Our Heavenly Call

What is man? Who is he? Why does he exist? Where did he come from and where is he going? The best explanation is to be found in the Bible.

So what is the biblical view? The Psalmist having looked at prominent features of creation which he assumes to be the work of God asks what man is that his Creator should be mindful of him (8:1-4). He concludes, presumably on the basis of the teaching in Genesis, that mankind has been made in the divine image with a view to exercising delegated sovereignty over the rest of creation and is by so doing promised earthly glory. In the NT this is re-interpreted as heavenly glory (Rom. 2:7,10; Heb. 2:6-10).

In Genesis 1 man is certainly presented as being created in the image of God and called to rule over the rest of creation (1:26,28). However, it is implied that any glory associated with his rule is dependent on its being effective and successful. Thus in chapter 2:16f. it is made clear that  conformity with the will of the Creator himself is of paramount importance. For man in his infancy only one rule or commandment is sufficient to test him, to see what lay in his heart (cf. Dt .8:2,16; 13:3, etc.)

The Bible, however, is a big book. Many people never read it and of those who do most read only bits and pieces of it. Then again, historically the Bible has been hi-jacked by Churches and their theologians who have seized on their limited understanding of it and cemented it in their tradition. Historically, the church in the West has been and still is dominated by the worldview of Augustine of Hippo whose influence has been pervasive. Of course, there are many aspects of his outlook which accord with the Bible, for example his belief that we are saved by grace and not by works. But it would appear that since the majority of church members accept the ready-made tradition of the Church, their perspective is governed by it even when they read the Bible. Thus even today in 2009 evangelicals, that is, those who contend for the full authority and inspiration of Scripture, accept without question such notions as original righteousness, original sin, the Fall of Adam and the universal curse on creation that purports to be the consequence of his sin. Consequently, the baptism of infants, which according to Augustine involves their salvation or regeneration, absolves them from their inherited sin. Furthermore, it is against this background, that it is widely held today that Christ redeemed not only human beings, who regain the perfection they lost “in Adam”, but even “fallen” creation itself. This, however, is hardly the biblical picture. So, let us see what is.

The early part of Scripture depicts mankind first in his infancy when like a baby he does not know the law (or commandment) and hence lacks all knowledge of good and evil (see Gen. 2:16f.; 3:5,22; Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.). The truth of this is made clear especially by the apostle Paul who teaches that where there is no law there is neither sin nor righteousness. In other words, as he indicates we become sinful (evil) by breaking the law and righteous (good) by keeping it (Rom. 2:13; 6:16, cf. Dt. 6:25). So, if, like Paul himself, we are born “alive” (Rom. 7:9) but totally ignorant of law, it is impossible for us to be either (morally) good or evil (Rom. 7:7). We are simply innocent. It is only when the commandment dawns on our developing consciousness and we respond to it (negatively in the event) that we, like Adam, earn death as wages (Rom. 6:23). So the idea that we somehow inherit the sin of Adam, are born sinful and are paid the death penalty accordingly is completely alien to biblical thinking and must be dismissed as the false interpretation of Augustine of Hippo foisted on an unsuspecting church. To put the issue differently, the idea that infant baptism is the antidote of original sin reflects massive misunderstanding. The truth is that as the creatures of God created in his potential image we are born innocent and make our first progress in faith like Noah in the ancient world (note 1 Pet. 3:21, cf. Heb. 11:7). As Irenaeus taught long ago, as individuals we recapitulate the history of the race. As babies, far from becoming Christians apart from faith as infant baptism implies, we like Jesus experience first heathen slavery in “Egypt” (cf. Gal. 4:1-3). If this is true, then like the Jews we escape from slavery and live under law even if we are not circumcised members of the chosen race. Thirdly, through faith in Christ we are redeemed from sin whether under the law (Jews) or apart from it (heathen, see espec. Rom. 2) and inherit the Spirit as Christians or the children of God (Gal. 4:1-7; Rom. 8:10-17). The final stage of life involves  escape from the mortality and corruption, both moral and physical, that characterizes the present age (Rom. 8:18-25) and attain to life in the presence of God himself as his children (1 John 3:1-3).

So what is the biblical picture? In Genesis God creates Adam and sets the pattern for all his procreated posterity who are made in his image (Gen. 5:1-3). As the latter develop understanding and receive the parental commandment (cf. Prov. 1:8; 6:20) which promises life if it is kept, they all fail, sin and die (Rom. 5:12, cf. 7:9f.). The reason for this is that God intends to be his people’s Saviour himself (cf. Isa. 45:22ff.) and that no flesh will boast in his presence (Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:9, etc.). His intention always was and ever remains to save man by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). Thus it becomes a fact of both history and experience that all men and women as the fleshly children of Adam and Eve come short of the glory of God as a result of their own sin (Rom. 3:23).

If this is the case, then we are bound to conclude without denying a la Pelagius the impact of Adam on their lives (cf. Ex. 20:5; Jer. 32:18f.), that the ministry of the law which though it promises life always leads to death because it is not fully kept. In the event one man and one man alone kept the law, that is, Jesus and it is through him and him alone that salvation comes (John 14:6; Acts 4:12, etc.).

So if we follow the teaching of Genesis regarding creation and its creaturely products, the early part of the Bible pictures mankind epitomized by Israel initially in Egyptian slavery but headed for rest in the Promised Land. However, it is soon made clear that this rest is by no means permanent (cf. Heb. 3 & 4). As the author of Hebrews says, if Joshua had given rest to the people he led into the Promised Land he would not speak later of another day (4:8, cf. 8:7). The inference is thus drawn that a sabbath rest still remains for the chosen people who enter God’s rest and cease from their labours as God himself did (4:9, cf. 4:4). In fact our author has already alluded to his fellows as partners in a heavenly calling (3:1) reminding us of the picture he paints later of Abraham, the typical believer, making his pilgrimage from an earthly city, Ur of the Chaldees, of his physical birth to the heavenly city of God (11:10,16, cf. 13:14).

While there is a sense in which Abraham obtained the promise (6:15) there is also a sense in which he did not (11:39). The reason for this is that perfection will only be achieved by all the people of God together (11:40). This is apparently the way Paul also saw matters, for he maintains that we are not an aggregation but a congregation of people (cf. John 11:52) who though certainly individuals together make up one Man (Eph. 2:15; 4:13, cf. Gal. 3:28) or alternatively the new or true Israel, the Bride of Christ (Eph. 5:30).

Covenant Theology

This brings us to another way of viewing the biblical presentation of the issue. In Galatians 4:1-7 Paul depicts the correspondence or parallel between the individual and the community pointing out that in our childhood we all begin life as slaves even though we are promised better things in the end. Thus having outgrown the bondage of childhood like Israel in Egypt we then especially if we are Jews become servants under the law (cf. the idea of the schoolmaster in the KJV). And then since the earthly Promised Land is only a temporary resting place in this present world we aspire to perfection or maturity in the presence of God as sons through faith in Christ. It is only then that we inherit the estate we were promised at the start.

As has been already suggested above, in Romans 7 and 8 Paul uses himself as an illustration of the progress from the innocence of childhood (cf. Dt. 1:39) through adolescence to perfection or adulthood in Christ. First, he claims that (like Adam and Eve) as a baby before he was aware of the commandment he was “alive” (Rom. 7:9). But when with his ensuing mental and physical development the commandment eventually came, he broke it. In this way sin sprang to life and he “died” (cf. Rom. 5:12; 6:23a) and to all intents and purposes forfeited his heavenly destiny. In verse 11 he indicates that the commandment deceived him just as it had Eve in Genesis 3:6 and so killed him. (1* Some commentators, e.g. F.F.Bruce, p.142, question the parallelism of this verse and its implied recapitulation arguing on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:14 and Romans 5:12 that mankind sinned “in Adam” and not in Eve. In reply, I would argue first that the words “in Adam” fail to appear in Romans 5:12. On the other hand, in 1 Corinthians 15:22 where they do appear Paul is contrasting the mortality of the first Adam with the immortality of the second. Here the essence of the contrast is not sin and sinlessness but flesh (dust) and spirit, vv. 45-49, cf. John 3:1-8). Second, in 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul is underlining the characteristic sins of men and women respectively not their mutual exclusiveness. While it may readily be conceded that Adam who typified the Jews is presented as sinning with his eyes open, this does not eliminate an element of deception prior to his connivance at and complicity in Eve’s transgression. After all, it is a fact of life that we are all, boys and girls alike, deceived by the desires of the flesh as children (cf. Eph. 4:14,22) and to that extent resemble the heathen (Rom. 1:24-32; Eph. 4:19). It is made unmistakably clear in Scripture that the Israelites, who did not receive the law until it was given to them through Moses only to break it as Adam had done (Ex. 32), began their career in heathendom and were still in effect enslaved by the fleshpots of Egypt even in the wilderness after their escape (Ex. 16:3; Num. 11:5, etc., cf. Rom. 13:14, etc. regarding Christians). In any case, sin is by its very nature deceitful to fleshly human beings (Heb. 3:13) and Adam would not have been immune to its attraction. Indeed it may be claimed that his willful rebellion arose out of it (cf. further my The Pattern of Sin). In Romans 7:14ff. Paul proceeds to comment on the law, as opposed to the specific commandment, virtually asserting that his lapse from original innocence into sin and consequent bondage (cf. John 8:34) arose from his ‘flesh’ and try as he might despite his best intentions he was unable to avoid the evil and do the good that he inwardly craved. Just as fleshly cravings had held his ancestors in thrall (Gen. 3:6; Num. 11:4; Ps. 78:29f.; 106:14, cf. Rom. 1:24-32; Eph. 4;17-19), so he himself experienced bondage to sin and desperately needed to be liberated from his (fleshly) body of death And this could only be achieved through faith in Christ.  So, if Romans 7 teaches anything it is that the law is beyond the power of ordinary human beings to keep and as a result where there is law there is always  transgression (7:1-14; 4:15; 1 Cor. 15:56).

If Romans 7 deals with ‘Paul’ universalized in sin under the law, Romans 8 deals with ‘Paul’ universalized and redeemed by Christ and under the leading of the Spirit. Here the apostle clearly represents the connection between the flesh, law and sin on the one hand and Christ, life and the Spirit on the other. Whereas all men and women under the law are sinners condemned to death, all believers are equally guaranteed life under the Spirit. It is under the leading of the Spirit that the law is fulfilled (8:4) and life and peace achieved (8:6,10,11). This of course prompts the question of the nature of this life. Paul claims it involves adoption by God himself. Thus we become the heirs of God with Christ along with whom we are finally glorified (8:17,18,23-25, cf. 1 John 3:1-3).

Conclusion

Our heavenly call is made explicit in a variety of texts by different authors apart from the author of Hebrews in 3:1 (e.g. Phil. 3:14; 1 Pet. 5:4,10; 1 Thes. 2:12; Heb. 6:1; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Pet. 1:11; Eph. 1:4f.).

In light of biblical teaching sketched above, the implication is that the period of our earthly testing and spiritual maturation is crowned with heavenly glory through faith (1 John 5:4, cf. 2 Pet. 1:4,11, etc.). Like Jesus we are only flesh for a little while (Heb. 2:7,9). God’s intention from the start was not only our spiritual rebirth through faith in Christ our righteousness (cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.) but eternal life and glory in heaven – the polar opposite of death and corruption under the law (Rom. 8:18-25; 2 Cor. 4:16-18). The path of life leads to his presence where there is fullness of joy and pleasures for evermore (Ps. 16:11). Ultimately as his redeemed we share with Christ eternal life in the Father’s house (John 14:1-3) and live forever to his praise and glory. Succinctly expressed, our heavenly call is consummated in the divine presence.

Reference

F.F.Bruce, Romans, rev. ed. Leicester, 1985.

The Chicken or the Egg

This conundrum has been long-debated and many think it is unanswerable. I read recently (2010) in a Christian magazine that though Adam was created in one (literal) day, he looked about thirty years old. Thus, the author obviously assumed that in order to get an “egg” you must have a “chicken” to lay it. So the chicken must come first. However, this begs big questions.

For a start, the idea that Adam was created full-grown (or at best was the subject of accelerated growth when God pressed the fast-forward button) leads inevitably to our wondering, first, whether he was a man at all, and, second, what his relationship was with the rest of his posterity. The Bible leads us to believe that since Adam begot children in his own image (Gen. 5:1-3), they must have been like him, ourselves included. It is a matter of like father, like son (cf. John 3:6). But we know for a fact that since we were born babies, we were subject to development. In light of this, it is hard not to conclude that Adam developed too. (The supernatural birth described in Isaiah 66:7-9 clearly stands in contrast with natural birth.) Indeed, careful reading of what Genesis says reveals that like us he began life in total ignorance. Initially, like babies and animals he knew neither the law nor good and evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22). Furthermore, he was naked, again like a baby!

Adam and Jesus

According to Paul, Adam was a type of him who was to come (Rom. 5:14). If so, Adam must have followed the pattern clearly etched by Jesus, his antitype. Since we know that Jesus through his mother was a son of the first Adam (Luke 3:38) and hence a true man, Adam, the type, must have undergone a similar development to his antitype. In light of this it occasions no surprise when we learn that Adam passed through a period of infantile ignorance before he received and understood the commandment promising (eternal) life (Gen. 2:17) just as Jesus did (cf. Isa. 7:15f.; 8:4). Again, since we know for certain that Jesus was a baby who like Adam had through his mother stemmed from the earth (Eph. 4:9), we cannot but conclude that Adam too must have undergone a similar development. In other words, Adam was an egg (or the seed of mother earth or woman, Gen. 2:7; 3:20; 1 Cor. 15:45) before he became a chicken! Indeed, if this is not so, it is difficult to appreciate how Jesus became the second Adam.

David

The same can be said with regard to David who also sees himself as originating in the earth (Ps. 139:15) like Adam (cf. Gen. 2:7) before being placed in the womb of his mother (Ps. 139:13). Here, the picture seems to be as it is in Genesis. Just as God had fertilized mother earth and placed Adam as seed in the Garden of Eden to gestate and develop (Gen. 2:8,15), so through his father he placed David in the womb of his mother (cf. Gen. 1:2; Luke 1:35). In other words, David recapitulated Adam’s experience just as Jesus did. The difference between the first and second Adams would appear to be that the first Adam, though spiritually infantile became physically mature while he was still in the process of being nurtured in the Garden. Perhaps this was the mythical golden age? It sounds remarkably like modern scientific theories regarding the early history of man who was less than or pre-human (pre-adamic, if you like) before he became recognizably homo sapiens. And this surely corresponds with the uncovenanted and unconscious fleshly gestation of embryos and foetuses prior to the birth of babies. It further points up the fact that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, that is, the individual recapitulates the history of the race. Mankind and individual alike as flesh emanate from the ground before they are spirit (1 Cor. 15:46.) So we can conclude that when Adam, the paradigm of all his fleshly posterity, had like an infant developed sufficiently on the mental level, he broke the first commandment he received and was ejected permanently from the Garden (Gen. 3:22-24, cf. John 3:4). Morally unfitted though he was, Adam was pushed into the harsh world beyond Eden under orders to till the ground from which he had been taken (Gen. 3:23) as he had done in the Garden itself (2:15). In all the subsequent history of man the pattern is repeated. (Pace Article 9 of the C of E and see my Imitation)

Paul

However, David was not alone in recapitulating the pattern set by Adam. Paul apparently underwent the same experience as he indicates in Romans 7:9f. Far from being the victim of original sin, he says he was ‘alive’ as a baby but like Adam before him he broke the parental commandment (Dt. 4:9; Ps. 78:5f.; Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20) which promised life when it impinged on his developing mind, and so he ‘died’ (i.e. failed to gain the promised life). By contrast, Jesus as the second Adam did not break the commandment. In fact, he uniquely went on to keep the entire law (cf. Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22), the precondition of eternal life (Lev. 18:5; Dt. 30:15-20, cf. Gen. 2:17), and so received, and was permanently sealed by, the Spirit (John 6:27) at his baptism (John 1:32). But since it was impossible for him to live eternally on the temporal earth, he was necessarily transformed at his ascension (John 20:17, cf. 1 Cor. 15:50-53). So much for naturalistic evolutionism at this point!

Once Jesus had perfectly recapitulated the experience of his forebears (cf. e.g. Mt. 2:15), that is, lived Adamic life sinlessly in the flesh (Rom. 8:3) and gained life (birth from above), he went on to ‘precapitulate’ or pioneer the pilgrimage of his fellows into heaven (Mt.19:21; Heb. 6:1). (Did Jesus ‘recapitulate’ or rather reproduce the life of his heavenly Father? In one sense he did. After all, he was God in the flesh and as flesh he lived the same sort of life that his Father would have done had he been incarnate. Since God is light and in him there is no darkness at all, cf. John 8:12, little wonder that Jesus lived a sinless life on earth, for thereby he proved his pedigree. He was who he claimed to be, the true Son of the Father who was well pleased with him.) As the author of Hebrews strongly stresses, as man he was made perfect (2:10; 5:9; 7:26,28) and so reached in the flesh (Rom. 8:3) the peak of the perfection that characterized his heavenly Father (Lev. 11:44f.; Mt. 5:48; Heb. 1:3, cf. Rev. 3:21). Paul aspired to this (cf. Heb. 6:1) but came short of it (Phil 3:12-14). Needless to say, the rest of us do the same. We all come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23; 5:12). However, through faith in Christ we are more than conquerors. Truly is God a God of grace and the author of our salvation in Christ. And this makes Christ absolutely indispensable (Acts 4:12, etc.).

Perfection

The doctrine of perfection in itself indicates that at the beginning of earthly life man is naturally immature (a mere egg, so to speak!) who is called to achieve maturity in Christ. Physically, all of us who reach adulthood attain our goal just as a lamb becomes a sheep or an acorn becomes an oak. The problem here is that in a world that is by nature subject to obsolescence (Heb. 1:11), futility (Rom. 8:20) and corruption (Ps. 102:26), physical maturity leads universally to inevitable decline (entropy) and eventual death. (Note that in the natural world, the harvest is dead food, Mark 4:28.) This can only be escaped by spiritual new birth which gives us eternal life (John 3:16). It is attained uniquely by faith in Jesus who having kept the law that promised life himself, died on our behalf and achieved the immortality and incorruption (Gk. 2 Tim. 1:10) that characterized his Father (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16), the glory he shared before the world began (John 17:5,24). In this way, he opened the door of the henhouse (or, to use the biblical image, the gate of the sheepfold, John 10:9) for the rest of us who believe in him to become chickens (sheep).

All this teaches us that the egg must precede the chicken. It is the law of the natural world, intrinsic to the plan of salvation. (In other words it is God’s modus operandi, the way he operates, cf. Mark 4:28.) Since as flesh man is creation in miniature, he must like creation begin at the beginning (Gen. 1:1). If he does not develop, evolve, mature or head for perfection (maturity, completion, James 1:4) in some sense, he is not a man at all. (Thus it follows that if a man nurtures his flesh and refuses to develop spiritually, he is ranked with the animals, Eccl. 3:18; 2 Pet. 2:22, and slaughtered, 2 Pet. 2:12.) If this is so, we have all the more reason to accept that Adam must have been subject to the same (limited) development and perfection as all his posterity was (Heb. 6:1). He was in other words an egg before he became a chicken.

But there is more to say. Paul makes it absolutely clear in 1 Corinthians 15:42-49 that biblical anthropology, specifically corporeality, involves progress from flesh (dust) to spirit (see espec. v.46). We begin life like Adam as dust (1 Cor. 15:47-49) but we are intended as those who are created in the potential image of God to end our earthly life like Jesus both corporeally and spiritually (cf. Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21). Just as Jesus progressed from ground to glory by conquering and finally shedding his (corruptible) flesh (John 3:13; 6:62; Eph. 4:9f., etc.), so do the rest of us who are ‘in Christ’. Again it is necessary to conclude that recapitulation is involved, but this time the pattern is spiritual and it is established by Jesus, the second Adam. We follow him. What is true of the paradigm is true of the many who are conformed to it, that is, his image (cf. John 17:24; Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 5:14f.).

Evolution or Devolution?

Sadly, instead of following Irenaeus who taught recapitulation, the church has since the fifth century followed Augustine who absurdly posited initial perfection followed by a “Fall” and a cosmic curse. In other words, Augustine turned theology on its head. Like the Judaisers with whom Paul remonstrated in Galatians 3:3, he began with the end (perfection) and finished with the beginning (imperfection)! And even today some still think in terms of paradise lost and regained failing to realize that the earthly paradise (the womb) is meant to culminate in the heavenly paradise (the bosom of the Father, John 1:18, alternatively that of Abraham, Luke 16:22).

Science

From a modern scientific point of view Augustine began with the chicken positing devolution instead of with the egg positing evolution. Otherwise expressed, it might be said that ‘in Adam’ we begin with heavenly perfection and after an inexplicable “fall” look for earthly redemption despite the fact that Jesus implied in his conversation with Nicodemus that return to our mother’s womb is impossible! (Compare John 3:4 with Galatians 3:3.) Nowadays some go even further and, positing the redemption of the physical universe, tell us that the eternal God will leave his heavenly throne and come to reign on earth despite its inherent transience! (If it is true that Adam fell from perfection, then it must be equally true that God himself can fall. The thought is both blasphemous and unnerving.) What the Bible teaches is that we all begin in immaturity and attain to maturity in Christ (cf. Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:15; 4:13). We begin far off (heathen), come near (Jews) and as Christ’s brothers and God’s sons we are conformed to Christ’s likeness (Rom. 8:29) and God’s image (2 Cor. 3:18, Christians). (The wicked also achieve maturity in sin and conformity with the devil, Gen. 15:16; John 8:44; 1 Thes. 2:16; Rev. 13. The movement is always forwards not backwards. See my No Going Back) In Christ we receive forgiveness and in the power of the Spirit overcome our defective development. In fact, it is Jesus who provides the pattern of our gradual ascent to heaven, as Paul well recognizes (Phil. 3:14). Thus, B.B.Warfield correctly pointed out (pp.158-166) that the only true and complete human development the world has ever seen was achieved by Jesus himself. It was he who uniquely progressed from ground to glory (Eph. 4:9f.) and brought life and incorruption (Gk) to light (2 Tim. 1:10).

I conclude then that the answer to the conundrum posed in the first paragraph is that the egg precedes the chicken. Just as this is true physically but ends in death, so it is true spiritually where new birth followed by sanctification is crowned with glory (Rom. 6:22f.). The biblical doctrine of perfection alone demands this. It accords with the pattern of life as we experience it. Unlike naturalistic evolution which is epitomized in the individual and heads towards death and destruction, biblical teleology has in view the celestial city where just men are made perfect (Heb. 12:23). It is foundational of the faith. Our earthly (fleshly) beginning (Gen. 1:1) has a heavenly (spiritual) end (Rev. 21:1): we exchange our dusty bodies for spiritual ones (1 Cor. 15:45-49) just as we exchange our sin for Christ’s righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21). (The two are parallel but not identical. Compare our indebtedness to the Jews with our salvation to Jesus.) Just as Jesus having begun in the ground (Eph. 4:9) completed his exodus (Luke 9:31,51) by finishing his work (John 17:4; 19:30) and ascending into heaven (John 3:13; Eph. 4:10), so do the rest of us. As eggs who are predestined to become chickens we eventually arrive home to roost forever in the Father’s house (John 14:2f.; John 17:24; Rom. 8:28-30).

Finally, if the egg comes first, the Augustinian worldview which postulates original perfection, “fall” and restoration is plainly false. It has turned theology on its head.

Additional Explanatory Note

Some readers may still fail to understand how in reality the egg can precede the chicken. Bluntly, the answer lies in creation, evolution and recapitulation. Jesus likens the progress of the kingdom of God to what happens physically in nature (Mark 4:26-29). (I remain utterly at a loss to understand how there can be evolution, or providential development, without creation to kick start it. Richard Dawkins’ insistence that (naturalistic) evolution answers all our questions itself begs a big question.)

Far from springing like Athene full-grown from the head of Zeus, Adam (mankind) began as seed in the ground (mother earth, cf. Ps. 139:15) and was placed by God (Gen. 2:8,15) in the Garden of Eden, the womb of the race, implicitly to develop and grow to maturity. Thus the pattern of creation once established was copied (repeated, recapitulated, imitated and gradually enhanced) in transgenerational procreation. Man who is the image and glory of God (1 Cor. 11:7) sows his seed in the woman’s garden of delight (cf. Ps. 139:13; Ezek. 24:16,21,25) with the same end in view. Thus his seed having fused with her ovum (egg) gestates till birth ensues. After this, development is visible and part of our every day experience (cf. Mark 4:28). We need to note incidentally that the idea of God sowing is by no means alien to the Bible. As Creator the Father sows physically (Gen.1,2; Acts 17:28); as Saviour Christ sows good seed while the devil sows bad (Mt. 13:24-30,36-43). (See further my The Harvest of the Earth.)

(It might be encouraging for men to realize that when they make love to their wives, far from indulging in sinful “carnal concupiscence” as Augustine believed, they are both repeating and doing God’s work, Gen. 2:24; 19:5. In fairness to Augustine it has to be conceded that the primary but not exclusive purpose of sex is procreation. With this in mind, we need to note that homosexual activity is by nature sterile.)

Bearing in mind that the last day is the end of the age (Mt. 28:20) signalling the end of the ages (1 Cor. 10:11, days in the language of Genesis), (1* It is worth noting that God is described as the King of the ages in 1 Tim. 1:17, cf. 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2, etc. The end of the age and the last day, John 12:48, seem to be identical. So much for the fundamentalist notion that the Genesis days are literal 24-hour days!) we can see how from the first egg containing the original DNA , the genetic code is passed on by means of procreation to the next generation and so successively until we arrive by repeated death and procreation at the full-grown chicken. (2* In the Bible there are two things that are said to be “the way of all the earth”:(a) death, Jos. 23:14; 1 K. 2:2; (b) procreation, Gen. 19:31. Truly is death the friend of salvation. It ensures that the ultimate tally of the redeemed is countless, Rev. 7:9.) It needs to be noted here, however, that full physical maturity like that of the animals occurred first. But man is made in the image of God and is potentially like him. So it is imperative to ask about cultural, intellectual and spiritual maturation. These appear to follow the same kind of pattern but as in a baby they come chronologically a distant second. As Paul suggests, we are first (animal) flesh and then having been adopted as sons (= been born again) go on to spiritual manhood on both the individual (1 Cor. 15:46, cf. 13:10; 14:20) and community levels (Eph. 2:15; 4:13f.).

What does all this indicate? Surely it shows that if a foetus encapsulates in miniature (recapitulates) mankind’s early history, then man underwent a long process of pre-adamic life in the flesh before he became self-conscious and morally self-aware. This initial child-like enlightenment is pictured for us in Genesis 2 and 3. (3* Not without reason Goldingay talks of parables here.) Adam and Eve, or corporate mankind, leave the womb (= the Garden of Eden), to face the challenges of the outside world under orders to exercise dominion over it and overcome it. Clearly, like children still in the process of being weaned, they fail but they at least make a start, not least by begetting children who eventually prove more successful especially when they are blessed under the covenant with Noah. But no one is a more dramatic illustration of this ‘evolution’ than the Lord Jesus himself who, as the second Adam, perfectly recapitulated the experience of the first whose son he was through his mother (Luke 3:38). But it is as a Jew that his recapitulation of the experience of his forebears is most vividly illustrated. Indeed, we are virtually told that as the True Vine or the true Israel who originally stemmed from Egypt (Ps. 80:8), he recapitulated Israel’s history when he was circumcised, went as a child to Egypt (Mt. 2:15), became a son of the commandment at his bar mitzvah, lived under and uniquely kept the law and was baptized (born again, acknowledged as God’s Son). It was this that put him in a position to lay down his life for his friends, to rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. In brief he blazed a trail into heaven (Heb. 2:10-13). The so-called father of theology, Irenaeus taught that he progressed through all the stages of human development in order to identify himself with his fellows (cf. Heb. 2:17). And Gregory of Nazianzus claimed that he assumed what he set out to heal. Thus in the words of John he was able to atone for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2) and bring man to perfection (cf. Heb. 6:1), the goal of his evolution. (Not without reason did Jacob Bronowski write a book entitled The Ascent of Man. See my The Ascent of Man)

I conclude then that if you want the perfect(ed) ‘chicken’ (cf. Heb. 5:8-10) you must begin with the egg. Since it is fertilized by God in the ground, we become his offspring (Acts 17:28). And offspring are intended to grow up to mature man/womanhood according to the purpose of God who ‘overlooks’ the ignorance of their ‘youth’. This in essence is what Paul was trying to tell the Athenians. While some believed, others would not listen.

References

John Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone, Louisville, Kentucky, 2010.

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

The Goodness of Creation

In the Augustinian tradition creation has been regarded as good in a moral sense, and Adam and Eve, though they epitomize man in the flesh (1 Cor. 15:45-49), have been regarded as originally righteous, holy and even perfect despite the fact that since they initially lacked the law, they knew neither good nor evil (cf. Dt. 1:39. We become righteous by keeping the law, evil by breaking it, Rom. 6:16). It is therefore highly questionable whether the tradition is correct.

In more recent times writers have maintained that the word ‘good’ in Genesis means ‘suited to or fit for a purpose’. On the face of it, since creation was brought into being to be inhabited (Gen. 1; Isa. 45:18), to sustain the physical existence of all animal life and thus to provide the stage on which man is tested in the flesh (Dt. 8:2,16) until the plan of salvation is complete (cf. Gen 8:22), this is the likely meaning. But there is more to be said in its favour.

First, Proverbs says that the Lord made everything for its purpose (Prov. 16:4a, cf. Eccl. 3:11a) for all things including the earth are God’s servants (Ps. 119:90f.) created for his glory (cf. Heb. 1:3b; Rom. 11:36). Furthermore, all things serve the (moral) good (Gk agathos) of believers who are called according to God’s purpose (Rom. 8:28).

Second, Paul says that creation is still good (Gk kalos), that is, capable of producing the foods needed to sustain animal life (cf. Gen. 9:3), and apparently not under an alleged Adamic curse suggesting that it is evil or “fallen” (1 Tim. 4:3f., cf. Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 10:26, etc.).

Third, Eve’s “apple” is regarded as ‘good’ (Gk kalos), that is, for eating (Gen. 3:6; 2:9, cf. 1 Cor.10:25-30; 1 Tim. 4:4).

Fourth, women are said to be good (kalos) in the sense of beautiful (Bathsheba, for example, 2 Sam. 11:2), but their physical beauty has no moral value. Like food it is corruptible and not to be compared with beauty of spirit (1 Pet. 3:4, cf. 1 Sam. 16:7). While the physical attributes of Saul, David and Absalom receive mention, the fact that those of Jesus are totally ignored in the NT would suggest that as such they were morally worthless (cf. John 6:63). In any case, as incarnate, Jesus was both mortal (he died) and corruptible (he got older), and even though he rose physically from the dead because he had kept the law which led to life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 7:9f.), he couldn’t enter heaven as flesh (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 3:1-8). He was therefore necessarily transformed at his ascension (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51-53). It is significant that Paul says he will not return to corruption (Acts 13:34, pace premillennialists).

Fifth, in conformity with this, Paul says that no (moral) good dwells in his flesh (Rom. 7:18; 8:8) which is rather to be put to death (Col. 3:1-5), even crucified (Gal. 5:24) along with the world (Gal. 6:14) which will eventually be condemned (1 Cor. 11:32. As is often the case in Scripture, both habitat and people stand or fall together, cf. Gen. 6:11-13; 19:24f.; Luke 17:29; Rom. 9:28f.; Heb. 6:7f.; 11:7). Since flesh derives from the earth, it would seem to follow that the earth is not good in a moral sense either.

Sixth, Numbers 14:7 refers to the Promised Land as being “exceedingly good” (agathos). But, in light of Hebrews chs. 3;4;11 (espec. vv.8,10,16, cf. 13:14), we can readily conclude that in itself, its symbolic nature as a type of heaven apart, it lacked moral value (cf. 16:13).

Seventh, according to Scripture God alone is (morally) good (agathos, Mark 10:18) and he is differentiated from his creation throughout the Bible beginning with Genesis 1:1 (see e.g. Ps. 90:2; Isa. 51:6; Heb. 1:10-12).

To ascribe moral goodness to creation then is to put it on a par with the eternal God and open it up to worship (cf. Dt. 4:19; Rom. 1:25, etc.) which is the essence of heathenism. However, as H.H.Rowley has said, moral goodness and evil inhere only in persons. Goodness is eternal, for God is good and he alone exists from eternity (The Relevance of the Apocalyptic, pp.159f., cited by G.E.Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, p.330). Even children, like Adam and Eve before them, are innocent or morally neutral until they react to (the) law dawning on their developing minds (Dt. 1:39; Ezek. 18; Rom. 7:9f., etc.). After all, where there is no law there is neither good (Rom. 2:13) nor evil (Rom. 4:15; 7:8). In the nature of the case the material creation is excluded.

To be good in the sense of perfect, creation (including the creature) would have to be “not hand-made” (acheiropoietos, cf. Heb. 9:11,24, etc.). We are specifically told, however, that it is “hand-made” (cheiropoietos, Ps. 102:25; Isa. 45:12; 48:13; 64:8, etc.) and hence imperfect. (See further my Manufactured Or Not So)

Finally, according to texts like Genesis 8:22, Matthew 24:35 and 2 Peter 3:7,10-12 the physical creation which is by nature visible and temporary (2 Cor. 4:18) is headed for eventual destruction (cf. Rom. 1:20; Heb. 12:27; 1 Pet. 1:18). Apart from other comments that could be made, this in itself suggests that it was never seen to be morally good.

The Bible is intensely dualistic (heaven/earth, spirit/flesh, etc. See further my Biblical Dualism). I conclude that the Augustinian view is false and we do well to abandon it.

Note:  On the close synonymity of kalos and agathos, see e.g. J.D.G.Dunn, Romans 1-8, pp.386,390f. and W.D.Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 2000, p.32.

Another Presentation

1. Creation is (a) good (Gen. 1:10,12); (b) very good (Gen. 1:31), but (c) inherently defective in that it is temporal (1 John 2:17), provisional, “handmade” (Isa. 45:12; 48:13, etc.), the footstool of God (Mt. 5:35). Once its purpose is fulfilled, it will be destroyed and replaced by heaven itself where righteousness reigns (Mt. 6:10; 2 Pet. 3:13).

2. The law according to Jesus is good (cf. Mt. 5:17;19:16-21) but in comparison with his word (Mt. 24:35) it is temporary since it operates only in this world and only during our earthly life time (Mt. 5:18, cf. Rom. 7:1, etc.). When a person dies, the law ceases to apply (Rom. 7:3, cf. 8b).

The law which relates to this ephemeral world (Rom. 7:1,7) is (a) good (1 Tim. 1:8); (b) very good (Rom. 7:12) yet nonetheless inherently defective (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8). While Paul tends to stress man’s inability to keep it (Rom. 11:32), the author of Hebrews points out that it is not without fault (Heb. 7:18f., cf. 2 Cor. 3; Gal. 3:21), and hence needs to be replaced with a new covenant.

3. As hand-written (Col. 2:14, cheirographon) the law was visible and hence related to this material world which though ‘good’ is by nature defective (Rom. 8:18-25). Dunn stresses this aspect of the law to its detriment especially in its association with the flesh, circumcision and external ritual (p.42, cf. Romans p.124).

4. The old covenant was (a) good (Deut. 6:24f.); (b) even very good (2 Cor. 3:7), but (c) was eclipsed by the new covenant because it was obsolete (2 Cor. 3:8; Heb. 8:13). It was thus headed for abolition and replacement (Heb. 10:9).

5. The flesh, which emanates from the earth, while not being evil (cf. Ps. 139:14), is ultimately unprofitable (John 6:63, cf. Rom. 7:18) and is in any case temporal and provisional (1 Cor. 15:49, cf. Heb. 7:16). So the flesh also is inherently defective and like the earth itself “handmade” (Ps. 119:73; 2 Cor. 5:1). It thus requires replacement (1 Cor. 15:42-54).

6. Food (like drink, cf. John 4:12) is (a) good (Gen. 2:9, cf. Isa. 1:19; 1 Cor. 10:25-30; 1 Tim. 4:4); (b) even very good (Gen. 3:6), but nonetheless inherently defective (John 6:49, cf. vv. 53-57). To live eternally, man must feed on the word of God (Mt. 4:4).

7. Sex is (a) good (Mt. 19:5); (b) very good (Heb. 13:4), but (c) is limited to this ephemeral world of the flesh (Luke 20:35).

8. The temple is (a) good (cf. 2 Sam. 7:3); (b) very good (e.g. 1 K. 8:29), but (c) being hand-made like the fleshly tent, it is nonetheless defective (Mark 14:58; John 2:19f.). As such it must be destroyed and replaced (cf. Heb. 9:8-10; John 14:6).

9. The Promised Land is (a) good (Dt. 1:25); (b) even very good (Num. 14:7), but (c) nonetheless inherently defective (Heb. 3,4). Being visible and temporary (2 Cor. 4:18), it must like Jerusalem (Isa. 1:26) become a land of righteousness in the heavenly world (Isa. 65:17-19; Heb. 11:10,16; 13:14; 2 Pet. 3:13).

10. As the city of the great (earthly) king chosen by God (Dt. 12:14,18,21, etc.) Jerusalem is good (Mt. 5:35), but it is also temporary and must give way to the New Jerusalem which is the city of the living God (Heb. 12:22, cf. 11:10; 13:14; Gal. 4:26; Rev. 21:9-22:5).

Conclusion

All this surely demonstrates the absurdity of the Augustinian idea that the earth was originally perfect but was subjected to a cosmic curse when Adam sinned. Sin is read into passages like John 3:1-8, Romans 8:18-25 and 1 Corinthians 15:42-50 (eisegesis) not read out of them (exegesis).

Learning from Nature

Some would have us believe that we can worship God in nature better than in church.

(1) Ps. 19 tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God and Paul informs that God’s power and deity is perceived from creation (Rom. 1:20). Is he saying that trees, flowers and sunsets are better hymns and sermons?

Gerard Manley Hopkins said that “The world is charged with the grandeur of God”. On the other hand Alfred Lord Tennyson reminded us that nature is red in tooth and claw. And we need to remember that acc. Ps. 104 it is God himself who feeds the lions just as Jesus says he feeds the birds.

(2) The Bible makes little of the so-called beauty of creation and it certainly does not teach that it was once perfect! Jesus referred to the way in which the lilies are arrayed in superior fashion to Solomon in all his glory, but it is not sentimental in the way that many Christians are today.

After all, the Bible begins with man’s call to exercise dominion over creation. In other words, nature had to be tamed. It is characterized by earthquakes, tsunamis, storms, floods, droughts and is inhabited by wild animals that have to be kept under control.

(3) So, while many ancient religions involved nature worship, we as successors to the Jews must ask if we can learn from nature.

Note: ants and sluggards (Pr. 17:12)

Wealth can take flight like a bird (Pr. 23:4f.)

Too much wine drinking is like the bite of a snake (23:31f.)

A man who strays from home is like a bird straying from its nest (27:8)

The leech has two daughters who cry ‘give’, ‘give’. Bloodsuckers and gold diggers!

Fools return to their folly as dogs return to their vomit (26:11), and as sows that are washed to the mire (2 Pet. 2:20).

(4) Can we learn about man from animals? Animals concerned with survival: because they die, they are concerned with food and propagation. Cf. Gen. 19:31 and  Jos. 23:14.

Animals are usually killers by necessity, though foxes go berserk in the hen house. Modern films on chimps show that they come well short of being human. They teach us that they have no system of ethics and no ability to care for other species. They are programmed, however, to live in their own environment in ecological harmony with others. Culling is natural and when it is set aside by well meaning but ignorant humans, it results in disaster.

Though man is the greatest ravager of the earth, he should act as a steward and care for it.

In the realm of the spirit animals can teach us nothing. They are flesh and act according to instinct (2 Pet. 2; Jude). Thus we can gain certain scientific knowledge regarding bodily (physical) functions, overcrowding, general habitat and the like but so far as our spiritual, moral and intellectual life is concerned, animals contribute nothing directly. They do not understand (the) law and they can’t tell us how to live as human beings.

They can teach us that we reap what we sow. If we sow to the flesh we, like them, die; it is only as we sow to the spirit that we live (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8). Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

(5) Nature temporal not eternal like God its Creator. Nature teaches us only indirectly to look up.

So, if you desert your church and go into the country to observe nature next Sunday, you may appreciate the wonderful creative powers of God, but you will learn precious little of the plan of salvation for mankind. Nature’s revelation is strictly limited. You need the word of God and fellow worshippers gathered together in praise.

Israel and Replacement

Premillennialists in particular (but they are not alone) strongly insist on the return of Christ to earth to reign for a thousand years in Jerusalem. For this intermediate kingdom I see no evidence at all. I believe it to be profoundly wrong. First, I cannot find a single text in the NT supporting it; secondly, it is profoundly suspect on theological grounds, (see further my  Preunderstandings of the Millennium?). On the contrary, I believe that Jesus (I use his human name deliberately) reigns in heaven and will do so forever (Heb. 1:3,13, etc.). He will, however, return (appear, reveal himself) mutatis mutandis (making the necessary adjustments) like Moses to Egypt, to gather his elect and take them to their heavenly home (Mt. 24:31; John 14:1-3; Rev. 3:21, etc.). As a Christian I believe that the old covenant is replaced by the new (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8), that the present body of flesh is replaced by a spiritual body, that earth is replaced by heaven and the presence of God. In other words, I believe in Christian replacement not OT restoration. Even in the OT going back (restoration) is generally wrong (see my No Going Back). It must be remembered that when Israel went backwards it was for punishment (Hos. 8:13; 9:3,6, etc.), so when they were restored, they were moving as they should have been from heathenism forwards back to Judaism and the Promised Land. The implication of this is that if Jesus comes back to earth, it is for punishment! And this in turn implies that his work at his first coming remained unfinished, despite Jesus’ own claim to have completed the work his Father had given him to do (John 17:4; 19:30; Heb. 2:9; 9:28).

All this raises the question in modern times about the Jews’ return to Israel since 1948. While the re-gathering of the chosen people to the Promised Land after exile is a prominent and indisputable feature of the OT (see e.g. Jer. 32:37, etc.), it does not figure in the NT despite the diaspora that occurred after the Romans had wreaked havoc. However, to confine myself to but one fairly recent work, Torrance and Taylor contend vigorously against a replacement theology in their “Israel God’s Servant”. Rejecting the idea that the church has replaced Israel on the ground that it in effect denies a miracle that has occurred before our very eyes, they maintain that those who regard the Church as the new Israel are plainly mistaken. So what is the truth of the matter?

Replacement

First, as I have already intimated in my first paragraph, the Bible certainly seems to teach replacement. Jesus tells hostile Jews in Matthew 21:43 that “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” Again, using OT language originally applied to the Israelites in Exodus 19:5f., Peter tells Christians that they are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9). In Jeremiah 31:31-34 we read that the new covenant is fundamentally different from the old and replaces it. In Hebrews it is portrayed as being a better covenant (8:6). If this does not suggest replacement, I do not know what does.

Interpretation

It would appear, however, that some writers who advocate replacement argue that the Jews have ceased to be the people of God and have no more part to play in the grand drama of salvation. It is this that apparently offends Torrance and others who are mightily impressed by what has happened to Israel in recent times, and rightly so. However, I and doubtless others like me who accept replacement deny this kind of rejection of the Jews. Jesus taught that salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22), and Paul would appear to teach in unmistakable language that the Jews are still God’s elect people whose calling is permanent and irrevocable (Rom. 11:28f.) even if they are presently the enemies of God with respect to the gospel. What seems to be borne out both by the Bible and by history is that Israel has ceased to be the organ of the kingdom of God. That role has been taken over by the church whose specific task is to proclaim the mighty acts of him who has called believers out of darkness into his marvellous light (1 Pet. 2:9; Acts 26:18, cf. Col. 1:12f.). But this does not mean that a superseded Israel has been obliterated, wiped off the map, permanently dismissed as irrelevant. Their obliteration was the objective of the medieval church (I speak as a Lincolnshire man painfully aware of what happened in Lincoln and such places in the thirteenth century), the Nazis and nowadays the Muslims. The policy of obliteration is dangerous not only politically but also religiously. For the Jews remain the elect people of God and the warning that those who persecute them will be cursed (Gen. 12:3) still holds good as the demise of the ‘thousand-year Reich’ would seem to demonstrate. The fact remains that despite their partial and temporary rejection, the Jews continue to impress themselves on the rest of us and even in their disobedience witness inexorably to the continued activity of God in this turbulent world of ours (Rom. 9-11).

The True Israel

Torrance and others rail rigorously against the idea that the church is the new Israel. Since the word ‘new’ may be regarded as being tendentious, they arguably have a point, but it seems to depend largely on a quibble. After all, the Bible refers to the new covenant. What it certainly says is that believers in Christ including Jews like Paul himself now constitute the true Israel, the Israel of God (Gal. 6:15). Just as Peter says we are, like the old Israel, a chosen race and so forth (2:9), Paul says in unmistakable terms that we are the true circumcision (Phil 3:3), and that circumcision is not the result of a physical operation performed by hand signifying law but a spiritual one performed by the Spirit of God signifying regeneration (Eph. 2:11; Col. 2:11). It is the consequence of faith in Christ. (See further my The Order of SalvationCart-Before-The-Horse Theology, etc.). The NT also refers to our high priest and the true tent or tabernacle in heaven that the Lord has set up (Heb. 8:1-5). In view of this, quarrelling over the difference between words like ‘new’ and ‘true’ is of questionable value. From a Christian point of view, the circumcised (Jews/Israel) and the uncircumcised (Gentiles, 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6) need to unite in faith to form one man as the true Israel, where the wall of separation that stood them between for centuries has been abolished (Eph. 2).

Israel’s Blindness

If all this is so, why cannot the Jews themselves see this? In their time even the OT prophets themselves accused their own people of being blind (Isa. 42:19, etc.). Sometimes this is said to be their own fault: they have blinded themselves (Isa. 29:9); sometimes the reason given is that God has blinded them as in Isaiah 6:10 (cf. John 12:40; Acts 28:27). But explanations like these still leave us with questions in our minds. Is there more to be said? The NT certainly gives the impression that the Jews were looking for the wrong kind of Messiah, one more in the mould of David, a warrior king who would drive the Romans into the sea (John 6:15), and Jesus certainly did not fit this picture. He was as far from a sword-wielding Muslim as could be. This is further borne out by Jesus’ rejection at his crucifixion when the fickle crowd that had welcomed him earlier on Palm Sunday appeared to be disillusioned and disowned him. (Was it essentially the same crowd? Or was it one that was infiltrated by a group of people mustered by the Jewish leaders who were intent on preserving their own privileges under Rome?) Elsewhere Paul suggests that the Jews have misunderstood the plan of salvation because they have failed to recognize Jesus as their Messiah (2 Cor. 3:14-16). According to John, Jesus failed to appeal to Gentile and Jew Gentile alike and was received only by those who were prepared to recognize him as their own (John 1:10-13). Doubtless both were blind. But this prompts the question as to why. The simple answer is sin and deception by the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4). But there seems to be more to it. Perhaps it was misapprehension like that displayed by Nicodemus when Jesus taught him about the new birth. Perhaps it is the power of tradition to blind even the most well-meaning of devotees. Another factor of prime significance is the nature of Paul’s theology which Peter realizes is sometimes difficult to understand (2 Pet. 3:15f.) and can easily be twisted. With this in mind I suggest that the church in its minority failed to understand with the result that it contributed substantially to the obfuscation of the Jews, all the more so because it persecuted them. But while modern churchmen acknowledge the latter, they seem to be unwilling to admit the former. Torrance, for example, fails to mention it perhaps because he is blissfully unaware of it.

Covenant Theology

Bearing in mind the Judaisers of the NT era and their insistence on circumcision (see Acts 15:1,5), the importance of what Paul has to say in 2 Corinthians 3 and Galatians can hardly be over-estimated. We have only to consider that the church itself has failed to appreciate and apply his message at this point. After all, Luther and Calvin like most modern evangelicals claimed to support justification by faith to the hilt, but their practice of infant baptism apart from faith, to go no further, tells a different tale. They fail to appreciate what is at issue. Yet, is there any wonder that when circumcision is substituted with infant baptism, temples are built after the fashion of the OT and, despite lip service being paid to the priesthood of all believers, priests especially in the Roman church, which prides itself on its historical longevity, form a special caste? Indeed, the Roman church still deals out ‘salvation’ as the Levitical priesthood dealt out circumcision, and the repeated sacrifice of the mass in effect repeats OT animal sacrifices with commensurate futility – something even the templeless Jews no longer indulge in. Furthermore, the traditional political aspirations and overtones of various ecclesiastical organizations like Romanism, Anglicanism and even Presbyterianism are or ought to be apparent to all. They clearly have the OT theocracy as their background (cf. Calvin’s Geneva). Needless to say, in Islam politics and religion are inseparable, and, considering the lamentable conduct of the medieval church at the time of the Crusades and the serious decline in modern moral standards, they also have been given minimal inducement to question their own highly dubious stance. Little wonder then that, humanly speaking, the Jews are blind and, surrounded by foes, have developed a dog-in-the-manger attitude and a ghetto mentality. For them the wall of separation has not been broken down. So, why should they change and adopt “Christianity” (or better “churchianity”) when they appear to have nothing to gain? Doubtless they feel that their place at the head of the table in Jerusalem rather than in Rome, Canterbury or Geneva has been usurped by unscrupulous interlopers. In the circumstances why not wait for their own Messiah and the fulfilment of what they see to be the OT promises? The tragedy is, of course, that their Messiah has already been, but the church forgot to tell them or at least gave the impression that it was hell-bent on covering up the fact.

Doctrinal Reformation

If all this is true and the church as the organ of the kingdom really has replaced Israel in some sense, then it would seem to follow that the church is under a divine obligation to do something about the matter. But what can it do? It can subject its traditions and especially its received theology to minute examination with a view to reformation according to the teaching of Scripture. This is difficult because various branches of the church are in denial like the man with a drink problem he refuses to recognize. Haven’t they already got the truth? Reformation is for others! However assuming that it is a universal need I suggest the following:

First, the church must recognize that its main mentor Augustine of Hippo was seriously astray in his understanding of the Bible, especially the books of Genesis and Romans. The idea that God originally created a perfect world that was marred by the sin of an originally perfect Adam and Eve must be seen for what it is, that is, nonsense. A “Fall” from original righteousness leading to a universal curse and original sin either transmitted (Catholics) or imputed (Protestants) is no where taught in the Bible. The creation/fall/restoration schema reflects a fundamentally false worldview and should be dropped pronto.

Second, it must find a truly biblical covenant theology. The idea that God originally made a covenant with creation and with Adam as its lord must be discarded as completely without foundation in Scripture. How could God come to an agreement no matter how minimal with an inarticulate creation and an Adam who like a baby did not even know the commandment? An entirely unilateral covenant is surely a contradiction in terms. (See further my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?)

Third, it must recognize that just as the covenant with Noah will operate transgenerationally to the end of time (Gen. 8:22), so will the law of Moses (Mt. 5:18). If the first is not true, we would all be dead (cf. Acts 14:17; 17:25-28) and most of history would never have occurred (cf. Jer. 31:36; 33:21). So far as the law of Moses is concerned, it also will be genealogically continuous among the Jews since from the start it was meant to be scrupulously taught to children (Dt. 4:9; 31:12f., etc.). If this is not true, the Jews would not be sinners who had broken the law and in as much need of salvation as the rest of us. Both covenants are said to be everlasting in this-worldly terms (Gen. 8:22; Mt. 5:18). The same can be said of the promises made to Abraham and David. For Christians these point to eternity and have been fulfilled in Christ whose own covenant is, in contrast those with Noah and Moses, eternal (Heb.13:20).

Fourth, if my third point is true, so are the ideas of both racial and individual development involving recapitulation. Before Augustine arrived on the scene, Irenaeus appeared to recognize this. And modern scientists do the same today. While many Christians, especially fundamentalists, belligerently rail against the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, we must acknowledge that it is central to the faith. If it is not true, then Jesus could never serve as the propitiation of the sins of the world (1 John 2:2) and sum up all humanity in himself (Eph. 1:10).

Fifth, (Dispensational) Premillennialists in particular are strongly opposed to the idea of spiritualization. Even Presbyterians like Torrance take a similar tack. However, it would appear to be basic to Christianity correctly understood. There are two main points: first, the initially uncovenanted material creation was by nature temporal (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 102:25-27, etc.) and destined for ultimate destruction from the start (Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12) like all things visible (2 Cor. 4:18); second, after its demise only the spiritual, supremely God himself, remains (Heb. 12:27, cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-50; 2 Pet. 1:14). And it is this, the heavenly world of the Spirit, which is our destination, that replaces it (Rev. 20:11; 21:1-5). Thus the ‘obvious’ message of Hebrews, along with the rest of the NT, is that there is no ultimate future in either the flesh (not the body) or the material world. Modern science apparently teaches the same, but it defers creation’s fiery demise to millions of years hence. I am not so sure.

What does all this mean? It means that the idea of the redemption of the material creation so popular today is radically astray. It smacks of OT restorationism and repetition. Admittedly, it appears to be taught especially be Isaiah. But it must be remembered that as an OT prophet he lacked the revelation that Jesus brought. He was like the rest of the prophets trying desperately to understand what was hidden from him (1 Pet. 1:10-12). Like John the Baptist he could safely speak of earthly things (John 3:31, cf. vv.12f.), but was otherwise dependent on the limited revelation granted to his dispensation (cf. Dt. 29:4,29). Yet despite this Christians who are supposed to belong to the new covenant teach restorationism with fervour. They write as if they have never read Hebrews 11:1-16, for example. What is more, they fail to see that parallel with creation even in Isaiah is Jerusalem (Isa. 65:17-19). And the new and heavenly Jerusalem will certainly not be the old rebellious city repristinated. Indeed, like the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells (Mt. 6:10,33, etc.), it already exists. As the regeneration, it is the mother of all who are born from above (Gal. 4:26, cf. Heb. 12:22; Rev. 3:12, etc.).

Modern Israel

What has all this to do with the Jews and modern Israel? A great deal. My argument at this point is simple. If the church which is now the intended organ of the kingdom is blind to its own revelation, how much more the Jews to the implications of theirs. If the church is Judaized and still largely held captive to the old covenant, little wonder that the Jews are as they are. My point is perhaps most easily illustrated by reference to the sacraments. While the Reformers of the sixteenth century dealt powerfully with the Lord’s Supper and rejected the repeated sacrifice of the mass, they nonetheless failed abjectly to deal with baptism. Yet the theology of baptism contains the essence of Christianity. (See further my The Theology Behind Baptism, Baptism Revisited, Circumcision and Baptism) Properly speaking, baptism of the Spirit, which is no more than a promise in the OT, is experienced only by those who believe specifically in Christ. (‘Baptism’ into Noah, 1 Pet. 3:20f., and ‘baptism’ into Moses, 1 Cor. 10:2, like John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance, cannot be equated with Christian baptism!) He himself as a spiritual son of Abraham who had uniquely kept the law was baptized just as Abraham was circumcised and justified as a believer (cf. Gal. 3:14,29). So Jesus and all true sons of Abraham were called to transcend their heathenism and their captivity to the law and become the free spiritual sons and daughters of God (Gal. 4:1-7, cf. Rom. 8:12-25). Even in the OT concern was not primarily with restoration to the physical land of Israel, perhaps a straw in the wind as it may be now, but with spiritual maturity in a new covenant (Ezek. 11:17-20; 18:31; 36:26; Jer. 31:31-34; 32:39). In other words, today the children of Abraham must attain to the proper culmination of their recapitulation of the history of the race and enter by grace the kingdom of God/heaven (Eph. 1:5). Or again, having begun their pilgrimage in the earth as flesh, they must achieve perfection in the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29) their pioneer (Eph. 4:9f.; Heb 2:9f.), and so be fitted for the presence of their Creator who is a consuming fire in heaven (Heb. 12:26-29). Such is the essence of biblical teleology and salvation.

The Future of the Church

When the church sees that all humanity that does not disqualify itself by its sin is engaged on a pilgrimage from ground to glory in the wake of their Redeemer (Eph. 4:9f.; Heb. 2:9-13), perhaps both Jews and Muslims will do the same. This, however, will mean that the Roman Church in particular will have to drop its claim to infallibility, recognize along with the other churches its doctrinal errors and its OT mind-set, and set forth the gospel in all its glorious majesty. If it does this, then the church as a whole, when it is appropriately united with the Jews as the Israel of God, should theoretically have a mighty impact on the rest of the world that is in its care of evangelism and blessing. One thing is clear, however, and that is that a church that does not include substantial numbers of Jews labours under a serious handicap (cf. Rom. 11:12,15). It is not fully the Israel of God, the one man instead of two (Gal. 3:28; 6:15; Eph. 2:15; 4:13).

Science

If the church subjects itself to reformation and the Jews in their jealousy see that Jesus is really their Messiah, then together in the power of the Spirit they might well convince scientists, many of whom in reaction to the falsity of church doctrine have embraced naturalism, that they have misconstrued the situation. If it is seen that evolution and recapitulation are central to the faith and to life itself as we know it, a huge stumbling block to supernaturalism and the transcendence of God will be removed. For it is the church, not the Bible, with its doctrine of devolution that implicitly denies the evolution or development of the race epitomized in Jesus. The fact is that the Bible, as Irenaeus perhaps only vaguely realized, taught both evolution and recapitulation long before Darwin came on the scene.

Possible Scenarios

What if a majority of the Jews do eventually turn to Christ? Does that mean that the law and Israel as a habitable land and nation are no longer viable and relevant? Not so (cf. Jer. 33:24). While Christians, having once lived under law, die to the law (Gal. 2:19), precisely because evolution and recapitulation are part of the essence of life on earth, infants and children who begin at the beginning have necessarily to go through the maturation process, which necessarily involves recapitulating redemptive history, before coming to Christ. Initially, like Adam and Eve they are totally uncovenanted, without a guarantee of life. Next, like the race in general they develop under Noah but remain ‘far off’. Then if they are Jews then as God’s son (Ex. 4:22), or sons of the commandment, they eventually come near. But it is only as Christians that they can gain access by the Spirit to the Father (Eph. 2:18; 3:12; Heb. 4:16). In other words, they are no more born Christian than the race was. And since this is so, they cannot by-pass Noah and Moses who remain permanently relevant. The covenants of nature (Gen. 8:22) and law (Mt. 5:18) will necessarily endure till the end of the earth. (While I have drawn attention specifically to children and implicitly to their diminished responsibility, it must be remember that many, perhaps most, physical ‘adults’ in our various societies remain intellectually and spiritually immature often through no fault of their own. For all that, many respond to the rule or kingdom of God at work in our midst, cf. Rev. 1:6; 5:10, and as a consequence live happy, lawful and productive lives in a whole gamut of capacities.)

Muslims

There is more to be said, however. If the Jews come to see that Christ is the end of the law, that is, both its goal and terminus, what about their half-brothers, the Muslims? Like Israel, they also are something of a mystery. Perhaps we can learn something here from Paul.

First, Islam itself recognizes that there are three peoples of the book. They see themselves as related to Abraham along with Jews and Christians. They claim, however, that theirs is the true faith, superior to Christianity because it came later. This must be questioned. Throughout the OT it is made plain that the Jews were uniquely the chosen vehicle of divine revelation (Dt. 4; Ps. 147:19f., etc.). Jesus endorsed this when he said that salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22). After all, he himself was a Jew and our unique Saviour (John 14:6, etc.) who has clear links with the whole of history of the race. So where does the Qur’an come into the picture?

In Galatians 4:21-31 Paul allegorically posits two covenants, one with Hagar and Ishmael and one with Sarah and Isaac. The apostle does this against the obvious teaching of Genesis that Ishmael, though the fleshly son of Abraham was excluded from the covenant even though he was circumcised. Since he was the natural son of Hagar and not of Sarah the free woman, he was cast out as a slave. In John 8:35 Jesus also tells us that the slave does not remain in the house forever. What does all this mean? Paul is intent on indicating to the Jews that so long as they cling to the law (Sinai), they are rejected slaves like Ishmael. But the question we have to ask ourselves here is whether Ishmael and his spiritual offspring are permanently rejected, fatalistically predestinated to damnation. In John 3:16 we read that God loves the world. So, if the Jews at last turn to Christ, is there not a real hope that the Muslims will be confronted by their own failure to understand? I have argued elsewhere (see my Covenant Theology) that the heathen are slaves deceived by the lusts of the flesh and thus the spiritual offspring of Eve who was likewise deceived (cf. Rom. 1:24ff.). They differ from the Jews, the spiritual offspring of Adam who received the commandment directly from God and was not deceived. But Adam rebelled. Is not Paul implying in Galatians 4 that Ishmael, the fleshly slave, resembled Eve who was deceived by the devil? In other words, if the Bible given to us through the Jews is the true word of God, Muslims must seriously consider the possibility that theirs is a perversion of the true. Certainly, from the biblical point of view they are deceived sinners desperately in need of the grace of God. In other words, unbelieving Jews and Muslims before God are both alike still at Sinai and in need of his grace (Rom. 3:9,12,23, etc.). However, whereas Muslims have no hope and no guarantee of salvation (cf. Eph. 2:12), the Jews have a Messiah still in prospect who they will finally acknowledge when he comes from the heavenly Zion (Rom. 11:26f.). If Muslims see the mistakes the Jews have made, they will surely find it easier to recognize their own errors and commit themselves to the true Saviour of mankind. Furthermore, they will have no need to become Jews in order to become Christian and participate in the Israel of God. They can receive Christ through faith without any other intermediary as Gentiles and Jewish women have perennially done.

In the event, however, a more likely scenario is the reverse of what has just been suggested. Already there is evidence that many Muslims are recognizing the shortcomings of their faith and coming to Christ in increasing numbers. The fact is that Islam is bedevilled by the dubious moorings of its revelation in the Qur’an, its lack of a comprehensive view of mankind, its deficient sense of assurance, its materialistic vision of the next world and its tendencies to violence and persecution as a means of spreading its message. The latter in itself suggests its falsity, for truth has its own appeal to man made in the image of God (2 Cor. 5:20). While Israel’s election was clearly for the benefit of the world (Ex. 19:5, cf. Gen. 12:1-3), can the same be said of Islam? From the perspective of Christians who celebrate NT grace, Islam, far from being the final revelation of God, is in fact a step backwards into the same sort of legalism that characterizes Judaism, as Paul implies in his allegory, not to mention the rest of Galatians. Judged by its fruits, it is clearly a failure. Lacking Jesus as Mediator, it is incapable of bridging the gap between man and God. In light of this, perhaps they will see the writing on the wall and, sharing in the full number of the Gentiles, become instrumental in the conversion of the Jews (Rom. 11:25). Since the NT for obvious reasons gives us no clear information regarding Islam, we must resort to inferences from the theology at our disposal. It is reasonable to speculate in view of our ignorance that Muslims as people of the book and precious in God’s sight could serve as a bridge between themselves and the heathen of a different ilk. Certainly their conversion on a large scale to Christ would have a powerful worldwide impact if it ever occurred. And I for one pray that it will.

__________________________________________________________

Reference

D.W.Torrance & G.Taylor, Israel God’s Servant, Milton Keynes/Colorado Springs, 2007.

__________________________________________________________

Notes

By their fruit you will know them. Evangelism by sword.

Ishmael symbolizes the persecution of the spirit by the flesh (Gal. 4:29).

Eve listened to the voice of the devil and was deceived. The devil was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44).

Islam brings slavery not freedom. No assurance. It is a false or distorted gospel and needs to be repented of.

Just as Eve received a distorted commandment and transgressed, so did Ishmael and his offspring.

Just as Eve represented the flesh and slavery to it, so did Hagar and Ishmael.

Just as Eve represented the earth, the original womb of mankind, so Hagar gave birth to a multitude of nations.

The flesh persecutes the spirit.

Muslims enslaved by tradition and law and to that extent they mimic the Jews. They are half-brothers. They are without hope except in their own efforts. The Jews have Isaac and ultimately the promise of life and the Messiah, Jesus the son of David, King of kings.

Eve-Ishmael-flesh-slavery/Adam-Isaac-spirit-freedom.

Evangelicals and Creationists

As an Evangelical I believe, primarily on the basis of the teaching of Jesus, that the Bible is the word of God. In view of this I accept what Scripture has to say about creation. However, I reject outright what is often called the literalistic hermeneutic of the Creationists which I believe is not only wrong but impossible to apply, at least, consistently. In my experience, Creationists and especially premillennialists are well acquainted with the tradition emanating from Augustine of Hippo but not with the Bible which to the extent that it is read is so through his eyes. (The issue is somewhat more complicated than I might appear to suggest here. Fundamentalist perception of Augustine is doubtless more naïve than Augustine himself was. For clarification of this comment, readers might well consult Alister McGrath’s essay entitled “Augustine’s Origin of Species” in Christianity Today, May 2009.)

Since I am not particularly interested in (the history of) fundamentalists, I want in the following paragraphs to indicate areas where I find myself in radical disagreement with some of their teachings.

Disease and Death

First, they lay emphasis on the fact that what appears to be wrong with this world such as disease, aging and death is the result of the sin of Adam and Eve our first forbears. The biblical background of this seems to be somewhat tenuous. While it is true that all parents have a powerful impact on their children for good or evil (Luke 11:13; Heb. 12:10, cf. Ex. 20:5f.), their behaviour does not fatalistically predetermine theirs (as original sin whether transmitted or imputed does) as Jeremiah 31:29f. and Ezekiel 18 amply demonstrate. While in Romans 5:12-21 Paul clearly teaches that Adam influenced his posterity for evil, nowhere does he suggest that either disease or death is directly attributable to him. With regard to disease, Jesus in John 9 seems to repudiate the idea in the case of the congenitally blind man and implicitly in Sarah’s and Hannah’s infertility, Moses’ stammering (cf. Ex. 4:11), blemished animals and so forth. With regard to death, Paul makes it clear that death is only wages (Rom. 6:23) when people break the law like Adam and Eve before them (Rom. 5:12). Thus the OT consistently distinguishes between the sins of the fathers and those of the children (see e.g. Ps. 106:6; Ezek. 20:18-31) and Paul sees himself as a striking case in point (Rom. 7:9f.). (See further my Imitation) Since where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15), the reason for the death of babies and animals, which do not know the law, cannot be sin – neither wages nor the direct result of Adam’s sin. There is obviously another explanation for their death. It is not far to seek, as we shall see below. (See my Death Before Genesis 3, A Double Helping)

Eternal Life

Creationists, following Augustine, imply that God intended Adam and Eve to live forever in the Garden of Eden. This is impossible for various reasons. First, since he emanated from the earth Adam was dust and hence temporal like the earth itself (cf. Gen. 1:1; 1 Cor. 15:45-50; Rev. 21:1). As the writer of Ecclesiastes says, there is a time to be born and a time to die (3:2). This was true of creation in general (Ps. 102:25-27), so it must have been true of Adam. Next, Paul informs us that what is visible is inherently impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18). Little wonder then that Genesis 6:3 tells us that man’s span of years is about 120 because he is visible flesh which comes from the visible earth. Then, if Adam was designed to live forever in Eden, why was he promised eternal life before he sinned (Gen. 2:17)? (Cf. circumcision which signifies law, John 7:22; Gal. 5:3, and promises life to all who obey it. It is performed on 8-day old baby boys before they break it – or, in Jesus’ case, keep it.) Paul testifies to the fact that while God himself is by nature immortal (1 Tim. 6:16), immortality is something promised to Adam, his fleshly creature, on the condition of obedience. This is transgenerationally the case in Scripture as repeated references to Leviticus 18:5 testify.

The Garden of Eden

Then there is the question of the Garden of Eden itself. Even some traditionalists seem to realize nowadays that the Eden of Genesis requires enhancement of some kind. It is no more a permanent home for man than the Promised Land (Heb. 3,4) and in fact it reaches its definitive expression only in the book of Revelation (21-22). So the idea that God intended our first parents to live there forever is moonshine, and this is noticeably absent in Revelation 21:23! But such is the antipathy of creationists to the very idea of evolution, not to mention naturalism, that they have invented a totally unbiblical creature Adam who was not only created fully mature in one literal day but was by implication to remain forever totally devoid of development. Thus the inference must be that the first Adam produced a son (Luke 3:38) who, since he conspicuously underwent development (see e.g. Luke 2), was completely different from him (contrast Rom. 5:14). In view of this, despite Hebrews 2 for example, we are forced to conclude that he belonged to another species! Yet Genesis itself tells us that Adam’s sons were produced in his own image (Gen. 5:1-3).

Cosmic Curse

Next, creationists tell us that when Adam and Eve broke the commandment they not only “fell” from their original righteousness but brought a curse on the whole creation. First, Genesis 2:16f. and 3:5,22 clearly imply that since at the start, like babies, they did not know the law and hence good and evil, we are bound to infer that they were innocent (cf. Rom. 4:15). So we must ask how they could possibly have been originally righteous. According to Scripture righteousness can only be gained by keeping the commandment and unrighteousness by breaking it (Rom. 6:16). If then they were not originally righteousness, how could they fall? To ask the question is to answer it. The Miltonic “high estate” entertained by many is pure myth. The plain truth is that our first parents never enjoyed any righteousness or high estate from which to fall. (See further my What Fall?) This suggests that while the so-called cosmic curse which was the consequence of breaking the law (cf. Heb. 2:2) might have affected their relationship with eachother and with their immediate surroundings (cf. Prov. 24:30f., etc.), it hardly affected the rest of the universe! After all, the flood is explicitly said to be a curse but it was brought about not by Adam and Eve but by their sinful descendants (Gen. 6:11-13). Furthermore, we are told that such a curse will never occur again (Gen. 8:21f.). So we must wonder if Adam ran out of steam!

Futility and Corruption

Creationists tell us vehemently that the reason why the earth is in a state of decay and futility is because of sin. The problem here is that Jesus who was sinless was visibly subject to physical decay (Luke 3:23) in violent contrast with his Father in heaven (Ps. 90:2; 102:26, etc.). Even his enemies noted that he was growing older (John 8:57) and what grows old eventually disappears (Heb. 8:13, cf. Col. 2:22). This means at least two things: first, he had developed, matured or evolved in some sense, and, second, that he was naturally corruptible. (See my Creation Corruptible By Nature) So the conclusion must be drawn that futility and corruption have another source quite unrelated to sin. I suggest it is the earth or creation itself. The word ‘creation’ immediately brings to mind Romans 8:18-25 where Paul tells us that God himself decreed the decay of both creation and creature that derived from it from the start. As in John 3:1-8 mention of sin is noticeably missing from this passage.

Flesh

We noted above that all visible or created things are impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18). This would seem to suggest that the flesh which derives from the earth is also impermanent / perishable / corruptible / futile / subject to decay. And this is precisely what both Jesus and Paul imply. In John 3 Jesus tells us that we must be born again not, as Augustine taught, because we are born the sinful offspring of Adam, but because we are flesh (dust). Again, in 1 Corinthians 15:50 Paul uncompromisingly asserts that flesh and blood can no more inherit the kingdom of God than the intrinsically perishable can inherit the imperishable. Furthermore, John distinguishes between being born of man (flesh) and being born of God (spirit, John 1:13). And in 6:63 Jesus in line with the OT prophets (Ps. 118:8; Jer. 17:5) baldly asserts that flesh is unprofitable. In Romans 7:18 and 8:8 Paul says virtually the same.

It follows from this that while feeding and nurturing the flesh keeps us physically alive until we die (cf. John 6:49), to do this to the exclusion of the spirit is ultimately ruinous. Paul graphically expresses the issue when he tells us in Galatians 6:7f. that when we sow exclusively to the flesh, all we reap is a harvest of corruption. This it clearly does in the sinless animal world which is characterized by death as many wildlife films on TV demonstrate. (Sir David Attenborough and his ilk are excellent preachers even if they do not believe the Bible!) In other words, since corruptible flesh derives from the earth, the earth itself is corruptible. And this Paul teaches in Romans 8:18-25 (see my essay Romans 8:18-25).

Food

In light of this it is reasonable to assume that the ‘good’ earth (Gen. 1; 1 Tim. 4:4) can no more meet our needs than can the ‘good’ law (Gal. 3:21; Heb. 8:7). This is clearly what the Bible implies when it distinguishes between material and spiritual food. Even though the animals and the Israelites are fed by God, even by bread from heaven (John 6:31), they all nonetheless die (John 6:22-59). So, if we live entirely on perishable food, we inevitably perish (cf. Ps. 106:20; Rom. 1:23). To live eternally we need real food from heaven, not manna but living bread (John 6:32,51, cf. Mt. 4:4) along with living water (John 4:10). (Writers traditionally draw the conclusion that if we do not sin, we live and therefore death is exclusively the wages of sin. There is confusion here. Though naturally mortal we are promised life if we keep the law, Lev. 18:5. Even Jesus was naturally mortal but he kept the law and did not earn the wages its transgression involved. Though he rose again from the grave after dying on our behalf, he remained mortal flesh, Luke 24:39. However, since he had kept the law he was no longer subject to death, Rom. 6:9. This being so, he had to be changed in order to enter the kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 15:50-53. Animals are naturally mortal but since they do not know the law they cannot keep its promise and so gain eternal life. The same is true of babies who know neither the law nor good and evil. Without faith they cannot please God, Heb. 11:6. See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities)

Native Depravity

As noted above, Creationists again follow Augustine in maintaining that we are born sinners. Just how we can be sinners without breaking the law which defines sin (Rom. 4:15; James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4) is difficult to understand. This brings us to the notion of original sin – sin either transmitted or imputed. Neither is possible. Ezekiel 18, for example, puts paid to the idea of sin transmitted (Catholics), and sin cannot be imputed (Protestants) unless it is either actually committed or received by faith as in Jesus’ case. In any case, by definition imputed sin cannot earn wages (Rom. 4:1-8), so if it causes death wages are not involved! So much for tradition.

Salvation

This raises another problem. If we sin ‘in Adam’ (as Augustine taught adding illegitimately to Scripture in Romans 5:12) and are born sinners how can we possibly be saved? All the more so when Paul teaches that we are expected to conduct ourselves according to nature (Rom. 1:26)! Creationists propose regeneration and conversion as the solution. But how can born sinners (sinners by nature) possibly be converted without becoming something other than they are by nature? Can a leopard change its spots without ceasing to be a leopard (Jer. 13:23)? Creationists tell us that this can only occur when we become regenerate. How do we become regenerate? By election apparently! In other words, our salvation is not by grace through faith but by a sovereign though arbitrary act of God. In other words, it is wholly and exclusively monergistic. If this is true, then personal responsibility flies through the window. It would appear therefore that Creationists are as fatalistic as Muslims. They attribute all to the sovereign and arbitrary will of God. They do nothing, God does everything! How does Scripture deal with this problem? Implicitly, it denies that there is a problem because it fails, first, to teach original sin, hence, second, it denies its solution merely by a sovereign act of regeneration. Third, it teaches that faith and repentance which we are commanded to exercise (Mark 1:15; 1 John 3:23) precede the new birth (cf. John 3:16). The consistent teaching of the Bible is that righteousness is the precondition of life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:5, etc.). And we can only attain to righteousness by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). In other words, faith leads to righteousness and righteousness leads to life (Rom. 5:21).

The Garden of Eden Temporary

Most Creationists appear to hold somewhat inconsistently apparently that if our faith is genuine we inherit eternal life and eventually go to heaven. After all, they say, we are designed for eternity. But if this is true, how come that we were originally intended to live forever in an earthly Eden? Was it eternal? If as Augustine taught Adam was created immortal, it must have been since an immortal being needs an eternal place to live in. Little wonder that some creationists accept the idea of a literal return to the Garden of Eden or Paradise Regained. Fortunately, others opt for heaven recognizing the fundamental difference between earth and heaven, between Genesis 2,3 and Revelation 21,22.

I conclude that Creationism is so beset with difficulties it must be wrong.

Note

This brief essay was inspired by a paragraph headed “The Origin of Death and Disease” on page 31 of In God’s Image, Leominster, 2008. There Stuart Burgess writes: “The Bible teaches that death and disease came because Adam and Eve rebelled against God. Adam and Eve were designed to live in the Garden of Eden for ever. However, Adam and Eve rebelled against God by disobeying his command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The whole of creation was cursed as a result of this rebellion and this explains why the world is in a state of decay. Since the curse, everyone has been born a sinner and is naturally in a state of rebellion against God until he or she is converted.”

I leave the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.

Why the Biblical Stress on Invisibility?

WHY THE BIBLICAL STRESS ON INVISIBILITY?
Apart from Paul’s unequivocal assertion in 2 Corinthians 5:7 that we live by faith and not by sight, why does Jesus tell Doubting Thomas that those who have not seen him but have nonetheless believed are blessed? Why in other words is invisibility of such prime importance in Scripture?
First, God himself being spirit (John 4:24) is physically invisible. How then do we know that he exists? So far as all men and women are concerned, however, the invisible God reveals himself through creation (Rom. 1:20, cf. Ps. 19; Acts 14:17; 17:27, etc.). Since he creates us in his own image he expects us to seek him and to worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:23, cf. Acts 17: 22-34).
Second, He revealed himself to the Israelites in various ways by his acts (e.g. the exodus) and through the prophets (Heb.1:1f.).
Witness Always Contemporary.
All cannot see, that is, be actual eyewitnesses. The reason for this becomes obvious when we consider the crucifixion of Christ. For all to be eyewitnesses it would be necessary for him to be repeatedly crucified (or alternatively for all who ever lived to be present at his crucifixion which would in the nature of the case be impossible on a number of counts). This not only theologically impossible since it would undermine the once-for-all character of the Saviour’s sacrifice which brought to an end all other sacrifices but it would be impossible for chronological and spatial reasons. Jesus as man could in other words only be in one place at one time. Furthermore, all believers must be put on an equal footing, that is, by faith.
This is true even for eyewitnesses of crucial events like the crucifixion and the appearance of resurrected Jesus. At Paul’s Damascus Road experience it would appear that those who don’t believe don’t see (Acts 9:7), or hear presumably what was said (22:9), what Paul himself saw and heard  (26:13f.) Eyewitnesses are always justified by faith before they become eyewitnesses of further revelation. This was certainly true of the apostles. All were believers before they testified to the resurrection.
The Internal Witness of the Spirit.
In any case, seeing is not believing, hence Jesus refused to perform miracles to order. As he pointed out, the Jews though claiming to be his disciples did not necessarily believe Moses (John 5:45f.) or even Abraham (Mt. 3:7-10; 8:11; John 8:39). And even when he rose from the dead, despite all the evidence they did not believe as Jesus had anticipated (Luke 16:31, cf. John 12:48).
Since revelatory events occur sporadically, all cannot be present when they happen. Thus evidence relating to the faith once delivered is cumulative (cf. Heb. 1:1f.). So, though it is for the majority invisible, nonetheless it is always contemporary. Those who do not participate in eye witness are at no disadvantage. They are justified in believing credible testimony.
Our hope is an invisible hope (Rom. 8:24f.) related to faith (Heb. 11:1) which embraces invisible reality (2 Cor. 5:7). Our spiritual forebears such as Abraham often did not know where they were going (Heb. 11:8-16), but they anticipated Jesus’ day and rejoiced (John 8:56) as Jesus indicated.
The PL was physically real enough when the people, that is, Joshua and Caleb plus the children of those who died in the wilderness arrived. So what will invisible glory be like? Will it be material? Cf. Tom Wright and his “a different sort of physicality”. The Bible says not. The real is not physical but spiritual (cf. Bruce, John, p.13; de Silva, pp.387, 472, Lane, p.331) and will surely be spiritually discerned cf. Isa. 6:5b; 1 Cor. 2:14). We shall see the glory of the Lord Jesus himself and this glory was evident before the foundation of the world (John 17:5,24, cf. Isa. 33:17; 66:18). In fact Jesus’ earthly physical ‘glory’ was nondescript. Surely his heavenly glory will be quite something, like that of his Father (Luke 9:26, cf. Isa. 33:17; 66:18).
Perhaps we should think in terms of a different sort of spirituality especially in light of the imagery of Revelation 21:9ff.!

Apart from Paul’s unequivocal assertion in 2 Corinthians 5:7 that we live by faith and not by sight, why does Jesus tell Doubting Thomas that those who have not seen him but have nonetheless believed are blessed? Why in other words is invisibility of such prime importance in Scripture?

First, God himself being spirit (John 4:24) is physically invisible. How then do we know that he exists? So far as all men and women are concerned, however, the invisible God reveals himself through creation (Rom. 1:20, cf. Ps. 19; Acts 14:17; 17:27, etc.). Since he creates us in his own image he expects us to seek him and to worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:23, cf. Acts 17: 22-34).

Second, He revealed himself to the Israelites in various ways by his acts (e.g. the exodus) and through the prophets (Heb.1:1f.).

Witness Always Contemporary

All cannot see, that is, be actual eyewitnesses. The reason for this becomes obvious when we consider the crucifixion of Christ. For all to be eyewitnesses it would be necessary for him to be repeatedly crucified (or alternatively for all who ever lived to be present at his crucifixion which would in the nature of the case be impossible on a number of counts). This not only theologically impossible since it would undermine the once-for-all character of the Saviour’s sacrifice which brought to an end all other sacrifices but it would be impossible for chronological and spatial reasons. Jesus as man could in other words only be in one place at one time. Furthermore, all believers must be put on an equal footing, that is, by faith.

This is true even for eyewitnesses of crucial events like the crucifixion and the appearance of resurrected Jesus. At Paul’s Damascus Road experience it would appear that those who don’t believe don’t see (Acts 9:7), or hear presumably what was said (22:9), what Paul himself saw and heard  (26:13f.) Eyewitnesses are always justified by faith before they become eyewitnesses of further revelation. This was certainly true of the apostles. All were believers before they testified to the resurrection.

The Internal Witness of the Spirit

In any case, seeing is not believing, hence Jesus refused to perform miracles to order. As he pointed out, the Jews though claiming to be his disciples did not necessarily believe Moses (John 5:45f.) or even Abraham (Mt. 3:7-10; 8:11; John 8:39). And even when he rose from the dead, despite all the evidence they did not believe as Jesus had anticipated (Luke 16:31, cf. John 12:48).

Since revelatory events occur sporadically, all cannot be present when they happen. Thus evidence relating to the faith once delivered is cumulative (cf. Heb. 1:1f.). So, though it is for the majority invisible, nonetheless it is always contemporary. Those who do not participate in eye witness are at no disadvantage. They are justified in believing credible testimony.

Our hope is an invisible hope (Rom. 8:24f.) related to faith (Heb. 11:1) which embraces invisible reality (2 Cor. 5:7). Our spiritual forebears such as Abraham often did not know where they were going (Heb. 11:8-16), but they anticipated Jesus’ day and rejoiced (John 8:56) as Jesus indicated.

The PL was physically real enough when the people, that is, Joshua and Caleb plus the children of those who died in the wilderness arrived. So what will invisible glory be like? Will it be material? Cf. Tom Wright and his “a different sort of physicality”. The Bible says not. The real is not physical but spiritual (cf. Bruce, John, p.13; de Silva, pp.387, 472, Lane, p.331) and will surely be spiritually discerned cf. Isa. 6:5b; 1 Cor. 2:14). We shall see the glory of the Lord Jesus himself and this glory was evident before the foundation of the world (John 17:5,24, cf. Isa. 33:17; 66:18). In fact Jesus’ earthly physical ‘glory’ was nondescript. Surely his heavenly glory will be quite something, like that of his Father (Luke 9:26, cf. Isa. 33:17; 66:18).

Perhaps we should think in terms of a different sort of spirituality especially in light of the imagery of Revelation 21:9ff.!

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).

The Transience of Creation

The Transience of Creation
1. Beginning and End
The Bible begins with reference to the beginning of creation (Gen. 1:1). Since the transcendent Creator pre-existed it and brought it into being, the inference is that he lives eternally and has neither beginning nor end (Isa. 41:4; 43:10b; 44:6; 57:15; Rev. 1:8, etc.). In contrast, what he has made is characterized by transience since what has a beginning must have an end. This is the consistent teaching of the rest of Scripture (Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27; Isa. 34:4; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.).
2. Manufactured Things
All things “made by hand” (cheiropoietos) both human (e.g. idols, Isa. 2:8,18,20; the temple, Mark 14:58) and divine (the flesh of man, Job 10:8; Ps. 102:25; Isa. 64:8; the earth, Heb. 1:10) are faulty like the hand-written law (Heb. 8:7, etc.) compared with God himself (cf. Heb. 3:3). All things are tools in the hands of God (Ps. 119:89-91) and will finally be dispensed with once they have served the divine purpose. By contrast, what God does not do or make “by hand” (acheiropoietos) remains (e.g. spiritual circumcision, Col. 2:11; the heavenly temple, Mark 14:58; Heb. 9:11,24, cf. Rev. 21,22; the spiritual body, 1 Cor. 15:42-49; 2 Cor. 5:1).
3. Transience Directly Asserted
There are various passages in Scripture referring explicitly to the transience of creation. (N.B. Transience is natural and has nothing to do with sin, cf. Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 12:33. It is symbolized by grass, smoke, shadow, etc., Isa. 40:6-8; 51:6.) The covenant with Noah is effective only while the earth remains (Gen. 8:22). Jesus refers in Matthew 5:18 to the continued existence of the obsolescent hand-written law (Heb. 8:13) only until heaven and earth pass away (cf. Luke 16:17). In 24:35 he asserts flatly that heaven and earth will pass away in contrast with his words. In 1 Corinthians 7:31 Paul says the present form of this world (1 Cor. 7:31) like its rulers (2:6) is on the way out (cf. 1 John 2:17; Rev. 21:1).
4. Creation and Destruction
Paul tells us in Romans 1:20 that God’s eternal nature is revealed by all created things. The author of Hebrews tells us that all these created things in contrast with God himself (cf. 1:12b; 3:3) are doomed to destruction (Heb. 12:27). 2 Peter 3:7,10-12 teaches the same.
5. All Visible Things
In 2 Corinthians 4:18, we are informed by Paul that all (physically) visible things are by nature impermanent. Thus the hand-written law and the hand-built temple which were visible served a temporary purpose (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8). Only the invisible is permanent (cf. John 17:24; Rom. 1:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Heb. 11:27).
6. All Shakable Things
The author of Hebrews stresses the shakable nature of creation and indicates that all that is shakable will eventually be removed so that what is unshakable may remain (12:27, cf. Hab. 3:17-19; 2 Pet. 1:14f.).
7. All Perishable Things
Paul lays it down emphatically that all that is naturally perishable (i.e. manufactured created things) cannot inherit imperishability (1 Cor. 15:50). They cannot, in other words, be eternalized. This includes food (John 6:27) and of course the belly that consumes it (1 Cor. 6:13; Phil. 3:19). But food or fruit can be both literal and metaphorical (spiritual). So while literal fruit is consumed and perishes, spiritual fruit abides forever (John 6:22ff.; 1 Cor. 13:13; Gal. 5:22f.).
Since creation as a whole was manufactured (“made by hand”), it will in due course perish (Heb. 1:10-12) or wear out (Col. 2:22). Otherwise expressed, the beginning of the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1) implies their inevitable end (Ps. 102:26; Rev. 20:11; 21:1).

1. Beginning and End

The Bible begins with reference to the beginning of creation (Gen. 1:1). Since the transcendent Creator pre-existed it and brought it into being, the inference is that he lives eternally and has neither beginning nor end (Isa. 41:4; 43:10b; 44:6; 57:15; Rev. 1:8, etc.). In contrast, what he has made is characterized by transience since what has a beginning must have an end. This is the consistent teaching of the rest of Scripture (Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27; Isa. 34:4; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.).

2. Manufactured Things

All things “made by hand” (cheiropoietos) both human (e.g. idols, Isa. 2:8,18,20; the temple, Mark 14:58) and divine (the flesh of man, Job 10:8; Ps. 102:25; Isa. 64:8; the earth, Heb. 1:10) are faulty like the hand-written law (Heb. 8:7, etc.) compared with God himself (cf. Heb. 3:3). All things are tools in the hands of God (Ps. 119:89-91) and will finally be dispensed with once they have served the divine purpose. By contrast, what God does not do or make “by hand” (acheiropoietos) remains (e.g. spiritual circumcision, Col. 2:11; the heavenly temple, Mark 14:58; Heb. 9:11,24, cf. Rev. 21,22; the spiritual body, 1 Cor. 15:42-49; 2 Cor. 5:1).

3. Transience Directly Asserted

There are various passages in Scripture referring explicitly to the transience of creation. (N.B. Transience is natural and has nothing to do with sin, cf. Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 12:33. It is symbolized by grass, smoke, shadow, etc., Isa. 40:6-8; 51:6.) The covenant with Noah is effective only while the earth remains (Gen. 8:22). Jesus refers in Matthew 5:18 to the continued existence of the obsolescent hand-written law (Heb. 8:13) only until heaven and earth pass away (cf. Luke 16:17). In 24:35 he asserts flatly that heaven and earth will pass away in contrast with his words. In 1 Corinthians 7:31 Paul says the present form of this world (1 Cor. 7:31) like its rulers (2:6) is on the way out (cf. 1 John 2:17; Rev. 21:1).

4. Creation and Destruction

Paul tells us in Romans 1:20 that God’s eternal nature is revealed by all created things. The author of Hebrews tells us that all these created things in contrast with God himself (cf. 1:12b; 3:3) are doomed to destruction (Heb. 12:27). 2 Peter 3:7,10-12 teaches the same.

5. All Visible Things

In 2 Corinthians 4:18, we are informed by Paul that all (physically) visible things are by nature impermanent. Thus the hand-written law and the hand-built temple which were visible served a temporary purpose (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8). Only the invisible is permanent (cf. John 17:24; Rom. 1:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Heb. 11:27).

6. All Shakable Things

The author of Hebrews stresses the shakable nature of creation and indicates that all that is shakable will eventually be removed so that what is unshakable may remain (12:27, cf. Hab. 3:17-19; 2 Pet. 1:14f.).

7. All Perishable Things

Paul lays it down emphatically that all that is naturally perishable (i.e. manufactured created things) cannot inherit imperishability (1 Cor. 15:50). They cannot, in other words, be eternalized. This includes food (John 6:27) and of course the belly that consumes it (1 Cor. 6:13; Phil. 3:19). But food or fruit can be both literal and metaphorical (spiritual). So while literal fruit is consumed and perishes, spiritual fruit abides forever (John 6:22ff.; 1 Cor. 13:13; Gal. 5:22f.).

Since creation as a whole was manufactured (“made by hand”), it will in due course perish (Heb. 1:10-12) or wear out (Col. 2:22). Otherwise expressed, the beginning of the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1) implies their inevitable end (Ps. 102:26; Rev. 20:11; 21:1).

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)

The Two Ages

THE TWO AGES
According to Scripture there are two ages (cf. Heb. 1:2) or two worlds reflecting cosmological dualism: the temporary, visible, earthly and created world (Rom. 1:20; 2 Cor. 4:18) and the eternal heavenly world (Luke 18:30). That the terms world (kosmos) and age (aion), despite having somewhat different spatial and chronological connotations, can be used interchangeably is made apparent by 1 Corinthians 1:20 and 3:18f., for example. (1* Cf. 1 John 2:17; 1 Cor. 7:31. In both First Corinthians and First John there is strong stress on the fact that this age or this world is passing away. See e.g. Fee, pp.83 n.24,342 n.24.) While the Jews believed that God inhabited heaven or eternity (Isa. 57:15) but occasionally came down to earth (e.g. Gen. 11:5), man inhabited the earth (Isa. 45:18; 66:1) and was confined to it. At death he went to Sheol despite suggestions here and there of a better, more permanent hope (e.g. Ps. 6:5; 30:9; Ps. 16:10f.; 17:15; 27:4; Isa. 33:17,20-22, etc.). However, while Isaiah 65:17f. and 66:22f. suggested to some of the earth-centred, old covenant, restorationist Jews the idea of a completely new or a transformed material creation (2* On this, see e.g. Beasley-Murray, pp.305ff.), that man should eventually enter the eternal kingdom of heaven (2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 1:11) or share God’s glory in the age to come (Rom. 5:2; Col. 1:5,27) was only hinted at in stories like those of Enoch and Elijah. Belief in two ages is upheld in the NT by Jesus (Mt. 12:32; Luke 20:34-36) and the apostles (e.g. Eph. 1:20f.).
From the human standpoint, the first of these two ages, or what Paul calls ‘the present time’ in Romans 8:18 (cf. Heb. 9:9), is referred to as this evil age in Galatians 1:4. Though the devil is said to be the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4), there may be some dispute as to the apostle’s meaning here in Galatians. Is Paul saying, first, that the age is evil as such; or second, that it is tarnished and thus characterized by sin; or, third, that it is ‘evil’ or, rather, pejorative (cf. Dt. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6; Isa. 45:7; Amos 3:6; Job 5:7; 14:1; Jer. 20:18) in contrast with the glorious age to come?  While the first idea may be dismissed since it would impugn the holiness of the God who created it, the second and third ideas may be properly entertained provided we acknowledge along with sin the idea that this present age is to be regarded pejoratively irrespective of it (cf. the flesh in John 1:13;3:1-8; 6:63 and Rom. 7:18; 8:8f.). 2 Corinthians 4:17 (cf. Ps. 34:6,15,17,19,22; Acts 14:22 ESV), for example, suggests an inherent contrast quite apart from moral considerations. The same can be said with regard to the hardships experienced by Paul on his missionary journeys.  Just as Matthew 13:21 appears to distinguish between natural afflictions and persecutions (cf. John 16:33; Rom. 8:35, etc.), so do the lists of Paul’s trials and tribulations in 2 Corinthians 6:4-10 and 11:23-29. This world is not a bed of roses even where sin is not involved as the Lord Jesus himself would doubtless have acknowledged (Mt. 6:19f.; John 4:6, etc.).
Why Two Ages?
But we are perhaps jumping the gun. Our subject raises a number of questions. A legitimate first question is: why is there anything at all? Then, why are there two ages in any case? Third, we may ask, why were we human beings not simply created like angels to dwell in heaven in the service of God? Again, with Job and Jeremiah we might well wonder why all the suffering, the pain and the testing? In the book of Revelation we are told that all things were created by the will of God and for his glory (Rev. 4:11, cf. John 9:3; 11:4) along with that of the Lamb (5:12). In Colossians 1:15-20 the stress falls on Christ’s participation in creation and his pre-eminence in it and through it. If this is so, creation serves a purpose, that is, the glory of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The temporal creation or this world/age eventually gives way to the age to come, that is, eternal heaven, mission accomplished. In other words, creation is clearly a means to an end and not an end in itself as the word ‘good’ in Genesis 1 suggests. It would seem that God created primarily in order to demonstrate the wonder of his love, mercy, compassion and grace in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:4-7, cf. Rom. 11:28-36; Rev. 4:11; 5:12f.). Since creation had a beginning, it also has an end, both a terminus and a goal. This being so, it was intrinsically teleological. As manufactured or “made by hand” (Isa. 45:11f., etc.) it was, however, in the purpose of God clearly defective or imperfect (incomplete not sinful, cf. Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12) and in manifest contrast with heaven which was “not made by hand” (cf. Heb. 9:11,24). In light of the fact that man was ultimately meant to enter the kingdom of heaven, it served as a testing ground (cf. the wilderness in Exodus) in preparation for man’s salvation, glorification and heavenly perfection. The pilgrimage from earth to heaven or from this age to what is from our point of view the age to come (Luke 20:34-36) was, of course, pioneered by Jesus himself (cf. John 1:51) who as man conquered and finally regained the glory he shared with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:5,24). And he did this as a pioneer with his fellows in tow (Heb. 2:9f.; 1 Pet. 3:18).
The mere fact that there are two ages immediately suggests, as the author of Hebrews intimates (1:10-12), that the first, like the first covenant that relates to it, is faulty (8:7) and requires abolition and replacement by the second (10:9b). So we get the idea of temporal earthly life followed by eternal heavenly life and a progression from flesh to spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50). Whereas earth, the home of man according to the flesh, was “made by hand” and had a beginning (Gen. 1:1), heaven is “not made by hand” (Heb.1:10-12; 9:11,24) and is the eternal throne of God which is characterized by righteousness (Mt. 6:10,33; 2 Pet. 3:13). Man as created initially out of the earth as flesh is firmly rooted in this world, but as one who is also created in the image of God he aspires as both individual and community to perfected life in the presence of his Creator in heaven. This is why he must of necessity be born again (John 1:13; 3:1-6) and changed (1 Cor. 15:50ff.). Little wonder that God set eternity in his heart (Eccl. 3:11) and promised him eternal life from the beginning provided he kept the commandment (Gen. 2:17).
Romans 8:18-25
The fact that there are two ages set in contrast in Luke 20:34-36 and 2 Corinthians 4:17, for example, raises big questions regarding the modern translation and interpretation of Romans 8:18-25. In verse 18 the apostle appears to be distinguishing between the present age and the age to come but using slightly different terminology. As I intimated above, his view of the present time is pejorative, especially in Galatians 1:4. But this is the only place in which he apparently ascribes sin to the present age. Elsewhere as I have already intimated, the NT suggests intrinsic difference apart from moral considerations. If this is so, a formidable barrier is erected against the idea so overwhelmingly followed by modern scholarship that the Greek word ‘ktisis’ (creation/creature) refers to “the subhuman creation” (cf. Moo, p.514 cited by Michaels, p.92 and n.2). If it does, a basic contradiction seems to have crept into NT theology and into the theology of Paul in particular. (3* See further my Romans 8:18-25Revisited at www.kenstothard.com /)
So we are bound to ask what is the source or motivation for the adoption of this translation/interpretation which is in marked contrast to that of the KJV which refers to ‘creature’ rather than ‘creation’ in Romans 8:19,20,21. The answer would appear to be traditional Augustinian theology and its concomitant worldview. The assumption here is that God originally created not merely a ‘good’ (Gk kalos, literally beautiful or useful, Gen. 1) but a ‘perfect’ world which was cursed as a result of the sin and ‘Fall’ of Adam (man/mankind) to whom dominion had been given. It follows from this that the material creation must be redeemed. In other words, the contrast is not the ‘natural’ one between the temporal manufactured (cheiropoietos) earth and the eternal heaven as reflected in the difference between a body of dust and a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:47-49) but between a spoilt present world or age and a “future redeemed order” (cf. Ladd, Theology, p.46). As Ladd expresses it elsewhere, deliverance is not “from the realm of space and time but from sin and corruption” (EDT, p.21, cf. Theology, p.46). This is the traditional view, but is this what the Bible teaches?
The “Fall”
For a start, the so-called Fall of Adam is dependent on the idea of his own original perfection and righteousness. But as has already been implied, Genesis only refers to his being ‘good’. Furthermore, this word ‘good’ carries no moral freight at all, for at the beginning Adam himself could not be righteous, let alone perfect, until he had kept the commandment (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7) which like a baby he did not even have in the first instance (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22). In fact, many scholars nowadays in the 21st century accept that the word ‘good’, literally beautiful, in the LXX means ‘useful’ or ‘serving a purpose’ (cf. Gen. 3:6). In light of this we are bound to conclude that the traditional idea of a calamitous ‘Fall’ resulting in a spoilt creation is false. What happened was that after receiving the commandment Adam and Eve, like Paul at a later date (Rom. 7:9f.), broke it and hence like children lost their innocence. If this is so, where does this leave the idea of a universal curse on creation? The answer must be that it eliminates it, or largely so. First we must recognize the fact that though Adam was fully developed physically, he was a mere baby on the spiritual level (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46). The Garden of Eden was clearly the womb of mankind which served as “a self-contained system of total supply” (Motyer, p.538, with reference to the future Jerusalem resembling the Garden of Eden). Since it is true that all sins lead to punishment (Heb. 2:2), part of the difficulty Adam experienced when he cultivated the land over which he had been given dominion arose from his personal moral disorientation and rebellion (cf. e.g. Jer. 12:10f.). However, his so-called ‘Fall’ was far from affecting the whole world as Genesis 13:10 and the ‘exceedingly good’ Promised Land suggest (Num. 14:7). After all, Cain had the same problem as Genesis 4:12 makes plain. Indeed the same state of affairs prevailed with Lamech (Gen. 5:29). And we learn later that the curse of a flood which was not specifically the result of Adam’s sin but that of his descendants was never to occur again (Gen. 8:21). In light of all this, we are forced, first, to recognize that work or the tilling of the ground was intrinsic in the exercise of dominion even before Adam sinned (cf. Gen. 2:8,15), and, second, that the earth outside the Garden of Eden, which symbolizes the womb, is naturally recalcitrant and hard to deal with, not least because it is characterized by natural corruption. This conclusion is amply supported by personal experience and what is taught later in the Bible (e.g. Gen. 5:29; Prov. 6:6-11; 24:30-34). Even the sinless Jesus was affected by fatigue and sweat on occasion. Man was never intended to live a parasitic existence in the womb forever (cf. Job 3; Jer. 20:14-18)! Life is not a bed of roses and there are no free lunches. If a man doesn’t work he doesn’t deserve to eat (2 Thes. 3:10). As I have just mentioned, the exercise of dominion implies work and man is not always inclined to work (cf. Prov. 24:30-34).
In other words, the earth, creation if you will, has problems written into it from the start. Far from being created perfect, it was, like the law or old covenant which related to it (cf. Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1), naturally defective (Heb. 8:13). Since it had a beginning, it was plainly temporal and not eternal. Being naturally obsolescent (Heb. 1:11), it had to have an end (Rev. 21:1). Again, since it was physically visible, it was intrinsically impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18). So if man as dust or part of creation was to live forever he had to keep the covenant (law) which was the precondition of life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5). And since that life was not earned (Gal. 3:21), it remained the gift of God (cf. Luke 17:7-10).
Perfection
But there are other problems with the traditional view. If creation was originally perfect as Augustine contended, first, why was Adam called to exercise dominion over it and to keep the commandment? Surely what is perfect does not require such dominion on the part of man. By definition it cannot be improved. It is complete, fully developed, mature, permanent (cf. James 1:4). Yet, despite this, God himself, having rested after he had finished the creating process (Gen. 2:3), nonetheless continued to work by sustaining it (John 5:17) and upholding it by the word of his power (cf. Heb. 1:3). Second, if it was perfect, it must have been eternal (a contradiction in terms!) and hence had no where to go (see below). How could it therefore, first, become subject to curse and, second, give way to a new age? Third, how did it ever become subject to a curse? This latter question is very important. In contrast with Augustine, Scripture teaches that God alone is perfect (Lev. 11:44; Mt. 5:48, cf. 19:17). As the builder of the house he has more honour than the house itself (Heb. 3:3). (The relevance of the distinction between ‘manufactured’ and ‘not manufactured’ is important here!) So we must conclude that the house was not perfect after all (cf. Acts 7:49f.)! But then if a perfect creation can be marred and subjected to a curse, it follows by parity of reasoning that heaven and even the perfect God can be marred (cf. Rev. 22:3). In this scenario God himself must in the last resort be regarded not as a permanent rock and refuge but unreliable and susceptible to change like creation itself (cf. e.g. Ps. 46). One wonders, what the author of Hebrews would make of this (6:17-20)? The very idea is surely blasphemous and contradicts the essence of biblical teaching. The original perfection of creation is clearly a figment of Augustine’s imagination. It was no more perfect than the tabernacle whose imperfection the author of Hebrews strongly stresses. This becomes all the more apparent when we consider again the fact that creation was manufactured or “made by hand” (Gk. cheiropoietos) in contrast with heaven, the throne of God which is “not made by hand” (acheiropoietos). (4* See my Manufactured or Not So). So to answer the question raised above, creation which had a beginning will also have an end, and that end is apparently a fiery one (Zeph. 1:18; Luke 17:28-30; Heb. 6:7f.; 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.). Like the world (Mt. 24:35), this age is innately terminable (Mt. 28:20). The reason is that God has always had something better in view.
John 3:1-8
Despite the fact that one of the most famous of passages in the NT, that is, John 3:1-8, scuttles the very idea of physical redemption, it is held by practically all modern theologians that behind Romans 8:18-25 lies Genesis 3:17-19. The evidence for this is nil. Nowhere else in the NT does Paul or anyone else even vaguely support such a notion. And the idea that Adam’s sin led to a curse on the entire creation necessitating its redemption is a theological mare’s nest if ever there was one. Admittedly, theologians claim to find support for it in passages like 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1, but the grounds on which they do so are shaky indeed. (5* See further my Will Creation Be Redeemed?) The new heavens and new earth first spotlighted by Isaiah, who as an OT prophet had little understanding of heaven as Jesus revealed it (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12), are clearly re-interpreted or spiritualized in the NT (cf. John 3:12f.,31). After all, they are the place where righteousness dwells and that is in heaven (Mt. 6:10,33). And just as we need to be spiritually born again to enter heaven (John 3:3,6), so our earthly bodies need to be changed (replaced) to complete the process (1 Cor. 15:50). Physical regeneration is out of the question. Paul underlines this fact in 2 Corinthians 5:1 where he maintains that we need a non-manufactured body to enable us to dwell in the eternal heaven.
Conclusion: The Falsity of the Augustinian Worldview
So I am forced to infer that whatever role sin has played in this world/age, it has not brought a
constitutional change in either the still ‘good’ earth (1 Cor. 10:26,30f.; 1 Tim. 4:3f.) or the flesh that
emanates from it as Augustinian theology suggests. To express the issue alternatively, the difference
between the two ages is intrinsic. A second age like a new covenant implies that the first is naturally
temporary. As such it is defective or inadequate (Heb. 7:11; 8:7) and requires replacement (Heb.
10:9b). This is surely the point of Romans 8:18-25. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is provided by the
sinless Jesus who as born of woman was susceptible to death and decay like the rest of his brethren.
As man’s trailblazer he too needed to meet the condition of eternal life, that is, to keep the law (Gen.
2:17; Lev. 18:5) and overcome the world (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:5,12), in order to attain to
glory. Thank God he met that condition and unlike Adam escaped from this age/world. But in order to
regain as man the status he had in eternity (John 17:5), he had necessarily to be changed (1 Cor. 15:50-
53). (6* See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.) We his disciples, his brethren in fact (Heb. 2:10-13), are
thus enabled to follow in his steps (John 17:24) and be glorified along with him (Rom. 8:30; Rev.
3:21). We thus complete our course, or pilgrimage to the heavenly city, which is inherent in the plan of salvation, as he, our pioneer, finished his (Luke 13:32; Rom. 5:2; 8:30; Phil. 3:21; Col. 5,27; Heb.
11:39f.; 1 Pet. 1:3f.,etc.). (7* See further my Worldview, The Biblical Worldview at  www.kenstothard.com /.)
Food for Thought
God is the King of the ages (1 Tim. 1:17, cf. Heb. 1:2; 11:3, Gk). Hebrews 9:26 refers to the
end (completion) of the ages  and I Corinthians 10:11 to the ends of the ages.
In Mt. 13:40; 28:20 Jesus speaks of the end of the age. This must refer to the present time which is imperfect like the law that relates to it (cf. Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 9:9). The new covenant overlaps the present age and the age to come. As believers in Christ, we have eternal life now but it does not come to full fruition until we enter the kingdom of God/heaven.
This suggests that the days of Genesis are ages. For if God finished his creative work at the end of the
sixth day and rested on the seventh (though continuing to uphold the universe by his power, John
5:17, cf. Heb. 1:3), there must be an eighth day or age. This is surely symbolized by the year of Jubilee
(Lev. 25:8-10) and is well brought out by Michael Wilcock in his work on the book of Revelation (pp.202f.).
The language of Romans 8:18 and Heb. 9:9 is somewhat similar in Greek. If the latter (Heb. 9:8-10) is
inherently imperfect/inadequate, that is, apart from sin, so is the former.
References
G.D.Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, 1987.
G.E.Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1974.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Elwell, Grand Rapids, 1984.
J.R.Michaels in Romans and the People of God, ed. Soderlund and Wright, Grand Rapids/Cambridge,                                                                                                                                                                                          1999.
D.J.Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, 1996.
J.A.Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, Leicester, 1993.
M.Wilcock, The Message of Revelation, Leicester/Downers Grove, 1975.

According to Scripture there are two ages (cf. Heb. 1:2) or two worlds reflecting cosmological dualism: the temporary, visible, earthly and created world (Rom. 1:20; 2 Cor. 4:18) and the eternal heavenly world (Luke 18:30). That the terms world (kosmos) and age (aion), despite having somewhat different spatial and chronological connotations, can be used interchangeably is made apparent by 1 Corinthians 1:20 and 3:18f., for example. (1* Cf. 1 John 2:17; 1 Cor. 7:31. In both First Corinthians and First John there is strong stress on the fact that this age or this world is passing away. See e.g. Fee, pp.83 n.24,342 n.24.) While the Jews believed that God inhabited heaven or eternity (Isa. 57:15) but occasionally came down to earth (e.g. Gen. 11:5), man inhabited the earth (Isa. 45:18; 66:1) and was confined to it. At death he went to Sheol despite suggestions here and there of a better, more permanent hope (e.g. Ps. 6:5; 30:9; Ps. 16:10f.; 17:15; 27:4; Isa. 33:17,20-22, etc.). However, while Isaiah 65:17f. and 66:22f. suggested to some of the earth-centred, old covenant, restorationist Jews the idea of a completely new or a transformed material creation (2* On this, see e.g. Beasley-Murray, pp.305ff.), that man should eventually enter the eternal kingdom of heaven (2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 1:11) or share God’s glory in the age to come (Rom. 5:2; Col. 1:5,27) was only hinted at in stories like those of Enoch and Elijah. Belief in two ages is upheld in the NT by Jesus (Mt. 12:32; Luke 20:34-36) and the apostles (e.g. Eph. 1:20f.).

From the human standpoint, the first of these two ages, or what Paul calls ‘the present time’ in Romans 8:18 (cf. Heb. 9:9), is referred to as this evil age in Galatians 1:4. Though the devil is said to be the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4), there may be some dispute as to the apostle’s meaning here in Galatians. Is Paul saying, first, that the age is evil as such; or second, that it is tarnished and thus characterized by sin; or, third, that it is ‘evil’ or, rather, pejorative (cf. Dt. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6; Isa. 45:7; Amos 3:6; Job 5:7; 14:1; Jer. 20:18) in contrast with the glorious age to come?  While the first idea may be dismissed since it would impugn the holiness of the God who created it, the second and third ideas may be properly entertained provided we acknowledge along with sin the idea that this present age is to be regarded pejoratively irrespective of it (cf. the flesh in John 1:13;3:1-8; 6:63 and Rom. 7:18; 8:8f.). 2 Corinthians 4:17 (cf. Ps. 34:6,15,17,19,22; Acts 14:22 ESV), for example, suggests an inherent contrast quite apart from moral considerations. The same can be said with regard to the hardships experienced by Paul on his missionary journeys.  Just as Matthew 13:21 appears to distinguish between natural afflictions and persecutions (cf. John 16:33; Rom. 8:35, etc.), so do the lists of Paul’s trials and tribulations in 2 Corinthians 6:4-10 and 11:23-29. This world is not a bed of roses even where sin is not involved as the Lord Jesus himself would doubtless have acknowledged (Mt. 6:19f.; John 4:6, etc.).

Why Two Ages?

But we are perhaps jumping the gun. Our subject raises a number of questions. A legitimate first question is: why is there anything at all? Then, why are there two ages in any case? Third, we may ask, why were we human beings not simply created like angels to dwell in heaven in the service of God? Again, with Job and Jeremiah we might well wonder why all the suffering, the pain and the testing? In the book of Revelation we are told that all things were created by the will of God and for his glory (Rev. 4:11, cf. John 9:3; 11:4) along with that of the Lamb (5:12). In Colossians 1:15-20 the stress falls on Christ’s participation in creation and his pre-eminence in it and through it. If this is so, creation serves a purpose, that is, the glory of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The temporal creation or this world/age eventually gives way to the age to come, that is, eternal heaven, mission accomplished. In other words, creation is clearly a means to an end and not an end in itself as the word ‘good’ in Genesis 1 suggests. It would seem that God created primarily in order to demonstrate the wonder of his love, mercy, compassion and grace in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:4-7, cf. Rom. 11:28-36; Rev. 4:11; 5:12f.). Since creation had a beginning, it also has an end, both a terminus and a goal. This being so, it was intrinsically teleological. As manufactured or “made by hand” (Isa. 45:11f., etc.) it was, however, in the purpose of God clearly defective or imperfect (incomplete not sinful, cf. Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12) and in manifest contrast with heaven which was “not made by hand” (cf. Heb. 9:11,24). In light of the fact that man was ultimately meant to enter the kingdom of heaven, it served as a testing ground (cf. the wilderness in Exodus) in preparation for man’s salvation, glorification and heavenly perfection. The pilgrimage from earth to heaven or from this age to what is from our point of view the age to come (Luke 20:34-36) was, of course, pioneered by Jesus himself (cf. John 1:51) who as man conquered and finally regained the glory he shared with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:5,24). And he did this as a pioneer with his fellows in tow (Heb. 2:9f.; 1 Pet. 3:18).

The mere fact that there are two ages immediately suggests, as the author of Hebrews intimates (1:10-12), that the first, like the first covenant that relates to it, is faulty (8:7) and requires abolition and replacement by the second (10:9b). So we get the idea of temporal earthly life followed by eternal heavenly life and a progression from flesh to spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50). Whereas earth, the home of man according to the flesh, was “made by hand” and had a beginning (Gen. 1:1), heaven is “not made by hand” (Heb.1:10-12; 9:11,24) and is the eternal throne of God which is characterized by righteousness (Mt. 6:10,33; 2 Pet. 3:13). Man as created initially out of the earth as flesh is firmly rooted in this world, but as one who is also created in the image of God he aspires as both individual and community to perfected life in the presence of his Creator in heaven. This is why he must of necessity be born again (John 1:13; 3:1-6) and changed (1 Cor. 15:50ff.). Little wonder that God set eternity in his heart (Eccl. 3:11) and promised him eternal life from the beginning provided he kept the commandment (Gen. 2:17).

Romans 8:18-25

The fact that there are two ages set in contrast in Luke 20:34-36 and 2 Corinthians 4:17, for example, raises big questions regarding the modern translation and interpretation of Romans 8:18-25. In verse 18 the apostle appears to be distinguishing between the present age and the age to come but using slightly different terminology. As I intimated above, his view of the present time is pejorative, especially in Galatians 1:4. But this is the only place in which he apparently ascribes sin to the present age. Elsewhere as I have already intimated, the NT suggests intrinsic difference apart from moral considerations. If this is so, a formidable barrier is erected against the idea so overwhelmingly followed by modern scholarship that the Greek word ‘ktisis’ (creation/creature) refers to “the subhuman creation” (cf. Moo, p.514 cited by Michaels, p.92 and n.2). If it does, a basic contradiction seems to have crept into NT theology and into the theology of Paul in particular. (3* See further my Romans 8:18-25)

So we are bound to ask what is the source or motivation for the adoption of this translation/interpretation which is in marked contrast to that of the KJV which refers to ‘creature’ rather than ‘creation’ in Romans 8:19,20,21. The answer would appear to be traditional Augustinian theology and its concomitant worldview. The assumption here is that God originally created not merely a ‘good’ (Gk kalos, literally beautiful or useful, Gen. 1) but a ‘perfect’ world which was cursed as a result of the sin and ‘Fall’ of Adam (man/mankind) to whom dominion had been given. It follows from this that the material creation must be redeemed. In other words, the contrast is not the ‘natural’ one between the temporal manufactured (cheiropoietos) earth and the eternal heaven as reflected in the difference between a body of dust and a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:47-49) but between a spoilt present world or age and a “future redeemed order” (cf. Ladd, Theology, p.46). As Ladd expresses it elsewhere, deliverance is not “from the realm of space and time but from sin and corruption” (EDT, p.21, cf. Theology, p.46). This is the traditional view, but is this what the Bible teaches?

The “Fall”

For a start, the so-called Fall of Adam is dependent on the idea of his own original perfection and righteousness. But as has already been implied, Genesis only refers to his being ‘good’. Furthermore, this word ‘good’ carries no moral freight at all, for at the beginning Adam himself could not be righteous, let alone perfect, until he had kept the commandment (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7) which like a baby he did not even have in the first instance (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22). In fact, many scholars nowadays in the 21st century accept that the word ‘good’, literally beautiful, in the LXX means ‘useful’ or ‘serving a purpose’ (cf. Gen. 3:6). In light of this we are bound to conclude that the traditional idea of a calamitous ‘Fall’ resulting in a spoilt creation is false. What happened was that after receiving the commandment Adam and Eve, like Paul at a later date (Rom. 7:9f.), broke it and hence like children lost their innocence. If this is so, where does this leave the idea of a universal curse on creation? The answer must be that it eliminates it, or largely so. First we must recognize the fact that though Adam was fully developed physically, he was a mere baby on the spiritual level (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46). The Garden of Eden was clearly the womb of mankind which served as “a self-contained system of total supply” (Motyer, p.538, with reference to the future Jerusalem resembling the Garden of Eden). Since it is true that all sins lead to punishment (Heb. 2:2), part of the difficulty Adam experienced when he cultivated the land over which he had been given dominion arose from his personal moral disorientation and rebellion (cf. e.g. Jer. 12:10f.). However, his so-called ‘Fall’ was far from affecting the whole world as Genesis 13:10 and the ‘exceedingly good’ Promised Land suggest (Num. 14:7). After all, Cain had the same problem as Genesis 4:12 makes plain. Indeed the same state of affairs prevailed with Lamech (Gen. 5:29). And we learn later that the curse of a flood which was not specifically the result of Adam’s sin but that of his descendants was never to occur again (Gen. 8:21). In light of all this, we are forced, first, to recognize that work or the tilling of the ground was intrinsic in the exercise of dominion even before Adam sinned (cf. Gen. 2:8,15), and, second, that the earth outside the Garden of Eden, which symbolizes the womb, is naturally recalcitrant and hard to deal with, not least because it is characterized by natural corruption. This conclusion is amply supported by personal experience and what is taught later in the Bible (e.g. Gen. 5:29; Prov. 6:6-11; 24:30-34). Even the sinless Jesus was affected by fatigue and sweat on occasion. Man was never intended to live a parasitic existence in the womb forever (cf. Job 3; Jer. 20:14-18)! Life is not a bed of roses and there are no free lunches. If a man doesn’t work he doesn’t deserve to eat (2 Thes. 3:10). As I have just mentioned, the exercise of dominion implies work and man is not always inclined to work (cf. Prov. 24:30-34).

In other words, the earth, creation if you will, has problems written into it from the start. Far from being created perfect, it was, like the law or old covenant which related to it (cf. Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1), naturally defective (Heb. 8:13). Since it had a beginning, it was plainly temporal and not eternal. Being naturally obsolescent (Heb. 1:11), it had to have an end (Rev. 21:1). Again, since it was physically visible, it was intrinsically impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18). So if man as dust or part of creation was to live forever he had to keep the covenant (law) which was the precondition of life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5). And since that life was not earned (Gal. 3:21), it remained the gift of God (cf. Luke 17:7-10).

Perfection

But there are other problems with the traditional view. If creation was originally perfect as Augustine contended, first, why was Adam called to exercise dominion over it and to keep the commandment? Surely what is perfect does not require such dominion on the part of man. By definition it cannot be improved. It is complete, fully developed, mature, permanent (cf. James 1:4). Yet, despite this, God himself, having rested after he had finished the creating process (Gen. 2:3), nonetheless continued to work by sustaining it (John 5:17) and upholding it by the word of his power (cf. Heb. 1:3). Second, if it was perfect, it must have been eternal (a contradiction in terms!) and hence had no where to go (see below). How could it therefore, first, become subject to curse and, second, give way to a new age? Third, how did it ever become subject to a curse? This latter question is very important. In contrast with Augustine, Scripture teaches that God alone is perfect (Lev. 11:44; Mt. 5:48, cf. 19:17). As the builder of the house he has more honour than the house itself (Heb. 3:3). (The relevance of the distinction between ‘manufactured’ and ‘not manufactured’ is important here!) So we must conclude that the house was not perfect after all (cf. Acts 7:49f.)! But then if a perfect creation can be marred and subjected to a curse, it follows by parity of reasoning that heaven and even the perfect God can be marred (cf. Rev. 22:3). In this scenario God himself must in the last resort be regarded not as a permanent rock and refuge but unreliable and susceptible to change like creation itself (cf. e.g. Ps. 46). One wonders, what the author of Hebrews would make of this (6:17-20)? The very idea is surely blasphemous and contradicts the essence of biblical teaching. The original perfection of creation is clearly a figment of Augustine’s imagination. It was no more perfect than the tabernacle whose imperfection the author of Hebrews strongly stresses. This becomes all the more apparent when we consider again the fact that creation was manufactured or “made by hand” (Gk. cheiropoietos) in contrast with heaven, the throne of God which is “not made by hand” (acheiropoietos). (4* See my Manufactured Or Not So). So to answer the question raised above, creation which had a beginning will also have an end, and that end is apparently a fiery one (Zeph. 1:18; Luke 17:28-30; Heb. 6:7f.; 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.). Like the world (Mt. 24:35), this age is innately terminable (Mt. 28:20). The reason is that God has always had something better in view.

John 3:1-8

Despite the fact that one of the most famous of passages in the NT, that is, John 3:1-8, scuttles the very idea of physical redemption, it is held by practically all modern theologians that behind Romans 8:18-25 lies Genesis 3:17-19. The evidence for this is nil. Nowhere else in the NT does Paul or anyone else even vaguely support such a notion. And the idea that Adam’s sin led to a curse on the entire creation necessitating its redemption is a theological mare’s nest if ever there was one. Admittedly, theologians claim to find support for it in passages like 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1, but the grounds on which they do so are shaky indeed. (5* See further my Will Creation Be Redeemed?) The new heavens and new earth first spotlighted by Isaiah, who as an OT prophet had little understanding of heaven as Jesus revealed it (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12), are clearly re-interpreted or spiritualized in the NT (cf. John 3:12f.,31). After all, they are the place where righteousness dwells and that is in heaven (Mt. 6:10,33). And just as we need to be spiritually born again to enter heaven (John 3:3,6), so our earthly bodies need to be changed (replaced) to complete the process (1 Cor. 15:50). Physical regeneration is out of the question. Paul underlines this fact in 2 Corinthians 5:1 where he maintains that we need a non-manufactured body to enable us to dwell in the eternal heaven.

Conclusion: The Falsity of the Augustinian Worldview

So I am forced to infer that whatever role sin has played in this world/age, it has not brought a constitutional change in either the still ‘good’ earth (1 Cor. 10:26,30f.; 1 Tim. 4:3f.) or the flesh that emanates from it as Augustinian theology suggests. To express the issue alternatively, the difference between the two ages is intrinsic. A second age like a new covenant implies that the first is naturally temporary. As such it is defective or inadequate (Heb. 7:11; 8:7) and requires replacement (Heb. 10:9b). This is surely the point of Romans 8:18-25. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is provided by the sinless Jesus who as born of woman was susceptible to death and decay like the rest of his brethren. As man’s trailblazer he too needed to meet the condition of eternal life, that is, to keep the law (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5) and overcome the world (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:5,12), in order to attain to glory. Thank God he met that condition and unlike Adam escaped from this age/world. But in order to regain as man the status he had in eternity (John 17:5), he had necessarily to be changed (1 Cor. 15:50-53). (6* See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities) We his disciples, his brethren in fact (Heb. 2:10-13), are thus enabled to follow in his steps (John 17:24) and be glorified along with him (Rom. 8:30; Rev. 3:21). We thus complete our course, or pilgrimage to the heavenly city, which is inherent in the plan of salvation, as he, our pioneer, finished his (Luke 13:32; Rom. 5:2; 8:30; Phil. 3:21; Col. 5,27; Heb. 11:39f.; 1 Pet. 1:3f.,etc.). (7* See further my WorldviewThe Biblical Worldview)

Food for Thought

God is the King of the ages (1 Tim. 1:17, cf. Heb. 1:2; 11:3, Gk). Hebrews 9:26 refers to the end (completion) of the ages  and I Corinthians 10:11 to the ends of the ages. In Mt. 13:40; 28:20 Jesus speaks of the end of the age. This must refer to the present time which is imperfect like the law that relates to it (cf. Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 9:9). The new covenant overlaps the present age and the age to come. As believers in Christ, we have eternal life now but it does not come to full fruition until we enter the kingdom of God/heaven. This suggests that the days of Genesis are ages. For if God finished his creative work at the end of the sixth day and rested on the seventh (though continuing to uphold the universe by his power, John 5:17, cf. Heb. 1:3), there must be an eighth day or age. This is surely symbolized by the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:8-10) and is well brought out by Michael Wilcock in his work on the book of Revelation (pp.202f.). The language of Romans 8:18 and Heb. 9:9 is somewhat similar in Greek. If the latter (Heb. 9:8-10) is inherently imperfect/inadequate, that is, apart from sin, so is the former.

____________________________________________________

References

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

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

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

J.R.Michaels in Romans and the People of God, ed. Soderlund and Wright, Grand Rapids/Cambridge,  1999.

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

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

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




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.