___________________________________

Traditionally much is made of human solidarity or seminal identity in sin. The contention, following Augustine of Hippo, is that we all sinned ‘in Adam’ or in the words of Bengel: when Adam sinned, so did everyone else (Adamo peccante omnes peccarunt). The question this prompts is: Does the Bible teach this? The mere fact that the words ‘in Adam’ are missing from Romans 5:12 renders it suspect. (1* It is generally agreed that Augustine, who knew little Greek, misinterpreted the words ‘eph’ ho’ which mean ‘because’ in this verse. His ‘in quo’, that is, ‘in whom’ or ‘in Adam’, which appears in the Vulgate, is erroneous.)

Since Augustine’s day Catholics have based their view of solidarity in sin on physical transmission; Protestants on imputation. Catholics contend that the Virgin Birth obviated ‘carnal concupiscence’ or sinful lust when Jesus was born. But their assumption that sin can be transferred is undermined by the Scriptural teaching that the son cannot be punished for the sins of the father (Dt. 24:16; Ezek. 18, etc.). Protestants are less sure of themselves than Catholics. Apart from the Virgin Birth they offer no adequate reason for the non-imputation of sin to  Jesus. They simply suppose that it is impossible. It is. But to imply that with Jesus God made a new beginning is only acceptable if we recognize that it was a different sort of beginning from that God suggested to Moses when testing him in the wilderness (Ex. 32:10; Num 14:12; Dt. 9:27-29). If the plan of salvation was to be universally effective, the atonement had to be retro-active as well as prospective (cf. 1 John 2:2) and so cover all who exercise faith throughout the history of the human race (cf. Heb. 11). To say this, however, requires that Jesus had to assume what needed to be healed (Gregory Nazianzen, cf. Heb. 2). In other words, he had to live a complete or perfect human life beginning at the beginning and recapitulating man’s minority before pioneering his majority or maturity. This is precisely what Scripture presents him as doing. He became our moral and generic exemplar, the perfect(ed) man (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:28).

Faith

The plain truth is that sin, like righteousness, cannot be imputed apart from faith. As babies none of us, even Jesus himself, have faith and the knowledge on which to base it (cf. Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.). This observation makes it obvious that the imputation of Adam’s sin taught by the Reformed in particular is false. If righteousness is imputed by faith, then clearly so is sin. If this is indeed the case, then it follows as surely as night follows day that the only instance in the Bible of imputed sin occurs when the voluntary sins of men are imputed by faith to Jesus, thereby enabling him to bear their punishment voluntarily and vicariously (1 Pet. 2:24, cf. 2 Cor. 5:21).

Solidarity in the Flesh

No matter what, it is indisputable that Paul teaches the solidarity and universality in sin in Romans 5:12. In view of this the question must be posed: How is this solidarity achieved? How is it that Paul can say that all have sinned (Rom. 5:12) and that all have come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23)? The answer must be that all who die have committed actual wage-earning sins; they have one and all broken the law. However, it must be quickly added that only those who know the law can commit sin, for the apostle tells us that apart from the law there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15). (Note how in Nehemiah 8:3,7f.,12 the reading of the law is addressed to those who could understand.) So what about those who do not know the law, babies, for example? On occasion, they die (e.g. Job 3:16). The answer is that they die as a consequence of their solidarity with the entire animal world. Bluntly, they are flesh and like fleshly animals they die as such (Ps. 49:12,20; Eccl. 3:18-21). It is necessary here to stress the solidarity of all human beings without exception as flesh (cf. John 3:6a). While Jesus may have been unique in that he did not sin (1 Pet. 2:22, etc.), he was nonetheless one with all his fellows as born of woman (Gal. 4:4, cf. Heb. 2:14). He underwent a genuine incarnation.

The Wages and Sting of Death

It may be argued at this point that the Bible teaches that death is the wages of sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23; 7:10) and is not native to man. Paul seems to underscore this when he says that the sting of death is sin. But he goes on to assert that the power of sin is the law (1 Cor. 15:56). This is fundamentally important because it underlines the fact that where there is no law there is no sin (Rom. 4:15; 7:8, cf. 9f.). Here we have to remember that only men and women who are created in the image of God and have gained knowledge of the law are capable of breaking it. From this we are compelled to conclude by sheer force of logic that when death occurs apart from the law, sin is not involved. In light of the evidence, our inference must be that the material creation as such, and especially the flesh which derives from it, is destructible and corruptible by nature. God made it that way. And this Paul and the author of Hebrews surely teach in Romans 8:18-25 and Hebrews 1:10-12, to go no further. (2* See my Romans 8:18-25.)

Separation

The dogma of original sin leads us to believe that we are all born sinners. Unfortunately for this view, as I have already hinted there was one glaring exception – Jesus. He is unmistakably portrayed as sinless. (3* According to Bock there are seven confessions of his innocence in Luke 23 alone, p.1864.) So unless original sin, indeed sin of any kind, can be legitimately attributed to Jesus, the church dogma is founded on a quagmire. The problem is that Jesus cannot simultaneously be one with all the sinful sons of Adam and sinless (cf. Heb. 2:17). Yet the Bible makes it clear beyond dispute that he was. So, how do we solve this conundrum?

1. Docetism may be proposed. Jesus appeared to be a man but in reality was not so. This would appear to offer a solution to our problem. It fails, however, because from the beginning life was conditionally promised to man (Gen. 2:17), not to a representative who only appeared to be a man.

2. Jesus must be accepted as an exception. However, if he was an exception, he would be disqualified (cf. John 3:3,5). (4* L.Berkhof, truer to his word than he realized, claimed that Jesus’ statement regarding regeneration in John 3:3 was absolute and left no room for exceptions, p.472. The reason why Jesus was no exception at this point, pace Augustine, was that, as we have seen above, he enjoyed fleshly solidarity with all his fellows! And flesh which is naturally corruptible cannot be glorified and go to heaven, cf. 1 Cor. 15:50.) As in Docetism, he would not be a true man. In effect, his sacrifice would be no better than the animal sacrifices of the OT he replaced. What is more, his exception would involve blemish and therefore be unacceptable.

3. The Augustinian dogma of original sin is in fact false.

4. If this is so and all children who are born knowing neither the law nor good nor evil are innocent (Dt. 1:39, etc.), irrespective of the impact of their parents (Ex. 20:5f., etc.) including Adam (Rom. 5:12-21), they are in a position to keep the commandment/law as Adam and Eve were before them. The problem here is that like them they lack the ability to keep the law (Rom. 3:19f.; Gal. 2:16, cf. 2 Pet. 2:19, etc.). The world, the flesh and the devil prove too strong. But Jesus, the second Adam, conquered even though he was genuinely flesh (Rom. 8:3) and, along with all his fellows, a son of the first Adam (Luke 3:38). This being so, we are compelled to conclude that the dogma of original sin is untrue.

The evidence then forces us to infer that while Jesus shared human nature with all humans experiencing solidarity and seminal identity with them as flesh (Heb. 2:14), he did not share their sinful nature. Why not? The simple answer is that he proved himself capable of keeping the law and so did not sin (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22). In this he remained both separate and unique. By contrast, all his fellows without exception, though born innocent like Adam and Eve before them, broke the law and earned wages in death (1 K. 8:46; Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:56, cf. Rom. 7:9f.).

So, by living a sinless life from infancy to manhood, Jesus underlined both his solidarity with and his separation from ordinary men and women (cf. Heb. 7:26). He was thus able to serve as their Saviour. It is necessary to add, however, that while solidarity in sin is true in general, it is not necessarily so in specific sins. The Bible makes this evident on numerous occasions. For example, it was vital for those who delivered a good report on the Promised Land to be recognized as separate from the rest. The same is true regarding Korah’s rebellion recorded in Numbers 16. Had the whole congregation perished on account of the sins of the rebels (cf. 16:22), the very plan of salvation would have foundered. So while solidarity must be stressed, so must separation.

The Sins of the Fathers

Though children are frequently urged not to repeat the sins of their fathers (Zech. 1:4, etc.), they usually do, yet, as Ezekiel 18 indicates, not necessarily. On the other hand, if original sin is true, they have no choice and they are all without exception tarnished by Adam’s sin. But as we have seen, this is impossible. The imputation of sin to the innocent is regarded as evil throughout the Bible (1 K. 21; Prov. 17:15, etc.). By contrast, imitation is a pervasive Scriptural theme. (4* See my Imitation.) For all that, it is vital to be aware that Scripture constantly distinguishes between the sins of the fathers and of the children (e.g. Num. 26:11; 27:3). This suggests that what is known as generational benediction and malediction (cf. Ex. 20:5f.), though real enough, excludes the punishment (Dt. 24:16) as opposed to the suffering of the innocent (cf. Num. 14:33). Thus, in Psalm 106:6, ESV, we read: “Both we and our fathers have sinned; we have committed iniquity, we have done wickedness.” Numerous other references are to the same effect: Leviticus 26:39f.; 2 K. 17:41; Neh. 1:6; Isa. 65:7; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezekiel 18; 20:18,21,24,27-30; Daniel 9:8,11,16, and so forth. While Jeremiah 32:18 might suggest indiscriminate solidarity, this illusion is quickly dispelled by the very next verse where individual accountability is affirmed (cf. Jer. 31:29f.). (David explicitly separates himself from his people in 2 Sam. 24:17, cf. Num. 16:22.)

Conclusion

So I conclude that the Bible teaches solidarity in sin to the extent that all who attain to knowledge of (the) law fail to obey it and so pay the penalty (Rom. 5:12; 6:23). All come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and are the slaves of sin of their own volition (John 8:34) even if social and especially parental pressure is great. As those who are disobedient like Paul (Rom. 7:10) we are all by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:2f.). But we are not born so (cf. Rom. 7:9a), since at that time we have no knowledge of the law or of good and evil apart from which there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15, etc.). Native depravity is manifestly contrary to Scripture (5* Ps. 58:3, cf. 51:5, like Job 31:18, is clearly hyperbolic.) and rules out of court meritorious generational recompense for the innocent. Children are inevitably caught up in the circumstances of their parents whether for good or evil. However, as James 2:10 indicates, confirming the words of Jesus in John 8:34, only one sin is necessary to enslave us (cf. Adam) and hence to determine our nature as sinful from our youth (Gen. 8:21; Rom. 7:9f.). Unless we can keep the commandments to perfection, we all need a saviour, and the only Saviour is Jesus.

It must finally be added here that the nature of our salvation involves family solidarity since God is our Father (John 1:13) and Jesus our elder brother. Just as Jesus by his incarnation experienced solidarity with us in flesh (Heb. 2:14a), so we by faith enjoy solidarity with him in spirit (Heb. 2:10-13, cf. John 3:3-8), for he is the firstborn among many brothers (Rom. 8:29). By contrast, deliberate separation from Christ means family solidarity with the devil who is the father of sin and death (John 8:44; Heb. 2:14b).

Collateral Considerations

Once we recognize that solidarity does not necessarily nullify separation but that both can be true, other matters become clear. There is a troublesome tendency in traditional theology to universalize or generalize the particular and to stress solidarity to the detriment of separation. Just as Adam’s particular sin is accredited and extended to all his offspring despite the obvious innocence of Jesus who like the rest of us as a baby knew neither the law not good and evil (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.), so is his curse. However, the Bible tells us that all particular (separate) sins result in punishment or curse (Heb. 2:2) unless they are forgiven (e.g. Eph. 1:7, etc.). But if babies have not sinned, though they may suffer to some extent the consequences of and inherit the conditions engineered by their sinful parents, as already indicated they cannot be punished for them. If this is not the case, then no one would have reached the Promised Land since all would have been sinners subject to death (cf. Dt. 1:31; Num. 14:31). In light of this alone we are forced to call in question other aspects of traditional theology and cast doubt on the so-called cosmic curse resulting from Adam’s “Fall”. (Genesis 3:17-19 reflects the difference between the garden of Eden, the womb of the race, and the harsh world outside where man as he develops is called to exercise his dominion. As a sinner this proves as impossible for Adam to do successfully as it did for Cain and those who followed him. The problem is in man not the land which is naturally recalcitrant and subject to corruption, cf. Hag. 1:6; Mic. 6:12ff.; 7:13. When it is properly worked it yields its increase, Lev. 26:3-13; Dt. 28: 1-14; when it is not, it is cursed, Lev. 26:14-43 and Dt. 28:15-68 passim.)  At this point we do well to remind ourselves not only that both peoples and individuals differ (cf. Gen. 18:25) but so do lands. If Adam’s sin led to a universal curse of corruption, how did it come about that Lot “saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar” (Gen. 13:10, cf. Jud. 18:7,9f.)? How could there ever have been a promised land which was exceedingly good despite its defilement by the Canaanites (Num. 13:27; 14:7; Dt. 1:25)? Again, how could Paul claim that “everything created by God is good” (1 Tim. 4:4)? If traditional Augustinian thinking is true, ought he not to have said that everything is cursed? (Cf. Heb. 1:10-12 and see further my Romans 8:18-25).

We are remiss as readers of Genesis 19 if we do not to realize that the particular curse on Sodom and Gomorrah which is used symbolically throughout Scripture is not generalized or universalized till the end of the world (Luke 17:28f.). In other words, the idea that creation was initially perfect but was subjected to a universal curse of corruption (solidarity) because our first parents sinned (particularity) is nonsense and involves a gross misreading of the Bible’s teaching. As “made by hand” creation including man (Isa. 45:11f.) was divinely subjected to corruption (decay). Even the sinless Jesus himself was susceptible to it and, in contrast with his Father (Ps. 102:27), he noticeably aged (John 8:57). From the start he intended returning to the glory he had left with his people in train (cf. John 17:5,24). In other words, like Paul he was plainly conscious of the “invisible hope” (Rom. 8:24f.) involved in creation’s subjection to corruption which lay ahead of him (Heb. 12:2).

In Deuteronomy 29 we are given an explicit illustration of the particular (separation) distinguished from the general (solidarity). First, the individual is differentiated from the community and threatened with curse (29:20, cf. Num. 16:22). Second, the land itself is threatened with a repetition or re-enactment of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah (29:23) if the community imitates, tolerates or concurs with the idolatry of the individual. In this case, both moist and dry will be swept away (29:19), for the sun shines and the rain falls on good and evil alike (Mt. 5:45). Perhaps even more to the point, the other nations which are obviously not affected will ask why the land has been devastated (29:24). The answer is not that the people are being punished for the sin of Adam but for their own wilful abandonment of the covenant of the Lord. All this underscores repetition and imitation which is nullified by indiscriminate appeal to solidarity (pace Art. 9 of the C of E). Traditional Augustinian theology frequently generalizes when it should particularize.

At the end of the day the traditional creation-fall-restoration schema beloved of Reformed theology is false. Creation was never perfect, the ‘fall’ was personal though apart from Jesus universally repeated Rom. 3:23; 5:12), and restoration under the new covenant is spiritual not physical (John 3:1-8; 1 Cor. 15:50). Tradition fails to distinguish between the general and the particular. While Adam’s impact may have been universal (Rom. 5:12-21) it did not negate personal accountability. Hence Adam died for his own sin, and we die for our own (Ex. 32:33; Dt. 29:18-20; Ezek. 18:4,20). Having said this we must be ready to acknowledge (pace Pelagius) that our sin like Adam’s has a deleterious effect on others and the environment if it is repeated. Where it is not, as in Jesus’ case, the world, the flesh and the devil are overcome (Heb. 2:9, etc.). But while death is conquered, corruption (decay) is not so. Even Jesus could not prevent black hair turning white (Mt. 5:36, cf. John 8:57). Since the latter is by divine decree (Rom. 8:20), Jesus had to escape to glory by transformation at his ascension (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). Whether dead or alive we do the same (1 Cor. 15:50-53).

Note

See further my articles on original sin and especially my  Are We Sinners by Birth?,  Death and Corruption.

Note 1 Chron. 21:17 and 2 Tim. 2:20f. re separation.

______________________________________________________________________

References

L.Berkhof, Systematic Theology, repr. London, 1959.

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

_____________________

The apostle Paul tells us in Romans 4:15 that where there is no law there is no sin (cf. Rom. 5:13; 7:1-13; 1 Cor. 15:56, cf. Gal. 5:23). In saying this he clearly assumes that we sin only when we break the law (1 Sam. 15:24; James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17). The question is: Does this conform with normal Scripture usage? It is worth examining the issue, not least because tradition would have us believe that we are born sinners and so must have sinned in some sense before we were born.

Animals

First, there is no suggestion in the Bible that animals sin. The reason must be of course that since unlike man they are not made in the image of God, they do not know the law, and without law there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15). Admittedly they can be held accountable in the sense that stock are subject to destruction, but the reason for this is that they are dangerous, not sinful (Ex. 21:28). It is noticeable that when they are not properly restrained their owner who does know the law is responsible (21:29). In Hebrews 12:20 the point is made that even an animal that touches Mount Sinai is to be stoned to death. Why? The reason is apparently that flesh as such apart from sin cannot live with the holiness of God who is a consuming fire. This would seem to support the notion that all created (material) things give way before the presence of God (Rev. 20:11, cf. Gen. 16:13; 32:30; Isa. 33:14; 1 Cor. 3:12-15; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Heb. 12:27; James 5:3; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12, etc.).

Adam and the One Commandment

In contrast with the animals mankind (Adam) is created in the potential (since it has to be acquired, Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18) but not the actual image of God (Gen. 1:26-28). In other words, he is subject to development and signs of the image of God are not evident at the start. As a race man is epitomized by Adam, the individual. The line between Adam as mankind and Adam as individual is somewhat difficult to draw since mutatis mutandis, or making the necessary adjustments, what is true of the one is true of the other. In accordance with divine intention, he develops and transcends his merely animal nature (flesh) when he achieves rationality and becomes capable like a child of receiving and understanding the commandment. Prior to this time he does not know the law on which moral standing is based and so is innocent, that is, neither righteous not sinful, neither good nor evil as the following references indicate (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22; Dt. 1:39; Rom. 7:1,7-11; Heb. 5:12-14, etc.). Though physically adult he lives morally innocent (1* The traditional notion of original righteousness is an absurdity. How could Adam be righteous if he did not know the law on the basis of which he could become either good or evil?) in the Garden of Eden which by parity of reasoning is the womb of mankind. When the commandment eventually makes its impact on his mind, he breaks it and forfeits the (eternal) life it promises. Thus he is cast out of the Garden as a baby is expelled from the womb to fend for himself in a new and harsh environment. Inevitably, after procreating offspring he finally dies having earned his wages in death (Gen. 5:1-5).  (2* Procreation and death are both ‘the way of all the earth’, Gen. 19:31; 1 Kings 2:2. The former counteracts the latter, Luke 20:34-36.) Thus it is that in a temporal creation all the descendants of Adam, though born potentially capable of gaining the likeness of God (2 Cor. 3:18), begin as flesh and, like the rest of the animal creation, are subject to natural death apart from sin. However, as they develop and become capable of receiving the commandment they are promised (eternal) life on the condition that they keep it. In the event, all fail and so earn death as wages (Gen. 3:22-24; Rom. 5:12; 6:23). Otherwise expressed, all as one come short of the glory of God (cf. Rom. 3:23) promised to all who exercise dominion and keep the law (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Dt. 30:15-20; 32:47, etc.). It is therefore left to the second Adam alone to prove successful.

Children

Once Adam, the first man according to the flesh, has established the pattern, all his descendants who are made in his image (Gen. 5:1-5) copy it and follow in his steps. Not unnaturally they react to the world as he did and under his influence (Rom 5:12). Though born ignorant as Adam himself was and therefore innocent (Dt. 1:39, cf. Rom. 9:11), they all die as a result of their own transgression (Gen. 5, cf. Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 6:23). Despite parental prohibition, usually in the form of a simple negative (Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20), all children imitate or rather repeat their first parent’s sin and pay the penalty (pace Art. 9 of the C of E). As James says, it is necessary to break only one commandment to acquire a sinful nature (2:10, cf. John 8:34). A good example of this pattern of conduct is Paul, no less. He claims that he was (like an animal) born biologically ‘alive’ but that when the commandment eventually dawned on his consciousness, he broke it and so (eventually) died (Rom. 7:9f.). For him as for the rest of us his body of flesh was a body of death (Rom. 7:24).

Abimelech

The rest of the Bible rings the changes on this basic pattern established by Adam. Initial ignorance is followed by rational consciousness, knowledge (law), sin, loss of innocence and death (cf. Genesis 5). In Genesis 20 Abimelech provides an example of someone later in life illustrating this same pattern. In ignorance he takes Sarah, Abraham’s wife, into his harem. But when God warns him in a dream that he is infringing (the) law, Abimelech protests his innocence. God acknowledges his basic integrity but nonetheless warns him that death is sure to follow if he does not return Sarah to her husband.

Jonathan

Later in the OT, the pattern of sin and death is reinforced and still holds good. In 1 Samuel 14:24-46 we read of Saul issuing a foolish order to his men not to eat while they are on campaign. Jonathan, however, is blissfully ignorant of his father’s instruction and takes the opportunity to eat with beneficial effect. However, he is soon made aware that he has unwittingly transgressed his father’s command and become subject to the curse on any man who eats food that day. Like Abimelech before him, however, he has committed a ‘sin of ignorance’ and so is upheld by the rest of the Israelite army.

Ahimelech

In 1 Samuel 22 in another incident when death is threatened, Ahimelech one of the priests of Nob asks Saul not to impute sin to him since he was unaware of any infringement of Saul’s commands (22:15). On this occasion, though Saul’s servants refuse to carry out his illegitimate execution order, Doeg the Edomite does it for them. However, the reader is left in no doubt of the innocence of the people of Nob who are culpably slaughtered. The true culprit is Saul himself who has knowingly transgressed the sixth commandment.

Abigail

In 1 Samuel 25:25 Abigail, the wife of Nabal whose name apparently means ‘Fool’, claims that she was not aware of the request made by the young men sent by David. Clearly she herself is innocent of failure to provide hospitality and in the event prevents David himself from taking the law into his own hands and exacting vengeance (1 Sam. 25:26-35). Thus it is God himself who takes Nabal’s life and David is left conscience free, not having shed blood without adequate cause.

David

David of course is well known for his restraint regarding Saul who persecuted him unmercifully. He takes the view that the God who has promised him the kingdom will give it to him when the time is ripe and even when he has the opportunity to dispatch Saul he refrains from doing so. In 2 Samuel 3, however, we learn that Joab and Abishai have no such inhibitions and unbeknown to David (vv.26,28) they kill Abner because he had earlier killed their brother Asahel in the battle at Gibeon. Emphasis is placed on David’s ignorance of the dastardly deed (2:5) in 3:28 and 37 (cf. 39) and yet again in 1 Kings 2:32.

The Old Testament In General

Throughout the OT it is made clear that sin relates to law and constitutes its infraction (Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18). If the law is not transgressed, there is innocence. (This is not to deny of course that supporting, participating, encouraging and delighting in sin perpetrated by others is deemed to be sinful.) But precisely because man, even the heathen (e.g. Amos 1:3-2:3), knows the law in some sense, his failure to obey that law means he becomes a sinner. Confirmation of this is found in references like 1 Kings 8:46, Psalms 130:3 and 143:2. On the other hand, if he does not break the law, sin cannot legitimately be imputed to him. Thus the false charge laid against Naboth in 1 Kings 21 (cf. Luke 23) is regarded with abhorrence: it is a clear breach of the law laid down by Moses in Exodus 23:7. The view of good and evil first manifested in Genesis is supported by Proverbs 17:15 (cf. 1 K. 8:32, etc.) where we read that the justification of the wicked and the condemnation of the righteous are alike an abomination to the Lord. If this is so, two things become immediately clear: first, since Adam like a baby did not initially know the law, he could not possibly have been created righteous, and, second, since all his descendants follow in his steps and begin at the beginning in ignorance of the law and of good and evil, they cannot be sinners at birth. So, if we accept the authority of the OT we are forced to query the traditional “Christian” idea that we are born sinners. These inferences, needless to say, are supported by verses such as Exodus 32:33, which tell us that it is only the soul that (actually) sins dies, and Deuteronomy 1:39 which informs us unmistakably that babies that do not know the difference between good and evil are implicitly innocent (cf. 1 K. 3:7,9; Isa. 7:15f.).

The New Testament

It now behoves us to ask if the inferences just drawn hold in the NT. Bearing in mind that the Jews and even the Orthodox have always rejected the “Christian” idea of original sin that teaches us that we are guilty ‘in Adam’ (cf. Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22. Bengel gave this idea classical expression when he taught that all sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam, omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante.) it is important to note that the NT itself lays heavy stress on the need for knowledge as the basis for guilt. To suggest what is known as the imputation of Adam’s sin would appear to be a false inference from Romans 5:12 where the crucial words ‘in Adam’ are conspicuously absent. And if it is argued that they do appear in 1 Corinthians 15:22 where Paul’s subject is the flesh and the body to come, it must be countered that their transference to Romans 5 is illegitimate and inevitably leads to a contradiction within the Bible itself. This can be demonstrated by reference to other teaching.

Jesus

First, Jesus himself implies that where there is no knowledge or law, there can be no guilt. This cannot but imply that babies, like Adam and Eve at the beginning, are born innocent and potentially blessed (Mark 10:14). In John 9:41 Jesus tells the Pharisees that if they were blind, they would not have any sin and adds that precisely because they claim to be able to see their sin remains (cf. 8:24). Again in John 15:22 he tells his listeners that if he had not come and spoken to them, they would not be regarded as sinful, but in the circumstances they have no excuse for their sin. Then in verse 24 he reminds them of the unique works he has performed among them. Since these testify to his origin from the Father their rejection of him involves their rejection of his Father too (cf. 5:36-47). He then concludes that their attitude fulfils the teaching of the law that they hated him without a cause.

Paul

Next, Paul, having taught that the heathen are without excuse since they deliberately suppress truth evident in creation (Rom. 1:18-20), ignore the voice of conscience (2:15) and the standards that they themselves apply to others, points out as Amos had done many years before (3:2) that the Jews were the beneficiaries of the law (Rom. 2:17-3:2, cf. 9:4f.) about which they boasted. The problem here was as the apostle points out that circumcision that signifies law is valuable only if it is obeyed (2:25). Otherwise expressed, the greater the light, the greater the responsibility, which is what Jesus himself had taught in somewhat different words elsewhere (Luke 12:48). So while the Jews had an undeniable advantage in one sense, they also had a greater responsibility than the heathen whom they despised. Of course, it was on account of their deliberately self-induced blindness that, as Jesus had warned, the Jews finally lost the kingdom (Mt. 21:43) entrusted to them by God when he chose them from among the nations (Dt. 7:6; 14:2) to be a light and a blessing to them (Isa. 42:6; 49:6; Acts 13:47). The fact that their house or temple was left to them desolate testifies to the judgement God heaped on his own people (Mt. 23:38) who had failed to live up to their privileges and responsibilities.

The importance of knowledge as the basis of sin is taught elsewhere. On the cross Jesus asks God to forgive those who do not know what they are doing. This draws attention to a neglected feature of biblical teaching, that is, diminished responsibility on which we have already touched in differentiating between the Jews and the heathen. Throughout Scripture ignorance is seen as a mitigating factor in the apportionment of blame, and where ignorance is total, so is mitigation. This had been made plain by Moses in Deuteronomy 1:39 (cf. Num. 14:3,29-33) as we have already seen. Babies who like Adam and Eve at the beginning do not know the law are innocent, neither righteous nor evil. Recognition of this immediately calls in question traditional Augustinian teaching that we sin ‘in Adam’, and the idea that Adam’s sin is imputed to us apart from faith is clearly false. If not, then such imputation would as Paul himself indicates be non-meritorious (Rom. 4:1-8). If death is the wages of sin, death must be earned, not imputed. The same is true of life. If it is wages, the law must be kept. (Only Jesus proved capable of keeping the law so as to gain life, Lev. 18:5. According to Scripture even he did not, strictly speaking, earn it. God is indebted to no one, Rom. 11:35, cf. Luke 17:7-10. What Jesus as man did do was meet his Father’s gracious condition of life. With him his Father was well pleased, Mt. 3:17, etc.)

The need for knowledge to establish sin is underscored by 2 Peter 2:20-22 where we are told that if having escaped temporarily from the defilements of the world, we are again entangled in them, our last state is worse than the first. We are reduced to the level of animals from which we originally emerged. In this event, the apostle goes on to indicate that it would have been better that we had never known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment. Clearly knowledge of the commandment enhanced responsibility. It had done so in the case of Adam in contrast with Eve; it did so in the case of the Jews in contrast with the heathen (Amos 3:2). At this point we need to note that knowledge and commandment are virtually equated and that turning back involves rejection of the commandment. In other contexts this is like sinning against the light, and the author of Hebrews especially has strong words to say when this occurs (see Heb. 6:4-6 and 10:26-31). It might usefully be added that turning back is repeatedly condemned in Scripture for it almost always involves turning back from greater knowledge to lesser, from even minimal human light to animal darkness (2 Pet. 2:22, cf. Jude and note 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5, etc.). Thus the desire of the Israelites to go back to Egypt was strongly condemned. And when the Jews who had the law wanted to follow the nations later in their history, their reprehensibility was asserted in no uncertain terms (e.g. Ezek. 20:18- 39, cf. Lev. 18:1-5). Going back to Egypt was not just a question of returning to leeks and garlic (Num. 11:4f.) but to idolatry (Jos. 24; Ezek. 20,23, etc.). Not surprisingly idolatry was regarded as the worst of sins, sin against the light (cf. Ps. 106:20; 115; Jer. 2:11, etc.) and bound to provoke God’s jealousy since in his love and mercy his purpose was to save them.

Conclusion

In view of the evidence briefly alluded to above, I conclude that far from being born sinners we are born in total ignorance, knowing nothing. At this stage as flesh we are at one with the animals (cf. Gen. 6:17) which lack the image of God and by nature remain perpetually ignorant of (the) law which promises life. If this is the case, plain logic ought to tell us that mere (animal) flesh is at best only preserved by a general temporary covenant which it does not understand (Gen. 8:22). However, for children who survive like Noah and the heathen there is a limited degree of understanding on the basis of which faith in God and the stability of his creation can be exercised. It cannot go without notice that initially faith begins by recognition that God exists (Heb. 11:6) and from that point it matures as revelation increases till maturity is reached by faith in Christ. In other words, a proper appreciation of biblical covenant theology enables us to see that the progress of the race is reflected or encapsulated in the maturation of the individual. Expressed more succinctly, progressive revelation is matched by progressive maturation. As individuals we progress from animal, to heathen (Noah), to law (Moses) to grace (Christ, cf. Gal. 4:1-7). It is here of course that certain things are made clear that have traditionally been hidden. If we postulate as Augustine did original perfection, fall, curse and ultimate restoration on the basis of arbitrary election, we are blinded to biblical realities and our understanding of the big picture is distorted. On the level of the individual birth or original sin traditionally takes precedence. This is followed by infant baptism which according to Rome automatically (ex opere operato) conveys regeneration. This immediately puts the church in the driving seat and the priest becomes all powerful as the indispensable mediator of eternal life. The reality is wholly otherwise. Just as Adam was ‘born’ innocent so are all his offspring (Dt. 1:39, etc.). Thus mutatis mutandis when a degree of development occurs and knowledge of good and evil or law is attained, faith, which is impossible for animals that do not know the law, becomes possible for all humans who begin to take on the image of God. This teaches us two things: first, this has always been God’s intention and, second, it epitomizes diminished responsibility. This is no where better illustrated than in Hebrews 11 where perfection is achieved only in verses 39 and 40. In other words, Irenaeus’ doctrine of recapitulation as opposed to Augustine’s original perfection, fall, curse and restoration is of the essence of the plan of salvation. Bluntly, uncritical commitment to tradition has nullified the word of God (Mark 7:13).

If this is the biblical picture it follows that Christian faith belongs to the spiritually mature not to infants. Jesus himself progressed from incarnation, through Egyptian heathenism (Mt. 2:15), Jewish law (Luke 2:40-52), (Christian) baptism (Mt. 3:13-17) to final ascension and return to heavenly glory. No wonder that they who through justification by faith have received the Spirit are regarded as more accountable than all others (Heb. 10:26-31). And if we have any queries regarding this, we have only to remember that Jesus as the second Adam recapitulated the experience of all his predecessors and then pioneered that of all who succeeded him, making him the Saviour of all. His atonement was both retrospective (Heb. 9:15) and prospective (Rom. 3:21-31; 1 John 2:2). And all who have faith are manifestly its beneficiaries. Christians have proved remarkably slow to appreciate the truth of John 3:16.

So, in sum, while it is true that where there is no law there is no transgression, it is also true that where there is law there is promise of life (Rom. 7:10; Gal. 3:12).* And since justification by faith precedes life in the order of salvation (Rom. 5:21), we can be sure that the plan of salvation will prove wonderfully successful (Heb. 11; Rev. 7:9). Jesus did not die in vain (Rom. 8:31-39).

* We do well to note that in the NT the all-important commandment is that we believe in Jesus (John 6:29; 1 John 3:23.)

.

As a Lincolnshire man born near Burgh le Marsh not far from Somersby, the birth place of Alfred Lord Tennyson, I am well aware that it was the latter who once said that nature was red in tooth and claw. It is.  We do indeed live in ‘a world of plunder and prey’. This is made especially plain nowadays even to city dwellers who watch the TV nature programs of Sir David Attenborough and others. As a Christian I am supposed to be perturbed at this and in urgent need of a theodicy, a way of justifying God as a good Creator. Perhaps as a countryman who has been used to animal death since childhood I may appear somewhat hard-hearted. At the age of three I was present and ritually bloodied when a hunted fox was driven to ground and shot in its den and, at about four still before WW2, I distinctly remember watching a pig being killed without the use of a humane killer or stun gun. Even then, I was not unduly upset by the loud squealing and the flood of blood. Perhaps over the years my sensibilities have been somewhat further coarsened but, though I am hotly opposed to the deliberate mistreatment of animals, I am not as inclined to anthropomorphism as many are today. (1* With a knee-jerk reaction the Australian government in 2011 put an immediate ban on the live animal trade with Indonesia because certain people were upset by the admittedly disturbing TV images of cattle being mishandled at slaughterhouses. By doing this the entire trade and millions of dollars of investment were jeopardized. In Britain, on the basis of popular sentiment, fox hunting had earlier suffered a less dramatic demise like bull fighting in Spain, I believe.) For all that, Tennyson’s graphic phraseology deserves a reasonable response. So here goes.

The Cruelty of the Creator

The all-important relevant question is: Is God cruel? Does God treat animals as wanton boys treat flies and kill them for their sport (King Lear)? Job, like the Psalmist (104:24,27f.; 145:13b-17), implies that he does not. He says in Job 39:13-18 that the ostrich leaves its eggs on the ground forgetting that they may get trampled. From this he concludes that the ostrich itself adopts a cruel attitude towards its young and treats them as if they were not its own. This superficially strange behaviour is put down to the fact that God has made it forget wisdom and given it no share in understanding.  The Psalmist agrees and says that the horse or mule is also without understanding (32:9) and has to be curbed with a bit and bridle (cf. James 3:3). And while Isaiah tells us that horses are flesh and not spirit (31:3), Elihu informs us in Job 35:11 that the beasts and birds are not as well taught and as wise as man is. Doubtless there are inferences to be drawn from these references and comments, as we shall see.

Animals Irrational

Elsewhere in Scripture animals are regarded as irrational creatures of instinct born to be caught and killed. Where they are not being prepared for the slaughterhouse and the butcher’s knife, they are perpetually involved in mutual predation. Observation underlines the truth of this. On the other hand, people who act like them can expect to be treated like them (2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10; Rev. 21:8, etc.). The fact that animal sacrifice was basic to the OT cultus, which was specifically ordained by God himself, would suggest that cruelty, and therefore sin, was not involved. Indeed, it is almost ironic to point out that the sacrifices were designed to atone for sin. However, if it is insisted that the slaughter of animals is sinful, then the rivers of blood spilt by sacrificing priests testify ominously against the goodness of our Creator God.

Jesus and Meat Eating

Though in mankind’s infancy meat was, not surprisingly, not on the menu (cf. Gen. 2:9; 3:6), it was so later (Gen. 9:3). Under the law of Moses the Israelites rejoiced in eating meat as God blessed them (Dt. 12:15, etc.), but there were definite restrictions on their diet (Dt. 14:1-21). Jesus, however, made all foods clean (Mark 7:19, cf. 1 Tim. 4:3f.) and was even personally accused of being a wine bibber and a glutton. After his resurrection he certainly ate fish (Luke 24:41-43). It would appear from this that if God is to be charged with evil for allowing animals to be slaughtered, so is Jesus. Clearly Christianity is no friend of strict vegetarianism. One is prompted to ask why.

Child Sacrifice

In contrast with Israel some of the heathen nations resorted to child sacrifice, something Abraham, who was prepared to sacrifice Isaac at God’s bidding, could hardly have been entirely unaware of. It was certainly taboo later in Israel’s history as is pointed out in Leviticus 18:21 and Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5 and 32:35. The reason for this is doubtless to be found in the teaching of Genesis 9:6 where human beings who are made in the image of God are regarded in a different light from mere animals. (2* We need to be careful here. It is evident from history, experience, observation and the teaching of Scripture that man is only potentially (made) in the image of God. It is not until rationality and moral consciousness dawn that man begins to show evidence of being different from other animals. Prior to that, he is ‘flesh’, 1 Cor. 15:46.  See further my Are Babies Saved?,  Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?) We might well ask why. (3* On this, see e.g. my The Plan of Salvation – in outline (1))

Circumcision

Then there is the question of circumcision on the eighth day. It may well be argued that this was the commandment of a cruel God who gratuitously caused pain (Gen. 17:12) to the innocent, to those who knew neither good nor evil (Dt. 1:39). But it is never so regarded. Why? After all, Genesis 34 and Joshua 5 make it evident that so far as adults are concerned it could be both painful and incapacitating. Why the apparent difference?

Man an Animal

While all this may be true, it hardly solves our problem. Another question may be posed. Since on the level of the flesh man is an animal (cf. Gen. 6:3,7,17), why should he not be susceptible to slaughter in the same way as an animal is? Why is cannibalism to be regarded as beyond the pale? Again, the answer doubtless has to do with man’s rationality rather than his physicality and his being made in the image of God. Let us take a closer look.

Death the Wages of Sin

Because of our Augustinian tradition, evangelicals, especially fundamentalists, tend to think that all death is the result of sin and rush to prove it by appeal to Romans 6:23. However, this cannot be true for, first, life is promised to Adam, who in contrast with his Creator (Rom. 1:23) is naturally mortal, on the condition that he keeps the commandment (Gen. 2:17, cf. Lev. 18:5, etc.). Second, if death is solely the wages of sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23), wages which involve work can only be earned by breaking the law (Rom. 4:15). Animals, however, cannot break a law that they do not have and understand (Rom. 4:15), yet they all die. So, since their death cannot be wages, it must be the result of something else. What is that something else? The traditional answer has been the so-called Adamic curse which resulted in a “Fallen” creation, but this is prone to criticism on a number of fronts. (4* See my various articles on original sin, e.g., Does Romans Teach Original Sin?) Most obviously, it lacks adequate support and is contradicted by other evidence. (5* See, for example, my Cosmic Curse?) The truth is surely that in contrast with the immortal and incorruptible God (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16), death in a temporal creation which has both a beginning and an end is natural and corruption or aging is universal as Paul plainly indicates in Romans 8:18-25 (6* This is widely denied by both translators and commentators who are clearly conditioned by traditional Augustinianism. See further my Romans 8:18-25,  Augustine: Asset or Liability?.) and the author of Hebrews in 1:10-12. It is imperative to appreciate the fact that while Jesus only avoided death as wages by not sinning (1 Pet. 2:22, cf. Heb. 5:7-9), even he got older (Luke 3:23; John 8:57, etc.) and so would have died naturally (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 8:13b) in a creation which had been subjected to futility if he had not been transformed at his ascent into heaven. (7* On this, see, for example, my Death and Corruption,  Romans 8:18-25,   Two ‘Natural’ Necessities,  Are Believers Butterflies?)

Our First Parents

This, however, raises another point of profound significance. If we humans at our baby beginning as both race and individual are merely animal flesh (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46), we must resemble mutatis mutandis Adam and Eve when they were first created and knew neither the commandment (law) nor the good and evil which it determined and defined (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22, cf. Dt. 1:39, etc.). In light of the increase in Eve’s pain (Gen. 3:16) we are inexorably led to the conclusion that as babies we may feel pain but do not know it. We do not remember being born, for example, though a difficult birth involving forceps and the rest may well be extremely painful and in some cases even lead to death. Though our bodies may react to pain, we are totally unconscious of it. How many of us remember the bumps and bruises of our infancy? It is only as we become self-conscious and moral to some degree (that is, capable of understanding our parents’ negative commandment like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, cf. Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20) that conscious pain makes its impact on us.

(Note. The increase in Eve’s pain implies (a) that she was a corporate personality as well as an individual and, (b) that as the former she had had fleshly offspring before. However, it was only as she developed self-consciousness that she became aware of it. This confirms Paul’s view expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:46 that we are flesh before we are spirit. This is true of both the race and of the individual. See further my  Creation and / or Evolution.)

Animals

Now if this is true of babies, it must also be true of animals. Since the latter never develop moral awareness which implies self-consciousness, they never consciously experience pain. And their death simply plays a role in the ecology of which they are so obviously a part.  What is more, far from being the result of sin which, I stress again, implies a degree of moral awareness (8* It is absolutely vital to realize that sin, which depends on law and apart from law is non-existent, Rom. 3:20b; 4:15; 7:7f.; 1 John 3:4, etc., is by definition conscious no matter how minimally. Pace those who believe in original sin and baptize innocent and unself-conscious babies to remedy the situation. See further my various articles on original sin and baptism.), pain is the inevitable concomitant of self-consciousness. In other words, as the old adage has it: no brain, no pain. Put plainly, sin, which implies growing (self-) consciousness, does not cause pain as our Augustinian tradition would have it but is simply co-incidental or contemporaneous with it. We may demonstrate the connection as follows:

The Relationship Between Sin and Pain

(1) Where there is no law or knowledge, there is neither sin (Rom. 4:15; 7:7; John 9:41; 15:22,24) nor pain (cf. Job 3:20; 5:7; 7:1; 14:1; Jer. 20:18). Thus both Job and Jeremiah who suffered much despite their relative righteousness wished they had stayed in the womb which clearly symbolized the Garden of Eden recapitulated in miniature. (9* It might be usefully observed at this point that neither Adam, Gen. 3:22-24, nor Nicodemus, John 3:4, once they were outside could re-enter the womb. Even the second Adam had to find a different way to enter the true paradise his mother’s womb had merely typified, Luke 23:43! It is interesting to note that when Tennyson’s son was strangled by his cord at birth the poet wrote, “He was – not born … but he was released from the prison where he moved for nine months ….” See Tennyson, p.254, by Michael Thorn, London, 1992.)

(2) Where there is sin, there is both knowledge and pain. Alternatively expressed, knowledge or intelligent consciousness is common to both sin and pain. The one implies the other except in the case of Jesus who experienced pain but not sin because he kept the law he knew only too well.

Nature’s Apparent Cruelty

If this is true, then nature’s apparent cruelty is precisely that – apparent. So, to say that death and suffering in general entered the world through human sin reflects profound misunderstanding. If animal perceptions are purely sensory and do not involve intelligent consciousness, it should cause us no surprise to read how it is precisely God himself who of set purpose feeds the carnivorous lions (Ps. 104:21,27-29) and the rest of the animal creation (Job 38:39-41; 39:28-30; Mt. 6:26). At the end of the day all flesh, in contrast with God himself (Rom. 1:23), is grass (Isa. 40:6-8, cf. 1 Pet. 1:23-25), and, because it is corruptible and destructible on the one hand and lacks self-awareness on the other, it has no moral value (cf. Col. 2:22a). It has been subjected to futility as part of creation as a whole (Rom. 8:18-25). It will eventually disappear and be replaced without regret (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21:1-4).

All this ties in with other Scriptural teaching. We can hardly fail to notice that the flesh, though not evil as such as the Greeks imagined, is regarded pejoratively throughout the Bible (cf. Jer. 17:5, etc.).   For example, in John 6:63 and Romans 7:18 we are expressly told that it is unprofitable. Indeed, Paul goes so far as to say in Romans 8:6 (cf. v.13; Gal. 6:7f.) that to set the mind on the flesh in contrast with the spirit is death (cf. Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:7f.). Why? The answer is that the flesh is by nature non-rational, non-moral and hence ephemeral like the rest of the physical creation (cf. Rom. 8:10). No matter how much or how well we and other animals eat to nurture the flesh we nonetheless die. Jesus made this plain when he quoted Moses in Matthew 4:4 to the effect that man as one who is made in the image of God cannot live on bread alone. He harps on the same theme again in some detail in John 6:22-63.

The Atonement

Another point must be made. As a rational man Jesus knew that the laying down of his life for his friends would involve great suffering which was quite alien to the many amoral animals that were constantly and repeatedly sacrificed in the OT cultus (Heb. 10:11, etc.). In other words, in contrast with Levitical animal sacrifice, his sin-offering gained its significance from the fact that it was consciously, morally and intentionally offered at great personal cost (Heb. 10:12). Perhaps this is why suffering is so important to the Christian life which involves fleshly self-denial (Mark 8:34-37). Little wonder that Paul once wrote: “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his suffering by becoming like him in his death” (Phil. 3:10, NRSV).  The truth is that if salvation is to be achieved, the flesh along with earthly things in general (cf. Gal. 5:24; 6:14) must be put to death both metaphorically (Col. 3:1-5a; Phil. 3:19) and literally (1 Cor. 15:42-50; 2 Cor. 5:1). By contrast, the spirit must be nurtured (Gal. 5:16,18,22-24), for its destination is the heavenly city and its destiny corporeal glory (2 Cor. 5:1; Phil. 3:20f.) not obliteration (cf. Isa. 43:15-21; 65:17; 2 Pet. 3:13).

Conclusion

Far from providing a good excuse for postulating atheism and naturalistic evolution, I believe that the death and corruption which pervade the entire physical world (this present ‘evil’ age, cf. Rom. 7:24; 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:16; 1 Pet. 5:1) from which we must of necessity escape (1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Tim. 1:10) is the seed-bed of the gospel which points to the hope of salvation in Christ. (10* Dusty Adam, like the rest of his posterity including Paul, was clearly created mortal and corruptible but was promised (eternal) life if he kept the commandment, Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 7:9f.) In other words, far from being a blind watchmaker God has intentionally made creation futile because he has an invisible hope in mind (Rom. 8:20,24). We were never intended to live forever in corruptible flesh (cf. Gen. 6:3) on an intrinsically impermanent earth. (11* Pace again those who think in terms of a ‘Fall’ from original perfection and postulate an OT-style restoration! See further my essays on the redemption of creation.) What Sir David Attenborough and others are showing us in spectacular fashion in the twenty-first century is that as flesh we along with the entire (animal) creation are trapped in futility (Ps. 146:4; Rom. 8:20) and, apart from procreation which itself is temporary and ultimately futile, have no way of escape (Luke 21:35, cf. Ps. 31:3-5). (12* The idea that we survive in our offspring is in my view poor comfort and does little to offset the reality of final futility. See further my Death Before Genesis 3,  Escape.) But as creatures who are being fashioned in the image of God (2 Cor. 3:18), we have received a heavenly call (Heb. 3:1, cf. Phil 3:14) to eternal life and spiritual perfection (Heb. 6:1; Phil. 3:12f.) which we dare not neglect (Heb. 2:3) on pain of death, the second death (Rev. 2:11). This latter is a much more serious matter than mere physical death, as Jesus plainly implied (Mt. 10:28; John 11:25).

(The reader may find it helpful to read my  Creation and / or Evolution ,  I Believe in Recapitulation,  Correspondences, and various essays dealing with the putative redemption of creation)

Note: In his Evil and the God of Love (Fontana Library, 1968) John Hick initially expresses doubt about the consciousness of animals (p.346) but appears to conclude that they lack it (p.349). On page 350 he suggests that on the whole an animal is immune to distinctively human forms of suffering and concludes that the picture of animal life as a dark ocean of agonizing fear and pain is quite gratuitous.

I suggest then that the evidence alluded to above points not to a curse on the earth requiring eventual restoration but to a naturally obsolescent and hence corruptible creation which serves the purposes of God. (6* Note how the sinless Jesus gets older and is incarnate only for a little while, Heb. 2:7,9. As a product of creation through his mother he himself as flesh was obsolescent, Luke 3:23; John 8:57, but spiritually indestructible, Heb. 7:16.). In this scenario, God uses nature (Hab. 3:5-7) which was slated for destruction from the start (7* See my The Destruction of the Material Creation, The Transience of Creation.) to inflict punishment on those who rebel against him as he did at the time of the Exodus (7:19; 14:16,21; 15:4-10, cf. Ps. 77:16-20; 2 Sam. 22:8-20). There God did not muster an army as he was to do in Joshua’s (Jos. and David’s time (1 Sam. 13, etc.) to gain victory; rather he used plagues, signs and wonders that manifested his power over nature (cf. Jos. 6:20; 10:12-14). At the same time he made a distinction between the Egyptians and his people indicating that he can use nature to save as well as to destroy.

Church dogma would have us believe that creation is under a curse stemming from the sin of Adam. It is held that this is taught or implied by Genesis 3:17-19 in particular and underscored by Paul in Romans 8:18-25. (1* See e.g. Cranfield, p.413.) Thus the well-known schema promulgated by Reformed theology, for example, is that of creation, fall and restoration. (Even as I write in October 2011 I have a book under that title on my book shelves.)

I have sought to deal with the subject elsewhere (2* See my Cosmic Curse?,  Romans 8:18-25,  Another Shot at Romans 8:18-25,  Regarding the Restoration of Creation) though with what success in the eyes of others I have yet to learn since editors and publishers seem unwilling to grapple with the issue. However, in order to buttress the views I have already propounded I am adopting here an alternative approach.

First, the Bible begins with the beginning of creation. The mere fact that a beginning is mentioned suggests that creation is not eternal and that it will inevitably have an end. If this is deemed mere conjecture, it has to be recognized that it is supported by what is taught later about the nature of creation and its native corruption. For instance, Jesus himself refers to the fact that heaven and earth, that is, the material creation as a whole will in contrast with his own words pass away (Mt. 24:35). Categorical statements like this can readily be supplemented by a good deal of other material like Psalm 102:25-27, Isaiah 34:4; 51:6,8; 54:10, Zeph. 1:18; 3:8, Matthew 6:19f., Luke 12:33; 17:28-30, Hebrews 1:10-12; 12:27, 2 Peter 3:7,10-12, and so forth. Of course, as Motyer, for example, recognizes in comment on Isaiah 34:4, the universe is not eternal (p.270, cf. 406f.). But he goes on to say that human sin has infected it with built-in obsolescence and its span of life is only as long as the purpose planned for it. (3* Cf. Mounce who states that corruption (that is, decay) “is first of all an element of the natural world ever since the sin of Adam and Eve (Rom. 8:21)”, p.138). There is obvious confusion in statements like this. For, if the universe is not eternal by nature, reference to sin is irrelevant since creation is clearly temporal and obsolescent by design. Sin only makes a ‘bad’ situation worse (cf. 2 Cor. 4:17; Gal. 1:4). (4* It is surely wrong to say that the situation is ‘bad’. After all correct exegesis of Romans 8:18-25 makes it abundantly clear that natural corruption is all in the purpose of God who has always had something better than this world in mind for his adopted children. Our hope is an invisible hope and Christ is the hope of glory, Col. 1:27, cf. Rom. 5:2; 1 John 3:1f.)  Like the law and the old covenant which relates to it (Rom. 3:20; 7:1), this present world is naturally obsolescent as Paul implies in 2 Corinthians 3 and the author of Hebrews especially in 8:13 (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16-18) who also reminds us that we who are called are to receive the promised eternal inheritance (9:15).

Job and Habakkuk

For Job life was an enigma. While he did not regard himself as sinless, he nonetheless maintained his basic integrity which even God acknowledged (1:1,8). In light of the view that God always rewards the righteous and punishes the unrighteous held by some of his so-called comforters, he finds his suffering difficult to understand. Indeed, despite his eventual vindication, he never properly understands as Paul is to do at a much later date (cf. Rom. 8:18:25 and 2 Cor. 4:7-5:10 on which see my  The Correspondence Between Romans 8:12-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10). However, despite maintaining in his speech in chapter five that though the innocent prosper, Eliphaz provocatively comments that affliction and trouble come neither from the dust nor from the ground but that man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward (Job 5:6f.). The truth of man’s troubles receives support elsewhere (cf. e.g. 7:1; 14:1; Eccl. 2:23) and it should occasion no surprise that Job (ch.3), like Jeremiah (20:14-18), wishes that he had remained permanently in his mother’s womb. In this regard, a reading of the early chapters of Genesis helps to put things into better perspective. Once Adam and Eve are out of Eden, which, on the assumption of recapitulation, is the womb of the race, they run into difficulty even apart from sin. The dominion they are meant to exercise over a recalcitrant earth is hard work (cf. Gen. 3:17). And since having already sinned they are in fact sinful by nature (cf. John 8:34; Eph. 2:3), that work is more than they can bear (cf. Prov. 24:30-34). The same is true with regard to Cain (4:11f.) and later Lamech who apparently looks to Noah to relieve the situation in which he finds himself (5:29). Of course, as a man of faith Noah like Abraham at a later date proves his faith by his works and is rescued (finds redemption). (Regarding the great ages referred to in Genesis we must bear in mind again on the assumption of the truth of recapitulation that the antediluvians were like infants. On the one hand individuals in contrast with groups are barely distinguishable. Adam, for instance, is both individual and community, one and many. On the other hand children as individuals have little idea of age, time and even identity. It would appear that both Adam and Noah as individuals simply stood out from the rest of the members of their tribes by which they were identified and in which they were absorbed. Solidarity loomed large for the simple reason that babies through lack of personal development are largely lumped together even today. For all that, even early in the history of mankind there was an element of separation. Indeed, some scientists suggest that man as such was separated from other hominids, the Neanderthals, for example, and developed separately. I see no reason to dispute this on biblical grounds. After all, ‘flesh’ is often understood globally, e.g. Gen. 6:17.)

In Habakkuk 3:8 the prophet tells us that when God gains victory, his anger is not vented against the rivers and the sea but against his human enemies. In light of this it is hardly surprising to find the prophet portraying God’s fury in nature as also serving the salvation of his people (3:9-15). But there is something else that we must not miss. While the day of calamity comes on the enemies of God’s people, the prophet is himself apparently caught up in the maelstrom reminding us of Jesus’ comment that the sun shines and the rain falls on good and evil alike. But at the end of his book when even he is affected by nature which seems to have failed, Habakkuk expresses his faith in God in a marvellously moving passage of trust. As so many of the OT prophets stressed, it is God who is our hope, refuge and salvation (Ps. 18:2, etc.).

The above-mentioned passages of Scripture are not alone in expressing God’s use of nature to punish his enemies. Isaiah 64:1-4 is but a variation on a regular theme which makes the point even more poignantly in 66:15f. In the NT the punishment of God’s enemies is equally graphic in 2 Thessalonians 1:7f., for example, (cf. 2:8). In Luke 17:26-30 Jesus himself endorses the idea that God can employ nature to overwhelm sinful man. His references to Noah and to Sodom and Gomorrah would be even more familiar to his audience than they are to us today. But the point to note is that despite cataclysmic forces let loose on the earth, there is rescue or deliverance for those who put their trust in their Creator whose basic intention is to save (cf. 2 Pet. 3:9; Rom. 2:4; 1 John 3:3). Again if nature is God’s universal weapon of war as in 2 Peter 3 we might be prompted to ask, as Paul did about the law (Rom. 7:7), whether nature itself is evil (cf. Gal. 1:4) and not ‘good’ as it is portrayed to be in Genesis 1. 2 Peter 3:7, however, indicates that as in Habakkuk 3:8 there is no suggestion in the destruction of creation that God is punishing it as cursed and ‘fallen’ as traditional Augustinian theology holds! On the contrary, it is inanimate, but as it grows old naturally and suffers ultimate corruption, God uses it to judge and destroy godless human beings. This point is underscored in 2 Peter 3:9 and 11 where as in Luke 17:26-30 the stories of Noah and Lot serve as types of the end of the world. Then the godly are rescued from what is an inevitable calamity for the rest of society.

The word ‘inevitable’ needs elaboration, for two points are at issue. First, according to the NT there are two ‘natural’ necessities which contrary to tradition are totally unrelated to sin: human regeneration and transformation. (5* See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.) Why? Since heaven and earth are fundamentally different (cf. e.g. Mt. 5:34f.), we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven in our natural state. John 3:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:35-55, where sin is not mentioned, make it abundantly clear that we are the captives of a natural condition which without transformation cannot possibly bridge the gap between earth and heaven. But corresponding with these two necessities is, secondly, the necessity under which nature itself labours. This is brought out, for example, in Luke 21:9 and Romans 8:20. Thus in Luke 21:23 the Greek word ananke is used for ‘distress’. Basically it means ‘necessity’, something that must happen in the nature of things as Romans 8:20, usually translated ‘not willingly’ but pointing to divine necessity, implies. In verse 23 Jesus illustrates this by referring to pregnant women at the sack of Jerusalem (also a type of the end) who in the nature of the case must eventually give birth. We all, like them, are caught in a trap which since it is set will necessarily be sprung and bring destruction (vv.34-36, cf. Mt. 24:42-44; 1 Thes. 5:2f.; 2 Pet. 3:10). In John 16:20ff. Jesus uses pregnancy to describe his disciples’ experience in this world: it will be one of suffering but it will end in joy. In light of this, it is not at all surprising that Paul in Romans 8:22 uses the word ‘travail’ suggesting that creation is like a expectant woman about to give birth. Otherwise expressed, creation is the ‘womb’ of those who will eventually be the children of God (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46-49). Just as they are freed from their mother’s womb to live life in the present world, so they will be set free from their present bondage to decay (8:21,23) to an invisible (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18), that is, a spiritual hope where all the grief and tears of this material world will have passed away (Rev. 21:4). There they will attain to a paradise of which the first was only a type, as Revelation 22 indicates.

I suggest then that the evidence alluded to above points not to a curse on the earth requiring eventual restoration but to a naturally obsolescent and hence corruptible creation which serves the purposes of God. (6* Note how the sinless Jesus gets older and is incarnate only for a little while, Heb. 2:7,9. As a product of creation through his mother he himself as flesh was obsolescent, Luke 3:23; John 8:57, but spiritually indestructible, Heb. 7:16.). In this scenario, God uses nature (Hab. 3:5-7) which was slated for destruction from the start (7* See my The Destruction of the Material Creation,  The Transience of Creation.) to inflict punishment on those who rebel against him as he did at the time of the Exodus (7:19; 14:16,21; 15:4-10, cf. Ps. 77:16-20; 2 Sam. 22:8-20). There God did not muster an army as he was to do in Joshua’s (Jos. 8.) and David’s time (1 Sam. 13, etc.) to gain victory; rather he used plagues, signs and wonders that manifested his power over nature (cf. Jos. 6:20; 10:12-14). At the same time he made a distinction between the Egyptians and his people indicating that he can use nature to save as well as to destroy.

If it is true that at the end all shakable, that is, visible, impermanent things, are to be removed, only the invisible unshakable things will remain (Rom. 1:20; 2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 12:27). In light of this we cannot but conclude that Paul’s reference to the subjection of creation to futility has always been part and parcel of the purpose of God and has nothing to do with sin. While Greek thought presented material things as evil, biblical thought presents them as being simply transient. They are futile by nature; that is the way God made them. (8* See my Concerning Futility.) If the flesh which stemmed from creation was unprofitable (John 6:63, cf. Rom. 7:18), so is creation itself. It has no permanent purpose or raison d’etre and, once its harvest has been reaped, it will be destroyed.

While Jesus focuses effectively on the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, the NT like the OT (e.g. Jer. 50f.) also draws attention to Babylon in the book of Revelation. Babylon, like Egypt, doubtless symbolizes this world, not simply ungodly human beings but the world of creation itself. And it should be noted, as in Genesis 19 where both inhabitants and habitat alike are destroyed, that Babylon’s destruction represents that of the physical world which has no ultimate future (Rev. 18). This point is underscored in Revelation 20:11 and 21:1-4, for example, where we learn as elsewhere that the material creation itself will pass away.

So, I conclude that just as God can use heathen nations like Assyria as the rod of his anger (Isa. 10:5),  Nebuchadnezzar as his servant (Jer. 25:9; 27:6)  and Cyrus as his shepherd (Isa. 44:28; 45:1) to punish or even to save his own people, so he can use the natural forces of creation. (In view of the fact that early in their history God used Egypt to save the Israelites, Jeremiah’s apparent betrayal of his nation to Babylon ought not to come as a great surprise, Jer. 21:9; 27:5-11, etc. Truly does God work “all things according to the counsel of his will,” Eph. 1:11, ESV.) If the plagues of Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea make this point, so do Jonah, Paul in Acts 27 and Jesus when he calms the storm and walks on the water. As the Psalmist says, all things are his servants (Ps. 119:91) and so even creation obeys his commands (Jer. 33:25, etc.) for good and/or evil. On the one hand, all things work together for the good of those who love God (Rom. 8:28, cf. John 17:9-11,15; 2 Pet. 2:9a; Rev. 1:9; 3:10), on the other, despite superficial appearances (Rev. 11:10), they ultimately conspire to test and judge those who do evil (Ps. 37:20; 49:13f.; 73:27; 119:155, etc.). In the book of Revelation it is “those who dwell on the earth” who will finally be condemned (6:10; 8:13; 17:8, cf. 2 Pet. 2:9b). And when the material earth in which they invested so exclusively is destroyed, they lose everything (Ps. 49:16-19; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17; Rev. 18).

I finish this brief excursus on the day (5/10/11) when, according to the TV news, scientists using the latest equipment are saying that the expansion of the universe is accelerating ever more rapidly. In response, an Australian secular newspaper, “The Age”, after quoting Aldous Huxley’s claim that “the more we know (about science), the more fantastic the world becomes and the profounder the surrounding darkness”, somewhat oddly heads one of its editorials with the words “Hope at the end of the universe”. It reminds me of Revelation 20:11 where we are told that from the presence of the Lord of creation, creation itself will flee away, for he who can create can either save or destroy (2 Pet. 3:11*, cf. Mt. 10:28).  We are therefore well advised to sing the praises of him who rides in the ancient heavens to give power and strength to his people (Ps. 68:32-35, cf. Dt. 33:26f.; Ps. 18; Hab. 3).

* Michael Green comments relevantly on this verse (pp.152f.). Regrettably, taking his cue from Bauckham, he goes on quite inconsistently to talk of the fall and restoration (pp.154f.).

_________________________________________________________________________

References

Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude, rev. ed., Leicester, 1987.

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

W.D.Mounce, ed. Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, Grand Rapids, 2006.

Orthodox evangelicals claim to believe the Bible, but they also believe in original sin. In other words they accept the Augustinian idea that we inherit Adam’s sin. But does the Bible teach this? References like Jeremiah 31:29f. and Ezekiel 18, to go no further, cast doubt on this. Catholics stress ‘carnal concupiscence’ and the transmission of sin by birth. They contend that Jesus avoided inherited sin because Mary was a virgin and ‘lust’ was obviated. Protestants claim that Adam’s sin is imputed to all his offspring though just how is less than clear. Furthermore, they are not at all clear on how Jesus who was a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) avoided this imputation.

Protestants, who do not resort to the Virgin Birth as the means by which Jesus evaded original sin, sometimes imply that with Jesus God made a new beginning. This is impossible as reflection on Exodus 32 (cf. Num. 14:11-19; Dt. 9:26-28; 32:26f.) makes apparent. When testing his servant in the wilderness, God suggests to Moses that he (God) should make a new start with him (32:10). Moses immediately protests pointing out, first, the disastrous effect this will have on the Egyptians, and, secondly, the failure of God to keep the promise he made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (32:13). Needless to say, God “changed his mind” (32:14, NRSV). The lesson we learn here is that if the promise was to be kept, the Lord Jesus had to recapitulate the history of the race as the second Adam by going back to the very beginning (cf. Eph. 4:9f.). If he had not assumed what needed to be healed, as Gregory Nazianzen put it, he would have been a failure and sin would have defeated the plan of salvation outlined to Abraham. This, of course, is an intolerable view. The answer to problems relating to original sin lies elsewhere, as we shall see. God is the God of all who have faith (Heb. 11). (There is a sense in which God is our God from birth to death, arguably even before birth, Jer. 1:5; Gal. 1:15, but it is only from our conscious youth that we rely on him in faith, Ps. 22:9f.; 71:5-9,18).

The contention that we are all born sinners is widely if not universally held. But is it a reasonable proposition? Many arguments can be advanced against it as I have indicated in various articles on the subject (1* See for e.g. my Does Romans Teach Original Sin?,  Some Arguments Against Original Sin,  More Arguments on Original Sin,  An Exact Parallel? ,  J.I.Packer on Original Sin). Here I want to deal specifically with the idea that we are sinners by birth.

Sin and Law

First, it must be pointed out that sin is defined by and founded on law (Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 7:7f.), and since it involves active transgression of (the) law (1 Sam. 15:24; James 2:7-9; John 3:4; 5:17), it is a work that earns death as wages (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23). (2* See my Law and Sin) Second, the Bible teaches that keeping the law leads to and is the precondition of life (Lev. 18:5). If these two statements are both true, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that everyone that comes into this world is morally neutral or innocent and is hence in a position to become either a sinner or a saint. For example, while the apostle Paul claims in Romans 7:9 that he himself was born ‘alive’, he makes it crystal clear in 7:9f. that he failed to remain so. Indeed, in the latter part of chapter 7 he complains that despite his best intentions, he could not keep the law. The inference from what he has to say about himself is that he was not born a sinner but rather sinned of his own volition. What happened to him happens to us all just as it had happened to our first parents in the Garden of Eden. Born without knowledge of law and hence of good and evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:5,22; Dt. 1:39; 1 K. 3:7; Isa. 7:15f.; Heb. 5:12-14), we develop until we gradually gain rational consciousness. When this occurs we are enabled in contrast with mere animals to receive at least one parental commandment (cf. Prov. 1:8; 4:1ff.; 6:20-23), which is almost inevitably a negative one. (3* It is worthy of consideration that adults tend to say ‘no’ to a child as they do to a dog! Apparently tone of voice rather than understanding prompts a reaction in dogs.) At this point we proceed to break the commandment just as our parents all the way back to Adam did before us (cf. Ps. 106:6, etc.). And it is on account of this that, like Paul, we die. If this is the case, it is hardly surprising that Paul teaches in no uncertain terms that where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15, cf. 5:13; 7:1-13). But this had been implied long before by Moses who maintained that, like Adam and Eve before them, children who do not know the law, and therefore good and evil, are born innocent (Dt. 1:39, cf. Rom. 9:11). This view of the matter is supported by the fact that while sinful Israelite parents failed to gain entry into the Promised Land, their implicitly sinless children, despite suffering on account of their parents’ disobedience (cf. Ex. 20:5f.; 34:6f.; Rom. 5:12-21), succeeded in entering it (see Num. 14:3,29-35). No wonder Moses had said earlier that it was only the soul that sinned that would die (Ex. 32:33). (4* On Romans 5:12-21 see myThoughts on Romans 5:12-14)

Creeds and Confessions

Second,  traditional theology as portrayed in creeds and confessions like The Westminster Confession of Faith and the 39 Articles of the Church of England lead us to believe that we all died ‘in Adam’ and hotly deny that imitation is involved (see espec. Art. 9). (5* ‘Imitation’ is perhaps an unfortunate word used by Pelagius and dismissed by Augustine. ‘Repetition’ would perhaps have led to better understanding. See my Imitation.)  The problem here is that on the basis of a bad Latin translation, Augustine, who knew very little Greek, imported into Romans 5:12 this highly dubious notion which to this day is constantly palmed off on us by tradition. However, the question must be asked: Does it receive support elsewhere?  Some would argue that it does and refer to verses like Galatians 2:15 and Ephesians 2:3 where Paul, superficially at least, appears to come to their aid.

Galatians 2:15

In Galatians 2:15 the apostle talks of people like himself as being Jews ‘by nature’. (If the ‘by nature’ had been applied by Paul to the Gentile sinners to whom he refers, the argument would have been more difficult to refute.) But does this mean ‘by birth’ (e.g. NRSV, NIV)? The answer must be in the negative. The Bible itself makes it very clear that Jews as the children of Abraham were born uncircumcised (= without knowledge of law) human beings like all children and were hence, like Abraham before them, Gentiles before they were marked by circumcision and set apart as Jews. What is more, a boy did not become a son of the commandment until his bar mitzvah at age 13 (cf. Luke 2:41). Even the circumcised Jesus like his forebears had a heathen or Gentile experience in Egypt (Mt. 2:15). As Genesis 17 makes clear, boys were not circumcised until the eighth day and girls, who were often virtually classified with the heathen, not at all. An uncircumcised Jew is a contradiction in terms (Gen. 17). (On the difference between being a Roman citizen and a Jew by birth, see below.)

Ephesians 2:3

In the mind of most commentators, Ephesians 2:3, where Paul tells his readers that they are sinners ‘by nature’, supports the traditional dogma of original sin. But does it? The NIV translates ‘by nature’ correctly but implies that it means ‘by birth’ by referring to ‘the cravings of our sinful nature’, instead of our ‘flesh’, earlier in the verse. The problem is that the sins referred to in verses 1-3 (cf. v.5, cf. Col. 1:14; 2:13) seem to have been personally and accountably committed and are the reason why the Ephesians are by nature the children of wrath like the rest of mankind. (6* It is gratifying to see in the 2011 revision of the NIV, that ‘sinful nature’ has been replaced by ‘flesh’. However, an added note informs us that “the Greek word for flesh, sarx, refers to the sinful state of human beings.” In a sense it does, but the point Paul is making is missed, that is, that the flesh as such ‘lusts’ against the spirit and therefore needs to be controlled as it was by Jesus who alone succeeded in living a sinless life in the flesh, Rom. 8:3. In verse 5 the sins that lead to death are clearly personal works which are paid appropriate wages, Rom. 6:23. They are not the immediate result of Adam’s imputed sin.) In other words, will precedes and determines nature, hence the notion of the bondage of the will. (7* It is important to recognize here an important contrast: on the one hand the bondage of sin is the result of our free will which leads to death, on the other hand the bondage of decay is the result of the will of God which leads to an invisible hope of life and glory, Rom. 8:18-25, cf. 2 Cor. 5:5.) After all, both here and elsewhere Paul highlights personal sins inexcusably perpetrated (Rom. 1:18-3:20,25; 7:9f.; Eph. 2:1,5; 4:17-19; Col. 2:13, cf. 1 Pet. 2:24f.; 2 Pet. 1:9),  not the abstract idea of one inherited sin which if imputed (Rom. 4:1-8) could not without contradiction earn the wages of death (Rom. 6:23). This view of the matter is supported by Jesus who says in John 8:34 that those who sin become the slaves of sin. Otherwise expressed, a sinful nature is acquired by breaking the law (e.g. Paul, Rom. 7:9f., cf. 6:16; Gen. 3:6; Num. 15:39; Isa. 53:6; 56:11; 57:17; 58:3,13; 66:3) just as a righteous nature is acquired by keeping the law (e.g. Jesus, Rom. 2:13; 6:16; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:7, etc.). The point is that since we are flesh we find sinning all too easy (Rom. 7:14; Gal. 5:16f.,19-21) but doing what is right virtually impossible  without the aid of the Spirit (Job 4:17; 9:2; Rom. 2:13; Gal. 5:22-24). This is the essence of what Paul is saying in Romans 7 and 8.

Jeremiah 13:23

Long before Paul, Jeremiah had asked, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also can you do good who are accustomed to do evil” (13:23, ESV). At first blush this is a clear instance of nature being acquired by birth, but this inference is somewhat precipitate. What Jeremiah is saying is that what his compatriots have become accustomed to is sinning and as a consequence they have acquired a sinful nature. In other words, he is saying exactly what Jesus said in John 8:34, that is, that those who sin become enslaved by sin (cf. Rom. 6:16) and are no more capable of escaping from this bondage than the Ethiopian is of changing the colour of his skin or the leopard its spots. On reflection this again is the essence of Paul’s complaint in Romans 7. In the weakness of his flesh (7:14) he had been deceived (7:11, cf. Gen. 3:6) and sin had gained a stranglehold on him that he could not break. Try though he would to keep the commandments that he had been taught and had learned to love like the Psalmist before him (Psalm 119:24, etc.), he failed (Rom. 7:12,15,22f., etc.). (7* See my Interpreting Romans 7.) A weak law (cf. Heb. 7:18) hardly enabled him to overcome his weak flesh (Rom. 7:14)!

Matthew 7:16-20

Matthew 7:16-20 (cf. 1 Samuel 24:13; Jer. 31:29) is occasionally used in support of birth sin. Clearly, if we are born bad, we shall produce bad fruit by nature and can do no other. However, in Romans 1:26f. Paul argues that the Gentiles who are bearing bad fruit are doing so “contrary to nature” (Rom. 1:26, ESV) like thistles bearing figs. It is clear here that Paul expects the Gentiles to act according to their birth nature not contrary to it, and the mere fact that he highlights the penalty (wages) stemming from their aberrant behaviour (1:27) makes this incontrovertible. So when the conclusion is drawn that since we all sin, we must all have been born sinful, there is something wrong with the premises. The truth is that Jesus, like Paul, is not referring to babies who in the nature of the case have never sinned but to false prophets who have personally and wilfully committed sin and continue to do so (cf. Jer. 23; Ezek. 13). As Jeremiah, like Moses (Ex. 32:33), averred, they will die for their own sin (Jer. 31:30), not that of Adam though the latter’s impact on them is undeniable, pace Pelagius.

(The argument of homosexuals who claim they are born the way they are is in my view unassailable. However, their premise must be questioned and we must ask: Are they really born that way?)

So Paul argues that to act against our birth nature is sinful. If this is indeed the case, those who teach that our birth nature is sinful are compelled to conclude that when the Gentiles do by nature what the law requires (Rom. 2:14) they are acting sinfully. This is absurd. But it points up something else, that is, that the devotees of original or birth sin are false prophets. They are in the same league as the Pharisees (John 9:2,34).

Acts 22:28

In Acts 22:28 Paul claims he is a Roman citizen by birth unlike the tribune who had to purchase his citizenship with money. In view of this, it might well be argued that Jewishness was acquired by birth (cf. Gal. 2:15). It must be pointed out, however, that being a Jew by birth is different from being a Roman citizen by birth. In the Bible, Jewishness certainly depends on being set apart in the purpose of God (cf. Lev. 20:26) but this must also be ratified by human ceremony, namely circumcision which does not occur till the eighth day (Gen. 17). And as was pointed out above, it was not until adolescence that a circumcised boy became a son of the commandment and took responsibility for keeping the law himself. By contrast, Roman citizenship depended on a state law which operated literally from birth. It depended entirely on legal descent and could not be ignored as authorities like the tribune were only too aware (cf. Acts 16:37-39). So what needs to be considered here is the fact that it is impossible to be a sinner by birth. Why? Because at birth the law cannot be broken for the simple reason that there is no law (Rom. 4:15). A baby knows neither the law nor good and evil. Even Jesus as a true human being was at birth similarly ignorant (Isa. 7:15f.; Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11). He was neither righteous nor unrighteous but had to become the one or the other by reaction to the law as it dawned on his consciousness. If he was to be perfected, that is, achieve the perfection of his Father (Mt. 5:48)   (8* Perfection or maturation is fundamental to human development as the letter to the Hebrews in particular makes clear.), he was to be so first under (the) law, then under the leading of the Spirit after his baptism as the acknowledged Son of God (Mt. 3:13-17; 19:21; Heb. 2:10; 7:28). Alternatively expressed, while he was under the law he had to keep the commandments flawlessly in order to inherit life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5). Then once he had gained life, he had to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15), that is, keep the standards etched in the Sermon on the Mount under the direction of the Spirit. We who are accounted righteous through faith in Christ have also received the Spirit (Gal. 3:2) and are called on to do the same (Mt. 5:1f.).

Dt. 24:16

Deuteronomy 24:16 (cf. 2 K. 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4; Jer. 31:29f.; Ezek. 18:4,20, etc.), lays it down that the son shall not be punished for the sins of the father but will die for his own sins. The Augustinian dogma of original sin, however, flies in the face of this. It teaches that we all die (are punished with death!) for Adam’s sin. The death of babies is held to be proof positive of this and thus baptism is erroneously applied. The false assumption is that all death results from sin. It manifestly does not as Hebrews 1:10-12, not to mention Romans 8:18-25 where sin does not figure, shows. (9* See, e.g., my Death Before Genesis 3,  Romans 8:18-25,  Death and Corruption.) In light of the evidence we are forced to ask whether we should believe Scripture or tradition. The biblical answer is unequivocal, as Jesus himself made clear in Mark 7:8, cf. v.3). In John 9:41 and 15:22,24, Jesus establishes beyond equivocation personal responsibility.

Romans 5:12

Since it has had such a profound influence on Christian thinking, it is necessary to take a quick look at Romans 5:12. Augustine famously based his view on the idea that we all sinned ‘in Adam’ though this is not in the text. Nygren claimed that “Paul’s main idea is entirely clear and beyond doubt: it was through one man, Adam, that all men are sinners and are subject to death” (quoted by Morris, p.230 n.49). True, but Paul fails to be specific as to how and why. In fact, he cannot be saying more than that we all fail to overcome the effects of Adam’s evil influence (cf. Ex. 20:5f.). After all, if Adam sinned without parental conditioning, how much more are his descendants likely to sin given his. As David said in Psalm 51:5, we are all born ‘in iniquities’, or, in view of our solidarity with the race, with a sinful pedigree (cf. Mt. 1:1-5). We must also consider that since we are made in Adam’s image (Gen. 5:1-3), we all tend to ‘imitate’ our parents as Pelagius maintained (pace Art. 9 of the C of E), though not necessarily (cf. Ezek. 18). This is important since if Paul’s stance was ‘Augustinian’, then even Jesus was born sinful. (10* See further my Thoughts on Romans 5:12-14;  Does Romans Teach Original Sin?;  Imitation ,  Solidarity and Separation, etc.)

The plain fact is that if Scripture teaches original sin, then the Bible contradicts itself. Throughout Scripture babies are regarded as innocent since they do not know the law (Dt. 1:39; 1 K. 3:7,9; Isa. 7:15f.; 8:4; Heb. 5:12-14). And Paul maintains that he himself was ‘alive’ until he broke the law (Rom. 7:9f.).  

Psalm 51:5 and 58:3

These verses are well known and readily exploited by Christians to “prove” birth sin. In response I would point out, first, that it needs to be recognized that neither the Jews nor the Orthodox accept that they teach original sin as traditionally held by Christians in the West. Second, 51:5 is frequently mistranslated. For example, the NIV version reads: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” This is tendentious to say the least. Unless it is strictly accurate (which it certainly is not), it assumes what needs to be proved. By contrast, Green’s literal translation of the Hebrew reads: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (cf. ESV). Bagster’s literal translation of the LXX or Greek version reads, “For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me.” This puts a different complexion on the issue not least because it makes room for a different interpretation. After all, was not Jesus himself brought forth ‘in iniquities’ and was not his mother sinful like Rahab and Ruth before her (cf. Mt. 1:5)? Did he not come into a sinful world in which the impact of the sin of Adam and all his other progeny was all too evident and indeed provided the very reason for his coming?  In view of his own sin, presumably with Bathsheba, is there any wonder that a deeply contrite David expressed himself in such vivid, arguably hyperbolic, language? This is especially true of Psalm 58:3 which may be compared with Job 31:18. Judging by what he says elsewhere David was deeply impressed by the way he had been made (Ps. 139:14) even though he was dust (Ps. 103:14, cf. 139:16). And it is precisely this aspect of first Adamic man that Paul emphasizes in 1 Corinthians 15:47-49 rather than sin which he completely omits to mention.

2 Peter 2:12

The only place in Scripture known to me where death is directly related to birth is in 2 Peter 2:12 where we are explicitly informed that animals are born to be caught and killed (cf. Jude 10, Ps. 104:21). Whether they are eaten or not is beside the point: as flesh they are ultimately going nowhere. In 1 Corinthians 15:50 we are pointedly told that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven (cf. John 3:1-8). Why? Because as the product of a corruptible creation they are naturally corruptible (cf. Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12). All animal flesh is inescapably subject to decay but since man is made in the image of God he can hope for a heavenly body (2 Cor. 5:1) a body of glory (Phil. 3:21). It should be noted at this point that sin (except in men who conduct themselves like animals) is not on the horizon, not surprisingly since animal death was used by God for food (Ps. 104:21), to atone for old covenant sin and to herald the eventual sacrifice of Jesus’ flesh. All this points to the reality of creation’s natural corruption and destruction taught by Paul in Romans 8:18-25 (cf. 2 Cor. 4:7-5:10; Heb. 1:10-12). (11* See also my The Correspondence Between Romans 8:12-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10;  Romans 8:18-25).

Jesus

If all the offspring of Adam are born sinners, how did Jesus who also was a son of Adam (Luke 3:38) avoid being born likewise? As we have seen, at this point Catholics and some Protestants call in the Virgin Birth, but this has its own problems. If we believe in the imputation of Adam’s sin and Jesus was a genuine man (Heb. 2:17), it is difficult to find a reason for his sinlessness at birth. Denial of it seems to entail Docetism. On the other hand, if we accept the principle of native innocence (Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f.), his sinless life lived according to the dictates of the law becomes a reasonable, if a highly improbable, proposition (cf. Rom. 8:3). Though born innocent like Adam, nonetheless in contrast with Adam he simply did not sin (1 Pet. 2:22) but obeyed the law. Considering that everyone else like Adam broke the law in some way and proved incapable of doing otherwise (Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:19f.; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; 3:11), this was the miracle that Scripture portrays it as. As man Jesus was unique in that he alone proved capable of living a sinless life in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). To put the issue bluntly, all that is necessary to explain human sin (cf. Rom. 7:14) is the inability of all flesh to keep the law (Rom. 3:20; 7:14; Gal. 2:16 Gk, cf. 2 Pet. 2:19) as even Job appeared to recognize (9:2; 15:14). Furthermore, it is all that is necessary to explain the fact that under the old covenant regeneration was never anything more than a promise (Dt. 29:4; 30:6, etc.). For until someone kept the law, eternal life was a chimera (Lev. 18:5). If this is so, birth sin is redundant even allowing, contrary to Pelagius, for the impact of Adam’s and indeed all parents’ sin (cf. Num. 14:33; Rom. 5:12-21).

Conclusion

At the end of the day we are forced by the evidence to deny that we are born sinners. If we were, God himself as our Creator would be chargeable. Rather, like father like son, we are born as Adam was created without knowledge of law or of good and evil (Dt. 1:39, etc.). According to the Bible, not least Jesus himself, where there is no law there is no transgression. This being the case, babies, like animals, are innocent and, like Paul, only cease to be so when they break the commandment. In view of this it is scarcely surprising that the Bible tells us that we sin in our youth, not our infancy (Gen. 8:21, cf.  Jer. 3:24f.; 22:21; 32:30, etc.). Until we gain knowledge and hence accountability, we remain innocent flesh like the animals (cf. Gen. 6:17). Furthermore, babies die like them on account of the natural corruptibility of creation, irrespective of sin (Job 14:1f.; Ps. 49:12,20; Eccl. 3:18-20; Rom. 8:18-25; Heb. 1:10-12; James 1:10, etc.). (12* If Job and Jeremiah had thought they were sinners at conception and/or birth, I fancy they would have been less wishful of death in the womb, 3:11; 10:18; Jer. 20:14-18. After all, Augustine taught that all unbaptized babies went to hell!)

Assuming then that the findings of this brief study are valid, it is apparent, first, that original sin is alien to the Bible, and, second, that recapitulation is at the heart of the Christian faith. As (human) animals we all begin as unprofitable flesh (John 6:63; Rom. 7:18; 8:8).  But when, as those created in the potential image of God we develop and gain knowledge, even though we sin we can nonetheless please God by exercising faith (Heb. 11:6). If Jesus was the second or last Adam, this must be so, for he had to assume what he intended to heal. He had to re-cover to perfection the ground that Adam and all his offspring had covered so unsuccessfully under (the) law. And because he succeeded, he was able in his love and grace to lay down his life for his friends and so blaze a trail into heaven itself. In this way he fulfilled the promise to Adam and hence to mankind in general outlined in Genesis 1:26-28, 2:16f., Psalm 8:4-6 and Hebrews 2:8-13. Truly is our Creator God a God of grace and redemption in Christ. Soli Deo Gloria.

_________________________________________________________________________

Reference

L.L.Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, 1988.

Few passages in Scripture are more well-known yet more misunderstood than John 3:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:35-58 which deal respectively with spiritual regeneration and bodily transformation.

In the latter passage where Paul is trying to answer the questions he has himself posed regarding how the dead are raised and with what kind of body they come, he begins with well-known, easily understood illustrations intended to demonstrate that, despite being genetically identical, seeds, full-grown plants and bodies differ. He then adds that there are both earthly and heavenly bodies which also differ but possess their own unique kind of glory.

So, by establishing in verses 36-39 that seeds die and differ from the plants/bodies they produce and that there is variation among the different species, Paul is really stating what must have been obvious to his readers and he does not bother to illustrate his point. Had he been looking for an analogy, he might well have resorted to the truly marvellous metamorphosis of the butterfly, but he did not. In the course of my reading, however, I have come across writers who do use this analogy in ways that suggest that they do not fully appreciate what Scripture is teaching.

For example, in his book Classic Christianity (p.78) Bob George uses the butterfly to illustrate the new birth as follows:

“Being made into a new creation is like a caterpillar becoming a butterfly. Originally an earth-bound crawling creature, a caterpillar weaves a cocoon and is totally immersed in it. Then a marvelous process takes place, called a metamorphosis. Finally, a totally new creature – a butterfly – emerges. Once ground-bound, the butterfly can now soar above the earth. It can now view life from the sky downward.”

Unfortunately, what George has tried to do is use a physical analogy to illustrate a spiritual change, and it doesn’t work. The fact is that the butterfly is not “a totally new creature”. All that has happened to it is that it has undergone a physical change in form like a seed which becomes a plant or a body. If this is so, its illustrative and apologetic value for the Christian is very limited. As far as atheists are concerned, it comes well short of proving the existence of God and of undermining their belief in naturalistic evolution. Moreover, it must be added that one who experiences spiritual regeneration through faith in Christ remains physically the same like the butterfly. He will not be “a totally a new creature” in the biblical sense until he has died, decayed and undergone resurrection transformation.

This brings us to Michael Green who in his book You Must Be Joking uses the metamorphosis of the butterfly to illustrate the resurrection of Jesus and says that Jesus’ body emerged from the grave clothes as a butterfly emerges from its chrysalis (pp.121f.). Again, though the illustration is superficially apt, it is important to realize that what Green as a good Anglican is intent on proving is that Jesus underwent a bodily transformation at his resurrection. Apart from the fact that this has a very dubious foundation in Scripture, his use of the totally physical or natural metamorphosis of a butterfly undermines his argument that Jesus’ fleshly body had undergone the necessary change, in kind as opposed to form, to prepare it for heaven (1 Cor. 15:50-53). The point is this: Green is among the many who contend, quite contrary to the evidence in my view, that when Jesus emerged from the tomb he had been corporeally transformed even though Jesus himself explicitly maintained that he was still flesh (Luke 24:39). In fact, if he was still physical flesh like the butterfly, he could not have been changed in the way Green says he was. After all, apart from his visibility, audibility, tangibility and manifest lack of glory, he ate material food (Luke 24:41-43), and these were all signs that he had retained his first Adamic nature. While they proved his genuinely physical resurrection on the one hand, they indicated that he had not yet ascended on the other (John 20:17), and hence, according to Paul, had not yet undergone the universally necessary change for entry into heaven (1 Cor. 15:53). Bluntly, he had not yet undergone bodily glorification as he had when Paul ‘saw’ him on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:19; 1 Cor. 9:1).

It is here that there is serious misunderstanding. The reason is that it is assumed that resurrection involves not merely bodily but fleshly continuity. This is required by the so-called Fall from original perfection characteristic of Augustinian theology. But Paul implicitly denies this idea, first, by insisting that what is naturally perishable cannot inherit what is naturally imperishable and, second, that the temporal earthly body is intrinsically different, different in kind, that is, from the eternal heavenly body. The difference is basically that between dust and spirit (1 Cor. 15:42-49).

There is no denying that the metamorphosis of the butterfly is one of nature’s wonders, but from a Christian point of view it provides a flawed illustration of resurrection transformation. The problem is that if Jesus, though spiritually regenerate, was still flesh (Luke 24:39), he could not as such inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). Just as Jesus says we must, that is, by divine design (dei), be spiritually born again (John 3:7), so Paul says that we must (dei) all be corporeally changed (1 Cor. 15:53). If the necessity is universal and Jesus had not yet ascended (John 20:17), then his still fleshly body had not changed at all. It had simply been healed, restored and raised, scars and all. (1* See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities) The problem with the butterfly is that, despite its change in form, it is never more than an ordinary butterfly that undergoes its own unique process of development. It permanently remains, however, one of God’s natural creatures adapted and confined to this world. By contrast, at his ascension Jesus’ body of flesh was necessarily replaced by a body of glory and was different in kind (Phil. 3:21, cf. 1 Cor. 15:47-49). Looked at from a somewhat different angle, we might simply say that his incarnation was reversed (cf. John 3:13) and he regained the glory he had before the foundation of the earth (John 17:5).

The Resurrection of Jesus and of the Believer

At this point it is vital for us to distinguish between the resurrection of Jesus and that of the believer. It is often said that the former provides the model or paradigm of the latter’s, but both Peter (Acts 2:29-35) and Paul (Acts 13:36) make it indubitably clear that this is not the case. They differentiate definitively between Jesus who did not experience corruption (decay) and David who did. In other words, it is David who provides the model of the resurrection of the dead and decayed, and they constitute the majority of us. What is true is that the resurrection of Jesus is the ground of the believer’s resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20-23), but it provides neither its manner nor its model. For, how can a body that has undergone decay be restored and raised like that of Jesus? As Paul makes crystal clear, while resurrection transformation is common and necessary to both the dead and the living (1 Cor. 15:51-53), the gospels indicate that the resurrection of Jesus occurred separately from his transformation. It was a two-stage affair like the conversion regeneration of the disciples who were believers before the resurrection but were not born again till Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out (John 7:39). First, like Lazarus and others Jesus rose fully restored as he had predicted (John 2:19-21; 10:17f.) but since he had already gained life by keeping the law, unlike Lazarus he was never to die again when he rose (Rom. 6:9; Rev. 1:18). In fact, the only reason why he died at all was not to earn wages but in order to make voluntary atonement for his sheep (Acts 2:23f.). Looked at from this perspective we can say that in his unique case death and hence resurrection were aberrations or deviations from normality. Had he not freely died, he would never have experienced resurrection at all. This can only mean that resurrection (from the grave) was not essential to his incarnate life. By contrast, transformation, like regeneration, is a divine necessity. Both are ‘natural’ necessities to those who are naturally flesh. Thus, later, in order to inherit his eternal heavenly kingdom (cf. Luke 1:32f., etc.), Jesus necessarily had to ascend. And it was then that he was transformed. In this way he provided the paradigm of the ascension transformation of the saints at the end of history who do not die and so do not experience resurrection. If we argue against all the evidence noted above that Jesus was changed at his re-appearance from the grave, then we are forced to make two inferences: first, that his transformation dispensed with his physical resurrection and, second, that it rendered his ascension redundant and turned it into mere drama. (The idea held by many that he made sporadic appearances from heaven during the interlude between his resurrection and his ascension is surely contrary to the evidence.) This clearly undermines the gospel.

The Believer’s Transformation

The bodily transformation, like the spiritual regeneration, that the believer undergoes is much more radical than a butterfly metamorphosis; it involves a change in nature from flesh to spirit (1 Cor. 15:42-46), a change from a body of humiliation (cf. Phil. 2:7f.) to a body of glory (Phil. 3:21), in other words a change in kind not merely in form (1 Cor. 15:44). At this point the temple provides an appropriate analogy. In its natural state the “hand-made” temple (cheiropoietos, Mark 14:58) is subject to both decay and destruction and is replaced by one that is “not made by hand” (acheiropoietos. Cf. John 2:19f.; 1 Peter 2:4-8). Likewise the fleshly or natural body of the believer which is also “hand-made” (Job 10:8, etc.) and hence naturally mortal and corruptible is totally replaced by one that is “not made by hand” (2 Cor. 5:1). (2* See my Manufactured Or Not So.)

To pinpoint the issue at stake, while there is continuity of body, there is definite discontinuity of flesh. In the words of Dunn, whereas soma (body) can cross the boundary of the ages, sarx (flesh) belongs firmly to this present age (p.391). Looked at from a slightly different perspective, though the believer remains the same person, he becomes corporeally or somatically different in kind.  Paul puts the issue in a nutshell in 1 Corinthians 15:50 where he says that flesh and blood cannot (by nature) inherit the kingdom of God. And since the perishable (corruption, decay) cannot inherit the imperishable (incorruption), it must by divine necessity be changed. The plain fact is that the butterfly, despite its manifestly marvellous metamorphosis, is perishable through and through. In the final analysis, it is in principle nothing more than a perennially earthbound natural physical phenomenon.

The Butterfly Misleading

Used as an illustration of regeneration, of Jesus’ resurrection and of Christian transformation the butterfly is dangerously misleading and, in view of some of the false deductions made from 1 Corinthians 15 especially, better avoided. It can easily give the impression that we simply evolve by a naturalistic process till we arrive physically perfected in heaven. (3* See, for example, the highly compromising language of Stott in comment on Romans 8, p.240, and my John Stott on the Putative Resurrection Transformation of Jesus.) This is not what either Jesus or Paul is suggesting. Rather in the words of Gordon Fee in comment on the two parts of verse 50 we must say: “Together they declare most decisively that the body in its present physical expression cannot inherit the heavenly existence of vv.47-49” (p.798). This is surely Paul’s basic theme from verse 42 through to 54. The change is not natural (verses 36-38) but supernatural, not partial but total, not earthly but heavenly, not terrestrial but spiritual, not evolutionary but revolutionary, not superficial but radical. When we see this, we also see that butterflies are inherently incapable of providing an adequate analogy.

Peter

But Paul is not alone in his views. In 1:1:23, Peter says in very similar words regarding the new birth what Paul says in 15:42 regarding the resurrection. He states categorically that believers have been born again “not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God” (cf. 1 John 3:9). Bluntly, a perishable physical seed cannot produce an imperishable spiritual body fit for eternity. (4* John Stott’s contention in Understanding the Bible, p.134, that our resurrected bodies will be as different as the plant is from the seed out of which it grows falls well short of the mark.) The point is that unlike the natural metamorphosis of the butterfly the process of Christian transformation far from being merely natural is supernatural on both the spiritual and corporeal levels. Jesus plainly indicates in John 3:1-8 that while we remain physically the same when we are born again, we are changed spiritually. Again, John points out in 1:13 that we are born of different fathers. The seed of an ordinary or natural man decides our physical birth, but it is the ‘seed’ of our eternal God which determines our second or spiritual birth. According to Paul we even have different mothers: the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalems are categorically different (Gal. 4:25f.)! What is born of the flesh (nature) is flesh (natural), what is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:6, cf. 1 Cor. 15:48). Corruptible flesh dies either naturally as in animals and innocent babies or as a result of sin (Rom. 5:12). (5* It needs to be observed that even the incarnate Jesus would eventually have died if he had remained untransformed on the earth. After all, he visibly aged, John 8:57, and aging leads inevitably to death, 2 Cor. 4:16; Heb. 8:13.) So, if man is to survive death, he can only do so as spirit (Rom. 8:10). (6* 1 Pet. 3:18, cf. 4:1,6; Col. 1:22, would appear to prove conclusively that Jesus’ death was only physical. At his resurrection his spirit, which he had committed to the care of his Father, Luke 23:46, returned to his fleshly body like that of the daughter of Jairus, Luke 8:55). His ascension therefore must involve bodily transformation to enable his regenerate spirit to live forever clothed in a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44, cf. 2 Cor. 5:1-5) or a body of glory (Rom. 8:30; Phil. 3:21).  So again it must be stressed that while there is continuity of body, there is patent discontinuity of flesh. As merely earthly creatures, butterflies all die and undergo permanent decay.

Composition

All this is made even plainer by Paul’s insistence in 1 Corinthians 15:47-49 that the basic composition of the natural and the spiritual bodies is different. Dust is carefully and unmistakably differentiated from spirit. While the former is perishable since it stems from Adam (man) who was formed in the (temporal) ground, the latter is imperishable because it stems from the (eternal) heaven. As his children we are necessarily destined to share God’s generic nature (1 Pet. 4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4), and like Jesus we eventually receive a spiritual body of glory like his (Phil. 3:21, cf. John 17:5,24).

It is important to note that it is widely denied by those who are conditioned by the Augustinian worldview that the redeemed or restored body is composed of spirit. Thinking that creation was originally perfect but was marred by sin and is now “fallen”, they argue that the heavenly, still physical, restored body is not composed of but is now completely motivated by the spirit. This, however, was the intention even in this life on earth as Genesis 1:26-28 make clear, but the exercise of dominion proved a failure in all cases but that of Jesus.

The Body of Jesus

This raises the question of Jesus himself. When we consider that he successfully exercised dominion throughout his earthly life, just as we are compelled to ask if he underwent the new birth so we must ask if his body needed to be changed? In view of what he himself implies in John 20:17 and what Paul says especially in 1 Corinthians 15:50 and 53, it did. To deny this is to deny his incarnation and humiliation (Phil. 2:7). As with the new birth, change is divinely and universally decreed (note the dei in both John 3:7 and 1 Cor. 15:53). Jesus was anxious that his disciples should see his glory (John 17:24) which being invisible (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18) was obviously not seen on earth. So the widely held idea that he was changed at his resurrection despite his express assertion that he was still flesh (Luke 24:39) and hence incapable, according to Paul, of inheriting the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50), is obviously wrong. If change is universally necessary, on the assumption that he was genuinely incarnate, it was as necessary in Jesus’ case as in any other. (7* See further my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.)

Conclusion

To sum up, Jesus was no butterfly.* Just as he underwent transformation from spirit to flesh at his incarnation, so he underwent transformation from flesh to spirit at his ascension (John 3:13; 6:62f.; 17:5; Eph. 4:9f.). He did not take his flesh to heaven as even a careful reading of Acts 1:1-11 in light of 1 Corinthians 15 makes clear. The point being made by Luke is that he will return from heaven implicitly in the glory of God to rescue his own (John 14:3). That is our blessed hope (Tit. 2:13).

* Unlike Tithonus the lover of Aurora in classical mythology he was not changed into a grasshopper either. As Paul indicates in 2 Timothy 1:10, he brought both immortality and incorruption to light.

(See further my essays  Was Jesus Born Again?,  When Was Jesus Transformed?,  Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?,  Creation Corruptible By Nature ,  Death and Corruption,  Some Arguments Against Original Sin, etc.)

_______________________________________________________________________

References

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

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

Bob George, Classic Christianity, Oregon, 1989, Crowborough, UK, 1994.

M.Green, You Must Be Joking in omnibus edition, London, 1997.

J.R.W.Stott, BST Romans, Leicester, 1994.

J.R.W.Stott, Understanding The Bible, rev.ed., Homebush West, 1984.

Most churches practise infant baptism. Even when the ceremony is called ‘christening’ it is usually regarded as baptism, as when I was a baby. One of the arguments used in its favour is that if circumcision in the OT could occur on the eighth day, why not infant baptism in a more gracious covenant? This is to forget that infant boy circumcision, unlike that of Abraham, was initially a marker of nationality, of belonging, and what is sometimes known as a ‘naming ceremony’ among Christians is more akin to it. In Christendom or the ostensibly theocratic regime that operated in the Middle Ages, baptism also signified belonging. If lack of circumcision robbed a baby boy of national status in the OT, it was deemed to do the same in NT times. Nowadays, it is felt by some that just as circumcision indicated that a baby boy was a true Jew born of Jewish parents and hence legally in the covenant (see Genesis 17), so a naming ceremony held in a church is sufficient to indicate that the baby is in the care and nurture of the Christian church. However, my intention here is to demonstrate that baptism, truly and strictly interpreted, rules infants out of court.

The Baptism of Infants

First, the so-called baptism of infants lacks a biblical foundation; on the face of it, it is an ecclesiastical rite. On what grounds do I say this? Unless it is clearly perceived as belonging exclusively to the new covenant, as opposed to the old, baptism is simply not Christian. Of course, many would argue that we are all now living in new covenant times and therefore, since babies are included, they should be treated accordingly. But infant baptism fails to take into consideration the realities of human development, specifically portrayed in biblical as opposed to traditional covenant theology. (1* See my Covenant Theology,  Covenant Theology in Brief,  Covenant Continuity and Discontinuity.) The elementary point is that all human beings begin at the beginning. What do I mean? I mean that just as Adam was first created in the ground and Eve emanated from him, so now all human beings without exception are procreated and ‘born of woman’. If the earth is our original mother, then our present human mother symbolizes the earth (flesh). The truth of this was manifest at Jesus’ incarnation; he became flesh when he was born of Mary (Mt. 2; Luke 1,2; Gal. 4:4). The NT indicates his earthly nature, first, by suggesting that in effect through his mother he stemmed like Adam from the ground (Eph. 4:9), second, by drawing attention to his fleshly continuity with Adam whose son he was (Luke 3:38), and, third, by implying that as the second Adam he had to begin as dust like the first Adam (1 Cor. 15:47-49). Indeed, unless he had been capable of re-enacting to perfection the abortive ‘ascension’ (cf. Eph. 4:9f.) of the first Adam and all his successors, he could not have served as man’s Saviour. In other words, he had, first, to be a true human being; second, to assume what had to be healed (Heb. 2:14, cf. Gregory Nazianzen who claimed that what was not assumed was not healed), and, third, to fulfil the law that originally promised (eternal) life to man (Adam) (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5, cf. Rom. 7:10, etc.),

Life From Beginning to End

So as man Jesus, like all other men and women (Heb. 2), had to begin at the beginning and then progress through the various stages of life recapitulating the gestation (cf. the Garden of Eden), infancy, childhood, adolescence, adult manhood (cf. 1 Cor. 13:11; 14:20, etc.) common to man until he attained to its culmination in glory (John 17:5,24; Rom. 8:30). He had in other words to progress from ground to glory or from Eden to eternity. Why is it important to stress this? Because it inevitably means that Jesus could not be baptized until he had lived: first, a fleshly existence like that of the animals without understanding of good and evil (Isa. 7:15f., cf. Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11), second, a Gentile or heathen life like his forebear Abraham under Noah and thereby recapitulate the race’s heathen experience in Egypt (Mt. 2:15), third, as a servant under the law of Moses (Luke 2:40-52), and, finally, as a son, the Son, under the leading of the Spirit. All this is conveniently etched and summed up in Galatians 4:1-7. In plain terms, he had as a true son of Adam to live to perfection a fully human, or first Adamic, life in the flesh (cf. Rom. 8:3) until he finally ascended (re)transformed (i.e. back from incarnation to the glory he had before the foundation of the earth, John 17:5) into heaven (John 6:62, etc.) where he took his seat at his Father’s side (Heb. 1:3, etc.).

Perfection

To express the issue another way, since, far from being flatly and statically uniform, human life necessarily, that is, by divine decree, involves dynamic development or progress from immaturity at creation (procreation) to maturity or perfection, Jesus had to begin his incarnation from scratch, that is, as imperfect or immature. (The idea held by fundamentalists that Adam was created fully mature in one literal day must be dismissed as absurd. If it were true, Adam was not a man, least of all prototypical or representative man according to the flesh.) If he was the second Adam, he had to begin where the first Adam began. If his goal from the start was perfection (cf. Heb. 2:9f.; 5:9; 6:1; 7:11,28; 12:23; Phil. 3:12-14), the perfection of God himself (Lev. 11:44f.; 19:2; Mt. 5:48; 19:21), then the perfecting process was inherently necessary till its pinnacle was achieved in the Father’s presence (Heb. 1:3). Perfection involves a teleological or perfecting process (cf. Heb. 7:11,28; 12:1f.) which, like progressive revelation cannot be achieved in one fell swoop. There were no short cuts even for the Son of God himself. As a true human being, genuinely incarnate, he had to pass through the same stages of physical and spiritual growth and development as all other human beings (Luke 2:40-52; 1 Cor. 13:11; 14:20; Heb. 2:10; 5:9, cf. Gal. 4:1-7). Thus his life followed the pattern established by his forebears concisely expressed by Paul as born (or becoming) of woman and under the law (Gal. 4:4). But Paul goes on to add the profoundly significant words: “to redeem those who were under the law so that we might receive adoption as sons” (cf. Heb. 2:9-13).  In order to do this, it is obvious that until he had been circumcised like every other Jewish boy and been rigorously tested and approved under the law, he could not be baptized and confirmed as God’s Son. We may well ask, why?

The Meaning of Baptism

This question prompts us to delve into the meaning of baptism which is an exclusively new covenant rite. It is generally agreed that in contrast with circumcision, which signifies law (Rom. 2:25; Gal. 5:3), baptism is the sign of faith, repentance and regeneration. However, as John the Baptist recognized, since Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29, cf. Mt. 3:14), he did not need to repent. Consequently, his baptism indicated not only faith but primarily regeneration. Traditionally, Christians following Augustine have wrongly associated regeneration with (original) sin. In fact, in its pure form it has nothing to do with sin at all, as Jesus’ own case makes clear. Moreover, what he says in John 3:3-8, where he conspicuously fails to mention sin, underlines this view. The reason why, against the natural instinct of John the Baptist (Mt. 3:14), Jesus submitted himself for baptism was that he had successfully completed his test under the law (cf. Ex. 16:4; Dt. 8:2,16), met its requirements to the satisfaction of his Father and was granted eternal life in accordance with the promise first made to Adam (Gen. 2:17) and later extended to all his progeny (Lev. 18:5, etc.). Otherwise expressed, he was the first and only man in history to receive the promised Spirit and eternal life as the result of keeping the law.  To serve uniquely as Saviour he had to become spiritually alive himself (Isa. 45:22-25, cf. Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:10-13). As the hymn There is a green Hill has it, he had to open the hitherto closed door of heaven and let the rest of us in. Having confirmed his pedigree by his performance, he was baptized by God spiritually and invisibly and by man visibly, audibly and tangibly (Mt. 3:13-17, cf. 1 John 1:1-3). Thus set apart and consecrated (cf. John 1:32), he was confessed and acknowledged (Mark 1:9-11) as the one who belonged to God (cf. Rom. 8:9; 1 John 4:13), in fact as God’s own (regenerate) Son.  What he was by nature, he had proved by action: he had confirmed his ontology by his conduct. So it is that we who follow in his tread by faith and are accounted righteous in him also become by baptism the regenerate sons and daughters of God. For us, his Christian followers, the baptism of Jesus was and remains prototypical and paradigmatic. As God’s firstborn (Rom. 8:29), he was the foundation member (1 Cor. 3:11) of a large family (Heb. 2:10-13), and it was precisely he who as the firstborn was worshipped by angels on arrival in heaven (Heb. 1:6; John 17:5). What is more, since as risen from the dead he was also the first fruits of those who have died (cf. Col. 1:18), he underwrote the resurrection of those who belong to him (1 Cor. 15:20-23; John 6:35-40; 11:25f.; 12:26; 14:3; 17:24).

Church Practice

Of course, the churches in general recognize that baptism signifies regeneration, or birth from above, and eternal life. Without it we cannot finally be saved as passages like John 3:1-8 plainly indicate.  Not unnaturally, however, when our spiritual forebears read such verses, they assumed that the only way they could ensure their children’s salvation was to baptize them. And since original sin was deemed to exclude them, baptism seemed to be an unavoidable necessity. However, this kind of thinking was clearly in error. Why?

Original Sin and Human Development

First, it cannot be stated too emphatically that the Augustinian dogma of original sin which teaches that Adam’s sin was either transmitted (Catholics) or imputed (Protestants) to his offspring is contrary to Scripture. (2* See my various articles on original sin) Paul makes it clear beyond equivocation that where there is no law, there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15; 7:8). In light of this we are compelled to conclude that infants who know neither the law nor good and evil are innocent (Dt. 1:39, etc.). Next, we must recognize that whatever impact our parents including Adam may have on us (cf. Ex. 20:5f.), we all sin on our own account (cf. Ex. 32:33; Ps. 106:6, etc.). Like Adam before us, we all fail to keep the commandment we receive as we emerge from infancy (cf. Dt. 1:39; Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20; Rom. 7:9f.). To express this point more positively, we all earn our own wages by breaking the law in our youth (Ex. 32:33; Ezek. 18; Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 6:23; 11:32, etc.). Only Jesus, in contrast with Adam and the rest of his offspring, avoided doing this (1 Pet. 2:22).

Second, once we have gained sufficient knowledge or understanding of the law to make sin a possibility (cf. Rom. 7:7f.), we also have the knowledge on which to base faith even if it is only of a very immature kind. In contrast with the new birth, faith is relative and can be exercised even by children. It was so in OT times, it remains so now. In Hebrews 11 during the minority of the race, while faith is prominent, regeneration is conspicuously absent (though note 11:39f.). Why? Because faith and repentance are the first steps on the road to justification which must of necessity precede the new birth (Lev. 18:5, etc.). (3* See my The Order of Salvation,  Cart-Before-The-Horse Theology, etc.) Furthermore, just as we saw above that the Jews were tested under the law (Ex. 15:25; 16:4, etc.), so an immature faith is tested before it is permanently sealed in justification and regeneration. But it must be stressed that until Jesus came and kept the law to perfection, regeneration remained nothing more than a promise (Dt. 29:4; 30:6, etc.). The same remains true even in NT times. While faith of the kind found in the OT may well be exercised, it does not reach its culmination in regeneration until Christ specifically is consciously and intelligently received by faith. It is not till then that we are justified or accounted righteous and receive the Spirit in accordance with the promise (Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:5, etc.). Any attempt to reverse this order and give the new birth priority is to commit the same kind of error that Paul accused the Galatians of, that is, beginning with the Spirit and ending with the flesh (Gal. 3:3)! No wonder that “baptized” babies have so often historically failed to provide evidence of their Christian commitment. (4* Pace Luther and his famous ‘baptizatus sum’.)

If all this is true, what are the specific grounds for rejecting infant baptism as Christian?

First, infant baptism ignores the human development implied by a truly biblical covenant theology which reflects nature, law and grace (John 1:10-13; Rom. 1-3; 7-8; Gal. 4:1-7). According to the Bible, initial creation, and therefore our own procreation, is uncovenanted, that is, it lacks a covenantal guarantee. The first covenant God made was with Noah when mankind had by his day undergone a degree of development. Indeed, as one who was made in the image of God unlike the animals, he was able to appreciate the significance of the rainbow and to undertake the task originally assigned to Adam in faith and confidence (Gen. 1:28; 9:1). There would never again be a flood to threaten the very existence of the earth (Gen. 8:21f.). (5* See my Did God Make a Covenant with Creation?)

Second, infant baptism fails to treat infants as infants. If the baptism of Jesus, the man who had kept the law, was the occasion of his regeneration or his confirmed and acknowledged sonship, it must serve as the paradigm of every Christian baptism. As we have seen, baptism is the sacrament of the new birth, but the new birth could not occur until Jesus himself had gained righteousness by keeping the law to perfection (Lev. 18:5). So the same must hold in the case of all his disciples who are not greater than their Master. We cannot be properly baptized and hence born again until we gain righteousness by faith exercised specifically in him, the inaugurator of the new covenant. It should be added here that infants, since they know neither good nor evil, are still merely flesh and physically on a par with the animals. In this condition they cannot possibly feed on anything other than material bread (milk) which does nothing to offset their natural corruptibility and mortality (John 6:22-63, cf. Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8). It is only when they are capable of eating spiritual food (Mt. 4:4) and drinking spiritual water (John 4:10,13f.) that they are on the road to regeneration and ultimate perfection. In their case the inappropriateness of baptism ought to be obvious. It is not until they have passed through the heathen stage of their lives under Noah (and, if they are Jews, under the law), that they are in a position to graduate to maturity under Christ. It should be noted that Jewish girls who were not circumcised and were in fact often ranked with the heathen, can, given faith in Christ, be baptized and so attain to maturity apart from the law (Gal. 3:28). Technically, all Gentiles who become Christians are likewise uncircumcised and true children of Eve, the mother of all living, whose sin differed from that of Adam and Jewish men (1 Tim. 2:14). But as Paul says, while circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing, obeying the commandments is everything (1 Cor. 7:19).

Third, historically, the raison d’etre or justification of infant baptism is original sin which does not and indeed cannot exist where there is neither law (Rom. 4:15) nor knowledge (Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11). Put bluntly, the transmission or imputation of sin is a lie. Little wonder that we cannot be punished for the sins of our fathers (Dt. 24:16; Ezek. 18).

Next, in effect, infant “baptism” ignores both nature under Noah and law under Moses. (6* It is not without significance that Jewish Christians in the early church wanted to have Gentile converts circumcised, Acts 15:1,5. For them progression through the law would have seemed natural. Paul however recognized that circumcision signifying law was unique to the Jews as the chosen people of God. He was obviously not unaware that it was Eve, not Adam, who typified the Gentiles as Romans 7:7ff. indicates!  There is another point to make. Those who stress the so-called unity of the covenant almost inevitably link circumcision (law) with baptism (regeneration). On the basis of an appeal to and bad exegesis of Colossians 2:11-13 some virtually equate circumcision with baptism and thus apply the latter to infants. When they do this they in effect do the very thing that the apostles disallowed.)   Furthermore, it dispenses with faith, since infants who lack all knowledge cannot exercise it.  It implicitly sounds the death knell of justification by faith so grandly re-discovered at the Reformation. It is not without interest therefore that Peter sees Noah as undergoing merely a symbolic form or type of “baptism” when he was saved from the flood (1 Pet. 3:20). Again, Paul regards the Israelites as being symbolically “baptized” into Moses when they passed through the sea at the exodus (1 Cor. 10:2f.). Given this perspective, infant baptism is clearly anomalous. Baptism proper, that is, Christian baptism belongs to the new covenant which is experienced personally only by faith in Christ, our elder brother (cf. Heb. 2:10-13). It involves separation from both the heathen and the Jews. It constitutes them corporately a third race (1 Cor. 10:32).

Fifth, infant baptism inevitably implies baptismal regeneration. It makes the new birth the result of a mechanical act (opus operatum) and empowers priests to play God. What happened at Jesus’ own baptism is relevant at this point. While John the Baptist was the human agent on this occasion, the real baptizer was God himself, as Matthew 3:13-17 makes indisputable. John’s reluctance to baptize Jesus  indicates that he felt himself to be unfitted for his role and in fact confessed his need for Jesus to baptize him. (Indeed, until he had himself been baptized and ascended, Jesus was in no position to baptize him, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45b.; John 7:39.) In sum, the only warrant for Christian baptism is personal confession of faith in Christ. Even John’s own baptism of (with a view to) repentance required personal submission. (The notion of vicarious repentance is unsupported by Scripture and intrinsically alien to it.)

Sixth, infant baptism puts the cart before the horse (cf. Gal. 3:1-5). In the Bible we attain to regeneration by a process of maturation under the sovereign providence of God. Yet in churches ruled by tradition, regeneration comes first in the order of salvation (e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith ch.10). Apart from it we are regarded as dead in Adam’s sin (contrast Eph. 2:1,5, etc.). Thus what is really the goal of our unregenerate life under law, that is, eternal life (Gen. 2:17) becomes foundational and turns theology upside down.  What a contrast with Paul who informs us that like Adam and Eve he had ‘life’ till he received the commandment but when he broke it, he like them earned its wages in death (Rom. 7:9f., cf. 5:12). Needless to say, he was baptized when he was converted (Acts 9:18). (7* See my Cart-Before-The-Horse Theology.)

Seventh, specious arguments used to support infant baptism like covenant theology, prevenient false grace, family membership and so forth are in fact spurious. To use the idea of human solidarity to the exclusion of individual responsibility is surely to err. (8* See my Solidarity and Separation)

Conclusion

If what has been argued above is anything like the truth, far from being categorized with the adiaphora (Stott, p.385) infant baptism is a major obstacle to our understanding of biblical theology and anthropology. Man is by nature subject to development and recapitulation and cannot sensibly undergo baptism and the regeneration it implies until he has been tested under (the) law and achieved a degree of intelligent maturity. Since he cannot keep the law (Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16, etc.) in order to be justified and gain the life it promises (Lev. 18:5, etc.), he can nonetheless by the grace of God be born again through faith specifically in Christ who was justified by keeping the law and so received the Spirit. If biblical history is to be our guide, even this kind of faith needs to be shown to be a credible profession subject to reasonable testing. This, however, is a subject that requires more extensive treatment.

Additional Note on the Law

It is often alleged that since Christ is the end (terminus) of the law, it no longer applies. This is a profound misunderstanding of the biblical position. Christians may have died to the law through faith in Christ (Gal. 2:19) and they are now under the law of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23). For unbelievers, that is, the unregenerate, however, (the) law in one form or another still stands and is not replaced until they enter the new covenant by faith. Hence the need for evangelism and the admonition and care (not the persecution as in the Middle Ages) of the church. Jesus tells us plainly that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it (Mt. 5:17f.). It follows from this that it is fulfilled only for those who believe in him, not for all and sundry.

Reference

John Stott, The Contemporary Christian, Leicester, 1992.

According to Augustinian tradition God originally made both creation and creature perfect. By contrast, all the Bible says is that he created them “good”, that is, useful or suited to his purpose (Gen. 1). Since the creation of both the world (Ps. 102:25) and of man (Ps. 119:73; Isa. 45:11f.) was performed “by hand” (1* Gk cheiropoietos, an OT expression that denotes inherent defectiveness. See further my Manufactured Or Not So.), it could not have been perfect. Indeed, if it had been, the so-called “Fall” of man followed by a curse on all creation would have been impossible. Or, if this is disallowed and logic is followed to its inexorable conclusion, God who alone is perfect would himself have been susceptible to a “Fall”! (Note that in Heb. 7:28 Jesus is perfected forever and is therefore perfect like his Father, Mt. 5:48!)

On the assumption that the Augustinian view, riddled with contradictions as it is, is denied, we learn from the Bible that creation is intrinsically inferior to its Creator as a work of art is to its artist or a house is to its builder (Heb. 3:3, cf. Acts 7:48-50). In fact, all material (created) things being visible are impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18, cf. Rom. 1:20) and will eventually be destroyed (Heb. 12:27, cf. 1 Cor. 3:12-15; Col. 2;22). It follows from this that since man as flesh is created from the earth, he too is by nature impermanent (cf. Gen. 6:3; 1 Cor. 15:42-50). Initially, he is animated dust like the rest of the animal creation (Gen. 2:7, cf. Ps. 78:39; 103:14) and to this extent resembles seed. As such after creation by God in (mother) earth (cf. Ps. 139:15; Eph. 4:9; Heb. 10:5) he is then placed in the Garden of Eden, the earthly paradise or the womb of the race, to be nurtured (cf. Gen. 2:8,15). There like a baby gestating he develops and is given a commandment by his Creator to test him or prove his worth (cf. e.g. Dt. 8:2,16). But since as flesh he is subject to temptation (James 1:14f.), he and Eve both give way seduced by the devil and the deceitfulness of fleshly lusts (Gen. 3:6, cf. Eph. 4:22; Heb. 3:13). Thus they forfeit the promise of eternal life (Gen. 2:17; Lev. 18:5). In this way they establish a pattern of sin which all their posterity who are made in their image and under their influence subsequently follow (Rom. 5:12, cf. 3:23; 8:10). Contrary to Article 9 of the Church of England (2* See my Imitation), the child who imitates or repeats his father’s sin is the father of the man (cf. Eph. 2:3). (3* Traditional exegesis of this verse which clearly places actual sin or will before nature, cf. John 8:34, cf. Jer. 13:23; Hos. 5:4, has been perverted in the interests of the Augustinian worldview.) To put the issue otherwise, as the word ‘Adam’, which means both the individual (the one) and mankind (the many), implies, the individual recapitulates the history of the race or community both physically (by necessity) and spiritually (by imitation).

Is this conclusion borne out by the rest of Scripture? Those who accept the Augustinian dogma of original sin and the imputation of Adam’s sin would hotly deny it. However, the idea that we are born sinful as those who are born “in Adam” (4* Cf. Augustine’s “in quo” or “in whom”, a mistranslation of Romans 5:12.) is clearly contrary to the teaching of the Bible as passages like Exodus 32:33, Deuteronomy 24:16, Jeremiah 31:29f. and Ezekiel 18, for example, plainly indicate. In any case, if we are born sinners, then Jesus also was born a sinner. (Traditional attempts to evade this conclusion must be pronounced a failure.) So, I conclude that the notion of recapitulation outlined above and implied in Genesis 1 and 2 is the true view. To make sure, we must follow the story as portrayed in the Bible.

According to Genesis 5:1-3, Adam and Eve produce children who have the potential to become the image and likeness of God as they themselves had (Gen. 1:26f.).  This was implied in Genesis 1 when plants and animals, including man, were created and intended to reproduce according to kind (Heb. 7:23, cf. v.16). From this we infer, first, that we all begin at the beginning, that is, recapitulate the experience of our forebears and, second, that we are naturally mortal. (5* See further my Death Before Genesis 3,  A Double Helping.)  Like Adam and Eve themselves who at the start did not know the law and were hence ignorant of good and evil, their children follow the same pattern and begin life in innocence (cf. Dt. 1:39; Isa. 7:15f., etc.). However, once as those in the process of formation in the image of God they come to know the commandment (for a child one commandment is enough), they like their parents break it and sin. The truth of this is borne out by the fact that while the Bible points to infantile ignorance of law which undergirds innocence (Rom. 4:15; 7:8, cf. John 9:41; 15:22,24), it insists that we all sin in our youth, that is, as children when the law in some form impresses itself on our developing minds (Gen. 8:21; Ps. 25:7; Prov. 20:11; Jer. 3:24f.). This is confirmed indisputably by the apostle Paul who describes his own experience which is common to all. Though he is traditionally supposed to teach original sin, in fact he claims that he himself was born “alive” (not dead in sin) but earned death when he broke the parental commandment (Prov. 1:8; 4:1-9; 6:20-23) that had dawned on his childlike mind just as it had long before on that of the similarly maturing Adam (Rom. 7:9f.). And so it is with all of us, says Paul. While as infants we are innocent (cf. Rom. 9:11), as children we all break the commandment and earn the wages of death (Rom. 6:23). Since we all transgress and earn the wages of death (Rom. 5:12; 6:23), we all equally need salvation or rescue (cf. Rom. 3:9,12,19f.).

According to Type

Since we are told that Adam was a type of the second Adam (Rom. 5:14), we are under an obligation to follow the course of the latter, the antitype, on whom we have been given more detailed basic information. Study of him enables us to gain understanding about the progress of man in general since (a) he certainly began in innocence (Isa. 7:15f.) and had to be perfect(ed) (Heb. 2:10; 5:9) and (b) was like us at every point except in the commission of actual sin (Heb. 2:17; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22).

Adam’s Posterity

As those who are the children of Adam like Jesus (Luke 3:38) we all begin “in Adam” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22) (6* It is surely illegitimate to transfer the phrase “in Adam” as the sin-obsessed Augustine did to Romans 5:12. That we all die in Adam apart from sin is basic to Paul’s understanding of the human body as reflected in 1 Corinthians 15 in general. Flesh and blood are intrinsically mortal and corruptible and cannot by nature inherit the kingdom of God.) as (mortal) flesh in the ground (Gen. 2:7; Ps. 78:39; 103:14; 139:15f.; Eph. 4:9, cf. Heb. 2:17).  Then, after the initial creation of Adam, procreation takes over. Thus we begin in the loins of our fathers (Heb. 7:10; 1 Cor. 11:12) and from their sides we are transferred like Adam to the Garden of Eden to be nurtured in the wombs our mothers (cf. Ps. 139:13; Luke 1:31). On his divine side Jesus of course stemmed from the bosom of his heavenly Father (John 1:14, cf. v.18). While God is in the general sense the Father of spirits (Num. 16:22; Heb. 12:9), in Jesus’ case in the form of the Holy Spirit he overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35, cf. Gen. 1:2) and incarnated himself in her womb (cf. Gal. 4:4). It was through his mother that Adam was the human father of Jesus (Luke 3:38). We can be sure that Joseph was not his father or Jesus could never have achieved the salvation of his fellows as (the Son of) God (cf. Isa. 45: 22f.; Phil. 2:10f.).

So after the normal nine months’ period of gestation Mary’s pregnancy reached full term and Jesus was born knowing neither the law nor good and evil (Isa. 7:15f., cf. Dt. 1:39; Rom. 9:11). In this as the second Adam Jesus resembled the first Adam but in contrast with him who was apparently nurtured in the Garden of Eden to physical maturity before his “birth” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46), Jesus was physically a baby who still had to grow to both physical and spiritual adulthood after his birth. The traditional fundamentalist idea prompted by the literal interpretation of the days in Genesis leads well-intentioned but clearly misguided writers to suggest that Adam was created with the appearance of a thirty-year-old. Apart from the implicit deception involved at this point, a man who does not develop is not a man at all, least of all the fleshly prototype of all other men including Jesus! In any case, if he was a type of the second Adam (Rom. 5:14), Adam must have been every bit as subject to development as the second one was. If not, they were not racially related, not of the same species! Of course, the implication of this is that mankind began as an animal before like a baby he eventually developed mental and moral consciousness (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46). And if this is true, then the history of mankind is recapitulated in miniature by every baby that is born or he/she would not be human. Even more to the point, Jesus would not, indeed could not have been the second Adam who atoned for the sin of the world (1 John 2:2).

In sum, I contend that science far from erring at this point is in fact supported by the Bible itself!

Jesus and Recapitulation

It would seem to follow from this that like his forebears whose early experience he recapitulated Jesus, as an infant, lived without a personal covenant guarantee. (7* The covenant with Noah guaranteed life to sentient but unselfconscious flesh only in the general sense.) As with them, it was only as he developed into childhood and became capable of understanding the commandment that promised life that he developed moral awareness. At this point faith and obedience leading to life in contrast with Adam’s disobedience which had led to death became real possibilities (cf. Rom. 6:16). Thus while he recapitulated his ancestors’ particular heathen experience in Egypt (Mt. 2:15), he also underwent the general experience of all minors as a slave under trustees (Gal. 4:1f.).  Again, as a true Jew he was liberated from slavery under Noah to guardianship under the law of Moses at the age of thirteen and became a son of the commandment (cf. Luke 2:40-52). So, according to Paul he was first born of woman a true human being, then tested under the law as his ancestors had been (Dt. 8:2,16, etc.) until he had earned the pleasure of his Father who endowed him with his Spirit at his baptism (cf. Gal. 4:1-7). Alternatively expressed, he had, in contrast with Adam and all others who followed in his footsteps, exercised faith and obedience and gained life in accordance with the promise (Gen. 2:17: Lev. 18:5, etc.).

Man in General

The human experience of Jesus outlined above is also that of the rest of us. The only way in which we differ from him lies in the fact that we all sin but he did not (Heb. 2:17; 1 Pet. 2:22). (8* Of course, to the extent that as a Jew who lived out his adolescence under the law of Moses in contradistinction to the Gentiles he differed. But since all who achieve maturity undergo primary, secondary and tertiary experiences of a kind, the difference is not great, cf. Gal. 3:25, KJV.) We are all born of woman and having outgrown infancy, we all live as children like Gentiles under the covenant with Noah. As adolescents we experience instruction under law of a kind and having undergone our apprenticeship we graduate to maturity. Of course, while many fail to reach intellectual adulthood for various reasons including chronological and/or historical ones, many more come short of spiritual adulthood in Christ. This may or may not be as a result of deliberate sin. Scripture describes the maturation process in terms of perfection especially but by no means exclusively in Hebrews (cf. Phil. 3:12-14, etc.).

Regeneration

Prior to Genesis 2:16f. Adam like an animal or a baby clearly lacked (understanding of) the moral law and was thus innocent. However, since he was destined to attain to the image and likeness of God, when it (the commandment) came, it promised (eternal) life on condition of obedience. In the event he failed to meet this condition. Unsurprisingly, all his posterity, who were also in their turn promised life if they obeyed (Lev. 18:5, cf. Rom. 7:9f.), failed likewise (Rom. 3:23; 5:12, etc.). Jesus alone despite his being truly human and hence mortal kept the whole law and gained that life (received the Spirit, Gal. 3:2), which included personal immunity to death, at his baptism. It was his regeneration precisely that put him in a position (cf. Acts 10:38; Eph. 2:10) to lay down his life freely for his sheep, that is, those who believed in him.

Glory

This, however, was not the end. Regeneration or spiritual rebirth paved the way for sanctification and ultimate glorification. As Paul indicates faith leads to justification, justification to sanctification and sanctification to eternal life. That this means final glorification there can be no doubt (Rom. 8:30). So just as Jesus finished the  work that his Father gave him to do (John 17:4; 19:30) and was glorified, we follow suit (Heb. 2:10). When our pilgrimage or course like that of Jesus (Luke 13:32), of John the Baptist (Acts 13:25), of Paul (Acts  20:24; Phil 3:14; 2 Tim. 4:7) and of Peter (2 Pet. 1:14f.) is finished, then we too in accordance with God’s purpose will enter heaven itself (John 3:3; 1 Cor. 15:50) where we shall see the glory of Jesus (John 17:24) and be with him forever (John 12:26; 1 Thes. 4:17) in his eternal kingdom (2 Pet. 1:11).

Finale

When our glorification has been finally achieved and all things are subjected under Jesus (Col. 1:20; Eph. 1:10),  then the restoration will be complete (Acts 3:21) and God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). In accordance with the original plan of salvation, we shall have travelled from ground to glory to become the children of God.

Additional Note

If what is written above is a reasonable sketch of biblical teaching, it is apparent that much of our inherited theology is seriously astray. If Jesus himself as man despite his dubious pedigree (Mt. 1:1-5) began his earthly career in moral innocence (Isa. 7:15f.) and was challenged to attain to righteousness and life by keeping the law (cf. Acts 3:14, etc.), how much more Adam (Gen. 2:17).  If Jesus had to be perfected both physically and spiritually as man, so Adam and the rest of us who are created in his image. If Jesus progressed from ground (Eph. 4:9) to glory (Eph. 4:10), that is, began at the beginning like Adam but in contrast with him attained his (pre)destined end, how much more the rest of us who trust in him. In other words, the idea that Adam was created righteous, even perfect, yet fell and brought a curse on the entire creation thus necessitating its redemption is Augustinian nonsense. In the twenty-first century it is high time that we abandoned such absurd ideas and ceased to nullify Scripture by our tradition (Mark 7:7f.,13).

The suggestion that unlike Adam himself who not knowing the law was created innocent, all his children inherited his sin at birth is grotesquely false. At birth since we do not know the law we can be nothing other than innocent like Jesus (cf. Rom. 4:15; 7:8; 9:11). And to read into Psalm 51:5 (9* Properly understood, this verse could apply to Jesus every bit as much as to David.) what the Jews and the Orthodox realize is not there is criminal exegesis clearly dancing to the tune that Augustine composed. Well did Jesus warn us against nullifying Scripture by means of tradition (Mark 7:7,13).

Note further my  The Ascent of Man,  The Journey of Jesus ,  Following Jesus,  Perfection.

The NT makes it apparent that our eternal God (Isa. 57:15) who is spirit (John 4:24) is both immortal (1 Tim. 6:16), that is, not subject to death, and incorruptible (1 Tim. 1:17), that is, not subject to decay. By contrast, we his creatures, who are manufactured or ‘made by hand’ from the earth (Ps. 119:73; Isa. 45:11f.; 64:8), are both mortal (Rom. 6:12; 2 Cor. 4:11) and corruptible (Gk. Rom. 1:23) by nature. (1* See my Manufactured Or Not So.)

Since man is made in the image of God, his destiny is to take on the generic nature of God as his spiritual child (2 Pet. 1:4, cf. John 1:12f.; 3:6; Heb. 12:23; 1 Pet. 4:6; Rom. 2:7,10; Eph. 1:5,11). However, there is a condition imposed by God from the beginning: man must keep the commandment and exercise dominion over creation including his own flesh (Gen. 2:17, cf. 1:26-28; Ps. 8, etc.). Since he fails to meet this condition and breaks the commandment (Gen. 2:17; cf. Rom. 7:10), he inevitably comes short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and is excluded. In this situation graphically described by Paul in Romans 3:19-20, man is in urgent need of a Saviour. He finds one uniquely in Jesus (Rom. 3:21-26, cf. Heb. 2:5-9).

In 2 Timothy 1:10 Paul tells us that our Saviour Christ Jesus abolished death and brought life and incorruption (Gk) to light. Here, most translations refer to ‘immortality’ rather than ‘incorruption’ (e.g. KJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, etc.) but Vine maintains that this is a mistranslation (pp. 131,320, cf. Mounce, pp. 484f.). Though the antonym of death may well be considered as both life and ‘immortality’ (athanasia), the nuance Paul introduces by using the word ‘incorruption’ (aphtharsia) is perhaps important, as I shall seek to show below.

Death

First, it is vital to recognize that death in this world is natural. We see evidence of it everywhere. Though natural death is widely denied in the church (which uncritically follows Augustine’s belief that this was not so at the beginning), it should not surprise us that the Bible teaches it. The insistence of the Psalmist can hardly be missed: “Man in his pomp will not remain; he is like the beasts that perish” (49:12, ESV). (Verse 20 is similar but contains an important difference: it refers to man “without understanding” as if distinguishing between man as mere animal flesh and man as made in the image of God.) Again, the book of Ecclesiastes is uncompromising: “For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return” (Eccl. 3:19f., cf. Ps. 78:39; 103:14, etc.).

Death and Corruption (decay)

This belief that death is a natural phenomenon is supported by the teaching that what depends on perishable food is itself perishable. In Matthew 4:4 Jesus quotes Moses with approval in support of the idea that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. In light of his contentions in John 6:22-63, Jesus clearly believes that while material bread (and water, see 4:10-15) can sustain animal life for a little while (cf. Heb. 2:7,9, ESV), it is futile for eternal life. As Paul is later to say, “For if you live according to the flesh you will die” (Rom. 8:13, cf. Gal. 6:7f.). While the animals (and man according to the flesh is an animal) clearly eat material food provided by God, they nonetheless die (Job 38:39; Ps. 104:21, etc.). Death as the end result of corruption by creation must then be natural. (2* See my Death Before Genesis 3.)

Sin

So far all appears fairly straightforward. But there is a complication. As Moses did before him (Gen. 2:17; Ex. 32:33), Paul also teaches that death is the wages of sin (Rom. 5:12; 6:23). How can this be? Is not this tantamount to a contradiction, or can it be held at one and the same time that death is both natural and penal? (3* Contrast Mounce who says that “the NT never regards thanatos as a natural process; rather, it is a consequence and punishment for sin (Rom. 6:23)”, p.160.) Since the teaching is so explicit, this must indeed be the case. Man as flesh, as an animal, that is, dies whether he is sinful or not. (In John 6:49, cf. Mt. 4:4, Jesus does not mention sin!) This is made clear by the fact that even innocent babies, who like animals know neither the law nor good and evil (Dt. 1:39, etc.), die. (Cf. Rom. 9:11 with Job 3:16; Eccl. 6:3.) As a conscious sinner, however,  man fails on the one hand to gain the (eternal) life promised to all who keep the commandments (Lev. 18:5, etc.), and on the other he earns death by breaking them. Since sin is defined as transgression of the law, he experiences its sting in death (1 Cor. 15:56). To express the issue another way, the person who knows the law (commandment) has the option of keeping the law and thereby becoming righteous or of breaking it and thereby becoming a sinner (Rom. 6:16; 2 Pet. 2:19). If he keeps it, he can gain the life promised to the righteous (Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:5, etc.) and so overcome and escape from his native mortality. Or again, he can break it and so earn death as just recompense. If this is the biblical picture, there is little wonder that Scripture depicts human beings who pander exclusively to the flesh as animals fit to be caught and killed (2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 10).

To sum up this section then, we are in a position to say that though death is natural to the entire animal world (flesh), it can nonetheless be earned by man to the extent that he is made in the image of God and therefore knows the law. According to Jesus, the one who sins becomes enslaved by sin (John 8:34) and so dies (cf. John 8:24). Since sin is defined as breaking the law (1 Sam. 15:24; James 2:9-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17), it is an act of the human will, a work which earns wages in death. The question is: Can the same be said of corruption or decay?

Corruption

We saw above that our eternal Creator God is not only immortal (deathless) but also incorruptible (not subject to decay). As such he has neither beginning nor end (Ps. 90:2; Isa. 41:4; 43:10b, cf. Heb. 7:3). Hebrews 1:11-12 informs us plainly that unlike his creature man, he does not age but remains ever the same (Heb. 1:12, cf. 13:8; James 1:17). Like death, corruption in creation is universal. Whereas the righteous Jesus who kept the law had no need to die but did so for the benefit of his people, even he grew older (Luke 3:23; John 8:57) and clearly shared human physical corruption (decay). Even he could not prevent black hair turning white (Mt. 5:36) Why? Because corruption (decay) is inherent in the entire material creation of which he became a part at his incarnation. (The rejuvenation of creation is a popular concept with some writers. I can think of no instance of Jesus making someone or something younger!)

Corruption By Creation

The corruption of creation or its natural subjection to decay (cf. entropy) is implicitly and explicitly taught in Scripture, though this is almost universally denied by commentators on and modern translators of Romans 8:18-25 (on which see my essay at www.kenstothard.com /.). First, the very first verse of Genesis 1 tells us of its beginning implying its inevitable end (cf. Heb. 7:3). This is supported by Jesus in Matthew 24:35 and 28:20. It should be carefully noted that this was the case before the intrusion of sin which therefore cannot be regarded as its cause. Second, Jesus strongly stresses natural corruption in references like Matthew 6:19-21, Luke 12:33 and 13:1-5. In the latter passage he clearly distinguishes between natural corruption and sin. (4* Cf. 1 Thes. 3:7 where Paul distinguishes between distress, ananke, and affliction, ESV, persecution, NRSV, NIV, pace Bruce. Affliction or thlipsis can be used in more than one sense. In 2 Cor. 4:17, for example, it does not appear to refer to persecution.) Third, the apostle Paul tells us in words the sense of which can hardly be mistaken that all that is physically visible is impermanent by nature (2 Cor. 4:18). Like the law which relates to it, it is temporal and provisional (cf. Mt. 5:18; Rom. 7:1; Heb. 1:11; 8:13; 12:27). As predictions regarding the end of the world indicate, the times of distress which precede it are as (divinely) necessary as the end itself (Luke 21:25-28,33-36, cf. vv. 23f. Cf. also human old age, Mt. 5:36). Again, fourth, Paul tells us in Romans 8:18-25 that God subjected creation, including his creature man, to the futility of decay of express purpose (cf. Heb. 1:10-12). Why did he do this? Because he had something better in mind for those who were made in his image, that is, an invisible hope of glory (Rom. 8:20,24f., cf. 2 Cor. 5:5; Col. 1:5,27; 1 Pet. 1:3f.). This was integral to his plan of salvation. Again, it should be noted that there is no mention of sin in this passage. How could there be if the sinless Jesus was also corruptible and entered this world with the express intention of returning to glory (John 6:62; 17:5,24; Eph. 4:9f.; Heb. 4:14; 7:26)? In any case, Paul, like Jesus in John 6, emphasized the fact that by nature the perishable (corruptible) cannot inherit the imperishable (1 Cor. 15:50). Just as flesh gives birth to flesh, so spirit gives birth to spirit (John 3:6), and God is spirit (John 1:13; 4:24). (5* For more detail, see my Romans 8:18-25.)

2 Timothy 1:10

If all this is true, there is another point to ponder. In 2 Timothy 1:10 with which I started this essay, Jesus is said to have abolished death (which may or may not be the wages of sin) but not corruption. One might well wonder why especially if with Augustinians we believe it to have connections with sin (e.g. the cosmic curse that putatively stems from Adam’s sin). But if in fact sin is not involved, the implication is that Jesus did not abolish corruption when he won a great victory over death on the cross. He clearly did not have to since it was natural, the work of God himself. When he rose from the grave, his failure to experience corruption is brought sharply into focus (Acts 2:27-35; 13:34-37). In light of this we are forced to infer that he not only rose as he had died in the flesh but remained so (cf. John 2:19f.; 10:17f.). To deny this is to deny his physical resurrection.

At this point the reader might well feel profoundly frustrated especially if he/she believes that when Jesus rose he was transformed. (6* In 2011 this is still a common but clearly erroneous perception. Yet Stott claims that it is standard Anglican orthodoxy, The Contemporary Christian, p.72. See my John Stott on the Putative Resurrection Transformation of Jesus). But since the Saviour was visible, tangible and audible (1 John 1:1-3, etc.) we are forced to infer that he was still in his first Adamic body of dust as he himself explicitly asserts in Luke 24:39 and as a comparison with Hebrews 12:18-21 immediately suggests. (7* Cf. John 20:17,27-29 where again we are confronted with touching, seeing and hearing, not to mention eating, Luke 24:41f., cf. 8:55, proving conclusively, one would have thought, that Jesus was not yet transformed and ascended, cf. John 20:17.) In other words, corporeal transformation which overcomes natural futility is as necessary as spiritual regeneration (Gk ‘dei’, John 3:7; 1 Cor. 15:53), and, since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50), it must occur at ascension. Transformation, like regeneration, is exclusively the work of God and Jesus provides its paradigm at his ascension into heaven (1 Cor. 15:50-54). (8* On Jesus’ resurrection, see my Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave? where I argue that Jesus’ transformation occurred at his ascension and not at his resurrection.)  If God spiritually regenerated us but omitted to corporeally transform us, he would have failed to complete his work of salvation (Rom. 8:30; Phil. 1:6). (9* See my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities .)

Incorruption

Assuming the truth of all this, the importance of translating aphtharsia as ‘incorruption’ in 2 Timothy 1:10 is plain for all to see (cf. 1 Cor. 15:53). While death is the result of the will of man and is abolished by the will of man, that is, by Jesus (1 Cor. 15:21f.), corruption or subjection to decay is the result of the will of God by whom it is also finally abolished when its purpose is achieved (Rom. 8:24f.; Heb. 12:25-29; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12; Rev. 21:1-5). The NRSV translation of Romans 8:20 is helpful here. It reads: “for the creation (and/or creature) was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it.” Clearly the one who did the subjecting was God himself. In other words, since the physical creation is temporal (Gen. 1:1; 2 Cor. 4:18, etc.) its futility is natural; it is in accordance with the divine will for God created it that way. It is integral to his overall plan and purpose. And since sin is not mentioned, man is in no way responsible (pace those who claim that he is!).

The Generic Nature of God

By referring to ‘incorruption’ here as opposed to ‘immortality’, Paul avoids both repetition and redundancy, for if the abolition of death spells life, it obviously spells immortality. (10* Cf. Stott who in his Guard the Gospel thinks, wrongly in my view, that ‘life’ and ‘immortality’ may be synonymous, p.38. Hendriksen suggests a hendiadys, p.233.) On the other hand, if Paul is deliberately focusing on incorruption as opposed to immortality, his expression is full of significance. It means that we who receive salvation become possessed of the very nature of God as his spiritual children (1 Pet. 4:6; 2 Pet. 1:4; John 1:13; 3:6). Like God himself of whom we are born again (John 1:13) we become both immortal and incorruptible (cf. 1 Cor. 15:53). And so, like Father like son (John 3:6a, cf. 1:13). Through the grace of Christ we are made (generically) perfect in him (cf. Heb. 2:10-13). The image/likeness of God in which we were potentially created is finally consummated (2 Cor. 3:18, cf. Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:3).

Consequences

If my argument holds, what about tradition which teaches in the words of Mounce’s Dictionary (p.138) that “Corruption is first of all an element of the natural world ever since the sin of Adam and Eve (Rom. 8:21)” What about original sin, the fall of Adam, cosmic curse and the redemption of creation? The answer is that these are misunderstandings inherent in and arising out of the Augustinian worldview. The creation/fall/ restoration scheme of things beloved by so many Christians is fundamentally false. (11* It is little wonder that modern science has its problems with church dogma. By contrast, the Bible presents a different view. Regrettably, atheistic scientists believe the church and so subject both it rightly and the Bible wrongly to ridicule!) The fact is that the physical creation, epitomized by the flesh which derives from it, is regarded pejoratively throughout the Bible. It always comes a distant second best to the Creator himself (e.g. Ps. 102:25-27; Isa. 45:11f.; 51:6,8; Mt. 24:35, cf. Heb. 3:3). In brief, perhaps the most powerful arguments against the corruption of creation by sin are: first, that it is inherently temporal as opposed to eternal. Since it had a beginning (Gen. 1:1), it will certainly have an end (Mt. 24:35; Heb. 12:27; 2 Pet. 3:7,10-12). Second, since it is physically visible, it is inherently impermanent (2 Cor. 4:18). Third, it was ‘made by hand’, a depreciatory OT expression (Job 10:8f.; Isa. 48:13; 64:8) which stands in strong contrast with what is ‘not made by hand’ in the NT (Heb. 9:11,24). Fourth, the sinless Jesus in contrast with his Father (Heb. 1:11) grew older (Luke 3:23; John 8:57, cf. Mt. 5:36) and was about to disappear (Heb. 8:13, cf. Acts 1:9). (12* See my tabulation of the differences at the end of my Creation Corruptible By Nature .) Fifth, the entire argument of the letter to the Hebrews assumes creation’s corruption by nature or, more specifically, by the will of God (Heb. 11:3, cf. Rom. 1:20; 4:17; 2 Cor. 4:18). (13* In this regard, David deSilva’s commentary on Hebrews is the best I have read.)

Conclusion

I conclude then that while death is penal as wages paid to sinful man, decay is ultimately a beneficent  work of God which has eternal life (salvation) or an invisible (Rom. 8:20,24f.), or sure (Heb. 6:19) or living (1 Pet. 1:3) hope and a better resurrection in view (Heb. 11:35, cf. Luke 20:34-36). Whereas the warped will of man deceived by the devil brings in death as penalty (Rom. 5:12) and requires atonement, the perfect will of God brings decay into this present age with a view to transformation and eternal life in the age to come (cf. Rom. 8:21). In other words, man must gain life by regeneration before he can gain imperishability or incorruption by transformation (cf. John 3:16; Rom. 5:8-10). After Jesus had been raised from the dead and was still corruptible flesh (Luke 24:39; John 20:17, etc.), he was necessarily transformed at his ascension and exalted to God’s right hand never again to return to corruption (Acts 13:34). And since it is his will that we be with him (John 6:37,39; 10:28; 12:26; 14:3; 17:24; 1 Thes. 4:17), we follow in his steps (Heb. 2:10-13; 10:19f., etc.).

Summary

To sum up, death as wages depends on the will of man who freely breaks the law; corruption or decay depends on the will of God who gives those who believe justification and eternal life. (This is not to deny, of course, that spiritual or moral corruption impacts on natural physical corruption and becomes an exacerbating factor.)

Final Comment

So, finally, it remains to add that while we are constantly told that we are sinful by birth (14* E.g. Josh & Sean McDowell, pp.149,156, etc.), the unshakable truth is that we cannot earn wages and be sinful till we break the commandment(s), John 8:34; Rom. 3:23; 5:12; 6:23, contrast 1 Pet. 2:22). On the other hand, as flesh, we are, like Jesus, certainly born corruptible, the offspring of the earth and of a creation divinely subjected to decay and aging (Heb. 1:11). That is why innocent babies sometimes die like innocent animals. (Infant mortality was significantly high in the ancient world.) For the rest of us the need to escape from the trap purposely set by God (cf. Luke 21:34-36) and attain to our invisible hope of glory is paramount (Rom. 8:24f., cf. 1 Pet. 1:3f.), and this is achieved through faith in Jesus (Col. 1:27). (15* See my Escape .) Once he had been perfected (Heb. 2:10; 12:2; Acts 5:31), Jesus himself escaped by ascension, transformation, exaltation and heavenly session. He was thus enabled to lead the way of all his brethren into heaven and the presence of the living Father (2 Cor. 4:14; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 2:3,10-13; John 3:16). This had been his goal from the beginning (John 13:3; 16:28). It was the plan of salvation.

A Final Question

If we ask if Jesus would have died if he had remained on the earth, the unequivocal answer must be positive. He would have continued to age or experience decay until he disappeared (Heb. 8:13).* In this case his death would have been natural not penal. However, his ascension transformation was basic to the divine will and purpose (John 3:13; 6:62). As man he achieved perfection in heaven as his Father always intended. Furthermore, by being transformed at his ascension he provided the paradigm of the transformation of the saints at the end of history who neither die nor undergo resurrection. (See further my  When Was Jesus Transformed?,  Did Jesus Rise Physically From The Grave?)

All this seems to prove conclusively that the idea of the redemption of the physical creation from a putative curse is fallacious.

* In light of classical mythology the failure of theologians to distinguish between immortality and corruption is surprising. According to Bullfinch in The Age of Fable, when the goddess Aurora prevailed on Jupiter to grant Tithonus immortality, she forgot to ask for eternal youth too. As a consequence Tithonus gradually succumbed to age and was shut up in his chamber. Finally, Aurora turned him into a grasshopper.

The moral of this story is that immortality without incorruptibility is futile. 2 Timothy 1:10 along with 1 Timothy 1:17 and Romans 2:7 are usually mistranslated and hence misleading.

_______________________________________________________________________

References

F.F.Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Waco, 1982.

D.DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, Grand Rapids, 2000.

W.Hendriksen, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, London, 1959.

Josh & Sean McDowell, The Unshakable Truth, Milton Keynes, 2010.

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

Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, Grand Rapids, 2006.

J.R.W.Stott,  Guard the Gospel, London, 1973.

The Contemporary Christian, Leicester, 1992.

Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary, Nashville, 1985.

In support of this point, it is well worth bearing in mind that though Paul actually persecuted Jesus through his disciples (Acts 9:4; 22:8), he was nonetheless a true OT believer as references like the following make clear: Acts 22:3, 24:14-16, 26:4-7. Many who claimed to be the children of Abraham (cf. John and the disciples of Moses (John 5) were in the same mold as their forefathers who we are told perished through unbelief and consequent disobedience in the wilderness. They did not really believe at all (Heb. 3:7-11). Paul’s problem was, as he said in his letter to Timothy, ignorance and unbelief in Jesus (1 Tim. 1:13f.). Until the exalted Christ revealed himself to him, he genuinely thought that Jesus was undermining Moses. And it was precisely Paul who was later to write significantly that faith (in Christ), far from being contrary to the law of Moses, in fact upheld it (Rom. 3:31).

Introduction

It seems to be almost taken for granted nowadays (July, 2010) that when Jesus rose again from the dead, he was transformed and glorified. The evidence for this in the face of texts like 24:39, John 20:26-29, Acts 1:3 and 1 John 1:1-3 hardly seems strong. Perhaps Jesus’ sudden appearances and disappearances, especially the former, provide the most powerful support for the idea, and it may be freely conceded that on the face of it they are somewhat perplexing. So what can be said in response?

Non-Recognition

Regarding our Lord’s general manifestations of himself to his disciples, we are told in Luke 24:16 that the disciples’ eyes were kept from recognizing him (cf. John 20:14). Even if we grant that God was active in this, the mere fact that Jesus had undergone an appallingly traumatic experience, which included both scourging and crucifixion, failure to recognize him was hardly surprising. When we add to this their assumption that he was dead and buried, they would have been psychologically predisposed not to accept his re-appearance.

In Acts 10:40-41, however, we read that “God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (ESV).

First, if the disciples were to be witnesses to his resurrection, it would seem that it was necessary for Jesus to appear to them. How could they proclaim a resurrection without visible evidence (cf. Acts 1:22; 2:32)? At a later date Paul also became a witness (Acts 9,22,26), but in his case it was clearly the glorified Lord whom he claimed to have seen  (1 Cor. 9:1). At this point we need to note that the intense light which temporarily blinded him presumably served to protect him from the death that was normally the result of seeing God (Gen. 16:13 NRSV, cf. 32:30; Ex. 33:17-23).

Second, in light of Jesus’ comment to Doubting Thomas in John 20:29 that those who had not seen him were blessed, the suggestion is that all later disciples would be justified by faith (cf. 1 Cor. 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:8). This is important for another reason. Jesus’ disciples who constituted his chosen witnesses (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:2) were obviously justified by faith before his death but had their faith confirmed and broadened by his resurrection. If he had shown himself to all the people, that is, including those who were not his disciples, they would have been compelled by sheer weight of evidence to acknowledge him. For them seeing would have been believing, but this is against Scriptural principles. God has never left this option open either then or since. Throughout Scripture, as Hebrews 11 in particular shows, faith in God’s promises, even when they remain to be completely fulfilled at a much later date (Heb. 6:15; 11:13,39), is imperative if justification by faith is to operate. We either accept Jesus on the basis of credible evidence by faith or we do not accept him at all. Jesus himself virtually said this in his dialogue with the Jews who claimed to be the disciples of Moses: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46f., cf. 12:48). And again with specific regard to his resurrection he said on another occasion when he put words into the mouth of Abraham, “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31, cf. Rom. 10:17).

Paul

In support of this point, it is well worth bearing in mind that though Paul actually persecuted Jesus through his disciples (Acts 9:4; 22:8), he was nonetheless a true OT believer as references like the following make clear: Acts 22:3, 24:14-16, 26:4-7. Many who claimed to be the children of Abraham (cf. John 8.) and the disciples of Moses (John 5) were in the same mold as their forefathers who we are told perished through unbelief and consequent disobedience in the wilderness. They did not really believe at all (Heb. 3:7-11). Paul’s problem was, as he said in his letter to Timothy, ignorance and unbelief in Jesus (1 Tim. 1:13f.). Until the exalted Christ revealed himself to him, he genuinely thought that Jesus was undermining Moses. And it was precisely Paul who was later to write significantly that faith (in Christ), far from being contrary to the law of Moses, in fact upheld it (Rom. 3:31).

No Salvation Outside the Church

It is worth taking this point a little further. While many Christians (used to) go around telling people that anything short of specific faith in Christ or failure to be born again signifies damnation, it is quite obvious that those like Abraham who lived long before the coming of Christ could not have had such a specific faith despite what might be falsely deduced from what Jesus says in John 8:56. If it is true that only faith exercised specifically in Christ brings eternal life (cf. John 3:16; 1 John 5:12), then the OT saints were clearly not born again. In that sense they were not saved, and in that sense only may we hold that outside the church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam non salus). But many of them believed unequivocally in the promises of God to Abraham and David (Luke 2:69-75, etc.) and endeavoured to keep the law (Ps. 119; Luke 1:6, etc.). They thus earnestly believed in their Messiah’s coming and lived lives which demonstrated that faith. Normally, when he eventually did come, those waiting for him accepted him. Good examples of these were Simeon and Anna who were looking for the consolation of Israel and the redemption of Jerusalem (Luke 2:22-38).

(An ex-missionary acquaintance of mine tells me that frequently, despite apparent total ignorance of the gospel, some “heathen” men and women will respond to the preaching of the word when they hear it almost as if they have been waiting for it.)

Recapitulation

All this points to the fact that the presently and sadly neglected doctrine of recapitulation is pivotal for understanding the plan of salvation that pictures world if not universal salvation (cf. John 3:16; 1 John 2:2).

Eating

The physical reality of Jesus’ presence after his resurrection is supported by his eating with his disciples. This is mentioned twice as if to emphasize the fact (John 21:13; Acts 10:41). But what does it signify? In light of Jesus’ teaching in John 6:22-59, it underlines his continued physical corruptibility, for those who eat perishable food are themselves perishable. If this is denied, then we are getting close to arguing that Jesus was in the business of deception! But there is another point worth making. It can hardly be without significance that when Jesus raised the ruler’s daughter he (Jesus) directs her guardians to feed her (Luke 8:55). If this does nothing else, it proves her fleshly physicality. If so, surely the same holds true with regard to Jesus himself. He was still flesh (Luke 24:39) and had not yet ascended (John 20:17) and been transformed (glorified, 1 Cor. 15:50ff.).

Visibility

The more deeply we probe the evidence the more unlikely the resurrection glorification of Jesus becomes. The mere fact that he was visible implies his physicality as Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 4:18 suggests. (See further my  Faith and Invisibility – Seeing the Invisible.) Some writers attempt to argue that Jesus was glorified at his transfiguration but his visibility puts this out of the reckoning. Again others might appeal to 1 John 1:1-3, but this move is undermined by Hebrews 12:18-21 where visibility, tangibility and audibility (cf. the physical, visible and ritual terms alluded to by James Dunn, Romans, p.124) are all clearly connected with the old covenant which relates to creation and the flesh. As Professor Dunn has so decisively demonstrated in his commentary on Romans 2:28-29 (pp.123f.) and in his essay in Covenant Theology, the law written by hand on stone and symbolized by surgical circumcision was visible and hence temporary (see my essay on faith referred to above.)

Problems

Over the years attention has been drawn to the grave clothes left neatly arranged in the tomb after the resurrection. It has been seen by some as evidence of Jesus’ transformation which enabled him to pass through physical objects including the boulder guarding the entrance to the tomb. If one insists as I do that the Jesus that was raised was one and the same as the one that was buried (cf. Geisler, pp.49f.,65), questions are doubtless prompted. For example, we may ask where he got his clothes from and where he stayed for most of the time when he was not revealing himself to his disciples (see further below). Of course, since we not specifically told, we can only speculate on these issues. But they should not cause us undue heart-searching. After all Jesus knew full well that he was going to rise again and would doubtless have prepared for future eventualities as the evidence suggests he had before he died. For a start, since he had raised Lazarus, he would have been well aware of the difficulty arising from (lack of) clothes (cf. John 9:44) and could easily have taken steps to circumvent his own problem. Though it might not convince those whose docetic views virtually reduce miracles to magic, the evidence suggests that his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mt. 21:1-5) and the place he used for celebrating the Last Supper (Luke 22:7-13) were the result of preparations made ahead of these events. This explanation is not only plausible but becomes all the more convincing when we recognize that Jesus was always reluctant to resort to miracles without adequate reason. He was not a wonder worker but one who did what he saw the Father doing. Furthermore, we must never forget that he was truly human and in the ordinary run of events he would have acted as a normal human being would.

Persecution and Salvation

I noted above the persecution of Jesus by Paul (Acts 9:4). The same sort of thing occurs to day. The fact that Jesus himself is spatially (and in a sense chronologically) removed from us is beside the point. Such persecution as Paul indulged in still occurs today. I wonder sometimes about certain Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., who begin as persecutors but end up as converts when light dawns on their minds. On the other side of the ledger we need to recognize that Jesus may still be received by those who exercise faith in him in less than specific or mature form or, as the Bible puts it, by those who are far off (cf. John 8:56; Acts 2:39; Heb. 11:13). In the OT faithful Jews continued to faithfully re-enact the exodus in the Passover (Ex. 13:8) as they may do today. While it may well be true that some simply accept the ritual of their culture apart from faith (cf. Isa. 1), others may be completely sincere and have a veil over their hearts (2 Cor. 3). Now in the same way we Christians remember the death of the Lord Jesus in the Supper long after it has actually occurred. In other words, the gospel is always contemporary. We are in effect no worse off or better off than actual eyewitnesses. We all see him by faith and actually experience death and resurrection (cf. Rom. 6:1-4) every bit as much as Paul’s readers experienced it while he was still alive. The golden chain of salvation (Rom. 8:30) may not be complete in many cases but this was so in OT times (cf. Heb. 11:39f.).

The Physical Reality of the Resurrection

Some argue on the basis of the Greek in Acts 10:40f. that Jesus having been glorified at his resurrection made his appearances from heaven and remained hidden or invisible the rest of the time. If that is so, his ascension was rendered redundant or at best reduced to mere drama. This is intolerable for it also reeks of deception and docetism. However, if it was true and Jesus really had achieved his permanent glorified state when he rose again from the dead, he would have been invisible (2 Cor. 4:18) and eyewitnesses along with their necessary evidence would have been lacking. At least two basic facts testify against this idea. First, in Acts 2 and 13 great stress is laid on the fact that Jesus did not experience corruption. This can only be because he was still corruptible flesh who though he had really died had nonetheless avoided decomposition in accordance with prophecy (Ps. 16). Furthermore, if he was not flesh but had been transformed, this stress on his non-corruption is pointless. It would be stating the obvious. Second, Jesus explicitly declares that he is still flesh (Luke 24:39) in almost the same words as he had used when he walked on water (Mt. 14:26). In the latter instance, transformation was as much out of the question as it was in Peter’s case, so by parity of reasoning it is in the former.

The Hidden Jesus

If we assume then that Jesus underwent a genuine physical resurrection and was still corruptible flesh as he claimed (Luke 24:39), there is a much better explanation for his being kept hidden apart from the need to maintain justification by faith as mentioned above. First, however, we do well to remember Judas’ question in John 14:22. Jesus was hidden from the world even before his crucifixion (cf. 14:9). Physically, he was just one man among many and his appearance was unremarkable to the extent that we are given no description of him.

Next, despite the fact that according to Romans 6:9 (cf. Rev. 1:18) Jesus will (1* The tense is actually present suggesting that Paul is talking about the now glorified Jesus.) never die again and that death no longer has dominion over him, if he was still flesh, he was still both mortal and corruptible. After all, having kept the law he became personally immune to death at his baptism before his crucifixion, but he was not immortal or he could not have freely given his life as a ransom for his sheep. This being the case, having already been done to death by his enemies once, they would have had a vested interest in making a concerted attempt to kill him again if they could find him. (Failure to find the presumed dead body by the authorities was a major factor in establishing the truth of the resurrection.) As still mortal flesh he would have remained vulnerable. Even from birth, though God’s natural Son but a true human being, Jesus had been involved in evasion, for example, from Herod. (See also John 7:1, 8:59, 11:54 and 12:36.) So after his resurrection in the flesh, apart from the reasons advanced above, what better way did God have of keeping him safe from attack until his ascension than by continued evasion or by deliberately keeping him incognito and/or out of sight from potential assailants.

If it is replied that God keeps his people safe despite their vulnerability in a hostile world today (John 10:28), we need to be aware that our situation is different from that of Jesus. He, having kept the law, had life (Lev. 18:5). So, once he had freely died as a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of his people, he was no longer susceptible to death (Rom. 6:9, cf. Heb. 9:28). By contrast, we as sinners are still subject to it (Rom. 8:10, cf. John 11:25).

All in all, I believe that the hiddenness or apparent disappearances of Jesus after his resurrection were a necessary feature of the gospel and do not require his glorification till his ascension. After all, to all intents and purposes he finished the work his Father had given him to do (John 17:4) on the cross (John 19:30). As I have argued elsewhere (e.g. Did Jesus Rise Physically From the Grave? At www.kenstothard.com /), his ascension glorification as opposed to his resurrection glorification was fundamentally important for three reasons: first, it established the reality of his ascension and avoided reducing it to mere drama, second, it eliminated the charge of deception, and third, it served as the paradigm of the transformation and glorification of the saints at the end of history when Jesus returns in glory (1 Cor. 15:51f.).

__________________________________________________________________________

References

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

J.D.G.Dunn, WBC Romans, Dallas, 1988.

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

Note: Faith brings into the present the reality of that which is past and future, presently unseen and heavenly. Cf. Lane, p.99.