenly birth fits us for life in heaven (John 3:6).
(2) 1 Corinthians 15:51-54
Second, if for Jesus the new birth is absolutely indispensable (Gk dei, John 3:7, cf. Morris, pp.219f.), for Paul transformation is also a sheer necessity (Gk dei, 1 Cor. 15:53, cf. Thiselton, p.1297). In the nature of the case it is unavoidable.
As has already been intimated, Adam on account of his sin failed to gain eternal life and came short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). In fact, he earned the wages of death by breaking the commandment and lapsed into the dust from which he was taken. There he obviously underwent final physical corruption. In light of this we must ask what the situation would have been if he had kept the commandment and not died. Or to put the same question somewhat differently and non-speculatively, what happened to Jesus the second Adam who in fact did not sin but kept the law to perfection?
Jesus
First, we must be careful to recognize that Jesus died too but in his case in order to atone for the sins of his people. What is indisputable is that he did not earn death as wages for his own sins. Indeed, it was because his death was vicarious that it had no permanent hold over him personally (Acts 2:22-24). He therefore rose from the dead as he had promised regaining the life he had laid down (John 2:19-21; 10:17f.). In his gospel Luke makes it plain that Jesus’ resurrection was genuinely physical (24:39, cf. Acts 10:41; John 21:9-13). John also goes out of his way to record Jesus’ encounter with Doubting Thomas who subjects him to detailed physical scrutiny (20:24-29, cf. 1 John 1:1-3). Once Thomas is convinced, Jesus pertinently adds that those who have not seen but have believed are blessed (v.29, cf. 2 Cor. 5:7). Truly are we justified by faith.
In the Acts of the Apostles strong stress is laid on the fact that though he died Jesus did not experience corruption (Acts 2:27,31; 13:35-37). The unavoidable inference from this is that Jesus was still flesh when he underwent resurrection. But here lies a problem. For if Jesus is to receive the holy and sure blessings of David (Acts 13:34b, cf. Luke 1:32f.), the eternal kingdom referred to by Daniel (2:44; 7:14), how can he do so in perishable flesh? The answer to this conundrum lies in Acts 13:34 which tells us that God raised Jesus from the dead “no more to return to corruption”.
Many writers draw the conclusion from this and other evidence that Jesus was glorified when he rose from the grave but as we have just seen this would appear to be impossible. In view of this we are forced to conclude, first, that the expression ‘raised from the dead’ is sometimes used comprehensively to include the whole process of resurrection, ascension, exaltation and heavenly session (see e.g. Harris, p.93; GG, p.182), and this would appear to be the case here especially when we take into consideration affirmations like Hebrews 4:14; 7:26,28. This is further confirmed by Paul’s insistence that Jesus was no more to return to corruption, and this must refer to the fact that he would no longer be physical since this involves natural corruptibility. (See further my No Return to Corruption.) So we must ask when Jesus was transformed. The answer, in view of the evidence regarding his post-resurrection physicality presented in brief above, must be at his ascension (cf. John 20:17). (See further my When Was Jesus Transformed? at www.kenstothard.com /.)
A Body of Glory
It is at this point that we become aware of Paul’s insistence that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God but that all must (of necessity) be changed (1 Cor. 15:50f.). If this holds for the  saints at the end of the age who do not die and experience resurrection, by parity of reasoning it must equally and necessarily apply to the incarnate Jesus who after his resurrection lived in the flesh as though he had never died, that is, like a sinless first Adam. It is thus implied in Philippians 3:21 that at his ascension Jesus dispensed with his flesh or body of humiliation and gained a body of glory (or what Paul calls in 1 Corinthians 15:44,46 a spiritual body), one that was certainly not in evidence before it. Furthermore, we are also informed that we ourselves will be similarly glorified after our death and resurrection which is different in kind (Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-49; 2 Cor. 5:1).
Conclusion
Assuming the truth of all this we may safely conclude that Jesus’ ascension transformation provides the paradigm for the saints at the end of history just as his regeneration/sonship provides the paradigm for believers’ regeneration/adoption at an earlier stage, at our (believer’s) baptism in fact.
Traditional Teaching
If what has been set out above is correct, why all the confusion in the past? The answer is the church’s failure to recognize that the Augustinian worldview in which sin is the sole cause of all earthly troubles is false. Man both as community and individual begins his difficult and testing pilgrimage from earth to heaven before the onset of sin, but sin exacerbates the situation. And since all come short of the glory of God (Rom. 5:12, cf. 3:23) sin has to be dealt with and removed. This is achieved through faith in Jesus and prevents all boasting (Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 1:29; Eph. 2:9). Furthermore, it ensures that God himself gains the glory for man’s salvation as he always intended (cf. Isa. 45:22-25, etc.). Little wonder that Jesus as the Son of God is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6) apart from whom there is no salvation (Acts 4:12; Phil. 2:9-11).
* I use the expression ‘natural’ necessity for convenience simply implying, first, that the necessity arises out of the nature of the situation and, second, that morals, sin in particular, are not involved. For all that, I am not sure what is behind Fee’s comment on the Greek word ‘dei’ in 1 Cor. 15:53 where he says, “Not a necessity of natural order but of divinely ordained eschatology”, p.802. Clearly both our regeneration and our transformation are supernatural.
REFERENCES
G.D.Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, 1987.
M.Harris, Raised Immortal, Basingstoke, 1883.
From Grave to Glory, Grand Rapids, 1990.
L.L.Morris, The Gospel According to John, Grand Rapids, 1971.
A.C.Thiselton,  The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids/Carlisle, 2000.
(See also my The Correspondence between John 3 and 1 Corinthians 15.)

__________________________

I was brought up a Methodist and part of my staple diet was the evangelical revival of the eighteenth century. Essential to understanding of its message was the idea that the new birth was an absolute moral imperative for salvation. Later in life I realized that Jesus’ teaching in John 3 involved not so much a moral imperative like repentance (Mark 1:15, etc.) but a natural necessity. The difference is of basic importance. Arminian though Wesleyan Methodism has always been in its thinking, it has been deeply influenced like the rest of the Western Church by the teaching of Augustine of Hippo for whom the new birth provided the remedy for sin, original sin in particular.

Against my background where sin was so evangelistically important, it was a long time before I came to understand the plan of salvation as it is taught in the Bible. Wesley himself was convinced that whatever else it involved it meant going to heaven at death. He wrote:

“I want to know one thing, the way to heaven …. God himself has condescended to teach the way ….He has written it down in a book. O give me that book: At any price give me the book of God ! I have it: here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be Homo unius libri (a man of one book) …. I sit down alone: only God is here. In His presence I open, I read His book; for this end, to find the way to heaven ….”  (Quoted by J.I.Packer, ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God, p.75.)

I eventually realized that the first indication of salvation in the Bible occurs in Genesis 2:16f., before Adam had even sinned. There, in a rather negative sort of way, by means of a death threat in fact, he is promised eternal life which as a product of a temporal corruptible creation he obviously did not have. This is borne out especially by Paul who implicitly claims that as a child, he recapitulated Adam and Eve’s experience. He too was born ‘alive’ (cf. Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f., etc.) but when the transgenerational commandment (cf. Prov. 1:8; 4:1ff.; 6:20) dawned on his consciousness promising  eternal life, it led to death. Like his distant forebears Paul broke the commandment (Rom. 7:9f.) and thus earned the wages of death (Rom. 6:23). (In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul points out that the ministry of the law is a ministry of death, cf. 1 Cor. 15:56.)

It needs to be stressed, however, that Adam received the promise of life before he sinned. In light of this, we are compelled to conclude that man as created from a perishable earth, though in the image of God, is naturally mortal and perishable (corruptible) like all animal life, indeed like all created things (cf. Rom. 1:20; Heb. 1:11; 12:27) animal (Ps. 104:21,27-29, etc.), vegetable (James 1:10), mineral (1 Pet. 1:7,18). If this is so, two things immediately become apparent: first, man must somehow overcome his natural mortality or susceptibility to death; second, he must also triumph over his natural corruptibility which ensures that like the earth from which he stems, he grows older (cf. Heb. 1:10-12; 8:13). (1* It is important to stress both man’s natural mortality and corruptibility since by contrast God himself is presented in Scripture as being immortal, athanasia, 1 Tim. 6:16, and incorruptible, aphthartos, 1 Tim. 1:17. If man is to become like God he must attain to both. The reason why both are important is illustrated by the story of the goddess Aurora and her lover Tithonus in classical mythology. According to Lempriere, Tithonus was so beautiful that Aurora fell in love with him and carried him away. He begged her to make him immortal but forgot to ask for his early vigour, youth and beauty and so soon grew old, infirm and decrepit. He thus prayed Aurora to remove him from the world. As he could not die, the goddess changed him into a cicada, or grasshopper.)

Of course, in Adam’s case the promise of eternal life was nullified by his sin. But what if he had never sinned? How would he have got to heaven and the presence of God where alone eternal life can be lived? It is here that the Bible’s two natural necessities come to our aid.

(1) John 3 and Spiritual Rebirth

First, pace Augustine, in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus there is no mention of sin, least of all original sin. By referring to ‘flesh’ Jesus is stressing our natural condition by creation (cf. John 1:13a). If this is so, he is clearly highlighting a ‘natural’ necessity (2* I use the expression ‘natural’ necessity for convenience simply implying, first, that the necessity arises out of the nature of the situation and, second, that morals, sin in particular, are not involved.  Gordon Fee rightly says in comment on the Greek word ‘dei’ in 1 Cor. 15:53, cf. John 3:7, it is “Not a necessity of natural order but of divinely ordained eschatology”, p.802. Both our spiritual regeneration and our bodily transformation, though ‘natural’ necessities, are supernatural in that they are ordained and monergistically accomplished by God.) not a moral imperative like repentance and faith (cf. Mark 1:15; 1 John 3:23). He is trying to inform Nicodemus that in order to gain eternal life and enter heaven spiritual rebirth or birth from above is intrinsically indispensable or naturally necessitous. If it was true of Adam before he sinned, it is true of everyone else including the incarnate Jesus himself who never sinned. By uniquely obeying the law Jesus as the second Adam achieved righteousness, which was the precondition of eternal life (Lev. 18:5, cf. Mt. 19:17, etc.). He thus received the Spirit at his baptism and was acknowledged and confirmed as God’s Son. Otherwise expressed, having pleased his Father by his obedience he was born from above and granted eternal life when he saw the dove descending and the heavens open (Mt. 3:16f.). (The fact that Jesus at his incarnation was sent by the Father and was God’s natural son by creation, Heb. 10:5, cf. Luke 3:38, is beside the point. It was as man that he had to make his way to heaven as our pioneer, our elder brother in fact, cf. Heb. 2:10f.. The truth is that he confirmed his divine pedigree by his obedience. He did as man what all other men and women had failed to do.)

In Jesus’ view, it is evident that as naturally unregenerate (that is, apart from sin, cf. 1 Cor. 2:14-16) we cannot even see, let alone enter the spiritual kingdom of heaven and the presence of God who is a consuming fire. This is strongly implied even in the OT. For example, in Isaiah 33:14 the prophet pointedly asks, “Who among us can dwell with everlasting fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?” The prophet then answers his own questions by asserting that those who can have certain spiritual qualities which make them acceptable (cf. e.g. Ps. 15; 24:3-6). Though according to the OT just to see God is a death sentence, Isaiah nonetheless tells us in verse 17 (cf. vv.21f.; 66:19) that these righteous people will see the king in his beauty in a land that stretches far. This instantly reminds us of Jesus prayer that his believing, hence justified and regenerated people should be where he is to see his heavenly glory (John 17:24). Since this glory cannot be seen so long as we are spiritually unregenerate, that is, as we are by nature, the new birth is a paramount necessity. In the meantime, as in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, it is not simply sin that serves as a barrier but our natural condition as ‘flesh’.

So since our earthly nature is provisional and mortal even apart from sin, I conclude that birth from above is a ‘natural’ necessity for entry into heaven. As Jesus implied, just as earthly birth fits us for life on the earth, so heavenly birth fits us for life in heaven (John 3:6, cf. 1 Cor. 15:48).

In clarification of the above, it should perhaps be pointed out in the midst of widespread confusion (3* Misled both by tradition and the language of Scripture I freely confess my own confusion over the years. In John 3 Jesus appears to be using the word ‘flesh’ to describe our total natural condition not just the physical side of us, cf. John 1:13. Cf. also ‘all flesh’ meaning all people in 1 Cor. 1:29, for example.) that our naturally unregenerate (as opposed to sinful) spirits though created by the God of spirits (Num. 16:22) must be regenerated by the Father of spirits (Heb. 12:9) in order to enter heaven. This was true even in the case of Jesus who, though created mortal ‘flesh’ (Heb. 10:5) and a true son of Adam (Luke 3:38), alone as man met the condition of eternal life by gaining the righteousness which was the result of keeping the commandments (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Mt. 19:17, etc.). By contrast, we who prove incapable of obedience gain our righteousness through faith in him. Without holiness no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:9-14). (4* Arguing that the second or new birth is the natural consequence of the first, Wheeler Robinson wrote: “… if regeneration be entrance into the life of conscious sonship to God, we must regard regeneration as the normal and ‘natural’ completion of what was begun in the first birth” (p.327, cf. Warfield, pp.158ff., 223ff., Westcott, pp.306,308,313)).

(2) 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and Corporeal Change

Second, if for Jesus spiritual rebirth is absolutely indispensable (Gk dei, John 3:7, cf. Morris, pp.219f.), for Paul bodily transformation is also a sheer necessity (Gk dei, 1 Cor. 15:53, cf. Thiselton, p.1297). In the nature of the case it is essential (1 Cor. 15:50).

As has already been intimated, Adam on account of his sin failed to gain eternal life and came short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). In fact, he earned wages consisting of both spiritual and physical death by breaking the commandment. Thus when he died he lapsed into the dust from which he was taken and underwent final physical corruption. In light of this we must ask what the situation would have been if he had kept the commandment and not died. Or, to put the same question somewhat differently and non-speculatively, what happened to Jesus the second Adam who in fact did not sin but kept the law to perfection?

Jesus

First, we must be careful to recognize that Jesus died too but in his case in order to atone for the sins of his people. What is indisputable is that he did not earn death as wages for his own sins. Indeed, it was because his death was vicarious that it had no permanent hold over him personally (Acts 2:22-24). He therefore rose from the dead as he had promised regaining the life he had voluntarily laid down (John 2:19-21; 10:17f.). In his gospel Luke makes it plain that Jesus’ resurrection was genuinely physical (24:39, cf. Acts 10:41; John 21:9-13). John also goes out of his way to record Jesus’ encounter with Doubting Thomas who subjects him to detailed physical scrutiny (20:24-29, cf. 1 John 1:1-3). Once Thomas is convinced that his Lord is physically real, Jesus pertinently adds that those who have not seen but have believed are blessed (v.29, cf. 2 Cor. 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:8). Truly are we justified by faith.

In the Acts of the Apostles strong stress is laid on the fact that though he died Jesus did not experience corruption (Acts 2:27,31; 13:35-37). The unavoidable inference from this is that Jesus was still flesh at his resurrection from the grave. But here lies a problem. For if Jesus is to receive the holy and sure blessings of David (Acts 13:34b, cf. Luke 1:32f.), the eternal kingdom referred to by Daniel (2:44; 7:14), how can he do so in perishable flesh? The answer to this conundrum lies in Acts 13:34 which tells us that God raised Jesus from the dead “no more to return to corruption”.

Many writers draw the conclusion from this and other evidence that Jesus was glorified when he rose from the grave but as we have just seen this would appear to be impossible not least because it would logically exclude the reality of his physical resurrection. In view of this we are forced to conclude, first, that the expression ‘raised from the dead’ is sometimes used comprehensively to include the whole process of resurrection, ascension, exaltation and heavenly session (see e.g. Harris, p.93; GG, p.182), and this would appear to be the case here especially when we take into consideration affirmations like Hebrews 4:14; 7:26,28. This is further confirmed by Paul’s insistence that Jesus was no more to return to corruption, and this must refer to the fact that he would no longer be physical since physicality as such involves natural corruptibility. (See further my  No Return To Corruption.) So we must ask when Jesus was transformed. The answer, in view of the evidence regarding his post-resurrection physicality presented in brief above, must be at his ascension (cf. John 20:17). (See further my  When Was Jesus Transformed?)

A Body of Glory

It is at this point that we become aware of Paul’s insistence that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God but that all must of necessity be changed (1 Cor. 15:50ff.). If this holds for the  saints at the end of the age who do not die and experience resurrection, by parity of reasoning it must equally and necessarily hold for the incarnate Jesus who after his resurrection lived in the flesh as though he had never died, that is, like a sinless first Adam. It is thus implied in Philippians 3:21 that at his ascension Jesus dispensed with his flesh or body of humiliation (cf. Heb. 5:7) and gained a body of glory (or what Paul calls in 1 Corinthians 15:44,46 a spiritual body), one that was certainly not in evidence before it. Furthermore, we are also informed that we ourselves will be similarly glorified after our death and resurrection which follows a different pattern, that is, one like that of David (Acts 2:29-31; Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-49; 2 Cor. 5:1).

Conclusion

Assuming the truth of all this, we may safely conclude that Jesus’ ascension transformation provides the paradigm for the saints at the end of history just as his regeneration/sonship provides the paradigm for believers’ regeneration/adoption at an earlier stage, at our (believer’s) baptism in fact.

Traditional Teaching

If what has been set out above is correct, why all the confusion in the past? The answer is the church’s failure to recognize that the Augustinian worldview in which sin is the sole cause of all earthly troubles is false. Man as both community and individual (including Jesus) begins his difficult and testing pilgrimage from earth to heaven before the onset of sin, but sin exacerbates the situation. And since all come short of the glory of God (Rom. 5:12, cf. 3:23) sin has to be dealt with and removed. This is achieved through faith in Jesus and prevents all boasting (Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 1:29; Eph. 2:9). Furthermore, it ensures that God himself gains the glory for man’s salvation as he always intended (cf. Isa. 45:22-25, etc.). Little wonder that Jesus as the Son of God is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6) apart from whom there is no salvation (Acts 4:12; Phil. 2:9-11).

Summing Up

Since human beings are anthropologically dualistic, that is, both flesh and spirit, in order to get to heaven we must be changed both spiritually and corporeally. On the one hand we must be born again of God (John 1:13; 3:1-8), on the other we must undergo a bodily transformation (1 Cor. 15:50-57). (It is interesting to note that on the natural level we have bodies of flesh before we are spirit, 1 Cor. 15:46, but on the supernatural level we are spirit before we have spiritual bodies or bodies of glory.)

________________________________________

References

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

M.Harris, Raised Immortal, Basingstoke, 1883.

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

Lempriere’s Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed. London, 1984.

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

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

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

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

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

(See also my  The Correspondence Between John 3:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:35-57)

Recapitulation in Outline

Irenaeus is famous for his doctrine of recapitulation, but since his thinking was largely eclipsed by Augustine of Hippo recapitulation has almost disappeared from the church’s if not from the scientist’s view. (1* That recapitulation is integral to Scripture is illustrated by the following: “In terms of the whole way it functions in the book of Judges, the story of Samson is the story of Israel recapitulated and focused for us in the life of a single man. As Samson was a “holy”, Israel was a “holy” nation (Exod. 19:6). As Samson desired to be as other men, Israel desired to be as other nations. As Samson went after foreign women, Israel went after foreign gods. As Samson cried to God in his extremity and was answered, so did Israel. And finally … as Samson had to be blinded and given over to the bitter pain of Gaza before he came to terms with his destiny, so too would Israel have to be given over to the bitter suffering of exile in Babylon (cf. Judg 16:21; 2 Kings 25:7). The Samson story mirrors the story of Israel …. In the epilogue we are told that in the time of the Judges “every man did what was good in his eyes” (17:6; 21:25) (and so did Samson, 14:3b). Barry Webb, The Book of Judges, 1987, p.116, quoted by B.K.Waltke, And Old Testament Theology, 2007, p.613.) Yet the simple fact that we all follow physically in the steps of our Adamic forefathers as first embryos, babies, infants, children, adolescents, adults and finally corpses would suggest that recapitulation is part of the essence of life as we know it here on this temporal earth. The same is true on the mental, moral and spiritual levels. Unsurprisingly, there is a doctrine of perfection (or maturation) in Scripture in which Jesus himself participated and in fact uniquely fully effected (Heb. 2:10; 5:9). Again, because the worldview of Augustine appears inconsistent with it, it is usually muted.

However, as I have already suggested, recapitulation is basic to creation and is clearly implied in Genesis 1 where our attention is drawn to seed-bearing flora and fauna which reproduce according to kind. In light of this it is worth spending a short time seeking to understand recapitulation in the process of human salvation.

First, God created Adam from the earth and, since we all stem from him and are created in his image (Gen. 5:1-3), we are all flesh which is rightly regarded in Scripture as dust (Ps. 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47-49). Thus in direct contrast with our eternal, immortal and incorruptible Creator we, as both individual and community, are naturally temporal, mortal and corruptible (cf. Rom. 1:23).

Second, along with the entire animal creation we are born like Adam in ignorance and unaware of good and evil. Knowing nothing we are innocent (Dt. 1:39, cf. John 9:41; 15:22,24).

However, third, in contrast with the animal creation we are made in the image of God. Thus in the process of our development like that of Adam we gain knowledge of law (or the commandment of our parents or guardians, cf. Prov. 1:8; 6:20) which threatens death if we break it but life if we keep it (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Dt. 30:15-20; Ezek. 20:11,13,21; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12, etc.). Again like Adam (Gen. 3:1-7) because as flesh we are weak (Rom. 7:14), we break it and become sinners by nature (Eph. 2:1-3, cf. Rom. 7:9f.).

Fourth, in pursuit of his plan of salvation, God gives us faith to believe his promises of life (cf. Gen. 3:15). When we do believe, we become the spiritual children of Abraham (Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3).

Fifth, for Gentiles brought up without access to the revelation of Scripture faith is based only on inferences from creation and the impulses of the Spirit. Where it exists in isolation from inherited and erroneous cultural norms, it is like that of Noah (cf. Heb. 11:1-7; Rom. 2:14). Even for them a lawless licentious life is without excuse (Rom. 1:18-32). For Jews who know the law of Moses accountability is greater (Amos 3:2; Rom. 3:2) but because they also sin (Rom. 3:9) they too need justifying faith. For modern Gentiles brought up where there is access to Scripture and under the influence of cultures informed by Jewish and/or Christian belief repentance and faith are basic requirements (Acts 17:30f., cf. Rom. 3:25).

Sixth, where Christ is proclaimed in the power of the Spirit, faith leads not merely to justification as under the old covenant but to regeneration or eternal life (John 3:16). Deliberate rejection or denial of the gospel leads ultimately to condemnation.

Seventh, as Christians we are like Jesus himself the beneficiaries of the fullness of God’s covenant grace as depicted in the covenants with Noah, Moses and Christ (Gal. 4:4f.). Just as Jesus recapitulated in his own experience heathen life in Egypt as a slave under Noah (cf. Mt. 2:15), Jewish life as a servant under the Mosaic covenant (Luke 2:40-52) and pioneered “Christian” or regenerate life as a son, the Son, under the Spirit (Mt. 3:13-17), so do we who follow him. (See further my Following Jesus.)


Christian Eschatology

Jesus told Martha that though we die yet we shall live (John 11:25, cf. Rom. 8:10). What did he mean? Is the resurrection of Jesus the model of our own? Many in these days seem to think so. Indeed, on the basis of it, though against all the evidence, they assume a new or renewed material universe arguing that since Jesus is the first-fruits of a physical resurrection, so we shall all be given new physical bodies which were only ruined in the first place by sin! This in essence is Old Testament restorationism and it cannot be the ultimate truth. If the entire physical universe is temporal (Gen. 1:1; Heb. 1:10-12), destructible (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12) and corruptible (Rom. 8:18-25), physicality or materiality is not a viable proposition in the age to come (cf. Luke 20:34-36). So what does Scripture really teach?

First, Jesus, the man, kept the law. Having committed no sin (1 Pet. 2:22) he met the condition and gained life (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.). As his baptism signified, he received the approbation of his Father and was acknowledged as his true or regenerate (spiritual) Son (Mt. 3:13-17). As such he was immune to death. In the event, however, he died the just for the unjust to bring those who believed in him to God (1 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 2:10, cf. Eph. 2:18). However, since he had eternal life and had not personally earned the wages of sin, death had no permanent claim on him. He was therefore raised from the dead (Acts 2:23f.) and resumed the fleshly life he had laid down (John 2:19f.; 10:17f.; Luke 24:39, etc.). As Scripture expresses the matter, though he truly died, he did not experience corruption (Acts 2:27; 13:35-37). This is clearly in striking contrast with David who died and did in fact decay.

It is obvious then that the model or paradigm of all believers who die before the return of Christ is David. In our case it is a question of dust to dust and ashes to ashes. Our physical bodies (flesh) are permanently destroyed like that of Adam (Gen. 3:19; 2 Cor. 5:1f.). In light of this we conclude that our resurrection is not physical like that of Jesus but spiritual. In other words, we are endowed at the general resurrection with spiritual bodies of glory like that of Christ (Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-49).


The Body of Jesus

But this raises the question of Jesus’ fleshly body which, as already noted, did not submit to final decay. It is obvious that Jesus, though a child of Adam (Luke 3:38) and still corruptible flesh, was raised physically whole from the grave. Since he himself by implication (John 3:1-8) and Paul emphatically deny that he could go to heaven in the flesh (1 Cor. 15:50), we are forced to infer that he underwent change or glorification at his ascension. Jesus implies this when he asks Mary in view of his approaching ascension not to hang on to him (John 20:17). In other words, the transformation of Jesus at his ascension serves as the paradigm or template of that of the saints at the end who do not die and therefore do not experience physical resurrection. They are transformed and go directly to heaven (1 Cor. 15:51f., cf. 1 Thes. 4:13-17).


Two Natural Necessities

In order to go to heaven into the presence of God there are two basic necessities for man who is born naturally mortal and subject to decay (Rom. 1:23): (1) he must gain eternal life by keeping the law, and (2) he must undergo bodily (somatic) change involving replacement. In other words, regeneration and transformation are paramount ‘natural’ necessities, not imperatives.

So, as our trail-blazer, Jesus gained life on the one hand and was changed on the other. So far as the majority of believers are concerned, as sinners we die physically and like David are subject to decay. Yet because Christ conquered death we shall live. We shall be raised from the dead and eventually be accorded new bodies.

There is a sense then in which the vast majority of believers do not strictly speaking recapitulate the life of Jesus. While he did not experience decay, we, the end-time saints apart, do. However, Jesus’ victory as the pioneer of our salvation and first-born of many brethren (cf. Heb. 2:11) ensures that we shall be with him (John 14:3,19; 17:24) conformed to his image at the last day (Rom. 8:29; Phil. 3:21). We shall all together be the children of God (Rom. 8:15-17; 1 John 3:1f.), true sons of the resurrection (Luke 20:36) no more to return to corruption (Acts 13:34).

So, to sum up, as a true (incarnate) man (Heb. 2:10-18), Jesus lived the perfect(ed) human life (Heb. 2:10; 5:9) as God intended it to be lived (Mt. 5:48; 19:21). He began recapitulating to perfection first Adamic life by fulfilling the law, then he provided the model of regenerate or second Adamic life by fulfilling all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) as he pioneered our way into the presence of the Father under the leading of the Spirit (cf. John 14:6). While it may be true that when he died he did not experience decay, his resurrection, which defeated death, will lead to the transformation of all who are glorified with him (1 Cor. 15:51f.). Truly is he the first fruits of the resurrection of all those who die believing in him (1 Cor. 15:20,23).

(See further my I Believe in Recapitulation)

Covenant Theology in Brief

Towards the end of the ’60s I became convinced that received covenant theology in its various forms is false. After undertaking study of this issue in the Bible for myself I came to the following conclusions:

There is no covenant with creation or with Adam, man according to the flesh, who derived from the earth. On the assumption that a covenant necessarily involves at least minimal agreement, a unilateral covenant is a contradiction in terms. Thus the arrangement God made with Adam (Gen. 2:16f.) who knew neither good nor evil was an imposition totally devoid of reciprocation and hence non-covenantal. The inference I draw from this is that the temporal material creation of which man according to the flesh is a part is not intended for redemption (cf. John 3:1-8; 1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 12:27, etc.). In contrast with its Creator, it has a beginning, undergoes development, achieves maturity, ages and dies naturally (Heb. 1:11). Sin exacerbates its corruptibility but does not cause it. Creation is by nature corruptible and ultimately futile (Rom. 8:18-25) like the flesh which derives from it (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18).

The first covenant God made was with Noah (Gen. 6:18, etc.). From the standpoint of the observer, the flood threatened the very existence of the material creation, but the covenant guaranteed its perpetuation until the plan and purpose of God to make his people his heavenly children (Eph. 1:4f.) was complete (Gen. 8:21f., cf. Isa. 54:9f.; Jer. 31:35-37; 33:19-26; Acts 17:8-17; 17; 17:22-31). Thus Noah as a man of faith undertook the propagation of the race (Gen. 9:1,7) and the exercise of dominion over creation as Adam had done before him (Gen. 1: 28) but with the confidence that his efforts would not be in vain (cf. Gen. 8:21f.).

God made a covenant of promise to Abraham that he would bless the world through him and his descendants (Gen. 12:1-3,7, cf. Rom. 4; Gal. 3, etc.).

Next, after the exodus with the agreement of the people (Ex. 19:8; 24:3,7) God made a covenant of law or works with his elect nation through Moses. Keeping it promised life (Lev. 18:5, cf. Gen. 2:17); breaking it threatened curse and death (Ex. 32:33; Dt. 11:26-28; 30:15-20; Ezek. 18:4). Since man who is mortal and corruptible flesh by nature (Rom. 1:23) proves incapable of meeting the condition of eternal life (cf. Mt. 19:17; Rom. 5:12), he needs a Saviour who can. Thus Jesus who alone kept the law and overcame the world (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:5) is universally indispensable (John 14:6; Acts 4:12, etc.).

The promissory covenant with David (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89) is an extension of the covenant with Abraham. It provides the basis of the Messianic hope which is fulfilled in Christ.

The covenant inaugurated by Jesus (cf. Luke 22:20) is an eternal covenant (Heb. 13:20) which guarantees eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12) and an eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:15) for his people (cf. Rom. 8:31ff.).

There are therefore five divine covenants which apply to mankind in general. The covenants with Noah and Moses are clearly temporary and provisional (Gen. 8:22; Mt. 24:35; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13, etc.) and relate to life on earth alone (Mt. 5:18; Heb. 7:16; 9:10). The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants being promissory are fulfilled in Christ whose own covenant is eternal and finds its completion in heaven in the presence of God in accordance with his plan to save his people (cf. Heb. 2:9-13). It should also be noted that the covenants with Noah, Moses and Jesus are dispensational. Even though they overlap to some extent, they are not to be merged in such a way as to hide their distinctiveness and discontinuity. They are linked by faith (cf. Heb. 11).

There is one place in Scripture where all these five covenants are clearly implied: Romans 1:16-4:8. There we find the covenants with the Gentiles (Noah), the Jews (Moses) and Christians (Jesus) who constitute a third race (cf. e.g. 1 Cor. 10:32, etc.). In Romans 4:1-8 Paul refers to the covenants of promise with Abraham and David.

The word Adam (man) embraces both the individual and the race or community. This being so, it is hardly a surprise to find that the covenants with the race are miniaturized, embodied, telescoped, re-enacted or recapitulated within the individual man, supremely in Jesus, the Man or second Adam. This Paul makes plain in two places in particular: Galatians 4:1-7 and Romans 7-8. Elsewhere Paul says that Jesus summed up all mankind in himself (Eph. 1:10). In other words, just as the history of the race is covenantal so is that of the individual: once we become rational souls we all go through a Gentile, Jewish and Christian phase in the course of our lives (cf. John 1:9-13) even though Gentiles are never specifically under the law of Moses.  Jesus himself as the second Adam epitomized this progress when he recapitulated his forebears’ stay in Egypt as a slave (Mt. 2:15), became a son of the commandment as a circumcised Jew (Luke 2:40-52) and hence a servant (Lev. 25:39-46) and, having kept the law, pioneered life as a son, the Son, under the direction of the Spirit after his baptism. In covenantal terms we all experience spiritual childhood, adolescence and adulthood. At this point, the fact that Gentiles are never formally under the law like Jewish men if not women is relatively insignificant (cf. Gal. 3:23ff. and the suggestion of the KJV of the law as a ‘schoolmaster’).

Until he was eclipsed by Augustine of Hippo, Irenaeus the father of theology was perhaps most famous for his teaching on recapitulation. In effect he taught that ontology recapitulates phylogeny, Jesus being the prime example (Gal. 4:1-7, cf. Eph. 1:10). The idea is not exactly foreign to modern science and is implied by Genesis 1 where we are told that things are created and reproduced according to kind (cf. Mark 4:28).

Covenant theology then is of prime importance in understanding the teleological thrust of the Bible and the people, that is, all of us, to whom it relates. Since this is so, the Augustinian worldview which dominates the Western church and begins where the Bible ends with the  righteousness and perfection of man in his infancy is clearly false. Righteousness and holiness are inherent only in God himself and so far as man is concerned are attained only by keeping the law of which Adam like a baby even though he was physically adult was initially entirely ignorant (cf. Dt. 1:39, etc.). (Pro)creation is followed by development leading to perfection (maturity, completeness). One thing is clear: infant baptism, which is based on original sin and a fall from the maturity of supposed righteousness, has turned biblical teaching on its head. It has in effect reduced man to a flat uniformity devoid of development (evolution) and given rise to the idea of a fall from an initial ‘high estate’. This is ruled out of court by Jesus who became the Righteous One (Acts 3:14) or perfect(ed) man only by completing the work his Father gave him to do (John 17:4f.; Heb. 2:10, etc., cf. Phil. 3:12-14). Otherwise expressed, he had undergone normal human development by keeping (the) law (Luke 2:40-52) and having gained life (Lev. 18:5) reached maturity under the leading of the Spirit. Needless to say, believers follow his lead (Eph. 2:15; 4:12-16; Gal.3:28).

Even the wicked are not born evil (Dt. 1:39) but like us all they sin from their youth (Jer. 3:25, etc.). If they refuse to repent, they are ultimately perfected (achieve maturity) in their sin (James 1:15, cf. Gen. 15:16; Lev. 18:25-30; Rev. 20:11-15).

At the end both the good and the evil alike reap their respective rewards (Mt. 25:46).

See also my Covenant Theology,  Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity and Did God Make a Covenant with Creation? which examine the issue in more detail.

Question

If there are three dispensational covenants, why are there only two Testaments in the Bible? Early in my theological career I was somewhat puzzled by Professor John Murray’s dismissal in his commentary on Romans of the Gentile heathen and his apparent desire to lump Jew and Christian together as though they alone were saved or at least salvable. By contrast Paul in Romans 3 merges heathen and Jew as sinners together and separates both of them from redeemed Christians (Rom. 3:21-26). This surely points to the answer to my question. Both Gentile and Jew are natural or unregenerate by nature and hence sinners. To become Christians they must be born again through faith in Christ. See Galatians 4:21-31 and especially vv. 25 and 31.

But this prompts the question of how and why the Jews are differentiated from the Gentiles. The answer to this is that the Jews are the elect of God (Ex. 19:3-6; Dt. 7:6) and in contrast to the Gentiles have the law or the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2, cf. 9:4). So though distinguished at this point (Ex. 33:16; Lev. 20:24,26; Ps. 147:19f.), as sinners they are both in urgent need of salvation, arguably in light of Amos 3:2 the Jews even more so than the Gentiles who lacked the law. Here it is worth noting that Paul goes so far as to say that the present Jerusalem under law is in slavery like Hagar (Gal. 4:25).

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

In my view Wright makes a major mistake in allowing the possibility of an original covenant with creation and Adam (pp.326f.). This would surely suggest that creation (and its corollary the physical creature, 1 Cor. 15:50) is intended to be redeemed which Scripture clearly denies. He further maintains that though this world is cursed, it is also covenanted. But this is contradictory. The point of the temporary covenant with Noah was to forestall any future ‘cosmic’ curse before the end of the world (Gen. 8:21f.; Isa. 54:9f.) and the completion of the plan of salvation (cf. Luke 17:26-30). See further my A Brief Review of ‘The Mission of God’ by C.J.H.Wright.

Note

J. Stott, Authentic Christianity, pp. 334f. Stott rightly maintains that every man’s spiritual history becomes a microcosm of God’s dealings with the race.

Are We Frauds?

In the British monthly paper Evangelicals Now of March 2008 there appeared an article entitled Are We Fundamentalists? by Barry Seagren. It was a thoughtful and provocative piece of work aimed at contrasting biblical with Islamic fundamentalism in its various forms. I agreed with the author’s conclusion that there is “a world of difference between the life-giving fundamentalism of the Bible and the destructive fundamentalism that we see in some forms of Islam.”


Fundamentalism

However, the essay raises questions about the exact nature of so-called biblical fundamentalism which also has various forms. Apart from the fact that the epithet fundamentalism, which is nowadays usually associated with (dispensational) premillennialists who claim to take the Bible “literally”, is misleading when used of evangelicals in general, some of these forms appear to derive more from tradition than the Bible and to that extent seem to promote an ideology, even a politicised one on occasion, after the fashion of Islam. (1* Christian Zionism by S. Sizer, 2004, is well worth reading in this connection.) If this is true, it is incumbent on genuine evangelicals to take seriously their much-vaunted commitment to the Bible and bend all their efforts to understand exactly what the Bible is proclaiming. If they do not do this, they are in great danger of being classified as frauds. It is simply not good enough to qualify the authority of the Bible with the word Reformed or dispensationalist and/or premillennialist and so forth, since such qualifications which add to Scripture (Mark 7:7ff.; Rev. 22:18) may well be distortions of the truth.


The Two Sacraments

After some fifty years of devoting attention to the study of the Bible and mainly Evangelical theology, I am convinced that there is much that is seriously amiss with aspects of our doctrine. In light of this it is hardly surprising that evangelicals are radically divided among themselves. The historical root of the problem is the failure of the Reformers to carry through their reformation of Catholic doctrine to its logical conclusion. This inevitably led to their bearing diverse spiritual offspring. Perhaps the most obvious example of their failure relates to the sacraments. While the Reformers dismissed the mass as false and recovered in essence the truth regarding the Lord’s Supper, they failed abysmally to deal adequately with baptism. Behind this failure lies far more than meets the eye.


Justification by Faith

For a start, it may be argued that since all evangelicals claim that Scripture is their final court of appeal, they all agree that justification by faith is at the very heart of the biblical gospel. But this doctrine is frequently compromised and/or jeopardized by theology that leads in another direction seen at its most obvious in the divisions in Anglicanism, for example, which somehow comprehends both Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals. Even some Lutherans wonder how it came about that Luther who so strongly stressed justification by faith could retain the baptism of infants who are naturally incapable of exercising faith. How is it then that many if not most of the sons of the Reformation still baptize infants?


Original Sin

It is generally admitted that the Augustinian dogma of original sin has historically played the principal part. On the basis of this belief Augustine held that since infants as the children of Adam were born in sin, they faced inevitable damnation and in order to be saved they had to be baptised. In other words, Augustine believed that baptism applied by hand like circumcision was the antidote of original sin and conveyed regeneration. Two points need to be made here.

First, the dogma of original sin is not and, unless it is inconsistent with itself, cannot be taught in the Bible. The nearest suggestion of it appears in Psalm 51:5. Apart from the fact that this verse is sometimes mistranslated, it is open to more than one interpretation. At the very least it is hyperbolic. In light of pervasive teaching in Scripture which implicitly denies the sinfulness of babies (e.g. Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.) and the transference of sin from parent to child (Ex. 32:33; Dt. 24:16; Ezek. 18, etc.), we are forced to this conclusion.

Second, though the classical location of the dogma is said to be Romans 5:12, the teaching of the epistle as a whole militates against it. For example, Paul insists that where there is no law, as in the case of infants, there is no sin (4:15; 7:1-13), graphically depicts actual sin against the law (chs. 1-3) and claims that he himself was “alive”, that is, like Adam and Eve before they received the commandment, prior to the impact of the law on his developing mind (7:9f.). Bearing these and other matters in mind we can safely dismiss the traditional addition of  “in him”, that is, “in Adam”, from 5:12 and charge those who refuse to do so with eisegesis as opposed to exegesis.  (See further my Adding to Scripture In Romans.) It can be said without fear of rational rebuttal that original sin like its counterpart original righteousness, which also depends on law, is a myth. It belongs to ecclesiastical tradition not to the Bible. (For more extensive treatment of original sin, see various articles of mine referring to it including An Exact Parallel?.)


Circumcision

Another argument used to support infant baptism is the so-called parallel between circumcision and baptism. Proper exegesis of Colossians 2:11 which distinguishes between flesh and spirit clearly denies this. For all that, it is claimed that as the Jews circumcised infants, so Christians ought to baptize them. The argument is spurious.

First, apart from noting that only boys are circumcised, it ignores the difference between the covenants. To be baptized by law into Moses (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3; cf. 1 Cor. 10:2) is a far cry from being baptized on confession of faith and repentance into Christ.

Second, despite the fact that John the Baptist served as the human agent, the baptism of Jesus himself is paradigmatic for all Christians who claim to follow him. He was baptized by the Spirit, that is, acknowledged as the Son of God which since he had achieved righteousness under the law equates with receiving eternal life (Mt. 3:13-17). (See further below regarding the order of salvation.)

Third, Christians are not Jews under law, that is, the physical children of Abraham. They are, however, by faith his spiritual children. This being so, they should be baptized as he was circumcised as a believer. Paul’s argument in Romans 4 ought to be decisive in this matter, all the more so when Galatians 3 which forges the link between Abraham, Jesus and believers is considered. What is at issue is fidelity to the plain teaching of Scripture.

To argue that circumcision is the sign of the covenant with Abraham and is therefore appropriately applied to babies is to miss the point. Abraham apart (though note Ex. 12:44,48), both Jesus (John 7:22) and Paul (Gal. 5:3, etc.) associate circumcision with law. Baptism reflects repentance, faith, righteousness and regeneration not the curse associated with circumcision (Gal. 3:10). Baptism applied to infants inexorably  jeopardizes the very essence of the gospel.


Covenant

Yet another argument widely used to bolster infant baptism, which implicitly denies justification by faith, is covenant theology. I have already suggested that the Mosaic covenant of law is intrinsically different from the covenant inaugurated by the death of Christ which requires repentance and faith for it to become effective. Reformed federal theology, which is based on the view of two different covenants with Adam on the one hand and Christ on the other, is false to Scripture. The same must be said of the so-called covenant of grace. A truly biblical covenant, theology which gives due weight to the difference between the covenants while recognizing their interrelatedness, undermines any attempt to substantiate infant baptism. The truth is that like Jesus (Gal. 4:4f.) if we attain to maturity we are all the beneficiaries of the covenants of nature, law (2* Gentiles of course are never under law in the same sense as Jews are.) and grace. If it was necessary for both Jews who had been under the law of Moses and Gentiles who had  enjoyed the benefits of the covenant with Noah (cf. Acts 14:17; 17:27-34) to be baptized on confession of faith, it follows as night follows day that the same must be true of us.

(See further my articles Covenant Theology and Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?)


The Order of Salvation

Linked with the above is the traditional teaching regarding the order of salvation (ordo salutis). In 2008, it is still being taught by professing evangelicals who claim to be faithful to the word of God that regeneration precedes faith. The need for this view is of course erroneous belief in original sin and misapplied stress on divine election. It is argued that since man is born in sin and therefore dead in sin, he is completely incapable of believing when the gospel is preached to him. Augustine taught that this impediment is overcome by election and regeneration. Though this seems logical enough, if the premises are wrong so is the conclusion. That regeneration precedes faith is certainly not the teaching of Scripture. What is the truth of the matter?

Briefly, like Adam we are all born innocent (Dt. 1:39, etc.). Since as babies we are naturally ignorant of (the) law which we are taught later (Dt. 4:9, etc.), we cannot break it. However, like Paul we transgress it when it dawns on our consciousness (Rom. 7:9f.) and thus forfeit its promise of eternal life on condition of keeping it (cf. Gen. 2:17). In light of this it comes as no surprise that one of the most pervasive teachings of the Bible is Leviticus 18:5 in its various forms. It insists that that we gain life when we attain to righteousness by keeping the commandments. Alternatively expressed, obedience or  righteousness is the precondition of life. Of course, Jesus was the only man ever to succeed and as a consequence was uniquely proclaimed as the (regenerate) Son of God at his baptism. Thus as the pioneer of our salvation he made us all dependent on him (John 14:6, etc.). As sinners all, we can only inherit life by being regarded as righteous through faith in him (Phil. 3:9, etc.).


The Flesh

This raises the question of why the rest of us fail. The traditional argument that we all sinned in Adam is clearly invalid and the imputation of sin is read into Romans 5:12-21 not derived from it. The many problems it encounters are insuperable. What is true is that as flesh, which is a law to itself and has its own passions and desires, like Adam and Eve we prove incapable of mastering it (cf. Gen. 4:7), all the more so since we are influenced and conditioned by their example (Rom. 5:12-21). The Bible makes it clear beyond dispute that no flesh (that is no man or woman who is flesh by nature) will be justified before God (Rom. 3:19f.; 7:7; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16, etc.) who from the start intended that he alone should be the Saviour of his people (Isa. 45:22f., cf. Phil 2:9-11). Paul sums up the situation in Romans 7:14 where he says that he is of the flesh and hence in slavery to sin (cf. Eph. 2:1-3, etc.). If this is true, then all else apart, original sin, which impugns the goodness and righteousness of God, is redundant and totally unnecessary.

What the advocates of original sin fail to realize is that though man is by nature a sinner (i.e. like Adam and Eve he determines his own moral nature by his sin, cf. Eph. 2:1-3, etc.) he is enabled by the grace of God to receive the gift of faith (Eph. 2:8, cf. Acts 18:27). Abraham was justified by faith even though he was ungodly and hence by definition not regenerate (Rom. 4:1-5). As the OT, where regeneration is always a promise (Dt. 29:4; 30:6; Jer. 31:31-34; 32:39, etc.), makes clear this gift comes short of regeneration which awaits the coming and work of Christ and the consequent out- pouring of the Spirit. It is not until he is glorified that the Spirit is given and the new birth experienced by sinners justified by faith in Christ (John 7:39; Acts 2). (For more on the order of salvation, see for example, my Cart-Before-the-Horse TheologyRedemption Applied (Order of Salvation) and The Order of Salvation in Romans.)

So, to sum up, in accordance with his plan of salvation God has legitimately consigned us all to (actual) sin so that he may have mercy on us in Christ (Rom. 3:19f.; 11:32; Gal. 3:22). To have imputed Adam’s sin to innocent children would have been to contravene his own canons of righteousness (see e.g. Gen. 20:6f.; Ex. 32:33; Dt. 7:10; 1 Sam. 14:27; 22:15; John 9:41; 15:22,24, etc.).


Premillennialism

I referred to premillennialism above. Like many others I remain at a loss to understand how anyone committed to the authority of the Bible can entertain it and many of the notions that are its concomitant. (See further my Preunderstandings of the Millennium?.) It is not merely based exclusively on one passage in the highly symbolic book of Revelation, it runs counter to the very essence of biblical teaching in many other respects. Most obviously, it reflects woeful misunderstanding of covenant theology on the one hand and denies the finished work of Christ on the other. Regarding the latter, it renders his return to earth to complete what the Bible says he accomplished in the first place a necessity (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9; 9:28, etc.). (See further my A Summary of Reasons Against the Return of Christ to EarthIs Jesus Coming Back to Earth?Thoughts on the Redemption of Creation, etc.) This makes premillennialists ill-equipped to criticize the Roman Catholic dogma of the mass which also involves repetition. To cut a long story short premillennialism is based on OT restorationism. It is furthermore the offspring of the absurd Augustinian worldview which has bedevilled our understanding of the Bible for so long (cf. my WorldviewThe Biblical Worldview. At this point some may claim that Augustine rejected Chiliasm. He did indeed but that has not prevented premillennialists from adopting his general outlook.)

It needs finally to be stressed that the Augustinian view that creation was perfect when it was first brought into being and that man was originally created immortal, holy and righteous is an appalling fallacy. The Bible frequently contrasts the perfect Creator with what has been made (Heb. 1:10-12; 12:27, etc.). (See further my Manufactured Or Not So.) Original sin and its consequence cosmic curse are part of our ecclesiastical tradition and should be dismissed as the distortions they are. The truth is that since we originally derived from the temporal earth, we were created mortal and innocent (Rom. 1:23) with a view to gaining eternal life by keeping the commandments (cf. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7) and by grace sharing the glory of our incorruptible God as his children (1 John 3:1-3).

What Scripture teaches in one of its best-known passages is that as mortal corruptible flesh we cannot enter the kingdom of God and need a second or spiritual birth in order to do so (John 3:1-8). Since this depends on righteousness achieved by keeping the law (Lev. 18:5; 1 John 3:7, etc.), we need Jesus who having alone met the condition himself died on our behalf.


Are We Frauds?

The question then remains: Are we frauds? To the extent that we deny the clear teaching of the Bible we profess to believe the answer is an unequivocal yes. Throughout the Bible tradition is primarily a bane. If Jeremiah became its prey, so did Jesus and Paul. My contention is that modern evangelicals have succumbed to it (see my Have We Inherited Lies?The Betrayal of the Reformation) and need as a matter of urgency to set their house in order. If they do not then they can only expect divine retribution like that wreaked on the Jews who refused to repent and to undergo reformation after the death of Christ. God himself will become our enemy.


The Way Forward

What I have written above prompts questions about me personally? Who am I to make these charges? Am I immune to mistakes? Not at all! It has long been of deep concern to me that though I have sought to debate basic issues with others and been ready if necessary to be corrected, yet no one has been willing to enter the fray. Though I have thrown down the gauntlet, no champion has entered the lists to do battle! Surely there is a Goliath somewhere capable of dealing with a mere David. Sadly, however, evangelicals, despite professing to be always reforming (semper reformanda), like the fanatical devotees of some of the world religions, seem to live in mortal fear of an open forum. (3* The book Always Reforming, ed. A.T.B.McGowan, 2006, makes a token gesture but is in substance rather disappointing.) They prefer assertion to substantiation. I myself do not wish to be told that I am wrong but to be shown that I am wrong. On the other hand, if ecclesiastical orthodoxy cannot justify itself, it testifies to the fact that something is seriously wrong that needs to put it right as a matter of urgency. There is little doubt in my mind that a false covenant theology and a ludicrous Augustinian worldview hang round our necks like millstones. (It is Augustinianism rather than the Bible that to a substantial degree instigates and fosters the struggle between science and theology.) So unless evangelicalism adopts an open forum approach, on the merely human level we are in serious danger of suffering permanent marginalisation, let alone dismissal as frauds.

The distinction between brandishing the banner of truth and flying the flag of fabrication should be obvious to all. To continue to teach as the word of God what is clearly contrary to it invites a curse (Gal. 1:8f.).

The Biblical Worldview

It is generally agreed that everyone has a worldview or, as some would maintain, a “religion” even if it is never properly articulated. A worldview is the way we understand reality. According to Raeper and Smith it has been defined as “a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or unconsciously) about the basic makeup of the world” (pp.278,337f.,340,351) (1* Cf. Byl who says “Our worldview consists of our most basic faith commitments, through which we interpret the world we experience and by which we live. Our worldview is the pair of spectacles through which we view the world and make sense of it”, p.14. Regrettably Byl’s own useful presentation of the Christian worldview is tarnished by Augustine, ch.10). As Christians we hold to a particular worldview, but when it clashes with others, the so-called scientific worldview, for example, the question arises as to whether it is “Christian” or biblical.

The biblical worldview is theistic, uncompromisingly theocentric (2* Cf. e.g. Dunn, Theology, pp.28-50). More specifically, God is the sovereign Creator and Sustainer of the universe. For believers there are in fact two worlds, the visible natural world of creation and the invisible supernatural world or heaven of the God who inhabits eternity (Isa. 57:15; 66:1). This cosmological dualism is reflected in us who derive physically from the earth but are also made in the image of God. We are thus anthropologically dualistic. (3* Cf. my Biblical Dualism)  We further believe that God alone knows his creation exhaustively but, while we his creatures do not, we nonetheless claim to be able to pursue meaning and truth. We believe that the Christian worldview is uniquely true and as such it makes the world intelligible and purposeful (4* Cf. M.Payne in Hoffecker, p.356). Furthermore, it is the Creator God of biblical revelation, the only God who is the Saviour and Redeemer (Ps. 96:5f.; Isa. 45:20-25; Jer. 10:10-16, etc.) of man who is appointed once to die and after death face judgement (Heb. 9:27).

In the West, so-called “Christianity”, or what might more accurately be termed “Churchianity”, has been built largely on the foundation laid by Augustine of Hippo, d. 430 AD. When he became a Christian against his pagan background, education and experience, Augustine developed a worldview dominated fundamentally by sin. Misunderstanding the word ‘good’ in Genesis 1, he believed that the world God created was originally perfect and Adam and Eve along with it. His contention regarding the latter was their original moral righteousness, holiness and even immortality. This, however, was clearly a major mistake. According to Scripture, man as both individual and race was created imperfect, that is, immature like a baby without knowledge of both (the) law and hence of good and evil (Gen. 2:16, cf. 3:5,22; Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f., etc.). When with his physical and mental development the commandment (law) eventually made its impact on his mind, Adam was in a position to respond either positively or negatively to its requirement (Gen. 2:17). In the event, he responded negatively and set a pattern of sin which all his progeny who are made in his image (cf. Gen. 5:1-3) have not unnaturally followed (Rom. 3:23) under his influence (Rom. 5:12ff.). (5* A prime example of the latter is Paul who, having begun life innocent, followed first Eve’s then Adam’s lead when the commandment dawned on his mind, Rom. 7:9f. In other words, like all of us Paul became a sinner, Eph. 2:1-3; Tit. 3:3, not by the transmission or imputation of Adam’s sin as tradition has it but by breaking (the) law by which sin is established and defined, Rom. 7:8; James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17, etc. See further my The Pattern of Sin.) Nonetheless, man’s original challenge was to obey the commandment with a view to attaining to righteousness and eternal life by keeping the law in all its fullness (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 7:10; 1 John 3:7, etc.) as Jesus, the second Adam, did (Luke 2:40ff.; Mt. 3:13-17, cf. 19:17). According to Augustine, however, our first parent Adam mysteriously “fell” from his putative perfection into sin and, as the divinely appointed lord of creation, dragged it down with him. Thus even today, despite Paul’s contention that creation is still ‘good’ (1 Cor. 10:26,31; 1 Tim. 4:3f., etc.) many constantly refer to creation as “fallen” and argue that it labours under an Adamic curse from which it needs redemption (e.g. C.Wright, p.395). (6* The word ‘fall’ is rightly queried by Dunn, pp.93f., cf. Romans 1-8, p.178, and Routledge, pp.154-156).

While Protestants differ from Roman Catholics in various ways, the Western church as a whole has largely adopted the Augustinian worldview. If for the Reformers and their Puritan successors the universal dominance of sin was manifest even in creation itself, how much more was it for some of their millenarian offspring (cf. Sizer, p.255). In the words of Ladd, “Premillennialism is the doctrine stating that after the Second Coming of Christ, he will reign for a thousand years over the earth before the final consummation of God’s redemptive purposes in the new heavens and the new earth of the Age to come. This is the natural reading of Revelation 20:1-6” (p.17).  Thus, superficially at least, all seems to be based on a very questionable interpretation of the book of Revelation. At bottom, sin is the cause of the corruption (decay) evident in the entire creation which consequently needs redemption. (7* For expansion of Ladd’s views which have in recent years come to exercise a profound influence on the Protestant worldview, see his The Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus and the Kingdom, etc.)

Against the background of their Augustinian worldview, fundamentalists believe not only that the seven days of Genesis are literal but also that death did not appear on the earth until Adam “fell” and earned it as wages (Rom. 5:12; 6:23). (8* See my Death Before Genesis 3, A Double Helping.) Assuming the truth of all this, the idea of paradise lost and regained is rampant though it is more readily conceded nowadays that the paradise of Revelation is enhanced. (See, for example, the note on Wolters below.) The problem here is that Scripture contains a great deal of evidence suggesting that the visible material creation including man as flesh is temporal (Gen. 1:1, cf. 2 Cor. 4:18), provisional like the Promised Land which is a type of heaven (cf. Heb. 3,4) and corruptible by creation or nature (Heb. 1:10-12, cf. Rom. 8:18-25) and will, once it has served its purpose and produced its harvest, be destroyed and not redeemed (Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27; Isa. 54:10; Zeph. 1:18; 3:8; Mt. 24:35; Heb. 6:7f.; 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.). (9* See e.g. my The Correspondence between Romans 8:12-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10, The Destruction of the Material Creation, The Harvest of the Earth.) Once the harvest which comprises man made in the image of God has been garnered, the field, which is the world (Mt. 13:38), ceases to be of value and becomes redundant (Mt. 13:30; Heb. 6:7f. 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, cf. Mt. 7:19; Luke 13:6-9, etc.).

So we are compelled to ask whether the traditional Augustinian worldview is correct. Is it a true reflection of what the Bible teaches or is it an imposition that leads to a major distortion with unacceptable ramifications?


Creation Temporal Not Eternal

First, the very first verse of the Bible teaches us that creation has a beginning and by implication an end. Genesis 8:22 confirms this. In other words, in contrast with its Creator who is eternal, immortal and incorruptible and has neither beginning nor end (Ps. 102:25-28; Isa. 40:28; 57:15; Rom. 1:23, cf. Heb. 7:3), it is temporal, corruptible and destructible by creation. Like all its products both plant and animal it grows old (Heb. 1:11, cf. Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 12:33). In light of this it is scarcely surprising that Paul tells us that the visible material is temporary (2 Cor. 4:18) and that our hope in view of the corruptibility of creation is an invisible one (Rom. 8:20,24f.). (See further my Faith and Invisibility – Seeing the Invisible.)


Perishable Food

Thus it is clear from Genesis 1 that the vegetation that stems from the ground as a result of the creation mandate (Gen. 1:11f.) is a source of food (cf. Gen. 2:9; 3:6) which implies death. Later in the Bible we learn that all flesh, which includes man who is also made from the earth, is (dependent on) grass, which is transient by nature (Isa. 40:6-8; James 1:10f.). The Psalmist is very conscious of the fact that though God feeds them, animals die (104:27-29; 147:9, cf. Job 38:39-41). Indeed, it can hardly escape notice that lions kill their prey by divine design (Ps. 104:21). Jesus himself stressed the fact that all who eat perishable food are themselves perishable (John 6:22ff.) like the creation from which they derive (Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 12:33). So the inference must be that all flesh, both man and animal, is subject to corruption (physical decay) apart from sin, though sin in its various forms may be an exacerbating factor. If this is so, it is more than questionable whether we can read Genesis 3:17-19 back into Romans 8:18-25. Yet this is constantly and apparently universally done without warrant.


Bread of Heaven

In fact, Jesus went further and insisted that those who were to live eternally needed to feed on heavenly food, that is, the word of God (Mt. 4:4). In John 4:10 and 6:51 he emphasized the necessity of drinking living water and feeding on living bread or bread from heaven. The implication of this is that the animal creation, which lacks the image of God and is limited by nature to earthly food, is excluded. Since as flesh it can do no other than sow to the flesh, it is from the flesh that it reaps inevitable decay (Gal. 6:7f., cf. Rom. 8:13). Men who act likewise do the same (Rom. 8:5-8; 1 Cor. 6:9f.; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5; 2 Pet. 2; Jude).


Reproduction

That death and corruption are natural and not necessarily the wages of sin would appear to be implied by the fact that reproduction is built into creation from the start, that is, before sin made its appearance (Gen. 1:11f., etc.). Clearly, the different species (and man according to the flesh is one of them, cf. Gen. 2:7) can only be perpetuated by reproducing themselves (cf. Gen. 7:2f.,9). Reproduction, however suggests repetition, and repetition, as the author of Hebrews strongly stresses, implies futility. And futility is a prominent feature of creation which though exacerbated by sin exists irrespective of it (Eccl.; Rom. 8:20, cf. 1 Cor. 15:14,17). It scarcely needs adding that neither death nor the reproduction which counters it features in the eternal age to come (Luke 20:34-36). This being so, we are forced to deny that this present corruptible creation, including the flesh, is subject to redemption (1 Cor. 15:50).


Sacrifice

Another point can be made. In the OT, animals were amenable to service as sacrifices foreshadowing the one true and perfect sacrifice of Christ. Though physically without blemish (cf. Lev. 3:1), they were flesh and not spirit (Isa. 31:3) and consequently their sacrifice had no permanent moral value as the author of Hebrews strongly insists. The lesson we learn then is that the flesh as such is ultimately expendable because it is spiritually and morally useless (cf. John 6:63; Rom 7:18; 8:8).


The Death, Resurrection and Transformation of Jesus

This brings us to the sinless Jesus who as flesh was both mortal (he died) and corruptible (he got older) in contrast with his heavenly Father (cf. Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16, etc.). This being so, his flesh, though not liable to death since he had kept the law which promised life, was expendable too and he freely gave it in death as a sacrifice for our sin (Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 3:18, etc.). Many traditionalists would doubtless respond to this by pointing out that he rose physically from the dead suggesting that his flesh, which had not succumbed as the wages of sin, was permanently saved. Some even draw the conclusion from this that the fruit of his resurrection was the redemption of creation, though 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 which refer to people clearly fail to suggest this. Obviously, this is a serious mistake. The fact is that there is no connection between the physical resurrection of Jesus and creation (10* Pace e.g. Harris, G to G, pp. 245ff., Raised Immortal, pp.165ff.). The NT makes the reason why Jesus rose physically from the grave unequivocally clear: he died not on account of his own sin but of ours. Having personally kept the law and, in contrast with the first Adam, gained life (Gen. 2:16f.; Lev. 18:5), he did not earn death as the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23). Rather, his life was freely laid down as a sacrifice for his people whose own life was forfeit (cf. John 10). And since death had no hold over him personally, he rose again (Acts 2:22-24) notably without experiencing corruption (Acts 2:27-31; 13:34-37).

But another point must be made. If Jesus died and rose on our behalf, his death and resurrection were not essential to his personal earthly life. To express the issue alternatively, had he not died for us, he would have been glorified by transformation ascension apart from resurrection altogether as Adam would have been if he had not sinned. This being so, we are forced to conclude that there was no connection between Jesus’ resurrection and the redemption of creation.

The truth is that as a product of the earth and a son of Adam through his mother (Luke 3:38), Jesus was naturally temporal, mortal and corruptible. (11* Jesus was incarnate only for a little while, Heb. 2:7,9, and since he inevitably got older, Luke 2:40ff.; 3:23; John 8:57, he was subject to decay, 2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 8:13.) In light of this, the fact that he did not undergo corruption after his resurrection, which receives significant emphasis by both Peter (Acts 2) and Paul (Acts 13), can only mean that he was still corruptible. He was in his own words still flesh and bones (Luke 24:39, cf. John 20:19-25, etc.). Since, however, flesh and blood cannot by nature inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:1-8), like all his believing brethren who do not die at the end of the age he had to be changed at his ascension to avoid inevitable corruption on the one hand (John 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:51ff., cf. Zech. 14:12,15,18) and to inherit the eternal throne of David, who saw corruption (Acts 2:29), on the other (Luke 1:32f.; Acts 13:34). (12* See further my When Was Jesus Transformed?)


The Need for Spiritual Regeneration

It is clearly on this account that Jesus taught that those who are born of the flesh, which is by nature liable to decay (corruption), need a second or spiritual birth from above (John 3:1-8). They need to be born of God who is spirit in order to enter his heavenly presence as his spiritual children (John 1:12f., cf. 1 Pet. 1:3f.). If flesh gives birth to flesh and Spirit gives birth to spirit (John 3:6), this is absolutely necessary. It is clearly a question of nature and has nothing to do with sin as the traditional Augustinian interpretation would have it. Morally speaking, the flesh as created is neither good nor bad. It is in fact amoral as in all animals. It is only ‘good’ to the extent that it is useful or suited to a purpose (Gen. 1; 1 Tim. 4:4). (13* The reader should note that I am not denying that the new birth has an impact on sin. Paul notes the connection in Titus 3:3-7, for example, where regeneration (cf. Eph. 2:5) relates to sanctification. Cf. 1 John 3:9, etc.)


Flesh and Spirit

In the Bible flesh and spirit/Spirit are antithetical (Rom. 7:14, cf. Isa. 31:3) and properly at war with each other as in the case of Jesus who successfully resisted all the temptations of the flesh (Mt. 4:1-11; Gal. 5:16f.; Heb. 4:15; James 4:1ff.; 1 Pet. 2:11, cf. Jer. 17:5;.). As part of the material creation the flesh is intended to be under the dominion of man’s spirit (cf. James 3:2f.) just as creation as a whole is ultimately under the sovereignty of God. During the tenure of man the earth is in certain respects meant to be under his lordship or stewardship. Thus it follows that the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom. 8:7). But man in his weakness has always given way to his fleshly desires even though he is specifically commanded not to (Gen. 2:16f.; 3:1-6; 4:7). Only Jesus, though flesh himself, overcame the temptations of the flesh and conquered (Mt. 4:1ff.; Heb. 4:15, cf. Rom. 8:3).


The World

But he did more. In conformity with man’s original challenge to Adam (Gen. 1:26,28), he also overcame the world (John 16:33, cf. 17:4f.; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:5,12). (14* I am assuming here that the ‘world’ is comprehensive and means not simply the world of sinful men but also the world as a whole, cf. 1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:15-17.) On the other hand, in overcoming or exercising proper dominion over the physical creation Jesus clearly did not change its very constitution, that is, its temporal, provisional and corruptible nature. If it had gained these characteristics as a consequence of the curse stemming from the sin of Adam as traditionalists maintain, he would have had to do precisely this. He would simply have reversed it, but this Scripture noticeably denies (cf. Heb. 2:8; 1 Cor. 15:25.) Since he aspired to return to his heavenly throne with his believing fellows in tow (cf. John 6:38-40; Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18), Jesus, like his Father the heavenly warrior, made it his footstool (Isa. 66:1; Mt. 5:34f.) to be finally destroyed like Joshua’s enemies (Jos. 10:16-28; Ps.110:1; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). His success thus paved the way for his sinful brethren to follow in his steps (Heb. 2:9f.; Rev. 3:21) and thus escape corruption (decay). (15* See further my Escape.) And even they as believers in union with Christ while still on earth are reminded that they have crucified both the flesh (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24) and the world (Gal. 6:14) which clearly includes creation (Col. 3:1-6). Thus to give way to the blandishments of both the flesh and the world is to act contrary to their new nature in Christ (cf. Rom. 6:1-7; 12:1-2) which has a heavenly orientation (cf. Mt. 6:19f. etc.).


The Devil

In contrast with Adam and all the rest of his progeny, Jesus also defeated the devil (John 14:30, etc.). Despite Satan’s temptations, which included the offer of an earthly kingdom, Jesus overcame (Mt. 4:1-11, cf. Luke 9:25; John 18:36). He not only kept the law and inherited life and/or the kingdom of God/heaven but, having died on behalf of his people and risen again, he finally ascended into heaven as their pioneer. In view of universal failure apart from him, it was vital that he did so for salvation had to be gained by man in accordance with the original promise (Gen. 2:17; Heb. 2). Like our first forebears, the rest of us all in our turn give way to fleshly temptation, to the pressures of the world and the machinations of the devil (Rom. 5:12). As a consequence, like them we too are banished from access to the Father (cf. Gen. 3:23f.) except insofar as we are found in Christ who is our Elder Brother (John 14:6; Heb. 2:10-13, etc.).


The Big Picture

So what then in essence is the biblical worldview or big picture? First, the material creation exists solely by the will of God (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11). Next, though ‘good’, that is, useful or serving a purpose, it is inherently temporal, intrinsically transient and in fundamental contrast with its Creator who alone is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16) and incorruptible (1 Tim. 1:17). It moves from a beginning to an inevitable end irrespective of sin. As the author of Hebrews states, it grows old (Heb. 1:10-12). As products of creation all created or visible things are temporary (2 Cor. 4:18, cf. Luke 12:33; 1 Cor. 9:25; 1 Pet. 1:18; 3:4, etc.) and are in contrast with the invisible God himself (Rom. 1:20). Since they are all subject to decay (corruption), they are slated for ultimate destruction (Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). Deriving as he does from a corruptible creation, man as flesh is also visible and subject to time. He grows old, and according to Genesis 6:3 his earthly life is limited to about 120 years. Later this age is scaled down to three score years and ten. Though as a law-breaker man earns his death (Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:56), nonetheless contrary to church tradition death as such is intrinsically natural as is implied in Genesis 1. For even the sinless Jesus who as flesh was born of woman got older and was hence corruptible. Had he remained on the earth he would eventually have faded away and died (2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 8:13). While he died for us in the flesh he inherited from Adam (Luke 3:38; 1 Cor. 15:22), nonetheless after his physical resurrection he was necessarily transformed and glorified at his ascension (John 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:51ff.). (16* The widespread and longstanding (it goes back at least to Origen) idea that he was transformed at his resurrection is a denial of Paul’s explicit assertion in 1 Cor. 15:50. What is more, Scripture stresses that he did not see corruption. In light of this he must have remained corruptible flesh until he experienced transformation at his ascension. See further my When Was Jesus Transformed?)


Why Creation?

Stephen Hawking the famous British scientist has suggested that the biggest question facing man is why there is anything at all and admits that science cannot give an answer. So what does the Bible say? It tells us that creation’s prime purpose is the manifestation of the glory of God (Ps. 19; Rom. 1:20). However, since it was meant to be inhabited (Gen. 1; Isa. 45:18) it also reveals the riches of his grace to man made in the divine image. In other words, its purpose was and is ultimately the glory of God displayed supremely in the salvation and adoption of man (Rom. 8:12-17; Eph. 1:3-14, etc.). Isaiah 45 in particular points in this direction (Isa. 45:22-25, cf. Rom. 8:12-17; Eph. 1:3-7; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-20). In the short term, however, man as God’s image is called on to exercise dominion over creation and by implication make the entire earth God’s sanctuary like Eden (18* cf. Isa. 51:3.  On this, see e.g. Beale and Alexander. Regrettably both of these writers are somewhat equivocal in their understanding of the New Jerusalem. Misled by OT materialism and its limited revelation of heaven, e.g. Isa. 65:17-19; 66:22, they fail to recognize that it is spiritual, eternal and hence already exists, cf. Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22, like the world/age to come as such, Luke 20:34-36; Heb. 9:11f.,24, etc. See further my Will Creation Be Redeemed?) In Eden, the womb of mankind, God as his Creator walked with Adam. Only sporadically did he do so in the rest of the OT though that was always the intention (cf. 2 Cor. 6:16; Rev. 21:3). So on the physical level creation nurtures man and beast alike; on the spiritual level it is a place of probation and testing to determine what is in man (cf. Ex. 16:4; Dt. 8:2,16; James 1:12, etc.) in preparation for the grand finale or the Day of the Lord which involves eternal life for all believers in the presence of God (Rev. 7:9). Thus at the end we shall all be judged on the basis of our works, thoughts and intentions of our hearts (Rom. 2:6-11; 1 Cor. 4:5; Heb. 9:27) and allotted our final inheritance (cf. 2 Tim. 4:8,18) as the Israelites were at the end of their pilgrimage from Egypt.


Man’s Failure

In himself man is of course a failure. He comes a cropper at the first hurdle. Adam fails in his first test, and all his progeny who are made in his image (Gen. 5:1-3) repeat or rather recapitulate his sin, follow in his tread (Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 7:9f.) and transgress in their youth (Jer. 3:25, etc.) They disobey the ‘no’ of their parents or guardians who teach them the law (Dt. 4:9, etc.). Having failed to keep the commandment that promises eternal life (Gen. 2:16f.; Lev. 18:5; Dt. 30:15-20, etc.), they fail to exercise proper dominion, and the earth which they are meant to till and tend frequently fails to respond as it should (cf. e.g. Prov. 24:30ff.). So bad is the situation in man’s infancy that the uncovenanted creation is threatened with immediate annihilation (Gen. 6:11-13, cf. Sodom and Gomorrah and Heb. 6:7f.).


The Covenant with Noah

In the event, however, though creation suffers the curse of the flood as a consequence of general sinfulness,  God in his grace makes a temporary covenant with Noah (Gen. 8:22) in order to undergird and guarantee the completion of the plan of human salvation (cf. Jer. 31:35-37; 33:19-21; Isa. 54:9). When the mountains and the hills are eventually removed (Isa. 54:10, cf. 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12; Heb. 12:27), God’s steadfast love and covenant of peace instead of being removed will remain forever. This is the consistent message of the Bible as references like the following make clear: Psalm 102:25-28; 103:14-18; Isaiah 40:6-8; 45:17; 51:6,8; Mt. 24:35, etc. (18* See further my Did God Make a Covenant With Creation?)

The implication of this is that temporal creation will give way to the eternal heaven, the kingdom of God or the new heavens and new earth where righteousness already dwells (Jer. 50:7 ESV; Mt. 5:6,10,20; 6:10,33; 2 Pet. 3:13, cf. Rev. 21:1 commenting on which Morris rightly says that the John is not looking for a new edition of the same thing!). See further below.


The Mosaic Covenant

While the covenant with Abraham like that with David promises future blessing to all who believe, the Mosaic covenant under the terms of which the children of Abraham become a holy nation and a royal priesthood serves as a temporary guardian of the chosen people and a means of educating them in preparation for the coming of Christ. Like the covenant with Noah it is temporary and provisional until salvation comes (Gal. 3:23-29).  It is limited in that it relates to the flesh and cannot deal with the conscience (Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1; Heb. 7:16; 9:8-10), and, since it requires works beyond the capacity of ordinary men to accomplish, it cannot bring salvation (Gal. 3:21). Paul stresses its provisional and temporary nature as a covenant and hence its ineffectiveness (2 Cor. 3). But whereas Paul tends to underline man’s inability to keep the law that promises life, the author of Hebrews, who stresses the futility associated with repetition, takes a slightly different tack and emphasizes its intrinsic inadequacy (7:18f.; 8:7). The mere fact that it requires replacement by another covenant demonstrates for him its ultimate ineffectiveness even apart from sin. (19* See further my Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity.) In other words, it reflects the natural defectiveness of creation and the flesh that derives from it (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49). This being the case, only Christ can bring salvation which involves escape from both physical and moral corruption to eternal life and glory (20* See my Escape.)


The Eternal Covenant and the Glorification of Man

Redemption (rescue/escape) from Egypt was central to the old covenant people. The problem was, however, that fleshly redemption and the subsequent acquisition of the sanctuary of the Promised Land were by nature merely temporary (Heb. 3,4). Furthermore, even in Jerusalem and its temple sin remained a problem underlined by the nature of the worship or cultus itself. What were clearly needed were an eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12) and an eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:15), including a permanent temple/city/country (Heb. 11:8-16; 13:14) where righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:13). This was provided by the new or eternal covenant historically inaugurated by Christ (Heb. 13:20). It is he who as man paved the way into the presence of God in heaven which, after all, was the goal from the start (Heb. 2:10, cf. John 6:38-40; Eph. 1:20f.). The high calling of man made in the divine image was his spiritual perfection (Phil. 3:12-14, cf. Heb. 3:1) as the spiritual child of God (John 1:12f.; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:4-7; Eph. 1:4-7; 1 John 2:29-3:3) with a resurrected or redeemed spiritual body suited to his glorious heavenly environment (Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 15:42-49; 2 Cor. 5:1; Phil. 3:21).

So whereas under the old covenant with its earthly orientation the God of heaven always came down to man finally in the incarnation (John 1:14), (21* Cf. Gen. 11:5; Ex. 3:8; 19:20; Dt. 1:30f.; 1 K. 8, etc., though note Enoch and Elijah who were like straws in the wind presaging Christ’s ascension.) under the heavenly new covenant man ascends to God to the new Jerusalem or the celestial city (1 Cor. 15:51ff.). Corresponding with this, while restoration is a basic theme in the OT (e.g. Jer. 30:18), change and replacement are characteristic of the NT (1 Cor. 15:51ff.; 2 Cor. 5:1-10). (22* Contrast Wolters, who like C.Wright, e.g. p.395, sets out what he calls the reformational worldview equating salvation with restoration, pp.69ff. Apart from ignoring a whole dimension of biblical evidence, he clearly lacks an adequate covenant theology and appreciation of the plan of salvation.)


Ultimate Presentation

In light of this, it is little wonder that ultimate presentation is stressed (1 Cor. 11:2; 15:24; Eph. 1:4; Jude 24, etc.). Jesus himself tells his disciples that he will prepare a place for them in his Father’s house (John 14:2f., cf. Phil. 3:20) in the eternal kingdom of God (John 3:5f., cf. 2 Pet. 1:11), in the new heavens and earth where righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:13). Since it is impossible for flesh, or the corruptible in general, to inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50; John 3:1-10), it ought to go almost without saying that just as he himself had to shed his corruptible flesh at his ascension, so they will have to do the same (1 Cor. 15:42-55; Phil. 3:21). If they have died and experienced corruption, their bodies like David’s will require redemption (Rom. 8:23) at the general resurrection (cf. Acts 2:27-35 and 13:34-37). If they have not died, they will have to undergo transformation like Jesus at their ascension. This is the fruit of the Christ’s own resurrection which demonstrated his victory over the world, the flesh and the devil (1 Cor. 15:20-23). Ultimately, according to Paul even Christ himself is subjected to God who will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:24-28). When this occurs restoration to universal fellowship and harmony will be achieved (Acts 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Eph. 1:10; Phil. 2:9-11; 3:21; Col. 1:20).

If what has been briefly set out above is a true depiction of what the Bible teaches, then the traditional Augustinian idea that creation is corruptible on account of sin is plainly false. Creation and creature alike were subjected to decay in the purpose of God so that man might not only seek him and find him (Acts 17:26f.) but also have an invisible hope (Rom. 8:20,24f.; 2 Cor. 4:16-18). Since God is spirit his spiritual children must not only worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24) but also partake of his spiritual nature (2 Pet. 1:4; 1 Pet. 1:3f.,23; 4:6; 1 John 3:9, etc.). As intimated above, God intended man to be his spiritual child from the start (Gen. 2:17). However, to prevent human boasting (1 Cor. 1:29, Eph. 2:9) his plan was for all men to come short of his glory by failing to keep the law so that he himself might become their Saviour (Rom. 3:19f.,23; 11:32; Gal. 3:22). As we have already seen, this is taught in the OT, especially in Isaiah 45:22-25, for example. The NT clarifies this by teaching that this salvation is achieved by Jesus before whom every knee will eventually bend and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9-11).


A Manufactured Creation

There is a final point to make. The Bible clearly teaches that what is ‘made by hand’ (Gk cheiropoietos), like idols (e.g. Isa. 2:8; Acts 19:26), is inherently defective even apart from sin. (23* See my Manufactured or Not So.) So since God himself made the temporal creation (Gen. 1:1) including man ‘by hand’ (Ps. 102:25-27; 119:73; Isa. 45:12; 48:13, etc.) and forbade its worship (Dt. 4:15-19), it must be regarded as inherently defective (not evil, though note Gal. 1:4), that is, naturally temporal and subject to decay (cf. Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). (24* The word ‘good’ = useful in Genesis 1 was seriously misunderstood by Augustine. Cf. 1 Tim. 4:4.). Just as the temporary ‘hand-made’ material creation has no guarantee apart from the temporary covenant made with Noah (Gen. 8:22, cf. Isa. 54:10), so the flesh has no guarantee apart from the temporal and provisional ‘hand-written’ covenant made with Moses which relates to it (Rom. 7:1, cf. Mt. 5:18; Heb. 9:8-10, etc.). (It might be added here by way of clarification that those who are under law are still unregenerate. The new birth, which is never more than a promise under the old covenant, comes only through faith specifically in Christ, John 3:16; 1 John 5:11f., who alone achieved the righteousness which was its condition, Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, cf. Gal. 3:2,5, etc.) What the ‘manufactured’ creation points to, like the ‘manufactured’ temple (Mark 14:58), is heaven itself which is “not made by hand” (Heb. 9:11,24) and therefore remains forever unshakable (Heb. 12:27) like God himself (Heb. 1:12b; Rev. 4:10f., cf. 2 Chr. 32:19).

So, to sum up, it may be said that the Biblical worldview presents the ‘good’ creation as a temporary instrument (Ps. 102:25-27, etc.) ideally suited to serve the eternal purpose of God which is the manifestation of his glory and wisdom in human salvation (cf. Eph. 3:11f.). Thus man who alone is created in the divine image moves from ground to glory, or as David Seccombe has it from dust to destiny, to become the child of God through faith (John 1:12f., Rom. 8:12-17; 1 John 3:1-3, cf. Rom. 1:16f.). In no other conceivable way could God’s glory be more wonderfully displayed than in the death of Christ as Revelation 4:9-11 and 5:11-14 indicate (cf. Rom. 11:33-36; 16:25-27; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 2:10-13; 13:20f.).


Final Word

I began this brief essay with a reference to worldviews including that of modern science. On the assumption that what has been written above is a true reflection of biblical teaching, it would appear that the difference in outlook even antipathy between so-called Christianity and science, naturalism apart, stems primarily from the creation/fall/redemption schema of Augustine. The Bible, especially its covenant theology, far from presenting the reader with a flat uniformity from the beginning followed by a fall from alleged perfection in Adam and redemption restoration in Christ points to divinely dictated development or evolution (cf. the idea now almost universal of the corresponding progress of revelation). In other words, even Jesus himself the antitype or true paradigm of mankind having begun his earthly life in the flesh in innocent immaturity (cf. Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f., etc.) had to be perfected both physically and spiritually (Luke 2:52; Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28) as he recapitulated the history of the race (Adam) in the flesh and pioneered or ‘precapitulated’ the regenerate life after his baptism as he was led by the Spirit (cf. Mt. 2:15; Eph. 1:10, etc.). (25* Before his eclipse by Augustine, Irenaeus, the father of theology, had taught Jesus’ recapitulation of the race or by implication that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Apart from this the world (of man) could not be saved, cf. 1 John 2:2 and the notion expressed by Gregory of Nazianzus that what is not assumed cannot be healed, cf. Heb. 2. To the extent that he was a product of the material creation and was physically creation in miniature Jesus also recapitulated or followed the pattern of creation. He too had a physical beginning and an end.) So, what Christians should be opposed to is not evolution as such which implies physical maturation to perfection on both the individual and community levels but naturalism. Intrinsic to the development of the plan of salvation for man made in the image of God is diminished responsibility highlighted by covenant theology which applies as much to the individual as to the race (cf. Gal. 4:1-7; Rom. 7-8). Thus men and women and boys and girls as rational souls from every tribe and tongue and nation will stand before the throne of God and the Lamb and give praise (Rev. 7:9f.). That is why faith which is relative comes first in the order of salvation (pace Augustinians). For the immature and even the ungodly like Abraham can exercise faith of a limited kind as they are inspired by the Spirit (cf. Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8; Heb. 11). But if regeneration comes first, then faith, repentance and righteousness are superfluous on the one hand and mechanical election is central on the other as in Islam. (26* See my The Order of Salvation, The Order of Salvation in Romans, Cart-Before-the-Horse Theology, etc.)  This inevitably means that the number of the saved is severely curtailed and, according to Augustine, the unbaptised heathen who are damned en masse  constitute a massa damnata or massa perditionis since they are outside the church (extra ecclesiam non salus).

So, to sum up, the Bible is about the ascent of man from ground to glory, from earth to heaven, from flesh to spirit (1 Cor. 15:46), from death to life, from corruptibility to incorruptibility, from creature to new creature/creation (Gal. 6:15, cf. 5:6; 1 Cor. 7:19). (27* See further my The Ascent of Man.) Jesus, who epitomized the race as the perfect(ed) man (cf. Eph. 1:10; 2:15; 4:13), became, as Irenaeus expressed it, what we are so that we might become what he is  and thus share his glory as the children of God (cf. John 6:38-40; Rom. 5:2; 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:2; Eph. 1:5,11; Phil. 3:21; Heb. 2:10-13). Since God loved the world (John 3:16), we can be sure that the number of the saved will outweigh the number of the damned – a view that even Calvin, Augustinian though he was, held on the basis of Romans 5:12-21.

Additional Note: An Inherent Contradiction

Even restorationists writing on Hebrews recognize that the ministry of the Levitical priests related to a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary not to the eternal reality itself. P.E.Hughes, for example, in comment on Hebrews 8:5 argues that the antitype or  heavenly original was also the archetype. He thus correctly perceives that the reality both precedes and follows the copy (cf. John 17:5,24). In other words, the shadow cast by the eternal original also foreshadowed its future fulfillment But on the assumption that all earthly things not merely the tabernacle/temple are but temporary shadows of the real world, to posit the restoration of the material creation is to posit the restoration of the shadow or copy which is by nature impermanent and soon to be replaced by the permanent. This is clearly contradictory (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Cor. 4:18).  It must be concluded then that Hughes’ argument regarding the destructible manufactured tabernacle/temple (cf. Heb. 9:11,24) undermines his claim that the equally hand-made creation (Heb. 1:10) can be restored, regenerated or redeemed. The inconsistency in his thinking is patent. Since it does not arise from the text (of Hebrews in particular), it clearly stems from his false Augustinian worldview in which sin ruined an originally perfect creation.

In further support and clarification of this conclusion we have only to consider Jesus himself. According to Paul in Romans 5:14 Adam was a type of the one who was to come and hence not the reality (cf. Col. 2:17). So when Jesus temporarily entered this created world as the incarnate second Adam, a son of the first (Luke 3:38), he himself was but a shadow or copy of what he was to be. (It is surely significant that the NT contains no description of the physical Jesus at all.) Thus, he was incarnate only for a little while (Heb. 2:7,9). But since he met the condition of life in the flesh (Rom. 8:3) and eventually attained to heavenly glory (cf. Acts 1:9f.; 3:13; John 7:39; Phil. 3:21; 1 Tim. 3:16, etc.), he became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45, cf. John 5:21,26; 6:33,50; 11:25). In his case, however, the glory that he received was that which he had with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:5) that is, in heaven itself. As the real or true he had descended so that he might ascend to where he was before (John 3:13; Eph. 4:9f. and note especially John 6:62f.) with his people in tow (Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). So again we must say in light of this that to posit the restoration (regeneration, redemption, etc.) of the impermanent shakable creation including the flesh from which Jesus had led the escape is manifestly absurd. It is contrary to the essence of the biblical worldview in which those who believe in Christ have eternal life (John 3:16) in the presence of their Saviour (John 17:24) with whom they will dwell forever (John 12:26; 1 Thes. 4:17).

Note on Wolters’ “Creation Regained”

I had virtually completed the above when Wolters’work came to hand. Like Gaffin’s in “The Forgotten Christ”, ed. S.Clark  (on which see my Did Jesus Rise Physically from the Dead?), it is such a strong statement of the Reformed worldview that it requires brief comment.

While there is much that is valuable in Wolters’ stance especially with regard to the living of the Christian life with which he deals mainly in the second part of the book, his emphasis on redemption as the “restoration of an original good creation” (p.12, cf. pp.69ff.) which he equates with physical re-creation is open to question. It smacks of  old covenant thinking like that of Nicodemus (John 3:4)

First, Wolters stresses the importance of Scripture (p.1) (though later he omits a great deal of scriptural teaching clearly opposing his thesis). He then defines worldview as “the comprehensive framework of one’s basic beliefs about things” (p.2),

Next, following the creation/fall/redemption schema of Augustine Wolters fails to differentiate between the physical creation and man made in the spiritual image of God. In other words, like many others he cannot tolerate the notion of dualism (e.g. pp.12,35) which is usually dismissed as Greek dualism and/or Gnosticism (pp.49,61,65) though this is more than debatable (see my Biblical Dualism). In true Augustinian fashion he stresses the “goodness” (= perfection) of the entire creation (pp.48ff.) and assumes that it was wholly corrupted by the sin of Adam. This in itself begs a huge question. He comments that God does not make junk (p.48) and so draws the conclusion that God does not destroy junk (p.49). This is said despite the fact that in Scripture the work of God’s hands (p.70) stands in sharp contrast with what is “not made by hand” (acheiropoietos on which see my Manufactured or Not So.) Thus 2 Peter 3:10 is made to refer not to annihilation but to purification (pp.47f., cf. my The Destruction of the Material Creation.) Nowhere does Wolters seem to recognize the natural limitations of both temporal creation (cf. e.g. Heb. 1:10-12) and the temporal law that relates to it (Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1; Heb. 7:16; 9:8-10, etc., contrast Mt. 24:35). Predictably his dubious handling of Romans 8:18-25 (pp.56f.) begs fundamental questions (see my Romans 8 Revisited). For him subjection to frustration, vanity, futility and corruption all stem from the sin of Adam (p.56) even though most commentators, even Reformed ones (e.g. Murray, p.303, Moo, p.516), acknowledge that God himself is the author of the subjection in question. In other words, the notion of corruptibility by creation about which the Bible has a good deal to say (Gen. 1; Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 12:33; 13:4, etc.) apparently fails to cross his mind. Rather he repeatedly emphasizes that sin is the sole basis of all our earthly problems. So just as Adam’s “fall” affected the whole creation so the redemption wrought by Christ will redeem it (pp.120f., cf. 56f.).

It is somewhat odd, however, that Wolters has a better appreciation than most of the development or evolution of creation (pp.41ff.) and, while implicitly rejecting literal 24-hour days in Genesis 1, he opts for restoration rather than repristination (e.g. pp.77f.).

I humbly suggest that with a better understanding of the plan of salvation, of covenant theology and recognition that the Bible is pervasively dualistic not least with regard to  flesh and spirit (cf. pp. 82f. where the former is wrongly ethicized),  Wolters would come to different conclusions.  The biblical worldview is a good deal more complicated than he allows and the inadequacies of earthly life cannot simply be attributed to the “fall”. (See further my The Corruptibility of Creation, Concerning Futility,  etc.).

____________________________________________________

References:

T.D.Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem, Nottingham, 2008.

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

John Byl, The Divine Challenge, Edinburgh/Carlisle, 2004.

S.Clark ed., The Forgotten Christ, Nottingham, 2007.

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

Romans 1-8, Dallas, 1988.

W.A.Hoffecker, Revolutions in Worldview, Phillipsburg, 2007.

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

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

Leon Morris, Revelation, London, 1969.

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

W.Raeper and L.Smith, A Brief Guide to Ideas, Oxford, 1991.

R.Routledge, Old Testament Theology, Nottingham, 2008.

S.Sizer, Christian Zionism, Leicester, 2004.

A.Wolters, Creation Regained, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2nd ed. 2005.

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

Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?

The doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus is absolutely indispensable to the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:12-19) and failure to understand its character is fraught with potential disaster. While the vast majority of professing Christians would concede this, there are nonetheless subtle ways in which the Jesus’ physical resurrection can be undermined apart from express denial of it. One of these ways would appear to be the notion rampant in early twenty-first century that Jesus’ was transformed when he rose from the grave. It is vital for us to examine the issue, if only relatively briefly.

First, the Psalmist claimed that the Messiah would not see corruption (Ps. 16:10, cf. Acts 13:34-37). The unavoidable inference from this in light of later teaching is that in contrast with God (Rom. 1:23) he was to be by nature both mortal and corruptible, yet, as one who would keep the law and gain life (Lev. 18:5), he would escape permanent death (the wages of sin) and corruption (the normal result of death) (cf. Acts 2:22-24).

Second, Jesus taught that regeneration was the indispensable prelude of entry into the kingdom of God (cf. Gen. 2:17; Rom. 7:9f.). In other words, in order to serve as man’s pioneer to glory (Heb. 2:10-13; 6:20; 12:2), he himself, as one who was born of woman was flesh (Gal. 4:4), had to be born again (John 3:5f., cf. 1 Cor. 15:50).

Third, since he had gained (eternal) life (Mt. 3:13-17), Jesus was able to predict his physical resurrection but not (in as many words) his transformation (John 2:19f.; 10:17f., cf. Mark 9:31, etc.). However, he implies the latter by strongly emphasizing his return to the Father (e.g. John 7:33; 13:1,3; 17:5,24; 20:17). We conclude then that just as he had  undergone an incarnation transformation when he came into the world, so he had to undergo an ascension transformation when he left it (1 Cor. 15:51ff.).

Fourth, the suggestion that Jesus was transformed at his resurrection would seem to be a contradiction in terms. It smacks of evasion, not victory over death. A transformed Jesus is by definition not a physically resurrected Jesus. Bluntly, transformation would appear to eliminate or make redundant physical or fleshly resurrection. This inference is supported by the fact that those who experience decay like David (Acts 2:29) undergo bodily but not fleshly (1 Cor. 15:50) redemption or resurrection transformation (Rom. 8:23, cf. Luke 20:37f.; 1 Cor. 15:42-49; 2 Cor. 5:1) at the general resurrection.

Fifth, the NT proves the physicality of Jesus’ resurrection by asserting that he was seen, heard, touched (e.g. John 20:14-29; 1 John 1:1-3). Otherwise expressed, he was accessible to the physical senses of human beings (contrast 2 Cor. 4:18; Rom. 8:24f.). This being so, we are compelled to conclude that he had not been transformed and glorified (cf. 2 Cor. 5:6-8, pace Bruce, pp.36,228, Stott, p.191).

Sixth, Jesus himself said that he was flesh and bone (Luke 24:39). According to Marshall (p.902), bones are essential to resurrection (cf. Lazarus et al.).

If Jesus had been transformed:

1. He would not have asserted that he was still flesh (Luke 24:39).

2. Paul would not have insisted in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that it is impossible for flesh to enter heaven or the corruptible to inherit the incorruptible. In view of this, we must conclude that the inherently temporary cannot be eternalized or glorified (cf. John 3:5f.; 2 Cor. 4:18).

3. He would not have been visible (2 Cor. 4:18, cf. 5:6-8). Apart from the disciples who are exclusively eyewitnesses prepared beforehand (cf. Acts 10:40f.), Jesus tells Doubting Thomas that those who have not physically seen him are blessed (John 20:29). This clearly implies that they will see him only by faith (cf. Heb. 11:27) in order to be justified and thus gain life in conformity with the gospel (cf. Rom. 1:16f.).

4. In light of his teaching in John 6:25-69, where like the Psalmist (104:14,21) and Job (38:39-41) he underlines the implication of Genesis 1 which is that perishable food is eaten only by the perishable, Jesus would not have eaten with his disciples (John 21:9-14; Luke 24:42f.; Acts 10:41) unless he was intent on deceiving rather than enlightening them.

5. If he had already undergone transformation glorification as many claim, he would not have promised the outpouring of the Spirit after his glorification which clearly took place after his ascension (John 7:39; 16:7). (It would appear that John 20:19-23 is proleptic, anticipatory of Acts 2.)

6. He would not have prayed that his disciples should see his heavenly glory (John 17:5,24).

From this we infer that if he had been transformed, his glory (majesty and splendour) would have been manifest to his disciples here on earth. In the event, they either failed to believe or to recognize him or even mistook him for the gardener. Some glory!

7. He would not have told Mary not to hang on to him because he had not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17).

8. He would not have appeared in one (physical) form to the early apostles before his ascension and in another (glorified) form to Paul after it (Acts 9,22,26). When Paul claims to have seen the Lord (1 Cor. 9:1), there is no indication that he ever saw him physically as the earlier apostles had seen him.

9. He would not have appeared different in heaven to John (Rev. 1:12-18; 2:18; 19:11-16). (Stephen’s vision at the point of his death in Acts 7:56 reflects Daniel 7:13.)

Corruption or Decay

In the NT there is a movement from the corruptible creation to the incorruptible heaven, from the natural to the spiritual (John 3:1-8; 1 Cor. 15:46; 1 Pet. 1:3f., cf. 2 Tim. 1:10), from the old covenant to the new covenant, from the temporary and provisional to the eternal and permanent, from the ‘hand-made’ to the ‘not hand-made’ and from the shakable to the unshakable (see espec. Hebrews). That creation is naturally corruptible apart from sin is implied or affirmed by numerous texts like Genesis 1:1; 8:22; Psalm 90:2; 102:25-27; Isaiah 34:4; 51:6; 54:9f.; Matthew 6:19f.; 24:35; 1 Corinthians 7:31; Hebrews 1:10-12; 1 Peter 1:4,7,18,23-25; 1 John 2:17 and so on. (1* It is worth noting that the perishable things of 1 Peter 1:18 are to be equated with the created things of Hebrews 12:27.) So the idea that Adam, who stemmed from the earth (Gen. 2:7), became mortal and corruptible only after he had sinned is an egregious error. Surely what is true is that in contrast with his Maker (Rom. 1:23) he was naturally mortal and corruptible by creation.  If it is replied to this that death is the wages of sin, one cannot but agree (Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:56). The point is, however, that though he was naturally corruptible flesh like the sinless perishable animals which are fed on perishable food, he was also made in the image of God and as such able to seek incorruption, honour and glory (Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7). More specifically, Adam was promised eternal life IF he attained to righteousness by keeping the commandment (Gen. 2:16f.; Lev. 18:5, etc.). He failed and all his progeny like him in their turn (Rom. 5:12). But there was one exception, that is, Jesus who alone did not sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22, etc.). (2* The traditional order of salvation or ordo salutis, based as it is on the unbiblical notion of original and birth sin, gives priority to regeneration. It is clearly false. See my The Order of SalvationRedemption Applied (Order of Salvation)The Order of Salvation in RomansCart-Before-The-Horse Theology.)

Non-corruption

If Jesus was transformed and glorified at his resurrection from the dead, it must be asked why his non-corruption is stressed (Acts 2:27,31; 13:34-37)? Surely, if his flesh did not succumb to decay as flesh normally does after death, we are forced to infer that when he rose, he remained what he was before, that is, corruptible flesh (cf. Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8) and certainly not transformed or glorified (cf. Luke 8:55). Clearly the reason why he had to ascend is to be found precisely here (John 20:17). Though he had conquered death and was no longer subject to it (Rom. 6:9), as flesh (Luke 24:39) he was still liable to corruption. This being so, it was indispensably necessary for the transformation he had undergone at his incarnation to be counteracted or reversed by re-transformation at his ascension (1 Cor. 15:50ff.). If as man he was to share again the eternal glory of God (John 17:5,24), his corruptible flesh (like the corruptible creation from which it derived, Heb. 1:10-12), had to be subdued and ultimately dispensed with. Only in this way could he lead his fellows into the presence of God (Heb. 2:10-13; 1 Pet. 3:18).

We need also to consider the fact that Paul presents God the Father, in stark contrast with man his hand-made or manufactured creature (Job 10:8; Ps. 119:73), as both incorruptible, that is, not subject to decay (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17), and immortal (1 Tim. 6:16). Regrettably most modern translations erode this distinction and virtually make immortality and incorruptibility synonymous. (3* See e.g. Guthrie, p.130, Mounce, p.61, contrast Vine, pp.131,320). For the sake of clarification, it needs to be added here that the incarnate Jesus gained eternal life by uniquely keeping the law, whereas we, his disciples, gain it by being justified by faith in him. Keeping the commandment or law was the (pre)condition of life made to Adam (Gen. 2:17), and to others like the rich young man (Mt. 19:17), and Paul (Rom. 7:9f.). As one who had kept the commandments and had therefore gained life (Lev. 18:5; Mt. 3:13-17, etc.), Jesus was not liable to death, that is, the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23). So, once he had freely laid down his life for his sheep, death no longer had any hold over him (Acts 2:23f., cf. Rom. 6:9f.; Rev. 1:18). But since he could not live forever and inherit the eternal blessings of David on this temporal corruptible earth (Acts 13:34, cf. Luke 1:32f.; John 18:36), he had of necessity to ascend transformed to heaven to rule at his Father’s side as the paradigm of the saints at the end of history who neither die nor experience physical resurrection (Rev. 3:21, etc.). In case my point is missed, I would stress that Jesus’ death and resurrection occurred on our account not his. Thus, if we ignore his vicarious death, his sinless life was one of ‘natural’ or unhindered, though punctuated, progress to perfection (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 6:1; 7:28, cf. Phil. 3:14.)

The deduction we necessarily make from this is that the transformation of the incarnate and hence corruptible Jesus on earth is excluded.  If not, his physical resurrection is logically eliminated and rendered redundant and his ascension reduced to mere drama. To express the issue alternatively, since glorified flesh (sarx), as opposed to body (soma, cf. John 17:5,24; Phil. 3:21), is a contradiction in terms (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:1-8), Jesus’ resurrection transformation made him a ‘ghost’ (Luke 24:39) and not a physical body. In light of the evidence we are compelled to conclude that he was no more transformed at his resurrection than he was when he walked on the sea (Mt. 14:26; Mark 6:49). (It is pertinent to add here that ‘miracles’ like his appearance behind closed doors, John 20:26, were no more significant than were those that occurred to his disciples, Acts 5:19; 12:7-10, etc. They prove nothing except perhaps the fact that Jesus was kept hidden from the world, John 14:22; Acts 10:41. They are minor matters compared with walking on the sea or stilling the storm where transformation is clearly not at issue. On this see e.g. Geisler, pp.215f.)

Jesus and David

Furthermore, we must ask why the resurrection of Jesus is contrasted with that of David in Acts 2 and 13? The answer surely lies in the fact that whereas David underwent corruption, Jesus did not. For the decomposed David, whose death was the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23) like that of the rest of us (Rom. 8:10), a redemption transformation (cf. Rom. 8:23) lay ahead of him at the general resurrection, the fruit of Jesus’ own resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20,23). But for Jesus himself whose defeat of death (1 Cor. 15:54-57; Heb. 2:14f.) was evidenced by his rising uncorrupted (and hence still corruptible flesh) from the grave, transformation, which according to Paul is a universal necessity, had to occur at his ascension like that of the saints at the end of history (1 Cor. 15:51ff., cf. also Enoch and Elijah). It perhaps needs to be added here that various writers note that the term resurrection while used specifically of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead especially in the gospels is frequently used comprehensively to cover resurrection, ascension, exaltation and heavenly session. (4* See e.g. Gaffin in “The Forgotten Christ”, p.213; Harris, Raised Immortal, p.93.)

The Return of Jesus

While many (e.g. premillennialists who apparently hold a la Augustine that sin is the only problem with this world and that he was not transformed even at his ascension) think that Jesus will return to this corruptible earth in the flesh in spite of Acts 13:34, Hebrews 4:14 and 7:26, the NT clearly teaches that, though genuinely human, he will return in the glory of God (Luke 9:26, etc.) or as man glorified. They ignore the fact that from the beginning God intended the development, maturation, perfection or even evolution (cf. e.g. Beale, p.396 n.2) of man made in his image both as individual and community to full maturity (cf. Eph. 4:13), to his own moral and generic likeness (Gen. 3:5; Rom. 8:29; 2 Pet. 1:4, etc.). This intention was uniquely realized in Jesus, the second Adam and representative man. He alone attained to eternal life and achieved the perfection and glory of God (Mt. 5:48; Rom. 2:7,10; 3:23). Having done so, he now sits on the throne of God (Mt. 28:18; Rev. 3:21) as man embodied and glorified in the image and likeness of God (Heb. 1:3, etc.).  But definitely not in corruptible flesh (Rom. 1:23; 1 Cor. 15:50)!

ADDITIONAL NOTE on “The Forgotten Christ” ed. S.Clark, Nottingham, 2007

At the time of writing (Oct. 2008) it seems to be taken so much for granted that Jesus was transformed at his resurrection that scholarly writers do not even attempt to justify the assertion. However, assertion requires substantiation, and this brings me to works like the “The Forgotten Christ” ed. S.Clark, where the authors simply assume what clamours for proof.

It needs to be recognized first that the theology of this work is based on the traditional Augustinian worldview briefly set out by McGowan (p.46, cf. pp.201ff.): creation was originally not merely ‘good’, that is, useful, but perfect like God (cf. p.206); Adam was the covenant head and representative of all his progeny (e.g. pp.195,197); he disobeyed the commandment; universal death and curse ensued (cf. pp.46,51) altering the very constitution of creation including Adam (cf. pp.201ff.), so now on account of sin physical redemption is a necessity. In this scenario, though truly a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) and like his fellows in every respect (Heb. 2:17), Jesus mysteriously avoided the imputation of sin (cf. p.192), and became our Saviour. (5* To refrain from sinning is one thing, cf. John 8:46; 1 Pet. 2:22, but to avoid its imputation is wholly different. The fact that he was God is beside the point. Failure to impute sin to him as a man who was born of a sinful woman, cf. Ps. 51:5, makes him different from, not like, his fellows and hence docetic. See further my essays on original and/or imputed sin.) It is against this basic background that the essayists write, and, not surprisingly, though without adequate evidence, they discover that by postulating without apology the physical transformation of Jesus at his resurrection they can also postulate the redemption of the whole material creation (e.g. pp.158,202,226,230, etc.) to which the NT is clearly opposed (6* See e.g. John 3:1-8; 1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 1:10-12; 6:7f.; 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12 and, I would argue, especially Rom. 8:18-25 on which see my Romans 8:18-25).

To my knowledge the Bible nowhere links the resurrection of Jesus with the redemption of creation (pace e.g. Harris, G to G, pp.245ff.). Rather, man as flesh and spirit reflects cosmological dualism (cf. espec. 1 Cor. 15:47 and my Biblical Dualism). By nature, earth (from which flesh derives) and heaven (from which spirit derives) are even more fundamentally different than proverbial chalk and cheese. The former is God’s footstool and is intended to be man’s (Gen.1:28, cf. John 16:33; Heb. 2:6ff.). It belongs to the temporary present age and, since it has a beginning (Gen.1:1), it is doomed to pass away at its end (Mt. 24:35; Luke 20:34-36, etc.).  The latter is God’s throne and belongs to the eternal age which by definition already exists. For us, however, it is still to come and we still have to enter it (John 3:3,5f.; 1 Cor. 15:50).

It would seem to follow from this that in order to conquer death Jesus had to rise physically from the grave. Since his flesh did not experience the complete corruption (decay) that is the normal and universal consequence of death, it must have remained corruptible. But if so, he then had to be changed at his ascension like all his end-time fellows who neither die nor see corruption (1 Cor. 15:51ff.). Of course, what the writers in “The Forgotten Christ” (e.g. Gaffin, pp.199f.) are saying is that all death and corruptibility stem from sin (Gen. 3:17-19) despite the obvious fact that according to Genesis 1 before the advent of sin God made perishable food for perishable animals (Num. 22:4; Dt. 11:15; 104:14,21; 106:20), which do not sin (cf. John 6:25-69). (7* See further my Death Before Genesis 3.)

The apostle Paul makes it clear beyond reasonable dispute that where there is no law, there is no sin (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:1-25). If this is the case, then death is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:56) only for those, that is, human beings, who are capable of understanding the law (cf. John 9:41; 15:22,24), which ipso facto excludes little children (Dt. 1:39, etc.) and animals. However, since we know that the latter die, we are forced to infer that death is a natural feature of this temporal creation which was never designed to last forever (Heb. 1:10-12, cf. Rom. 8:18-25, etc.) least of all to be redeemed. It follows from this that Adam did not experience a fall from the perfection, holiness and righteousness that characterize God alone; rather, being a naturally mortal and corruptible creature (cf. Rom. 1:23) made in the image of God, he was promised escape (to eternal life) if he kept the commandment or law (Gen. 2:16f.; Dt. 30:15-20, etc. See further my Escape.). He did not, but Jesus as the second Adam did! And having died for his people, he was raised from the dead in what was identically the same physical body, significantly referred to as a (removable) tent (John 1:14, cf. 2 Pet. 1:13f.), in which he had lived and died hitherto. If this was not the case, then his resurrection was phantasmagoric (Luke 24:39, cf. Mt. 14:26). It never really occurred, at least within human experience as we know it. In light of the fact that all resurrections on earth known to us (e.g. Lazarus) are physical, the same must surely hold true with regard to Jesus. (8* To argue as some do that after his resurrection Jesus was no longer subject to death, Rom. 6:9, fails to appreciate the fact that he was not personally subject to death BEFORE he died. The point of the gospel is that in contrast with Adam he first gained life for himself by keeping the law, cf. Mt. 3:13-17, then freely gave it for his people. Once he had done this and had risen from the dead, death no longer had any claim on him. He had no more reason to die.) On the other hand, the apostle makes it plain that transformation only occurs beyond history, and surely this is true of Jesus who, had he not given his life for his people, would not have died at all. If the saints at the end of history do not die and therefore do not rise but are nonetheless changed at their rapture ascension, surely the same must be true of Jesus.

But there is another point. In the above book, Gaffin, following his mentor Murray whose exegetical contortionism was noteworthy not least in his  “The Imputation of Adam’s Sin”, insists in his detailed analysis of 1 Corinthians 15:42-49 (which ideally requires much longer treatment) that “the biblical doctrines of creation, including man as God’s image, of the fall and sin, Christology, soteriology and eschatology are all addressed decisively by these verses” (p.193) and proceeds to maintain, rightly in a sense, that Paul goes back to creation before the putative ‘fall’. However, Gaffin is so conditioned by and imbued with the Augustinian worldview that in the course of his exposition he indulges in extensive eisegesis, special pleading and even what he himself calls “overly subtle exegesis” (p.200). His intention is to establish that Adam (and creation for that matter) before the so-called ‘fall’ was constitutionally different from what he was after it. (9* Gaffin’s Augustinian view of the ‘goodness’ of creation referred to in Genesis 1 is clearly astray. He fails to recognize that the ‘very good’ creation of Genesis 1:31 was no more perfect than the ‘exceedingly good’ land of Numbers 14:7, which the Bible itself clearly regards as provisional, Heb.3,4, cf. 11:9. On p.206, contrary to the evidence, he denies the basic inadequacy of the material creation despite the fact that it is ‘made by hand’, Ps. 102:25; Isa, 45:12, etc., and therefore neither perfect nor eternal. See further my Manufactured Or Not So. The word ‘good’ certainly does not mean ‘perfect’ as suggested by McGowan above, p.46, contrast p.203. Paul sees creation as still ‘good’ in NT times, cf. 1 Tim. 4:3f.) It is for this reason that he is anxious to progress from what he terms protology to eschatology (pp.198,203). Since for him the relationship between fall, sin, curse, corruption and the rest are fundamental to the biblical worldview, this is necessary. But it fails to reckon with the fact that sin and curse might not be in Paul’s purview. The comparison of the apostle, who is intent on answering the questions “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” (15:35), is not between pre-fall Adam’s and Jesus’ resurrection body but the contrast between Adam’s earth(l)y body of dust as such whether sinful or not sinful and Christ’s resurrection body. What, we may ask, has corruptible dust to do with sin (or with good for that matter, cf. Rom. 7:18)? In other words, Paul is contrasting the earthly body of dust with the heavenly body of spirit irrespective of sin, and subtle distinctions like that between vv. 44a and 44b do not lead to any other view. (On the latter, see e.g. Thiselton, p.1279.)

On page 197 Gaffin infers from what he terms the ‘theological logic’ of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 a covenant parallel between Adam and Christ as heads and representatives (though he admits it is not explicitly mentioned, p.196f.). He claims (p.197) that his view, though resisted in some quarters, is of the first order or magnitude of importance and he virtually challenges his readers to contradict it. So, having the temerity to take up the gauntlet I unhesitatingly reply, first, that there is no evidence at all in Scripture that Adam was our covenant head and representative. (10* See further my Covenant TheologyDid God Make a Covenant with Creation?An Exact Parallel?) He was simply archetypal and hence representative man according to the flesh, and it is only as flesh that we can be said to be ‘in him’ as even Jesus was as his son (Luke 3:38). To put the issue bluntly, the imputation of Adam’s sin apart from faith is a fundamental fallacy or, more to the point, an appalling heresy, which, if it were true, would embrace Jesus himself. (See further below.) Second, Gaffin’s position is plainly contradicted by reference to Jesus himself as the second Adam. For he who was, as are all agreed, without sin despite his sinful ancestry including the prostitute Rahab, nonetheless had a perishable body simply because he was born of a woman whose original progenitor was dusty Adam. (Job’s question of 15:14, cf. 14:1, is a good one!) It is therefore to go completely beyond the evidence to argue that the pre-resurrection body of 44a, which is marked by perishability, dishonour and weakness in verses 42f., belongs not to creation but to the fall and its consequent curse (p.199). The plain truth is that Jesus as first Adamic flesh was clearly mortal (he died), corruptible (he got older), weak (2 Cor. 13:4), prone to temptation, sweat, fatigue and endowed with a lowly body (Phil. 3:21) like his brethren (Heb. 2:17) apart from sin and consequently required change like the rest of us (1 Cor. 15:51ff.).  So appeal to Romans 5:12ff and 1 Corinthians 15:21f., which he quite wrongly regards as covenantal, does nothing to help Gaffin’s case since these texts are  irrelevant to it. Indeed, it may be added that the gospel is founded on the fact that our salvation or resurrection, as Hebrews 2 insists, was achieved by a fellow human being who came to us in the likeness of our own flesh prone to sin though it is (Rom. 8:3, cf. 7:14). No wonder that Gaffin is not happy with the expression “created corruptible” (p.201 n.11) and the idea that the “original creation is inherently defective” (p.206). Yet this is surely the biblical position as Hebrews 1:10-12, many other texts and sheer ‘theological logic’ indicate. In 1 Corinthians 15:35ff. sin is not on the horizon, or, as Gaffin would say, not in Paul’s purview, until verse 56. Paul is dealing with corruptible nature (protology, if you like) irrespective of sin.

Gaffin fails to realize it but his position has catastrophic consequences for his (Reformed or Augustinian) theology. Why and how? it may be asked.

First, we must note that while Gaffin insists on the antithetic parallelism involved in these verses, he fails to see that it relates to man’s generic nature as flesh not to sin (contrast Rom. 5:12-21) which he himself has excluded in his (protological) premises. For if Adam was perfect (equal with or like God from the start?), we must ask, on the one hand, why he was put on probation and promised eternal life if he kept the commandment (11* See on this espec. A.A.Hodge, pp.122f.), and, on the other, how and why he fell. After all, Jesus himself, who is presented to us as inherently imperfect at his fleshly birth and knowing neither good nor evil like Adam before he received the commandment (cf. Isa. 7:15f.; Luke 2:40-52), had to be perfected in order to achieve the glory and perfection of God. (12* Writers on theological themes seem to miss the fact that man is by creation imperfect both generically and morally. It is only as he achieves moral perfection that he can achieve the generic perfection of the glory of God as God’s son.) Apart from stress on perfection, in Hebrews things that need replacement like the law, which relates to the flesh (cf. Heb. 7:16; 9:10), and the temple (cf. Mark 14:58), though ‘good’, that is, useful or serving an earthly purpose, are also intrinsically faulty or inadequate (Heb. 7:18f.; 8:2,7,13, cf. Gal. 3:21). But, second, on the basis of his assumptions Gaffin is able to present us with an incorruptible Jesus only by ignoring, first, Jesus’ highly dubious human pedigree, for Jesus was not only a son of Adam the man of dust (Luke 3:38, cf. John 3:6) but of his progeny who were made in his image (Gen. 5:1-3; Mt. 1:1-16). In other words, Gaffin’s attempt to present us with a Jesus who is a de novo second Adam like the pre-fall first is impossible. It ignores, even expunges, (the recapitulation of) history (cf. Mt. 2:15, etc.). Jesus himself as the second Adam and hence a son of the first (Luke 3:38) had to be corruptible flesh in order to overcome the world (cf. John 16:33; Heb. 2:9, etc.), the flesh (Heb. 2:17, cf. Rom. 8:3) and the devil (John 14:30) by his obedience. The fact is that the biblical worldview that Gaffin attributes to Paul (p.199) is his own or rather Augustine’s.

Second, the author of Hebrews teaches us that Jesus was as one who was born of woman (Gal. 4:4) like all his (physically normal and not abnormal, p.199) brethren in every respect (Heb. 2:17). This obviously means that he replicated their physical or fleshly if not their moral nature. Moreover, unlike his heavenly Father, since he was incarnate he was like them subject to temptation (Mt. 4:1-11; James 1:12-16) and had to endure along with the rest of us the (natural) war between flesh and spirit (Gal. 5:16-26; James 4:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:11) but without sinning (Heb. 4:15, pace Art. 9 of the C of E). Third, as Paul indicates in Romans 1:23, man, even the incarnate Jesus (!), is both mortal and corruptible by nature, that is, as flesh in obvious contrast with God who is spirit. Fourth, Jesus was naturally subject to corruption (decay) for the simple reason that he got older (cf. Luke 2:40-52; 3:23; John 8:57) like the creation from which he emanated through Adam whose son he was (Heb. 1:11, cf. 8:13; 2 Cor. 4:16). It is very disturbing therefore to find that various writers attribute aging to sin! Perhaps this is why Philip Eveson (p.66) posits the creation of Adam fully grown! A man who does not undergo development is an oxymoron and not a man, certainly not representative man according to the flesh. In fact, Eveson’s contention is scuttled by Jesus himself, for he, the second Adam, came into the world as a baby and underwent normal, if flawless, physical maturation. (13* See further my Twenty-Four Hours? – Reasons why I believe the Genesis days are undefined periods of time) In other words, (a) though human physical nature is acquired by birth apart from sin, (John 3:6, pace Augustine and carnal concupiscence), our moral nature is personally and individually acquired by our either breaking or keeping the law (Rom. 4:15; Eph. 2:3; 1 John 3:7, etc.), and therefore (b) though sin (or righteousness for that matter) cannot be transferred to offspring except by imputation which requires faith (as in the case of Jesus when he was made sin, 2 Cor. 5:21), its effects including suffering can (Num. 14:3,29-33, contrast Dt. 24:16, etc.). So while Adam had a deleterious but unspecified effect (pace Pelagius) on his progeny (Rom. 5:12ff.), that effect was clearly not sin transmitted or imputed. Where there is no sin, its imputation is regarded throughout Scripture as evil (e.g. 1 K. 21:10; Luke 23:10, etc.). However, if Adam’s sin is imputed apart from faith to innocent children, then Jesus was necessarily implicated and God implicitly charged with evil. (See further my ImputationStraightforward Arguments against the Imputation of Adam’s Sin to his Posterity, etc.)

Conclusion

The plain truth is that fall, original, imputed or birth sin and cosmic curse stemming from the sin of Adam are figments of Augustinian fancy which distort biblical teaching in general. (14* On Augustine see my Augustine: Asset or Liability?.) Creation, including man, is subject to the bondage of corruption (decay) by divine decree, that is, by nature (Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). God clearly intended it to be that way since he always had something better in mind for the creatures he had made in his image (cf. 2 Cor. 5:5) as opposed to those that were not, that is, their elevation to sonship. But since they all sin and come short of his glory (Rom. 3:23; 5:12), in accordance with his plan of salvation he sent Jesus into the world as one of them in the likeness of sinful flesh to overcome sin (Rom. 8:3) and serve as their pioneer to glory (Heb. 6:20; 12:2). Thus he did what we all in our fleshly weakness fail to do (Rom. 7:14), that is, keep the law, gain life and confirm his Sonship. (15* Reformed theology, following Augustine, places the blame for man’s putative ‘fall’ from perfection (!) almost exclusively on the devil. In the Bible it is the weakness of the flesh, vulnerable as it is to temptation, which receives far more emphasis as Gen. 3:6, Rom. 3:19f., 7:14, 1 Cor. 1:29 and Gal. 2:16, for example, indicate. That is why the flesh, Rom. 13:14, Gal. 5:16, or what is earthly in us is meant to be put to death or overcome, Col. 3:5. From the beginning man was meant to exercise dominion over all created things including his own flesh. Only Jesus succeeded, John 16:33; Heb. 2:9, etc.) He did more, however. He freely gave his flesh (Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 3:18), which was not liable to death because he had faithfully kept the law, for us and thus brought life and incorruption (Gk) to light (2 Tim. 1:10) to enable us to become generically like God in whose image we were made from the start (cf. Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18).

So, finally, we need to note that transformed or glorified flesh (pp.167,182) and redeemed creation (pp.202,212,226) are but two sides of the same coin. (16* In his note on pp.202 Gaffin rightly sees the connection between the flesh and creation in general. This raises two important questions, however. First, how can Gaffin who identifies man’s ‘outer self’ of 2 Cor. 4:16, p.227, with the ‘flesh’ p.230, proceed to posit the redemption of creation on the basis of Romans 8:18-25, to which he refers at least four times, when Paul, following Jesus in John 3, clearly denies the redemption of the flesh in 1 Corinthians 15:50? If the flesh cannot be redeemed, then neither can the creation from which it stems. They both suffer from old age or corruption by nature, cf. Luke 3:23 and Heb. 1:11. Next, in the second section of his essay, having denied on p.218 the immaterial composition of the resurrection body, Gaffin then stresses that Jesus ‘became’ after his resurrection and ascension what he was not before, p.219, and that he was a ‘changed man’, p.220. In the event this ‘changed man’ turns out to be a life-giving Spirit with a capital ‘S’ in contrast with Adam who was a living soul. Is Gaffin, who comes close to equating or identifying Christ with the Spirit, p.221, suggesting then that the Spirit has flesh or materiality? He is in danger of being hoist on his own petard. The biblical antithesis or dualism between flesh and spirit relates primarily to nature, not sin. It reflects the difference between heaven and earth, respectively God’s throne and footstool.) They are both contradictions in terms. On the one hand, Jesus insists on the absolute necessity of a second, that is, a spiritual, birth or birth from above (John 3:1-8) which implies that flesh as opposed to spirit cannot enter the kingdom of God. This implication is substantiated and endorsed by Paul who says specifically that flesh and blood cannot inherit that kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50a). On the other hand, Paul insists without reference to sin that all that is inherently corruptible cannot inherit the incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:50b) and that all that is physically visible is inherently temporary (2 Cor. 4:18). In case we have any questions about what is corruptible, texts like Matthew 6:19f., Luke 12:33, 16:9,  Hebrews 1:10-12, 10:34, 12:27 and 1 Pet. 1:3f.,7,18,23 leave us in no doubt that all manufactured or created things which are visible and temporary by nature (2 Cor. 4:16-18) are involved (cf. Gen. 1:1; Mt. 24:35; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). In other words, the idea that the material creation including the flesh, which is extraneous to God, will be redeemed is ruled out of court. It is man having shed his tent of earthly flesh (clay, cf. 2 Cor. 4:7; 2 Cor. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:13f.) who finds his place in heaven endowed with an appropriate spiritual or heavenly body (2 Cor. 5:1) like the one Jesus gained at his ascension exaltation (Phil. 3:21, cf. John 17:5,24). What 1 Corinthians 15:42ff. demonstrate beyond reasonable dispute is that while our resurrection may be corporeal (soma) ensuring continued personal identity, it will not be physical/natural (sarx). Dust, not to mention sin, cannot go to heaven, as even Job, not to mention Paul (1 Cor. 15:50), seemed to recognize (10:9; 15:15; 25:5). Like the transient, corruptible, destructible creation itself it is destined to pass away (Mt. 24:35).

See further my Romans 8:18-25The Destruction of the Material CreationRestoration and ReplacementWill Creation Be Redeemed?The Essence of the Case Against the Redemption of CreationWhen Was Jesus Transformed?From Here to EternityWith What Kind Of A Body Do They Come?

______________________________________________________________

References:

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

F.F.Bruce, The Book of Acts, Grand Rapids/London, 1954.

S.Clark, ed., The Forgotten Christ, Nottingham, 2007.

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

D.Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, London, 1957.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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