Tag: Resurrection

Two ‘Natural’ Necessities

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

__________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) John 3 and Spiritual Rebirth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus

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

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

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

A Body of Glory

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

Conclusion

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

Traditional Teaching

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

Summing Up

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

________________________________________

References

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

M.Harris, Raised Immortal, Basingstoke, 1883.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recapitulation in Outline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Christian Eschatology

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

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

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


The Body of Jesus

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


Two Natural Necessities

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

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

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

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

(See further my I Believe in Recapitulation)

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 Salvation, Redemption Applied (Order of Salvation), The Order of Salvation in Romans, Cart-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 Theology, Did 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 Imputation, Straightforward 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 8:18-25, The Destruction of the Material Creation, Restoration and Replacement, Will Creation Be Redeemed?, The Essence of the Case Against the Redemption of Creation, When Was Jesus Transformed?, From Here to Eternity, With 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.

Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity

 

I have argued in my article Covenant Theology and elsewhere that there are five clearly distinguishable divine covenants with men, but in formulating a theology of covenant I have tended to skate somewhat superficially over the question of their continuity and discontinuity.

 

Earlier generations of theologians solved the problem by merging them, forcing them into the mould or straight-jacket into what was tantamount to an undifferentiated or monolithic covenant of grace. Thus they talked of one covenant in two dispensations and/or emphasized the organic unity of the covenants. This, I would argue, failed to observe clear distinctions and to deal adequately with the biblical material at our disposal. All else apart, it transformed the Mosaic covenant of law from a gift of grace (cf. Rom. 3:1f.; 9:4) into a covenant of grace. Little wonder that some forty years ago I could not understand how John Murray, for example, arrived at the idea that there was a single, monolithic “covenant of grace”, an undifferentiated unity bridging two dispensations differently administered.

 

Later I learnt more about federal theology. This scheme involved the assertion that God first made a covenant of works with Adam (WCF, 7:2; 19:1) which on proving a failure was then counteracted by a covenant of grace with Christ (WCF, 7:3). The latter, it is claimed, was differently administered under the law (WCF, 7:5). Whatever merits this view may have, it also involves a false presentation of the biblical material. It appears to derive to a large extent from the idea of an intra-trinitarian covenant of redemption or pactum salutis which may be valid in itself but tends to distort our understanding of covenant theology as it is presented in the Bible. In other words, it confuses God’s eternal purpose and grace with its historical revelation in Christ (cf. 2 Tim.1:9f.; Tit. 1:2f.) and thus tends to merge manifestly differentiated covenants into a single whole with a cavalier disregard of history, salvation history in particular. Its reduction of the latter to a flat uniformity has devastating consequences for our understanding of the salvation of mankind; and its own logic inevitably transforms the law of Moses into a covenant of grace in clear violation of the teaching of Scripture. It is of the essence of the message of the apostles that the Jews were under law and not under grace (cf. Gal. 3:19ff., etc.). In other words, if federal theology achieves continuity, it does so at the expense of the discontinuity to which Scripture refers. So the question unavoidably arises: How can the continuity and the discontinuity of covenant theology be reconciled? 

 

First, it must be firmly laid down that there is no biblical reference to a covenant with Adam, and the attempt to read one into Romans 5:12ff. must be pronounced abortive. The so-called parallel between Adam and Christ is a figment of the (Augustinian) imagination. First, it fails to recognize that the arrangement with Adam was a unilateral divine imposition (Gen. 2:16) in direct contrast with the covenant with Christ which was activated by faith. For the parallel to hold, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness which is by faith requires that the imputation of Adam’s sin is also by faith. Since the latter is universally denied, all attempts to posit a parallel between the two lead unavoidably to failure. (See further my An Exact Parallel?) In Romans 5:12-21 Paul points up an analogy which involves the contrast between the unspecified debit to the race stemming from the sin of Adam and the credit to believers accruing from the righteousness of Christ. Since the vital words ‘in Adam’ and ‘in Christ’ are missing at this point, it is safe to say that covenant theology is not in Paul’s mind. Unless we give undue weight to Hosea 6:7 the interpretation of which is disputed, nowhere in Scripture is there the remotest suggestion that we are born in covenant with, as opposed to the image of (Gen. 5:1-3), Adam any more than we are born in covenant with Christ. (See further my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?) Our relationship with Adam is basically physical (cf. Gen. 5:1-3; 1 Cor. 15:45-49); our relationship with Christ is not on the immediate horizon though it is made clear that we belong to God by creation. And since we are his image, we are clearly meant to attain to his likeness. As revelation progresses, it becomes apparent that we achieve the fullness of the divine image through faith in Christ our covenant head and representative (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18) who is himself the image of God (Heb. 1:3).

 

So, on the assumption that a unilateral covenant (agreement) is a contradiction in terms and having denied that there is any mention of a covenant with Adam in the Bible, we can claim that the divine agreements with man are five: those with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and with Christ. On the surface these are distinctly separate covenants, yet the Bible leads us to believe that in some way they are all related, if not organically. The question is: How?

 

Paul implicitly refers to all five in Romans 1:18-4:8.  To take Romans 4:1-8 and the covenants with Abraham and David first, it is fairly easy to see that they are covenants of promise (cf. Eph. 2:12) which were not properly fulfilled in the OT. Both refer ultimately to Christ and it is in him that they find their complete fulfillment. Christ is as clearly the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16) through whom the world is blessed just as he is the Son of David who rules as King (Luke 1:32; Rom. 1:3, etc.). 

 

The covenant with Noah, however, is in a different category. The flood threatened the very existence of creation, and the ensuing covenant is clearly designed to enable Noah and his successors to trust its reliability until the divine plan of salvation is accomplished (cf. Gen. 8:22). The Noahic covenant is clearly dispensational, even transdispensational for without it man cannot exist (cf. Jer. 31:35f.; 33:19-21), least of all have faith in God’s ultimate purpose for mankind. Even the heathen are its beneficiaries (cf. Acts 14:17; 17:25) and are expected to respond to the element of revelation that it involves (Acts 17:27; Rom. 1:19f.; 2:14-16).

 

Since man in general failed to react as he should have done (cf. Rom. 1:18-32; John 1:10), the covenant with Noah, is shown to require supplementation, but except in the case of Abraham and his posterity, no other covenant is forthcoming – at least in the immediate future. The Abrahamic covenant, however, though limited in scope at first promises great things for the rest of mankind in the far distance (cf. John 8:56). Abraham himself is eventually to be a blessing to all the families of the earth. After a lapse of some 400 years, the children of Abraham are redeemed from the house of bondage and receive the law of Moses which itself is limited to the children of Abraham alone (Dt. 4:32-40; Ps. 147:19f.). It should be noticed, however, that the entire exodus saga is specifically linked with the covenant with Abraham (Ex. 2:24; 3:6). While clearly distinguishing between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants especially in Galatians 3 and 4, Paul nonetheless shows their connection, and in Romans 15:8f. he briefly outlines the link between the Christ, the circumcised Jews, the patriarchs and the Gentiles who lived under the covenant with Noah. Here, only the covenant with David fails to receive a mention. It was of course implied in the reference to Christ who was the Son of David.  

 

What is evident from all this is that though the distinctions between the covenants cannot be blurred without distorting our understanding of Scripture, they do nonetheless serve a common purpose and they are all linked by faith (cf. Heb. 11). It should be noticed that supplementation, even supersession, does not lead to obliteration. When the covenant with Abraham is announced, that with Noah remains. Again, when the covenant with Moses dominates the stage, those with Abraham and Noah are not nullified (Gal. 3:15,17). Paul also points out that faith far from overthrowing the law in fact upholds it (Rom. 3:31). Even when the new or Christian covenant supersedes the old (see espec. 2 Cor. 3 and Hebrews), vital elements of the law are radicalized and fulfilled (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:13). For example, it is frequently pointed out that nine of the ten commandments are specifically mentioned as being relevant to believers in Christ. So while it may be true that we are no longer under law but under the law of Christ, it is not without reason that Jesus himself said that he came to fulfil the law and not to destroy it (Mt. 5:17f.).

 

The New Covenant in the Old 

Looking at the issue from a different perspective, it might well be pointed out that covenant continuity is established when the new covenant is adumbrated in the old. The best example is of course Jeremiah 31:31-34, but Ezekiel 11:19, 36:26f. and 37:14 also anticipate a better covenant. The mere fact that the two covenants are differentiated at this very point shows that they are also in a real sense discontinuous (cf. Heb. 10:9). The nature of this discontinuity becomes clear in the NT which differentiates between the law written on the heart and the law written on stone, the ministry of death and life, the glory of the old and the greater glory of the new and the obsolescence of the old and the permanence of the new (2 Cor. 3). The latter in particular is brought out in the gospels. For example, Matthew 5:18 contrasts with Matthew 24:35, and John 1:17 (cf. Luke 16:16) implies the difference between the works of the law and the grace of the new covenant. Needless to say, this difference is greatly elaborated in the epistles of Paul where the flesh and the works of the law stand in strong contrast with the leading of the Spirit and grace (note espec. Romans and Galatians, cf. John 6:63). In Galatians 3:23-4:7 Paul implies that the obsolescence of the law (cf. Heb. 8:13) arises from the fact that it relates to the spiritually adolescent. The mature children of God are freed from the shackles of the law through faith in Christ (Gal. 4:5-7; 5:1) and achieve thereby individual and corporate perfection (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:13-15; 4:13). 

 

These continuities and discontinuities are treated somewhat differently but at impressive length in the letter to the Hebrews. There the old covenant priesthood and temple especially are contrasted with the new and true. 

 

Just as God is the author of all the covenants, so is man their recipient. The truth of this is demonstrated supremely in Christ. As a true Son of Adam, indeed the second or last Adam he embodied all the covenants. As one born of woman (Gal. 4:4), that is, a child of nature, he was respectively, a slave and a beneficiary of the covenant with Noah, a faithful son of both Abraham (Gal. 3:16) and David (Rom. 1:3), a servant of the commandment of Moses (Gal. 4:4) and as the regenerate Son of God inaugurated the new covenant. In other words, as the only fully mature (perfect) man who ever lived he was successively a slave, a servant and a son, the Son of God (Gal. 4:1-7). It was he who brought the covenants to their predestined climactic end in the knowledge and presence of God (John 17:3; 21:3; 22:3-5). And it is with him who having brought many sons to glory (Heb. 2:10) that we shall rule at God’s right hand (Rev. 3:21, etc.).    

 

The covenant with Christ then is in a different category from its predecessors. It alone was truly an eternal covenant of grace. Not only did it involve fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham and David, it also fulfilled the law (cf. Mt. 5:17) – something beyond the capacity of those who were under it (cf. Gal. 4:5). In a nutshell it fulfilled the purpose of creation. Otherwise expressed, the beneficiaries of all the earlier covenants, even Gentiles who have previously only enjoyed the benefits of the covenant with Noah (cf. Acts 14:17), achieve knowledge of the triune God through faith in Christ who himself epitomized the fullness of covenant revelation (Gal. 4:4, cf. John 17:3).

 

It is of vital importance to stress the fact that prior to Christ’s coming and inaugurating his covenant both Jews and Gentiles lacked the grace he brought. Traditional dogmatic theology under the influence of Augustine in particular has largely concluded that the heathen  (and even unbaptised children according to Augustine himself) have been damned en masse (cf. WCF, qu. 60, etc.). This has been the natural consequence of a false or inadequate covenant theology, a lack of a historical perspective and a failure to recognize the presence of diminished responsibility which is adequately catered for in the triadic view I propound. One has only to mention names like Noah and David to realize that though they might have been regarded as blameless in their own generation, they fell well below Christian standards. In contrast, it has been almost universally, if erroneously, believed that since man is born a sinner his cure lay in the new birth! The result of this idea has been the imposition of regeneration by baptism on babies who are quite incapable of faith which, being the indispensable precondition of righteousness, leads to the life (Lev. 18:5) signified by baptism. But regeneration is something that even believing Israelites never experienced as even Moses made clear (Dt. 29:4; 30:6, cf. 4:30f.) not to mention Jeremiah (31:31-34, cf. 9:25f.) and Ezekiel (11:19f.; 36: 26; 37:24-28). How could they when all to the very last man and woman broke the law? How then, we must ask again were the different covenants of earlier times linked? Clearly the answer is by faith. Paul makes it plain that even while the law exercised its ministry of death to all who failed to keep it, people could still believe the promises made to Abraham. God’s covenant with him, which promised blessing to the nations, was not nullified (Gal. 3; Hebrews 11). As the apostle insists in Romans 3:31 faith and law are meant to function in tandem, and this is conspicuously the case in the NT where those who love Christ keep his commandments (John 14:15; 15:10, etc.). It goes without saying that even Adam whose only moral quality made specific was his sin was saved if he believed the shadowy promise of Genesis 3:15. But born again, or a member of the new covenant, he certainly was not. (It may be argued along with Augustine, Calvin and others that the new birth is indispensable for salvation. This of course has led to infant baptism. However, the thinking involved is flawed because it is based on an erroneous covenant theology and ordo salutis or order of salvation. Throughout the Bible it is faith that is indispensable. Why? Because it leads to justification which in turn leads to regeneration. The fact that ungodly Abraham was not born again is, so to speak, an accident of history. Had he lived after rather than before Christ as a man of faith he would have been born again when the Holy Spirit was poured out, cf. John 7:39.)

 

Though the covenants are clearly differentiated and are to that extent discontinuous, they are linked in Scripture by what might be termed a typological hermeneutic. This is perhaps best illustrated by the exodus and the pilgrimage through the wilderness to the Promised Land. Leaving aside the so-called second exodus from Babylon after the exile under the old covenant, the NT likens the spiritual pilgrimage of Christians under the new covenant from its beginnings in calling and conversion to consummation in glory to the journey from bondage in Egypt to rest in the Promised Land. Thus it also likens the Lord’s supper to the Passover, and Christ in the new covenant becomes our paschal Lamb. In other words, Scripture clearly subscribes to the idea of diminished responsibility and historical relativity; a member of the old covenant is by definition under law, and though he can exercise faith in God like Abraham, he cannot rise above the limited revelation that he has been given. Thus the author of Hebrews differentiates between accountability under Moses and under Christ (Heb. 10:28-31).

 

In order to reduce our study to reasonable proportions it is worth considering what might be termed purple passages in the NT which highlight comparisons and contrasts between the old and new covenants. While it is arguable that we should begin by comparing the ten commandments with the law of Christ or the Sermon on the Mount, it is better to concentrate on doctrinal matters rather than ethics (though note Mt. 5:20). 

 

In 1 Corinthians 15:42-50 Paul portrays the basic discontinuity between the body of the natural man under the old covenant and the regenerate man under the new. It should be carefully noted that nothing is said nor implied about sin in this passage (contrast Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 10:9b).

 

ADAM
 LAST ADAM 
Perishable (corruptible) Raised imperishable
Sown in dishonour and weakness Raised in power
Sown a natural or physical body Raised a spiritual body
A living being A life-giving spirit
From the earth (dust) From heaven

 

Since perishable flesh and blood cannot inherit the imperishable kingdom of God, continuity of body is maintained by transformation and succession: first dust (flesh), then spirit; first the image of Adam, then the image of the man of heaven. Paul stresses that before they can enter the kingdom of God (cf. John 3:1-8) both the dead and the living alike must be transformed (15:51-54).

 

In Romans 5:12-21 Paul draws up an analogy between first Adamic man under law as sinner and new Adamic man as righteous:

 

 

ADAM the type JESUS the antitype
All sin and all die Free gift of grace
Sin leads to condemnation Free gift leads to justification
Sin leads to dominion of death Righteousness leads to dominion in life
Law led to increase in sin Grace abounded

 

So whereas old covenant sin like that of Adam exercised dominion in death, new covenant grace in Christ exercises dominion through justification leading to eternal life.    

 

In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul spells out the contrast as follows:

 

OLD COVENANT NEW COVENANT
Written with ink Written with the Spirit
On stone On human hearts
Kills Gives life
Ministry of death Ministry of the Spirit
Ministry of condemnation  Ministry of justification
Lost glory                Great glory
Transient glory  Permanent glory
Blindness  Vision
(Bondage) Freedom
Veiled glory   Unhindered vision/clear reflection
(Shadow of the true) Ever-increasing glory

 

Hagar and Sarah: Galatians 4:21-31

Here Paul posits two covenants in the form of an allegory (v.24). (In reality, Genesis 17:21 denies that there was a covenant with Hagar and Ishmael, but Paul daringly suggests that God’s dealings with Hagar/Ishmael and Sarah/Isaac reflect or are types of the old and new covenants.)

Fung tabulates the covenants as follows (p.213):

 

SLAVERY FREEDOM
Hagar – a slave woman Sarah – a free woman
Ishmael – born according to the flesh Isaac – born through God’s promise
The Sinaitic covenant of law The covenant of promise (based on faith)
The present Jerusalem      

(= Judaism)

 The Jerusalem above      

(= the church)
The children of the present Jerusalem      

(= legalists)

 The children of the Jerusalem above      

(= Christians)
Righteousness by Law Righteousness by Faith

 

 

M.Silva expands Paul’s covenantal contrasts in Galatians 3-5 (Elwell, p. 282).

 

Flesh Spirit 
Works of the law  Faith, promise
Curse  Blessing, inheritance
Slavery freedom, sonship
Sin and death   justification and life
Hagar the slave woman    (Sarah) the free woman
Sinai and present Jerusalem Jerusalem from above
Ishmael       Isaac
Persecutor   persecuted 
Cast away heir 
Being under law being led by the Spirit
Works of the flesh   fruit of the Spirit 

 

 

Colossians 2:11

In comment on Colossians 2:11f. and circumcision Hendriksen conveniently sets out the difference between the physical and a spiritual as follows:

THE NEW 
 THE OLD
(1) the work of the Holy Spirit     

(“made without hands”)

 (1) the manual operation     

(minor surgery!) 
(2) inward, of the heart (see Rom 2:28,29, cf. Phil. 3:2,3) (2) outward
(3) the putting off and casting away of the entire evil nature (“the body of the flesh”), in its sanctifying aspect to be progressively realized (3) removal of excess foreskin
(4) Christian (“the circumcision of Christ” that is, the circumcision which is yours because of your vital union with Christ) (4) Abrahamic and Mosaic

 

 

The letter to the Hebrews goes into more detail in differentiating the old covenant from the new. I begin with Hebrews 3:1-6:

 

MOSES   JESUS
Faithful in God’s house Faithful to the one who appointed him
Glory More glory
House The builder of the house
Servant Son

 

Christians are holy partners in a heavenly calling (v.1) if we hold firm the confidence and the pride that belong to hope (v.6).

 

In commentary on Hebrews 8:2 and the true temple Hughes presents the contrasts and correspondences schematically as follows:

 

THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE THE HEAVENLY REALITY
On earth (8:4f.)    

An earthly sanctuary (9:1)

 In heaven (8:1)
Set up by man (8:2) Set up by the Lord (8:2)
Made with hands Not made with hands
Of this creation (9:11) That is, not of this creation (9:11)
A sanctuary made with hands (9:24) Not a sanctuary made with hands (9:24)
A copy and shadow (8:5) The true tent (8:2)   

The true sanctuary (9:24)

The greater and more perfect tent (9:11)

Heaven itself (9:24)

 

While the continuity of temple between the old and new covenants is obvious there is fundamental difference in kind. In excellent comment on this difference Beasley-Murray writes (pp.326f.) on Revelation 21:22 as follows:

“No element in John’s vision of the future more strikingly differentiates him from contemporary Jewish writers than his statement  “I saw no temple in the city”. ‘For the old Synagogue the future Jerusalem without a temple was an inconceivable,’ commented Billerbeck. ‘The building of the sanctuary was the most self-evident element of the old Jewish hope of the future.’ (Strack-Billerbeck, iii, p.852). In this respect John has faithfully developed a feature of the teaching of Jesus, who in prophetic fashion announced both the ruin of the Jerusalem temple (Mk 13:2) and its replacement by a different order of worship (Mk 14:58). No word of Jesus seems to have infuriated the Jewish religious leaders more than the latter saying, hence the attempt made at his trial to incriminate him through it. The Fourth Evangelist has followed up the Marcan phrase in Mark 14:58, ‘not made with hands,’ relating to the new temple, by observing that the temple is really the body of the risen Lord (John 2:21). He thereby suggests that the risen Christ will be the ‘place’ wherein God meets man in grace and man offers acceptable worship to God. Whether consciously or not, John the prophet is in the direct line of the symbolism when he represents that the temple of the new Jerusalem is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb. Everything for which the temple stood is transferred to the life of the city. All is sacred, the Shekinah glory fills the entire city (cf. Ezek. chs. 10-11 and 43:1-7), and God is every where accessible to the priestly race.”

 

In comment on Hebrews12:22-24 Hughes (p.545) contrasts the two mountains:

 

MOUNT SINAI MOUNT ZION
What may be touched The city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem
A blazing fire Innumerable angels in festal gathering
Darkness The assembly of the first-born
Gloom A judge who is God of all
A tempest The spirits of just men made perfect
The sound of a trumpet Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant
A voice… The sprinkled blood …

 

THE BETTERS

The letter to the Hebrews is significant for its “betters”. These comparisons/contrasts admirably pinpoint both the continuity and discontinuity between the old and new covenants. They are listed as follows:

  • Better things (6:9)
  • A better hope (7:19)
  • A better covenant (7:22; 8:6)
  • A better ministry (8:6)
  • Better promises (8:6)
  • Better sacrifices (9:23)
  • Better and more lasting possession (10:34)
  • Better country (11:16)
  • A better resurrection (11:35)
  • Something better (11:40)
  • A better word (12:24).

To the above might be added texts like 9:11,24 and 10:1, cf. 8:2.

 

Not Manufactured

Creation

One of the most fundamental of all the contrasts (apparently missed by most writers) in the NT is that between what is “made by hand” and what is “not made by hand”.  See further my Manufactured or Not So. In essence it points to the intrinsic difference between the uncreated Creator and what he has created. Thus in the OT the word for “not made by hand” (acheiropoietos) does not appear since the material creation is “made by hand” (Ps. 102:25; Isa. 45:12; 48:13, etc.). It follows from this that since man, insofar as he is flesh, stems from the earth, he too is “manufactured”. While this may be inferred from Genesis 2:7 (cf. Ps. 139:13-16), it is explicitly stated in Job 10:8 and Psalms 119:73 and 138:8, for example.

 

New Creation

In the NT, however, an explicit distinction is made between what is “made by hand” and what is “not made by hand”. Thus in Hebrews 9:11 and 24 it is made clear that the sanctuary which Jesus entered as our high priest was not an impermanent earthly but a permanent heavenly one (Acts 7:48; 17:24; Heb. 1:11, cf. Lohse TDNT 9, Grand Rapids, 1973, p.436). Again in 2 Corinthians 5:1 Paul distinguishes between an earthly tent created by God and “a house not made with hands” eternal in the heavens (cf. Col. 2:11). The conclusion that must necessarily be drawn from texts like these is that what is “manufactured” even by God himself is defective in the sense that it is temporal like the hand-written law (cf. Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1) and not eternal (cf. Mt. 24:35). This manifestly conforms with what is taught throughout Scripture that the eternal God is not on any account to be confused with his hand-made creation (cf. Ps. 102: 25-27; Isa. 40:6-8; 51:6; Mt. 24:35, Rom. 1:23, etc.). 

 

In light of this it can be inferred that those who teach the redemption instead of the replacement of the “hand-made” creation (in 2008 a current fad) including its corollary the flesh are deeply mistaken. The temporal material creation, which has both a beginning (Gen. 1:1) and an end (Heb. 12:27), relates with the old covenant which is passing away (1 Cor. 7:31; 2 Cor. 3:11; 5:17; Heb. 8:7,13; 1 John 2:8,17; Rev. 21:1, etc.) never to be restored; the spiritual new creation/Jerusalem/city/country or kingdom of God/heaven to which we are called (Phil. 3:14; Heb. 3:1, cf. 6:1) and already exists (Mt. 5:10,20; 6:10,33; 2 Pet. 3:13) relates exclusively with the new or eternal covenant never to be displaced. In this instance God’s dwelling with man is forever in heaven, in his own house (John 14:2, cf. Acts 7:48-50) and definitely not on the corruptible earth which, like the decaying body which derives from it (2 Cor. 4:16; 5:1), is in the throes of becoming obsolete (Heb. 1:10f., cf. 8:13) leading to eventual dissolution (Rev. 21:1-5; 6:12; 16:18; 20:11; Heb. 12:27-29; 2 Pet.3:7,10-12).

 

Conclusion

So in light even of the (limited) evidence presented above we may conclude that while there is undeniable continuity of concept in the Bible, there is frequently difference in content or kind. Examples of this are temple, sacrifice, circumcision, Jerusalem, prophet, priest, king, worship, body, creation and so forth. So far as the concept of covenant is concerned both OT (Jer. 31:31-34) and NT (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8.) impress on our minds the discontinuity between the old and the new (Heb. 8:7,13; 2 Cor. 3:11; 5:17, etc.). At bottom, the old is temporal and provisional (Mt. 5:18) and relates to this world, the new is eternal (Mt. 24:35) and relates to the world to come. Our problems in understanding the difference usually arise from the presence of the future, or the overlap of the ages which are themselves ultimately discontinuous (cf. Heb. 9:11; Luke 20:34-36; Eph. 1:20f., etc.). (It is frequently asserted that the law though set aside as a means to salvation is still to be upheld as a guide to conduct. True though this is in a way not least because nine of the original ten commandments are referred to in the NT as retaining permanent relevance, Christians frequently forget that the law has been replaced by the law of Christ. The Sermon on the Mount radicalizes the law or enhances its spirituality. So while there is clear continuity between the law of Moses and the law of Christ, there is also discontinuity. The righteousness of the Christian is intended to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. As the author of Hebrews says, the law is not without fault (Heb. 8:7). It was inaugurated and maintained by repeated animal sacrifices, whereas the new was permanently established by the shedding of the blood of Christ once for all. Since the law made nothing perfect and ceased to operate at death (Rom. 7:1f., cf. Mt. 5:18, for Christians at death in Christ), it required replacement with a better hope in our approach to God (Heb. 7:18f.).

 

So in view of the evidence presented above stress must be placed on the discontinuity between the old and new covenants. I have nowhere come across a statement emphasizing this comparable to that of Ben Witherington who writes: “Hebrews 10:9 is very important and emphatic and reinforces the ideas of Hebrews 7:12-19 and Hebrews 8:7,13…. Here we have a definite theology of discontinuity and replacement – the one replaces the other. Our author could not have said it more emphatically” (p.279).   

 

_____________________________________________________________________

References:

G.R.Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, London, 1974.

R.Y.K.Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, Grand Rapids, 1988.

Hendriksen, Colossians, London, 1971.

P.E.Hughes, Hebrews, Grand Rapids, 1977.

M.Silva in The Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. W.A.Elwell, Grand Rapids, 1996.

Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude, Downers Grove/Nottingham, 2007.

 

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.

Exercising Dominion

EXERCISING DOMINION
According to Isaiah 45:18 (cf. v.12), which is presumably an inference drawn from Genesis 1, the earth was created to be inhabited. Thus from the start man’s primary vocation as one who is made in the image of God is to exercise dominion over the creation he inhabits (1:26-28). Since man is uniquely both earth-derived flesh and spirit, the assumption must be that insofar as he is spirit he is intended to rule both the earth and his own flesh, as a rider is his horse (Jas. 3:2f., cf. Isa 31:3). According to the Psalmist (8:5-8), implicit in his call are not only the promise of present blessing but also that of final glory and honour.
However, Adam, who was representative man according to the flesh (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49), after an apparently propitious start (Gen. 2:19f.) failed to fully abide by his vocation to till the garden in which he was placed. He and Eve deceived by the devil disobeyed the rule God had imposed primarily on Adam. And having come under the dominion of sin (and hence of death, Rom. 5:14,21) they were cast out. The inevitable result of this was that the land he was supposed to superintend became a desolation (cf. e.g. Isa. 6:11; 27:10). The implication of the curse placed on Adam was that the ever-increasing difficulty of his dominion exercised in his expanding world would become apparent (Gen. 3:17-19) especially in his progeny (cf. Gen. 4:12; 5:29; Ex. 23:28f.). (Bearing in mind that Adam was at once both individual and community, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Garden of Eden is to be understood as the womb of mankind where initial nurture corresponded with gestation. Note how Adam as the son of God, Luke 3:38, though portrayed physically as an adult and spiritually as an infant, cf. Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f., etc., was first created by God then placed in the Garden to till it, Gen. 2:8,15. In Psalm 139:15 David presents himself as first woven in the depths of the earth like Adam, and in verse 13 knitted together in his mother’s womb. Needless to say, the first Adam invites comparison with the second Adam who was also “created” or generated by his Father, to gestate in the Virgin’s womb, cf. Job 31:15; Heb. 10:5. The essential difference between the two as ‘seed’ was that the first stemmed from the earth, the second from heaven, 1 Cor. 15:45-49. It is worth adding that man is by nature subject to development, and the idea that he was originally created as an adult in a single 24-hour day is a contradiction in terms and must be rejected out of hand.)
The Flood
Since the earth, like its product the flesh (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18), proved unprofitable in that it failed to produce its intended fruit of obedient men and women (Gen. 6:11-13, cf. Heb. 6:7f.), God threatened its destruction by means of the flood. Thus, man, in fact all flesh (Gen. 6:17) and their habitat (6:13) faced universal obliteration. However, God in his grace and pursuit of his plan of salvation saw fit to rescue Noah and his immediate family. In contrast with his arrangement with Adam, God established a transgenerational covenant with Noah. This time, the command to be fruitful (Gen. 9:1,7, cf. 1:28) was undergirded by a guarantee of success despite sin so long as the earth remained (Gen. 8:21f.). Though sinful mankind might well find his conditions on a naturally corruptible and recalcitrant earth difficult (Gen. 3:19), he could nonetheless exercise his dominion with purpose and meaning. (It might be added that even the sinless Jesus found earthly conditions outside the womb hard. He too had to endure hard work, experience fatigue, sweating, etc.)
Sodom and Gomorrah
Though prior to his reception of the law, apart from which he could do neither good nor evil,  Adam was clearly as innocent as a baby (cf. Dt. 1:39, etc.). The traditional Augustinian notion is that he was righteous and holy as created, that is, even before he embarked on the path to perfection. And it was from this “high estate” that he “fell” and brought a curse on the entire cosmos. This notion, which is called in question by Genesis 13:10 (cf. Ex. 16:3; Num 16:13; Isa. 36:17), is repudiated by Paul’s insistence in 1 Timothy 4:3f. (cf. Gen. 8:22; 1 Cor. 10:26,30f.) that the earth is still good, that is, useful but like the law incapable of giving life (Gal. 3:21). However, events at Sodom and Gomorrah where ungodly people and their habitat were destroyed remind us again that the earth which is fruitless and, like the flesh that derives from it, unprofitable (John 6:63, cf. Gal. 6:8) is ripe for destruction (Lu. 17:29f.; Heb. 6:7f., cf. Luke 13:6ff.). In other words, if man fails adequately to exercise his rule over the earth in such a way as to produce its intended harvest of godly souls it will be dispensed with (cf. the ruin of Egypt, Ex. 8:24; 10:7). Thus the eschatological picture is one where both the ungodly and their habitat are destroyed as at Sodom (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12; Rev. 14:17-20, etc.) and believers rescued or saved (Mark 13:27; Rev. 14:14-16).
The Canaanites
Leviticus 18:24ff. and 20:22ff. in particular describe the uncleanness of the Canaanites. However, they were nature worshippers and apparently took their dominion over the land seriously, so seriously that they bequeathed a good land, like Egypt (Num. 16:13), flowing with milk and honey (Dt. 6:10f.; Neh. 9:25) to the incoming Israelites who had been rescued from Egyptian bondage. On this occasion, the Canaanites themselves who had polluted the land by their idolatry were, like Adam before them, vomited out and forced to give way to or be enslaved by the new arrivals. The latter in their turn were to ensure that the land was properly maintained and not become desolate (cf. Dt. 7:12-15; 28:1-14). (This surely undermines the view that the earth is under a permanent curse stemming from Adam. See further my essay Cosmic Curse?)
Dominion under David
It soon became apparent that rest in the Promised Land was less than idyllic. Even when David became king and his son Solomon reaped the blessings that issued from his reign, all was not well for sin and rebellion remained permanent problems (cf. Dt. 9:7,24; 1 Sam. 8:8; Neh. 9:35). But this was no more than Moses in particular had predicted when he underlined the punishment that would be imposed on the people of God’s own possession if they proved unfaithful (Dt. 4:26; 8:20; 30:18). For all that, God in his grace promised to do his people good in the end (Dt. 8:16, cf. Jer. 29:11, etc.). Dominion was certainly extended under David as 1 Kings 4:20f. (cf. Jos. 21:43-45; 23:14) makes clear. Despite this, the promise of a future king or Messiah was necessitated by constant failure. Only the sure blessings of David  (Isa. 55:3) which pointed to eternity (Acts 13:34, cf. Luke 1:32f.) would prove adequate to meet the people’s need, as later events made clear.
The Exile
But the Israelites themselves did not heed the warning of Deuteronomy 6:12-15. There came a time when they also went their own ungodly way and were sent into exile. During this time the land, lacking inhabitants, languished. Happily, repentance paved the way for a restoration of the fortunes of God’s people, and their return brought renewed though by no means total blessing as it did on the occasion of a much later return in Christian times. However, the rest originally promised to Joshua was by no means final; rather it looked forward to a more complete one at the end of time (Heb. 3 & 4). The pilgrimage of the people of God was not to terminate in an earthly city or land but in the heavenly one to which Abraham aspired (Heb. 11:10,16; 13:14). The conclusion from this must be that man’s dominion, like his law keeping, must be maintained to the end of earthly reality (Mt. 5:18).
The Dominion of Jesus
As James points out, man has enormous ability to exercise his dominion over the earth (3:1ff.). What he lacks, like Adam, the Canaanites and even Paul (Rom. 7), is the ability to rule his own flesh (cf. James 3:2). This of course was precisely as the Creator intended. He always purposed to be the Saviour of his people himself (Isa. 11:12; 43:5f.; 45:22) and ensure that no flesh should boast before him (Rom. 3:19f.; 11:32; 1 Cor. 1:29). His salvation, however, would only be in accordance with his original promise to man exercising dominion in accordance with his will.  As we have seen the first Adam failed. He sinned and his rule over the earth came short of the standard God required. As a consequence he was exiled from Eden, which was apparently obliterated through lack of human habitation, and at death he returned to the ground from which he had come in the first place. He had failed to achieve the glory (Gen. 1:26-28) and eternal life he had been implicitly promised (Gen. 2:17).  The same story was re-enacted in all his posterity who likewise came short of the divine glory (Rom. 3:23; 5:12, pace Art. 9 of the C. of E.). Thus, of necessity, it was in the words of Newman that “A second Adam to the fight And to the rescue came”.
The NT leaves us in no doubt that Jesus conquered the world, the flesh and the devil; he put all within his sphere of operation, that is, his total environment, beneath his feet (cf. John 16:33; 17:4f.). Since he was an individual human being, his subjection of creation was of course representative. And what he achieved as the second Adam avails for all who put their trust in him (Heb. 2:9; Rom. 8:35ff.). In light of this, justification (righteousness by keeping the law), which throughout Scripture is the indispensable prerequisite of (eternal) life (Gen. 2:17; Mt. 19:17; Gal. 3:11, etc.), is to be gained by his faulty followers only by faith. But if, as the author of Hebrews observes, Christ’s human achievement on earth was necessarily spatially limited (2:8), he applies it from his heavenly throne at God’s right hand until it is finally completed (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Col. 1:20, etc.).
The Subjection of Creation
In view of traditional, especially Augustinian, theology, Jesus’ victory raises important questions. I have already intimated that the idea of a cosmic curse consequent on the sin of Adam is false to Scripture, but the result of its general acceptance in the West is that our Saviour redeemed not only sinful men and women but the material creation as well. This idea would appear to be completely fallacious. In Romans 8:18-25 (cf. John 3:1-13) Paul does not even mention sin, and virtually all commentators known to me go beyond exegesis when they quite unwarrantably drag it in. What Paul is apparently saying, as Genesis 1:1 implies, is that the physical creation being a product of time is by nature transient and in direct contrast with its eternal Creator (cf. Mt. 24:35). In other words, it is a tool which, so long as it serves its purpose of producing its harvest of redeemed people, will remain ‘good’ (1 Tim. 4:3f.). It was only ever intended to last for a (comparative) little while (Gen. 8:22) like the fleshly body of the incarnate Jesus (Heb. 2:9) who was creation in miniature (cf. Eph. 1:10). To put it plainly, creation is naturally corruptible as Hebrews 1:10-12, for example, also implies. In light of this, it is hardly surprising that in subjecting the world to himself, Jesus did not overcome the God-ordained corruption of creation or alter its constitution. In fact, as one who was truly flesh, he embodied it. Like the earth from which he was taken through his mother, he grew older (Luke 2: 40ff.; John 8:57, cf. Heb. 1:11) and accordingly would have succumbed to final corruption if he had remained flesh on the earth (Heb. 8:13; 2 Cor. 4:16). However, since he kept the commandment(s) and gained eternal life (Gen. 2:17; Mt. 19:17; 3:13-17), he first overcame the death he died on behalf of his fellows. Then, after his resurrection, as one who was never to die again (Rom. 6:9), his ascension, which involved the transformation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50ff.) and replacement of his fleshly body with a body of glory, became an unavoidable necessity (John 20:17, cf. 1 Tim. 3:16). How otherwise could he inherit the sure blessings of David alluded to above? Since he had conquered, he was glorified at God’s right hand (Rev. 3:21, etc.). He had clearly achieved the immortal life and incorruptible glory (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10) that had been promised to the first Adam and his fleshly posterity but had been forfeited through failure (cf. Heb. 2:9f.). (It perhaps needs to be made clear here that by creation man is in contrast with God both mortal and corruptible. On the one hand, he is promised life if he is obedient but death if he is disobedient; on the other hand, he is promised glory and honour if he exercises proper dominion, Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5f.; Heb. 2:9, but dishonour if he does not, Phil. 3:19, cf. Gal. 6:7f.; 2 Pet. 2:19; Jude 10-13. In light of this, death and corruption for man in contrast with the animals become penal, Rom. 5:12; 6:23. However, both are overcome through faith in Christ who uniquely brought life and incorruption to light in a world subjected by God himself to death and corruption, but in hope, Rom. 18:18-25; 2 Tim. 1:10.)
Since Jesus is Lord we honour him as both God and man. As man he regained the glory he shared with the Father before the world began (John 17:5,24) and thus paved the way for the glorification of all who believe in him (Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). Jesus recovered the generic nature of God temporarily relinquished during his incarnation (Phil. 2:5-11) and paved the way for those who were also corruptible flesh to become the spiritual children of God (Rom. 8:23). So while the lowly body fitted for life on the temporal earth is permanently shed, the body of glory like that of Jesus is an eternal possession (Phil. 3:21) suited to life in the very presence of God (Rom. 5:2, cf. Rev. 21 & 22).
Present Dominion
This world in which we live in the twenty-first century gives every indication that man continues of necessity to exercise his intended dominion. The stupendous achievements of modern science and technology testify indisputably to this. Since he is made in the divine image, man continues to think God’s thoughts after him. But in the final analysis this dominion is both limited and flawed as both Genesis and James (see ch. 3) in particular imply. Sin, death and corruption still reign and have to be reckoned with. And no matter how wonderful man’s accomplishments may appear to be, it remains perennially true that it is appointed to man once to die and after death the judgement (Heb. 9:27). Material riches, which are the glory of man on earth, cannot ransom him (Ps. 49).
In light of this the only hope of mortal man is Christ. He alone as a true son of Adam met the conditions the Creator imposed on mankind from the start and blazed the trail to eternal glory (Heb. 2:5-10; Col. 1:27). May the name of the Lamb and of him who sits on the throne forever be praised (Rev. 5:12f.).

According to Isaiah 45:18 (cf. v.12), which is presumably an inference drawn from Genesis 1, the earth was created to be inhabited. Thus from the start man’s primary vocation as one who is made in the image of God is to exercise dominion over the creation he inhabits (1:26-28). Since man is uniquely both earth-derived flesh and spirit, the assumption must be that insofar as he is spirit he is intended to rule both the earth and his own flesh, as a rider is his horse (Jas. 3:2f., cf. Isa 31:3). According to the Psalmist (8:5-8), implicit in his call are not only the promise of present blessing but also that of final glory and honour.

However, Adam, who was representative man according to the flesh (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-49), after an apparently propitious start (Gen. 2:19f.) failed to fully abide by his vocation to till the garden in which he was placed. He and Eve deceived by the devil disobeyed the rule God had imposed primarily on Adam. And having come under the dominion of sin (and hence of death, Rom. 5:14,21) they were cast out. The inevitable result of this was that the land he was supposed to superintend became a desolation (cf. e.g. Isa. 6:11; 27:10). The implication of the curse placed on Adam was that the ever-increasing difficulty of his dominion exercised in his expanding world would become apparent (Gen. 3:17-19) especially in his progeny (cf. Gen. 4:12; 5:29; Ex. 23:28f.). (Bearing in mind that Adam was at once both individual and community, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Garden of Eden is to be understood as the womb of mankind where initial nurture corresponded with gestation. Note how Adam as the son of God, Luke 3:38, though portrayed physically as an adult and spiritually as an infant, cf. Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f., etc., was first created by God then placed in the Garden to till it, Gen. 2:8,15. In Psalm 139:15 David presents himself as first woven in the depths of the earth like Adam, and in verse 13 knitted together in his mother’s womb. Needless to say, the first Adam invites comparison with the second Adam who was also “created” or generated by his Father, to gestate in the Virgin’s womb, cf. Job 31:15; Heb. 10:5. The essential difference between the two as ‘seed’ was that the first stemmed from the earth, the second from heaven, 1 Cor. 15:45-49. It is worth adding that man is by nature subject to development, and the idea that he was originally created as an adult in a single 24-hour day is a contradiction in terms and must be rejected out of hand.)

The Flood

Since the earth, like its product the flesh (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18), proved unprofitable in that it failed to produce its intended fruit of obedient men and women (Gen. 6:11-13, cf. Heb. 6:7f.), God threatened its destruction by means of the flood. Thus, man, in fact all flesh (Gen. 6:17) and their habitat (6:13) faced universal obliteration. However, God in his grace and pursuit of his plan of salvation saw fit to rescue Noah and his immediate family. In contrast with his arrangement with Adam, God established a transgenerational covenant with Noah. This time, the command to be fruitful (Gen. 9:1,7, cf. 1:28) was undergirded by a guarantee of success despite sin so long as the earth remained (Gen. 8:21f.). Though sinful mankind might well find his conditions on a naturally corruptible and recalcitrant earth difficult (Gen. 3:19), he could nonetheless exercise his dominion with purpose and meaning. (It might be added that even the sinless Jesus found earthly conditions outside the womb hard. He too had to endure hard work, experience fatigue, sweating, etc.)

Sodom and Gomorrah

Though prior to his reception of the law, apart from which he could do neither good nor evil,  Adam was clearly as innocent as a baby (cf. Dt. 1:39, etc.). The traditional Augustinian notion is that he was righteous and holy as created, that is, even before he embarked on the path to perfection. And it was from this “high estate” that he “fell” and brought a curse on the entire cosmos. This notion, which is called in question by Genesis 13:10 (cf. Ex. 16:3; Num 16:13; Isa. 36:17), is repudiated by Paul’s insistence in 1 Timothy 4:3f. (cf. Gen. 8:22; 1 Cor. 10:26,30f.) that the earth is still good, that is, useful but like the law incapable of giving life (Gal. 3:21). However, events at Sodom and Gomorrah where ungodly people and their habitat were destroyed remind us again that the earth which is fruitless and, like the flesh that derives from it, unprofitable (John 6:63, cf. Gal. 6:8) is ripe for destruction (Lu. 17:29f.; Heb. 6:7f., cf. Luke 13:6ff.). In other words, if man fails adequately to exercise his rule over the earth in such a way as to produce its intended harvest of godly souls it will be dispensed with (cf. the ruin of Egypt, Ex. 8:24; 10:7). Thus the eschatological picture is one where both the ungodly and their habitat are destroyed as at Sodom (2 Pet. 3:7,10-12; Rev. 14:17-20, etc.) and believers rescued or saved (Mark 13:27; Rev. 14:14-16).

The Canaanites

Leviticus 18:24ff. and 20:22ff. in particular describe the uncleanness of the Canaanites. However, they were nature worshippers and apparently took their dominion over the land seriously, so seriously that they bequeathed a good land, like Egypt (Num. 16:13), flowing with milk and honey (Dt. 6:10f.; Neh. 9:25) to the incoming Israelites who had been rescued from Egyptian bondage. On this occasion, the Canaanites themselves who had polluted the land by their idolatry were, like Adam before them, vomited out and forced to give way to or be enslaved by the new arrivals. The latter in their turn were to ensure that the land was properly maintained and not become desolate (cf. Dt. 7:12-15; 28:1-14). (This surely undermines the view that the earth is under a permanent curse stemming from Adam. See further my essay Cosmic Curse?)

Dominion under David

It soon became apparent that rest in the Promised Land was less than idyllic. Even when David became king and his son Solomon reaped the blessings that issued from his reign, all was not well for sin and rebellion remained permanent problems (cf. Dt. 9:7,24; 1 Sam. 8:8; Neh. 9:35). But this was no more than Moses in particular had predicted when he underlined the punishment that would be imposed on the people of God’s own possession if they proved unfaithful (Dt. 4:26; 8:20; 30:18). For all that, God in his grace promised to do his people good in the end (Dt. 8:16, cf. Jer. 29:11, etc.). Dominion was certainly extended under David as 1 Kings 4:20f. (cf. Jos. 21:43-45; 23:14) makes clear. Despite this, the promise of a future king or Messiah was necessitated by constant failure. Only the sure blessings of David  (Isa. 55:3) which pointed to eternity (Acts 13:34, cf. Luke 1:32f.) would prove adequate to meet the people’s need, as later events made clear.

The Exile

But the Israelites themselves did not heed the warning of Deuteronomy 6:12-15. There came a time when they also went their own ungodly way and were sent into exile. During this time the land, lacking inhabitants, languished. Happily, repentance paved the way for a restoration of the fortunes of God’s people, and their return brought renewed though by no means total blessing as it did on the occasion of a much later return in Christian times. However, the rest originally promised to Joshua was by no means final; rather it looked forward to a more complete one at the end of time (Heb. 3 & 4). The pilgrimage of the people of God was not to terminate in an earthly city or land but in the heavenly one to which Abraham aspired (Heb. 11:10,16; 13:14). The conclusion from this must be that man’s dominion, like his law keeping, must be maintained to the end of earthly reality (Mt. 5:18).

The Dominion of Jesus

As James points out, man has enormous ability to exercise his dominion over the earth (3:1ff.). What he lacks, like Adam, the Canaanites and even Paul (Rom. 7), is the ability to rule his own flesh (cf. James 3:2). This of course was precisely as the Creator intended. He always purposed to be the Saviour of his people himself (Isa. 11:12; 43:5f.; 45:22) and ensure that no flesh should boast before him (Rom. 3:19f.; 11:32; 1 Cor. 1:29). His salvation, however, would only be in accordance with his original promise to man exercising dominion in accordance with his will.  As we have seen the first Adam failed. He sinned and his rule over the earth came short of the standard God required. As a consequence he was exiled from Eden, which was apparently obliterated through lack of human habitation, and at death he returned to the ground from which he had come in the first place. He had failed to achieve the glory (Gen. 1:26-28) and eternal life he had been implicitly promised (Gen. 2:17).  The same story was re-enacted in all his posterity who likewise came short of the divine glory (Rom. 3:23; 5:12, pace Art. 9 of the C. of E.). Thus, of necessity, it was in the words of Newman that “A second Adam to the fight And to the rescue came”.

The NT leaves us in no doubt that Jesus conquered the world, the flesh and the devil; he put all within his sphere of operation, that is, his total environment, beneath his feet (cf. John 16:33; 17:4f.). Since he was an individual human being, his subjection of creation was of course representative. And what he achieved as the second Adam avails for all who put their trust in him (Heb. 2:9; Rom. 8:35ff.). In light of this, justification (righteousness by keeping the law), which throughout Scripture is the indispensable prerequisite of (eternal) life (Gen. 2:17; Mt. 19:17; Gal. 3:11, etc.), is to be gained by his faulty followers only by faith. But if, as the author of Hebrews observes, Christ’s human achievement on earth was necessarily spatially limited (2:8), he applies it from his heavenly throne at God’s right hand until it is finally completed (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Col. 1:20, etc.).

The Subjection of Creation

In view of traditional, especially Augustinian, theology, Jesus’ victory raises important questions. I have already intimated that the idea of a cosmic curse consequent on the sin of Adam is false to Scripture, but the result of its general acceptance in the West is that our Saviour redeemed not only sinful men and women but the material creation as well. This idea would appear to be completely fallacious. In Romans 8:18-25 (cf. John 3:1-13) Paul does not even mention sin, and virtually all commentators known to me go beyond exegesis when they quite unwarrantably drag it in. What Paul is apparently saying, as Genesis 1:1 implies, is that the physical creation being a product of time is by nature transient and in direct contrast with its eternal Creator (cf. Mt. 24:35). In other words, it is a tool which, so long as it serves its purpose of producing its harvest of redeemed people, will remain ‘good’ (1 Tim. 4:3f.). It was only ever intended to last for a (comparative) little while (Gen. 8:22) like the fleshly body of the incarnate Jesus (Heb. 2:9) who was creation in miniature (cf. Eph. 1:10). To put it plainly, creation is naturally corruptible as Hebrews 1:10-12, for example, also implies. In light of this, it is hardly surprising that in subjecting the world to himself, Jesus did not overcome the God-ordained corruption of creation or alter its constitution. In fact, as one who was truly flesh, he embodied it. Like the earth from which he was taken through his mother, he grew older (Luke 2: 40ff.; John 8:57, cf. Heb. 1:11) and accordingly would have succumbed to final corruption if he had remained flesh on the earth (Heb. 8:13; 2 Cor. 4:16). However, since he kept the commandment(s) and gained eternal life (Gen. 2:17; Mt. 19:17; 3:13-17), he first overcame the death he died on behalf of his fellows. Then, after his resurrection, as one who was never to die again (Rom. 6:9), his ascension, which involved the transformation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50ff.) and replacement of his fleshly body with a body of glory, became an unavoidable necessity (John 20:17, cf. 1 Tim. 3:16). How otherwise could he inherit the sure blessings of David alluded to above? Since he had conquered, he was glorified at God’s right hand (Rev. 3:21, etc.). He had clearly achieved the immortal life and incorruptible glory (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10) that had been promised to the first Adam and his fleshly posterity but had been forfeited through failure (cf. Heb. 2:9f.). (It perhaps needs to be made clear here that by creation man is in contrast with God both mortal and corruptible. On the one hand, he is promised life if he is obedient but death if he is disobedient; on the other hand, he is promised glory and honour if he exercises proper dominion, Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5f.; Heb. 2:9, but dishonour if he does not, Phil. 3:19, cf. Gal. 6:7f.; 2 Pet. 2:19; Jude 10-13. In light of this, death and corruption for man in contrast with the animals become penal, Rom. 5:12; 6:23. However, both are overcome through faith in Christ who uniquely brought life and incorruption to light in a world subjected by God himself to death and corruption, but in hope, Rom. 18:18-25; 2 Tim. 1:10.)

Since Jesus is Lord we honour him as both God and man. As man he regained the glory he shared with the Father before the world began (John 17:5,24) and thus paved the way for the glorification of all who believe in him (Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). Jesus recovered the generic nature of God temporarily relinquished during his incarnation (Phil. 2:5-11) and paved the way for those who were also corruptible flesh to become the spiritual children of God (Rom. 8:23). So while the lowly body fitted for life on the temporal earth is permanently shed, the body of glory like that of Jesus is an eternal possession (Phil. 3:21) suited to life in the very presence of God (Rom. 5:2, cf. Rev. 21 & 22).

Present Dominion

This world in which we live in the twenty-first century gives every indication that man continues of necessity to exercise his intended dominion. The stupendous achievements of modern science and technology testify indisputably to this. Since he is made in the divine image, man continues to think God’s thoughts after him. But in the final analysis this dominion is both limited and flawed as both Genesis and James (see ch. 3) in particular imply. Sin, death and corruption still reign and have to be reckoned with. And no matter how wonderful man’s accomplishments may appear to be, it remains perennially true that it is appointed to man once to die and after death the judgement (Heb. 9:27). Material riches, which are the glory of man on earth, cannot ransom him (Ps. 49).

In light of this the only hope of mortal man is Christ. He alone as a true son of Adam met the conditions the Creator imposed on mankind from the start and blazed the trail to eternal glory (Heb. 2:5-10; Col. 1:27). May the name of the Lamb and of him who sits on the throne forever be praised (Rev. 5:12f.).

Preunderstandings of the Millennium?

In “Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond” edited by Darrell L.Bock, Grand Rapids, 1999, it seems to be generally agreed that the reason why writers who claim to accept in common the authority of Scripture arrive at different conclusions regarding the millennium is that they have different presuppositions or preunderstandings (pp.214,264,267,285ff., etc.). There is little doubt in my mind that this is true. So, in rejecting outright a literal millennium, it is necessary for me to make my own preunderstandings clear.
Interpretation
First, I believe that the teaching of Christ and the apostles in the earlier part of the NT forms the foundation of our faith (Eph. 2:20, cf. 1 Cor. 3:11) and that the book of Revelation repeats it in symbolic and apocalyptic form. Therefore, it seems to me, despite the fact that a literal interpretation of Revelation 20:2-7 is exegetically possible, that (a) the burden of proof lies heavily on those who claim that new truth about a literal thousand-year millennium is being taught, and that (b) on its assumption a general consensus about what it involves must, in principle, be attainable. To my knowledge both proof and consensus have hitherto eluded us. Consequently, I am convinced that any attempt to read the book of Revelation literally without the confirmation of the rest of the NT is not only fraught with danger but also incapable of substantiation. Other considerations apart, the notion of a literal millennium must ever remain deeply suspect.
The Finished Work of Christ
Next, I believe that the notion of a literal millennium undermines the finished work of Christ. According to the book of Genesis, in order to achieve glory and honour man’s vocation was to exercise dominion over the temporal earth (1:26,28; Ps. 8:5f.), to keep the commandment (2:16f.) and to resist the devil (3:1-6). He failed. By contrast, the second Adam, as Hebrews 2:9, Matthew 3:17 and John 14:30f., for example, demonstrate, accomplished all three. Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, exaltation and heavenly session (Acts 2:24,33-36) put this beyond reasonable doubt. But more to the point, as Hebrews 2:9f. in particular indicate, Jesus’ victory was representative His achievement embraced all those who believed in him (cf. John 12:26;17:24; 2 Cor. 4:14) on whose behalf he came in the first place (Mark 10:45, etc.). According to the author of Hebrews he is the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, and according to Paul we are already more than conquerors in him (Rom. 8:31ff.).
If this is true, then a return to earth on the part of Christ and his fellow believers is redundant. (See further my A Summary of Reasons Against the Return of Christ to Earth, Is Jesus Coming Back to earth? at www.kenstothard.com /)  Since he has already overcome the world (John 16:33; 17:4f.; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:5,12f.), it is totally unnecessary. To posit its repetition is like going back to Egypt in denial of the exodus (Dt. 17:16; Acts 7:39). It detracts from his finished work and brings into question the entire plan of salvation. Any hint of repetition suggests imperfection, as the author of Hebrews is at pains to indicate (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28, etc.). I therefore conclude that a literal millennium is an addition to and hence in effect a subtraction from the gospel that was originally received (Gal. 1:9). It is in its logical outworking another gospel (Gal. 1:7) and hence to be rigorously rejected. It is propagated only on pain of anathema (Gal. 1:9, cf. Rev. 22:18).
The Work of the Holy Spirit
On the face of it, it would seem that a literal millennium also undermines the effectiveness of the work of the Holy Spirit. As I understand it, Christ sent his Spirit into the world to apply his finished work or accomplished redemption to all subsequent believers “till the work on earth is done” (1* This is part of the refrain of the gospel song “There is a Redeemer” by Melody Green.) and the number of the elect is complete (Rev. 6:11, cf. Rom. 11:25f.). As Paul asserts in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (cf. Eph. 1:20-22; 1 Pet. 3:22) our Saviour rules from his heavenly throne putting everything in subjection beneath his feet (cf. Mt. 28:18). There is no suggestion that the work of the Spirit requires supplementation by means of a literal millennium. Again I conclude that addition means inevitable subtraction.
Transformation
Fourth, the NT makes it clear that the incarnation involved the transformation of the Word of God from previous glory (John 1:1f.,14; Phil. 2:6; 1 Tim. 3:16). In order to achieve as man for man the purpose of God, Jesus, the second Adam, had to be born of woman, that is, made flesh (Mt. 1; Luke 2; Gal. 4:4) as a true son of the first Adam (Luke 3:38), but only for a little while (Heb. 2:7,9). In the words of Paul, he had to empty and humble himself in order to take on the likeness of men (Phil. 2:7f.). But once he had accomplished his mission and proved victorious in the flesh (cf. Rom. 8:3, etc.), it was necessary for him as flesh to undergo transformation once more (cf. John 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:51ff.) – back to the divine glory and perfection he had enjoyed before (John 17:5,24). For flesh and blood can no more inherit the kingdom of God than the impermanent (corruptible) can inherit the permanent (incorruptible, 1 Cor. 15:50). Thus, at his ascension, he was transformed and passed through the heavens (Heb. 4:14) permanently separate(d) from sinners (Heb. 7:26) and made perfect forever (7:28; Eph. 4:10). Like his heavenly Father, on whose throne he sat (Heb. 1:3; Rev. 3:21), he ruled in the world to come (Eph. 1:20-22; Heb. 1:6; 2:5). It is at this point that Jesus’ full humanity and divinity coincided (cf. John 10:30); the divine had permanently assumed the human. In heaven the throne is that of the God and the Lamb (Rev. 5:13; 6:16; 7:10,17).
Retransformation Excluded
From this we are forced to draw certain conclusions. First, Jesus will never be flesh again. To be so he would have to enter his mother’s womb again (Luke 1:35, cf. John 3:4). But this, even if it were necessary or possible, would mean that his mother who, like David, experienced corruption (Acts 2:29) would also have to re-enter the womb of her mother who has also been subject to corruption. Thus we are involved in a process of regression which cannot logically terminate till the earth itself has been re-created. But where does a literal millennium fit into this scenario? The question hardly requires an answer.
Second, if Jesus has now regained the glory of God he shared before the foundation of the world, he cannot dwell on the earth (1 K. 8:27; Acts 7:49f.). In view of this it is not at all strange that Paul denies his return to earthly corruption in any form (Acts 13:34). (2* See further my No Return to Corruption, No Going Back. This belies Ladd’s assertion, p.236, that the consummation means nothing less than the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem to earth, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. He refers to Revelation 21:2 which fails to mention earth at all – not surprisingly, since it has already passed away as 20:11 and 21:1 indicate. Ladd then informs us that God will finally visit men to transform a fallen order and dwell among men on a redeemed earth. This is a clear indication that his thinking is governed by the worldview of Augustine, on which see my The Biblical Worldview, Worldview. He seems to have forgotten that God visited the earth briefly, Heb. 2:7,9, in Christ not to redeem it but men from it, cf. my Escape! Earth by its very nature is visible, temporary and corruptible. It is therefore paramount for us to be rescued from it as the Israelites were from Egypt.)  When he returns (3* I become increasingly convinced that the term ‘return of Christ’ is overworked and misleading. While acknowledging that Jesus himself says he will come again (palin erchomai, John 14:3, cf. Acts 1:11; Tit.2:13, etc.), the word parousia strictly means presence and, according to Dunn, is never used in the NT in the sense of return, p.296 n.11. In light of the fact that Jesus tells his disciples that he will be with them to the end of the age, Mt. 28:20, the other two words used in this connection with the second advent, epiphaneia or appearing and apocalypsis or revealing, suggest that his present invisibility will give way to visibility, cf. Michaels in comment on 1:7 in WBC 1 Peter, 1988, p.32, at which time creation will flee away, Rev. 20:11; 21:1, cf. 6:14; 16:20. Clearly, more needs to be said in this connection.) it will be in the glory of the Father (Mt. 16:27; 25:31; 26:64; Luke 9:26) not to deal with sin again (repetition) but to rescue his people (Mt. 13:27; Heb. 9:28; 1 Cor. 15:51f.). He will thus bring them transformed in his moral and generic likeness (1 Pet. 4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4) into the heavenly presence of God as his children (2 Cor. 4:14; Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18).
Third, Scripture makes it abundantly clear that so far as man is concerned there is a progressive movement from flesh to spirit (1 Cor. 15:46) or from ground to glory. This movement is epitomized in Jesus’ earthly career which ended with his ascension to heaven. Thus, the idea that this process should be reversed when Jesus returns to this earth in the flesh is contrary to the gospel, as Paul makes clear in Galatians 3:3, for example. In any case, Paul banishes the notion in Acts 13:34 where he tells us that Christ’s resurrection (4* I take it that Paul is using the word resurrection in this passage to include ascension, exaltation and heavenly session, as the second part of the verse implies.) precludes any possibility of a return to earthly corruption.
Our Heavenly Call
The initial call of mortal man in Genesis 2:16f. (cf. 3:1-6), which is also implied in Genesis 1:26-28 (cf. Ps. 8:5f.; Rom. 2:7,10; Heb. 2:9; 1 Pet. 1:7), is to gain eternal life and incorruption. This call is strongly underscored in the NT by references such as John 3:16,36, 20:21, 1 John 2:25 and 5:11-13.  Paul (Phil. 3:14; 1 Thes. 2:12), Peter (1 Pet. 5:10) and the author of Hebrews (3:1) also stress that our call is a heavenly call to glory. It is almost superfluous to add in the light of this evidence that Christ is the hope of glory (Col. 1:27) which we shall share with God (Rom. 5:2; 2 Cor. 4:17). And just in case we have any illusions that this hope is earthly both Paul (Col. 1:5, cf. Rom. 8:20,24f.) and Peter insist that it is heavenly (1 Pet. 1:3f.). We are thus forced to conclude that an earthly millennium is not on the horizon, and, not surprisingly, believers who have trimmed their lamps go directly to the marriage feast (Mt. 25:10, cf. Luke 20:34-36). (It might profitably be added here that once we are married to Christ, there will be no divorce!)
Sin the Only Problem?
The hidden assumption of premillenialism, like so much of Western theology, is that all our problems stem from sin. Thus, it is almost universally held that the sin of Adam brought death not merely to himself but to the entire universe! The sin-obsessed Augustine, whose erroneous thinking still governs us even in the 21st century, failed to recognize that, as Genesis 1:1 implies, a temporal creation is necessarily subject to corruption (cf. Ps. 89:47). God made it that way in hope (cf. Rom. 8:18-25). The truth of this is underlined by the paradox of Jesus himself who on the one hand as a man of dust, a true son of Adam (Luke 3:38), had a beginning, grew older (Luke 2:41ff.; John 8:57) and hence was ready to vanish away (2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 8:13), but on the other hand possessed indestructible life (Heb. 7:3,16). In other words, as flesh, a product of the corruptible earth, he was necessarily mortal even apart from sin; it was only as spirit that he was immortal and incorruptible. So while he died in the flesh, he continued to live in the spirit (1 Pet. 3:18) which he committed to his Father even as he died on the cross (Luke 23:46). To object here that Jesus did not see corruption after his death but rose again in the flesh is beside the point. In dying for others he was not earning wages on his own account. His resurrection, which demonstrated the efficacy and validity of his death on our behalf (Rom. 4:25) and clearly underscored the return of his spirit to his lifeless body (cf. Luke 8:55; James 2:26), did not obviate the necessity of his ascension, transformation and glorification (John 20:17). For how else could he inherit the eternal blessings promised to David (Acts 13:34, cf. Luke 1:32f.).
The premillennial assumption seems to be that Christ must return to earth to demonstrate man’s dominion subverted by Adam’s (imputed) sin and a universal curse on the earth. But as has already been made clear, the victory of Jesus as the second Adam over a sinful world and a recalcitrant creation was representative and does not require repetition. A literal millennium achieves nothing that has not already been achieved. Christ’s work was both a finished and victorious work (John 16:33; 17:4f.; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:5,12f.).
The Kingdom of God
Fifth, Jesus told Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). In light of this he did not pose a political threat to the rule of Rome. Pilate seemed to be convinced by this, though many of Jesus’ followers were not (cf. John 6:15; Acts 1:6). In any case, the kingdom of God to which Jesus frequently refers is in Matthew’s gospel usually designated the kingdom of heaven wherein righteousness dwells (Mt. 5:6,20; 6:10,33, cf. Rom. 14:17; 2 Pet. 3:13).
When reflecting on the kingdom, it is vital for us not to forget that Jesus was a Son of David who was promised eternal rule (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89). Luke tells us that the Lord God will give  Jesus the throne of his ancestor David and that his kingdom will be endless (1:32f.). Apart from other teaching along the same lines (e.g. Acts 2:34-36; 13:34; 15:16f.), it is hard indeed to see how Jesus can (cf. Acts 7:49f.) and why he should return to reign on a temporal earth.
The author of Hebrews also lays stress on Jesus’ heavenly rule (1:6; 2:5) and priesthood (5:6; 7:17). In both cases their everlasting or eternal nature is underscored, as it had been long before in 2 Samuel 7:13 and Psalm 89:27-29,36f. (cf. Luke 1:32f., etc.). Since this is so, a temporal earthly rule of a mere thousand years is not on the horizon.
This Age or the Age to Come
This raises the question of the age to which the millennium belongs. As we have just seen, it cannot occur in the eternal age to come. And since dormant sin re-appears at the end of the thousand years when the devil is released, it must belong to the present age. This of course should be evident from the fact that the saints are in the flesh which derives from a temporal earth. Again, however, we are confronted with a re-incarnated Jesus. Just how he can be flesh again after ascending transformed to his Father in heaven without, as suggested above, re-entering his mother’s womb is more than a little difficult to explain. (It might be remembered at this point that some premillennialists argue that 1 Corinthians 15:50 refers only to sinful flesh. Behind such thinking seems to lie the Augustinian idea of an originally perfect and hence immortal Adam!)
But this by no means brings our difficulties to an end. For if Jesus and the saints who like David have already seen corruption are going to return to earth in the flesh, then they are also going to be subject to aging and corruption once again. One premillennialist writer whose book is on my shelves avers without batting an eyelid (on video) that Jesus is going to return in the flesh just as he was when he ascended, and still 33 years old! While he apparently recognizes that in heaven Jesus’ aging process was suspended despite his still being in corruptible flesh (!), he fails to realize that once he comes back to earth his biological clock will begin to tick again. Since this is so, at the end of the millennium Jesus will be 1033 years old, putting Methuselah, who was only 969, in the shade. Even if, however, we reject the notion that individuals such as Adam, who is clearly both individual and community, achieved such stupendous ages, there will inevitably be marriage and birth during the millennium (contrast Luke 20:34 and cf. Heb. 7:23). I humbly suggest this is a highly unlikely scenario. As I shall insist further below, apart from the fact that an intermediate earthly kingdom is unknown to Scripture, the very idea is based on a fundamental misconception. But in any case, we are yet again faced with the problem of repetition. If the literal millennium is all it is said to be, then Jesus’ victory in the flesh (John 16:33; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:9, etc.) prior to his death and resurrection is an illusion. On this assumption, Paul should never have written Romans 8:31ff. (cf. Rev. 3:21, etc.).
Perfection
As intimated above, it is Augustinian theology that forms the background of premillennial thinking. Augustine fostered the notion that God originally created the world and its inhabitants Adam and Eve perfect and as a result had to posit a calamitous fall and a consequent cosmic curse. But the idea that creation was originally perfect is belied by the very first verse of the Bible. Only God is perfect and he has neither beginning nor end (Isa. 57:15, cf. Heb. 7:3). While heaven is his throne, earth is his footstool (Isa. 66:1; Mt. 5:34f.). In light of this it comes as no surprise that the Creator and his creation are distinguished throughout Scripture (Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27; 103: 15-17; Isa. 40:6-8; 51:6,8; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.). The one is to be worshipped but the other not (Dt. 4:19; Rom. 1:25, etc.). Perfection (maturity, completion, Jas. 1:4) is the goal of man made in the image of God (Lev. 11:44f.; Mt. 5:48); he alone of all flesh has both the vocation and the concomitant capacity to attain to the divine likeness and be perfected as Jesus himself was (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). The material creation, like the flesh, is a law to itself and achieves its own fleeting perfection before its ultimate demise.
The Perfection of the Creature
So far as man’s flesh is concerned, it achieves perfection (maturity, completeness) in this world. As the lamb becomes a sheep, so a baby becomes a man or woman. Then in accordance with the law of its creation (Rom. 8:20) it declines in subjection to its natural  corruptibility and entropy (2 Cor. 4:16, cf. Mt. 6:19f., etc.). On the other hand, what is spiritually perfected (Heb. 2:10; 5:9) remains perfect forever (Heb. 7:28), while the imperfect passes away (cf. 1 Cor. 13:10). Acts 13:34 apart, I conclude that Jesus’ return to a corruptible earth is out of the question. Perfection once achieved does not return to imperfection. Retrogression in Scripture is a sin (Dt. 24:16; Jer. 7:24, etc.), while progression to spiritual maturity seen in terms of both destiny and destination is of the essence of the gospel (Eph. 4:8-16; Col. 1:28; 4:12; Jas. 1:4). As intimated above, Paul makes this especially clear in Galatians. While in 1 Corinthians 15:46 the apostle indicates that man moves from flesh to spirit (and from law to Spirit, Rom. 7-8), in Galatians 3:3 he remonstrates with those who seem intent on reversing the process. After being born again by the Spirit, ending in the flesh is inherently contradictory. Again in 4:9 and in Colossians 2:20 he is implicitly saying the same thing. Going back results inevitably in curse and death as it did in the wilderness (Jer. 7:24; 1 Cor. 10:5; Heb. 3:17, etc.); going forward leads to blessing and life (Jer. 32:39-41; 1 Pet. 2:11f., etc.). Spiritual and corporeal (somatic) perfection are attained in heaven not on earth.
Augustinian Theology
It is one of the ironies of history that premillennialists who are so hotly critical of Augustine’s opposition to chiliasm are nonetheless so profoundly governed by his worldview. (See further my Worldview, The Biblical Worldview.) They readily accept the traditional but radically unscriptural dogmas of original perfection, Fall, original sin and a universal curse on creation, yet it is precisely these that give rise to what they see as the need for a millennium. Once these are excised, as they should be, from our thinking, no amount of exegetical ingenuity and hermeneutical expertise will elicit a literal thousand-year millennium on this earth. The entire Bible is opposed to it. Or is it?
Covenant Theology
This brings us to covenant theology. As I have described elsewhere, many years ago I ran into trouble trying to understand traditional covenant theologies and eventually concluded that both the Reformed and the Dispensational varieties were flawed. It is impossible to go into detail here, but one of my main conclusions was that while old and new covenants are to some degree ethically continuous, they are nonetheless essentially different or discontinuous (cf. my Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity).  The old covenant is oriented to this material world and not unnaturally emphasizes the rule of law which, being transient and provisional (2 Cor. 3:11, etc.), operates only so long as the world exists (Mt. 5:18, cf. Rom. 7:1). The new covenant relates essentially to heaven (cf. Mt. 6:10) or the world to come and remains forever (Mt. 24:35). It existed here on earth only as a promise (Jer. 31:31-34) until it was inaugurated, like the kingdom of God, by Jesus (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). It is essentially spiritual and is dictated by the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor. 3).
If this is so, it is almost inevitable that premillennialists, especially those of the dispensational variety, who are governed by a literal interpretation of the OT entertain the largely materialistic hopes of the OT. Even a scholar of the calibre of G.E.Ladd, a classical premillennialist who rejected dispensationalism, was earth-centred in his eschatology. Like so many others, he was conditioned by the Augustinian worldview. He failed to recognize that this material world, of which man in the flesh is a part, was created temporal (Gen. 1:1) and naturally corruptible but in (invisible) hope (Rom. 8:18-25). Thus the plan of salvation involves our escape from it (Gen. 2:17, cf. Rom. 8:20,23). This present (temporal) age must give way to the (eternal) age to come. And since we, the children of dusty Adam (Ps. 103:14, etc.), are incapable of meeting the condition of our escape, that is, a sinless life in the flesh (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Dt. 32:46f. Ezek. 33:15, etc.), it has been achieved for us by Christ (Rom. 8:3). Our own undeniable sins (Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 6:23) have been covered by his death and we are saved by his life (Rom. 5:10).
The plain truth is that the old covenant is spiritualized in the new covenant. An obvious example of this is the non-literal inheritance of Abraham in Hebrews 11. (Strictly speaking, it is literal as opposed to allegorical, spiritual as opposed to material. Like the temple, it is real or true as opposed to shadowy.) The city or land he looked for was invisible and therefore  heavenly (Heb. 11:8-16; 12:22; 13:14, cf. Phil. 3:20). Like Jesus’ kingship (John 18:36), it was not of this creation (Heb. 9:11). The tragedy of premillennialism is that it attempts to pour new wine into old wineskins with the result that the significance of the true gospel is largely lost (Mark 2:21f.).
Biblical covenant theology points to another matter of basic importance. I have argued at some length in my Covenant Theology, Covenant Theology in Brief (cf. Did God Make a Covenant With Creation? Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity, that proper study of the Bible evinces three dispensational covenants affecting the race – one each respectively with Noah, Moses and Christ (cf. Rom. 1-3). While the first two continue to operate in this world, they are inherently provisional pending the end of history and of the material creation (cf. Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1). Only the Christian covenant is permanent (Mt. 24:35, cf. the promissory Abrahamic and Davidic covenants). But it needs to be recognized that since the individual recapitulates the history of the race, these covenants are miniaturized and epitomized in the individual, not least in the second Adam who is thereby fitted to become universally representative (cf. 1 John 2:2). This is made especially plain in Galatians 4:1-7 where Jesus is shown to be first a child or slave of nature (Gentile), second, a son of the commandment (Jew), and, third, the beloved Son of his heavenly Father and archetypal Christian (Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). (So far as Paul himself was concerned, see Romans 7-8.) If this is true, on premillennial presuppositions we ought to expect a mini-millennium in the life of Jesus himself. But we do not. What we do see is increasing opposition and hostility culminating in his death. And we see precisely the same in the eschatological experience of his people as a whole, as non-millenarians (amillennialists) have frequently testified. All of us go through (the) tribulation in one form or another (Acts 14:22, cf. Gal. 5:16f.; 1 Pet. 2:11). But those who are alive at the end of the present dispensation can expect not a golden age but persecution of a particularly vicious kind when evil achieves its own maturity or perfection (Gen. 15:16; 1 Thes. 2:16; Rev. 13). And with the rejection of the gospel in the West and intense opposition to it elsewhere, one cannot help but wonder if that end is drawing close (Rom. 13:11—14). One thing is clear: nature itself is beginning to manifest more obvious birthpangs than usual (Mt. 24:8). (Not to mention recent earthquakes and tsunamis, I write this on a day when Victoria in Australia in the grip of drought is ablaze.)
Conclusion
On the basis of my preunderstandings of the Bible, a literal thousand-year millennium under the rule of Christ in the flesh and on the earth is out of the question. It reflects a basically unbiblical worldview and anthropology. Furthermore, it is an addition to Scripture which Scripture itself severely condemns (Rev. 22:18). It should be rejected out of hand and its devotees called on to repent on pain of divine judgement (cf. Gal. 1:6-9).
ADDITIONAL NOTE on Historic Premillennialism
Since writing the above I have read with immense interest and profit A Case for Historic Premillennialism, ed. Blomberg and Chung. Short of writing an extended separate critique along the lines of the above, I here append some comments on Gnostic dualism.
On page 129 Donald Fairbairn in a fine essay on Contemporary Millennial/Tribulational Debates tells us that at the heart of Gnosticism lies a profound dualism which he apparently regards as false, though see my Biblical Dualism.  He maintains that it surfaces in four crucial areas.
First, he says it leads to the idea that the material world is evil and unredeemable. This however, from a biblical point of view is false logic, since from Genesis 1:1 the Bible depicts the material creation not as evil but as intrinsically temporal and corruptible (Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 51:6; Mt. 6:19f.). Furthermore, to infer from this that salvation applies only to the soul and not to the body is again to err. Scripture clearly teaches the redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 15:45-49) but certainly not of the flesh which derives from the naturally corruptible (Rom. 8:18-25), visible and temporary (2 Cor. 4:18) material creation which is destined for destruction (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50; Heb. 12:27, etc.).
Second, Fairbairn says that Gnosticism denigrates history. Perhaps it does, but to draw the conclusion from the destruction of the material creation which is clearly taught in the Bible that the panorama of history played out in the physical world is of little consequence is quite misguided. After all we are judged by the deeds we do in the body! The world is the testing ground in which we as those who are created in the image of God are called to exercise dominion (Gen. 1:26-28, etc.) with a view to our ultimately becoming children of the resurrection. Jesus as the second Adam achieved his victory on earth and in so doing ensured our own triumph (Heb. 2:6-13).
Third, Fairbairn contends that Gnosticism leads to a distinction between two competing gods – the lesser, material god of the OT and the higher, spiritual God of the NT. In the Bible, however, God is the God of both testaments. For all that, there is no denying that the old covenant in contrast with the new relates primarily to this material earth and to the flesh (Mt. 5:18; Heb. 7:16; 9:8-10 contrast Mt. 24:35, etc.). As scholars regularly point out the OT people were more earthly than heavenly oriented (e.g. Bruce, pp.298f.,339; Ladd,). Both Paul and the author of Hebrews insist on the limitations and defective nature of the law which, like the creation itself, is temporary and provisional (see e.g. 2 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 7:18f.).
Fourth, while it may be true that Gnosticism implicitly harbours a docetic view of Christ, this is not true of the Bible which clearly emphasizes the reality of the incarnation. If Jesus did not conquer in the flesh as the second Adam (Rom. 8:3), then he did not conquer at all (Heb. 2, etc.). But it must be promptly added that his victory in the flesh led not merely to his physical resurrection from the dead but to his transformation ascension and return to former glory (John 17:5,24). As Irenaeus, despite his premillennialism, once said, he became what we are so that we might become what he is, and that is certainly not corruptible flesh, which would make nonsense of  Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15:35-58.
As intimated above, the problem with premillennialism of whatever hue is, first, its Augustinian worldview and, second, its lack of an adequate covenant theology.
(See further my essays on the redemption of creation and original sin including A Brief Critique of ‘Surprised by Hope by Tom Wright, A Brief Review of ‘The Mission of God’ by  C.J.H. Wright. Note also Romans 8, Covenant Theology, Manufactured or Not So, The Corruptibility of Creation, Spiritualization, The Biblical Worldview, Worldview, Did Jesus Rise Physically from the Grave?, Thoughts on the Redemption of Creation, etc.  at www.kenstothard.com / )
Note:
Christians are a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9) who rule on the earth (Rev. 1:6; 5:10). They also rule in heaven with Jesus (Rev. 3:21; 20:4,6, cf. 1 Cor. 6:2f.). The thousand years of Revelation 20 is clearly the Christian dispensation and there is no evidence whatsoever of an intermediate kingdom which in any case serves no discernible purpose. Christ has already conquered (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:5, etc.). Already in the process of putting his enemies under his feet, he is heading for the grand finale or consummation.
REFERENCES
Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, eds., A Case for Historic Premillennialism, Grand Rapids, 2009.
F.F.Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids/London, 1964.
J.D.G.Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, London/New York, 2003 ed.
G.E.Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1974.
J.R.Michaels, WBC 1 Peter, 1988.

In “Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond” edited by Darrell L.Bock, Grand Rapids, 1999, it seems to be generally agreed that the reason why writers who claim to accept in common the authority of Scripture arrive at different conclusions regarding the millennium is that they have different presuppositions or preunderstandings (pp.214,264,267,285ff., etc.). There is little doubt in my mind that this is true. So, in rejecting outright a literal millennium, it is necessary for me to make my own preunderstandings clear.


Interpretation

First, I believe that the teaching of Christ and the apostles in the earlier part of the NT forms the foundation of our faith (Eph. 2:20, cf. 1 Cor. 3:11) and that the book of Revelation repeats it in symbolic and apocalyptic form. Therefore, it seems to me, despite the fact that a literal interpretation of Revelation 20:2-7 is exegetically possible, that

(a) the burden of proof lies heavily on those who claim that new truth about a literal thousand-year millennium is being taught, and that

(b) on its assumption a general consensus about what it involves must, in principle, be attainable. To my knowledge both proof and consensus have hitherto eluded us. Consequently, I am convinced that any attempt to read the book of Revelation literally without the confirmation of the rest of the NT is not only fraught with danger but also incapable of substantiation. Other considerations apart, the notion of a literal millennium must ever remain deeply suspect.


The Finished Work of Christ

Next, I believe that the notion of a literal millennium undermines the finished work of Christ. According to the book of Genesis, in order to achieve glory and honour man’s vocation was to exercise dominion over the temporal earth (1:26,28; Ps. 8:5f.), to keep the commandment (2:16f.) and to resist the devil (3:1-6). He failed. By contrast, the second Adam, as Hebrews 2:9, Matthew 3:17 and John 14:30f., for example, demonstrate, accomplished all three. Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, exaltation and heavenly session (Acts 2:24,33-36) put this beyond reasonable doubt. But more to the point, as Hebrews 2:9f. in particular indicate, Jesus’ victory was representative His achievement embraced all those who believed in him (cf. John 12:26;17:24; 2 Cor. 4:14) on whose behalf he came in the first place (Mark 10:45, etc.). According to the author of Hebrews he is the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, and according to Paul we are already more than conquerors in him (Rom. 8:31ff.).

If this is true, then a return to earth on the part of Christ and his fellow believers is redundant. (See further my A Summary of Reasons Against the Return of Christ to Earth, Is Jesus Coming Back to earth? at www.kenstothard.com /)  Since he has already overcome the world (John 16:33; 17:4f.; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:5,12f.), it is totally unnecessary. To posit its repetition is like going back to Egypt in denial of the exodus (Dt. 17:16; Acts 7:39). It detracts from his finished work and brings into question the entire plan of salvation. Any hint of repetition suggests imperfection, as the author of Hebrews is at pains to indicate (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28, etc.). I therefore conclude that a literal millennium is an addition to and hence in effect a subtraction from the gospel that was originally received (Gal. 1:9). It is in its logical outworking another gospel (Gal. 1:7) and hence to be rigorously rejected. It is propagated only on pain of anathema (Gal. 1:9, cf. Rev. 22:18).


The Work of the Holy Spirit

On the face of it, it would seem that a literal millennium also undermines the effectiveness of the work of the Holy Spirit. As I understand it, Christ sent his Spirit into the world to apply his finished work or accomplished redemption to all subsequent believers “till the work on earth is done” (1* This is part of the refrain of the gospel song “There is a Redeemer” by Melody Green.) and the number of the elect is complete (Rev. 6:11, cf. Rom. 11:25f.). As Paul asserts in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (cf. Eph. 1:20-22; 1 Pet. 3:22) our Saviour rules from his heavenly throne putting everything in subjection beneath his feet (cf. Mt. 28:18). There is no suggestion that the work of the Spirit requires supplementation by means of a literal millennium. Again I conclude that addition means inevitable subtraction.


Transformation

Fourth, the NT makes it clear that the incarnation involved the transformation of the Word of God from previous glory (John 1:1f.,14; Phil. 2:6; 1 Tim. 3:16). In order to achieve as man for man the purpose of God, Jesus, the second Adam, had to be born of woman, that is, made flesh (Mt. 1; Luke 2; Gal. 4:4) as a true son of the first Adam (Luke 3:38), but only for a little while (Heb. 2:7,9). In the words of Paul, he had to empty and humble himself in order to take on the likeness of men (Phil. 2:7f.). But once he had accomplished his mission and proved victorious in the flesh (cf. Rom. 8:3, etc.), it was necessary for him as flesh to undergo transformation once more (cf. John 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:51ff.) – back to the divine glory and perfection he had enjoyed before (John 17:5,24). For flesh and blood can no more inherit the kingdom of God than the impermanent (corruptible) can inherit the permanent (incorruptible, 1 Cor. 15:50). Thus, at his ascension, he was transformed and passed through the heavens (Heb. 4:14) permanently separate(d) from sinners (Heb. 7:26) and made perfect forever (7:28; Eph. 4:10). Like his heavenly Father, on whose throne he sat (Heb. 1:3; Rev. 3:21), he ruled in the world to come (Eph. 1:20-22; Heb. 1:6; 2:5). It is at this point that Jesus’ full humanity and divinity coincided (cf. John 10:30); the divine had permanently assumed the human. In heaven the throne is that of the God and the Lamb (Rev. 5:13; 6:16; 7:10,17).


Retransformation Excluded

From this we are forced to draw certain conclusions. First, Jesus will never be flesh again. To be so he would have to enter his mother’s womb again (Luke 1:35, cf. John 3:4). But this, even if it were necessary or possible, would mean that his mother who, like David, experienced corruption (Acts 2:29) would also have to re-enter the womb of her mother who has also been subject to corruption. Thus we are involved in a process of regression which cannot logically terminate till the earth itself has been re-created. But where does a literal millennium fit into this scenario? The question hardly requires an answer.

Second, if Jesus has now regained the glory of God he shared before the foundation of the world, he cannot dwell on the earth (1 K. 8:27; Acts 7:49f.). In view of this it is not at all strange that Paul denies his return to earthly corruption in any form (Acts 13:34). (2* See further my No Return To Corruption, No Going Back. This belies Ladd’s assertion, p.236, that the consummation means nothing less than the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem to earth, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. He refers to Revelation 21:2 which fails to mention earth at all – not surprisingly, since it has already passed away as 20:11 and 21:1 indicate. Ladd then informs us that God will finally visit men to transform a fallen order and dwell among men on a redeemed earth. This is a clear indication that his thinking is governed by the worldview of Augustine, on which see my The Biblical Worldview, Worldview. He seems to have forgotten that God visited the earth briefly, Heb. 2:7,9, in Christ not to redeem it but men from it, cf. my Escape! Earth by its very nature is visible, temporary and corruptible. It is therefore paramount for us to be rescued from it as the Israelites were from Egypt.)  When he returns (3* I become increasingly convinced that the term ‘return of Christ’ is overworked and misleading. While acknowledging that Jesus himself says he will come again (palin erchomai, John 14:3, cf. Acts 1:11; Tit.2:13, etc.), the word parousia strictly means presence and, according to Dunn, is never used in the NT in the sense of return, p.296 n.11. In light of the fact that Jesus tells his disciples that he will be with them to the end of the age, Mt. 28:20, the other two words used in this connection with the second advent, epiphaneia or appearing and apocalypsis or revealing, suggest that his present invisibility will give way to visibility, cf. Michaels in comment on 1:7 in WBC 1 Peter, 1988, p.32, at which time creation will flee away, Rev. 20:11; 21:1, cf. 6:14; 16:20. Clearly, more needs to be said in this connection.) it will be in the glory of the Father (Mt. 16:27; 25:31; 26:64; Luke 9:26) not to deal with sin again (repetition) but to rescue his people (Mt. 13:27; Heb. 9:28; 1 Cor. 15:51f.). He will thus bring them transformed in his moral and generic likeness (1 Pet. 4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4) into the heavenly presence of God as his children (2 Cor. 4:14; Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18).

Third, Scripture makes it abundantly clear that so far as man is concerned there is a progressive movement from flesh to spirit (1 Cor. 15:46) or from ground to glory. This movement is epitomized in Jesus’ earthly career which ended with his ascension to heaven. Thus, the idea that this process should be reversed when Jesus returns to this earth in the flesh is contrary to the gospel, as Paul makes clear in Galatians 3:3, for example. In any case, Paul banishes the notion in Acts 13:34 where he tells us that Christ’s resurrection (4* I take it that Paul is using the word resurrection in this passage to include ascension, exaltation and heavenly session, as the second part of the verse implies.) precludes any possibility of a return to earthly corruption.


Our Heavenly Call

The initial call of mortal man in Genesis 2:16f. (cf. 3:1-6), which is also implied in Genesis 1:26-28 (cf. Ps. 8:5f.; Rom. 2:7,10; Heb. 2:9; 1 Pet. 1:7), is to gain eternal life and incorruption. This call is strongly underscored in the NT by references such as John 3:16,36, 20:21, 1 John 2:25 and 5:11-13.  Paul (Phil. 3:14; 1 Thes. 2:12), Peter (1 Pet. 5:10) and the author of Hebrews (3:1) also stress that our call is a heavenly call to glory. It is almost superfluous to add in the light of this evidence that Christ is the hope of glory (Col. 1:27) which we shall share with God (Rom. 5:2; 2 Cor. 4:17). And just in case we have any illusions that this hope is earthly both Paul (Col. 1:5, cf. Rom. 8:20,24f.) and Peter insist that it is heavenly (1 Pet. 1:3f.). We are thus forced to conclude that an earthly millennium is not on the horizon, and, not surprisingly, believers who have trimmed their lamps go directly to the marriage feast (Mt. 25:10, cf. Luke 20:34-36). (It might profitably be added here that once we are married to Christ, there will be no divorce!)


Sin the Only Problem?

The hidden assumption of premillenialism, like so much of Western theology, is that all our problems stem from sin. Thus, it is almost universally held that the sin of Adam brought death not merely to himself but to the entire universe! The sin-obsessed Augustine, whose erroneous thinking still governs us even in the 21st century, failed to recognize that, as Genesis 1:1 implies, a temporal creation is necessarily subject to corruption (cf. Ps. 89:47). God made it that way in hope (cf. Rom. 8:18-25). The truth of this is underlined by the paradox of Jesus himself who on the one hand as a man of dust, a true son of Adam (Luke 3:38), had a beginning, grew older (Luke 2:41ff.; John 8:57) and hence was ready to vanish away (2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 8:13), but on the other hand possessed indestructible life (Heb. 7:3,16). In other words, as flesh, a product of the corruptible earth, he was necessarily mortal even apart from sin; it was only as spirit that he was immortal and incorruptible. So while he died in the flesh, he continued to live in the spirit (1 Pet. 3:18) which he committed to his Father even as he died on the cross (Luke 23:46). To object here that Jesus did not see corruption after his death but rose again in the flesh is beside the point. In dying for others he was not earning wages on his own account. His resurrection, which demonstrated the efficacy and validity of his death on our behalf (Rom. 4:25) and clearly underscored the return of his spirit to his lifeless body (cf. Luke 8:55; James 2:26), did not obviate the necessity of his ascension, transformation and glorification (John 20:17). For how else could he inherit the eternal blessings promised to David (Acts 13:34, cf. Luke 1:32f.).

The premillennial assumption seems to be that Christ must return to earth to demonstrate man’s dominion subverted by Adam’s (imputed) sin and a universal curse on the earth. But as has already been made clear, the victory of Jesus as the second Adam over a sinful world and a recalcitrant creation was representative and does not require repetition. A literal millennium achieves nothing that has not already been achieved. Christ’s work was both a finished and victorious work (John 16:33; 17:4f.; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:5,12f.).


The Kingdom of God

Fifth, Jesus told Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). In light of this he did not pose a political threat to the rule of Rome. Pilate seemed to be convinced by this, though many of Jesus’ followers were not (cf. John 6:15; Acts 1:6). In any case, the kingdom of God to which Jesus frequently refers is in Matthew’s gospel usually designated the kingdom of heaven wherein righteousness dwells (Mt. 5:6,20; 6:10,33, cf. Rom. 14:17; 2 Pet. 3:13).

When reflecting on the kingdom, it is vital for us not to forget that Jesus was a Son of David who was promised eternal rule (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89). Luke tells us that the Lord God will give  Jesus the throne of his ancestor David and that his kingdom will be endless (1:32f.). Apart from other teaching along the same lines (e.g. Acts 2:34-36; 13:34; 15:16f.), it is hard indeed to see how Jesus can (cf. Acts 7:49f.) and why he should return to reign on a temporal earth.

The author of Hebrews also lays stress on Jesus’ heavenly rule (1:6; 2:5) and priesthood (5:6; 7:17). In both cases their everlasting or eternal nature is underscored, as it had been long before in 2 Samuel 7:13 and Psalm 89:27-29,36f. (cf. Luke 1:32f., etc.). Since this is so, a temporal earthly rule of a mere thousand years is not on the horizon.


This Age or the Age to Come

This raises the question of the age to which the millennium belongs. As we have just seen, it cannot occur in the eternal age to come. And since dormant sin re-appears at the end of the thousand years when the devil is released, it must belong to the present age. This of course should be evident from the fact that the saints are in the flesh which derives from a temporal earth. Again, however, we are confronted with a re-incarnated Jesus. Just how he can be flesh again after ascending transformed to his Father in heaven without, as suggested above, re-entering his mother’s womb is more than a little difficult to explain. (It might be remembered at this point that some premillennialists argue that 1 Corinthians 15:50 refers only to sinful flesh. Behind such thinking seems to lie the Augustinian idea of an originally perfect and hence immortal Adam!)

But this by no means brings our difficulties to an end. For if Jesus and the saints who like David have already seen corruption are going to return to earth in the flesh, then they are also going to be subject to aging and corruption once again. One premillennialist writer whose book is on my shelves avers without batting an eyelid (on video) that Jesus is going to return in the flesh just as he was when he ascended, and still 33 years old! While he apparently recognizes that in heaven Jesus’ aging process was suspended despite his still being in corruptible flesh (!), he fails to realize that once he comes back to earth his biological clock will begin to tick again. Since this is so, at the end of the millennium Jesus will be 1033 years old, putting Methuselah, who was only 969, in the shade. Even if, however, we reject the notion that individuals such as Adam, who is clearly both individual and community, achieved such stupendous ages, there will inevitably be marriage and birth during the millennium (contrast Luke 20:34 and cf. Heb. 7:23). I humbly suggest this is a highly unlikely scenario. As I shall insist further below, apart from the fact that an intermediate earthly kingdom is unknown to Scripture, the very idea is based on a fundamental misconception. But in any case, we are yet again faced with the problem of repetition. If the literal millennium is all it is said to be, then Jesus’ victory in the flesh (John 16:33; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:9, etc.) prior to his death and resurrection is an illusion. On this assumption, Paul should never have written Romans 8:31ff. (cf. Rev. 3:21, etc.).


Perfection

As intimated above, it is Augustinian theology that forms the background of premillennial thinking. Augustine fostered the notion that God originally created the world and its inhabitants Adam and Eve perfect and as a result had to posit a calamitous fall and a consequent cosmic curse. But the idea that creation was originally perfect is belied by the very first verse of the Bible. Only God is perfect and he has neither beginning nor end (Isa. 57:15, cf. Heb. 7:3). While heaven is his throne, earth is his footstool (Isa. 66:1; Mt. 5:34f.). In light of this it comes as no surprise that the Creator and his creation are distinguished throughout Scripture (Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27; 103: 15-17; Isa. 40:6-8; 51:6,8; Heb. 1:10-12, etc.). The one is to be worshipped but the other not (Dt. 4:19; Rom. 1:25, etc.). Perfection (maturity, completion, Jas. 1:4) is the goal of man made in the image of God (Lev. 11:44f.; Mt. 5:48); he alone of all flesh has both the vocation and the concomitant capacity to attain to the divine likeness and be perfected as Jesus himself was (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). The material creation, like the flesh, is a law to itself and achieves its own fleeting perfection before its ultimate demise.


The Perfection of the Creature

So far as man’s flesh is concerned, it achieves perfection (maturity, completeness) in this world. As the lamb becomes a sheep, so a baby becomes a man or woman. Then in accordance with the law of its creation (Rom. 8:20) it declines in subjection to its natural  corruptibility and entropy (2 Cor. 4:16, cf. Mt. 6:19f., etc.). On the other hand, what is spiritually perfected (Heb. 2:10; 5:9) remains perfect forever (Heb. 7:28), while the imperfect passes away (cf. 1 Cor. 13:10). Acts 13:34 apart, I conclude that Jesus’ return to a corruptible earth is out of the question. Perfection once achieved does not return to imperfection. Retrogression in Scripture is a sin (Dt. 24:16; Jer. 7:24, etc.), while progression to spiritual maturity seen in terms of both destiny and destination is of the essence of the gospel (Eph. 4:8-16; Col. 1:28; 4:12; Jas. 1:4). As intimated above, Paul makes this especially clear in Galatians. While in 1 Corinthians 15:46 the apostle indicates that man moves from flesh to spirit (and from law to Spirit, Rom. 7-8), in Galatians 3:3 he remonstrates with those who seem intent on reversing the process. After being born again by the Spirit, ending in the flesh is inherently contradictory. Again in 4:9 and in Colossians 2:20 he is implicitly saying the same thing. Going back results inevitably in curse and death as it did in the wilderness (Jer. 7:24; 1 Cor. 10:5; Heb. 3:17, etc.); going forward leads to blessing and life (Jer. 32:39-41; 1 Pet. 2:11f., etc.). Spiritual and corporeal (somatic) perfection are attained in heaven not on earth.


Augustinian Theology

It is one of the ironies of history that premillennialists who are so hotly critical of Augustine’s opposition to chiliasm are nonetheless so profoundly governed by his worldview. (See further my Worldview, The Biblical Worldview.) They readily accept the traditional but radically unscriptural dogmas of original perfection, Fall, original sin and a universal curse on creation, yet it is precisely these that give rise to what they see as the need for a millennium. Once these are excised, as they should be, from our thinking, no amount of exegetical ingenuity and hermeneutical expertise will elicit a literal thousand-year millennium on this earth. The entire Bible is opposed to it. Or is it?


Covenant Theology

This brings us to covenant theology. As I have described elsewhere, many years ago I ran into trouble trying to understand traditional covenant theologies and eventually concluded that both the Reformed and the Dispensational varieties were flawed. It is impossible to go into detail here, but one of my main conclusions was that while old and new covenants are to some degree ethically continuous, they are nonetheless essentially different or discontinuous (cf. my Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity).  The old covenant is oriented to this material world and not unnaturally emphasizes the rule of law which, being transient and provisional (2 Cor. 3:11, etc.), operates only so long as the world exists (Mt. 5:18, cf. Rom. 7:1). The new covenant relates essentially to heaven (cf. Mt. 6:10) or the world to come and remains forever (Mt. 24:35). It existed here on earth only as a promise (Jer. 31:31-34) until it was inaugurated, like the kingdom of God, by Jesus (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). It is essentially spiritual and is dictated by the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor. 3).

If this is so, it is almost inevitable that premillennialists, especially those of the dispensational variety, who are governed by a literal interpretation of the OT entertain the largely materialistic hopes of the OT. Even a scholar of the calibre of G.E.Ladd, a classical premillennialist who rejected dispensationalism, was earth-centred in his eschatology. Like so many others, he was conditioned by the Augustinian worldview. He failed to recognize that this material world, of which man in the flesh is a part, was created temporal (Gen. 1:1) and naturally corruptible but in (invisible) hope (Rom. 8:18-25). Thus the plan of salvation involves our escape from it (Gen. 2:17, cf. Rom. 8:20,23). This present (temporal) age must give way to the (eternal) age to come. And since we, the children of dusty Adam (Ps. 103:14, etc.), are incapable of meeting the condition of our escape, that is, a sinless life in the flesh (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Dt. 32:46f. Ezek. 33:15, etc.), it has been achieved for us by Christ (Rom. 8:3). Our own undeniable sins (Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 6:23) have been covered by his death and we are saved by his life (Rom. 5:10).

The plain truth is that the old covenant is spiritualized in the new covenant. An obvious example of this is the non-literal inheritance of Abraham in Hebrews 11. (Strictly speaking, it is literal as opposed to allegorical, spiritual as opposed to material. Like the temple, it is real or true as opposed to shadowy.) The city or land he looked for was invisible and therefore  heavenly (Heb. 11:8-16; 12:22; 13:14, cf. Phil. 3:20). Like Jesus’ kingship (John 18:36), it was not of this creation (Heb. 9:11). The tragedy of premillennialism is that it attempts to pour new wine into old wineskins with the result that the significance of the true gospel is largely lost (Mark 2:21f.).

Biblical covenant theology points to another matter of basic importance. I have argued at some length in my Covenant Theology, Covenant Theology in Brief (cf. Did God Make a Covenant with Creation? Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity, that proper study of the Bible evinces three dispensational covenants affecting the race – one each respectively with Noah, Moses and Christ (cf. Rom. 1-3). While the first two continue to operate in this world, they are inherently provisional pending the end of history and of the material creation (cf. Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1). Only the Christian covenant is permanent (Mt. 24:35, cf. the promissory Abrahamic and Davidic covenants). But it needs to be recognized that since the individual recapitulates the history of the race, these covenants are miniaturized and epitomized in the individual, not least in the second Adam who is thereby fitted to become universally representative (cf. 1 John 2:2). This is made especially plain in Galatians 4:1-7 where Jesus is shown to be first a child or slave of nature (Gentile), second, a son of the commandment (Jew), and, third, the beloved Son of his heavenly Father and archetypal Christian (Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). (So far as Paul himself was concerned, see Romans 7-8.) If this is true, on premillennial presuppositions we ought to expect a mini-millennium in the life of Jesus himself. But we do not. What we do see is increasing opposition and hostility culminating in his death. And we see precisely the same in the eschatological experience of his people as a whole, as non-millenarians (amillennialists) have frequently testified. All of us go through (the) tribulation in one form or another (Acts 14:22, cf. Gal. 5:16f.; 1 Pet. 2:11). But those who are alive at the end of the present dispensation can expect not a golden age but persecution of a particularly vicious kind when evil achieves its own maturity or perfection (Gen. 15:16; 1 Thes. 2:16; Rev. 13). And with the rejection of the gospel in the West and intense opposition to it elsewhere, one cannot help but wonder if that end is drawing close (Rom. 13:11—14). One thing is clear: nature itself is beginning to manifest more obvious birthpangs than usual (Mt. 24:8). (Not to mention recent earthquakes and tsunamis, I write this on a day when Victoria in Australia in the grip of drought is ablaze.)


Conclusion

On the basis of my preunderstandings of the Bible, a literal thousand-year millennium under the rule of Christ in the flesh and on the earth is out of the question. It reflects a basically unbiblical worldview and anthropology. Furthermore, it is an addition to Scripture which Scripture itself severely condemns (Rev. 22:18). It should be rejected out of hand and its devotees called on to repent on pain of divine judgement (cf. Gal. 1:6-9).

________________________________________________________


ADDITIONAL NOTE on Historic Premillennialism

Since writing the above I have read with immense interest and profit A Case for Historic Premillennialism, ed. Blomberg and Chung. Short of writing an extended separate critique along the lines of the above, I here append some comments on Gnostic dualism.

On page 129 Donald Fairbairn in a fine essay on Contemporary Millennial/Tribulational Debates tells us that at the heart of Gnosticism lies a profound dualism which he apparently regards as false, though see my Biblical Dualism.  He maintains that it surfaces in four crucial areas.

First, he says it leads to the idea that the material world is evil and unredeemable. This however, from a biblical point of view is false logic, since from Genesis 1:1 the Bible depicts the material creation not as evil but as intrinsically temporal and corruptible (Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 51:6; Mt. 6:19f.). Furthermore, to infer from this that salvation applies only to the soul and not to the body is again to err. Scripture clearly teaches the redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 15:45-49) but certainly not of the flesh which derives from the naturally corruptible (Rom. 8:18-25), visible and temporary (2 Cor. 4:18) material creation which is destined for destruction (cf. 1 Cor. 15:50; Heb. 12:27, etc.).

Second, Fairbairn says that Gnosticism denigrates history. Perhaps it does, but to draw the conclusion from the destruction of the material creation which is clearly taught in the Bible that the panorama of history played out in the physical world is of little consequence is quite misguided. After all we are judged by the deeds we do in the body! The world is the testing ground in which we as those who are created in the image of God are called to exercise dominion (Gen. 1:26-28, etc.) with a view to our ultimately becoming children of the resurrection. Jesus as the second Adam achieved his victory on earth and in so doing ensured our own triumph (Heb. 2:6-13).

Third, Fairbairn contends that Gnosticism leads to a distinction between two competing gods – the lesser, material god of the OT and the higher, spiritual God of the NT. In the Bible, however, God is the God of both testaments. For all that, there is no denying that the old covenant in contrast with the new relates primarily to this material earth and to the flesh (Mt. 5:18; Heb. 7:16; 9:8-10 contrast Mt. 24:35, etc.). As scholars regularly point out the OT people were more earthly than heavenly oriented (e.g. Bruce, pp.298f.,339; Ladd,). Both Paul and the author of Hebrews insist on the limitations and defective nature of the law which, like the creation itself, is temporary and provisional (see e.g. 2 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 7:18f.).

Fourth, while it may be true that Gnosticism implicitly harbours a docetic view of Christ, this is not true of the Bible which clearly emphasizes the reality of the incarnation. If Jesus did not conquer in the flesh as the second Adam (Rom. 8:3), then he did not conquer at all (Heb. 2, etc.). But it must be promptly added that his victory in the flesh led not merely to his physical resurrection from the dead but to his transformation ascension and return to former glory (John 17:5,24). As Irenaeus, despite his premillennialism, once said, he became what we are so that we might become what he is, and that is certainly not corruptible flesh, which would make nonsense of  Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15:35-58.

As intimated above, the problem with premillennialism of whatever hue is, first, its Augustinian worldview and, second, its lack of an adequate covenant theology.

(See further my essays on the redemption of creation and original sin including A Brief Critique of ‘Surprised by Hope’ by Tom Wright, A Brief Review of ‘The Mission of God’ by C.J.H.Wright. Note also Romans 8:18-25, Covenant Theology, Manufactured Or Not So, The Corruptibility Of Creation, Spiritualisation, The Biblical Worldview, Worldview, Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?, Thoughts on the Redemption of Creation, etc. )


Note:

Christians are a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9) who rule on the earth (Rev. 1:6; 5:10). They also rule in heaven with Jesus (Rev. 3:21; 20:4,6, cf. 1 Cor. 6:2f.). The thousand years of Revelation 20 is clearly the Christian dispensation and there is no evidence whatsoever of an intermediate kingdom which in any case serves no discernible purpose. Christ has already conquered (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 5:5, etc.). Already in the process of putting his enemies under his feet, he is heading for the grand finale or consummation.

_______________________________________________________

References:

Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, eds., A Case for Historic Premillennialism, Grand Rapids, 2009.

F.F.Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids/London, 1964.

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

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

J.R.Michaels, WBC 1 Peter, 1988.