The Human Story

 

_____________________________________________________

Beginning

According to the Bible man (Adam) began existence in the ground. There in the womb of the earth he was created as perishable seed (1 Pet. 1:23; Ps. 139:15) and then transferred to a second womb, the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8,15), to be nurtured to physical adulthood (cf. Job 10:11; 139:13). This process clearly establishes the pattern of procreation, which recapitulates creation, according to which Adam, the individual, who is the image and glory of God (1 Cor. 11:7), fertilizes his wife by sowing his seed in her womb in order to reproduce.

The Bliss of Paradise

Adam and Eve and their Offspring

The Garden of Eden or the womb of mankind (1* See my What Was The Garden Of Eden?) is seen in the Bible as a place of unsullied bliss where all needs are supplied without conscious effort. Adam and Eve, the progenitors of the race enjoy an idyllic life there like animals who do not know (the) law and hence neither good nor evil. They live in the presence of God (cf. Gen. 3:8; Job 31:15) their Father (Luke 3:38) who in the course of their developing consciousness eventually tests them with his commandment (Gen. 2:16f., cf. Ex. 16:4; Dt. 8:2,16, etc.). When it finally registers on their minds, they disobey it (cf. Rom. 3:20) and come to know good and evil like God himself (Gen. 3:22). This clearly indicates that they have ceased to be mere flesh like the rest of the animals that do not know good and evil. Rather they have begun to take on the image and likeness of God and, having at last arrived at the rational and moral consciousness manifested by their sin which does not exist apart from (the) law (Rom. 4:15), they are ejected from the Garden which has served as their womb. Once in what is now essentially a new environment, they become conscious of pain, toil and hardship.

(Note the progression from nakedness, animal ignorance to reception of the commandment (law), to disobedience and sin, to knowledge of good and evil, pain and eventual maturity on which see below. Infants follow the same pattern, Job 1:21; Eccl. 5:15; Dt. 1:39; 1 K. 3:7,9; Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 3:1f.)

Pain

According to traditional theology, pain is the consequence of sin and the connection causal. This is plainly more than disputable. The worldview of Augustine that has dominated the church since his day posited the original perfection of both creation and man. Since creation is not eternal, its initial perfection is impossible. The same must be said of mankind. But, even more to the point, since it is by reaction to commandment or law that man’s moral nature is established (John 8:34; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7, etc.), Adam’s ignorance of the law, rules his original righteousness and holiness out of court. This being the case, the very idea that creation was marred by Adam’s original sin and that curse and pain were its consequence is rendered impossible. Furthermore, it can hardly escape notice that in Genesis 3:16 Eve’s pain is emphatically said to increase. This is a logical impossibility if she has had no pain at all prior to her sin since nothing multiplied to the nth degree is still nothing. I conclude from this that, like Adam who is both individual and community, Eve also, though an individual, epitomizes women in general. In other words, in her initial animal or merely fleshly nature (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46) she has had children before but has scarcely been aware of the fact. (2* See further my Creation and / or Evolution.) The truth is surely that like infants both Adam and Eve gradually acquire the self and moral consciousness proved by their reception of the commandment and at the same time become conscious of pain. Otherwise expressed, sin, which implies knowledge (of the commandment), and hence (moral) consciousness, is co-incidental not causal. Knowledge and pain are inherently linked but not causally related. This view of the matter would seem to be supported by our first parents’ becoming aware of the difficulty of the terrain outside the Garden of Eden over which they were to exercise dominion (Gen. 3:16-19). The Garden was clearly a special place conducive to the gestation of the race as Genesis 13:10, Isaiah 51:3 and Ezekiel 36:35 would seem to imply. So, having broken the commandment and lost their innocence, they are expelled from the Garden never to return (Gen. 3:22-24). Following the same pattern of behaviour, infants who also like Adam and Eve initially know neither (the) law nor good and evil (Dt. 1:39, cf. Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22) eventually disobey the commandments of their parents (Prov. 1:8; 4:1-3:12; 6:20) and begin to experience pain, difficulty and alienation as sinners.

In clarification of my contention, I argue that consciousness of pain comes when self-consciousness and moral awareness come. While animals and babies that know neither the law nor good and evil doubtless feel pain and react to it as sentient creatures, they do not know it. Our personal experience as infants would seem to prove this. How many Jewish boys, in contrast with adults in Genesis 34:25 and Joshua 5:2-10), are aware of their circumcision on the eighth day? In light of this, the assumption that nature being red in tooth and claw is cruel and that God is chargeable on that account is based on a fundamentally false premise.(*See my Nature Red in Tooth and Claw). So when some regard the torture of infants as plumbing the very depths of cruelty and inhumanity, they are in fact guilty of anthropomorphism. As Paul long ago implied in 1 Corinthians 15:46, man is first an animal (flesh) before he is spirit. The fact is that the crucifixion of a fully conscious mature human being at the age of 33 is a far crueller act, even if it may appear to be less depraved and offensive in the minds of some. It might conveniently be added at this point that though the pain of giving birth is frequently highlighted in Scripture (e.g. John 16:21), nothing suggests that babies undergo a similar experience in the process of birth (cf. Luke 21:23). The reason would seem to be obvious.

The Difference between Adam and Eve and their Offspring

Of course, there is a basic difference between our first parents and their offspring, for Adam and Eve achieve physical maturity and basic moral consciousness while still in the Garden, that is, the womb of the race, but their offspring, who are born babies and lack their physical maturity, do not attain to consciousness until they are outside their mothers’ wombs (cf. Rom. 9:11), but still in physical infancy not maturity. If this is true, just as Adam and Eve once outside the Garden of Eden could not return there (Gen. 3:22-24), so babies cannot return to their mothers’ wombs (John 3:4, cf. Job 3; Jer. 20:14-18). (3* See my No Going Back.) In other words, human development, perfection or maturation is fundamental since it is God-ordained. (4* See my Perfection.) It is nowhere more clearly evident than in the life of Jesus whose maturation attains to undisputed perfection both physical (Luke 2:40-52; 3:23; John 8:57) and spiritual (Heb. 7:28, etc.). Birth, that is, expulsion from the womb necessarily involves entry into a harsh and difficult world where dominion is achieved by cultivation of the land and the law kept. But whereas Adam and Eve consciously enter the world as sinners, babies do so in innocence (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f., etc.) only receiving the commandment and gaining moral enlightenment or knowledge of good and evil at a later stage as they leave infancy for childhood (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f., etc.). It is at this point that they break their parents’ commandment and recapitulate the experience of their original progenitors. (See further below.)

Jesus

If Adam was a type (Rom. 5:14), Jesus the antitype has all the more to teach us. As a true son of the first Adam through his mother (Luke 3:38) he was physically created in the earth (Heb. 10:5; Eph. 4:9). Again like Adam he was nurtured (gestated) in paradise, that is, his mother’s womb which was the Garden of Eden in miniature. He was thus truly born of woman (Gen. 3:20; Gal. 4:4) and at birth the fruit of the womb (Dt. 28:11; 30:9). In the womb (cf. Isa. 7:15f. etc.) he clearly recapitulated Adam’s experience (could he as the second Adam do anything less?) but whereas Adam, the race or tribe, took what was doubtless ages to develop, Jesus, once he had been ‘sown’ in Mary’s womb like Job and Jeremiah before him underwent gestation in nine months. In other words, he illustrated the principle that on the level of the flesh ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. He was a true member of the human race, a son of Adam, in fact (Luke 3:38).

Jesus Infant and Child

Again like Adam Jesus as a baby knew neither the commandment apart from which there is no sin (Rom. 4:15), nor good and evil (Isa. 7:15f., cf. 8:4). When, however, in contrast with the first Adam, he became aware of his parents’ commandment, he did not transgress it. At what was presumably about the end of his weaning when like Noah he could recognize rainbows and be cleansed from his infantile filth (cf. 1 Pet. 3:21), Jesus began his childhood in heathen Egypt (Mt. 2:15) and thus recapitulated as a son of Abraham the history of his forebears who sojourned for over 400 years as a slave (Gal. 4:1f.) in that fiery furnace.

Again like his forebears he escaped to the Promised Land (cf. Mt. 2:19f.) to undergo his bar mitzvah and become a fully fledged son of the commandment. Thus, from the age of about 13 he lived in accordance with the will of God under the law of Moses (Luke 2:52) which he had to keep to perfection in order to gain the life it promised (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5). In other words, on the assumption that he kept the law, his life under it was clearly intended to be temporary and provisional (cf. 2 Cor. 3), a stage on his road to spiritual maturity and perfection. This of course had been true of his forebears but none of them had been able to meet the challenge of law-keeping (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3; 143:2; Eccl. 7:20). As a consequence they had remained its prisoners (cf. Gal. 3:23-25). For them this entailed bondage to both the flesh and to sin. Jesus, however, kept the law (cf. Rom. 8:3) until the time set by his Father when he obtained release (cf. Gal. 4:1f.), confirmed his native sonship and received the Spirit (eternal life) at his baptism (Mt. 3:13-17, etc.). From that time on he pioneered the regenerate life of the sons of God and, apart from laying down his life on behalf of all believers (cf. Heb. 9:15) to gain their eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12), finally ascended transformed into heaven and took his seat at his Father’s side as man perfected in the image and likeness of God.

Before leaving Jesus it is vital to point out that despite his innocence, he had to contend with a futile creation just as sinners like Adam (Gen. 3:15-19), Job (5:7; 7:1; 14:1) and Solomon (Eccles.) had done. Both Job (3:1, cf. 10:18) and Jeremiah (20:14-20) suffered (unaccountably from their point of view) so much that they regarded the day of their birth as a curse. (No wonder that some under duress commit suicide!) As he himself said the sun shines and the rain falls on good and evil alike. His moral purity did nothing to alleviate the recalcitrance of the world he experienced on this side of the womb. He was subject to temptation and trial, pain and trouble, toil and sweat and like everyone else, but he did not rebel against it like Lamech (Gen. 5:29).

Covenant Theology

Thus the earthly life of Jesus was fully covenantal and in fact illustrated biblical covenant theology. He began his pilgrimage from an earthly origin to heavenly destination (Eph. 4:9f.) initially uncovenanted, since at the beginning no covenant was made with either creation or the creature. (5* On this, see my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation? If a covenant implies an agreement no matter how minimal, it can only operate on a bilateral basis. Neither the non-rational creation nor the creature can agree with anything! They are simply commanded.) As the second Adam who did not sin when faced with the parental commandment as he emerged from infancy, he lived under the covenant with Noah as a child in heathen Egypt. (Jesus of course underwent circumcision on the eighth day but at that stage of his life it only marked him out as a member of the elect race.) At his bar mitzvah, which signified the end of his childhood, he became a son of the commandment and undertook responsibility to keep the law of Moses on his own account as his forebears had done before him. Since he was uniquely successful in this, he became the first man in history to do so, as repeated references to OT failure make clear (see above). Thus, having pleased his Father, he was baptized by the Spirit in preparation for laying the foundation of the new covenant (Mt. 3:13-17). Of course, until the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, he alone was a born-again ‘Christian’ and as such was able to pioneer the regenerate or heavenly life here on earth. Put otherwise, while in the earlier stages of his life he recapitulated the life of his ancestors, now he himself became the pioneer of those who recapitulate his unique regenerate life. As those who are justified by faith and redeemed by his blood, they also are born again. And led by the Spirit as he was, they follow in his steps imitating him both morally and generically (1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:21; 1 Thes. 1:6; Heb. 12:1f.). It is they who are redeemed from the earth and follow him wherever he goes (cf. Rev. 14:3f.).

The Covenantal Pattern

In 1 Corinthians 10:32 Paul implies that mankind is made up of three groups: Greeks (Gentiles) who lived before the giving of the law (ante legem), Jews who were under the law (sub lege) and Christians who were under the law of Christ (post legem). This being so, the covenantal pattern that characterizes the race as, first, heathen under Noah, second, servant under the law of Moses, and, third, as son under the Spirit of Christ (John 1:10-13; Rom. 1-3) is recapitulated on the individual level as slave, servant and son (Rom. 7-8; Gal. 4:1-7). (6* For greater detail see my Covenant Theology.) Thus it is that as the sons of God we are his people and not unnaturally reach our covenant goal in his presence, in his house (John 14:1-3; 17:24; Rev. 21:3).

Paul

If it is true that Jesus as the perfected man (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28) is our pioneer, our own path to perfection is to follow in his steps (cf. Heb. 12:1f.). At this point Paul provides an excellent exemplar of this. Like Adam, Jesus himself and all the rest of us he begins at the beginning, for we are all creation in miniature. In Romans 7:9 he tells us that he was once (biologically) ‘alive’ in his innocence before the commandment made any impression on his then non-existent consciousness. However, unlike Jesus in the course of his development he failed to keep the law. First, he was deceived like Eve and the heathen in general who did not receive a specific commandment from God (Rom. 7:11, cf. 1:18-32, etc.). Next he was sold into the slavery of sin (Rom. 7:14) like Adam who did and who rebelled directly against the commandment that promised life (Rom. 7:9f.). In this way he proved himself a true Jew who like all his compatriots throughout their history persistently failed to keep the law uniquely granted to them (Num. 14:19; 1 Sam. 8:8; 2 K. 21:15; Jer. 7:24f., Neh. 1:6f.; Ps. 106:6, etc.) to be a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6; Rom. 2:19). Indeed, Paul was so fanatically committed to the law he was manifestly unable to keep (Rom. 7:13-25, cf. John 7:19; Acts 7:53, etc.) that he even persecuted the church which he was to adorn with equal commitment once he had seen the light (Acts 9,22,26) and the veil had been lifted from his eyes (2 Cor. 3:13-16). Thus, the great apostle, the one-time persecutor of Christ bent all his efforts to be like Christ even in his sufferings (Phil. 3:10). While he relied on the perfection of Christ, his personal aim was perfection in Christ (Phil. 3:12-14), and so to enter heaven transformed into the same image (2 Cor. 3:18) to receive a crown of righteousness (2 Tim. 4:8,18).

In effect, like Jesus, Paul in the course of his life has progressed through heathenism, Judaism and finally Christianity. He has been a slave, a servant and finally a son (Rom. 7:9-8:39, cf. Gal. 4:1-7). The same is true of all who reach maturity in Christ. (Of course, other instances (e.g. Peter) of progress to the celestial city can be found in Scripture but none is as clear as the journey of Paul.)

Summary

To sum up, the human story is not only covenantal it is intrinsically teleological and perfectible in Christ. (7* I am tempted to use the word ‘evolutionary’ but it could be misconstrued and as a consequence be seriously misleading. However, there is little doubt that the church’s commitment to the Augustinian worldview, involving original perfection, sin, curse and restoration, has blinded the eyes of Christians to the reality of human recapitulatory development as both race and individual.) Starting at the beginning we are all meant to grow up into Christ despite our sin (cf. Eph. 4:14-16) and to be spiritually, corporeally and corporately glorified in him (Rom. 8:30). We journey as he did from ground to glory (Eph. 4:7-10), from Eden to eternity (Rev. 22:1-5), from flesh to spirit (1 Pet. 4:6). At the last day, the tree of man, apart from the wicked who will be pruned and purged (cf. John 15:6; Rev. 21:8, etc.), will be complete (Rom. 11:16). All the (spiritual) Israel of God will be saved in accordance with the promise. Soli Deo Gloria.

 

Correcting Traditional Distortions Of Scripture

I have argued elsewhere that our understanding of Scripture has been seriously distorted by tradition, a situation that has obtained for over 1500 years (1* See e.g. my Augustine: Asset or Liability?, Worldview, The Biblical Worldview). While the Reformation put certain matters like the Lord’s Supper right, much, like baptism, remains to be done. So far as we in the 21st century are concerned, the main problem has been and remains the framework, worldview or big picture against, within and by which the Bible is interpreted. Clearly, if we try to match the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle with a false picture of the finished product, we are bound to end up in difficulty and distortion. Texts that do not fit into a preconceived picture are forced into it. Eisegesis as opposed to exegesis thus becomes the order of the day. To overcome this problem it is of vital importance in the 21st century when the church is under attack by atheists, certain scientists and the devotees of false religions to begin at the beginning and to work our way through the Bible to the end to see exactly what it teaches.

Church Tradition

When we look at the history of dogma, it is not at all difficult once it is pointed out to recognize that our present tradition had a very dubious, even false beginning. Augustine by whom the church has been so profoundly influenced since the fifth century seemed to think that creation was originally perfect rather than merely ‘good’, that is, useful and like a tool serving a purpose (cf. Ps. 119:91), but was cursed when Adam sinned. This seems to be inherently contradictory. There are at least two points here: first, perfection seems to be the goal of mankind not his beginning (see Phil. 3:12-14; Hebrews 6:1, etc.); second, if perfection can be lost who is to guarantee that our perfect God and Saviour will not fall into sin like the first Adam. The truth that Genesis 1 teaches us is that the material creation that God brought into being first had a beginning (1:1) and was therefore headed inexorably for an eventual end (cf. Gen. 8:22; Mt. 24:35; 28:20). In other words, as even the very first verse of Scripture indicates, creation is temporal and transient by nature. If it is physically visible (Rom. 1:20), it is according to the apostle Paul also temporary (2 Cor. 4:18, cf. Rom. 8:20,24f. on which see further below) and is subject to ultimate removal or destruction (Heb. 12:27). Otherwise expressed, it is inherently obsolescent (Heb. 1:11) and will eventually pass away (Mt. 24:35). Yet, again, creation is said to be “made by hand” (cheiropoietos) (Ps. 102:25f.) like the visible hand-written old covenant (cheirographos, Col. 2:14) that relates to it and will eventually disappear (Heb. 8:13). The term ‘made by hand’ is always depreciatory or pejorative in meaning and in strong contrast with what is “not made by hand” (acheiropoietos) which features in the new covenant. In light of this, though to my knowledge it is universally denied, it is not at all surprising that Paul teaches in Romans 8:18-25 that creation was purposely subjected by God to futility and corruption (decay) at the start precisely because he had something better in mind at the end. For the creatures that he first created flesh from the corruptible earth itself, corruption was therefore inevitable and quite unrelated to sin even if it could be exacerbated by it. But as the God of spirits (Num. 16:22), God also created human beings in his own image with the ultimate intention as the Father of spirits (Heb. 12:9) of adopting them as his sons and daughters in Christ (John 1:12f.; Eph. 1:4f.). In order to become such, they had to be perfected like their pioneer before them and along with him be glorified in God’s presence (Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18, etc.) in his own (eternal) house (John 14:2f.; 17:24; Heb. 12:22-24; Rev. 22:1-5).

Flesh

In support of this, we read in Genesis that mankind along with all (other) flesh (Gen. 6:17) is created out of the earth and is hence portrayed in Scripture as earth(l)y (1 Cor. 15:40), Col. 3:5), dust (Ps. 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47-49), clay (Job 4:19; 2 Cor. 4:7) and grass (Isa. 40:6-8; 1 Pet. 1:23f.). Initially, as flesh, Adam and Eve like the rest of the animal creation (cf. Gen. 6:17) know neither the law (commandment) nor good and evil (Gen. 2:16f.; 3:5,22). (2* On the equation of all flesh including man see, for example, Chris Wright, pp.26ff.)

Spirit

After a period of development (evolution?), however, in accordance with the divine purpose reflected in his making his creatures including man seed-bearers, they gain an element of understanding and like young children receive just one commandment to test their commitment to God (cf. Gen.22:1; Ex. 15:25; 16:4; Dt. 8:2,16; Ps. 7:9; Jer. 11:20; 17:10; 20:12, etc.). As we all know they fail to keep this commandment and hence become sinners (cf. John 8:34). All their offspring follow suit, and thus in the words of the author of Genesis the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth but noticeably not from his infancy (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:24f.; 22:21; 32:30, cf. Ezra 9:7). Whereas all men remain innocent (cf. Dt. 1:39; 1 K. 3:7,9; Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 5:12-14) until they gain understanding of the law (Rom. 4:15; 7:8), once it dawns on their minds they all like Adam and Eve break it and become sinners by nature (John 8:34; Eph. 2:1-3; Tit. 3:3). In other words, since all are created in his image (Gen. 5:1-3) all, like Paul himself (Rom. 7:9f.), follow the pattern of behaviour established by their first parents. Though Augustinian tradition says that they sin ‘in Adam’ (Rom. 5:12), the Bible plainly indicates that they repeat the sin of first Eve then Adam. The situation is made all the more certain because all descendants sin under the influence of parents (cf. Ex. 20:5f.; 34:7, etc.) of whom Adam and Eve are only the first (Rom. 5:12-21). (3* Pace Art. 9 of the C of E. If we deny imitation, or rather repetition, serious questions need to be answered. For example, how did Jesus manage to avoid the imputation or transmission of Adam’s sin? How does God himself avoid the blame for imputing sin to the innocent contrary to his own code of conduct, 1 Sam. 22:15; 1 K. 21; Luke 23, etc.? Why is it that Isaiah implies that Jesus was born innocent like Adam and Eve, Isa. 7:15f.? Why does Peter say that in contrast with the rest of us he committed no sin, 1 Pet. 2:22? Why does the author of Hebrews say that as a son of Adam, Luke 3:38, he was like the rest of us apart from sin, Heb. 2:17? Why do the Jews and the Orthodox to this day deny original sin? How does Jesus differ from Paul who says that he was born ‘alive’, Rom. 7:9? Clearly Paul like the Jews in general did not believe in original sin as propounded by Augustine.) In other words, we are all including Jesus conceived and born in sin (Ps. 51:5) but like him since we know neither the law nor good and evil (Isa. 7:15f.) we are personally innocent (cf. Ezek. 18). Like the children of the sinful parents who died in the wilderness and failed to enter the Promised Land, we remain untarnished by sin (Dt. 1:39) until we personally react as they did to the law or commandment when it eventually dawns on our minds (Jer. 32:18f.).

Flesh Again

Returning to man’s natural constitution as flesh, however, it is imperative to underscore the fact that it is subject to decay even apart from sin. To demonstrate the truth of this we must first appeal to the fact that since it is the product of a corruptible earth, it also has a beginning and an end. This is true of all flesh (Gen. 6:17), of man and sinless animal alike, as the Bible makes plain (Ps. 49:12,20; Eccl. 3:18-21). Citing the OT the author of Hebrews states that creation in contrast with its Creator is subject to aging and will eventually disappear (Heb. 1:11f.; 8:13). Even the sinless Jesus as incarnate grew older (Luke 2:42; 3:23; John 8:57, etc.) and eventually disappeared (Acts 1:9). Furthermore, Adam is threatened with death before he sins, but by the same token he is promised (eternal) life if he keeps the commandment (Gen. 2:16f.). On the other hand, all that lacks spiritual understanding (cf. Rom. 7:14), that is, all animal (including man according to the flesh) and vegetable life necessarily requires reproduction to counter the effect of universal natural death (cf. Luke 20:34-36). (4* See further my Death and Corruption, Two ‘Natural’ Necessities. It is worth adding here that eunuchs, Isa.56, and barren/unmarried women, Isa. 54:1, who by faith transcend the law don’t have the same problem!)

Dispensing with Tradition

If all this is true then it is vital for us to subject to intense scrutiny traditional ideas apparently extraneous to Scripture like original perfection, holiness, righteousness, fall, cosmic curse and final restoration. Against a background of intentional, teleological and even beneficent (5* I use this latter word for the simple reason that corruption opens up the way for the realization of the invisible hope of our salvation, Rom. 8:20,24f., which is surely the eternal weight of glory that lies ahead, Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17.) subjection of creation to futility and corruption, we can begin to recognize the divinely planned pilgrimage or perfecting process from earth to heaven or from ground to final glory (Rom. 8:30), a pilgrimage which was pioneered by Jesus himself (John 3:13, etc.) For he was the perfected man par excellence as the letter to the Hebrews in particular makes abundantly clear (e.g. Heb. 7:26,28). But more on this below.

No Covenant With Creation

If we assume the truth of the perfecting as opposed to the traditional degenerating process, before we sketch in more detail the path to perfection (maturity, completion, James 1:4) and its end the crown of life (James 1:12), it is vital to see in further support of the picture of intentional cosmic physical corruption painted above that there is conspicuously no covenant with creation. If the word covenant implies agreement even of the most minimal kind, it is obvious that there can be no creation covenant, though many, especially the devotees of original sin, have posited one. Why? Because the creation, in contrast with its creature man who possesses the image of God, lacks rationality. As both animate and inanimate it lacks understanding and is in no position to agree about anything (cf. Ps. 32:9; James 3:3f., etc.). Thus since a unilateral covenant is a contradiction in terms, creation simply does as it is commanded to do. This is the pattern we find throughout Scripture. (On Adam, see below.) It is especially evident in Genesis 1 (cf. Ps. 33:9-11), in the life of Jesus (e.g. Mark 4:39) and in Revelation 4:11. (6* See further my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?)

The Covenant With Noah

By the time we come to Noah, however, in the providence of God man has clearly undergone some development and gained in understanding (cf. Heb. 5:14). Whereas Adam, though physically mature, was spiritually speaking but an infant who was at best only capable of responding either negatively or positively to a single simple commandment, Noah had sufficient understanding to participate if only minimally in a covenant which, since it forms the foundation of man’s ultimate salvation, embraces the whole creation. This inference is supported by the threat of a universal curse on the (phenomenal) earth under Adam and his immediate descendants but which is by the grace of God rescinded after the flood under Noah (Gen. 8:21). The flood, of course, is clearly a curse imposed as a response to the sin of Adam’s descendants. In Adam’s own case (cf. Cain, Gen 4:12) transgression brought only a limited curse as all infraction of the law does (Heb. 2:2). Wherever men fail to fulfil their moral obligations like tilling the earth, exercising dominion and keeping the covenant (law), they suffer the consequences as passages like Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28 and Proverbs 24:30-34 in particular make clear. By the same token, whenever they do their duty, they are blessed (Dt. 11:13-17; Isa. 1:19f., cf. Ps. 65:9-13; 85:10-12). The idea that the entire earth, even universe, was cursed when Adam sinned is clearly nonsense based on traditional Augustinian misunderstanding of Genesis 1-2 and Romans 8:18-25 and failure to appreciate the import of Hebrews 1:10-12, for example.

Recapitulation

To clarify the picture it is helpful to miniaturize mankind (Adam), as Scripture itself often does with representative figures, that is, to the one man (Adam). If Adam (cf. Gen. 1:26 and 2:5), like Israel (Ex. 4:22; 13:8; Dt. 26:5; Jer. 12:7; Hos. 11:1) and even Jesus (John 15, cf. Isa. 5:1-7), is both one and many, he is mutatis mutandis first an embryo in the womb (Eden), then an infant who when he sins is thrust (born) into the harsh world outside the womb. Here as both spiritually immature and sinner, he proves reluctant (cf. Gen. 5:29) and in the event unable to cope with his environment. He fails to tend it as he had earlier failed to tend the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:17-19, cf. 5:29) in accordance with his calling (Gen. 2:8,15) and hence fails to produce the fruit, both moral and material, expected of him. He thus suffers the consequences of his inadequately tended environment, for his failure to exercise proper dominion over his naturally hostile, intractable and uncompromising surroundings (which according to Paul were divinely subjected to corruption and futility) leads to inevitable pain and even death (Job 3:1-26; 5:6f.; 7:1; 14:1; Ps. 90:9f.; Jer. 3:24f.; 20:14-18). (7* References like Job 5:6; Ps. 85:11 and Isa. 45:8 suggest that there is an intimate connection between morality and the earth.) Indeed the situation is so bad that all is threatened with destruction. It is only the grace of God, manifested to faithful Noah, that keeps creation and hence the plan of salvation in being. With Noah there is a real sense in which a new beginning is made reminiscent of the original beginning made with Adam (Gen. 9:1,7, cf. 1:28). It reminds us on the individual level of a child who is cleansed of his infantile filth (1 Pet. 3:21) and able to begin to do things for himself.

Assuming the truth of all this we are led to infer that every individual man is Adam (mankind) in miniature. As such he recapitulates the history of mankind, the race, or, to express the point in more scientific terms, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. We all as individuals begin where Adam began, that is as dust (Ps. 103:14, cf. Gen. 2:7; 3:19; 1 Cor. 15:46-49). Next, in our infantile innocence we know neither good nor evil (Dt. 1:39). Paul clearly implies that he personally began his life in this way as he explains in Romans 7:9f. But more importantly, Jesus as the second Adam certainly did (cf. Isa. 7:15f.). Had he not done so, he could hardly have been truly man on the one hand and made atonement for the sins of the whole world on the other (1 John 2:2). What he had not assumed he could not heal (Gregory Nazianzus, cf. Heb. 2). At the beginning of his mental/moral life man as made in the image of God is confronted with two basic problems: he is called, first, to rule over a hostile creation (Gen. 1:26-28) subjected by divine decree to futility and ever ready to become a desolation (Prov. 24:30-34; Isa. 6:11; Zech. 7:14, etc.) even descend into chaos (cf. Jer. 4:23-28); second, to keep the law (Gen. 2:16f.), that is, to master a natural personal tendency to sin (Gen. 4:7, cf. Heb. 5:7f.). Since the two problems are related and interconnected, defeat in the latter leads inevitably to defeat in the former. Failure to exercise necessary dominion over his environment which is man’s vocation has unpleasant repercussions as Adam and his descendants were to become aware (cf. Gen. 3:17-19; Dt. 28:15-68, etc.). In other words, man has to overcome both the world and the desires of his own flesh (James 1:14f.) which are part of the world. Yet a third problem is constituted by the devil whose aim is to tempt and deceive him largely through his natural desires (cf. James 1:14f.). Whereas all from Eve through to Jesus fail to conquer in these areas, Jesus, as the one sent by his Father in the likeness of sinful flesh to deal with sin, alone succeeded (John 16:33; Rom. 2:7,10; 8:3; Heb. 2:9). In contrast with Paul, for example, who was fully aware of his own inability to overcome in the (natural) war (Gal. 5:17, cf. James 4:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:11) with his flesh (Rom. 7:14-23), he was uniquely made perfect (Heb. 7:28) despite his normal human weakness (2 Cor. 13:4).

Covenant

However, as we have seen, God clearly did not mean to leave the matter there. Faced with the failure of Adam and his immediate descendants, out of sheer grace he made a covenant with Noah. Instead of destroying man along with the earth in accordance with his original threat, he guaranteed their continuation and fruitfulness until his plan of salvation was complete (Gen. 8:22). Needless to say, we are reminded that the same sort of divine covenantal undergirding obtains later in the history of God’s people as the plan of salvation unfolds (Jer. 31:5-37; 33:19-22 and note Luke 17:26-30).

The Covenants With Abraham

The inadequacy of the covenant with Noah soon becomes plain. Though it guarantees the continued fertility of the earth (Acts 14:17; 17:27), it does little to stem the tide of sins committed by man despite the witness of nature (Rom. 1:18-2:16, etc.). Clearly more needs to be done, and that God had more in mind becomes clear when he promises Abraham that he will become the father of nations and a blessing to all the families of the earth. Indeed, his promises to Abraham are not merely confirmed in covenant (Gen. 15,17) but they are doubly guaranteed by an oath (Gen. 22:15-18; Heb. 6:17).

The Mosaic Covenant

Against this background and the ensuing slavery of his people in Egypt, God eventually rescues them with a powerful arm. But his purpose is not merely their political freedom in their own land but their spiritual maturation. Whereas Adam had been called to keep but one commandment, now at the dawn of a new era, this race redeemed from the fiery furnace was put under a much more far-reaching law at the heart of which were the ten words or commandments. According to Paul, the law was added because of transgressions. While it pointed up sin, made it explicit and served as a disciplinarian, it also guarded all who were under it until Jesus came (Gal. 3:19-29).

Here two things become clear. First, if Israel needed a disciplinarian, he (they) was still immature, still in his minority and needing to grow up or to be perfected. Second, the promises which were still standing and required fulfillment (cf. Rom. 15:8-13). The former was achieved through the latter. In Christ, man was no longer imprisoned under the law and sin (Rom. 3:19f.; 11:32; Gal. 3:22) but made free (Gal. 5:1; John 8:32; Acts 15:10f.). But we are running ahead of ourselves.

The Davidic Covenant

Throughout the duration of the dispensation of law, the promises made to Abraham remained in place (Gal. 3:17) but they were supplemented or enhanced by those made to David as the elect nation gained in maturity. The rest of the OT, punctuated by the exile, is characterized by the hope of a Messiah to rescue the people from their enemies. Indeed the people were the prisoners of hope (Zech. 9:12) and so long as they reject their Messiah, they remain so to this day. By the same token, however, they remain as Paul intimated the prisoners of and under the guardianship of the law which inevitably meant sin (Gal. 3:19-25). From this unenviable situation they could not escape since no one could keep the law, least of all David. All awaited the Messiah in the shape of great David’s greater Son who alone could keep the law and meet the condition of (eternal) life or regeneration (Lev. 18:5) and inaugurate the new covenant by his death. (If Jesus was not the regenerate Son, he was in no position to lay down his life to save his fellows, Mt. 17:25f., cf. Eph. 2:10.)

The Messiah

After many a long year and domination under foreign powers like the Greeks and Romans even in their own land (cf. Neh. 9:36f.), the Messiah eventually arrived but was not recognized as such. According to John his identity was hidden from the world at large and not least from his own people (John 1:10f.). This situation can be attributed to man’s natural obtuseness or blindness but it also arose from the fact that a false, preconceived picture of him was entertained by the people. This, as I suggested in my first paragraph, is a constant problem throughout history. Tradition which is usually learnt by rote exercises powerful sway over all who are aware of it and is difficult even for the most well-intentioned of us to overcome. The truth is, however, that Jesus was not a blood-stained warrior like his forebear David, but the would-be conqueror (Rev. 5:5) and the propitiation of the world’s sin (1 John 2:2). In the words of the author of Hebrews he came to do God’s will (Heb. 10:7), to keep the law and to please his Father by fulfilling all righteousness (Mt. 3:15; John 4:34; 8:29) and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).
Jesus gave his flesh (Col. 1:22), his earthly life (his psyche, John 10:17f., not his eternal pneuma) for his people. It was precisely our flesh or our natural life that was forfeit when we sinned. It was so in Adam’s case: it is so in ours. Jesus could give his fleshly life for us because, as the only one to keep the law, he already had eternal life. That is why we who are Christians who also have eternal life in contrast with all others have something to offer (Eph. 2:10; Col. 1:10, cf. Mt. 17:24-26). We are (to be) prepared for good works (2 Tim. 2:21; 3:17; Tit. 3:1; Tit. 2:14) doing the will of God from the heart (Eph. 6:6) ever ready to put to death what is earthly in us so that we may share Christ’s glory (Col. 3:1-5). In this we follow Jesus himself who was led by the Spirit before us. If this is true, the presently popular idea that Jesus redeemed his and our flesh at his resurrection and hence the creation from which it stemmed is a profound error. In any case, as sinners we eventually lose our flesh (Rom. 8:10) but our bodies require redemption (Rom. 8:23) involving change whether we figure among the saints at the end of the age or not (1 Cor. 15:50-53). And since the flesh is naturally subject to corruption, so is the material creation from which it emanated.

The Glorified Messiah

Of course, because he gave his fleshly life for us freely, voluntarily and vicariously and not as the result of personal sin, Jesus temporarily and necessarily regained that life at his resurrection (Acts 2:23f.) as he said he would (John 2:19f.f.; 10:17f., cf. Luke 24:39). (8* Note also how he is presented as regaining the glory that he freely, Rom. 3:24; 2 Cor. 8:9, purposefully, John 10:17f., and vicariously, Mark 10:45, gave up at his incarnation, John 17:5,24.) Only at his ascension was he transformed and glorified (John 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:50-53). We who put our trust in him follow in his wake to glory but by a somewhat different route, that is, by the one that David as a sinner had to take. He succumbed to death and corruption (Acts 2:29; 13:36) and so do we (cf. Rom. 8:10f.). On the other hand, if we are among the saints at the end who neither die nor experience resurrection, we shall, like Jesus, who after his resurrection lived as though he had never died and been raised from the dead, enter heaven as he did after undergoing ascension transformation. So whether we live or die, we shall all be saved, since Jesus serves as our model or paradigm in both cases (1 Cor. 15:45-57).

The Truth As It Is in Jesus

So it is then that Christology is the key to understanding Scripture. If Jesus as the last Adam mutatis mutandis recapitulated the race the picture of man perfected is as follows:

From ground to Glory

Our physical origin is in the ground (Gen. 2:7; Ps. 139:15; Eph. 4:9). This being so, we must always remember that God created man as a seed bearer capable of replicating himself in reproduction. Thus the first Adam attained to maturity physically, but obviously not spiritually, intellectually, culturally. While it is true that only Adam as created goes right back to the very beginning, all his offspring including Jesus (Luke 3:38) stem from him and as such are dust (Ps. 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:45-49).

As descendants of Adam we are sown as perishable seed (1 Pet. 1:23) in the womb (cf. Eden) where gestation takes place (Ps. 139:13). After this, we are born into the harsh, futile and corruptible environment of this present world (age) where we are called to exercise dominion and keep the law as we develop.

Birth is followed by weaning with the minimal understanding during infancy but we are blessed along with all creation under the covenant with Noah. With the covenant made with Abraham comes the promise of worldwide blessing and this is not at all undermined by the instruction of the law given through Moses (Gal. 3:17f.). The career of David leads to the extension of the promise which eventually materializes in the arrival of the Messiah. It is he who uniquely keeps the law and inherits eternal life (Lev. 18:5) as man (the last Adam. And it is he who fulfils all righteousness and dies for his people. The wonder is, however, that he rises from the dead and thereby proves he has conquered. And it is as conqueror that he ascends transformed into heaven and takes his seat at his Father’s side. In him mankind is saved.

There are certain differences between the rest of us men and Jesus the man, however. First, Jesus does not sin (Heb. 2:17; 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22). Thus he is able to meet the condition of life first made to Adam (Gen. 2:16f.; Lev. 18:5). As the sinless man who gains eternal life (Lev. 18:5) signified at his baptism, he is in a position (qualified) to expiate our sins and propitiate, or make satisfaction to, the Father on our behalf, for he, God, must not only be righteous but seen to be so (Rom. 3:26; 2 Cor. 5:21). Second, Jesus undergoes death and resurrection solely on our behalf. In other words, neither death nor resurrection are necessary features of his earthly life but rather from his personal point of view they constitute an aberration, deviation or digression from normality undertaken purely out of love for his fellows. Third, because he recovers by resurrection the fleshly life (Luke 24:39) he has laid down (John 10:17f.), it remains for him to be changed at his ascension (John 20:17). Most of us, recapitulate the experience of David. As sinners we like him experience corruption and are not raised and transformed until the general resurrection. Jesus, however, pioneers the way of those who are still alive at the end of the age. Since they do not die and undergo resurrection, they nonetheless need to be transformed and glorified as he was (1 Cor. 15:47-57; Phil. 3:21).

Covenant Life

All this is in essence spelt out by Paul in Galatians 4:1-7. The picture he paints is less descriptive but more pointedly theological and covenantal. He indicates that Jesus was born of woman and through her of Adam (Luke 3:38) and so was a true human being like the rest of us. By this he implies that he first progressed from the dust like Adam (cf. Eph. 4:9) then passed through the merely fleshly or animal stage of his life. Then, as he developed he became a child of nature as a Gentile (heathen) descendant of Noah. This of course involved his spending time as a slave in Egypt (Gal. 4:1-3; Mt. 2:15). Next, following in the steps of his Jewish forebears, on his return from Egyptian bondage he became a son of the commandment and so like them was in bondage under the law of Moses (cf. Gal. 3:23-25). However, since he was the one who alone kept the law and gained eternal life, he introduced the regenerate life into this world (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). But whereas under the law he recapitulated the experience of his ancestors, after his baptism by the Spirit he himself as a new creature became the pioneer of the Christian life (2 Cor. 5:17).

Jesus as the second Adam began as God in perfection but when he became incarnate he humbled himself and took on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6f.). In other words, as incarnate he began where Adam began, that is, in the ground (cf. Eph. 4:9). Far from being perfect (complete or fully mature) his challenge was to be perfected and thereby to become perfect (cf. Mt. 5:48; Eph. 4:10). In other words, since he was to all intents and purposes created in the image of God like every other human being he had to take on the likeness of God in order to take on his complete image (Heb. 1:3) and regain his original glory (John 17:5,24).

If this is true, the idea pervading church tradition that Adam was originally perfect in holiness and righteousness is absurd. If Jesus, the second Adam, was not righteous at his conception and birth, then neither was the first. If Jesus had to gain righteousness by keeping the law in order to meet the condition of life, then so had Adam. But whereas Adam failed Jesus succeeded.

Conclusion

I conclude then that original perfection, righteousness and holiness followed by sin and universal curse requiring the restoration/redemption of creation is superstitious nonsense. The Bible makes it clear beyond reasonable question that the material creation was subjected to corruption by divine decree from the start (Rom. 8:20). As the footstool of God, it was never intended to last forever but to be replaced by heaven, the home of righteousness where God has his throne. Since it had a beginning which implies an end, it was by nature transient. Thank God for from our point of view, this present ‘evil’ age (Gal. 1:4) was always intended to be followed by the age to come, the infinitely better eternal world which we enter through Christ (cf. Luke 20:34-36; John 14:2f.,19; Rom. 8:18-25; 2 Cor. 4:16-18*; Eph. 1:20f.; Heb. 9:11f.,24; 12:22-24, etc.).

* 2 Corinthians 5:1, which apparently refers to the body of flesh rather than to the earth, should perhaps be added here. It is, however, arguably ambiguous like various other biblical words such as Adam, world (John 1:10), house (2 Sam. 7), creation (Rom. 8:19-21), etc. Whatever the case, the destruction of the one, that is, the flesh, implies the destruction of the earth from which it stems.

________________________________________________

References

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

Bondage

 

Readers of the early part of the Bible soon become acquainted with the idea of bondage or slavery. Who can readily forget that Israel, the children of Abraham, was enslaved in Egypt, rescued from that house of bondage by Moses and finally led to freedom in the Promised Land by Joshua? Regrettably from their point of view this freedom like their slavery was limited. It did not involve either freedom from sin, from the impermanence of the Promised Land itself (cf. Heb. 3,4) or from their enemies, as we shall see. Fortunately, the Bible has a good deal more to say about bondage and it is worth examining it.

 

Bondage in Egypt

First, bondage in Egypt arose out of necessity. (1* Cf. Ruth 1:1, though some have argued that Elimelech and Naomi sinned by going to Moab.) The land of Canaan was devastated by a famine. Fortunately for Jacob (Israel) and his children, the way to mitigate the effect of famine in the land of Egypt had been prepared for them providentially by God in his dealings with Joseph (Gen. 45:5-7; 50:20). However, it becomes crystal clear that later bondage in Assyria and Babylon was the consequence of sin and rebellion on the part of the elect nation. According to Isaiah Assyria is the rod of God’s anger (Isa.10:5). Nebuchadnezzar, heathen though he is, is described as the servant of God who rules the nations (Jer. 27:6) and enslaves Israel in a seventy-year exile. As God had warned David when he promised one of his sons an eternal kingdom, he would nonetheless punish his children’s sins (Ps. 89:30-37). In light of this it is less than surprising that sin figures prominently in the later sufferings of God’s elect nation. The warnings of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 are amply realized and extend to the evil impact of Greece and especially Rome on the chosen race. So even when the Messiah appeared, Israel was still in bondage, and the words of Nehemiah were as relevant as ever: “Here we are, slaves to this day – slaves in the land that you gave to our ancestors to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts” (Neh. 9:36, NRSV). In these circumstances, it is not at all surprising that even John the Baptist had a somewhat uncertain understanding of the Messiah whose herald he was (Luke 7:20, cf. John 6:15).

 

Bondage to Sin and the Devil

Man, that is Adam and Eve, was created knowing neither the law nor good and evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22). Since the apostle says that where there is no law there is neither good nor evil (Rom. 2:13; 4:15; 6:16; James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:7), we are compelled to conclude that our first parents though physically mature (adult) were (spiritually and morally) innocent like babies (cf. Dt. 1:39; 1 K. 3:7,9; Heb. 5:12-14, etc.). However, since like babies they must have undergone development till intelligent consciousness dawned, they unlike the rest of the animals became amenable to law or specifically (like babies again) to a commandment. The point of this commandment was to test their hearts (cf. Ex. 15:24; 20:20; Dt. 8:2,16) on the one hand and to promise them eternal life if they were obedient on the other (cf. Rom. 7:9f.). In the event, led astray by the devil and the lusts of the flesh (Gen. 3:1-7, cf. Rom. 1:24-32), they proved false as we their posterity all do in our turn. As a consequence, we are all ensnared by the devil, the god of this world (2 Tim. 2:26, cf. Rom. 16:18) and enslaved by sin (John 8:34; Eph. 2:1-3). The truth expressed by Isaiah that iniquities had made a separation between God and his people was all too evident (Isa. 59:2). Of course, there is plenty of evidence of the enslaving power of sin as such. Jesus himself pointed out that the one who sins is thereby enslaved by it (John 8:34, cf. Rom. 6:16; 2 Pet. 2:19). So eventually as a consequence of their sin including their rejection of Jesus their Messiah they were overwhelmed by the Romans, and the temple and the city by which they set so much store were left desolate (cf. e.g. Mt. 23).

 

Bondage to Law and hence to Sin

Of course, there is in the epistles much material relating to sin but it is important to recognize that there are other causes of bondage apart from sin as such. For both Paul and Peter (e.g. John 7:19; Acts 15:10, etc.) imply that the law to which the Jews were so committed was itself an instrument of bondage and not of grace and freedom. In Galatians 3:23 Paul says that those who were under law (i.e. both Jews and Gentiles) were held captive and imprisoned (ESV) by law which he says elsewhere is the power of sin (1 Cor.15:56). They were kept by it in a state of permanent minority like students at school (Gal. 4:1-4, KJV). So far from freeing its devotees from sin as many seemed to imagine, the law as such actually held them in bondage and virtually guaranteed that they were enslaved by sin as well (cf. 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8). As the apostle shows, whereas like Adam and Eve they were sinless (alive) so long as they were without (the) law (Rom. 4:15), once it came it killed them (cf. Rom. 7:9f.). The problem was that though it promised life, they could not keep it. Justification by keeping the law was beyond their powers and the only way they could gain the righteousness which was the precondition of life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5) was by faith in the very Christ they rejected (cf. Gal. 2:16).

 

Bondage to the Devil

The Bible tells us that the god of this world is the devil (2 Cor. 4:4, cf. 1 John 5:19). Later in this very chapter he goes on to indicate to the Jews that though they are the physical offspring of Abraham, their real father is the devil whose will they are all too ready to do (8:44). This inevitably led to their dying in their sins (John 8:24). But as Jesus insisted the devil as well as being an inveterate liar was also a murderer. According to the author of Hebrews taking his cue from the Genesis story, it was the devil who had the power of death (Heb. 2:14). This led inevitably to the universal fear of death which held mankind in permanent bondage. The Greeks were always afraid, said Gilbert Murray, and it was the fear of death that held all people in bondage.

 

Bondage to the Flesh

Early in the piece the Bible makes it clear that since all mankind are created from dust, they are in fact bound by their flesh (cf. Ps. 78:39; 103:14). As early as Genesis 6:3 it is made plain that the days of man’s flesh are limited to 120 years, though later this is scaled down to three score years and ten or perhaps four score. Not only does death come to all that breathes in the flood where the backcloth is sin but Elihu indicates that the life of all flesh by its very nature depends on God. If he withdraws his Spirit, then death inevitably ensues (Job 34:14f.; James 2:26). In light of this we rightly conclude that to live eternally man whose flesh is weak (cf. Rom. 7:14) must either keep the law which promises life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.) or live by faith (John 3:16, etc.).

 

The Bondage of Death and Corruption

Since man as a creature derives from a creation that is inherently temporal (2 Cor. 4:18), destructible and corruptible (Ps. 102:25-27, etc.), he is trapped by nature (cf. Luke 21:34). Escape is therefore paramount. However, since like Adam he proves incapable of keeping the law so as to gain (eternal) life, he is shut up to faith in Christ precisely as God always intended (cf. Eph. 1:4f.; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2). Apart from Christ who is his life-line, he is foredoomed to failure (Rom. 3:19f.). It should be noted here that even Jesus, the Man, himself escaped, first, by gaining life at his baptism indicating the universal need for regeneration by keeping the law (Lev. 18:5, cf. John 3:3-7) and, second, by being transformed at his ascension (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50-53). In this way he became our pioneer into heaven itself (Heb. 12:2) where he is seated at God’s right hand (Rev. 3:21).

 

The Bondage of Youth

But there was another matter of supreme importance which the churches under the influence of Augustinian tradition even in the twenty-first century seem to miss. Sin is not the only problem. (2* See further my Not Only But Also.) Paul points out in Galatians 4:1-3 that before being held captive by the law of Moses, which did not really come into effect until a Jewish boy reached the age of 13 or his bar mitzvah when he became a son of the commandment, a child was no different from a slave. Even though he was potentially the owner of the estate, as a minor he was enslaved under guardians, managers and the elementary principles of the world (Gal. 4:3) until the date set by his father. Even the Lord Jesus, recapitulating the experience of his forefathers, endured bondage in Egypt irrespective of sin (Mt. 2:15). In other words, like his fathers especially Abraham he was heathen before he was truly Jewish. Needless to say, as Luke 2:51 indicates, he remained submissive to his parents so long as he remained under the law (cf. Ex. 20:12). (It is worth noting that despite recognizing that his first allegiance was to his heavenly Father, as truly man in accordance with the law he submitted to the dictates of the law as his Father required, Luke 2:49).

So what Paul is in fact teaching the Gentile Galatians in 4:1-7 is that we all begin our conscious life as heathen under the covenant with Noah (cf. Acts 14:16f.), then, if we are Jews, we continue it under the law of Moses. Finally, when through faith in Christ we receive the Spirit of Christ we are called to live as adopted sons, and as such we are heirs of the estate (4:7, cf. Rom. 8:17). To express the issue yet more appositely, as sons and heirs we are free (Gal. 4:31, cf. Rom. 8:21) belonging to the Jerusalem that is above on the one hand (Gal. 4:26, cf. Phil. 3:20) and destined to share the glory of God on the other (Rom. 8:21, cf. v.30).

 

Bondage to Sin, Death and the Devil

In 1 Corinthians 15:56 Paul tells us that the law is the power of sin that leads to death (1 Cor. 15:56). In light of this assertion and others such as Romans 6:23 and Hebrews 2:14f., it is easy to assume that all death is the wages of sin and the work of the devil. But can this view be upheld? Can it be shown that sin is always in evidence? To answer this question we need to go back to Genesis 1-3 to Adam and Eve and the plan of salvation which has been so profoundly misunderstood by the churches which are still governed by the thinking of Augustine of Hippo. He saw things differently and, obsessed with sin, assumed that all bondage including death stemmed from sin. There is good reason, however, for believing that the Bible presents us with another scenario.

 

The Augustinian Worldview

According to Augustine and those who have accepted his views since, God brought into being a perfect creation which was intended to be subject to the dominion of a perfect, holy, righteous and even immortal Adam and Eve. However, despite their high moral standing first Eve, then Adam ‘fell’ into sin and dragged the whole creation down with them (Gen. 3). Thus because of human sin the earth lies permanently under the sentence of God’s curse. This, it is claimed, is the explanation of the death and corruption which we see and experience even today. Furthermore, this state of affairs is made worse by continuing murder, violence, rape and plunder perpetrated by man who as the offspring of Adam and Eve is born a sinner. It is yet further claimed that even animals are killed for food against the express intention of the God who created them. But can this scenario be justified? Since there is so much evidence suggesting something different, we must look at the issue a little more closely. But let us begin at the beginning.

 

Our First Parents

First, in the second chapter of the Bible, since Adam and Eve, while initially ignorant of the commandment and good and evil, are threatened with death if they eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, the inference we are forced to draw is that they are naturally mortal but promised (eternal) life if they keep the commandment (Gen. 2:16f.). This is borne out by what Paul says in Romans 7:9-10 where he maintains that the commandment he as a son of Adam first received as a child presumably through his parents, when the (parental) commandment (cf. Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20, etc.) first dawned on his developing mind and promised him life. What does he mean? Clearly, if he was already ‘alive’ as Adam originally had been, the life promised was eternal life which he obviously did not have. So the conclusion we are compelled to draw from this is that our first parents and all their children who were born in their image (cf. Gen. 5:1-3) were created naturally mortal and corruptible. If this is so, they were in dire need of a way of escape and this was only possible by keeping the commandment(s) as the frequently repeated teaching of Leviticus 18:5 constantly affirms.

 

The Bondage of Creation

If this is true and humankind is prone to death by nature, then sheer logic leads us inexorably to acknowledge the fact that the source of their nature, that is the earth from which they are taken (Gen. 2:7; Ps. 78:39; 103:14, etc.), is also naturally corruptible and destructible. This we might have been inferred from the fact that in contrast with the eternal Creator creation had a beginning and an end. This view is supported, first, by Genesis 1:1, and, second, by the threat of cataclysmic destruction by the flood and recognition that the covenant with Noah only endures to the end of the world (Gen. 8:22, cf. Isa. 54:9f.).

Now if these inferences are true we must expect them to be supported by other teaching expressly dealing with them in the rest of the Bible. Hebrews 1:10-12 which involves quotations from the OT certainly suggests that creation is naturally corruptible or subject to decay by divine decree. The expression “the work of your hands” (usually cheiropoietos) is always used pejoratively in Scripture in contrast with “not made by hand” (acheiropoietos) as Hebrews 9:11,24, for example, indicate. Now if man stems from a corruptible earth, it surely follows as night follows day that he also is naturally subject to decay or ageing. He too is manufactured or “made by hand’ (cf. Isa. 45:11f.). In other words, sin does not figure: in principle it is entirely irrelevant to the issue.

 

Romans 8:18-25

The same conclusion must be drawn from Romans 8:18-25 where Paul differentiates between the present age and that which is to come (v.18, cf. Luke 20:34-36; 2 Cor. 4:17f.). Contrary to much traditional teaching in which Genesis 3:15-19 is gratuitously and arbitrarily inferred, the bondage to decay of both creation and its creature has nothing whatsoever to do with sin. And the idea that the creation (as opposed to the creature) is going to be set free from its bondage to decay and enjoy the freedom of the children of God is as false as it is absurd. (3* For more detail, see my Romans 8:18-25.)

 

Romans 6:23, etc.

So it is important at this point to re-examine Romans 6:23 on the basis of which many have taught that sin is the universal cause of death and that it did not exist until Adam sinned. (4* On this see my Death Before Genesis 3, A Double Helping.) It should be noticed first that sin is defined as transgression of the law (commandment) as James 2:9-11 and 1 John 3:4, for example, indicate. Furthermore, it is a work which earns the wages of death. The problem is that animals do not know the law apart from which there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15), yet they nonetheless die like the Israelites who fed on manna (John 6:49). Like the creation itself (Heb. 1:11) they are naturally, that is, by creation prone to ageing and hence to death (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 8:13). So far as man is concerned sin becomes a problem because it prevents the realization of the promise of eternal life which is suspended on obedience or keeping the law (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). Since in the event all who receive the law cannot keep it, all die (cf. Rom. 5:12). Does this mean then that death cannot be overcome? Not at all! Jesus alone of all human beings that ever lived kept the law while he was in the flesh (Rom. 8:3, cf. Heb. 2:14f.) and gained (eternal) life. This is made evident by his baptism when, having pleased his Father while under the law, he received the Spirit (Mt. 3:13-17, cf. Gal. 3:2,5) which remained on him (John 1:32f.). (5* What ‘remains’ is of fundamental importance in Scripture. See e.g. 2 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 1:11; 12:27. While the earth and the flesh which derives from it, 2 Cor. 5:1, are destroyed, the spiritual remains forever.) This means that Jesus alone was perfectly qualified to atone for man’s sin and to serve as man’s Saviour as God always intended (Acts 4:12). Before God no ordinary man (flesh) will boast (1 Cor. 1:29) except in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:31).

 

Conclusion

I conclude then that all visible material things (Rom. 1:20) are by nature, that is, apart from sin, in bondage to decay (Heb. 1:11) and destruction (Heb. 1:12;12:27). They are naturally impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18) and ultimately futile. That is the way they were created, but ‘in hope’ (Rom. 8:20,24f., cf. 1 Pet. 1:3f.). Even the sinless Jesus who overcame death but remained flesh (Luke 24:39, cf. John 20:17) still had to be changed in order to ascend into heaven (1 Cor. 15:51-55). His incarnation had to be reversed if he was to inherit the eternal blessings of David (Acts 13:34) and to regain the glory he had with the Father before the world began (John 17:5,24). For just as he alone as flesh gained life (was necessarily born again) by keeping the law (Lev. 18:5), so as flesh he had to be changed because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. John 8:35 and Gal. 4:30). Not surprisingly, both immortality and incorruption, which were natural necessities that man at his creation did not possess, were uniquely accomplished and brought to light in him who did not personally sin (2 Tim. 1:10). And this ensured that the rest of his brethren could share these divine attributes (1 Cor. 15:53, cf. Heb. 2:11-13). In plain language, our acquisition of the generic nature (the incorruption and immortality) and moral holiness of God is accomplished in Christ. This was the intention from the start for those made potentially in the divine image.

 

Summary

To sum up, our bondage to creation, to creaturely (fleshly) corruption, to law, to sin and hence to death necessitates that we embrace Christ as a new husband. Once we have him we can begin new and permanent life in the Spirit (Rom. 7:6). In this way we become new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15)* and when finally transformed fitted for heaven and the presence of God.

* To translate these verses (and Romans 8:21) as ‘creation’ may be formally correct but it is nonetheless highly misleading. It is people that are saved, regenerated, adopted, etc., not creation which being naturally transient was destined for destruction from the start (Gen.1:1; Isa. 51:6; 54:10; Zeph. 1:18; 3:8; Mt. 24:29, 35; 28:20; Luke 17:29f.; Rom. 8:20; Heb. 1:10-12; 6:7f.; 8:13; 12:26-29; 2 Pet. 2:6; 3:5-12, etc.).

Note the contrast between John 3:16 (world=people) and 1 John 2:15-17 (world=creation) and see my The Transience of Creation; The Destruction of the Material Creation.  Note also the natural necessities of John 3:7 and 1 Corinthians 15:53 underlined in my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.

 

 

Baptism And Identification

Paedobaptists following Augustine of Hippo traditionally believe that the primary reason for embracing infant baptism is original sin. Briefly put, since a baby is born sinful, it must be born again or it cannot be saved. To be born again it must be baptized. Augustine claimed that all unbaptized babies go to hell. Why? Because they inherited Adam’s sin by procreation and ‘carnal concupiscence’, and as sinners ‘in Adam’ they merit (!) the wages of death (Rom. 5:12). By contrast, Jesus who was born of the Virgin Mary avoided the entail of transmitted sin. The basic position is somewhat oddly expressed by a professing Protestant dealing with the Virgin Birth as follows: “You are the child of an earthly father, so you were ‘born in sin’. But Jesus was the child of a heavenly Father, so He broke the genetic cycle of sin before He was born … .Since Jesus had neither inherited sin nor practised sin, He qualifies as ‘…the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ (John 1:29 NAS)” (UCB Bible Study Notes, The Word for Today, 25 Dec. 2011).

Many Protestants are not happy with this scenario and point out that the Bible fails to relate Jesus’ sinlessness to his Virgin birth. With good reason they are less than sure that sin is transmitted sexually like a disease and argue for the imputation of Adam’s sin. (1* See e.g. John Murray’s ‘The Imputation of Adam’s Sin’.) Like Catholics they nonetheless insist that babies are born sinners and appeal, wrongly in my view, to verses like Psalm 51:5 and Romans 5:12. (2* On this see espec. Alec Motyer’s ‘Look To The Rock’, pp.130-135. For a contrary view see my various articles on original sin.)

The Baptism of Jesus

Given these presuppositions, paedobaptists are confronted with a big problem. They recognize correctly that Jesus was not a sinner but that he was baptized and what is more by John whose baptism clearly related to sinners (Mark 1:4). (3* Astonishingly, it has been held by some that Jesus inherited ‘fallen’ human nature, e.g. Irving, Barth, Barrett, etc. See e.g. D.Macleod, Jesus is Lord, p.107ff. This demonstrates how radically the false Augustinian worldview has been embraced by the church. See my The Biblical Worldview, Worldview.) This does not appear to make sense, so they are forced to try and find a reason. The answer they usually give is that by being baptized Jesus identified with sinners. (4* Even baptists make the same assertion. See, for example, Carson, p.108, H.D.McDonald, p.62. The latter pointedly adds that the voice from heaven confirms Jesus’ identification with very God.) But is this a reasonable answer? Passages like Matthew 3:13-17 appear to point in a different direction. They suggest that far from identifying with sinners in John’s baptism of repentance, Jesus is actually bent on separating or differentiating himself from them. Even John repudiates the suggestion that Jesus should identify himself with him. After all, he had earlier referred to Jesus as the one who takes away the sin of the world and would baptize with the Spirit (John 1:29-34). Not unreasonably then he suggests that he should be baptized by Jesus rather than vice versa. Jesus does not deny this. But the question we have to answer is: Why does Jesus overrule his objection and ask him to go ahead and baptize him? The answer that Jesus gives is that it is fitting or right to fulfil all righteousness. (5* Cf. Heb. 2:10. The expression ‘it is fitting’ though superficially anaemic seems to imply necessity like the Greek ‘dei’ in John 3:7 and 1 Cor. 15:53. In fact, in Heb. 7:26f., cf. NIV, there is a virtual antithesis between our need and Jesus’ lack of need. In light of this I believe, contrary to France, p.120, that the need to fulfil all righteousness like the need to be born again as such refers to the general purpose of God and is not confined to Jesus and John. Cf. my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.) What does he mean? The answer surely lies in the recognition that a legal righteousness gained under the law in the flesh, though meeting the condition of eternal life, is inadequate (Heb. 7:11,18f.; 8:7f., cf. 2 Cor. 3:6; John 6:63). It falls short of the perfection for which Jesus is aiming (Mt. 5:48; 19:21; Luke 13:32, cf. Heb. 6:1; 7:11, etc.). If he is to become the righteousness, sanctification and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30) of his disciples, he needs to be sanctified in truth for their sake (John 17:17,19). In other words, Jesus is not asking John to baptize him in relation to repentance and forgiveness (Mark 1:4) but to play an instrumental role in an action about to be performed by God himself.

The Work of God

Given that John’s baptism of repentance did not apply to Jesus who had no sins to repent of, it is vital for us to be aware of and appreciate the significance of this divine action. First, God does something then, second, he says something. He begins by pouring out his Spirit on Jesus (v.16), then goes on to say (explain?), first, that Jesus is his beloved Son. What does he mean? Is he simply saying that he, God, loves him because Jesus is his Son by (the Virgin) birth? Perhaps. Certainly this cannot be dismissed as irrelevant (cf. Hos. 11:1). At the very least he is acknowledging Jesus as his Son. But there seems to be more involved because, second, he goes on to say that he is well pleased with him. Why? In view of the plan of salvation there can only be one reasonable answer. As man, Jesus has kept the law which was the precondition of life (Lev. 18:5, etc.). Prior to his coming all men and women from the time of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17, cf. Rom. 7:9f.) had signally failed to do this (1 Sam. 8:8; 1 K. 8:46; Eccles. 7:20; Rom. 3:9f., etc.). So though a true man born of woman and through her a son of Adam (Luke 3:38), Jesus was unique. Having perfectly kept the law which was the test of life (Ex. 15:25; 16:4; 20:20, etc.) and inherited the promise, he was not merely God’s Son by natural or physical birth, that is, by creation (cf. Heb. 10:5) but also by spiritual rebirth. In other words, his baptism confirmed his sonship. If Jesus had demonstrated his pedigree (who he was) by his performance (what he did), his Father acknowledged it and blessed him accordingly. In common parlance, we might say that God confirmed him as a chip off the old block. He was the genuine article, a true-born and not a bastard son. The same can hardly be said of us, though even we have been legitimized or naturalized (cf. Heb. 12:8f.)!

The Real Baptizer

If it is again pointed out that it was John the Baptist who baptized Jesus, we have to agree. But as we have seen, even John himself realized that there was something odd about this (v.14). This was no ordinary baptism. So, how do we explain it? The truth is that at Jesus’ behest John was simply playing the role of a human agent performing an external rite using water which signified a divine action (cf. Ezek. 36:26f.), that is, God’s baptism of his obedient Son with the Spirit. In plain language this means regeneration. The latter is something that John admitted he himself was incapable of on the one hand (Mark 1:7f.) and needed Jesus to accomplish for him on the other (Mt. 3:14). The same holds for all who administer baptism throughout subsequent history. In fact, John’s role in the baptism of Jesus is a prime illustration of the fact that man cannot baptize with the Spirit (though compare Acts 8:14-24). So the idea that a priest can achieve baptismal regeneration is undermined precisely by John’s baptism of Jesus. All man can do is perform the outward ceremony; only God can regenerate (cf. John 1:13; 3:5-8). So, whereas John performed the visible external rite for Jesus, God performed the normally invisible spiritual baptism (cf. Col. 2:11-14). We thus infer that as the last of the OT prophets John provided a vital link between old and new covenants in the progressive and varied history of salvation. He was privileged to perform the first Christian baptism marking the end of Jesus’ stint under the law of his minority and his initiation into the new creation of his majority, his career under the leading of the Spirit (1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6; 6:15, cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). Almost needless to say, this inevitably involved the enhancement or radicalization of the law in the Sermon on the Mount, in what became for his disciples after Pentecost the new covenant code of conduct (cf. Jer. 31:31-34).

So Jesus, far from identifying with John and sinners in general, was in fact distancing himself from him and initiating a new era or dispensation, the prelude to a new covenant.

Covenant Theology
The truth of this is evident from Matthew 11:11 where Jesus, though freely acknowledging John as the greatest among those born of (fleshly) women (6* This assertion in itself indicates that Jesus, whom even John had earlier recognized as being greater than himself, was separating himself from those merely born of women and implying his own spiritual rebirth.) explicitly denies that he is in the kingdom of heaven. And John himself apparently recognized this (Mt. 3:14). By contrast, Jesus, having met the condition of life by keeping old covenant law (Dt. 30:20; 32:46f., Ezek. 20:11,13,21, etc.), is now no longer captive to the law (cf. Gal. 3:23-29) but is led by the Spirit which has remained on him (John 1:32; 6:27). Bluntly, he is born again in accordance with the promise made to all who keep the law (Lev. 18:5). Now his task is to go beyond the law, fulfil all righteousness (v.15), inaugurate the kingdom of God on earth, live out the Sermon on the Mount, make atonement for his people and attain to the perfection of God (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 1:3). To put the issue yet another way, by being baptized with the Spirit Jesus becomes the first ‘Christian’ (cf. Heb. 2:11-13), the prototypical model or paradigm of all future Christians who are also born of God (John 1:13) and are baptized with the Spirit (John 3:3-8; Rom. 8:9). The basic identity or unity of Jesus’ spiritual or regenerational baptism with that of believers at Pentecost is there for all to see. And it is underlined from a somewhat different perspective by the author of Hebrews who considers all the spiritually reborn including Jesus as constituting one family (2:11-13, cf. Rom. 8:29). Jesus is not simply our Saviour; he is our elder brother and we are joint-heirs with him (Rom. 8:17,32).

Empowerment

Paedobaptists rightly argue that when Jesus was baptized, he was being prepared and empowered for his ministry as the Messiah. But this prompts the question as to what was involved. In John 1:32 in highly significant words John had said that he saw the Spirit descending on Jesus from heaven and remaining on him. This surely indicates that from this point on Jesus is no longer under the law but is spiritually born from above and led by the Spirit. He has received the fullness of God’s empowering presence (cf. Gordon Fee’s fine book under this title) and is now qualified to see to the salvation of others (cf. Acts 10:38). Is not this precisely what is said about believers in Christ who are no longer under law but are born again and led by the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 6:14; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6; Gal. 5:18; 6:15)? It is generally acknowledged that regeneration means being born again or, alternatively, being born from above. When we truly believe and are justified by faith, we receive eternal life as Jesus himself indicated in John 3:16. Following or recapitulating the pattern established by Jesus, in the words of Paul we receive the Spirit as he did (Gal. 3:1-5). As sinners justified by faith we are baptized and so publicly identify with Jesus (cf. Rom. 10:10), our elder brother and pioneer (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11-13). When Jesus was baptized, he did not identify with either John or us since he was not a sinner; rather he identified with (the purpose of) God who was his real baptizer. (7* Carson, p.108, is surely right to say, “By his baptism Jesus affirms his determination to do his assigned work”.) As Paul expresses the issue in Romans 6:3-7 we are baptized (identified or united with him) into his death (as the Israelites were baptized into Moses at the Exodus, 1 Cor. 10:2) so as to be identified or united with him in his resurrection (2 Cor. 4:14). In Galatians 3:26-29, the stress is again on our identification with Christ, not his identification with us. Just as Christ having achieved righteousness under the law received the ‘remaining’ Spirit at his baptism (John 1:32), so we who are declared righteous through faith in him (justification by faith) receive the Spirit at our baptism. In this way we are identified with him, not he with us. This would appear to be virtually proved when we consider that to receive Christ who is a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45, cf. John 5:26) is to receive the Spirit (Gal. 4:3-7) as he did from his Father. And if we lack the Spirit we do not belong to him (Rom. 8:9). (The pattern is somewhat similar to that of the word in Revelation 1:1f. where there are five movements: from God to Jesus to angel to writer to readers. In baptism the Spirit moves from God to Jesus, to apostles to believers to God’s sons or children).

Summary

Jesus was the first and only man in the entire history of the race to keep the law to his Father’s satisfaction (Mark 1:11; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22, etc.). By doing so, he uniquely met the precondition of (eternal) life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). Therefore he was baptized with the Spirit (=born again) in accordance with God’s promise, not by John the Baptist who merely performed an external rite with water as usual, but by God himself. The baptism of Jesus showed two things: first, God acknowledged and confirmed him as his own Son, and, second, Jesus identified with the purpose of God in the salvation of all those associated with him or regarded as being in him. So when we are baptized as Christians we identify with Jesus and like him are born again. How can we as sinners do this? By repentance and being justified (accounted righteous) by faith. Just as Jesus’ natural sonship, that is, his incarnation was confirmed when he was baptized (cf. Rom. 1:4), so our physical creation is confirmed by adoption when we are baptized. (It is perhaps helpful to remember at this point that whereas John (the apostle) tends to stress our new birth and refer to believers as the children of God, Paul tends to underline our sonship and refer to us as sons.) The whole point is that just as Jesus was born again, so are we; just as Jesus was a Son, the Son, so are we adopted sons in him. He is our elder brother, the author of our life, our pioneer, trail-blazer, leader, perfecter and Saviour (Luke 1:47; 2:11; Acts 3:14f.; 4:12; 5:31; 13:23; Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Heb. 2:9-13; 6:20; 12:2, etc.). We identify with him, not he with us. He was the prototype, we like Adam are types (cf. Rom. 5:14). That is why we are called ‘Christians’.

Jesus Identified With His People

It may be complained that in denying the paedobaptist position I am not taking the identification of Jesus with his people seriously. This is hardly true. First, Jesus clearly identified with humanity in his incarnation; he was the second Adam, not the first. He conformed to or recapitulated an already established pattern and, like all Eve’s children (Gen. 3:20), he was born of woman (Gal. 4:4). By nature then he had to be made like us in every respect (Heb. 2:14a,17a). As Peter says, it was only in his avoidance of sin that he differed from us (1 Pet. 2:22, cf. Heb. 4:15). Secondly, as Paul indicates he was not only born of woman but also under the law (Gal. 4:4). (We should not forget that like his forebears he was under Noah in Egypt, Mt. 2:15) Since God’s promise of eternal life was originally made to Adam as man on condition of keeping the commandment (Gen. 2:17, cf. Rom. 7:9f.), so it was made to Jesus on the same basis. To serve as the second Adam Jesus initially had to be identified with the first Adam and all the rest of his fleshly offspring. In plain language, despite his natural equality with God, he had to be made incarnate (cf. Phil. 2:6-8) and as such live under the law of Moses. If he had not been incarnate, he could not have made atonement for us (Heb. 2:17b, cf. 1 John 2:2; 4:10). It was as one of us that he defeated sin in the flesh (cf. Rom. 8:3). In fact, Paul goes even further and asserts that in atoning for our sin, he was actually made sin (2 Cor. 5:21). Having said this, however, we must recognize that in his baptism where sin, despite John’s initial reaction, is not the issue, he separated himself from us and indeed from John himself as the latter apparently came to realize. While he was on earth Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God and raided the devil’s domain (cf. Mt. 12:28). John, however, even though he was the appointed forerunner or herald of Jesus, doubted and had to be told on one occasion to open his eyes to the evidence (Luke 7:22f., cf. John 3:3). On another occasion Jesus tells us in memorable words that even though John was a burning and shining light (John 5:35) he was not in this heavenly kingdom (Mt. 11:11). How come? Though he was the greatest of the old covenant prophets, the new covenant was not established until after he had finished his course (Acts 13:25). In fact, it could not be so until Jesus had been crucified, raised and the Spirit poured out at Pentecost to apply his atoning work to believers. The plain truth is that if Jesus had not been born again and led by the Spirit, he could not have achieved what he did (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38, cf. Eph. 2:10). So long as he was under the imperfect law, he could not have perfected anything (Heb. 7:11,18f.). He could fulfil all righteousness only under the Spirit (Mt. 3:15; 19:21) and we only in him.

Righteousness and Exclusion from John’s Baptism

It is interesting to observe that whereas the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the baptism of John, that is, refused to be identified with him because they mistakenly believed in their own righteousness (Luke 7:30, cf. 20:1-8), John himself initially repudiates the suggestion that Jesus should be baptized by and identified with him precisely because he is all too well aware that Jesus is not a sinner in need of repentance but that he really is righteous. It is he, John himself, who needs to be baptized by Jesus. However, he allows himself to be overruled when he realizes that something else is afoot. Before he baptizes others, Jesus himself as man needs to be baptized by God. After all, he confesses freely that apart from his Father he can do nothing (John 5:19; 8:28).

Summary of Identification

1. When Jesus was made flesh at his incarnation, he identified with man (Heb. 2:14a,17a).

2. When Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day and at the age of thirteen became a Son of the Commandment, he identified with all Jewish men who were in bondage to the law (cf. Gal. 3:23).

3. When Jesus went to Egypt (Mt. 2:15), he identified with his forebears in heathen bondage (cf. Gal. 4:1f.).

4. When Jesus was made sin in the atonement (2 Cor. 5:21), he identified with all believers. He died for his sheep (John 10).

As Irenaeus indicated long ago, Jesus became what we are so that we might become what he is. Alternatively expressed, Jesus had to be identified with us so that we might be identified with him.

5. At his baptism, however, far from identifying himself with unregenerate sinners*, Jesus separated himself from them as John apparently realized when he said he needed to be baptized by Jesus. At this point Jesus became the leader or pioneer, not a follower, in the new order or dispensation. By our own baptism as Gentiles, we sinners identify both with the repentance of John the Baptist and the reception of the Spirit (eternal life) of Jesus. In our case, conversion (repentance and faith) symbolized by John’s water baptism precedes regeneration symbolized by Jesus’ Spirit baptism as old covenant precedes new covenant. As Paul says, in baptism we clothe ourselves with Christ (Gal. 3:27). Just as the regenerate Son called God his Father, so do we as his regenerate children (Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:5-7).

* The notion sometimes touted that Jesus’ baptism indicated a proxy or vicarious repentance is fundamentally unbiblical. First, there is no evidence for it. Secondly, repentance and faith like sin are always personal and cannot be transferred (e.g. Ex. 32:33; Dt. 24:16; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18). If this were not so, all irrespective of their sin would be saved. The Bible does not teach universalism.

6. Just as we identify with Jesus’ in baptism and new life, so we identify with his death in the Lord’s Supper. In vivid metaphorical language, we eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6) and are baptized into his death (Rom. 6:4f.). If his death was ours, ours was his (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 5:24). There was undeniable interchange (2 Cor. 5:21).

7. Just as Jesus identified with us in a physical or natural body of dust (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14,17), so we identify with him in a spiritual body of glory (1 Cor. 15:45-49; Phil. 3:21).

The New Birth a ‘Natural’ and Universal Necessity

In contrast with the sin-obsessed Augustine, in John 3:3-7 Jesus deals exclusively with our fleshly unregenerate nature. Sin is not mentioned, but flesh emphatically is. To intrude sin into this passage is to indulge in an exegetical fallacy. (8* This is not to deny that regeneration is the first step and plays a defining role in the sanctification of sinners as Ephesians 2:1-5 and Titus 3:3-7 demonstrate. Tragically, Augustine never got over his days as a Manichee. The Manichees believed that the flesh along with all matter was evil as such.) What does Jesus mean by flesh? Clearly he means our natural unregenerate condition as human beings born of woman (cf. v.4; Mt. 11:11) and normally by the will of man (cf. John 1:12f.). What Jesus is saying in language that can hardly be mistaken is that all who are flesh or born of woman cannot see and enter the kingdom of God or go to heaven unless they are born again from above. Since he also was flesh and born of woman the same necessarily applied to him. (9* See again my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.) Denial of this is docetism. (10* It might be objected at this point that Jesus makes an exception of himself because he says in verse 7 that “you (plur.) must be born from above,” NRSV. In reply two basic points must be made. First, in verses 3 and 5 Jesus says no one (lit. except anyone) can either see or enter. This clearly includes himself, or, as Berkhof says, “leaves no room for exceptions”, p.472. Secondly, if what has been argued above is true, even if Jesus is by implication making an exception of himself in verse 7, he is doing so for the simple reason that he is already born from above and has been plainly acknowledged and confirmed as the Son of God. It is now incumbent on his hearers to recognize the necessity of their own regeneration as John had done, Mt. 3:14.) If there is earth or this present age, there is also heaven or what for us is the age to come. If there is a natural birth, there is also a second or spiritual or supernatural birth (John 3:6). This is confirmed by Paul who states in 1 Corinthians 15:44 that there are two sorts of body, the first physical or natural adapted to life on earth, the second spiritual adapted to life in heaven. Our problem in this provisional, temporal world is how to escape and get to heaven (cf. Rom. 2:7,10, etc.). If we cannot keep the law (cf. Rom. 3:19f.), Jesus is the only answer (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Gal. 2:16, etc.).

Matthew 3:13-17: Exegesis and Exposition

Assuming that a text without a context is often no more than a pretext, it is important to establish that the context of this particular passage is the rest of the Bible. So the question we must ask is what the rest of the Bible is saying. What, in other words, is the plan of salvation?

The Plan of Salvation

To cut a long story short, man, in contrast with the rest of the animal creation, is not merely dust, and therefore by nature ephemeral, but is also made in the image of God. As such he is promised eternal life if he keeps the commandment (Gen. 2:17). Adam, the first man, fails and sins, likewise all his posterity (1 K. 8:46; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:23, etc.). All to the very last man and woman sin and earn wages in death (Rom. 6:23, etc.). No one under the old covenant kept the law and gained life (cf. Rom. 1-3). It is into this world of universal sin and death that Jesus comes. Though he is like all other men and women in every respect, he alone keeps the law, does not sin (1 Pet. 2:22) and so inherits the promise of eternal life (Lev. 18:5, etc.). However, he did not come into this world simply to demonstrate that he could keep the law; he came to save the world, or more specifically, all who put their trust in him (John 3:16, etc.).

As long as he himself was under the law, his purpose was to ‘save’ or justify himself, and he was in no position to help other people. To do the latter, he had to have eternal life himself. You can’t give to others what you don’t have yourself. So when he came to John for baptism, he certainly did not come to confess his sins. Even John realized that, for he himself had already declared, first, that his baptism was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4), second, that there was one who mightier than he coming after him who would baptize not with water but with the Spirit (Mark 1:7f.), and, third, that Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Given these facts, Jesus’ request seems wrong-headed as John himself realizes (3:14). On the one hand John recognizes Jesus does not need to repent and on the other that he himself needs to be baptized with the Spirit. What he apparently does not realize, however, is that even Jesus as man needs to be baptized with the Spirit of God before he is in a position to baptize anyone else. But there is more to it than that.

Jesus The Saviour

To qualify as Saviour, Jesus had not only to earn the approbation of his Father under the law (Mt. 3:17), but also under the Spirit (Mt. 17:5). His baptism by John then was but the beginning of his odyssey preparing him for service as the Saviour of others (cf. Mark 10:45; Acts 10:38). He had in his own words to fulfil all righteousness as he was led by the Spirit. Otherwise expressed, he had to attain to the perfection of the God who loved the world (Mt. 5:48; 19:21). But this was impossible under the law (Heb. 7:18f.; 8:7). It was not until Jesus had completed the work that his Father had given him to do (John 17:4; 19:30, cf. Luke 13:32), ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of his Father (cf. Heb. 1:3) that he was able to apply his work of salvation to those who put their faith in him. He did this by pouring out his Spirit on his people (pace the Orthodox) who were justified by faith just as God had poured out his Spirit on himself at his own baptism.

Jesus’ Baptism

Having overcome what in the circumstances were his natural objections, John is now prepared to baptize Jesus. But as the events that follow clearly indicate his baptism has nothing directly to do with sin or sinners. For God first pours out his Spirit on Jesus (=gives him the eternal life originally promised to Adam, Gen. 2:17, and all his posterity, Lev. 18:5; Mt. 19:16, on condition of keeping the commandment), second, designates Jesus as his Son, and third, declares that he is well pleased with him. (This is arguably a misleading way of expressing the issue. It is perhaps better to regard points two and three as one. Having pleased God by keeping the law Jesus was confirmed as God’s Son, that is, by spiritual re-birth or birth from above, cf. Ps. 2:7; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; Rom. 1:4. This is not adoptionism and a denial of the Virgin birth but recognition of the intrinsic difference between physical and spiritual birth which pervades the Scriptures.) Had he not been born again, acknowledged and confirmed as God’s Son, Jesus would have proved a fraud. What in the OT was never more than a promise (Dt. 29:4; 30:6; Jer. 31:31-34) is in the NT realized and epitomized in Jesus. Only in Jesus can we have eternal life (John 3:16; 10:28; 14:6; 1 John 4:9) and so be saved (Acts 4:12).

Points To Ponder

Jesus’ Baptism and Our Salvation

If Jesus had identified himself with sinners at his baptism, he could not have saved them. It would have been like asking a blind man to save another blind man (cf. Mt. 15:14). Rather it was precisely because he was NOT identified with them that as the regenerate Son of God he was enabled to save them, that is, by atonement. We do not believe in autosoterism. Our salvation is all of grace.

Covenant Theology

If Jesus progressed from conception to birth of woman and lived, first, under the covenant with Noah like the heathen (nature, uncircumcision), then, second, under the law of Moses after his bar mitzvah (like the Jews, circumcision), he must logically have completed his human pilgrimage as a regenerate Son under the Spirit (Gal. 6:15). Surely this is the implication of Leviticus 18:5 and is spelt out by Paul in Galatians 4:1-7. If he had not followed this course to perfection (Luke 13:32 ESV, KJV), he could not have become our pioneer into heaven itself.

Traditional Docetism

The tragedy of traditional Christology is its inherent docetism. While the Bible goes out of its way to insist on Jesus’ genuine humanity even in his Virgin Birth (Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:14a,17a; 4:15; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7), our forebears tended to stress his deity and thus make him an exception. But exception implies exclusion. If Jesus was not a man, born of woman, under the law, in need of regeneration and transformation, he could not have been our Saviour. In the event, the only difference between him and us was that whereas he kept the law that promised life, we did not (cf. Rom. 9:31; 10:3). By God’s grace, however, we attain to righteousness and hence life by faith (Rom. 9:30).

It was in his incarnation and death that Jesus identified himself with sinners (2 Cor. 5:21), and paid their penalty! In his resurrection, sinners identify and rise with him (1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14).

Note

1. According to Jesus, regeneration is intrinsically necessary, not imperative, to man as man (John 3:1-8). Therefore as a man he himself had to be born again. As incarnate, he could not possibly have been an exception.

2. Under the law Jesus was in no position to die for others. First, if he had attempted to do so he would have been identified as a sinner since under the law death was the wages of sin. Second, only by keeping the law could he gain eternal life for himself (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5). Third, it is only as the regenerate Son who already had eternal life that he was in a position to give his flesh for the life of his friends (John 10:17f.; Col. 1:22, etc.). Only sons have something to give freely (Mt. 17:24-27; Eph. 2:10).

3. The inter-change of 2 Corinthians 5:21 (cf. 1 Peter 3:18) would have been impossible under the law. However, because he already had eternal life, he was able to take his fleshly life (psyche) again and rise from the grave never to die again (Rom. 6:9; Rev. 1:18). In freely spilling his blood, he had paid the penalty and achieved forgiveness of sins for all time (Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12,26).

________________________________________________

References

L.Berkhof, Systematic Theology, London, 1959.

D.A.Carson, EBC Matthew 1-12, Grand Rapids, 1995.

G.D.Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, Peabody, 1994.

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

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology 2, London, 1960.

D.Macleod, Jesus Is Lord, Fearn, 2000.

H.D.McDonald, The Atonement of the Death of Christ, Grand Rapids, 1985.

Alec Motyer, Look To The Rock, Leicester, 1996.

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

Note

Our forebears including the Reformers assumed that John 3:1-7 required infant baptism (cf. e.g. Hodge, 2, pp.242,247). According to Augustine all babies that were not baptized were damned. If this was true, John the Baptist who clearly was not baptized by Jesus was damned. How do we overcome this conundrum?

The answer lies in the plan of salvation and especially the order of salvation (ordo salutis). First, original sin is not taught in the Bible, so regeneration is not its antidote. Second, conversion precedes regeneration. As we have seen above, righteousness gained by keeping the law is the precondition of life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). Since all OT believers failed to keep the law, they were justified by faith. The reason why John the Baptist was not born again was that for chronological or historical reasons he never received the Spirit poured out by Jesus. While it is true that John was not truly saved in the new covenant sense of that term, that by no means permits us to infer that he was therefore damned. The Bible tells us that repentance and faith take precedence as the prerequisites of salvation. In contrast with regeneration which is wholly a work of God, they establish a degree of human responsibility without ever becoming the cause of salvation. Furthermore, by the grace and purpose of God they are relative thus broadening the scope or range of salvation as Hebrews 11, for example, makes clear. (See further my Cart-Before-The-Horse Theology; The Order of Salvation; The Order of Salvation in Romans.)

 

 

 

The Ecclesiastical Christ

My extensive reading and writing over a number of years have led me to believe that the traditional Jesus of the churches is docetic. This observation is occasionally made by others usually with regard to a particular doctrine, though I am unaware of anyone who has tried to demonstrate the issue in any detail. I believe, however, that the evidence for it is substantial.

Having recently (2013) written an essay entitled Still Docetic in reaction to a book by Professor Bruce Ware entitled The Man Christ Jesus (2013), I remain convinced that the problem is much more deeply rooted than most are aware. In the present essay I attempt to show even if somewhat superficially just how the traditional image of Christ is portrayed in the churches and in the text books.

Original Sin

First, it is often pointed out with reference to Hebrews 2:17 that Jesus was like his brothers in every respect apart from sin. The point being made is that he was a genuine human being. On the face of it this settles the issue: the only difference between Jesus and all his fellow human beings is that he did not sin. This would appear to be supported by such texts as Hebrews 4:15 (cf. 2:14,18) and 1 Peter 2:22. In contrast with Adam and the rest of us, we can say that Jesus was the obedient Son of God. He kept the law to perfection: the rest of us do not.

There is a problem, however. Historically, under the influence of Augustine of Hippo in particular, the church has strongly stressed the ‘Fall’ from original perfection, righteousness and holiness into sin, and this is said to have affected the whole of humanity along with creation in general. All the descendants of Adam are deemed to be sinful even from conception. (1* Cf. Ps. 51:5. This verse is not only frequently mistranslated assuming what needs to be proved, but almost universally misinterpreted by evangelical Christians. The Jews, followed by the Orthodox, have never drawn “Christian” conclusions from it, and with good reason. See further my various articles on original sin.) They are one and all the victims of original sin, sinful by nature and born under a curse. Given this assumption, Jesus too as the Son of Adam (Luke 3:38) through Mary his mother who rejoiced in God her Saviour (Luke 1:47) must have been born sinful. But this is emphatically denied by most Christians, and the Bible itself makes the position clear as we have already seen. However, on the assumption that original sin is true, a Jesus who was sinless at birth and different from all his fellows was clearly not human, and the conclusion we must draw from this is that he was docetic, definitely not like the rest of us. His exception by birth nature inevitably involves his exclusion: as an exception he was excluded from the human race, not genuinely part of it.

The question that confronts us now is: How do we overcome this problem? Tradition tells us that the first Adam was sinless as created and that Jesus replaces him. This, however, ignores the indisputable fact that Jesus had forebears including Adam himself (Luke 3:38) as Matthew 1:1-6, to go no further, indicates. God could not possibly begin again like a potter. To begin again with Jesus he would have to obliterate a substantial portion of previous history as Moses was fully aware (cf. Ex. 32:11-14; Num. 14:13-19). (See note 2 below.) Clearly the answer lies in the fact that the dogma of original sin is contrary to sound doctrine. It simply cannot be true, and the idea that the sin of Adam is either transmitted (Catholics) or imputed (Protestants) is foreign to the Bible. Apostolic teaching informs us that where there is no law there is no sin, that sin involves breaking the law and that moral attributes are not transferable except by faith. As Ezekiel 18 and Jeremiah 31:29f., for example, clearly indicate, they have to be acquired. We become murderers by murdering, adulterers by committing adultery, the slaves of sin by sinning (John 8:34), and so forth. (2* The much-touted idea that we sin because we are sinners by birth nature is clearly false. If we are born sinful in contrast with Adam, then God has made us such and we are blameless. The very idea is blasphemous. It makes God the author of sin. In any case, throughout the Bible God opposes the imputation of sin to those who do not sin, cf. Ex. 23:7; 1 K. 21; Prov. 17:15, etc.) On the one hand we are deemed righteous by keeping the law; on the other hand we are deemed unrighteous by not keeping it. But babies which do not know the law can neither keep it nor disobey it and are consequently innocent like Adam before he sinned by breaking the commandment when it eventually registered on his mind (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f., etc.). In Romans 7:9f. Paul clearly indicates that he recapitulated Adam and Eve’s experience. He was, he claims, once ‘alive’ but when the commandment came and he broke it, though it promised (eternal) life, he earned the wages of death (Rom. 6:23). And so with all of us apart from Jesus (Rom. 3:23; 5:12).

But, it will be said that Jesus was made sin (2 Cor. 5:21). He was indeed but only by faith. Just as we are justified (deemed righteous) by faith, so he who did not personally sin and earn its wages was accounted sinful by faith. (3* On this, see my An Exact Parallel?) He bore our sins on the tree voluntarily and vicariously. Why? Because in no other way could he save his fellows who all actually and willfully sinned and were doomed to die (Rom. 3:23; 5:12, etc.).

So, I conclude that the ecclesiastical Christ who was not born sinful as the rest of us are said to be is docetic. The only way to overcome the problem that this constitutes is to abandon the dogma of original sin. (4* See further my various articles on original sin including those on imputation) It is not and indeed cannot be true. The creeds, church tradition (apart from the Orthodox) and false exegesis, especially of Romans 5:12-21, have led us astray. A simple syllogism clarifies the situation:

  • First premise: According to the churches all human beings are born sinful.
  • Second premise: Jesus was not born sinful.
  • Therefore Jesus was not a human being.

On the assumption of original sin, I conclude that the ecclesiastical Jesus was docetic, not what he appeared to be.

The New Birth (Regeneration)

Closely associated with the dogma of original sin is the doctrine of regeneration. Perhaps the best known chapter in the Bible is John 3, yet I would argue it is among the worst understood. In verses 1-8 Jesus makes it clear beyond reasonable dispute that the new birth is not an imperative like repentance (Mark 1:15) but a natural necessity (Gk. dei) for all who are flesh. Since his incarnation made him flesh, by inexorable logic we must conclude that Jesus too had to be born again. As Wheeler Robinson once wrote: “… if regeneration be entrance into conscious sonship to God, we must regard regeneration as the normal and ‘natural’ completion of what was begun in the first birth” (p.327). (5* Jesus’ sonship requires brief explication. First, he was the Son of God like Adam by natural (physical) birth, Luke 3:38, cf. Mt. 2:15. Second, as the first and only human being ever to keep the law, in accordance with Leviticus 18:5, cf. Gen. 2:17, etc., and having thereby pleased his Father, he was confirmed as his Son by baptism of the Spirit (= was born again), Mt. 3:13-17. Third, he was further acknowledged as God’s Son at his transfiguration when God bore testimony to him, Mt. 17:1-8; 2 Pet. 1:17, then, fourth, at his resurrection, Acts 13:33. Finally, he was appointed or declared to be the Son of God in power at his ascension transformation, Acts 13:34; Rom. 1:4. Though the latter verse refers to his resurrection, it clearly involves the entire process of resurrection including his exaltation and heavenly session.)

So far as Jesus is concerned this conclusion is to my knowledge universally denied in the church. Why? The answer lies in the fact that quite unwarrantably the sin-obsessed Augustine of Hippo, who did so much to fashion church tradition, claimed that the new birth provided the cure for original sin, and since Jesus was not its victim, he did not need to be born again. As a consequence of this, anyone brave or rash enough to suggest that Jesus needed to be born again is immediately but quite wrongly accused of charging Jesus with sin! Yet if Jesus himself was truly flesh (note v.3) the ‘obvious’ truth is that he was born again at his baptism. It was he who in contrast with all his sinful forebears (1 K. 8:46; Eccl. 7:20, etc.) who brought life to light (2 Tim. 1:10).

As we have seen above, however, original sin is alien to the Bible. In fact, all human beings recapitulate the experience of their forebears of whom Adam and Eve were the first. In other words, we all begin at the beginning and mutatis mutandis recapitulate the history of the race. (Only the other day I heard on TV that this is one of the findings of modern geneticists!) Just as Adam lacking all knowledge of the law (commandment) was created knowing neither good nor evil, so are all his descendants (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.). Genesis 5:1-3 says nothing about sin and the notion that we are all created in the moral image of Adam (not to mention that of God) after he had sinned is simply false (cf. e.g. Ezek. 18, etc.). The fact is that original sin is a mythical not a real problem, a veritable mare’s nest which has led to all sorts of unnecessary and erroneous speculation about the Virgin Birth. In reality, Jesus did not avoid original sin by being born of a virgin – a solution which when subjected to critical analysis proves both false and inadequate. As the Son of God he simply did not sin and thereby proved his divine pedigree. He was, in common parlance, a chip off the old block, a true Son of his Father. If he had sinned, he would have proved an impostor.

Having said this, however, we must hastily add that as the Son of Mary he was made in Adam’s fleshly image (Luke 3:38) and as such he needed to be born again as a natural necessity. As a true human being he was in contrast with his Father both mortal and corruptible (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16, etc.). He had a natural or created spirit (cf. Num. 16:22; Zech. 12:1, etc.), but to enter the kingdom of heaven he had to have an eternal one of which God was the Father (John 1:12f.; Heb. 12:9). How, it may well be asked, did he acquire this? The answer is that he did it by keeping the law that all the rest of us failed to do. At the beginning, Adam was promised eternal life if he kept the commandment (Gen. 2:17). He failed. By contrast Jesus kept that commandment, indeed the entire law of Moses, and so inherited life in accordance with the promise (cf. Lev. 18:5). Prior to him no one, on account of sin (1 K. 8:46; Eccl. 7:20, etc.), was born again, and throughout the OT regeneration remained a promise which was never fulfilled (Dt. 29:4; 30:6; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 11:19f.). Jesus as the second Adam was the first to be born from above as his baptism makes plain. He was the leader of the band, of the new or regenerate humanity (cf. Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, etc.). Only he was in a position to establish the new covenant by his death. Had he not been born again, he would have remained forever under the law and under a permanent obligation to keep it. In this situation he would have been incapable of doing good works as opposed to works of obligation (Eph. 2:10; Acts 10:38), least of all of atoning for the sins of his fellows. As the author of Hebrews says, the law could not perfect anything (Heb. 7:18f.).

I conclude then that a Jesus who on his own testimony regarding the flesh (John 3:1-8) was not born again was not truly human. Though he apparently failed to appreciate the logic of his assertion, Louis Berkhof was dead right when he wrote regarding the new birth in John 3:3, cf. vv.5-7: “This statement of the Saviour is absolute and leaves no room for exceptions” (p.472). The Bible implies, even if it does not explicitly state, that Jesus was born again; but the churches traditionally deny it. The plain truth is that a once-born Jesus is not and cannot be our elder brother (Heb. 2:11-13) and trail-blazer into heaven (Heb. 6:19f.; 9:24; 10:19f.; 12:2, etc.). On this assumption, he is, like Adam, dead, permanently so as we shall see below, and we are still in our sins.

Jesus’ Fleshly Corruption and Transformation

Traditionally, following Augustine, the churches attribute both moral and physical corruption to sin. (6* Older writers like Ottley apparently attribute Jesus’ fleshly corruption to sin. He writes: “Christ is ‘flesh’, is ‘man’, morally such as he originally was, but physically such as sin has left him, i.e. subject to creaturely weakness, pain, temptation, and death, but sinless”, p.100, cf. pp.105,115.) But is this what the Bible teaches? Emphatically not. First, we must acknowledge the fact that Adam was created from the physically visible, temporary, provisional and hence corruptible earth (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.). This being the case he himself in contrast with his Maker was naturally mortal and corruptible. As we saw above, as such he was promised (eternal) life on condition that he kept the commandment. He did not, and so he died being paid the wages of sin. And the rest of us, Jesus apart, followed suit (Rom. 3:23; 5:12, etc.).

However, what would have happened to Adam if had not sinned? Jesus, the second Adam provides us with the answer. First, as we have seen, he did not sin, pleased his Father and so was born again (= gained eternal life). But this was a spiritual rebirth not a physical one as Nicodemus seemed to think. Second, this prompts questions regarding our physical flesh. Some even in the twenty-first century apparently believe that it can be transformed despite the fact that Paul dogmatically denies that flesh and blood and all that is perishable by nature can inherit the kingdom of God. They base their argument on the putative transformation resurrection of Jesus from the grave. This is clearly false. If Jesus was transformed at that point, his perishable flesh would have been imperishable and this contradicts Paul’s plain assertion in 1 Corinthians 15:50b. (7* On this, see, for example, my John Stott on the Putative Resurrection Transformation of Jesus, When Was Jesus Transformed?, etc.)

The truth is that the flesh, like the earth from which it is taken, is perishable or corruptible by nature (creation) as the entire animal creation implies. If it had a beginning, it will also have an end. Thus it is that according to Paul transformation is a natural necessity intended, in fact ordained by God and integral to his plan of salvation (Gk. dei, 1 Cor. 15:53, cf. John 3:7). So Jesus who was flesh and in contrast with his Father grew older (Luke 2:42; 3:23; John 8:57, cf. Mt. 5:36; Heb. 1:11f.) had consequently to be changed even though he was not a sinner. And this change according to Paul must have taken place at his ascension. Indeed, just as he was the first to be born again, so he was the first to be corporeally changed (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). (8* Superficially considered, Enoch and Elijah in the OT seem to be exceptions. It is important to realize however, that nothing is said of their receiving a body of glory like that of Jesus, Phil. 3:21. As Hebrews 11:39f. indicate, their perfection both spiritual and corporeal still awaits them.)

All this brings under suspicion the still widespread Augustinian idea that creation was originally perfect but was cursed when Adam “fell” and lost his putative original righteousness and immortality. If the sinless Jesus was corruptible and subject to aging, then the corruptibility of creation must be natural, nothing whatsoever to do with sin. It is vital to note that Paul claims that even though Jesus was truly flesh and hence subject to death and corruption, having abolished death he brought to light both life and incorruption (Gk.) (2 Tim. 1:10. In other words, Jesus uniquely met the conditions of life and incorruption.) While the ecclesiastical Jesus has been regarded as God, he has failed to be truly appreciated as man who by nature needed to be born again and transformed. (9* See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities, Death and Corruption.) Whereas with the old or unregenerate man the natural precedes the spiritual, with the new or regenerate man the spiritual precedes the supernatural or incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:46-49). If Jesus had not been born again and changed, as naturally corruptible flesh he would eventually have died or disappeared (cf. Heb. 8:13).

A story from classical mythology illustrates the point I am making:

The goddess Aurora fell in love with the beautiful Tithon and carried him away. He requested immortality and that was granted him. Unfortunately he forgot to ask for incorruption with the result that he gradually grew old, decrepit and began to fade (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3f.). So, since he could not die, he requested to be removed from the world. The goddess then turned him into a cicada or grasshopper.

The difference between this and the teaching of the Bible ought to be plain to all. As man, then, though Jesus never earned the wages of death, he was inevitably growing old (Luke 2:42; 3:23; John 8:57, cf. Mt. 5:36). But as the regenerate Son of God who had kept the law, the condition of eternal life, he was transformed as a natural necessity (1 Cor. 15:53) at his ascension to inherit the holy and sure (eternal) blessings of David (Acts 13:34). Thus he received the powers delegated to him by his Father as the Lamb who sits at the right hand of God (Mt. 11:27; 28:18; Rom. 1:4; Rev. 5).

The Exaltation

Traditional ecclesiastical theology contends in accordance with the Chalcedonian Creed that at his incarnation the Word never gave up his divine nature. Despite the explicit biblical assertions that nothing is impossible with God (Luke 1:37, etc.) and that the eternal Word who was God became flesh (John 1:14) and emptied himself (Phil. 2:7), the reason given for this is that it was impossible. This idea doubtless stems from Greek philosophy (which thought of God as an immutably transcendent and impassible monad) and can only mean that he never truly became man. Bluntly, Chalcedon is a denial of the incarnation, for no one person can at one and the same time have two natures. (10* Just how a body of flesh could contain the divine nature even in the womb, cf. the theotokos or mother of God idea, is not merely incomprehensible but plainly impossible. If God’s incommunicable attributes by definition are not granted to men in general, how could they be to Jesus who was one with his fellows, Heb. 2:10-13, etc.? Col. 1:19 and 2:9 describe the situation in heaven and refer to Christ’s transformed body of glory. Compare John 17:5,24; Phil. 3:21. Note also that when Jesus returns he will do so in his own and in the glory of God, Mt. 16:27, etc.) However, Jesus himself while strongly stressing the fact that it is the humble who will be exalted (Mt. 23:11f., etc.) even goes so far as to describe himself as gentle and lowly in heart (Mt. 11:29). The evidence of his life and death supports this to the hilt. He who was originally exalted in his divine nature freely humbled himself and became man (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9). Even in that condition he humbled himself still further and so was finally exalted in his humanity (Phil. 2:5-11). His life reflects both correspondence and violent contrast with the characters alluded to in Ezekiel 28-32 (cf. Luke 1:52).

Lower Than the Angels

But this matter can be taken even further. For example, it is said that Jesus was made for a little while lower than the angels (Heb. 2:7,9). If he retained his divine nature as their Creator he was always and forever superior to the angels and not for a little while lower. And it follows from this that since he never underwent true humiliation, he was never exalted. But Scripture insists that he was both humbled and exalted. In other words, while the Bible clearly teaches that he became man and as such was humbled (e.g. Phil. 2:7), it also teaches that in that condition he was further humbled and on that account was exalted as Lord (Phil. 2:9-11, cf. Acts 2:33,36). Thus it was as man that he was crowned with glory and honour (Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:12f., cf. Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7) and as the firstborn received the worship of the angels (Heb. 1:6). In this way he regained as man the glory that he had had as the eternal Word who was with God and was God (John 17:5).

So while the eternal Word retained his identity and remained God in person (2 Cor. 5:19-21), he nonetheless changed his nature by divesting himself of his divine non-communicable attributes. For example, in the days of his flesh (Heb. 5:7), he clearly lacked divine omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, incorruptibility, immortality and eternity. As a true human being he was wholly dependent on his heavenly Father apart from whom he could do nothing (John 5:19, cf. 15:5). (11* On this see e.g. Berkouwer, pp.185ff.) To become man he could do no less. This would appear to be the point Paul is making in Philippians 2:5-11 (cf. 1 John 1:1-3).

The Glory of Jesus

This raises yet another point for in John 17:24 it is implied that Jesus’ glory, which he prays his people will see, will be evident only in heaven (cf. Rev. 5; 22:4). This deals the death blow to those who claim that he was transformed and glorified at his resurrection from the grave when he was physically visible and hence still impermanent by nature (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18). Indeed, after his resurrection Jesus goes out of his way to stress his fleshly nature (Luke 24:39; John 20:28f.; Acts 10:41) and that he had not yet ascended (and by implication been transformed, John 20:17). Truly, as Paul indicates, he could not in this state inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50).

The Inheritance

If the eternal Word had retained his divine nature during his incarnation, it is difficult to see, first, that he was truly man, and second, that as such how he could receive his inheritance, the sure or eternal blessings of David (Acts 13:34, cf. Rom. 1:3f.). In any case, if he was still God both in person and in nature, he did not require an inheritance. As the eternal Word equal with God he was already the owner of everything (Ps. 24; John 1:11, compare Gal. 4:1). But Paul tells us that as the Son of God he was the heir and we ordinary human beings are joint-heirs with him (Rom. 8:17, cf. Mark 12:7; Luke 22:25-30). It is as perfected man, the first-born of all creation (Col.1:15), the Lamb of God who sits at God’s right hand (Rev. 5:13) that Jesus inherits everything and becomes Lord of all. He was the antitype of Joseph who became lord of all Egypt with the exception of Pharaoh himself (Gen. 45:10,26).

Delegated Powers

If it is hard to appreciate Jesus as the heir assuming he had retained his divine nature during his sojourn on earth, it is also hard to understand why so much is made of his delegated powers. As the eternal Word he was God and as such he exercised divine sovereignty (see John 1:1-4; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1). As man, however, he is clearly subordinate and his purpose is to do the will of his Father in heaven (John 4:34; 8:29; 17:4, etc.) and not to please himself (Rom. 15:3). It is clearly as man then that he is said to be Lord and to exercise the powers normally attributed to God (cf. Mt. 11:27; John 5:26, etc.). As the one who had been baptized by the Spirit and acknowledged and confirmed as the Son of God not simply ontologically but functionally, he was in a position to receive and exercise the power to forgive sin, to be worshipped, to perform miracles (signs in John), to serve as judge (John 5:22) and to distribute the (gifts of) the Spirit. These things were granted to him by his Father but were wholly unnecessary, even superfluous, if he had retained his divine nature and not become incarnate. If the latter were the case, he would have acted on his own account (cf. Jud. 6:31, 1 K. 18:21,24-26) even if in inter-Trinitarian agreement. It is surely as man, the Lamb in fact in the book of Revelation, that he is seen to take his seat at God’s right hand (Rev. 3:21, cf. Rom. 1:4)

Eternal Son

It is widely held in the churches that Jesus was the eternal Son of God, that is, that he was God’s Son even in his pre-existence before his incarnation. If this is true, then he was never truly (equal with) God (John 1:1; Phil. 2:6) but inherently, that is, in essence a subordinate being. Apart from the fact that this derogates from his humiliation so powerfully stressed in the NT, there are all sorts of problems attaching to this view which need more space to develop than I have here. (See at greater length, however, my essay Still Docetic, referred to above.) Suffice it to say, it is not taught in the Bible as even some of its advocates concede. It would appear to be a false inference drawn from what is called the projectionist language both the Bible writers and we ourselves all use from time to time. Scripture tells us plainly that prior to his birth of Mary Jesus was the eternal Word, equal with God, indeed God. The doctrine of the Trinity itself is at issue here.

Son of Man

Jesus’ usual self-designation was that of the Son of Man. His meaning has been much disputed and cannot be reasonably dealt with here. On the assumption that the title derives from Daniel 7:13f., rather than, say, from Ezekiel, references such as Matthew 24:30 and 26:64 make admirable sense. Jesus the man is to return transformed, we are told, in his own and in his Father’s glory (Mt. 16:27; Luke 9:26). Jesus the man is not merely King of the Jews (Mt. 27:37, etc.) but the King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).

The Glorification of Man

The glorification of man in general is surely dependent on his union with and the glorification of Jesus as man. It could occur in no other way. If the eternal Word had remained God in nature as well as in person (John 1:1-3, cf. 1 John 1:1-3), it is more than a little difficult to see how man could be glorified as man and gain access to the presence of God (cf. Eph. 2:18; Rev. 3:21). Jesus who as man was our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) was also our pioneer as the author of Hebrews is at pains to stress (2:10; 5:9; 6:19f.; 10:19f.; 12:2). He was made for a little while lower than the angels to win salvation and glory as man. And it is as man that we shall see his glory in accordance with his promise (John 17:24, cf. 14:9; 20:28f.). To suggest that he did not divest himself (Phil. 2:7, ekenosen) of his divine nature in order to become man makes the idea of his humiliation followed by his development or perfection through incarnation, regeneration and exaltation a charade. How different is the picture painted by John (3:13; 6:62; 16:28, etc.)!

High Priest

The letter to the Hebrews in particular (though note John 17) depicts Jesus as our heavenly high priest (8:1-7). Since priests are representative men (like the Levites) who mediate and intercede on behalf of other men before God (Heb. 5:1f.), as God become man Jesus is the perfect mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and high priest after the order of Melchizedek who ever lives to intercede for his people (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:15f.). Having equipped himself to perform these vital roles through incarnation (Heb. 2:14), personal experience (Heb. 2:17f.) and exaltation, we cannot but rejoice. He meets our need ideally. (How different he is from Allah who apparently acts by mere power!)

Miracles

It can be argued that no one who performed the kind of miracles that Jesus performed could be performed by anyone who lacked the nature of God (though note John 3:2; 9:16,33). But this fails to reckon with the fact that others, like Elijah who James reminds us had a nature like ours (5:17), even in the OT performed miracles. And just as they attributed their miracles to the power of God at work through them, so does Jesus (e.g. John 5:17,19,20,20, etc.). If Jesus was truly God’s Son then, as his Father, God would testify to (see e.g. Mt. 17:1-8, cf. 1 Pet.1:17) and honour him (John 12:28, etc.) and even raise him from the dead. This is the picture presented in the NT. Jesus as man is God in person but as a human being while lacking the nature of God he is nonetheless empowered by him (cf. John 5:17). In heaven at his Father’s right hand he exercises all the prerogatives of deity (Mt. 28:18). The unity between God and man (John 10:30; 17:22, cf. 1:14; Rev. 3:21) culminates or attains its apogee at this point.

Permanent Subordination

Nothing is more clear than the teaching that in eternity Jesus was the eternal Word, equal with God (John 1:1; Phil. 2:6), but who became man (John 1:14) in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4). The churches, however, ruled apparently, as was mentioned above, by a Greek philosophical principle emphasizing the immutable transcendence of God deny that he changed his nature. If this is the case, how is it that he who was originally equal with God and according to Paul ‘emptied’ himself (Phil. 2:7) is presented to us as permanently subordinate to God even in heaven (1 Cor. 15:24-28). The answer must lie in the fact that in his love and humility he freely became one of us and in so doing humbled himself to death on the cross to save us (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 2:9). In this way he revealed and manifested the loving character of our God in the most radical way possible. No wonder the Roman soldier at the foot of the cross said of Jesus that he was the Son of God and that Doubting Thomas after subjecting him to meticulous physical examination acknowledged him as God (John 20:28, cf. 14:9; 1 John 1:1-3). To say this, however, forces us to infer that if Jesus could be called God while still in the flesh, he was so in person but manifestly not in nature.

The Trinity

One of the more obvious differences between the OT and the NT is the doctrine of the Trinity. It is only in the NT that Jesus, himself the Son of God born of Mary, teaches his disciples to call God Father. The Trinity is a NT revelation only made possible by the incarnation. This necessitated a change in relationship whereby God became Father and the Word became Son. This reaches the heart of the love and humility which radiates from new covenant doctrine.

Who Is Jesus?

So, then, who is Jesus? My brief answer to this question is that he is the eternal Word made man, approved by God (Mt. 3:17; 17:5; Acts 2:22, cf. 10:38) and perfected in the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3, cf. Mt. 5:48). It is he before whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord to the glory of the Father. It is he who sits at God’s right hand, and it is to his image that we as his fellow (adopted) sons (Heb. 2:10-13) and co-heirs (Rom. 8:17) will be conformed (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18) and glorified (Rom. 8:30; Phil. 3:21; Rev. 3:21).

Conclusion

Without going further, I conclude then that the Chalcedonian or ecclesiastical Jesus of the churches is sadly distorted. Traditional Christology is in effect a denial of the incarnation. As the eternal Word Christ remains for ever God in person and can do no other. As such, however, in his humiliation freely undertaken in demonstration of the love of God (cf. Fee, p.384), he was made man the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). Having in love and humility changed his nature to become the Son of God at his incarnation (John 1:14; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6f.), he remains for ever man even after his ascension transformation and exaltation to the right hand of his Father. And though all things are slowly but surely being subjected to him (cf. Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 2:5-10), he himself will be finally subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him so that God may ultimately be all in all (1 Cor. 15:27f.).

If God really is the Creator, the author of all life (Acts 17:25; 1 Tim. 6:13) and universal redeemer (1 John 2:2), nothing less can be expected (cf. Neh. 9:6; Acts 17:24-28; Phil. 2:9-11; Rev. 4 & 5; 22:1-5, etc.).

Soli Deo Gloria

Note 1

It is strange that evangelicals seem to be more concerned with the deity than the humanity of Jesus (see, for example, God Became Man, A.M.Stibbs, The Truth of God Incarnate, ed. Michael Green.) Apparently, this was not so in the early church when his deity was more readily accepted. It was doubtless for this reason that John, like Paul (Phil. 2:5-8; 1 Tim. 2:5), so strongly stresses the Word’s coming in the flesh and reprobates those who deny it (John 1:1-18; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:2; 2 John 7). Of course, the very idea that God could become flesh (human) was as intolerable to the Jews in apostolic times as it is to both Jews and Muslims today (2013). But that is surely what the New Testament teaches (cf. John 17:3).

Note 2

If we assume the eternal generation of the Son, it is difficult to see how Jesus could become man at all since as such he was changeless. On the other hand, the assumption that he became the Son of God at his incarnation permanently undermines the idea of original and hence birth sin. Why? Because if Jesus had sinful ancestors through his mother (cf. Rom. 1:3; Mt. 1:1-6, etc.), he must have inherited their sin or he was not human. To overcome this problem he would have had to make a new beginning but to do so would mean the destruction of God’s earlier plan of salvation as Moses recognized in Exodus 32:11-14 and Numbers 14:11-19. Of course, since we have incontrovertible evidence that he was born sinless, we are forced to conclude that original sin as propounded by Augustine is false. This is further proved by references such as Deuteronomy 1:39, 1 Kings 3:7,9, Isaiah 7:15f. and Hebrews 5:13f. Furthermore, if Israelite babies were born sinners, on what basis were they differentiated from their fathers? In contrast with them who died in the wilderness, how did they come to enter and inherit the Promised Land (Num. 14:31; Dt. 1:39)? The plain fact is that like Adam, Eve and Paul (Rom. 7:9f., cf. 9:11), babies are born innocent because they do not know the law and so cannot break it (Rom. 4:15, etc.). In truth, we all begin at the beginning and each individual to the extent that he/she gains maturity recapitulates the history of the race as the father of theology, Irenaeus, taught (cf. Heb. 2). Jesus not only recapped to perfection first Adamic history, but as the second Adam he inaugurated and ‘precapitulated’ regenerate or kingdom life, died for his sinful fellows (cf. 1 John 2:2), and blazed a trail for all who follow him into heaven itself (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 6:19f.; 10:19f.; 12:2, cf. Rom. 8:30; 1 Cor. 15:50-55).

_______________________________________________

References

L.Berkhof, Systematic Theology, London, 1959.

G.C.Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, Grand Rapids, 1954.

Gordon D.Fee, Pauline Christology, Peabody, 2007.

Michael Green, ed., The Truth of God Incarnate, London, 1977.

R.L.Ottley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation, London, 4th ed. Rev. 1908.

A.M.Stibbs, God Became Man, London, 1957.

B.Ware, The Man Christ Jesus, Wheaton, 2013.

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

 

 

 

Still Docetic

Over many years of studying theology I have read occasionally that the church still suffers from placing undue emphasis on the deity of Christ to the diminution of his humanity. The point is usually made without specific comment apart from the fact that a proper appreciation of the humanity of Jesus was one of the few benefits accorded to us by liberals. It has, however, always seemed obvious to me that anyone who believes in original sin, for example, is docetic in his or her thinking. For, unless one takes the clearly false Roman Catholic view regarding the Virgin Birth, how could Jesus have been born sinless if all his fellows, not to mention his ancestors (cf. Mt. 1:1-6), were born sinful? Only highly questionable exegesis could warrant an appeal to Hebrews 2:17 and 4:15 at this point since like 1 Peter 2:22 they surely point to actual sin as does Romans 5:12. The truth is that if Jesus, though a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) was an exception to the normal rule, then his humanity is immediately called into question and he is automatically separated and excluded from the rest of humanity. The solution to this conundrum is of course to reject the dogma of original sin which the Bible does not and indeed cannot teach without contradicting itself. (1* On this see my various articles on original sin and imputation. If we assume original sin, we can illustrate its effect by means of a syllogism: Major premise: All humans are sinners by birth and not simply by deed as Scripture teaches (John 8:34; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1-3). Minor premise: Jesus was not a sinner by birth. Conclusion: Therefore Jesus was not human.) Once we have rejected original sin, we can safely regard Jesus as a true human being born of woman without knowledge of (the) law (cf. Rom. 4:15) and hence of good and evil (Isa. 7:15f., cf. Rom. 7:9f.), like all the rest of the descendants of Adam (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:14-16).

Docetism

Docetism, however, is the idea rife in the early church and still alive in Islam in 2013 (see e.g. Green, pp.113f.,146) that Jesus only seemed to be a man. What is more, it continues to make itself evident even among modern (2013) evangelicals who traditionally lay strong emphasis on Jesus as God, so much so in fact that Professor Bruce Ware has written a book, The Man Christ Jesus (2013) in what I believe proves in the event to be a notable but nonetheless forlorn attempt to undermine it. In one of the comments in the blurb promoting this book Todd Miles claims that the church is functionally docetic and that the divine Christ only seemed to be human. He goes on to assert that Ware skillfully and passionately explains that the gospel and its implications depend on the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ. They do indeed, but after reading the book I was left with the feeling that Ware for all his good intentions has failed to fully extricate himself from the traditional trap. For one thing he still believes in original sin (e.g. pp.98,122f.). But more significantly and relevantly his understanding of the full deity and the full humanity of Christ as expounded by Paul in Philippians 2 is in my view less than satisfactory.

Philippians 2:5-11.

It is worth commenting that not merely books but perhaps even libraries seem to have been written on this passage. And the reason is not far to seek. Some 50 years ago I remember reading D.M.Baillie’s God Was In Christ. In this seminal book Baillie was at pains to deny that when Christ became man he underwent kenosis or self-emptying as he, Baillie, understood it. In doing so, he asked what he seemed to think was an unanswerable question: What would have happened to the world if the second person of the Trinity who played a role in its creation (John 1:3) and by whom it was sustained (Col. 1:16, cf. 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb.1:3) had laid aside his divine nature in order to become man? (This question was apparently posed earlier by Archbishop Temple.) It was precisely this question that a Jehovah’s Witness who recently visited me asked, again as if it was unanswerable. Yet, even at that time of my relative ignorance I sensed that the answer to the problem lay in the doctrine of the Trinity, for a strict monotheism or monad seems to exclude the very possibility of God becoming man. (See further below.) The evident dependence of Jesus on his Father so strongly stressed in the NT is excluded by a purely monotheistic God who must forever retain his nature as God (cf. Rev. 4:9-11) as a matter of inherent necessity and thereby preclude the very possibility of an incarnation unless, as Arius followed by the JWs maintained, Jesus was a creature and therefore intrinsically subordinate.

The Two Natures

It is here that we touch the heart of the issue of docetism in evangelicalism and in the churches in general, for it seems to be accepted as a self-evident and hence a non-negotiable truth that in order to maintain his identity as God Jesus also had to retain his divine nature. And this is one of Ware’s primary contentions and presuppositions. In view of this I would argue that he does not merely set off on the wrong foot, he actually shoots himself in the foot thereby disabling and rendering himself completely incapable of eradicating docetism from the church. Despite what is taught in time-honoured creeds, the notion that Christ retained his divine nature when he became human is highly vulnerable, and Ware is honest and perceptive enough to acknowledge this. On page 23 he avers that the idea of one person, Jesus, having two full and integral natures, one uncreated and the other created is beyond our understanding and a mystery. On the face of it, it would appear to be not merely incomprehensible but logically impossible. (2* From the perspective of history Ware appears to have rejected common-sense monophysitism and opted for grandiloquent but intrinsically nonsensical Chalcedonian Dyophysitism. Chalcedon is and always has been a threat to both the incarnation and to the Trinity. In comment on John 1:14, p.102, Morris takes as strong an anti-docetic stance as anyone could reasonably wish for, but in comment on John 1:18, p.114, he clearly thinks in terms of two natures, for he asserts that when the Word became flesh his cosmic activities did not remain in abeyance until his life on earth had ended. If this is so, then the Word did not become flesh after all! No wonder he, like Ware, refers to mysteries that man cannot plumb. By asserting that the incarnation meant adding something as opposed to subtracting as in the Athanasian Creed something which kenosis implies, he has opened up the way to the docetism he has already in principle rejected.) But it also prompts a blunt question: If Jesus retained his divine nature, why didn’t he rely entirely on himself (cf. Jud. 6:31), regard his Father as redundant and his help as unnecessary in a manner somewhat reminiscent of Absalom in his relations with his father David. In the words of Dale Davis, there is something jarring about the supposition of omnipotence receiving help (p.143). Is it not rather cynically asserted from time to time that God helps those who help themselves? In fact, however, Jesus epitomizes the man who in his fleshly weakness (2 Cor. 13:4, cf. Mt. 26:41) relies totally on his heavenly Father as all human beings should and in the end must. In light of this we need to be very sure of what Paul in Philippians 2 and John in John 1 are actually saying.

Philippians 2

First, I would argue that traditional exegesis of Philippians 2 is flawed. Adopting a more general synthetic approach and trying to read this passage skating over some of its manifest exegetical difficulties dealt with in detail by the commentators like O’Brien, Martin and Fee leads me to the conclusion that what Paul is intimating in plain words is that Christ as the Word (John 1:1), who as the one who was equal with God and had the nature of God in eternity, humbly and freely set it aside in order to experience in person the life (nature) of a man (cf. 1 John 1:1). Bluntly, he did what Bruce (p.46), like Fee (p.211 n.81) and O’Brien (p.218), emphatically denies, that is, exchange his divine nature for human nature or flesh (cf. Heb. 2:7,9; 5:7) just as he exchanged his righteousness for sin in 2 Corinthians 5:21, his life for ours in Matthew 20:28 and 1 Timothy 2:6 and his riches for poverty in 2 Corinthians 8:9. Of course, Bruce in traditional fashion attempts to justify his negation by quoting J.B.Lightfoot’s rendering of ‘emptied himself’ as “ ‘… he divested himself’ not of His divine nature, for this is impossible, but ‘of the glories, the prerogatives of Deity’.” (3* It is interesting to note, however, that Bruce has no problem with interchange when he comments on 1 Thessalonians 5:10 and alludes quite happily to Irenaeus’ famous dictum to the effect that Christ became what we are so that we might become what he is, pp.113f. We do well at this point to note the change in nature implied by 2 Peter 1:4, not to mention 1 Peter 1:3f., 4:6, etc. And note espec. Paul in 1 Cor. 15:46-49. See also my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities, etc., and the apposite comments and references of Richardson, p.242.)

At this point I ask a simple question: On whose authority and on what grounds do we accept the notion that it was impossible for Christ to divest himself not of his deity, his identity and divine character but of his divine nature? (4* In all probability the ultimate culprit is the immutable monotheism of Greek philosophy which maintained that there is and can be only one divine existence. According to Reichenbach the Platonists deprived God of all emotion because a perfect God has to be unchanging. He adds, surely correctly, that a ‘de-anthropomorphized’ God is totally transcendent to the affairs in which he has a part, p.199. Writing in the 1920s on the Anglican Articles, Griffith Thomas, in effect denying kenosis, says it was impossible for Christ to achieve manhood by renouncing his deity and that he did not, because He could not, surrender his essential form of being (morphe), p.44. Again he talks of “an unthinkable metamorphosis of God into a man”, p.45. By contrast Fee commenting on Philippians 2:7, while rightly emphasizing pre-existence, reduces kenosis to a “metaphor, pure and simple”. This smacks of evasion rather than interpretation, p.210, for even metaphors have meaning. It is difficult to escape the suspicion that Fee who is a superlative commentator is also governed at this point by tradition and an erroneous philosophical principle rather than by the biblical text. Bray denies both a change in nature and in person, p.243. See also Berkouwer, esp. p.199.) As intimated above, however, change would seem to be an unavoidable requirement of the very possibility of an incarnation. So it is worth asking what the divine nature consists of if not of the glories and prerogatives of God including his immortality (1 Tim. 6:16), incorruptibility (1 Tim. 1:17), omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience. (5* See further my Creation Corruptible By Nature.) According to Paul, this divine nature stands in significant contrast with human nature (Rom. 1:23 Gk, cf. Ps. 106:20). But Lightfoot seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it. His highly questionable assumption seems to be that if the second person of the Trinity emptied himself of, or laid aside his divine nature, he ceased to be God in person. Here, it seems to me, we reach the nub of the issue, for exchange seems to be demanded by the very idea of incarnation. Without it there can be none, for while three persons can share one nature (consubstantiality) as in the (immanent) Trinity, it is impossible for a single individual person to have more than one nature at one and the same time and remain either divine or human, the one or the other. Apart from anything else such a one is a hybrid or a freak or a third alternative. (6* It is ironic that those who assume that kenoticism is an impossibility seek to substitute it with and counter it by means of another indisputable impossibility, that is, a Christ with two natures. This is quite simply to jump out of the pan into the fire. Furthermore, many rob the second person of the Trinity of his equality with God by attributing eternal Sonship to him, but more on this below.) To put the issue somewhat differently, if Christ retained his divine nature at his incarnation, his humanity would at best be but a shadow, a reflection, an extension, an appendage or a supplement of his divine nature and not a true incarnation. In other words he would be docetic. He did not really become man and traditional theology is reduced to a charade. If it is now urged that Scripture makes it clear beyond dispute that Jesus had both a divine and a human nature I would agree, but not simultaneously only consecutively.

A Simple Illustration

If a wicked witch were to turn me into a dog or, as the children’s fable has it, into a frog, I would inevitably have all the physical attributes of a dog: four legs, large ears, a hairy coat, a long or at least a waggable tail, a wet nose and heightened physical sense perceptions that are part and parcel of the nature of a dog. In other words, I would inevitably lose my human nature involving not so much my “flesh and blood” (Heb. 2:14, cf. Ware, p.119) but my upright stance, two arms, a smooth skin and all the physical attributes making it possible for me to speak. I would inevitably change my present physiological condition in fact. In plain words, I could not possibly retain my normal human nature and become a dog at one and the same time. (7* By the same token man and dog cannot interbreed! If it were possible, such offspring would be third alternatives or tertium quids like a minotaur or centaur, neither the one nor the other but hybrid freaks or dogmen. Equally by the same token, Jesus could not have two natures at one and the same time or he would be a godman or a theanthrop, neither God nor man. In other words, it is not only logic but nature itself that teaches us the impossibility of such a duality turning monad.)

The Illustration Flawed

Of course, my illustration is flawed because whereas it is possible to accept that the second person of the Trinity could become a man who is potentially made in the image of God, it is impossible for me as a person to become a dog. Why? For the simple reason that whereas I am made in the image of God, a dog is not. If I became a dog my personality would be obliterated. I as a person would cease to exist. However, when Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 temporarily lost the image of God and to all intents and purposes became a mere (human) animal, he did not lose his human nature as flesh and blood. What he did lose according to the text was his reason which rendered him temporarily a non-person incapable of ruling or ‘inheriting’ his own kingdom (Dan. 4:34,36), let alone the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). To all intents and purposes he ceased to be a man or a person. So with Jesus. Somewhat like Nebuchadnezzar he laid aside his glory then regained it (John 17:5,24). He became a human animal or baby, but like all human babies in contrast with mere animals he had the potential to be perfected and ultimately to gain the complete image and likeness of God (cf. Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). (8* This stress on the indispensability of the image of God relative to the incarnation has another important corollary: it indicates that the foundation of the incarnation was laid at the beginning, at the creation of man, specifically in Genesis 1:26-28. Truly is the Bible all of a piece; truly is it the inspired word of God.)

In light of this illustration it is difficult indeed to hold dogmatically to the view that the second person of the Trinity who was spirit (cf. John 4:22) could not divest himself of his divine attributes and become a man, especially since man is created in the image and likeness of God. This view is supported by the teaching of John’s gospel in particular where it is insisted in unmistakable terms that Christ descended and became a man (cf. John 1:9f.,14) precisely in order to ascend as a man (John 3:13; 6:38-40,62) with his transformed fellows in train (Heb. 2:10, cf. 5:9). Indeed, John 17:5 and 24 are especially apposite at this point since they portray Jesus himself praying, first, that he as a man having lost the majesty and splendour of the glory that he once enjoyed during his divine pre-existence might regain it, and, second, that his people should see that glory which in his days on earth they could not possibly see since he had laid it aside in order to become incarnate, man in the flesh, or, to put it more appositely, because he had changed his nature. Denial of this constitutes foundational heresy as John intimates (1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7).

Geisler and the Resurrection

In further support of my contention that Paul’s ‘emptied himself’ (or stress on what is known as kenoticism) should be given its full significance, I would draw the reader’s attention to the bodily transformation that Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:50-53 must (Gk dei) as a matter of natural or rather divine necessity occur for entry into heaven and the presence of God. (9* Cf. the new birth referred to by Jesus in John 3:7 on which see my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities). Some years ago while trying to assess the relative merits and validity of the views of Murray Harris and Norman Geisler on the question of the resurrection, I noted that the latter, in contrast with other commentators took the view that when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, he had in mind only corruptible flesh. (10* The problem here is that all flesh is by nature corruptible. Compare e.g. Fee, p.798, who says that the synonymous parallelism of 1 Cor. 15:50 indicates that the present physical body cannot inherit the heavenly existence of vv. 47-49. Again, in comment on Romans 7:18, Dunn, p.391, says that sarx (flesh) in contrast with soma (body) is tied to this age and must perish before redemption can be complete.) His argument was apparently that flesh and blood are essential to the nature of man and to be bereft of them means that man is no longer man even in heaven! His exact words were that “Paul is speaking not of flesh as such but of corruptible flesh. For he adds, ‘nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable’ (1 Cor. 15:50 NIV, emphasis mine). Paul is not affirming that the resurrection body will not have flesh, but that it will not have perishable flesh” (p.122). This I would (and did) argue is an impossible position to take, for since the creation from which flesh derives is by nature (that is, not on account of sin) perishable (Gen. 1:1; 8:22; Ps. 102:25-27; Heb. 1:11, etc.), it follows remorselessly that all flesh (dust, clay, grass) as such is also perishable (Isa. 40:6-8; 2 Cor. 4:7; James 1:10f.; 1 Pet. 1:23-25). It was never intended to last forever. This is why sinless animals, which do not know the law cannot break it (Rom. 4:15) and thereby earn its wages (Rom. 6:23), nonetheless die (i.e. apart from sin) and undergo corruption (decay). (11* On this see further my Death and Corruption, Geisler on the Redemption of Creation, etc. It might usefully be added at this point that Geisler seems to understand better than most the correspondence between the flesh and the creation. With a true philosopher’s logic he recognizes that if the creation is redeemed, so is the flesh which emanates from it, and vice versa (pp.32f.). In contrast and with similar logic, I adamantly deny both in my Romans 8:18-25, Creation Corruptible By Nature, etc.)

The Change in Nature

So what is the point I am making? It is that just as a change in nature is a ‘natural’, that is, a divine necessity for man to inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50-53, cf. 2 Pet. 1:4), so a change in nature was necessary for Christ the Word to become man in the first place, and again when he as man returned to heaven to regain his former glory (John 17:5,24; Phil. 3:21). This is what would appear to be involved in the heavenly assumption of mankind and was part and parcel of the plan of salvation from before the foundation of the earth. Apart from transformation, the change from flesh to spirit which involves the acquisition of the generic as well as the moral nature of God, salvation is impossible (cf. John 3:6). (We need to remember here, of course, that righteousness is the only gateway to eternal life, Lev. 18:5.) While we live on earth, God’s footstool, our flesh and indeed creation in general serve as an impenetrable barrier or veil between us and God and his throne. After all, even Isaiah in the OT recognized that God was a consuming fire with whom flesh could not possibly dwell (Isa. 33:14-17, cf. James 5:3, and note also 1 Tim. 6:16 and Paul’s blindness on his conversion). It is only through the mortal flesh of Jesus that that barrier or curtain can be penetrated to allow for man’s transformation and inheritance of the kingdom of God (cf. Heb. 6:19f.; 10:19f.).

The Heart of the Issue

Just as we are divested of our flesh in order to receive God’s generic nature as the children of God (1 Cor. 15:50-53; 1 Pet. 1:3f.; 4:6; 2 Pet. 1:3f.; 1 John 3:1-3), so the Word had to divest himself of his divine nature in order to take on human nature. God really did become man and if he didn’t, Christ was docetic, not what he seemed to be. In the event his change in nature highlights the amazing love of God (John 3:16) and the awe-inspiring humility freely accepted in order to save us and bring us to glory. Surely this is what Paul is teaching in Philippians 2, John in 1:1-18 (cf. 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7) and the author of Hebrews in chapter 2, and we dismiss it at our peril.

Anthropological/Cosmological Dualism

What traditional views fail to take account of is the fact that man is an anthropological dualism, both flesh and spirit (cf. Isa. 31:3; John 3:6, etc.) who corresponds with cosmological dualism (earth and heaven) and is hence an exception in the animal world. As flesh he is tied intrinsically and indissolubly to the earth and the animal world in general and as such he is naturally subject to both corruption and combustion, burial and cremation, dust and ashes (Heb. 12:27; James 5:3; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.). As the potential image and likeness of God (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18), however, he is linked with the eternal or heavenly world, for God has put eternity into his heart (Eccl. 3:11) and made eternity his goal (John 3:16, etc.). If he could take his flesh to heaven, then all the animals could presumably be accorded the same privilege. In fact, however, it is only man who on his divine side can be transformed, glorified and enter the presence of God minus his flesh which is temporary and corruptible by nature since it derives from the transient material creation (Gen. 2:7, cf. Heb. 2:7,9; 5:7). And in case the reader has any doubts, let me roundly assert that even Jesus could not enter his Father’s presence in the flesh, that is, as aging dust (clay, grass, cf. John 3:7; 1 Cor. 15:53), pace Geisler. Even he as flesh was corruptible, growing old (Luke 3:23; John 8:57) and was necessarily susceptible by nature, that is, by divine decree, to the transformation Paul clearly regards as indispensable. And it is Jesus precisely who, having differentiated between flesh and spirit (John 3:6), brought to light both life (cf. John 6:63) and incorruption (Gk 2 Tim. 1:10). (12* This, of course, raises the question of when Jesus himself underwent transformation. While I assert unequivocally that he did so at his ascension, cf. 1 Cor. 15:50-53, many in the course of church history have held the view that he was transformed or glorified at his resurrection from the grave. I maintain that this is impossible since both Peter, Acts 2:31, and Paul, Acts 13:34-37, emphasize the fact that he did not experience corruption in the grave in which case he must have remained the same flesh as was crucified. Alternatively expressed, what was sown was raised and his post-crucifixion body was numerically the same as his pre-resurrection body. It is at this point if not at others that I side strongly with Geisler against Harris. See my When Was Jesus Transformed?, Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?, John Stott on the Putative Resurrection Transformation of Jesus)

In his aforementioned book Ware stoutly maintains and repeatedly asserts that Jesus was fully God and fully man, and depending what he means by this, I would agree. But where I would certainly disagree is that he had two natures simultaneously as opposed to successively. The former view is impossible, for it would logically require Christ to be two persons, not one. At this point it is worth recalling the illustration I used above regarding my becoming a dog. If I became a dog, I would not, could not retain my human nature. So it follows remorselessly by parity of reasoning that when Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, became man, he could not retain his divine nature. Despite this, however, as man born in the image of God like Adam before him (cf. Gen. 5:1-3; Luke 3:38), he did not for a moment lose his identity as that person. This the Scriptures are at pains to indicate (e.g. Heb. 10:5-10). But again I stress that if he did not change his nature, he did not become human at all! In other words, the retention of his divine nature inexorably implies denial of the incarnation and points unerringly to docetism.

The Incarnation and the Trinity

As I indicated above, those who are tied to tradition and confined by creed argue that when he became man Christ retained not merely his identity as the second person of the Trinity but his divine nature as well. In the words of Chalcedon his two natures were united “unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly and inseparably”. They are therefore apparently convinced of two things: first, that Christ without his nature as God is no longer God (cf. Geisler and his insistence that man without flesh and blood is no longer man), and, secondly, that creation would collapse if he divested himself of that nature.

It is here, however, that Scripture intrudes its demurral. Apart from insisting that nothing is impossible with God (Luke 1:37), there is not the slightest suggestion that Jesus ever lost his personal identity. He was always fully God in person if not in nature. This is surely implied in both his humiliation and his glorification. When he entered the world (kosmos) he was made lower than the angels; when he re-entered the world (oikoumene or heaven) as the first-born crowned with glory and honour (Heb. 2:9) all God’s angels worshipped him (Heb. 1:6). This view of the matter is essential to the gospel. His virginal conception and birth underwrote the fact that he was truly God’s human Son or God incarnate (cf. Adam, Luke 3:38). And like all good fathers his Father took care of him, treated him like a son, not an illegitimate bastard, and even disciplined (tested) him appropriately (cf. Heb. 5:7; 12:7f.). (13* Compare us believers who are (spiritually) born of God, John 1:13, and have his seed in us, 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9, and are not abandoned as orphans, John 14:18. We do not, however, fully become the children of God until we receive his generic nature when our fleshly bodies finally succumb to corruption and we are given spiritual bodies at our resurrection transformation.) Furthermore, as a son, the only Son, on the level of his incarnation, that is his flesh, Jesus was as subject to salvation as the rest of us (cf. Heb. 5:7) since there was no good in his flesh even apart from sin (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18; 1 Cor. 1:29 Gk). Autosoterism or self-salvation was as alien to Jesus the man as it is to us. (14* At this point the reader needs to appreciate the fact that I deny that sin is the only obstacle or barrier to salvation. As I argue in my Not Only But Also we need to be rescued from the world and the flesh by nature as God intimated when he promised naturally mortal and corruptible Adam eternal life noticeably before he sinned on condition of the perfect obedience which he could not provide, Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5. We need to be born again and transformed by nature apart from sin, but sin is what prevents this from taking place.) Well does Ware stress that Jesus felt deeply his need of divine assistance and what must be provided to him by another (p.61). So, with the superficial exception of John 10:17f., the NT writers make it crystal clear that he was totally dependent on his heavenly Father. And like the rest of us believers of whom he was the pioneer, he was kept by the power of God through unwavering faith (1 Pet. 1:5) and whole-hearted commitment (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:29, etc.). In other words, as God in person he kept the commandments to perfection in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14). (15* It must never be forgotten that Jesus uniquely kept the law, the condition of eternal life, Lev. 18:5, and so brought in life, 2 Tim. 1:10. His manifest dependence on his Father is a subject in itself and one which I cannot reasonably explore at this juncture. It must be stressed, however, that if he retained his nature as God, his dependence on his Father would be superfluous, totally unnecessary (cf. Jud. 6:31). Again, the idea that he simply kept it in abeyance brings its own problems, not least docetism.)

Continued Divine Activity

It should be noted that it is Jesus himself who while still in the flesh insists that his Father is always at work in a way that he himself as a dependent man on earth cannot be (John 5:17). The sovereign God who created and continues to sustain the world now sustains him in the flesh which is an integral part of the world. He thus ensures that he (Jesus) fulfils the purpose for which he came, for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19). It is on this account that Paul is adamant that Jesus’ humiliation and subsequent exaltation are to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:11). All this underlines the basic, non-negotiable truth of the Trinity. While my JW visitors denied both the incarnation and the Trinity, I argued strongly for both since it is impossible to have the one without the other.

The Trinity Again

This leads directly to my next point. Since all three persons of the immanent Trinity are equally God, are of the same substance (consubstantial) and so share the same essence and nature, it follows that each person of the Godhead can perform the function of the others. This has been the longstanding conviction of the church based on Scripture in times past. Thus in a chapter on the Trinity Knox rightly avers that the close unity of Trinitarian relationship is expressed in the theological dictum that all God’s works in the world are not divided (p.54). And a little later he adds significantly that the works (and words) of God in the world may be ascribed to any of the persons of the Trinity. Alan Richardson, who was professor of theology at Nottingham when I was there, arguably makes the situation clearer when he explains that in every activity of each of the three ‘persons’ it is always the one-and-the-same God who acts (16* Latin: Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa, p.123. See also J.I.Packer in God the Holy Trinity, ed. George, p.102.) Now if this language of appropriation, or mutuality of powers, is true, concern about providence and the sustaining of creation during the incarnation is unwarranted, even misplaced and implicitly a denial of the Trinity. As we have already seen, while he was here on earth temporarily in the flesh (Heb. 2:7,9; 5:7) Jesus himself said explicitly that God was still at work and by implication not least in himself (John 5:17, cf. 10:37; 14:10, etc.), a fact that even Nicodemus recognized (John 3:2).

A Retrojection

While there may be difficulties, not least exegetical ones, with the suggestions I have put forward, it is arguable, especially in view of John 1:1-4, that the apparent references to Jesus as the Son before his incarnation are but retrojections of his earthly sonship. After all, I remember my mother saying in my youth such things as “When I was expecting Ken …”. The truth is that during her pregnancy she didn’t even know that I was a boy. I became ‘Ken’ later after birth and before that only in retrospect. Wayne Grudem in his commentary on 1 Peter 4:6 (p.159) even more appositely refers to the birth of Queen Elizabeth in 1926 and points out that at that stage she was not a queen, and, as history makes plain, not even likely to be so. But whereas she who, relatively speaking, was a nobody became a somebody, Jesus was a somebody who became a nobody (‘of no reputation’ according to the KJV, compare also Hos. 1:9f.). With these examples in mind, I suggest that awareness of the danger of thinking anachronistically when dealing with Christological problems may enable us to question more boldly what is known as the eternal generation of the Son or Jesus’ eternal Sonship.

Eternal Generation

So Ware’s book raises another point which relates directly to the incarnation and the issue of docetism. He refers frequently to Christ as the eternal Son of God. In a note in his opening chapter (p.15) he distinguishes three distinct but related senses in which the word ‘Son’ is used, the first being eternal Son. (17* Lane, who seems to have reservations, is putting it mildly when he says that there is a certain degree of unresolved tension in the author of Hebrews’ designation of Jesus as Son since the title can be applied to the pre-existent Son, to the incarnate Son where its use may be proleptic, and to the exalted Son, pp.25f., cf. pp.cxxxix,12,118,121.) In support of this he alludes to John 3:16f., Galatians 4:4, Hebrews 1:1f. and 1 John 4:9f.

It so happens that shortly before I read his book I had read part of Kevin Giles’ on The Eternal Generation of the Son. I found it impressive but a good deal less than convincing. It seemed to me to betray a number of serious weaknesses, one in particular as we shall see.

Problems

First, the expression ‘eternal generation’ is enigmatic at best and almost certainly not understood by most who encounter it especially as they recite the Nicene Creed. Second, it seems to be a contradiction in terms, a veritable oxymoron. Third, Giles virtually admits his failure to find explicit biblical evidence supporting his case (e.g. pp.66,88) and relies heavily on the great theologians of the past, creedal tradition and convoluted theological reasoning. Fourth, it is difficult to see why if Jesus was the eternal Son of God he needed to keep the law as a man in order to meet the condition of regeneration and eternal life (Mt. 3:13-17). (18* Of course, his regeneration is strongly denied in the Augustinian tradition which links it with sin and thereby emphasizes its inherent docetism. The truth is that regeneration relates primarily to nature not to sin as John 3:3-8 plainly indicate to the unprejudiced eye. See further my Was Jesus Born Again?) How could he as the eternal Son grow older, die, be raised, ascend and be transformed thereby inheriting a new nature. How could God give up his own Son to death if he was still his eternal co-equal Son (Rom. 8:32)? Would this not be deicide, even suicide? Indeed, this ought to remind us that if the Son retained his nature as God who is a consuming fire during his incarnation, he would have been self-consumed (cf. Isa. 33:14; James 5:3. The story in Daniel 3 hardly constitutes a denial of this. After all, Jesus miraculously walked on water contrary to the laws of nature.) Again, the idea that Jesus as the eternal Son of God retained his divine nature as the incarnate Son of God and presumably watched himself, that is, his alter ego (!), his human nature, die on the cross is quite beyond my understanding. (If Jesus was not two persons as the two-nature theory implies, he was not two sons either.) Such ‘schizophrenia’ is, I suggest, totally alien to Scripture and indeed reality. Fifth, how could we be regarded as Jesus’ brothers all having one origin and all sharing a common sanctification (Heb. 2:10-13)? If we are Jesus’ human brothers we have a common Father. In the OT God was not known as Father (though note Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1) except in prophecies such as Psalm 2:7f. (cf. Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5f.). Jesus’ birth of a virgin signifies his change of nature (cf. O’Brien, p.224 n.119). Mary was not the mother of God (theotokos) but of a fleshly human son (cf. Gal. 4:4) who was hence our brother. In other words, Christ could not at once be the eternal pre-incarnate Son of God and our elder brother. Rather, it was the incarnate Christ who became our brother, the antitype of Adam. Sixth, the impression is constantly given in the NT that Jesus first became a son at his birth (Luke 1:32) or creation in the womb of Mary (Heb. 10:5) and his sonship was progressively acknowledged and confirmed as he matured (=was perfected, cf. 2 Cor. 3:18) as a true human being at his baptism (Mt. 3:17), his transfiguration (Mt. 17:5) his resurrection (13:33) and finally his ascension (Rom. 1:4; Heb. 1:6). The pleasure of his Father at his righteous and holy conduct (Mt. 3:17; 17:5) so manifestly missing with regard to the rest of us implies his genuine humanity. Well does Paul say that he (God) condemned sin in the flesh of his Son (Rom. 8:3). It was on account of his sinlessness in the flesh that Jesus, the Son of David, was raised to power (Rom. 1:3f.) (19* I take the reference to Jesus’ resurrection here comprehensively, i.e. meaning resurrection, ascension, exaltation and session. This would seem to be confirmed by verse 5.) It is as man, and obviously not as the eternal Son of God, that he is said to have become superior to angels (1 Pet. 3:22, cf. Eph. 1:20-23) both in essence and in name (Heb. 1:4), and it is as man that he became the mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), the plenipotentiary of God (Mt. 28:18) and a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45, cf. John 5:26). Seventh, according to John it was the eternal Word, and implicitly not the eternal Son, who became flesh (John 1:14) though Ware like so many others equates the two. It was as (human) son (cf. Gal. 4:1f.) that Jesus was appointed to be a prophet (greater than Moses), priest, and heir (king) by means of an oath and no mere promise (cf. Heb. 1:2-5; 5:5; 7:1-28). This is part of the essence of the argument of the author of Hebrews who regularly and surely significantly refers to ‘Jesus’ throughout his letter and majors on Jesus’ humanity (cf. Heb. 2:17, and 2:14 which corresponds with Romans 8:3). In light of this Jesus can be regarded as eternal Son at best only retrospectively. However, serious difficulties arise from regarding Jesus as the eternal Son without implying his eternal subordination and thereby denying his equality. Again, in eternity he did not have a mother! But even more to the point according to the author of Hebrews he did not have a father either (7:3)! Furthermore, the bracketing of Psalm 1:8 and 2 Samuel 7:14 together in Hebrews 1:5 points away from the eternal Son idea which is as foreign to Scripture as it is to experience. Indeed, it is fair to say that the ultimate reference of 2 Samuel 7:14 to Jesus, the Son of Mary, is difficult to miss. It is he who will be God’s firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth (Heb. 1:6, cf. Col. 1:15) and the one who inherits the name of Lord (Heb. 1:4, cf. Rom. 1:4). This suggests that the entire notion of the eternal generation of the Son is an ecclesiastical concoction based on misunderstanding, not least the assumption that God cannot change his nature. On the other hand we can accept without qualm Hughes’ implication in comment on Hebrews 1:2 that the eternal Word who had brought the world into being became the Word incarnate (p.36). And this is doubtless what Paul meant when he said that God sent his born-of-a-woman Son (cf. Rom. 1:3) in the fullness of time, not eternity (Gal. 4:4f., cf. John 1:1-4; 3:16f.; 1 John 4:9f., cf. Rom. 8:3). (20* Lane’s claim that the order of (eternal) Son, creation and inheritance is logical is disputable, p.12. It would seem that the ‘transcendent dignity’ which he attributes to the Son is post- not pre-incarnate throughout Hebrews 1. Mention of his original role (note the ‘also’) as creator reads like an explanatory comment or reminder of his real identity as the second person of the Trinity, cf. John 1:10.) Eighth, it is Jesus the incarnate son who is the heir (Mark 12:7, cf. Gal. 4:1-7). But in eternity both Paul and John insist that as co-Creator he as the Word was equal with God and the owner of all (John 1:11; Col. 1:16, etc.). But it is only as the incarnate Son of his Father that he is both priest and heir. In any case, how could he be heir to everything he already owned (cf. Ps. 50:10ff.; Heb. 1:10-12)? Furthermore, it is surely in light of his human sonship that the devil tempted him and offered him what was not his to give, that is, all the kingdoms of the world and their glory (Mt. 4:8f., cf. Mt. 5:5). The fact is that Jesus as the incarnate Son was along with us the heir of his Father (cf. Rom. 8:17). In eternity, however, his so-called Father was not his Father but God equal with the eternal Word as both Paul and John assert. The truth is that this Word voluntarily, lovingly and humbly became a son, the Son, at his incarnation in order to redeem his brothers under the law (Gal. 4:4f., cf. Heb. 9:15b). Ninth, if Lane’s claim that Jesus’ sonship is correlated with his priesthood by the author of Hebrews is correct (p.cxl), since the latter was not eternal (cf. Ps. 110:4), then neither was the former. But to say this is immediately to bring into question the notions of eternal Father and Son yet again. How could they be such before the foundation of the world? How could God the Trinity be both consubstantial Father and Son at one and the same time? Such designations make sense only if they apply after the incarnation. Prior to that time they are prophetic promises. At this point it becomes clear that we are back with anachronistic thinking, projectionism and the tendency of our forefathers to treat the Bible as a flat uniformity devoid of historical and doctrinal development. Their misunderstanding is patent.

Tenth, Giles as an Anglican relies more heavily than I care to do on traditional creeds, confessions and the great theologians of the past. While not denying the greatness of the latter, I jib at investing them with the semblance of infallibility, and hence regard them as vulnerable, subject to criticism, correction and upgrading in the light of my understanding of Scripture. Having said that, while I would not quarrel with Giles’ claim regarding the anti-subordinationist intentions of Athanasius et al., I would certainly quarrel with the language they used which almost inevitably leads to misunderstanding even among the most able theologians as the evidence Giles himself produces indicates. The problem is that to our ears they say one thing and mean another and the very notion of the eternal generation of the Son as opposed to the Word is, apart from being a contradiction in terms, inherently docetic. Like Ware whom he criticizes on other grounds (pp.33f.,229f.) he is implicitly docetic if not intentionally subordinationist in his thinking and at the end of the day, Giles is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. The sooner the idea of the eternal generation of the Son is dropped the better or docetism will continue to dominate the church.

The problem arises from the fact that Giles relies heavily on Athanasius whom he greatly admires. On page 73 (cf. p.116, etc.) after quoting him he comments that Athanasius saw with great clarity that if the Son is not eternal then God is a God who changes. Precisely! Giles like Lightfoot, Bruce and the rest simply cannot accept the great exchange of Philippians 2. He clearly regards it as impossible and hence, logically, he denies the incarnation (cf. 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7). As for Athanasius, he apparently held a static or non-dynamic view of an immutable God. By contrast, I argue that the Trinity retained its identity but changed its nature. John’s prologue which most would claim is modeled on Genesis 1 makes it clear that the creator God of the OT became Father and the Word became incarnate Son. The plain truth is that the Son as Son was not eternal and not equal and not independent but very definitely subordinate. It is only as the Word that he was eternal. And he remained the Word of God in person even when he changed his nature! Despite all his protestations, Giles himself falls prey to what he condemns in others, that is, the interpretation of the immanent Trinity in terms of the economic Trinity. Without any biblical support, he applies the term ‘Son’ to the immanent Trinity and fails to note that John in his prologue studiously avoids this. Put otherwise, his projectionist use of the word Son inevitably means he is docetic if not intentionally subordinationist in his thinking since the eternal Son by definition is unchangeable and therefore cannot be incarnate and mortal. To argue then that the language that is traditionally used is analogical not univocal (see e.g. p.260) is beside the point. The damage has been done.

So when Ware regards Christ as the eternal Son, that is, as the Son of God eternally generated prior to the incarnation, on the basis of questionable exegesis of texts like Romans 1:3f., 8:3 and Galatians 4:4, I must protest. (21* As already implied I argue that Jesus as a man was a son by ‘natural’ even if by virgin birth and, since he uniquely kept the law, cf. Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc., by spiritual rebirth. John 3:3-7 applies to all believers including Jesus if he was truly human just as certainly as Paul says transformation does in 1 Cor. 15:53. Berkhof, p.472, rightly maintained that John 3:3 does not allow for exceptions, but he somehow failed to recognize that if Jesus was truly human even he could not be an exception either, since exception implies exclusion. Denial of this again raises the issue of docetism which pervades traditional theology. See once more my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities, Death and Corruption.) Does this not mean that he was eternally subordinate? Indeed, Richardson’s comment (p.123) is a propos at this point. He writes: “The very word ‘Son’ implies derivation, subordination and dependence”. If so, then the second person of the Trinity, the very Word of God (John 1:1-4), is not as equal as Paul avers (Phil. 2:6), and Richardson’s further comment that the word ‘Son’ “asserts identity of substance and therefore co-equal divinity” is quite gratuitous. (22* Compare Hughes, who, claiming the support of Athanasius and Cullman, says that the title “Son” implies the consubstantiality of Christ with the Father, p.40. Perhaps it does but it certainly does not imply equality as Galatians 4:1-7, for example, intimates. It is an extremely dubious thesis if it means that Jesus as the original Word was simultaneously the Son.) Not only is it open to question but it is also a patent non sequitur. If Jesus was the eternal Son, he could arguably be compared with Absalom waiting in the wings ever ready to seize his Father’s throne. But this is the exact opposite of Paul’s assertion that Christ Jesus as the Word did not regard his equality with God as something to be clung to. Like King Edward VIII, Jesus abdicated his throne, if only temporarily (Heb. 2:7,9), not for love of a woman but for the sake of mankind in general. (23* Of course, it may be said that the Jews were incensed when Jesus referred to himself as Son because that made him equal with God in John 5:18, 19:7. But this involves a question of status rather than ontology. Whatever ‘equal with God’ meant, for them it was blasphemy.)

Humiliation

If the designation ‘eternal Son’ implies subordination (as Ware among others apparently thinks), it must inevitably detract from the humiliation that the incarnation involved. In other words, it leads to the inference that the incarnation of the subordinate Son is one thing and that God became man is another. At its worst it implies that a strict and severe Father ordered his son to do his dirty work! Yet, on my thesis even Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac, does not compare with the sacrifice God made. For if the Word was equal with, even was God and was of one substance with God, his sacrifice was infinitely greater. God himself was in Christ his incarnate Son reconciling the world to himself. If this is so, Ware’s laudable emphasis on the eternal Son’s humiliation falls short of the reality. My contention is that the humiliation was so radical that it involved a freely undertaken change in the divine nature, pace Athanasius, undertaken to accommodate man. Indeed, it was so great that Jesus was not ashamed to call us his brothers (Heb. 2:11, cf. 2:17; Phil. 2:7b). In his book, God’s Greater Glory, Ware impressively highlights the unconditional character of God’s love (see e.g. p.56) and Fee, who majors on the character of God, observes in comment on Philippians 2:7 that God is self-giving for the sake of others (p.211). How true. Yet, he also says that the one who was himself God and never during the whole process stopped being God did not exchange one form of existence for another (n.81). But surely this is precisely what Paul is asserting, and it is at this point that we touch the heart of the divine humiliation. If we deny it, we diminish that humiliation and are back with docetism. The change in nature is as absolutely indispensable to incarnation and humiliation as it is to regeneration, transformation and ultimate glorification. Truly did Jesus, who as God the Word was rich, become poor for our sakes, 2 Cor. 8:9, and just as truly do we by a change in nature become the children of God (1 John 3:1-3, cf. John 3:1-8; 1 Cor. 15:50-53). Of course, it may be said that this change brought about a kind of separation or distancing within the Trinity which a change in nature would seem necessarily to imply. After all, man is distant from God by nature. He begins by being far off, is made near and is eventually given access to the very presence of God (Eph. 2:17-21, cf. Dan. 7:13f.). Thus the development or perfection of Jesus was fundamental to his life in the flesh and paved the way for his God-ordained transformation. The question is: Is this still further supported by Scripture? It is important to try and find out.

The Covenant of Redemption

However, before we leave the subject of the eternal Sonship and by implication the eternal generation of the Son which I claim implicitly belittles both the love and humiliation of God in Christ, it is important to draw attention to what I regard as a much more congenial idea, that of the covenant (or counsel or council) of redemption which is characteristic of Reformed orthodoxy as ‘the eternal prototype of the historical covenant of grace’ (Berkhof, p.270). Correctly understood and this is important, it surely eliminates the idea of Christ as the eternal Son and presents him as the eternal Word of God, a co-equal member of the Trinity, playing his proper and fundamental role in the formation of the covenant or pactum salutis (John 1:1-4, 14; 6:37-51;14:15-17,26; 15:26; 16:12-15). In other words, the plan of salvation formed before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2) involved an eternal pact within the Godhead between the three persons who were the same in essence, power and glory as God, Word and Spirit. Though they were implied as early as Genesis 1:26, only at the incarnation, at the beginning of the Christian dispensation, did they become Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a change of nature, relationship and function. As Berkhof says (p.266), it is only in the economy of redemption that there is an apparent division of labour by which the Father is the originator, the Son the executor and the Holy Spirit the applier.

Permanent Humanity

It is often said that Jesus remains eternally incarnate in heaven (24* See, for example, Bruce, Hebrews, p.98, Grudem, Systematic Theology, p.859, cf. p.835; Packer, Christianity Today, March 2004). In light of 1 Corinthians 15:50 to go no further this cannot be literally true. A change in nature, a transformation, necessarily intervened (1 Cor. 15:53). What is true is that Jesus is forever human. But while he is no longer (temporary, corruptible, combustible) flesh, pace Geisler, (cf. Heb. 2:7,9; 5:7; 1 Cor. 15:50-53), he clearly does not divest himself of the humanity or the image of God in which he is perfected (Heb. 1:3; 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). The question then arises: Does he regain the divine nature as opposed to the glory that he laid aside at his incarnation (cf. John 3:13; 17:5,24)? What seems to be the case is that like all human beings who enter the presence of God, while he receives by necessity the generic nature of God (John 3:6; 2 Pet. 1:4; 1 Pet. 4:6), he cannot so long as he remains man become God as such in a Nirvana-like absorption. For a start he has a body (Phil. 3:21) and God has not, but it is in the embodied Jesus that we see God (Col. 2:9, etc., cf. John 14:9; 20:28).

Since we ourselves as the sons (children) of God become God-like, even gods according to Jesus in John 10:34, we nonetheless retain our individuality and separate identity with spiritual as opposed to dusty bodies (1 Cor. 15:46-49; 2 Cor. 5:1; Phil. 3:21). Next, it is as man perfected (Heb. 7:26,28) that Jesus takes his place at the right hand of God (1 Pet. 3:22, etc.) and it is there that we ourselves as his fellow conquerors and children of God join him (Rev. 3:21), but neither he nor we literally become God (in nature). Then we need to realize that in the book of Revelation we read not simply of God on his throne but of God and the Lamb who in chapters 4 and 5 are equally but individually glorified (cf. 5:13; 14:4; 15:3; 21:22; 22:1,3). Though they are always one in spirit or character (cf. John 10:30), they always remain as distinguishable as they were in the immanent Trinity. This is made manifest in Hebrews, especially 12:22-24 where the living God is differentiated from Jesus the mediator (cf. John 17:1-3). (25* Note how Jesus sits at the right hand of God in Heb. 1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12f.; 12:2, cf. 4:14;7:26.) Furthermore, it is the still-God-in-person Jesus who has the generic nature of God as man and who is man the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5, cf. John 1:51). In Jesus the perfection of man in the image of God attains its apogee (cf. Rom. 8:29). The union between man and God is here as close as it can get (John 1:18). In the words of Morris it stresses that “Christ is in the closest possible relation to the Father” (p.112). But it comes short of identification. The distinction is not obliterated, not intended to be and indeed cannot be if the gospel is true.

Is Jesus God?

So if I am asked if Jesus the man is God, I immediately respond in the affirmative (John 1:18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13, etc.). Yes, Jesus remains eternally, essentially and ontologically God in person but not consubstantially so as in his pre-existence as the Word. He does not recover the divine nature (the Trinitarian consubstantiality) of which he divested himself when he became man for the simple reason that in the saving plan of God he remains forever man and as such the King of kings. To recontextualize the language of Athanasius as quoted by Giles (p.117), “The Father is ever the Father and never could become Son, so the Son is ever Son and never could become Father”. Rather as Paul intimates in Colossians 1:15 he is not God per se but the image of God and the firstborn of all creation (cf. Heb. 1:3). (26* Again I would point out that for two natures there must be two persons. And Jesus is one, Eph. 4:5f. Having changed his nature at his incarnation, he is now the perfected image of God by exaltation, function, power and heavenly session, cf. Rom. 1:3f. Alternatively expressed, he is man perfected in the image and likeness of God, Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:3. If this is the case, we might well ask how if he had retained his divine nature he could he become the image of God, 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3. In the event, when we see him, we see God the Father whose express image he is, John 14:9; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 22:4.)

Man’s Permanent Subordination

Again, it is imperative for us to be aware that Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 presents the perfected man Jesus to us, not in his so-called equality as the eternal Son but as God’s exact image as man seated at his right hand (Eph. 1:20-23; Heb. 1:3, etc.). It is the all-conquering Jesus (Rom. 8:31-39; Rev. 5:5) who delivers the kingdom to God the Father. In other words, even though Jesus is at once the Son of man and the Son of God in his humanity not his divinity (cf. John 1:1-4; Phil. 2:6), he is by nature subordinate. God as God remains forever and ever (Rev. 4:9-11), but the same is now said of the Lamb (Rev. 5:13, cf. John 3:16; Dan. 7:13f.). Truly in Christ are God and man united in an eternal relationship, and now with all relationships restored (Acts 3:21; Col 1:20) God is all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). Well does Jesus urge those who believe in God to believe in him (John 14:1f.). Just as it was with Joseph (cf. Esther 3:1f.), a type of Christ if ever there was one, who ruled over all Egypt with the exception of Pharaoh himself, so it is with Jesus, the Man, who sits forever at God’s right hand (Gen. 41:40-44; Ps. 110:1; Eph. 1:20-23; Heb. 1:3,13; 1 Pet. 3:22, etc.). Such is the wonder of the gospel testifying to the love the Father has given us that we should be called the children of God and fellow heirs with Christ (1 John 3:1; Rom. 8:17).

Additional Note

If we as children or sons of God are not (equal with) God, neither is Jesus as the Son of God, pace Athanasius et al. Of course it may be replied that Jesus was the unique Son of God, but then it may be countered that the NT teaches that we are brothers and Jesus is our elder brother (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:10-13). The fact is that we are now by nature what Jesus is (cf. Irenaeus and interchange) and we shall be with him forever (John 12:26; 1 Thes. 4:17) and in the same Father’s house (John 14:2-3) with a body like his (Phil. 3:21). We share together the generic nature of God our Father as his children (cf. 1 Pet. 4:6) just as all the children of Adam, including Jesus, shared his generic nature without actually being Adam (Gen. 5:1-3; Luke 3:38; 1 Cor. 15:46-49; Heb. 2:14,17; 5:7, pace those who believe in the imputation of Adam’s sin or Platonic realism). Otherwise expressed, we are together ‘deified’ (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4) in the sense that we are transformed (1 Cor. 15:50-53). Jesus differs from us only in that he forever remains God in person and has pre-eminence. (When the author of Hebrews says that he remains the same yesterday, today and forever, 13:14, he is obviously referring to his personal deity and character. If he were referring to his nature, he would be denying his incarnation and the very fact that he is truly human even in heaven. In view of Hebrews 2 this is the very last thing he is saying.) It is at this point that God and man are indissolubly united in ‘marriage’ (cf. 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:32). And it is for this reason that our salvation is eternally unshakable (Rom. 8:31-39). It can never be undone. That is why divorce except on grounds of adultery, which at this point is not on the horizon, is taboo.

Summary of Basic Contentions

1. Whereas it is possible for three persons to share one nature as in the Trinity and for many persons to share the one (human) nature of Adam (Gen. 5:1-3), it is impossible for one person to have two natures at one and the same time. Only he who was God the Creator was ever in a position to become man (creature) and elevate his fellow human beings (creatures) to heaven and the divine presence. Christ could not at one and the same time be God and his eternal Son eternally generated (cf. Gal. 4:1-7). The eternal generation of the Son as opposed to the Word involves a profound misunderstanding. Jesus became (was made and was not begotten as) a Son and God a Father at the incarnation, not before. In other words, the Trinity as God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a NT revelation. Though purposed before the ages began (2 Tim. 1:9), it was realized when the time had fully come (Gal. 4:4) and was integral to the plan of salvation.

2. Jesus was the incarnate Son of God uniquely (monogenes) born of a virgin (Mt. 1:18-25; Luke 2:1-20; Gal. 4:4; Rom. 1:3f.). Denial of this constitutes radical heresy (1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7).

3. The incarnation necessarily involved a change in nature (John 1:14; Phil. 2:6-8), so when God became man, he thereby humbled himself (cf. Heb. 2:7,9; 5:7). While remaining forever God in person, the Word ceased to be God in nature when he took on human nature. Just as we who are flesh are divested of our flesh in order to receive God’s generic nature as his children (1 Cor. 15:50-53), so Jesus divested himself of his divine nature in order to become flesh, the son of Mary.

4. Jesus the incarnate Son of God became a servant and died the death of a slave. He was thus perfected (cf. John 19:30; Heb. 2:9) and exalted (Acts 2:33,36) as man in the image of God. It is only as God in person and man in nature that Jesus could serve as man the mediator and give himself as a ransom for man (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5f.).

5. Jesus the Man, the perfected image of God, sits exalted and crowned with glory (Heb. 2:9, cf. John 17:5,24; Eph. 1:20-23) at God’s right hand as the pioneer, priest and representative of his people (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 3:21, cf. Dan. 7:13f.). He is notably Jesus Christ our Lord, the King of kings.

6. Jesus as glorified man is forever subordinate to God (1 Cor. 15:24-28) in accordance with the covenant of redemption freely entered into by the immanent Trinity. No wonder Paul, like John (1 John 3:1) was both overawed and overwhelmed by his sheer love and humility.

_________________________________________________

References

L.Berkhof, Systematic Theology, London, 1959.

G.C.Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, GrandRapids, 1954.

Gerald Bray, The Doctrine of God, Downers Grove, 1993.

F.F.Bruce, Philippians, Basingstoke, 1984.

1 & 2 Thessalonians, Waco, 1982.

The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1965.

Dale Ralph Davis, The Message of Daniel, Nottingham, 2013.

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

Paul’s Letters to the Philippians, Grand Rapids, 1995.

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

Kevin Giles, The Eternal Generation of the Son, Downers Grove, 2012.

M.Green, The Books The Church Suppressed, Oxford, 2005.

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

1 Peter, Leicester/Grand Rapids, 1988.

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

P.E.Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids, 1997.

D.B.Knox, The Everlasting God, Homebush West, 1988.

Leon Morris, The Gospel According To John, Grand Rapids, 1971.

J.I.Packer, Christianity Today, March 2004.

Bruce R.Reichenbach in The Nature of the Atonement, ed. Beilby & Eddy, Downers Grove, 2006.

Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, London, 1958.

W.H.Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology, London, 1930.

Bruce A.Ware, God’s Greater Glory, Illinois, 2004.

The Man Christ Jesus, Wheaton, 2013.

A Note on Giles

1. Giles implies that the Fathers said one thing but meant another. They were both confused and confusing.

2. The language of the Fathers is subordinationist because they were covert docetists who logically if not intentionally undermined the incarnation. They inevitably contributed to the rampant subordinationism evident in modern theology.

3. The term eternal generation or procession of the Son and of the Spirit is contradictory and implicitly denies the equality of both. Again it contributes to modern subordinationism and docetism.

4. It cannot be biblically justified (see e.g., p.66). John 1:1-18, which summarizes the immanent Trinity of the OT, that is, God the Creator, the Word and the Spirit, studiously avoids this language and stands in violent contrast with it.

5. The term ‘eternal generation of the Son’ is conditioned by and culled from the economic Trinity, yet Giles strongly insists that the immanent Trinity should not be construed or determined by it, rather the reverse. In other words, Giles, like his mentor Athanasius, holds to a false view of the immanent Trinity where there is neither Father nor (implicitly subordinate) Son but God, Word and Spirit in equality.

6. The term ‘eternal generation’ of the Son like the term ‘eternal Son’ is inherently docetic since it implies that there can be no change in the nature as opposed to the person of the Word, yet it is this change in nature which is integral to both the humiliation of God (kenosis) and of the incarnate Son, as Paul affirms.

7. It is only when the time had fully come (Gal. 4:4) that the eternal Word became the Son and the creator God the Father in relational change (cf. Heb. 1:5). (Note how in Hebrews 1 the prophets speak first and are followed by the Son who according to Deuteronomy 18:18-22 succeeded Moses.) In other words, the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is confined to the NT and to Christianity. It illustrates the progress of both covenantal revelation and dogma (cf. John 17:3). It is as incarnate Son that Jesus invaded the devil’s domain and conquered (Mt. 12:22-32, cf. Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.).

Arius and Athanasius

It might usefully be added in clarification at this point that both Arius and Athanasius especially as expounded by Giles were wrong. Neither understood the nature of the immanent Trinity. Athanasius, who used the language of subordinationism but sought to deny the fact, clearly thinks of the immanent Trinity in terms of the economic Trinity and denies that Jesus was by nature a creature like all other human beings (cf. pp. 113f.). His attempt to avoid the charge of subordinationism must therefore be pronounced a failure (pace Pannenberg who opined that “Athanasius vanquished subordinationism”, p.113). In contrast, Arius wrongly believed that God was a divine monad (cf. Greek philosophy) not a Trinity (p.102, cf. pp.67,113f.). This being so, it was impossible for him to believe in the incarnation, as I suggested earlier in my essay. Given his presupposition, Jesus was a creature and could not be anything else no matter how exalted. On the other hand, if he had recognized with Scripture that Jesus was God in person but visibly a creature in nature (see especially Luke 24:39; John 20:28), he would have hit the nail on the head. Again I must point out that man cannot see the unveiled God, who is both a consuming fire and dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16), and live. When Jesus returns in his glory and that of God (Mt. 16:27; Luke 9:26), he will come as fire and light. And he will come to destroy his enemies but also to rescue and transform his people.

In my view Giles’ book, though reflecting profundity of thought, genuine erudition and given his presuppositions considerable powers of argumentation, resembles John Murray’s The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Grand Rapids, 1959) in that it is founded on a glaring fallacy (see my 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). He fails to appreciate, first, that the Son as Son does not belong to the immanent Trinity. If he did, he would not be equal, and both his incarnation and his humiliation would be diminished, if not impossible. Second, at the incarnation Jesus, the Word, remained God in person but not in nature (pace the Athanasian Creed’s “not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God” where the former is indispensable to the latter). In him the invisible God changed his nature and became visible (cf. John 14:9; 20:28f.) temporal, even temporary, flesh (2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 2:7,9).

In light of this, I for one will not be joining with Giles in confessing the Nicene Creed which refers to Jesus Christ as eternally begotten of the Father and begotten not made (p.261). Denial that Jesus was made denies that he was ‘made by hand’ (cheiropoietos) and hence flesh. In other words, it inexorably implies denial of the incarnation. The plain fact is that far from being eternally begotten the Son as son was made, as teaching about the Virgin Birth in particular amply demonstrates (Mt. 1:18-25; Luke 2:1-20, cf. Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:14,17; 10:5). It is simply not correct to say following Augustine that the economy reveals what is eternally true (p.158), for he who was God humbled himself and became flesh in time (John 1:14; Gal. 4:4). The salvation of mankind was no mere demonstration of power as in Islam but required a change in the very nature of God himself. In love and humility he made that change. In his humiliation he became flesh like a flower of the grass but in his exaltation he rejoiced (cf. James 1:9f.; Heb. 2:7.9; 12:2).  The language of eternal Sonship leads inexorably to original subordinationism, docetism, obfuscation and confusion. Rather than protecting the Trinity, it has the effect of jeopardizing both it and the incarnation. It is safer by far to use the language and logic of Scripture and avoid that of creeds and confessions where misunderstanding is permanently enshrined.

A note on Carson’s ‘Jesus The Son of God’

Since writing the above I have read the important little book Jesus The Son of God (Wheaton, 2012) by Don Carson. He does not directly address the problem of docetism and he does not refer to it. However, he accepts the eternal generation of the Son without equivocation and so fails to appreciate its ramifications and implications. For example, on pages 66f., where he is dealing with John 5:16-30, he talks of the Son’s functional subordination. But surely Jesus’ subordination was much more than merely functional. While he retained his eternal deity as a person (cf. Heb. 7:8,16; 13:8), he was clearly subordinate in nature or he did not become mortal flesh and play the role of a servant. (As a well-known commentator on John’s gospel Carson has apparently failed to notice the change in nature implied in 1:10f. and 1:12f., cf. John 3:1-8, not to mention that in verse 14.) Carson says (ibid.) that Jesus’ imitation of his Father was exhaustive. It was indeed, praise God!, but as man in the flesh (cf. Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.). If he was still the so-called eternal Son of God this would be quite unremarkable! But it was as man that he was made perfect like his Father (Mt. 5:48) and as his perfect(ed) image (Heb. 1:3) able to blaze a trail for us into his presence (Heb. 2:10; 12:2, etc.). Carson also says that the Son in contrast with us created a universe, but he fails to add ‘but as the Word and definitely not as the Son’. Indeed, as the latter he was part of creation himself (cf. Col. 1:15)!

However, it is on page 41 that Carson makes his position crystal clear. Here he denies in effect the difference between the immanent and the economic Trinity and hence logically denies the Word’s incarnational change or change in nature so clearly taught in John 1:14. My contention is that Jesus was NOT the Son of God from eternity but the eternal Word equal with God, God as such in fact (John 1:1, cf. Phil. 2:6), who became the Son of God when, not after as Carson suggests, he arrived in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4). (It is here that adoptionism is rigorously excluded.) If it is ‘fanciful’ (Carson’s word) to think this way, then I respectfully suggest that he has misunderstood the biblical position. It has long been a mystery to me that John should begin his gospel with reference to the Word as (equal with) God if the notion of the eternal generation of the Son is true. If it is a genuine biblical doctrine, here of all places it ought to have found prominence. In fact, however, the apostle’s prologue is a distillation of the somewhat recondite OT teaching on the Trinity where God, the Word and the Spirit all appear, albeit sporadically. (The Spirit, of course, is not referred to in the prologue but appears unmistakably as the third person of the Trinity later in the gospel.) Again, I conclude that the Trinity conceived as Father, Son and Holy Spirit belongs to the new and certainly not to the old covenant. The change in covenant involved a change in the nature of God.

But it is his manifest misunderstanding of Hebrews that really upends Carson. He states rather naively in comment on Hebrews on page 41, “the Son (his italics) is the one by whom God made the universe”. But where in the whole Bible is this taught? Here he clearly fails to see that the author employs the term Son (of God) in projectionist fashion, as I suggested above. The author’s intention throughout Hebrews 1 is surely to demonstrate the superiority of the incarnate Jesus, the man. As God and Creator he was obviously superior to angels (cf. Heb. 1:14a), but, after being made man and hence lower than them for a little while (Heb. 2:7,9), having made purification for sins, he is now superior again but this time as man (Heb. 1:4). It is of interest to note too that when Jesus is arrested, he does not say he will command the angels but ask his Father to send them to his aid. (More than 40 years ago in an appendix on 1 Peter 3:19ff. to an unpublished book I wrote challenging the Church with reformation I argued in comment on 1 Peter 4:6 that the reference to proclaiming the gospel to the dead meant those who had since died, not to the dead as such. Failure to get our chronology and its associated implications and intentions right leads inexorably to false doctrine. This is what has frequently happened during the course of church history. See also Grudem, ad loc. as above.)

It is in Hebrews 7, however, that the author makes his point indisputably clear. Here part of his stress on the eternality of the Son of God (cf. 7:8,16,24f.) is based on the fact that in eternity he had neither father nor mother (7:3). This is in stark contrast with his human situation where he had both and was hence both mortal and corruptible significantly unlike God his Father in nature (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16, etc.). Indeed, Melchizedek’s resemblance to the Son of God lies precisely in the fact that he (i.e. Jesus, the incarnate Son of God) in eternity had no genealogy (= he had no mother or father, neither birth nor death and therefore neither beginning nor end in direct contrast with the material creation which again has both). In other words, if by his reference to the Son of God our author meant the eternal Son of God, he would be involved in a blatant contradiction. The plain fact is that it was as the eternal Word, not as the so-called eternal Son, that he created (obviously) before his incarnation when for the first and only time he became a son, the unique Son of God, the Son of Mary. And once he became flesh at his incarnation he was a dependent, mortal, corruptible, temptable and salvable human being like the rest of us (Heb. 2:14,17; 4:15; 5:7, etc.), an integral part of his own creation or property (Carson) (cf. John 1:10f.). Whereas he was by the grace of God triumphant through unwavering faith and unswerving obedience (cf. 1 Pet. 1:5; Heb. 4:15, etc.), we are failures (Rom. 8:3, cf. Heb. 12:1f.). But for all that, we are saved through him (Rev. 3:21).

So in eternity as the Word, Christ was equal with God (Phil. 2:6), in fact he was God. And it is only as he emptied himself and became the incarnate Son that he was subordinate and totally dependent on his Father as a true human being. Denial of this leads inevitably to docetism on the one hand and diminishes his achievement on the other.

Later in his book Carson has some very useful things to say about Muslims and translation work in general. I agree with his conclusions, all the more so because he recognizes that purity of theology is of paramount importance. It is vital then that we get our beliefs regarding the Trinity and the incarnation, not to mention other things, right. Otherwise, false conversions will be inevitable. But not only that, we shall be hindering evangelism in general through failure to tell the devotees of the world religions and various ideologies what true Christianity really is. In other words, we need doctrinal reformation for their sake as well as for ours. If we really care for Muslims, Jews and the rest, it is high time that we got the planks out of our own eyes in order to see clearly the splinters in their eyes.

Our God is a great God not simply because he is our sovereign Creator but because he is love demonstrated not least in his humiliation and sacrifice in Christ. Greater love has no one than this that someone lays down his life (psyche) for his friends (John 15:13, cf. 10:11; Rom. 5:7f.). He is not merely a friend as he was to Abraham and Moses, however, but our Father and we are his children, born of his Spirit (1 John 3:1-3). What a God! Soli Deo Gloria.

Note on Monotheletism and Dyotheletism

The notion that Jesus had two wills rises directly from the idea enshrined in Chalcedon that he had two natures at one and the same time. (1* See, for example, Bray, p.207, and Hill, pp.102f.) The problem again is that a person who has two wills is no longer one person but two. It must be conceded, however, that a human being is pulled in two directions because he is both flesh (cf. Gen. 2:7) and spirit (cf. Zech. 12:1) by nature. (2* In John 3:1-8 Jesus and Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:53 regard our condition as both flesh and spirit as natural, that is, created as such by God but that we need to be spiritually born again and corporeally transformed in order to enter the kingdom of God irrespective of sin which neither mentions, pace Augustine. See further my Death and Corruption, Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.) As Paul explains in Romans 7, while he, like the psalmist (119:14-16, etc.), may love the law as one who is a rational person made in the image of God, he cannot keep it because the law in his fleshly members is too strong for him. Like Adam and Eve (cf. Gen. 3:6) before him he falls into sin (Rom. 7:9f., cf. Rom. 3:23; 5:12) and so finds it impossible to attain to the perfection God requires of him as a creature mandate (Gen. 2:17). With Jesus the situation is different. Though he also is tempted at all points like the rest of us, he succeeds in conquering his natural passions according to the law (Heb. 4:15, etc.). And his success at this point is made clear by the fact that at his baptism he gained eternal life as man (cf. Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, cf. Heb. 7:16, etc.). It was at this time that the Spirit descended and remained on him because he had pleased his Father by keeping the law (Mt. 3:17). He had passed the test to his Father’s satisfaction (cf. Gal. 4:1-4) and continued to do so till he was finally exalted (Mt. 17:5; Rom. 1:4).

But the point to note is that he does this in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14), that is, as a true human being like all his fellows (Heb. 2:17). Thus it is that we read that Jesus as man seeks always to please his Father (not to harmonize his human will with his own divine will) as we all should as the following references among others indicate (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:29). Most of all he submits himself to death in accordance with his Father’s will (Mt. 26:39). And that it is his Father’s will is made clear by Paul who says he did not please himself (Rom. 15:3). In other words, he had to deny himself as flesh (cf. Mark 8:34f.; Gal. 5:16f.) in order to accomplish the will of God.

But a further point needs consideration. According to James, God himself is not tempted (1:13), but Jesus clearly was even though in the event he overcame it (vv.14f., cf. Mt. 4:1-11). So yet again we are forced to draw the conclusion that he was truly human by nature. If he had retained his divine nature, he could not have been truly tempted. As it was he endured a titanic struggle with his flesh as all human beings do. Where he differs from us is that in the power of the Spirit he triumphed over his fleshly tendency to sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22).

It is a sad fact that tradition especially under the influence of Augustine has made Jesus an exception (e.g. though a son of Adam, Luke 3:38, no original sin and no regeneration*) and has given us an excluded and therefore a docetic Jesus. According to Scripture Jesus was by nature truly human and differed from the rest of us only in that he did not sin (Heb. 2:17; 1 Pet. 2:22).

* See my Was Jesus Born Again?The Ecclesiastical Christ.

More problems

While we can accept that the person of the Word took on human nature and became flesh, it is more than a little difficult to imagine him taking on the nature of God which could not be contained in temples in the flesh. Acts 7:49f. scuttles this idea. In any case John tells us that the Word ‘tabernacles’ among us. Can we really believe that the entire nature of the universal God could be confined to a tent made by hand, cf. John 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:14? Of course, if we accept two separate natures as in Nestorianism, God clearly did not become man. And the same holds with regard to Chalcedon. Again, on the assumption of his eternal sonship, Jesus was clearly two sons since the one is eternal and immortal while the other, the incarnate son, is temporal and mortal. He did in fact die!

This, of course, raises another question: if there are two sons there are two births. Here the author of Hebrews specifically denies this. In 7:3 with reference to Melchisedek, he plainly denies a birth to the so-called eternal Son. The more we probe, the more problematic the whole scenario.

Note on Stott’s ‘The Authentic Jesus’ (Basingstoke, 1985)

Having on page 30 maintained the Chalcedonian two-nature idea, on page 74 Stott maintains that Jesus remains forever flesh and as such sits at God’s right hand. To say this means he directly contradicts Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 15:50 (also implicit in John 3:1-8). Amidst much confusion of thought on Romans 8:18-25 he affirms the destruction of the flesh but not the body on page 243 of his The Message of Romans (Leicester, 1994). If the flesh is destroyed, so is the physical creation from which it stems, and the notion that creation, which is temporary by nature, will be renewed is clearly fallacious. It is an OT idea which is superseded by the revelation of heaven brought by Jesus in the NT. 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1 rightly interpreted in context do nothing to undermine this. Furthermore, to argue that flesh can dwell in the very presence of God who is by nature a consuming fire (cf. Job 25:5f.; Isa. 33:14; Heb. 12:29; James 5:3) is clearly erroneous. The plain fact is that if Jesus was truly flesh, he could not possibly have retained his divine nature for it, not zeal, would have consumed him. At his ascension transformation, he rid himself of corruptible flesh forever (cf. Acts 13:34) and so sat at his Father’s right hand.

Chalcedon or the hypostatic union (the union of Jesus’ divine and human natures in one person) is manifestly false for yet other reasons. First, Paul flatly denies that the fleshly body (dust) and the body of glory (spirit) exist in the one person contemporaneously. He explicitly informs us in 1 Corinthians 15:46 that the physical or natural body comes first and is followed by the spiritual which comes second (cf. vv.47,49). While all who are redeemed have both bodies, they have them successively not simultaneously. Otherwise expressed, just as Jesus was given a fleshly body as a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) at his incarnation, after his ascension he was given a body of glory (Phil. 3:21). How otherwise could the fullness of deity have indwelt him (Col. 2:9, cf. 1:19)? Chalcedon’s two-nature theory is both illogical and patently unbiblical.

Second, it must further be added that Doubting Thomas addresses Jesus as God while he is still in the flesh. Here the difference between his person and his physical human nature is beyond reasonable dispute (John 20:27f., cf. 12:45; 14:9).

Reflections on Re-reading Berkouwer

(1) Most Christological speculation seems to stem from the (Greek) denial of the possibility that the Word could become man (cf. e.g. Calvin, p.354 and almost all others both before and after). This is plainly contrary to what John (cf. also 1 John 1:1-3) and Paul are saying. Unless man is to become literally God (cf. Hinduistic pantheism, Nirvana, etc.) as opposed to his child (1 John 3:1-3), a change in nature for both God (cf. Eph. 3:15) and man is at the heart of biblical revelation. Without it man cannot be saved as John 3:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:35-54 clearly indicate. (See further my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities) In becoming the Son of God in the fullness of time and born of woman at his incarnation, Jesus ever remains his Son. Though he is the eternal Word in person, he remains man forever. As such he is uniquely the bridge between God, now Father, and man his son in Christ. (The idea that Jesus is God’s eternal Son, that is Son before the incarnation, is not only a dreadful misunderstanding in itself but it generates a host of theological problems.)

(2) Berkouwer fails to see that one person cannot have two natures at one and the same time. Far from proving a bastion against docetism Chalcedon inevitably fosters it, since a person with two natures is not and cannot be a true man. The union of two natures (hypostatic union) is not merely incomprehensible, an ineffable mystery, etc., (pp.286,295, etc.), it is an impossibility which Scripture clearly rejects.

(3) Committed to Chalcedon, Berkouwer constantly uses it as his touchstone instead of Scripture (e.g. p.313).

(4) Berkouwer correctly identifies the dilemma facing readers of the Bible. On page 361 he maintains that on the left lies the ravine of theopaschitism, the idea that God as such suffered on the cross; on the right the complete humanization of God. Though Berkouwer seeks to evade the logic of the issue, the latter, the complete humanization of God is what Scripture teaches as I have sought to demonstrate above. The plain truth is that if the Word retained his divine nature as opposed to his personal identity, God did indeed suffer on the cross, and from this multiple problems arise. Church tradition in general is built on Chalcedon and is inevitably docetic. At bottom, by denying the kenosis, it inexorably denies the incarnation. In other words, ecclesiastical orthodoxy is biblical heresy. It has failed to heed the warning pinpointed in 1 John 4:2f. and 2 John 7.

(5) The truth is that the Word’s humiliation led to his exaltation and he remains forever the Lamb seated at the right hand of God (Rev. 5, cf. 22:1-5), the very image of God (Heb. 1:3).

(6) Not enough is traditionally made of the delegation of power to Jesus as the ultimately triumphant Son (cf. Mt. 11:27; 28:18; John 5:26; Rom. 1:4; Phil. 2:10f.; 1 Pet. 3:22, etc.). During the days of his flesh his power as the true Son resides not in himself but in his Father (e.g. Mt. 26:53; John 11:41f., etc.). As Jesus himself says without his Father he can do nothing (John 5:19., cf. v.17; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10). As flesh, Jesus is as weak as the rest of us (Mt. 26:41; 2 Cor. 13:4, cf. Jer. 17:5; Rom. 7:18; 8:6-11). His strength like that of Samson so long as he remains faithful resides in his Father (cf. Jud. 15:18; 16:28; Heb. 3:2). Since he always did what pleased his Father, he was heard, strengthened and enabled, all to the glory of God (cf. Phil 2:10f.). When God forsakes him, he dies (Mt. 27:46). But then God raises him from the dead (Acts 2:22-24) and proleptically empowers him before he takes his seat at his right hand (Mt. 28:18; Rom. 1:4, etc.). (It is again worth reminding ourselves of Joseph’s elevation to power but not to the primacy that Pharaoh enjoyed, cf. 1 Cor. 15:24-28.)

Reflections on Re-reading Kelly on ‘Early Christian Doctrines’ (2nd ed. London, 1960)

(1) The variety of thought is quite astounding.

(2) Recapitulation is rather wider spread than I had thought and is not confined to Irenaeus (cf. Alan Richardson, Introduction, p.242).

(3) Platonic realism is prominent.

(4) Augustine sums up much of the thought that preceded him (p.390).

(5) Chalcedon was hardly the end of the road. In the nature of the case, it left unanswered questions. The monophysite (one nature) charge that Chalcedonian dyophysitism was Nestorian (two natures) is surely sustainable. It remains for us in the 21st century to address some of the problems it left without denying that ultimately we are dealing with mystery. We still see as in a glass darkly. One thing seems clear and that is that the doctrine of the Trinity is the indispensable precondition of incarnation (cf. Gen. 1:26f.).

Reflections on Re-reading Alan Stibbs on ‘God Became Man’ (London, 1957)

I must have bought and read this monograph in the late 1950s while still at Nottingham. Since I have always been an admirer of Stibbs I must have been impressed with it at the time. However, judging by notes in my copy I must have re-read it in the late sixties and was surprisingly critical even at that stage.

Stibbs’ prime problem like that of so many others is his uncritical acceptance of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Since he stresses the importance of relying on Scripture his assumption is plainly that Chalcedon and its two-nature (Nestorian!) Christology is fully scriptural. It is not. In effect, Chalcedon is Nestorian (two separate natures) if not Eutychian (denial of two distinct natures) and denies the incarnation. The plain fact is that if the eternal Word retained his divine nature when he became man, he never became man. And if he did he was docetic, not truly man. While Stibbs rightly criticizes (on pages 13f.) the views of Archbishop Temple and Prof. Donald Bailey, he fails to understand the real weakness of their objections to kenoticism which was not so much their failure to understand the communicatio idiomatum but their traditional denial of a change in nature which God becoming man inevitably involved. Furthermore, Bailey was quite wrong to think of Christ being God, then man then God again (a view I myself have tended to hold over the years). The truth is, as I have tried to make plain above, that in his love and humility the Word changed his nature (obviously not his person) and became man forever, so that while Paul can teach that he was originally equal with God (Phil. 2:6) he is now as man the perfected image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 3:14, etc.) and, despite his delegated powers and lordship (Mt. 11:27; 28:18; 1 Pet. 3:22), permanently subordinate (1 Cor. 15:24-28) as Joseph was to Pharaoh.

In face of the ‘contradictory conditions’ the traditional view involves (p.12) Stibbs’ resort to arguments based on hypnotism and psychology is quite inadequate and wrong-headed. The plain truth is that a genuine man with two natures at one and the same time is a contradiction in terms on the one hand and a denial of the incarnation on the other. How could Jesus truly and completely depend on his Father (p.28) while retaining and holding in reserve his own divine powers (cf. Jud. 6:31)? The Jesus depicted in Hebrews 5:7f. does not make sense if he retained his divine nature. At the end of the day Stibbs reminds us of the pot calling the kettle black. In effect if not in intention, he is as much opposed to Scripture as those he criticizes. Basically, he is imprisoned by tradition.

There is irony in the very title of his monograph, God Became Man, since Stibbs’ main intention following Chalcedon seems to be to uphold Jesus as God. By contrast Scripture tells us in no uncertain terms that it is the faithful (Heb. 3:1f.) perfected (Heb. 7:28)* Son of Man who sits at God’s right hand (Mt. 26:64, cf. 16:27; Heb. 8:1; Rev. 1:5-7; 14:14, etc.).
(* The perfecting process to which Jesus was subject would seem to undermine the very idea of his retention of his divine nature.)

Reflections on re-reading ‘The Forgotten Christ’, ed. S.Clark (Nottingham, 2007)

The book is dominated, arguably over-powered, by what I call the Augustinian worldview (cf. p.46) and inevitably leads to some absurd conclusions (e.g. the idea that Adam in contrast with Jesus, the second Adam, was created fully adult!). I have dealt with Gaffin on the Last Adam (pp.191-231), who treats 1 Corinthians 15 as if, like Romans 5:12-21, it is covenantal in structure and relates to original sin, fall and curse, in my essay Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?.

Needless to say Chalcedonian dyophysitism (p.53), along with Constantinopolitan dyotheletism (p.56) and the eternal sonship (p.69), is strongly affirmed and not merely in the first chapter. This is supported by opposition to kenoticism where it is stated (quoting Stibbs) that kenotic theories ‘do not do justice to the biblical and historic doctrine as defined by Chalcedon’ (pp.56ff.). In other words, as with Berkouwer, Chalcedon is simply assumed to be scriptural and so becomes our standard of judgement. It is not without interest that on the basis of Chalcedon and its Christological two-nature theory we read of an intra-personal (?) communio idiomatum (mutual participation of attributes/properties) and communicatio gratiarum (charismatum) (communication of gifts/graces) as distinguished from the usual intra-Trinitarian communicatio idiomatum or communication of properties (pp.55f.). Given its assumptions, this is a reasonable inference. In the event, however, it implies docetism and thus compels us to believe that God did not become man after all.

Note on the non posse peccare

If Jesus had two natures he never became incarnate. What is more, if he had two natures he could not possibly sin and his temptations were all a charade (cf. Heb. 4:15; 5:7). (Arguably, an alternative would be that he could not sin as God but could as man, in which case he would have been a split personality, truly schizophrenic.) If he, the Word of God, was truly incarnate (John 1:14; Phil.2:7), he was able not to sin (posse non peccare). He thus proved his pedigree as the genuine Son of God through the VB. This is surely the wonder of Jesus, a genuine human being who uniquely did not sin (1 Pet. 2:22) but overcame sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.; 4:15).

This of course impinges on the idea of original sin. If it is true, then Jesus was a sinner at birth, and, assuming that one rejects the VB theory of Roman Catholicism, the idea that he was cleansed by the Spirit at his birth is failure to recognize that blood, not spirit, is the divine detergent! With regard to this, P.H.Eveson, The Forgotten Christ, p.64, quite wrongly says that this is the Bible’s answer to the non-transmission of sin to Jesus. Eveson of course makes two mistakes: first, he accepts original sin as biblical when it is in fact heretical, even blasphemous; second, he fails to recognize that if it is true and Adam’s sin is not imputed to Jesus, then he is not genuinely human but docetic, as I indicated in my first paragraph.

It is worth making another point here. If Jesus’ potential to be regarded as a victim of original sin as a son of the first Adam (Luke 3:38) in whose image he was made (Gen. 5:1-3) was obviated by the Spirit, why then was there ever an atonement at all? If the Spirit could work in Jesus’ case, why not in all others? Why should not Christianity function like Islam, that is by power? The fact is that Christ and his atonement are intrinsic to Christianity and true religion. And the only way in which Jesus could atone for sins before a holy God was first by becoming flesh (Heb. 2:17) and second by not sinning (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.). Jesus, like the OT sacrifices, had to be perfect, unblemished, blameless. It is only after he as man first received the Spirit himself and then made atonement that the Spirit could come (John 7:39). (Cf. Paul’s insistence in 1 Cor. 15:46 that flesh precedes spirit.)

When Jesus was born, sin had not been atoned for! In the event, like the innocent children of the sinful adult Israelites (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.), he was able to wend his way to the Promised Land (Num. 14:31, cf. v.3., cf. Mt. 2:15) and in his own personal case eventually into heaven itself (Heb. 9:24, etc.). The fact is that he was like the rest of us but while he never personally sinned, we all did and so died as a consequence (Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 6:23)! His virgin birth is totally irrelevant to the issue of sin. All it proves is that he was the incarnate Son of God, truly human and no longer divine in nature. (On the imputation of sin see espec. my Straightforward Arguments against the Imputation of Adam’s Sin to his Posterity.)

Reflections on reading Robert Letham on ‘The Person of Christ’, Nottingham, 2013

On page 175 Letham avers “Misconceptions take a long time to eradicate.” They certainly do and this statement applies to him as much as to others (and doubtless to me!). While in fairness he is not entirely uncritical of Chalcedon and correctly comments on page 240 that it left a good deal of unfinished business on the table*, the main problem with his book is that its author is tied to tradition and inhabits a false, that is, an Augustinian rather than a biblical universe which leads him inevitably into error. It also fails to inspire our confidence in him as a christologist. (* His appendix, pp.229-246, involving the question ‘Did the church get it wrong?’ is important and should have produced a more positive answer.)

Of course, despite his doubts he adheres to Chalcedon and to the eternal generation of the Son. In the event, his book, though highly informative and wide-ranging, does not really get us far. His commitment to tradition comes well short of paving the way to deeper understanding and reformation.

It is worth remembering that Letham provides an introduction to Giles’ book on the eternal generation. Here he confesses his laudable respect for but too ready reliance on ecclesiastical tradition. However, as an individual whom he might wish to dismiss as a freewheeler (p.7), I suggest he needs to take a more critical attitude to what we have inherited from the past and not simply in the realm of Christology. (See further my essay Have We Inherited Lies?, etc.) History, including the teaching of the prophets, the apostles and especially of the Lord Jesus himself (e.g. Mark 7), warns of the dangers inherent in over-ready acceptance of tradition especially as it enshrined in time-honoured but questionable creeds. It seems to me at least that the entire church has lapsed in its understanding of the love and humility displayed by our awe-inspiring God, at once omnipotent and sovereign but amazingly loving and humble. But the idea that the doctrine of the eternal generation somehow protects and even reinforces the doctrine of the Trinity eludes me. It seems rather to do the opposite.

Personal Notes

1. John MacArthur writes: “Christ divested Himself of His glory. He went from sovereign supernatural deity, to taking upon Himself the form of a servant – and ultimately to a death on a cross ….” (Quoted from Evangelical Action, June/July 2013, p.11).

2. On the Trinity in the OT see Ottley, pp.565ff.

3. On Greek or Platonistic conception of God as a divine monad, immutability, etc., see Ottley, pp.373f.,580, cf. 401f. etc. Tony Lane, Christian Thought, pp.12f.

4. Ottley, p.584, tells us that Athanasius deprecates the use of technical language re eternal generation “on the ground that it is non-scriptural”.

5. On Romans 1:4, see Fee on God’s Empowering Presence, pp.478-484, Pauline Christology, pp.243f..

6. On perichoresis, etc., communicatio idiomatum, appropriation and mutuality of powers, see Ottley, pp. 573,581,591, cf. Richardson, p.123.

7. On salvation by ‘power’, or omnipotence or fiat, see Ottley, pp.646f.

More Meditation On Original Sin

(Though I have already written fairly extensively on original sin elsewhere, in view of the fact that the nefarious dogma is still so widely accepted in 2012, I feel under an obligation to add further comment to other articles that appear on this website.  Having just read Bridges and Bevington on The Great Exchange, I refer to it in the main partly for the convenience of the reader as well as myself, and partly because it provides standard Reformed doctrine and is likely to be quite widely read. It is a pity that what is in essence a fine book on its primary subject should be so marred by its stance on original sin.)

It is not as well known as it ought to be that the Jews, like the Orthodox, do not accept the so-called Christian doctrine of original sin (1* See e.g. Edersheim, p.165 as referred to by Sanday and Headlam, p.137.). While the OT frequently acknowledges that all men sin (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3; Eccl. 7:20, etc.), it nonetheless quite unmistakably individualizes them (Neh. 9:2; Ps. 106:6; Dan. 9:16, ESV, etc.) by pointedly distinguishing between fathers and sons (cf. Dt. 24:16; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18). In light of this we are virtually forced to infer that when Paul says in Romans 5:12 (cf. 3:23) that all (have) sinned, he is not thinking of our sinful solidarity ‘in Adam’ as Augustine taught (2* Omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante, all sinned when Adam sinned, as Bengel put it. See Sanday and Headlam, p134.) but of the fact that all who know the law fail to keep it for their own part (Rom. 7:1,7, cf. John 9:41; 15:22,24). He confirms this inference when he says that all in contrast with Jesus (cf. Rom. 8:3) prove incapable of keeping the law when it is revealed to them (Rom. 3:19f.; Gal. 2:16), which surely makes the dogma of original sin unnecessary and therefore redundant. Though it was always the preceptive will of God that men should be obedient for their own good (Dt. 30:20; 32:46f., etc.), it was clearly his decretive will that they should fail and thus turn to him for salvation through faith in Jesus (cf. Isa. 45:22-25; Rom. 9:30-10:4). But this is an entirely different kettle of fish from attributing sin to them before they actually sin.

Theological Considerations

What Christians fail to realize is that apart from exegetical considerations the theology of the OT not to mention the NT frequently militates against the notion of original sin as taught in the Augustinian tradition. Otherwise expressed, important events occur which necessarily exclude the idea of death being the wages of original sin. (3* In Protestant theology original sin involves the imputation of Adam’s sin. On the assumption that it exists at all, it can no more pay the wages of death than imputed righteousness can pay the wages of life, Rom. 4:4. Since imputation involves free gift, wages are excluded. No one properly understanding justification by faith can possibly pretend that what Luther called an ‘alien’ righteousness constitutes wages. By the same token, he cannot possibly regard his condemnation ‘in Adam’ as wages.) A prime example is provided by the exodus from Egypt.

The Exodus

In Numbers 14 the sinfulness of the fathers is sharply contrasted with the innocence of their children just as it is in significant verses like Deuteronomy 1:39. The former who have seen the glory and signs performed by God in Egypt and in the wilderness, have tested him, disobeyed and despised him are told in no uncertain terms that they will not see the land he swore to give to their ancestors (vv. 22f.). They are clearly held responsible for their own actions and, having rejected the evidence given to them, are left without excuse (cf. John 15:24; 10:25,32,37f.; 14:11; Rom. 1:19f.; 2:1). As a consequence of their sins they will all be paid wages (Rom. 6:23) and will die in the wilderness (v.29). On the other hand, the latter, who the fathers claimed would become booty, will, despite suffering as shepherds for forty years (v.33), nonetheless be brought in (v.31). That they eventually arrived safely in the Promised Land is a fact of history which points indisputably to their innocence at birth. They were not punished for the sins of their fathers (Dt. 24:16). It should be carefully noted, however, that they in their turn were in danger of repeating the sins of their fathers when they attained the age of accountability (cf. Num. 32:14f.) and were frequently warned against it (Jer. 35:15; Zech. 1:4, etc.).

Church Dogma

The conclusion we are compelled to draw from this is that all human beings, though certainly affected by the sins of their parents (v.33, cf. Ex. 20:5; 32:33; Rom. 5:12-21), sin for themselves. Despite this, it is patently obvious that the church has argued along the same lines as the sinful parents in Numbers 14 and repeated their error. Believing that Adam’s sin has been either transmitted (Catholics) or imputed (Protestants), it has assumed that children along with their fathers are tarnished with sin from birth and even conception and cannot possibly enter the heavenly Promised Land. To remedy the situation it has developed the dogma of infant baptism involving the regeneration of babies apart from righteousness by faith which is its necessary precondition (Lev. 18:5, etc.). But as we saw above when referring to Psalm 106:6, etc., the sins of the fathers are not transferred to the children who are responsible only for their own sins. In other words, contrary to the denial expressed in Article 9 of the Church of England the sins of the fathers are only punished in the children when they are repeated by them (cf. Jer. 31:29f.). The same teaching is evident in chapters like Ezekiel 18 where again the sins of fathers are differentiated from those of sons and cannot be credited to them.

In light of the evidence provided by the exodus, not to mention the fact that the imputation of sin cannot pay wages in death (Rom. 4:4), we are bound to consider that the so-called Pelagian interpretation of Romans 5:12 is correct. Augustine’s theology and his exegesis were both wrong, and his exclusive obsession with sin in Adam was a major error that contaminated so much of his thinking and as a consequence infected church dogma over which he continues to preside to this day (2012).

Sin and Righteousness

Historically, Christian tradition has failed to recognize the importance of the role of (the) law in the achievement of both sin and righteousness (cf. Rom. 6:16; 2 Pet. 2:19-21). It can hardly escape notice that Adam began his career like a baby or an animal in blissful ignorance (cf. Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22). Initially he knew neither the law, as encapsulated in a single commandment, nor good and evil, and so lived in a state of moral innocence. It was only when he had developed sufficient understanding that he was given the commandment promising life (Gen. 2:17). When he failed to keep it, he earned the wages of death. The truth of this is brought out especially by Paul in Romans 7:9f. where the apostle claims to have undergone the same experience. Here he says that he was born ‘alive’, and it was not until he learned and broke the commandment that he ‘died’. In fact, in Romans, one of Paul’s main platforms is the impossibility of sin apart from knowledge of (the) the law. He underlines this in Romans 4:15 and 7:1-13 in particular. But if law is necessary for sin to exist and is its power (1 Cor. 15:56). (4* Cf. Rom. 7:5 which, sadly, is usually mistranslated. In the Greek there is no word for ‘aroused’, ESV etc., and not with out reason, for Paul is here simply confirming and underlining what he is saying throughout 7:1-13, that is, that sin is ‘through the law’. In other words, the law is foundational of sin. By definition sin is transgression of the law and apart from it sin does not exist, 1 Sam. 15:24; 1 Cor. 15:56; James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4, etc.) the same must be true with regard to righteousness. With the implicit teaching of Genesis and the more explicit teaching of Deuteronomy 6:25 and 24:13 in mind Paul maintains that it is only by obeying the commandment or law that righteousness can be achieved (Rom. 6:16).

Since like Adam and Eve in whose image we are created (Gen. 5:1-3) we are all prone to the temptations of the world, the flesh and the devil we have no trouble becoming sinful (cf. Jer. 4:22; Rom. 1-3), we might well convince ourselves that we can just as easily keep the law and gain righteousness. This, however, is far from being the case. As Paul teaches elsewhere, for those who are flesh the law proves not to be the power of righteousness but of sin (1 Cor. 15:56, cf. Rom. 7:14; 2 Cor. 3). As a consequence, we all come under its sway (Rom. 6) and, since sin is paid the wages of death, we find ourselves in desperate need of righteousness from another source. That source is Christ who alone of all men that ever lived kept the law (Rom. 8:3), gained righteousness and so both met and provided the precondition of life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.). Having qualified himself (as man) by his own obedience, he then in the words of Peter suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous to bring us to God (1 Pet. 3:18).

What does this teach us? Surely that Romans 5:12-21 does not provide the frequently claimed exact parallel between Adam and Christ. (On this, see my An Exact Parallel?) Whatever impact Adam as the natural father of the race had on his progeny, it could not possibly involve the imputation of his sin for the simple reason that faith in him was not only lacking but impossible. It is a biblical axiom that sin cannot be legitimately imputed to the innocent, to those who have not committed any (Ex. 23:7; 1 Sam. 22:15; 1 K. 21; Prov. 17:15; Luke 23:4, etc.). If this is true, the very idea of original sin is excluded. No wonder, for if it were true, even Jesus, whose human father through his mother was Adam, no less (Luke 3:38), would have been born sinful! The plain fact is that the idea of the imputation of sin is Augustinian not biblical. Of course, it may immediately be countered that our sin was imputed to Jesus. It was indeed (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21), but the Bible makes it clear beyond reasonable dispute that he received it willingly by faith. Otherwise expressed, he gave himself freely, in love (Gal. 2:20) not compulsion, to atone for our sins. He bought us at the price of his own blood (1 Pet. 1:18f.) voluntarily shed (John 10:17f.) on our behalf.

Native Innocence

Traditional theology usually makes much of the fact that in contrast with Jesus whose conception was immaculate, we ordinary mortals are born with sinful natures. (5* See e.g. Bridges and Bevington, p.167. These authors’ reference to ‘immaculate conception’ is dangerously confusing since, historically speaking, it applies (wrongly) to Mary.) The assumption behind this is that as the offspring of Adam we are sinful not merely at birth but even at conception (6* B & B, pp.19f.) Verses like Genesis 5:1-3, 8:21 and Psalm 51:5 are appealed to but on close examination prove exegetically unconvincing. But my point here is that their relevance and validity are undermined by other teaching of Scripture. For a start, it is clear from the evidence of Genesis that Adam began life in ignorance of the law and was innocent. The same is true of his posterity (cf. Rom. 9:11). We have already seen that Paul in effect claims in Romans 7:9f. to have repeated Adam’s experience and was ‘alive’ until that commandment dawned on his developing consciousness. When it did, like Adam (pace Art. 9 of the C of E) he broke it and earned the wages of sin which is death.

Moral Nature Determined by Actual Sin or Obedience

The truth is that our moral nature is determined not by birth when we are innocent and ignorant (Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11), which if it were true would surely impugn the righteousness and holiness of God our Creator and make him the author of sin, but by our reaction to the commandment when we eventually receive it. This is surely implied by Jesus who states in John 8:34 that it is the man (or woman) who sins, that is, commits actual sin like Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:1-6; 1 Tim. 2:13) who is the slave of sin (cf. Jer. 13:23; 2 Pet. 2:19-21). Paul takes the same stance in Ephesians 2:1-3 (cf. Tit. 3:3-7) where he clearly places personal will, that is, actual sin before nature.

Recapitulation

What the Bible in fact teaches is the truth of recapitulation which was taught by the father of theology, Irenaeus, but lost to view in the theology of Augustine who eclipsed him. As the offspring of Adam we all begin where he began, that is, morally innocent or neutral, and this would appear to be the point of verses like Deuteronomy 1:39 and so forth. What is more, only on the basis of it could Jesus become the second Adam who began where Adam began but in contrast with him achieved perfection (cf. Eph. 4:9f.). Only by recapitulation could he live a fully human life and die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

Sins Not Sin

If this is in fact the case, it is less than surprising that Paul and other writers constantly talk in terms of our sins (e.g. Rom. 1:18-32), of our being dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13) and of Jesus dying for our sins rather than for sin in the abstract (e.g. Heb. 1:3, cf. 1 Pet. 3:18). In other words, Jesus died for our personally perpetrated sins not for our sinful nature acquired by birth from Adam. There is not the faintest suggestion in Scripture that Jesus who, according to Bridges and Bevington on account of his immaculate conception did not have a sinful nature (p.167), died for our sin in Adam (p.202). Indeed, to suggest that he did is deeply problematic theologically. For a start, it depicts Jesus as dying for what he did not himself assume, that is, a sinful human nature (cf. Heb. 2:17). (7* Cf. Gregory Nazianzen on whom see e.g. H.Cunliffe-Jones, p.126.) He was voluntarily made sin (2 Cor. 5:21) but was neither a sinner by nature (birth) nor by personal commission of sins (1 Pet. 2:22). He died for our actual sins not for our sinful nature acquired by imputation or transmission. After all, if the latter were true he himself would have been implicated since he necessarily shared our birth nature. If this is denied, he was docetic and not a true human being at all. The fact is that sin imputed putatively at birth apart from faith would clearly be a gift of nature like the colour of our skin and hence incapable of redemption (8* On page 202, B & B gratuitously inform us that we are redeemed from every transgression of God’s law, from both original and personal sin. Just how we can be redeemed from what has been freely imputed to us by God himself is more than a little difficult to understand! They say, however, that original sin was imputed to us by Adam (!), an astonishing thesis with numerous intolerable implications!), forgiveness (contrast Col. 1:14) or being repented of (9* Pace B.B.Warfield, pp.278-282. Warfield though undeniably a great theologian was surely in error at this point. On page 278, he defines original sin, first, as Adam’s personal sin made ours by an external act of imputation, and, secondly, as “our own inborn depravity, common to us and the whole race of man.” Again, on page 279, he says that original sin is “not merely adherent but also inherent sin, not merely the sinful act of Adam imputed to us, but also the sinful state of our own souls conveyed to us by the just judgment of God”! Regarding repentance he says that all sin must be repented of that it may be forgiven and proceeds to argue that original sin falls within its parameters. This is highly debatable. Here, however, I confine myself to saying with Roger Nicole: “No one can repent of sin except the one who committed it. Christ … did not and could not repent in our place”, p.451, and observing that if we can repent of imputed sin we can derive personal glory from imputed righteousness. Warfield himself would, I am sure, have promptly repudiated the latter suggestion. If so, in consistency he ought to have repudiated the former.) not least because not having committed it we cannot be held responsible for it. How can we be redeemed from what is freely given to us and has become an attribute of our nature like the colour of our skin? (10* On page 220, B & B actually go so far as to argue full in the face of Hebrews 2:17 that Jesus and the rest of us differ in birth nature. While we are compelled (sic) to sin, Jesus remains innocent. I submit that this is far from what the Bible teaches. For a start it delivers a mortal blow at the incarnation. According to my Bible we all as the offspring of Adam share the same nature as flesh.) It is God’s doing, not ours. According to Paul, however, it is personal transgression of the law that makes us accountable (Rom. 3:19f.). On the other hand, if we are sinners by birth, we are under an obligation to act in accordance with nature and failure to do so is reprehensible (Rom. 1:26f.). At this point we enter the realm of absurdity.

Restoration of Fellowship

Writers frequently maintain that our redemption by Christ restores our fellowship with God. In the words of B & B: “Atonement allows for restoration of the previously disrupted fellowship” (p.23). But this is an implicit denial of the original sin and the sinful birth nature that they contend for. Why? Because apart from the fact that it makes God himself open to the charges of creating us evil and of illegitimately imputing sin to the innocent, if we are sinful even at conception there is never any fellowship to restore. In contrast, the Genesis story makes it crystal clear that mankind (Adam) enjoyed a relationship with God at the beginning, and from this we must infer that since we are all created as his offspring we too in our infancy enjoy what might be called an embryonic relationship with him as his creatures. This continues until it is broken as it was in Paul’s case (Rom. 7:9f.). The same inference may be drawn from the story of the Prodigal Son who voluntarily left his father’s house into which he was born. In light of this, the traditional attempt to lump all together in seminal identity and solidarity in sinful Adam thereby implicitly denying individual separation is false to the Bible. After all, Jesus, though a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) provides us with a clear instance of separation since he remained innocent all his earthly life. In any case, the Bible itself addresses this issue in Number 16:22 by posing the question: “Shall one man sin, and will you be angry with all the congregation?” In view of what follows in verse 45, that is, the separation of the implicitly innocent congregation from those who sinned and died, the answer is clear (cf. Num. 26:11; 27:3; 2 Sam. 24:17, and Caleb and Joshua at a later stage). Thus the principle propounded in the Lord’s assertion to Moses in Exodus 32:33 that the one who sins will be blotted out of his book is upheld. Along with human solidarity there is a scriptural doctrine of individual separation. (11* See further my article on Solidarity and Separation.) Thank God that this is so, since Jesus though a true human being born of woman separated himself not by birth but by not sinning (1 Pet. 2:22). (12* As indicated above, writers like B & B sadly even go so far as to argue that Jesus’ very nature was different from that of the rest of humanity, p.220, ignoring the biblical insistence that Jesus was truly a son of Adam through his mother, Luke 3:38, cf. Gen. 5:1-3, and in fact the second or last Adam. They thus draw the conclusion that on account of the imputation of Adam’s sin we are ‘compelled’ to sin. All else apart this is surely implicit blasphemy.)

The fact is that restoration of fellowship, or reconciliation which is a major NT doctrine, only makes sense if as God’s children by creation we are initially by nature in the Father’s house. It is personal sin that alienates us as it did Adam and Eve from Eden, the womb of the race. In our mother’s womb like Paul (Rom. 7:9, cf. 9:11) we still have access to the tree of life and regain it when we enter heaven through faith in Jesus (Rev. 22:2).

Union with Christ

According to the NT as believers we die in union with Christ since he acted on our behalf. By faith his death becomes ours. Since this is so, we are baptized into his death and crucified with him (Rom. 6:1-14; Gal. 5:24). Thus in him as our federal (covenant) head and representative received by faith we die to the law and to sin. But can it be said that we die in union with Adam? Did he act on our behalf? Do we exercise faith in him and become linked with him covenantally? A negative response is required for two basic reasons: on the one hand as babies we cannot exercise faith and on the other God made no covenant with Adam. Certainly Paul uses the words “die in Adam” (1 Cor. 15:22) once only, but what does he mean? As the first Adam was clearly representative man according to the flesh and we are all, including Jesus, ‘in Adam’ in the sense that we are made in his image (Gen. 5:1-3), we all die as such. But this does not imply that he sinned for us any more than any other father sinned on his son’s behalf (cf. Ezek 18, etc.). Such an idea is the invention of men not a teaching of the Bible which implicitly denies it when it informs us that we cannot be punished for the sins of our fathers (Dt. 24:16; 2 K.14:6, cf. Ex. 32:33; Num. 27:3).

Once more I conclude that original sin is radically false and needs to be repudiated with rigour and dispatch. Verses like Psalm 51:5 relatively unremarkable among the Jews is in Christian exegesis made to dance to the devil’s tune. It thus distorts our entire theology and sacramental practice. Little wonder that Christians remain so hopelessly divided on the one hand and find the Jews an enigma on the other.

______________________________________________

References

J.Bridges & Bob Bevington, The Great Exchange, Wheaton, 2007.

Sandy and Headlam, ICC on The Epistle to the Romans, fifth ed., 1902.

R.Nicole in The Glory of the Atonement, ed. C.Hill & F.James III, Downers Grove, 2004.

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

 

 

Comment On ‘Why On Earth Did Jesus Come? by John Blanchard

This widely advertised booklet (Faverdale North, Darlington, 2009) which is likely to find a wide readership contains some useful information and here and there makes good points. But as an exposition of what the Bible teaches in certain critical areas it is something of a disaster.

On page 12, in opposition to the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Blanchard tells us correctly that the Virgin Mary was not born without sin and refers to Psalm 51:5 to prove his case. However, bearing in mind that the Jews and the Orthodox have never accepted the Augustinian interpretation of this verse, we do well to be suspicious. The problem is that depending on its correct translation and interpretation, it could arguably apply to the sinless Jesus himself who certainly came into a wicked world and was born of a sinful woman.

Our author then generalizes by adding that “at birth” (Gk “by nature”) all human beings are “children of wrath”. The difficulty here is that Ephesians 2:3b to which Blanchard refers is preceded by reference to actual sin and evil living prior to the attribution of nature. In other words, the passage cannot refer to babies and birth sin but only to those who have already sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).

On page 31, however, Blanchard draws the opposite conclusion and claims that what we do is the result of what we are, that is, sinners at birth. While it is clear that what we do later in life is conditioned by what we are (e.g. Mt. 7:17), this is not true of babies who have not committed any sins. As Jesus says, it is those who commit sin that are the slaves of sin (John 8:34). So, we are forced to infer that what we do early in life determines our nature. This was certainly true in Adam’s case and since we all recapitulate Adam and Eve’s experience, it is true in all other cases. In Romans 7:9f. Paul, for example, claims that far from being guilty at birth he was “alive”, but like Adam died when he broke the commandment that promised (eternal) life. Again, in 9:11 Paul’s assumption of the innocence or moral neutrality of Esau and Jacob in the womb is vital to his argument regarding election.

What the Bible teaches then is that like Adam we acquire our sinful natures by disobedience (Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 6:16) and our righteous natures by obedience (Dt. 6:25; 24:13; Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 John 3:7, etc.). (1* Throughout the Bible sin is defined by law. See further my Law and Sin) We follow either Adam or Jesus. In the event, like Adam we all prove incapable of obedience (cf. Rom. 7) and have to rely on the alien righteousness provided for us by Jesus.

Blanchard is so conditioned by his Augustinian tradition that he tells us on page 30 that Adam at first had a natural inclination to do good. This is in compete opposition to the teaching of Paul who having first characterized Adam as flesh or dust (1 Cor. 15) tells us that nothing good dwells in his own flesh (Rom. 7:18, cf. John 6:63) and further informs us that by divine design no flesh will boast in the presence of God (Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:9). The real reason why we have a fatal tendency to break God’s law is not because we have inherited “a guilty fallen nature” but because in contravention of the law we give way to our animal appetites which like Adam and Eve we fail to control (cf. Gen. 3:6; Rom. 7:14; James 1:14f., etc.).(Of course, I do not intend to deny a la Pelagius the unspecified role of Adam in Romans 5:12-21 and the machinations of the devil.)

Next, Blanchard introduces a colossal contradiction into his argument and unwittingly undermines his entire thesis regarding birth sin. On page 31 he tells us correctly that “where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:8). However, he fails to recognize that since embryos and babies, like animals, know neither good nor evil, there is no law to be broken and therefore there is no sin (Dt. 1:39; Rom. 7:9f.; 9:11, etc.).

Referring back to page 30 our author tells us that Adam was not only the natural but also the representative head of the human race. Needless to say, he produces no evidence to support this lamentable assertion for the simple reason that there isn’t any. Adam was simply prototypical representative man according to the flesh with whom God failed conspicuously to make a covenant. (On this see my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?) He then goes on to say that Adam began to father children “in his own likeness, after his image” (Gen. 5:3). And to make his point clear he adds that they and their successors inherited not only their father’s physical nature but also his spiritual nature! If this is true, then Jesus was born a sinner since Scripture certainly teaches that along with other unsavoury characters mentioned in his family tree (Mt. 1:1-6) Adam was his father too (Luke 3:38). The plain truth of Scripture is that while the children of man and woman are born with human natures (flesh, cf. John 1:13; Gal. 4:4) they do not and cannot inherit their moral natures which can only be acquired by reacting with (the) law. Fathers and sons often differ substantially. A good father can beget a bad son and vice versa as Ezekiel 18 in particular affirms and as Hezekiah and Manasseh and Amon and Josiah demonstrate. While solidarity is important, personal responsibility remains intact (Ex. 32:33; Dt. 24:16; Jer. 31:29f.; 1 Cor. 4:5; Heb. 9:27). It is worth adding, however, that Jesus confirmed his own divine sonship by keeping the law in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). In this he was of course unique.

Conclusion

The degree to which Blanchard has uncritically allowed tradition to colour his interpretation of the Bible is frightening. It reminds us of Jesus’ reference to the nullification of the word of God in Mark 7:13.

It remains to add that the reason why Jesus came to earth was to rescue us who were unable to meet the condition of eternal life which was to keep the law (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom 7:10, etc.). He alone of all men that have ever lived attained to righteousness by his perfect obedience (Heb. 2:17f.; 4:15; 5:7-9; 1 Pet. 2:22) and as a consequence inherited the promise. This permitted him to die on our behalf and serve as the pioneer of our salvation (Heb. 2:10, etc.). In our author’s words, “He came to solve our greatest problem and to bring us into a living relationship with God that will transform our lives here and now and enrich them in heaven for ever” (p.38).

Note

The reader is urged to read along with other relevant articles my Augustine: Asset or Liability?

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.

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.

Who Goes to Heaven?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE

Faith and Law

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

Augustinian Theology and Original Sin

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

The Order of Salvation

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

Faith and Regeneration

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

Salvation

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

The Salvation of Children

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

Covenant Theology

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

Nullified by Tradition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenant Theology

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

Individual and Community

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

Recapitulation

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

The Priesthood of Christian Believers

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

The Churches

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

Note

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

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.

The Theology Behind Baptism

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

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

Biblical Theology in General

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

False Practice

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

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

False Covenant Theology

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

Original Sin

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

True Covenant Theology

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

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

Recapitulation

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

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

The Order of Salvation

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

“Precapitulation”

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

Regeneration/Adoption Universally Necessary

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

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

Christians

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

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

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

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

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

The Meaning of Baptism

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

Baptism in the New Testament

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

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

Jesus Our Paradigm

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

Postscript

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________

Reference

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

Are Babies Saved?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Additional Note on the Four Living Creatures

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

(See further my Concerning Infant Salvation)

Not Only But Also

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

Not just either/or but both/and

Original Perfection

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

Adam and Eve

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

Creation

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

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

The Law/Old Covenant

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

Flesh

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

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

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

Jesus

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

Arianism

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

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

Nature

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

Man-made Objects

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

Animals

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

The Wages of Sin

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

Flesh and Spirit

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

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

Death

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

God

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

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

Justification By Faith and Judgement By Works

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

End Times

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

Galatians 1:4

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

Creation and Evolution

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

Conclusion

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

_________________________________________________

References

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

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

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

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

Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy, Massachusetts, 1996.