According to traditional Augustinian theology the entire creation is ‘fallen’ and under a curse as a consequence of Adam’s (original) sin. (1* See e.g. Stott, pp. 41,121,153,231; C.Wright, pp. 198,395, etc.) The assumption is that as the work of a perfect God all creation was initially not simply ‘good’, that is, useful, as Scripture surely teaches, but perfect. It follows that Adam and Eve likewise as emanating from a perfect creation at the hands of a perfect Creator were from the start holy, righteous, immortal and incorruptible. The problem here is that this assumption prompts some very difficult questions.
For a start, if Adam was created righteous and righteousness is the precondition of eternal life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, etc.), how did he not remain forever in his blessed state? Apart from the fact that it is no more than an inference which does not seem to be supported by Scripture, his so-called sin and fall is in any case not easily explained. Furthermore, if it is maintained that he could fall from perfection, are we not likely to draw the conclusion that even God himself who is perfect could likewise fall or at least decide to maintain his righteousness no longer? Have we any guarantee that he also like the devil will not fall like lightning from heaven (cf. Luke 10:18)? If this is a possibility, how can we be sure that he will honour his promises to us? Perhaps the anchor of our souls is less secure than we thought (Heb. 6:13-20). Obviously the questions are endless and the answers doubtful! Fortunately, however, we are in a position to dismiss the initial premise that a perfect God is necessarily obliged to produce perfect artifacts. All he needs to do is to produce what is useful, whatever serves his purposes (cf. Ps. 119:90f.), and even evil for which he is not directly responsible can do that (cf. 2 Chr. 10:15; Isa. 10:5-11; Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:11, etc.)! The author of Hebrews realizes that the builder of the house has more honour than the house itself (3:3).
On reflection, we ourselves become aware that throughout Scripture all created things are regarded depreciatively in comparison with their Creator and his word (Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27; Isa. 45:11f.; 51:6,8; Heb. 1:10-12; ; 1 John 2:17, etc.). They are but shadows of the real (cf. Heb. 8:1-7). What is ‘created by hand’ (cheiropoietos) is not to be compared with what is ‘not created by hand’ (acheiropoietos, Heb. 1:10-12; 9:11,24, etc.). (2* See my Manufactured Or Not So.) While creation may have a certain glory of its own (Ps. 19; Rom. 1:20), it pales when compared with its Author just as the old covenant pales in comparison with the new (2 Cor. 3). (3* See my Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity) In fact creation merely testifies to God’s power and divine nature and is certainly not divine or sacred in itself as the heathen world frequently believed. Thus it is not at all surprising that God’s chosen people were forbidden to worship creation in any form (Ex. 20:3f.; Dt. 4:15-19).
Man’s Native Imperfection
Man himself as a product of the earth is intrinsically imperfect; he is both physically and morally immature and incomplete and needs to be perfected (Phil. 3:12-14; Heb. 6:1, etc., cf. Gal. 3:3). Physically he achieves perfection or maturity relatively quickly, but his moral perfection is stunted by sin (cf. 1 Cor.15:46). However, he cannot and does not become sinful until like Adam (cf. Dt. 1:39) he breaks the parental commandment (Rom. 4:15; 7:8, cf. Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20, etc.). As flesh which derives from the ground he is mere dust, clay, grass (Isa. 40:6, ESV) like the rest of the animal creation (Ps. 103:14, etc.).
What this suggests is that nature as such is inherently defective and needs to be upheld by the sovereign providence of God on the one hand and the delegated dominion of man created in the image of God on the other. Apart from man’s habitation and cultivation creation like the temple at a later date (Mt. 23:38) is a desolate wilderness (Isa. 6:11, etc.). An untended garden like Eden rapidly deteriorates (cf. Prov. 24:30-34).
Assertions like this are supported by other biblical evidence. For instance, quite apart from sin, creation has by nature a beginning (Gen. 1:1) and an end (Mt. 24:35), and is hence temporal and not eternal. It is initially uncovenanted, and since it is visible it is impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18; 1 John 2:17). It is also imperfect (Gen. 1), corruptible (Heb. 1:10-12; Rom. 8:18-25), shakable (Heb. 12:27) and destined for ultimate destruction (Zeph. 1:18; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12).
The initial lack of a guarantee for creation is made evident by the contrast between the commandment given to Adam and the covenant made with Noah who, having metaphorically been weaned, could see and appreciate the significance of a rainbow. But though his covenant is still operative, it is so only as long as the earth remains (Gen. 8:22). Put another way, the flood which threatened total destruction makes it plain that an uncovenanted creation had no guarantee of permanence. And it was not until God had made the covenant that Noah, in contrast with Adam, could undertake to exercise dominion with any hope of success. Even then it was only for a limited time (Gen. 8:22), but nonetheless enough time (cf. Jer. 31:35-37; 33:19-26) for the completion of the plan of salvation from the corruptible earth (Rev. 14:3, cf. vv.14-20). Even Jesus who overcame the world (John 16:33) could not reverse its inherent corruption (subjection to decay) and inevitable dissolution which were clearly ordained by God (Mt. 24:35; Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12; 12:27, etc.). Even he had to escape from it by keeping the law which promised life (regeneration) and being crowned with glory and honour (transformation) in heaven (Heb. 2:9, cf. Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7). For just as the law of Moses which relates to the flesh and to this world (cf. Rom. 7:1; Mt. 5:18) is obsolescent and provisional by nature (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13), so is creation itself, and of course the flesh that emanates from it. Since neither creation nor the law can perfect anything (Heb. 7:19), escape by transformation is inherently necessary (1 Cor. 15:50-54). Thankfully, by the grace of God both creation and the law have a better, that is, an invisible hope in prospect (Rom. 8:20,24f.; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Heb. 7:18f.; 11:35, cf. Heb. 10:20; 1 Pet. 1:3).
There are then two factors involved so far as man is concerned: he must exercise dominion (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8) if he is to gain glory, honour and praise (Rom. 2:7,10; 1 Pet. 1:7, cf. Heb. 2:9), and he must keep the law if he is to gain the (eternal) life graciously promised to man (who is naturally mortal and corruptible) from the beginning (Gen. 2:17, cf. Rom. 7:10). Thus sin and nature frequently appear together and though intimately related they must as separate entities both be overcome. A clear illustration of the distinction between sin based on law and corruption or decay by nature appears in Luke 13:1-5. This passage makes it plain that though they can operate disparately, they both achieve the same result, that is, death. Luke 13:4, which deals with natural corruption, can be linked with 12:33 (cf. Mt. 6:19f. and Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). Thus the tower of Siloam was like the temple ‘made by hand’ (Mark 14:58) and hence corruptible. In the event, the temple was razed by the Romans but like the Colosseum and the Parthenon (damaged by Venetian bombardment in 1687) it was naturally vulnerable to corruption as we are well aware today. Luke 13:1-3 corresponds with sections of Luke 21:5-36 where some of the events referred to occur by necessity, that is, as part of the divine purpose. Obviously, if creation is naturally corruptible, it will show increasing signs of its corruptibility as it ages in more frequent earthquakes, celestial portents, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and so forth. But interspersed with these, as in Luke 13:1-5 there is plenty of evidence of sin in assassinations, wars, insurrections and international hostilities (Luke 21:9f.). (See further additional note below.) The sack of Jerusalem by the Romans is a type of the end and hardly surprisingly the two appear interconnected in Scripture (Luke 21:20-26). These events both natural (cf. the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, Luke 17:26-30) and sinful will be capped off by the second coming of Christ (Luke 21:27f.).
No one reading carefully about Paul’s missionary journeys can fail to note that he constantly has to cope with both sin and nature. We see this in Acts 27 where nature perhaps predominates in contrast with Jonah where sin and nature are arguably treated more even-handedly. In 2 Corinthians 6 (cf. 4:8-12 where the apostle refers to his ‘mortal flesh’), however, sin and nature are more obviously interwoven. On the one hand Paul has to cope by means of great endurance with afflictions, hardships, calamities, labours, sleepless nights and hunger, on the other hand he has to submit to beatings, imprisonments, riots and the like. Again, in chapter 11:23-28 we read of labours, shipwreck, being adrift at sea, danger from rivers and the wilderness, toil and hardship, sleepless nights, hunger, thirst, cold and exposure on the one hand and of imprisonments, beatings, lashes, stonings, hostility from Jews and Gentiles in the city, and so forth. In chapter 12 the apostle talks of his mysterious thorn in the flesh from which God did not see fit to relieve him, and in verse 10 the mixture of sufferings stemming from both sin and nature.
Yet again, in Romans 8:35 Paul refers on the one hand to tribulation, distress, famine, nakedness and danger and on the other to persecution and sword. Admittedly, tribulation and danger, for example, are general words which could arguably come under the rubric of sin, but this does not affect the basic distinction I am making. (4* Dunn goes into some detail as to the meaning of various afflictions in comment on Rom. 8:35, 2:9 and 5:3.) Furthermore, it should be noted that while verse 36 suggests sinful persecution, his general reference to ‘all creation’ (ESV, lit. any other creature) in verse 39 is all inclusive. (The apparent distinction between tribulation and persecution would appear comparable to that between affliction and distress (ananke) in 1 Thes. 3:7.)
Peter and John
Peter and John both differentiate between nature and sin. For Peter material things like gold (1:7), silver (1:18), flesh and grass (1:24) are naturally perishable and futile. It is imperishable seed (1:23) and the word of the Lord (cf. James 1:18,21) that produces the new birth “to a living hope … to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven” (1:3f.) which endures forever (1:25, cf. John 3:16). What a contrast there is between these and the eventual destruction of the material universe in 2 Peter 3. On the other hand, as 2 Peter 2 makes clear sin is a separate issue and produces its own bondage (2:19f.) and destruction (2:1-3). For John the material world and the things in the world like darkness (2:8) pass away (Rev. 21:1, cf. 1 Cor. 7:31). By contrast, those who do the will of God live forever (1 John 2:15-17).
The fact that Jesus as incarnate was both mortal (like all flesh he was subject to death, Heb. 5:7, and so unlike his Father, was capable of dying) and corruptible (he got older, Luke 3:23; John 8:57, cf. Gen. 6:3) should teach us something about creation. (5* See my Death and Corruption, Romans 8:18-25.) If he was subject to nature even apart from sin (as Adam had originally been before he sinned), he had to overcome both in order to attain to heaven. And despite all his trials and temptations (Mt. 4:1-11; Luke 22:28; Heb. 4:15, etc.), praise God, he did precisely that (2 Tim. 1:10). He kept the law which promised life and defeated sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14f.). He thus freely, that is, by the grace of God through faith, tasted death for everyone (Heb. 2:9). This can only mean that since he did not undergo decay in the grave, he rose from it still corruptible flesh (Luke 24:39). But in accordance with the promise of God, having finished his work (John 17:4; 19:30) and thereby gained honour and praise, he was necessarily transformed at his ascension (1 Cor. 15:53). (6* Note the Greek ‘dei’ as in John 3:7.) In other words, Jesus’ resurrection which relates to sin and death on our behalf was, since it was vicarious, not essential to his natural life. On the other hand, his ascension, which involved his transformation, most definitely was. It related to the decay ordained by God in hope quite apart from sin (Rom. 8:20). It completed the plan of salvation once righteousness and new life had been gained. In fact, the resurrection and the transformation of Jesus were totally separate events, and to merge them as many do today in the 21st century is a massive mistake. For, while transgression leads to death and requires resurrection to counter it, transformation leads naturally to the perfection of life. (7* See more below and my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities, Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?)
Before leaving Jesus, it is important to observe that both sin and nature brought their own challenges to his work. While he overcame the personal temptation and pressure to sin (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22), he had to deal with the sins of others including forces of evil like demons (Luke 11:20). We read of him exercising his authority to forgive sin and eventually to die for sins in general. Again he exercised his dominion over recalcitrant nature as when he rebuked the stormy sea (Luke 8:24) and unruly fevers in people (Luke 4:39); he also dealt with ordinary needs like hunger (e.g. Mark 6:30-44) and sickness. While sin is evident in some cases, it certainly is not in others. In fact, sin is specifically denied at the time when he healed the man born blind (John 9:3) and raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:4). This should remind us that Sarah’s barrenness, Moses’ speech and the eunuch’s infertility (Isa. 56:3-5, cf. Mt. 19:12) were unrelated to personal transgression (cf. Mt. 19:12). Not all animals could be used as old covenant sacrifices since some were naturally blemished. Jesus was perfect(ed) both physically and morally (Luke 2:40-52; Mt. 19:21; Heb. 2:10; 7:28).
Creation Defective By Nature
All this points again to the fact that nature or creation as such is inherently defective and stands in stark contrast with divine perfection. What we noted above with regard to the hand-made temple (Mark 14:58) is also true of the human body of flesh (2 Cor. 5:1). (8* As Hughes, p.164 n.22, pointed out long ago the Greek especially of these two verses is remarkably similar. Both temple and body can fall foul of sinful destruction and/or of natural corruption. Some Christians apparently still look forward to the rebuilding of the ‘hand-built’ temple failing to see that it was provisional and transient like creation itself by nature! Even Solomon recognized this, 1 K. 8:27; 2 Chr. 2:6; Acts 7:48. After all it was only a type of the true, Heb. 8:1-5. They also think that there will be a thousand-year millennium in the flesh! The fact is that earth(l)y and heavenly bodies are essentially different, as different as flesh and spirit, as earth and heaven, 1 Cor. 15:46-49; 2 Cor. 5:1.) It is therefore of prime importance for us to recognize that death is often the result of nature, not sin. For example, animals which do not know the law cannot earn the wages of sin but they all nonetheless die in conformity with the law of a corruptible creation. Even sinless embryos (cf. Job 3:16; Eccl. 6:3) and babies (cf. Dt. 1:39) die on occasion. Ignorance in children guarantees that they cannot respond to the law by which to sin (Rom. 4:15) or to exercise faith in its promise (Dt. 30:20; Rom. 7:10). Like Adam and Eve at creation, they are uncovenanted and undeveloped, and so if they die they do so in innocence. They will not come to judgement since, like the animal world to which they belong as flesh, without (the) law they can do neither good nor evil (cf. Rom. 9:11), neither believe nor sin.
In 1 Corinthians 2:14f., Paul, like Jesus in John 3:1-8, clearly distinguishes between the natural and the regenerate man apart from sin. So he is fully aware of the natural ignorance that characterizes us all, including Jesus (Isa. 7:15f.), in our infancy and minority. To stress this otherwise, sin is not the only problem confronting mankind. Even Jesus spent thirty years of his life on earth as a ‘natural’ man, a true son of Adam (Luke 3:38), but in contrast with Adam after keeping the law that promised life to his Father’s satisfaction, he was born from above at his baptism. He thus became the first and only man in all history to receive the Spirit and gain life by his obedience. Prior to his time all had failed (1 K. 8:46; Ps. 130:3; 143:2; Rom. 3:9-20,23, etc.) and continue to fail to this day (Gal. 2:16). Only when the time had fully come did God send forth his Son born of woman and put him in a position to redeem all the rest who were under (the) law (Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4f.). This had been his intention from the start (Rom. 3:20; 11:32; Gal. 3:22). Refusing to give his glory to any other (Isa. 42:8; 48:11), he had planned from before the foundation of the world that before him no flesh would boast. But the point to note is that by nature, quite apart from sin, man like an animal can neither see nor enter the kingdom of heaven. His regeneration is a ‘natural’ necessity.
However, if man’s rebirth is spiritual, what about his body? A spiritual birth prepares the way but does not provide for a resurrection from the dead. And since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, transformation of the body becomes a ‘natural’ necessity quite apart from sin (1 Cor. 15:50-54). After all, it was God himself who subjected the temporal creation to futility because he always had a better hope in view (Rom. 8:20,24f.; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; 5:5). So, even Jesus as uncorrupted flesh following his resurrection had to undergo transformation as he had at his incarnation. This time, however, it was in reverse and it obviously took place at the end of his earthly pilgrimage, that is, at his ascension (John 20:17; Luke 44:51). So it was by transformation that he returned to glory to receive a body of glory (cf. John 17:5,24; Phil. 3:21).
The Importance of Sin
If transgression of the law, its wages as death and the need for resurrection on the one hand and transformation on the other are both factors playing a fundamental role in mankind’s life on earth, it is vital for us to see that sin or transgression derives its importance from the fact that it prevents both the necessary new birth and hence the ultimate change from occurring. The original promise of life and glory that God made to Adam in his natural mortality and corruptibility was conditional on his keeping the commandment and exercising proper dominion. If the commandment was not kept and life not gained, then death as wages (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23) and consequent complete decay (Gen. 3:19) inevitably followed. Thus if all sinned, all died (Rom. 3:23; 5:12) and decayed. Only Jesus despite being tried and tested to the utmost overcame sin (1 Pet. 2:22), the world (John 16:33; Heb. 2:9) and the devil (John 14:30) in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). Only he as a true man, the second Adam to whom the original promise of life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5) and glory (Gen. 1:26-28) made to the first Adam also applied, was able to serve as Saviour (Heb. 2). So while the OT made it crystal clear that only God could save and that before him no flesh would boast (Isa. 42:8; 48:11, cf. Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29; Eph. 2:9), only Jesus as both God and man could hope to triumph.
By blindly following the sin-obsessed Augustine traditional theology has inevitably confused and merged sin with nature as modern translation and interpretation of Romans 8:18-25 indicates. (9* See my Romans 8:18-25. It is important to add in this connection that only in 2011 has the revision of the NIV, which has an Augustinian bias, changed its usual translation of the Greek word sarx as ‘sinful nature’ back to ‘flesh’ as it should be. See e.g. Rom. 8:13 and Gal. 6:8. Unlike the Greeks the Bible does not consider the flesh as such to be evil. As part of a ‘good’ creation it is meant to be subdued by man made in the image of God. Flesh, and nature in general for that matter, is just transient and hence defective (cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-44) and so is regarded pejoratively when compared with spirit (Spirit).) As hinted above in the title of this essay, transgression, death and resurrection are in a different category from transformation which, like regeneration, is a natural necessity. For though Jesus did not have to die and so be raised since he did not sin, he certainly had to be transformed for the simple reason that he had been made flesh only ‘for a little while’ (Heb. 2:7,9). So when writers like John Stott (ch.4), Murray Harris (pp.103,139ff.,413f., who virtually makes the ascension redundant by reducing it to drama), and Tom Wright (pp.143f.) all insist that Jesus’ resurrection constituted his transformation, a strong protest must be lodged. They are all in effect telling us that transgression and transformation as well as sin and regeneration are correlated. (10* As a matter of indisputable fact, both Jesus in John 3:1-8 and Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54 fail to refer to sin.) Of course, neither is true for both regeneration and transformation are ‘natural’ necessities apart from sin. By contrast, Jesus’ resurrection was not essential to his own incarnate career at all since his death was both voluntary and vicarious. Having already gained life by keeping the law and received the Spirit at his baptism, he personally could have escaped from this futile world without it (resurrection, that is), as is implied by his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt. 26:39,42) before his death. However, his transformation after (John 20:17) but definitely not at his resurrection (Luke 24:39, etc.) was, as Paul insisted, inherently necessary (Greek ‘dei’, 1 Cor. 15:53).
The fact is that the Augustinian confusion of sin with nature or of transgression with transformation constitutes a gargantuan gaffe not least because it links Jesus’ resurrection with the impossible redemption of the naturally corruptible temporal creation and gives us a profoundly distorted worldview. It has helped to obscure the truth of the gospel for so long and put the church as opposed to the Bible at odds with experience, history and the genuine findings of modern science. From an Englishman’s point of view, the harsh reality of the last fifty years or so is that the influential British quaternion of Murray, Lloyd-Jones, Stott and Packer, despite much good work on their part, have helped to embed us in a theological quagmire from which it is more than high time for us in these tumultuous days to be rescued. Though like the rest of the animal creation we are all part of and hence captive to nature, nonetheless as those who are also created in the image of God we are given the opportunity of escaping from our bondage by keeping the law and so receiving life on the one hand and of gaining glory on the other by exercising our delegated dominion (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5, cf. Rom. 2:7,10; Heb. 2:9; 1 Pet. 1:7). But since on account of our susceptibility to sin we find this impossible, the only means of salvation open to us is faith, justification and life in Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). He alone as our covenant head and representative triumphed over the world (nature), the flesh and the devil and hence redeemed us (Heb. 2:9) who failed (cf. Gal. 4:1-7). It is man, the image of God, who is saved, not his flesh and the material creation from which he derives (1 Cor. 15:50). Though dead and decayed on account of sin (Rom. 8:10) but nonetheless born again through faith, resurrected and transformed, man takes his place in his Father’s house and worships before his throne in heaven (Rev. 7:9).
While many scientists are telling us that global warming on planet earth is the consequence of man’s ‘sin’ (abuse, etc.), others say that climate change is natural and has occurred throughout history. Who is right? The answer is that both are provided that they do not hold exclusively to the one or the other. Those who accept the Augustinian worldview blame all on the sin of Adam and the subsequent curse under which we now labour. The truth is that God subjected the visible creation to futility (Rom. 8:20) from the start (2 Cor. 4:18) for the simple reason that he had an invisible hope in mind as the ultimate goal (Rom. 8:20,24f.). Sin just made the existing situation worse, and there can be little doubt that man’s profligacy, abuse and neglect of his environment has played its part. After all, the human individual, who is creation in miniature and naturally corruptible like the earth from which he stems, can hasten his demise by failing to conduct himself with appropriate care. (The figures quoted on ABCTV regarding smoking deaths in October 2013 tell their own story!)
Thoughts Worth Pondering:
1. To merge Jesus’ resurrection with his transformation is an egregious attempt to mix oil (sin) and water (nature). While his resurrection, which was a consequence of his death, was vicarious, his transformation, which was a consequence of his incarnation, was a ‘natural’ necessity.
2. Transgression relates to death, transformation relates to nature (creation).
3. Transgression leads to death, transformation leads to glory.
4. Transgression is a wage-earning act of man, transformation is a free act of God intrinsic to his plan of salvation.
5. Transgression is not a necessity, transformation is (cf. Jesus).
6. Regeneration and transformation are both ‘natural’ necessities supernaturally accomplished by God. Note the ‘dei’ in John 3:7 and 1 Corinthians 15:53.
7. Regeneration is spiritual, transformation is corporeal (1 Cor. 15:44; 2 Cor. 5:1).
8. Resurrection overcomes the effect of human transgression and death, transformation overcomes the effect of divinely ordained corruption and futility. Otherwise expressed, resurrection relates to sin and death, transformation relates to nature and decay.
9. Resurrection is a requirement of salvation (cf. Acts 2:24; 1 Cor. 15:20-23), transformation is a requirement of nature (creation). Thus resurrection, though needful, is nowhere said to be inherently necessary. God is indebted to no one (Rom. 11:35). He acts freely in grace or judgement according to his sovereign will and good pleasure.
10. Those who inhabit the Augustinian universe merge sin and nature in a cosmic curse, flesh and spirit in resurrection transformation, earth and heaven in redemption and old and new covenants in organic unity. The Bible distinguishes and separates them as it does the present age and the age to come (Luke 20:34-36, etc.).
(11* Relevant essays on topics touched on above can be found on this website.
In addition to the essays referred to above see also, e.g., Not Only But Also, What Fall?, Escape, Cosmic Curse?, John Stott on the Putative Resurrection Transformation of Jesus, Death and Corruption).
J.D.G.Dunn, Romans 1-8, Dallas, 1988.
M.J.Harris, From Grave to Glory, Grand Rapids, 1990.
P.E.Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, London/Edinburgh, 1962.
John Stott, The Contemporary Christian, Leicester, 1992.
C.J.H.Wright, The Mission of God, Nottingham, 2006.
N.T.Wright, The Challenge of Jesus, Downers Grove, 1999.