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.

Concerning Original Righteousness

Of all the dogmas that have come down to us from our spiritual forebears none has involved more misunderstanding and wreaked more havoc, at least in its ramifications and implications, than the notion that Adam and Eve were created perfect, holy and righteous to exercise lordship in a perfect creation. Today in the twenty-first century, though we still hear much of original sin, comparatively little is heard of the concomitant idea of original righteousness. Many who upheld it even in my younger days seem to have quietly ceased to refer to it, though it appears regularly in reprints of older theological works.

The Historical Background

It was Augustine of Hippo who foisted it on the church of his day, and it has stayed with us for nearly 1600 years. It must be remembered, however, that Augustine was converted against a background of paganism, of Manicheism in particular, though his mother, Monica, was a Christian. His understanding of the Bible was extremely limited at the start of his ecclesiastical career but he studied hard.

Augustine believed that God had created man (Adam) upright, good and free (Seeberg 1,341). This being so, it was man’s delight as well as his duty to serve God and to subject his body to his soul (Rist, 101f.,110,112). He had the capacity to persevere in good and the exercise of his free will. Further, he was able not to sin (posse non peccare) though not unable to sin (non posse peccare). Ultimately, however, his pride proved his undoing (Seeberg,1,342, Rist, 102). This is associated with the ‘triple concupiscence’ referred to in 1 John 2:16 where concupiscence comes to mean for Augustine not merely lust but weakness.

So it was from the ‘high estate’ (Milton) of original righteousness that man in Adam fell. Whereas before he was able to decide between good and evil, he now had to contend with ignorance, difficulty and weakness. He lost his free will and could no longer perform any good act. He had a divided self or ‘shattered identity’, feared death yet was liable to temptation and unable to control his disobedient, especially his sexual, members (Rist, pp.130ff.). The result of all this was that man’s nature was now ‘significantly irrational and hence unintelligible’ (Rist, p. 138). In a word human nature, not simply the nature of Adam which was passed on to all his children, had undergone a serious change for the worse. Man was ‘socially’ and ‘genetically’ damaged (Rist, p. 326) and mortally wounded.

Based firmly on this platform and harbouring great admiration for Augustine, it is not surprising that the Reformers, though taking great strides away from medieval Catholicism in certain areas, fell well short of escaping his tentacles. They believed in the words of Mastricht that “original righteousness was conferred on Adam not as a private but a public person” and would therefore have been transmitted to posterity. In the event, however, since like begets like (cf. John 3:6), it was original sin that was passed on resulting in the disturbing loss of free will (see Heppe, pp.240f., cf. Seeberg, p.342). (1* Cf. the later federal theology and the idea that Adam was the covenant head and representative of all humanity.) Though they distinguished between righteousness as substance (God) and accident (man), the Reformers, conditioned as they were by Augustine’s views, clearly drew false conclusions from the biblical data which must now be briefly examined.

The Biblical Data

First, righteousness inheres in God alone: he is not only righteous in himself (Dt. 32:4; Ps. 119:137; Jer. 12:1; Dan. 9:7; Isa. 45:21) but is righteous in all that he does (Gen. 18:25; Ps. 92:15; Isa. 5:16; Dan. 7:14,16). Since he himself is characterized by his holiness and righteousness, he requires man who is created in his image to be like him (Gen. 17:1; Lev. 19:2; Dt. 16:20; 18:13; 2 Chron. 19:7, etc.). But since at the start man knows neither the law nor good and evil, God’s image is purely potential. In other words, it has to be acquired by obedience (cf. Rom. 6:16), which is the implication of Genesis 2 and 3.

This is where Augustine, followed by the medieval church and later still by the Reformers, went so profoundly wrong. He assumed that righteousness was part of Adam’s nature by creation, but this is impossible. The mere fact that it is intimated in Genesis 2:17, 3:5 and 3:22 that Adam and Eve, originally knowing neither good nor evil, had no, least of all ethical, understanding whatsoever should have suggested that they were morally neutral like babies (cf. Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 5:12-14). And it was only when they transgressed the commandment that the situation changed. To say this is to highlight the role of law in Scripture, and it must now be briefly examined.

The Law

First, on the basis of his understanding of the OT Paul lays it down that where there is no law there is no sin (4:15; 5:13; 7:7-12). John implies the same but expresses himself somewhat differently when he defines sin as lawlessness or as transgression of the law (1 John 3:4; 5:17, cf. James 2:9-11). Secondly, and equally importantly, righteousness is only acquired when the law is obeyed (Dt. 6:25; Ps. 24:3-5; Ezek. 18:5-9; Rom. 6:16). This point is brought out in a much misunderstood contention of James (see 2:21,24,25) but stated explicitly by John (1 John 3:7, cf. v.10 and 2:29).

The whole issue is perhaps most easily clarified by reference to the life of Jesus, the man, who was also born like all babies knowing neither good nor evil (cf. Isa. 7:15f.). Even he had to acquire righteousness by his obedience. Whereas the first Adam, and all his posterity likewise (1 K. 8:46, etc.), broke the commandment, Jesus, the second or last Adam, kept the whole written law of Moses and received the approval of his Father by so doing (Mt. 3:17). His reception of the Spirit at his baptism makes it crystal clear that he had kept the law to his Father’s satisfaction and was granted eternal life in accordance with the original promise to Adam (Gen. 2:17). That obedience was the precondition of life is expressed most succinctly in Leviticus 18:5, and not surprisingly the essence of this verse re-appears repeatedly throughout Scripture (e.g. Neh. 9:29; Ezek. 20:11,13,21; Rom. 10:5, etc.). For all that he was considered righteous in OT terms (cf. Paul in Philippians 3:6 though note in his case Romans 7:7), he recognized that he was required as the true Son of his Father to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) in order to achieve the perfection or completeness of his Father (Mt. 5:48; Acts 10:38; Heb. 2:10, etc.). Thus he became obedient to death (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8f.) thereby totally fulfilling his Father’s will (Heb. 10:7; John 17:4; 19:30) by laying down his life for his sheep (John 10:17f.). It is then and not a moment before his resurrection and ascension (note Acts 2:22-24) that he is acclaimed as the Holy and Righteous One in a definitive sense (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 John 2:1), implying his equality with the Father. This had of course been obliquely referred to by the devil in Genesis 3:5 (cf. Isa. 45:21,23; Phil. 2:9-11). In John 17:5,24, having to all intents and purposes finished his work, Jesus himself reclaims the glory that he had relinquished during his incarnation. And for Paul he was declared to be Son of God in power, Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 1:4).

In light of all this, it is plain that the role of law alone in Scripture precludes the possibility that ‘flesh’ could be righteous by creation (cf. Rom. 7:18; 8:8). If this was true of the incarnate Jesus who was ‘born of woman’ (cf. Job 15:14), how much more of ordinary men like dusty Adam whose origin resembled that of maggots and worms (Job 25:4-6). On reflection, it is quite ironical, astonishing in fact, that many Christians have believed that the flesh is evil (cf. NIV and its constant rendering of sarx (flesh) as ‘sinful nature’ though corrected in the 2011 edition) yet have nonetheless attributed righteousness to him who was the very epitome of the flesh (cf. Gen. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:45-49). It is all the more amazing when on consideration we see that the only moral quality that Adam is given in Scripture is his sinfulness, not because he was made that way but because the only record we have of him is as one who broke the law (commandment). Certainly he fell far short of the kind of good that Augustine attributed to him.

Scripture is unequivocally clear on this matter. Jesus, the second Adam, was the only man in all history who successfully kept the law, and on the basis of his obedience was pronounced righteous.

Some may protest at this point and insist that Jesus as the Son of God must have been ontologically righteous. That, however, would be to confuse his humanity with his divinity and to stray into docetism. Once the word became man (flesh) he had to play the role of the second Adam, justify himself by the works of the law or fail in the attempt as his predecessor had done. This is why it can be said that he had to keep the law on his own account. Failure would only have disqualified him from ever acting as Adam’s necessary replacement and our substitute. This point becomes clear when we consider what is said in Ezekiel 14:14,20 where we read that Noah, Daniel and Job could only have delivered themselves by their righteousness by faith (cf. Moses in Exodus 32:32f. and note Paul in Romans 9:3). In contrast with them, however, Jesus kept the law but in so doing, as was indicated above, was regenerated in accordance with the divine promise recorded most notably in Leviticus 18:5 and thus enabled to die on his brothers’ behalf (Eph. 2:10; Heb. 2:10-13).

Human Development

The Reformers (and regrettably the sons of the only half-completed Reformation) as they somewhat uncritically followed Augustine and the medieval church, made another inference which is not merely radically unbiblical but also flies in the face of human experience, that is they saw man essentially as a flat uniformity and not as a creature inherently subject to development or evolution (cf. Berkhof on Schleiermacher, ST, p.203). Otherwise expressed, they failed to reckon with the fact that Adam was representative man according to the flesh and an individual in his own right (though certainly not its covenant head). As the former, he was only in his infancy, initially a fetus gestating in the womb (Eden) in fact. As the latter, while he may have been physically mature he was spiritually very primitive indeed. Thus the Reformers and many of their successors tried to argue back from texts like Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10 and draw the clearly erroneous conclusion that since regenerate man’s image is that of God, then Adam’s was originally like it. (2* See e.g. Hodge on Ephesians 4:24, p.267.) But this is to fly in the face of the evidence and to reflect complete theological or anthropological disorientation. It confuses the beginning with the end. It is in fact an attempt to fetch back the age of gold which in fact never existed.

The truth is, judging by Genesis 3:5, that the devil, fully aware that Adam was created in God’s image, also recognized that that image was only embryonic or potential and as such had the capacity to develop under the law and fully achieve God’s likeness. This he was intent on preventing, of nipping in the bud. (3* Had that image been already perfect as Augustine taught, it is difficult to see what the devil could have done.) So in accordance with his God-given nature, man had to mature and achieve righteousness first by keeping the commandment and eventually the whole law of Moses. Then having met its precondition he would, like Jesus at his baptism, have received the Spirit and been granted eternal life (Lev. 18:5, etc.). However, even after gaining righteousness under the law of Moses, Jesus was subjected to temptation in what was clearly the devil’s bid to prevent him from attaining to perfection (cf. Mt. 16:22f.). This reminds us that Jesus’ perfection involved the redemption of mankind (cf. John 19:30). (4* Note also the devil’s emphasis on Jesus’ status as the Son of God in the temptations recorded in Matthew 4:1-11. From this we learn that it was essential for the function of Jesus (what he did) to match his ontology (who he was). The process was completed of course when Jesus finally completed his exodus, Luke 9:31,51, and ascended to regain his former glory, John 17:5,24.)

Protestant Doctrine

Since the Reformation Protestant apologetics has made a good deal of Adam’s original righteousness. When Charles Hodge claimed: “It is plain from these passages (Eph. 4:24 and Col. 3:10) that knowledge, righteousness and holiness are elements of the image of God in which man was originally created” (ST,2, p.101, Ephesians, p.267, cf. Berkhof, ST, pp.202f.), and “What is asserted of Adam is that, as he came from the hands of his Maker, his mind was imbued with this spiritual or divine knowledge”, and again “… it is plain that the Protestant doctrine concerning the image of God and the original righteousness in which and with which Adam was created includes not only his rational nature, but also knowledge, righteousness, and holiness” (ibid. p.102), it is obvious that his Augustinian view of the Bible and of man himself was seriously astray. After all, Genesis itself makes it clear beyond reasonable dispute that Adam as created, like a baby lacking all knowledge and understanding, knew neither good nor evil. (5* Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 15:46 that flesh comes before spirit. The implication of this is that Adam as created out of the ground like the animals was himself first a human animal, that is merely flesh, who eventually developed understanding under the Spirit of God. Like a baby the first command he understood was no!)

Tragically, however, the Reformers, like their medieval forebears, drew from this false notion of Adam’s original righteousness the inference that when Adam sinned he fell from some ‘high estate’ (Milton) that he had previously occupied. But this is manifestly not the case. If Adam fell at all he fell not from the perfect righteousness that characterizes the full-grown or mature man (cf. Jesus, and note e.g. Eph. 4:13-15) but from the state of virtual innocence that a baby enjoys (cf. Isa. 7:15f.; 8:4; Rom. 9:11), which is questionably a fall at all. Having once transgressed, however, Adam became as Jesus intimated in John 8:34, the slave of sin (cf. Rom. 6:16-19). The trend he began was imitated or better repeated (pace Art. 9 of the C of E) and continued, not inherited, by his descendants when ‘all flesh’ corrupted its way on the earth (6:11f.) and was only arrested by the intervention of God in the time of Noah, though even he was a sinner.

Another point must be made. The Bible insists that Adam’s nature was essentially ‘flesh’ (1 Cor. 15:42-50, cf. Heb. 2:14). This being the case, when Jesus says that the flesh is unprofitable (John 6:63, cf. Rom. 7:18; 8:8), he thereby implicitly denies that there is any moral good in Adam. He was no more capable of producing acceptable fruit for God (cf. Heb. 11:6) than a worm or a maggot whose basic nature he shared (Job 25:5f.).

But the Bible has another way of emphasizing the unprofitability of the earthly side of man who lacks inherent value in relation to God, his Creator (cf. Job 22:2f.; 35:7). There is the question of status to consider. Man (Adam) begins life as an earthly creature knowing neither good nor evil and is entirely dependent on God for his support (cf. Num. 11:12). Later, he is carried about by God as a parent carries a child (Ex. 19:4; Ezek. 16; Isa. 63:9; Hos. 11:3f.). In this condition he is but a slave (Gal. 4:1) as Israel in his minority was in Egypt. Once, however, he comes within the jurisdiction and under the instruction of the law, he is no longer a slave (child) but a servant (cf. Lev. 25:42,46,55; 26:13). But even servants lack intrinsic value and produce no good that is worthy of note. By definition, slaves and servants are quite incapable of doing meritorious good. After all, their role is simply to do as they are told (Luke 7:8). Jesus underlines the point when he says in Luke 17:7-10 that a servant, far from putting his master in his debt (cf. Rom. 11:35), is under an obligation to do all that he is commanded to do, and at best falls short even of that (cf. Rom. 3:23; Heb. 9:15). So it becomes perfectly plain that Jesus himself was the peerless servant who alone did his Father’s will and was thus confirmed and acknowledged as his true Son at his baptism (Mt. 3:17, cf. 17:25f.). And it is only as adopted sons that we who believe in him who is our elder brother (Heb. 2:10-13, cf. Luke 15:25-32*) can serve God acceptably (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Tit. 2:14).

Mention of the word ‘son’ highlights yet another point, for even sons serve their fathers and seek to imitate them, not merely their written instructions but their very characters and nature (cf. Heb. 1:3). Thus Jesus at his baptism undertakes to fulfil all righteousness and achieve perfection as the true Son of his Father, the OT Servant par excellence (Mt. 3:15; John 4:34; 8:29, cf. Mt. 19:21) and in this he is pre-eminently successful despite all the opposition the devil can muster (John 5:19; 14:31; 15:10b). So he finished his course (Luke 13:32) in complete submission to his Father’s will (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 3:6a; 5:8; 10:9f.), and on his exaltation he is pronounced the Holy and Righteous One (Acts 3:14, etc.).

As far as we are concerned, the essence of Jesus’ work as the regenerate Son is that he died to save us as the most famous text in the Bible indicates – John 3:16 (cf. 1 John 4:9; Rom. 5:2,8-10). But the point to be noted is that this work constituted Jesus’ fruit bearing as a Son (John 12:24; 6:37-40, 44-51). It was the kind of work that was inherently impossible for a servant under the law who was in the nature of the case pre-occupied with the task of justifying himself (Lev. 18:5). Rather it involved the voluntary self-offering (John10:17f.) of one who already had eternal life and had already gained entry into the Father’s house (John 8:35f.; cf. Eph. 2:6; Heb. 3:6). No one else was capable of or qualified to accomplish the task. For, if Jesus had not been born again and had died under the law as a Son of the Commandment, he would have been classified as a sinner.

All this prompts the question of our own status before God. Have we Gentiles not only been slaves rather than (Jewish) servants (note how the servant category is missing from the pagan Galatians in 4:1-7) and eminently unprofitable ones at that (Eph. 2:1-3)? Was not the story of our pre-conversion days one of short coming, sin and rebellion? Can we claim righteousness on the basis of works? Manifestly not. But as believers in Christ for us the situation has changed. For just as he was accepted as a son, the Son in fact, at his baptism (Mark 1:11), so were we at ours assuming we were responsible believers (Acts 2:38; 10:44-48; Rom. 8:12-16; Gal. 3:26f.). And Jesus teaches in a manner scarcely able to be misunderstood that, having already been justified through faith in him, provided that we abide in him as he did in his Father, then we can bear fruit too as true sons and daughters (John 15). If we are under any illusions in this respect, it is worth noting that Paul teaches the same thing (Rom. 7:4, cf. 6:13b; Gal. 2:19; Tit. 2:11-14).

Now sons, as we all well know, are not always as obedient as they should be (cf. Luke 15:11-32) and some of their works, if not actually evil, are done with the wrong motive. Yet while as Paul suggests these works will be found wanting on Judgement Day (1 Cor. 3:12-15), their demerit does not affect their standing as true sons. This, of course, brings us back to Jesus’ stress on our keeping his commandments and abiding in him (John 14:15), for perfection is still our aim (Mt. 5:48; 19:21). Of this Paul was well aware as he strove for mastery over his body and the completion of his course in a life full of incident and suffering (Phil. 3:12-16; Acts 20:24). And as he approached the finish, he was confident that, having kept the faith, there was laid up for him the crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous Judge, would award him at the end. Furthermore, as a good pastor of souls, he was able to assure his readers that they too, as they continued their pilgrimage, could look for a similar reward (2 Tim. 4:6-8).

Conclusions

On the assumption that what has been said above is in essence correct, there are certain fundamental lessons to be learnt from it:

(1) Man as created (or procreated) does not know the law and hence neither good nor evil. He is therefore innocent or morally neutral.

(2) To become either sinful or righteous he, including even Jesus, the last Adam, must either break (James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17) or keep the law (Dt. 6:25; Eph. 2:1-3; 1 John 3:7; James 2:8, 21-26). So when Paul says that where there is no law there is no transgression, he implies by the same token that there is no righteousness either (Rom. 6:16). Since there was no law or commandment in evidence at Adam’s creation (cf. Rom. 9:11), the notion of his original righteousness must be rejected.

(3) Since, according to Scripture, righteousness, holiness and perfection is always something to be attained by man, to posit it in Adam’s case is to suggest that he had arrived before he set out!

(4) Since Adam was clearly not originally righteous, it follows that he never ‘fell’ in the traditional sense of that term (cf. Rev. 2:5). Original sin then is as much a myth as original righteousness and could not possibly be transmitted to his descendants (Ex. 32:33; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 14:14-20; 18).

(5) All men and women, with the single exception of Jesus, are incapable of achieving righteousness by performing the works of the law (Gal. 2:16, etc.). A righteousness imputed by faith is therefore indispensable for life (cf. Lev. 18:5 and Rom. 3:21-28).

(6) According to the Bible man is inherently subject to development, maturation, growth, evolution, completion. Perfection or maturity in sin and/or righteousness cannot be stamped or superimposed on us as a supernatural gift, infused in us or conveyed to us by means of a mechanically operating sacrament as Catholics maintain.

(7) It is fatal to follow uncritically the teaching of great men no matter how exalted their reputation. Augustine’s errors have kept the church in relative adolescence for 1600 years, and it is now time for it to come of age.

* The parable of the Prodigal Son or at least the Elder Brother has surely been widely misunderstood. If it was designed to show the love of the Father, then it succeeds admirably. The apparent reluctance of the older noticeably obedient son points up the awesomeness of the victory Jesus achieved in the flesh. See further my essay Re-Instating The Elder Son.

______________________________________________

References

L.Berkhof, Systematic Theology, London, 1959.

C.Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols, London, 1960.

J.Rist, Augustine, Cambridge, 1994.

R.Seeberg, The History of Doctrine, Grand Rapids, 1977.

H.Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, 1950.

The Resurrection Of The Body

In accordance with the Apostles’ Creed I believe in the resurrection of the body. Having said that, however, I am aware that there is much confusion over the issue, and my “confession”, unadorned, requires elaboration and explanation.

A Modern View

For instance, I have just read (July 2010) Driscoll and Breshears’ (D/B) chapter on resurrection in “Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe” and am left with a feeling of great unease. On page 280, seeking correctly to distinguish between revivification and resurrection, they write: “Unlike revivification, resurrection teaches that someone dies and returns to physical life forever, or what the Bible calls eternal life, patterned after Jesus’ death and resurrection.” As it stands that statement prompts at least three basic questions: (1) where does the Bible teach that we return to physical life?; (2) where are we left with the impression in Scripture that physical life lasts forever and is eternal?; (3) where does the Bible suggest that our resurrection is patterned after Jesus’ death and resurrection? On page 281 while our authors correctly teach the separation of body and soul immediately after death, they then refer to the eventual re-uniting of our body and soul. Though we might agree with this at first blush, a little reflection makes us realize that even this idea prompts questions and requires clarification.

The Redemption of Creation

The questions I have just raised in the previous paragraph are important for the simple reason that if the statement is allowed to stand as D/B have expressed it, it leads immediately to the presently popular idea that the whole creation will also be ‘resurrected’, regenerated and redeemed. For instance, D/B tell us on page 72 that the book of Genesis describes how God began his rescue mission to save his sin-marred world (cf. pp.82,140,178, etc.) making it possible for Jesus “to establish his throne on the earth and rule over his kingdom, which extends to all creation” (p.302). Here they are to some extent following writers like Harris (RI, pp.165ff., GG, pp. 245-252), N.T.Wright (Challenge, where he refers to cosmic liberation, p.172, Colossians, pp.76f., while on p.76 Wright talks OT-style of restoration, on p.77 he posits a brand new creation), and C.J.H.Wright (The Mission of God), who link the resurrection of Jesus with creation. Now, since I have sought in a number of articles posted on this website to show that this is false to the Bible, it is imperative to re-address the issue.

Two Sorts of Resurrection

Before going further, it is vital for us to be aware of the fact that there are basically two sorts of resurrection. First, there is the restoration of a dead body to resumption and continuation of life in the flesh. The resurrection recorded in John 11 is a case in point, though there are others (e.g. 1 K. 17:17-24; 2 K. 4:32-36; Luke 8:49-55). Jesus raised his friend Lazarus after he had been dead four days and was on the verge of decomposition. After Jesus himself had suffered death by crucifixion he too was restored and resumed his life in the flesh (Luke 24:39) in accordance with his prediction (John 10:17f.). However, even within this category there was a fundamental difference between the resurrections of Lazarus and Jesus: whereas the former died again, Paul tells us explicitly that Jesus rose never to die again (which is different from saying that he was immortal). The reason he gives for this is that death no longer had dominion over him (Rom. 6:9; Rev. 1:18.). Why was this so? Acts 2:24 is relevant but hardly provides the answer we are looking for. However, the solution to this apparent enigma is not far to seek: it must lie in the fact that Jesus should not have died at all. In contrast with the first Adam who had been promised (eternal) life if he kept the commandment but failed (Gen. 2:17), Jesus had pleased his Father by keeping the entire law (cf. Lev. 18:5; John 8:46; Mt. 3:15; 19:16-21). Having done so, he had inherited life when he received the promised Spirit at his baptism (Mt. 3:13-17). But in accordance with the plan of salvation by which God intended that he alone should be the Saviour of man (e.g. Isa. 45:22-25), he had freely laid down his life (given his flesh, Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 3:18; Phil. 2:5-11) for his friends (John 10; 15:13). In this scenario, since he had not sinned, death for him was not wages (Rom. 5:12; 6:23) and therefore, if the requirements of justice were to be met, demanded reversal (cf. Rom. 3:26; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:12-14). This was achieved by resurrection. Having spilt his blood once to effect redemption, the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14), there was no longer any need for him to die again (cf. Heb. 9:24-28).

Second, the word “resurrection” in the NT is not always confined solely to rising again from the dead. It often involves, as Harris, for example, maintains, not only resurrection but also in its full-orbed NT sense exaltation, ascension (RI, p.93, GG, p.103) and one might even add transformation and heavenly session (Rev. 3:21). So it is important to understand what each reference to resurrection means, and only the context can determine that.

Normal Resurrection

Regarding the first category of resurrection involving physical restoration, it must surely be obvious that the vast majority of us who die and are buried to rot in the grave fail to follow the pattern of Jesus. His resurrection was clearly exceptional and to that extent resembled the circumcision of Abraham (Rom. 4). Indeed, both Peter in Acts 2:25-35 and Paul in Acts 13:34-37 draw particular attention to this and point out that the majority of us, in fact all who fail to live till the end of the world, follow the pattern of resurrection to be experienced by David. The difference is that whereas David died and decayed, Jesus rose from the grave and, though still flesh, avoided corruption (decay, decomposition). In other words, whereas the body of David will not be raised until the general resurrection, Jesus, having already been raised directly from the dead had of necessity to ascend into heaven to avoid the natural corruption that affects all created things (Rom. 1:20; 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12; 12:27, etc.). Thus as Paul, echoing John 3:1-8, points out in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54, flesh and blood cannot by nature inherit the kingdom of God. This being the case, all without exception, whether undergoing death and resurrection like Jesus and the end-time saints or not, have to be changed. (See further my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.)

The Nature of the Resurrected Body

This, however, raises the question about the nature of the resurrected body. Again to state the obvious, David who died and whose body decomposed has clearly lost his corrupted flesh forever (cf. 2 Cor. 5:1, that is, unless he can somehow undergo another physical birth or re-incarnation, cf. John 3:4). In view of this, it is scarcely surprising that Paul stresses the fact that the body with which he and his like will eventually be endowed at the resurrection will not be flesh (animated dust) like that of the first Adam at all. It will be what he calls a “spiritual” or supernatural body. It will be like that of Jesus, who as incarnate was also of necessity changed like all his fellows. It will thus be a body of glory like his (Phil. 3:21, cf. Rom. 8:30; 9:23; Heb. 2:10-18; 1 John 3:2). So while all believers throughout history will be resurrected (saved) on the basis of the work of Jesus (2 Cor. 4:14), they do not and cannot follow exactly the pattern he established. (After all, as the early Christians were well aware, 1 Thes. 4:13, many of their fellow believers had already died and decomposed long before Jesus rose again let alone returned.) That is reserved to the saints still alive at the end of the age (1 Cor. 15:50-52a).

To clarify the issue still further, it is evident that while for David resurrection involves as it were only one action that is transformation resurrection, the “full-orbed” (Harris) resurrection of Jesus was a two-stage affair. First, he was physically restored to life in the flesh as Lazarus was (Luke 24:39), but then, since he was not to die again, he ascended (cf. John 20:17; Luke 24:50f.; Acts 1:9-11) and was transformed and glorified (Acts 2:36).

Resurrection Transformation

There is, however, a problem. Many moderns especially evangelicals of all persuasions including the Reformed, Premillennialists, Dispensationalists and the like think along different lines which admittedly have a long history. They believe on the basis of very questionable evidence that when Jesus rose from the dead, his body was transformed into a body of glory whose appearances confirmed the disciples’ faith that he was still alive. This surely implies a denial of physical resurrection on the one hand and renders the ascension redundant on the other. Indeed, the ascension is reduced to mere drama simply indicating the termination of Jesus’ appearances on earth. Apart from noting texts like Luke 24:39 and John 20:26-29 which suggest a different story, we are bound to ask what the basis of this view is. The answer, as was hinted at above, is that they accept the false worldview inherited from Augustine of Hippo (d.430) even if they have not accepted every aspect of his theology. So what does this worldview involve?
The Augustinian Worldview

It is traditionally believed that when God first brought creation into being, he made it perfect. (1* See e.g. E.Andrews, Who Made God? pp.242ff., to whom I refer in my Creation and/or Evolution; A.T.B.McGowan, p.46, in The Forgotten Christ, ed. Clark. I have subjected part of this book to criticism in an additional note to my essay Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?.). One of the arguments used to support this is that since God is perfect, his work also had to be perfect. Unfortunately, this is a false inference which is variously contradicted throughout the Bible. For example, Scripture constantly distinguishes between the Creator and the creation, the eternal and the temporal, to the detriment of the latter (e.g. Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27; Isa. 40:6-8; 51:6). Next, whatever is “made by hand” (e.g. Ps. 102:25; Isa. 45:12; 48:13) is inferior to what is “not made by hand” (e.g. Heb. 9:11,24. See further my Manufactured Or Not So.). This is true especially of the hand-made body of dust (Job 10:8f.; Ps. 119:73) as compared with the spiritual body referred to by Paul (1 Cor. 15:45-49; 2 Cor. 5:1). Then Hebrews tells us that the builder has more honour than the building (3:3) and that the shakable creation will finally give way to the unshakable (12:26-29). I could go on but my point has been made. What I am implying is that creation is naturally destructible and corruptible as Paul seems to be saying in Romans 8:18-25. God brought creation into being in hope of something better, that is, an invisible hope that endures for eternity like God himself. In the final analysis the temporary material creation served and continues to serve an eternal goal and purpose which we see eventually fulfilled at the end of the book of Revelation.

According to Genesis 1, creation, far from being perfect, was merely “good”, that is useful like Eve’s “apple” which was good for eating (kalos, Gen. 2:9; 3:6). Like the Promised Land (Ex. 3:8; Num. 14:7), it was impermanent (Heb. 3 & 4) and served a temporary purpose. Since it had a beginning, it had an intended end (terminus), quite unlike the Creator himself who had neither (cf. Ps. 102:25-27; Heb. 7:3). However, in positing a once perfect world at the beginning, Augustinians have clearly confused the end with the beginning and in effect destroyed creation’s initial teleological nature. By turning the Bible on its head they have left it with nowhere to go. If Adam was originally righteous he must have been born again (2:17; Lev.18:5)! Hence his probation was pointless. In this situation, Augustinians have devised what is in effect a different plan of salvation. They tell us that after being created perfect, creation was ruined or cursed by the sin and “Fall” of Adam despite the fact that Adam who failed to keep the commandment by which righteousness is gained (Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7) was never righteous, holy and perfect in the first place. They thus posit not merely the redemption of man made in the image of God but of his physical body along with the entire material creation itself. Alternatively expressed, since sin was the cause of creation’s ruin, Jesus’ physical resurrection transformation means that creation likewise can be redeemed. (See e.g. Harris, RI, pp.165-171; GG, pp.245-252.) The problem is that there is no evident connection between Jesus’ resurrection and creation in the Bible. As we have seen, (a) Jesus’ resurrection met the demands of justice; (b) creation was doomed from the start; its beginning implied its end (Gen. 1:1; Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:10, etc.); (c) Jesus died and rose again to bring man made in the divine image to glory (Heb. 2:10ff., etc.). There is not the slightest suggestion that he died to redeem dust (cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-55). Initially, creation, including Adam who symbolized the flesh, had no covenant guarantee, and even when it had one, it was only until the plan of human salvation was complete (Gen. 8:22, cf. Jer. 31:35-37; 33:19-22). Both Isaiah 51:6 and 54:10, to go no further, clearly signal the eventual end of creation if not by a flood (cf. Luke 17:28-30). The reason why man as flesh is transient (James 1:10f.; 4:14) is that creation as a whole is transient (cf. Isa. 51:6; Heb. 1:11; etc.). (2* See my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?The Transience of Creation.)

The True View

The truth, however, is that perfection (maturity, completeness, cf. James 1:4) which characterizes God alone (Mt. 5:48) was the original goal and it was premised on an imperfect or immature start. Simply stated the baby is the father of the man! On the one hand the material creation (including man according to the flesh) was subjected by divine design to corruption and futility and intended only to serve as a temporary tool before being finally dispensed with. On the other hand, it was geared to the production of a harvest of the children of God (cf. Rom. 8:19-21) who yearn for adoption, the redemption of their bodies (not their flesh) and the attainment of an invisible hope (Rom. 8:24f.). Since Adam signifies both man as race and as individual, and is creation in miniature, we can see immediately that just we are (pro)created, develop and reach maturity only to decline through age and wear until we die (cf. Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 12:33), so does creation itself (Heb. 1:11, cf. Col. 2:22). If it is replied by Augustinians that all this stems from sin, one has only to point out while freely acknowledging sin to be an exacerbating factor that the evidence of Scripture against this view is massive.

First, it needs to be recognized that in critical passages like John 3:1-8; Romans 8:18-25 and 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 sin is not in evidence at all but is in true Augustinian fashion read into them. For instance, we are frequently told that behind Romans 8:18-25 lies Genesis 3:17-19. While this is traditionally and constantly asserted, it has to my knowledge never been substantiated. Second, other evidence apart, the entire letter to the Hebrews militates against the Augustinian view. It is hard indeed to circumvent teaching like 1:10-12, 6:7f. and 12:26-29. While 2 Peter 3:7,10-12 point up the eventual combustion of the created universe, modern science tells the same story. But there is another issue of crucial importance in the modern era. What I have called the true view above clearly points to evolution if not Darwinism, the development of man from (animal) flesh to spirit. By contrast traditional church dogma which begins with perfection either denies it or insidiously, that is contrary to their denial of the natural corruptibility of creation, accommodates it.

The Resurrection Body

Since all created visible, that is, physical things (Rom. 1:20) are according to the Bible destined for removal (Heb. 12:27), it is clear that the spiritual body of which Paul speaks is not physical (dust). So when D/B maintain as indicated above that when someone dies resurrection involves the return to physical life forever, they must be profoundly mistaken. Physical life as opposed to corporeal life is by definition temporal and intrinsically incapable of becoming eternal. As Paul says, the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50b). This has nothing to do with sin. It stems from the nature of things. The difference between the spiritual Creator and his temporal material creation points unerringly to the fact that man though flesh is nonetheless created in the image of God. In sum, he is in contrast with the rest of the animal creation fundamentally dualistic. (3* See my Biblical Dualism.) In view of the fact that many Christians like N.T.Wright rail against dualism (e.g. Challenge, p.179, cf. 144) it must be stressed that biblical dualism is not to be equated with Greek dualism. For the Greeks material things were evil and the body was the prison house of the soul; for Christians dualism simply asserts the temporal nature of the visible material (2 Cor. 4:18). When we see this, it immediately becomes apparent that the reason why the resurrected Jesus had of necessity to ascend to heaven was to escape physical corruption. (4* See further my Escape.) So long as he remained on earth he continued to get older (cf. Luke 3:23, cf. Ps. 102:27). His flesh (Luke 24:39), like ours, belonged to this age not the age to come. Since he was visible (1 John 1:1), he was hence inherently corruptible. Thus, like all his fellows, he had to be changed. In other words, the idea that he was glorified at his resurrection is based on fallacious Augustinian reasoning about the nature of creation. (For Augustine who was obsessed by sin, everything, not least sex, was saturated with sin. See my Augustine: Asset or Liability?) In the flesh it was impossible for the incarnate Jesus to inherit the eternal blessings of David. Furthermore, once the days of his flesh (cf. Heb. 5:7) were over it was impossible for him to return to earth to reign in the manner D/B suggest. Apart from telling Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36), he had clearly undergone permanent transformation at his ascension, passed through the heavens (Heb. 4:14) and experienced permanent separation from sinners (Heb. 7:26). Having already dealt with sin (Heb. 9:28), he had regained the glory he had with the Father before the world began (John 17:5). So far from having a body of glory immediately after his resurrection, he prayed that his people should see his glory in heaven (John 17:24).

The Second Advent

But there is yet another basic point to make. Once he had separated himself from this world, from sinners in particular and re-entered what is for us the world to come, it was impossible for him to return least of all in the flesh. Whereas he had been flesh “for a little while” (Heb. 2:7,9), he had now been permanently transformed and glorified.

To say this of course prompts questions about his second coming. The Bible makes it clear that Christ will return in his glory and that of the Father (Luke 9:26, etc.) as Moses returned to Egypt to rescue the people still in bondage there (cf. Rom. 8:21; Heb. 9:28). Paul makes it absolutely clear that he will not return in the flesh as D/B and some Premillennialists teach. Indeed, the apostle states categorically in Acts 13:34 that he will no more return to corruption. This can only mean that he will never again come into contact with this created world (see further my No Return to Corruption). In any case, according to the book of Revelation when he comes creation will flee away from his presence (Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 20:11; 21:1, cf. Heb. 12:26-29; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). After all, he will return “in flaming fire” (2 Thes. 1:7) for God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29)

The Redemption of Creation

If all this is true, then the idea that creation will be redeemed, renewed, transformed or regenerated to make it fit for the King must be rejected with rigour and dispatch. While the somewhat materialistic OT, which spoke of earthly things (John 3:31, cf. 8:23 and note John 3:10), might lend credence to such an idea, the NT on the basis of the revelation and re-interpretation brought by Jesus spiritualized creation and spoke of new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (cf. Mt. 6:10), a heavenly country / city / temple / kingdom (see espec. Heb. 11:8-16; 12:22f.; 13:14; Rev. 21:22, cf. Gal. 4:26). In light of all this we are bound to conclude that contemporary versions of the Bible in contrast with the KJV are wrong when they translate the word ktisis as ‘creation’ rather than ‘creature’ especially in Romans 8:21. (See my Romans 8:18-25.) Creation will never be redeemed for the simple reason that it is superfluous. It was always meant to give way to the invisible hope of glory or heaven itself. The latter already exists and has done so eternally.

Conclusion

All in all, I am forced to conclude that D/B like many others are seriously astray in much of what they suggest all Christians should believe. At the end of the day, the simple statement believed by many of our forebears that we go to heaven when we die stands firm despite D/B’s denial (p.422. See also my A Brief Critique of ‘Surprised by Hope’ by Tom Wright.) When we do, we shall say goodbye forever to bondage to the flesh and finally escape from this evil age (cf. Gal. 1:4; Ps. 90:15). And for this we thank our heavenly Father who in his grace and mercy will accept us on account of Christ into his own house (John 14:1-3, etc.).

Finally, to answer directly the three questions prompted by D/B’s assertion in my second paragraph, I have to say (a) we shall never return to physical as opposed to corporeal life (cf. Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 15:45-49; (b) the Bible denies the very possibility of physical life lasting forever; and (c) our resurrection is patterned after that of David not that of Jesus unless we are still alive at the second coming (1 Cor. 15:51f.).

Notes

The Flesh

Like all created things the flesh is visible (Rom. 1:20), therefore material/physical (Rom. 1:20), therefore temporary (2 Cor. 4:18), therefore unprofitable (John 6:63), therefore mortal/destructible (Rom. 1:23; 2 Cor. 4:11); therefore corruptible/perishable (Rom. 8:18-25; Gal. 6:8; Heb. 1:10-12), therefore combustible (Heb. 12:27; James 5:3; 2 Thes. 2:8) therefore susceptible to disappearance (Acts 1:9) like the old covenant to which it belongs (Heb. 8:13). We shall never see Jesus in the flesh (cf. John 20:29) but we shall see him in his glory (John 17:24). And that his glory is not fleshly would seem to be evident from the fact that it is the same as he had before the creation of the world when there was no flesh.

Spiritual birth/Spiritual resurrection

If, having undergone a temporal physical birth (from the earth), we must according to Jesus undergo an eternal spiritual birth (from above), it follows inexorably that our resurrection will be spiritual. In other words, our body in heaven will be a spiritual not a physical body, as Paul says. In a nutshell, a spiritual birth requires a spiritual resurrection.

The Resurrection Transformation of Jesus and the Redemption of Creation
Various writers argue that since Jesus was glorified at the resurrection of his flesh (and therefore had glorified flesh even though there is no such animal!), creation itself can be redeemed and glorified. This is contrary to the plain teaching of the NT which pervasively teaches the corruptibility of all created things. Nowhere is there a link made between the resurrection of Christ and the redemption of creation. The combustion of the cosmos is indelibly etched in the pages of Scripture. Romans 8:18-25 which is nowadays subject to highly questionable translation and interpretation is unique in the teaching of Paul who everywhere assumes that he will go to heaven.

____________________________________________________

References

E.Andrews, Who Made God? Darlington, 2009.

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

Mark Driscoll & Gerry Breshears, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe, Wheaton, 2010.

M.Harris, Raised Immortal, Basingstoke, 1983.

From Grave to Glory, Grand Rapids, 1990.

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

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

Colossians and Philemon, Leicester/Grand Rapids, 1986.

 

 

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.)

 

 

 

Profiling Modern Pharisaism

Some months ago the minister of our church began his sermon with the following comment: “The Pharisees were the evangelicals of the New Testament”. If this is true, it ought to strike fear into the hearts of all who call themselves evangelicals. For it was the so-called evangelicals that Jesus criticized more scathingly than any other group (see e.g. Mt. 23).

Most of us associate the Pharisees of the NT with hypocrisy, with “putting on a mask” or pretending to be what they were not (Mt. 23:27f.). So the question immediately prompts itself: Am I (or are you) as a professing evangelical guilty of pretending to be what I am not? Generally speaking, I personally would not readily associate myself, or the evangelicals I have known, with play acting and dissembling. They have not appeared to be like the Pharisees Jesus criticized for insincerely putting on a show (Mt. 6:16; 23:5) or for a meticulous adherence to legalistic formality (Luke 18:12). But is there more to the issue than first meets the eye?

Evangelicalism

I have always associated the word evangelical with the evangel, the gospel as portrayed in the NT. Evangelicals profess to regard Scripture, or the apostolic foundation of the gospel (Eph. 2:20), as their final authority and court of appeal in matters of doctrine. They are, in other words committed to the Bible as the word of God. But are they as good as their profession? After all, the Pharisees of the NT saw themselves as children of Abraham (cf. John 8:33) and true disciples of Moses (John 9:28), yet Jesus nonetheless subjected them to blistering criticism. In Mark 7:6f., it is noticeable that Jesus locates their hypocrisy in their nullifying the word of God by their tradition. Considering the wildly different doctrines presently propounded by modern evangelicals, the suggestion is that many are, first, simply failing to understand the Bible. Since we are all be guilty of that from time to time, we need to be always ready to take another look and if necessary to revise our opinions. After all, Jesus warned us about getting things wrong and of the need to avoid acting as if we had one eye when in fact we have two (cf. Mt. 18:9). But, second, it would seem that many are in fact sidestepping Scripture and appealing to other authorities. Perhaps we are failing as our predecessors in the NT did. Anyhow, the issue is worth subjecting to further examination.

The Pharisees were of course but one group among the Jews at the time of Christ. On occasion, Jesus even supported their stance on matters of crucial importance to the gospel. For example, he took their part, as Paul did later (Acts 23:6-9) against the Sadducees with regard to the resurrection (Mt. 22:23-32). The latter he accuses of ignorance and failure to appreciate the power of God rather than deliberate distortion of the Scriptures.

Orthodoxy

One of the disturbing features of the modern scene is the tendency of some to equate their denomination or sect with Christianity. Here in Australia, at least on TV, Roman Catholicism is regularly equated with the Christian faith. Then again many evangelicals refer to their stance as “Biblical and Reformed”, thereby adding to Scripture. When we consider that the Reformation occurred nearly 500 years ago, are those who embrace Reformed theology saying that despite believing that doctrine should always be subject to reform (semper reformanda) no further progress in understanding the faith has been made? As long ago as 1609, John Robinson, pastor to the Pilgrim Fathers, while acknowledging the greatness of Luther and Calvin was convinced that God had more light to break forth from his word. Yet even post-2000 some evangelicals give the impression that their traditional creed is fixed and unalterable (semper eadem), and to be classified as unorthodox is equivalent to denying Scripture. I suggest, however, that the boot may be on the other foot and that the source of so much doctrinal error in evangelicalism is a refusal on the part of the so-called orthodox to re-examine Scripture.

The Need for Conversion

When writing to the Galatians Paul left his readers in no doubt that to teach what he called a “different gospel” (1:6, ESV) led to distortion, and, even if this so-called gospel appeared to emanate from an angel from heaven, it should be rejected on pain of being cursed. In general, in my experience most evangelicals cling to the doctrine of justification by faith which was Paul’s main consideration especially in Galatians. But the apostle implies that other doctrines are also of basic importance, and, if they are misunderstood, disregarded or distorted, they can, when taken to their logical conclusion, undermine the faith. On the assumption that the Christian faith constitutes a complete worldview, a comprehensive, connected whole, any perversion of its parts threatens not only its unity but also its intelligibility. This comment requires expansion with reference to infant baptism, for example.

Infant Baptism and Its Theological Support

While infant “baptism” appears to jeopardize justification by faith, there is good evidence available to suggest that this can be overcome to some degree. Even some Catholics have acknowledged the need for conversion at a later stage in the lives of the “baptized”. And most Anglicans lay a good deal of emphasis on confirmation, even if it is not a biblical doctrine. (I deny that it corresponds with circumcision and bar mitzvah.)

However, if this paedobaptist tradition is supported, for example, by a false covenant theology, not to mention original sin or an equation of baptism with circumcision, the issue becomes much more serious. For our entire worldview is greatly affected by it. As it happens, even baptists are tarred with the same (Augustinian) brush as their counterparts in non-baptist churches. And this clearly accounts for much of the doctrinal mayhem confronting us today.

Original Sin

Then, let us take a quick look at that time-honoured dogma of original sin. First, it needs to be recognized that the Jews and the Orthodox have never embraced it. Second, it has been virtually set in cement in the West by Augustine. He did not read Greek, and where the latter has “because all sinned” in Romans 5:12, he read “in whom all sinned” (Latin ‘in quo’). In other words, he believed that we all sinned “in Adam” and were therefore born sinful. (The only text I can discover in the Bible that might possibly support this idea is Psalm 51:5. But since it runs counter to more explicit teaching and the general belief of the Jews, we must assume that David, under the stress of his sin with Bathsheba resorted to hyperbole. (Compare e.g. Ps. 58:3, cf. Isa. 8:4; Job 31:18.) Augustine went on to distinguish between Jesus and the rest of Adam’s descendants by arguing that since the former was born of a virgin without “carnal concupiscence”, he was therefore innocent. This contrasts with the author of Hebrews who tells us that the only way in which Jesus differed from the rest of us as a human being was that he did not personally sin (Heb. 2:17f.; 4:15). The implication of this is that we, like Adam and Eve who until they broke the commandment knew neither good nor evil, are all, like Jesus himself (cf. Isa. 7:15f.), born innocent (Dt. 1:39, cf. Num. 14:3,39-33, etc.), or as Paul says “alive” (Rom. 7:9). It is only with the advent of law that the trouble starts (cf. Rom. 4:15; 1 Cor. 15:56, etc.). As ordinary men and women of dust we prove incapable of keeping it (1 K. 8:46, etc., as God, who planned to justify us by faith in Christ, always intended), while the man of heaven proved that he could (John 8:46; Rom. 8:3; 1 Pet. 2:22, etc.).

Covenant Theology

In light of this it should come as no great surprise that when the Reformers, or rather their successors, came to develop a covenant theology, they posited a covenant with Adam regarded as the head and representative of all his posterity. So they taught that when he sinned all sinned ‘in him’ (cf. Bengel’s comment: omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante). But not only is this not taught in Scripture, it is actually contrary to its basic teaching. For Moses (Ex. 32:33), Jeremiah (31:29f.) and Ezekiel (18), for example, insist that sin cannot be transferred. Moses went so far as to lay it down as an axiom that the child could not be punished for the sin of the parent (Dt. 24:16, etc.). Yet even today writers tell us that we sinned in Adam (see, e.g. Horton, pp.88f., Collins, p.277, etc.), and adhere to the notion of the imputation of Adam’s sin. The latter is based on a glaring fallacy implicitly contradicted by Paul himself. For if the wages of sin is death and all died (Rom. 5:12), they must have earned their wages. Imputation is ruled out of court for the simple reason that it excludes wages (Rom. 4:1-8).

Natural Corruption

If infants, who do not know the law, die, since imputation is out of the reckoning, there is obviously another explanation for their death! This brings up another subject. According to the Bible the corruption of the material creation is natural. God made it that way (Ps. 102:25-27; 103:14-18, etc.) No wonder God has established his throne in the heavens (Ps. 8:1; 113:4, etc.), and not on the impermanent earth (Ps. 103:19) which is his footstool (Isa. 66:1). That explains the plan of salvation. To gain eternal life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.) mortal man must escape from the natural corruption to which even the incarnate Jesus himself was subject (John 8:57) by keeping the commandments. He can’t. But Jesus could and did. He thus began his exodus (Luke 9:31), died for others, took back his life (John 10:17f.) since death had no claim on him, (Acts 2:24) and made his escape (Lu. 9:51; Rev. 12:5) by returning to the glory of his eternity (John 17:5, cf. Eph. 1:20f.).

Since infants who know neither good nor evil never receive the commandments in any form, they cannot be either righteous (Dt. 6:25; 1 John 3:7) or sinful (Rom. 4:15; 7:1-13, cf. 6:16). Furthermore, since they are not covenant children like Noah, they sometimes succumb naturally like all flesh (Gen. 6:17; Ps. 49:12,20), that is, apart from moral considerations, to the corruption of the material world of which they are a part.

The upshot of all this is that the so-called Christian, but what is in reality the Augustinian, worldview propounded by many is deeply flawed. The idea that God created a perfect world to be ruled over by the perfect human beings Adam and Eve is traditional twaddle. Our first parents were not by nature holy and righteous, least of all perfect, and the creation they were called on to rule was manifestly imperfect or defective in some sense (cf. Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.). If Adam and Eve were perfect, their fall into sin and the ruin of the creation over which they were intended to exercise dominion is a complete mystery. It is not only contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture but also absurd. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22 the picture is different. The temporal creation and the eternal Creator are differentiated throughout the Bible. The one is on no account to be worshipped, the other is (Rom. 1:23,25)!

What has this to do with Pharisaism? A whole lot! It proves that if we adopt at some point an erroneous but traditional interpretation of the Scripture we claim as our authority, we are inevitably jeopardizing the faith we claim to uphold. It may be true that God can overcome error and use people who genuinely misunderstand. Calvinists argue that God did this in the case of the Wesleys who were Arminian. Genuine misunderstanding, or the doctrinal immaturity that has always characterized the church to some degree, is one thing but persistence in clinging to dogma that is shown to be false is another. To claim as Christian what is manifestly unchristian (cf. Isa. 5:20) is a serious matter and may lay us open to the charge of the Pharisaism that Jesus so heavily criticized.

Over thirty years ago I myself wrote a book indicating that there was something seriously amiss with traditional Reformed theology. My principal criticism was leveled at received covenant theology. Of course, I could have been wrong and perhaps still am. But I continue to await the refutation of my own thesis on the one hand and to see the justification of traditional views on the other. All too often assumption masquerades as proof. Let me illustrate what I mean.

“Cheating”

Some twenty or more years ago I read Murray’s “The Imputation of Adam’s Sin”. When I had finished it, I wrote somewhere that he had “cheated”. My complaint was that at the end of the first section of his book his argument had fallen short of the proof that the doctrine required. (This is scarcely surprising since, as I have noted above, it is incapable of proof. Paul’s own teaching in Romans shows that it is built on a blatant error.) In the second section, however, he simply assumed what needed to be proved.

More recently Collins has presented us with his “Genesis 1-4” which in some respects has much to commend it. However, my complaint is again that he has “cheated”. He promises proof of a creation covenant. Despite many hints, inferences and assumptions, this proof never materializes. Again this is hardly surprising since Scripture not only fails to refer to such a covenant but also in the nature of the case it cannot do so. The material creation, as the flood which threatened it implied, lacks both covenant and guarantee. It is, as Genesis 1:1 asserts, temporal and not eternal. Its ultimate destiny, like that of the body of flesh which derives from it (2 Cor. 5:1) is oblivion. Thus the contrast between the Creator and the created is maintained throughout the Bible (Isa. 51:6, etc.). Jesus himself says: “Heaven and earth will pass away but the word of God will abide forever” (Mt. 24:35). Once the material creation has served its purpose of nurturing the children of God (Mt. 24:8; Rom. 8:18-25), it will be dispensed with, not least by Jesus himself when he returns in the glory of God as a consuming fire (2 Thes. 1:7; Luke 17:29f.; Mt. 22:7; Heb. 12:29; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12; Rev. 20:11; 21:1-4). In other words, the message of the Bible is loud and clear: there is no ultimate future for either the flesh or this world in general. The present age must give way to the age to come (1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:15-17, etc.).

Personal Pharisaism

So, I am compelled to ask whether I personally am a Pharisee? Am I seeking to make tradition and confessionalism my final arbiter and so rendering the word of God ineffective? Over the years I have not only changed churches (though not always as a result of conviction) but also changed my opinion. As one who embraces the notion of constant reformation (semper reformanda) and of maturing in the faith (cf. Phil. 3:12-16), I trust that I shall continue to do so. If the perfection or glory of God is my aim in Christ, I can do nothing less.

But if this is so, I must ask whether you, the reader, are a Pharisee? Lacking the insight and the perfection of Jesus I cannot answer that question for you. If the cap fits wear it! If it does, then add your name to those who seek for a new reformation. On the other hand, it is vital for all of us as individuals to change our views only as prompted by conviction and insight. If these are missing, it is far better to remain with time-honoured tradition. At least it has the backing of some of the great names of the church whom God blessed in their time, and these are not to be lightly tossed aside. Clearly we should all make haste slowly. But in these days when we are being challenged both within and without the church, make haste we must. For only the truth will make us free (John 8:31f.).

The Question of Truth

This brings up another point. If the truth is something that the world has suppressed (Rom. 1:18) and failed to attain to (1 Cor. 1:21), then it is vitally necessary for the church which is meant to be the pillar and bulwark of the truth to propagate it (1 Tim. 3:15). The failure of the Jews to do this resulted in judgement, first, in the Babylonian exile, then in the punishment and dispersion of the Jews by the Romans. If God has vented his wrath on his own in times past, he may well do the same again in our time. This time the Assyrian may not be the rod of his anger (Isa. 10:5) but the Muslim in general may be. The Pharisaical refusal of those who claim to acknowledge the Bible as the word of God to abide by its teaching threatens the veracity of Christian witness.

Worldview

A false worldview has other implications which cannot be dealt with here. I therefore allude to just one. It is vital for Christians in these days of potential suicide bombers to emphasise the natural impermanence and corruption of the temporal creation (Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 40:6-8; 51:6; Mt. 24:35; Rom. 8:18-25, etc.). Apart from other considerations, this can only mean that those who blow themselves up lose their corruptible flesh permanently (Gen. 3:19, cf. Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8). Their hope of lapsing into the embrace of buxom beauties in the world to come is forever forlorn. In heaven, as Jesus clearly taught in accordance with the Bible in general, there is no marriage for the simple reason that we shall be the children of God who is spirit (1 Pet. 4:6) and hence like the angels (Luke 20:34-36, cf. 1 Cor. 15:50).

Conclusions

The Augustinian worldview with its stress on the original perfection of creation, original holiness and righteousness (*1), original sin, “Fall”, universal curse and the eventual redemption of the material creation is not only lamentably unbiblical, it is ludicrous, and it is high time it was abandoned. Failure to jettison it can only lead evangelicalism at best to marginalisation, at worst to total rejection (Mt. 23:38). And then there is the possibility of the judgement of God in more tangible form. We have been warned.

*1 A more blatant case of putting the cart before the horse would be difficult to find. Even Jesus had to begin his pilgrimage in innocence (cf. Isa. 7:15f.), achieve righteousness by keeping the law and then to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:13-17) in his bid to attain to the perfection of God (Mt. 5:48; Heb. 1:3f.; Rev. 3:21, etc.).

____________________________________________

References

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

M.Horton, God of Promise, Grand Rapids, 2006.

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.

 

 

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.

Nullified by Tradition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenant Theology

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

Individual and Community

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

Recapitulation

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

The Priesthood of Christian Believers

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

The Churches

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

Note

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

Baptism Revisited

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

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

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

Infant Baptism

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

Believer’s Baptism

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

Circumcision

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

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

The Baptism of Jesus

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

Docetism

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

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

Regeneration

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

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

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

John the Baptist’s Baptism of Repentance

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

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

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

The Order of Salvation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluding Thought

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

___________________________________________________________

References

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

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

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


Creation and / or Evolution

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

Man and Animal

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

The Image

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

Man and Animal

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

The Development (Maturation, Perfection) of Jesus

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

Personhood

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

Covenant Theology

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

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

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

Personhood Again

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

The Genesis Days

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

Man’s Evolution

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

Perfection

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

Literalism

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

Animality

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

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

Old Testament Indicators

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

Consequences of Rejecting Human Teleology

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

Faith

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

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

Concluding Note

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

The Human Pilgrimage

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

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

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

Supplementary Comments

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

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

Additional Note (1)

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

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

Additional Note (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

John Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone, Louisville, 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

Circumcision and Baptism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenant Blessings

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

Old Covenant Blessings

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

New Covenant Blessings

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

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

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

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

The Theology Behind Baptism

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

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

Biblical Theology in General

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

False Practice

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

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

False Covenant Theology

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

Original Sin

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

True Covenant Theology

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

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

Recapitulation

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

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

The Order of Salvation

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

“Precapitulation”

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

Regeneration/Adoption Universally Necessary

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

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

Christians

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

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

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

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

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

The Meaning of Baptism

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

Baptism in the New Testament

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

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

Jesus Our Paradigm

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

Postscript

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________

Reference

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

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.

Why and How We Must Be Born Again

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

The Fact

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

The Reason Why

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

Christian Orthodoxy

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

The Biblical Background

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

Jesus

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

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

Jesus the Regenerate Son

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

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

Galatians 3

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

Reformed and Evangelical Theology

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

Why?

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

Jesus

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Are We Frauds?

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


Fundamentalism

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


The Two Sacraments

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


Justification by Faith

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


Original Sin

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

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

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


Circumcision

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

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

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

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

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


Covenant

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

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


The Order of Salvation

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

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


The Flesh

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

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

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


Premillennialism

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

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

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


Are We Frauds?

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


The Way Forward

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

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

The Biblical Worldview

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

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

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

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

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

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


Creation Temporal Not Eternal

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


Perishable Food

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


Bread of Heaven

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


Reproduction

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


Sacrifice

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


The Death, Resurrection and Transformation of Jesus

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

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

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


The Need for Spiritual Regeneration

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


Flesh and Spirit

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


The World

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


The Devil

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


The Big Picture

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


Why Creation?

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


Man’s Failure

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


The Covenant with Noah

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

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


The Mosaic Covenant

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


The Eternal Covenant and the Glorification of Man

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

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


Ultimate Presentation

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

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


A Manufactured Creation

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

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


Final Word

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

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

Additional Note: An Inherent Contradiction

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

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

Note on Wolters’ “Creation Regained”

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________

References:

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 1-8, Dallas, 1988.

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

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

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

Leon Morris, Revelation, London, 1969.

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

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

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

S.Sizer, Christian Zionism, Leicester, 2004.

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

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

Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Jesus had been transformed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corruption or Decay

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

Non-corruption

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

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

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

Jesus and David

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

The Return of Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

______________________________________________________________

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Brief Review of ‘The Mission of God’ by C.J.H.Wright

The ordinary reader should not be put off this daunting 500-page book, for it has much to teach us. Like all the author’s works that I have read, it is well written and makes readily accessible valuable material (on man’s progress in the knowledge of God, for example).

Wright’s laudable concern is to underline the fact that God himself is the author of a mission relating to the creation he has brought into being. He rightly indicates, referring to Exodus 19:5 in particular, that election is not simply to privilege but to responsibility. Though the Israelites as the people of God were unique, they were intended from the start to bring blessing to the nations (cf. Gen. 12:1-3) and be a light to them (Isa. 42:6; 49:6). In other words, God’s mission has always been the salvation of the world (John 3:16).

However, Wright is not merely concerned with man but with the material creation. He strongly stresses mankind’s stewardship, and underlines his own concern for ecology in these days of global warming.

It is here, however, that his work reveals the inadequacy of his theology, his covenant theology in particular. His assumption is that the whole of the material creation is under a curse (see index under ‘curse’). For example, on page 395 he writes: “… humanity is at odds with the earth; and the earth is subject to God’s curse and to the frustration of not being able to glorify God as it ought until humanity is redeemed. Such are the grim realities of our fallen human condition that Paul expounds in Romans. We live as fallen humanity in a cursed earth…. All that God did in, for and through Israel … had as its ultimate goal the blessing of all nations of humanity and the final redemption of all creation….”.  Here Wright’s argument and understanding are deeply suspect.

First, it is strange to draw the conclusion that because the earth is to be redeemed, we should lavish special care on it. Surely our consumer society teaches the opposite, that is, that the old should be abandoned and the new brought in!

Next, the problem with Wright’s approach, apart from his faulty appreciation of covenant theology, is that it is Augustinian, not Pauline. He fails to see that the very first verse of the Bible tells us that the material creation is temporal, serves only a temporary purpose and was never designed for permanence (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18). By contrast, he thinks that since creation is under a curse, it needs redemption. My Bible tells me something different, that is, that the material creation, though certainly affected by sin, is, like the flesh that derives from it, temporal and corruptible by nature. God made it that way (cf. Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). And even before sin became a reality, mortal man (Adam) was charged with exercising dominion over it in hope of glory and eternal life (Gen. 1:26-28, cf. Ps. 8:5f.; Gen. 2:17).  Far from being redeemed, once its mission is accomplished creation will be dispensed with (cf. 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12), and hence replaced by something better, that is, the eternal world, the regeneration or the age to come that already exists. This was the divine intention from the start. Intimations of heaven occur even within the limited perspective of the somewhat earth-centred OT. Isaiah, like the apostle John, looks forward to the time when the former things will not be remembered (65:17-19, cf. Rev. 21:4; 66:22, cf. Heb. 1:11; 12:27). And we shall dwell with God in the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22, cf. Phil. 3:20), which, since we are born from above (John 3:3), is our mother (Gal. 4:26).

Wright is of course an OT scholar who has failed to appreciate the difference between the old and new covenants. His view seems to be based on the OT theme of restoration. (1* See, for example, his “Knowing the Holy Spirit through the Old Testament”, 2006, pp. 148ff.) In the NT, restoration (cf. 2 Chr. 24:13; 36:19-23), repetition (cf. Heb. 10:11) and reproduction (cf. Luke 20:34-36) give way to removal and replacement (2 Cor. 3:11; 4:18; Heb. 12:27). A restored earth like a restored temple now that Christ has come and risen is to say the least superfluous (cf. John 2:19-22; 14:2f.). Just as flesh gives way to spirit (1 Cor. 15:46), so earth gives way to heaven (cf. 2 Cor. 5:1). We move from ground to glory (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17).

Sadly Wright has taken his cue from Nicodemus. He fails to realize that the corollary of the redemption of creation is the redemption of the flesh which both Jesus and Paul (1 Cor. 15:50, etc.) clearly deny.

In some ways, “The Mission of God” reminds me of Terrance L. Tiessen’s “Who Can Be Saved?” (Downer’s Grove and Leicester, 2004). It is a forlorn attempt to overcome the evident restrictions and to broaden the scope of Augustinianism. What both Wright and Tiessen fail to realize is that it is impossible to equate Augustinian (or Calvinist or Reformed) theology with what the Bible teaches. The Augustinian worldview is simply flawed. It should be abandoned. We need a new outlook – a biblical one!

My advice to the potential reader is: read this book but don’t be misled by its inadequacies. It begs a lot of questions. (2* I have sought to address many of them in a halting sort of way in other articles on this site. See especially my Cosmic Curse?, Supplement to ‘Cosmic Curse?’, Concerning Futility, The Destruction of the Material Creation, The Harvest of the Earth, The Biblical Worldview, Augustine: Asset or Liability?  etc.)

 

Additional Note

Arguably, Wright is at odds with himself. While dealing with idolatry, he underlines the futility of worshipping earthly things and gods which are subject to decay and death (p.162). But surely this applies to the earth itself (Rom. 8:20; Heb. 1:10-12) which man is forbidden to worship (Dt. 4:19; 17:3, cf. 1 John 2:17) as Wright himself concedes (p.165) precisely because it is created and therefore inherently transitory (2 Cor. 4:18). So, if Romans 1:25 refers to ‘created things’ (NIV) in general rather than to the ‘creature’ (e.g. NRSV), to posit the redemption or restoration of creation which is by nature transitory (Gen. 1:1; 1 Cor. 15:50b) implies idolatry (cf. Rom. 1:20 and Heb. 11:3; 12:27).  The source of Wright’s inconsistency would appear to be the radically false idea, lacking any real semblance of biblical support embraced by Stott and others, that when Jesus was raised from the dead, he was physically transformed despite explicit denial of this (Luke 24:39; John 20:27f., cf. 1 Cor. 15:50, etc.). (3* See p.416 and my John Stott on the Putative Resurrection Transformation of Jesus, Geisler on the Redemption of Creation.) While man made in the image of God must (Gk dei) undergo corporeal (1 Cor. 15:50-53) as well as spiritual transformation (John 3:7) as was his God-ordained destiny from the start, not so creation, including the flesh, which having served its temporal purpose is finally removed and replaced (Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12).

Dealing with the Noahic covenant Wright’s assertion that we live on a cursed earth which is also covenanted (pp.326f.) is a manifest contradiction in terms. Covenant and curse are mutually exclusive. Indeed, the biblical contrast is between an uncovenanted creation under Adam and one that is temporarily and universally covenanted under Noah (Gen. 8:22, cf. Acts 14:17, etc.). This indicates that apart from local curses (e.g. Proverbs 24:30-34; Lev. 26; Dt. 28 and the exile) the earth will remain productive till the plan of salvation is complete (cf. Jer. 31:35ff.; 33:19ff., and note especially Luke 17:26ff.).

When Wright adds that God is covenantally committed to creation’s redemption, he seems to forget that the covenant with Noah is a temporal not an eternal one! Contrary to what he says final judgement will indeed mean the end of the earth as God’s creation for the simple reason that all visible created things are by nature impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18, cf. Rom. 1:20 and Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.).

Note: redemption and restoration on account of the Fall, p.323. An eternal restoration, p.409. Surely this is another contradiction in terms.

______________________________________________________________

Reference:

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

Biblical Dualism

Monism

Some religions, philosophies and ideologies are essentially monistic in their outlook denying the duality of mind and matter. Materialists, for instance, maintain that there is only one “substance” and that even thought, consciousness and will are ultimately chemical. For them, the functioning of the mind can be attributed simply to the working of the brain. Further, the mind cannot exist apart from the (physical) body. Needless to say, if this is the case, disembodied minds are impossible and God who is spirit (John 4:24) cannot exist. (How the material came into existence is another matter. For the believer Romans 1:20 points the way.)

So far as monistic or pantheistic religions are concerned, everything is God and he is identified with natural objects and the forces of nature. In light of this it is hardly surprising that various religions like that of the Canaanites in the OT or the Aztecs in Mexico were concerned to appease or pacify their angry gods by brutal acts of (child) sacrifice when things were going badly. In a pantheistic religion like Hinduism, all gods are tolerated in worship. New Age belief, which was inspired by Eastern religions, famously led one of its devotees, the film star Shirley MacClaine, to run along a beach shouting “I am God”. Christianity, of course, cannot tolerate such ideas as these.

Greek Dualism

While Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, theoretically rejects monism in its worldview, it has been powerfully affected by Greek dualism which has played a significant part in its history. (On dualism in its various manifestations, see e.g. Scaling the Secular City, J.P.Moreland, pp.78ff.; M.H.Cressey in NBD, pp.283f., H.B.Kuhn in EDT, p.334, G.E.Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, pp.83ff., A Theology of the New Testament, ch.17. P.E Hughes, 2 Corinthians, espec. 153ff.) One of the basic reasons for this is that Greek language and culture spread by the military triumphs of Alexander the Great made a powerful impact first on the Jews and later on Christians. The OT was translated into Greek (LXX) for the benefit of Jews of the Dispersion and some of the latter, like Philo, were heavily influenced in their interpretation of Scripture by Greek thinking. But whereas for the Jews the body as part of God’s “good” creation was respected, for the Greeks, Plato in particular, it was regarded as the prison house of the immortal soul from which it was necessary to escape. (1* See e.g. Harris, pp.284f.; Kelly, pp.303f. See also my essay The End of the World) Needless to say, modern Christians almost pathologically afraid of Greek dualism when dealing with the body hasten to dissociate themselves from Plato. Regrettably, however, labouring under influences alien to the Bible (2* Prompted by a comment by Barth, Naugle asks: “To what extent are Christian worldviews truly biblical? … For indeed, many have been deceived by failing to recognize how the purity of the faith and the Scriptures can be polluted by an alien worldview”, p.336. It will become clear to the reader that I believe that Naugle himself, who believes in the redemption of creation, has wrongly absorbed alien Augustinian views which pervert true Christianity. See below my note on Naugle.), they usually fail to appreciate the difference between Greek and biblical dualism and draw the false conclusion that both the body of flesh and its corollary, the material world, will be redeemed despite pervasive biblical testimony against it (see e.g. C.J.H. Wright, Spirit, pp.32f., etc., cf. The Mission of God, p.279,286,404, etc.).

Biblical Dualism

The Bible makes it clear from its very first verse that God the Creator is separate from his creation. Monistic pantheism is ruled out of bounds from the start. As revelation progresses it becomes increasingly clear that the pervasive sin of the heathen, idolatry or the worship of nature in some form, is to be avoided. The first and second of the ten commandments give God himself exclusive priority of place and forbid devotion to what is “made by hand” (cheiropoietos) in any form (Isa. 2:8,18,20, etc.). It is here, however, that the church has usually erred: it has failed to recognize that creation itself including man (Job 10:8; Ps. 119:73), though the work of God, is also “made by hand” (Ps. 102:25; Isa. 45:12; 48:13; 66:2, etc.) and is not to be idolized in any way. In view of this it is to be expected that Moses should have strongly condemned the worship not only of the work of men’s hands but that of God as well (Dt. 4:15-19, cf. Rom. 1:23). (See further my essay Manufactured Or Not So)

Christian Tradition

It may be asked why this is so? The answer lies in the fact that God alone is eternal, perfect, complete and lacking nothing (Ps. 50:10-12, cf. Rom. 11:34-36; James 1:4) and his creation by the very fact of its being his creation is temporal, imperfect and needs to be providentially sustained (Job 34:14f., Ps. 65:5-13, etc.). While God has neither beginning nor end (Ps. 102:27, cf. Heb. 7:3), creation has both (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 102:25f., Heb. 1:11). Once we see this, it becomes apparent that the widespread notion that creation was originally perfect is fundamentally false. When Genesis 1 refers to the goodness of creation it means that it is useful, suited like a tool (cf. Ps. 119:91; Prov. 16:4; Eccl. 3:11, see e.g. Walton, pp.91,95, etc.) to its temporal purpose as, on reflection, references like Genesis 2:9,18 and 3:6 make quite clear. If this is so, why was it hidden from our forebears? The answer is plain. Western theology in particular has been governed by the thinking of Augustine. Against his background in Manicheism and Neoplatonism he taught that creation was perfect as God made it but that it was cursed when Adam, the designated Lord of creation, fell from his own perfect righteousness and holiness. (See further my essay Cosmic Curse?) This view of the matter is, however, impossible to sustain and, as can easily be demonstrated, is the antithesis of the truth.

The Biblical View

The Bible tells us that man cannot be good or evil apart from keeping (Dt. 6:25; Rom. 2:13; 1 John 3:7) or breaking (Rom. 4:15; James 2:8-10; 1 John 3:4; 5:17) the law. When he was created, Adam, though potentially in the image of God like all his posterity (Gen. 5:1-3; Dt. 1:39), lacked knowledge of the law, or commandment. Consequently, like the animal kingdom he was morally neither good nor evil. It was not until he had broken the commandment that he was adjudged evil and cast out of the Garden of God (Gen. 3:22-24). Unfortunately, Augustine went further and taught that when Adam “fell” from perfection, all his posterity “fell” too. The consequence of this sort of thinking was that all babies are born sinful (!) despite Paul’s insistence that where there is no law there is no sin (or violation, Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:1-13; 1 Cor. 15:56; Gal. 5:23, cf. John 9:41; 15:22,24). (See further my essays relating to original sin.) One of the most obvious problems with this is that Jesus was one of Adam’s posterity (Luke 3:38), so logically he was born sinful too. To overcome this, Augustine theorized that Jesus avoided the taint of original sin by being born of a virgin, implying that sin is transmitted by what he called “carnal concupiscence”. In plain words, as an unredeemed Manichee he believed that the flesh and sex were sinful. (3* On this see Rist, pp.321ff.)

It is at this point, however, that an appreciation of true or biblical dualism comes to our rescue. So far as nature is concerned, even the somewhat earth-centred OT distinguishes between flesh and spirit (e.g. Ps. 106:20; 147:10f.; Isa. 31:3; 40:6-8; Mal. 2:15) as opposed to sin and grace. In plain terms, it avoids the Augustinian confusion between nature (physicality) and morals (spirituality). (4* It is interesting to note how writers apparently unaware that Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 are dealing with different subjects frequently transfer ideas from the one to the other and thus create confusion.)

Anthropological Dualism

According to the Bible, man as flesh was created like the animals from the dust (clay) of the earth. He differed, however, because he was also uniquely made in the image of God. As both John (1:13) and Paul (1 Cor. 15:46) imply, man is first mortal and corruptible flesh but has the capacity or potentiality, in contrast with the rest of the animal creation, to become immortal and incorruptible like God who is spirit (Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7). Indeed, this is what Adam was promised at the beginning on condition of exercising dominion (Gen.1:26-28) and of obeying the commandment or law (Gen. 2:17). To clarify the issue further, man though initially flesh is destined in the course of his development to become both morally and generically like God (cf. Rom. 5:2; 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18, etc.). And thus his ultimate goal is to become the blameless child of God (Eph. 1:4f.) whose nature, since like begets like (John 3:6), he will obviously share (1 Pet. 4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4, cf. Heb. 12:23). It is thus that Paul in particular stresses man’s dualistic nature (cf. e.g. Guthrie, pp. 173ff.). In doing this he was of course following in the steps of his Master who strongly differentiated between man as flesh and man as spirit (John 3:1-8). It is a matter of regret that this has been largely hidden in the history of the church which has followed and continues to follow the pattern of thought developed by Augustine who taught that the prime purpose of the new birth was to counteract original sin. But what Jesus was clearly telling Nicodemus without even mentioning sin was that it is absolutely necessary (not imperative) for man who is flesh by nature to experience a second or spiritual birth so that he can enter the kingdom of God which involves a different (heavenly) order of existence (cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; 7:31; 1 John 2:17, etc.). Paul implies the same in 1 Corinthians 15:35-57 as do the other apostolic writers though perhaps in less dramatic terms.

Two Adams

Anthropological dualism appears very prominently in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul distinguishes between the two Adams. In contrast with Romans 5 where he deals with sin and grace, Paul tells his readers here that there are two Adams or two representative men.
In verse 21 and 22, again without any allusion to sin, he implies that as the fleshly children of the first Adam, we all die like the animal kingdom in general (even Jesus as a son of the first was mortal, Luke 3:38), but in our relationship with the second Adam we are made alive. The ‘natural’ difference between the two Adams quite apart from sin is absolutely fundamental. Paul brings this out in verses 45-49 where again his subject is nature not morals. The natural or physical, which is composed of dust (cf. Gen. 2:7; Ps. 78:39; 103:14), is naturally corruptible; by contrast the spiritual, though mortal in the sense that God can destroy it in judgement, is naturally incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:42,50).

Old and New Man

In Ephesians 4:22 and Colossians 3:9f. Paul also distinguishes between the old man and the new man where his prime concern is morals or way of life. Like Peter and the other apostles (1 Pet. 4:2) he is fully aware that the natural or first Adamic man was ruled, contrary to the will of God (Gen. 1:26-26; 2:27), by his flesh or natural passions (Rom. 1:18-32; Eph. 2:1-3). What the flesh dictated, he did, and his character was fashioned accordingly (cf. Romans 7 and my essay on its interpretation). The new man or second Adamic man stands in contrast to the former. He is spiritual and as such is renewed in his mind (Rom. 12:2), led by the Spirit (Gal. 5:16f.) and, no longer conformed to the fleshly passions and the standards of this world (1 Pet. 1:14), he takes on the image and likeness of God in anticipation of redemption (1 Pet 1:15-18; Rom. 6:15-19; 2 Cor. 3:18, cf. Mt. 5:48).

Corporeal or Somatic Dualism

In light of this Paul would appear to be only following logic when he tells us that there are two bodies – a fleshly and a spiritual one (1 Cor. 15:44,46). They are different in kind not least because the first cannot endure in such a way as to share in the (eternal) kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). (See my essay The Heavenly Body.) In 2 Corinthians 5:1 (cf. 1 Cor. 6:13) the apostle makes his point plain when he tells us that our earthly tent will be destroyed and give way to a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. There is a problem here, however, but one that the apostle had in essence dealt with in 1 Corinthians 15:51ff. After his death once for all on the cross, Jesus, who had personally fulfilled the law and gained life, was never to die again (Rom. 6:9) and his body did not see corruption. If we are not careful we may well draw the conclusion that he ascended into heaven in the flesh (cf. Acts 1:1-11). But this conclusion would be radically wrong and completely contrary to the drift of biblical thought. Paul makes it plain that the saints at the end of history will avoid both death and corruption but in order to do so they will have to undergo transformation, re-embodiment or corporeal replacement (cf. Rom. 8:23). They will in other words, exchange their fleshly or natural bodies for spiritual ones. (5* Dunn hits the nail on the head when he maintains that soma but not sarx can cross the boundary of the ages, Romans, p.391.) This is clearly what Jesus, their forerunner, did. His glory in heaven may be corporeal or somatic (Phil. 3:21) but it is certainly not fleshly (cf. Heb. 5:7), since the flesh is mortal by nature (cf. 2 Cor. 4:11). It is the same sort of glory that he had before the foundation of the world (John 17:5,24) prior to his incarnation. And when he comes again to rescue his people (Heb. 9:28) he will be in his glory and that of his Father (Luke 9:26; Tit. 2:13). So much for his return in the flesh to rule in Jerusalem for a thousand years! Thus an appropriate comment on which to finish this paragraph is that of Dunn’s: “A recovery of Paul’s distinction between human bodiness to be affirmed and rejoiced in, and human fleshiness, always to be guarded about and against, could be a major contribution to ongoing theological reflection in such areas” (Theology, p. 73.)

Christological Dualism

The perceptive reader of the NT can hardly be unaware that Jesus is presented to us as mortal (he died for us in the flesh) and corruptible (he got older, Cor. 4:16; Heb. 8:13, cf. 1:11) on the one hand and immortal and incorruptible on the other (2 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 7:3,16,24f.,28). How do we make sense of this paradox? The answer is that there is an inherent dualism in the person of Jesus: he was both God and man. (At his incarnation he did not cease to be God in person, only in nature, Phil. 2:5-11.) In other words, we infer that Jesus himself as the second Adam, or antitype (cf. Rom. 5:14), epitomized anthropological dualism. Though he was God (John 1:1), as a son of the first Adam by incarnation (Luke 3:38) he was truly flesh, truly human. As such, he was the only one to keep the law in the flesh (Rom. 8:3) and gain the (eternal) life (regeneration) originally promised to the first Adam (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.). In other words, as man he proved his divine pedigree and achieved the perfection of God. (See further my essay Perfection.) He became in fact our elder brother (cf. Rom. 8:29) who paved the way for all his sinful but believing fellows to enter the presence of God. As our representative he calls us brethren and we enter the kingdom of God (or heaven) in him (cf. Heb. 2:10-13).

In case my point has been missed, it is of paramount importance to stress that he who descended from heaven with the express intention of returning there (John 8:14; 13:3; 16:28, etc.) did so as man glorified, as he had been regenerated, in spirit (John 17:5,24; Heb. 1:3). He thus remains forever both God and man (but certainly not in the flesh). The upshot of this is that in the words of Irenaeus he became what we are so that we might become what he is.

Cosmological Dualism

But Paul makes another crucial comment. For in 1 Corinthians 15:42-49 he also indicates that the first or fleshly Adam is earthly while the spiritual second Adam, a life-giving spirit, is heavenly. In other words, he is making a radical distinction between earth and heaven (cf. Gen. 2:7 and John 1:1f.) (It is important here to differentiate between the created heaven(s) which along with the earth will pass away, Mt. 24:35, and heaven which is the throne of eternal God himself, Isa. 57:15; 66:1. See also Heb. 1:10f. and 9:11,24. Witherington commenting on Hebrews says: “Our author’s dualism has more to do with the traditional Jewish idea of ‘this world’ and ‘the world to come’ than it has to do with Platonic dualism”, p.167. On Platonism, see further deSilva, pp. 283,400, 408, etc. Ladd distinguishes between the physical and metaphysical and cosmological dualism which involves two ultimate principles of good and evil, or light and darkness, in the universe at war with each other, p.83.). In doing so, he is underlining the fact that there are two worlds and/or two ages: while the one is temporary and in the process of passing away (1 Cor. 7:31; Heb. 1:10-12; 1 John 2:17) the other is eternal and as such already exists (cf. 1 John 2:8; Heb. 1:6; 2:5; 6:5, etc.). During this present or temporal age which is rapidly coming to an end (Mt. 13:49; 28:20), man exercises relative dominion under the sovereignty of God (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5f.), in the eternal world or kingdom to come as redeemed man (cf. Heb. 2:9) he will rule forever under the sovereignty of and in (spiritual) union with Christ (1 Cor. 15:50; Rev. 3:21; Heb. 1:6; 2:5-9). While the naturally mortal children of this age or world are forced to procreate on account of universal death (cf. Heb. 7:23), (6* Those who are convinced on the basis of a desperately dubious interpretation of Romans 5:12 that all death is due to sin need to read Genesis 1 with more care. Apart from the fact that all plants and animals are created to propagate, Gen. 1:11f., Isaiah says that all flesh, like the ephemeral creation from which it emanates, Ps. 90:1-6, is grass, 40:6-8, the very symbol of death in the Bible. In the Bible two things are said to be “the way of all the earth”: death, Jos. 23:14; 1 K. 2:2, and sex or procreation, Gen 19:31. See further the paragraph on two foods below and also my essay A Double Helping, Death Before Genesis 3) the children of the resurrection are equal to the angels (who are ministering spirits, Heb. 1:7) and cannot die anymore (Luke 20:34-36).

Two Creations

The Bible begins with reference to the material creation (of which man is in physical essence a miniaturization) but its main concern is with the new or spiritual creation which is likened in certain respects to the first (2 Cor. 4:6). Paul especially dwells on the difference between the two and certainly regards the second creation as central (cf. 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6; 6:15). In 2 Corinthians 5:17 he tells his readers that those who are in Christ are a new creation (or new creatures) fashioned not by the flesh and the world (Eph. 4:22, cf. 1 Pet. 1:14; 4:2) but by the Spirit of Christ (cf. Eph. 2:10; 4:23f.). Clearly it is as new creatures morally and generically that we enter the kingdom of God.

Escape

If all this is true, then escape or rescue from the bondage of this age/world is vital for eternal life (pace e.g. C.J.H.Wright, Holy Spirit, pp.32f.). If Jesus escaped by keeping the law which promised life (Rev. 12:5, cf. 11:12), we follow in his steps by faith. Paul deals with this in what I believe to be one of the most misunderstood passages in Scripture, that is, Romans 8:18-25 (cf. Heb. 1:10-12; 12:25-29). Here, again without mentioning sin, the apostle contrasts the sufferings of this present impermanent age with the glory of the eternal age to come (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16-5:5). The latter, of course, already exists and Jesus who came from it returned to it as man glorified (cf. John 14:2f.; Eph. 4:10), but for us who like Adam derive from the earth it is still to come. On the assumption that ktisis means creature rather than creation, in verse 21 (KJV, cf. Heb. 12:27) Paul is implying exactly what he implied in Galatians 1:4 (cf. Heb. 2:3; 12:25) except for the fact that in the latter he mentions the added and exacerbating factor of evil. (See further my essays Escape and The End of the World.)

Two Births

I have already touched on John 3 and the new birth but since there is so much confusion about it I do so again. What Augustinian theology so abjectly obscures is the principal reason why the spiritual birth is so indispensably necessary. First, we need to note again that sin is neither mentioned nor implied. Next, Jesus, having implicitly dismissed Nicodemus’ idea of another physical birth, indicates that our second birth is spiritual. He insists that flesh gives birth to flesh and Spirit to spirit (cf. John 1:13). What he is implying is that physical birth in the flesh, which derives from the earth and hence is mortal and corruptible by nature, does not equip us for eternal life in heaven, our ultimate goal or destination. The obvious implication of this is that the body of flesh and its corollary, the temporal earth that produces it, are doomed to inevitable destruction (Zeph. 1:18; 3:8; 1 Cor. 6:13; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). (See further my essays on The End of the World, The Destruction of the Material Creation.) Once their mission is accomplished they have no further use and are dispensed with (2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 6:7f.; 2 Pet. 3:7). They yield to a spiritual body in a spiritual world. The first is abolished so that the second may be established (Heb. 10:9, cf. Rev. 21:1). We need to be regenerate (born from above) to enter the regeneration (Mt. 19:28) or what Jesus elsewhere calls the resurrection (Luke 20:36). And just as our regeneration is spiritual so is our resurrection, as Paul makes plain in 1 Corinthians 15. (7* Serious theological problems arise once the normal post-mortem and post-corruption resurrection of believers is inappropriately compared with Jesus’ physical resurrection from the grave. See further below on two resurrections, the note on Licona below and my essays Restoration and Resurrection and Thoughts on the Redemption of Creation)

Two Fathers

So, while on the one hand we have an earthly father of flesh whose desire gives us physical birth, on the other hand we have a heavenly Father who by his grace gives us spiritual birth (John 1:13; 3:1-6; Heb. 12:9).

Had it not been hi-jacked by Augustine, John 3 ought to have laid to rest long ago the widespread notion that the physical (John 3:1-8; 6:63), the created (Heb. 12:27), the temporal (Gen. 1; Ps. 102:25-27), the corruptible (1 Cor. 15:50), the visible (2 Cor. 4:18) in any shape or form can be redeemed. What is manufactured (“made by hand” cheiropoietos) is essentially different from what is not manufactured (“not made by hand”, acheiropoietos). (See further my essay on Manufactured Or Not So)

Other Dualisms

Two Israels

Paul is at pains to distinguish between two Israels – in Romans 9, for example. His point is that the one is fleshly, the other spiritual. The first, Israel according to the flesh, consisted merely of the physical children of Abraham and they were not thereby, as even the old covenant prophet John the Baptist realized, the children of God (cf. Mt. 3:9); the second Israel, like Isaac with whom the covenant was made (cf. Gen. 17:19f.), were in fact the true children (cf. Rom. 4). Paul sketches the same scenario when he refers in Romans 9:10-13 to the difference between Esau and Jacob. While the portion or inheritance of the former was in this world of transience and impermanence (Ps. 17:14; Heb. 12:16), the latter’s was ultimately in the eternal heaven. Clearly it was Jesus who laid the foundation of apostolic thinking. When dealing with the Jews in John 8:31ff., he rejected the notion that those who refuse to exercise faith like Abraham are truly his (spiritual) children. In fact he goes so far as to say that they are the spiritual children of the devil (8:44) who is a murderer every time he convinces men and women to invest in this fleeting world. They inevitably die along with it (Gal. 6:8)!

Two Seeds

Given a fleshly and a spiritual Israel and two births, it is not at all surprising that the NT alludes to two different seeds (cf. Gal. 3:16). In his first letter when referring to the new birth which is the result of the abiding word of God, Peter (1:23) distinguishes between perishable and imperishable seed (cf. 1 Cor. 15:42). James does the same in 1:18,21. And John makes the distinction even more explicit in 1 John 3:9 (cf. John 1:13; 3:1-8). Yet again the hiatus between the fleshly (physical or natural) and the spiritual can hardly be missed, and the inherent transience of the flesh (cf. Mt. 10:28), which is frequently compared with grass (James 1:10f.; 1 Pet. 1:23-25), is affirmed. (See further my essay Two Seeds)

Two Jerusalems

If there are two Israels we might well expect that there will be two Jerusalems, and our expectation is amply justified. Paul in Galatians 4:25f., John in Revelation 3:12; 21:2,10, and the author of Hebrews in 12:22 (cf. 11:10; 13:14) distinguish and dramatically differentiate between the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalems. Paul’s allusion is especially graphic for he calls attention to Abraham’s two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. The former was born according to the flesh, the latter as a child of promise was born according to the Spirit. To make his point clear the apostle takes the apparently extreme step of linking the bondage of the present Jerusalem not merely with Sinai and the Mosaic covenant of law but with Hagar and Ishmael who were Gentile slaves. Like Jesus (John 8:35) he insists that the children of those who are fleshly slaves (or the slaves of the flesh) cannot receive the inheritance (Gal. 4:30, cf. 5:21; 1 Cor. 6:9; Eph. 5:5).

Two Temples

Once we see that heaven and earth and this world and the next are essentially different and cannot be amalgamated or merged (1 Cor. 15:50), we become aware of yet other dualisms in Scripture. For example, it is sometimes said that the earth is God’s sanctuary or temple epitomized in the Promised Land and the Jerusalem temple which was the center of Jewish worship and sacrifice. But, the earthly or material temple, whether that of Solomon, Zerubbabel or Herod which was built “by hand”, is replaced in the new covenant by one that is “not built by hand” (John 2:19-21, cf. Mark 14:58 and its striking affinity with 2 Cor. 5:1). Thus on the completion of his work Jesus entered the greater and more perfect tent (Heb. 9:11, cf. 8:2), in fact into heaven itself to appear in the presence of God on our behalf (Heb. 9:24).

This leads ultimately in the book of Revelation to the “disappearance” of the temple altogether: it is replaced by the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb (21:22), reminding us of Jesus’ comments in John 2:19-21, 4:21,23 and Luke 20:38, which suggests that our true heritage is based in the being of God (cf. Bruce, p.299).

Two Priesthoods

On earth Jesus had no priestly aspirations. As a Judean and a non-Levite he could not serve in the earthly temple: he was disqualified on genealogical grounds (Heb. 8:1-4). In heaven, however, he belonged to a different order of priesthood, not that of Levi but that of Melchisedek (Heb. 7:3). The difference between the two is intrinsic, as the author of Hebrews in particular makes plain. Perhaps the greatest contrast relating to repeated and hence inadequate sacrifices is that Jesus, despite his vicarious death in the flesh (1 Pet. 3:18), had the power of indestructible life (7:16,24f.) whereas all the Levitical priests died (7:23).

Two Kingships

Though David was an earthly king, Jesus his greater Son never became one (except on the cross, Mt. 27:37). Jesus’ kingship is heavenly (John 18:36) and he sits on David’s throne in heaven (Luke 1:32f.; Acts 2:30).

Two Foods

Strong emphasis is placed in the Bible on the difference in food and drink. In the wilderness the children of Israel fed on manna or bread from heaven (John 6:31). However, as Jesus makes clear especially in John 6, it was still perishable material bread and it did not prevent physical death any more than the God-given food prevented the death of animals (Ps. 104:21; Mt. 6:26). By contrast the food (and drink for that matter, cf. Isa. 55:1; John 4:13; 6:53-56; 1 Cor. 10:4) that Jesus provides is the (spiritual, John 6:63) word of God (Mt. 4:4; 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:25), which enables the one who feeds on it to live forever (John 6:58).

Two Treasures

Jesus himself draws attention to these in Matthew 6:19-21 (cf. 19:21; Heb. 10:34). He contrasts terrestrial with celestial treasure. The former is vulnerable to wear and tear or the natural corruption of age (cf. Luke 12:32-35) as well as to evil. The latter is immune to both. Basically the same contrast re-appears in Luke 16:9. Peter in particular is aware of the difference, as the first chapter of his first letter especially makes clear. In 2 Corinthians 4:7 Paul also notes that while we live in this present world/age, our heavenly treasure is housed in clay which certainly does not go to heaven (cf. Job 15:15; 25:5)! He perhaps had in mind allusions in the book of Job, that is, in 4:19-21 and 10:8f.

Two Deaths

The Bible clearly teaches that death will be followed by judgement (Acts 17:31; Heb. 9:27). The result of this judgement, which is suspended on works done in the body, will be either resurrection to life or second death (Mt. 25:31-46; Rev. 21:8, etc.).

Two Corruptions

In the Bible there is both material and moral corruption. According to Genesis 1 and 2 Adam was promised escape or freedom from the death and corruption that characterized the temporal material creation on condition of keeping the commandment. He failed and, having become morally corrupt, lost the hope of glory and immortality/incorruptibility. As a consequence, in the words of Cardinal Newman a second Adam to the rescue came. It was he who, though flesh himself (Rom. 8:3), kept the commandment, the whole law in fact, and brought to light the immortality and incorruption that characterize God (2 Tim. 1:10). Believers achieve both through faith in him (1 Cor. 15:53-55, 57, cf. Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7). (Like 2 Tim. 1:10, Rom. 2:7 should refer to ‘incorruption’ not ‘immortality’.)

Two Circumcisions

Since Abraham’s circumcision occurred after he was justified, it sealed his faith. However, when circumcision was subsumed under the law (Lev. 12:3) and applied to eight-day-old boys, it was unrelated to faith. On the other hand, it evidently looked forward to a spiritual circumcision. The prophets regularly appealed to their hearers to circumcise their hearts in repentance (Dt. 10:16; Jer. 4:4). It is not, however, until the new covenant has been inaugurated that circumcision is truly spiritualised. Paul makes much of this in Romans 2:25-29 (cf. Phil. 3:3-11). In Colossians he goes so far as to suggest that believers who have been crucified with Christ have experienced his non-manual or spiritual circumcision and have put off the claims of their flesh in order to nurture the spirit (2:11, cf. 3:5).

Two Rests and Two Lands

The author of Hebrews is at pains to indicate that the earthly Promised Land was (and is) inadequate (Heb. 3,4). Its basic deficiency arose from the fact that like the temple it was but a type or shadow of the reality to come (cf. 11:16). It was temporary and provisional like the old covenant itself and as such could not possibly be the final resting place of the people of God. True rest was only to be found in the very presence of God and this was gained through faith in Christ (John 14:2f.,6; Eph. 2:18; 3:12; Heb. 4:10; 10:19-23; Rev. 14:13).

Two Resurrections

I have already referred to resurrection in the paragraph on two births above. While on the one hand Scripture alludes to the resurrection of the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15, cf. John 5:29, morals), it also deals with the resurrection of the body. There is a problem, however. Since, as I indicated above, there are two bodies, which body is raised? (Some writers appear to opt for an amalgam of both!) Paul deals extensively with the issue in 1 Corinthians 15 but seems to have been extensively misunderstood. Having dealt, like Jesus (Mt. 22:29-32), with the reality of resurrection, he maintains that Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection (vv.20,23). This seems to have prompted many to assume that our resurrection will resemble his specific physical resurrection from the grave. Since both Peter and Paul differentiate between Jesus who did not see corruption and those who like David did (Acts 2 and 13), this, in view of what the apostle says, is impossible. There is another problem. Paul, and apparently Jesus who refers to the age to come, the resurrection and the sons of the resurrection (Luke 20:35f.), sometimes uses the term resurrection comprehensively to include resurrection, transformation, exaltation, glorification and heavenly session, in other words to the gaining of eternal life and the full adoption or redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23) in the world to come. So to cut a long story short, since those who have seen corruption cannot return to their mothers’ wombs (which have also suffered corruption), their resurrection, though corporeal, is spiritual and not physical (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50). As the apostle so clearly maintains, change or replacement is absolutely and universally necessary – even in the case of Jesus who did not experience corruption. This he implies when he refers to the saints at the end of the world (vv.50ff.). They like Jesus remain physical and uncorrupted (though still like all flesh corruptible) to the moment of their ascension or rapture, but necessarily have to be changed to enter heaven and the presence of God (cf. John 20:17). So Jesus’ specifically physical resurrection from the grave, like that of Lazarus, provides the wrong model. (Since he had not earned death by his own sins, his resurrection was in any case a restoration to his previous physical, Luke 24:39, etc., life or psyche, John 10:17f., cf. 2:19-21. See further my Restoration and Resurrection.) And it is not by accident that the author of Hebrews distinguishes between an earthly resurrection or restoration and a better resurrection to eternal life in heaven (11:35).

It is important at this point to challenge the widespread notion that Jesus’ resurrection from the grave constituted his glorification. If it did, then it was not a physical resurrection at all but a transformation! If as Paul avers our permanent or glorified form is invisible (2 Cor. 4:18, cf. Rom. 8:24f.) and hence, though somatic, non-physical, then Jesus was not glorified until he ascended, entered the cloud (the usual symbol of God), disappeared or became invisible (Acts 1:9) and was exalted to God’s right hand (Acts 3:13; 5:30f.; Eph. 1:20-23; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 4:14; 7:26; 1 Pet. 1:21; 3:21f.). The essential difference between the visible post-resurrection Jesus that the disciples saw, and the blinding light that Paul saw on the Damascus road after the ascension and glorification of Jesus ought to be plain to all.

Two Inheritances and/or Two Prizes

Paul makes it as clear as does experience that the only inheritance we can gain from the flesh and the world is corruption (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8, cf. Ps. 49). All die and all material things are subject to age, wear, decay and corruption. Esau despised his spiritual birthright and lost all (Heb. 12:16, cf. Mark 8:36). Ishmael, the fleshly slave, inherited nothing (Gal. 4:30, cf. John 8:35). Failure to exercise control over the flesh and the world and to indulge them is ultimately to leave oneself without an inheritance (Gal. 5:19-21). In this situation, our best, though forlorn (cf. Heb. 9:27), hope is to breathe our last (Job 11:20). On the other hand, to serve the spirit/Spirit is to inherit the crown of life or glory (2 Tim. 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:10; Rev. 2:10). This is further brought out by what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:24f. Worldly wreaths are perishable, spiritual ones endure for eternity (Phil. 3:14; Heb. 12:1f.).

Two Covenants

Apart from the early chapters of Genesis, biblical theology is covenant theology. Various covenants appear in the course of revelation. (See further my articles Covenant Theology, Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?) However, it is important to recognize as was noted above that just as there is continuity of body, temple and so forth, but difference in kind, so there is continuity of covenant but discontinuity of essence. To ignore this distinction and claim that the covenants form an organic unity leads to the erosion of their differences and hence to serious misunderstanding like the redemption of creation (cf. C.J.H.Wright, Mission, p.279). The first covenant with Noah relates primarily to nature and forms the basis or background of the others. It is explicitly said to last only while the earth remains (Gen. 8:22, cf. Jer. 31:35f.; 33:19-26), that is, until God’s purpose of salvation is complete. That purpose is etched in the old and new covenants which are strongly contrasted in both testaments (e.g. Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:26f.; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8). In brief, the old covenant relates to this present material world (cf. Heb. 7:16; 9:10) and like it, it is provisional and temporal. Once its purpose is fulfilled it is dispensed with (Mt. 5:18; 2 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 8:13, cf. Rom. 7:3). In contrast, the new covenant relates to the world to come and both it and the world to come are eternal (Mt. 24:35). The plain fact is that whereas the old covenant could not give (eternal) life (Gal. 3:21) but enshrined a ministry of death (2 Cor. 3:7), the new covenant was a covenant of life through faith in Christ (John 3:16; 2 Cor. 3:17f.).

Parallel Paradoxes and Contrasting Finales

In John 12:25 (cf. Mt. 10:39; Luke 14:26; Phil. 3:3-11) Jesus tells us that whoever loves his (earthly) life loses it while he who hates his life in this world keeps it for eternal life. This being so, though nowadays most of us balk at the issue, Scripture graphically presents us with two contrasting finales. At the last judgement the good and the evil, the righteous and the wicked arrive at different destinations. Jesus himself insists that while the good or those who respond appropriately to the revelation given them are welcomed into his presence in heaven, the wicked are cast into outer darkness in hell. Matthew 25:31-46 etches these contrasting ends with disturbing clarity. While those who have acted with compassion towards their fellows inherit the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world and eternal life, those who have selfishly exploited or ignored them will be banished into eternal punishment (cf. Mt. 8:11f.; Luke 16:28). The same result relating to immoral conduct is painted with different strokes of the brush elsewhere (e.g. Rev. 21:8; 22:15).

Other Dualisms

There are of course other dualisms to be culled from Scripture. Among them can be specified light and darkness (John 1:5), good and evil, wheat and chaff (Mt. 3:12), weeds and wheat (Mt. 13:30), good and bad trees (Mt. 7:15-20) and fish (Mt. 13:48, cf. figs, Jer. 24:2), material and spiritual and earthly and heavenly things in general, the harvest and the winepress (Rev. 14:14ff.), God and worldly wealth (Mt. 6:24), God and Satan, and so forth. It can hardly escape notice that all that is either spiritually unproductive and/or evil is ultimately dispensed with (Luke 13:9-12; Heb. 6:7f., cf. Rev. 2:11; 20:6,14; 21:8). Thus just as the earth was threatened with destruction when on account of evil men it proved unproductive before the flood (Gen. 6:11-13), so both man and his habitat will finally be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah when man succumbs to evil (cf. 2 Tim. 3:1-5) and the earth proves largely unproductive at the end (Luke 17:26-30). As John says, both the darkness (1 John 2:8) and the world will pass away (1 John 2:17, cf. Mt. 24:35; 1 Cor. 7:31; Rev. 21:1). (See further my essay The Harvest of the Earth.)

Conclusions

On the basis of the evidence sketched above it has to be said that the created world implies intrinsic dualism (Gen. 1:1, cf. Heb. 11:3). Creation is not the result of spontaneous generation as atheistic or evolutionistic naturalists claim: it is the handiwork of the eternal self-existent God. It is “good” (Gen. 1:31; 1 Tim. 4:3f.), that is, useful or purposeful, like a tool and instrumental in bearing fruit. It is not a question of matter being evil as the Greeks thought but of its being naturally temporal (Heb. 1:10-12) and corruptible (Rom. 8:18-25). It was subjected to futility in hope (Rom. 8:20). As a study of the terms created “by hand” (cheiropoietos) and “not by hand” (acheiropoietos) makes clear, the difference between the material, which is inherently imperfect, and the spiritual is fundamental. And man, who is initially both to the extent that his spirit is housed in an earthly tent (2 Cor. 4:7; 5:1), is depicted as being perfected on his pilgrimage from the one to the other (1 Cor. 15:46; Heb. 11:10,16; 13:14, etc.). Since all sinned (Rom. 5:12) and continue to do so (Rom. 3:23), the Word who dwelt eternally with God and was God (John 1:1) came down from heaven to earth as man in order to rescue his fellows who fail to meet the condition of life through disobedience. Otherwise expressed, he came to liberate all who failed the test of pain and pleasure in this present (evil) age which was the unavoidable prelude of entry into the glory of the age to come (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17; Gal. 1:4). As their Leader and Elder Brother he pioneered their way to heaven (John 14:6; Heb. 2:10; 6:19f.; 10:19f.; 12:1f.). Salvation therefore involves the liberation and transformation of the sons of God, already justified from sin, from bondage to the corruption of the created world (Rom. 8:21) which will eventually be removed (Heb. 12:27; 1 Cor. 7:31; 1 John 2:17; Rev. 21:1) and their transfer (rapture) to the heavenly presence of the Father himself (cf. John 14:3,6; Eph. 2:18; 1 Pet. 3:18) whose glory (Rom. 5:2; Eph. 1:18) and generic nature (Rom. 8:29; 2 Pet. 1:4) they, as the adopted children of God, will share (cf. 1 Pet. 1:21; 5:10).

Ultimate Monism?

All the dualisms referred to above rest on the basic dualism constituted by Creator and creation, heaven and earth. Yet central to the Jewish faith was the affirmation of the unity of God: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Dt. 6:4), a view confirmed by Jesus himself (Mark 12:29). How do we explain this? It would appear that all that was created by God was regarded as being extraneous to him yet depended totally for its very existence on his will (cf. Heb. 1:1-4).

Most Christians, governed by Augustine, appear to base their worldview on creation, fall and redemption (see e.g. Naugle pp.284ff.). Having assumed the initial perfection of creation, they put it on a par with God and in effect obliterate the distinction between them. The logical outcome of this is pantheistic idolatry, though this conclusion is usually if inconsistently avoided. As prey to Augustinian hamartiology, especially belief in “the catastrophe of the fall” and its consequent curse, they hotly oppose dualism (see again Naugle, pp.342f.,351f.,355). In order to validate this opposition, they are forced to seek to overcome the unassailable biblical evidence for it by positing a total, comprehensive or universal redemption which includes the visible material creation. In this way, since premises determine conclusions, they again virtually destroy the distinction between the Creator and the creation, the perfect and the imperfect and the sacred and the secular assumed at the beginning and in principle become idolaters. Otherwise expressed, they collapse evident dualism into unbiblical monism. However, if what has been argued above is true and the ultimate end of the entire material universe after it has served its purpose is total destruction or annihilation (Rom. 8:24f.; 2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 1:10-12; 12:26f.; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-13; 1 John 2:17; Rev. 21:1-5), the question arises as to the nature of ultimate reality. Will it be monistic or dualistic?

Two basic points must be made. First, though Scripture clearly points to the divine nature of the children of God (cf. John 10:34f.), that is, their moral and generic likeness to God in Christ (2 Pet. 1:4, cf. Heb. 1:3; Rev. 3:21), in contrast with pantheism it never identifies God and man: they remain forever Father and child, Creator and creature, husband and wife (cf. Eph. 5:25-32) in spiritual unity (cf. 1 Cor. 6:17) even in heaven. For man there is no Nirvana-like absorption. As embodied individuals we permanently retain our personal identity. Indeed, Paul goes so far as to suggest in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 the subordination of the (human) Son even though he shares the throne of God. Needless to say, I have long believed that Jesus’ true humanity is necessarily subordinate to his deity. After all, his humanity was not original but assumed.

Second, apparently in support of his belief that the glory of God and man’s enjoyment of it (cf. Ps. 16:11; 17:15; 23:6; 36:7f.; John 14:1-3; Rom.11:32-36) is the ultimate objective of creation (cf. The Shorter Catechism, Qu. 1), in the same passage in 1 Corinthians Paul is emphatic that God will finally be all in all (v.28, cf. Acts 3:21; Eph. 1:10; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:20). God and man will be as close in their unity as Jesus and his Father (John 10:30; 17:11,22). Such dualism is almost monistic in character like the Trinity. But while distinction of persons remains, unity, harmony and reconciliation will be total and universal (cf. Acts 3:21; Eph. 1:9f.; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:20). This would seem to accord with the mystery of marriage alluded to by Paul (Eph. 5:32, cf. 2 Cor. 11:2) and the vision of John in the book of Revelation (19:6-9), and two excerpts from it provide an appropriate end to this essay:

“And whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who is seated on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elder fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives forever and ever. They cast their crowns before the throne, saying, ‘Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created’ ” (4:11).

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” (5:13, ESV).

Why is dualism so important? Because creation including the flesh is perishable and we as human beings made in the image of God seek the imperishable.

Gloria Soli Deo.

Additional Notes

(1) Note on Naugle

Professor Naugle is obviously a fine scholar and one not to be lightly trifled with. However, a learned and potentially influential book such as his requires comment. On pp. xx, the author describes his paradigm shift from dispensational premillennialism to covenant, reformed theology. Well and good! For all that, I am persuaded that he needs to make yet another shift. Over 35 years ago in a book (unpublished) based on covenant theology as I had come to understand it, I had cause to mention that just as there are three dispensational covenants highlighted in the progressive revelation of Scripture as a whole, so they are recapitulated, first, within the experience of the individual (Gal. 4:4f.) and, secondly, within the history of Christianity which is also in the process of development (cf. Cardinal Newman’s “The Development of Christian Doctrine”, 1845). I contended that the church was first Hellenised, then Judaised, but needs finally to be properly Christianised. Speaking in very general terms and making allowances for overlaps, reversals and inconsistencies, it would seem that premillennialism or chiliasm with its obsession with the physical/material prevailed in the early church (cf. Egypt in the OT), Christian Judaism after Augustine to whom the Roman church and I regret to say Reformed theology (still only half-reformed, truly a via media) owe so much (cf. earthly Promised Land and Jerusalem), and we hope under the influence of the Spirit full-fledged Christianity in the future terminating in the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22).

Naugle’s commitment to the creation/fall/redemption schema is, as I have indicated, based not on the Bible but on Augustine’s highly suspect interpretation of it. Our emancipation from it is long overdue. (See further my essay on Augustine: Asset or Liability, etc.)

There are also other distressing features in Naugle’s theology. He not only believes in the redemption of the material creation (dust in heaven despite 1 Cor. 15:50, etc.?) but also that “The salvaging of a sin-wrecked creation is what the Bible is all about” (p.284). I was under the impression that the salvation of man made in the image of God was what the Bible was all about (John 3:16; Rom. 1:16; 2 Cor. 5:17, etc.). (Alternatively, the establishment of the kingdom of God and/or heaven.) Furthermore, he believes that Jesus “will return to earth in apocalyptic power and glory to consummate his redemptive work…”(p.285). On the contrary, I am persuaded that his work on earth was in essence finished on the cross (John 19:30, cf. 17:4) and that he made his final exodus at his ascension never to return (Acts 13:34). Having representatively overcome the world (John 16:33; John 17:4; Rom. 8:31-39; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:5, etc.) he has no need to repeat what he has already completed. As one who has passed through the heavens (Heb. 4:14) and is permanently separate(d) from sinners (Heb. 7:26), all that remains for him to do is to return (descend from heaven) in the glory of God (Luke 9:26; Tit. 2:13) to rescue his people who will rise to meet him in the air (1 Thes. 4:16, cf. Heb. 9:28). When that occurs, both the wicked and their habitat will be destroyed (2 Thes. 1:7f.; 2:8) as at Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-30). Far from returning to earth, the earth itself will flee away from his presence (Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 20:11; 21:1-5).

Christian dualism answers many questions, though its study needs to be greatly extended beyond what is outlined above.

(2) Light on Licona

Since writing the above I have read with much profit and enjoyment Lee Strobel’s “The Case for the Real Jesus”. In the midst of two impressive chapters presenting the views of Michael Licona, on pages 138-141 the question of whether Jesus’ resurrection was physical or spiritual is dealt with. (On this see especially N.L.Geisler: The Battle for the Resurrection and M.J.Harris: From Grave to Glory.) Licona’s conclusions left me with big questions in my mind as they did in his book “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” co-authored with G.Habermas (see my essay Restoration and Resurrection). It seems to me that on the flimsiest of foundations Licona arrives at the conclusion that Jesus rose from the grave with a transformed physical body, which, unless he was a non-human hybrid, is a blatant contradiction in terms. First he interprets the term “flesh and blood” (1 Cor. 15:50, cf. Heb. 2:14) as “mortal being”. This would appear to be not so much wrong as inadequate, for it leaves Paul stating the obvious. He then claims that Luke’s expression “flesh and bones”(24:39, cf. 2 Sam. 5:1; 1 Chron. 11:1) cannot be equated with it. No evidence presented! Next like N.T. Wright on whom he seems to be relying to no small extent he refuses to equate the word ‘natural’ with ‘physical’ (cf. NRSV, etc.). (Wright’s views as expressed on pages 141-145 of his “The Challenge of Jesus” beg their own quota of questions. It would appear that for him the body is to be equated with physicality. In other words, in fear of Greek dualism he fails to distinguish between soma and sarx. Despite his clear recognition of the difference between biblical and Greek dualism, Ladd, pp.83f., does the same. For him physical redemption is a fact, p.179, but then he was an avowed premillennialist.) Though again I recognize a difference in nuance especially in 1 Corinthians 2:14f., (on which see again my essay Restoration and Resurrection) given the context, the natural clearly includes the physical. By referring to earth and dust in verses 47ff. Paul puts this beyond reasonable dispute. Thus Licona’s attempt to deny the distinction between the physical and the spiritual or the material and the immaterial falls flat on its face. Furthermore, his denial that we shall have immaterial or spiritual bodies in heaven is not merely to quarrel with Paul but with the entire Bible as I have sought to demonstrate above. It is a sad fact that many modern writers who stress the physical do so at the expense of the spiritual which is airily dismissed as ethereal or unreal. The emphasis in the Bible is just the opposite (see e.g. Rom. 1:20; 1 Tim. 6:19; Heb. 11:3). It is the spiritual that is real and eternal while the physical or natural is temporal (Heb. 1:10-12, etc.). The difference is that between the eternal Creator and the temporal creation.

Next, on page 140, he tells us it is clear that Paul “regards Jesus’ resurrection as a model for our future resurrection”. (In his “Knowing the Holy Spirit”, p.33, C.J.H.Wright tells us that Jesus’ resurrection body is the prototype for the redemption of our bodies. Using Philippians 3:21 for support, he fails to appreciate that verse’s reference to glory which the disciples obviously did not see on earth but Jesus prayed that they would see in heaven, John 17:5,24! Immediately after his resurrection, Jesus’ physical appearance was such that he was mistaken for a gardener, John 20:15, or went unrecognized, Luke 24:16. Some glory!) This apparently ignores Paul’s strong stress on transformation in 1 Corinthians 15:51ff. In Acts 2 and 13 both Peter and Paul distinguish sharply between those who like David have seen corruption and those who like Jesus have not! (See further my essay No Return to Corruption.) Licona then appeals to Romans 8:11 which refers to our bodies (cf. v.23) not to our flesh (cf. 2 Cor. 4:11). In other words, Paul makes a distinction between body (soma) and flesh (sarx). And it is beyond question that the apostle never dreamt that either the flesh or its corollary the earth could be immortalized (cf. Rom. 1:23,25 and 2:7,10). The plain fact is that for Paul as for the rest of the apostles the flesh in contrast with the body is always pejorative (John 6:63, cf. 2 Cor. 3:10f.) and, like the creation from which it emanates, it is temporal (Gen. 1:1; Heb. 1:10-12), corruptible (Rom. 8:18-25; James 1:10f.) and doomed by divine decree to pass away (Isa. 51:6,8; Mt. 24:35, etc.) once it has served its purpose. So I conclude that the distinction between the eternal Creator and his temporal creation, between heaven and earth, etc., is basic to Scripture. In light of this it is a fundamental fallacy for Licona and others to posit a material spiritual body inheriting the kingdom of heaven. Paul makes it indisputably clear that the corruptible cannot inherit the incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:50).

To say this, however, raises the question of the nature of Jesus’ resurrection body. (See further my essay Re The Body of the Resurrected Jesus.) A true understanding of the theology involved makes it clear, first, that Jesus was truly incarnate, that is, mortal flesh; second, that he gained the (eternal) life promised to Adam by keeping the law; third, that he gave his flesh in death for others (Col. 1:21f.; 1 Pet. 3:18); and fourth, that his physical resurrection as one who had committed no sin was a divine necessity based on the promise (Acts 2:23f.). If Jesus rose from the dead it must have been in the flesh as he had himself predicted (John 2:19-21; 10:17f.) or the promise was not fulfilled. But to suggest that he rose in a glorified fleshly body (glorified dust?) not only denies his physical restoration but also reflects massive misunderstanding regarding the nature of the transformation glorification of Jesus as our God and Saviour (Phil. 3:21, cf. Luke 9:26; John 17:5,24; 2 Cor. 3:18; Tit. 2:13, etc.), and nothing Licona or others like him have said persuades me otherwise. On the other hand, had he not risen from the dead in the flesh (cf. Luke 24:39), the implication would have been that he earned the wages of sin which was death and inevitable corruption (Gen. 3:19).

I have maintained in the previous paragraph that Jesus in contrast with Adam gained (eternal) life by keeping the law (Mt. 3:13-17, cf. Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5). It therefore follows from this that after his death and resurrection in the flesh on behalf of his fellows, he still had life and was no longer liable to death (Rom. 6:9, cf. Heb. 9:28, etc.). He was not, however, incorruptible. How do we know? The answer lies in the necessity of his ascension. In order to avoid growing old like the physical creation from which he was taken through his mother and succumbing to the decay that comes with age (2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 8:13), Jesus had to ascend and be transformed at the time set by his Father. This is clearly what is implied in John 20:17 and supported by what happens to the saints who ascend without dying and seeing corruption at the end of the world (1 Cor. 15:51ff.).

It should be noted therefore that there are two basic natural, as opposed to moral (cf. Rom. 8:30), necessities involved in the glorification process: first, regeneration signifying eternal life, and, second, ascension signifying transformation (John 20:17; Eph. 1:21; 4:10; Heb. 4:14; 7:26). (In Jesus’ case, since he had gained life while he was in the flesh, Rom. 8:3, physical resurrection after his vicarious death was a moral necessity based on the promise, Acts 2:23f.) Apart from these even Jesus as man could not enter the kingdom of heaven and regain his former glory and splendour (cf. John 17:24; Phil. 3:21; Heb. 1:3). And it is highly significant that Paul claims that it is Jesus precisely who brought life (regeneration) and incorruption (ascension transformation) to light (2 Tim. 1:10. It is to be regretted that most versions of the Bible reflecting theological myopia fail to translate this verse, and others like Rom. 2:7, correctly and turn it into a tautology.)

On the assumption that my understanding of the teaching of Scripture at this point is correct, why is it that Licona et al. have got it wrong? A brief answer is fivefold as is implied in the essay above. First, they accept the Augustinian worldview which is patently false to the Bible; second, they lack an adequate covenant theology; third, they suffer from Greek dualism phobia on the one hand and fail to appreciate true biblical dualism on the other; fourth, they are prone to docetism (cf. Strobel, pp.61f.), and, fifth, their acceptance of sin-soaked Augustinianism makes their theology cyclopean or one-eyed. In explanation of the latter point I would assert that while Augustinians think exclusively in terms of sin, the Bible emphatically includes natural physical corruption as well as sin (Mt. 6:19f.; Luke 13:1-5; Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.). Salvation therefore implies rescue, primarily from the mortality and corruptibility of nature necessitated by failure to keep the commandments which was the condition of life in Genesis (cf. Mt. 19:17). Otherwise expressed, sin prevents escape from the death and natural corruption that engulfed the first Adam and all his posterity who sin like him (Rom. 3:23; 5:12). In this situation only Jesus, the second Adam who kept the commandment(s) and thereby gained life and incorruption (2 Tim. 1:10), can meet our need (1 Cor. 15:53-55,57). In Christ, God is Saviour indeed (Isa. 45:22f.; Phil. 2:9-11).

For further reading see my Spiritualisation.

Note on P.E.Hughes, 2 Corinthians, pp153ff.

On p.155 he quotes Augustine who states that “both the inward and the outward part, has become old by sin and liable to the punishment of death … the outward man too shall attain the dignity of a celestial character; so that all that has been created may be created anew, and all that has been made be remade by the Creator and Maker Himself .” This is a distortion of the biblical evidence which becomes evident once we recognize that even the sinless Jesus according to the flesh grew old and was hence physically corruptible like the creation from which he emanated! On p. 163 in comment on 5:1 Hughes in mortal fear of Greek dualism somewhat oddly claims that “a house not made with hands” does not imply that our present “dwelling” (or body of flesh) is made with hands. The Bible unmistakably states that it is. It is made by hand of God, hence the frequently used potter metaphor (Gen. 2:7; Job 10:8f.; Ps. 119:73; 2 Cor. 4:7, etc.! Hughes seems to contradict his own comments on 2 Cor. 4:7, p.136. The reason for this would appear to be that he tends to understand “made with hands” as meaning “made by man” (cf. NIV.) and as an Augustinian regards man as originally perfect but fallen, rather than mortal and corruptible (prone to decay) by creation.

Notes.

On dualism see Ladd in Jesus and the Kingdom, espec. 83f., 110ff., index.

On the two ages see Ladd, The Gospel and the Kingdom, pp.26ff., 41f.

Jesus and the Kingdom, pp.110ff., etc., index..

___________________________________________________

References

F.F.Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1964.

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

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

N.L.Geisler, The Challenge of the Resurrection, Nashville, 1992.

D.Guthrie, New Testament Theology, Leicester, 1981.

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

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

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

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

G.E.Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1974 repr. 1987.

J.P.Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, Grand Rapids, 1987.

D.K.Naugle, Worldview, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2002.

John Rist, Augustine, Cambridge, 1994.

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

L.Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, Grand Rapids, 2007.

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

Ben Witherington 111, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians, Downers Grove/Nottingham, 2007.

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

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

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

NBD (New Bible Dictionary, 3rd. ed.), Leicester, 1996.

EDT (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology) ed. W.A.Elwell, Grand Rapids, 1984.