Two Men Called Adam

TWO MEN
CALLED ADAM:
A fresh look at the

creation/evolution
controversy from a
different point of view —
the THEOLOGICAL
By
ARTHUR C. CUSTANCE
4th Edition
Edited by
E.M . W hite and R.G. Chiang
Doorway Publications
2010
ii
Two Men Called Adam:

A fresh look at the creation/evolution controversy from a
different point of view - the THEOLOGICAL
Custance, Arthur C., 1910-1985
Fourth Edition
Edited by E. M . W hite and R. G. Chiang
Copyright © 2010 Doorway Publications, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Cover and text formatting by R. G. Chiang

Diagrams redrawn by R. G. Chiang
A ll rights reserved. N o part of this book m ay be reproduced in any form w ithout w ritten
perm ission from D oorw ay Publications, 38 Elora D rive, U nit 41, H am ilton, O ntario,
C anada, L9C 7L6.
D oorw ay Publications is the publishing division of the Arthur C ustance C entre for Science
and C hristianity, a non-profit organization w hich seeks to preserve, prom ote, and
re-publish the w ritten w orks of A rthur C ustance and to stim ulate study of the Bible in the
light it receives from , and contributes to, the w hole field of know ledge by m eans of
publications, electronic m edia, and education.
Quotations from Scripture are from the King James Version, unless
otherwise stated.
2010 4 th Edition, ISBN 978-0-919857-80-3

2004 3rd Edition, ISBN : 0-919857-70-1
2002 2 n d Edition
2001 2n d O nline Edition, edited and reform atted
1997 online (w w w .custance.org)
1983 ISBN 0-919857-02-1
Doorw ay Publications
41-38 Elora Dr., H am ilton,
O N , L9C 7L6
em ail: ew hite@nas.net
iii
Books by Arthur C. Custance
W ithout Form and Void (1970)
The Doorway Papers Series:

Vol. 1: Noah’s Three Sons (1975)
Vol. 2: Genesis and Early M an (1975)
Vol. 3: M an in Adam and in Christ (1975)
Vol. 4: Evolution or Creation? (1976)
Vol. 5: The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation (1976)
Vol. 6: Time and Eternity (1977)
Vol. 7: Hidden Things of God’s Revelation (1977)
Vol. 8: Science and Faith (1978)
Vol. 9: The Flood: Local or Global? (1979)
Vol.10: Indexes to the Doorway Papers (1980)
The Sovereignty of Grace (1979)
The M ysterious M atter of M ind (1980)
The Seed of the W oman (1980)
Journey Out of Time (1981)
Two M en Called Adam (1983)

iv
THE DOORWAY PAPERS

By Arthur C. Custance
1 Who Taught Adam to Speak?

2 Longevity in Antiquity and Its Bearing on Chronology
3 How to Evaluate Commentaries on Genesis
4 The Problem of Evil in God’s World
5 Origin of the Nations: Genesis 10
6 Some Hebrew Word Studies
7 Convergence and the Origin of Man
8 What Language Did Adam Speak?
9 The Supposed Evolution of the Human Skull
10 The Place of Art in Worship
11 The Time Gap in Genesis 1 between Verses 1 and 2
12 Medieval Synthesis: Modern Fragmentation
13 Striking Fulfilments of Prophecy
14 Personality: Before and After Conversion
15 The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation
16 Three Trees: And Israel’s History
17 How Did Jesus Die?
18 Flood Traditions of the World
19 The Relevance of Cultural Studies to Scripture
20 The Earth Before Man
21 Is Man an Animal?
22 Establishing a Palaeolithic IQ
23 The Reason for God’s Silences
24 Genealogies of the Bible
25 The Nature of the Forbidden Fruit
26/27 The Harmony of Contradiction
28 How Noah’s Three Sons Influenced History
29 A Framework of History
30 The Week of Creation
31 The Omnipotence of God in the Affairs of Men
32 Cultural Progress: From Low to High?
33 The Face of Fossil Man
34 Belief in One God or Many Gods: Which Came First?
35 The Universe: Designed for Man?
36 One Man’s Answers to Prayer
v
37 Time and Eternity

38 The Nature of the Soul
39 Genesis Confirmed by Archaeology
40 Evidence of Man’s Fall Throughout History
41 The Flood: Local or Global?
42 How the Trinity is Revealed in the Old Testament
43 The Originators of Technology
44 Scientific Determinism: Divine Intervention
45 Genesis and Fossil Man
46 The Necessity of Jesus’ Resurrection
47 The Subconscious and the Forgiveness of Sins
48 The Realm of Nature as Part of the Kingdom of God
49 The Image and Likeness of God in Man
50 In the Sweat of Thy Brow
51 Did Cain Marry His Sister?
52 What If Adam Had Not Sinned?
53 The Survival of the Unfit
54 What is in a Name?
55 Why Noah Cursed His Grandson Instead of His Son
56 When the Earth was Divided
57 Handicaps: Hindrance or Help?
58 The Compelling Logic of the Plan of Salvation
59 The First and the Last Adam
60 The Christian: A New Species of Homo Sapiens
61 How Living Things Adapt to Their Environment
62 Christian Scholarship: A Protest and a Plea
Full text of The Doorway Papers

can be read on the internet at:
www.custance.org
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the Fourth Edition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
About the Editors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Acknowledgement to the First Edition.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi
Introduction to the First Edition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM OF HUMAN ORIGIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
How Darwin’s book impacted Christian Faith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The consequences of Faith bowing to Evolution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The biblical view of man: a unique redeemable creature. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The vital importance of the body in the Plan of Redemption. . . . . . . . . . 16
PART I
MAN’S BODY: ITS SPECIAL DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chapter 2
DESIGNED FOR MANKIND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Why the materialistic view of man is too limited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Why humans need a physical body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Why God needs a human body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Embodiment gives meaning to the present and to the future. . . . . . . . . . 37
Chapter 3
DESIGNED AS AN INSTRUMENT
FOR A HUMAN SPIRIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The potential of a human body and its spirit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Each human spirit matches its human body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
The ‘flesh of God’: ultimate fulfilment of human embodiment. . . . . . . . 48
Chapter 4
DESIGNED FOR PROCREATION
A Woman Is Born of a Man. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
The biblical data.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Eve: formed out of Adam, not a direct creation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Adam: before and after divine surgery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
The theological importance of all being ‘in Adam’.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
vii
Chapter 5
DESIGNED FOR IMMORTALITY: MAN’S DESTINY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
The biblical data.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Contingent immortality: a biological and biblical fact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Absolute immortality: a theological fact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Immortality: a biological fact and theological necessity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Evolution cannot account for these two Adams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Chapter 6
DESIGNED FOR MORTALITY: MAN’S SALVATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Death: an inevitable part of life?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Defining death. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Benefits of death to animals.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Mechanisms of animal death. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Two kinds of death: natural for animals, un-natural for man.. . . . . . . . . 86
PART II
MAN’S SPIRIT: A UNIQUE CREATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Chapter 7
HUMAN SPIRIT+HUMAN BODY=A HUMAN BEING. . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Components of the human constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
The human spirit: the biblical definition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
The human soul: the theological definition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
A living soul: an indivisible fused body/spirit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Christian theology and evolution incompatible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Chapter 8
SPIRIT+BODY=AN IDENTIFIABLE PERSON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Reincarnation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Direct creation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Traducianism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Evolution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Problems in proposed solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Chapter 9
SPIRIT/BODY INTERACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
A glimmer of the “ghost:” Penfield’s experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Precedence of mind over brain: Kornhuber’s experiments. . . . . . . . . . . 119
viii
Mind/brain interaction: stereoscopic vision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Terms for spirit/body interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
The spirit/body bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Evolution cannot account for the ghost!.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
PART III
THE HUMANITY OF
THE FIRST ADAM AND THE LAST ADAM.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Chapter 10
A HOUSE IN RUINS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Man: in the image of God?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
How does the body affect the spirit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Just how “ruined” are these mortal bodies?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Two men called Adam: a problem for evolutionists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Chapter 11
A HOUSE OF GLORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
The necessity of the Redeemer’s virgin birth.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
How God designed for virgin birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Words in Scripture confirming this difference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Meaning of “weakness” and “infirmity of the flesh”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
We beheld his glory: evolution cannot account for it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Chapter 12
THE INVISIBLE BECOMES VISIBLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
1. He came to reveal God to man. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
The problem of communication between two different species. . . 165
The ‘bridge:’ compatibility of the two natures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
The invisible God objectified as very personal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
2. He came to reveal man to God. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Human temptation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Why Evolution cannot account for mankind.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Chapter 13
TWO ADAMS: TWO MEN.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
A short history of the Fall.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
1. Fallen Man. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
The innate goodness of man?.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
The universality of sinful behaviour.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
ix
Disturber of nature and deliberately destructive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
2. Unfallen Man. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
His use of power and authority.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
His wisdom and compassion in relationships.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
His flawless character. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
How Jesus revealed MAN to man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Two men called Adam: from the same root?.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Evolution and Christian Faith incompatible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
PART IV
TRIUMPH OVER DEATH

REDEMPTION OF FALLEN MAN BY UNFALLEN MAN. . . . . . . . . 205
Chapter 14
THE TRAGIC DYING OF FALLEN MAN.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Why man dies: science and theology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Death a necessary design? Translation an alternative?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Death: physical and spiritual. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Death of man and animals contrasted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Death: defined by Evolution vs. Christianity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Chapter 15
THE SACRIFICIAL DYING OF UNFALLEN MAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
1. The Spiritual Dying of Jesus Christ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
The moment and experience of being “made sin”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
How long did He suffer separation from the Father?. . . . . . . . . . . 228
His and our spiritual deaths compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
2.. The Physical Dying of Jesus Christ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
His physical death a choice: truly vicarious. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
The historical fact.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
The moral fact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
The theological fact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
This unique death noted by early commentators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
A vicarious, substitionary, sufficient sacrifice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Chapter 16
THE DEATH OF DEATH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
The biblical data on Christ’s resurrected body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Bodily resurrection verified. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Bodily transformation verified. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
x
Bodily immortality—triumph over death forever. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Evolution cannot account for this kind of human body.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Chapter 17
DEATH ABOLISHED!.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
(a) What shall we BE?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
(b) What shall we DO?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
(c) What shall we KNOW?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
(d) How shall we be RECOGNIZED?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Evolution has no destiny. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Chapter 18
CONCLUSION:
DESTINY DETERMINES ORIGIN.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
The defence of any “faith”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
Is a position between two opposing ‘faiths’ possible?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
The “slippery slope” of the Christian evolutionist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Biblical chronology questioned: the timing of Adam’s appearance.. . . 292
Biblical history questioned: no First Adam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Who is right? Where is truth?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
The compelling theological data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
Evolution without hope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Appendix I
Chapter 1, footnote 21
Does It Matter When the Redeemer Entered History?. . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Appendix 2
Chapter 1, footnote 23; Chapter 5, footnote 13
The Meaning of Vicarious Substitutionary Sacrifice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Appendix 3
Which is Formed First: the Spirit or the Body?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Appendix 4
Other Examples of Interaction Between Brain and Mind.. . . . . . . . . . 308
xi
Appendix 5
How The Invisible Was Objectified In Eden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Appendix 6
How Did the Father Share in the Son’s Human Experience?.. . . . . . . 313
Appendix 7
“In Another Form:” Transformation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
Appendix 8
Instructions for the High Priestly Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Appendix 9
The Re-Constitution of a Person in the Resurrection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Appendix 10
A Sobering Thought, and a Frightful Prospect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Index to Biblical References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
Index of Names. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Index of Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

xii
Introduction to the Fourth Edition
Two Men Called Adam became the final book that Arthur
Custance was to write. Although he had planned more works, in
God’s providence he captured in this book many of his thoughts
summarizing the understanding of Redemption that he had
gained by bringing together the established facts of Science and
the revealed truths of Scripture. The new editions following his
death incorporate the additional notes he made in his master
copy, notes that deepen and expand what he had originally
written.
Dr. Custance felt this book was necessary because the study
of the biblical data had been largely ignored in favour of the
scientific data in developing our understanding of who and what
we really are. While a physical body (whether animal or human)
is designed to interact with the physical world, our bodies are
significantly different to the animal body, and as such could not
possibly have had the animal origin as proposed by evolution.
There are fatal scientific flaws in the theory of evolution, but the
theme of this book is to show that a theological understanding of
the purpose of our physical bodies cannot be reconciled with the
belief that Adam’s body evolved from a lower life form.
In this book, Dr. Custance reasons that it is in the study and
comparison of the two men called Adam, the Adam of the Gar-
den of Eden and the Adam of Bethlehem (Jesus), that we can
discern both the why and the how of this creature called Man. For
the reader not aware of the incredible way scientific facts both
support and are supported by the Christian concept of the crea-
tion, fall, and redemption, we know that the ideas presented will
fortify your faith and make a lasting impression.
xiii
About the Author
Arthur C. Custance (1910-1985) was a prolific writer in both

science and theology, having a background in Classical Ancient
Languages (including Cuneiform) and Archaeology, as well as
Engineering and Physical Anthropology. He became Head of the
Human Engineering Laboratories of the Defence Research Board,
Government of Canada in Ottawa. It was at Ottawa University
that he finished his Ph. D. degree. He held several patents in
applied physiological instrumentation. He presented numerous
classified papers before scientific and military audiences, and
published a score of government reports on his research as well
as articles in scientific journals. In testimony to his scientific
achievements, Custance was elected a Fellow of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, made a Member Emeritus of the
Canadian Physiological Society, was a member of the New York
Academy of Sciences, and in 1971 was listed in American Men of
Science.
During his second year at the University of Toronto he was
converted to faith in Christ. Because of his commitment to this
new reality Custance was primarily interested in relating matters
of science with his Christian faith, being fully persuaded that
"Scripture has nothing to fear and everything to gain from the
closest examination possible." Thus his writings interweave the
sacred and the secular naturally and easily. He drew together the
tenets of the Christian Faith with the results of research in many
fields of inquiry to make an organic whole which is defensible
and meaningful.
Custance's concept of faith and science was rather unique.
During the forties his experiences with the emerging ASA
(American Scientific Affiliation) and CRS (Creation Research
xiv
Society) were most significant in the forging of his worldview. He

moved from the anti-intellectual attitude of the evangelicalism of
the thirties to a more balanced appreciation of the role of reason
and of faith, and of the relationship between revealed truth and
acquired knowledge. In the end he was not comfortable with the
stance of either the ASA or the CRS. It was not an either/or
situation but rather that the discovery of truth and meaning
requires both scientific and biblical data, with each contributing to
and receiving light from the other. For him an established fact was
as sacred as a revealed truth. He thus avoided the dualism
separating knowledge into sacred and secular.
He was a devout Christian, and thus avoided another dualism
seldom recognized: the dualism that separates mind and heart,
when knowledge stops short of worship of the One whose works
are being studied. To know the truth, he said, and yet not be
overwhelmed by a sense of worship of the One who is Truth is
not really to understand, after all. Theology, then, in its deepest
and fullest sense, becomes a Devotional Exercise. This underlies
his writings, as it did his life.
Inevitably, as a result of working in a specialized field of
research and because of his own convictions, Custance worked
independent of most Christian scientists and academics. His
writings, however, have influenced thousands of people world
wide. In total, his many books and Doorway Papers on Science and
Christianity have sold over 100,000 copies. In 1997 the Arthur
Custance Web Site (www.custance.org) with the full text of his
writings was established; it regularly receives thousands of visits
each year.
xv
About the Editors
Evelyn W hite became Dr. Custance's administrative

assistant in 1955 with the inception of the Doorway
Papers Series. Upon his retirement in 1970, she retired
from nursing and accompanied him to Brockville,
Ontario, where he wrote 6 books. Following his death
in 1985, Evelyn created, with the advice of Lambert
Dolphin, an internet site at www.custance.org where
the full text of Dr. Custance’s writings can be viewed
free of charge. Along with an advisory board of
dedicated volunteers, she launched the Arthur C.
Custance Centre for Science and Christianity which, in part, administers the
Arthur Custance Awards for Christian Perspective in Science. These
awards are presented at the Ontario Christian Schools Science Fair.
Evelyn has also written The Biography of Arthur C. Custance: a Christian in
the world of science (Doorway Publications, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada,
2007).
Gary Chiang obtained his M .Sc. and Ph.D. in

invertebrate neurobiology with the Department of
Zoology at the U niversity of Toronto. He, along with
his wife Jennifer, joined Redeemer University College
in 1990. In addition to developing an undergraduate
university-level biology program at this new, privately-
funded university, they initiated the Ontario Christian
Schools Science Fair. Gary and Jennifer were
introduced to Custance’s works by Evelyn W hite, and
both have served on the Advisory Board for the Arthur
Custance Centre for Science and Christianity. Dr. Chiang has used the
present book, as well as the Custance Library Collection located at
Redeemer University College, in an interdisciplinary faith and science
course. Besides having an interest in the relation between biology and
Christianity, he maintains a research program investigating the
reproductive physiology of sucking insects.
xvi
Acknowledgement to the First Edition
To Evelyn May White:
for whom I owe a great debt to the Lord for sending

me the best secretary an author ever had, and the
most faithful of all critics.
She took all the dictation at least twice over and
typed much of the text at least three times: and then
set the copy on a Composer ready for the printer,
thus making many last-minute refinements possible.
I am grateful beyond telling.
xvii
Introduction to the First Edition
In the present creation/evolution controversy the basic issue

is the origin and nature of Adam.
W as he only a little removed from the apes but with the
benefit of a soul, appearing on the scene millions of years ago? Or
was he a creature of God's making coming directly into being by
a divine act, placed in a Garden of Eden only a few thousand
years ago? And what of Eve? Was she a kind of prehistoric "Lucy"
three million years old, or was she formed out of a historic Adam
by a unique act of divine surgery as recorded in Genesis so
matter-of-factly?
What has been overlooked in all this controversy, and what
complicates it immensely, is the fact that in the Bible we have not
merely one man called Adam to account for, but two. These two
men, the Adam of Eden and the Adam of Bethlehem, stand in
direct apposition to one another, each being a prototype and a
representative of the other and of true Man. Whatever we can say
with certainty about the Last Adam must be assumed for the First
Adam as originally formed—whether by creation or by evolution.
It is the exploration in depth of this relationship between the
First and the Last Adam that forms the subject of this volume.
Examination of the implications of the biblical data (and this data
is far more revealing than is generally recognized) shows that the
creation of Adam and Eve exactly as Scripture sets it forth, is the
only view that really makes sense of the relationship between
these two Adams and of the biblical Plan of Redemption.
xviii
Furthermore, in this Plan of Redemption what the Lord Jesus

Christ accomplished on Calvary cannot really be understood
without first grasping the difference between our physical death
and that of an animal, and between the death of Jesus Christ and
that of us men for whom He died. These three kinds of physical
death are entirely different in certain fundamental essentials.
Biological data alone cannot account for these physiological
differences. Indeed, evolution makes a shambles of the Plan of
Redemption as the Church of God has understood it and
preached it for almost 2000 years.
In addition, since how a thing is made is determined by what
it is for, man’s origin cannot be determined apart from his destiny.
In this controversy concerning the origin of man's body, the
biological data are only part of the issue: it is the theological data
that must now be addressed.
xix
Arthur C. Custance
(1910-1985)
xx
1
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM OF HUMAN ORIGIN
Can Evolution and Faith Be Reconciled?
When Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, it did not

trouble the theologians too greatly since he avoided making the
evolution of man an explicit corollary. But when he published his
Descent of Man in 1871, the true significance of the threat to the
Christian faith became much more apparent.
In the first place, it was obvious that the concept of the origin
of man by evolution from some ape-like creature ran counter to
the concept of the special creation of man made in the Creator's
own image and possessing, from the first, high intelligence and
moral freedom.
In the second place, it was obvious that the evolutionary view
gave man an antiquity vastly in excess of the mere 6000—10,000
years traditionally held on the basis of a strictly biblical chron-
ology.
But there were other consequences which would have to be
faced in due time.
Evolution makes it impossible to establish the precise anti-
thetical relationship between the Last Adam, Jesus, and the First
Adam of Genesis, a relationship which is so essential to the role
of Jesus Christ as Saviour-substitute for man. Was each truly a
reflection of the other if the First Adam was as much an ape as he
PRO BLEM O F H U M AN O RIG IN
2
was a man? Would he have been, as evolution necessitates, a

barely human figure lurking in fear of life and limb in some dark
cold cave and surviving by the barest margin for thousands of
years until intelligent enough to secure a measure of superior self-
sufficiency? Could such a half-human figure be a prototype of the
Lord Jesus Christ? 1
Then there is the theological requirement that Adam's consti-
tution possessed an immortal nature, a physical body not
inherently subject to death yet quite capable of experiencing death
as the penalty of disobedience. Such a physical being could not be
derived from any one of the then-existing primates for whom it is
almost certain that death was "programmed" to occur after a
certain species-specific span of life had passed.
There are other problems, too. Certainly Eve was formed out
of Adam. But if Adam and Eve were formed by evolution, did the
genders evolve along side one another so that Eve was not taken
out of Adam’s body? Did God breathe into a male pre-human and
a female pre-human to form the original Adam and Eve as
suggested by theistic evolution? The Bible, however, is quite
unambiguous on this matter and mentions no other species of
which the female was, as it were, born out of the male.
Now it is clear from subsequent events after the publication of
The Origin and The Descent of Man that the full theological
implications of some of these difficulties were not recognized at
the time by evangelical theologians.2 There were, however, two
specific problems that they did indeed recognize from the very
first and these were felt to be most disturbing.
These two problems were: (1) the enormous antiquity of man
1. “[A dam ] w ho is the figure [prototype] of him that w as to com e.” Rom ans 5:14b
2. The term “evangelical theology” is used here very broadly to encom pass Calvinism and
A rm inianism , w hether in England and Eu rope or in the N ew W orld. The origin of the
hum an body by evolution w as accepted generally because very few could say W H Y a
biological fact had such far reaching theological im plications, though som e did indeed
resist (it w asn’t till 1951 that the Rom an C atholic theologians cap itulated allow ing the
evolution of m an’s body in the encyclical H umani generis).
3
which apparently vastly exceeded the allotted biblical starting

date of 4004 BC; and (2) the story of man's introduction into the
world by divine intervention in the form of a direct creative act,
not out of a lower order of animal life but out of the dust of the
earth and in the Creator's image.
These problems were resolved by re-interpreting the biblical
chronology, and by re-interpreting the concept of evolution to
mean, in Adam's case, that evolution was the divine mode of
man's "creation." 3
It is my purpose to analyse the factors in the evolutionary
theory of origin which from a theological point of view were most
serious, and to show how, historically, the seriousness was not
recognized by those who should have been the first to sound the
alarm.
As a kind of introduction I will review very briefly what
happened at Princeton Theological Seminary.4 At that time this
seminary was a centre of North American Evangelical Theology,
marked by the appearance of a succession of perhaps the greatest
Systematic Theologians which America was to produce for many
years. What is surprising is the speed with which capitulation to
Darwinism took place. Indeed, by 1900 capitulations to Darwin-
ism at Princeton on these two critical issues was virtually
complete.
The other problems that Darwinism generated for those who
placed their faith in the Word of God crystallized much more
slowly. But what had already been surrendered by 1900 was
enough to ensure that many other theological seminaries and
colleges would soon take a more liberal view of the matter of
human origins and increasingly departed from the biblical
position held by their founding fathers.
3. The term “evolution” as used here refers to m acro-evolution, the creation of new species
from older species by the process of natural selection.
4. Princeton Theological Sem inary w as established in 1812 by the General A ssem bly of
the Presbyterian C hurch of the USA .
4
How Darwin’s book impacted Christian Faith

While evolutionism was gathering momentum in the final
quarter of the 19th century, Princeton was blessed with a
succession of evangelical giants: Charles Hodge (1797-1878) the
leading American theologian of the nineteenth century; his son
Alexander A. Hodge (1823-1886) who followed him in the Chair
of Systematics; William H. Green (1825-1896) who became
Professor of Oriental and Old Testament literature and wrote a
paper on Primeval Chronology that had at that time (and still has)
a profound influence on the whole question of the antiquity of
Adam (as we shall see in Chapter 18); and Benjamin B. W arfield
(1851-1921) who was a product of Princeton and in due course
became Professor of didactic and polemical theology at his Alma
Mater, succeeding A. A. Hodge.
Charles Hodge at first took the position that evolution was a
highly speculative theory and far from being proved. He never for
a moment conceded that man's spirit was evolved and he had
serious doubts if man's body could have been either. This was also
the position which his son, Alexander who succeeded him, held
at first. Direct creation was not in question.5 But with the
publication of Sir Charles Lyell's Antiquity of Man in 1863, Charles
Hodge began to have doubts whether the biblical chronology
which placed the creation of Adam barely 6000 years ago could
any longer be defended.6
Like his father, Alexander Hodge was much impressed by the
manifest "devoutness" of Lyell and as a result Lyell’s conclusion
5. A lexander H odge in 1869 w rote that m an “w as im m ediately created by God, his body
out of earthly m aterials previously created and his soul out of nothing” (Com m entary on the
Confession of Faith, Philadelphia, Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869, p.163]. H ow ever,
21 years later he argu ed that “science has nothing w hatever to do w ith causes ... This
doctrine of evolution w hen it is confined to science as a w orking hypothesis...you need not
be afraid of it...it cannot affect any questions of revelation” (Evangelical Theology,
Edinburgh, Banner of Truth Trust, 1973 [1890], p.147, 148).
6. It is w orthy of note that Lyell had to publish his Antiquity of M an in 1863 before D arw in
felt it safe to publish his D escent of M an in 1871. The first m ade room for the second, and the
second m ade explicit w hat w as im plied in the first.
5
met with considerable sympathy in Alexander Hodge's mind.

While Lyell admitted the evidence for a vast antiquity of the earth
and that man may have been introduced upon it much earlier
than the Genesis record seemed to allow, he wrote: "In any event,
it can prove nothing as to the relation of Adam to the race, but
only that he was created longer ago than we suppose." This was
the thin edge of the wedge.
The idea of the vast antiquity of man had also troubled
William H. Green, and in a work designed to defend the Genesis
story against the violent attacks of Bishop Colenso, Green
published in 1863 his book The Pentateuch Vindicated from the
Aspersions of Bishop Colenso. In this book he argued that the biblical
chronology could not be attacked on the grounds that it did not
accord with the antiquity of man when established from
geological evidence because the Bible did not actually provide an
unbroken chronology in any case.7 The genealogies by which the
Ussher chronology had been constructed appeared to Green to
possess many gaps, leaving the date of Adam's creation quite
uncertain. The traditional date of 4004 BC could now therefore be
abandoned on biblical grounds!
Alexander Hodge toward the end of his life described the
powerful effect Green's book had on his father. In his own words:
"I can well remember my father walking up and down in his
study when he heard [about it] and saying, 'What a relief it is to
me that he should have said that'." 8 It appeared to resolve any
conflict between the Bible and geology.
It does not seem that the younger Hodge recognized the full
import of this "escape hatch." Green had written that "the time
between the creation of Adam and ourselves might have been, for
all we know from the Bible to the contrary, much longer than it
7. Green, W illiam H ., The Pentateuch V indicated from the A spersions of Bishop Colenso, 1863,
footnote, p.128.
8. H odge, A . A ., Evangelical Theology: Lectures on D octrine, Edinburgh, Banner of Truth
Trust, 1976 [1890], paperback edition, p.150.
6
seems."9 To Alexander, this only meant that Adam must be placed

further back in time—not that Adam was any different in nature
from the traditional view of him or that his subsequent history
needed any revision. Adam was still a unique creation.
Warfield, who succeeded Alexander Hodge, accepted this
judgment—again, without apparently realizing what the con-
sequences of such a vast antiquity could be for the first three
chapters of Genesis. He, too, accepted Adam as somehow a true
"creation" but his origin could be placed much further back in
geological time for all it mattered. Thus he wrote in 1911, "The
question of the antiquity of man has of itself no theological
significance. It is to theology, as such, a matter of entire indif-
ference how long man has existed on earth." 10
Throughout this debate it must be borne in mind that the issue
revolved around the origin of Adam’s body. The origin of his soul
as a direct creation of God was not, for them, in question.
However, neither the two Hodges, nor Warfield, nor of course
Green, were aware that this concession was a very serious one.
For such a concession plays havoc with the setting of the story of
the Fall, and therefore with the crucial connection that the New
Testament assumes between the First and the Last Adam.
In due course, while holding firmly to the creation of man's
soul, they all came to accept the idea of evolution as God's method
of producing Adam's body. Warfield assured his readers that
evolution was not a substitute for creation but could "supply a
theory of the method of divine providence." 11 Man's body fitted
readily into the evolutionary chain of life, being the direct result
not of outright creation but of millions of years of imperceptible
changes from amoeba to man. No supernatural intervention was
9. W illiam H . Green: quoted by A . A . H odge, ibid, p.150.

10. W arfield, B. B., Biblical and Theological Studies, Philadelphia, Presbyterian & Reform ed
Publishing Co., 1968, p.238.
11. W arfield, ibid., p.238.
7
needed here, nor any literal "divine surgery" for the formation of Eve
out of Adam.
It is interesting that while these great defenders of evangelical
doctrine were making such tentative concessions to evolution, the
liberal theologians were rejecting it—though admittedly for
different reasons!12 And while the evangelicals were increasingly
giving support to Darwinism as compatible with the Faith they
had so ably defended, Darwin himself was steadily surrendering
whatever of the Christian faith he once had! As we will see in the
final chapter, the consequences of admitting the thin edge of the
evolutionary wedge were to prove disastrous—not only for
Princeton Theological Seminary as a centre of Evangelical
Theology, but for many other seminaries on the American
continent and in other English speaking countries.
In one instance it took only a single generation to pass from a
truly evangelical stance to outright and militant atheism. I have in
mind the history of the justly famous Augustus H. Strong (1836-
1921) whose Systematic Theology is a monumental work of
reference which has, since the first edition in 1907, been reprinted
at least 29 times.13 Like his contemporaries he first allowed that
Adam's body, but not his spirit, could have been derived by
evolution. As he put it, "We concede that man had a brute
ancestry." 14
12. See Richard P. A ulie, "The Post-Darw inian C ontroversies," Journal of the A m erican
Scientific A ffiliation, vol.34, no.1, M arch, 1982, p.25
13. Strong, A . H ., System atic Theology, V alley Forge, Pennsylvania, Judson Press, 1974 [1869].
H e w as president of Rochester (Baptist) Theological Sem inary, and Professor of Biblical
Theology.
14. Strong, A . H ., ibid., p.472. In the section, The Doctrine of M an, he w rote: “The fact of
m an’s creation is declared in Genesis 1:27... But on the other hand, the Scriptures do not
disclose the m ethod of m an’s creation” (p.465) and he continued, “W hile w e concede, then,
that m an had a brute ancestry, w e m ake tw o claim s by w ay of qualification and
explanation: first, that the law s of organic developm ent...are only the m ethods of God;
secondly that m an, w hen he appears on the scene, is no longer brute, but a being...m ade in
the im age of his Creator...” (p.472)
8
Then in his less well-known Christ in Creation, he frankly

admitted that as man received his body by evolution, there was
really no reason why we might not logically admit that this was
how he also received his spirit, since this was God's method of
"creation” in any case.15
When he had completed the manuscript for Christ in Creation,
he requested his son Charles (1863-1940) to proofread it for him.
Although the whole family seems to have shared the father's
evangelical faith, it appears that Charles was perceptive enough
to see the inconsistency in his father's reasoning. In making such
a concession to evolution while at the same time pretending to
hold a truly evangelical position, Charles felt his father was
compromising himself and misleading his readers.16
The end result was that Charles turned completely against
what he was proofreading, abandoning his position as a Christian,
and becoming one of the most ardent and militant proponents of
atheism until the day of his death.17
But this is not the end of the story, sadly enough. For the
Strongs were well-to-do and moved in wealthy circles. Among
their friends were such men as John D. Rockefeller, Chauncey
15. Strong, A . H ., Christ in Creation, Philadelphia, R oger W illiam s Press, 1899, H ere, 33
years later, he argued that “the plan of God is a plan of grow th -- not the spiritual first and
then the natural, but first the natural and then the spiritual... Evolution is not a cause but
a m ethod. God is the cause... W hen I speak of evolution as the m ethod of God, I im ply
that...God w orks by law ...that God m akes the old the basis of the new , and the new an
outgrow th of the old.” H e ‘explained’ that “the dust from w hich the b ody of Adam w as
m ade w as anim ate dust; low er form s of life w ere taken as the foundation upon w hich to
build m an’s physical fram e and m an’s rational pow ers; into som e anim al germ cam e the
breath of a new intellectual and m oral life”. pp.75, 163, 169.
16. O n this point, see Lloyd F. D ean, "C harles A ugustus Strong: Steps in the D evelopm ent
of H is A theism ," G ordon Review , D ec., 1956, p.140
17. Even the ardent evolutionist, G. G. Sim pson, also saw this consequence for he affirm ed
that w holehearted acceptance of evolution is inconsistent w ith belief in the activity of God
in the universe [The M eaning of Evolution, N ew H aven, Yale U niversity Press, 1949, p.230
as noted by C arl H enry, “Theology and Evolution ” in Evolution and Christian Thought
Today, Russell L. M ixter (editor), Grand Rapids, Eerdm ans, 1959, p.198].
9
Depew, and Andrew Carnegie18 . The first made his fortune in oil,
the second in the railway business, and the third in steel. And
each of them was totally ruthless in their business tactics, assuring
their critics that they were only acting according to evolutionary
principles which were God's methods in nature and therefore
good for the species as a whole, however hard on the individual.
They must have received considerable comfort from the fact that
their evangelical friend and scholar, A. H. Strong, could be
depended upon to support them in their philosophy.
The consequences of Faith bowing to Evolution

Why did men of such learning, such dedication to Scripture,
such a profound grasp of biblical theology, so easily allow evo-
lutionary philosophy to poison their own thinking? To a man,
save only for A. H. Strong, they held resolutely to the super-
natural creation of the soul of the first man. Why, then, did they
yield so quickly to an entirely materialistic process of evolution
for Adam's body, in view of their commitment to the Word of God,
which is so clear on the matter?
Did they not recognize that the implacable offensive of
evolutionary philosophy would never stop until all super-
naturalism was abolished entirely? It was only a matter of time till
the evolutionists would insist with equal dogmatism that man's
"soul" was originated in the same way as his body. Even A. H.
Strong could anticipate this. As the evolutionist Kirtley F. Mather
subsequently put it, “The spiritual aspects of the life of man are
just as surely a product of the processes called evolution as are his
brain and his nervous system.” 19
Granted this logical extension, it is absurd to talk of the
"saving of the soul for eternity.” If the soul is a mere epi-
18. H opkins, V incent C ., "D arw inism and A m erica" in D arw in's V ision and Christian
Perspectives, edited by W alter J. O ng, N ew York, M acm illan, 1960, p.118.
19. M ather, Kirtley, "C reation and Evolution" in Science Ponders Religion, edited by H arlow
Shapley, N ew York, A ppleton-C entury-C rofts, 1960, p.38.
10
phenomenon of the human body as consciousness is an

epiphenomenon of the animal body, then soul, like conscious-
ness, must perish with the body—and what evolutionist would be
either willing or logically competent to defend such a super-
natural event as resurrection of the body? The Greeks thought the
idea utterly ridiculous because they held that man was
distinctively a spiritual being and the body a prison from which
the spirit longed to be free.
Why do evangelicals fail to recognize the human body as a
fundamental complement of the human spirit? Man is not a spirit-
ual being who happens to have a body which he can do without
quite easily on the other side of the grave. His body was created
to serve as a permanent house for his spirit. It was not the divine
intention that the body and the spirit should be rent apart. Even
A. A. Hodge frankly recognized that Adam's body was potentially
immortal at first, and that if he had never sinned he would never
have experienced physical death.20 Unless this is true, death could
never have been threatened as a penalty for disobedience.
From the theological point of view, an evolutionary derivation
of the human body is totally unacceptable, for the Plan of
Redemption hinges upon the relationship between two human
beings, the First Adam and the Last Adam. The First Adam is the
Adam of Genesis and the Last Adam is the Lord Jesus Christ of
the Gospels whom Paul declares to have been the First Adam's
counterpart. These two Adams are two persons who stand in di-
rect apposition to one another, both as to body and as to spirit.
Each precisely reflects the other in terms of their human
constitution.
In both body and soul the Last Adam must truly match the
First Adam in every sense if substitution is to be effective. The first
human being (whatever we conceive his outward form to have
20. H odge, A . A., Evangelical Theology, Edinburgh, Banner of Truth Trust, 1976 [1890],
paperback edition, p.155: “God gave Adam a good trial and that if he had not sinned he
w ould not have died”.
11
been and however little removed from the apes) must be every
whit as redeemable as the last human being yet to be born within
the framework of this present world's natural order before the
Creator pulls down the curtain upon it.
The first man must come as effectively under the Redeemer's
umbrella as the last man yet to be born will have to. Thus the first
man Adam and all his descendants—i.e., all "in Adam"—must be
essentially indistinguishable from each other.21 Evolutionary
progress within the human species cannot be reconciled with a Plan of
Redemption which depends upon the death of One who appeared so late
in the chain. And He appeared late indeed if hundreds of thousands or
even millions of years intervened. If the evolution of man is true, this
Redeemer, in his far more advanced state of evolution, would no longer
represent those who had appeared in a much more primitive state at the
beginning of the line.
The biblical view of man: a unique redeemable creature

Now man, as a creation of God, is never viewed in Scripture
as essentially a spiritual being who just happens to have a body.
M an is a hyphenate being, a unified body/spirit entity. Without
the body the spirit is not a person and without the spirit the body
is a mere corpse. As much is said in the New Testament about the
destiny of the body as is said of the destiny of the spirit, and more
is said about the form the body will take than is said about the
form the spirit will take. We shall certainly not be mere ghosts!
When the Lord became Man, He did so by assuming a
prepared body. When He rose from the dead, He rose in his own
body. When He returns, He will return in his own body; and
meanwhile He is as a MAN in heaven because He is a human
spirit in a human body. This in no way challenges the fact that in
becoming Man He never ceased to be what He has always been:
21. The im plication of this observation is that the Redeem er could have com e im m ediately.
For further thoughts on this, see A p p endix 1, D oes It M atter W hen the Redeem er Entered
H istory?
12
God with God and equal with the Father. In this there is no
contradiction for in Him there now dwells all the fullness of the
Godhead BODILY, which in his Person has added a new
dimension. Thus it is proper to watch for the glorious return of
the Son of MAN, for in his resurrected body so will He appear.
I do not wish to pursue this further at the present moment
since it is dealt with later. I wish only to point out that the
incarnate Lord assumed a body that was truly and unequivocally
human, and that body formed a perfect vehicle for the human
spirit which He created for himself. This body would have been
in substance identical to that body He created for Adam which
was to provide a perfect vehicle for Adam’s spirit. True manhood,
as embodied in the First Adam, was immortal by nature and as a
consequence would have demanded a body not subject to
physical decay. Moreover, it is inconceivable that the Lord could
be incarnate in a body, subject to steady decay, increasing senility,
and finally to collapse due to old age.
The pre-existent Lord of Glory condescended to engage for
himself a human form that truly reflected Adam as he came from
the hand of God. In the humanity of Christ Jesus we therefore see
restored to our view the form of the very first human being both
as to his body and as to the spirit which animated it in the very
beginning. The break between ape and man was absolute.
There were no halfway houses in the line of Adam's seed
between the animal and the human world. By divine intervention
the body of the first man was created uniquely, thus forming a
total discontinuity in the great chain of being. It was a physical
organism perfectly suited to be in due course a housing for the
Creator himself. This, however, was a new thing: a thing apart
from that of animals though with many shared functions which
thus involved homologies in design because the world into which
man was thus introduced was a world in which animals also were
13
designed to function.22 Both lived in the same environment: both

were embodied.
This new creature, unlike all that preceded, was unique in
many ways, but in two ways above all: (1) as to his spirit he was
both capable of falling and equally capable of being redeemed;
and (2) as to his body he could die but was under no necessity of
ever doing so.
Moreover, his redemption was possible only because he was
constituted with a human spirit of God's creation and a human
body also of God's creation. Both clearly involved supernatural
intervention—and this was true in both Adams, the First and the
Last.
In the Person of Jesus Christ as Man, redemption for mankind
was secured by death, the death of a human spirit and the death of a
human body. Yet neither kind of death was natural, for man, in the
sense of being inevitable for inherent reasons. Both deaths, for
Jesus Christ, were experienced by an act of will.
However, if the First Adam possessed a body derived from
some non-human primate ancestor, then death would have been
inevitable for him. Death per se would not then be the penalty for
disobedience but merely premature death. By the same token, if the
Redeemer was provided with a body human only in this
evolutionary sense, death for Him would have been likewise
merely premature: it could not have been substitutionary.
Equally crucial to the Plan of Salvation, the body of the Second
Adam had to be truly representative of the body of the First
Adam as created in that it could experience death but was under
no necessity of doing so. Without this correspondence there could
be no substitution.23
22. For the differences betw een m an and anim als, see A rthur C ustance, “Is M an an
A nim al?” Part V in “Evolution or Creation?, vol.4 of The D oorw ay Papers Series, Zondervan,
1976 [1959].
23. Since the Saviour m ust have unending life H im self in order to m ake a vicarious sacrifice
of life, then the one for whom H e substitutes m ust also have had that unending (im m ortal)
life before he becam e a dying (m ortal) person. O therw ise H e cannot m ake a substitutionary
14
These very precise requirements of the nature of Adam's body

entirely preclude an animal origin. If these requirements are not
fulfilled, no redemption of the whole man, body and spirit, are
possible. The logic of this is compelling and leaves no room for an
evolutionary origin of man.
Man must be supplied from the first with such a body in order
that, when he fell, the Redeemer could undo the Fall by becoming
Man himself, because our Substitute must be both truly a human being
and yet truly under no necessity of dying. Otherwise, his death was
not substitutionary for man.
So it has to be asked, At what point in this evolutionary
"Chain of Being" did true man emerge as identifiably human in
each of these particular respects, in order that the Redeemer by
assuming such a body and such a spirit could act as a true
representative?
W hen we bear in mind that this Redeemer was himself the
very God, the Creator of the Universe, is it conceivable that such
a One could assume a form even less human in appearance than,
let us say, Neanderthal man? In the quaint words of the King
James Version, his temple must be "magnifical" (1 Chronicles
22:5).
In actual fact we ourselves almost certainly compare very
unfavourably with the First Adam. Such was the magnificence of
his body that he lived for almost a thousand years despite the fact
that he was already suffering the catastrophic effect of the Fall
which must steadily have been robbing him of most of his pristine
glory.
No million-year-old, tiny-brained, half-ape creature, such as
the famous "Lucy,"24 could thus have been an Adam (or an Eve!),
sacrifice. For further thoughts on this, see A ppendix 2, The M eaning of V icarious
Substitutionary Sacrifice.
24. “Lucy": discovered by Richard E. Leakey in 1972 in K enya, originally referred to as
Skull 1470 but since nam ed "Lucy." The literature is considerable: Leakey him self
published a book titled O rigins in 1977 [Dutton]. A popular account appeared in Tim e,
N ov., 1977, p 36ff.
15
especially in view of the fact that Adam's descendants in the first

generation had already developed city life and by the seventh
generation agriculture, metallurgy, and the musical arts with
wind and stringed instruments.25
As a faithful representative of the First Adam, the Second
Adam lived among us a Man—indeed pre-eminently so, as his
title "Son of Man" indicates. He left a transforming stamp upon
the history of mankind because of his stature. Even physically He
awed those about Him.
We know that the Lord created man in his own image.26 He
clearly did this in order that He himself might one day come
among us in the image of Man without doing any violence
whatever to his own divine nature nor even demeaning his own
pre-existent glory, a glory to which He has returned. And when,
by ascension, He did return to that glory, He did not lay aside his
human body as though it were unworthy. He took it with Him.
He is, indeed, embodied as Man forever and, as He ascended into
heaven, so will He return in a like manner.
The human body is a unique vehicle and holds within itself
the promise of an almost incredible glory. It is a special creation
of God, not a mere by-product of a blind process, as we are being
asked to believe.
We easily fall into the trap of relegating the body to a very
second-rate position in the scheme of things. As such it seems of
little consequence whether its origin was by evolution or creation.
We are told that the salvation of the soul, by the regeneration of
25. Cain’s son, Enoch built a city, and in the seventh generation (sons of Lam ech) “ Jabal
w as the father of such as dw ell in tents . . . and have cattle. Tubal w as the father of all such
as handle the harp and organ. . . Tubal-C ain, an instructor in every artifice in brass and
iron” (G enesis 4:17, 20-22). For m ore on this see A rthur C ustance, “Som e Rem arkable
Biblical C onfirm ations from A rchaeology”, P art IV in H idden Things of G od’s Revelation,
vol.7 in The D oorw ay Papers Series, Zondervan, 1977, especially chapter 3.
26. The apostle John is quite clear on this point w hen he said: “In the beginning w as the
W ord, and the W ord w as w ith God, and the W ord w as God. The sam e w as in the
beginning w ith God. A ll things w ere m ade by H im ; and w ithou t H im w as not anything
m ade that w as m ade” (John 1:1-3).
16
the spirit, is what matters most. The redemption of the body seems
much less important, as though possession of a sub-human body
would serve just as well. Yet we are to continue as a body/spirit
entity throughout eternity which includes not only a new heaven
but a new earth. An earth which is never to grow old 27 would
seem to demand a body that will never grow old either!
It is, in fact, the redemption of our own body that, as an article
of Faith, distinguishes the Christian position from that of every
other religious system. It was this kind of resurrection which
proved so incredible to Paul's Greek hearers at Athens. "Whoever
heard of such a thing?" they asked.28 Even today it would seem
that many Christians have not heard of such a thing either...
The vital importance of the body in the Plan of Redemption

It is the redemption of the physical body that I wish to address
in the chapters which follow. It is my sincere hope that people far
better informed theologically than myself will take up the issue
and carry the matter much further than I am able to do. When this
has been done, I predict we shall suddenly recognize that in the
current creation/evolution controversy, there has been an
important "missing dimension." That dimension represents,
according to Scripture, the other half of the Faith: the redemption
of the body as essential to the salvation of the soul. The body is very
important, but evolution denigrates it, making it merely an animal
body whose destiny is not resurrection but dust.
27. “. . . the new heavens and the new earth w hich I w ill m ake shall rem ain before m e”
(Isaiah 66:2).
28. So totally foreign w as the idea to the Greeks that they m istook Paul's term for
resurrection (anastasis) for the nam e of a new deity and asked w hat new god he w as
speaking about (A cts 17:32). Plato considered that the body im prisoned the spirit, and
therefore that death w as the liberation of it. Paul, on the other hand, view ed the body as
essential for the spirit to express itself, so that he saw disem bodim ent as effectively a
crippling of it. Thus, for Plato em bodim ent w as a penalty: w hereas for Paul disem bodim ent
is the penalty. The tw o positions, the Greek and the C hristian, are diam etrically opposed.
17
It may well be objected that my approach is far too literal, that

I am leaning much too heavily on logical analysis of the actual
words themselves and thus destroying the spirit of them. But I
want to show that, unless we have evidence from Scripture itself
to the contrary, we should take the wording at its face value as
our starting point. Otherwise we ought to abandon all pretense
that we really are making the Bible the touchstone of our thinking
in all matters where revelation plays an essential role.
We cannot form a biblical theology with any claim to rational
coherence which justifies the term biblical if we adopt the practice
of spiritualizing the text or allegorizing it or reading it as poetry
whenever it embarrasses us, unless the offending words are
actually so treated in the original. In Scripture parables are always
identified as such, poetry is always set forth as poetry (as the
Psalms are), and allegories and terms of common parlance like
"the rising of the sun" are easily identifiable as to their obvious
intent. The first chapters of Genesis are not written as poetry, the
sole exception being Genesis 4:23 which is set forth in the original
in exactly the same way the text of the Psalms is set forth—a
telling indication that the rest of the text is NOT poetry.
So I make no apology for taking the words of Scripture
seriously: and after studying this wonderful Book for over fifty
years I am convinced that anyone who does read it in this spirit
will never fail to marvel at the precision with which the truth is
spelled out and hedged against error. Despite the problems of
translation here and there (problems which sometimes arise
where interpretation is in question), I do not believe that any of
the passages upon which my thesis is built involve significant
uncertainties of this kind.
As an example of what I mean, some may object to taking the
story of Eve's formation out of Adam at its face value. But if—for
the sake of discussion—they will tentatively allow its possibility,
they will, I think, soon see what is far more important, namely, its
very necessity, if the rationale of the Plan of Redemption is to be
18
preserved. There are many things that current biblical theology

has neglected to address because of a failure to attach to the
wording of Scripture the seriousness it warrants.
We have long enjoyed a most precise and highly developed
"theology of the spirit." It is now time to produce a balancing
"theology of the body." When this is done, I think the fundamental
issues in the current dispute will be much more apparent. The
Plan of Redemption has much to say about the human body
which becomes meaningless if that human body is merely an
animal body, though greatly refined. By conceding to Evolution
the origin of man's body, even though insisting on the divine
origin of his spirit by direct creation, we have effectively
destroyed the manhood of man. But more seriously the vicarious
substitutionary sacrifice of the Second Adam for all the
descendants of the First Adam makes no sense.

19
PART I
MAN’S BODY:
ITS SPECIAL DESIGN

20
Nothing quite equals the ignorance

of the average scientist about Theology –
except perhaps the ignorance of
most theologians about matters of Science.
21
Chapter 2
DESIGNED FOR MANKIND
No Body = ‘Nobody’
A justly famous paleontologist, one of America's most

informed protagonists for the evolution of man, wrote in 1952:
"There was no anticipation of man's coming. He responds to no
plan and fulfills no supernal purpose. He is a unique product of
a long unconscious, impersonal, material process that did not
have him in mind. He was not planned." 1
So thought Professor George Gaylord Simpson. But Simpson
was wrong. The appearance of the human body upon this world
scene was no accident. Scripture tells us that man was very
deliberately planned and created in God's image after what
amounts to a divine conference in which God said,
“Let us make man in our own image after our likeness: and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing
that creeps upon the earth. So God created Adam in his own image, in
the image of God created he him.” (Genesis 1:26, 27).
1. Sim pson, George Gaylord: quoted by John Pfeiffer, "Som e C om m ents on Popular Science
Books" in Science, vol.117, 1953, p.403. See also G. G. Sim pson, The M eaning of Evolution,
N ew H aven, Yale U niversity Press, 1952, p.344, 345.
D ESIG N ED FOR M AN KIN D
22
Thus, the biblical view of the introduction of man makes him

very much the result of a plan.
Why the materialistic view of man is too limited

Bertrand Russell, an English mathematician and philosopher
(1872-1970), like many other notable individuals of his age, shared
Simpson's dismal view of life and wrote quite as eloquently about
the destiny of man as Simpson did about his origin: “All the
labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the
noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction
in the vast death of the solar system... No philosophy which
rejects these [certainties] can hope to stand.” 2
Such is the logical conclusion of a forthright and consistent
materialism which sees man as merely a physical phenomenon
among the millions of other physical phenomena which have no
more and no less significance in the scheme of things than man.
All are by-products of a pure accident.
The Universe itself will continue to cool as it has done for
billions of years until it dies of loss of useable energy and passes
with all its contents into oblivion. It will be forgotten in the un-
thinkable darkness of the total absence of all consciousness. It will
go out, like a match struck for a brief moment that flares and dies
as though it had never been.3 Only silence and cold will remain.
This prospect was accepted without qualification by the Nobel
Prize winner in 1965 and world renowned French scientist,
Jacques Monod, who stated the case in poignant terms:
M an knows at last that he is alone in the universe's

unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by
2. Russell, Bertrand: quoted by J. W . N . Sullivan, Lim itations of Science, Pelican Books,

England, 1938, p.175
3. Sullivan, J. W . N ., ibid, p.33. See also Leslie Paul, The A nnihilation of M an, N ew Y ork,
H arcourt, Brace, 1945, p.154.
23
chance... M eanwhile he is left with nothing but an

4
anxious quest in a frozen universe of solitude.
The pathetic sadness and loneliness and pointlessness of

human existence lies at the end of this philosophical trail. It is a
philosophy of despair. Such is any evolutionary world view when
it is projected with complete consistency to its logical conclusion.
Gresham Machen observed, correctly, that the validity of any
system of thought is best evaluated by pursuing the logic of it
relentlessly to its ultimate conclusion.5 The conclusion expressed
by these profound scholars speaks for itself. Such candid remarks
made by highly informed and intelligent men point up the
unhealthiness of any philosophy which renders the individual's
life totally insignificant. In the evolutionary worldview, apart
from his functions or skills, the individual has no personal worth.
He is effectively cancelled out as a person.
Such a tragic view stems from the reduction of man to a mere
body, a thing, a physical organism, essentially nothing more than
a machine which will soon wear out to be thrown on the scrap
heap.
In an odd way Christians have contributed to this denigration
of the whole man. What we have done is to place so much
emphasis upon the spiritual welfare of man and so little upon the
importance of the body that we have emasculated man. We have
tried to make him essentially "angelic," a spiritual being who,
however, just happens to have a body, a body which we shall be
only too happy to slough off. This has had the effect of divorcing
two things, body and spirit, which should never even have been
separated. To many people it has ceased to be of much importance
where the body came from. The origin of his body was left to
4. M onod, Jacques, Chance and N ecessity, translated by A ustryn W ainhouse, London,

C ollins, 1972, p.167.
5. M achen, Gresham : quoted by J. I. Packer, Fundam entalism and the W ord of G od, London,
InterV arsity Press, 1958, p.26.
24
those who scarcely believed that man had a spiritual side to his
nature. We have largely surrendered "to the enemy" all concern
for the body so that, effectively, by a joint effort, we have
annihilated man as man.
We have failed to preserve as part of our Faith any frank
acknowledgment of the enormous importance, from Genesis to
Revelation, attached to the possession of a body. The possession of
not just a body of any kind, since all animals have a body and so
do plants, but the possession of a human body, a unique house for
a unique spirit—both of which are of God's creating.
This body is fully one half of our identity as a person. The
world was formed in the first place for its very existence and
continuance, as Isaiah 45:18 makes clear. “Thus saith the Lord that
created the heavens: God himself formed the earth and appointed
it; he has established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be
inhabited.” It is no wonder that the astronauts, viewing the earth
against the blackness of outer space, saw it a gem and were
deeply moved by it. To them it seemed to be so beautiful, as home
always seems to be when viewed from afar, whatever it may be
when examined more closely.
The Medieval theologian, Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141),
described the close interrelatedness of things in a character-
istically succinct manner thus:
“The spirit was created for God's sake, the body for the
spirit's sake, and the world for the body's sake: so that the
spirit might be subject to God, the body to the spirit, and
the world to the body.” 6
Now there is a framework for a philosophy of meaning! The

body forms the intermediary between God and the physical world
through man's spirit. To complete the sequence, Hugh might have
6. H ugh of St. Victor (som etim es H ugo St. Victor) : quoted by H . O . Taylor, M edieval M ind,
London, M acm illan, 1911, p.65.
25
added in the light of what we now understand, "and the Universe

for the world"—for such it begins to appear. Revelation 4:11
furnishes the reason why: "For You have created all things, and
for your pleasure they are and were created."
This is even more pointed when it is realized that the phrase
"all things" means not merely "everything" in common parlance
but more specifically the Universe, since this is what the Greek (ta
panta) signifies. The Universe, and man for whom it was created,
was created for God’s pleasure and still exists for his pleasure --
in spite of what man is doing to it.
This present order, however, is temporary. It is to be replaced
in a due course by a new Universe, not merely by a new heaven
only but by a new EARTH also! This replacement is to be
permanent. Scripture gives us every assurance of the fact.7
If the essence of man is not merely in his spiritual nature but
in his physical nature as well, the continuance of man's body is
made meaningful by the promise of a new heavens and a new
earth. In harmony with this promise we are assured that there is
reserved for us a new "house" for our spirit, a new body which is
to be "eternal in the heavens" (2 Corinthians 5:l).
We have so spiritualized this new Universe which is to be our
eternal home that we see man's future as essentially a spiritual
one. The spiritual becomes an overriding concern, and yet
Scripture tells us that we should look upon this present world as
a mere shadow of the ageless Universe which is to replace it.8 And
this ageless Universe includes something called a new earth with
a formal structure such as will accord with our new bodies. We
shall not be ghosts flitting from cloud to cloud: in contrast to the
angels we shall be real people with bodies as real as Jesus’
7. “Behold I create new heavens and a new earth: and the form er shall not be rem em bered,
nor com e to m ind” (Isaiah 65:17); “...new heavens and the new earth, w hich I w ill m ake,
shall rem ain before m e, said the Lord” (Isaiah 66:22); “ I [John] saw a new heaven and a
new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth w ere passed aw ay” (Revelation 21:1)
8. “These are a shadow of the things that w ere to com e; the reality, how ever, is found in
C hrist” (C olossians 2:17 N IV ).
26
resurrected body.9 And He categorically denied that his body was

a mere ghost of one.
Why humans need a physical body

But why is a body so necessary for man? Angels do very well
without them, so why can't we?
There are a number of reasons why man has a body, though
it is obvious enough that God can create angels whose existence
is just as real despite lack of an embodiment. So, allowing that
God did not need to create man in such a way that he had to have
a body, why did He create man thus? Let me suggest five reasons.
(1) One of the most obvious reasons is that God created a
Universe which is physical. He must have had a reason for doing so
and I suppose the best reason has to be simply: because it suited
his purpose. Granted this, we might go one step further and say
that He had, from the beginning, every intention of putting
"someone in charge" of it. This someone was not only in charge
of the earth, but ultimately would be in charge of the whole thing.
That someone was man, starting with responsibility for the earth.10
But how could we "take charge" without a body? It does not seem
that we could.
Now even though God equipped man with a body for this
reason, a body having hands and eyes and ears and feet and a
brain and so forth, there was still no guarantee that man would
take charge successfully—since he was given freedom to obey or
to disobey his mandate. But at least it seems clear that to exercise
any kind of dominion over a physical world we had to have these
physical appurtenances. Indeed, even angels need some
temporary embodiment when they are called upon to act on the
9. “...w e eagerly aw ait ... the Lord Jesus C hrist w ho, by the pow er that enables him to bring
everything under his control, w ill transform our low ly bodies so that they w ill be like his
glorious body” (Philippians 3:20b, 21 N IV).
10. “A nd God blessed them , and God said to them , ‘Be fruitful, and m ultiply, and fill the
earth, and subdue it: and have dom inion over the fish of the sea, and over the fow l of the
air, and over every living thing that m oves upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28).
27
physical world: not always perhaps, but certainly on occasion—as

we shall see later.
Thus, to put the case in a nutshell, man can exercise his will
upon the physical order of things only because he has these
physical properties, i.e., because he has a physical body which is
extraordinarily well designed for the express purpose of "taking
charge." It is obvious that I can will my hand to move, and it
moves. We don't really know how this comes about but it does
respond to my willing, and with this ability, we can manipulate
material things with a remarkable degree of success—for good or
ill. The body is thus a mediator between the will and the world.
For example, I can't simply will the hands of the clock to move
forwards one hour in the Spring or backwards one hour in the
Fall, but I can cause it to happen by making my feet carry me to
the clock and making my hand reach up and change the setting to
Daylight Saving Time. Indeed, we can act on the physical
world—even to the extent of beginning the conquest of
space—only because we have a body as our own personal effective
instrument. That is one very good reason why we are given bodies.
(2) In order to carry forwards this government of the world
(and I suspect of the whole Universe in due course or at least of
the New Universe) we must somehow multiply our numbers.
There are only two ways by which this increase can be achieved:
by direct creation or by procreation.
Let us suppose it is done by creation. Angels are individual
creations. Each one, as Thomas Aquinas astutely observed, is a
separate creation, and therefore, is a separate species.11 Each one
stands entirely on its own. There are no relationships between
them. No angel is father to another angel. They do not multiply by
marrying and bearing offspring.12 Thus "to fill the jobs available"
11. Aquinas, Thom as, Sum m a Theologica, Book I, Q uestion.4: in An Aquinas Reader, by M ary
T. C lark, N ew York, Im age Books, 1972, p.89.
12. “W hen [people] shall rise from the dead, they neither m arry nor are given in m arriage;
but are like the angels w ho are in heaven” (M ark 12:25).
28
in governing the earth, God would have had to create individuals

as the tasks developed in order to fill "the positions available."
But now a new problem arises. In the divine plan, these
agents, whether pure spirits or embodied, were created with a
measure of moral freedom. That angels are not robots is clear
from the fact that they do indeed have some measure of freedom,
freedom at least to hold contrary opinions.13 Furthermore, a
number of the angels were disobedient and fell14 and these are to
be punished for their failure. But then the question arises, If they
can be punished, can they also be redeemed?
As far as we can see, they cannot be redeemed. Why not?
W ell, if we take the Word of God as our guide in all matters of
salvation of either men or angels, redemption requires a substitute
redeemer, and the redeemer has to be one in form and nature with
the subjects to be redeemed. But if each angel is a separate species
by the very fact of creation, it would seem that not one redeemer
but thousands or perhaps even millions of redeemers would be
required, one for each angel.
There can be no "first Angel" whose fall involved all of them
so that they could all be incorporated and redeemed as members
of a single family. Since they did not arise by multiplication from
a single "father Angel" corresponding to a single "father Adam,"
the Plan of Redemption which works for man cannot be made to
work on the same principle for angels. As the prophet Malachi
wrote, "Have we not one father?" (2:10) and as Paul reaffirmed, in
Acts 17:26, that "God has made out of one all men for to dwell on
13. The evolutionist says that one can have a brain w ithout a m ind, and this is certainly
true. The brain of Einstein has been preserved in a container since his death, though the rest
of his body "lies a m oulderin' in the grave." But they then add: "but not a m ind w ithout a
brain" -- and this is certainly not true. ["Brain that rocked physics rests in cider box", Science,
vol.210, 1978, p.696]. In D aniel it is said that the angel, though bodiless, clearly "had a m ind
of his ow n." (The angel said, “I w ill show you [D aniel] that w hich is noted in the scripture
of truth; and there is none that upholds m e in these things except M ichael” D aniel 10:12,
13, 21). The passage is quite unequivocal about this.
14. “A nd the angels w hich kept not their first estate, but left their ow n habitation, he has
reserved in everlasting chains under darkness. . . “ (Jude 6).
29
the earth." A single redeemer who stands as a second Adam can

act as a redeemer of the whole species of man. But no such
situation is possible with respect to the angels.
The very essence of the Plan of Redemption—substitution of
one Head for another—can only be applied to the single species,
Homo sapiens. To redeem the angels, which do not constitute a
family at all, would require as many redeemers as there are fallen
angels.
Thus, if the appointed government of the material Universe
was to be formed of free moral agents who were therefore
fallible15 and consequently in need of a redeemer, the only
conceivable way to allow for their increase in numbers was not by
a direct creative process but by procreation from a single racial
Head, Adam. For procreation, embodiment is essential. And
therefore, if man was to be morally free, he must also be redeemable: and
to be redeemable, he must be able to multiply by procreation: and to
procreate, he must be embodied.
(3) Now a third consideration enters the picture. It does not
appear from Scripture that angels "grow up.” They do not start as
infant angels and grow up to be adult angels, because they live in
a world outside our world of space and therefore presumably
outside our world of time. So they do not increase in size nor
mature with time as we do.
Angels do not occupy space but only position. That is to say, no
two angels can overlap, as if it were, by occupying the same
position and so confuse their identity. Moreover, since they do not
occupy space, they do not need to cross the intervening space to
pass from one position to another. The passage is instant. This is
no longer such an unimaginable situation (even for a scientific
person to imagine) because modern Quantum Theory sees certain
"particles,” which are centres of energy, as apparently shifting
position in just such a manner. These "particles" do not have
15. The theologians say "fallible," but w ord now has a slightly different connotation.
30
dimensions and so do not have to pass between the different

positions they occupy. The movement from one level of energy to
another (it is difficult to express it in any other way than a
movement) does not occupy time, any more than these particles
occupy space.
So we have no newborn angels, no infant angels, no
adolescent angels, no aging angels, because by reason of the very
timelessness of their existence we have to suppose that they are
created already mature.16 It takes time to mature, and the
maturing process seems to depend on an aging process. There can
be therefore no such thing as the development of character "on the
job"—though for the fallen angels there is obviously a sudden
destruction of character.
Clearly it has been God's intention that man's role as governor
of the Universe is to engender a maturing process as a by-product. It
is our interaction with the physical world and with one another
(physical beings, all) that is to result in "the perfecting of the
saints." For this interaction we must have bodies that mature
even as we have spirits that mature.17
Because interaction with the world is so essential for the
process of maturing, it would appear that even the Christian is
called upon to react with the world and will not be taken out of
16. C herub angels are pure figm ents of artistic im agination.

17. Tertullian said: “I w ish to im press upon you . . . that w hatever G od has at all purposed
or prom ised to m an, is due not to the soul sim ply but to the flesh also” [“O n the
Resurrection of the Flesh”, Book VI, Chapter V, in Latin C hristianity: Its Founder Tertullian,
C leveland C ox, vol.3 of A nti-N icene Fathers, A lexander Roberts and Jam es D onaldson,
editors, N ew York, C harles Scribner’s Sons, 1918, p.549]. So clear w as Tertullian on this that
his critics called him a m aterialist! In the 4th century, Gregory of N yssa said, “neither is
there percep tion w ithout m aterial substance, nor does the act of perceiving take place
w ithout the m ind”--certainly a clear statem ent of interaction. H e argued that “the
resurrection is looked for as a consequence, not so m uch from the declaration of Scripture,
as from the necessity of things”[“O n the M aking of M an”, chapter X IV and XXI in Selected
W ritings of G regory, Bishop of N yssa, edited by W illiam M oore and H enry W ilson, vol.5 of
N icene and Post-N icene Fathers of the Christian Church, edited by Philip Schaff and H enry
W ace, N ew York, C harles Scribner’s Sons, 1917, p.403, 410]
31
the world until he or she has matured.18 For this reason it is

important that we do not forget to assemble with other Christians
not merely in spirit but in body.19 It is not good to go it alone
though circumstances sometimes dictate it.20
In short, "we are in our relations"21 both with other things and
with other people and these relations need to be physical as well
as spiritual. We speak of making contact with people without
realizing that we are tacitly acknowledging the importance of an
embodiment. Without an embodiment we apparently could not
be "made perfect" as God has planned, even as the Lord Himself
was "made perfect" in his incarnation, where "perfect" means
mature.22
In total isolation from human contact, such as happens now
and then with feral children deserted by their parents in infancy
and adopted by animals, there is no advancement into human-
ness if the isolation continues for long enough.23 All strictly feral
children remain non-human in personal development until they
begin to interact with other human beings.
In a similar way, fully humanized individuals, deprived of all
sensory (i.e., bodily) input from the physical world, can so
disintegrate as persons that it proves to be one of the most dama-
ging modes of torture—so damaging that virtually all nations
have outlawed it, though unfortunately the agreement is fre-
quently honoured only in the breach of it.
We thus conclude that embodiment is essential for the perfecting
of the saints.
18. “I [Jesus] pray not that you [Father] should take them [the disciples] out of the w orld,
but that you should keep them from the evil.” (John 17:15).
19. “Let us not give up m eeting together...“ (H ebrew s 10:25 N IV )
20. “The LO R D God said, It is not good that the m an should be alone...” (Genesis 2:18).
21. Taylor, John, M an In the M idst, London, H ighw ay Press, 1955, p.21.
22. “...though he w ere a son, yet he learned obedience by the things w hich he suffered
[experienced]; and being m ade perfect, he becam e the author of eternal salvation... “
(H ebrew s 5:8,9a).
23. O n feral children, see A rthur C ustance, “W ho Taught A dam to Speak?” Part V I in
G enesis and Early M an, vol.2 of The Doorw ay Papers, Zondervan, 1975 [1957], pp.249-271.
32
(4) Then there is a fourth consideration. Granted that embodi-

ment is a practical necessity, we must also have consciousness of
our physical environment through the senses—seeing, hearing,
tasting, smelling, feeling, and of course all locomotive and
manipulative faculties. These are mediated from the will to the
hand, foot, tongue, and so forth via the brain. It is clear from
neurophysiology that the brain is the physical link between the
will and the world.
Indeed, there is no unequivocal evidence either from science
or Scripture that man can retain consciousness without an actual
brain, either in this world or in the next. Angels can, for they were
so fashioned, but man was not so designed. One of the most
cogent arguments for the need of a physical brain to retain
consciousness is the tremendous emphasis, in Scripture, on the
promise that we shall be "reclothed" in a new body.24 What need
of a body if we can function and be perfectly effective persons
without the body? And what need for the Lord's resurrected body
if He, too, cannot remain truly MAN without it?
True, it will operate on a different principle (as we shall see
later), but it will be an embodied existence that we shall enjoy.
Just as the Lord deliberately set out to demonstrate to his disciples
after his resurrection that He had a body of flesh and bone, so
shall we have a body of flesh and bone. He was not a ghost; nor
shall we be, for we shall be like Him 25 and we shall have a body
“like his glorious body” (Philippians 3:20, 21). This body will be our
conscious link with the new heavens and the new earth; and the source
24. “For w e know that if our earthly house, this tabernacle w ere dissolved, w e have a
building from God, an house not m ade w ith hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this w e
groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon w ith our house w hich is from heaven, if so be
that, b eing clothed, w e shall not be found naked. For w e that are in this tabernacle do
groan, being burdened: not that w e w ould be unclothed, but clothed upon, that m ortality
m ight be sw allow ed up of life. N ow he w ho has m ade [w rought] us for the selfsam e thing
is God, w ho has also given unto us the earnest of the Spirit” (2 C orinthians 5:1-5).
25. “Beloved, now are w e the children of God; and it does not yet appear w hat w e shall be,
but w e know that w hen he shall appear, w e shall be like him , for w e shall see him as he is.
(1 John 3:2)
33
of our "personal awareness” just as it is the source of our personal

awareness in this present universe.
(5) And then there is a fifth reason relating to our personal
identity, the matter of recognition. We have no idea how angels are
recognizable to one another. How would one identify one angel
from another when meeting one on a street in the new Jerusalem
except they have some formal individuality of shape or size or
visible mannerism?
We establish our identity in a dozen ways—by facial features,
body shape, size, mannerism, walk, voice, colour: one could
probably think of many other characteristics. The common factor is
embodiment! All such means of identity are bodily: even voice, for
we have no voice except we have vocal chords, lungs, throat,
tongue—even teeth! Nor could the other party be seen or heard or
felt but for the fact that we too have the means to feel and hear
and see and touch them, and they us.
The resurrected Lord used his own body, transfigured though
it was, to establish his personal identity. It is difficult to think that
we who have matured in a physical body and will be punished or
rewarded for the "deeds done in the body," 26 could suddenly
appear without any shape or form that would enable us to
identify one another. I think it safe to say that embodiment is
essential for the preservation of personal identity.
Why God needs a human body

We have considered five of the reasons why it was necessary
for God's purposes that we should have bodies. It remains now to
consider very briefly three reasons why it was necessary—both
for us and for God—that He also should assume a body.
(1) God Himself must become incarnate first, and most
obviously, because man needed a Redeemer. A redeemer must
26. “For w e m ust all appear before the judgm ent seat of C hrist, that everyone m ay receive
the things done w hile in his b ody, according to w hat he has done, w hether it be good or
bad” (2 C orinthians 5:10).
34
experience physical death in man's place. And such a Redeemer

must be of infinitely greater value than any one individual, if his
sacrifice is to be sufficient for many individuals needing sal-
vation. No one man, however perfect, can be of sufficient worth
to redeem more than one sinner.
On the simple principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth, and a life for a life, the cost of sacrifice for the millions who
need redemption had to be, accordingly, far in excess of the
sacrifice of one single human life. Only the sacrifice of God
Himself could suffice.
But as Luther put the matter very simply, "God cannot die." 27
As a pure un-embodied Spirit, God could not experience the death
of man except by becoming Himself "embodied man." Thus it was
not sufficient that God should simply create a perfect man and
then send him as our Saviour, because such a one, though he
might sacrifice himself for the sins of one individual, could not by
this means pay the penalty of the sins of countless millions.28
Therefore God Himself came as an embodied Man in the
Person of Jesus Christ who is the express image of the Father's
Person,29 supernaturally conceived but naturally born of a woman
and therefore in the likeness of man. The very fullness of God
thus dwelt among us bodily 30 in his Person, in order that He
might bear our sins in his own human body on the cross 31 and as
27. Luther: "A ccording to his ow n nature God cannot die, but since God and m an w ere
united in one person, it is correct to talk about God's death w hen that m an dies w ho is one
thing or one person-w ith God." Form ula of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore
Tappert, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1959, at A rticle VIII, section 44.
28. For a discussion of types of sacrifice, see A rthur C ustance, “The Unique Relationship
Betw een the First A dam and the Last A dam ”, Part IX in The V irgin Birth and the Incarnation,
vol.5 in The D oorw ay Papers Series, Zondervan, 1976 [1962], p.372-76.
29. “God . . . has in these last days spoken to us by his Son . . . w ho, being the brightness of
his glory, and the express im age of his person. . . “ (H ebrew s 1: 2a, 3).
30. “For in him [C hrist] dw ells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (C olossians 2:9).
31. “W ho his ow n self bore our sins in his ow n body on the tree. . .” (1 Peter 2:24)
35
Man, "taste" our death.32 Such was his worth that the death He
tasted was sufficient for every man.
This was one basic reason why God, for man's sake, was
embodied as Man: that God in Christ might experience death for
man. Hence it is proper that Scripture should speak of God laying
down his life for us,33 thus purchasing the Church "with his own
blood".34
(2) But there was another reason. God wished to reveal
Himself to man. And how better could He achieve this than by
embodiment in the likeness of men to share the vulnerabilities of
our humanity—hunger, thirst, fatigue, wounds, and the whole
gamut of human emotions save those arising from our fallen state.
And so He came among us, a Man among men, and after three
years of ministry among the people had so revealed Himself—
personally, intelligibly, intimately—that He could say to Philip
who asked Him to show them the Father, "Have I been with you
so long a time, Philip, and yet you have not known Me? Whoever
has seen Me has SEEN the Father" (John 14:9).35 As Leo the Great,
Bishop of Rome, put it (in 449 A.D.), "The invisible became
visible." 36
32. “W e see Jesus, w ho w as m ade a little low er than the angels for the suffering of death
... that he by the grace of God should taste death for every m an.” (H ebrew s 2:9).
33. “... w e perceive the love of God because he laid dow n his life for us...” (1 John 3:16).
34. “. . . the church of God w hich he has purchased w ith his ow n blood.” (A cts 20:28b).
35. Tertullian taught: “Everything that is, is body”. C onsequently he held that the soul, and
even God H im self, are bodily entities (F. R. Tennant, The Sources of the D octrines of the Fall
and O riginal Sin, N ew York, Schocken Books, 1968 [1948], p.330). For H im em bodim ent w as
necessary for the invisible to becom e visible: A nimae anim a sensus est, “sense is the sou l’s
soul” -- and sense, sensitivity, is received via the body.[“O n the Flesh of Christ”, chapter XI
and XII in vol.3, A nte N icene Fathers, edited b y A lexander Roberts and Jam es D onaldson,
N ew York, C harles Scribner’s Sons, 1918, p.532].
36. If one purpose of the Incarnation w as absolutely fulfilled -- regardless of w hether any
one w as saved by it or not -- it is that m anhood, hum an nature, the hum an lot and
predicam ent, w as revealed to the Father. H e could not have know n w hat sickness does to
m an, or w hat tem ptation does to m an, or w hat m erely being bound by tim e and space and
being vulnerable to injury, can do to m an.
36
(3) And, finally, a very important reason lies in the fact that
embodiment subjects man to stresses, fears, hurts, and limitations
that entail temptations quite unknown to purely spiritual beings
like angels. Nor can even God Himself have experienced these
things. How, then, could He be a fair judge of men's actions, if he did
not know first-hand the nature of man's temptations?
For this reason, the Father has committed to the Son all
judgment "because He is the Son of Man".37 Had God, in the
Person of Christ, not shared the human experience, He could not
have acted in complete fairness in judging man's sin because the
meaning of our temptations would be experientially quite un-
known to Him. But in Christ they were known to the full.
As a supreme example, consider one instance. It was
customary for a drink of vinegar and myrrh to be offered to men
condemned to be crucified if they were felt worthy of this mercy.
The drink was a palliative, and according to Alfred Edersheim it
was prepared by a kind of Ladies Society in Jerusalem.38 It was
usually offered to the victim just before the actual elevation on the
cross. Apparently it had been found to bring significant relief
against the first terrible pain and shock of crucifixion, and many
must have thanked the women for their mercy as the body was
wracked by the agony it entailed.
The Lord Himself must certainly have been aware of this
merciful provision, but even so as a man He had first to taste the
drink to know for sure what was being offered to Him. And He
certainly would know what it was by tasting it, since apparently
it was bitter to the tongue. Even in the agony of those moments,
having identified its nature He resisted the temptation to find
37. “[The Father] has given him authority to execute judgm ent also, because he is the son
of m an” (John 5:27).
38. The Society of Jerusalem W om en: A lfred Edersheim , The Life and Times of Jesus the
M essiah, N ew York, H errick & C o., 1886, second edition, vol. II, p.590. See also Thom as
H orne, Introduction to the Scriptures, Grand Rapids, Baker reprint. vol .III, p.163.
37
relief and refused it.39 It is true that, later, He accepted vinegar

which was offered to Him,40 but vinegar was not a palliative and
it would almost certainly be needed to enable Him to speak and
say the things He had yet to say from the cross. The fluid loss
from his body resulting from all the scourging wounds He had
received would have placed Him in a state of terrible dehydration
and probably well-nigh speechless. The temptation to take the
previous palliative must have been almost overwhelming.
Thus it is perfectly in accord with divine justice that the judge-
ment of man should have been placed entirely in the hands of
One who was both the Son of God by generation in eternity and
the Son of Man by embodiment in time, and was tempted in his
human condition in a way quite impossible for Him in his divine
nature.
Embodiment gives meaning to the present and to the future.

Thus we have reviewed briefly five reasons why MAN is both
blessed and burdened with embodiment. It is through this
physical body in a physical world that we:
(1) become effective managers of the physical world;

(2) increase in numbers to take over increasing responsibilities;
(3) mature both in body and spirit through this interaction;
(4) are conscious of our world and self-conscious of ourselves;
(5) will retain our personal identity after death.
And we have looked briefly at three reasons why God Himself

assumed embodiment. He must have a physical body in order to:
(1) sacrifice Himself to secure man's redemption;
39. “. . . gave him vinegar to drink, mingled w ith gall; and w hen he had tasted it, he would
not drink” (M atthew 27:34).
40. “[Jesus] said, I thirst! . . . they filled a sponge w ith vinegar, and put it upon hyssop,
and put it to his m outh. W hen Jesus, therefore, had received the vinegar, he said, It is
finished; and he bow ed his head” (John 19:30).
38
(2) reveal Himself to man in all the beauty of his Person,

(3) be m an's Judge with perfect fairness on the day of
reckoning.
We shall in the chapters which follow have occasion to return

to some of these points in more detail. M y objective will be to
underscore in every way possible the fact that man is not
embodied by accident but by design, and to show that his body is
as essential an element of his very being as his spirit is.
It is literally a fact that having no body is tantamount to being
a NOBODY, and that apart from the existence of these millions of
'somebodies' the Universe is nothing more than a gigantic but
pointless display of wasted and wasting energy.
It is the embodiment of man that gives meaning to the present
Universe and will give meaning to the New Universe which is yet
to succeed it.

39
Chapter 3
DESIGNED AS AN INSTRUMENT
FOR A HUMAN SPIRIT
And for the Last Adam
To any thoughtful observer the human body, even in its

present state of imperfection because of abuse and disease, must
still appear to be the most wonderful piece of machinery in the
animal world. It is an instrument uniquely designed to give
expression to the human spirit in all its moods. And even the
evolutionists would admit that between this human spirit and
animal spirit there lies a seemingly unbridgeable gulf. The
evidence of this is overwhelming to the open mind.
The potential of a human body and its spirit

One has only to watch at close range the hands of a piano
virtuoso playing a composition by Tschaikowsky, with the fingers
striking as many as twenty keys per second across a keyboard of
88 alternatives, to appreciate something of the manipulative skills
in the human body.
Consider not only the creation of the music to begin with as an
act of the spirit, but the superb engineering of the grand piano
with all its technical refinements and artistic embellishments.
Then add to this the development of the means of telecasting the
performance in colour and movement, providing close-ups of
D ESIG N ED AS IN STRU M ENT FO R H U M AN SPIR IT
40
those fingers so clear as to reveal the very texture of the skin, and
projecting this image over thousands of miles—to recognize what
the combination of head and heart and hands in man can
accomplish.
Consider the performance itself. The eye of the pianist rapidly
scans the score, seemingly without reference to the keyboard,
while his ear monitors the touch and the timing, and his brain
interprets the symbols on the page and directs both hands
unerringly to the proper positions. The total performance—the
original creation, the provision of means for reproduction, the
transmutation of the sound waves into radio waves, and the
sending and receiving of these waves and their faithful recon-
version into the original sounds—all these achievements are
entirely dependent upon the interaction between a human spirit
and a human body within a physical world. No link in this chain
can be omitted.
Even the invention of musical scoring and the very tuning of
the instrument itself are involved in this performance. Each
requires perfect co-ordination. Put together, this is an achieve-
ment which demonstrates the truly extraordinary capabilities of
the human spirit and the human body in producing an aston-
ishing total performance. The number of messages that are
flashing back and forth within the nervous system, in both
performer and listener, must be reckoned in the billions: and yet
the whole system can actually be expected to work time after time
almost flawlessly.
Head, heart, and hand are involved in a total co-ordination
that all too often we accept without amazement. Why? Because it
is so dependable! Man has not yet produced a machine which
even approaches such capabilities. This total artistic and technical
achievement would be utterly impossible for a mere angelic being
—and, dare I say it, even for God Himself, unless incarnated.
Would it be altogether absurd to add, "And although God can
41
sing,1 yet He could not write the score without human hands." It
was a finger that wrote the Ten Commandments and a hand that
wrote on Belshazzar's wall...2 The words of George Eliot are a
propos in this connection. In her poem Stradivarius, she wrote:
Tis God gives skill,

But not without man's hands:
He could not make Antonio Stradivari's violins
Without Antonio.
Perhaps it would be more correct to say, "He will not make..."

rather than "He could not make..." for it is by God's choice that He
has decided to leave such things to us. It is not because of any
limiting necessity imposed upon his omnicompetence but perhaps
because He desires our company.
The whole performance—artistic, gymnastic, and technical
—is so extraordinary when one stops to think about it, as to be
little short of miraculous. The whole of man is totally absorbed in
such an achievement. Without the body to support the mind, and
the mind via the brain to direct the body, none of this could be
possible. And it would surely be patently absurd to say, “Oh, an
animal body could probably come close enough if properly
trained.” The human body is no more an animal body than a
human spirit is an animal spirit. The two are permanently
wedded teams operating at entirely different levels.
It is obvious that the genius of the composer would not be
made apparent without the player and his piano! Nor the skill of
the pianist and the perfection of his instrument would be
apparent without the creative genius of the composer. Such
accomplishments are interdependent; as they are in the design
1. “The Lord your God in the m idst of you is m ighty; he w ill save, he w ill rejoice over you
w ith joy; he w ill rest in his love, he w ill joy over you w ith singing” (Zephaniah 3:15).
2. “In the sam e hour cam e the fingers of a m an’s hand, and w rote over against the
candlestick upon the plaster of the w all of the king’s palace; and the king [Belshazzar] saw
the part of the hand that w rote” (D aniel 5:5).
42
and erection of a Gothic cathedral, or—to move into another area

—putting a man on the moon and bringing him back again with
mathematical precision. Man's creative spirit and manipulative
skill combine to produce near miracles, and unlike animals man
has a delightful consciousness of the achievement.
In an almost infinite variety of forms the potential of the
human spirit and of the human body are found matched in every
imaginable permutation and combination. When Christians speak
easily of the rebirth of the spirit without also telling of the
redemption of the body, they are speaking only of the saving of
half the man—which is really no salvation at all, for MAN.
This one example of the capacities of human beings could be
multiplied almost ad infinitum. It is not that man can fly with the
ease and manoeuverability and precision of a bird, or run like the
cheetah which has been clocked at 70 miles per hour, or swim
with the speed and grace of the dolphin, or jump like the
kangaroo or gazelle, or perform the aerial acrobatics of the
monkey or squirrel, or scale the mountain cliffs like the goat or
mountain sheep. In such particular achievements, essential to the
survival of these animals, they often easily out-perform the
capacities of the human body. But they do not, except on rare
occasions, even in these achievements out-perform what man can
do by his combination of inventive spirit and unique body.
The capabilities of man are almost unlimited and they are
freed from the necessities of mere survival. Indeed, such is the
spirit in man that he is even willing to elaborate his culture to the
point where it cannot survive! If we exclude such aberrations, the
embellishments with which man beautifies or seeks to beautify his
world are a reflection of the manifest delight which God Himself
took in exhibiting his own creativeness. They demonstrate a kind
of common grace that smooths the troubled path man must now
follow because of his fallen nature.
Without his body man would almost certainly be not one whit
more creative than angels appear to be. Only God and man are
43
creative in this sense: God because He is God, and man because

he is MAN—a human spirit in a human body, with both body and
spirit designed and created by God.
With the creativity of his mind and its brain, the acuity of his
stereoscopic vision, his refined manual dexterity, his easily
maintained erect posture, his vastly more versatile nervous
system that makes his body an extension of his mind, he can
achieve all kinds of exceedingly complex tasks which often, by
reason of his skill, appear quite simple. Actually, they are far
beyond the capabilities of animals— such as threading a needle
which even the most "educated" chimpanzee cannot do!
This extraordinary combination of body and spirit that is man
is, in fact, so extraordinary as to constitute a new "thing" in the
animal world. He appears suddenly on the scene, not just as a
continuation or routine link in the great chain of being with
refinements that are merely quantitative. These refinements are
qualitative to such an extent as to constitute a virtual discontinuity
in any imagined evolutionary process.3 The geneticist Richard
Goldschmidt proposed that a sudden jump of this kind should be
called a saltation since it clearly involves much more than a
mutation.4 George G. Simpson felt that this term came too near to
the supernatural concept of creation. So borrowing from physics
he proposed instead the use of the term a quantum evolution --
which thus gave it a more respectable parentage!5
Today even this term is unfashionable and has been replaced
by the current phrase punctuated equilibrium, brought into popular
favour by Stephen J. Gould.6 It means simply that in the course of
3. These differences are spelled out by A rthur Custance in “Is M an an Anim al?” Part V in
Evolution or Creation?, vol.4 in The D oorw ay Papers Series, Zondervan, 1976, pp.208-329.
4. Saltation: Richard Goldschm idt, "A n Introduction to a Popularized Sym posium on
Evolution," Scientific M onthly, O ct., 1953, p.187.
5. Q uantum evolution: G. G. Sim pson, The M eaning of Evolution, N ew H aven, Yale
U niversity Press, 1952, p.235.
6. Punctuated Equilibrium : Stephen Jay Gould, "Punctuated Equilibrium : a different w ay
of seeing," N ew Scientist, 15 A pr., 1982, p.137.
44
evolution, which normally proceeds by very small formal shifts

that scarcely rock the boat, suddenly a dramatic discontinuity
occurs to "punctuate" the smooth course of events. But a rose by
any other name will smell as sweet, and that is all these terms are
—roses by other names. It would be difficult to distinguish an
evolved species from a created one in the fossil record!
Each of these new phrases is manifestly the old one spelled
differently... They tend to be presented to the public in the guise
of new explanations, whereas in point of fact they have no
explanatory value whatever. They are old descriptions, not new
explanations. In no way do they account for the sudden appear-
ance of man in all his tragic glory. They merely demonstrate that
man's coming established a genuine discontinuity.
Professor Suzanne Langer (who is no friend of the Christian
viewpoint), speaking of language as one of man's singular
achievements, put the matter thus: “Language is without doubt
one of the most momentous and at the same time the most mys-
terious product of the human mind. Between the clearest animal
call of love or warning or anger, and a man's least trivial word,
there lies a whole day of creation.” [emphasis mine]7
In a somewhat similar vein Humphrey Johnson wrote: "There
is a wider difference between a man and a gorilla than there is
between a gorilla and a daisy."8 Such statements could be
multiplied from many sources. J. Fiske, an early contender for the
evolution of man's body, as quoted some years ago by James Orr,
remarked, “While for zoological man you can hardly erect a
distinct family...for psychological man you must erect a distinct
kingdom, nay, you must dichotomize the universe—putting man
on one side and all else on the other.” 9
7. Langer, Suzanne, Philosophy in a N ew Key, N ew York, M entor Books, 1942, p.83

8. Johnson, H um phrey, quoted by P. G. Fothergill, Nature, 4 Feb., 1961, p. 341.
9. Fiske, J., Through N ature to G od, 1899, p.82: quoted by Jam es O rr, G od's Im age in M an,
Grand Rapids, Eerdm an's, 1948, p.60.
45
It is true. Man stands apart from the rest of nature. And

contrary to Fiske's admission, his apartness relates to his body as
well as to his psyche, since without this body such a spirit would
be impotent, while such a body without such a spirit could only
be a total anachronism in the evolutionary scale of things.
Each human spirit matches its human body

Now the idea that the spirit in man is a direct creation of God
is very ancient and strongly supported by Scripture. Almost all
theologians, Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, agree to this
general thesis in Adam's case, at the very least. But a very large
majority would go one step further and say that each individual
spirit is still being created, one by one, and infused into each
individual human body at some early stage in its development in
the womb—or at the very latest at the time of the drawing of the
first breath.10
Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274), one of the giant intellects of
Christian Medieval times, argued that the soul in each case is
specifically designed by the Creator to suit the particular body for
which it is intended.11 Body and spirit are thus matched, not
merely in a general sense but in a particular sense in each case.
And a number of modern theologians, both Protestant and
Catholic, support this thesis and find it, too, clearly reflected in
Scripture.12
If God is sovereign and has appointed to each of his redeemed
children a specific life work, and if each of us is a duality of body
and spirit, then it follows of necessity that both the genetic
endowment of the body and the life experiences that mould the
10. For a discu ssion on this point see Arthur C ustance, The Seed of the W om an, D oorw ay
Publications, H am ilton, O ntario (C an), 2001, chapter 20.
11. A quinas, Thom as, Sum ma Theologica, Book I, Q uestion 89; in Thom istic Psychology, Robert
Brennan, N ew York, M acm illan, 1956, p.326.
12. See, for exam ple, A braham K uyper, quoted by G. C. Berkouw er, M an: the Im age of G od,
Grand Rapids, Eerdm ans, 1963, p.290.
46
spirit, must equally have been divinely ordained—as must also

the nature of the spirit which God creates.
Task and talent have to match if the plan is to work out. As A.
H. Strong in his Systematic Theology put it (quoting W. Gladden):
"Heredity is God working in us, environment is God working
around us."13 God never calls us individually to a life work for
which He has not also equipped us both physically and spirit-
ually.14
In the ancient book, The Testament of Naphtali, we find this
observation: “As the potter knoweth the vessel, how much it is to
contain, and bringeth the clay accordingly, so also doth the Lord
make the body in accordance with the spirit and according to the
capacity of the body doth He implant the spirit. . . as the potter
knoweth the use of the vessel, what it is meet to be used for, so
also doth the Lord know how far it is capable (2:2-4).” 15
The concept of a spirit that is specially suited to a body is an
ancient one, a fact worth noting at this point because we all too
often assume that the only thing God is concerned with perfecting
in his people is their spirit. This pre-supposes that the spirit can
stand by itself and will come into the presence of God by itself.
But as we shall see increasingly in the chapters which follow, this
is not at all the case.
I believe that Adam's body was created before it received his
spirit. But this does not signify that the spirit is poured into a
vessel whose shape has arisen by chance. Both the vessel and its
content are designed with a single purpose in view for the
individual. Certainly a body can exist without a spirit, as it did in
Adam's case while his body lay on the earth awaiting the breath
of God. And similarly so may our bodies be—for a few hours after
13. Strong, A . H ., System atic Theology, V alley Forge, Pennsylvania, Judson Press, 1974
(reprint), p.624.
14. See A rthur Custance, The Sovereignty of G race, Presb yterian & Reform ed Publishing
C om pany, Phillipsburg, N ew Jersey, 1979, Chapter 12, “The Gifts and C alling of God”,
p.243-251.
15. Testam ent of N aphtali, in A pocalyptic Literature of the Psuedepigrapha, D ead Sea Scrolls.
47
our spirit has fled, for example. This potential for independence
of each component from the other leads me to suggest an analogy
regarding the human body as a vehicle designed ahead of time for
the human spirit which is to animate it.
If a man builds a house for his animals, he suits its
construction to their nature, besides being guided by what he
hopes to do with them. If he was raising snakes for their venom,
he would build a house from which they could not escape; for his
cattle he obviously builds a much larger house from which they
can readily be allowed out; for his horses, the egress must be more
carefully managed since they are vagrant creatures by nature. For
his dog he would construct a house that would in some measure
share his own home comforts since this is what the dog will
probably do during much of its life.
Thus the nearer he gets to a house for a creature sharing his
own nature, the more nearly will its total accoutrements resemble
his own house. And as to his own house, how does he build it? As
far as he has the means, he will build it to suit his own nature. To
some greater or lesser extent he will seek to satisfy the natural
inclinations of his wife and his family, but fundamentally if it lies
in his power to do so, the builder will build it as a vehicle for the
expression of his own person.
Now what, then, will God do if He decides to build a house
which is to be fit for himself, which in due course will be his
habitation, a house which is to serve himself for thirty-three years,
in which He will live and express his character, occupying it day
and night, constantly, actively, fully, sleeping and waking, being
born and dying? It will be a house capable of being so lived in,
appropriately and worthily. It will be a house that can sustain the
demands of habitability that He will make upon it. It will be
beautiful because God clearly loves beauty, having created so
many beautiful things in nature.16
16. It is difficult to see how the beauty of m any creatures can possibly serve any m ere
survival purpose, w hile m any very ugly creatures (especially insects) survive and m ultiply
48
Moreover, it must be flexible enough to allow the whole

spectrum of human moods from delight to near desperation, from
a groaning within to a sudden exclamation of glad surprise, for it
must make communication by gesture or tone of voice, or even
"turning to look" in sorrow and reproof, or turning in anger.17 For
the body is by no means without its own powers of commun-
ication. And it must be kingly enough that worship at the proper
time is both naturally accorded and accepted with dignity.
Finally, and even more importantly, it must be such a house
that while it will never of itself wear out, it can nevertheless be
deliberately sacrificed when the proper time arrives.
The ‘flesh of God’: ultimate fulfilment of human embodiment

All of this, of course, points to the Incarnation. It was just such
demands that were to be thrust upon the body of the Last Adam
for which preparation was made in every particular by the
creation of the body of the First Adam. And these capacities must
therefore apply to the body of the very first human being as they
must to the very last human being—as we have already noted. If
this is not so in the most complete sense imaginable, then the Last
Adam surrenders his right to that title and can no longer stand as
substitute for the First Adam to act as the new head of the
redeemed family of man. Aristotle wrote, "The nature of man is
not what he is born as but what he is born for." 18 If I may convert
this into Christian terms, it could be re-written as: "the body of
man is not what he is born as now, but what his body was
designed for then."
Tertullian has a wonderfully descriptive passage in which he
depicts the Creator bending over his clay as He eagerly fashions
very freely!
17. See M ark 3:3-5 w here H e looked “round about on them in anger” and Luke 22:61, 62
w here the Lord “looked upon Peter. A nd Peter rem em bered the w ord of the Lord . . . and
w ent out and w ept bitterly.”
18. A ristotle: see A shley M ontague, H um an H eredity, N ew York, W orld Publishing 1959,
p.19.
49
man's body. “The truth is, a greater matter was in progress, out of
which the creature under consideration was being fashioned. So
often, then, does it receive honour, as often as it feels the hands of
God, when it is touched by them, pulled by them, drawn out, and
moulded into shape. Imagine God wholly employed and
absorbed in it—with his hand, his eye, his labour, his purpose, his
wisdom, his providence, and above all, his love which was
dictating the lineaments of this creature.19 Tertullian concluded,
Whatever was the form and expression which was then

given to the clay by the Creator, Christ was in his thoughts as
one day to become Man, because the Word, too, was to be
both clay and flesh, even as the clay (in the Creator's hands).
For so did the Father previously say to the Son, ”Let US make
man in OUR image, after OUR likeness.” So God made man,
that is to say the creature which He was moulding and
fashioning, after the image of God—or in other words, after
the image of Christ did God make him...That clay which was
even at that moment putting on the image of Christ who was
to come in the flesh, was not only a work of God but actually
the pledge and surety of God [for man’s redemption]. [my
emphasis]
Such a house for the spirit of man, like Solomon's Temple, was
not merely to be like any other pagan temple already in existence,
any more than Adam's body was merely a copy of some other
animal body already in existence. It was to be exceptional,
"exceedingly magnifical" (1 Chronicles 22:5) as the King James
Version quaintly puts it!
And originally it must have been glorious indeed. Imagine
that first human body which, despite the defilement of sin to
which it was to become subjected all too quickly, nevertheless
survived with all its energies largely unimpaired for nearly a
19 Tertullian, "O n the Resurrection of the Flesh," C hapter V I, in Latin Christianity, C leveland
C oxe in The A nte-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, edited by A lexander Roberts and
Jam es D onaldson, N ew York, C harles Scribner's Sons, vol.III, 1918, p.549.
50
thousand years! The body in which Jesus Christ took up residence

for some thirty-three years was Adam's original body recovered—
and it, too, was "magnifical."
The divine Architect had designed it for Himself in the first
place, so we may be sure that the body of the Lord Jesus Christ
was not the tumble-down house in which we struggle through
life. His body magnificently supported Him daily as He lived out
his life among men; and it provided perfectly all the re-sources for
the expression of his divine nature. His presence in the body was
so magnificent that even the most callous of his enemies had to
step back sometimes in awe,20 and they only had the courage to
abuse Him because He deliberately veiled his glory, and allowed
them to do so.
Undefiled by sin and indwelt by the Lord Himself, a superb
human body appeared on the stage of human history and men
worshipped without shame or hesitation the One who possessed
it. I suspect that in our present sinful state we might easily have
fallen down and worshipped Adam as he came from the hand of
God—such was the glory of his body.
Evolution can present us with nothing comparable which
could serve as a prototype for the Last Adam.
20. “Judas . . . w ith a band of m en and officers w ent [to the Garden]. . . Jesus said, W hom
do you seek? They answ ered, Jesus of N azareth. Jesus said, I am he. A s soon as he had
said, I am he, they w ent backw ard and fell to the ground.” (John 18:3-6).
51
Chapter 4
DESIGNED FOR PROCREATION
A Woman Is Born of a Man
From the Christian point of view, the formation of Eve out of

Adam was a biological fact of tremendous theological importance.
From an evolutionary point of view, it is sheer impossibility, and
nothing more than a piece of imaginative nonsense. From the
point of view of the Creator Himself, there may well have been no
alternative.
It may surprise the reader that if Eve were a separate creation
and not formed out of Adam, she could not have shared in
Adam's redemption! Nor could have her descendants! It is
necessary to emphasize "her descendants" because her title as the
"mother of all living"1 is just as crucial to the Plan of Redemption
as Adam's title "the father of all dying"2 . The reasons for this will
become clear later.
With this as a kind of summary statement, let me set forth
without departing from well-established fact, what I believe were
the circumstances from both a theological and a biological point
of view. The biblical record forms a meeting place of profound
importance between revealed truth and scientific fact.3
1. “A dam called his w ife’s nam e Eve; because she w as [becam e in H ebrew ] the m other of
all living” (Genesis 3:20).
2. “...by m an cam e death...in A dam all die” (1 C orinthians 15:21, 22).
3. For a fuller treatm ent of the statem ents in this chapter, see A rthur C ustance, The Seed of
the W oman, H am ilton, O N , C anada, Doorw ay Publications, 2001 [1980].
D ESIG NED FO R PRO CREATIO N
52
The biblical data

Genesis 1:16,17;2:18,21,22 reads:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the
birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over
all the creatures that move along the ground.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female he created them...
The LO R D God said, It is not good for the man to be alone.
I will make a helper suitable for him...
And the LO R D God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs and closed up
the flesh thereof; and the rib, which the LO R D God had taken
from the man, made He a woman and brought her unto
Adam.
When Adam was first created and introduced into the world,
there may very well have been a number of manlike creatures
already in existence, the result of creative activity before the
fashioning of Adam. And it would seem reasonable to assume
that some of these creatures were among those presented to Adam
as potential mates.
That not one of them was truly human is borne out by the fact
that not one of them was accepted by Adam. It is a law of nature,
clearly established by the Creator to preserve order, that no
species will accept a mate from any other species, no matter how
similar in appearance they may seem to be. Thus even the most
likely candidates by our judgment, were thereby proven not to be
human.4
By this means it was now made clear that only those who
were, effectively, "in Adam" could be acceptable as mates for a
4. “The L ORD God said, “It is not good for m an to be alone. I w ill m ake a helper com parable
to him .” O ut of the ground the L ORD God had form ed every beast of the field and every
bird of the air, and b rou ght them to A dam ...but for A dam there w as not found a helper
com parable to him ” (Genesis 2:18-20 N K JV )
53
human being, and only these were in the future to be counted as

true members of the Adamic family. Whatever covenant God
made with Adam as Head of this family of Man, that covenant
was thereafter applicable only to members of the Adamic species.
This Adamic species was the sole subject of all blessings and
curses which were to follow, though blessings and curses have
had repercussions throughout the whole of nature.
Eve: formed out of Adam, not a direct creation

Now these observations apply also to Eve whose relationship
to the family of Adam is quite unique. It has to be borne in mind
that by definition a species is an interbreeding community which
naturally produces fertile offspring. Such a community by general
agreement is always viewed as a family of related individuals
who are all derived from a single parentage—by evolution
according to the Evolutionists, and by creation according to the
Creationists.
As we have already seen in Chapter 2, angels do not multiply
by propagation as man does but as a direct result of the creative
activity of God. They neither marry nor are given in marriage.5
Thus, as a class of beings they do not form a single species. Instead,
each individual becomes a species in itself, and there are no
family relationships between them. It follows that they have no
ancestral Head, no single representative, no "First Angel" from
whom all other angels are descended. Since the only Plan of
Salvation of which we have any knowledge involves a Saviour
who assumes the position of Headship of a new family, the Bible
gives us no clues as to how angels as a class could be redeemed.
If such redemption is possible at all, we have no model. Logically,
it would seem that a separate saviour would be required for each
individual angel, millions of saviours for millions of angels.
5. “For w hen they [hum an beings] shall rise from the dead they neither m arry, nor are
given in m arriage; but are as the angels in heaven” (M ark 12:25).
54
Bear in mind that direct creation produces separate species

whereas procreation produces families. Therefore it is clear that
while Adam as a first man had to be created, his descendants by
reason of their procreation are subsumed under his Headship. All
are his relatives by descent.
What, then, is to be done with Eve? How can she be created
separately, like Adam, without being unrelated to Adam—and
therefore a separate species no matter how alike physically in all
appropriate respects? Adam and Eve under these conditions of
origin would also be precisely what angels are—unrelated separate
species. All of their descendants would therefore enter the cate-
gory of hybrids rather than a pure race.
What, then, becomes of the Headship of Adam over his family
if Eve were a separate creation? Would we not have, in fact, two
Heads? And must there not therefore be two Second Heads, a
"second" Adam and a "second" Eve? Remember that we are
dealing with a real situation, a critical moment in the history of
the race. One of the best ways of assessing the true importance of
such a moment is by logically considering the consequences.
Only those can be redeemed who by reason of being "in
Adam" are in the lineage of Adam and counted as his seed. The
redeemed are always of this species. No evolutionary antecedents,
if human evolution were true, can qualify as redeemable—nor any
of those other species who may have been his contemporaries and
continued to share his world.
But someone had to be a helpmeet, a mate to be his partner in
the propagation of the species. If such a partner must belong to
the Adamic species, a created Eve would not do, for all of Adam's
species must be one and "in Adam" to qualify as redeemable. It is
in accordance with this fact that Paul said, "God has made out of
one6 [so the Greek] all nations of men...on all the face of the earth"
6. The w ord blood (as in the K ing Jam es V ersion) almost certainly does not belong in the
original text.
55
(Acts 17:26). And it should be noted that it says "out of one," not
"out of a pair."
Then how were our first parents to be constituted so as to
form a pair "out of one" without two separate creations? The
secret of our truly human identity lies in us being "in Adam,"
whether for good or ill. This must include Eve. In order that Eve
might also be "in Adam" it is clear that she must be taken out of Adam
as to her origin: she cannot have been either evolved independently—nor
even created independently.
Adam: before and after divine surgery

The taking of part of Adam for the formation of Eve's body,
while Adam was in a state of deep sleep, was tantamount to a
process of divine surgery under anesthesia. The "closing up of the
flesh thereof" which left Adam in some way reduced but whole
nevertheless, must signify that after the operation his body was
significantly different. A radical change in the functioning of his
body had now come about.
The divine surgery involved in the formation of Eve may quite
possibly have had nothing to do with a "rib" at all but only with
some structure that was on one side of Adam's body, since the
word for rib could equally well mean a side member.7
Presented with Eve when he awoke, Adam was apparently
immediately conscious of a creature born "of his flesh and of his
7. Regarding the "rib": precisely w hat it w as that God took from A dam for the building of
Eve has long been a m atter of dispute am ong com m entators. In the author’s Seed of the
W om an m entioned above, there is an extended excursus on the identity of the "rib" in the
light of ancient traditions and m ore particularly of A ssyrian and Babylonian cuneiform
w ords and ideograph for "w om an." Som e thought is also given to the possible etym ological
developm ent of the H ebrew w ord tsela rendered "rib" in m ost versions. Perhaps the
sim plest explanation of w hat occurred in this surgical operation is that sexual dim orphism
w as initiated in the species, M an. It is also conceivable that a very sim ilar process accounts
for sexual dim orphism w herever it is found in every other anim al species, if they, too, w ere
all direct creations.
56
bone,"8 a creature somehow once part of his very self who was
now "the other half."
It was as though, before her formation, Adam was a whole
person and a whole man. But now that Eve was formed from part
of him, though he was still a whole person, he was only half a
man. This seems to be the sense of the words in Genesis 2:24 that
together they shall be "one flesh,"9 since the word for flesh in the
original Hebrew (basar) in the Old Testament never has any other
meaning than that of body. It does not signify 'lower nature' as it
may sometimes in the New Testament.
It may be thought the concept of an Adam somehow
combining within himself both male and female, as would seem
to be implied, is a repugnant one. But it must be borne in mind
that to a greater or lesser extent this is true of all of Adam and
Eve's descendants, including us. Yet it must also be borne in mind
that wherever there arises a "confusion of gender,” it can only be
described as an aberration, if not a pathological condition.
As man is now constituted, resulting from the separation of
Eve out of Adam, the two sexes have been divinely allotted to two
differently constituted bodies—without any such aberration
under normal circumstances. Adam as created was a perfect
creation. The union of the two principles of maleness and female-
ness (both hormonal and functional) must in him have been
perfectly ordered. When these organs (and the hormones they
generate) were separated and appropriately re-housed, two
equally perfect bodies resulted. It is only when, due to some fault
in the mechanisms of development within a particular individual
an aberrant form emerges, that we are distressed by it. Abnormal
reunion of structure, which God has designed to be separated, is
8. “And the rib, w hich the LO R D God had taken from m an, m ade he a w om an, and brought
her unto the m an A nd A dam said, ‘This is now bone of m y bones, and flesh of m y flesh;
she shall be called w om an because she w as taken out of the M an” (Genesis 2:22, 23).
9. “Therefore shall a m an leave his father and his m other, and shall cleave unto his w ife:
and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24).
57
bound to be an aberrancy. Such aberrations are not strictly a

fusion of male and female such as must have been in Adam.
Instead, they are a con-fusion that must inevitably arise when
fusion occurs contrary to what God intended.
It must be borne in mind that in Adam's undivided body (i.e.,
before the formation of Eve) the two elements compounded in one
organism may have produced in one organism an internal
organization different from anything which exists at the present
time—save under very exceptional circumstances. It often
happens that combinations of elements produce results quite
different from either element alone.
Originally Adam may well have had a form which did
accommodate maleness and femaleness perfectly. After all, Adam
was a creature formed to reflect physically the personal nature of
the Creator Himself who is spiritual, in whom there is no division
of things which we now view only as antithetical. We know from
Scripture that God is presented in the role of both Father and
Mother.10
Moreover, it is a well-established fact that the embryo at first
exists for some time in a sexually undifferentiated condition,11
exhibiting the potential for development in either direction. Then
hormones begin to take over and drive the organization of the
10. As Father, “David said, “Blessed are you , L ORD God of Israel our father, for ever and
ever” (1 Chronicles 29:10); and “But, now , O Lord, you are our father; w e are the clay, and
you our potter ... “ (Isaiah 64:8). A s M other,“[God said] C an a w om an forget her sucking
child, that she should not have com passion on the son of her w om b? Y ea, they m ay forget,
yet w ill I not forget you” (Isaiah 49:15); and “[The Lord said] A s one w hom his m other
com forts, so w ill I com fort you” (Isaiah 66:13). This applies also to the Son as is evident
from Isaiah 9:6,“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the governm ent
shall be upon his shoulder; and his nam e shall be called W onderful C ounsellor, the m ighty
God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6); “[Jesus said] O Jerusalem ,
Jerusalem , you w ho kills the prophets and stones them w ho are sent unto you, how often
w ould I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under
her w ings, and you w ould not” (M atthew 23:37).
11. See A rthur C . C ustance, Seed of the W om an, H am ilton, O N , C anada, 2001 [1980], p.182,
ref.166 (on p.527).
58
growing body towards one pole or the other. If it should be argu-

ed that the X and Y chromosomes have already determined which
way things are to go, two qualifying factors must be recognized.
In the first place, every male body carries both X and Y
chromosomes in every cell in the body and therefore they are
available as triggering devices in either direction. In the second
place, these X and Y chromosomes are now known not to be ab-
solute determinants:12 there are other directive agencies at work
which do on occasion override them.
And finally, the developing embryo does not at first display
the structural differences which characterize the male and female
body in the adult. M oreover, some of these differences may be
remarkably late in developing. This is sometimes termed paedo-
morphism, since it amounts to an embryonic stage which persists
till later in life than is normal.13 In which case, it could have been
that Adam was physiologically paedomorphic since he was
presumably created as an adult, not as an embryo. I'm not
speaking of his moral or intellectual development, only of his
physiology before Eve was separated from him.
But let me repeat a previous observation. All of us, individ-
ually, begin where Adam began. The only difference is that by the
time of birth, a male child is manifestly male and a female child
manifestly female. Yet both, even in the adult stage, retain certain
features in their constitution which seem to be more characteristic
of the opposite sex. In old age these features sometimes find
expression: in women as facial hair, baldness, deepening of the
voice, etc., while on more than one occasion men have formed
female-like breasts. This is known technically as gynecomastia.
If we had seen Adam after the divine surgery, we would not
distinguish him from today's male figure, even on the dissecting
table: but if we had seen him as he first came from the hand of God
12. Ibid., p.527, ref.166, (at paragraph 3, "D o Genes Determ ine Sex?").
13. de Beer, G. R., Em bryos and Ancestors, O xford U niversity Press, revised, 1951, p.31.
59
we might well have observed some very significant differences.

Though, unlike us, he was created in an adult form, he may well
have begun as we all begin—sexually neutral and capable of
developing either way.
It is perhaps worthy of comment that the concept of a
male/female (androgynous) nature in Adam's constitution as
created was widely held by Jewish commentators in pre-Christian
times and by some early Christian commentators—under their
probable influence.14 Pagan traditions show clear evidences of a
similar view, though unlike the Jewish traditions they are filled
with absurdities and are far less matter-of-fact.15
The theological importance of all being ‘in Adam’

The biblical account itself, of what took place during these
crucial events, is a miracle of literary condensation. It does not tell
us all that we might like to know, but nothing can be ignored in
the record without destroying the meaningfulness of the whole.
It will bear microscopic examination and yet the account is
simplicity itself. This very simplicity enlightens the naive but
confuses the worldly wise. The words are for children but the
thoughts are for men, written, as it were, "for all sorts and
conditions" that they may understand the truth at their own level.
The record is agelessly up-to-date.
In order to explain the appearance of such a creature as the
First Adam was, it is quite pointless, if not patently absurd, to
appeal to any evolutionary process. Because what amounts to the
division of the sexes and the initiation of sexual dimorphism is
considered by the evolutionists to have already been a fait accompli
millions of years before the appearance of man who merely
14. A ndrogynous (Jew ish view ): Louis Ginsberg, From Creation to Exodus, vol. 5 in Legends
of the Jew s, Philadelphia, Jew ish Publication A ssociation of A m erica, 1955, p.88, note 42
15. A ndrogynous (pagan view ): A rthur C ustance, Seed of the W om an, H am ilton, O N ,
D oorw ay Publications, 2001 [1980], p.191.
60
inherited it.16
Thus it becomes apparent that we must recognize a strictly
biological aspect in any theology of man and his redemption.
There is a very complex physiological undergirding to the ac-
count of the formation of Eve out of Adam that is not merely
intriguing but is essential to the whole working out of the Plan of
Salvation.
There can be only one creative act, the creation of Adam.
Every other human being, including Eve, must be a derivation
from this one Federal Head of the human family. If Eve was not
"in Adam," and therefore did not originate out of Adam, Adam
was not her generic Head and the Lord Jesus Christ could not be
her Saviour.
To refuse to recognize this fundamental fact is to undermine
the very foundation of Christian Theology in its strictly logical
coherence.
16. Sexual dim orphism : ibid, p.108, ref.132

61
Chapter 5
DESIGNED FOR IMMORTALITY: MAN’S DESTINY
Biologically and Theologically Considered
There is one more important design feature of this amazing

human body that cannot be discovered from a study of any
human body existing now. It is a truth that had to be revealed. A
passage in Genesis gives us very important information about this
new creature, made in God’s own image and given an idyllic
home in a Garden filled with beautiful trees. In the middle of that
Garden were two special trees: the tree of life and the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, about which God warned him.
The LO R D God took the man and put him in the Garden
of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LO R D God
commanded the man, Of every tree of Garden you may freely
eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may
not eat of it. For in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.
Genesis 2:17
But of course Adam and his wife did eat of the fruit of that
tree! When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they did not
merely shorten their lives and so die prematurely. They introduced,
D ESIG N ED FO R IM M ORTALITY : M AN ’S D ESTIN Y
62
into their bodies, an entirely new and foreign element

—MORTALITY.
Does this mean that if they had not eaten this fruit they could
have lived on FOREVER, in the same body? The answer from
Genesis 3:22 is, Yes! But this affirmative answer needs qualif-
ication. Because, while they COULD have thus lived on forever,
we learn from passages of Scripture elsewhere in the Bible that
these bodies of ours have yet a further state of being. Attaining
this state involves a transmutation, a kind of "graduation," to a
still higher level of wholly indestructible bodily existence.
There are thus two levels of physical immortality: one which
signifies that the body need not die though it can be deliberately
put to death; and one which signifies that the body cannot die
under any circumstances whatever.
The biblical data

Genesis 3:22-24 reads:
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one
of us, to know good and evil: and now lest he put forth his
hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for
ever...
Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden
of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the
garden of Eden...a flaming sword which turned every way to
keep the way of the tree of life.
Now this tells us that although the forbidden fruit had already
done its fatal damage in the bodies of Adam and Eve, this damage
could still have been undone so long as they remained in the
Garden and had access to the Tree of life. For by eating from the
Tree of Life they could evidently have been healed of their
acquired mortality and go on living forever. By which means their
bodies would have been healed—but not their corrupted spirits. The
63
Tree of Life re-appears in Revelation 22:2 and we are informed

that its leaves were for healing...
The precaution cannot have been to prevent recovery of
spiritual life from the Tree of Life (as some have proposed), for
surely this would not have been any greater danger than we are
in at the present moment with our spirits regenerated even while
our body yet remains to be redeemed. It must therefore have
been the danger of physical healing without spiritual healing. This
was what created the emergency.
That it was an emergency seems clear both from the fact that
Genesis 3:22 is one of the very few unfinished sentences in
Scripture—as though the divine Author caught his breath at the
very thought of the consequences, and from the fact that expul-
sion is emphasized in verses 23 and 24 by the words sent forth and
drove out.
Thus two physically immortal creatures had now become
mortals, and their very mortality was a measure of protection
against the effects of their fallen spirit. Death was now not merely
a penalty but a remedy: the slow process of physical death allow-
ing for the renewing of the spirit. In the end death rid them of
their "body of sin," as it will deliver us also.
Contingent immortality: a biological and biblical fact

In the light of modern biological knowledge, is it really likely
that a physical body of any kind could be so constructed that it
would live on and on and on forever, never to wear out and break
down? surprisingly, the answer is, Yes, it is perfectly possible!
Let us look more closely at this almost incredible fact and set
forth the evidence for the assertion that a physical body really can
have the inherent potential for unending life—barring accidents.
Since the subject has been discussed at considerable length in
64
another volume by the author,1 it will only be treated briefly here,

sufficiently to enable the reader to perceive the nature of the
evidence and how it is to be applied in the present case.
It is most important to recognize that physical immortality
does not mean that a body with such a constitution cannot die. An
immortal creature CAN be killed. The basic distinction between
a mortal creature and an immortal creature is that a mortal
creature will die in due time as a matter of course, whereas the
immortal creature can die by being killed but NEED NOT die if
certain conditions of life are maintained.
Of course, you may say, "Well, that's not what I understand by
the word immortality." And the remark is quite justified since
immortality is commonly used to mean deathlessness of the spirit
rather than the body. But for the biologist, physical immortality
means only that death is not inevitable, not the natural con-
sequence of being alive, not the destiny of a living organism, but
something that is purely external to its possession of life.
In biblical parlance there is a bodily immortality of a lower
order, a contingent immortality dependent upon certain con-
ditions, which exists as a prior stage to a bodily immortality of a
higher order that is absolute and beyond any further change. The
higher order of immortality belongs not to biology but to theology.
It will be helpful to illustrate this by specific reference to living
organisms which exemplify the lower order of physical
immortality and then to show how the higher order of absolute
immortality differs from this lower order.
There are billions of living creatures in the world today which
are strictly immortal in the biological sense. These creatures never
die a natural death as far as it is known. When they grow to a
certain size (approximately twice their beginning size), they
simply split in two and go merrily on their way as two
1. C ustance, A rthur, The Seed of the W om an, H am ilton, O N , C anada, D oorw ay Publications,
2001, [1980], especially pages 3-29 and 75-97.
65
individuals never experiencing death nor leaving any corpse

behind. They are their own parents: the "father" does not give
birth to a son but becomes his own two sons. The process involves
no birth, only a simple division of one living organism that divides
and becomes two. The process goes on unendingly. These
creatures are unicellular and well known to biologists as amoebae
and paramecia, and some other forms.
Since each one divides into two and then grows to double size
and splits again, they could soon overwhelm the earth were it not
for accidents that happen to them, chiefly physical injury or
predation. But they do not die for inherent reasons and are
considered by biologists to be strictly immortal on that account.
There are billions of them in the world, creatures who live without
any prospect of dying barring a fatal accident.
Now it may be objected, "Well, that's all very well. But they
are little blobs of life and exceedingly simple unicellular
creatures...That's very different from a higher animal like a man,
for instance." Quite true, yet neither the amoeba nor the
paramecium is as simple an animal as it would appear.2
These small creatures have been studied for over a century.
One of the most famous investigators of their behaviour was H.
S. Jennings who in 1910 published a book on his findings.3 He had
been observing them for some years, spending hours on end with
his eye glued to a microscope. His conclusions are remarkable. He
discovered that amoebae displayed signs of highly advanced
2. Regarding the com plexity of a sm all creature, Robert Jastrow , a physicist, said this of
bacteria: “A lthough a bacterium seem s like a sim ple kind of life to us, it is quite a com plex
chem ical factory, w hose existence depends on the sim ultaneous m anufacture of several
thousands of different kinds of chem icals” [The Enchanted Loom , N ew York, Touchstone
Books, Sim on & Schuster, 1983, p.22]. G. G. Sim pson, a strong proponent of evolution
adm itted that the sim plest true organism s are “very far from being sim ple in m icroscopic
and subm icroscopic organization” [This V iew of Life, N ew York, H arcourt, Brace and W orld,
1964, p.261]
3. Jennings, H . S., Behaviour of Low er O rganism s, C olum bia U niversity, Biological Series, X ,
C olum bia U niversity Press, 1915.
66
forms of behaviour. And as he put it, if amoebae were magnified

to the size of a dog, this behaviour could be interpreted as anger,
determination, frustration, hesitation, attentiveness, and according to
Jennings, even intelligence!
Fifty years later, another observer, J. Boyd Best, fully
confirmed Jennings' conclusions. He also added, to the list, such
emotions as boredom, rebellion, and even "cognitive awareness"
(which effectively is simply consciousness)!4
Such immortal creatures do indeed display a remarkable
measure of individuality which could almost be termed personal
identity, and yet they go on living indefinitely. And remember
that we are speaking of living forms of animal life which are,
despite their unicellular nature and microscopic size, very much
alive. W e should not be deceived by their size—for as Nicolas
Malebranche remarked when he looked through a microscope for
the first time, "This is the end of size"!5 After all, how big is life?
Thus we can easily establish a point that comes as a surprise
to many people: a creature of such sensitivity (complexity) can
still be immortal... It demonstrates unequivocally that physical im-
mortality is "a fact of life." As Professor H. J. Muller put it, very
simply, "Natural death is not the expression of an inherent
principle of protoplasm."6 Julian Huxley re-affirmed this when he
wrote, "Functioning protoplasm is not in itself mortal." 7
The word protoplasm simply means the stuff of life, and when
it is said that protoplasm appears in forms that are effectively
immortal, it does not mean that such forms cannot die. It only
means that such forms need not die. Protected from mortal hazards
external to them, these creatures simply do not die. They just go
4. Best, J. Boyd, "Protopsychology," Scientific A merican, Feb., 1963, p.62.

5. M alebranche, N ., quoted by John Taylor, M an in the M idst, H ighw ay Press, London, 1955,
p.15
6. M uller, H . J., "Life", Science, vol.121, 1955, p.5.
7. H uxley, Julian, "The M eaning of D eath" in Essays on Popular Science, London, Penguin
Books, 1938, p.107, 108.
67
on dividing and multiplying ad infinitum. It is only accidental

death that prevents them from overwhelming the earth. They do
not die of old age—as we do and as most animals familiar to us
(including our pets) do as a matter of course. They never die a
"natural" death.
Now in the case of Adam, God evidently endowed his body
with just such a property as this, a potential for endless con-
tinuance. The processes of self renewal and repair could have
gone on for ever. It is clear that he could die, since we know that
he did die—though not without first surviving for almost a
thousand years. But it is equally clear that he would never have
died if he had not sinned. If this were not true, the penalty
threatened for disobedience would have been no threat at all.8
One cannot discourage disobedience with a threat of "punish-
ment" in a form that will happen anyway whether there is
disobedience or not.
It has been suggested that perhaps the threat was not death
per se but rather premature death. But this interpretation is entirely
unsatisfactory because it would imply that the death of the Last
Adam was also premature and nothing else. Any life given prema-
turely is not life given vicariously: it is merely a life shortened. But
we know that the Last Adam, like the First Adam, was made after
the potential (Greek: dunamis9 ) of an endless life, 10 and this forces us
to conclude that the First Adam must also have been in this
position. It was not premature death that Adam introduced; it
was death itself. "By one man sin entered into the world and by sin
death..." (Romans 5:12), and this acquired mortality became the lot
8. “The L ORD God com m anded the m an, saying, O f every tree of the garden you m ay freely
eat; but of the tree of the know ledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it; for in the day
that you eat thereof you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16, 17).
9. D unam is: so Professor W alter Grundm ann of D resden, w ho suggests the w ords
‘possibility,' 'capacity,' 'ability,' i.e., "according to the potential of" (in Theological D ic-tionary
of the N ew Testam ent, edited by Gerhard Kittel [1936], translated and edited by Geoffrey
Brom iley, Grand Rapids, Eerdm ans, 1964, vol. 2, p.285).
10. “[C hrist] w ho is m ade . . . after the pow er of an endless life” (H ebrew s 7:16).
68
of all of Adam's descendants naturally born.

Adam and Eve had to be created with bodies capable of
endless continuance. These bodies were under no necessity of
dying in order that the Redeemer of man's body might Himself
likewise be under no necessity of dying, while yet remaining truly
representative of man as he was first created.
In the strictest sense, therefore, we must redefine immortality
as it applies to the body of the First Adam and the body of the
Last Adam. The First Adam possessed contingent immortality, an
immortality dependent upon the fulfilment of certain conditions,
but a real immortality in the true biological sense. This contingent
condition for its realization was lost in the Fall, but restored in
Christ by the Virgin Birth.
While the contingency hinged upon obedience, it also hinged
upon the fact that our bodies, like those of the humble amoebae,
are vulnerable. We can be fatally injured. We are not impervious to
mortal wounds. The processes of life which in Adam could have
continued to function forever were nevertheless open to
irreparable damage.
Both Adam and Eve could, and did, die in a due course: but
had they been obedient, such a terminal event need never have
occurred. Their death was not an accident in the sense that it is for
the amoebae. It was a penalty imposed for deliberate disobedience,
the penalty being a newly introduced internalized defect in their
constitution. They died for inherent reasons, from damage to the
machinery of life resulting from ingesting a fruit with fatal con-
sequences—and inherited by all their descendants, save One.
Absolute immortality: a theological fact

So much, then, for the lower level of immortality which we
have referred to as contingent immortality, which is both a
biological and a biblical concept. But there is another and higher
form, an immortality to be achieved when we are raised from the
69
dead in a more glorious and wholly invulnerable body. This

higher form of immortality is absolute: we shall be placed in the
position of neither needing to die, nor even being able to die!
Death will be a thing of the past. This is no longer, of course, a
biological concept but a theological one: yet it applies strictly to a
resurrected body—a body as real as the resurrected body of the
Lord Jesus Christ.
The Church Fathers discussed these matters at great length
and with great logic, as did Theophilus of Antioch (c.115 - c.181):
But some will say to us, “Was man made by nature

mortal?” Certainly not! Was he, then, immortal? Neither do
we affirm this. But one will say, “Was he, then, nothing?” Not
even this hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor
immortal. For if He had made him immortal from the
beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had
made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of death.
Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal, did He make him, but,
as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should
incline towards the things of immortality, keeping the
commandment of God, he should receive as a reward from
Him immortality, and should become God: but if, on the other
hand, he should turn to things of death, disobeying God, he
should himself be the cause of death to himself.11
Centuries later, Augustine (340-430) thought deeply about

things and, in his characteristic way and by the effective use of an
aphorism, he wrote of the nature of Adam’s body as created:
It was not impossible for Adam to die

but it was possible for him not to die. 1 2
As he later reflected further upon the matter, he realized that
11. Theophilus, w riting to A utolycius, chapter 28, vol.2 of The A nte N icene Fathers, edited
by A lexander Roberts and Jam es D onaldson, N ew York, C harles Scribners Sons, 1913
[1885], p.105
12. A ugustine: De G enesi ad Litteram , Book 1, section 25, note 35.
70
there is an even higher form of immortality awaiting man, at

which time we shall find that:
It is not only possible not to die

but it will be impossible to die at all!
Such is the goal for all the Lord's people, for "He who has
prepared us for this very thing is God Himself." 13
Immortality: a biological fact and theological necessity

In summary, then, Adam's body was endowed with a
potential for unending continuance. As the biologist would say,
his life was not "spanned." No limits were placed upon it pro-
vided that he obeyed certain injunctions.
This potential for contingent immortality was necessary in
order that in the event of disobedience mankind could still be
redeemed by provision of a Saviour who would be in a position
to taste of death in our place. For this purpose, the Redeemer's
body must be (1) truly representative of Adam's body and
therefore truly human, yet at the same time (2) under no necessity
of dying for any inherent reason.
The latter was as important a requirement as the former. The
Saviour must fulfill both conditions. The first, in order to be truly
representative of Man as God intended him, and the second in
order to be able to offer himself by a death that was vicarious and
not merely premature. This situation predetermined the nature of
the First Adam's body.
The death of the Redeemer must be vicarious, not merely
premature. Premature death is a death which may, for example,
take the form of a soldier's sacrifice at the front, or a suicide, or a
youth in a car accident—each dying "before the time expected.”
Vicarious death in the theological sense never has any element of
13. (2 Corinthians 5:5, N KJV)

71
dying "before the time expected.” Death is never "expected" in the

sense of being normal, for One who is to die vicariously.14
This is true of vicarious death because it can only be applied
to the death of an immortal creature who has no expected time of
dying. Premature death presupposes something inevitable in a
due course, and therefore applies only to a mortal creature. Such
a death is a mere "cutting short" in the midst of life. Vicarious
death is not a cutting short but a "cutting off" (Daniel 9:26).15 It is
the sudden cessation of a life which could have continued forever
but was deliberately terminated for the sake of someone else.
Since death was in no sense inevitable for the Last Adam, it
cannot have been inevitable for the First Adam. Otherwise the
Last Adam was not truly representative of the First Adam, i.e., of
MAN as God created him.
To be executable was essential, in order that He might die
substitutionally: but this executability was related to what could
be imposed from outside, not what was programmed from inside.
A vicarious death is never the same thing as a premature death.
These are entirely different categories of experience.
Evolution cannot account for these two Adams

Evolution holds that all higher organisms have built-in
spanned lives and are programmed to die after a certain length of
time in some way determined by the nature of the species. This
is necessary, they hold, in order to allow evolution to work, since
it is essential to keep the way open at all times for the new and
more advanced forms to survive in their initial stages of
development if they are to compete and replace the older and
more established forms. Only so can there be guaranteed the
linear progress believed to characterize the evolutionary process.
Without death there would be no room for replacements, and
14. H ere see A ppendix 2, “The M eaning of V icarious Substitutionary Sacrifice”

15. “. . . M essiah shall be cut off, but not for him self. . . (D aniel 9:26).
72
without replacement there would be no evolutionary advance.

Evolution cannot account for the emergence of man. For man
alone possesses a constitution which guarantees his continuance
permanently in the web of life if certain conditions of obedience
are fulfilled.

73
Chapter 6
DESIGNED FOR MORTALITY: MAN’S SALVATION
Death a Natural or Un-natural Fact of Life?
Almost anyone "in the pew" if asked what kind of death

Adam introduced by his disobedience, would say spiritual death.
Theologians are pretty well agreed that because of Adam's dis-
obedience, physical death also was introduced. But even they, all
too often, play down the physical aspects of the Fall as though
physical death is as natural to man as it seems to be for the rest of
nature. What was threatened as a punishment, many would say,
was not death per se but premature death, a death sooner than
expected.
There is another group of Christian writers whose orientation
tends to be more scientific than theological, who however take
Genesis to mean that the cause of physical death as a penalty of
man's sin applies not only to man but even to the animal and
plant world.
And then, of course, there are the evolutionists in general who
would not attach any factor of penalty to the introduction of death
but simply say that death is common to all life and not related to
the disobedience of man at all.
Who is right?
How universal is physical death? What actually is the
D ESIG N ED FO R M ORTALITY
74
physiological cause? Does death in other organisms than man

really occur for the same reason that it occurs in man, and is it the
same phenomenon?
These are the questions to be addressed in this chapter. They
will be dealt with very briefly, but hopefully looked at from all the
basic angles which are or have been under scientific in-
vestigation.
Death: an inevitable part of life?

The Greeks had an ideal: to die young and postpone it as long
as possible! Dying senile was what the Greeks wished above all to
avoid. So do we. For most people approaching old age, death is
often feared less than the senility and ill health which is apt to
precede it.
Perhaps the vast majority of animals, by contrast with man,
neither anticipate nor experience this long slow decline but retain
remarkable vigour and apparent contentment until very near the
end. A few domesticated animals may "die away" more slowly
but chiefly because they have lived longer than they would have
done in the wild—so that situation is un-natural.
The hazards of normal animal existence tend to be such that
any significant decline in strength and vitality is quickly taken
advantage of by other competitors and death is hastened for the
individual in one way or another as a consequence. Man is
exceptional in this slower pace of dying, and we shall have
occasion to comment later on the significance of this fact. At the
present moment my objective is to look at the subject of physical
death as a simple fact of life without regard to theological
implications.
It should, throughout the discussion that follows, be kept in
mind constantly that death is not the inevitable consequence of
having lived. Some of the lower forms of life, and not a few plant
forms (trees, for example), can continue their existence for
75
thousands of years without any decline in vigour. There are some

trees, now known in Japan, which may be 7000 years old!1 And
many of the amoebae that share our world today shared the
world of Adam. Moreover, there are some cells, cancer cells for
example, that give all the appearances of possessing immortality.
Death in itself is not a concomitant of life in itself.
Defining death
It seems proper to start with a definition of death itself, and
here we run into difficulty. In the first place, it is difficult to lay
down a precise definition of death without first of all having a
precise definition of life—and this we do not yet have. One would
think it would be a simple matter to define life but it isn't. There
is a group of people who have committed themselves extensively
to the view that there is no difference between what is living and
what is non-living.
In all seriousness they go even so far as to say that if cells are
alive then the components of the cells are alive: and if the
components are alive, then the atoms which make up their
substance are alive: and if the atoms are alive then even the
particles—the protons and the electrons and all the rest of them
— must be alive.2 The determination of the purely materialistic
philosophers to avoid any hiatus in the transition from non-life to
life drives them relentlessly to this seemingly logical conclusion.
Someone in exasperation suggested that you can tell whether
something is alive or not, just by kicking it. If its response is
predictable, given sufficient background information, then you
can assume it is dead: if it is quite unpredictable, then you can
1. Longevity of trees: reported for the species Cryptom eria japonica in N ew Scientist, 25
M arch, 1976, p.2.
2. A tom s alive? See C harles H artshorne, "M ind, M atter and Freedom " [Scientific M onthly,
M ay, 1954, p.314-20]; E. W . Sinnott, Cell and Psyche: The Biology of Purpose, [U niversity of
N orth C arolina Press, 1950, p.48-50]; A . N . W hitehead, Process and Reality, [N ew York,
M acm illan, 1929, p.486-497]; and D . F. Law den in “Letters to the Editor” under the heading
“Biology” in N ature, vol.202, 1964, p.412.
76
presume it is alive!
Now, at the present stage of medical wizardry it has suddenly
become very important to be able to determine when a human
being is dead or merely in a deep coma. Individuals declared to
be clinically "dead" have more than once in recent years shocked
surgeons about to remove their kidneys for transplant purposes
by suddenly sitting up on the operating table and asking them
what in the world they were up to. Furthermore, certification of
death has become more and more difficult in view of the currently
available means of sustaining life artificially. The case of Karen
Quinlan is a distressing illu-stration of this fact.
In 1975 Karen, then a teenager, swallowed a murderous
cocktail of alcohol and tranquilizers. She has been unconscious
ever since [as was the case in 1981]. She is now an insentient,
motionless, curled-up, skin-wrapped skeleton, having "reco-
vered" from the cocktail to the extent that she now survives
without a respirator.3 No one even pretends to believe that she
will ever recover consciousness, while in the meantime the bill for
this cruel exercise has reputedly passed three million dollars.
"She" (if this preparation can be personal still) has effectively been
condemned to life, not to death...a new thing in human history.
And no one has the right (it seems) or the courage (perhaps) "to
blow out the candle" (if the candle is alight) in order to allow this
tragic example of man's over-sophistication to be terminated. In
Karen Quinlan's case, how do you define life? And how do you
define death?
But some very serious attempts have been made in recent
years to define what death is. In 1968 the Harvard Medical School
tried to give an answer in a statement issued under the heading,
"A Definition of Irreversible Coma"4 in which were listed four
3. K aren Q uinlan: "The case of K aren Q uinlan", New Scientist, 17 Dec., 1981, p.826. She died
of pneum onia, June 13, 1986.
4. H arvard M edical School: “A D efinition of Irreversible C om a,” Special C om m unication,
Journal of the A m erican M edical Association, vol. 205, 1968, p.337.
77
basic criteria:
(1) Total unresponsitivity i.e., total unconsciousness of externally applied

stimuli, even when painful, judged by vocal or other forms of
response such as groaning, limb withdrawal, or quickened
respiration.
(2) Total absence of movement over a period of at least one hour. This
would include detectable pulse or respiration. It recommended
artificial respiration be cut off to see whether any attempt at
breathing would be made within three minutes.
(3) No reflexes: the pupil fixed, dilated and unresponsive to movement
or variation in intensity of a light source. Since the establishment of
a fixed dilated pupil is clear-cut in clinical practice, it was felt that
there should be no uncertainty in such a case.
(4) Flat encephalogram (= 'cerebral silence') for twenty-four hours with no
measurable change.
In each case the assumption is made that there is no evidence

of hypothermia (a body temperature below 90 degrees F. or 32.2
degrees C.) or the use of central nervous system depressants such
as barbiturates.
But how this definition of death fits the case of Karen Quinlan
is difficult to see since breathing continues to be observed in the
absence of artificial assistance. Karen would appear to be alive in
so far as purely physiological considerations are concerned. But
apart from these borderline cases, which keep cropping up, there
is no doubt that unequivocal death comes to millions of organ-
isms, even if we have difficulty defining it.
This is not the time or place to go into the distinctions that
now have to be made between necrosis (the death of cells locally
but not the death of the whole organism); clinical death when the
doctor says the patient is dead; legal death when the coroner clears
things for the undertaker to proceed and the will to be probated;
and biological death which signifies that heroic measures to
resuscitate are futile and the body is already disintegrating.
78
But to complicate the matter even further, in both men and

animals, death can be viewed as either a process or an event.5 It is
not certain whether (apart from an accident) it is ever truly an
event. When God told Adam that "dying he would die," 6 we have
a hint of the fact that dying is a process and many now believe that
we are dying from the moment of birth.7 The same may be true of
animals, though not on account of sin but for purely physiological
reasons which may perhaps be 'natural' for the animal because it
suggests a mechanism which is set to program the animal's life
span in order to prevent overpopulation.
But there is almost always a terminal period in which, what
may have proceeded for a long time at a slow rate, suddenly
gallops away, and life is brought abruptly to an end.
Benefits of death to animals

The evolutionists, while admitting that death is not an
accompanying condition of life, are driven to argue that it must
have been invented and preserved by nature because it is both
necessary and beneficial. Nature is assumed never to invent
except on a utilitarian basis. It is held to be necessary for the
following basic reasons:
(1) To prevent overpopulation by any one species.

(2) To leave the way open for further evolutionary
progress by ensuring the removal of the less
successful species which would otherwise clog the
system.
5. M orison, R. S., "D eath: Process or Event?" and L. R. K ass, "D eath as an Event: A
C om m entary on Robert M orison", Science, vol.173, 1971, p.694-702.
6. “The L ORD God com m anded the m an, saying, O f every tree of the garden you m ay freely
eat: but of the tree of the know ledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for in the day
you eat thereof you shall surely die” [a H ebrew phrase better translated as “dying, you
shall die”] (Genesis 2:16, 17).
7. D ying from m om ent of birth: M edaw ar, Sir Peter B., The U niqueness of the Individual, N ew
York, Basic Books, 1957, p.117.
79
(3) To remove diseased, malformed, or less vigor-ous

members of a population so that they do not
perpetuate themselves. The vigour of the stock is
thus preserved.
(4) To provide food for predators of a higher order
which by a carnivorous diet have a high-er energy
level, such a higher level of energy being
considered a superior form of life.
Let us consider these in slightly greater detail.
(1) To prevent overpopulation:

It is obvious that some species, rabbits for example, breed
much more rapidly than, say, stoats (a European weasel). In the
economy of nature it is logical that a world overcrowded by a
single species could, under certain conditions, become fatally
infected with a disease peculiar to that species which could wipe
them out entirely, and the web of life accordingly might be
grossly disrupted. Or such a prolific species could consume all
vegetable foods necessary for other species to live on, and so bring
about their extinction. Planting only a single species of a tree in
reforestation may be unwise because of the danger of some
species-specific disease wiping out the whole area and robbing
the soil of ground cover.
By the same token, it would not do to have stoats multiplying
explosively without constraint, for an opposite reason. They could
endanger every other species because of their efficiency as
predators.
Professor Edward O. Dodson gives a striking illustration of
what could happen but for death in the case of starfishes. In one
species the female spawns some 1,000,000 eggs in a year. In a
small area of only a few square yards there may be 50 such
females. Each year the eggs laid would therefore be 50,000,000.
Assuming 25,000,000 of these are females, at an ordinary rate of
80
reproduction these 25,000,000 fem ales w ould produce

25,000,000,000,000 eggs. It would take only 17 years for the
number of starfishes on the earth to exceed the total number of
electrons in the whole visible universe!8
(2) To remove less successful species:

In the long view, evolutionists hold that in any species there
will be individuals born with some slightly modified structure or
habit or instinct which has the potential for real advantage to the
species. But at first the numbers of such individuals will be too
small for the advantage to be shared widely. It could also happen
that the potential advantage is an actual disadvantage until the
number of individuals who possess it mark out a niche for them-
selves and multiply sufficiently.
The competition for food and mates is assumed to be keen.
Thus if the more dominant mates of the old stock are not
somehow removed, the new stock will not be established in time
to preserve its unique and advantageous characteristics. But if the
old stock has limitations placed upon their life expectancy, the
newcomers' chance of survival and multiplication will be en-
hanced.
If we transfer this scenario into the business world, we see
something of the basis for fixing mandatory retirement age at a
lower rather than a higher level. Extending the term of office of
senior staff can work to the disadvantage of a company by stifling
the initiative of the younger members who see little hope of ad-
vancement.
(3) To preserve vigour:

This situation is illustrated very nicely by the finding in
Northern Canada some years ago, a finding since repeated else-
where, that when the wolf population is reduced by man to below
8. D odson, Edw ard O ., A Textbook of Evolution, Philadelphia, Saunders, 1952, p.4.

81
a certain level with the intent of increasing the deer population,

the opposite effect may occur.9
The reason for this is now believed to be due to the beneficial
role the wolves play. When the predatory wolves are reduced in
number, the deer population does indeed increase but the increase
includes sick or less fit deer that would otherwise have been killed
off by the wolves. The well-being and vitality of the deer herd
declines as a result and they begin to die off at a higher rate than
expected. Matings are less successful, and the offspring less
healthy.
By leaving the wolf population to set its own level, the deer
herds are healthier and prove better able to survive the viciss-
itudes of northern weather.
(4) To provide food:

In the animal world, survival depends to some extent upon
individual energy levels. Animals which eat meat can maintain
higher levels of energy with less time spent foraging for food than
comparable herbivorous species.
It is a documented fact that a man in good condition can run
down a horse.10 It is obvious that the horse can run faster than the
man, but the horse, being herbivorous, tires more quickly and will
have to keep stopping to browse. Each time the man begins to
catch up, the horse will be forced to run again. In the end the
horse exhausts its energies and allows itself to be caught. The
Indians of the Plains could apparently catch horses in this way,
and such horses once caught were less likely to run away even
when free to do so.
There is a case of a man who is said to have volunteered to
obtain medicine in an emergency for Queen Elizabeth I. The
9. W olves and deer: see Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Things, N ew York, A cadem ic
Press, 1977, p.116
10. See story of "Fast W alker," a Sioux Indian w ho "out-w alked a horse" in 1862 (The
Riverm en in O ld W est Series, N ew York, Tim e-Life Books, 1975, p.144.
82
distance he had to go was some thirty to forty miles, and another

man was sent out on horseback at the same time in case of an
accident. The runner made the round trip of more than sixty miles
in less time than the horseman, and he was interestingly re-
warded by the Queen. He received a new suit of clothes to
compensate for the spoiling of his old suit on the trip, the award
to be repeated annually: and the head of his household in each
succeeding generation was promised the same reward each year
in perpetuity. Only Cromwell's Republic put an end to the
arrangement, so it is said, or perhaps his descendants would still
be beneficiaries.
Whether the story is true or not, it is not difficult to see that
energy is more quickly recovered on a predigested diet of meat
than on vegetables, since one step in the conversion to energy has
already been taken. Death by predation thus advances the course
of evolution, according to this thesis.
Mechanisms of animal death

As to the mechanism of death, there have been scores of ex-
planations. A few have won wide acceptance for a while, but
fewer still have stood the test of time to the present. The following
are six more or less current explanations of ways in which death
may occur 'naturally'—apart from accident or predation.
(1) Animals often display an internal mechanism

which "self-destructs" the organism once it has
become infertile.
(2) A built-in limitation to cell doubling and therefore
to new growth and tissue repair, has been
observed. The life span of the whole organism is
therefore believed to be "programmed" accordingly.
(3) "W ear and tear" brings about reduced viability so
that the animal succumbs to stress.
83
(4) DNA errors of transcription accumulate until a

point of "error catastrophe" is reached.
(5) Since millions of sperm are released by the male
and only a few can continue their existence by
fusion with the ova, millions are destined to die.
(6) Unicellular animals that multiply by simple
division appear to escape natural death. It is
concluded that procreated animals are mortalized
by some factor relating to, or associated with, the
process of gestation and birth.
Let us elaborate these alternatives briefly.
(1) Self destruction:

According to Jerome Wadinsky of Brandeis University, this
"self-destruct" mechanism is found in a number of species of
which an excellent example is the octopus.11 When fertility is at an
end, the individual animal under some hormonal influences
ceases to eat and dies of starvation. By experimentally preventing
the hormonal effect, it is found that the animal will continue to eat
normally though remaining infertile, and its life is considerably
prolonged.
The evolutionary explanation is that from the point of view of
the species (as opposed to the individual), an animal no longer
fertile will make no further contribution to the improvement of
the species but will still continue to compete for its food resources.
A mechanism has thus been invented by nature to save this waste
of food by putting an end to the individual. Man is one of the few
creatures that continues to live for a comparatively long time after
ceasing to be fertile.
11. W adinsky, Jerom e, "H orm onal Inhibition of Feeding and D eath in the O ctopus," Science,
vol.198, 1977, p.951.
84
(2) Programmed life span:

Leonard Hayflick, over a period of years and by some very
elegant experimental techniques has proved to the satisfaction of
many biologists (though by no means all) that cells have a limited
capacity to divide and multiply. The organism thus loses the
ability to continue growth and to heal wounds.
Since growth and continued life appear to be almost syn-
onymous, a cell that has the capability of only a certain number of
doublings (one cell becoming two, two cells becoming four, and
so on) the organism has what is termed a "spanned" life which it
rarely exceeds significantly.12 Different species have either a
different rate of cell division or a different allotment of doubling.
The finding not only limits the life span of the animal but
probably also its size. Since there are real limitations to the size of
any free-standing animal, this seems to reflect a certain wisdom
in nature. Some years ago, J. B. S. Haldane wrote a fascinating
paper on the subject which he titled "On Being the Right Size"!13
A neat balance is thus struck between the ability to heal, which
requires a high level of cell multiplication, and growth in size
which must be controlled. It also effectively spans the life of the
individual organism.
(3) Wear and tear:

The wear and tear theory of the cause of death is a
commonsense view since it seems obvious, but it is no longer
taken seriously because experimental evidence has shown that
stressed animals (whether physiologically or psychologically) live
just as long, and sometimes longer, than unstressed animals.
Records of hard-worked animals in captivity, like elephants and
horses, by comparison with free animals in the wild show,
12. H ayflick, Leonard, "The Lim ited in V itro Lifetim e of H um an D iploid C ell Strains",
Experimental Cell Research, vol.37, 1965, p.614-636.
13. H aldane, J. B. S., "O n Being the Right Size" in The W orld of M athem atics, edited by J. R.
N ew m an, N ew York, Sim on & Schuster, 1956, vol.2, p.952 f.
85
according to Professor Raymond Pearl, that the worked animals

outlive the wild animals, contrary to expectation.14
(4) Mutations:
Mutations, or DNA transcription errors, are constantly
occurring in animal cells for a number of reasons not yet fully
understood. If a sufficient number occur in a given cell, it will
cease to function. If a sufficient number of non-functioning cells
occur in a particular organ, it will fail as an organ. At some point
these errors overwhelm the whole animal, and what Dr. Leslie
Orgel of the Salk Institute has aptly termed, an 'error catastrophe'
occurs. This catastrophe results in the death of the whole
organism.15
At the present time this appears to be the most acceptable
view of the mechanism of animal death.
(5) Destined to die:

According to Professor B. Bacetti of the University of Sienna,
there is evidence that in a number of species the extraordinary
proliferation of spermatozoa of which the vast proportion die
without contributing to the fertilization of the ovum, serve the
purpose of providing by their decay a protein-rich environment
for those which succeed.16 This is true of certain species of
gastropods.
A rather similar situation exists in the case of codfish. The
female spawns some 6,000,000 eggs of which only 4 or 5 survive.17
It is believed that the dead ova, in a like manner, provide a
protein-rich environment for the eggs which do survive to grow
more vigorously.
14. Pearl, Raym ond, M an the A nim al, Bloom ington, M aryland, Principia Press, 1946, p.47.
15. O rgel, Leslie, "Senesence and the Selfish Gene," N ew Scientist, 29 M arch, 1979, p.1042.
16. Bacetti, B. and B. A . A fzelius, The Biology of the Sperm Cell, M onographs in D evelopm ent
Biology, N o.10, Basel, Karger, 1976, p.78.
17. C odfish eggs: see Science D igest, A ug., 1981, p.25.
86
(6) Being born:

August Weismann in the late nineteenth century was the first
to underscore the fact that asexual reproduction leads to
potentially immortal animals whereas all sexually propagated
offspring appear without exception to be mortal.18
It is not clear why this is so in nature, but it does suggest that
if an animal wants to live forever it should avoid being born!
Two kinds of death: natural for animals, un-natural for man

There are a number of people who feel that the death of
animals is a direct result of the Fall, and they occasionally point to
Romans 8:2219 as implying this. Here we are told that "the whole
creation groans" as man awaits his redemption. But the fact is that
the phrase "the whole creation" is recurrent in the New Testament
and clearly applies to human kind, not to animals.
In Mark 16:1520 the same phrase in the original Greek surely
cannot mean that the Gospel is to be preached to animals, as
Francis of Assisi preached to birds. Colossians 1:15 21 (again the
same phrase in Greek) cannot mean that the Lord Jesus Christ was
the firstborn of all the animals. In Colossians 1:23 22 (once more the
same phrase) Paul did not mean that the Gospel had already been
preached to animals everywhere!
And finally, Romans 5:12 23 which speaks of the entrance of
death—or as Martyn Lloyd-Jones acutely observes, the “invasion”
18. W eism ann, A ugust, Essays U pon H eredity and Kindred Biological Problem s, translated by
E. B. Poulton, S. Schonland and A . E. Shipley, O xford University Press, 1889, vol.1, p.139.
19. “W e know that the w hole creation groans and labours in birth pangs together until
now ” (Rom ans 8:22).
20. “H e said to them , ‘Go into all the w orld and preach the gospel to every creature”. (M ark
16:15).
21. “[C hrist] w ho is the im age of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature“
(C olossians 1:15).
22. “. . . the gospel w hich w as preached to every creature w hich is under heaven“
(C olossians 1:23).
23. “Therefore as by one m an sin entered into the w orld, and death by sin, and so death
passed upon all m en ” (Rom ans 5:12).
87
of death 24 —cannot be extended to animals as some would have it

to be, because the proof of this invasion according to the verse
itself is that all have sinned. The universality of death for man is
proven by the universality of man's sin. The whole point of the
passage is that all men die because all men are sinners. Animal and
plant life are clearly not in view. Moreover, amoebae and para-
mecia are animals; yet they are not subject to death except by
accident. That such creatures are tiny has no bearing: they are
alive. Thus the concept of death as universal and due entirely to
man's sin is neither supported by the facts nor required by
Scripture.
It is clear that death exists in nature not as a punishment but
ultimately for its maintenance and well-being. Therefore it is most
important to realize that none of what has been said about the
necessity of death in the animal and plant world applies to man.
This cannot be emphasized too strongly. For them death is natural: for
man it is not.
But it is also evident from what we know about amoebae and
paramecia (and unfortunately, cancer cells) that cell life is not
necessarily subject to death at all. Once created, it would appear
to have potentially the capability of endless existence, barring
accidents. The phenomenon of life per se thus illustrates
Augustine's concept of immortality as something which it is not
impossible to kill but which otherwise has no necessity of dying.
The death of man and the death of animals are thus two very
different kinds of death. In the case of animals, death is a necess-
ity, something programmed for them for the benefit of the web of
nature as a whole. No single species of an animal is allowed to
multiply and "fill the earth," though taking all the species together
they have, in a sum, successfully fulfilled the command to fully
24. Lloyd-Jones, M artyn, Romans: Chapter V , Zondervan, 1972, p.194.

88
occupy it.25
With man, the case is different because, though he is a single
species it was intended that he should fill the earth and govern it,
but there is good reason to suppose that each individual, as soon
as he or she had matured, would have been removed from the
earth by translation without tasting death at all, thus preventing
overpopulation. No such removal by translation was planned for
any of the other species. Only man was designed for this happy
prospect.
Thus the why of death for animals has no bearing on the why
of death for man, even though the mechanism may not be
altogether dissimilar since both live rooted in the same natural
order. But for animals, death being appointed like all else in
nature, makes it natural: whereas for man, even though his death
is also now appointed,26 it was appointed only as a penalty and as
such was un-natural.
Therefore it seems clear that Adam's un-natural death is no
more to be accounted for by some supposed animal ancestry, than
the natural death of animals is to be attributed to the Fall of
Adam.
25. “A nd God blessed them [the anim als] saying, Be fruitful and m ultiply, and fill the
w aters in the seas, and let the fow l m ultiply in the earth”. (Genesis 1:22).
26, “ it is appointed unto m en once to die . . . “ (H ebrew s 9:27).
89
PART II
MAN’S SPIRIT:
A UNIQUE CREATION
90
Since the temporal order is framed within the eternal,

only by a measure of comprehension of the eternal
can a man hope to interpret the temporal correctly.
91
Chapter 7
HUMAN SPIRIT+HUMAN BODY=A HUMAN BEING
Where One + One=One
Man was created with a body not unlike the animals since we
inhabit the same environment. But man is more than an animal;
he is an embodied spirit—not pure spirit as angels are—but a
unique body/spirit creation.
The consequence of this is that when we try to construct a
biblical theology (or psychology?) of the constitution of man, we
find little precision in the Old Testament or in the Gospel records
Precision belongs to Paul.
It has often been observed that although the Jewish people
were intensely religious by inclination, they never felt any need
to structure their faith or systematize it as a theology. Of
commentaries they wrote many and the Talmud grew apace year
by year. But despite its great volume of traditional law, it
contained little that could qualify as theology in the Gentile sense.
Strict adherence to logical systematization of their beliefs did not
seem to interest them, though they did systematize their practices.1
1. This still seem s to be essentially true. The Standard Jewish Encyclopaedia (1890) which runs to
nearly 2000 pages, sim ply says under the heading of Theology: See G od, Judaism , etc. The entries
under G od and Judaism bear little resem blance to our theologies, being m ore history than anything.
And what the et cetera m eans is hard to say, since obviously one cannot find it anywhere in the
Encyclopaedia!
SPIRIT + BO D Y = H U M AN
92
Although in the Gentile world we have, since the earliest days

of Christianity, continually produced and refined Creeds,
Definitions, and Statements of Faith, we have not founded the
substance of these formulations on the Old Testament but on the
New, especially upon Paul's Epistles. The fact is that this Hebrew
disinterest in such formulations is reflected in their Scriptures.
And it should be borne in mind that these Old Testament
Scriptures ought to include part of the New Testament, namely,
the Gospels. Because, until Calvary, the statutes and ordinances
and rituals, and the Abrahamic promises to Israel which relate to
earthly matters, were all still in force. One can appeal to passages
in the Old Testament that often strongly support a New
Testament theology, but they are also sometimes contradicted by
other passages in the Old Testament and are thus of only slender
evidential value.
This brief chapter is therefore essentially a New Testament
construct, but this construct is both revealing and satisfying in its
simplicity. And as will be noted later by reference to Barton
Payne's writings, there is a comfortable agreement between the
Old and the New Testaments in this biblical anthropology even
though it could not have been constructed on an Old Testament
basis alone.
Components of the human constitution

There has always been a debate as to whether man is
composed of two distinct components—a body which is physical
and a spirit or soul which is not—or whether man is composed of
three distinct components as seems clearly to be implied.2 The first
formulation is referred to as a dichotomy and the second as a
trichotomy.
Sometimes the three component advocates, the trichotomists,
2. “I pray God your w hole spirit... soul... body be preserved“ (1 Thessalonians 5:23)
93
feel they have support also from Hebrews 4:12.3 However, if one
wants to insist on a strict literalism in this passage, one could
argue for four components, made up of soul, spirit, joints, and
marrow: which would, I suppose, be a quadrichotomy. Inter-
estingly, some versions reduce this quadrichotomy not merely to
a trichotomy by counting joints and marrow as one element, but
to a dichotomy. The soul/spirit is simply what is non-physical,
and the joints/marrow is what is physical. They thus argue that
the writer is saying that the Holy Spirit is able to set the spirit
against the body.
The situation is complicated by the fact that in addressing a
Jewish audience (as the Epistle to the Hebrews does), the Lord
Himself used a number of terms, each of which might be taken as
a separate component of man's constitution: strength, spirit, soul,
heart, and mind.4 This could, I suppose, be called a quinquichotomy!5
Really, we are left with only one passage clearly contending
for a trichotomy (1 Thessalonians 5:23), the rest of the New Test-
ament strongly suggesting that man is simply a dichotomy of
body and spirit.6 And for purposes of ordinary discussion, few
3. “ For the w ord of God is quick and pow erful and sharper than any tw o-edge sw ord
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of joints and m arrow .”
(H ebrew s 4:12).
4. “Jesus said to him , you shall love the Lord you r G od w ith all your heart, and w ith all
your soul, and w ith all your m ind” (M atthew 22:37) and “you shall love the Lord your God
w ith all your heart, and w ith all your soul, and w ith all your m ind, and w ith all you r
strength” (M ark 12:30).
5. The reader w ho prefers to view m an's sp iritual nature as com posed of m ore than one
elem ent (heart and m ind, or soul and spirit, or m ind and w ill) need not feel offended. The
only point that I feel is quite crucial to m y thesis is that m an is not m an at all w ithout his
body. H is spirit is, in fact, not m ore im portant to his future life hereafter than his body is.
M an is a dichotom y in the sense that he is com posed of a non-physical part of his being
w hich is his spirit and a physical part of his b eing w hich is his body, and he cannot be
w hole w ithout the total fusion of the tw o. The resu rrection of his body is every w hit as
im portant to his future identity as the preservation of his spirit. Together they constitute
the survival of his person.
6. Part of the confusion in this debate is due to the im precise use of the term s soul and spirit.
W hile it is clear there is the m aterial (the body) and the im m aterial (the spirit), it is not clear
w hether soul and spirit can be used interchangeably or whether there is another category --
94
will challenge the convenience of being able to view man as an

embodied spirit, a created spirit in a procreated body. When the
God-given spirit is infused into the body, the soul emerges. As the
simplest of all equations, then, spirit + body = soul. And thus, the
soul IS the person, the whole man, the self. For you it is "your-self,"
for me it is "my-self," body and spirit.
The human spirit: the biblical definition

Let us look, then, at some of the evidence that the New
Testament (especially the epistles of Paul) almost always speaks
of the nonphysical component of man as spirit—not soul—in spite
of popular opinion to the contrary. Whenever we find a clear
reference to man as a dichotomy, it is always as a dichotomy of
body and spirit, not a dichotomy of body and soul.
James 2:26 tells us that the body is dead without the spirit. No
hint of departure of the soul is present in this simple observation.
Jesus in his 'departing' commended not his soul but his spirit into
the Father's care, as did also Stephen 7.
as can be observed in these four qu otes from the first centuries to the nineteenth: Tatian
(110-172 A D ): “N either could [the hum an soul] appear by itself w ithout the body, nor does
the flesh rise again w ithout the soul” (“A ddress to the Greeks”, chapter 15 in A nte N icene
Fathers, edited by A lexander Roberts & Jam es D onaldson, N ew York, C harles Scribner’s
Sons, 1913, vol.2, p.71). M ethodius of O lym p as (266-312 A D ) in his “D iscourse on the
Resurrection” (Part III, chapter iv) w rote: “M an, w ith respect to his nature, is m ost truly
said to be neither soul w ithout body, nor, on the other hand, body w ithout soul, but a being
com posed out of the union of soul and body into one form ”(A nte N icene Fathers, ibid., vol.6,
p.370). In 1698 John Gill w rote: “The integral parts of m an, w hich constitute one, are soul
and body” (A Com plete Body of D octrinal & Practical D ivinity, Grand Rap ids, Baker Book
H ouse, 1978 reprint, vol.1, p.543). And in 1868, although he argued for a trichotom y,
nevertheless J. B. H eard w rote that the Bible ”lays dow n for our instruction the tw o natures
of m an -- the anim al and the spiritual, and then describes the Nephesh [soul] as the union
point betw een the tw o. M an becam e a living soul, in the sense that his Nephesh or self is the
m eeting point or tertium quid of these tw o natures, body and spirit. . . . In the soul of m an,
the anim al and the spirit m eet and com bine in a union so intim ate that after their union
their separate existence m ay be said to be destroyed” (The Tripartite N ature of M an,
Edinburgh, C lark, 1868, p.47, 48)
7. “W hen Jesus cried w ith a loud voice, H e said, Father into your hands I com m end m y
spirit” (Luke 23:46); and “They stoned Stephen, calling upon G od, and saying, Lord Jesus,
95
Accordingly when resuscitation takes place, it is not the soul

but the spirit that rejoins the body, as in the case of the little girl
whom Jesus raised and of the two witnesses.8 And this is also
true in Ezekiel 37:5, 8-109 where the Hebrew word for spirit is
here, in the King James Version, rendered 'breath' although there
is a perfectly good Hebrew word for what we mean by breath
namely, neshamah -- a word which was not used in the original
though it could have been if this were the intention of the Author.
It is significant that John speaks of the rebirth of the spirit, not
the soul,10 and Paul speaks of the saving of the spirit rather than
of the saving of the soul.11 It is the spirit not the soul that is given
to the newborn12 after being presumably pre-formed by God.13 It
is the spirit not the soul that is surrendered by Ananias and
Sapphira;14 it is the spirit not the soul that is willing though the
receive m y spirit” (A cts 7:59).

8. “[Jesus] took her by the hand ... saying, M aid, arise. A nd her spirit cam e again, and she
arose straightw ay” (Luke 8:54, 55); “Their dead bodies [of the tw o w itnesses] shall lie in the
street. .. A nd after three days and a half the spirit of life from G od entered into them , and
they stood upon their feet ...” (Revelation 11:8, 11).
9. “Thus said the LO R D G OD unto these bones, Behold, I w ill cause breath to enter into you
and you shall live. .. A nd w hen I beheld, lo, the sinew s and flesh cam e up upon them and
the skin covered them above: but there w as no breath in them . Then he said unto m e,
Prophesy unto the w ind, prophesy, son of m an, and say to the w ind, Thus says the LO R D
G OD: C om e from the four w inds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain that they m ay live.
So I prophesied as he com m anded m e, and the breath cam e into them , and they lived, and
stood up upon their feet.... “ (Ezekiel 37: 5, 8-10).
10. “That w hich is born of the flesh is flesh; and that w hich is born of the spirit is spirit.”
(John 3:6).
11. “...to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit m ay
be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1 Corinthians 5:5).
12. “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it w as: and the spirit return unto God w ho
gave it.”(Ecclesiastes 12:7).
13. “...the Lord w ho... form s the spirit of m an w ithin him .... “ (Zechariah 12:1).
14. “A nanias hearing these w ords, fell dow n, and gave up the ghost [i.e., the breath,
spirit]”; “she [Sapphira] fell dow n.... and yielded up the ghost” (A cts 5:5, 10).
96
body is weak;15 the spirit that is finally to be made perfect;16 and

that cannot be retained by man when the time comes to surrender
it back to God.17
In all these important passages, and often contrary to the way
they are quoted, it is the spirit and not the soul that is spoken of.
We speak easily of the saving of the soul. And while this is
perfectly justified, it is not strictly biblical – as will be seen later.
Passages where spirit is used instead of soul can be multiplied
greatly by careful attention to the wording of Scripture. Thus it is
both body and spirit that need cleansing.18 Mystically, the Church
is one body and one spirit.19 And we are called upon to glorify
God in our spirit and our body.20
The human soul: the theological definition

What, then, of the soul? Where does it enter the picture? Sure-
ly, the soul is the end result of the fusion of body and spirit. It is
an entity, a reality, generated by the fusion of two elements— just
as salt is generated from sodium and chlorine gas, or as the colour
green is generated by the fusion of yellow and blue. When these
two components of the soul are separated by death, one com-
ponent returns to the earth and the other to heaven into God's
keeping, until reunion of the two at the raising of the body brings
about the reconstitution of the person. The soul is the result of a
union, an entity which comprehends the whole man.
Such a view can be supported both from the Old and the New
Testaments. J. Barton Payne has written a most useful volume
entitled The Theology of the Older Testament. In his chapter on "The
15. “W atch and pray, that you enter not into tem ptation; the spirit indeed is w illing, but
the flesh is w eak.” (M atthew 26:41).
16. “...[you are com e] to G od the judge of all, and to the spirits of just m en m ade perfect...“
(H ebrew s 12:23).
17. “There is no m an that has pow er over the spirit to retain the spirit.” (Ecclesiastes 8:8).
18. “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,” (2 C orinthians 7:1).
19. “There is one body and one spirit.... “ (Ephesians 4:4).
20. “...glorify God in your body, and in your spirit...” (1 C orinthians 6:20).
97
Nature of Man," he proposes that in the Old Testament we have

the following progressive equation:21
DUST+BREATH=FLESH (as the living organism)

then FLESH +SPIRIT=SOUL (Heb. nephesh) as the person
The simplicity of this arrangement commends itself highly

since it seems to meet many of the apparently conflicting relevant
passages in the Old Testament, and virtually all of the New.
Passages not satisfied are usually poetry or analogy or an
accommodation to common parlance. Basically it presents us with
a physical body and a non-physical spirit which together con-
stitute the soul, the person.
We can compare with this a equally satisfying study of the
biblical view of human constitution by Robert H. Gundry titled
Soma in Biblical Theology. This makes an excellent companion
volume on the New Testament evidence to that by Barton Payne
on the Old. Gundry concluded, on the basis of the New
Testament, that man is a body plus a spirit entity which, when
fused, becomes a soul. Notice that we are talking about fusion, not
mere addition. Soul is something which neither body nor spirit
alone can ever be. Man thus can be said to have a body and to have
a spirit: but he does not have a soul. Man IS a soul.
Without the spirit the body is like a car without a driver:
without the body the spirit is like a driver without a car. A brief
quotation from Gundry nicely indicates his overall position:
The biblical touchstone for truly human life is not

consciousness of the spirit, let alone the material being of a
physical object such as the body. Rather, man is fully himself
only in the unity of his body and spirit in order that the body
21. Payne, Barton, The Theology of the Older Testam ent, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1962,
p.225
98
may be animated and the spirit may express itself in
obedience to God.
Both parts of the human constitution share in the dignity
of the divine image. That dignity lies in man's service to God
as a representative caretaker over the material creation. For
such a task man needs a physical medium of action as much
as an incorporeal source for the conscious willing of action.
Neither spirit nor body gains precedence over the other.
Each gains in union with the other: each loses in separation
from the other.22
We seem therefore to be nearest to the truth when we form-

ulate the simplest equation possible:
BODY+SPIRIT=SOUL
This does not really make man a duality, except for purposes
of analysis and discussion. For man does not exist as a person
when body and spirit are separated, and therefore it is only in a
manner of speaking that we can talk about the body as half the
man and the spirit as the other half, since there is no such thing as
half a man. When separated, the body at once ceases to be a body
and becomes merely a purposeless conglomerate of chemicals:
and the spirit appears to lose all contact with physical reality and
all means of expression. As well, consciousness is almost certainly
lost.
Only the resurrection of the body and its refusion with the
spirit can reconstitute the whole man, the person, the soul.23 A
22. Gundry, Robert H ., Som a in Biblical Theology, C am bridge U niversity Press, 1978, p.160.
23. O ur bodies w ill be new bodies in a transform ed condition of being. Jesus’ body w as,
by contrast, his original body resurrected, and then transform ed only in the sense of being
“converted” in its functional capacity. O ur body has to be replaced by being first “sow n”
in the earth and disintegrated, and then reassem bled in a new form . O ur sinful m ortal
bodies cannot be m erely raised in the old form as H is w as, because, like Lazarus’ body they
are corrupted already and w ill be even m ore so lying in the grave. W e have therefore the
prospect of having our “ow n” body but only in the sense that the sow n seed recreates itself
by its ow n decay. W hereas the Lord has H is ow n body still, bearing indeed the identifying
99
SOUL is therefore a monad, that is, an absolute singular reality, by

nature indivisible. It comes into being as an entirely "new thing"
as a consequence of the fusion of two elements. It is thus apparent
that we can restate the equation above in a new form:
ONE+ONE=ONE
Spelled out, such an equation means that "one and one makes
one," not TW O: and the secret of the resolution of such an odd
equation then lies in the meaning of the little word "and." What do
we mean by and? In this case, it is not merely “plus” as an ad-
dition, but "fused with," "made one with," in the most literal sense.
We are by no means without scriptural analogies for this form
of equation. The most obvious one is to be found in Genesis 2:24.
When God brought Eve to Adam (the Father bringing the bride to
the groom!), He said, "They shall be one flesh." One plus one
equals one.
We find the analogy again in the unification of the Body (i.e.,
the Church) when its members and the Head (which is Christ)
become a single functioning organic unity. "For as the body is one
and has many members, and all the members of that one body,
being many, are one body; so also is Christ...and you are the body
of Christ...” (1 Corinthians 12:12, 27), and “He is the head of the
body, the church..." (Colossians 1:18). Likewise, Jew and Gentile
are so joined as to "make of the two one new man" (Ephesians
2:15).
Thus though it takes two partners to MAKE the "marriage," it
is not the partners who ARE the marriage. The marriage, which
is thus generated by the partners, becomes a reality all of its own.
As yellow and blue MAKE green, neither the yellow or the blue
by themselves ARE green. Side by side they remain yellow and
m arks of the nails and the spear -- the sam e body in w hich on the Cross H e bore our sins...
(1 Peter 2:24).
100
blue: fused they become green.

In an analogous way, the body and the spirit do indeed
MAKE the soul, but it is the soul that is made, which in this
analogy is the MARRIAGE, not one of the partners. It exists in its
own right, just as the resulting soul exists in its own right.
An evil spirit may take over a human body, or even a dead
one—as Satan tried to do with the body of Moses.24 But this does
not generate another human soul, nor would it have done so if
Satan had succeeded. In the latter instance, it would have
generated only a monster. What constitutes a human soul is the
unification of a human body with its human spirit.
A living soul: an indivisible fused body/spirit

In terms of his constitution, man is a body and a spirit: in
terms of his soul, man is "simple and indivisible" as the
theologians have it. The soul of man cannot be divided and
survive as a soul. If the two components are separated, which is
the only division that can be made, the soul no longer exists. What
God planned were not just the two components of man that He
created in two stages, first the body and then the spirit. When the
spirit was infused into the body which had been prepared to
receive it, then man "became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). The living
soul is what God created "in his own image." 25
The union of the spirit and the body is a "marriage by
appointment" since each spirit is created specifically for each
body, and it was never God's intention that this union should be
dissolved in death. Although through sin it will be dissolved,
reunion will occur when the resurrected body is joined by the
spirit. It is not our "hope of glory" to be merely a redeemed ghost
but to be a redeemed soul -- body and spirit
24. “M ichael the archangel, w hen contending w ith the devil disputed about the body of
M oses . . .“ (Jude 9).
25. For m ore on this see Appendix 3, “W hich is Form ed First: the Spirit or the Body”?
101
Even this is not a sufficient statement, because it suggests a

spirit consciously in search of its body. I believe there is no such
thing as a conscious spirit without a body. It needs the body's brain
to have consciousness of the real world and even of itself.
Moreover, I am confident that, for the Christian, there is no lapse
into unconsciousness when we pass into the presence of the Lord,
for our spirit is instantly rejoined to its resurrected body. In short,
death becomes our resurrection!
The soul, therefore, is in the strictest sense indivisible, for the
only division that can be made results in the dissolution of the
soul. Meanwhile the spirit that has departed from the body passes
directly into God's keeping until the body is resurrected to form
its proper home.26
Between the departure of the spirit and the resurrection of the
new body, however, there is no experienced lapse of time because
there is no "time" to lapse. Thus we are never, at any stage in the
life of the world to come, reduced to the status of a mere ghost.
We pass into the presence of the Lord clothed, not naked,27 and to
be rid of this body is to be clothed in a new body suited to a royal
reception.
I have spelled this out very carefully and fully in my book
Journey Out of Time, a book which sheds a new light on a number
of passages of Scripture that bear directly upon the circumstances
in which this journey into eternity will be made.28 The Lord's
promise that the believer will not "taste" of death 29 will be literally
26. The state of the soul betw een the death and resurrection of the body has been term ed
by theologians as “soul sleep,” a concept explored extensively in C ustance’s Journey O ut
of Tim e, H am ilton, D oorw ay Publications, 3 rd edition, 2009, p.192-194.
27. “For w e that are in this tabernacle [body] do groan and are burdened: not that w e
w ould be unclothed but clothed up on, that m ortality m ight be sw allow ed up of life” (2
C orinthians 5:4)
28. C ustance, A rthur, Journey O ut of Tim e, H am ilton, O N , D oorw ay Publications, 2009
[1981], xx+301 pps.
29. “V erily, verily, I say to you, if a m an keep m y saying he shall never see death.” (John
8:51, 52).
102
and wonderfully fulfilled. There will be no experienced loss of

consciousness when this journey is made.
Christian theology and evolution incompatible

So what we really have is this. A human being is by definition
a human spirit fused with a human body, not a mere combination
of spirit and body but a fusion in the most absolute sense.
In view of this equation, it is therefore quite proper to speak
of the saving of the soul, i.e., the whole person— because with
every assurance of the rebirth of the spirit and every assurance of
the redemption of the body, we do indeed have, effectively, every
assurance of the saving of the soul. This is not the saving of half
the man, but the saving of the whole.
The evolutionary view of the origin of the soul has to be, in the
final analysis, a kind of spin-off or epiphenomenon that emerges
directly from the material of the body and will last only as long as
the body lasts. It is a philosophy which holds out no
transcendental value for the human spirit so long as its own
interpretive canons are faithfully applied to the evidence it
admits. The Christian evolutionist appears to me either
inconsistent in his theology as a Christian, or inconsistent in his
philosophy as a Scientist.

103
Chapter 8
SPIRIT+BODY=AN IDENTIFIABLE PERSON
The Origin of the Human Spirit
Certainly human beings are quite distinguishable from ani-

mals, but we are also distinguishable from each other. Every
human being is an individual, there are no copies. How then, did
I become me?
We know that we receive our body from our parents by an act
of procreation: but whence comes the other half, the spirit? There
are really only four views: (1) by Reincarnation, (2) by direct
Creation, (3) by inheritance from our parents much as we receive
our bodies, termed Traducianism, and (4) by Evolution. Let us
examine each of these very briefly noting something of what is the
meaning and evidence for each, and some of the problems each
view creates.
(1) Reincarnation
Broadly speaking, reincarnation means that a soul passes
through a succession of bodies, each of which becomes a
temporary means for the expression of its condition until
perfection is reached by experience. At this point the soul either
passes into the total rest of immersion in the sum of "cosmic
consciousness" and is finally freed from the burden of personal
SPIR IT+BO D Y = ID EN TIFIA BLE PERSO N
104
identity, or becomes one with God—perhaps without loss of that

personal identity.
This appeals to certain people. Many people find the cost of
individualism is too high and prefer to be "lost in the crowd." A
final absorption into something much bigger than self seems a
very happy solution to such people.
The Jewish people gave considerable thought to the idea of
reincarnation and crystallized their ideas about it during the
Middle Ages in a work referred to as The Cabala or Kabbala. Their
thinking was strongly influenced by Gnosticism which viewed
embodiment as degrading to the spirit, and reincarnation un-
desirable accordingly.
In this view, all souls were created at the beginning and were
perfectly content without bodies. Such souls were androgynous
[male and female] by nature. When subsequently, as a pun-
ishment, souls were embodied, each was divided into male or
female so that they now seek reunification with themselves by
marriage.1 Since embodiment was a penalty, a strong leaning
toward asceticism, where the spirit is developed and the body is
denied, naturally developed.
Nicodemus probably had in the back of his mind some kind
of reincarnation when he asked the Lord whether a man could
enter into his mother's womb a second time and be reborn.2 That
Jesus was a reincarnation of John the Baptist or Elijah or Jeremiah
or one of the prophets3 is another illustration that the idea was
quite familiar to them, though not yet logically formulated.
Later, Origen (185-254 A.D.) was to develop the concept much
more fully and subsequently to be roundly condemned as a
1. See The N ew Schaff-H erzog Encyclopedia of Religious Know ledge, edited by Sam uel M .
Jackson, Grand Rapids, Baker reprint, 1949, vol.II, p.328.
2. “N icodem us said to him [Jesus], H ow can a m an be born w hen he is old? C an he enter
the second tim e his m other’s w om b, and be born?” (John 3:4).
3. “Som e say that you [Jesus] are John the Baptist; som e, Elijah; and others, Jerem iah, or one
of the prophets” (M atthew 16:14).
105
heretic for his pains by the Western Church.4 However, he still

continued to be recognized as the first of the systematic theo-
logians and as an intensely creative writer. His works became a
veritable watershed of original ideas.
As to the evidence, it was then what it still is, anecdotal in
nature. As an example, it is a common experience for many
people at one time or another to come upon a scene or to meet a
stranger, and experience a strong but odd feeling of having been
there before (deja vu) or having met previously. There are a few
cases on record of individuals who described a place in great
detail as though it were quite familiar which they had not,
however, actually visited: yet their description has proved to be
remarkably accurate.
Those within the framework of Judaeo-Christian philosophy,
have limited reincarnation to the human spirit. Other religious
communities outside of this tradition have been quite willing to
concede that man might in the next reincarnation be an animal or
an insect or even a plant, and correspondingly any animal might
be reincarnated as a human being. Origen felt that the problem of
man's sinful nature was best explained by some prior existence in
a less-than-perfect state.
But the concept of reincarnation really provides no solution to
the origin of the soul or spirit. It merely proposes a history of
what happens to the soul once created. We are still left with the
problem of where the soul originated and in what form.
Is there some kind of reservoir which, like water, can be
fragmented into droplets and allowed to fall into bodies as they
are appropriated? Or is there a store of individually created souls
4. O rigen: condem ned particularly for 2 w orks on reincarnation, Sym posium and D e
Resurrectione [in his D e Principiis, Book 4, chapter I, 23 in Fathers of the Third Century,
C leveland C oxe, in A nte-N icene Fathers, edited by A lexander Roberts and Jam es D onaldson,
N ew York, Charles Scribner's Sons, vol. IV , p .372f.]. See also New International D ictionary
of the Christian Church, edited by J. D . Dou glas, G rand Rapids, Zondervan, 1974, under
O rigenism , p.734.
106
predestined to fit each body when the time is ripe? And in that
case, in view of the steady increase in the world's population and
the number of bodies needing ensoulment, are there multitudes
of souls on a kind of waiting list? Or are they created as needed?
Granted that with each death there is a soul free to serve
somewhere else, the fact remains that births exceed deaths so that
there are always more new vessels to be filled than old ones just
vacated.
It seems that by and large the biblical data do not support the
concept of reincarnation; especially since, for the redeemed at
least, death does not leave a soul homeless but frees it for im-
mediate reunion with its newly resurrected body.5
(2) Direct creation

By contrast, direct creation is the belief that the soul is, in each
individual case, a direct work of God (termed creationism in
theology). Many passages of Scripture can hardly be understood
in any other way. We have already referred to some of them in
another context. It will not be amiss to repeat a few here to com-
plete the record in this new context.
The spirit is given by God, not derived from man: Ecclesiastes 12:7
The spirit is formed within the individual by God: Zechariah 12:1
The spirit (or soul) is made by God (Heb. 'asah): Isaiah 57:16
God is the Father of all spirits: Hebrews 12:9
If it is God who has designed and created our spirit, suiting it
5. W hat the N ew Testam ent tells us is that the spirit will indeed be reincarnated but not at
all w ith a view to the term ination of either personal identity or fulfillm ent. The C hristian
view is that the resurrection of the body m arks the beginning, not the end, of a fully
satisfying existence in w hich personal identity is preserved intact. Five things are therefore
revealed in Scripture about life after death for the redeem ed soul: (1) Reincarnation occurs
but once. (2) Reincarnation occurs by reunion w ith one’s ow n body. (3) The spirit w hich
anim ates it w ill be our ow n spirit. (4) Personal identity is thus m aintained in spirit and
body, and w ill never have any further need of am endm ent. (5) This glorified state of
personal existence w ill continue forever.
107
to our body (whether male or female, introvert or extrovert,

practical or philosophical, artistic or unimaginative, creative or
merely appreciative, etc.), it is quite natural that it should return
to Him when it leaves this body. Here in God's hands it is
preserved in its identity, to be infused into the new resurrected
body which we receive at the instant of our relinquishing the
present one. This resurrected body will match the character of its
perfected spirit, thus entirely reconstituting a soul.
The spirit is only one half of our personal identity, and
because it is of divine origin, the dissolution of the body which
houses it in no way signifies that the spirit ceases to exist. It is a
creation of God designed to last forever, not an accidental and
temporary by-product of a blind evolutionary process. God is able
to reconstitute the whole man by the resurrection of his body in
some identifiable form and by the reinfusion of the spirit into it.
Such a destiny for man is entirely outside the purview or com-
petence of evolutionary philosophy.
Logically, the evolutionists must of necessity reject any
concept of direct creation of any essential component of man's
constitution, such as his spirit: and especially any concept which
demands continuous creation upon billions of occasions to meet
the requirements of an ever growing world population.
(3) Traducianism
Alternatively, there is the belief that the soul or spirit is
procreated by the parents, along with the body. The word
Traducianism is derived from a Latin verb traducere which means
"to transmit." The term was originated to convey the idea that in
Adam and Eve a soul was directly created to form an inex-
haustible reservoir of soul-stuff for their children. Derivation of all
future souls did not diminish theirs, any more than the lighting of
a second candle or a hundred candles from a first one diminishes
the prime source. All "soul substance" was invested by one act of
108
creation in Adam and Eve. Our souls are derived from that
investment.
The great advantage of this concept is that it so nicely
accounts for our inheritance of Adam's acquired sinful nature and
guilt. But there are some problems which this otherwise attractive
thesis raises.
First, there is no unequivocal biblical evidence for such an
origin of the human soul or spirit. The only passage which might
seem to qualify as such is John 3:6, "That which is born of flesh is
flesh and that which is born of Spirit (or spirit?) is spirit." If we use
a lowercase letter for Spirit to make it read as "that which is born
of spirit is spirit," we might seem to have a strong basis for
Traducianism. But the context clearly indicates that the word
'Spirit' has reference to the Holy Spirit and that the birth spoken
of is a re-birth. "Marvel not that I said, You must be born again."
This has been recognized tacitly in the great majority of modern
versions,6 while a very few have used the lowercase 's' (i.e.,
spirit).7
Admittedly, majority opinion does not settle such matters, but
it is noteworthy that when Adam first set eyes on Eve he did not
exclaim, "This is now soul of my soul and flesh of my flesh" but
"This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Genesis
2:23). There is no suggestion in this that Eve derived her soul or
spirit from Adam as well as her body.
Again, while God Himself is spoken of as "the Father of
spirits" (Hebrews 12:9), Adam is never so described. Yet certainly
6. Including the Revised V ersion (RV ), Revised Standard V ersion (RSV ), New Am erican Standard
Bible N A SB), G ood N ew s Bible: Today’s English V ersion, N ew International V ersion N IV), N ew
King Jam es V ersion (N K JV), N ew Berkeley V ersion of the N ew Testam ent (N BV ), R. Young
(Literal Translation of the Bible), W illiam s N ew Testam ent (W N T), The Jerusalem Bible, W uest,
N ew A m erican (Rom an C atholic), Farrar Fenton (The Holy Bible in M odern English), Sm ith
and Goodspeed (The Com plete Bible), Rieu, and the V ulgate.
7. Such as N ew English Bible, J. B. Rotherham ’s The Em phasized Bible, W illiam Barclay’s D aily
Studies Series, N .T. and J. B. Phillips’ Translation of the N ew Testam ent (in v.6 he uses low er
case ‘s’ but in v.8 upper case ‘S’).
109
such a title would have been particularly appropriate in his case

if Traducianism had been true.
There is one further reason for rejecting the Traducianist
position, namely, that it had found its way into the Early Church
as a result of the influence of early Greek philosophers, chiefly
Zeno (c. 450 BC) and Cleanthes (301-252 BC), both of the School
of Stoics.8 Such a source for the doctrine would not commend
itself to most students of Scripture since Greek philosophy is
hardly a promising basis for a biblical theology.
Nevertheless, there were a number among the Early Church
Fathers who did adopt it simply because it explained so nicely
how one man's sinful nature could become universal by
propagation, and not by example as Pelagius had argued.
Tertullian was strongly in favour of it. To quote his words:
Our first parent contained within himself the

undeveloped germ of all mankind, and his soul was the
fountainhead of all souls; all varieties of individual human
nature are but different modifications of that one spiritual
essence. Therefore the whole of man’s nature became corrupt
in the original father of the race and so sinfulness is propagated
together with souls.”9
It is an attractive alternative, but not a biblical one.10

However, if Traducianism is true and we assume our soul as
having been received jointly from both parents, then the Lord's
soul was not a creation but was received from both parents, the two
parents being the Holy Spirit and Mary. Thus, half of the Lord's
8. Zeno & C leanthes: see Tertullian, D e A nim a, in Latin Christianity, edited by C leveland
C oxe, vol. III in Ante-N icene fathers, edited by A lexander Roberts and Jam es D onaldson,
N ew York, C harles Scribner's Sons, 1918, p.185, colum n a.
9. Tertullian: see A u gustus N eander, General H istory of the Christian Religion and Church,
Edinburgh, T. & T. C lark, 1851, vol.III, p.380 f.
10. A fact adm itted by the Traducianists them selves. See The N ew Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia
of Religious Know ledge, edited by Sam uel M . Jackson, Grand Rapids, Baker rep rint, 1950,
vol.XI, p.13, col.b.
110
soul is traceable to Mary, and though the other half is traceable to

the Holy Spirit, the Marian half is corrupted.11 This half would
corrupt the whole, and thus the absolute sinlessness of the Lord's
spirit must be called in question—unless we accept the Roman
Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which arose to
deal with this very problem.12
It has been suggested that Luther adopted Traducianism in
order to place his position at one further remove from Roman
Catholic doctrine. But the evidence seems to show that, like
Augustine (who greatly influenced his thinking), even Luther
himself was never completely settled in his own mind on the
matter, wavering back and forth between Traducianism and
Creationism. Those who followed him were clear enough and
came out on the side of Traducianism, but Luther himself re-
mained equivocal.13
It is natural that Christians, who favour the evolution of man's
body and therefore see no discontinuities in the processes of
nature, tend to find Traducianism more acceptable since it, too,
avoids even the discontinuity that direct creation of the spirit
introduces.
(4) Evolution
An evolutionary view of origins cannot be reconciled with
anything metaphysical. Creationism is accordingly ruled out
because it is a metaphysical, not a scientific, concept. Even
Traducianism is ruled out for the same reason since, although
once introduced it could conceivably fit into an evolutionary
pattern, creation ex nihilo is still required to start the process off.
11. O ne other point: the Lord H im self w ould have received half his soul from his m other,
M ary -- w ho herself w ould need his salvation. This is difficult to believe!
12. Im m aculate C onception: that M ary at the m om ent of conception w as by sanctification
freed from the taint of original sin.
13. Luther: see Paul A lthaus, The Theology of M artin Luther, Philadelphia, Fortress Press,
1975, p.160
111
Thus the soul, whether termed mind or will or consciousness, is

viewed as a misinterpretation of the evidence. These things do not
exist in their own right but are merely a spin-off from electro-
chemical processes. Behaviourism is really the only acceptable form
of psychology for the strictly scientific mind. J. B. Watson, the
founder of the Behaviourist School, long ago said that the time
had come to completely eliminate the term “consciousness” from
the vocabulary of the psychologist!14
The present trend is thus to convert the responding person
into a mere reacting thing, and so to categorize all behaviour as
reflex. Man has to all intents and purposes been annihilated. Soul
or spirit simply do not exist as separate realities.
Bruno Bettelheim has published a book dealing with the
concept of soul in Freud's psychology. He shows that while Freud
unashamedly employed the word for soul (die seele) throughout
his works, his American translators avoided the word soul like a
plague, using circumlocutions such as "mental personality."
Bettelheim suggests the reason for this was that the psychologists
felt Freud's ideas would be more readily accepted within the
scientific community if the concept of soul was entirely elimin-
ated!15
We are, in their view, merely a piece of biological machinery.
If the reactions of the machinery of the body can be called soul,
then soul is nothing more than an epiphenomenon. It is a
secondary effect which has no existence in its own right and
exerts no influence on the object which gives rise to it, any more
than the babbling of the brook influences the movement of the
water which babbles...There is no ghost in the machine.
The strictly logical evolutionist must either adopt panpsychism,
the doctrine that consciousness was a characteristic of matter from
14. W atson, J. B., Psychological Review , vol. 20, 1913, p.158f.

15. Bettelheim , Bruno, Freud and M an's Soul, Knopf, N ew York, 1983: review ed by W illiam
A . H enry in D iscovery, vol.4, February, 1983, p.105.
112
the start so that there is no such thing as unconscious or in-

animate matter; or he must admit it suddenly emerged out of the
blue without antecedents, thereby creating a discontinuity in
nature.16 Neither position is felt to be tenable, so the "horns" of this
dilemma are simply swept under the carpet and no longer
discussed.
It is interesting to note that the idea that all matter must be
considered as already animated was favoured by Zeno who wrote
in his work Concerning the Nature of the Gods: “Nothing that is
without a soul and reason can generate of itself anything endow-
ed with life and reason; the world however generates beings with
soul and reason; therefore the world is itself living and possessed
of mind.” 17
This was written nearly 400 years BC! In man's way of reason-
ing little has changed since then. The July issue of Science Digest
(1981) has an article entitled "Is the Cosmos Alive?" Both are really
inspired by the same problem: Whence came man's soul? Where
did consciousness come from? The evolutionary concept of
gradualism without any discontinuities seems to demand that
consciousness is a property of all matter and has coexisted with it
from the very first.
But this alternative—that matter generated consciousness—
really does not solve the problem. It merely shifts the problem
back one step, since matter itself has to be accounted for. And the
eternity of matter is no more conceivable than matter having a
beginning at some point in time. Carl von Weiszacker tried to
resolve the difficulty by arguing that matter and spirit are really
one and the same thing.18 The Christian who believes that God
16. A discussion of this question in the light of m odern research w ill be found in the
author's The M ysterious M atter of M ind, G rand Rapids, Z ondervan, 1980, chap. 3, pp.35-48.
17. Zeno: De N ature D eorum , Bk. 2, ch. 22, edited by A. S. Pease, II, H arvard U niversity
Press, 1958, p.601, 602: quoted by Stanley Jaki, The Relevance of Physics, U niversity of
C hicago Press, 1966, p.35.
18. W eizsacker, C arl F. von, in Beyond Reductionism , edited by A rthur K oestler & J. R.
Sm ythies, London, H utchinson, 1969, p. 434.
113
created both matter and spirit really has no problem with this
concept, because matter simply becomes an epiphenomenon of
spirit rather than the reverse! As Hebrews 11:3 puts it, "By faith
we understand that the...things which are seen were not made of
things which do appear." For the fact is that both visible and
invisible things are made by God who Himself is invisible.19
Problems in proposed solutions

So we have these four alternatives with regard to the origin of
the soul in each individual.
First, it is a reincarnation of a soul already in existence. The
soul has thus passed from life to life—from embodiment to
embodiment— in a process of purification, and has finally been
absorbed into some ultimate state of rest that relieves it of further
embodiment. This is not really an account of its origin but only of
its subsequent history. Reincarnation does not solve the soul’s
origin but only suggests a destiny.
Secondly, that each soul is a separate creation of God, infused
into the procreated body at some appropriate instant. Creationism
creates problems for anyone who cannot accept the concept of
discontinuity, demanding an unbroken "great chain of being."
Thirdly, that it is generated by the parents as the body is
generated, each parent contributing their soul-stuff. Traducianism
still leaves the matter of the origin of soul-stuff unanswered.
And lastly, that it is a kind of "static noise" emanating from the
electrochemical activities of the brain and has therefore no
separate existence. Evolution has to deny that my self has any real
existence. I may deny this for others: to deny it for oneself seems
to me to be virtually impossible. Descartes' "proof" is very com-
pelling. Translated freely, he argued thus: "If I doubt, then I must
19. “For by him [Jesus C hrist] w ere all things created, that are in the heaven, and that are
in earth, visible and invisible... all things w ere created by him , and for him .” (C olossians
1:16)
114
exist just to entertain such a doubt"! Therefore, my personal

existence cannot be called in question.
The best that Julian Huxley could do was to admit frankly that
the origin of mindedness is a "glorious paradox,"20 and since it can
hardly be denied, it serves only to prove how marvellous the
evolutionary process really is because it can do such incredible
things! One cannot rationally come to grips with circular
reasoning such as this...
If the law of parsimony, of using the simplest, is allowed to
govern our thinking in the matter, we ought perhaps to admit that
direct creation is the simplest explanation and has greater explicit
support from the New Testament than any other alternative. It is
this specifically created spirit fused with its own particular body
that results in an individual, an identifiable me, whom God knows
by name.
The evolutionary concept leaves us on the horns of a dilemma.
Either soul-stuff belongs to all matter or it appeared suddenly and
thus forms a discontinuity in the scheme of things. While pan-
psychism seems absurd, any discontinuity is equally unaccep-
table. One has to make a choice between two unallowables!
20. H uxley, Julian w rote: “Perhaps m ost rem arkable of all, N atural Selection is able to
accom plish sim ultaneously tw o apparently contradictory results -- it can both discourage
and encourage change...In conclusion w e have the glorious paradox that this purposeless
m echanism , after a thousand m illion years of its blind and autom atic operations, has finally
generated purpose”. ["N atural Selection" in The Rationalist A nnual, 1946, p.87].
115
Chapter 9
SPIRIT/BODY INTERACTION
A ‘Ghost’ in the Machine
This unique creation of a fused spirit/body is a problem for

evolutionists. For it is essentially a philosophy of materialism. No
self-respecting evolutionist will countenance the view that
evolution provides only a partial answer to the existence of a
living world. M atter, life, consciousness, and self-consciousness
in an ascending scale form part of a great chain in which there are
no discontinuities, nothing that cannot be quantified and
ultimately understood in electrochemical terms.
The chain is deterministically linked and must be preserved
without the introduction of any mechanism or any source of
energy that is not absolutely part of the system. The Universe is
a uni-verse, not a multi-verse, and one set of laws governs all that
happens within it. Divine interventions are unallowable.
Thus if there is such a thing as soul or spirit or will or self-
conscious mind, it is not another order of reality but a direct
outcome or spin-off of matter that has reached a certain stage of
complexity. Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) in an address before the
German Association (of Science), assured his audience that once
the chemical constituents of a cell (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen,
and sulphur) are correctly assembled, they “produce the soul and
BO D Y /SPIR IT IN TERACTIO N
116
the body of the animated world, and suitably nursed, become

man... With this single argument the mystery of the universe is
explained, the Deity is annulled and a new era of infinite
knowledge is ushered in!” 1
Today, those evolutionists who are strictly logical in their
thinking ought not to find anything to quarrel with in this
statement. For many generations evolutionary biologists and
physiologists have interpreted their research findings in strict
compliance with this philosophy. Even though they admit that
there are still many unanswered questions, they continue to have
confidence in the thesis. Thus, when in recent years a series of
discoveries of “rumours of a ghost inside” seemed to challenge
the view that man is effectively a machine, all were surprised—
including the finders themselves!
A glimmer of the “ghost:” Penfield’s experiments

One of the most impressive lines of evidence of this "ghost"
has come from the work of Wilder Penfield who died in 1976 after
many years of highly successful treatment of epileptic patients at
the Montreal Neurological Institute. During these years, Penfield
brought relief to well over a thousand subjects by a brain
operation which was daring indeed both in its conception and its
execution. What he found was as much a surprise to himself as it
was to his colleagues.
It is necessary to note the very important distinction that I am
assuming in this chapter between mind and brain. The mind is the
thinking, the will, the conscious attention, something non-physical,
the self which scrutinizes a situation or contemplates its meaning;
the brain, by contrast, is the organ which the mind uses, a physical
object located in the skull and composed of billions of nerve cells,
each of which may have ten thousand connecting fibres to
neighbouring cells—an incredibly complex structure.
1. H aeckel, Ernst, reported in Fortnightly Review , London, vol.39, 1886, p.35.

117
Like most scientists, Penfield began his life work in the belief
that the brain accounts for the mind as the brook accounts for the
babbling noise it makes. Stop the flow of water and the babbling
ceases; destroy the brain and the mind is destroyed. Mind and
babbling are epiphenomena—not realities with independent
existence. However, in retrospect after his retirement he wrote
this:
Throughout my own scientific career, I, like other
scientists, struggled to prove that brain accounts for the
mind...Now, perhaps, the time has come when we may
profitably consider the evidence as it stands, and ask the
question: Do brain-mechanisms account for the mind? Can the
mind be explained by what is now known about the brain? If
not, which is the more reasonable of the two hypotheses: that
man's being is based on one element, or on two?2
This change, this questioning, resulted from some very elegant

experiments conducted during his career. Very briefly, the
technique which Penfield used was to lay bare a segment of the
cortical surface of the brain by removal of a portion of the skull.
The motor area thus exposed is known to be related to the
involuntary movements of epileptic subjects. The patient was
lightly anaesthetized locally for the opening up of the skull and
felt little or no pain, but was kept fully conscious because his or
her ability to communicate with the surgeon was essential to the
success of the operation.
The surgeon was thus enabled to probe the surface of the
brain in search of the damaged area. The probe itself was
composed of a single electrode, using a 60 cycle 2 volt current.
Contact with the brain surface caused no sensation of pain
whatever, but when the damaged area is thus stimulated, the
patient at once becomes aware that an epileptic fit is pending. By
this means the offending tissue could be located and, hopefully,
2. Penfield, W ilder, M ystery of the M ind, Princeton, Princeton U niversity Press, 1975, p.xiii.
118
corrective surgery applied.

Rapport between patient and surgeon had to be, at all times,
extremely close, and Penfield himself inspired enormous confi-
dence. But what he discovered, unexpectedly, was that the
electrode stimulation of very specific areas brought an experience
of recall for the patient which was so vivid that the subject
frequently suspected Penfield of using tape recordings. The recall
involved sound, coloured vision, and even odours. Any one area
could be contacted again and again and the recalled events would
be perfectly replayed in great detail in the patient's consciousness.
On one occasion the electrode was applied to the same spot 60
times and the recall experience was on each occasion precisely the
same.3
What was so surprising was that the recall in no way at all
interfered with the patient's full awareness of all that was taking
place in the operating room, including conversations between the
staff and even street noises outside. The patient was experiencing
two kinds of consciousness: one was from some long past
situation, and the other was from the circumstances surrounding
the operation. It was therefore quite possible for the patient to live
in two worlds and to discuss in great detail the recalled events
with those who occupied the operating theatre. It was also quite
possible for the patient, wherever the recall involved music, to
both whistle or hum the piece being played: and often even to
identify it.
One day, Penfield had an experience which opened his eyes
in a new way to the existence of a ghost in the machinery. Here is
how he described the event:
When the neurosurgeon applies an electrode to the motor

area of the patient's cerebral cortex causing the opposite hand
to move, and when he asks the patient why he moved his
3. Penfield, W ilder and Phanor Perot, "The Brain's Record of A uditory and V isual
Experience: A Final Sum m ary and D iscussion," Brain, vol.86, (4), D ec.,1963, p.685.
119
hand, the response is: “I didn't do it. You made me do it...”, it
may be said that the patient thinks of himself as having an
existence separate from his body.
Once when I warned a patient of my intention to
stimulate the motor area of the cortex, and challenged him
to keep his hand from moving when the electrode was
applied, he seized it with the other hand and struggled to
hold it still.
Thus one of the hands, under the control of the
right hemisphere driven by an electrode, and the other hand,
which he controlled through the left hemisphere, were made
to struggle against each other. Behind the 'brain action' of one
hemisphere was the patient's mind. Behind the action of the
other hemisphere was the electrode.4
Penfield was driven to conclude, therefore, that the brain was

not causing the mind but was the servant of it, its instrument for
willed action. This chance finding was repeated many times and
has since been experimentally demonstrated beyond a shadow of
doubt: the brain controls the action but the electrode controls the
brain. In real life precisely the opposite is true: the mind controls
the brain and uses it to effect its purposes upon the material
world. To the extent that the brain is a physical organ whose
development has resulted from a combination of genetic endow-
ment and the accidents of experience, it must be said, as Viktor
Frankl put it, that while the brain conditions the mind, it does not
give rise to it.5
Precedence of mind over brain: Kornhuber’s experiments

A second striking proof of precedence of will over matter, of
mind over brain, has been provided by some elegant experiments
4. Penfield, W ilder, in the "C ontrol of the M ind", a Sym posium held at the U niversity of
C alifornia M edical C entre, San Francisco, 1961, quoted by A . Koestler, Ghost In the M achine,
London, H utchinson, 1967, p.203f
5. Frankl, V iktor, in a discussion of J. R. Sm ythies' paper, "Som e Aspects of Consciousness"
in Beyond Reductionism , edited by Arthur K oestler and J. R. Sm ythies, London, H utchinson,
1969, p.254.
120
by H. H. Kornhuber.6
To describe his findings with scientific precision would be to
snow the reader, and lose him! But very simply, here is what he
discovered. Whenever an action of any kind is willed, measurable
electrical potentials are generated in the motor area of the cortex
that controls the action. These potentials are observed prior to the
action that is willed but only after the "willing." Thus, between the
conscious exercise of will and the activity that results, there is a
clearly measurable delay, sometimes up to several seconds in
duration.
In this brief, but significant interval, there is a flurry of
electrical impulses over a wide area that gradually narrows down
and concentrates the signal to bring about the precise movement
willed. The delay between willing and activity is quite
measurable, and the nature of the will, and the resulting activity,
corresponds. It is rather like the sergeant saying “Company . . . ”
before giving the specific command which is to follow. It seems to
warn that the will is about to act on the mechanism.
The neurophysiologist, Sir John Eccles remarked, “Thus we
can regard these experiments as providing a convincing
demonstration that voluntary movements can be freely initiated
independently of any determining influences within the neuronal
machinery of the brain.” 7
In short there really is a ghost in the machine, capable of
giving orders to the machinery and able to use the machinery for
its own purposes.
6. K ornhuber, H . H ., "C erebral C ortex, C erebellum and Basal Ganglia: an Introduction to

their M otor Functions" in Neurosciences: Third Study Program m e, edited by F. O . Schm itt &
F. G. W orden, M assachusetts Institute of Technology, 1973, pp.167-80.
7. Eccles, Sir John & K arl R. Popper, The Self and Its Brain, Springer V erlag, International,
1977, p.294.
121
Mind/brain interaction: stereoscopic vision

The problem that still remains, of course, is how the mind or
will (or, in our context, the spirit) actually makes contact with the
brain. I can normally move my hand at will, but I cannot at will
move the hands of my clock on the wall. Clearly there is no
connecting link with the clock hand over which to mediate the
message. But if my will is a non-physical spirit, where is the actual
connection with my own brain that makes it move my own hand?
The process is just as elusive.
It has been suggested that if we could really resolve this
problem, we might have a better idea of how God acts upon the
physical world, of how faith could move mountains, or even how
the Lord instantly stilled the violent storm on the Sea of Galilee.8
Descartes recognized this interaction of spirit and body, and
also that it works both ways. Today we speak of these two kinds
of interaction as psychosomatic and somatopsychic, i.e.,
spirit/body and body/spirit interactions depending upon which
takes the initiative. But like Descartes who finally abandoned the
search for the "contact point," we too have come little or no nearer
to a solution.
However, Descartes did uncover a phenomenon that we all
recognize readily enough when it is pointed out to us in the right
way, a phenomenon which clearly demonstrates (as Penfield and
Kornhuber have shown) that there is ‘someone’ there in the
machinery making it work for us.
What we have in mind is the ability we all possess, the ability
to see the objective world stereoscopically; that is to say, in depth,
in three dimensions, and not just in two dimensions as an
ordinary photograph presents it. We can perceive distance
8. Perhaps the Lord H im self can take over the autonom y of the hum an m ind to u se that
m ind's brain to effect a desired end: for exam ple, in the w riting of Scripture, or in giving
skill to the hands -- as H e did to Bezaleel for the em bellishm ent of the Tabernacle (Exodus
36:1). A nd perhaps there is m ore truth than w e realize in the saying that the devil finds
w ork for idle hands to do.
122
between objects and we can perceive the roundness of things, so

that they are neither all at the same distance from us, nor are they
flat. This three dimensional effect is because we have two eyes
spaced on average 650 mm apart so that two separate ‘photo-
graphs’ of a scene can be taken at the same instant from these two
different positions.
Thus if a camera had two lenses spaced similar to our eyes and
so taking two pictures at the same instant from two different
positions, and if these two photographs, mounted appropriately
so that each eye sees only one picture, we would suddenly find
ourselves in a three-dimensional world – even though looking at
a picture on two-dimensional paper! I have, and use, just such a
camera and never cease to be thrilled by the stereoscopic effect.
One wonders why these cameras are not more widely used,
except that one needs a special viewer.
Now the interesting thing is that when one first looks into the
viewer, one is met by two different pictures. They are very little
different, though they are momentarily irreconcilable. The
difference between the two pictures is clearly revealed if we
superimpose the one over the other and project them together
onto a screen. The picture on the screen will be fuzzy and blurred,
rather like a photograph taken by a camera that has been moved
slightly at a critical moment. But no amount of focussing of the
projector will resolve the blurred or fuzzy picture.
I have emphasized this because it is of crucial importance. The
fact is that the two pictures cannot be reconciled in any way by
merely overlapping them onto a screen. Nor can it be done even by
projecting the two pictures through the lenses of the two eyes onto the
two retinas. Descartes presumed that the signals from the two
retinas which are screening two irreconcilable pictures reach a
single place in the brain where they coincide and fuse themselves
into a single picture in three-dimensional form. He was never able
to trace the nerves, or he would have discovered that these two
123
signals do not fuse as a single picture in the brain but remain as

independent signals in the visual cortex, one in the left
hemisphere and one in the right hemisphere (see Fig.9.1)
How, then, do the two conflicting scenes come to be viewed
as one? The conclusion is that the MIND and not the BRAIN fuses
and synthesizes them. So far it has been impossible to say how
this is done.
The fact is that when anyone for the first time looks through
my viewer, he or she will find that the two views are not
reconciled at once. But then quite suddenly, in a way which is
very hard to define but is a very real experience, they are
reconciled and two contradictory pictures in the flat are instantly
experienced as one in the round. The 'shift' is remarkable and is
very sudden. The two scenes converge unexpectedly and, voilá,
the picture emerges in three dimensions! It is an interesting
experience and a wonderful demonstration of "mind" at work.
Moreover, from the moment the viewer has achieved one
three-dimensional resolution, thereafter one can go through
several hundred pictures, and there is no such experience of delay
and sudden resolution as occurred in the first viewing. Indeed,
one develops a kind of 'preset' facilitation that allows recon-
ciliation to proceed much more rapidly, even long after having
laid aside the viewer. Days and months can intervene, but the skill
to obtain immediate stereovision is not lost. It would appear that
the mind has learned the trick of it.
It is not the two eyes, which look out upon the distant scene,
that give us a view of things in the round: it is the fusing power,
the reconciliation of two quite discrete and subtly conflicting
pictures, that is done by the mind. The brain provides the
materials in coded form: the mind or soul or spirit uses these
discrete materials to form a view of reality that corresponds to
reality in depth. Without this fusion, all would be con-fusion.
When the two signals are presented incorrectly due to a fault in
124
Figure 9.1:
Diagram showing how the pathways of the separate signals from the two eyes
lead to two separate areas of the brain. Light captured by the left side of each
of the eyes originates from the right (R-half) visual field and is sent via the
optic nerves to the left side of the brain (stippled pathway). Light captured
by the right side of each of the eyes originates in the left (L-half) visual field,
and goes to the right side of the brain (non-stippled pathway).
125
the focussing power of either one of the eyes (which may have
occurred as a result of a breakdown of the machinery), it is the
mind or soul or spirit which compensates by ignoring one of the
two inputs and thus resolves the irreconcilable conflict. It is true
that when this happens we lose depth perception but at least the
mind "makes sense" out of what the eyes are signalling confus-
ingly. The mind can only fuse what the brain is presenting in
the correct relationship.9
Were it not for this power of the mind to do what neither the
camera nor the eyes themselves can do, we would have to cover
one eye to eliminate the contradictions in the two pictures! But
without stereovision we could not perceive the depth or thickness
of things, nor reach out with perfect confidence and grasp them,
nor even thread a needle except with some difficulty and by
constant trial and error. To drive a car, we should have to gauge
our distance from the car ahead by its changing size, and the
picture of the world we have would be flat. We would get used to
it. People with only one eye do. But apart from this fusion many
kinds of "comprehension" of reality in the physical world would
be far more difficult, if not impossible. It is doubtful if the
soldering of an extremely small electronic circuit manually could
be done. In a thousand ways there would be confusion until we
had learned in each situation, and at that particular moment, how
to relate to space and distance. By it, we know where we are
within the framework of things.
The mind does for us what the eyes cannot do, what the
9. In a discussion of the m ind/brain problem , Sir John Eccles, calling this discrepancy
betw een the tw o eyes as an illusion, noted that “Parallax due to the difference betw een
im ages of the tw o eyes is transm itted selectively to the m acula of the visual cortex and is
interpreted to give us depth perception...H ere again there is the active intervention of the
self-conscious m ind upon the brain event”. To w hich Sir K arl Popper com m ented that “w e
can be highly critical of the optical illusion and yet nevertheless experience it. It is the self
w hich is critical of the optical illusion. A nd it is a kind of low er level of the self w hich
experiences it.” Sir John Eccles and Sir K arl Popper, The Self and Its M ind, Springer-V erlag
International, 1977, p.514, 515.
126
stereo- camera cannot do, what the stereo-microscope cannot do,

what the stereo-projector cannot do—in short, what no machine
can do.10 It does this by fusing two flat pictures that conflict into
one picture which provides the added dimension of depth.
Without the mind to manage the input, there is no creation of
order, no meaningful fusion.11 The machine itself no more does
the fusing than the computer "adds." There is no adding going on
in the computer. It is just a machine re-routing signals according
to design in such a way as to give us a signal that is meaningful
only to the mind. The computer doesn't know what it is doing.12
Now it is obvious that many animals below man have stereo-
scopic vision, though not over quite as wide a range in some
cases. It must be assumed, therefore, that in these animals, as in
man, there is a ghost in the machinery integrating the two discrete
signals reaching the brain. Does this then mean that animals also
have a body/spirit constitution, so that they too are souls?
The answer appears to be, Yes. Indeed, the Hebrew word for
soul (nephesh) is frequently used of animals and was actually
10. G reat enthusiasm in the 1950’s and 1960’s in com puter science envisioned com puters
that could see or think or translate, or even reproduce them selves. An experim ental m odel
called a perception, sim ulated a digital retina sending im pulses to a tw o-layer logical
netw ork. But, as A . K . D eaden reported, “the com plexity of a perception neural netw ork
does not com e close to the com plexity of the first tw o layers of the hum an visual cortex.
M oreover, ‘behind’ the [hum an] visual cortex, as it w ere, there is an am azing and alm ost
com pletely unknow n analytical apparatus -- som ething that is entirely lacking in the
perception m odel of vision.”D eaden com m ented, “The failings of the digital eye suggest
there can be no sight w ithout insight”. [“C om puter Recreations”, Scientific Am erican,
Septem ber, vol.251, 1948, pp.22 - 34].
11. This is true for input from other senses: see A ppendix 4, “O ther Exam ples of Interaction
Betw een Brain and M ind”
12. It is w ell for the investigator to be aw are of this. For as Cannon w arned, “H e should be
alert and w atchful as events transpire in the course of experim ents, so that nothing escapes
his vigilance. W e readily behold the fam iliar: w e m ay overlook the unfam iliar. A n old
saying has it: ‘W e are prone to see w hat lies b ehind ou r eyes rather than w hat appears
before them ’.” [W alter B. Cannon, The W ay of an Investigator, N ew York, H afner, 1968, p.36]
It is not m y eyes that see: it is m y m ind.
127
applied to animals before it was applied to man!13 Is there no

difference, then, between man and the animals in this regard?
There certainly is, for although the fate of the bodies of both men
and animals is to return to the dust, the fate of the spirit is quite
different. Ecclesiastes 3:21 (KJV) tells us that the “spirit of man
goes upwards” (i.e., returns to “God who gave it,” Ecclesiastes
12:7) but “the spirit of the beast goes downwards to the earth” to
share the fate of its body. In other words, the destiny of the two is
diametrically opposed.
Terms for spirit/body interaction

We have been using a number of terms such as mind,
mindedness, will, soul, spirit, etc., indiscriminately. It is unfortunate
that there are so many terms to describe the activities of the
‘ghost’ in the machine. All of these terms are appropriate, and
each one of them, being invisible, is essentially a spiritual faculty
rather than a physical one. I want to say a word about what is
meant by consciousness and the even more difficult-to-define
phenomenon, self-consciousness.
Children are occasionally born without a brain. Yet they react
to sounds and odours and to physical contact. In spite of this reac-
tivity, there is no evidence of actual consciousness and, of course,
there is no brain to mediate it. Thus, in effect, there is "no one
there." They are alive but act like a person in a deep, deep coma,
except that they never will, and never can, come out of it. They
have no conscious contact with outside reality because they have
no cortex. This situation points up the fact that a surprising level
of reactivity is possible in the total absence of consciousness.14
13. “God said, Let the w aters abound w ith an abundance of living creatures (nephesh)... God
created...every living thing (nephesh) that m oves...everything that creeps (nephesh) on the
earth in w hich there is life” (Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, 30 N K JV ). This occurred on the fifth day.
M an w as created on the sixth day.
14. This reactivity to sensory inp u t is m ediated, not through the brain, but through the
autonom ic nervous system w hich takes care of basic activities like breathing, etc. But there
w ould be no conscious reaction to irregular or difficult breathing because there is no
128
If animals have consciousness, then one must ask whether

there are levels of consciousness corresponding to the level of
development of their central nervous system. Plants, of course,
"sense" the environment by various means without a central
nervous system and therefore presumably cannot be said to have
consciousness. Animals, on the other hand, even the simplest of
them like the amoebae, have consciousness at least of other bodies
around them: but man is intensely self-conscious, i.e., conscious
uniquely of his OWN body, both in times of health and sickness.
The last point is important. Animals seem obviously conscious
of their own bodies in times of sickness or when wounded, but
man is conscious of his own body most of his waking life. When
a baby first discovers that its hands and feet are part of itself, the
first glimmerings of self-consciousness have probably been born.
It is to be noted, therefore, that in man the body introduces itself
early in life and engenders a new kind of consciousness, con-
sciousness not merely of other bodies but of one's own. W e see
our own bodies as something possessed, something we can stand
apart from and consider objectively.
In this matter of personal body identity, I think it is highly
significant that man is the only creature who cares for the bodies
of his dead—including his own! No animal is known to take any-
thing more than a momentary and passing interest in a dead body
(except as food of course), not even the dead body of its own
mate. No attempt is made to protect the body from predators once
it is dead. But even from the earliest times, as is known by the
presence of flowers in the grave, man has buried his dead quite
deliberately. Frequently the dead are placed in a foetal position,
a fact which some suggest is witness to a hope of rebirth or
reincarnation, of life after death.
Theodosius Dobzhansky noted "that all people everywhere
“screen,” no brain, to receive this inform ation w hich w ould then be responded to b y the
m ind, the ‘ghost.
129
take care of their dead in some fashion, while no animal does

anything of the sort."15 And it is a significant fact of human
behaviour that a dead body continues to be protected by custom
or by law from injury. Indeed, we seem to have stricter rules
about the mutilation of the dead than we do of the living. M an's
consciousness of his own body or of the bodies of his fellow men
seems to be very different from mere animal consciousness. For
this awareness of my own body with its spirit, of myself, of other
selves, is the epitome of humanness.
The spirit/body bond acknowledged

Sir John C. Eccles (Nobel Laureate for his work in neurophysi-
ology) in 1977 coauthored with Sir Karl R. Popper a fascinating
book supporting the reality of the soul or spirit and thus the dual
nature of the human constitution.
In the process of writing the book, they had planned to title it
The Self and The Brain. But subsequently, they both became so
convinced by the consideration of the steadily accumulating
experimental evidence of a managing spirit or mind within the
machinery, that they changed the title. The change was a very
small one from the typesetter's point of view, but it was a highly
significant one in its implications. The new title became The Self
and ITS Brain.16
Eccles concludes that the self-conscious mind is not simply
engaged in passively observing the signals from its body but in
actively sorting them out. Continuously displayed before it is a
whole complex of neural inputs from the eyes, the ears, the nose,
and—be it noted—the skin (which is the largest organ of the
body). It selects from this chain of signals in the brain whatever is
of interest to it, blending the result from different areas of the
15. Theodosius D obzhansky: from his The Biology of U ltimate Concern, as quoted by Sir John
Eccles, Facing Reality, N ew York, Springer-V erlag, 1975, p.94.
16. Eccles, Sir John C . and Sir K arl R. Popper, The Self and Its Brain, Springer V erlag
International, 1977.
130
cortex. The body supplies a rich input, and the mind deliberately
disregards some and attends to others.
In this way the self-conscious mind achieves a unity of
experience which becomes entirely personal. The brain is its own
brain, a personalized computer that it uses. According to this
hypothesis, the prime role in this process is played by the self-
conscious mind, exercising both its selective and its integrative
abilities.
These two scientists were impressed with the bond which
exists between spirit and body, a bond often commented upon by
theologians in the past from Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) to
James Orr (1844-1913), and right down to a number of present
writers.17 All have sensed the closeness of this bond which arises
out of, or generates in man, a strong sense of personal identity, far
more profound than is to be observed in any animal. It is a form
of consciousness that is related entirely to the spirit's awareness of
its own body, which is now acknowledged by some of the best
modern students of animal life as being unique to man.18
James Orr made much of this bond and attributed to it the
abhorrence of physical death which seems to have characterized
man's thinking throughout history.19 The spirit in man, though
17. Long before Thom as A quinas, Tertullian (160-215 A D ) had said that even the easiest
death is violence. “H ow can it be otherw ise, w hen so close a com panionship of soul and
body, so inseparable a grow th together from their very conception of tw o sister substances,
is sundered and divided?” [“A Treatise on the Soul”, in A nte-N icene Fathers, edited by
A lexander Roberts and Jam es D onaldson, N ew York, C harles Scribner’s Sons, vol.III, 1918,
p.288]
18. Even H uxley, strong evolutionist thou gh he is, adm itted that “not m erely has
conceptual thou ght evolved in m an: it could not have been evolved except in m an...
C onceptual thought on this planet is inevitably associated w ith a particular type of Prim ate
body and Prim ate brain” [in his U niqueness of M an, London, C hatto and W indus, 1941, as
quoted by E. L. M ascall, The Im portance of Being Hum an, N ew York, Colum bia U niversity
Press, 1958, p.7].
19. A s O rr put it, eloquently, “[M an] is not pure spirit, like the angels, but incorporated
spirit...N either is...the body to be regarded...as a m aterial prison-house, from w hich he
should be glad to escape in death [but] an integral part of his personality...D eath is to him
not a natural process but som ething altogether unnatural -- the violent separation of tw o
131
burdened by the body that spoils so many of his highest as-

pirations because of its demands, nevertheless is so strongly
attached to it that it fears the rupture of death throughout life. The
most dramatic and most perceptive definition of death, and the
truest, theologically considered, is still "the separation of the spirit
from the body." This is what death is.
We long to be freed because this body is a house in ruins, but
we tremble at the prospect of this separation as one might tremble
at the loss of a companion of a lifetime—and that is what the body
has been.
Mind or spirit is the seat of authority. The brain is an instr-
ument which serves it. The whole is integrated, unified, ordered
by the mind. This non-physical reality is master of the meaningful
operation of the body which is, ideally, its servant; but due to the
Fall the body may and does become its master all too often.
This struggle is graphically described by Paul in chapter 7 of
Romans. The Fall had consequences as fatal to the body as to the
spirit. We see interaction for both good and ill exemplified
throughout Scripture.
The Lord remarked sadly upon it in Matthew 26:41, "The spirit
is willing but the flesh is weak," as He came to his companions in
his terrible hour of anticipation and found them, alas, asleep. Paul
bewailed it when he cried out, "O wretched man that I am! Who
shall deliver me from this body of death" (Romans 7:24) -- while
at the same time saying that he really had no desire at all to be
unclothed, i.e., disembodied; though meanwhile he groaned in the
body he had.20 Here was an unwanted interaction.
But the Bible speaks of co-operative interaction as well. In a
parts of his being w hich God never m eant to be separated; a rupture, a rending asunder,
a m utilation, of his personality.” [O rr, Jam es, G od's Image in M an, Grand Rapids, Eerdm ans,
1948 reprint, p.252. See also his The Christian View of G od and the W orld, N ew Y ork, C harles
Scribner’s Sons, 1893, Lecture V , p.165 ff.]
20. “W e that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened, not that w e w ould be
unclothed, but clothed upon, that m ortality m ay be sw allow ed up of life” (2 Corinthians
5:4).
132
passage seldom noted, after the disciples had come to the Lord in
surprise that their newly delegated power to heal sickness had
failed them, Jesus said, "This kind comes forth by nothing but by
prayer and fasting" (Mark 9:29). By prayer which is a discipline of
the spirit, and by fasting which is a discipline of the body. There
are some battles with Satan that require the whole man, body and
spirit—despite the fact that the battle is a spiritual one.
Evolution cannot account for the ghost!

Man has a brain that is clearly a kind of computer. This is
what man HAS, but it is not what man IS. Man is truly a spiritual
creature but he is an incarnate, embodied creature, unique among
all other creatures because of the uniqueness of the origin and
destiny of both his body and his spirit.
It is remarkable that a man of Eccles' stature and experience,
who nevertheless does not share our Christian convictions, should
arrive at this same conclusion, and in doing so should reject the
evolutionary origin of the soul. He did so in spite of the fact that
his coauthor, Karl Popper, accepted it without equivocation.
In another of his works, Facing Reality, Eccles observes that
statements about “the progressive emergence of conscious mind
during evolution are not supported by any scientific evidence, but
are merely statements made within the framework of a faith that
evolutionary theory, as it now is, will at least in principle explain
fully the origin and development of all living forms including our
selves.” 21
This "faith" is being steadily eroded by experimental evidence.
There IS a ghost in the machine!
21. Eccles, Sir John, Facing Reality, N ew York, Springer V erlag, 1975, p.91 .
133
PART III
THE HUMANITY OF
THE FIRST ADAM AND THE LAST ADAM

134
The Christian Faith is not merely a series of Articles:

it has an essential organic unity.
This unity is destroyed,

entirely irrational,
logically indefensible
IF any part of the whole is surrendered.
135
Chapter 10
A HOUSE IN RUINS
The First Adam Becomes Fallen Man
I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwells no good thing.

Rom ans 7:18
For we that are in this house do groan, being burdened:
not that we would be unclothed.
2 C orinthians 5:4
C. S. Lewis wrote in his book, The Problem of Pain:
[The Fall of Man] was not, I conceive, comparable to mere

deterioration as it may now occur in a human individual; it
was a loss of status as a species. What man lost by the Fall
was his original specific nature...
This condition was transmitted by heredity to all later
generations, for it was not simply what biologists call an
acquired variation; it was the emergence of a new kind of man
-- a new species, never made by God, had sinned itself into
existence. The change which man had undergone was not
parallel to the development of a new organ or a new habit; it
was a radical alteration of his constitution, a disturbance of
the relation between his component parts, and an internal
perversion of one of them.
Our present condition, then, is explained by the fact that
H O U SE IN RU IN S
136
1
we are members of a spoiled species.
Since we are as much a body with a spirit as we are a spirit

with a body, it is clear that a "spoiled" body makes a spoiled
person. Our nature in its entirety, body and spirit, has been fatally
injured. We are, in fact, no longer MAN at all, no longer MAN as
God intended.
When the LO R D God called out in the Garden of Eden, "Adam,
where are you?" it was, I suggest, not the man hiding in the
bushes that He was looking for. He knew where that individual
was. What had been lost from the web of life which He had just
finished creating was the master species, the appointed agent of
management for that web of life. Mankind was, in short, the first
of a whole catalogue of species which would subsequently be
"endangered.” The extinction of species, so common to history
since, began with the Fall of the species, Man.
The LO R D God had just finished creating M an as the one
species that bore his own image. It was that kind of "man" that
had now disappeared, converted by sin into a creature quite
unlike the original—without innocence, without immortality,
without the sure instincts of all other creatures, and above all,
having lost the image he had been endowed with.
Man: in the image of God?

Adam's children were born in his image, no longer in God's
image. Genesis 5:1-3 makes this only too clear by stating the two
positions very deliberately and in juxtaposition:
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that

God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.
Male and female created he them, and called their name
Adam, in the day they were created.
Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in
1. Lew is, C . S., The Problem of Pain, N ew York, M acm illan, 1962, p.83, 85.
H O U SE IN RU IN S
137
his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.
God had created man in His own likeness (verse 1): fallen Adam
now procreated men in his own likeness (verse 3).2
By the introduction of a deadly poison into his system after
eating the forbidden fruit, he had entailed to all his naturally born
descendants a fatally flawed constitution, both physically and
spiritually. And the process has been at work generation after
generation, steadily deteriorating man's vitality from a life span
of nearly a thousand years to 120; and for the vast majority of his
descendants considerably less than that—by David's time a mere
three-score and ten.3
The world was not to see another truly Adamic body, as God
had created it, for four thousand years: not until it reappeared in
the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, in a form so superb, so
magnificent, so beautiful, that it proved a perfect vehicle for the
expression of God Himself.
Now and then we see a 'splendid specimen' of manhood or
womanhood, a splendour which survives for a few years. But
hiddenly it is already dying. All the time a secret rot is eating
away at it. When finally, with the departure of the spirit, death
blows out the candle, a process of decay that has been proceeding
2. W hen God renew ed the covenant w ith N oah, H e said, “W hoso sheds m an’s blood, by
m an shall his blood be shed: for in the im age of God m ade he m an” (Genesis 9:6 -- the
w ord m ade being in the past tense, as if m an w as no longer in God’s im age but perhaps
im plying that it could be restored). Jesus told N icodem us that the im age cou ld only be
restored by rebirth: “Except a m an be born again, he cannot see the K ingdom of G od.”
W hen N icodem us questioned this, H e replied even m ore categorically saying, “Except a
m an be born of w ater and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That
w hich is born of the flesh is flesh and that w hich is born of the Spirit is spirit. M arvel not
that I say to you, you m ust be born again” (John 3:3, 5-7). The author has discussed the
m eaning of this im age m ore fully in a Paper, “The Term s Im age and Likeness as U sed in
Genesis 1:26”, Part III in M an in A dam and in Christ, vol.3 of The D oorw ay Papers Series,
Zondervan, 1975, pp.100-133, w hich can also be read at w w w .custance.org.
3. “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be
fourscore years, yet is their strength lab our and sorrow , for it is soon cut off and w e fly
aw ay” (Psalm 90:10).
H O U SE IN RU IN S
138
throughout life suddenly gallops away, and disintegration takes

place with appalling speed—unless the undertaker quickly
intervenes to slow it up.
This decay is not something that has just begun. Living, we
are dying—from the moment of birth. The transformation of an
immortal creature into a mortal one has affected every cell, every
organ, every fibre of the body, and leads inevitably to the
transformation of what has had beauty in its day into what now
tends only toward ugliness or senility.
It is only the extraordinary refinement of this machinery, with
its ability to heal wounds and to correct its DNA transcription
errors, that preserves it as well as it does.
How does the body affect the spirit?

Now, is there any evidence that the corruption of the body
does truly 'insult' the soul or spirit in any very vital way? Indeed
there is. And the fact was made remarkably manifest when men
and women by the hundreds of thousands were subjected to the
desecration of their bodies in the Nazi concentration camps of
World War II.
Many studies of these camps and their effect upon people
have been undertaken. One of these, by Terrence Des Pres, is
titled The Survivor. It is a study of what factors enabled some few
to survive while the vast majority were simply overwhelmed and
died in the camps.
One of the remarkable things that Des Pres observed after
interviewing or corresponding with a great number of these sur-
vivors, was the importance of care of the body, of cleanliness, even
if it was pitifully little they could do—usually amounting to
nothing more than a token washing by dipping a finger in their
cold imitation coffee and touching the cheeks or the forehead.
One survivor whom he interviewed observed, "I began to look
around me and saw the beginning of the end for any woman who
H O U SE IN RU IN S
139
might have had the opportunity to wash and had not done so." 4
These people lived in filth of unimaginable dimensions -- ex-
crement, vomit, running wounds, no form of uncleanness was
lacking in that environment. In some camps they stood ankle-
deep in it all day. Even the birds soon ceased to fly over the camps
because of the stench. And yet, the tiniest, wee-est token of
attention to the cleanliness of the body was often enough to keep
the spirit alive. When that token was abandoned, the individual
was already as good as dead.
Another survivor said, "Many inmates ceased to wash. This
was the first step to the grave. It was almost an iron law. Those
who failed to 'wash' every day soon died...[it was] an infallible
symptom." 5
Des Pres, a most perceptive writer, comments on this: "If
spiritual resilience declines, so does physical endurance. If the
body sickens, the spirit begins to lose its grip. There is a strange
circularity about existence in extremity. Survivors preserve their
dignity in order 'not to begin to die': they care for the body as a
matter of 'moral survival'."6 One could scarcely ask for a more
striking illustration of the interaction and interdependence of
body on spirit and spirit on body.
Des Pres speaks of the defilement of the body reaching such
proportions as to produce what he aptly terms "spiritual con-
cussion."7 Some were forced to eat excrement and if they refused,
had their heads held under until they complied. When they were
allowed to lift their heads, they literally went insane. One sur-
vivor spoke of immersion in human excrement as "the nadir of his
passage through extremity. No worse assault on a man's moral
being seems possible." 8
4. D es Pres, Terrence, The Survivor, O xford U niversity Press, 1976, p.63.

5. Ibid., p.64
6. Ibid., p.65. 93.
7. Ibid., p.66.
8. Ibid., p.71.
H O U SE IN RU IN S
140
Women in our day and world who have been raped -- some-
times by more than one attacker -- have had such a devastating
sense of defilement as to attempt suicide. Those who recall the
story of Lawrence of Arabia may recall that he, too, felt like com-
mitting suicide after being defiled by a despicable minor Egyptian
official.
I think Des Pres is quite right to stress the fact that a feeling of
defilement underlies the concept of guilt and that washing of the
body underlies the concept of spiritual purification. The assoc-
iation between moral cleansing of guilt and physical purification
from defilement, seems to be reflected by the many occasions
upon which ritual washing is prescribed in the Bible for those
engaged in the service of the Lord.9
It may be argued that cleansing of the body without cleansing
the spirit is ineffective, except for social reasons. The observation
is clearly correct. But by the same token, it may well be that
cleansing the spirit without cleansing the body would seem to be
equally ineffective. The highly spiritual individual who doesn't
care for the cleanliness of his person can only be half-highly
spiritual!
9. See, for instance, Exodus 30:17-21: “The Lord spoke unto M oses, saying, You shall also
m ake a laver of brass, w ith his foot also of brass, to w ash w ithal: and you shall put it
betw een the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and you shall put w ater therein.
For A aron and his sons shall w ash their hands and their feet in w ater there. W hen they go
into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall w ash w ith w ater, that they die not; or
w hen they com e near the altar to m inister, to burn offering m ade by fire unto the Lord: So
shall they w ash their hands and their feet, that they die not;” Leviticus 8:6: “Then M oses
brought A aron and his sons, and w ashed them w ith w ater;” and in the N ew Testam ent
A cts 22:16: “A nd now w hy do you tarry? A rise and be baptized, and w ash aw ay your sins,
calling on the nam e of the Lord;” 1 C orinthians 6: 11: “A nd such w ere som e of you but
you are w ashed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the nam e of the Lord Jesus,
and by the Spirit of our God.” A nd as having an obvious bearing, see also Ezekiel 36:25:
“Then w ill I sprinkle clean w ater upon you, and you shall be clean: from all your filthiness,
and from all your idols, w ill I cleanse you;” Zechariah 13:1: “In that day there shall be a
fountain opened to the house of D avid and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for
uncleanness;” and John 13:10: “Jesus said to him , H e that is w ashed needs not save to w ash
his feet but is clean every w hit.”
H O U SE IN RU IN S
141
But the normal reaction to this kind of antithetical statement

would probably be, "Well, the body doesn't matter nearly so much
as the soul, does it?" Hebrews 10:22 bears on this matter: "Let us
draw near with a true heart in the full assurance of faith, having
our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (i.e., our spirits washed
in the blood of the Lamb) and our bodies washed with pure water."
This twofold cleanliness of both spirit and body seems to be re-
quired for a fully mature faith, for a whole not a half faith.
Just how “ruined” are these mortal bodies?

It is an odd situation, this ambivalence we have about the
value of the body. Here we have a tumbled-down house for the
spirit, which the spirit is nevertheless deeply attached to—so
deeply that it faces separation with grave concern. And this grave
concern is just as likely to be shared throughout most of life even
by those who have every hope of a far more excellent house
reserved in heaven.
There is no doubt that the Bible paints a rather awful picture
of the state of ruin this house is in. Paul is particularly strong on
this point, referring to it as a “body of sin” and as “mortal”.10
This might be harmless enough if mortality was natural to it.
But it isn't at all natural to it. The body was designed for immor-
tality, so that its mortal-ness is precisely what it was not designed
for. The body is in an unnatural state, a condition of fatal disease
tantamount to a kind of leprosy so that, according to Scripture,
death places the body in the same "untouchable" position as the
leper is in during life. Neither the leper nor the dead body can be
touched by the living without suffering defilement.11
10. See Rom ans 6:6: “Knowing this...that the body of sin m ight be destroyed that henceforth we
should not serve sin;” and verse 12: “Let not sin therefore reign in your m ortal body.”
11. See Leviticus 13:44-46: [The priest shall pronounce him a leprous m an] “ he is unclean
and the leper shall cry ‘U nclean! Unclean!...he shall dw ell alone... outside the cam p;” and
N um bers 19:11-20: “H e that touches the dead body of any m an shall be unclean seven days.
H e shall purify him self w ith w ater on the third day and on the seventh day he shall be
H O U SE IN RU IN S
142
Hiddenly our living body is as inwardly diseased as a leper's

body is outwardly so. And this is because it has been unnaturally
mortalized and is, in fact, already as good as dead.
Indeed, Romans 7:24 refers to the body as a "body of death."
This is an expression which is Hebrew in content but Greek in
construction: it would have been better rendered simply "a dead
body."
This form of transposition of words is common in Hebrew. It
appears, for example, in Psalm 48:1. "the mountain of his
holiness," which is better rendered "his holy mountain." So in
Psalm 47:8 we should read “the throne of his holiness” as "his
holy throne" and in Job 30:12 “the ways of their destruction” as
"their destructive ways." So also in the New Testament we have
in Ephesians 6:10, "the power of his might," i.e., "his mighty
power"; in Colossians 1:22, "in the body of his flesh," meaning "in
his fleshly body." Even though Paul is writing in Greek, he is
“thinking in Hebrew.
When in Romans 7:24 Paul refers to this dead body which he
longs to be delivered from, he may have had in mind a situation
which was common in the Roman world. One particularly awful
form of punishment for a convicted murderer was to have the
victim's body chained to him. This body was attached in such a
way that the murderer was forced to carry it or drag it wherever
he went until in its final state of decay it literally fell to pieces. If
this is true, it is no wonder that Paul should speak of the body as
something that is vile.12
The reader may be perfectly justified in protesting that Paul's
body was overtly diseased in some way which scholars have not
clean. W hosoever touches the dead body...and purify not him self defiles the tabernacle of
the Lord...W hen a m an dies in a tent, all that com e into the tent and all that is in the tent
shall be unclean...A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in w ater and shall sprinkle
the unclean...and they shall be clean...the m an [w ho does not purify him self] is unclean.”
12. “[Jesus] shall change our vile body, that it m ay be fashioned like his glorious body.”
(Philippians 3:21).
H O U SE IN RU IN S
143
yet agreed upon, and that therefore his thinking was highly
coloured by personal experience. But the important thing is to
recognize that when man dies, he dies an unnatural death, a death
which he has been dying all his life. For many this process is
delayed in such a way as to conceal the fact of decay and almost
to hold out a promise of immortality. But as soon as the spirit
departs, the illusion is destroyed. The disintegration of the body
is rapid indeed. And it is doubtful if man finds anything quite as
distressing to look upon as a decomposing human body. It is a
terribly disturbing sight for man—though apparently animals are
almost if not totally indifferent to it.
Only in the presence of such decay is the distance made plain
between the body of fallen Adam as revealed in us and the body
of unfallen Adam as revealed in that of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Such was that body that, even after burial for three days, it saw no
corruption, no decay. And it saw no corruption because it was
never subject to the seed of death in the first place.
Our dying is always in some measure "an act of violence," the
tearing apart of two elements—the spirit and the body—which
were never intended to be parted. But it was essential in God's
economy of things that this body should be destroyed since it has
become a partner in our fallen nature and only by dissolution and
resurrection in an entirely new form could it be rid of its infection.
The spirit of man is newly recreated,13 not merely reformed: the
body of man cannot be merely reformed either. We dwell in a
house in ruins which, after it has fallen to pieces in the grave,14
13. “Therefore if any m an be in C hrist Jesus, he is a new creature: old things are passed
aw ay, behold all things are becom e new ” (2 C orinthians 5:17).
14. O ur bodies are not strictly buried but sow n in the ground, as 1 C orinthians 15:42-44
says: “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sow n in corruption, it is raised in
incorruption: it is sow n in dishonour; it is raised in glory; it is sow n in w eakness, it is raised
in pow er; it is sow n a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” They are sow n because
there is every expectation of their being seen again, “com ing up” again as it w ere. W e only
bury w hat w e hope not to see again. So also w e are “planted” together in the likeness of
his death (Rom ans 6:5). But it is only in the likeness, since our bodies need dissolution,
144
will not simply be put together again. It will not be re-formed out
of the old substance, but transformed into a house as glorious as
that which is Christ's in his resurrection (Philippians 3:21).
Thomas Boston (1720) put the matter very beautifully when he
wrote: “There is a vileness in the body which, as to the saints, will
never be removed, until it be melted down in the grave, and cast
in a new form at the resurrection, to come forth a spiritual
body.” 15
Two men called Adam: a problem for evolutionists

Man lives in a house in ruins, in a body which does not
represent a mere miscuing of evolutionary processes but a body
which was designed for and, in two individuals, displayed a
potential for physical glory and immortality. Both individuals
were called Adam.
Evolution gives us no clue as to how they appeared on the
scene. Even if the origin of the body of the First Adam is to be
accounted for by evolutionary processes, these processes cannot
account for the appearance of such a discontinuity as the Second
Adam, occurring so late in the great chain of being.
We are left with the biblical account which states without
equivocation that the First Adam was formed by divine creative
initiative, and the Second Adam was conceived in a virgin by
divine miracle, though born by natural processes.
“m elting dow n” as Boston has it, before resurrection. H is body did not need dissolution
but could be transform ed as it w as -- nail prints and all!
15. Boston, Thom as, H um an Nature In Its Fourfold State, London, Religious Tract Society,
1720, p.99.
145
Chapter 11
A HOUSE OF GLORY
The Second Adam Remains Unfallen
The house that is to be builded for the Lord

must be exceeding magnifical
1 C hronicles 22:5
Scripture states quite clearly that all Adam’s descendants

are made in his image, not in the image of God as he himself was.
But Scripture also declares quite emphatically that there was One
descendant, born centuries later, who was “the express image of
God.” How, then, can we account for this?
Anselm of Canterbury in England (c. 1033-1109) wrote a very
remarkable book which he titled (in Latin), Cur Deus Homo, i.e.,
"Why God Became Man."
At one point in a simulated conversation with a friend he
discusses the various ways in which the Saviour might have be-
come man. Here is what he said:
In four ways God can create a man; namely, either of a

man and a woman in the common way; or neither of a man or
of a woman, as He created Adam; or of a man but not of a
woman, as He created Eve; or of a woman without a man,
H O U SE O F GLO RY
146
which thus far He had never done.

Wherefore, in order to show that this last mode is also
within his power, and was reserved for this very purpose,
what more fitting than that He should take that man whose
origin we are seeking [i.e., the God-man Redeemer] from a
woman without a man.1
This seems to me a wonderful exercise in logical construction

and effective use of the English language. Yet I am not sure that
he really understood why the virgin birth was so important. But
such understanding is only easier for us today because we stand
on the shoulders of those who went before us.
The necessity of the Redeemer’s virgin birth

In a volume already referred to (The Seed of the Woman) I have
set forth at some length the relevance of some of these things we
have learned since Anselm regarding how birth comes about, and
in particular the bearing of these things on the birth of a male child
without the intervention of a man. Theoretically, for genetic
reasons, this is quite impossible. Yet this is how the Saviour came
among us, exactly as foretold in Isaiah 7:14. "Behold a virgin shall
conceive and bear a SON." It was a miracle indeed.
I have discussed in this light how and why it was both
necessary and possible for the seed of the woman to be preserved
against the mortalizing effects of the forbidden fruit.2
The effect of the forbidden fruit upon the bodies of Adam and
of Eve was the same in that the bodies of both of them were now
destined to experience death. But the effect upon their seed was
different: for whereas Adam's seed had also been mortalized, this
was not so in the case of Eve's seed.
1. A nselm of C anterbury: Cur D eus H om o, translated by S. N . D eane, LaSalle (Illinois), O pen

C ourt Publishing, 1954, p.248.
2. The docum entation for the m echanism s involved runs to som e 60 pages of fine print.
This is far from being m erely speculative: It is experim ental fact. See the author’s Seed of the
W om an, H am ilton, O N , 2001, Part II, pp.173-232.
H O U SE O F GLO RY
147
Because of the special design of her body, her seed was

protected against mortalization, even though it was housed in a
mortalized body. Furthermore, such was her constitution that she
was nevertheless able, in the normal course of events, to pass on
this sole fragment of her original immortality to all her female
descendants. And each of them, in a like manner, passes on this
immortal stream in every succeeding generation so long as the
race continues to multiply.
It is becoming increasingly apparent now that the woman's
seed, prior to its fertilization by the male seed, is the only truly
immortal part of the human body left undamaged by the Fall. All
other cells in the human body, male and female alike, have suffer-
ed a fatal damage but this one priceless human heritage, the woman's
seed, remains intact.
Thus any child born of a virgin will escape the physical effects
of the Fall, since the damage is passed on via the male seed. If
virgin birth should ever occur naturally, such a child would
presumably always have two characteristics. It would have the
potential for unending physical life as possessed originally by
Adam and Eve. But at the same time the child would, of necessity,
be a female and not a male.
It is this fact which makes Isaiah 7:14 such a remarkable pro-
phetic utterance, since clearly Isaiah could not possibly have
known (except by revelation) that the birth of a male child from a
virgin could only be by a miracle.
As to the reference to a virgin (and not just to a young woman,
as many would like to argue), there is no doubt that virgin is the
correct translation in English. Since Matthew 1:22 and 23 3 in
quoting Isaiah confirms this fact by using a word in Greek which,
for the Jews, unequivocally had this meaning. When we once
3. “N ow all this w as done, that it m ight be fulfilled w hich w as spoken of the Lord by the
prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be w ith child, and shall bring forth a son...”
(M atthew 1:22, 23).
H O U SE O F GLO RY
148
recognize that the Author of both statements (Isaiah 7:14 and

Matthew 1:22, 23) is the same—namely, the Holy Spirit—then we
know what the Author's intention is in the first instance in Isaiah
by what the same Author has made quite clear in the second
where He employs the Greek word parthenos4 in Matthew.
Now the Old Testament is very clear that from the time of
conception a child is corrupted in body. The most obvious pas-
sage is Psalm 51:5, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did
my mother conceive me."
But Job, who almost certainly wrote long before David had
penned this Psalm, is even more specific and in some ways more
perceptive. He asks, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an
unclean?" And he replies to his own question. "Not one" (Job 14:4).
And later in the conversation with his friends, Bildad is recorded
as putting the problem that this creates even more astutely when
he asks: "How, then, can man be justified with God? Or how can
he be clean who is born of a woman?" (Job 25:4). Much later in
time, Isaiah would state the simple fact that "we are all an unclean
thing" (Isaiah 64:6).
So there is the problem. How is man to be redeemed, if he
must find a man to redeem him, in view of the fact that it is
impossible to find a man born of a woman who is not just as
unclean as the rest of men, and therefore equally in need of
redemption himself? Did Isaiah really understand the significance
4. The Jew ish com m entators so understood Isaiah 7:14 since they em ployed the sam e Greek
w ord for virgin in the Septuagint Greek version w hich w as produced in the second century
BC for Gentile readers. For the Jew s, this w ord signified sexual purity. It w as used to
describe the only kind of w om an acceptable as a w ife for a priest (“N either shall [the
priests] take for their w ives a w idow , nor her that is put aw ay: but they shall take m aidens
of the seed of the house of Israel...” Ezekiel 44:22). The idea of virginity is im plicit in this
w ord as it is found in the Septuagint -- for exam ple in D euteronom y 22:28: “If a m an find
a dam sel that is a virgin, w ho is not betrothed...”; Ju dges 19:24: “Behold, here is m y
daughter, a m aiden...”; Judges 21:12: “A nd they found am ong the inhabitants of Jabesh-
Gilead four hundred young virgins, that had know n no m an...”; 2 Sam uel 13:18: “[Tam ar]
had a garm ent of divers colours upon her: for w ith such robes w ere the king’s daughters
that w ere virgins apparelled”.
H O U SE O F GLO RY
149
of his own words in chapter 7 verse 14? Did he understand why

the Redeemer must be born of a virgin? Perhaps he was one of
those whom Peter mentions who pondered deeply the things they
had been inspired to write yet did not fully comprehend what
they had written.5
What is addressed in this chapter is in essence the key to what
is said in this volume. Since we were determined to keep the
chapters short, it is very necessary to make sure that the point at
issue in each chapter is clearly stated. In this chapter one of the
best ways to accomplish this seemed to be to tabulate the
structure of the argument—though this introduces a certain lack
of smoothness in reading.
How God designed for virgin birth

Now a Redeemer must be one of us, born of woman, and yet
be “clean,” i.e., not mortal—as are all other descendants naturally
born. We are here concerned with the unique nature of the Lord's
body, and therefore of what God had to do to ensure that these
provisions would be met. My plan is to demonstrate three basic
points which will then be elaborated. Finally, I will show how
Scripture confirms them.
1) That the natural order was designed from the very beginning to
accom modate the Incarnation— of God becoming man. Part of
this grand design included the mechanism of procreation by the
fusion of two seeds which were originally housed in a single
body but later divided into a male body and a female body.
2) That the result of Adam's disobedience (m ortality) was, by
virgin birth through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, thus
avoided in this one instance.
3) That a virgin birth led to the recovery of a truly Adamic body,
i.e., an unfallen body constituted exactly as Adam's body had
5. “O f which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the
grace that should com e unto you....” (1 Peter 1:10).
H O U SE O F GLO RY
150
been at his creation.
(1) Design of the mechanism of conception. M any years ago

Charles Augustus Briggs made this observation:
The virgin conception of Jesus is not to be interpreted as

if it were a miracle in violation of the laws of nature....The
conception of Jesus in the womb of the virgin Mary differs
from all other conception of children by their mothers in that
there was no human father. The place of the human father is
taken by God Himself...in an extraordinary way unrevealed
to us and without violation of the laws of maternity,
impregnating the virgin Mary with holy seed.6
To put the matter slightly differently, God did not contravene

the design of the natural order when bringing the Redeemer into
the world. But He put that natural order to a higher service, a
service for which it was intended in the first place. He had so
designed the processes of conception and birth that He could use
them without doing any violence to his own creation.
He did not need to set aside nature, since there was nothing in
the constitution of the human body, except in so far as it has been
defiled by sin, that God is ashamed to take unto Himself. God
could employ the human body as a dwelling place under all the
circumstances and challenges of daily life from conception to
death. Undefiled by sin and indwelt by the Lord Himself, a
superb human body appeared on the stage of human history, and
men worshipped without shame or hesitation, and sometimes
almost involuntarily, the One whose house it was. And while in
that house, he accepted the worship of men which is reserved
only for what is divine without hesitation whenever He knew it
6. Briggs, C harles A ugustus: in Jam es H astings, Dictionary of Christ and the G ospels, Grand
Rapids, Baker reprint (originally 1908), p.809.
H O U SE O F GLO RY
151
was entirely proper, and rebuked it when He knew it was not.7

That second superb human magnificent body appeared
centuries later only because the very first human body was
specially designed so that this could happen without disruption
of the natural order. Human embodiment in no way demeaned
divinity.
(2) Design for a virgin conception. By virgin birth was found the
solution to the Old Testament questions. We can see now in the
light of modern knowledge how the seed of the woman could
escape the poisoned stream that passes via the male seed from
generation to generation in all who are natural-born. In a way, we
owe this discovery to the brilliant insights of August Weismann
a century ago, whose failing vision forced him to forsake the
microscope and the laboratory, and spend his working hours
reflecting upon what he had already observed while his vision
had been adequate.
The work of his successors has remarkably confirmed his
initial hypothesis that in each generation it is the female seed that
first reproduces itself and then forms the body which is to house
it. The order here is crucial to a proper understanding. The
successive bodies are temporary vehicles which death lays
aside—but not until the seed in the next generation has had time
first of all to reproduce itself, and then to repeat the rest of the
cycle. The body is the ovum's way of perpetuating itself.
Tracing this process backwards to Eve, we are forced to go one
step further and say that Eve received her seed from Adam. There
is thus a continuity of the seed from one generation to the next
which still remains intact after all these thousands of years— this
"bundle of immortality" which was once in Adam's loins. At the
same time in each generation mortality is now introduced via the
male seed to the immortal seed of the woman—as Luther and
7. “And devils also cam e out of m any crying out, and saying, Thou art C hrist, the Son of
God. H e rebuking them , suffered them not to speak...” (Luke 4:41).
H O U SE O F GLO RY
152
Calvin both perceived. But this fatal poisoning evidently does not
take place until the woman's seed has multiplied itself. It then
constructs also a body around itself to house it but only after
having made adequate provision for the next generation first. This
process is shown in Fig.11.1. Thus while Eve became the mother
of all living (Genesis 3:20), Adam had become the father of all
dying (Romans 5:12). This is precisely stated in verse 12 where we
are told simply, "by one man...death passed upon all men." Every
time the seed of the man fused with the seed of the woman, at
that moment that which was living, immortal, becomes a dying
thing, mortal.
But then one day, by divine intervention, the Holy Spirit
introduced into the seed in the virgin Mary that which initiated
its development into a man-child. By so doing, for the first time
in history a woman was found to be carrying in her womb a
"clean thing."
Luke 1:35 tells us that the angel said to Mary: "That holy thing
that shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God." The
rendering "holy thing" is perfectly justified by the original Greek
and is by implication re-affirmed by the angel to Matthew which,
rendered literally would read, "for that which [neuter] is conceived
in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:20). Once again the em-
phasized words are faithful to the original Greek.
When Mary's time was fulfilled, she brought forth a son, and
the angels announced to the shepherds in the field, "Unto you is
born this day in the city of David a Saviour which is Christ the
Lord” (Luke 2:11).
That day the Lord of glory, the Son of God, became flesh and
began to dwell among us as the Son of Man in a body made from
the seed of the woman, a body which was truly immortal. This
was so because conception was by the Holy Spirit, not by the male
sperm which would have brought mortality to that body. This
event was confirmed by the Father in heaven when it was
H O U SE O F GLO RY
153
O pen circles = an ovum (or seed), far larger than any other cell in the body.
Closed circles = body cells.
Figure 11.1
A schematic diagram to illustrate the continuity of the seed or germ plasm from Adam
to Eve to Mary, and from generation to generation. This diagram really shows two
things: First, how the woman’s seed, once in Adam, formed the basis of the body
prepared for the Lord. Secondly, it shows that it is the seed that forms the body, not
the body that forms the seed as evolutionary theory manifestly demands.
H O U SE O F GLO RY
154
announced, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”

(Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5)—or as the New International Version has
rendered it, “You are my Son, today have I become your Father.”
(3) Design for the recovery of a truly Adamic body. "Wherefore

when he comes into the world, he said...a body have you pre-
pared me" (Hebrews 10:5).
In the Greek of that verse, the word which is rendered
"prepared" is a particularly significant one in the present context.
Basically it means to reconstitute, to restore, even to repair rather
than simply prepare. It is so used in connection with the mending
of nets.8 Moreover, the Greek Papyri show that it was currently
used to mean to prepare to perfection. In Classical Greek it means to
furnish completely. In the King James Version it has the meaning of
to perfect.9
The idea in Hebrews 10:5 seems to be to underscore the fact
that in some way this was a body that restored perfection in the
Adamic line, contrasting his own body and its cleanness with the
uncleanness of the bodies of all others hitherto born in this line.
His body was flawless, and holy even in its fetal development and
thus resolved the problem raised in Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:4.10
Thus we may conclude, without hesitation, that the virgin
conception and birth did indeed produce a unique human body;
truly Adamic in origin since the woman's seed was once Adam's
seed but free of all that fallen Adam has entailed to the rest of his
descendants without exception. Here, then, was a perfect human
8. “[Jesus] saw tw o brethren...in a ship w ith Zebedee their father m ending their nets”
M atthew 4:21.
9. A s in M atthew 21:16: “Jesus said to [the chief priests], H ave you never read, O ut of the
m outh of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise?”; in Luke 6:40: ‘The disciple is not
above his m aster: but every one that is perfect shall be as his m aster;” also 1 Thessalonians
3:10: “...night and day praying exceedingly that w e m ight see your face, and might perfect
that w hich is lacking in your faith,” and elsew here.
10. “Behold I w as shapen in iniquity; and in sin did m y m other conceive m e” (Psalm 51:5);
“W ho can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” (Job 14:4).
H O U SE O F GLO RY
155
body brought forth with the same potential for immortality that
had characterized Adam's body as created.
Therefore, the body of the Lord Jesus Christ was not created
under the condition of our fallen bodies, bodies which come forth
under a sentence of death. Instead, it was brought about "after the
potential for unending life" (Hebrews 7:16). Here was a Second
Man, biologically fulfilling precisely the conditions that had
characterized the body of the first man. Augustine spoke so
perceptively of this kind of body (possessed by the Lord) as being
non imposse mori, sed posse non mori: i.e., not unable to die (because
He was vulnerable to the assaults of both the physical world and
of men):but able not to die (because no mortogenic factor, no death
from a seed of the man, had ever been introduced into his body).
For Him there was no necessity of death. Unlike ourselves,
therefore, his dead body was raised uncorrupted, still identifiably
as his and needing no change in it save only that which transformed
it to a new working principle to fit it for its heavenly role.
W hereas for us there must always be a change through death—
save only in the case of those who remain alive at the Lord's
second coming again, yet who will somehow have a like change
to fit their bodies for heaven.11
Words in Scripture confirming this difference

The New Testament has illuminated this birth in some very
striking ways and, in addition, has employed two only slightly
but very significantly different words in order to make clear the
distinction between that virgin-born body and the bodies of all
other men.
Let me illustrate what seems to me one very important way in
which the New Testament has recognized a vital distinction
between his body and ours, his temptations and ours, his death
11. “Behold I show you a m ystery; w e shall not all sleep , b u t w e shall all be changed” (1
C orinthians 15:51)
H O U SE O F GLO RY
156
and ours, and so on. These distinctions have been blurred in most
English translations. In the original Greek they are marked
carefully by the use of two different classes of words, some of
which are spelled with a prefix ending with an i (called an iota in
Greek) and the others without the i. The first group of words is
prefixed by homoi- and the second by homo-. Words prefixed by
homoi signify "likeness' with the sense of similarity, but the words
prefixed by homo- signify "identity" or "exact sameness.”
If I wanted to say "Margarine can look like butter" in Greek, I
would have to use a word prefixed by homoi- for the English word
"like," because margarine only looks like butter. It isn't actually
butter at all.
In English we use words which have the prefix homo-, such as
homology, homogeneous, homosexual, homonym, homozygote, etc., to
mean identical structure, identical quality or consistency, identical
sex, identical name, identical genes, and so on. Homo- conveys the
idea, therefore, of precise identity, not merely likeness in
appearance.
On the other hand, we do not use many words in English with
the prefix homoi-. It is hard to say why this is, and it contrasts
strongly with Greek usage both in the New Testament and in
Classical literature. In Greek, words beginning with the prefix
homoi- always signify mere similarity rather than precise identity.
Wherever words prefixed with either homo- or homoi- are used
in the New Testament it is incumbent upon the translator to
indicate to the reader whether the meaning is absolute identity or
mere similarity, since great care is taken in Scripture in the
distinctive use of these words. This ought to be reflected in any
translation. The distinction is always of quite crucial importance,
but unfortunately many of even the best translations have failed
in this respect because they have used the word "like" and
"likeness" imprecisely. They have ignored the care taken by the
H O U SE O F GLO RY
157
divine Author of Scripture to mark a fundamental distinction.12

Let me give a few specific illustrations from familiar passages
in the New Testament where the difference is often masked in the
translation but is in fact of great importance.
i. Homoi. In Romans 8:3 we have the words, "God sending his

son in the likeness of sinful flesh." In the original Greek the word
rendered "likeness" is homoi-omati, and for this, the word
"likeness" is a correct translation. It will be noted that the prefix is
homoi-, the i being part of the prefix. All such words signify
likeness only and not identity. Thus, the Lord's flesh was similar to
ours but not identical. It was identical only with the flesh of
unfallen Adam but by no means identical with the despoiled flesh
of us who are Adam's fallen descendants. Our bodies are corrupt-
ed;13 his body was not.14
In Hebrews 2:17 we have the words, "in all things it behooved
Him to be made like unto his brethren."15 Had He been identical
with his brethren, his body would have been mortal like ours, and
He would have been under a sentence of death as we are. The
sacrifice of a body that is already under a sentence of death can
only be premature and never truly vicarious.
In Hebrews 4:15, "[He] was tempted in all points like as we are,
12. See, for exam ple, the Septuagint translation of the H ebrew of Genesis 2:20: “H ow ever,
for A dam there w as not found a help like to him self.” In this passage, “like to him self” is
not homos auto but hom ois auto, thus bearing out the distinction in the tw o term s hom o- and
hom oi-, since the help w as not to be one identical w ith him self but one suitably sim ilar to
him self.
13. “For this corru ptible m ust put on incorruption, and this m ortal m ust put on
im m ortality” (1 C orinthians 15:53).
14. “Forasm uch as you know that you w ere not redeem ed w ith corruptible things, as silver
and gold...but w ith the precious blood of C hrist, as of a lam b w ithout blem ish and w ithout
spot” (1 Peter 2:18,19).
15. H e could not assum e hum an nature w ithout assum ing a hum an body -- and H e chose
a body in the line of A braham (“for verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he
took on him the seed of A braham ”, H ebrew s 2:16) and not the nature of angels -- w ho have
no seed!
H O U SE O F GLO RY
158
yet without sin." The fact is that when Satan comes to tempt us, he
comes to a citadel that has already surrendered. The root of sin is
there to begin with, and Satan has only to appeal to it to find a
ready accessory. When Satan came to tempt Jesus, he found
nothing in Him to seize hold of, by which to work from within.16
The Lord was always tempted from without: we are tempted
from within. Indeed, we do not need Satan to tempt us, our own
fallen nature being usually sufficient unto itself.17 The Lord was
only tempted when Satan came to tempt Him: never otherwise.
His temptations were every bit as real as ours, but they never
arose from internal prompting.
In Romans 6:5, "We have been planted together in the likeness
of his death." His death, and our deaths as individuals, are en-
tirely different in that He died for many men's sins but without
obligation for any of his own. When we are counted to have died
in Him, we died in Him for our own sins. The element of
vicariousness in our death is entirely absent.
In Philippians 2:7 we read, "...was made in the likeness of men."
The point in each of these important passages must by now be
clear. Had He been made as we are made, conceived and born in
sin (the mortogenic factor via the male seed), the consequences for
mankind, and indeed for the Universe, would have been dis-
astrous. For the human experiment could only have proved point-
less without a Saviour—for if conceived and born as we are, He
could never have been a Saviour.
ii. homo. The second group of words has the prefix homo-,
without the terminal i. There are some 46 instances of the use of
such words, and always without exception the meaning is
16. “. . . the prince of this w orld com es, and has nothing in m e” (John 14:30).
17. O n this interaction betw een body and spirit, see discussion in the author’s Journey O ut
of Tim e, D oorw ay Publications, 1981, pp.147-153, and in Seed of the W om an (1980), p.147f.,
514-516.
H O U SE O F GLO RY
159
"identical with," not merely similar to, but precisely the same.
In Classical Greek literature the distinction between the prefix
homo- and homoi- is faithfully preserved in many verbs and nouns
which, however, do not appear in the New Testament.
Historically, one of the most critical cases involving a
compound word which can be prefixed by either homo or homoi-
appears in the formulation of the Nicene Creed (325 AD) in which
the Lord Jesus was held by one party to be "of one [i.e., identical]
substance with the Father" (homo-ousios), and by another party to
be only "of like substance with the Father" (homoi-ousios). Some
said that He was actually one with the Father: others said that He
was merely like the Father. The Eastern and Western branches of
the Church split over the difference between the prefix homo- and
homoi-, or more precisely over the absence or presence of the i. It
seems a foolish thing that Christendom should break in two at a
critical point in its early development over the presence or
absence of a single letter. But of course it was really over two
entirely different concepts, mere similarity, or absolute equality.18
This i is called in Greek an iota, and in Hebrew is termed a jot,
the two words being cognate. It is significant, therefore, that the
Lord should have said that no part of his Word should fail, not
even a jot (Matthew 5:18) until all had been fulfilled.
We conclude that when we are told the Lord Jesus Christ was
made in the likeness of sinful flesh, or was made in the likeness of
men, or was made like unto his brethren, we are to understand
that what we have in this likeness is only similarity, not absolute
18. The follow ing references are to w ords or phrases incorporating the prefix H O M O - . To
p rom ise faithfully: M atthew 14:7. To confess plainly: M atthew 10:32 (2x); Luke 12:8 (2x);
John 1:20; 9:22; 12:42; A cts 23:8; 24:14; Rom ans 10:9, 10; H ebrew s 11:13; 1 John 1:9; 4:2, 15;
2 John 7. To profess forthrightly: M atthew 7:23. To be truly thankful: H ebrew s 13:15. To be
of the sam e craft, not m erely a related one: A cts 18:3. W ithout doubt: 1 Tim othy 3:16.
Together as one: John 4:36; 20:4; 21:20. Sincere profession: 1 Tim othy 6:12, 13; Titu s 1:16;
H ebrew s. 3:1; 4:14; 10:23. M anifestly declared: 2 C orinthians 9:13. In full agreem ent: A cts
1:14; 2:1, 46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57; 8:6; 12:20; 15:25; 18:12; 19:29; Rom ans 15:6; and 1 Peter 3:8.
H O U SE O F GLO RY
160
identity. To have been identical with us would have placed Him

under the same sentence of death that we are under.
Meaning of “weakness” and “infirmity of the flesh”

In one important respect the Lord's body was identical with
ours, simply because his was a physical body and therefore
vulnerable. His body was just as subject to injury as ours. Like us
He suffered fatigue, hunger, thirst, pain, and wounds—all such
things as result naturally from the demands of any physical body,
whether human or animal. These all come under the first part of
Augustine's aphorism: He could experience death. In this sense,
He was exactly as we are. We are told in 2 Corinthians 13:4 that
He was crucified through weakness. This was not the weakness
of sin but the vulnerability of a real body, as it was of unfallen
Adam's body. It was no sign of sinfulness that He could be
wounded for our transgressions. Ambrose (c.339-397 AD) who
had such a powerful influence on Augustine, wrote with keen
insight:
Thus it is written, "God made this Jesus, whom you

crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). It was not the
Godhead but the flesh that was crucified. This indeed was
possible because the flesh allowed of being crucified. [emphasis
19
mine]
This "infirmity of his flesh" was not an infirmity due to the

effects of sinful flesh, but the vulnerability of all things set within
the framework of the physical world.20
19. A m brose: “O n the C hristian Faith”, chapter XV in Principle W orks of A m brose, translated
by H . D e Rom estin, in N icene and Post-N icene Fathers of the Christian Church, edited by
Philip Schaff and H enry W ace, N ew York, C hristian Literature C o., Second Series, 1896,
vol. X, p 217
20. Belgic C onfession, A rticle xix: "...very m an that H e m ight die for us according to the
infirm ity of the flesh."
H O U SE O F GLO RY
161
We beheld his glory: evolution cannot account for it

Scripture has provided us with enough information as to how
this uniqueness of his body came about. From the very beginning,
nature was designed to make all this possible without violation of
its own order; to perpetuate unfallen Adam's constitution and
avoid the entailed damage from the Fall; to produce as an end
result a unique embryo which unlike all other human embryos
was "clean"; and thus to reintroduce into the world a Second
Adam whose body was not subject to death and yet could ex-
perience it. None of these achievements violated nature as God
designed and created it.
Into this body, perfectly prepared for Him, the Son of God
came to be our Saviour as the Son of Man, becoming what He had
not been hitherto yet without ceasing to be what He was before.
Only thus could the Plan of Salvation by substitutionary sacrifice be
made effective. In short, the divine nature was in no wise de-
meaned by the assumption of a perfect human body.
Such, then, was the form and dignity and capacity of the body
with which Adam was created. In the Lord Jesus Christ true
manhood, body and spirit, was once again displayed in all its
immortal glory before a fallen world.
The divine Logos who was with the Father throughout all
eternity and through whom the Universe was created and by
whom it is kept as a Cosmos rather than a Chaos, became Man
and dwelt as a Man among men, and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth
(John 1:14). Such a glorious house was his!
We beheld True MAN: identical with the First Adam before he
fell but only like us. He came to be our Saviour, for only thus
could the Plan of Salvation by substitutionary vicarious sacrifice
be made effective.
162
Everything hinges upon the perfection of that body;

Everything hinges upon its being truly human;
Everything hinges upon its being vulnerable; and
Everything hinges upon its being contingently immortal.
It is conceivable that, as the body now is, this body might be

accounted for by evolution. But if the body of Adam, as witnessed
in the body of Jesus Christ, fulfilled the four prerequisite con-
ditions noted above, evolution utterly fails to help us at all.

163
Chapter 12
THE INVISIBLE BECOMES VISIBLE
Why God Became Man
The mystery...of God...manifest in the flesh 1 Tim othy 3:16

The glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ 2 C orinthians 4:6
In whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily C olossians 2:9
It was not long after William the Conqueror crossed the

Channel from Normandy and landed on the English south coast
in 1066 that our friend, Anselm of Canterbury, wrote his famous
treatise on the Incarnation to which we have already referred. You
may recall that he titled it, Why God Became Man.1
His answer was essentially what we would say today—"to
become the Redeemer of Man." Many of his arguments are a
delight to read and satisfying to both heart and mind. But there
were some questions he did not address. Moreover, the answer
which he did give and which most of us would give, is not by any
means the only reason why the Eternal Son of God became Man
to dwell among us.
There are in fact a number of reasons beyond the redemption
of man, of which the following three are worthy of special
1. A nselm of Canterbury: Cur D eus H om o, translated by S. N . D eane, LaSalle (Illinois), O pen

C ourt Publishing, 1954.
IN VISIB LE BECO M ES VISIB LE
164
attention in the present context. Surprisingly all three required

embodiment.
(1) He came to reveal God to man.

(2) He came to reveal man to God.
(3) He came to reveal M an to man.
In this chapter I want to address only the first two, and then
deal with the third in the next chapter.
1. He came to reveal God to man

The renowned British historian, Arnold Toynbee, was one day
discussing man's knowledge of God with a close friend named Dr.
Edwyn Bevan. During the conversation Bevan said to him, "Man's
vision of God is like a dog's vision of his master. The dog by
instinct, habit, and association, comes to know his master in a
limited manner. But to know him fully the dog would have to
forsake his canine nature for a human nature."
Now, I have no knowledge of how the conversation
proceeded from that point, but it naturally started me thinking
about the Incarnation in that light. Of course, for the dog to
become a man is a reversal of the situation in which God became
man. For we have, in the first instance, the lesser becoming the
greater whereas in the latter case we have the greater becoming
the lesser, the infinite becoming the finite.2 Here, Bevan does not
refer to the possibility of the man becoming a dog in order to
understand his faithful pet, though it seems the natural alter-
2. Jesus im plied this w hen he said, “N o m an know s the Son but the Father; neither does any
m an know the Father, save the Son, and he to w hom soever the Son w ill reveal him ”
(M atthew 11:27). H . D . M cD onald observed that “O ver and over again w e find Jesus
m aking assertions w hich do not com e to us as exaggerated, unreal or absurd. They have
about them the quiet certainty of a divine authority. H is use of “V erily I say unto you” w as
a deliberate substitution for the prophetic “Thus saith the Lord: the prophets spoke for God,
H e spoke as God.” [Jesus: H uman and Divine, Zondervan, 1968, p.58].
165
native to raise for discussion.
The problem of communication between two different species

But does Bevan's solution really solve the problem of com-
munication in any case? Suppose the dog becomes a man. Would
he not then of necessity cease being a dog? The dog who has
become a man is no longer a dog! If he ceases to be a dog, what
good is he to the man as interpreter of a dog's thoughts? In the
very act of becoming a man he loses all contact with his former
canine nature. On the other hand, to go halfway and become half
a dog and half a man is to be neither dog nor man, and in this
kind of neutrality such a creature cannot wholly reveal the dog to
the man or the man to the dog.
The difficulty becomes a very practical one when anthro-
pologists or missionaries employ a native interpreter. The
interpreter must already have escaped his own culture in part and
immersed himself in the alien culture of the anthropologist or
missionary in order to be a good interpreter. How can he become
a good interpreter without adulterating his understanding of his
own culture in the process of learning to interpret it in terms of
the alien culture? He is no longer "pure" native. Who knows there-
after how much of what he tells his inquirers is genuinely native
and how much is unconsciously adopted from the alien culture?
If there is no real solution at all by this route to the problem of
communication, wherein does the answer lie? What form must
such a 'bridge' between God and man take which does not
surrender one or other nature? Can you build a bridge with the
two ends in the middle? How can God possibly become man
while yet remaining God? How did it come about that the Son of
God could really become the Son of Man without ceasing to be
what He was before? It would seem to be a sheer impossibility for
the man to become a dog, and remain a man. How, then, did God
become a Man while remaining God?
166
The ‘bridge:’ compatibility of the two natures

The answer lies perhaps in this: that the nature of God and the
nature of man as originally created, shared a certain fundamental
compatibility, which man and dog do not share despite the real
companionship that may exist between them.
Because man was originally made in the image and likeness
of God,3 his nature was compatible with the divine nature, thus
making it possible for the divine nature in the Person of the Son
of God to be fashioned in the likeness of man 4 while at the same
time retaining the precise image of the Father.5 For this reason the
Son of Man was able to mediate to us the capacity to partake of,
even in our present state, something of the divine nature.6
This duality of his nature constantly broke through to his
companions and to his critics, causing the former to worship, and
the latter to condemn. On one occasion He had healed a man
"with an infirmity of thirty eight years" on a Sabbath day.7 When
accused by the Pharisees of breaking the law by "working" on a
holy day, Jesus replied, "My Father works hitherto, and I work"
(John 5:17). The Pharisees seized upon this as blasphemy and they
took up stones to stone Him. When He asked them why it was
blasphemy, they replied (in effect), "Because you, being a man,
3. “So God created m an in his ow n im age, in the im age of God created he him ” (Genesis
1:27).
4. “But [Jesus]took upon him the form of a servant, and w as m ade in the likeness of m en:”
(Philippians 2:7).
5. “[the Son] being the b rightness of his glory, and the express im age of [God’s] person”
(H ebrew s 1:3).
6. “...that by these [prom ises] you m ight be partakers of the divine nature...“ (2 Peter 1:4).
A s in the Incarnation God partook of the nature of m an w ithout ceasing to be God, so w hen
redeem ed, m an m ay now partake of the divine nature -- w ithout ceasing to be m an.
7. “A certain m an w as there w ho had an infirm ity thirty eight years. W hen Jesus saw him
lying there and knew he had been now a long tim e in that case, H e said unto him , “D o you
w ant to be made w hole?” The im potent m an answ ered him , “Sir, I have no m an, w hen the
w ater is troubled to put m e into the pool, but w hile I am com ing, another steps dow n
before m e”. Jesus said unto him , “Rise, take up your bed and walk.” And im m ediately the
m an w as m ade w hole, and took up his bed, and w alked: and on the sam e day w as the
sabbath” (John 5:7-9).
167
make yourself God" (John 5:18). They argued thus because Jesus
had said not merely that God was his Father but that God was his
very own Father. For this is how the Greek actually reads.
In point of fact, the Pharisees were doubly in error! For it
ought not to have been said of Him that He, being a man, was
making Himself God. Quite the reverse: it was rather that He,
being God, had made Himself man!
Now, for more than three years the disciples had walked with
the Lord, rubbed shoulders with Him, seen Him daily performing
wonders worthy of God Himself, while at the same time respond-
ing to the ordinary circumstances of life precisely as any other
man would have done. He was often tired, sometimes hungry and
thirsty, and in a multitude of ways humanly vulnerable, so that
occasionally He had to escape from the crowd to protect Himself.
Everything conspired to place the stamp of common humanity
upon Him, and yet out of that common humanity there kept
breaking through something that shook the disciples and made
them wonder what kind of Person He really was.
One day, feeling hungry like any other person might, and
seeing a fig tree a little way off which was displaying the
characteristics of a tree bearing fruit despite the fact that it was not
the season, He went eagerly towards it with every expectation of
finding something to eat. Both his natural hunger and his
reasonable expectations were normal to any man. However, He
was disappointed: there was no fruit on the tree. 8 Humanly
speaking, He had been deceived.9
For reasons which are not altogether clear, though perhaps
8. “O n the m orrow , w hen they w ere com e from Bethany, he w as hungry. Seeing a fig tree
afar off having leaves, he cam e if haply he m ight find anything thereon: and w hen he cam e
to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the tim e of figs w as not yet“ (M ark 11:12-14).
9. A pparently the divine om niscience of God did not overw helm his hum anity. H e had
m atured as any other hum an baby does to adulthood. For w e are told that “he increased
in w isdom and in stature” (Luke 2:52). Perhaps H e had not yet learned ab ou t how figs
grow , since his chief em ploym ent had been as a carpenter.
168
because He desired to make the point for the disciples that a false
witness was to be condemned, He simply decreed that the fig tree
should no more bear fruit thenceforth.10 His power to do this was
quickly confirmed, since by the very next morning the tree had
already withered—to the amazement of Peter (Mark 11:21).11
Here was a striking case of what looks like a contradictory co-
existence in one person of a human nature subject to hunger and
surprise, with a divine power over inanimate forms of life that
was absolute.
This kind of juxtaposition was observed so frequently by the
disciples that it dawned upon them that they were indeed in the
presence of some One quite different from, and yet strangely the
same as, themselves. He seemed to be sometimes limited in his
knowledge and at other times omniscient. On one occasion Philip
said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father and we'll be satisfied."
Perhaps they were always asking Him questions. Jesus replied to
him, "Have I been so long a time with you and yet you have not
recognized who I am, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the
Father; and how can you say then, 'Show us the Father?' " (John
14:8,9).12
10. [Jesus said] “M ay no m an eat your fruit hereafter for ever” (M ark 11:14 N IV ).
11. “In the m orning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And
Peter, calling to rem em brance, said to him , M aster, look! The fig tree w hich you cursed is
w ithered aw ay”! (M ark 11: 20, 21). Perhaps the H oly Spirit saw to it that Jesus said and did
this, w hether or not H e, as a m an, understood its significance -- since throughout the w hole
of Scripture three trees are used to signify Israel’s history (see the au thor’s “Three Trees
and Israel’s H istory”, Part II in Tim e and Eternity, vol.6 of The D oorw ay Papers Series,
Zondervan, 1977 [1961], pp. 51-73.
12. Theodoret (393-458) in one of his D ialogues says this to one of his (fictitious)
antagonists: "H ow then w as it possible for the invisible nature to be seen w ithout a body?
O r do you not rem em ber those w ords of the A postle in w hich he distinctly teaches the
invisibility of the divine N A TURE? H e says 'W hom no m an hath seen nor C A N see' (1
Tim othy 6:16)?" Theodoret is speaking of the divine nature, and strictly speaking, the
nature of nothing is visible until it is objectified in som e w ay. Sim ilarly Leo I the Great (400-
461) w rote: "The Son of God therefore cam e dow n from his throne in heaven w ithou t
w ithdraw ing from his Father's glory, and entered this low er w orld, born after a new order
by a new m ode of birth. After a new order, in as m uch as H e is invisible in his ow n nature,
169
Thus by repeated demonstrations of the reality of his dual

nature, human and divine, He had been making visible in his
Person the invisible Father in heaven whom man could not
otherwise have seen. These sudden juxtapositionings of the
human and the divine in the Lord Jesus Christ were constantly
being displayed,13 but with such simplicity that the disciples were
only surprised at the striking elements in the latter. They had no
difficulty whatever in accepting the reality of the former.
Take the familiar case of the terrible storm that arose on the
Sea of Galilee, when Jesus fell asleep on a pillow in the stern of a
small fishing boat. The event is noted by all three Synoptic
Gospels, a circumstance which suggests that it left a profound
impression upon them all. Mark 4:35-41 provides one of the
simplest accounts.14
There is a wonderful correspondence with life in the Word of
God. No matter how weary a man might be, it is doubtful if he
could sleep very soundly in the bow of such a small vessel on a
choppy sea, and he would be subject to almost constant wetting
by the spray. So we are told that He was asleep in the stern. In
modern vessels with a stern post rudder such a place to sleep
would be most inconvenient for the helmsman, but in those days
and H e becam e visible in ours [i.e., in H U M A N term s, and show ed God to be person-al];
H e is incom prehensible and H e w illed to be com prehended; continuing to be before tim e
H e began to exist in tim e."
13. For instance, the hum an nature in Jesus Christ overcam e the divine nature w hen Jesus
w ept at Lazarus’ tom b even though H e knew Lazarus w ould be raised to life (John 11:35);
and the divine nature overcam e the hum an nature w hen H e said, “N evertheless not m y
w ill but yours be done” in Gethesm ane (Luke 22:42).
14. “W hen evening had com e, H e said unto them , ‘Let us pass over to the other side.W hen
they had sent aw ay the m ultitude, they took him even as he w as in the ship... A nd there
arose a great storm of w ind, and the w aves beat into the ship so that it w as now full. And
he w as in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow : and they aw ake him and say unto
him , M aster, do you not care that w e perish? And he arose and rebuked the w ind, and said
unto the sea, Peace, be still! A nd the w ind ceased and there w as a great calm . A nd he said
unto them , W hy are you so fearful? H ow is it that you have no faith? A nd they feared
exceedingly, and said one to another, W hat m anner of m an is this, that even the w ind and
the sea obey him ?“ (M ark 4:35-41; see also M atthew 8:23-27 and Luke 8:22-25).
170
there were no such rudders, only a board over one side to steer
with. It was called a ‘steer-board’ and gave rise to our word
starboard.
On this occasion, while the Lord had fallen into a deep sleep
there had arisen a great storm. Most small hill-bound inland seas
and lakes are subject to such sudden storms, and all too fre-
quently they are remarkably violent. The Great Lakes of Canada
and the United States are notorious for their wicked behaviour.
Ocean sailors who know these lakes are very respectful of them.
More than 6000 ships are recorded to have sunk in these lakes,
and these ships were by no means small. In one single terrible
night (November 9, 1913) over 30 ships were wrecked, 10 of which
sank without a trace with all hands lost. The roster of wrecked
vessels included ships of 269 feet in length, 270, 440, 452 and 524
feet, and most of them steel-hulled.15 This was on Lake Huron
which can be vicious because it is shallow, though Lake Superior
can be even more disastrous for the crew because the water is so
cold. On that one memorable night waves of 60 and 70 feet in
height crashed over and swept across the decks and wiped them
clean of bridge, deck housing, funnel, and crews in their stern
quarters—everything. Winds can be cyclonic and in this case
persisted for 16 hours without a break, making man and his
machinery utterly helpless.
Many travellers in the Middle East have observed the same
sudden violence on the Sea of Galilee despite its small size (6
miles x 12 miles). Evidently the storm to which Mark 4 refers was
such a storm, so sudden as to take even the experienced fishermen
by surprise. They were very soon in real danger of sinking—and
yet the Lord slept on. How human was such a total weariness as
this!
The disciples awoke Him in desperation and appealed to Him:
15. Ratigan, W illiam , G reat Lakes: Shipw recks and Survivals, Grand Rapids, Eerdm ans, 1960,
p.131
171
"Master, do you not care that we perish?" What did they really
expect Him to do?
Without a word of rebuke to them, He arose and, instead,
rebuked the wind and the sea, saying, very simply, "Peace, be
still"! And the wind ceased, we are told, and there was a great
calm. The sudden silence must have been almost shattering. Then,
and then only, did He rebuke the disciples for their lack of faith,
for was He not with them in the boat? They in their turn must
have been exceedingly relieved but also truly fearful, for they said
to one another, "What kind of man is this, that even the wind and
the sea obey Him?" (Mark 4:41).
What kind of a man indeed, if He was not also God? But then
we know; He was acting as the Lord of the Old Testament, since
this storm is described in Psalm 107:23-30. It is here recorded in
extraordinary realism.
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in

great waters; these see the works of the Lord, and his wonders
in the deep. For He commands and raises the stormy wind,
which lift up the waves thereof. They mount up to the
heavens, they go down again to the depths: their soul is
melted because of trouble. They reel to and fro, and stagger
like a drunken man and are at their wit's end.
Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and He
brings them out of their distresses. He makes the storm a
calm, so that the waves thereof are still. Then are they glad
because they are quiet. He brings them unto their desired
haven [i.e., home again].
Surely this was a prophetic forecast of this very storm, for it

was the same Lord who with absolute authority stilled the waves
by a single word of command.
Here we have, then, at one moment the Lord Jesus asleep as
only a terribly tired man could sleep (for it is impossible to
imagine that He was pretending) and the next moment the same
172
Lord is commanding the winds and the waves to cease—and they

obey so instantly and so literally that the disciples are truly
amazed and ask themselves what kind of man is this.
Let us take one more instance of the same juxtaposition of
truly human and truly divine behaviour in a single individual.
The details are given in John 11:1-44.
Lazarus, after a terminal illness that seems to have been very
brief, died and was buried in a garden tomb in Bethany. This
Lazarus and his two sisters, Martha and Mary, were all three of
them particularly loved by the Lord, as John 11:5 makes clear. If
the Lord did have a 'home' on earth, it was with these dear
people. Nevertheless, He did not at once respond to their call to
come to their help, and He arrived too late to save Lazarus from
death—although it is clear that He could have done so.16
When He did arrive, Lazarus was already four days dead and
buried, and the process of putrefaction had begun. Almost at once
it would seem, Jesus inquired where they had laid him, thus
displaying the natural ignorance of any other man in such a cir-
cumstance. Then together they walked towards the burial place,
and as they walked Jesus Himself was overcome by the grief of
his two beloved friends and could not restrain his own tears.
We thus have, once again, two clear evidences of a truly
human nature marked by limitations of knowledge and incom-
plete emotional control. But the moment they reached the tomb
the divine nature asserted itself. He commanded those who stood
by to roll away the stone.
16. “N ow a certain m an w as sick, nam ed Lazarus, of Bethany, the tow n of M ary and her
sister M artha.... H is sisters sent unto him saying, Lord, behold, he w hom you love is sick.
W hen Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of G od ...
N ow Jesus loved M artha, and her sister, and Lazarus. W hen he had heard that he w as sick,
he abode tw o days still in the sam e place w here he w as. Then after that he said to his
disciples, Let us go into Judea again...our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I m ay aw ake
him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord if he sleep, he shall do w ell... Then Jesus said
to them plainly, Lazarus is dead...et us go to him . (John 11: 1, 3-7, 11-15)
173
At this command, Martha at once protested! What terribly

disfigured spectre would the light of day reveal in that place of
death and decay? Current means of embalming did little to
preserve the body. The thought of exposure must have horrified
her: "Oh no! Lord, by now he's...the...the odour, Lord! He has been
dead four days already." (verse 39)
We do not know how the Lord reassured Martha and Mary
but without hesitation He signalled to those who stood by the
stone to proceed, and they had soon complied with his command.
Then Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!”
And he that was dead came forth from the tomb, wrapped
hand and foot and head—separately, as was customary. And
there he stood in the opening of the tomb, his face and his body
still concealed. Imagine the fearful look that Martha and Mary
must have cast towards this apparition. Imagine their even greater
terror when Jesus said, "Unwrap him and set him free." (verse 44)
What would they see beneath those wrappings? Some kind of
ghastly travesty of a human face fit only for a horror movie? Or
the face of a dear soul as they had known him before his illness?
Whatever they might have hoped before, was now almost
certainly overbalanced by what it was natural to expect after so
long in the grave.
W e are not told what did happen when they recovered their
brother, healed, made whole, and alive again! Nor are we told
what the Lord Himself did afterwards. Did He walk back with the
three of them to the house? And what could they talk about on the
way? The curtain is discreetly drawn, for Scripture never concerns
itself with the satisfaction of mere curiosity. For the present, this
was the end of the matter.
He who had only shortly before told Martha that He was the
resurrection and the life,17 a claim which only God could make,
17. Jesus said to [M artha], “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in m e,
though he w ere dead, yet shall he live: and w hosoever lives and believes in m e shall
174
and later had wept (verse 35), which only man does, had now
proven that his higher claim was true. He was indeed the Son of
God and the Son of Man: not two Sons but having two Sonships in his
one Person.18
The invisible God objectified as very personal

Thus in the Lord Jesus Christ we see a manifestation of the
nature of God, God "objectified," the invisible made visible.19
From this revelation we see, above all, that God is personal: not
some mighty force, but a Person. We observe the reality of this
personhood in the very range of reactions of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Lord was hungry in the wilderness;20 thirsty on the cross; 21
bone-tired at noon beside Jacob's well;22 so weary He slept on a
pillow on a stormy sea;23 overcome with grief;24 tortured in body
with frightful wounds at the hands of Pilate's soldiers;25 and
physically exhausted by his suffering on the way to "the place of
never die” (John 11:25, 26).

18. For a discussion of these tw o Sonships, see the author’s Seed of the W om an, H am ilton,
O n., C anada, D oorw ay Publications, 2001 [1980], chapter 23, pp.289-299.
19. A s a Person, a hum an being, Jesus C hrist “objectified” the Father. H e could not assum e
hum an nature w ithout assum ing a hum an body -- and H e chose a hum an body in the line
of A braham by taking unto him self the seed of A b raham , and not the nature of angels
w hich have no seed! “For truly H e took not on him the nature of angels but he took on him
the seed of A braham ” (H ebrew s 2:16); “Jesus C hrist our Lord, w ho w as m ade of the seed
of D avid according to the flesh” (Rom ans 1:3). For m ore on how God w as “objectified”, see
A ppendix 5.
20. “W hen H e had fasted forty days and forty nights, he w as afterw ard an hungered”
[M atthew 4:2).
21. “Jesus [on the cross] said, ‘I thirst’ “ (John 19:28).
22. “Jacob’s w ell w as there. Jesus therefore, being w earied from his journey, sat thus on the
w ell” (John 4:6).
23. “H e w as in the stern [of the boat] asleep on a pillow ” (M ark 4:38).
24. ”W hen Jesus saw [M ary] w eeping, and the Jew s that cam e w ith her ...Jesus w ept” (John
11:33, 35).
25. “The soldiers platted a crow n of thorns and put it on his head, and they put on H im a
purple robe. Then they said, H ail, K ing of the Jew s!’ And they sm ote him w ith their hands”
(John 19:1-3).
175
the skull."26 All these were evidences of a truly human Person in

a perfect body unmarred in any way by sin. And yet this same
human Person could command plants to wither, storms to cease,
loaves to multiply, water to become wine, and the already putre-
fying dead to come forth whole.
If God the Father is revealed here, then how wonderfully per-
sonal our Father in heaven really is. You might say He is almost
human! Indeed, more human than we are. It is not surprising
perhaps that Karl Barth could write a book on The Humanity of
God.27 How otherwise could He have created man in his own
image?
Thus was fulfilled one purpose of the Incarnation: a revelation
of the personal nature of God and a demonstration of his great
concern for man. God also is touched with the feeling of our
infirmity, even while He is truly angry at our sin—just as the Lord
Jesus was on many occasion,28 even in those whom He loved. 29
2. He came to reveal man to God

Does it really make sense to speak of something that had to be
revealed to God? Could there possibly be such a need? Above all,
is there anything hidden from God that He should need a Man to
reveal it to Him? Surprisingly, there is indeed. And it all hinges on
embodiment!
Human temptation as experienced by Jesus, our Judge

What had to be revealed to God was the nature of human
26. “They found a m an of C yrene, Sim on by nam e: him they com pelled to bear his cross”
(M atthew 27:32).
27. Barth, K arl, The H um anity of G od, John K nox Press, Richm ond, V irginia, U SA , 1963
(being a lecture given in Sw itzerland in 1956)
28. “... looked round about on them w ith anger, b eing grieved at the hardness of their
hearts... (M ark 3;5).
29. “They brought young children to him ... the disciples rebuked them that brought them .
But w hen Jesus saw it, he w as m uch displeased...“ (M ark 10:14, 15).
176
temptation. It is that form of temptation to which the vulnerabil-

ities of human embodiment have exposed man. Such temptations
cannot possibly be experienced by a purely spiritual being such as
God is. Yet these demands of the body are enormous.
God cannot ever have known by experience temptation due
to hunger, or thirst, or physical pain, or weariness of the flesh,
even less the fear of physical death which plagues man for most
of his life. How, then, was God to judge man who is subject to so
many temptations that acquire much of their force from the
demands of the flesh? As we have noted, many of these demands
do not stem from sinful flesh per se, but rather from the mere fact
of bodily existence even in a house as perfect as was the body of
the Lord. He, too, suffered from hunger and thirst and pain and
fatigue. Even in his perfect body these could have been—and in
some cases we know they were—avenues of attack by Satan.
It was Satan who tempted the Lord to appease his hunger in
the wilderness: and unless He was hungry, there could have been
no temptation. But this was true also in the matter of thirst, as we
have already seen.
But as for the Father in heaven, how could He ever know what
drives man to do some of the things he does— such as to steal
because starving, to fight because of thirst, to lie because of
unbearable torture, to fail in prayer because of sheer fatigue, to
drink when the body makes demands beyond the spirit's bearing,
to overindulge because the appetite is stronger than the will.
Our lives are neither purely spiritual nor purely physical so
that there is often a conflict between the two and we are torn
between different kinds of impulse in ways which can never be
experienced even by an angel. And what about the temptations
which arise from our bondage to time and to place simply be-
cause we cannot wait?
Because we belong in a physical world as well as a spiritual
one, a purely spiritual being knows only half of what we are
177
subject to by way of temptation. Is it not therefore only proper

that the Father should send his Son to share our experience in the
fullest way possible -- short of involvement in our sinful nature
and its potential? Is it not reasonable that He would seek to
"know" through his Son how our very physical existence
contributes to our fallenness? Then having received his Son back
again unspoiled by sin but only made even more mature in his
manhood by the things He experienced,30 to delegate to Him the
office of Judge of Man, in his own stead? 31
In the old days when society was highly stratified by a class
structure, one of the provisions of the law was that a man ought
if possible to be tried and judged only by his peers. It was held to
be unfair for a man in a certain situation in life to be judged by
someone who could not know anything about that kind of life by
experience, and would therefore be largely ignorant of the nature
of the condemned man's temptations. Of course the justice of the
class system can indeed be called into question to begin with. But
the idea did have a measure of fairness about it, given the realities
of social structure at the time.
In scientific circles today, we feel that the value of a man's
work can only be fairly judged by someone in a position to assess
it knowledgeably, and not by one who has no such background
experience or competence. We call this a system of "peer review."
It is, of course, like all else that man does, far from perfect in its
operation; yet anything else could be considered entirely unjust.
Since God cannot be tempted at all,32 and thus cannot know,
by experience, even the meaning of being tempted except by
observing its effect upon the individual himself and on others,
30. “Though he w ere a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things w hich he suffered
[experienced]” (H ebrew s 5:8).
31. [God] has given [the Son] authority to execute judgm ent . . . because he is the Son of
M an” (John 5:27).
32. “Let no one say w hen he is tem pted, I am tem pted of God, for God cannot be tem pted
w ith evil, neither does he tem pt any m an” (Jam es 1:13).
178
how could his judgment of human behaviour be entirely just?

Perhaps it would be better to say, How could any such judgment
be seen to be just if the Judge Himself knows nothing personally
of what temptation means under such conditions? 33 A just trial
demands that it not only is fair, but also seems fair to those who
witness the proceeding. Will the Judge of all the earth do less than
we attempt to do?
At any rate, whatever the divine 'rationale,' this at least is
clear: all judgment has been assigned to the One who became Man
without ceasing to be God. As the Lord said plainly: "The Father
judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the
Son...and has given Him authority to execute judgment also"
(John 5:22, 27). That is to say, not merely to pass judgment but
also to carry it out. Why this delegated authority? Again the
answer is straightforward: "Because He is the Son of Man" (verse
27). That is the specific reason, because He is the Son of Man.
Paul fully confirms this fact in Romans 8:34, "Who is he that
judges? It is Christ who died, yea rather, who is risen again, who
is even at the right hand of God; who also makes intercession for
us." Thus the very One who is the Saviour is also to be the Judge
and to plead our case!
And again in Acts 17:31 we find the same insistence that it is
not merely One who lived and died as a man but who was also
raised as a man that is to be the world's Judge. "Because [God] has
appointed a day in which He intends to judge the world in
righteousness, by that MAN whom He has ordained: whereof He
has given assurance unto all men, in that He has raised Him from
the dead."
In 2 Corinthians 5:1034 Paul writes that we, the children of
33. “ For [Jesus] in that he him self has suffered being tem pted, he is able to succour them
that are tem pted” (H ebrew s 2:18).
34. “For we m ust all appear before the judgm ent seat of Christ, that every one m ay receive
the things done in the body, according to w hat he has done, w hether it be good or bad” (2
C orinthians 5:10).
179
God, are also to come before the judgment seat of Christ that we
may be declared worthy of praise for the good that we may have
done, and thankfully see our failures removed from the record
through his mercy and for his own name's sake. Paul again lays
emphasis on the fact that it is a judgment of "things done in the
body," done by us not as spiritual beings but as embodied beings.
This emphasis was often underscored by Tertullian whom we
have already quoted in another connection. In his treatise, "On the
Resurrection of the Flesh" (chap. xiv), he observed:
Thus it follows that the fullness and perfection of the

judgment consists simply in representing the interests of the
entire human being. Now since the entire man consists of the
union of two natures [i.e., both the physical and the spiritual],
he must therefore appear in both, since it is right that he
should be judged entirely; nor, of course, did he pass through
life except in his entire state.
As therefore he lived, so also must he be judged, because
he has to be judged concerning the way in which he has lived.
For life is the cause of judgment and it must undergo
investigation in as many natures as it possessed when it
discharged its vital functions.
Tertullian therefore concludes that the flesh ought not to have

any share in the sentence, either for praise or for blame, if it had
no share in the cause of it. Since it clearly is to come into
judgment, then obviously it did have a share in the cause.
Now since the Father has never experienced embodiment,
accordingly it was essential for the Son, if He was to become our
Judge, to experience human embodiment because that em-
bodiment plays such a part in the causes of our condemnation. He
was therefore incarnate for this reason also: that He might reveal
man to God, manifesting and communicating to his Father the
nature of embodiment as it bears upon the nature of human guilt.
Just how the Father shared in the experience of the manhood
180
of the Son has never been adequately spelled out, though many
attempts have been made.35 Was it by a kind of empathy, such as
moved the Lord to tears beside the tomb of Lazarus in spite of the
fact that He knew He was about to undo the cause of it all?
All we can say is that the Father has committed all judgment
to the Son because He was tempted as an embodied human being
and therefore understands the human situation in a way that the
Father never could. It would seem therefore that the Father has,
as it were, withdrawn from that office in fairness to man, and
committed judgment to the only One who could exercise it justly.
It would be hard indeed for us to conceive of a way more just
and fair. Could there be a more excellent way? In Him was the
pure essence of manhood and the pure essence of deity. And He
placed Himself voluntarily in the position of experiencing the
worst that the world could do. He thus becomes the perfect Judge
between fallen man and a righteous God.
Why Evolution cannot account for mankind

The true bridge between Bevan and his dog could not take the
form of a human spirit in a dog's body nor a canine spirit in a
human body. Somehow no such bridge is possible, because the
dog was not created in the image of the man. It would be neither
dog nor man but a monster.
Conversely, the first human was created in the image of God.
God could occupy that body, and unlike the dog spirit in a human
body, He became man by human embodiment while yet retaining
his divine nature. It is clear that a human body did not make this
amalgam in any way inappropriate. Thus the Lord Jesus as Son of
God and Son of Man can stand in fairness as the Judge of men.
Among those to be judged in fairness because of this shared
image is, of course, Adam himself, the first human being. Unless
the Lord was made in the image of Adam who was created in
35. See Appendix 6, “H ow did the Father Share in the Son’s H um an Experiences?”
181
God’s image and not merely in the image of his descendants who
are in his fallen image, He cannot fairly judge Adam's
temptations. Adam's body therefore cannot possibly have been
the kind of primitive, barely human, body that evolutionary
theory demands for the first man. The body of the First Adam as
created must have been in every way homologous in form and
function to the body of the Last Adam.

182
Chapter 13
TWO ADAMS: TWO MEN
Unfallen MAN vs. Fallen Man
The first Adam, as truly the first M an, ONLY SINNED ONCE.
The last Adam, as truly the second M an, NEVER ONCE SINNED.
Should you ask how the First Adam, as truly the first Man,
only sinned once, then consider this fact. When Adam was
created, he was created in the image of God. When he sinned, he
surrendered that image and the specific nature that it signified.
He literally sinned into being a new kind of creature, a species
quite different from that which God had planned when He first
said, "Let us make man" and then defined his creation by the
words 'in our image' (Genesis 1:26). The first man Adam, as truly
representative Man, committed only one sin and with that one sin
he ceased to be representative Man. All his other sins are of no
significance to us because they were not sins of Adam as Man
judged by God's definition of the word Man. Adam's first sin as
truly man was his only sin as truly man. Thereafter Adam sinned
as a creature who was not truly man any more.
A short history of the Fall

That this creation of God did surrender that image is borne
TW O AD AM S: TW O M EN
183
out by two facts. First, as already mentioned in Chapter 10, the

sons and daughters of Adam (and therefore all the descendants of
the first man) were no longer "made" in the image of God but in
Adam's image. It will be noted that it is stated very specifically that
God created man in His own image, but two verses later it is
stated equally specifically that Adam begat sons and daughters in
his image.1 And secondly, the New Testament indicates that God's
image in man now has to be reconstituted.2
It will also be noted that in Genesis 9:6 3 we are told that Adam
WAS made, not that he IS made, in the image of God. The Hebrew
of the original here is very specific and quite unambiguous. The
past tense is used, not the present. Man lost that image when
Adam sinned and in losing it ceased to be Man by God's
definition. Yet, although man has indeed lost the image, he has
not lost the capacity for its recreation; for which reason the killing
of a man is such a criminal offense, for fallen man has remained
redeemable.
But with the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ a Man was
born once again into the world bearing the express image of God
(Hebrews 1:3); and He, unlike the First Adam, never lost that
image because He never once sinned. Thus, Man as originally
made in the image of God, still constituted the perfect vehicle for
the revelation of God by incarnation since that Incarnation could
demonstrate God's love for his creature even though that creature
had lost his image.
We thus find a sequence of events as follows:
1. “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God m ade he him ; male and fem ale,
created he them , and blessed them and called their nam e A dam in the day that they w ere
created. A nd A dam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his ow n likeness,
after his im age... ” (Genesis 5:1-3).
2. “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature...” 2 C orinthians 5:17.
3. “W hoso shedds m an blood, by m an shall his b lood be shed: for in the im age of God
m ade [H ebrew of m ade in past tense] he m an.” (Genesis 9:6)
184
Man was created in God's image: Genesis 1:26

Man sinned and lost that image:
Man is now procreated in fallen man's image: Genesis 5:3
God was made in man's original image: Hebrews 1:3
Man may be reconstituted in God's image: 2 Corinthians 3:18
Now I want to consider the third reason why God became

flesh—to reveal MAN to man—by addressing two facts of bib-
lical history that evolution cannot account for: (1) fallen man with
all his destructive and suicidal propensities, and (2) unfallen Man
in all his consummate magnificence. Both Adams are truly
representative of human nature. How have these opposites come
about? Do they really spring from a single root? What kind of a
root could give rise to two such extremes—man as seen in
ourselves and man as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ? Does
not this signify something quite unique about the origin of that
root?
1. Fallen Man.
On one occasion C. S. Lewis quoted a famous couplet from
Bobby Burns' poem Man Was Made to Mourn.
Man's inhumanity to man

Makes countless thousands to mourn.
His comment on these two lines was very perceptive. He said

the truth is that "it is not man's inhumanity to man that is the
problem. No! It is man's ‘humanity’ that is the problem.” His
awful behaviour is now "human behaviour." This is his nature.
This is what man now is.
The innate goodness of man?

The popular view that man is essentially good, dies hard. The
concept of a steady improvement of human nature by education
185
received a severe shock when two world wars showed that one of
the most educated nations in the world could behave on an
unprecedented scale in barbaric ways. This behaviour was far
worse than man had ever witnessed in terms of the numbers hurt
by them and the depth of degradation to which they were
subjected—and indeed in some countries are still being subjected.
It was Rousseau who had held up the noble savage and
argued that here was a picture of unspoiled human nature which
only civilization had destroyed. He advocated a return to such
"native nobility", and many have tried it. Not one of these returns
to nature has resolved the problem of man's innate selfishness and
the plague of a stricken conscience that remains to trouble the
community and the individual alike.
Many studies of the Nazi concentration camps have been
made since World War II. Incredible cruelties were commonly
inflicted or authorized with sadistic pleasure by people who then
went home to enjoy fine art, classical music, and elevating
literature. This only goes to show how terribly human nature has
been warped by the Fall. Concentration camps and torture
chambers are a human invention. The rest of nature displays
nothing that could even be remotely viewed as the foundation of
this.
The horror of those concentration camps was so awful that
normal civilized people who witnessed them simply could not
believe their own eyes. These were not visitors who thus reacted,
but themselves victims of the horror. One doctor, seeing the lurid
flames of a large fire some little distance away, wondered what
was being burned—rubbish, he supposed.4 A truck backed up and
men with ordinary pitch forks were tossing small bundles of
garbage, one forkful at a time, into the flames. It was night and
their silhouettes stood out like demons feeding the flames of hell.
Suddenly he realized what those small bundles of garbage
4. D es Pres, Terrence, The Survivor, O xford U niversity Press, 1976, p. 84.
186
actually were. They were babies, and he was certain that some of
them were still alive—they were struggling on the tines of the
fork. What happened to him, as he watched? He merely turned
off; it was all a dream. It was simply relegated to fantasy. He
knew it was true: he refused to believe what he knew...Human
beings are not capable of such actions. He would, he was sure,
later find it was a dream.
Another scene. Women who became pregnant were treated
mercilessly. They were kicked in the stomach, dragged by the
hair, or worse, by one leg to the furnaces and after more physical
abuse, were cast alive into the furnace.5 People who witnessed
this, too, simply did not believe. Yet later they knew it was really
done.
It seems that man alone of all creatures seeks to hurt his
victim, deliberately, eagerly, furiously, viciously, with incredible
abuse short of death. It is the civilized nations that market many
of these devices. They are violent or slow and excruciating. They
are applied to those parts of the human body which we consider
more private and which are most sensitive. They are the most
degrading devices in terms of the victim's reactions. But even so,
perhaps human excrement plays the most terrible part of all...
Forced into the mouth, the nose, the ears, forced as drink and
food... It is incredible.
All nations have been guilty, the civilized as well as the unci-
vilized. If we do not believe in demons it is only because we are
so ignorant of what man can do to man when inspired by hatred.
William Temple was absolutely right when he said that the
worst things that happen do not happen because of a few people
who are monstrously wicked but because we all are what we all
are. It is almost accidental that only a relative few in any society
do these things. In the same circumstances the mildest of men can
become worse than animals by far, for animals do not tear each
5. Ibid., p.86f.
187
other's flesh for the mere pleasure of hearing their screams.

We have seen in the Nazi era an easy target and a ready
source of illustration, but Nazis were no worse than we are in
potential. Animals do not hate. Only man does. Human hatred is
inspired by the devil.
George Steiner was right when he said of those places of
horror: "Art, intellectual pursuit, the development of the natural
sciences, and many branches of scholarship, flourished in close
spatial proximity to massacre and the death camps."6 It is a fact
that these pursuits were being followed with devotion and
enjoyed in such close proximity to these horror camps of pure
bestiality: and they were fully aware of this proximity.
Aesthetic feeling, moral indignation, inventiveness, scientific
competence, intelligent preparation for action, even concern for
others—all these can be found sitting side by side, as it were, with
such places of horror. So totally inconsistent is man's moral sense
that an individual under oath will tell the most blatant lies in
order to prove that he is innocent, a man of honour and integrity!
Such inconsistency is borne out by the fact that many normal
and enjoyable neighbours living in the environs of these camps
pretended not to know what went on. Yet many of these same
people changed the furniture of their rooms to place the daily
living quarters on upper floors so that they had a better view...
When asked why, their only answer was silence. We do not know
ourselves; none of us really do.
It may be thought that only the Germans, "they" from our
point of view, ever acted so atrociously. This is quite untrue.
Dostoyevsky records an incident from Russia that is just as
monstrous: the scale is smaller, but the phenomenon is the same.7
6. Steiner, George, "In Bluebeard's C astle -- A Season in H ell," The Listener (BBC , London),
25 M arch, 1971, p.361.
7. D ostoyevsky, F., Brothers Karam azov, translated by C onstance Garnett, N ew York,
M odern Library, no date, p.251.
188
One day, a serf boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play
and hurt the paw of the local general's favourite hound.
"Why is my favourite dog lame?" he asked. He is told that the
boy threw a stone that hurt its paw.
"Take him," he ordered. The child was seized from his mother
and kept shut up all night. Early next morning the general came
out on horseback, with his hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and
huntsmen, all mounted and in full hunting dress. The servants,
too, are summoned for their edification, and before them all stood
the mother of the child.
The child is brought out. It is a gloomy, cold, foggy autumn
day—but capital for hunting. The general orders the child to be
undressed and the child is stripped naked. He shivers in the cold,
numb with terror, not daring to cry.
"Make him run," commands the general.
"Run! Run!," shout the dog-boys. And the child runs.
"At him!" yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of
hounds on the child. And the hounds catch him and tear him to
pieces before his mother's eyes...
But even this is "they"—the Russians, not us. Yet is there really
any difference between the pleasure they derived from such utter
brutality and the pleasure that the "professional" cock-fighters get
out of their cruel sport, sanctioned in America in a number of
States and fully protected by law? Is cruelty to animals, for
pleasure, really any less an exhibition of man's innate fallenness?
No animal does this to another for mere amusement.
Such wickedness is everywhere in our own society. It is not
overt and therefore is not so offensive to us, but it is there. It is
evident in the poor who abuse the welfare system, and the lazy
who abuse unemployment insurance. It is even seen in well-
respected people who give "donations" that don't exist, and
receive an "official" receipt which is submitted as an income tax
deduction. The tax savings is then shared with the non-profit
189
organization that issued the receipt—all by prior arrangement.
The universality of sinful behaviour

The fact is that while some sin is so awful because it is public,
most sin is private and therefore concealed or by many "over-
looked.” The fallenness of man is deep and wide, it is universal,
for "all have sinned" (Romans 3:3). It is only by accident that we
personally may have escaped doing these more horrid things,
because we were never placed in the position of being driven by
hate or anger to do them—or if we were, we were not able to do
them at the time of our anger or hatred. Only kings can
traditionally do what they like, being a law unto themselves.
David, Israel's best king, and Ahab, Israel's worst king, both
turned coveting into murder. One coveted another man's wife and
murdered her husband; the other, another man's vineyard and
murdered its owner (2 Samuel 11:1-27 and 1 Kings 21:1-16). This
is what we are capable of, the best and the worst of us
alike—given the power. David utterly repented, Ahab was utterly
indifferent. Nevertheless, both behaved murderously because
both were Fallen men.
But why did those who were still free and outside the Camps,
whose relatives and friends were being so dreadfully mutilated,
not continuously protest? Was it due to ignorance of the truth, or
fear of the consequences? In some cases, yes, but not in all cases.
Sometimes they did know, and they were not deterred by fear
because they were abroad and safe. Then why did they, or we, not
protest? The answer seems to be because they, and we, simply did
not believe that it was possible for human beings to be so in-
human. And as for the people themselves, the victims, in prospect
they too shared some of this unbelief and went, as it were, "like
sheep to the slaughter," unprotesting until it was too late.
As Herbert Butterfield, the Oxford historian, observed:
190
We create tragedy after tragedy for ourselves by a lazy

unexamined doctrine of man which is current amongst us and
which history does not support...Those who do not believe
the doctrine of the Fall can hardly deny that human history
has always been history under the terms and conditions of the
Fall.8
We suffer from a unique form of sickness which is not to be

observed in nature apart from man. This sickness does two things:
it makes us capable of truly incredible wickedness totally foreign
to the animal world; and it puts blinkers on us which make us
believe we are suffering from no such disease.
This disease is universal in man, and we all grow up to
display it unfailingly. If one asks, "How soon is the delightful
illusion of childhood innocence lost," one can only say that man
sins just as soon as he can! Thousands of years of increasingly
complex civilization have not really changed the picture. We are
still as sick as our first ancestors were—Cain was a murderer. All
we have done is to arm our wickedness with superior weapons of
destruction. The disease lives on in the earth because man himself
is the disease.
An individual, acting in defiance of society is bad enough. But
there is probably nothing so wicked as a crowd acting in unison
under the dictates of their lower nature. A culture may be so
disrupted that a whole society goes bad. Authority is everywhere
undermined to such an extent that lawlessness, destruction,
violence, rape, murder, theft, and cruelty know no effective curbs
and chaos results. This may happen in any social grouping such
as a crowd. When a crowd throws off all recognition of estab-
lished authority its mood changes rapidly from bad to worse, no
longer constrained towards any good, but self-reinforced and self-
reinforcing towards wickedness. Human behaviour becomes
"liberated" and equated with sin. People are swept by the com-
8. Butterfield, H erbert, Christianity and H istory, London, Bell, 1950, p.46.

191
pulsive mood of the crowd, and individuals find themselves

suddenly free to express the very worst side of their nature—often
to their own genuine amazement in retrospect.
The roar of unified voices bent on evil is terrifying. There is
something demonic about it. Crowds become vicious in ways
totally foreign to the behaviour of the individuals who make up
the crowd. Men in groups will become vicious murderers and
violent in the extreme, even the gentlest of them. And history
shows, sadly, that in times of great violence (as in the French
Revolution) women are equally capable of cruelty. Even in
watching violent sports, this unexpected side of woman's nature
may be suddenly revealed. Afterwards, the individual may sort
himself or herself out and ask in amazement, "What got into me?"
Nothing got in. It is not what gets in at all but what comes out that
reveals the truth of human nature, even as Christ said it would.9
Disturber of nature and deliberately destructive

Man's dominion and government over the world have been a
disaster. W e do indeed seem to be very near to the end of the
human experiment. Only a divine intervention can salvage what
is left. The whole of human society is close to moral bankruptcy
and, technologically, the resources of the world (air, water, min-
erals) are either almost exhausted, or so hopelessly contaminated,
as to be no longer able to support life. Even outer space has be-
come a junkyard.
What has happened is that man has become the arch-
destroyer of his own appointed kingdom, turning a Garden of
Eden which was filled to overflowing with everything good into
a wilderness filled with the debris of our own folly and greed.
9. “But those things w hich proceed out of the m outh com e forth from the heart, and they
defile the m an. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, m urders, adulteries, fornications,
thefts, false w itness, blasphem ies: these are the things w hich defile a m an” (M atthew 15:18-
20).
192
Some have even gone so far as to say that every desert area in
the world is due to man's abuse of the land, and they base their
arguments, as W. C. Lowdermilk has done, on the fact that most
deserts are dotted with the remains of cities now buried under
drifting sand.10 Other deserts are being attributed to a spin-off of
man's unwise use of water resources which once formed part of
a smooth-working ecology. In one area, Sir Samuel Hall refers to
a desert of more than 40,000 acres in Africa which began with
water running off a barn roof that was just allowed to carve a
small channel which grew and grew because the farmer was too
lazy to do anything about it. One native observer remarked, "Just
one damn trickle forty years ago...and now a third of the country
gone." 11
Oliver Pearson says that man's impact on the environment has
become so great that it is "probably greater than that of all other
mammals combined. For many years man has been drawing on
the earth's capital to support his high living; most other animals
live frugally within the earth's income." 12
Andrew Ivy recently pointed out that "soil erosion and
depletion caused the transformation of garden spots into deserts
in Greece, Syria, Northern Italy, Mesopotamia, and the Uplands
of China. We hear of dust storms in the Volga Valley, in South
Africa, Australia, and the United States, the breadbaskets of the
world."13 He might have added Canada to this.
Laura Thompson observed, “Man is not only a major factor in
the web of life; he is the only agent whereby a conservation
10. Low derm ilk, W . C ., "M an-M ade D eserts" in Pacific A ffair, V III, Institute of Pacific
Relations, 1935.
11. H all, Sir Sam uel, Sm ithsonian Report for 1938, p.309.
12. Pearson, O liver, "M etabolism and Bioenergetics", Scientific M onthly, Feb., 1948, p.133.
13. Ivy, A ndrew , "M edical Research: O peration H um anity," Scientific M onthly, Feb., 1949,
p.120.
193
program for a local area may be actively implemented.” 14

He alone is responsible for the upset; he alone can correct it.
The trouble is man is literally too wicked to engage himself in any
corrective process which requires any significant personal sacri-
fice. A. J. Carlson, with grave humor, wrote, "In the face of this
can we claim the name Homo Sapiens,"—man, the wise one? 15 The
one creature who is pleased to call himself such must seem very
foolish to all other creatures, if they are able to judge him.
Man is not merely a disturber of nature because of ignorance.
He is deliberately destructive because of some strange preference
for destructiveness—even in childhood. Something is wrong with
his nature. The beastliness of man is not of the beast. Alfred Lord
Tennyson, in his poem In Memoriam (published ten years before
Darwin's Origin of Species), coined the famous phrase "nature red
in tooth and claw." In recent years a substantial number of books
have been written which show clearly that nature is not red in
tooth and claw, that animals are not aggressive towards each other
in the sense that man is towards his own kind, that there is no
vindictiveness or vandalism in animal society,16 but that—as
Prince Petr Kropotkin, after years of active research in the wild,
put it—nature is characterized by a spirit of "mutual aid!"17 It is
clear that the wickedness of man is not because there is something
14. Thom pson, Laura, “The Basic C onservation Problem ”, Scientific M onthly, Feb., 1949,
p.180.
15. C arlson, A . J. "The Science of Biology and the Future of M an," Scientific M onthly, 1947,
p.500.
16. Som e w ould argue that foxes are vandals w hen they kill hens indiscrim inately, and so
likew ise w hen w olves kill sheep. The answ er to this probably lies in the fact that the
dom estication of hens and sheep has destroyed their natural behaviour pattern under
attack so that the predator has his natural instincts confused. Foxes do not do to w ild fow l
w hat they do to hens; nor w olves to w ild sheep or goats w hat they do to dom estic ones.
The behaviour of the predator and the behaviour of the prey w ere balanced in nature, and
m an has upset the balance. If m an had dom esticated both predators as com pletely as he has
dom esticated both prey, perhaps this disruption w ould not be exhibited.
17. K ropotkin, Prince Petr, M utual A id: A Factor in Evolution, Extending H orizon Books,
Boston, 1955 (reprint), xix and 362 pp.
194
animal in his nature but because his nature is fallen.

When famous men like Professor George Gaylord Simpson 18
and Will Durant19 persist in their defence of human evolution by
arguing that the evidence shows that "man has risen—not fallen,"
they are talking unbelievable nonsense. History, from ancient
times to the present, screams a negative.
2. Unfallen Man
As evolution cannot account for fallen man, it cannot account
for unfallen Man either. But where are we to observe unfallen
Man that we can speak so confidently of what evolution cannot
thus do? We find unfallen Man in the person of Jesus Christ.
Here was true Man, with a magnificent beauty of bodily form
that made even those hired to arrest Him fall back when He
stepped forward to identify himself ,20 and an unutterable beauty
of personality that was flawless though under constant pro-
vocation by his enemies.
His use of power and authority

Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887,
wrote, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
If you wish to prove the corruption of human nature, give a man
power over his fellow men and the means to exercise it. The more
the power, the more certain will be the display of corruption. But
here was One who, although He had been given all power in hea-
ven and earth and although He could do whatsoever He wished
consonant with the purity of his nature, nevertheless remained,
throughout a life of continuous challenge, utterly uncorrupted.
The evidence of his power is everywhere to be found in the
18. Sim pson, G. G., Biology and M an, N ew York, H arcourt, Brace, & W orld, 1969, p.148.
19. Durant, W ill & Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History, N ew York, Sim on & Schuster, 1968,
p.38
20. “A s soon then as [Jesus] had said unto [the soldiers], I am he, they w ent backw ard, and
fell to the ground” (John 18:6).
195
Gospels, but in no sense do they appear to the reader as examples

of what we would view today as showmanship. In some strange
way we expect them, for they are completely in keeping with
everything else He was and did. Probably never before or since
has a nation been so nearly rid of human sickness by the power of
one man to command the source of it—even when the source was
sin or demonic.
His wisdom and compassion in relationships

When we observe closely how He dealt with his challengers
we can only stand back in amazement at his calm wisdom. One
day the scribes and Pharisees, hoping to trap Him into making a
statement publicly with which they could accuse Him of treason,
asked Him whether it was proper to pay tribute to Caesar or not.21
If He replied, "No, it is not proper," the people would have
cheered Him but his statement would have at once been reported
to the authorities. If He had replied, "Yes, it is proper," the people
would have turned against Him immediately, and the scribes and
Pharisees would again have been the winners.
What did He do? He asked them to show Him a coin. The
question arises why did He not have a coin of his own, since his
little group had a treasurer. Perhaps He had a purpose in not
appealing to the treasurer, who was Judas Iscariot. But the fact is
that there were at least two kinds of coinage circulating in Pal-
estine. The Romans allowed the Jews to mint coins of their own
because they did not want to use the Emperor's coinage in their
temple services—hence the existence of money changers right in
the temple precincts.
However, the scribes and Pharisees, bowing to their authority,
preferred to use Roman coins for all commercial intercourse: and
21. “A nd they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the H erodians to catch him in
his w ords... They say unto him , M aster, w e know that you... teach the w ay of God in truth:
is it law ful to give tribute to, or not? “ (M ark 12:13, 14).
196
so the Lord turned to them and said, "Show me a coin." It seems

highly unlikely that they were aware of what He was doing, but
when they showed Him one of their Roman coins, He held it up
for everyone to see plainly and said, "Whose image and whose
superscription does it bear?" To their shame the scribes and
Pharisees had to say, "Caesar's." And they were trapped them-
selves, for by their very possession of these coins they were really
strengthening the hold of the Romans on Palestine. Then He said,
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the
things that are God's." (Mark 12:17) In other words, if you are
going to use Caesar's coins, you must serve Caesar.
On this occasion several other challenging questions were
presented to Him and He answered them all with equal ease and
effectiveness. So much so, in fact, that some of the scribes them-
selves admitted defeat, saying, "Master, you have well said" (Luke
20:39), and after that they dared not ask Him any more questions.
Perhaps no one incident in the Lord's life displays his
extraordinary wisdom and gentleness than upon the occasion of
his dealing with the woman taken in adultery. The story is given
in John 8:2-11.22 This is a passage which many scholars today
believe may not have belonged to John's Gospel in the original,
because some of their favourite manuscripts from ancient times
22. “Early in the m orning he cam e again into the tem ple, and all the people cam e to him ;
he sat dow n, and taught them . The scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a w om an taken
in adultery. W hen they had set her in the m idst, they say unto him , M aster, this w om an
w as taken in adultery, in the very act. N ow M oses in the law com m anded us that such
should be stoned: but w hat do you say? This they said, tem pting him , that they m ight have
[som ething] to accuse him [of]. But Jesus stooped dow n, and w ith his finger w rote on the
ground, as though he didn’t hear them . So w hen they continued asking H im , he lifted
him self up and said to them , H e that is w ithout sin am ong you, let him first cast a stone at
her. A nd he again stooped dow n, and w rote on the ground. They w hich heard it, being
convicted by their ow n conscience, w ent out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even to
the last: and Jesus w as left alone, w ith the w om an standing in the m idst. W hen Jesus had
lifted up him self, and saw none but the wom an, he said unto her, W om an, w here are your
accusers? H as no m an condem ned you? She said, N o m an, Lord. Jesus said unto her,
‘N either do I condem n you. Go, and sin no m ore “ (John 8:2-11).
197
have omitted it. It should be noted that the omission may have re-
sulted from the fears of some copyists that in the story the Lord
was really condoning adultery, and so they quietly deleted it. To
my mind, the Lord was not condoning adultery but He was
judging one who was no greater a sinner than the man with
whom she was caught "in the act" (verse 4)—who had not, be it
noted, been brought to judgment with her. One wonders why...
Perhaps the woman was more sinned against than sinning.
The law required that an adulteress be stoned,23 so the
Pharisees brought this woman and flung her down in front of the
Lord while all the people stood around. They brought the charge
against the woman, pointed to what the law said must be done,
and then posed their question, "But what do you say?" Notice the
"But"!
If the Lord should say, "She must be set free"—as an act of
mercy, the Pharisees could repudiate Him publicly for disre-
garding the Law of Moses. If He had said, "She must be stoned,"
it could only seem to the crowd around that He was merci-
less—righteous perhaps, but merciless.
So Jesus stooped down and wrote something with his finger
in the dust which collected in the broad expanse of Solomon's
Porch where these events evidently took place. He seemed to be
ignoring them. Naturally they were annoyed and persisted in
asking the same question.
Jesus straightened up just long enough to say, "He that is
without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
It is rather widely agreed that the chief accuser had the
responsibility of casting the first stone. This is a tribute to Jewish
wisdom, for many who make accusations would not have the
courage to do so—or perhaps the gall—if they knew they were
personally responsible for initiating the actual punishment itself.
23. “The m an w ho com m its adultery w ith another m an’s w ife ... the adulterer and the
adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10).
198
Clearly the result of this simple invitation set them all thinking
deeply, reconsidering their position. They started to leave one by
one, as unobtrusively as possible, from the oldest of them down
to the youngest, until they had all gone. And then Jesus
straightened up and seeing that none were left, said to the
woman, "Where are your accusers? Has no man condemned you?"
And she replied, "No man, Lord."
Whatever we may think about the Lord's personal judgment,
there is no doubt that she was, before the law, without any
accusers, and could not legally be condemned. It would seem that
the circumstances of her being taken were rather special, and
perhaps Jesus knew what those circumstances were. At any rate
He said to her, "Neither do I condemn you: go and sin no more."
The story has a ring of truth about it, and it once more
displays the extraordinary skill and wisdom of this Man. A wiser
than Solomon was here.
In all his relationships with friend or foe, He preserved the
perfection of his own manhood. This perfection was also reflected
in his relationships with his mother. He knew how to respond to
her claims when she sought them appropriately,24 to resist them
when they were sought inappropriately,25 and to recognize them
when they were appropriate but unsought.26
His flawless character

Such a figure, as appears before us in the Gospels, is truly un-
inventable. The literary creation of a character, so perfect as this,
24. “Jesus [being tw elve years old] w ent dow n [from Jerusalem ] w ith [his parents] to
N azareth, and w as subject to them .” (Luke 2:51).
25. “It w as told him by som e w ho said, your m other and your brethren stand w ithout,
desiring to see you. But he answ ered, and said unto them , ‘M y m other and m y brethren are
these w hich hear the w ord of God, and do it” (Luke 8:20, 21)
26. “W hen Jesus saw his m other, and the disciple standing by....w hom he loved, he said
unto his m other, W om an, behold your son! Then, he said to the disciple, Behold your
m other! A nd from that hour that disciple took her unto his ow n hom e” (John 19:26, 27).
199
would require even greater faith than simply to believe the record
as it stands. He is altogether and absolutely unlike ourselves, and
the fact is scarcely denied even by his worst enemies throughout
history.
When He was brought to trial by those who could not endure
the white light of his purity, all kinds of people were presented as
witnesses against Him but their witness was uniformly con-
tradictory until it became clear to everyone that these witnesses
were false. But there were many whose witness to his total
innocence was almost involuntary, sometimes taking only the
form of silence. John 8:46 records that the Lord once asked his
accusers, "Which of you convicts me of sin?" And quite frankly,
not one of them could think of a word to say.
When Jesus had been arrested and brought before Pilate,
Pilate's wife warned her husband, saying, "Have nothing to do
with that just man" (Matthew 27:19). Pilate himself three times
officially declared that he could find no fault in Him.27 On the
third occasion he tried to be even more emphatic and exclaimed,
"I am innocent of the blood of this just person" (Matthew. 27:24).
Even Judas Iscariot who had betrayed Him, went back to the
chief priests and elders and offered to return the money he had
received for his betrayal saying, "I have sinned in that I have
betrayed innocent blood" (Matthew 27:4).
One of the crucified men sharing some of his physical torture,
rebuked his fellow in crime for speaking abusively to the Lord
who was crucified between them, saying, "Do you not fear God,
seeing you are in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly;
27. “[Pilate] went out again unto the Jew s, and said unto them , I find in him no fault at all”
(John 18:38); “Pilate therefore w ent forth again, and said unto them , ‘Behold, I bring him
[Jesus] forth to you, that you m ay know I find no fau lt in him . Then Jesus cam e forth,
w earing the crow n of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said unto them , Behold the M an!
W hen the chief priests and officers saw him , they cried out, saying, C rucify him , crucify
him ! Pilate said unto them , You take him and crucify him , for I find no fault in him .“ (John
19:4-6).
200
for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man has done
nothing amiss." (Luke 23: 40, 41) How did he know this? He
knew because everyone knew...
The Roman centurion in charge of the crucifixion detail of
troops, after observing the behaviour of the Lord on the cross for
a while, and no doubt having been responsible for many such
events, said when Jesus died, "Certainly this was a righteous man:
truly this was the Son of God" (Matthew 27:54 and Luke 23:47).
Paul, the intellectual among the apostles, said, "He knew no
sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21); Peter, the activist, said, "He did no sin"(1
Peter 2:22); and John, who loved Him most tenderly, said, "In Him
is no sin" (l John 3:5).
Never was there such a testimony to the total innocence of a
man. So overwhelming was this witness that in the end the Jewish
authorities themselves admitted they had made a mistake. They
assembled to discuss the situation after the crucifixion and said
among themselves, "Command that the sepulchre be made sure
until the third day, lest his disciples come by night and steal him
away and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: and so
the last error shall be worse than the first." (Matthew 27:64).
How Jesus revealed MAN to man

The Lord Jesus came to reveal God to man, and He came to
reveal man to God. But He also came to reveal Man to man, and
this He did in two distinctively different ways. In the first place,
He showed what true Man could be, and should be. He came a
light to light every man that is born into the world.28 He came as
a standard of reference, a plumb line, as Amos says.29 If we want
to know what we ought to be, here is our image restored.
28. “That w as the true light w hich lights every m an that com es into the w orld” (John 1:9).
29. “...The Lord stood upon a w all m ade by a plum bline, w ith a plum bline in his hand. The
Lord said unto m e, Am os, W hat do you see? A nd I said, A plum bline. Then said the Lord,
Behold, I w ill set a plum bline in the m idst of m y people Israel...” (A m os 7:7, 8).
201
If, on the other hand, we want to know what we are capable of,
given opportunity—whether man is essentially good, whether
man loves truth, whether man really wants righteousness and
purity and unselfishness and absolute integrity of person—then
here again we have the answer. The only perfect Man who ever
lived was condemned to crucifixion, and He was condemned not
for some crime or evil deed or even falsehood, but for simply
telling the truth about Himself, namely, that He was God and
man—both.30
It has been universally admitted by advocates of man's evo-
lutionary origin that man is nonetheless "the crown" of creation.
It is a strange thing that the most wonderful representative of this
creation was by man, himself, crowned not with gold but with
thorns. Is not this man's judgment of himself? How has such an
anomaly come about?
A native from the Yana tribe once located in California who
came to be known as Ishi (his own word for man) and who was
the last lone survivor of his people, was shown a Passion Play film.
He was deeply moved by the story of the crucifixion and re-
marked that Jesus Christ must have been a very "bad man" to
suffer such a fate.31
The truth is precisely the opposite. In the first place, had He
been a bad man, God would not and could not have laid upon
Him our sins: He would never have been acceptable to God as the
sacrificial Lamb. In the second place, He would, on the contrary,
have been acceptable to the world. But the world rejected Him
and crucified Him not because He was a bad man but because He
30. “...the high priest said unto him , I adjure [com m and] you by the living God that you tell
us w hether you are the C hrist, the Son of God. Jesus said unto him , You have said:
nevertheless, I say to you, H ereafter you w ill see the Son of M an sitting at the right hand
of pow er, and com ing in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying,
‘H e has spoken blasphem y! “ (M atthew 26:63-65)
31. K roeber, Theodora, Ishi in Tw o W orlds, Berkeley, U niversity of C alifornia Press, 1971,
p.225.
202
was a perfect Man! So it was only his perfection that made Him an
acceptable sacrifice from God's point of view and an unaccep-
table person from the world's point of view. His very goodness,
not his badness, was the reason He was condemned to death by
us men. We were all involved in that trial.
Thus in reality the trial of Jesus Christ was not the trial of
Jesus Christ at all, but the trial of fallen man. It was not He who
was on trial, but man. And the outcome was not his condem-
nation but ours.
Two men called Adam: from the same root?

If it is not possible to build a bridge between animals and
fallen man, what bridge shall be built between fallen man and the
Lord Jesus Christ? If both fallen man and Jesus Christ are truly
human, which they certainly are, how do we make a bridge
between such utter wickedness and such purity? Is such a bridge
possible?
The answer is, Yes! To build this bridge, we go back to the
First Adam as created, and from there to the same first Adam as
fallen. The Fall is the arch of this bridge. In that one act the First
Adam as he came from the hand of God (and who is truly
represented by the Last Adam) became also the Fallen "Adam"
who is represented by the human race as exhibited in the whole
of human history. The potential, locked up in the newly created
being called the First Adam, was capable of giving rise to man as
we see him displayed in the tragedy of history, and giving rise to
the glory of God as seen in the face of Christ Jesus. What a
creature this was who carried the potential for both the corruption
of our nature and the perfection of His! Evolution is quite
incapable of accounting for Him.
Both men called Adam were immortals. Both men called
Adam came into the world by a miracle: the one by creation, the
other by virgin conception and birth. Both men died—but neither
203
need have done so, ever.
Evolution and Christian Faith incompatible

The suicidal wickedness of fallen man and the sacrificial
splendour of Jesus Christ can only be accounted for by assuming
a strictly historical basis for the appearance on earth of the First
and the Last Adam precisely as they are set forth in the Bible.
Neither their origins nor their deaths can be accounted for in
ordinary biological terms, for neither were "natural."
However, the Lord's people are not being shown why it is so
damaging to the Christian Faith to allow the evolution of man's
body. The truth is that to do so is to divorce the Incarnation from
its redemptive purpose and to reduce the life and death of Jesus
Christ to one of tragedy rather than triumph. His virgin birth and
his bodily resurrection become meaningless, since there is no
rational necessity for either of them.
Evolution cannot account for either of them.
May I conclude this chapter by saying that it was one of

the most difficult to write in the whole book. It was
completely rewritten so many times that I despaired of ever
getting it written at all, and at one point decided to omit it
altogether. But it had to be done. Why, then, was it so
difficult? Because the immensity of fallen man's wickedness
is beyond comprehension and because the beauty of unfallen
Man's character is beyond description. That's why. Who can
possibly be sufficient for either task?

204
205
PART IV
TRIUMPH OVER DEATH
REDEMPTION OF FALLEN MAN BY UNFALLEN MAN

206
No element of the Faith can be surrendered

if our theology is to remain truly Christian.
No element of the Faith need be surrendered

if we rightly understand the significance of today’s advanced knowledge.
207
Chapter 14
THE TRAGIC DYING OF FALLEN MAN
Man lives two lives and dies two deaths.

Spiritually, he commits suicide: Physically, he is executed.
The subject of death is an enormous one, and the literature is

huge. Some thirty or forty years ago, I remember a scientific paper
which opened by saying that more than 600 books had already
been published on the matter and at that time there was not even
a glimmer of understanding of the cause of death except where
there is accident or disease or predation to account for it. It is still,
today, widely held that no one dies merely from the weight of
years.
In man the problem is greatly compounded by the fact that,
whereas animals experience only physical death, man experiences
two deaths—one spiritual and the other physical. As we live two
kinds of life, so we experience two kinds of dying.
Theologically, these two deaths can both be characterized by
the single word separation. Physical death involves the separation
of the spirit from the body, and spiritual death involves the
separation of the spirit from God. In each case a 'termination' is
reached which only God can reverse. There is the termination of
physical life for which the only remedy is the redemption of the
TRAGIC D YIN G O F FALLEN M AN
208
body1 and there is the termination of spiritual life for which the
only remedy is the regeneration of the spirit.2
But this view of physical death is a gross oversimplification.
In the first place, it is now recognized that death can be seen either
as an event or as a process. From a legal and medical point of view
it is an event, and the time of its occurrence can usually be stated.
From a physiological point of view it is actually a process (as we
have already noted in Chapter 6), which is going on throughout
life and begins the moment we are born or even, perhaps, the
moment we are conceived. What happens a few days after death
is a further process of disintegration that is merely an acceleration
of what has been proceeding since day one. The human body is
corrupted from the very first, and this acceleration in the grave is
only the last act in the play.
Nevertheless, we know that it need not be so, for there was
one truly human body that never saw corruption either in life 3 or
in death,4 though the burial conditions were not unlike those of
Lazarus whose body did indeed see corruption.5
Why man dies: science and theology accounts

Now the immediate cause of man's physical death can be a host
of different things: starvation, disease, the accumulation of DNA
replication errors, poisoning, suicide, fright, cold, heat, an
accident, excessive joy, laughter6 —and even hiccups! The medical
1. “W e...[are] w aiting for the adoption, to w it, the resurrection of our body” (Rom ans 8:23)
2. [Jesus said to N icodem us] “V erily, verily, I say to you except a m an be born again, he
cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).
3. “...you w ere not redeem ed w ith corruptible things, as silver and gold... but w ith the
precious blood of C hrist, as of a lam b w ithout spot and w ithout blem ish” (1 Peter 1:18, 19).
4. “H e, w hom God raised again, saw no corruption” (A cts 13:37).
5. “Jesus said, Take aw ay the stone. M artha, the sister of him that w as dead [Lazarus], said
unto him , ‘Lord, by this tim e he stinks: for he has been dead four days” (John 11:39).
6. Tertullian: “A Treatise on the Soul,” chapter LII, w ith reference to Publius C rassus w ho
died of laughter [A nte-N icene Fathers, edited by A lexander Roberts and Jam es D onaldson,
N ew York, C harles Scribner's Sons, 1918, vol.IV , p.229]
209
people always like to be able to establish the particular cause of

death in each case if possible. Surprisingly, the number of
occasions upon which the death of an individual seems simply to
have been natural and without any discoverable cause other than
"old age" is remarkably few—if there are any at all.7
Science asserts that man must die because all his antecedents
in the animal world die. But this is simply not the case. In the first
place, unicellular animals which according to evolution must have
been among his antecedents at the very beginning,8 were almost
certainly not mortal. If evolution were true, the line of man
actually began as an immortal one, not a mortal one! These
organisms can be killed but they are not inherently subject to
death at all. It would not be true, then, that death in the animal
world necessarily lies at the root of the death of man.
In the second place, the assertion assumes lineal descent of
man from an ancestor common to the primate species, and for this
there is no empirical proof whatever. The only evidence of this
descent is entirely circumstantial and has a certain weight only if
we deny the existence of a divine Designer. Such a Designer,
however, might have used a similar pattern to produce a body by
creation which was going to operate under similar conditions of
physical existence. The absence of any such "proof" is now and
then, in less public enclaves of scientific discussion, frankly
admitted.9
In point of fact the evolution of man is an article of faith, not
a scientifically proven fact, even though books written for public
consumption feel the assertion can and must be made as though
it were. In the nature of the case, it is impossible to prove
7. The truth of this observation is docum ented in The Seed of the W om an, chapter 1, pp.3-15.
8. O ne of the m ost popular evolutionary slogans is the “am oeba to m an” concept.
9. For the lack of em pirical biological evidence for evolution, see R. G.C hiang, Rescuing Sci-
ence from Religion: religious beliefs at the interface of science and Christianity, D oorw ay Pub-
lications, H am ilton, O N , 2009, chapter 4. A lso see T. W oodw ard, “Ruse gives aw ay the
store, adm its evolution a philosophy”, The Real Issue, vol.13, no.4, N ov./D ec., 1994.
210
genetically that there is any relationship between a fossil that

looks like a man and the man that it looks like. It cannot be
proved; it can only be argued as plausible. It has been said that
"all fossils are foundlings," and establishing actual relationships
with certainty is at present quite impossible unless there is some
other kind of evidence such as written documents, or an inscrip-
tion on a tombstone, for instance. "Blood" relationships cannot be
established from bones that are completely fossilized.
Furthermore, animal death is a mere termination of that par-
ticular animal. Human death is by no means a mere termination.
It is neither termination of the individual's body nor termination
of the individual's spirit. It is a disruption, but it is not a ter-
mination. It is quite natural in the one: quite unnatural in the
other. It is a mistake to speak of any human death as natural.
Common law in almost every society demands that the cause of
death be established if possible, a fact which virtually denies that
human death is ever natural. Indeed, natural death has been
termed a "legal fiction."
Yet (as we have already noted) man does not seem to die a
'natural' death under any circumstances because Scripture assures
us that death was introduced into human experience 10 as the
result of an act of disobedience that involved eating a forbidden
food. Unlike ordinary food poisoning, the end result in this
instance was a fatal damage acquired during Adam's lifetime and,
contrary to the normal rules of inheritance, this damage was pass-
ed on to all of his naturally-born descendants. Thus by sin (the
eating of a forbidden fruit) death entered into the world and as a
consequence the human race was "un-naturally" mortalized.
Death for man is therefore the consequence OR the penalty of
disobedience. The decision as to which of these two alternatives
is the correct one is still a matter of theological debate. We cannot
10. “By one m an sin entered into the w orld, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all
m en” (Rom ans 5:12).
211
be sure from Genesis 2:17 11 whether the Lord is saying to Adam

that disobedience would bring death as a punishment or merely
as a natural consequence. Perhaps it was both.
It is important to add that from one point of view, physical
death was also a remedy, an act of mercy. As Methodius (died
c.311) observed,12 and much later Francois Turrettin (1623-1687),13
we must be rid of this defective body in order to be freed from the
root of sin and hence of one basic cause of our fallen nature. Paul
writes that the law was ineffective because of the "weakness of the
flesh,"14 and the Lord excused the failure of his friends to watch
with Him in a critical hour of his suffering, on the same grounds.15
We cannot do without the body, but there are times when we
wish we could, because it is the source of a great deal of our
spiritual failure. Freedom from a disposition towards sin hinges
upon freedom from this "body of sin," a freedom which physical
death guarantees for the redeemed.
Death a necessary design? Translation an alternative?

It might be argued that the machinery of the body, like all
other machinery, is bound to be subject to failure in the end.
Death would therefore be inevitable for man and animals alike.
We know now that this is not the case.
It is not true of unicellular creatures like the amoeba. The
11. “But of the tree of the know ledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; for in the
day that you eat of it, you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17).
12. M ethodius, “The Banquet of the Ten V irgins” in Fathers of the Third Century, translated
by C leveland C oxe [A nte-N icene Fathers, edited by A lexander Roberts and Jam es
D onaldson, N ew York, C harles Scribner's Sons, vol. V I, 1911, p.345]
13. Turrettin, Francois, O n The A tonem ent of Christ, translated by J. R. W illson, N ew York,
Reform ed Protestant D utch C hurch, 1859 (1674), p.81.
14. “For what the law could not do, in that it w as w eak through the flesh, God, sending his
ow n Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condem ned sin in the flesh” (Rom ans
8:3).
15. “[Jesus] cam e unto his disciples and found them asleep, and said unto Peter, W hat!
C ou ld you not w atch w ith m e one hour? W atch and pray that you enter not into
tem ptation: the spirit indeed is w illing but the flesh is w eak” (M atthew 26:40, 41).
212
microscopic size of these creatures has little or no importance

since size is irrelevant to life. To the individual amoeba a lifetime
is a lifetime, and its highly active awareness of its situation, so
ably recorded by H. S. Jennings in 1910,16 is just as real an
awareness for these little creatures as ours is for us. Their cup of
awareness is full. The whole gamut of its responses to life's chal-
lenges is as serious to it as are children's fears and hopes and
disappointments to them. We as adults forget how real a child's
disappointments are since they seem, by comparison with ours,
so inconsequential. But, I repeat, size has really nothing to do with
the situation.
It is clear, therefore, that God can and has designed creatures
which are not subject to natural death, though these creatures
experience life in the fullest sense of the term for them. It would
be a great mistake to suppose that these microscopic animals are
not complex simply because they are so small. All living systems
are unbelievably complex, not only in structure but in behaviour
as well. Even individual body cells taken apart can reassemble
themselves and carry on! Nothing that lives is "simple."
There is no reason why the machinery of the human body
should not have been perfectly designed to operate indefinitely
and without failure. Indeed, we know that it can operate perfectly
because the world has witnessed One such perfect organism
which was truly human—the body of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our
redemption hinges upon the perfect operation of that body, since
if it had been imperfect as our fallen bodies now are, it would
have been destined to die anyway and the sacrifice of that body
could have been no more than a premature death. It could not be
a vicarious sacrifice.
It appears from the experimental evidence that animals have
what is commonly called a "spanned" life, that is to say, a more-
16. Jennings, H . S., Behaviour of the Lower O rganism s, Biological Series X , C olum bia
U niversity Press, 1915.
213
or-less predetermined span of life which is characteristic for each

species. This is assumed to be necessary in order to prevent
overpopulation by any one species.
When overpopulation threatens in nature, there are various
compensating mechanisms to deal with the situation. Some
species raise smaller broods; some develop wings (aphids for
example) which enable them to leave the area; some by their
increase in numbers encourage more predators from contiguous
areas who multiply in the presence of plentiful game. These
predators so reduce the larder of the prey until they, too, are
reduced and things reach a balance once more (wolves and deer,
for example). Some (like elephants) reduce their number not by
smaller litters but by lengthening the gestation period very
substantially. Thus the world's animal population remains in a
remarkable state of balance between food resources and numbers
to be fed—except, of course, where man interferes.
Now unfallen man, with his physical immortality, was
commanded to multiply and fill the earth:17 would he not have
lived on and on, multiplying indefinitely? What mechanism
would have prevented his overpopulating the world? Would not
natural death have to be ordained for him also, as a safety device
to prevent overpopulation by the human species? If it was, then
natural death must have been ordained before sin had entered, a
supposition that contradicts what Romans 5:12 says.18 The an-
swer to this question is, No.
What was provided for an unfallen race as a safety device was
not natural death but translation and transformation to a higher
order of life. This translation would not leave man disembodied
but with a body which, like the Lord's resurrected body, does not
17. “God blessed them and said to them , ‘Be fruitful and m ultiply, and fill the earth....“
(Genesis 1:28).
18. “By one m an sin entered into the w orld, and death by sin; so death passed upon all m en
“ (Rom ans 5:12).
214
occupy space at all. There was to have been no death, but only
"graduation." In the divine plan it was man's destiny that he
should never taste of death, though provision was made for it,
should his freedom abort the plan.
We are, I think, to view the experience on the Mount of
Transfiguration of the only Man, who never need have died, as
providing us with a model to show what kind of transformation
would have awaited us also if Adam (and so too his descendants)
had never sinned.19 Though He could have gone on into heaven,
yet for our sakes, the Lord Jesus Christ, “instead of the joy” that
had been set before Him came back down again and deliberately
set his face to go up to Jerusalem and to his death.20
Such a people, so transformed into the kind of physical exis-
tence that characterized the Lord's resurrected body 21 (of which
we shall speak in Chapter 17) would in no way have overpopu-
lated the world! Like the angels, it seems we shall occupy position
but not space. The problem of overcrowding of the world by
immortals would therefore never have developed. For, as soon as
each individual was made mature by the things which he
experienced in this "time and space" existence, translation would
have removed him to a higher form of existence in which time
and space is of no significance.
But as things are, death is necessary because no such
translation is in view for those not made perfect (i.e., mature),
19. For accounts of the M ount of Transfiguration experience, read M atthew 17:1-8; M ark
9:2-8, and Luke 9:27-36).
20. “...Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith: w ho for [anti] the joy that w as set before
him endured the cross, despising the sham e...“ (H ebrew s 12:2). The Greek w ord anti is
translated "for" in this p assage in the K ing Jam es V ersion, a sm all w ord w hich in the
English idiom of that day m eant "in exchange for" rather than "because of." A ccording to
D ana and M antey, the norm al m eaning of anti at this period w as "instead of." [H . E. D ana
and Julius R. M antey, A M anual G ramm ar of the G reek N ew Testam ent, Toronto, M acm illan,
1927, sect.107, p.100]
21. Shortly after his resurrection, the Lord's body w as in som e w ay transform ed, since M ark
16:12 tells us that the disciples did not see H im as M ary had seen H im but "in another form "
(Greek: en hetero m orphe).
215
either by life as the Lord Jesus was,22 or by imputation as his

people are.23 To be "made perfect" can be applied to the Lord only
in the sense that whereas He was born innocent, He achieved
absolute virtue by the experiences of life. We never thus achieve
absolute virtue. This is what it meant for the Lord Jesus to be
"made perfect." It implies no imperfection at any time, but rather
the purity of childhood was turned into the positive virtue of
perfect manhood.
To account for this difference between the death of man and
animals, we have to consider the corollary, the difference between
the life of man and animals.24 Adam's death was no more due to
his having inherited animal life than animal death is due to their
being involved in Adam's sin. We shall never find the real
meaning of life without also recognizing the real meaning of
death. Man lives under a sentence of death because of his
sinfulness, and thus really lives out his life under judgment for a
capital offense in which his body is also standing trial. Both spirit
and body are under a sentence of death. He thus experiences
dying for a reason quite inapplicable to all other creatures not
only by reason of its dual nature but by reason of its cause.
Death: physical and spiritual

In the matter of physical death viewed merely in its physio-
logical aspects, there is a certain parallelism between the decease
of animals and the decease of man, but this is because man was
designed to function in the same world. Yet for all this parallelism
there is a fundamental difference nevertheless, because man was
not designed for death. Though he no longer enjoys the kind of
physical life which God intended for him, the potential for it still
22. “Though he w ere a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things w hich he suffered ”
(H ebrew s 5:8).
23. “For by one offering H e has perfected for ever those that are sanctified” (H ebrew s
10:14).
24. “...it is appointed unto m en once to die, but after this the judgm ent” (H ebrew s 9:27).
216
remains. By the experience of new birth (of the spirit) and

redemption (of the body) that potential will be realized once again
in due course.
In this, therefore, there is clearly a difference between animal
and human death. Man knows he must die and hates the thought
of it. It would seem to us that, at the last moment, an animal also
would "hate" the prospect of it, but they don't know that they
must die. Watching a herd of wild creatures being attacked by a
predator, one becomes aware that as soon as one of their number
is brought down, the frantic rush to escape seems to be treated at
once rather as a form of excitement, almost more of a stimulus
than a terror. The rest of the herd stops running and all resume
their browsing or their play. That one of their company has
suffered a violent death appears to have little or no upsetting
effect whatever, and under normal circumstances both prey and
predator take no further interest in each other.
They have no knowledge that there is a spanned allotment of
days, whereas man thinks otherwise of himself and seeks to
postpone death if at all possible—and not infrequently the
medical profession imposes prolongation upon him under
conditions which would sometimes even be viewed as cruel if it
were applied to animals. This apparent indifference of animals
towards death is not man's attitude towards death at all. While
physiologically the two deaths may be described in the same
terms as to their effect viewed externally, they are clearly quite
different as experienced internally.
But because his body was not destined for death, and because
the dissolution of the fundamental union between spirit and body
is effectively the suspension of the wholeness of man, man's
attitude towards death must clearly have a dimension to it that in
no way troubles the animal world. For man, death is a terrible
thing, a disaster to his very being: and he lives in fear of it for
almost the whole of his life.
217
For animals, death appears to be a natural thing, whereas for

man it is a wholly un-natural thing. When sin entered into human
experience, death entered with it as something entirely foreign to
him. Indeed, as Martyn Lloyd-Jones observed, it would be quite
as proper, if not more proper, to render the word 'entered' as
invaded.25 For as he points out, this is what the strong verb in the
Greek really signifies.
In man, body and soul are so profoundly interpenetrating that
the thought of separation is, as Thomas Aquinas put it, "utterly
abhorrent."26 James Orr states the matter thus: death is "the violent
rupture, or separation or tearing asunder, so to speak, of the two
parts of his nature which in the Creator's design were never
intended to be sundered..." 27
The immortality which man was designed to enjoy was to be
an immortality in which the body played an essential part. True
immortality is not merely immortality of the spirit but of the body
also, since it provides the immortal spirit with a requisite and
proper vehicle for its expression.
James Denney spoke with perceptiveness when he wrote:
"That which would be merely physical in the lower animals is not
merely physical in man."28 While the consenting voice of science
seems to say that the life principle in man's body is not different
from that in any other animal, the Scriptures say that it is. It is
different because man's body is a house designed for a spirit that
has a totally different destiny, a destiny for which the body is
essential. At the time of its dying, an animal's body has served its
purpose and is laid to rest permanently, whereas the human body
25. Lloyd-Jones, M artyn, Romans, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1972, p.194.

26. A quinas, Thom as, Sum m a Theologica, Book I, question 4; in An Aquinas Reader, M ary T.
C lark, N ew York, Im age Books, 1972, p.118.
27. O rr, Jam es, The Christian V iew of G od and the W orld, N ew York, Scribners, 1893, p.198
28. D enney, Jam es, Studies in Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker reprint ,1976, p.89.
218
has only just begun to fulfil its purposes.29 Compared with

eternity, a life in time is a mere instant, whereas the human body
has a timeless eternity ahead of it. Its significance is entirely
different.
The death of man is as much a spiritual event as a physical
one because it is the result of a spiritual judgment. By contrast, the
death of an animal is not a judgment at all but is according to the
divine plan for the well-being of the animal world. In man it is a
judgment because the consequences of unlimited physical life for
a sinful creature were unthinkable. For animals it is a wise
provision because of the necessity of avoiding unrestrained multi-
plication and overcrowding.
If fallen man had had no such limitations placed on the length
of his life, the accumulated experiences of wickedness carried on
century after century could only have led to an appalling
reinforcement of the corruption of his nature. It was indeed by
reason of great longevity that the world had become so corrupt
that the Flood was brought upon man to put an end to it all.
Thereafter, a limitation of 120 years at that time 30 was imposed as
the normal life span, instead of the previous many centuries.
In the same way, and for the same reason, it had been
necessary to prevent man's access to the Tree of Life in the Garden
of Eden, lest he should eat of it and recover the physical im-
mortality with which he had been endowed in his unfallen state.
For this reason, as though the alternative was too awful to even
put into words, appears in Scripture as one of the few unfinished
29. The anim al body is buried; the hum an body of the redeem ed, is sow n, not buried: “[The
body] is sow n in corruption, it is raised in incoruption; it is sow n in dishonour, it is raised
in glory; it is sow n in w eakness, it is raised in pow er; it is sow n a natural body, it is raised
a spiritual body” (1 C orinthians 15:42-44). A farm er does not bury the seed: he sow s it.
A nd w e m ake this distinction because it is sow n in hop e of re-em ergence in a new form .
The destiny of the tw o kinds of body is different in each case. A s D avid said, “ M y glory
[i.e. soul] rejoices and m y flesh shall rest in hope” (Psalm 16:9).
30. “The Lord said, M y spirit shall not alw ays strive w ith m an, for that he also is flesh; yet
his days shall be an hundred and tw enty years” (Genesis 6:3).
219
sentences.31 It sometimes strikes me as interesting that my Hebrew

professor, Dr. T. J. Meek who was responsible for the Revised
Standard Version of Genesis, indicated this unfinished-ness by the
use of a long dash instead of a period. Yet Dr. Meek himself had
no faith whatsoever in the Bible or its message, while many more
recent translators who do profess such a faith have not seen the
significance of the unfinished structure of this sentence.
It is also important to realize that if Adam had been obedient,
he would not have been rewarded with immortality as though it
were a crown to be added to his stature. Obedience would merely
have ensured the preservation of what he already had. When Adam
sinned, he did not shorten his life: he introduced a tragic element,
death, into it, an element which till then was completely foreign
to it.
What was imposed as a penalty was not a shortening of life so
that he died prematurely. What was introduced was death, an
entirely new and undesigned phenomenon. Immortality was
never promised as a reward since he already enjoyed it, but loss
of it was indeed threatened as a punishment. Retention of it was
a reward only in a very special sense, but it was the retention, not
the acquisition, of immortality that was the reward of obedience.
Thus man, unlike the animals, does not simply come to an
end. His death is by appointment, an appointment with the Judge
which is followed by the passing of a sentence on his life.32 Death
is, therefore, tantamount to a summons to the Courthouse, and
the summons carries with it the certainty that, apart from saving
31. “The L ORD God said, Behold the m an has becom e as one of us, to know good and evil;
and now , lest he .... take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.... therefore the
L ORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden... (Genesis 3:22, 23a). J. S. W hale said that
“m aking sense of life m eans ultim ately, and alw ays, m aking sense of death” (p.164) and
“D eath cannot be a purely natural fact for one w ho is not a purely natural being, but a
(redeem able) person m ade in the im age of God” (p.166) in his Christian D octrine, Fontana
Books, Glasgow , 1957 (first published by C am bridge U niversity Press, 1941).
32. “...it is appointed unto m en once to die, but after this the judgm ent” (H ebrew s 9:27).
220
faith, the judgment can only be "guilty"—even before the trial

begins. He thus lives all his life under the shadow of a warrant of
death and when the time comes he is executed. This is what
makes death so terrible, apart from redemption, and so utterly
different for man from the death of every other creature.
W e have spoken of two lives and two deaths in man's case,
and it is now necessary to say a few words about spiritual death.
While physically man is "put to death," spiritually man actually
"chooses" to die. This exercise of choice in the matter of spiritual
death means that effectively man commits spiritual suicide. By
which I mean that we sin and die spiritually because we want to.
W e don't like the penalty, but we do want to sin. Such is the
nature of human nature. And as already noted, we sin "as soon as
we can."
We go willingly along this route: we do not have to be
persuaded. We are invited to choose spiritual life but we choose
spiritual death, unfailingly and universally. This is the natural
inclination of the natural man even though at first we are aware
that it is not the way to go and our conscience troubles us.
When we commit sin, we are acting freely. Herein lies
whatever freedom was left to us after the Fall: freedom to sin. Like
a free-falling parachutist, we are not aware of our actual bondage
unless we suddenly try to go the other way. We do not sin with
any compulsion from without; we sin because of an inner drive,
a drive which is suicidal with respect to our spiritual life.
By contrast, in the matter of physical death, the case is entirely
different. No man in health wants to die. While our spiritual life
is willingly surrendered, our physical life is not at all willingly
surrendered. We are executed. We are unwilling victims. Death
happens to us, overtakes us. We may hasten it by bad habits but
we do not deliberately adopt those bad habits in order to hasten
it. We would prefer to enjoy the bad habits without the
hastening...
221
Death of man and animals contrasted

Why do we have such a horror of dying personally, and
extend this horror to the dying of others, even when it would
clearly be a merciful thing to allow them the freedom to do so?
There was a time when the medical people sought to preserve or
improve health...not simply to prolong life per se. The goal was to
add life to years, not merely years to life.
Superficially, the dying of an animal and the dying of a man
might seem to be quite similar. However, there is a tremendous
difference in the very nature, the very essence, of a life lived
under the conditions of potential immortality as opposed to life
lived under the terms of a planned limitation that the animal
cannot possibly be aware of.
For man, the imposition of death lies heavily upon his inner
consciousness as a dark shadow. Animals know nothing of this
"shadow of death," so that there is a difference between the death
of fallen man and unfallen animals despite the fact that it is, for
both, a termination of something.
Man finds it difficult to think of himself apart from his body.
The death of the body is therefore felt as a threat to personal
continuance. It is both a rending asunder and a potential
termination of identity.
But God "has set eternity in the heart of man" 33 and
throughout history man has borne witness to this deep conviction
by caring for the dead in a way that animals never do—by
deliberately burying them and often trying to ensure their com-
fort in the world to come. It is almost universally agreed by
anthropologists that wherever fossils are found buried with
provision for a future life, no matter how simple and fragmentary
the evidence is, those fossil remains belong within the human
species.
33. “A lso God has set the w orld in their heart” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). The w ord rendered “the
w orld” in the K ing Jam es Version is the H ebrew w ord for “eternity.”
222
Of course, where no such evidence exists the remains may still

be truly human, for people are sometimes buried by accident. But
the presence of pottery vessels or figurines or food of any kind, or
even burial in a fetal position, is generally taken as evidence of
conscious concern for a life hereafter. Our primitive contem-
poraries, who have in the past been viewed as our contemporary
ancestors are even more likely to leave such evidence in the grave
than we who consider ourselves much more advanced in our
ideas. They more easily sacrifice valuables to this end.
No animal shows any of this kind of concern for its dead.
Death is clearly a very different matter for man than it is for
animals.
Death: defined by Evolution vs. Christianity

Evolution may very well provide a rationale for the death of
animals, but in relation to the death of man, as we experience it in
all its sadness or terror, evolution really has nothing to say. It is a
different phenomenon, an un-natural one and therefore not
accountable by derivation from death as animals experience it. It
belongs in another category, and only revelation can shed any real
light on its meaning for man.
While I greatly admire those who have so ably defended
creation against evolution, I cannot help but feel that to do this by
deliberately divorcing the issue from Christian Faith is to treat the
case as though it were merely a matter of "scientific evidence." It
would seem to be humanly wise, but I fear it is really a spiritual
surrender to secularism.
The issue has to be fought on our grounds, not theirs. If it is
won on their grounds and the teaching of creation is ever allowed,
it will be a victory of the intellect but will have lost its spiritual
significance entirely. The theory of creation can never be
presented faithfully as an alternative to evolution by divorcing it
from its spiritual implications.
223
Chapter 15
THE SACRIFICIAL DYING OF UNFALLEN MAN
The Dying of Jesus Christ
Animals die— NATURALLY— by design,

M an now dies— UN-NATURALLY— by execution,
Jesus Christ died— SUPER-NATURALLY— by an act of will.
Man dies two deaths.

The Saviour of man must therefore also suffer two deaths, first
by dying spiritually as man dies spiritually, and then by dying
physiologically as man dies physiologically. For such a Saviour
both deaths are substitutionary, unique as to their nature and
cause, and unique as to their effect. If the actual nature and cause
of either death was the same for the Saviour as it is for us fallen
men, they cannot be substitutionary because in our case both
kinds of death are proof of personal guilt.
Both dyings are acts of separation: the separation of the spirit
from the divine presence (which is spiritual death), and the
separation of the spirit from the body (which is physical death).
Let us consider these two dyings of the Saviour so that we
may see how the Word of God makes them entirely distinct and
opposite in both character and effect to the spiritual and physical
dyings of man which have resulted from Adam's disobedience.
SACRIFIC IA L D Y IN G O F U N FALLEN M AN
224
1. The Spiritual Dying of Jesus Christ
When man sins, he does so by choice and he thus commits

spiritual suicide. It is an act of freedom: he elects to do it, and pays
the price accordingly. "The soul that sins, it shall die" (Ezekiel
18:4, 20). Thereafter he is, spiritually considered, a dead man:
“dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1), dead towards God
whom he must now face not as his heavenly Father but as his
Judge. He no longer has the immediate access that he formerly
had, and as he matures in his fallen state the sense of God's
presence gradually declines, to be replaced by a surrogate god
after his own image and compatible with his own nature because
of his own making.
From the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ man has
effectively cut himself off, separated himself—as Isaiah 59:2 1puts
it -- until he becomes aware not only of his isolation but also of his
comparative indifference to the loss. Paul describes this spiritual
death as "eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2
Thessalonians 1:9, Revised Standard Version).
The moment and experience of being “made sin”

But it may be asked, When did this kind of dying ever happen
in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ? The answer is, On the cross in
those three hours of darkness—as indicated when He cried out in
his extreme isolation and agony of soul, "My God, My God! Why
have You forsaken Me?"(Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34). For in be-
coming an offering for our sins, He had suddenly experienced for
the first time in the eternity of his being "destruction from the
presence of the Lord," a destruction which for all He knew was
final. It happened not by his choice (as it is with us) but by
imposition when He was made sin, when He was charged guilty of
1. “But your iniquities have separated betw een you and your G od, and your sins have hid
his face from you, that he w ill not hear” (Isaiah 59:2).
225
all the horror and frightfulness of man's wickedness since history

began with the murder of Abel.2
When this judgment fell upon Him, it was as though the
murder, the torture, the rape, the mutilation, the degradation, and
the utter cruelty of man towards man, became, in effect, his
responsibility. When all the diseased conditions of man due to sin
were laid upon his soul, He assumed the responsibility for them,
being afflicted with our afflictions. It was a cup He had
anticipated with such horror in Gethsemane that He had cried
out, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me:
nevertheless, not my will but yours be done" (Luke 22:42).
Herein we observe the first fundamental difference between
his experience and ours. We become sinful by choice: He, entirely
against his will, willing it only in the sense that He surrendered
to his Father's will that He should assume the burden of it. Thus
every reference to this experience of separation from the Father
because of sin is described by the use of the 'passive voice', signi-
fying not a doing of his own but something done to Him. It was
imposed upon Him, not assumed by choice, only by resignation.
Isaiah 53:4, 5 and 8 hammers this home: "We did esteem him
stricken [passive], smitten of God [passive], and afflicted
[passive]. But he was wounded [passive] for our transgressions,
he was bruised [passive] for our iniquities...he was cut off
[passive] out of the land of the living: for the transgressions of my
people was he stricken [passive]." In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he was
made a sin-offering for us, once again reflecting the same pass-
ivity. And so it goes: always it is passive. In no way was his
involvement in our sins something he sought as though it might
be pleasurable, for pleasurable they can certainly be to us.3
[
2. For God] m ade Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin for us” (2 Corinthians 5:21); “The Lord has
laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 59:2).
3. “[M oses] choosing rather to suffer affliction w ith the p eop le of God than to enjoy the
pleasures of sin for a season” (H ebrew s 11:25).
226
Whereas man becomes engaged in sin with a kind of

eagerness, the Lord faced the prospect with stark abhorrence. And
when the pall of guilt fell suddenly upon his soul, he cried out in
desolation, yet no longer to his Father but to a righteous God who
now stood as his Judge. When the darkness of sin enveloped him
as he “bore our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24), his
cry of despair was a cry of one totally forsaken. He was indeed
“cut off, though not for himself” (Daniel 9:26), cut off from of the
land of the living and counted among the spiritually dead.
We cannot really have the slightest conception of what this
experience meant to One who was completely without sin. It was
a sudden and total defilement. We ourselves are already sinful
and when we compound the evil by further sins we feel little
shame because we are inured to its effects. To Him it was truly his
first personal, and only personal, experience of guilt.
Now I know that any illustration from my own life will not
really help here. Nevertheless, I once experienced the impact of
sudden contamination in a small way. At the time, I was
comparatively "innocent" in the sense that any grown man may be
innocent who has not yet had opportunity or occasion to be much
else. I do not believe I had ever committed any "great" sin up to
that time. My conscience was free, and inwardly I felt clean. I had
been the Lord's child for some years and had an active ministry
with young people which, I may add, continued for many years
after this incident.
But as a consulting engineer I had been unduly charmed by a
member of the administrative staff where I was working. One
lunch time, I found myself alone with her in my part of the
building and in a moment of idiocy I kissed her. I may say she
was quite unresisting. It would, I'm sure, have been viewed as a
very small thing by many of my friends, certainly by my worldly
ones. But I immediately fled from my office and out of the
building and walked quickly along back streets in an attempt to
227
be alone. It was lunch hour, and I had to escape. I felt utterly,

utterly sick and inwardly defiled. I was appalled at what I had
done. This is simply how I felt about it. I felt diseased, contamin-
ated, self-condemned.
I cannot put into words how the shame and sense of sin-
fulness flooded over my soul. It was springtime outside, but in my
heart it was a cold, miserable gloomy day: the sun seemed to have
gone in, the buildings looked drab and empty, the world was
cloudy and hostile. I walked with my head on my chest and my
spirit broken. I felt sick enough to vomit on the street. I was truly
appalled and felt certain my future was ruined, my job in
jeopardy, and every man must be ashamed for me. I felt a terrible
need to tell someone what I had done, to confess and weep over
it all. I cannot fully express today the darkness in my soul for the
next hour or so until gradually my sense of the Lord's presence
was recovered and I went back to my office a sober and a
chastened man.
Somehow the Lord graciously covered it all. In a fallen world
such an act would hardly cause a stir, I suppose, though for me it
had been a devastating experience. It all happened so quickly, un-
planned, unpremeditated, unexpected. It was like being plunged
suddenly into icy cold water.
If a man, already fully aware of his own fallen nature, can be
so devastated by such an act, what must have been the effect of
the defilement of sin upon the Lord Jesus in view of his matchless
perfection and purity and holiness? Any first scratch on a new car,
any first mark on a new cabinet, any first water stain on a new
wall or ceiling, is distressing in a special way. What would the
first impact upon his soul be as sin was laid upon Him? When He
suddenly became identified and responsible, personally, for all
the sins of human history in their total appalling immensity, the
effect must have been shattering.
I think that when we are told He bore our sins, we are to
228
understand that He really in his own heart and mind became

consciously guilty as though He had really committed these
things. The effect of such a consciousness would be multiplied
infinitely by the very sensitivity of his nature and his ability to
identify so immediately with the effect of sin in the world around
Him.
How long did He suffer separation from the Father?

When the blow fell, his Father turned from his beloved Son
and forsook Him in the darkness of his hell while the very light of
day failed and plunged the world around Him into unnatural
darkness. And for how long? For three hours? No, surely not, but
for an experienced eternity. Our clocks ticked on for three hours
of course, but the passage of time for Him was swallowed up in
the now-ness of the intensity of that suffering. All sense of the
passage of time, all that might have signalled to his consciousness
that the end was near, must have been eclipsed entirely. What
was experienced began to occupy an eternity.
As Luther put it, with his characteristic bluntness,
Christ was accursed, and of all sinners the greatest. My

sins caused Thee, dear Lord, to bear the wrath of God and
become a curse, to taste the anguish of hell and to endure a
bitter death... Christ had to feel in his innocent tender heart
God's wrath and judgment against sin and to taste for us
eternal death and damnation, and in a word, to suffer all that
a condemned sinner has deserved and must suffer forever.4
Jonathan Edwards wrote about the matter thus: “Sin must be

punished with an infinite punishment...the majesty of God
requires this vindication. It cannot properly be vindicated without
4. Luther: quoted by A . B. M acaulay, The D eath of Jesus, London, H odder & Stoughton, 1938,
p.138.
229
it, neither can God be just to Himself without this vindication.” 5

Satisfaction for sin demands an equal penalty, and not until that
penalty had been paid in full did the Father turn his face to his
beloved Son again.
It has been found that the Greek word (which we recall so well
in the translation "it is finished") was written across the bottom of
Statements of Account in ancient Greece, and thus it clearly meant
PAID IN FULL!6 This cry, "Paid in full!" was therefore a cry of
triumph, marking the end of his spiritual dying, an end which He
could not possibly have foreseen so long as He was locked into
the agony his suffering entailed. And because no end had been
foreseeable, it had been effectively experienced as an eternity.7
Suddenly, it was all over. The sun broke through the gloom;
the fellowship of the Father was his again; and the "My God!" of
that black night became the "My Father" of his last spoken words
from the cross as He commended his spirit into his Father's
hands.8
His and our spiritual deaths compared

Such was the spiritual death that the Lord Jesus Christ exper-
ienced as Man and for man, that the way might be opened for the
forgiveness of man's sins. All that is asked of the sinner now is
that he believe this and accept this spiritual death of the Saviour
5. Edw ards, Jonathon: The W orks of Jonathan Edw ards, Edw ard H ickm an, London, Banner
of Truth Trust, 1976, vol. II, p.565.
6. Tetelestai: see J. H . M oulton & G. M illigan, V ocabulary of the Greek N ew Testament:
Illustrated from the Papyri and O ther N on-literary Sources, Grand Rapids, Eerdm ans, 1972,
p.630. (see John 19:30).
7. H ow a m ere three hours by our clocks could for H im be an eternity is explored is depth
in the author's Journey O ut of Tim e, Doorw ay Publications, H am ilton, O N , C anada, 2009
[1981],3rd edition, chapter 5 “W hen tim e becam e an eternity”, pp.72-85.
8. “N ow from the sixth hour there w as darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And
about the ninth hour Jesus cried w ith a loud voice saying...M y God, m y God, w hy have you
forsaken m e?” (M atthew 27:45, 46, also M ark 15:34) and a little later, “w hen Jesus cried
w ith a loud voice, he said, Father into your hands I com m end m y spirit, and having said
this he gave up the ghost” (Luke 23:46 and John 19:30).
230
as a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice and satisfaction for his

sins.
We have observed that when man dies spiritually, his death
is the direct result of an action deliberately undertaken. To act
sinfully is pleasurable, at least in anticipation. Sometimes it seems
almost as though this would be the definition of what is sin-
ful—"that which gives pleasure"!
Whatever the form our particular sins happen to take (and for
each individual they differ according to personal preference!), sins
are freely engaged in even though we may sometimes persuade
ourselves that we are "doing it against our will." We all die
spiritually—or better, we all destroy ourselves spiritually, by
active choice. Spiritual death for man is indeed a form of suicide
because it is voluntary.
On the other hand, the Lord Jesus Christ became involved in
our sins with a perfect hatred, so fulfilling Psalm 139:22 in its
deeper sense.9 For Him it as a far more dreadful involvement
than the experience of physical death because spiritual death is a
kind of continuous dying whereas physical death is normally a
once-only experience.
In this spiritual death, He had died for man's SINS. There yet
remained a dying for man's SIN.10
9. “D o not I hate them , O Lord, that hate you? A nd am not I grieved w ith those w ho rise
up against you? I hate them w ith perfect hatred: I count them m ine enem ies” (Psalm 139:21,
22).
10 A s m an lives tw o lives, so he dies tw o deaths. In both realm s, the p hysical and the
spiritual, the effect of the Fall w as to introduce death. SIN brings death of the body: SIN S,
the death of the spirit. SIN is now the cause of physical death, and it is the root of SIN S of
the sp irit. SIN is to be taken aw ay (John 1:29), put aw ay (H ebrew s 9:26), and cleansed (1
John l:7), but not forgiven; w hereas SIN S are forgiven. A ccordingly, on the D ay of
A tonem ent tw o goats w ere "sacrificed," the one as a SIN offering (Leviticus 16:9), the other
(the scapegoat) for the SIN S of the people. [See the author’s study of these tw o w ords in
“The C om pelling Logic of Salvation”, Part V II in M an in A dam and in Christ, vol.3 of The
D oorw ay Papers Series, Zondervan, 1975, pp.283-313.] In the theology of the Epistles, the
distinction is constantly being assum ed. John C alvin recognized this and com m ented on
it succinctly (Institutes, Book. 2, chapter.1, sect. 5). Peter Lange in his Com m entary on H oly
231
2. The Physical Dying of Jesus Christ
For Him spiritual death was a totally unwilling involvement,

something undertaken with horror. For Him it was an execution.
But now He must also undertake to experience the "tasting" of
physical death in order to complete his work.
Here we have a total reversal. For men, spiritual death is a
form of suicide but physical death is clearly an execution. For the
Lord spiritual death was clearly an execution, whereas his
physical death was effectively a kind of suicide. Such is the
contrasting position of the two Adams in their two kinds of dying.
Let us look at the evidence for this statement.
His physical death a choice: truly vicarious

First of all, we have to bear in mind that by reason of his
Incarnation He had made Himself vulnerable and could therefore
have been killed by accident or by human hands at any time had
this been allowed of God.11 Nevertheless, He had by his super-
natural conception escaped the mortogenic factor that we all
inherit which brings us inevitably to the grave. He was, therefore,
truly in the position that it was quite possible for Him never to
have experienced death at all. After being transformed on the
Mount of Transfiguration, He might have gone on into glory
without ever passing through death and never have returned to
his earthly life. Instead, He came down from the Mount, and did
Scripture (Rom ans vol. x, Zondervan reprint, p. 176, colum n. a.) has a m ost useful excursus
on the subject. Griffith Thom as points out that "The Bible distinguishes betw een SIN and
SIN S, the root and the fruit, the principle and the practice; and A rticle II of the Thirty-N ine
A rticles teaches that our Lord's atonem ent covers both of these" (Principles of Theology,
Baker reprint, 1979, p.50).
11. “[Satan] said to [Jesus], ‘If you are the Son of G od, cast yourself dow n: for it is w ritten,
[God] shall give his angels charge concerning you: and in their hands they shall bear you
up, lest at any tim e, you dash your foot against a stone” (M atthew 4:6); “Jesus answ ered
[Pilate], you could have no pow er at all against m e except it w ere given you from above“
(John 19:11).
232
so specifically that He might taste of death.

But to what extent does the New Testament support the view
that his physical death was wholly without compulsion, a dying
of active choice? Is there evidence to show that his death was not
merely a willingness to be put to death, but a deliberate dismissal
of life without any external or circumstantial constraint in the
process?
The New Testament witnesses to this extraordinary fact in a
number of remarkable ways that have largely remained unrecog-
nized in commentaries of the past century or so but which were
clearly perceived by the earliest of the Church Fathers and by not
a few of the earlier Reformers. Perhaps the reason for this com-
parative silence on the matter today is that it is difficult to state
the case with clarity and precision without labouring the point,
and to labour such a truth has something of impropriety about it.
Perception of the truth has to be left largely to the reader.
There are three points of view from which his death can be
considered as: 1) a HISTORICAL fact, 2) a MORAL fact, and 3) a
THEOLOGICAL fact. These three conceptual points of view can
be treated quite separately and are so indicated in Scripture.
The historical fact

In the simplest terms, Jesus Christ was crucified and slain. It
may seem rather unnecessary to emphasize the order of these two
words, crucified and slain, since it seems so obvious that cru-
cifixion was a mode of capital punishment. But in point of fact the
phrase is rarely found in Scripture in that order, since in Jewish
practice condemned men were not crucified and slain, but slain
first and then crucified afterwards. Crucifixion was performed by
the Jewish people for the sole purpose of shaming the dead and
never as a mode of execution.
Crucifixion is generally considered to have been a Cartha-
ginian invention, and was used there as a form of maximum
233
punishment, inflicting death with the greatest possible cruelty.

Not the least element of cruelty was the extraordinary time of sur-
vival on the cross before death overtook the victim and freed him
from his agony. Both men and women have endured crucifixion
for up to nine days before death has set them free. In some cases,
men so crucified have remained alive long enough for birds to
peck out their eyes; and they were of course totally unable to
defend themselves. It was a truly awful form of execution.
The Romans had adopted this form of punishment for
treasonable offenses and for even lesser offenses among
commoners. But in Palestine they had been persuaded by the
Jewish authorities to make a concession. It became permissible to
kill the victim before the end of the Jewish day (which came at 6
p.m.) in order that the body might not be left on the cross beyond
sunset. The Jewish people had long practised crucifixion— or as
the Old Testament has it, "hanging on a tree;" but the Mosaic Law
had forbidden the retention of the body on the cross after sun-
down in order that the land be not defiled.12 Burial of some kind
was required before the day's end. As a consequence, the victim's
death had to be ensured before sundown and this was carried out
by the simple device of breaking the legs, which presumably
would induce a form of suffocation, the whole weight of the body
being thrown on the shoulders and chest.
However, the Jews themselves never once crucified men alive
as far as we know. For them, it was never a form of execution,
though it had been practiced for centuries all around them. Prior
to the Roman occupation, it had always served the sole purpose
of desecration of the dead.13 The order of events is always the same:
12. “If a m an has com m itted a sin w orthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang
him on a tree: his body shall not rem ain all night upon the tree, but you shall in any w ise
bury him that day (for he that is hanged is accursed of God), that your land be not defiled”
(D euteronom y 21:22, 23).
13. This fact is am ply borne out by reference to such passages as: Joshua 8:29 (the slain K ing
of A i w as hanged on a tree until eventide); Joshua 10:26 (“Joshua sm ote them , and slew
234
first slaying, and then crucifixion.

In their view, and according to Mosaic Law, any person thus
"hung on a tree" was doubly cursed—cursed by society and
cursed by God. Here in the Lord's case, there is no question that
the Jewish authorities wished the common people to see that
Jesus, by the very fact of his crucifixion, had been accursed of
God—thus effectively undermining any claim He might have
made as their Messiah. The very fact of crucifixion totally inval-
idated any such claim.
But there was another very important reason why crucifixion
was necessary for the Lord, and why no other form of execution
would have served God's purposes. He had to die TWO kinds of
death, and his execution had therefore to be sufficiently
prolonged that He could fulfill both while in this position of
condemnation. Just as there had to be two goats on the Day of
Atonement (Leviticus 16) in order that these two kinds of death
might be accomplished—one the "sending away" to the wilder-
ness of the scapegoat which foreshadowed the hours of darkness
on the cross, the other the shedding of the blood of the second
goat which foreshadowed His physical death on the cross— so
there had to be time for the accomplishment of these things on
Calvary: time for both kinds of dying of the Saviour.
In any one of the then current Jewish forms of capital pun-
ishment (strangling, beheading, stoning, etc.), only a miracle
could have kept the Lord alive to perform these two functions of
the Atonement, occupying as they did, several hours. As it turned
out, it was only by a miracle that He died when He did—and this
solely because He was condemned to be crucified. No other
them , and hanged them on five trees: and they w ere hanging upon the trees until the
evening”); 2 Sam uel 4:12 (“D avid com m anded his young m en, and they slew them , and cut
off their hands and their feet, and hanged them over the pool of H ebron”); as practiced in
Egypt: Genesis 40:19 (“W ithin three days shall Pharaoh lift up your head from off you, and
shall hang you on a tree”); and in the N ew Testam ent, M atthew 23:34 (“and som e of them
you shall kill and crucify”).
235
setting for his dying could have accommodated these things

which were essential to make his total sacrifice truly an offering
for SINS and an offering for SIN; and in that order.
It was not, therefore, the crucifixion that really ended his life.
He died ON the cross, but not FROM crucifixion. The cross was
the occasion but not the cause of his dying. He was dead within
less than six hours, a circumstance almost unheard of. The mini-
mum time to death by crucifixion has been established by some
writers of that time as about 32 hours, or more than five times as
long. It is therefore no wonder that the centurion in charge of the
crucifixion detail was so amazed,14 and that Pilate also was in-
credulous that He was so soon dead.15 Both were Romans: both
probably had had considerable experience in such matters. To
them it was a most exceptional circumstance.
The moral fact:

How, then, does the New Testament describe this extraor-
dinary situation? Partly, as rather frequently in Scripture, by the
use of contradictory statements in order to arrest the attention of
the dedicated reader.
Thus when Peter preached his first sermon dealing with the
Lord's death, he accused his contemporaries of having by “wick-
ed hands crucified and slain” the Lord (Acts 2:23). But when he
preached his second sermon he again accused them of the same
crime by saying "whom you slew and hanged on a tree" (Acts
5:30)—this time, it will be noted, reversing the order. First they
had crucified and slain the Lord: now he tells them that they slew
and crucified the Lord.
In the first instance he was stating what was historically the
order of events but in the second case he was giving the moral
14. “N ow w hen the centurion . . . saw that he so cried out and gave up the ghost, he said,
Truly this m an w as the Son of God “ (M ark 15:39).
15 “Pilate m arvelled if he w ere already dead” (M ark 15:44).
236
order of events, which was in fact much nearer the truth of the
matter. For these same Pharisees had indeed already slain Him by
the time they demanded his crucifixion. They had hated Him and in
their hatred had effectively murdered Him, for hatred is murder.16
In fact, crucifying Him was not, in their minds, to secure his
death but rather to totally discredit Him. Simply to have had Him
deliberately put to death by Pilate would have made Him a hero
or a martyr. They may even have believed that if He did die on
the cross He would indeed have been proved an impostor and
thus their bringing Him to justice would turn out to their credit.
With respect to Peter's transposition of the words "crucified
and slain," some versions have rendered this passage in a way
which appears to contradict the sense of the King James Version.
It is translated "whom you slew by crucifying Him," thus
reconciling the second sermon with the first one. It is a possible
rendering. But it is actually contradicted by what we know about
the Jewish attitude towards crucifixion. They did not slay by
crucifying.
This reversal of order is also to be observed in Acts 10:39.17
Here Peter again contradicts his first sermon, placing death before
crucifixion. Yet to place death before crucifixion is simply to
affirm what is said elsewhere throughout Scripture of the order of
events in such a case. In Peter's hearing, the Lord Himself had
said that they themselves would be “killed and crucified”
(Matthew 23:34). From all of which I think it is fair to say that
Peter's perception of the matter had been sharpened as he had
later reconsidered some of the very specific statements the Lord
had made to the effect that no man was going to take his life from
Him, but rather that He was going to lay it down of Himself.
And so we come to the third aspect of the crucifixion.
16. “W hosoever hates his brother is a m urderer” (1 John 3:15).

17 “[Jesus]. . . w hom they slew and hanged on a tree” (A cts 10:39).
237
The theological fact

Matthew, Mark, and Luke present their record of events with
little or no theological comment. John's Gospel is quite different
in this respect. Here we find the Lord’s words ( John 10:15, 17, 18):
I lay down my life for the sheep... Therefore my Father

loves me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it
again. No man takes it from me, but l lay it down of myself.
I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again.
This commandment have I received of my Father.
The Greek of these verses is so clear and straightforward and

simple that it would make a beautiful exercise for any beginner
studying the language. One of the most striking things about it is
the repetition of the words, "I lay down my life." This phrase
occurs in verses 15 and 17 and twice in verse 18. It is doubtful if
the Lord could have placed greater emphasis upon anything He
ever said to his disciples than He does by these simple words "I
lay it down of myself."
As I read these words, I see the Lord trying to impress upon
his disciples that in no way is his life going to be taken from Him.
He is going to die but it is going to be his act. He will not die as
other men have died under compulsion. Nor will He merely
choose the time when He will allow other men to put Him to
death. In the simplest possible terms, the very act of dying will be
his choice, regardless of circumstances.
When John in his Gospel came to record the Lord's death, he
used a word never elsewhere used in classical or biblical Greek for
the death of any other man. In John 19:30 we have these words:
"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, ‘It is
finished’, and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost."
The impression one has from this is that he yielded up his
spirit under the pressure of circumstance, even as Ananias and
238
Sapphira are both said to have yielded up their spirits.18 But the
Greek word for "gave up" which John employs in this instance is
not at all the normal word used for expiration. It is the word
paradidomi19 which means not to surrender but to DISMISS. In
contrast the other Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all
employed words which were commonly used in Greek to des-
cribe man's passing, and indeed so did Peter in Acts. By contrast,
Paul uses this word paradidomi on a number of highly significant
occasions when speaking of the Lord's death.20
When the Lord said He had power to lay down his life, He
made his point clear by adding, "and I have power to take it
again." It is obvious that while any man may commit suicide—i.e.,
has power to terminate his own life -- it is equally obvious that he
does not have power to take it up again. The Lord had the same
power both to lay down and to take it up—or to put the matter
slightly differently, He was entirely in charge of the process, both
ways. He dismissed life by an act of will, and by an act of will
later re-engaged it.
In his exercise of absolute authority over his own life He did
not give up his spirit in the sense that other men give up theirs.21
He deliberately dismissed it, and the transformation of his body
18. “A nanias hearing these w ords fell dow n, and gave up the ghost... [Sapphira] fell dow n
and yielded up the ghost” (A cts 5:5, 10)
19. For m ore inform ation on this, see Seed of the W oman, chapter 32, “Death by an A ct of
W ill”, pp.408-421.
20. See G alatians 2:20: “...the Son of God, w ho loved m e, and gave him self [paradidomi] for
m e”; Ephesians 5:2: “...w alk in love, as Christ also has loved u s, and has given him self
[paradidom i] for us”; and Ephesians 5:25: “...Christ also loved the church, and gave him self
[paradidom i] for it”.
21. In the light of 1 Peter 3:18 (“For C hrist also has once suffered for sins, the just for the
unjust...being put to death in the flesh”), it m ight reasonably be argued that he w as “put
to death in the flesh,” m aking his death as passive as our death alw ays is. If so, w e indeed
have a contradiction of all the evidence to the contrary. H ow ever, it is im portant to note
that the Greek w ord thanatoo, here rendered “put to death”, can m ean -- and is frequently
so translated -- “condem ned”, or “delivered up to die”. It is so view ed in M ark 14:55 (“The
chief priests and all the council sought for w itness against Jesus to put him to death’) and
Rom ans 8:36 (“As it is w ritten, For your sake w e are killed all the day long...”)
239
from a living organism into a dead body was so immediate that

the centurion was amazed.
No wonder, therefore, that it was a man in authority who
could say to one under his command, "Go! and he goes," who
suddenly perceived that One, far mightier than he, had been able
to say to his own spirit "Go!" and it obeyed immediately. Thus in
a unique manner did this Man die: at his own command and in no
sense in obedience to a summons from any other authority. He
cried out in triumph, "It is paid in full!", commended his spirit into
his Father's hands, and deliberately "blew out the candle." When
the time came, it all happened in a matter of minutes.
He accomplished the work his Father had given Him to do,
partly in an eternity, and now finally in time.
This unique death noted by early commentators

Thus, historically considered, Jesus was crucified and slain.
From the moral point of view, they slew Him by their hatred and
sealed it by a crucifixion. Theologically, the cross was only a stage
upon which the Lord Himself voluntarily became his own exe-
cutioner. These aspects of the crucifixion, which are so seldom
spoken about in modern commentaries, have been recognized
from the earliest times.
Tertullian (c. 160—c. 215) wrote that when Christ was cruci-
fied "at His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him
His spirit, anticipating the executioner's work." 22 Two hundred
years later, M ethodius, Bishop of Olympas, observed: "Christ
chose death to which He was not subject, that He might deliver
them which were the bondslaves of death." 23
In 1886 Alfred Edersheim put the matter this way: “His death,
22. Tertullian, “Apology,” chapter 21 in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, translated
by C leveland C oxe, vol.III in A nte-N icene Fathers, edited by A lexander Roberts and Jam es
D onaldson, N ew York, C harles Scribner's Sons, 1918, p.351.
23. M ethodius: "Som e O ther Fragm ents of the Sam e M ethodius," Sect. III, translated by
W illiam R. C lark, vol.V I in A nte-N icene Fathers: Fathers of the Third Century, ibid., p.401.
240
his resurrection—let no one imagine that it came from without! It

is his own act. He has power in regard to both, and both are his
own voluntary, sovereign, and divine act.” 24 In 1895 James
Denney wrote a little more extensively, saying:
If death was precisely the same problem for Christ that it

is for us, then the New Testament way of speaking about his
death is simply incomprehensible. If the first Christians had
been of this mind, the phraseology we find in every page of
Scripture could never have arisen. But they were not of this
mind. They believed that Christ was sinless, and therefore
that death, although included in his vocation, had a unique
significance...his death is a solitary phenomenon, the one
thing of a kind in the universe—a sinless One, submitting to
[I would have said embracing ACC] the doom of sin. It was
his death, certainly, for He had come to die; but it was not his,
for He knew no sin; it was for us, and not for himself that He
made death his own.2 5
Fifty years later, John Murray underscored what we have been

saying as follows:
[The death of Jesus] was unique because of the way in

which He died. No other died as He died. How can this be?
All others die because forces other than their own wrest life
from them and sever the bond uniting body and spirit. Not so
Jesus on the accursed tree. He was indeed crucified by others:
He did not crucify Himself. But when He died, He dismissed
his spirit, He laid down his life: He, in the exercise of his own
agency and by the authority given Him, severed the bond.26
24. Edersheim , A ., The Life and Tim es of Jesus the M essiah, N ew York, H errick & Co.,1886,
vol.II, p.193.
25. D enney, Jam es, Studies in Theology, Grand rapids, Baker reprint, 1976, p.136.
26. M urray, John, "The Death of C hrist" in C ollected W ritings of John O w en, Edinburgh,
Banner of Truth Trust, vol.1, 1976, p.37.
241
The difference between his dying and our dying can be

illustrated by a series of short antithetical statements, which can
be documented from Scripture either in the actual wording or as
clearly implied. They may be tabulated, though over-simplified,
as follows:
We are subject to death ............................He became subject to death

We are humbled by death ..................................He humbled Himself
We, like Paul, are “offered” ...................................He offered Himself
We surrender to death ...................................................He embraced it
We relinquish the spirit ...............................................He dismissed it
We may choose the time to die.....................................He chose to die
We can only shorten our lives ............He merely suspended his life,
only to re-engage it at will
A few have raised the dead .....................................He raised Himself
Our death is passive .............................................His death was active
Our death we suffer....................................His death He commanded
He died on the cross

but not from it.
He may even have died with a ruptured heart,
but not because of it.
All these things were both possible and meaningful because,

in Augustine's words, while it was "not impossible for Him to
die," it was "possible for Him not to die." These conditions of his
life in no way disqualified his nature as truly Man, because these
same conditions of life applied to Adam before he fell.
A vicarious, substitionary, sufficient sacrifice

The significance of the miraculous conception is that by this
means Jesus Christ escaped the physiological consequences of
Adam's disobedience, namely, the inheritance of physical mor-
tality.
Unless this had happened, the Lord's death could only have
been premature and not in any way vicarious. He would have
242
been, as some have even suggested, merely the first Christian

martyr. But his potential physical immortality certified that his
death was vicarious. And yet his body was still truly a human
body and He truly was a representative of Man as the Last Adam.
There is a circle here of cause and effect which cannot be
broken—and the organic unity of the Christian Faith is critically
involved in it.
Furthermore, He must not merely be Man, He must be God-
made-Man. For whereas one man may die for another man on the
principle of balanced compensation, were He only a man— no
matter how perfect—He could not have substituted for more than
one man. Only by being more than man, yet man nonetheless,
could He make in Himself a sufficient sacrifice not only for my
sins but for the sins of any man who will avail himself of it.
At the same time, the first man must not only have enjoyed
the potential of physical immortality but he must also have
possessed "original righteousness," by which is meant true moral
freedom. The First Adam need not have sinned even as he need
not have died, and thus the Last Adam was truly Man even
though He never sinned.
Besides these things, Adam must have had a sense of moral
accountability which made him a unique creature with a
conscience towards God and the full capability of recognizing the
nature of sin and the rationale of judgment.
On these foundations was built a species, every member of
which is capable of redemption and able to perceive the rationale
of salvation as it applies to himself. Man is such a creature that he
can by grace recognize his need of salvation when fallen and can
embrace it by exercising the necessary saving faith.
These theological aspects of the biblical record of what
happened to the two Adams, both as to their origins and their
deaths, cannot be rationally integrated into an evolutionary world
view applied to man.
243
Whereas it is true that the application of the redemptive process

to the individual depends on the nature of man's spirit, it is also
true that the manner of man's redemption has hinged upon the
nature of his body. For this body was originally such as to permit
the Son of God to be made Man in order to redeem man by his
substitutionary death while at the same time in no way violating
or surrendering his own divine nature. In short, man's sense of
need originates in the unique properties of his spirit, and his
redeemability hinges upon the unique properties of his body.27
Evolution and Redemption incompatible

The theory of evolution applied to man makes a shambles of
this Plan of Redemption. As Kirtley F. Mather, an evolutionist,
observed in an article contributed to a volume of papers entitled
Science Ponders Religion (which were edited by none other than
Harlow Shapley), "When a theologian accepts evolution as the
process used by the Creator, he must be willing to go all the way
with it."28 And I venture to say that no one can accept the
evolution of man and still hold firmly in a truly rational way to
that Plan of Redemption, the hope of the saints down through the
ages.
27. A single O ld Testam ent passage som etim es foreshadow s a w hole series of events in the
N ew Testam ent in a truly rem arkable w ay. Thus in Exodus 12:5-7 and 13 w e have the
follow ing w ords: "Your lam b shall b e w ithou t blem ish... and the w hole assem bly of the
congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening, and they shall take of the blood and strike
it on the door post ...w hen I see the blood I w ill pass over you." A ccordingly, w e have the
Lord identified as "the Lam b of God" in John 1:29, brought to the bar (before the Rom an
court) in John 18:30 and declared de facto "w ithout fault" in John 19:4 and 12, having been
brought by the w hole assem bly (A cts 4:27: “both H erod, and Pontius Pilate, w ith the
nations and the people of Israel, w ere gathered together”), and then "slain and crucified"
(A cts 5:30) "in the evening" (M atthew 27:57): and finally, the blood sprinkled (“C hrist as
H igh Priest ...w ith H is ow n blood entered the m ost holy place...” H ebrew s 9:11-15) that the
judgm ent of God m ay pass over us.
28. M ather, K irtley F.,"C reation and evolution" in Science Ponders Religion, edited by H arlow
Shapley, N ew York, A ppleton-C entury-C rofts, 1960, p.37.
244
In the very essence of its internal structure, the theology of

redemption is challenged by evolutionary presuppositions. Any
satisfactory "wedding" of the two is logically impossible. The
rationale of the Plan of Salvation is based entirely on the concept
of balanced restitution -- eye for eye, tooth for tooth, human life
for human life. This simple fact lies at the very root of biblical
theology. H. G. Wells was correct when he wrote in 1920:
If all the animals and man had been evolved in an

ascendant manner, then there have been no first parents, no
Eden and no Fall. And if there has been no Fall, then the
entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin
and the reason for the Atonement upon which the current
teaching bases Christian emotion and morality, collapses like
a house of cards.2 9
Such was the persuasion of a man who had no Christian

convictions, but was more perceptive than many who have.
In a similar vein James Orr observed,
I do not think it can be sufficiently emphasized that

Christian truth forms an organic whole—has a unity and
coherence which cannot be arbitrarily disturbed in any of its
parts without the whole undergsoing injury. Conversely, the
proof that any doctrine fits in essentially to that organism and
is an integral part of it, is one of the strongest evidences we
can have of its correctness.30
As will be seen in the last chapter, it is a great pity that a

number of other stalwarts of the Faith have not applied this test
in their own thinking about the matter.
For many devout Christians today who have adopted
evolution in place of creation, the problem lies in their un-
29. W ells, H . G., Short H istory of the W orld, edited b y Raym ond Postgate, new enlarged
edition, N ew York, D oubleday, 1949, p.987
30. O rr, Jam es, G od's Im age in M an, Grand Rapids, Eerdm ans, 1948, p.260.
245
willingness to extend the consequences of their broadened faith.

They can only live with the substitution of evolution for creation
because, while their knowledge of biology is often profound in
many respects, their understanding of the organic unity of the
Christian Faith has not been adequately worked out. They are
unaware of the real nature of its logical structure and how
impossible reconciliation really is.
The sinfulness of man and the death of the Lord Jesus Christ
are both unaccountable except in the light of each other.
Evolution can account for neither of them. For the beastliness of
man is not of the beasts, and the Lord’s death was unique and
quite supernatural. Animal “aggressiveness” is natural, man’s is
unnatural: animal death is natural because programmed, man’s
is unnatural being a penalty. The only explanation of the Lord’s
purity of life and his death is supernatural.

246
Chapter 16
THE DEATH OF DEATH
The Man Who Raised Himself from the Dead
"In another form..." Mark 16:12
It is a remarkable fact that the Early Church was far more

concerned to celebrate the resurrection than the crucifixion.
Illustrations of the resurrection were painted on the walls of the
miles of catacombs under the streets and houses of Rome from the
very beginning. By contrast, the sign of the Cross is almost, if not
quite, absent from them; the earliest known case is believed to
have been done at a much later date by a pilgrim visitor.
Kenneth Clark observed that the Cross is hardly ever
represented in earlier art forms, and when it is, it tends to be
tucked away in the corner of the work rather than central to it. It
was not until the fifth century that Christ was actually portrayed
on the cross between two thieves.1
It would, therefore, seem that the prime emphasis in
preaching was on the resurrection rather than on the crucifixion,
a fact which is a little surprising in view of the modern emphasis
upon the Lord's death and the virtual neglect of his resurrection.
1. C lark, Sir K enneth, Civilization: A Personal V iew , London, BBC , 1969, p.29.
D EATH O F D EATH
247
William Barclay, whose commentaries are extremely popular but

whose attitude towards the Scriptures is far from conservative,
stated publicly that he does not see the virgin birth as having any
essential place in the Christian Faith and is "mystified" by the
resurrection.2
In this chapter, I obviously cannot treat the resurrection in any
sense comprehensively. My object is limited to drawing attention
to a number of seemingly incidental remarks made by the four
Evangelists which have a very specific bearing on the basic theme
of this book. What I wish to underscore is that the biblical record
concerning the nature of Adam must be taken to mean what it has
traditionally been taken to mean: or the strictly logical coherence
of the whole Plan of Salvation, of which the BODILY resurrection
of the Lord forms the capstone, breaks down completely.
The biblical data on Christ’s resurrected body

The amount of incidental detail which the four Gospels
provide on the subject of the Lord's resurrection body is
remarkable. Since our resurrection bodies are to be fashioned after
the pattern of his and are to be an essential part of our personal
identity in heaven, it is strange that one hears so little about the
matter from the pulpit. After all, we shall spend eternity in them!
I want to discuss in this chapter what I believe to be the
significance of some of these details in relation to the Lord's body
under what appears to be three conditions of operation: (1) as it
was when laid in the tomb; (2) as it was immediately after He
raised it very early on that resurrection morning; and (3) as it was
shortly afterwards, transformed into a new vehicle for the
manifestation of the Lord's person with some entirely new and
2. Barclay, W illiam , in The British W eekly, 31 Jan., 1963, p.5; and see com m ents by H arold
Lindsell, "W here D id I C om e From ? A Q uestion of O rigins" [Christianity Today, 17 June,
1977, p.18] referring to W illiam Barclay, A Spiritual A utobiography, Grand Rapids,
Eerdm ans, 1975.
D EATH O F D EATH
248
astonishing properties, properties which our resurrected bodies

are also to share.
It will help to set the stage by listing briefly the basic facts
which the New Testament provides in considering the circum-
stances surrounding this progressive change between that
resurrection morning and the Ascension forty days later.
(1) W e are told that He raised Himself, a circumstance unique in history.

(2) But we are also told that an angel, not the Lord Himself, rolled away
the stone that sealed the tomb, suggesting, at first, real limitations to
what He could do in that body.
(3) The body in which He first appeared to M ary M agdalene was
evidently the very same body that had been laid in the tomb three
days before.
(4) Contrary to what would be expected in the circumstances, that body
had experienced no corruption [decay] whatever during its three
days of entombment.
(5) A transformation of some sort then took place in that body between
the first appearance to M ary and the next appearance to M ary and
others that seems to have occurred quite soon thereafter. This
transformation endowed it with entirely new properties which,
however, in no way left its identity in any doubt. It was still his body.
(6) W hat had transpired in the interval between those two appearances
can be tentatively conjectured from certain passages of Scripture
which, if the proposed interpretation is allowed, shed light on the
circumstances surrounding (2) and (3) above.
(7) The significance of the very deliberate way in which the Lord at first
protected Himself against being touched but afterwards invited
(indeed commanded it )-- is examined in the light of certain state-
ments in Hebrews not usually related to this seeming contradiction.
(8) The importance of these extraordinary new properties of a
resurrected human body, as they relate to our own future, is then
explored. They suggest that our bodies, and therefore we, will enjoy
a new kind of freedom from present limitations while yet retaining
our identity fully and unequivocally throughout eternity. The
prospect is a wonderful one, and the importance of the human body
D EATH O F D EATH
249
is magnified tremendously. Its potential as a vehicle for the

redeemed spirit of man to express itself effectively and actively in
the New Heaven and New Earth that is promised is seen to be well-
nigh inexhaustible.
I am well aware that the Gospel records of the resurrection

appear to many to be so full of contradictions as to be almost
beyond reconciliation.3 It would be a foolish man who imagined
that he has the final key after the attempts of all others have
brought no universally accepted resolution. All I hope to do in
this chapter is to show that we are provided with a chain of
circumstantial details in these records which seem to me to move
forward progressively to a single objective. This progression
demonstrates a significant change which took place in the nature
of the Lord's body at some point between the time of his first
appearing to Mary Magdalene and his ascension 40 days later
from the Mount of Olives, and a reason why the change was not
immediate is suggested.
This "progressive revelation," as it were, is not materially
affected one way or the other by doubts as to who saw what, or
even in what precise order some of the incidents took place. I
venture to say that the following very summary statement will not
be disputed by those who take the Word of God to be entirely free
of error. Instead, one is led to conclude that even the very
wording used has been inspired. It seems to me that a great deal
hinges upon the assumption that the wording is indeed to be
taken very seriously. In short, these are not merely intriguing
incidents. They are designed to communicate a truth about the
nature of the Lord's resurrection body which is of profound
importance, and perhaps could not have been made clear in any
3. See Seed of the W om an, H am ilton, O n (C anada), D oorw ay Publications, 2001 [1980],
especially chapters 33 “Resurrection w ithout corruption” and chapter 34, “Presentation of
the blood,” pp.422-452.
D EATH O F D EATH
250
other way. Here we have the pattern after which our bodies are
also to be fashioned, though not progressively as His was.
I propose to put this summary in the form of a series of
questions, each of which refers to a particular circumstance that
may not have struck the reader previously as of much importance.
I have to assume, in the interests of brevity, that the reader is
more or less familiar with the broad sweep of events and therefore
with the general background of the particular details which
constitute the focal point of each question.
(a) W hy was it necessary for an angel to roll away the stone (M atthew
28:2)? Why did not the Lord pass through it, or even roll it away by
using his own mighty resurrection power?
(b) W hen He appeared to M ary M agdalene, the first to com e to the
tomb, why did He forbid her to touch Him?4 What did He signify by
his explanation of why contact was not permitted?
(c) W hen M ary and her companions arrived back at the tomb later, why
did He now allow her and her companions to hold Him by the feet,5
an action certainly making physical contact in a very concrete way.
(d) W hy did the two who walked to Emmaus not recognize Him
visually as M ary and her companions had recognized Him, until He
performed the act of breaking bread? 6
(e) W hy are we told that the doors were locked, which seems too
obvious a thing to need mentioning since it was night time? 7 W hy is
such emphasis placed on his means of self-identification? And what
did He mean precisely by the phrase "a spirit has not flesh and bones
as you see I have"? 8
4. “Touch m e not, for I am not yet ascended to m y Father” (John 20:17)

5. “Jesus said to [the w om en], A ll hail. They cam e and held H im by the feet...” (M atthew
28:9).
6. “...he took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to them ... their eyes w ere
opened... they knew him ... he vanished out of their sight” (Luke 24:30, 31).
7. “The sam e day at evening...w hen the doors w ere shut w here the disciples w ere
assem bled...” (John 20:19). The Greek w ord translated "shut" im plies locking for it form s
the root of their w ord for "key".
8. “They w ere terrified...he said, Behold m y hands and feet, that it is I m yself; handle m e
and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:37-39).
D EATH O F D EATH
251
(f) W as there a specific reason in the purposes of God for the absence
of Thomas at his previous appearance and his presence now eight
days later (John 20:25, 26)?
(g) Is there any particular reason why the climax of these personal
appearances (John 21:1-14) should once again have involved a meal
of which the Lord was this time not only the host— but a host whose
invited guests were asked to supply part of the meal themselves?
It will be seen from what follows that this chain of events falls
into a pattern, each link making its own particular contribution,
a contribution usually crystallized by a small circumstantial detail,
the significance of which is easily overlooked. I am not making
any attempt to address the many apparent contradictions that
have been remarked upon by those who have made a far more
intensive study of these events. But I do not think the resume
which follows will be seriously challenged as to their sequence or
the chief characters involved in each instance. Having said that,
let me boldly plunge where even angels might fear to tread.
Bodily resurrection verified

The body of any condemned man was removed before
sundown to be buried, according to Jewish law.9 No corpse was
given full preparation at once but merely protected against attack
by insects and wrapped for the time being. The tomb was then
temporarily closed to protect against predators. It would be re-
opened after three days.
The reason for not completing the burial arrangements at this
time was that "certification of death" was not granted until the
"third day" because by this time it was assumed that a certain
marked change would have taken place in the appearance of the
face which, by Jewish tradition, signified that the spirit had left
9. “H is body shall not rem ain all night upon the tree, but you shall in any w ise bury him
that day” (D euteronom y 21:23).
D EATH O F D EATH
252
the body permanently and would not return.10 The object of this
precaution was to ensure that death had really occurred and that
no natural recovery would take place—as sometimes happens
even in modern times, even after certification of death.
Those who performed these burial rites were usually women
rather than men, and were customarily personal friends and
relatives of the deceased. This circumstance accounts for the fact
that a succession of women came to Jesus' tomb very early on the
third day with various spices to care for the body for the last time
before final closure of the tomb.
W hen Mary Magdalene, who was the very first to come,
arrived while it was still dark, she had every expectation that the
tomb would be closed but evidently wanted to be there as soon as
she could for the opening of the tomb and the certification of
death according to law. It would be the last sight of their beloved
Lord any one of them could expect to have as the body was
prepared for final interment.
Remember that it was still dark,11 but not too dark for her to
find something that surprised her greatly. The stone had already
been rolled away! The woman cautiously approached the open
tomb, it was all so quiet and so dark and there was no one around
to give her assurance, so she did not dare to go in but went back
to find more company.
She returned, now accompanied by "the other Mary" and
Salome, the mother of James. By this time it was just beginning to
get a little lighter.12 To their amazement the angel, who had rolled
10. See J. C . Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the G ospels, N ew York, C arter, 1881, vol.II, p.284;
and A lfred Edersheim , The Life and Tim es of Jesus the M essiah, N ew York, H errick & C o.,
vol.II, p.325.
11. “The first day of the w eek M ary M agdalene early, w hen it w as yet dark, cam e unto the
sepulchre” (John 20:1).
12. “A t the end of the Sabbath, as it began to daw n tow ards the first day of the w eek, M ary
M agdalene and the other M ary cam e to see the sepulchre” (M atthew 28:1).
D EATH O F D EATH
253
away the stone, was at that very moment sitting upon it!13
The angel spoke to them quite naturally and invited them to
examine the tomb and see for themselves that the Lord was no
longer there. It was indeed empty, but inside were two other
angels who actually rebuked them for their incredulity!
"He is not here, but is risen," they said. "Remember how He
said to you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of man
must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified,
and the third day rise again'" (Luke 24:6, 7).
We do not know where Mary Magdalene's companions
went—perhaps to take home the spices they had brought, not
knowing what else to do. But we do know that Mary ran at once
to tell Peter, and John the disciple whom Jesus especially loved.14
Peter and John (with Mary never able to keep up with them) ran
immediately to the tomb to see for themselves: and their hurried
journey is described in one of the most marvellously descriptive
passages ever penned in so few words (John 20:4-8):
So they both ran together: and the other disciple did

outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping
down...saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then
comes Simon Peter following him, and went into the
sepulchre, and saw the linen clothes lying, and the napkin
that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but
wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that
other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre—and he saw,
and believed.
In the tomb they saw the linen clothes lying in one place, and
the head wrapping carefully laid by itself, evidently folded and
13. “...the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and cam e and rolled back the stone
from the door, and sat upon it” (M atthew 28:2).
14. “Then [M ary M agdalene] ran and cam e to Sim on Peter, and to the other disciple w hom
Jesus loved, and said unto them , They have taken aw ay the Lord out of the sepulchre, and
w e do not know w here they have laid him . Peter therefore w ent forth, and that other
disciple, and cam e to the sepulchre” (John 20:2, 3).
D EATH O F D EATH
254
laid down as though the Lord's body had been gently un-
wrapped. Certainly there was no evidence that the body had been
stolen, for such care would never have been taken by thieves.
Meanwhile, Mary followed breathlessly some distance behind
and only arrived as Peter and John were about to go back and tell
the rest of the disciples what had transpired. The body was gone,
and so had the guards, but it must have seemed obvious to them
that it was not the work of thieves— for this false report was not
circulated by the disciples but by the Lord's enemies 15
In the meantime, Mary remained at the entrance to the tomb,
distraught by what they had discovered, and weeping at her
personal loss. She could not even perform the last rites to the body
of the Lord whom she had loved so dearly and understood so
well.16
Looking into the tomb through her tears, she suddenly saw
two others were there, one at each end of the place where the
body had lain. They said to her,
"Why are you weeping?"
"Because," she said, "they have taken away my Lord and I
know not where they have laid Him."
And having said this, she turned away from them and saw
someone else in the opening, his silhouette sharply outlined
against the dawning sky as she stood in the tomb. This one said
to her (John 20:15),
"Why do you weep? Whom do you seek?"
This, she thought, must be the gardener—for after all Joseph
15. “...som e of the w atch cam e into the city, and show ed unto the chief priests all the things
that w ere done. W hen they w ere assem bled w ith the elders and had taken counsel, they
gave large m oney unto the soldiers, saying, Say that his disciples cam e by night and stole
him aw ay w hile w e slept. A nd if this com es to the governor’s ears, w e w ill persuade him
and secure you. So they took the m oney and did as they w ere taught; and this saying is
com m only reported am ong the Jew s until this day” (M atthew 28:11-15).
16. A t a dinner after Lazarus w as raised, “M ary took a pound of ointm ent of spikenard,
very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and w iped his feet w ith her hair: and the house
w as filled w ith the odour of the ointm ent” (John 12:3).
D EATH O F D EATH
255
of Arimathea, who had just purchased the property and had had
the rock tomb excavated, was a rich man and very probably had
a gardener to look after it. So she said to him, "Sir, if you have
borne Him hence, tell me where you have laid Him and I will take
Him away."
Seen against the lightening sky and through her tearful eyes,
she did not recognize who He was until Jesus did the one thing
guaranteed to identify Him to her unequivocally: He simply
spoke her name.
"Mary!"
Mary fell instantly on her knees before Him and would at once
have held Him by those beloved feet had He not said quickly,
"No, Mary, you must not touch Me!"
Then He told her why: "Because I have not yet ascended to my
Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to my
Father and your Father; and to my God and your God'" (John
20:16-27).
And I can imagine her, almost beside herself with joy and,
asking no more questions, running breathlessly back to where she
knew the disciples were gathered, to tell them that she had act-
ually seen the Lord! He was alive! He was risen indeed! She had
spoken to Him face-to-face!
In the meantime, while these events were transpiring and the
message was being eagerly shared and talked about, two of the
Lord's friends were walking soberly back home to Emmaus. For
although the news was spreading quickly no doubt, almost no
one really believed (save for Mary Magdalene) that the Lord was
indeed risen in body and was back among them once more...
This "walk to Emmaus" is perhaps one of the most dramatic
scenes in the whole of Scripture (Luke 24:13-35). These two
travellers, as they go, talk about all that has happened in the last
few days: the dashing of their hopes that Jesus was indeed the
promised Messiah, and how He had been so cruelly treated and,
D EATH O F D EATH
256
unresisting, had been led away to die the most frightful of all
deaths—on a cross. And now there were these rumours...
As they walked, Jesus came up behind them, a little apart but
still close enough to hear their conversation. He soon joined them
unobtrusively and asked them what they were talking about so
earnestly. They were naturally surprised at his ignorance, and
asked,
“Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem, and don’t know the
things which happened there in these days?”
“What things?” He asked
“The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet
mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how
the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned
to death, and crucified Him. But we were hoping that it was He
who was going to redeem Israel. Today is the third day... and
some went to the tomb... [but] did not find his body...and a vision
of angels said He was alive...”
Now He in turn rebuked them and asked why they hadn't
realized that it had all been foretold beforehand!
"O fools, and slow of heart to believe," He said. And so be-
ginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in
all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself (Luke 24:18-27),
thereby explaining the meaning of what had been happening.
In no time at all, it seemed, they were home, and they turned
aside to go into their own house. Their newly-found companion,
still unrecognized, went on as though He would not invite
Himself in. But they urged Him to come in and He accepted the
invitation. Together they went in and very soon were sitting at
table having refreshment. Meanwhile, the conversation contin-
ued, until He took bread, blessed it and broke it—and suddenly
their eyes were opened and they recognized Him! No sooner did
they recognize who He was than He vanished out of their sight.
Now why had they not recognized Him before? Perhaps the
D EATH O F D EATH
257
answer lies in Mark 16:12. "He appeared to them in another form"

(Greek: en hetero morphe).17
If we were to find another word for this phrase, we might say
his body had been transformed. In fact, He had now assumed a
transfigured form—it was his own body still, but somehow
wonderfully changed. The facial agony was gone, the shadow of
the three hours of darkness was dispersed, the marks of the crown
of thorns and the buffeting, the bloody sweat, the gasping for air
and the desperate need for water in the mouth, the matted hair
and the bowed shoulders that could not sustain the load of the
cross—in short, the "tragic" figure of an utterly abused and
condemned victim in whose face there was "no beauty that we
should desire Him" (Isaiah 53:2)—all that was gone. That had been
their last impression and their only remembered one. But this
stranger who shared their walk back to Emmaus was utterly
unlike the Lord as they had seen Him barely three days ago.
It is almost certain they had no expectation of ever seeing Him
again, least of all vibrantly alive and so beautiful. It is really no
wonder they did not recognize Him, for He did indeed appear in
"another form," a figure of beauty, not shame. In fact, so different
was this body that He could share a meal with them, eat their
food, and then suddenly disappear, vanishing without a trace —not
even a trace of the food He had eaten!
No wonder they rose at once and went back to the city to join
the other disciples. The Lord was alive indeed! The Lord had
risen, as He had promised!
Bodily transformation verified

Now, the question arises: If He could vanish so easily now,
why was it necessary for an angel to come and roll away the stone
so that He could leave the tomb—as the stone had been rolled
away for Lazarus to come forth? Why would He not simply pass
17. For a discussion on this, see A ppendix 7, “In A nother Form : Transform ation.”
D EATH O F D EATH
258
through it?
Is it possible that the metamorphosis of his body did not
actually occur until after Mary Magdalene had seen Him? If so,
must it not be that the body which was laid in the tomb, his
physical, earthly, and terribly wounded body, was the very body
which He said He would raise up—that very temple 18—and
nothing less?
But such a body could not pass through the stone closure! Nor
would it be humanly possible, even if it were resurrected and
given new life, for such a body to roll the stone away, blocked by
a wedge in the track as it certainly was, on Pilate's orders. From
inside, no one, not even a Samson perhaps, could have forced it
over the impediment. Someone from outside, whether man or
angel, had to remove the "lock" and roll it away.
Thus we might, not without reason, reconstruct the scenario
and suppose that the Lord, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, did
indeed revitalize his own Temple, but not yet to change it in any
significant way. An angel rolled away the stone, and two other
angels removed the wrappings—just as all this had been done for
Lazarus (see John 11:41-44). Only then did He step forth, his "old"
self, still bearing the marks of the wounds indeed, and still cloth-
ed in his earthly body. As Mary Magdalene returned, perhaps He
stood aside in the dim light until she had entered the tomb, and
then stood silhouetted against the sky as she came tearfully and
wonderingly out. The rest we know.
But a question remains. When did the transformation occur?
Why did He not permit her even to touch Him? Was there a task
He must yet complete while still clothed in this earthly body? I
believe there was.
18. Jesus, attending the Passover in the first year of his m inistry, had cleared all the m oney
changers out of the Tem ple w ith a w hip of cords. The Pharisees had asked him , “W hat
m iraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” Jesus answ ered
them , “D estroy this tem ple, and in three days I w ill raise it up”...but H e spoke of the tem ple
of his body” (John 2:15, 18, 19, 21 N IV ).
D EATH O F D EATH
259
He had performed on earth the first part of his sacrifice in his

own body on the tree. As both High Priest and sacrificial Lamb He
had yet one more duty to perform "in his own body"—this time in
heaven. He was now about to ascend to his Father and his God to
complete the sacrifice by personally presenting his own blood.
This ascension was quite different from the ascension at the end
of the forty days. This was an ascension to be followed by an
immediate return to earth. Did not the angel say to Mary and to
her friends a little later, "Go your way and tell the disciples and
Peter that He goes before you into Galilee; there shall you see Him
as He said to you" (Mark 16:7). Is there any evidence from
Scripture that the Lord really did ascend for this purpose to his
Father and his God? I think there is.
Hebrews 9:11 and 12 reads: "But Christ being come an high
priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect
tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building
[i.e., his body: see John 2:19]; neither by the blood of goats and
calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the Holy Place,
having obtained eternal redemption for us." Here, I suggest, He
laid before heaven, before his God and his Father, before the angel
hosts, and even before Satan perhaps, the blood of the everlasting
covenant that has obtained for us eternal redemption.19
I do not suggest that there is any way of explaining such
things in physical terms, but it seems to me that the simplest ex-
planation of why the same Mary Magdalene (and her friends) was
allowed to touch Him and hold Him by the feet upon the next
19. Because his body, unlike our bodies, had not seen corruption [decay] in the grave, w e
can be assured that his w as the blood of a Lam b w ithout blem ish and w ithout spot. H e w as,
as w e have seen, m ade only in the likeness of sinful flesh, not sinful flesh in fact (Rom ans
8:3). Thu s his blood w as likew ise uncorrupted and could avail for an atonem ent. This is
w hy Peter said so pointedly: "H e w hom God raised again, saw no corruption. Be it know n
unto you therefore that through this m an is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and
by him all that believe are justified from all things, from w hich you could not be justified
b y the law of M oses" (A cts 13:37-39). In short, our very salvation hinges upon the fact of
that unblem ished body and uncorrupted blood.
D EATH O F D EATH
260
meeting with Him, is that in the interval He had safely fulfilled

the function of High Priest and completed the sacrifice of Himself
as the Lamb of God. He, the great High Priest, had offered Him-
self, the Lamb—taking his own blood into the Holy of Holies.
Now, under the old Covenant any human contact with the
High Priest instantly defiled the priest and disqualified him, so
that a "reserve" priest was always kept in readiness on the Day of
Atonement in case the appointee for that year should accidentally
be defiled by any such contact.20 Mary could not touch Him until
He had completed this part of his sacrifice. Thereafter He not only
allowed contact with his body, but invited it, and on one occasion
even commanded it.
Yet we know from the next appearance that while the
transformation had restored his beautiful face,21 the identifying
marks of the wounds of crucifixion in his hands and feet and of
the spear in his side still remained. Perhaps this will serve
throughout eternity to show that whereas our bodies must be
dissolved and replaced, such total replacement was not required in his
case. For his body had remained without internal blemish of sin.
Presumably, the Emmaus couple had not noticed his hands. But
his body had been changed in one very significant way: it was his
body still and identifiably so, but it was no longer his earthly
body as to its functioning principal. Nevertheless it was still his
own body.
Which brings us to his first appearance among his disciples
gathered together with all the doors shut, for fear of the Jews
(John 20:19). Unlike the closure of the tomb which could only be
opened from the outside, these doors were "locked" from the
inside. But Jesus passed through them and suddenly appeared in
20. See Appendix 8, “Instructions for the H igh Priestly O ffice”

21. “ God w ho com m anded the light to shine out of darkness, has shone in our hearts, to
give the light of the know ledge of the glory of G od in the face of Jesus C hrist” (2
C orinthians 4:6).
D EATH O F D EATH
261
the room where they were all gathered discussing what a few of
them had just seen and heard. When He suddenly became visible,
the very circumstances of his appearing must have convinced
them all that it was a mere ghost of himself. To prevent this
misapprehension, and without hesitation, He held out his hands
and showed them his feet and said, "It is I myself, handle me and
see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have"
(Luke 24:39).
The visual impression of this display of the marks of the
crucifixion must have been tremendous, even though it was as yet
only visual and not tangible evidence. Even a ghost might appear
to have flesh and bone, for how else could a ghost's ‘hands’
appear as hands? But clearly, though hesitant to put Him to the
test by actual contact, the disciples still stood in some doubt.
Almost in rebuke the Lord said, "Have you any food?" And
someone gave Him a piece of broiled fish and a piece of a
honeycomb (Luke 24:41-43). W e are then told, simply, that "He
took it and ate it before them."
This was a beautiful example of the Lord's dealing with any
complex situation. The alternative was to persuade each one
present (perhaps up to 20 persons) to personally examine his
hands and feet and side. How otherwise could all present be
individually convinced? But by this simple means He left all who
had eyes to see in no doubt whatever as to the reality of his bodily
presence.
They must have waited until He had actually swallowed it,
and then perhaps He waited silently for them to recover from
their amazement. Surely there could be no longer any doubt that
it was really himself and that his body was as real as the food
which He had eaten. And yet He had come through closed doors
and appeared out of nothing in their midst. This was indeed a
new kind of embodiment...manifestly substantive, and yet not
subject to any physical barrier.
D EATH O F D EATH
262
But it should be noticed that He had said, "A spirit has not
flesh and bones as you see I have": flesh and bones, not flesh and
blood. The Lord thus employed language which is not found
anywhere else in the New Testament,22 although the phrase "flesh
and blood" certainly is. 23 "Flesh and bones" would seem to signify
a different kind of body: a body indeed, but a body differently
constituted.
The Lord had avoided the word blood. Could it be because his
body was now sustained by a different form of energy, vitalized
by a different principle of life? The principle of his old life sacri-
ficed on Calvary, namely, the blood, was now in heaven; and the
new life was independent of that blood. In other words, the life
which is in the blood had really been given and was never to be
taken back again. It was in the most real sense an eternal sacrifice.
Nevertheless, in order that He might henceforth remain Man, a
human body was still necessary, a real body of flesh and bone, a
functioning body; and yet a body now operating on some entirely
different principle.
Eight days later He again appeared in their midst passing
freely without any hindrance through closed doors as before. But
this time Thomas was present. With his usual greeting He said,
"Peace be unto you." Then turning immediately to Thomas and
without asking him what kind of proof would satisfy his lack of
faith, He commanded him to do exactly what Thomas had said to
the rest of the disciples would be the only proof he could accept,24
namely, to assure himself that the nail prints were real. It is
22. Except in Ephesians 5:30: “W e are m em bers of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.”
23.It is used, for exam ple, in M atthew 16:17: “Blessed are you, Sim eon Barjona: for flesh and
blood has not revealed it unto you;” 1 C orinthians 15:50: “... fleshand blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God;” Ephesians 6:12: “W e w restle not against flesh and blood;” Galatians
1:16: “...im m ediately I conferred not w ith flesh and blood;” H ebrew s 2:14: “...as the children
are partakers of flesh and blood, he also him self likew ise took part of the sam e.” In every
case it is obvious that the m eaning is precisely to signify an earthly body.
24. Thom as said, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put m y finger
into the print of the nails, and thrust m y hand into his side, I w ill not believe“(John 20: 25).
D EATH O F D EATH
263
obvious that the Lord had been present, though invisible, when
Thomas had made this statement. By this means He showed them
that his presence was just as real when invisible as it was when
visible—and one has to assume just as bodily real, even though
they did not know He was there. The reality of his new body did not
depend upon its visibility.
It would appear from John 20:27ff that Thomas was astound-
ed to hear the Lord command him to satisfy himself on his own
terms. We are not told that he responded by actually doing
it—only that he said, perhaps somewhat breathlessly, "My Lord
and my God!"
It is clear therefore from these records that the Lord would
have submitted to any test that any solid live human being might
have asked of Him to prove the reality of his body, simply
because his body was capable of satisfying any such test. It was a
real body, more real than ours in fact, because now indes-
tructible.
The final episode is truly astounding. It took place probably
not long before his ascension. It is recorded in John 21:1-14. The
circumstances are as follows.
The disciples had fished all night without success. Apparently
there was more than one boat involved in the fishing party. As the
day dawned and they were near to the shore, they discerned
someone standing at the water's edge. Across the intervening
water a voice that they may not at first have recognized called out
to them,
"Children, have you any fish?"
"No," they answered Him.
"Cast your net on the right side of the ship," the stranger called
back, "and you shall find."
Although it seems likely from what followed that at that
moment they did not know it was the Lord, for some reason they
obeyed unhesitatingly. John writes: "And now they were not able
D EATH O F D EATH
264
to draw [the net] in for the multitude of fish."

John, the perceptive one, said to Peter in a low voice, "It is the
Lord!" As soon as Peter recognized the truth of it, he put on his
fisherman's coat in order to cover his nakedness, jumped into the
shallow water and ran towards the shore. Meanwhile, the other
disciples in another little boat drew near; and between them they
dragged the net, so full of fish, to shore. Then they saw a fire of
coals there, and fish laid thereon and bread (John 21:9).
It is hard to imagine what this really signified. Had the Lord
caught these fish? Had He baked this bread? Had He gathered the
wood to burn, and lit the fire to form the bed of coals? Did He go
into the water and catch the fish, and search along the shore for
the wood? Or did He create it all, fish and bread and coals?
Somehow, one likes to think He had gathered them. Despite the
transformation that had taken place in his body, He was no less
a man—and now He was also a host.
The surprising thing is that He apparently, and I am sure quite
deliberately, did not actually catch enough fish for the number of
guests who had arrived. So He said, "Bring some of the fish which
you have now caught" (verse 10). Surely this was not of necessity
but was rather a beautiful gesture, guaranteed as nothing else
would have done to give them a sense of reality in what was
happening, by having them contribute something more than
merely their presence. For everyone of them must have felt almost
paralysed in amazement by what was taking place. Yet Peter had
so recovered himself that he went over and pulled the net in a
little further still and took time to count the great haul of fish they
had just made; 153 of them! He even noticed that the net had not
broken and would need no repairs...25
25. W as Peter thinking of another tim e w hen they had caught nothing (Luke 5:1-11)? O n
that occasion Jesus had said “launch out into the deep and let dow n your nets” (verse 4).
But Peter, w ho hadn’t caught anything all night and not likely to do so in broad daylight,
only let dow n one net (verse 5). It w as a huge haul and the net had broken... But this tim e
he had done as instructed, and even though it w as again a big haul, yet the net did not
D EATH O F D EATH
265
By this time the meal was cooked and Jesus said, "Come and
dine" (verse 12). It is an unimaginable scene, or perhaps one
should say rather an uninventable scene. Everything that was
done and said was entirely appropriate to the setting. Silently
they all sat down around "the table." We are told that none of the
disciples dared to ask, "Who are you?" They knew who He was.
One wonders how the conversation went as they shared this
picnic by the sea, to which in his graciousness they had been
allowed to contribute their share. Jesus broke the bread and gave
it to them, and the fish...
How many thoughts must have gone through their minds!
Perhaps they recalled the feeding of the 5000... and the 3000...and
the last supper. That supper was no longer the last meal. This
really was the last supper, a supper of joy, and peace without
shadow.
Quite properly, the curtain is drawn on that scene by saying,
"So when they had dined..." What a dining that had been!
Bodily immortality—triumph over death forever

The reality and the potential of that wonderful body had been
amply demonstrated. It had served Him superbly. It had graced
his earthly life. It had never seen corruption even in the tomb. He
had disengaged Himself from it for a few hours and re-engaged
it to complete his sacrificial work. He had borne our sins in it, on
the cross. He had glorified the Father in it. Men had seen God
objectified in a body which under no circumstances had ever
displayed any cause for shame.
Now, it had received the final and higher form for which it
was created. It was set free at last from all vulnerabilities and all
limitations. It had achieved immortality in the most absolute
sense. It would never be laid aside again and therefore the Lord
break. N o w onder he w as am azed...

266
Jesus would remain forever truly God incarnate as Man.26 In it He

could do whatsoever He wished to do, and there were no barriers
to its movement or functioning, and no waning of the energies
which empowered it.
Such, then, was the potential of the body of Jesus Christ, the
Last Adam; and such, then, must have been the body of the First
Adam until he almost, but not quite, destroyed that potential
forever by eating the forbidden fruit and poisoning himself and
the human race into a mortal state.
Evolution cannot account for this kind of human body

Is it conceivable that such a glorious vehicle for a truly human
spirit could ever have had an animal origin? Surely only a
miraculous conception can account for the body of the Last Adam;
only direct creation can account for the body of the First.
Evolution cannot allow that an animal's body has any
transcendental significance, and since it insists our bodies are
essentially no different, it cannot allow that they have any
transcendental significance either. As far as our bodies are
concerned, they die like the beast's. Only a ghost of ourselves can
26. Just how im portant, and necessary, it is that the Lord Jesus Christ should forever retain
his hum anity is em phasized by the follow ing catechetical questions-and-answ ers:
Q uestion: Could the Lord Jesus C hrist have returned to heaven “m erely” as G od, after his
death on C alvary?
A nsw er: Yes, by leaving his body in the grave.
Q . C ould the Lord have becom e “a m an in heaven” w ithout his resurrected body?
A . N o, not at all.
Q . W ould it have m attered?
A . Yes, H e could not have then stood as Ju dge of m an as a m an. N or could H e have
transported to heaven the proof that he had died for m an as m an’s redeem er.
Q . W as the Lord Jesus C hrist a “m an” prior to the incarnation?
A . N o. H is divine nature could not ‘filter’ itself as m an--to m an--u ntil H e had the ‘filter’:
a hum an body. H is previou s appearances in hum an form (theophanies) no m ore
constituted him a m an than w ere the angels constituted as m en, though they appeared to
be so (w hen they took Lot and his w ife ‘by the hand’). It w as an accom m odation for those
angels, not an incarnation in the sense that John 1:14 speaks of in relation to the Lord (“the
W ord w as m ade flesh and dw elt am ong us”).
267
be allowed continuance and most evolutionists would flatly deny

even this.
But the Scriptures speak otherwise. We are assured of re-
embodiment, in a body like his glorious body, sharing its
incredible potential, and no longer being a barrier to the spirit but
a perfect vehicle for its expression.
I wonder if the Christian evolutionist has really worked
out his own faith in the light of the Lord's bodily resurrection...

268
Chapter 17
DEATH ABOLISHED!
Our Hope and our Destiny
Speculative? Of course it is! As one whose professional

life was spent as Head of a research laboratory in Human
Physiology, I know that one can make little or no progress
without it—only we call it hypothesizing. And it has proved
highly successful in the laboratory.
Why should not the Christian exercise freedom of mind
in the same way—only this time with a mind renewed and a
mind informed and channelled by revelation and disciplined
in the use of logic.
Why not!
A human being is not a human being without a human body.

Unless the body is constitutionally part and parcel of man's being,
the emphasis in the New Testament upon the resurrection of the
body is quite unaccountable.
If we can be persons without a body, there seems to be no
reason why Paul should have argued that unless the body is
raised we are of all men most miserable:1 nor why he should have
said our final expectation is 'the redemption of the body.' The
proof of the Lord's resurrection was not his reappearance as a
1. “If in this life only w e have hope in C hrist, w e are of all m en m ost m iserable” 1
C orinthians 15:19.
D EATH ABO LISH ED
269
ghost but as a person with a body of flesh and bones. Resurrection

is not merely spiritual survival but bodily survival as well.2
I don't, however, wish this chapter to be an anticlimax in the
form of a catalogue of passages of Scripture proving the point.
This has been done many times by detailed exegesis of the
wonderful assurances of the reality of the next world—such as we
find in 1 Corinthians 15:35-38, Philippians 3:20, 21,3 and the final
chapters of Revelation. I'm not attempting to prove the resur-
rection of the body: I'm starting with it as a basic premise.
W hat I want to do is to exercise some imaginative freedom
and reflect upon four aspects of the potentials of such a bodily
existence as the Lord Jesus Christ experienced, and still ex-
periences, as a Man in heaven. These four aspects may be
summarized as follows:
(a) What shall we be?

(b) What shall we do?
(c) What shall we know?
(d) How shall we be recognized?
What will it be like to be entirely free forever—free to be what

we would like to be, to do what we would like to do, to know
what we would like to know, to go where we would like to go,
and to meet whoever we would like to meet? How will we feel
when we suddenly realize we are incorruptible and immortal at
last, without fear or pride? What will it be like when we are free
2. See on this appendix 9, “The Re-C onstitution of a Person in the Resurrection.”

3. “But som e m an w ill say, H ow are the dead raised up? A nd w ith w hat body do they
com e? You fool, that w hich you sow is not m ade alive excep t it die; and that w hich you
sow , you sow not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it m ay chance of w heat, or of som e
other grain. But God gives it a body as it has pleased him , and to every seed his ow n body”
(1 C orinthians 15:35-38); “For our [citizenship] is in heaven, from w hence also w e look for
the Saviour, the Lord Jesus C hrist, w ho shall change our vile body that it m ay be fashioned
like unto his glorious body” (Philippians 3:20, 21).
D EATH ABO LISH ED
270
of gravity and of the limitations of space and time; free of need,

free of hunger, pain, delay or impatience, hatred or malice,
boredom or unfulfilled aspiration or unwanted partings—of all
and any of the sorrows and disappointments that characterize this
life and turn a beautiful earth into such a blessed vale of tears?
Name anything, absolutely anything that is a source of human
anxiety or grief or shame, and that will be absent from our new
world. What freedom this will bring, and with what safety it will
be enjoyed! The real reason we cannot be allowed even the good
things we long for, including fruitfulness in his service, is that all
too frequently it would not be safe for us. We would all too soon
be plagued with spiritual pride if our labours were to be as
blessed as we would wish. Such is the paradox of Christian life
because of that most troublesome of all sins—spiritual pride.
Let us, then, take a look at these four aspects of existence
which will almost certainly apply to a state of freedom that is
nevertheless not a state of disembodiment but of being embodied
"gloriously" as promised in Philippians 3:21.
(a) What shall we BE?

We have the Lord's promise that when He returns He will not
only receive us unto Himself4 but that when we see Him we shall
be like Him.5 This is what we are to BE.6
4. “I w ill com e again and receive you unto m yself, that w here I am , there you m ay be also”
(John 14:3).
5. “Beloved, now w e are the sons of G od, and it does not yet appear w hat w e shall be; but
w e know that w hen he shall appear, w e shall be like him , for w e shall see him as he is” (1
John 3:2).
6. That the body in w hich Christ arose w as a very real hum an body is gained from the fact
that M ary m istook H im for the gardener. The tw o disciples on the road to Em m aus thought
H im an ordinary hum an being, until that m om ent w hen they recognized H im in a
characteristic breaking of bread. Later, w hen Jesus app eared in the locked upper room ,
they w ere terrified because they knew Jesus w as dead, and therefore w ere quite sure this
w as a ghost until given definite assurance of the reality of his actual physical presence.
Later still, on the shores of Lake Tiberius, they knew that the person w ho had called to
them from the shore w as not a ghost but w as Jesus in the flesh. It becom es clear, then, that
D EATH ABO LISH ED
271
The change will be instantaneous, "in a moment, in the

twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians 5:51,52). We shall be raised
incorruptible and immortal for that meeting (1 Corinthians 5:52,
53).7 This diseased and decaying body will be transformed "that
it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the
working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto
himself" (Philippians 3:21).
And if you have questions about the 'how,' I suggest you read
1 Corinthians 15:35-50. The words scarcely need comment: they
are clear and unequivocal. What will rise from the dust is to be an
outgrowth of what has been sown. To quote Thomas Boston
again, "There is a vileness in the body which, as to the saints, will
never be removed, until it be melted down in the grave, and cast
into a new form at the resurrection to come forth a spiritual
body." 8
Nor will there be any loss of identity, a fact which gave Job
great assurance and led him to exclaim: "Though after worms
have destroyed my skin, they will then also destroy this body, yet
in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself and my
own eyes shall behold, and not someone else's" (Job 19:26, 27).
We shall be ourselves and all experience will be firsthand.
this body of C hrist, even w hile on earth at the tim e of the Transfiguration, w as capable of
passing from one state to another w ithout losing identity. Thus the description of this body
is a description of the “glorious body” that w ill be ours. [See C harles H odge, Sytem atic
Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdm ans, 1973 reprint, vol.2, p. 627, 628].
7. “...the trum pet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and w e shall be
changed. For this corruptible m ust put on incorruption, and this m ortal m ust put on
im m ortality” (1 C orinthians 15:52, 53). This w ord “corruptible” is based on a root verbal
form w hich m eans “to be corrupt” through decay. It is also used to m ean “to kill” or “to
destroy”-- seed and fruit can be “corrupt,” sacrificial anim als as “blem ished” or “de-
fective.” It is used in the O ld Testam ent, and by Philo, in a m oral sense as a noun m eaning
“dam age,” “destruction” and “corruption” [see G.K ittel and G. W . Brom ily, Theological
D ictionary of the N ew Testament, Grand Rapids, Eerdm ans, 1973, vol.IX, p.96, 98)]. W hat a
change that w ill be!
8. Boston, Thom as, H um an N ature in its Fourfold State, London, Religious Tract Society, 1720,
p.99
D EATH ABO LISH ED
272
God will give to each of us a body as it shall please Him (1

Corinthians 15:38), having wrought [made] us in the first place
'for this very thing' (2 Corinthians 5:5). It is far better that He
should choose for us the particular form of embodiment that will
make us whole again. As we shall see in dealing with (d), we shall
really not be in a position to choose for ourselves. What He
chooses for us will be a body that is perfectly appropriate to house
the spirit which He has perfected for it in order to reconstitute us
as the kind of person we have always longed to be, both
outwardly and inwardly.
Above all, we shall be human beings, not angels. The point is
an important one. To Adam were committed the government and
cultivation of the resources of the earth. He and his descendants
were to multiply and fill it in order to "occupy" it in the proper
sense. When the Lord Jesus said, "Occupy till I come" (Luke 19:13),
He implied two things: first, that He is coming again; and second,
that He is coming again to "occupy" the earth as the Second
Adam—with all that this implies.
If God committed to man the management of his created
world, He had of necessity to provide him with the means. He
had to provide him with a mind that would enable him to
understand His will. And He had to provide him with a suitable
brain in order that his mind could exercise its will upon the
physical world. It would be foolish to suppose that, if there is to
be a new heavens and a new earth, we would not continue to be
provided with the same two prerequisites.
We do not yet know how mind or will can act upon the body
and use it as an extension of itself—as the hand, for example, puts
our wishes into practice. Just how a spiritual force like my will can
move a material object like my hand but cannot move the hands
of the clock on the wall except indirectly, is a mystery. But
certainly we have the will and the skill increasingly to manage the
physical world if we were to set our hearts to do so.
D EATH ABO LISH ED
273
But angels have no such direct powers to influence physical

objects except by a temporary embodiment. The angel that "rolled
away the stone" had to move a physical mass of perhaps 1500 to
2000 pounds. Even the little stone placed in the track and sealed
in position by mud or clay so as to show whether it had been
tampered with, would prevent its being rolled back unless it also
was removed. No doubt the angel did this as a requisite first step.
But it seems that the angel must have been temporarily embodied
with the same kind of embodiment involved when the two angels
took Lot and his wife "by the hand" and hurried them out of the
doomed city of Sodom (Genesis 19:16).
Yet angels are not men, because by definition a man is only
man in a truly human body, and though angels may be tempor-
arily embodied it is certainly not their customary constitution.
Moreover, unlike man, they seem quite able to be fully conscious
as pure spirits without bodies.
W hen the Lord Jesus became Man, He did so by becoming
flesh, of human seed, of the seed of the woman and of the seed of
David and of the seed of Abraham. He became “partaker of flesh
and blood” (Hebrews 2:14), though without our defect. He did not
take upon Himself the nature of angels (Hebrews 2:16), because
He came specifically to act upon our world and to do it as we do
it, not as an angel might do it. He lived among us, healing the
sick, feeding the hungry, raising the dead, and sharing our
physical life to the full. Moreover, He came to give his life, to die,
which God as pure spirit cannot do.
Thus, man by his very nature can interact with the physical
world. And because his spirit and mind can comprehend the will
of God, he can fulfil the will of God within this physical frame-
work as its governor. He is a link across two realities, the reality
of the physical world and the reality of the spiritual world. This
is what he is—a link and a medium. And in the new heavens and
the new earth, since our basic constitution of spirit and body is to
D EATH ABO LISH ED
274
be retained, we shall continue to be a link and a medium.
(b) What shall we DO?

We are not told very much about the nature of the new heaven
and the new earth—except that they shall remain and therefore
will not wear out or run down. They are to be new and
unshakeable9 which may perhaps signify that they will be stable
and not subject to catastrophic disturbances such as astronomy
and geology hold the present universe to have been subject to in
the past.
The present world seems clearly to have been designed as a
habitation for man as he is now constituted. Indeed, this is not
only true of the earth but probably even of the heavens also, i.e.,
of the whole universe. This has in recent years been the con-
sidered opinion of a number of prominent cosmologists.
It would seem reasonable to conclude that if we are to
undergo a transformation of a certain kind, and to be placed in a
new universe, then that universe will accordingly be a trans-
formation of this present one. It will therefore be new in this
sense: not merely a replacement in the same form but a reformed
replacement in which we shall live and move and have our being.
In other words, we shall belong in the whole of it—as we cannot
be in the present one, for lack of time if nothing else! There will
then be the same kind of correspondence between our consti-
tution and its constitution as there is at the present time, except
that we shall not be bound by those physical limitations which
currently bind us.
While this present heaven and earth will pass away,10 the new
9. “Yet once m ore I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. N ow this ‘yet once m ore’
indicates the rem oval of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are m ade, that
the things w hich cannot be shaken m ay rem ain” (H ebrew s 12:26, 27 N K JV ).
10. “H eaven and earth shall pass aw ay, but m y w ords shall not pass aw ay” (M atthew
24:35).
D EATH ABO LISH ED
275
one will not,11 and neither shall we. Thus the words, "Of the
increase of his kingdom there shall be no end" (Isaiah 9:7) may take
on an entirely new meaning, the key word being increase. A few
years ago such a prospect might have seemed utterly absurd, but
not anymore—only we shall not need space ships nor space suits,
and our movements may even exceed the speed of light!
I do not, for one moment, anticipate that our "time" will be
spent playing a harp, much as I would like to be able to play any
instrument well. But I believe such an achievement would be
easily within our reach just by willing to do it. So likewise, I'm
confident we shall be able to roam the earth, or the sky, and
indeed the whole universe, at will. Yet I suspect it will not be an
idle roaming.
There will be creative responsibilities, 'rulerships' as it were, over
whatever will correspond to the "many things" of.12 Whatever the
reality may prove to be, I am sure it will be easily recognizable as
a fulfilment of our capabilities when the time comes. And my
prediction is that the sense of reward we get in this world for an
achievement well done is a harbinger of a sense of far greater
achievement for things yet to be accomplished in that world. Man
was not designed for idleness.13
One final point. Such 'doings' assume the continuance of our
embodied humanity with its potential for creative activity. But
this seems to assume also that the Lord will retain his: and this I
believe He will. The mark of his humanity was (and is) his willing
subservience to his Father,14 even as the mark of his deity is his
11. “The new heavens and the new earth, w hich I w ill m ake, shall rem ain before m e, say
the Lord. So shall your seed and your nam e rem ain” (Isaiah 66:22).
12. “W ell done, good and faithful servant: you hast been faithful over a few things, I w ill
m ake you ruler over m any things” (M atthew 25:21).
13. “H e that believes on m e, the w orks that I do shall he do also; and greater w orks than
these shall he do, because I go unto m y Father” (John 14:12)
14. “For I cam e dow n from heaven not to do m ine ow n w ill, but the w ill of him that sent
m e” (John 6:38).
D EATH ABO LISH ED
276
rightly claimed equality with his Father.15 If this is a reasonable

assumption, then perhaps we have assurance of the permanence
of his humanity from the fact that when He shall have had all
things (ta panta, in the Greek, i.e., "the universe") subdued under
his feet, He in turn will also Himself be subject unto Him (the
Father) that put the universe under Him, that God may be all in
all.16 He will therefore, it seems, never cease to retain his two
natures, one of which we now also share. Neither He, nor we, will
ever be in a disembodied state again, and this implies we shall
never be without something to do! The fact that we are to be
embodied can only mean that the universe will be 'substantial'
and that we shall be able to act upon it.
(c) What shall we KNOW?

I suggest we shall know anything we need or desire to know
and our knowledge will be without error. Since it seems imposs-
ible to contemplate the failure of memory, whatever we have once
learned in that new universe we shall never forget.
But would not this imply an interim ignorance, and is not ig-
norance a kind of sin? From the New Testament, we know that
the answer to this must be in the negative.
The Lord Jesus as Man did not know everything automa-
tically, nor did He know everything from the moment He was
born. But He did know everything He needed to know at each
stage of his life, and all that He did know He knew perfectly. Of
some things He seems clearly to have been ignorant. This was
part of his self-abasement in assuming human nature, which in
order to be truly human required that He lay aside or sublimate
his divine omniscience s. Thus while his occasional ignorance was
real enough (as when He could not tell his disciples the time of his
15. “I and m y Father are one” (John 10:30).

16. “W hen all things shall be subdued unto him , then shall the Son also him self be subject
unto him that put all things under him , that God m ay be all in all” (I C orinthians 15:28).
D EATH ABO LISH ED
277
returning), it was not an ignorance due to sin.

On a number of occasions we see this laying aside of omni-
science. For instance, we learn of his surprise at the fig tree which
lacked the fruit He had expected to find on it,17 and of his great
delight in the man who, though not a Jew, had a wonderful faith
in his power to heal.18 On another occasion, He asked his beloved
and bereaved friends, Martha and Mary, to show Him where
Lazarus had been buried.19 Was this merely an accommodation to
his friends in which He concealed his knowledge or was it a real
case of limitation? It seems to me that He would not pretend
under any circumstances, and therefore that He really did not
know.
I believe we shall still have much to learn in our perfected
state in that new universe. We shall know anything we need to
know and learn everything we desire to learn. We shall never
suffer from needless or undesired ignorance. Things we want to
know, whether necessary or not, we shall know by some process,
perhaps akin to intuition, or merely by asking.
As to asking questions... That which will constitute brain in
our new bodies will have a direct line of communication involv-
ing neither delay nor hindrance of any kind to the right database.
That heavenly database could well be nothing less than the mind
of God.
(d) How shall we be RECOGNIZED?

It would seem a simple matter to house the resurrected spirit
17. See M ark 11:12-14, 20,21.

18. “A (Rom an) centurion said, lord m y servant lies at hom e sick of the palsy,
grievously torm ented. Jesus said, I w ill com e and heal him . The centurion said, lord, I
am not w orthy that you should com e under m y roof, but speak the w ord only and m y
servant w ill be healed. For I am a m an under authority, having soldiers under m e. I say
to this m an, Go, and he goes, to another, C om e, and he com es; to m y servant, D o this,
and he does it. Jesus m arvelled and said.... I have not found so great faith, no, not in
Israel.” M atthew 8:5-13.
19. See John 11:34.
D EATH ABO LISH ED
278
in a recognizable body so that we could all know each other as we

have known each other in this world. The size and shape and
mannerisms of our bodies become part of our identity to those
around us. And our facial features and expression clinch the
matter. So we have plenty of clues by which to recognize one an-
other.
But then a problem arises. What if it has been twenty-five
years since we last saw some particular friend in this world? Faces
change, and so do figures! How, then, shall we recognize each
other if in the interval we have grown from infancy to maturity,
or even from middle age to old age? In short, what stage of our
life will our resurrection bodies reflect?
And even more problematically, let us suppose that a child is
a year old when his mother dies. He grows up to be a well-known
Christian leader and in due time, well on in years, he goes home
to be with the Lord. How, now, will mother recognize a son, or
son mother? Adequate photographs might be left in his
possession for him to recognize his mother, but photographs of
the son could not be left in the mother's possession to serve the
same purpose. Such blood relationships will surely not matter in
heaven, but will we need introductions to almost every person we
meet, including old friends and even our closest relatives?
And what of those with whom we may have corresponded for
many years and yet have never seen, or may even have spoken to
by telephone, but still have never met face-to-face? How shall we
recognize them, or they us? Certainly not by the wearing of name-
tags!
It was easy for the disciples to recognize the Lord, once their
minds had accepted the reality of the resurrection, because of the
marks on his body which He made use of to serve that very
purpose. But it seems highly unlikely that any of the redeemed
will come before Him with any such marks, with a limp or a
missing arm or anything marring the perfection of the new body.
D EATH ABO LISH ED
279
Thus we cannot allow ourselves the conceit of supposing that

we shall automatically have the kind of magnificent body or
beautiful body that would be appropriate in the prime of life, for
such a body would not be appropriate in many cases as a means
of identification. Some other principle of "identity" must be in
view.
There is an identity which is non-photographic. Artists
recognize this and are often guided by it even though to the
uninitiated it looks like a distortion. Michelangelo, with his extra-
ordinary skill as a sculptor, often portrayed his subjects in such a
way as to make them both recognizable and unrecognizable:
recognizable to those who already knew them with a measure of
intimacy but unrecognizable to those who didn't. They were
recognizable in that he had captured the soul of his subject, which
would be familiar to those who knew: but unrecognizable to those
who didn't know the soul of the subject— because he disregard-
ed, to a great extent, external appearances leaving his portrait
without adequate visual correspondence.
For instance, he portrayed Lorenzo the Magnificent who was
his great benefactor, as a soul of great beauty (which he was in the
eyes of many people) rather than as a somewhat mean-looking
character such as we see on coins struck with his image during his
lifetime. The coins showed what he looked like. Michelangelo
showed what he was.20
Again, if one examines his masterpiece, The Pieta, in which he
portrayed the crucified Lord, as if it were, "draped in death"
across Mary's knees, one will notice that the face of M ary is if
anything younger than that of the Lord. His purpose was
undoubtedly to present Mary to the viewer as a soul of great
beauty, apart from the fact that her attitude is one of sad
resignation. But considering that she must have been by this time
20. For this picture see “The H arm ony of Contradiction”, Part II in H idden Things of G od’s
Revelation, vol. 7 of the D oorw ay Papers Series, Zondervan, 1977, chapter 2, p.92, 93.
D EATH ABO LISH ED
280
at least 50 years of age,21 and considering that the Middle East is

not "kind" to the faces of women as a rule, a photographic image
might well fail to reveal the heart of Mary behind that aging face.
Michelangelo was not trying to be merely kind: he wished to be
truthful, and unconsciously we read the truth.
We may well find that in our new bodies we shall all have a
truer and deeper identity than mere photographic likeness.
Perhaps the identity will not be established at all by shape or
configuration. The shape or configuration that we shall display
may be precisely the shape or configuration created by the viewer
in each case and not by the one being viewed. We shall see in our
friend what will seem to us ideal: and yet another friend will see
in that same person something quite different though equally
satisfying his or her ideal. We shall not know we are looking at
something different, we two viewers. And it will seem quite
possible that when we look at ourselves, if there is ever such a
thing as a heavenly mirror, we shall see what is ideal to us and it
may be very different from what our viewers are seeing.
Could it not be that each of us will be recognized, not by the
normal visual impact of ordinary viewing but by the miracle of a
transformation which will convert the visual signal in the mind of
the viewer into an appropriate form that is entirely congruous
with the personal nature of that individual as the viewer once
knew him or her in this world? The woman would appear as a
woman to those who knew her as such, as a girl to others who
had known her at an earlier stage, and conceivably even as a child
to the mother who had died when that child was only a few years
old.
The four Gospels present us with apparently different and
intentionally contradictory accounts, though the central figure is
clearly one and the same Person throughout. We have to assume
21. By the tim e of the crucifixion, the Lord w as approxim ately 33 years of age, and it seem s
rather unlikely that M ary w ould have been less than 17 years of age w hen H e w as born.
D EATH ABO LISH ED
281
therefore that the impression He generated was different to the

minds of different viewers. Matthew saw Him as the Promised
King, with all the earmarks of a kingly presence. Mark saw Him
as a servant par excellence, which is quite another thing. Luke saw
Him as a Man among men, as "the Son of Man" indeed. John saw
Him not as Man with the attributes of God but as God with the
attributes of Man.
He was all these things. He communicated his presence and
his identity differently to different men, not because He was
changeable in any way but because those whom God chose as
writers of the inspired record each perceived Him according to
their own personality and background.
I have no doubt that people from countries all around, regard-
less of their skin colour or characteristic appearance, saw the Lord
as a true representative of mankind in their own terms. We have
a slight intimation of this possibility in the way very small
children will readily play with children of other races without any
apparent awareness of difference in skin colour or features. It is
possible therefore to be quite unaware of these things. Perhaps it
is a mistake for us to portray the Lord "as one of us" with fair hair
and blue eyes since people from other races are rightly offended
by this form of ethnocentricity. The Lord was strictly the Son of
Man, somehow escaping these formal limitations. I wonder what
our illustrated Bibles and Christmas cards are doing, deeply
stamped as they are with our image of what is becoming in man.
I believe that when we see the Lord, we, too, will each see Him
differently. To the white man, He will be our ideal; and so will He
be to the black man his ideal; and to the Chinaman, and to the
Eskimo, and indeed to "every man." Each of us has his or her own
ideal of what is beautiful and what is formal perfection. He will
meet all our ideals individually—not because He will be both
black and white but because our resurrected minds will be so
structured as to filter our vision appropriately.
D EATH ABO LISH ED
282
Thus we shall somehow recognize beloved friends in the Lord

no matter how changed in later life they or we may have been.
Nor shall we need any introductions to those whom we never
actually met—Adam, Job, David, Paul, Augustine, Luther,
Whitefield ... We shall recognize by "essence," not by shape.
As He sees us in a perfect way that truly reveals the character
of our redeemed spirit, so because we shall be like Him we shall
see Him as He is—beautiful to behold, and surrounded by truly
beautiful people, his redeemed children.
Evolution has no destiny

C. S. Lewis in a sermon titled "The Weight of Glory," made a
perceptive observation which is particularly a propos of what we
have been saying. He suggested that the most uninteresting and
commonplace person one has ever spoken to may one day be such
a creature that if one met him today one would be tempted to
worship him. On the other hand, he may one day be such a
creature, so full of horror and corruption, as to be conceivable
only in a nightmare. As he put it, “You have never talked to a mere
mortal": by which I think he meant no man is just what we see
before us, but rather what he may be potentially—for good or ill.
The creatures with whom we joke, snub, exploit, or marry are
potentially "immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.” 22
It is a sobering thought: truly awful or truly wonderful. And
it depends as much on the potential of the human body as it does
on the potential of the human spirit.
The concept of a chance evolutionary process producing a
creature with such a potential for inexpressible beauty or unbe-
lievable ugliness seems utterly absurd to me. We cannot account
by such a means for either alternative—the horror of the effect of
sin, or the glory of the effect of redemption. In this beauty or
22. C . S. Lew is, in an essay entitled "The W eight of Glory" in They A sked for a Paper, N ew
York, M acm illan, 1949, p. 210
283
horror the body plays an essential role.

That heaven or hell should be peopled with beautiful or
horrible ghosts is really inconceivable, and the Bible certainly does
not suggest such a thing. We are to be rewarded or judged "in the
flesh." Our bodies are to share the glory or the shame.

284
Chapter 18
CONCLUSION:
DESTINY DETERMINES ORIGIN
Origin Does Matter
The true way in which to examine a spiritual movement

is in its logical relations: logic is the great dynamic and the
logical implications of any way of thinking are sooner or later
certain to be worked out.
1
J. Gresham Machen
I am fully persuaded that an established fact is as sacred as a

revealed truth. But is the creation of man "a revealed truth" or is
it merely one possible interpretation of the Genesis account? And
is human evolution an "established fact" or merely one possible
way of interpreting the geological record? How do we decide?
How does one distinguish interpretation of evidence from the
truth itself? Is "truth," after all, not reality but only our
interpretation, i.e., our perception of it? How are we to decide
what is the correct interpretation of Genesis?
I have in my own library more than 350 commentaries on
Genesis, going back to some published in the 1600's. In addition
1. M achen, Graham : quoted by J. I. Packer, Fundamental s of the W ord of God, London, Inter-
V arsity Press, 1958, p.26, 27.
DESTIN Y D ETERM IN ES O RIG IN
285
I have the works of the Church Fathers during the first few
centuries of the Christian era, among which are many treatises on
the book of Genesis in various forms. Besides these, taking us
even further back in time, I have some of the earliest com-
mentaries and paraphrases of Genesis written by the Jewish
people themselves. Probably no other book of the Bible has been
subjected to such scrutiny or studied so extensively, or argued
about so assiduously. Why? Because beginnings are always
important. If our Faith is a logical construct, here is its foundation.
Of course, we still have to interpret the sacred record: and of
course, this in large part accounts for the diversities of opinion in
these commentaries since each commentator brings his own pair
of spectacles to the task. Yet apart from works written in the past
one hundred years or so, these commentaries almost without
exception have held to the view that man was created by a direct
and immediate act of God, not merely in spirit but in body also.
If long-held biblically informed opinion counts for anything,
then either the modern accommodation to evolution cannot carry
the same weight or for almost 2000 years Christianity has been
misled in a basic tenet of its faith. But if the evolution of man is a
truth, then our foundation is in error. How can the Christian Faith
be defended if its foundation is destroyed?
The de novo creation of Adam has indeed been the Faith of
the Church for centuries, and so long as man's origin was
understood in this light, his destiny was understood in the same
light—as equally unique. Unlike the other animals whose bodies
return to the earth and whose spirits are destined to do the same,
man's spirit goes upwards to God who gave it to await the
resurrection of his body and its reunion with it to reconstitute the
individual in his entirety.2 Since the destinies of the animal body
2. “W ho know s the spirit of m an, that goes upw ard, and the spirit of the beast that does
dow nw ard to the earth?”(Ecclesiastes 3:21); “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it
w as, and the spirit shall return unto God w ho gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7).
286
and the human body are diametrically opposed, it would be

reasonable to assume that their origins are equally diverse.
The defence of any “faith”

Now Evolution is strictly a faith because its presuppositions
are, like all presuppositions, simply taken for granted. In the
nature of the case, they are probably unprovable in strictly
scientific terms. Each branch of science has its own canons of
proof—in mathematics, logic: in astronomy, observation: and in
the natural sciences, experiment. Because evolutionary theory
claims to be a natural science, it ought to be subject to
experimental proof, but it isn't. It never can be, because what is
past is past and cannot be repeated. An essential of proof in any
science is repeatability. We cannot step into the same river twice.
Nor can we prove the great articles of our Faith, for we cannot
even prove the existence of our God! "He that comes to God must
believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that
diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). Faith is the key to under-
standing in such matters, not understanding the key to faith as we
may prefer to think.
It was Anselm (c. 1033-1109) who wrote: "I believe in order
that I may understand," and Abelard (c.1079-1142) who, fifty
years later, argued: "I seek to understand in order that I may
believe."3 Anselm was right, because every world view starts with
an act of faith and is intelligible only when that initial
commitment has been made.
Every "system" of thought, including evolution, begins with
a premise that is an act of faith. W e have to allow this: and if we
deny an opponent's premise or he denies ours, we have no
starting point for meaningful dialogue. When we insist on proof
of the basic premise, we bring to a halt all useful discussion. A
3. A nselm and A belard: quoted by John H . Randall, The M aking of the M odern M ind, Boston,
H oughton M ifflin, 1940, p.93.
287
premise cannot be proved, for then it would become a conclusion

and cease to be a starting point.
Because the basic premise of the Christian Faith is completely
opposed to the starting point of a strictly evolutionary world
view, there is no real reconciliation possible except by aban-
doning any rigid adherence to logical extension. The Christian
view allows forces and realities of a spiritual nature to be causal
factors in the physical world. Evolution absolutely forbids them.
The two positions are logically irreconcilable and thus it is
hopeless to attempt a wedding of Christian theology and evolu-
tionary theory. They are erected on different premises and can
only be reconciled by the introduction of logical inconsistencies.
Is a position between two opposing ‘faiths’ possible?

The Christian evolutionist who accounts for the origin of
man’s body by a wholly natural process mus then allow it to have
an entirely supernatural destiny—which seems a strange
incongruity. Can such an incongruity be defended? Can a body
with such a supernatural destiny as man’s body is designed for
have had the same origin that evolution demands for the animal
body?
If man derives his body from an animal source with nothing
added beyond what can be provided by nature, then he must be
an animal and nothing more. If he shares the origin and nature of
animals, it is only reasonable to suppose that he will share their
destiny. If the Christian evolutionist should argue that man is an
animal but an animal with a soul introduced from outside the
system, this may be a sop for theology but it is quite unacceptable
to the strict evolutionist.
Yet even for theology such a concession to evolution is wholly
inadequate because man's body is to share equally in the
redemptive process. So then it is not enough to argue that having
a soul makes man distinctly different from animals: he must also
288
have a body that is uniquely human. Why? Because the

redemptive process required the vicarious sacrifice of a truly
human body.
If it should be asked in what way this redemptive process
relates to the nature of Adam's body as created, the answer is to be
found by considering the three following compelling affirmations.
These affirmations are locked together and must all be precisely
honoured or none of them has any validity. First of all, unless the
body of Jesus Christ was by nature under no necessity of dying,
it could not be sacrificed vicariously. Secondly, unless the body of
Jesus Christ was truly human, the sacrifice of it was not vicarious
for man. Finally, if His body was by nature free of any necessity
of dying and was therefore indeed sacrificed vicariously for man,
then Adam's body in its original form must also have been by
nature free of any necessity of dying.
Such was Adam's body, according to the biblical data of
theology. It cannot possibly have been derived from any primate
body since all other primates are by nature subject to death. It
must therefore have been a direct creation of God. Immediate
creation thus meets all these theological requirements whereas
mediate derivation by evolution meets none of them.
The Christian evolutionist takes refuge in the tacit assumption
that it is the soul of man which is unique, and this is all that
matters. As for man's body, since it is animal in origin it cannot
have any transcendental significance. In short, the body is not
essential to man's continuance in eternity. In this view, man is
man only because of his soul. The biblical view of man as a unique
body/spirit entity has to be abandoned. Man can exist just as well
as a mere ghost, even if that ghost supposedly has to assume the
shape of his body for purposes of identity.
To the evolutionists, there can be nothing in nature of which
nature is not the author. No discontinuities in the Great Chain of
Being from amoeba to man can be allowed. There can be no divine
289
intervention, no miracle to upset the strict chain of physical

causality, no revelation to point up the inadequacy of the human
mind in its interpretation of the evidence.
The Christian who admits to faith in either creation or
revelation is suspect, for evolution is a strictly deterministic,
materialistic, non-theistic philosophy. Thus it is difficult to
maintain a position that falls between the two diametrically
opposed world views. The passage from a little admission of
doubt to a frank abandonment of any biblical faith at all is along
a slippery path, and those who start upon it innocently enough,
soon find it more and more costly to stop the slide. Or if they do,
they will in the end find it increasingly difficult to defend what
faith they retain except on an emotional basis.
This abandonment of rational defence is made a little easier if
one really has no understanding of why the issue of the body of
man is so important; but such ignorance of the true situation
hardly encourages a strong and mature Christian faith. Un-
fortunately, while we have a highly-developed theology of the
spirit, there is as yet no convincing parallel theology of the body.
The importance of the body has been sadly neglected.
The “slippery slope” of the Christian evolutionist

To a large extent the Christian’s acceptance of evolution is the
result of a paradox. In spite of a gross materialism which infects
us all, we have somehow overlooked the importance of a material
body, even though the New Testament lays such an emphasis
upon it. We have tended to settle for the Greek view that it is a
prison to be abandoned as soon as possible. It thus becomes easy
to view its evolutionary origin as quite acceptable, for in this view
it is only a temporary part of our being in any case, not something
we shall have throughout eternity. Where it came from is as
irrelevant as where it is going to. On the other hand, it is in fact
part and parcel of our hope of glory!
290
We betray this hope of glory by barely perceptible stages,

yielding on some supposedly "innocuous" point (such as the vast
antiquity of man) which then becomes a first step down the
slippery decline. We do it in a way that causes us little concern
because the element of betrayal of our Faith is not apparent. We
just don't see that it matters.
Soon it becomes necessary to go a step further and abandon
the idea of a real Adam and a real Eve such as we find in the
biblical record—and with it, the story of the Fall. As their concrete
reality slowly recedes, we are easily led to make the tacit assump-
tion that if there were an Adam and an Eve in such a distant past,
they would obviously have looked much like the ape-men of
current reconstructions, and very soon the derivation of Eve out
of Adam becomes clearly mythological.
The next step is comparatively painless. Some kind of ape is
in fact in our direct line of descent. Since the further back we go
by natural generation the more "primitive" we assume we were,
early man is soon indistinguishable from the rest of the primates,
so "why not simply join the family?"
By now our passage down the slope is going full-tilt. It is quite
exhilarating. We are coasting freely with the crowd. We no longer
stand alone: and the comforting thing is that it doesn't seem to
matter. We don't appear to have sacrificed any essential part of
our Christian Faith. Yet somehow the "old Book" seems to have
lost its power to inspire or rebuke or encourage. We come across
the references to the Lord Jesus Christ as the Last Adam and
scarcely realize that the term is now meaningless because the First
Adam has been lost in the mists of evolutionary antiquity two or
three million years ago and cannot possibly have truly been a
prototype of the magnificent figure we meet in the Gospels as the
Last Adam.
But it is too late to retract. At least, the cost will be so great in
terms of "reputation for sanity" and perhaps even job security,
291
that we cannot contemplate it. And so we settle in the end for a

philosophy that is totally inconsistent with the Faith we once lived
by. To do otherwise requires more and more moral courage, while
the exhilaration of apparent "progress" is hard to give up. Without
a strong conviction that one's course is wrong, there is no
incentive to try to reverse it. One cannot have any strong con-
viction in the matter unless one understands something of the
reason for ever having had such a conviction in the first place.
No one really wants to be the only man out of step. It takes a
lot of stamina to go against the current. It is difficult to sustain a
position which is only reasonable to those who allow its premises,
and the enemy is adamant in rejecting these premises.
But the logic of the Christian Faith has such an inner con-
sistency that it cannot be tampered with or adjusted without
virtually rendering it irrational and therefore difficult to defend.
To surrender any part is either to surrender the whole (as many
have done in recent years) or to retain what is retained in a way
that is incomprehensible to those who have not made the sur-
render.
Such inner inconsistency may allow a certain level of
continued fellowship along purely spiritual lines but it certainly
destroys fellowship of mind which is always such a delight
among the Lord's people. The sad thing is that such forms of
disagreement are often the most distressing because theological
incompatibility seems more conducive to disharmony than spirit-
ual incompatibility. Mental convictions are more intractable: we
generally find it much easier to bend on purely spiritual matters
than on theological ones. Heart is more "forgiving" than mind.
Protestant charismatics who attach little importance to theology
can have close fellowship with Roman Catholic charismatics. It is
when either party becomes theologically adept that their
fellowship is endangered.
292
Biblical chronology questioned: the timing of Adam’s appearance

We will not repeat what we have said in the first chapter
regarding the shift in Evangelical Theology which took place at
Princeton Theological Seminary immediately after the publication
of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859. But it may be worthwhile to
pause for a moment to reflect upon the first step taken on this
slide, because it seemed so innocuous at the time.
Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875), one of the first British geologists,
published his Principles of Geology between 1830 and 1833. In this
three-volume work he established that a very long period of
geological history must have preceded the introduction of Adam
while the earth was being prepared for him. He did not seem to
have any doubts about the reality of the Genesis account of what
happened to Adam and Eve and their immediate descendants,
only that the six days which preceded Adam's creation had to be
interpreted as a far greater period. But in a later work, The
Antiquity of Man published in 1863, Lyell argued that Adam must
himself have appeared on the scene far earlier than the 4000 BC of
biblical chronology because his remains were being found
increasingly in rocks of great age.
As we have seen, William Green accommodated the Bible to
geology in this matter by proposing that no absolute biblical
chronology was possible due to gaps in the genealogical records.
What neither Charles nor Alexander Hodge recognized in Green's
thesis was the fact that the argument for the existence of gaps is
entirely circular. If it is asked, "How do you know there are gaps?"
the answer has to be, "Because parallel records elsewhere in
Scripture show them up by supplying the missing names." How
else would one know there was anything missing?
But if the gaps are filled in elsewhere in the same book, there
are no gaps! In other words, we know that in some instances the
genealogies of the Bible are abbreviated, but we only know this
because the abbreviation is pointed out to us elsewhere by
293
supplying what is missing. In short, nothing is actually missing;

it is only that the data are presented elsewhere. Were they not to
be found "elsewhere" we could have no knowledge of "the gaps"
in what preceded. The only way we can become aware of the
abbreviations in the genealogies is by being warned later on that
such abbreviations exist because we are given the names of the
individuals who must be inserted therein to make the record
complete. When we are not given these names, we have no right
to assume there are still gaps. Thus, in effect, the genealogies do
not actually contain unfilled gaps at all. The only concrete
evidence for a gap is the "filling" that is supplied elsewhere, a
filling which only reveals the gap by closing it.
If, for instance, a piece of information in a detective story is
given later in the book, would a reviewer say, "Unfortunately, the
story has gaps in it?" The identity of the murderer may be left by
an author until the very last sentence, but this does not mean that
the murderer's identity is missing. Omissions in one place
supplied in another place are not really gaps at all, but only
temporary withholdings according to the author's intention.
If on an examination paper, for the sake of neatness and ease
of reading, one were to work out a mathematical sum but omit
some of the commonplace steps in the calculation, and then
append these omitted calculations on a final sheet of paper, it
would be quite improper for the examiner to argue that the
student has actually left gaps in the calculation.
In the Bible these so-called "gaps" are made manifest and
clearly indicated by what is recorded elsewhere in Scripture itself.
There is no evidence of any other gaps. How could there be? What
would be the nature of the biblical evidence of any such other
gaps which are not elsewhere made manifest? How could one
identify such a gap at all unless it was elsewhere "filled in" and by
that very means removed? William Green was quite unjustified in
claiming there are still actual gaps in the genealogies without
294
providing literary evidence for the assertion.

Furthermore, if a vast antiquity far beyond the 4000 BC
traditional date is demanded, there are other ways in which a
great antiquity for the world prior to the creation of man can be
allowed for. For example, the days of Genesis might be viewed as
days on which revelation was given to Moses; or they might be
taken to mean ages; or we may introduce a hiatus between
Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and so on. One may disagree with these
alternatives, but they have all been proposed by biblical scholars
over the centuries and are still held by many serious and well-
informed students of Scripture.
But there is no way, if we limit ourselves strictly to biblical
evidence, that Adam as the first man (of whom the Last Adam
was a true representative) can be pushed back into a vast
antiquity as currently demanded. There are ways of
accommodating long periods prior to Adam, but not of pushing
Adam himself back into a dim period a million or more years ago.
Biblical history questioned: no First Adam

That Adam was indeed the first man seems clear from the
Bible. To begin with, there was prior to Adam no man to till the
earth (Genesis 2:5): and when Adam was created to perform this
function he was strictly alone in the world.4 In his aloneness there
was no help suitable for him, and one had to be formed out of his
own flesh.5 This helpmate then became the mother of all living,
i.e., of all other human beings,6 with no exceptions. And to clinch
4. “The LO R D God said, It is not good that the m an should be alone: I w ill m ake an help
m eet [suitable, com parable] for him ” (Genesis 2:18).
5. “Adam gave nam es to all cattle, and to the fow l of the air, and to every beast of the field:
but for Adam there w as not found an help m eet for him . The LO R D G od...took one of
[A dam ’s] ribs...w hich he m ade into a wom an, and brought her to [A dam ]. A nd Adam said,
This is now bone of m y bones, and flesh of m y flesh “ (Genesis 2:20-23).
6. “A dam called his w ife’s nam e Eve; because she w as [w ould becom e] the m other of all
living” (Genesis 3:20).
295
the matter, Paul tells that Adam was truly "the first man." 7
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this first man really
was introduced upon the scene at least a million years ago, how
do we fit this million-year silence as to his subsequent history into
the setting of the first three chapters of Genesis? Was there "so
long ago" a Garden of Eden in which a helpmate was brought to
him, formed out of his own body? And were these two then tested
in the matter of a fruit they were not to eat?
Did the disastrous results of their disobedience then affect the
whole human race subsequently so that every individual in
Adam's line throughout all those unrecorded millennia was a
fallen creature about whom Scripture is totally silent? One has to
bear in mind that the Last Adam stood as a potential substitute for
all the descendants of the First Adam—and this would therefore
include all the human beings living in the world throughout these
silent millions of years. The untold millions of intermediate forms
would still have to be truly represented by this Last Adam both
physically and spiritually or they would not be "redeemable"
under the terms that clearly apply according to the biblical
strategy of Redemption.
Shortly after the expulsion from the Garden, this first man and
his wife consummated their marriage and bore two sons who
grew up, one to become a farmer and the other a herder. We
actually have their names. One of these sons in a fit of jealousy
killed his brother, then fled from the company of his other
brothers and sisters and, taking his sister-wife with him, built the
first "city," naming it after his own son Enoch. All this happened
within two generations of Adam's first appearance.
And there followed during the next three or four generations
the development of a high civilization which included all the arts
and technologies. Suddenly without any evidence of a hiatus of
7. “A nd so it is w ritten, The first m an, A dam , w as m ade a living soul; the last A dam a
quickening [life-giving] spirit” (1 C orinthians 15:45).
296
even a few centuries, let alone a million years, we find ourselves

on the very threshold of an advanced culture abundantly wit-
nessed by the findings of archaeology.
Bringing Adam into the historical period makes sense but
what does one do with a hiatus of almost a million years? I
remember a brief article on the evolution of man which occurred
in a well-known Christian magazine as part of a series by various
authors on evolution generally. It was written by a Christian
anthropologist. In his article the writer said, in effect, that it was
now reasonably certain that man was at least 100,000 years old.
He was clearly quite willing to adjust his thinking about Genesis
to suit this new position. One wonders how he felt, when fifteen
years later, 100,000 years had become an even more confident
"million" years: and now we are being told that our roots probab-
ly go back 3 million years. At what point does one say, "Hold!
Enough." And having done this, what position does one take? At
what point would the writer of that article now say, "Here is
where Adam was introduced"?
This kind of open-ended stance can soon become so nebulous
as to leave one without any position at all, or to put the matter
slightly differently, we would really have to say that there was no
Adam, ever. The first Adam is thus eliminated: so what does this
do to the Last Adam?
Who is right? Where is truth?

Somewhere we have to find room for these millions of years;
and if we do, it is obvious that the very simple and straight-
forward record in Genesis of what happened to Adam and Eve
(and the whole human race in so far as they were latent in them)
becomes a shambles. The foundation of the redemptive history of
man is utterly destroyed. It seems that the great Princeton
defenders of the Christian Faith felt no need to attempt any recon-
ciliation between these two historical perspectives, nor were they
297
aware that by allowing the evolution of Adam's body they were

placing in jeopardy the theology of Redemption they otherwise so
ably expounded.
Perhaps they surrendered too readily. The evolutionary pic-
ture itself is tending slightly towards a position regarding the
origin of the human species which lies a little closer to the biblical
concept of direct creation, though this would certainly not be
admitted by those who advocate these newer concepts of evolu-
tionary process.
As we have seen (Chapter 3), Goldschmidt's "saltations," then
Simpson's "quantum evolution," and now Gould's "punctuated
equilibrium," are all attempts to account for the sudden appear-
ance of entirely new species, of which man is but one. But they are
descriptive terms, not explanatory. Yet they are at least
admissions of a fact that is surely most simply explained as
evidence of creative intervention. The biological record is by no
means a smooth "gradualist" one but is marked by abrupt changes
from time to time involving sudden extinctions on a mass scale
and sudden new emergings, leaving many gaps in the Great
Chain that have persisted despite continued assurances that they
will be found. These gaps are almost universally admitted, as is
also the fact that they can no longer be attributed (as they were
formerly) to the "imperfection of the fossil record."
Thus while the suddenness of man's appearance is not perhaps
the problem that it was, the assumed timing of his appearance
certainly remains a difficulty for anyone whose faith in Scripture
stands firm. And I do not think that the biblical account can ever
be made to accommodate the antiquity that is still being demand-
ed for man. Personally, I am convinced that the arguments for this
vast antiquity will in a due course be modified by fresh evidence
and the Bible vindicated, as it always has been. Certainly, within
the historical period, archaeology has consistently verified the
biblical record, not simply in a general way but in a way that
298
confirms it in its most literal reading.8 Historically it has stood

every test—and I am convinced that the story of Adam and Eve
is part of history, not prehistory.
The compelling theological data

In increasing numbers there are devout Christians who
nevertheless take the evolution of man's body for granted. They
tend to regard Genesis as mythology or poetry or allegory—but
they have not adequately considered what such an approach does
to the congruity which is so strongly reinforced in the New
Testament between the First Adam and the Last Adam.
The bond between the only two truly human beings, both of
whom were thus called Adam, is entirely predicated on a
miraculous origin in both cases: the creation of the first man
Adam, which was clearly a supernatural event; and the virgin
conception of the Last Adam, which was also clearly a super-
natural event.
A body of animal origin acquired by evolutionary processes
is an entirely different thing from a body of divine origin acquired
by direct creation. As to the former, it is clear that such a body
must by nature be subject to death, the ancestral line being
through some primate channel where death is natural. As to the
latter, such a body became subject to death not by nature but only
as a penalty.
The whole Plan of Redemption hinges upon this difference
because the Last Adam cannot by nature be subject to death and
still make a truly vicarious sacrifice of Himself. He would merely
be paying a debt to nature before the expected time.
We have to recognize that whereas an animal dies
NATURALLY because it is necessary, a man dies UN-
8. For m ore on this see the author’s “Som e Rem arkable Biblical C onfirm ations from
A rchaeology”, Part IV in vol.7, Hidden Things of G od’s R evelation, Z ondervan, 1977, pp.145-
214.
299
NATURALLY because it is a penalty—he is, in fact, executed. By

contrast, the Lord Jesus died SUPER-NATURALLY because He
died vicariously, willingly, himself alone being the executor. As
soon as this important truth is lost sight of, we have lost the
rationale of the divine plan for man's Redemption.
The origin and the death of the First Adam were not natural
events: neither were the birth and death of the Last Adam. These
four events stand or fall together. To speak of the latter but deny
the former is to render meaningless the terms First and Last upon
which so much hinges in the Plan of Salvation.
We need not only a "theology of the spirit" but also a
"theology of the body." In every Systematic Theology there is a
section called Anthropology which is intended to deal with the
nature of man. But it is remarkable how little is said about the
importance of man's body not only in this life but in the world to
come. After all, this is an absolutely essential component of his
nature. At any rate, while we have a plethora of Christian works
on the importance of man's spirit, they tend to eclipse the
importance of man's body. It is really no wonder that the
evolution of man's body has been accepted so readily and so
widely.9 There has seemed no compelling reason not to accept it
and the pressure to do so is very great indeed. If one can see no
reason from the point of view of the validity of one's faith as a
Christian, why not accept it when everyone else appears to be
doing so?
Moreover, the theory of evolution has firmly established itself
as a theory with tremendous potential, a key to everything that
involves change and development—or so it seems. Since it is a
9. Even the Rom an Catholic theologians, conservative as one expects them to be, have now
been given perm ission to adopt evolution as a w orking hypothesis, though they too w ill
find it introduces unresolvable contradictions into the theological rationale of the
A tonem ent. This unfortu nate step w as given approval in 1951 by Pope Pius XII in an
encyclical titled H um ani generis, w hich allow s evolution to be applied to m an's body but
not to his soul.
300
recognized principle that a "useful" theory is not overthrown

merely by contrary evidence but only by a better theory, and since
the "better" theory that we prefer as Christians is predicated on
certain metaphysical premises that are totally unacceptable to the
scientific community at the present time, it looks as though we
really have no alternative that can hope to succeed in opposition
to it.
It is fundamentally the premises that are at issue, and here
faith is the deciding factor as to which premise is chosen. Faith in
the reality of a Creator is not achieved by rational argument but
only by a leap in the dark, a sudden change of a viewpoint. It
would therefore seem that our only hope in this warfare lies in a
mighty revival among ourselves and a gracious infusion of saving
faith among those who are our chief opponents. Perhaps we need
to pray more for the salvation of our opponents and not just try to
marshal more facts—though we certainly should not enter the
fray unarmed.
In spite of the fact that our warfare in this matter is a spiritual
one rather than an intellectual exercise or a battle of wits, it is still
important to keep clearly in mind that the use of reason cannot be
neglected. To communicate with an intelligent person we must be
able to give a reason for the hope that is within us.10 Irrationality
is not necessarily evidence of great faith. But the relation between
the direct creation of Adam's body and our "hope" must at least
be clear to us if our words are to carry any weight.
It is my conviction after watching this warfare between
evolution and creation for over half a century that there are
indeed fatal flaws in the theory of evolution that ought certainly
to be kept before the general public. On the other hand, there are
also theological consequences of which the Christian public has
for too long been almost wholly ignorant.
10. “ Be ready alw ays to give an answ er to every m an that asks you a reason of the hope
that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15)
301
But theological arguments for rejecting the evolution of man's

body cannot be used as so much 'ammunition' in this warfare
because they are not based on the same premises upon which our
opponents base their case and they therefore carry little or no
weight with them. Nevertheless these arguments (a number have
been examined in this book) can and should be used to arm the
Lord's people against a too ready capitulation to evolution as it
applies to man's body, even if we are not adequately equipped to
challenge all the biological data on which that theory is based.
But above all, we must bear in mind that whatever we allow
that diminishes the reality and the historical significance of the
First Adam inevitably reflects upon the reality and historical
significance of the Last Adam. That is why, in my view, the issue
is so very serious and why it must be fought on both fronts, the
biological and the theological.
Evolution without hope

Why should we contest the evolution of man's body so
vehemently? Because half of our human nature is wrapped up in
it. It is a body which was glorified by the Incarnation, a body
which has made us redeemable creatures, a body which has a
future beyond death and will be essential to our recognition of
one another throughout eternity.
The New Testament asserts that this body will be resurrected
in identifiable form and placed beyond the power of death
forever.11 Moreover, this promise is applied to Adam himself and
effectively to every one of his descendants, however far back we
place him in time.
This prospect demands a unique origin because the redemp-
11. “Behold I show you a m ystery...the dead shall be raised incorruptible...So w hen this
corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this m ortal shall have put on im m ortality,
then shall be brought to pass the saying that is w ritten, D eath is sw allow ed up in victory”
(1 C orinthians 15:51-54).
302
tive process, by which that destiny is to be affected, hinges upon

the fact that man began in the first place with a body which was
potentially immortal. Such a body cannot have arisen by any
evolutionary process, because it was designed for a unique des-
tiny not promised to any other creature.
Evolution is confessed by its own chief advocates to be a
philosophy without any such hope. We believe that by the super-
natural birth and death and bodily resurrection of the Last Adam,
of whom the First Adam was the prototype, we have not only a
bright hope for the future, but a certainty of it.12
12. For a final thought, see A ppendix 10, “A Sobering Thought, and a Frightful Prospect.”
303
Appendix I
Does It M atter W hen the Redeemer Entered History?
One has to ask the question, W hy did the Redeemer, the promised
seed,1 wait four thousand years before coming to this earth? M ight He
have come at any moment, even as Eve’s first child?
Indeed, there are reasons to suppose from the Hebrew of Genesis 4:1
that Eve actually took it for granted that this is, in fact, what would
happen. For at the birth of her first son, she exclaimed, “I have gotten a
man, the Jehovah,” which has been rendered in various versions as
follows:
“I have gotten a man from the Lord” King Jam es Version

“I have gotten a man, even the Lord” Rotherham
“with the help of the Lord” Jerusalem Bible
“per Deum (through God)” Vulgate
“dia tou Theou (through God)” Septuagint
2
“I have gotten a man by Jehovah” Young’s Literal Translation
“I have gotten a man, the Lord” W illiam Beck’s The H oly Bible
in the Language of Today
It had to be possible that the Redeemer, this promised seed, could be

incarnate in the very next generation, i.e., as one of Adam and Eve’s
sons, just as easily as a “Son of Adam” four thousand years later. If
Adam was formed two million years ago, this possibility still had to be
a real one (though the actual time of Jesus’ appearing was related to
som e historical factor known to God and even vaguely discernible to
historians). But it was not related to the state of Adam’s body as only half
developed as to its manhood, a kind of part-ape, part-human organism.
1. “The Lord said to the serpent, I w ill put enm ity betw een you and the w om an, and
betw een your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel”
(Genesis 3:15).
2. A lso see N ew English Bible (N EB), N ew International V ersion (N IV ), N ew A m erican Standard
Bible (N A SB), Revised Standard V ersion (RSV ), R evised V ersion (RV ), Today’s English
(Berkeley), The Torah, N ew A m erican Bible (Rom an C atholic V ersion), N ew W orld (Jehovah
W itnesses), Sainte Bible (C ram pon), A n A m erican Translation (Sm ith and Goodspeed).
304
This means that only by such a possibility being real could the
Redeemer stand as a true substitute for all men in Adam’s line. The body
He had to assume to redeem man, body and soul, had to be equal to the
body of Adam— and therefore of all Adam’s descendants. Even so,
coming to earth 4000 years later to play this role can only mean that his
wonderful magnificent body was a true model of the body which Adam,
unfallen, had possessed. Even if Adam was formed two million years
ago, this possibility still had to be a real one.
Is it conceivable that if Adam was in some measure part ape, part
human, as to his body (allowing this to be a million years ago) that the
Lord, who by the laws of human reproduction and through the process
of virgin conception was a true Second Adam, could have been born
anything reminiscent of an ape ancestry? The thing is incredible...
Had He been incarnate as Eve’s firstborn, would He like Adam and
Eve have been as near animal in form as they are assumed to have been?
And what then is his standing in his resurrection body— to which we are
to be conformed? If his resurrection body was clearly a model of his
earthly body (as He deliberately set out to show) then we have hope of
a like glorious body. But if it had been like Adam’s body as it is
supposed to have been 2,000,000 years ago— and Eve like “Lucy”— is this
what we, hypothetically 2,000,000 years later, will regress to when our
bodies are made like His? Again it is an incredible alternative.
If we, in our bodies, are “advanced” against our supposed 2,000,000
year old “Adam” forebear, then in whose form must the Lord’s resur-
rection body be if we are to be conformed to it in glory? Do we
degenerate to Adam, or does He, the incarnate Lord, remain glorious just
as He was because Adam, of whom He is the Second example in history,
was not protohuman at all?
If it should be argued that some prim itive tribes seem to represent
degenerate types, the answer is that this physical degeneration is usually
due to environmental factors,3 and not truly representative of Adam
except for a brief period in youth perhaps. But they will be conformed
3. For m ore on this, see the author’s G enesis and Early M an, vol. 2 in The D oorw ay Papers
Series, Zondervan, 1975, especially Part II “Prim itive C ultures: A second look at the
problem of their historical origin.”
305
to the magnificent body of the resurrected Lord because their (and our)
first ancestor before the Fall (the First Adam) was like Him (the Second
Adam) when He dwelt among men.
Appendix 2
Chapter 1, footnote 23; Chapter 5, footnote 13
The M eaning of Vicarious Substitutionary Sacrifice.
It would seem that this redemptive sacrifice is being described by

two synonyms: both of which mean being put in place of another person
or thing. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines vicarious as “taking the
place of another thing or person, substitute, deputy”; and substitutionary
as “a person or thing serving or used in place of another.”
In the story of Eden, after Adam had disobeyed and destroyed his
original constitution both physically and spiritually, we are told that God
cried out, “Adam, where are you?” (Genesis 3:9). I do not think that God
was searching for fallen man (whose whereabouts He surely knew) but
for unfallen Adam— who had simply disappeared. It was A dam as
created, physically immortal and spiritually alive, who had vanished.
In order to recover his true manhood, he must recover his physical
immortality and he must recover his spiritual purity. He needs redemp-
tion and salvation: he needs a Redeemer and a Saviour. These two
distinct needs cannot be over-emphasized, for if his need was only
spiritual, the nature of the Lord’s sacrifice could have been radically
different.
This Redeemer and Saviour must himself be truly “human” with
respect to both his body and his spirit. Only then can He be an acceptable
substitute for such a creature as man is, in jeopardy of two kinds of
death. To undo the damage introduced by the First Adam to himself and
all his descendants, the Second Adam m ust somehow reconstitute in
Himself the perfection of the First Adam before he fell, thus to become
Head of a new and truly human race.
The Redeemer must enjoy a physical immortality which He can then
voluntarily sacrifice on behalf of others for the redemption of their
306
bodies.4 And the Saviour must achieve a flawless perfection of character

wholly without spot or blemish, which will permit Him to stand as a
substitute for sinners whose character is totally unacceptable in the sight
of God.
Substitutionary sacrifice is at the root of this whole redemptive
process. He who never need die must voluntarily embrace death, 5 and
He whose character has never in any way been corrupted by sin must be
“made sin.” 6 Only so can the tragedy of Eden be undone.
Although it is common to speak of the Lord’s vicarious and
substitutionary death, the phrase really is vicarious and substitutionary
sacrifice. Truly, He sacrificed life— which is death. Yet death is a result-
ant. For death is a reality only where there is life. Life, on the other hand,
is independent of death: it exists on its own. It could be said that death
is a loss, a loss of life. The Lord did not, in one sense, die for us: strictly
speaking He gave up LIFE— and was left with death, the loss of life.
The Lord’s sacrifice of life was vicarious: that is, He had LIFE, not
just a portion of life but Life without spot or blemish, there was no rot in
it, no death imminent in it. Also, the Lord’s sacrifice of life was substitu-
tionary in that it matched the life of the First Adam (and so includes his
descendants) for whom it was being given. He was both Redeemer and
Saviour, tasting death in our place and saving us from the penalty of our
sins. All who believe and trust this Saviour are made alive spiritually
now, and in eternity will be raised, bodily, to new life.
4. [W e] “w ho have the firstfruits of the Spirit . . . groan w ithin ourselves, w aiting for the
adoption, that is, the redem ption of our body” (Rom ans 8:23).
5. “Therefore m y Father loves m e, because I lay dow n m y life, that I m ay take it again. N o
m an takes it from m e, but I lay it dow n of m yself. I have pow er to lay it dow n, and I have
pow er to take it again” (John 10:17, 18).
6. “For [God, the Father] has m ade [Jesus], w ho knew no sin, to be m ade sin for us, that w e
m ight be m ade the righteousness of God in H im ” (2 C orinthians 5:21).
307
Appendix 3
W hich is Formed First: the Spirit or the Body?
It might be asked, in the matter of becoming a soul, a person, which

is formed first: the body or the spirit? It seems obvious that in our case,
at least, the spirit is designed for a specific body.
God, the creator of all “spirits,” suits each hum an spirit to fit a
human body— specifically to fit a particular human body. So, after
Adam, everyone born receives an appropriate spirit suited to the par-
ticular body whose embryological endowment and development are
divinely ordered to God’s purpose and to house a matching spirit.7
But in Adam’s case the situation was unique. Adam’s body was
created to a design that looked forward to a spirit already existing -- that
Spirit being “the W ord who was with God and was God,” for “God is a
spirit” (John 1:1, 2 and 4:24). So Adam’s body had, itself, to be so struc-
tured that a true son of his (had Adam not fallen) could be sired whose
body would have perfectly housed that Spirit which is the Lord. Adam’s
body had to be such that even his firstborn child could have been the
Saviour, the incarnate Lord.
It is true that thousands of years later, a “grandson,” a descendant
of his, by supernatural generation via M ary’s seed, would be the one to
house that Spirit of the Lord. Even so, it was still truly Adam’s body:
unfallen, uncorrupted, without spot or blemish, and without defect of
SIN— just like the one that came from the hand of God. God made
Adam’s body for HIM SELF— though He was not to indwell it till
centuries later.
Adam’s own body was prepared, planned, and created specifically
to house the spirit of the Lord. Thereafter, as fallen, our spirits are
created to indwell a procreated body. One can see God shaping a spirit
for each of us with his eye on the developing body it is to animate. W hen
He made Adam’s body, He had his eye upon Himself.
7. “I w ill praise Y ou: for I am fearfully and w onderfully m ade... M y fram e w as not hidden
from You. W hen I w as m ade in secret, and skillfu lly w rou ght in the low est parts of the
earth, Your eyes saw m y substance, being as yet unform ed; and in Your book they w ere all
w ritten...w hen as yet there w ere none of them ”. (Psalm 139:14-16 N K JV ).
308
Appendix 4
Other Examples of Interaction Between Brain and M ind
W hat has been said about the eyes, can also be said about ears which
present conflicting sound waves to the brain
In telling The Strange Story of the Quantum,8 Banesh Hoffman found
himself in the unexpected realm of music, trying to explain how a simple
groove of a gramophone record captures and freezes many sound
waves— such sounds as the limpid tone of a flute or the rich sonority of
an orchestra, the fragile song of a distant nightingale or the boom of
thunder— into a single wavy spiral, which can be reproduced in all its
finest detail through the trembling of a needle point which follows the
groove’s ripple. How does this simple groove perform such magic?
H offm an made tracings of the sound waves from an oboe and a
clarinet separately, and then both together. He commented:
You may look at the third tracing as long as you wish and
yet not unscramble the oboe from the clarinet. But hear the
record play and your ear [your mind! ACC] will know at once
what instruments are being played, what notes they are
playing and what is their relative loudness one to the
other—and will even detect the extraneous noise of the needle
scratching.
And this complex analysis is almost instantaneous. Furthermore, as he

noted,
While engrossed in the majestic unfolding of a

symphony, and delighting in the intricate interplay of
instrument with instrument, we can still detect the rustle of
our neighbour’s programme. These are incredible feats.
This is a veritable miracle of analysis. No sooner do we hear the
8. H offm an, Banesh, The Strange Story of the Q uantum , Pelican Books, 1963, (see p.80, 81).
309
record played than the whole complex analysis is completed. This

complex jumble of air pulsations reaching our ears is automatically and
effortlessly sorted out into constituents whose meanings are familiar.
Just think of the stupendous feats of analysis we perform every instant
of our lives without so much as a thought. How does it happen? Where
does this analysis occur?
Certainly the ear simply transmits sound waves to the brain which
then seem s to separate these varying wave lengths onto separate
‘screens’ but it does not interpret or m ake sense of these sounds. The
question is, if the signal goes into the brain, where, or by whom, is it
processed for identification? This, it seems, is the task of the mind, the
‘ghost in the machine’.
The sam e can be said for the sensory input from the nose— as
experienced by the author.
Some years ago, I had on a number of occasions slept overnight in
a small town whose major industry was a paper mill. It produced not
only paper but also the characteristic odour of all such mills, a very
strong rather unpleasant odour, unpleasant to the visitor though the
local people soon become so used to it that they scarcely notice it most
of the time.
I was very much aware of it on each occasion of visiting the town
and had considerable difficulty getting accustom ed to it. I would lie
awake in my room unable to fall asleep until my nose had become used
to the odour and could ignore it. I presumed it was a case of “cut-out”
by the central nervous system which failed to respond to it after a certain
length of time, a kind of helpful “fatigue.” The olfactory nerves were
acclimatized to it after awhile or just became tired and no longer
responded to the assault the odour was still making on the system.
However, I am not a sound sleeper, and used to find myself
constantly being wakened by unfamiliar traffic sounds and the noise of
trains passing through. The result of this rather frequent disturbance of
my sleep was that I would wake to a fresh awareness of the powerful
and unpleasant odour time after time throughout the night. Then as I
lay still waiting for sleep to overtake me again on each successive
occasion, I would notice that after 10 minutes or so I became so
accustomed once again to the odour that I was no longer aware of it,
310
until I was once more awakened during the night.

I would therefore conclude that becoming unaware of the odour was
not the result of some form of fatigue of the olfactory nerves but some
mental process that was operating to deliberately cut out my awareness
of the olfactory signal which was, however, still relaying a signal to my
brain.
Apparently, then, the mind and the brain are not to be equated. The
brain never let up signalling in the continuing presence of the odour, but
the mind was able, in spite of this persisting signal from the nose to the
brain, to ignore that signal when it was called upon to do so or given
adequate time so to do.
There is clearly, then, an independent functioning of mind and brain
discernible in this situation. Reception by the central nervous system,
and ‘mindedness’ of that signal, would appear to be manifestly two quite
separate realities -- the physical “sensing” body and the “ghost in the
machine.” The mind could either pay attention to or ignore the signal,
deciding whether any further action or response was required.
Appendix 5
How The Invisible W as Objectified In Eden
They heard the voice of the LO R D God walking in the garden in the
cool of the day; and Adam [Heb. the man] and his wife hid
themselves from the presence [Heb. the face] of the LO R D God
amongst the trees of the garden.
Genesis 3:8
This was a well-known voice, one that Adam and Eve had heard
before and recognized at once. To them it was no mere sound but rather
a living voice, the voice of a being as true and personal as themselves.
God was a real being, a person, and his voice a real voice.9
9. The voice of G od is som etim es spoken of as terrifying, like thunder (Job said “God
thundered m arvellously w ith his voice” 37:5); as a ‘still sm all voice’ barely audible to Elijah
311
Adam and Eve heard this “voice”, this Person, “walking in the
garden in the cool of the day”— the time of day when a breeze may blow.
It may also mean that they heard Jehovah “in the wind of the day” or
“walking upon the wind,” for this is how the same phrase is translated
in Psalm 104:3.1 0 As this had always been the sign of the divine approach,
the coming of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles was announced in the
sound of a rushing mighty wind (Acts 2:2). And so it was that Adam,
hearing the sound of wind among the trees in the garden, was aware of
God’s presence.
But this time, Adam and Eve hid from the “presence of the LO R D
God”— or as the Hebrew has it, “the face of the Lord.” From what,
whose “presence” did they hide? Horatius Bonar explains that “It is to
the Second Person of the Godhead that ‘presence’ or ‘face’ refers.” It is
this ‘presence’ or ‘glory’ or ‘shekinah’— this ‘off-shining’, or radiance of
Jehovah’s glory and the express image of H is person— which, in God,
corresponded to the face of man, that part which reveals most of the man
himself. It was a visible glory indicative of a personal presence,— the
presence of the second Person of the Godhead, who, from eternity, was
the brightness of Jehovah’s glory and the express image of H is person
(Hebrews 1:3). Here in the garden, this visible glory (like the Shekinah
in the wilderness) seems to have advanced towards them, and as it
advanced they retreated,— the voice and the glory from which the voice
issued combining to terrify them.
Thus the voice that spoke in Eden was the voice of the W ORD, and
(1 Kings 19:11-13); som etim es as the noise of a ‘m ultitude’ (D aniel 10:6); or like the sound of
m any w aters -- by such figures is set forth the m ajestic, m elodious, m ighty voice of God. W e
are told that “M oses spoke and God answ ered him by a voice” (Exodus 19:19). In the year
that K ing U zziah died, Isaiah saw the Lord, and heard his voice, saying, ‘W hom shall I send,
and w ho w ill go for us?’” (Isaiah 6:8). A t the baptism of C hrist there cam e a voice “from
heaven saying, ‘This is m y beloved Son, in w hom I am w ell pleased’” (M atthew 3:17). This
sam e voice spoke from a cloud on the M ount of Transfiguration saying, ‘This is m y beloved
Son in w hom I am w ell pleased; hear H im ” (M atthew 17:5).
10. In 2 Sam uel 22:11 God “w as seen upon the w ings of the w ind.” In Psalm 18:10, “H e did
fly upon the w ings of the w ind”. It is in connection w ith w ind or a w hirlw ind that Jehovah
is said to appear -- as H e did to Ezekiel (1:4) and to Job (38:1). W hen D avid asked God for
instructions regarding a b attle, he w as told, “W hen you hear the sound of a going in the
tops of the m ulberry trees, then you shall go out to b attle, for God is gone forth before
you... “ (1 C hronicles 14:15).
312
the presence that was seen was the presence of Him who is the radiance
of Jehovah’s glory. As Bonar observes (quoting Fleming):
The Logos, being infinite in regard of essence, could

never be seen or known, even by the most glorious created
spirits, had He not condescended to assume some created
form,— such as that which the Jews called the Shekinah, or
the glory of God...and I look upon it to be more than probable,
that this assumed image was not [merely] light, or something
like a luminous cloud, but was something likewise of a
determined shape, appearing as an animated being. And I
believe, from what I can judge by laying things together, that
it was the exact representation of a man clothed with a most
glorious garment of wonderful light. And I make no question
but this ancient image was the very same with that wherein
Christ appears now in glory, excepting that He has now a real
animate body of human flesh, whereas before He had an
ethereal one only, or one of some such sort of composition.
But, excepting this, I make no question but that the features
and lineaments of the one body and the other were as exactly,
and more exactly, the same, than ever any picture was like an
original. And when Christ was transfigured, I believe He
appeared the very same to Moses that He appeared to be to
him formerly, when he and the elders of Israel, as well as the
angels then present, saw Him upon Mount Sinai.1 1
Fleming also supposes that “man, before he sinned, had a sort of

‘luminous vestment’ which disappeared the moment he sinned... Adam,
turning apostate, was no way fit that he should wear the livery of the
Shekinah any longer, and therefore the luminous garment with which he
and Eve were clothed is taken away, and they are left naked.” 1 2
11. Flem ing: as quoted by H oratius Bonar, Thoughts on G enesis, Grand Rapids, Kregel
reprint, [J. N isbet, London, 1875) p.139, footnote].
12. Flem ing: ibid., p.141, footnote. For m ore thoughts on the original clothing and subsequent
nakedness of Adam and Eve, see Arthur Custance, The Seed of the Wom an, H am ilton, O n, C anada,
D oorway Publication, reprint 2001 (1980), pp.137, 151 ff.
313
Appendix 6
How Did the Father Share in the Son’s Human Experience?
There is a theological term that is often used in discussions about the

interactions between the two natures in Christ. What is the relationship
between the human nature and the divine? W hich predominates? W hich
governs in critical situations? If they are truly separate (though
inseparable) how does it come about that they are not somehow
amalgamated into a third “something” (what theologians speak of as a
tertium quid)?
The theological term to which I have referred above is, in Latin:
communicatio idiomatium, which in English translates as “the
communication of properties,” and really concerns the interaction that
would seem to have to occur when two natures exist in one Person.
It is argued that what happens in one nature -- grief, joy, anger, and
so forth— can be spoken of as having happened to the other nature by
reason of the union of the two natures in the one individual and by a
process of “communication of properties”. Thus although the divine
nature cannot under any circumstances be tem pted, there is a sense in
which the divine nature in Christ experienced by a kind of empathy the
grief, joy, anger and so forth that his hum an nature responded to and
any temptations which these emotions may entail. The communication
is indirect, not direct: it is mediated by the oneness of the individual who
has both natures.
Thus it would be possible to speak of the divine nature experiencing
the death of Christ as a human being in some real but entirely
empathetic fashion; as the soul of Jesus grieved within Him as a M an, so
the divine spirit within Him also grieved. This grieving was
“communicated.”
Paul would therefore be justified when he spoke of “the Church of
God which He (God) has purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).
And John, likewise, when he spoke of the fact that “[God] laid down his
life for us” (1 John 3:16), where the subject of the verb throughout the
whole chapter is clearly God the Father, not God the Son.
The term communicatio idiomatium does not explain anything. It really
314
only serves to put a handle on the subject for purposes of discussion. It

holds that it may be proper to say that what is experienced in one nature
m ay be shared by the other because the two natures are unified in one
Person.
Thus a bridge is built between the human and the divine in the
Person of Jesus Christ, who Himself being God the Son can in turn
communicate what has been experienced to the Father. This final stage
of communication, however, is quite a different order, because we are
now in the presence not merely of two natures in one person but one
nature, the divine, in two separate Persons— the Son and the Father.
This may be as near as we are ever likely to come in our
understanding. At least it helps to have some perception of the problem.
W hen we meet the Lord face to face, and so come also before our
heavenly Father without fear or shame because clothed in the
righteousness of Christ, we shall perhaps see the truth of the matter. Or
at the least, we shall be free to ask Him about it— and have eternity to
think over his response...
Appendix 7
“In Another Form:” Transformation
M ark’s account of his appearance to two witnesses -- and two

witnesses were required by Jewish law to establish the truth of
anything— states that He appeared to them in “another form” (en hetero
morphe).1 3 The Greek here is very specific. The implication of these words
is that although the form in which He appeared to them was still
recognizably Himself, yet it was a changed body.
Can we have any concept of what this body was like? In an attempt
to formulate the Christian conception of Christ’s risen body, W. J.
Sparrow Simpson reasoned thus:
13. “A fter that, he appeared in another form to tw o of them , as they w alked” (M ark 16:12).
315
We shall affirm, according to Christian doctrine, man

consists of a personality or self together with a vehicle of self-
manifestation...
Under terrestrial conditions this vehicle must possess
characteristics, properties, organs, adapted to such conditions.
Otherwise it would be no self-expression at all. Such was the
physical body of Christ as incarnate. But at death the self
passed out of terrestrial conditions leaving the fleshly
condition of the body behind, but by no means continuing
bodiless. The self is re-endowed with a vehicle of self-
expression which is still material, only under the complete
dominion of spirit. The fleshly organism would be impossible
under...un-terrestrial conditions.
We must suppose that the pneumatical [spiritual] or risen
body of Christ was, in its normal state, as an ideally perfect
utterance [expression] of spirit, imperceptible [not visible] to
the human senses as we now possess them.1 4
Yet we are assured that we shall see Him as He now is, because we,
too, shall be like Him (1 John 3:2)— that is, our senses of vision, touch,
hearing, etc., will then all be ‘spiritual’ senses, appropriate to our own
spiritual body and therefore able to see and touch and hear Him as He
now is in his spiritual body.
The question arises, then, whether this risen and transformed body
is the original physical body in which He was incarnated or did that
original body only provide the substance, the ‘shape’, in a transformed
way. Simpson asks,
Does the existence of the pneumatical [spiritual] body

require the disappearance of the psychical [earthly]? Can the
two co-exist? Can the one remain in the grave while the other
is declared to have risen? Is the emptiness of the grave
essential to belief in Christ’s transition into the pneumatical
state?
M oreover, if the present earthly body is required for this
14. Sim pson, W . J. Sparrow , Dictionary of Christ and the G ospels, edited by Jam es H astings,
Grand Rapids, Baker Book H ouse, 1978 reprint [1908], vol.2, p.509 under Resurrection.
316
transformation, then what is the prospect for those who were burned at
the stake, or blown to bits in an explosion? W ould there be anything
‘gatherable’ and so usefully ‘transformable?
M ust we not then presume that we may not need the old for this new
body, whereas the Lord did. The reason He did is because his same body
could be used since it was without corruption and therefore could be
transformed. Our bodies are corrupt, mortal, so “vile” that they must be
abandoned to the grave and to decay.15 But Jesus left an empty tomb
because He could retain his body, including the nail prints.
It was indeed the same body but in “another form.” For the vital
force which animated it was different. The vital force in our earthly
bodies is in the blood, which is the life of the soul: but now a new vital
force had replaced that original force in the blood. Blood was no longer
the conductor of energies of that changed body.
This change did not involve a spiritualization of his earthly body, for
He assured his disciples that he wasn’t a ghost, some kind of ephemeral
unsubstantial being. “A spirit”, He said, “does not have flesh and bones
as you see I have” (Luke 24:39). This was a real body, even though He
could pass with it through solid substances, like closed doors, and He
could eat food before them all and yet so transform the food thus
ingested that it disappeared instantly when He Himself disappeared
from their view.
In some very real way, the Lord Jesus Christ had for our sakes “shed
his blood”, and in making this sacrifice not only secured our redemption
15. W hat is decayed cannot be renew ed -- as is strikingly revealed in 1 C orinthians 15:50:

“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither can corruption inherit
incorruption.” Skeptics have argued that Paul w as w rong in insisting that our bodies w ill,
in the resurrection, be “changed” -- as he does tw ice in 1 C orinthians 15: 51, 52: “W e shall
not all sleep, but w e shall all be changed. In a m om ent, in the tw inkling of an eye, at the
last trum p: for the trum pet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and w e
shall be changed.” Yes, the prom ise is that it is our ow n selves that are resurrected. Yet
there is change because our bodies are vile and have to be changed: w hereas his body w as
p erfect and in it w as no spot or blem ish. Thus his resurrection body w as his incarnation
b ody. H e did not need another one. It was changed, and it w as still identifiable as the
perfect body that had been crucified for u s. The change to be w rought in our bodies w ill
still leave us as identifiably ourselves; it w ill be a transform ation in term s of vital force as
H is w as; but the change in ours includes becom ing incorruptible and im m ortal -- w hich his
body alw ays possessed.
317
but also achieved a higher form of bodily existence in which blood no

longer played a vital role. It is in this sense that his body was changed
into “another form”— a transformation indeed.
Appendix 8
Instructions for the High Priestly Office
As has been mentioned before, nothing in Scripture is merely

incidental, even though brief and seemingly casual. One such incident
concerns Jesus’ burial.
W e are told, for instance, that when evening came Joseph of
Arimathea, a rich man and a disciple of Jesus, went to Pilate and “begged
the body of Jesus,” which request was granted. He wrapped the body in
linen with spices and “laid it in his own new tomb which he had hewn
out of the rock” (M atthew 27:60). Luke also notes that the body was laid
“in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was
laid.” (Luke 24:53). John notes that in a garden was “a sepulchre
wherein was never man yet laid” (John 19:41). W hy is this important that
it should be mentioned three times?
There were very strict instructions given in the Old Testament
concerning the Day of Atonement. The High Priest who was chosen to
present the blood in the Holy of Holies must be blameless and
undefiled— and therefore must not come in contact with a dead body.
H ad the Lord been buried where other dead bodies were already laid,
He too would, at the moment of his resurrection, have found Himself in
the presence of at least one dead body, and this would have invalidated
his High Priesthood and He could not present the blood.
In the instructions given in the Old Testament the High Priest, before
presenting the blood in the Holy of Holies, was absolutely forbidden to
approach any dead body, not even to show his grief by “uncovering his
head” or “tearing his clothes” (Leviticus 21:10, 11):
318
He who is high priest among his brethren, upon whose

head the anointing oil was poured, and who is consecrated to
put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his
clothes: neither shall he go unto any dead body, nor defile
himself for his father or his mother.
It is striking that, in this sense, Jesus qualified as our High Priest, for
He had been anointed by M ary M agdalene (John 12:3, 7), his seamless
garment woven in one piece had not been torn by the soldiers dividing
up his clothes (John 19: 23, 24). Nor had He come near the dead— not
even in his burial (Luke 23:53). This has been attested to by these Gospel
writers, who just happened, incidentally, to mention that it was a new
tomb, so new that no one had been laid there yet. His rock-hewn tomb
would be, in Jewish eyes, a double protection against any defilement.
Edersheim, writing of the Temple services as they were at the time
of Christ, notes the various levels or degrees of defilement from dead
bodies of former interments of previous generations, in descending order
of intensity. Actually they enumerated 29 degrees of defilement, 11 of
them arising from some contact with a dead body. In a footnote he says
that
According to Jewish tradition, a dead body, however

deeply buried, communicated defilement all the way up to
the surface, unless indeed [the grave] was vaulted in, or
vaulted over, to cut off contact with the earth above.1 6
Since Jesus was already dead (as a man) it seems that it could not be
his spirit that was in danger of contamination but rather his body. The
fact emphasizes therefore that his body had a function yet to
perform— this body of his incarnation, the body which housed his blood.
It was the blood that must be kept against contamination.
But also, when within that tomb He raised this body and so
reconstituted his manhood that He might perform— as a man— his high
priestly office, then, too, He may not be contaminated in Person either.
So it was doubly important that the contamination of death be far re-
16. Edersheim , A lfred, The Tem ple: Its M inistry and Services, Grand Rapids, Eerdm ans,
reprint, 1972, p.346.
319
moved from Him in the tomb.

Our redemption depends upon this BODY of the Lord Jesus Christ.
For that body as the Lamb of God had been sacrificed. Thus in this
sacrifice He was both victim and High Priest. He offered Himself— and
gave his life on the cross. It was then necessary that He, as High Priest,
present the blood of his own sacrifice before the very presence of God in
the Holy of Holies which is in heaven. For this, bodily resurrection was
essential.
He then returned in Person— bodily— to present Himself before his
people, even as the High Priest under the Old Covenant presented
himself again before his people— the signal that his atoning sacrifice had
been accepted before God.
Any other form of resurrection than a bodily one would have placed
in doubt the efficacy of his role as our sacrificial victim and his role as
our High Priest.
Appendix 9
The Re-Constitution of a Person in the Resurrection
There are two “givings” of the spirit to the body. The first occurs
when a body has been prepared to receive it: the spirit is then created
and introduced into the body, bringing about the emergence of the soul,
the person. The second occurs when, after being preserved and perfected
by the Father of spirits, the spirit is returned once more to its body, now
resurrected and made alive— and beyond the power of death forever.
Thus once again the living person is re-constituted.
In between these two events of birth and death, the spirit dwells
within a mortal body where death reigns; it may itself be “killed” by sin
and cut off from the life that is in God. W hen by the grace of God the
spirit is re-born, this “new man” displaces the “old man”(to use Paul’s
320
terms1 7 ), even while still dwelling within the mortal body. W ith the final
collapse of the body, the spirit is taken back by God and by Him
preserved.
W hen the spirit returns to God, at that same moment the body ceases
to be a body, becoming only a corpse, with the result that the person
ceases to be. The “soul,” the whole person, simply vanishes, awaiting
reconstitution at the resurrection.
In truth, man is only a dichotomy in a very imprecise sense. For I am
not a spirit: and I am not a body: I am a spirit/body, or body/spirit (it
makes no difference which way it is stated, for each is of like im-
portance), ENTITY. M an has a body, and has a spirit, but IS a soul. The
body is not a person (even if it is alive in embryo) nor is the spirit a
person, even if in angelic form. The only uncreated spirit who is personal
is God. A body is only a potential for a person, as the spirit is only a
potential for a person — separately— and this applies at both ends of the
union of the two. The spirit interpenetrates the body to form the person
(the soul).
God preserves the spirit but allows the body to disintegrate. Initially
a body exists awaiting a spirit: then a spirit exists awaiting a body. Each
awaits the other. Each is specifically and individually designed for the
other.1 8 There is no such thing as a brainless consciousness.
W hen the spirit is given initially to the body, it may have a certain
pre-formed structure but it is empty of content. When the spirit is given
a second time to the revitalized body, it is no longer empty with only
potential as a promise since the potential is partially filled -- since as a
result of living in the body (the vessel) it has been given shape and filled
with content and made mature.1 9 W hen this spirit returns to God
17. “...put off concerning the form er m anner of life the old m an, w hich is corrupt according
to the deceitful lusts, ...be renew ed in the spirit of your m ind, ...put on the new m an, w hich
after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesians 4:22-24) .
18. This is the considered opinion of Robert Gundry [Som a in Biblical Theology, C am bridge
U niversity Press, 1976, 267 pp.]; of M artin C hem nitz: “The soul [spirit A C C ] has its ow n
body to w hich it has been united personally to constitute a particular m an” [The Tw o
N atures of C hrist, translated by J. A . O . Preuss, St. Louis, C oncordia, 1971, p.90]; and see
A rthur Custance, Journey O ut of Tim e, H am ilton, O N , D oorw ay Publications,2009 [1981],
chapter 7, pp. 105--115.
19. For m ore on these w ords “vessel” and “content”, see the author’s “The D evelopm ent
of Personality: the N ew and the O ld”, Part IV in M an in A dam and in Christ, vol.3 of The
321
awaiting the resurrection it is preserved (with the content acquired

during life) in a perfected state (Hebrews 12:23). A nd so, being re-
embodied, “we” (I, the self) re-emerge as a whole person again -- now
beyond the reach of death with an absolute, not merely a conditional,
immortality. Thus the “making alive” of the saints is, as J. N. Sevenster
put it, “a unique total event”. 2 0
But then the question arises, W hat is the nature of the disembodied
spirit in that interim between death and resurrection? If the body
becomes dust, is there some kind of reconstitutable spiritual “dust” that
corresponds to the spirit while it waits in God’s keeping? W hile the
body “waits” in the earth, in what state is the spirit while it waits in
heaven?
In an attempt to answer this question, Berkouwer asks, “W hen the
‘soul’ is separated from the body, what activities is it still able to carry
out?”2 1 Aquinas taught that the soul [spirit] needed a bodily organ to
carry out its functions, and thus he had to face the problem of the nature
of the disembodied spirit. H. Dooyeweerd answered Berkouwer’s
question very simply: “Nothing!” He answers thus without any
qualification.22
Roman Catholics tell us that the ‘soul’ exists in a state of violation,
while the de-spirited body is not a body at all but only a corpse. They
hold that the soul is immortal by reason of its immaterial nature. But C.
Friethoff argues that since the soul obtains knowledge through the
senses, and when death takes away the senses, the soul is in a state of
restraint (i.e., is incapacitated)— or violation, as the Roman Catholics
term it.
Reformed Christian Theology’s objection to dichotomy is because it
makes man divisible with two separate constituent and sustainable
elements, so that we thus seem to have a half-man body and a half-man
spirit, each with independent existence. Yet Reformed Theology still
must answer the question of what happens in the interim before
resurrection. Even when man is viewed as a monism, a body/spirit
D oorw ay Papers Series, Zondervan, 1975, chapter 6, pp.170-180.

20. J. N . Sevenster: as quoted by G. C . Berkouw er, M an: The Im age of G od, Grand Rap ids,
Eerdm ans, 1962, p.254.
21. Berkouw er, G. C ., M an: The Im age of God, Grand Rapids, Eerdm ans, 1962, p.255, 256.
22. D ooyew eerd: as quoted by G. C . Berkouw er, ibid., p.256
322
entity, there is no question as to what happens to the body, but there is

still the question of what happens to the spirit. W here is it and what is it
doing while awaiting the resurrection?
Few have addressed this difficult question of the state of the
disembodied spirit, not even Paul it seems. He was quite definite (2
Corinthians 5:1-4):
We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were

dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made
with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this [one] we groan,
earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which
is from heaven, if so be that, being clothed, we shall not be
found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan,
being burdened; not that we would be unclothed, but clothed
upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
Our hope indeed is personal resurrection, re-embodiment again as

a body/spirit, to continue life in the presence of God forevermore. But
Paul gives us no indication as to just when this “reclothing”is to take
place, of what takes place until the “last day,” the day of resurrection.
Yet perhaps there is some light on this intermediate state between
death and resurrection. An in-depth study of the nature of time and of
eternity, as well as of the nature of human nature, sheds light on some
passages of Scripture which then reveal much about this intermediate
state. This has been set forth in my book, Journey Out of Time.2 3
23. C ustance, A rthur, Journey O ut of Tim e, D oorw ay Publications, H am ilton, O n, 2009

[1981], 301 pages.
323
Appendix 10
A Sobering Thought, and a Frightful Prospect
There is a fearful corollary of all that has been written in this volume.
If without our bodies we cannot be identifiably ourselves in person, then
what of the unsaved, the unredeemed? M ust we not assume that they,
too, will be raised in body? In a redeemed body? In their old body?
Scripture seems to support the view that the bodies of all men are to
be raised. It is difficult to avoid this conclusion. For example, when we
read (in 1 Corinthians 15:22) that “as in Adam all die so in Christ shall all
be made alive ”[i.e., placed beyond the power of death] and that Christ
“by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Hebrews 2:9),
the question is: in what kind of a body can the unredeemed expect to
spend eternity? W ill it be a rebellious spirit in a body that is an
identifiable person yet will live on for ever?
Concerning who will be m ade alive, John Gill (1697-1771) argues
quite cogently and forcefully that this resurrection of the body— the
quickening of the m ortal body— is not a particular resurrection, nor a
resurrection of particular persons (of which there are instances both in
the Old and New Testaments), but a universal resurrection, that is, the
resurrection of both the just and the unjust.
Gill makes much of the fact that it is the same identifiable body that
is raised. It will be different from what it now is as to its qualities, but not
as to its substance. Paul illustrates this by pointing out the difference
between the seed sown and the plant that springs from it which differ
not in their specific nature, just as the difference between the mortal and
the risen body lies in incorruption, glory, power and spirituality. For not
only does this body consist of flesh and bone (as the Lord’s resurrected
body did, Luke 24:39) but the mortal puts on immortality and the
corruptible incorruption (1 Corinthians 15:53, 54).
But Gill goes on: “If this [resurrected] body was a new, aerial,
celestial body, different in substance from what it is, it would not be a
resurrection, but a creation.” And he adds, “Nor would it be consistent
with the justice of God, that such new created bodies which never
324
sinned, should be everlastingly punished; nor can the same persons who
have sinned be said to be punished; nor the same who are redeemed be
glorified, unless the same body is raised.”2 4 He has a further argument:
If the same bodies are not raised, the ends of the

resurrection will not appear clearly to be answered: as to the
glorifying of the grace of God in the salvation of his people,
and of his justice in the damnation of the wicked. [For] how
shall everyone receive in his body for what he has done, either
good or evil, if the same bodies are not raised which have
done those things?2 5
This is surely a frightful prospect. But what is this but to revert to the
position of Adam in the Garden of Eden, had he been permitted to reach
the Tree of Life in his fallen condition— “a truly appalling prospect” as
I wrote in chapter 4. Surely, then, physical death is not merely a penalty
but a merciful remedy, a necessary step in our redemption.
Jesus was quite clear that this resurrection would be for everyone:
“M arvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the
graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth: they that have done
good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation” (John 5:28, 29). That the wicked shall rise is
not only proved from Scripture, but also from reason, for as John Gill
remarks, the justice of God requires
. . . that sins committed in and by the body, as most sins are,

should be punished in the body, that [body] not only being an
accessory but a partner with the soul [spirit] in sinning, and
an instrument by which the sin is committed, and so
deserving of punishment. Whereas the wicked do not receive
in this life the full reward of punishment in their bodies, it
seems necessary from the justice of God that their bodies
should be raised so that with their souls [spirits] they may
receive their full recompense of reward.2 6
24. Gill, John, A Com plete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book
H ouse, 1978 reprint (of 1839 edition), p.222.
25. Gill, John, ibid., p.224
26. Gill, John, ibid., p.220
325
A truly awful prospect indeed! If any should have struggled through

this volume, any who do not know the Saviour personally, I pray that
they will count the cost of their hitherto neglect of so great a salvation.
“For God did send his only begotten Son into the world in order that
whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John
3:16). W hen that terrible day comes, it will be too late! Now is the day
of salvation...
326
Index of Biblical References

Genesis Exodus 1 Chronicles 49:15 ..............57
1:1,2 ............. 294 12:5-7, 13 ... 243 14:15 ............. 311 53:2 ............ 257
1:16, 17 ........... 52 19:19 ........... 311 22:5 ... 14, 49, 145 53:4, 5, 8 ..... 225
1:20, 21 ........ 127 30:17-21 ....... 140 29:10 ............... 57 57:16 ........... 106
1:22 ................ 88 36:1 .............. 121 59:2 ............. 225
1:24, 30 ........ 127 Job 64:6 .............. 148
1:26 ..... 137, 182 Leviticus 14:4 ....... 148, 154 64:8 .................57
1:26, 27 .......... 21 8:6 ................ 140 19:26, 27 ....... 271 65:17 ............. .25
1:17 .............. 165 13:44-46 ....... 141 25:4 .............. 148 66:2 ................ 16
1:27 .............. 166 16 ................. 234 30:12 ............. 142 66:13 .............. 57
1:28 ........ 26, 211 16:9 .............. 230 37:5 .............. 310 66:22 .............16,
2:5 ................ 294 20:10 ............ 197 38:1 ............... 311 25, 275
2:7 ................. 100 21:10, 11....... 317
2:16, 17 ..... 67, 78 Psalms Ezekiel
2:17 ......... 61, 211 Numbers 16:9 ................218 1:4 ................ 311
2:18 ... 31, 52, 294 19:11-20.........141 18:10 ............. 311 18:4, 20 ........ 224
2: 18-20 .......... 52 47:8 .............. 142 36:25 ............ 140
2: 20 ............. 157 Deuteronomy 48:1 ............... 142 37:5, 8-10 ...... 95
2:20-23 ......... 294 21:22, 23 ....... 233 51:5 ....... 148, 154 44:22 ............ 148
2:21, 22 .......... 52 21:23 ............ 251 90:10 ............ 137
2: 22, 23 ........ 56 22:28 ............ 148 104:3 ............ 311 Daniel
2: 23 ............. 106 107:23-30 ...... 171 5:5 .................. 41
2: 24 ......... 56, 99 Joshua 139;14-16 ...... 307 9:26 ........ 70, 226
3:8 ................ 310 8:29 .............. 233 139:21, 22 ..... 230 10:6 .............. 311
3:9 ................ 305 10:26 ............ 233 10:12, 13, 21... 28
3:15 ............... 303 Ecclesiastes
3.20 ....... 152, 294 Judges 8:8 ................... 96 Zephaniah
3:22, 23 ......... 219 19:24 ............ 148 3:11 ............. 221 3:15 ................ 41
3:22-24 .......... 62 21:12 ............ 148 3:21 ...... 127, 285
4:1 ................ 303 12:7 ................. 95 Zechariah
4:17, 20-22 ..... 15 2 Samuel 106, 127, 285 12:1 ........ 95, 106
4:23 ................ 17 4:12 .............. 234 13:1 .............. 140
5:1-3 ..... 136, 183 11:1-17 ......... 189 Isaiah
5:3 ................ 184 13:18 ............ 148 6:8 ................ 311 Malachi
6:3 ................. 218 7:14 ...... 147, 148 2:10 ................ 28
9:6 ........ 137, 183 1 Kings 9:6 .................. 57
19:16 ............ 273 19:11-13 ....... 311 9:7 ................ 275
40:19 ............ 234 21:1-16 ......... 189 45:18 ............. 24
327
Testament of 27:46 ............ 229 8:20, 21 ......... 198 5:28, 29......... 324
Naphtali 27:57 ............ 243 8:22-25 ......... 169 6:38............... 275
2:2-4 ............... 46 27:60 ............ 317 8:54, 55 ........... 95 8:2-11............ 196
28:1, 2 .......... 251 9:27-36 ......... 214 8:51, 52......... 101
Matthew 28:2, 9 .......... 248 12:8 ...............159 9:22 .............. 159
1:20 .............. 152 28:11-15 ....... 252 20:39 ............ 196 10:15,17,18 .. 237
1:22, 23 ........ 148 22:42 .... 169, 225 10:17, 18....... 306
3:17 ............... 311 Mark 22:61, 62 ........ 48 10:30............. 276
4:2 ................ 174 3:3-5 ............... 48 23:40, 41, 47 ..200 11:1-44 ......... 172
4:6..................231 3:5 ................ 175 23:46 ...... 94, 229 11:1, 3-7........ 172
4:16 .............. 229 4:35-41.......... 169 23:53 ............. 318 11:11-15, 39 ..172
4:21 .............. 154 4:38 .............. 174 24:6, 7 ........... 253 11:25, 26 ...... 174
5:13 .............. 275 4:41 .............. 171 24:13-35 ........ 255 11:33, 35 ...... 174
5:18 .............. 159 9:2-8 ............ 214 24:18-27 ........ 256 11:34 ............ 277
7:23 .............. 159 9:29 .............. 132 24:30, 31 ....... 250 11:39 ............ 208
8:5-13 ............277 10:14, 15 ....... 175 24:37-39 ........ 250 11:41-44 ....... 258
8:23-27...........169 11:12-14 .......166 24:39 ......261, 316 12:3 .............. 254
8:27 .............. 163 274 24:41-43 ........ 261 12:3, 7 .......... 318
10:32 .............159 11:14 .............168 24:53 ............. 317 12:42 ........... 159
11:27 ..............164 11:20, 21 .... 168, 13:10 ............ 140
14:7 .............. 159 277 John 14:3 .............. 270
15:18-20 ....... 191 12:13, 14 ...... 195 1:1, 2 ............ 307 14:8, 9 .......... 168
16:14 ............ 104 12:17 ............ 196 1:1-3 ............... 15 14:9 ................ 35
16:17 ............ 262 12:25 ........ 27, 53 1:14 ...... 161, 266 14:12 .............275
17:1-8 ........... 214 12:30 .............. 93 1:20 ............... 159 14:30 ............ 158
17:5 .............. 311 14:55 ............ 238 1:29 ............... 243 18:3-6 ............ 50
21:16 ............ 154 15:34 .... 224, 229 2:19 ....... 258, 259 18:6 .............. 194
22:37 .............. 93 15:39, 44 ....... 235 3:3 ................. 208 18:30 ............ 243
23:34 .231 .... 234 16:7 .............. 259 3:3, 5-7 .......... 137 18:38 ............ 197
23:37 .............. 57 16:12 .......... 244, 3:4 ................. 104 19:1-3 ........... 174
24:35 ............ 274 257, 314 3:6 ........... 95, 108 19:4-6 .......... 199
25:21..............275 16:15 .............. 86 3:16 ............... 325 19:4, 12 ........ 243
26:40 ............ 211 4:6 ................. 173 19:11 ............ 231
26:41 ........... 95, Luke 4:24 ............... 307 19:23, 24 ...... 315
131, 211 1:35 .............. 152 4:36 ............... 159 19:28 ........... 174
26:63-65 ....... 201 2:11 .............. 152 5:7-9 ............. 166 19:26, 27....... 198
27:4, 19, 24... 199 2:52 .............. 167 5:17 .............. 166 19:30 .......37, 229
27:32 ............ 175 4:41 .............. 151 5:18 ................167 19:30-36 .......237
27:34 ............. 37 5:1-11 ........... 264 5:22 .............. 178 20:1 .............. 252
27:45, 46 ...... 229 6:40 .............. 154 5:27 ................178 20:2, 3, 4-8 ... 253
328
20:15 ............ 254 Romans 5:1-4 ............ 322 5:23............92, 93

20:16-27 ....... 255 1:3 ................ 174 5:1-5 ............... 32
20:17, 19 ...... 250 5:12 ........ 67, 86, 5:4 ..101, 131, 135 2 Thessalonians
20:25 ............ 262 153, 210 5:5 .......... 70, 272 1:9 ................ 224
20:25, 26 ...... 251 5:14 .................. 2 5:10 ........ 33, 178
20:27 f. ........ 263 6:5 ........ 143, 158 5:17 ....... 143, 183 1 Timothy
21:1-14 ...... 251 6:6, 12 .......... 141 5:21 ............ 200, 3:16 ...... 159, 163
21:9, 10 ........ 264 7:18 .............. 135 225, 306 6:12, 13......... 159
21:20 ............ 159 7:24........ 131, 142 7:1 .................. 96 6:16 ...............168
8:3 ............... 157, 9:13 .............. 159
Acts 211, 259 13:4 .............. 159 Titus
1:14 .............. 159 8:22 ................ 86 1:16 .............. 159
2:1 .................159 8:23 ...... 208, 306 Galatians
2:2 ................ 311 10:9, 10 .........159 2:20 .............. 238 Hebrews
2:23 .............. 235 15:6 .............. 159 1:2, 3............... 34
2:36 ...............160 Ephesians 1:3 ............... 166,
2:1, 46 .......... 159 1 Corinthians 2:1 ................ 224 183, 184, 311
4:24 .............. 159 5:5 .................. 95 2:15 ................. 99 1:5......... 154, 166
4:27 .............. 243 6:11 .............. 140 4:4 ................... 96 2:9 .......... 35, 323
5:5, 10 .... 95, 236 6:20 ................ 96 4:22-24 ......... 320 2:14 .............. 262
5:12 ...............159 12:12, 27 ......... 99 5:2 ................ 238 2:14, 16 ........ 273
7:57 ............... 159 15:19............. 268 5:30 .............. 262 2:16 ...... 157, 174
7:59 ................ 95 15:21, 22...........51 6:12 ........142, 262 2:17 .............. 157
8:6 ................ 159 15:22 ............ 323 2:18 .............. 178
10:39 ............ 236 15:28 ............ 276 Philippians 3:1 .................. 59
12:20 ............ 159 15:35-38 ....... 269 2:7 ....... ..158, 166 4:12 .............. 93
13:37 ............ 208 15:42-44 ..... 143 3:20, 21 ......... 26, 4:14 .............. 159
13:37-39 ....... 259 15:45 ............. 295 32, 269 4:15 .............. 157
15:25 .............159 15:50 .... 260, 316 3:21 .............. 158 5:5 ................ 154
17:26 ........ 28, 55 15: 51 .......... .155 5:8 ........ 177, 215
17:31 ............. 178 15:51, 52........ 316 Colossians 5:8 9 ............... 31
17:32 .............. 16 15:51-54 ...... 301 1:15 ................. 86 5:18 .............. 177
18:12 ............. 159 15:52, 53 ....... 271 1:16 ............... 113 7:16 ........ 67, 155
19:29 ............ 159 15:53 ............ 157 1:18 ................ 99 9:11, 12 ........ 259
20:28 .............. 35 15:53, 54 ....... 323 1:22 ................142 9:11-15 ........ 243
22:16 ............ 140 1:23 ................. 86 9:26 .............. 230
23:8 .............. 159 2 Corinthians 2:9 .......... 34, 163 9:27 .............. 88,
24:14 ............ 159 3:18 .............. 184 2:17 ................. 25 215, 219
4:6 ........ 163, 260 10:5 .............. 154
5:1 .................. 25 1 Thessalonians 10:14 ............ 214
3:10 ............... 154
329
10:22 .............141 James 2 Peter 2 John

10:23 ............ 159 1:13 .............. 177 1:4 ................ 166 7.................... 159
10:25 .............. 31
11:3 .............. 113 1 Peter 1 John Jude
11:6 .............. 286 1:10 .............. 149 1;7 ................ 230 6 ..................... 28
11:13 ........... 159 1:18, 19 ........ 208 1:9 ............... 159 9.................... 100
11:25 ............ 225 2:18, 19 .........157 3:2 ............... 32,
12:2 .............. 214 2:22 .............. 200 270, 315 Revelation
12:9 ...... 106, 108 2:24 ..........34, 99, 3:5 ................ 200 4:11 .................25
12:23 ...... 96, 321 226 3:15 .............. 236 11:8, 11 ......... 95
12:26 ............274 3:8 ................ 159 3:16 ....... 35, 313 21:1 ................ 25
13:15 ............ 159 3:15 .............. 300 4:2, 15 ........... 159 22:2 ................ 63
3:18 .............. 238
330
INDEX OF NAMES
Abel ................................................225 Chemnitz, Martin...........................320

Abelard ..........................................286 Chiang, R. Gary..............................209
Acton, Lord ....................................194 Clark, Mary T. .........................27, 217
Afzelius, B. A. ..................................85 Clark, Kenneth...............................246
Ahab, King......................................189 Clark, William R............................239
Althaus, Pau.l..................................110 Cleanthes ...................................... 109
Ambrose .........................................160 Colenso, Bishop J. W.........................5
Anselm (of Canterbury ..)................145, Coxe, Cleveland........................30, 49,
146, 163, 286 105, 109, 211, 239
Aquinas, Thoma.s.......................27, 45, Creighton, Bishop Mande..l.l..........194
130, 217 Cromwell, Oliver.............................82
Aristotle ........................................... 48
Augustine ............................69, 87, Dana, H. E......................................214
155, 160, 241, 282 Darwin, Charle.s........................ 1, 4, 7
Auli, Richard......................................7 David, King....................................189
de Beer, Gavin R. ............................58
Bacetti, B. ........................................85 de Romestin, H...............................160
Barclay, William.....................108, 247 Deaden, A. K. ................................126
Barth, Karl .....................................175 Dean, Lloyd .......................................8
Belshazzar .......................................41 Deane, S. N. ...........................146, 163
Berkouwer, G. C. .....................45, 321 Denney, James ...............217, 240
Best, J. Boyd ....................................66 Depew, Chauncey..............................9
Bettelheim, Bruno..........................111 Des Pres, Terrence..........138-140, 185
Bevan, Edwyn........................165, 180 Descartes. Rene..............113, 121, 122
Bonar, Horatius.......................311, 312 Dobzhansky, Theodosiu.s..............128
Boston, Thomas .....................144, 271 Dodson, Edward O. ...................... 79
Brennan, Robert................................45 Donaldson, James................30, 35, 49,
Briggs, Charles Augustus ...........149 69, 94, 105, 109, 130, 208, 211, 239
Bromiley, Geoffrey ................67, 2671 Dooyeweerd, H..............................321
Burns, Bobby..................................184 Dostoyevsky, F. .............................187
Butterfield, Herbert................189, 190 Douglas, J. D. ................................105
Durant, Will ..................................194
Caesar .............................................195
Cain ...............................................190 Eccles, Sir John C...................120, 125,
Calvin, John............................152, 230 128, 129, 132
Cannon, Walter ........................... 126 Edersheim, Alfred .................36, 239,
Carlson, A. J. .................................193 240, 252, 318
Carnegie, Andrew..............................9 Edwards, Jonathon.........................228
331
Einstein, Albert ................................28 Hoffman, Banesh...........................308

Elijah .....................................104, 310 Hopkins, Vincent C............................9
Eliot, George ....................................41 Horne, Thomas.................................36
Enoch (Cain’s son)....................15, 295 Hugh, of St. Victor..........................24
Huxley, Julian...................66, 114, 130
Fenton, Farrar ................................108
Fiske, J. ........................................... 45 Ishi ..................................................201
Fleming .........................................312 Ivy, Andrew....................................192
Fothergill, P. G. ...............................44
Francis of Assisi...............................86 Jackson, Samuel M.................104, 109
Frankl, Viktor ................................119 Jaki, Stanley....................................112
Freud, Sigmund..............................111 Jastrow, Robert................................65
Friethoff, C. ....................................321 Jennings, H. S. .................. 65, 66, 212
Johnson, Humphre..y........................ 44
Garnett, Constanc.e.........................187 Kass, L. R. ........................................78

Gill, John ..................94, 323, 324 Kittel, Gerhard.........................67, 271
Ginsberg, Louis................................59 Koestler, Arthur......................112, 119
Gladden, W. ................................... 46 Kornhuber, H. H.....................120, 121
Goldschmidt, Richard .............. 43, 297 Kroeber, Theodora.........................201
Goodspeed (and Smith.).........108, 303 Kropotkin, Petr...............................193
Gould, Stephen Jay...........................43 Kuyper, Abraham ..............................45
Grasse, Pierre .................................. 81
Green, William H....................4-6, 292 Lange, Peter ...................................230
Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa................30 Langer, Suzanne...............................44
Grundmann, Walte.r.........................67 Lawden, D. F...................................75
Gundry, Robert.........................97, 320 Lawrence of Arabia.......................140
Leakey, Richard D...........................14
Haechel, Ernst........................115, 116 Leo I the Great ........................35, 168
Haldane, J. B. S. .............................. 84 Lewis, C. S. ....................135, 184, 282
Hall, Sir Samuel .............................192 Lindsell, Harold..............................247
Hartshorne, Charle.s.........................75 Lloyd-Jones, Martyn ..............86, 217
Hastings, James.......................150, 315 Lorenzo, the Magnificent ...........279
Hayflick, Leonard ..........................84 Lowdermilk, W. C. .......................192
Heard, J. B. ......................................94 “Lucy” ............................xvii, 14, 304
Henry, Carl.........................................8 Luther, Martin ......................34, 110,
Henry, William A..........................111 151, 228, 282
Hickman, Edward..........................229 Lyell, Sir Charles....................4, 5, 292
Hodge, Alexander A.....4- 6, 8, 10, 292
Hodge, Charles...........4, 6, 8, 271, 292 Macaulay, A. B............................. 228
332
Machen, J. Gresham.................23, 284 Phillips, J. B. ..................................108

Malebranche, N................................66 Philo................................................271
Mantey, Julius R. .......................... 214 Pilate .....................174, 199, 231, 235,
Mascall, E. L. .................................130 236, 243, 258
Mather, J. Kirtley .......................9, 243 Plato .................................................16
McDonald, H. D............................ 164 Pope Pius XII .................................299
Medawar, Sir Peter B.......................78 Popper, Sir Kar.l......120, 125, 129, 132
Meek, T. J. .............................219 Postgate, Raymond .........................244
Methodius of Olympa..s....94, 211, 239 Poulton, E. B. ...................................86
Michelangelo .................................279 Preuss, J. A. O................................320
Milligan, G. ....................................229
Mixter, Russell ...................................8 Quinlan, Karen...........................76, 77
Monod, Jacques................................22 Queen Elizabeth I.............................81
Montagu, Ashley..............................48
Moore, William................................30 Randall, John H..............................286
Morison, R. S. ..................................78 Ratigan, William.............................170
Moses .............................................100 Rieu, E. V. ....................................108
Moulton, J. H..................................229 Roberts, Alexande..r.............30, 35, 49,
Muller, H. J. .....................................66 69, 94, 105, 109, 130, 208, 211, 239
Murray, John..................................240 Rockefeller, John D............................8
Rotherham, J. B. ............................108
Neander, Augustu.s........................109 Rousseau, Jean Jacques..................185
Newman, J. R. ..................................84 Russell, Bertrand.............................22
Nicodemus .....................104, 137, 208 Ryle, J. C. ......................................252
Ong, Walter J. ....................................9 Schaff, Philip ..........................30, 160

Orgel, Leslie .....................................85 Schimtt, F. O. .................................120
Origen ....................................104, 105 Schonland, S. ...................................86
Orr, James ................44, 130, 217, 244 Sevenster, J. N. ..............................321
Shapley, Harlow........................9, 243
Packer, J. I. ...............................23, 284 Shipley, A. E. ................................. 86
Paul, Leslie ...................................... 22 Simpson, George G..................... 8, 21,
Payne, J. Barton ........................96, 97 22, 43, 65, 194
Pearl, Raymond................................85 Simpson, W. J. Sparrow........314, 315
Pearson, Oliver...............................192 Sinnott, E. W. ..................................75
Pease, A. S. .....................................112 Smith (and Goodspeed) ......108, 303
Pelagius .........................................109 Smythies, J. R.........................112, 119
Penfield, Wilder...............116-119, 121 Steiner, George ..............................187
Perot, Phanor .................................118 Stradivarius, Antonio.......................41
Pfeiffer, John ....................................21 Strong, Augustus H. ..............7-9, 46
333
Strong, Charles ..................................8 Wace, Henry.............................30, 160

Sullivan, J.W.N. ..............................22 Wadinsky, Jerome...........................83
Wainhouse, Austryn .........................23
Tappert, Theodore...........................34 Warfield, Benjamin B.....................4, 6
Tatian ..............................................94 Watson, J. B. S. ..............................111
Taylor, John ...............................31, 66 Weisemann, August ..............86, 151
Taylor, H. O. ....................................24 Weiszacker, Carl von ......................112
Temple, William.............................186 Wells, H. G.....................................244
Tennant, F. R. ..................................35 Whale, J. S. ................................... 219
Tennyson, Alfred............................193 Whitefield, George.........................282
Tertullian..............................30, 35, 48, Whitehead, A. N..............................75
49, 109, 130, 179, 208, 239 William the Conquero.r..................163
Theodoret ......................................168 Willson, J. R. ..................................211
Theophilus of Antioch .................. 69 Wilson, Henry .................................30
Thomas, Griffith ............................231 W oodward.,..T ..............................209
Thompson, Laura...........................193 W orden, F....G...............................120
Toynbee, Arnold............................164 W uest, Kenn..e..t.h.........................108
Tschaikowsky ..................................39
Turrettin, Francois..........................211
Young,. .R
..... .................................108
Ussher, Bishop .................................. 5
Ze.n..o.. ..................................109, 112
For works by Arthur Custance cited in this book:

Doorway Papers Series:
Vol.1: Noah’s Thre. .e. .S
. ..o.n
. ..s....................................................................... 12
Vol.2: Genesis and earl.y. ..M . ...a..n.. ....................................................... 31, 301
Vol.3: Man in Adam and in.. .C ...h..r.i.s. .t. . ................................... 137, 230, 320
Vol.4: Evolution or Creation? ........................................................13, 43
Vol.5: The Virgin birth and the Incar. .n..a..t.i.o. .n.......................................... 34
Vol.6: Time and E..t.e..r.n..i.t. .y..................................................................... 168
Vol.7: Hidden Things of God’.s..W . ...o..r.d. .................................. . 15, 277, 294
Journey Out of Tim..e. .:......................................................... 101, 158, 229, 322

Seed of the Woman:..................45, 51, 55, 57, 59, 64, 146, 174, 209, 249, 312
Sovereignty of Grace: .....................................................................................4
334
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
A dam (see also Body of A dam , First A dam )
- anim al antecedents of. . . .......................................................................... 1, 2, 12, 14, 52, 304
- body of
- action of the forbidden fruit on. . . ....................................................62, 137, 138, 146, 210
- before and after divine surgery.. . . ...........................................................................55 - 68
- created before his spirit?. . . ......................................................................................46, 304
- im m ortality of.. . . . ..............................................................................................2, 66, 67, 70
- creation of
- date and tim e o.f.. . . .........................................................................................1, 4, 5, 6, 294
- a direct act of God.. . . ..............................................................................1, 4, 266, 288, 307
- a m iracl..e. . . ................................................................................................................13, 298
- unique.. . . ...................................................................................1. 4. 12, 13, 21, 24,161, 183
- death introduced b.y.. . ....................................................................................... 61-68, 78, 219
- and his descendant.s. . . .........................................................................................183, 184, 202
- ‘disappearance' o..f. . . ....................................................................................................135, 305
- as Federal H ead.. . . ................................................................................................28, 29, 52-54
- as the father of all dying . .. . . . ..........................................................................................51, 152
- the first and only m an . . . .............................................................................242, 294, 295, 298
- his first sin as his las.t. . . . ......................................................................................................182
- gender o.f.. . . ...................................................................................................................... 56-59
- im m ortality o.f.. . . . .................................................................................................2, 67, 70, 301
- in the im age of God. . . ....................................................................... 21, 49, 61, 100, 136, 145
- lost the im age of God . .. . . . .....................................................................................................183
- as m anager of the earth.. . . . ..................................................................................................272
- redeem ability o.f. . . . ..................................................................................................... 242. 243
- as unfallen. . . . . .......................................................................................161, 213, 304, 305, 307
- as a w hole person but half a m an.. . . . .............................................................................55, 56
A dam and Eve
- belong in history, not prehistory.. . . . ...................................................................290, 296, 298
- biblical account of creation of. . . ............................................................................vii, 52, 294
- experiencing God in Eden.. . . . ......................................................................................310-312
- and the forbidden frui..t. . . .................................................................................................. 61f.
- nakedness o.f. . . . ............................................................................................................311, 312
- necessity of physical im m ortality of.. . . . . ................................................70, 71, 146, 161, 162
A dam 's children in God's im age?. . . ............................................................................... 183, 184
A loneness. U ndesirability of. . . . .........................................................................................31, 294
A m oeba(e)
- ‘am oeba to m an' concept. . . ........................................................................................ 209, 288
- conscious behaviour of. . . ........................................................................65, 66, 128, 211, 212
- how they di..e......................................................................................................................... 67
- how they m ultipl.y.. . . . ......................................................................................................64, 65
- im m ortality o.f. . . . . .......................................................................................64, 75, 87, 211, 212
- a sim ple anim al.?.. . ................................................................................................................ 65
A m erican Scientific A ffiliation (A SA ) . . . . ........................................................................xiii, xiv
335
A ngel(s)
- assum e em bodim ent at tim es.. . . ...........................................................................26, 266, 273
- each one an individual species.. ...............................................................................27, 53, 54
- fallen.. . . ..............................................................................................................................28, 30
- no fam ily relationships.. . . . .........................................................................................27-30, 53
- as individual creations....................................................................................................27, 54
- have m oral freedom ... . . . .........................................................................................................28
- as m inds w ithout brains. . . . .....................................................................................28, 32, 273
- occupy position onl.y.. . . . ................................................................................................29, 214
- not procreated, each a direct creation.. . . .............................................................................53
- recognizing anothe..r. . . ...........................................................................................................33
- redeem able.?.. ..............................................................................................................28-30, 53
- as pure spiri.t. . . . . .............................................................................................................91, 130
- tasks o.f.. . . . ............................................................................................................152, 257, 273
A nim al(s)
- body of vs. hum an. . . . ................................................12, 18, 24, 41, 43, 44, 49, 217, 287, 298
- capabilities o..f. . . . ..............................................................................................................41- 43
- cruelty of, vs. m an.'.s. . . . ........................................................................................................188
- death
- attitude tow ard.s. . . . ..........................................................................................216, 128, 220
- benefits .o..f. . . ..................................................................................................................78-82
- of m an vs. of anim als. . . . ..................................................................................viii, 209, 221
- m echanism s o.f.. . . . .........................................................................................................81-85
- ‘natural' fo.r.. . . ........................................................................................77, 86, 87, 217, 298
- program m ed for spanned life. . . . ..........................................................................2, 78, 84
- as a term ination . .. . . ...........................................................................................................210
- destiny of, vs. m an's.. . . . ........................................................................xviii, 16, 127, 285, 287
- physical im m ortality of. . . . ...............................................................................................64-66
- levels of consciousness in. . . .................................................................................65, 66, 128
- ‘red in tooth and claw ...' . . . ....................................................................................................193
- soul o..f. . . . .......................................................................................................................126, 127
A ntiquity
- of A dam... . ....................................................................................................., 6, 288, 290, 292
- of the eart.h . . . . ..................................................................................................................5, 2902
- of m a.n.. . . . ...................................................................................................................1-3, 5, 294
A pe. A bsolute break betw een m an and . . ..........................................................12, 14, 303, 304
A rt(s). The
- early developm ent o.f.. . . . . ..............................................................................................15, 295
- and portrayal of personality. . . ....................................................................................279-281
A scension. The Lord's tw o.. . . . .....................................................................................15, 259-265
A tonem ent
- D ay o..f. . . . ................................................................................................234, 243, 260, 317-319
- evidence in heaven o.f. . . ..................................................................................................... 259
Beginnings. Im portance o.f. . . . ..................................................................................................285

336
Bible. The (See also Scripture)

- chronology of m an in. .. . . .........................................................................................5, 292-294
- em phasis on the body in. . . . ......................................................................................9, 24, 288
- im portance of Genesis in... . . ...............................................................................................285
- literal interpretation of.. . . . .................................................................................17, 52, 93, 247
- on origin of m an.. . . .......................................................................................xvii, 2, 242, 296 f.
- as touchstone of truth.. . . . . ........................................................................................17, 51, 294
- translation o.f.. . . .................................................................................................157 f., 229, 294
- as view ed by theistic evolutionists.. . . . ...........................................................................2, 288
Biblical chronology
- and antiquity of m an.. . . . ..........................................................................................1, 3, 5, 294
- interpreted to fit geology.. . . . .......................................................................3, 5, 289, 292, 294
Biblical theology
- basis o.f.. . . . . ......................................................................................................................17, 242
- define.d.. . . . .........................................................................................................................17, 18
Big Business and evolution. . . . .................................................................................................8, 9
Binocular vision (see Stereovision)
Birth. Problem of a "clean.".. . . . ..........................................................................................148, 149
Blood
- of christ presented in heaven. . . ..................................................................................259, 319
- as cleansing the spiri.t.. . . .............................................................................................140, 141
- on D ay of A tonem en.t. . . . .....................................................................................234, 317-319.
- establishes relationship.s. . . . .................................................................................210, 273, 278
- as vital force of earthly life. . . . . ....................................................................................316, 317
Body. The hum an (See also Adam , First and Last A dam , M an)
- accident or planned.?.. . . . ..................................................................................................15, 21
- capabilities o.f. . . .................................................................................................. 39- 43, 46- 48
- cleanliness o.f. . . . ....................................................................................................138, 139, 141
- only a corpse w ithout its spirit. . . . ...................................................................11, 94, 98, 321
- created vs. evolved . . . .....................................6-9, 15-21, 39, 44, 144, 209, 242, 266,282, 298
- created vs. procreated.. . . . ....................................................................................127, 137, 307
- denigrated by Christian.s. . . . ...........................................................................................16, 23
- designed for procreation.. . . . . . . .........................................................................................51 fff.
- essential for
- habitation in and governance of a physical w orld . . . . .........................24, 26, 27, 30. 37
- for redem ption . ... . . ......................................................................................13, 16, 243, 287
- as extension of his m ind.. . . . . ............................................................................................41, 43
- as housing for the ovum ... .. .................................................................................................151
- of hum ans vs. of anim als . . . ..............10, 11, 12, 41, 43, 87, 91, 126, 127, 215, 282, 285, 298
- im m ortality of. . . . ..................................................................................2, 10, 63, 141, 147, 217
- as m ediator and a link. . . . ....................................................................24, 26, 27, 32, 273, 274
- m ortality o.f.. . . ............................................................................................ 62, 63, 67, 151, 152
- origin o.f. . . . . .......................................................................................................12, 15, 285, 297
- as a prison of the spirit.?.. . . . ..................................................................................16, 130, 289
- as servant of the spiri.t.. . . . .........................................................................................39 ff., 131
337
- special design of the hum an.. . . . .......................................................................................45-48

- and spirit m atched.. . . . ...........................................................................................45, 106, 107
- a theology o..f. .. . ..............................................................................................................18, 299
- view ed as a m achine. . . .................................................... 23, 39, 68, 111, 116, 120, 138, 211
Body of sin, term s describing.. . . . ................................................................................63, 141, 211
Body/spirit
- bond betw een.. . . . ................................................................................100f., 129, 130, 317, 319
- constitution in anim als.?.. . .. .................................................................................................126
- interaction.. . . . .............................................................................................121, 129, 131, 139
- term s used fo.r.. . . . . ................................................................................................................127
Brain
- conditions the m ind.. . . . . .......................................................................................................119
- as a com pute..r. . . . . .................................................................................................................132
- interaction betw een m ind, body and . . . . .................................41, 43, 116, 121-125, 308-310
- as link betw een w ill and w orld.. . . . .........................................................................32, 40, 272
- and m ind defined . .. . . . ...........................................................................................................116
- neuronal m achinery o..f. . . . ..................................................................................................120,
- necessary to consciousness.. . .. ......................................................................................32, 101
- as servant of the m ind.. . . . ....................................................................................119, 129, 131
Burial
- custom.s.. . . . ....................................................................................................221, 233, 251, 252
- vs. "sow n.".. . . . ................................................................................................................218, 323
C aesar's im ag.e.. . . . . .....................................................................................................................195

C alvary
- dividing point betw een O ld and N ew Testam ent. . . .........................................................92
- significance of blood shed a.t.. . . ..........................................................................................262
- tw o kinds of death a..t. . . . . .....................................................................................................234
C apital punishm en.t. . . . . .....................................................................................................232-235
C ell(s)
- chrom osom es in.. . . . ............................................................................................................... 58
- doublin.g. . . . . .......................................................................................................................82, 84
- im m ortal and m orta.l. . . . .......................................................................................64-67, 83, 86
- m utations i. n . .. . . . ......................................................................................................................85
C haracter
- of fallen vs. unfallen m an.. . . . ........................................................................182-194, 194-203
- form ation and m aturing o.f.. . . . ................................................................................. 29, 30, 31
- preserved in the resurrection.. . . . . ..............................................................................214, 282
- Saviour's flaw less c.. . . . . .......................................................................................198-200, 306
C hristian(s). The
- denial of the w holeness of m an. . ........................................................................................ 23
- ignorance o..f. . . . . ....................................................................................................................300
- at the m om ent o.f. . . . .............................................................................................................101
- at the resurrection. . .. ...................................................................................106, 107, 246, 247
C hristian evolutionist. Inconsistency of the . .........................102, 244, 245, 267, 287-291, 298
338
C hronology in biblical genealogies questioned . . ..............................................1, 3-5, 292-294

C lean vs. unclean thing. . . . . ...............................................................141, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154
C leanliness
- of body and spiri.t.. . . . ....................................................................................................96, 140
- in concentration cam ps.. . . . ...........................................................................................138-140
- of em bry.o.. . . . .................................................................................................148, 152, 154, 161
- m ora..l. . . . ................................................................................................................140, 148, 228
- vs. uncleannes.s. . . . ........................................................................................................141, 154
C om m unicatio idiom atium. . . . .................................................................................................313
C om m unication
- betw een the Father and the Son... ..........................................................34, 36, 37, 313, 314
- betw een God and m an.. . . . ............................................................................................164-166
- in heave.n . ... . . .........................................................................................................................277
C om puter
- brain as .a . . . . . .........................................................................................................................132
- brain as m ind's personal c... . . ............................................................................................ 129
- has no m in.d.. . . . .....................................................................................................................126
C oncentration C am ps. . . . . ...............................................................................................138f., 183
C onception
- body corrupted at tim e of. . ................................................................................................148
- the Im m aculate. . . . . .......................................................................................................109, 110
- of the Lord Jesus C hrist.. . .. ..................................................................150, 154, 155, 241, 298
- by m ale seed vs. H oly Spiri.t. . . . ..........................................................................................152
- m echanism s o.f.. . . . .........................................................................................................149-154
- m iraculou.s.. . . . .......................................................................................................202, 241, 266
- supernatura.l. . . . . ...........................................................................................................231, 298
- in a virgin.. . . . .................................................................................150, 151, 154, 202, 298, 304
C onscious(ness) (See also Self-consciousness)
- of am oeba.?.. . . . . ..........................................................................................65, 66, 122, 211, 212
- of anim als vs. m an.. . . ...........................................................................................................128
- equivalent term s fo.r.. . . . .......................................................................................................111
- evolutionary view o.f. . . . .................................................................................10, 111, 112, 115
- levels of, in anim al.s.. . . . . .................................................................................................66, 128
- loss of c. in death.?.. . . . .....................................................................................................98, 101
- possessed by m atter (panpscyhism )?. . . . ...................................................................111, 112
- reactivity as.?. . . .................................................................................................................... 127
- requires a body/spirit unity.. . . . ............................................................................98, 101, 320
- through the sense..s. . . . ............................................................................................................32
- tw o kinds of. ?.. ......................................................................................................................118
- vs. self-consciousness.. . . . . ....................................................................................127, 128, 130
- vs. unconsciousnes.s. . . . . ...................................................................................................76, 77
- w ithout a brain.?.. . . ................................................................................ 32, 101, 217, 128, 320
C onstitution. H um an (see also A dam , First and Last A dam , Jesus C hrist, M an)
- altered by sin.. . . . .............................................................................................135-137, 319-320
- biblical view o.f. . . . ...................................................................................................91-102, 268
339
- as body/spirit in unity.. . . . ........................................................................................91, 99,100

- com ponents o..f. . . . ........................................................................................................92-94, 96
- in heaven.. . . . .........................................................................................101, 273, 274, 319, 320
- is m ortal and im m orta.l. . . . ...............................................................................2, 63, 64, 68, 70
- theological requirem ent for.. . . ..........................................................................................2, 10
C ontinuity of germ plasm.. . . ............................................................................................151, 153
C reation. The
- best form of defence of.?.. . . . ...............................................................................................222
- and chronology.. . ............................................................................................. 3, 5, 6, 292-294
- each species the result of direct c. . ........................................................................27, 28, 54
- ex nihi.l.o. . . ..............................................................................................................................110
- groaning o..f. . . . ........................................................................................................................86
- im m ediate vs. m ediate.. ......................................................................................................211
- of m an (see also A dam , First and Last Adam , Jesus C hrist, M an)
- biblical definition of. . . . ..........................................................................................180, 181
- crow.n . ... . ......................................................................................................................... 201
- de novo, only once.. . . . . .................................................................................................59, 60
- and fashioning of the Adam.. . . . ................................................................................48, 49
- four m odes o..f. . . . ...........................................................................................................163
- resurrected body a new.?.. . . . ..........................................................................................323
- a revealed truth.. . . . ...................................................................................................61, 284
- special and unique.. . . . ......................................................................................1, 6, 15, 115
- vs. evolution.. . . . ..................................................................................xviii, 1-7,53, 54-59, 222,
C reation/evolution controversy
- basic issue i.n.. . . .................................................................................................... xviii, 16, 222
- flaw s in evolution vs. theological consequence in creation . . . ..........................16, 203, 300
- and how to conduct this w arfare. ...........................................................................222, 300
C reation Research Societ.y.. . . . ...................................................................................................xiii
C row n of thorn.s. . . . ............................................................................................197, 201, 257, 260
C rucifixion
- a C arthaginian inventio.n... . . ...............................................................................................232
- as ‘hanging on a tree..' . . ...................................................................................................... 234
- to invalidate C hrist's claim.s. . . . ...................................................................................233, 234
- m arks of C hrist's c. to rem ain in eternity. . . ..................................................................... 260
- as practised by Jew.s.. . . . ................................................................................................232-234
- not the cause of C hrist's death. . . . .......................................................................232, 235, 241
- slow ness of death on a cross. . . . ..................................................................................233, 235
- as noted by com m entator.s. . . . . . ....................................................................................239-241
- three view s of the Lord's.. . . ........................................................................................ 232-239
- the theological requirem ent for. . . . .....................................................................................234
D aisy. The, and the gorilla.. . . . ....................................................................................................44

D ay of A tonem en.t. . . . . ........................................................................................234, 260, 317-319
D eath (See also Jesus C hrist, M an)
- an alternative to d... . . ...........................................................................................209, 213, 214
340
- of anim als vs. m an vs. Jesus C hrist. . . . .....................................................................xviii, 223

- causes of anim al d... . . .........................................................................................81-85, 87, 212
- cause of hum an d.. . .. .....................................................................................68, 210, 211, 215
- definitions o.f... . . ................................................................................................75-78, 207, 210
- an event and a proces.s.. . . . .......................................................................................77, 78, 208
- as experience by anim als vs. m an. . .......................................................................... 216, 217
- evolutionary view o.f.. . . . ..........................................................................................64, 78, 217
- a fact of life? Inevitable?.. . . .........................................................................13, 64, 71, 74, 211
- H arvard definition o.f.. . . . .................................................................................................76, 77
- of m an vs. anim a.l. . . .................................................................................. 73, 87, 88, 215, 216
- natural, un-natural vs. super-natural. . . .....................13, 77, 87, 88, 210, 217, 223, 298, 299
- a necessary design?.. . . . .................................................................................................211-213
- as term ination vs. disruption.............................................................................................210
- tw o kind.s.. . . . .....................................................................................................13, 87, 215, 216
D efilem en.t. . . . . ................................................................................................49, 50, 139, 140, 321
D escriptions as explanations. . . . ................................................................................................44
D ichotom y of m an.. . . . ............................................................................................92-94, 320, 321
"D ivine surgery" on A dam. . . . . ........................................................................xvii, 6 7, 55, 58, 59
D ying from birth, from conception. . . ...................................................................... 78, 138, 148
Earth. The new.. . . .....................................................................................15, 25, 32, 249, 272, 273

Eden, Garden of . . .................................................................xvii, 61, 62, 136, 191, 218, 295, 324
Em bodim ent
- of angels..?.. . . . ...........................................................................................................26, 270, 271
- does not dem eaned divinity.. . . . ..................................................................................151, 180
- Greek view o..f. . . . ............................................................................................................16, 289
- in the new heavens and earth. . . . ...........................................................16, 269-274, 320, 321
- for redem ptio.n.. . . . ..........................................................................................................13, 162
- reasons for God's.. . . . ................................................................................33-37, 48, 163 f., 178
- 5 reasons for m an.'s.. . . . . . ................................................................................................... 26-33
- and tem ptation.s.. . . . ..............................................................................................................174
Epileps.y.. . . . . ........................................................................................................................116, 117
Eve (see also A dam and Eve)
- evolutionary origin of?. . . . ....................................................................xviii, 2, 6, 14, 290, 304
- effect of the forbidden fruit on body of. . . ............................................................ 61, 62, 147
- and her firstborn so.n.. .. . ..............................................................................................303, 304
- form ation of
- a biological fact of theological im portance,. . . ........................................................51, 59
- by divine surgery from a rib.. . . ......................................................................................55
- out of A dam.. . . ........................................................................................ 2, 54, 55, 60, 151
- and H eadship of A dam ("in A dam "). . . .........................................................................54, 60
- m other of all living . .. . . . . ..........................................................................................51, 152, 294
- special design of her bod.y.. . . . ....................................................................................146, 151
- and virgin birth.. .. . ........................................................................................146, 147, 151-153
- w hy not a separate creation. . . . . . .........................................................................51, 54, 55, 60
341
Evolution
- ‘am oeba to m an.'. . . .......................................................................................................209, 288
- cannot account for First and Last Adam . . . ...............................144, 161, 162, 179, 202, 203
- cannot account for m an . . . ............................................................72, 114, 115, 161, 162, 203
- and C hristian Faith incom patible ...........50, 65, 72, 102, 114, 144, 162,200, 201, 203, 287
- and death.. . . .........................................................................................................71, 78-86, 221
- define.d.. . . . .................................................................................................................................3
- denies the Fall of m a.n.. . . . . ...................................................................................................193
- has no destiny, no hope.. . . . .........................................................................................282, 301
- and discontinuities in Great C hain of Being . . ............................6, 39, 43-45, 115, 144, 288
- as a fait.h.. . . ............................................................................................................132, 269, 286
- as God's m ethod of creation.. . . .......................................................................................3, 6, 8
- im placable offensive o..f. . . . ......................................................................................................9
- of m an not supported by history. . . . ...................................................113, 114, 132, 194, 209
- and origin of m an . . .....................................1,3, 16, 18, 44, 107, 110, 113, 114, 132, 181, 209
- redem ption challenges presuppositions. . . ..........................................................10, 243, 244
- view s m an as ‘crow n of creation.'. . . ...................................................................................201
- vs. the Christian Fait.h.. . . . . ...................................................................................................287
- vs. creation . . . . . ......................................................................................xvii, 2,6, 53, 54, 59, 222
Evolutionary
- philosophy as m aterialistic and hope-less . . . ..........................................9, 23, 115, 289, 302
- theory as a fait.h.. . . . . ..............................................................................................132, 209, 286
- w orld view vs. theology.. . ...................................................................................... 21, 23, 242
Evolutionist. The Christian
- the faith of.. . .. ........................................................................................................267, 289-291
- inconsistency o.f. . . ........................................................................................102, 243, 287. 288
- and his know ledge of redem ptive theology . . . .........................................242, 287, 288, 297
Evolution/creation controversy . . . ...................................................................xvii, 16, 222, 300
Faith(s)
- C hristian
- articles of the. . . .........................................................................................16, 134, 206, 283
- defence of th.e.. . . .............................................................................................................283
- eroded by doub.t.. . ................................................................................................. 289-291
- foundation of the.. . . ................................................................................................289-291
- im portance of body in. . . .........................................................................23, 24, 2q96, 297
- organic unity of. ......................................................................................13, 114, 242, 245
- C hristian vs. Evolution . . .................1, 3, 4, 9, 50, 60, 102, 114, 162, 200, 201, 203, 283, 284
- im portance of prem ises held by. . . . ...................................................................286, 298, 300
- role of reason in. . . . .........................................................................51, 114, 284, 291, 299, 324
Fall. The
- affected anim als?. . . . .........................................................................................86, 87, 136, 221
- of angel.s. . . ........................................................................................................................28, 30
- as an arch joining Fallen and U nfallen m an . . . ...........................................................14, 202
- cause of the extinction of species, and of M an.. . . .............................................................136
342
- denied by evolution.. . . . ................................................................................................194, 244

- fatal to both body and spirit. . . . . ..........................................................182-184, 211, 218, 295
- and God's im age in m an.. .. . . ...............................................................................................182
- introduced death in m an.. . . . .................................................................................73, 135, 210
Fallen Angels: See under A ngels
Fallen vs. U nfallen m an (See also First and Last A dam , M an) ....................183-194, 200-203
Fam ily relationships
- angels have no . . . . . .............................................................................................................28, 29
- ‘in Adam.'. . . .............................................................................. 10, 52, 54, 55, 59, 60, 295, 323
- by procreatio.n.. . . ....................................................................................................................54
Federal H eadship of A dam. . . . ................................................................................ 28, 29, 54, 60
First and Second (Last) A dam (see also A dam , Jesus C hrist)
- crucial connection betw een . . .......xvii, 6, 10, 12, 13, 161, 181, 266, 294-296, 298, 302, 305
- evolution unable to account for . . . .......................................50, 144, 161, 162, 179, 203, 302
- as Federal H ead.s. . . . ........................................................................................................48, 60.
- as a half-ape.. . . . .................................................................................xvii, 1, 2, 12, 14, 303, 304
- identical bodies o.f.. . . ........................................................................................................47-50
- im m ortality and m ortality of. . . . .....................................................10, 13, 67, 67, 70. 71, 202
- necessary to Plan of Redem ption. . . . ......................................................................10, 18, 298
- never sinne.d.. . . .....................................................................................................................242
- supernatural origin of. . . . .......................................................................13, 144, 202, 266, 298
- as term s m ade m eaningless by theistic evolution . . . .....................................xvii, 1, 13, 295
- are true, unfallen M an.. . . .........................................................................................12, 71, 161
Flesh
- and bone vs. and blood. . . . .................................................................32, 55, 56, 261, 269, 316
- and its dem ands on the spiri.t. . . . ................................................................................175, 176
- of Go.d. .. . . ..........................................................................................................................48, 49
- equals living person.. . . ...........................................................................................97, 271, 273
- Lord Jesus only in the ‘likeness' of sinful. . . . ..............................................................155-160
- as term for the bod.y.. . . ..........................................................................................................56
- w eakness and infirm ity of. . . ................................................................................131,160, 211
- vulnerability o.f. . . . . .........................................................................................................68, 160
Forbidden fruit
- action on A dam 's body. . . . . ......................................................61,68, 137, 138, 146, 210, 266
- as food poisoning . . . . . ............................................................................................................210
Freedom of w ill in m an.. . . . .......................................................................................220, 225, 242
Gaps
- in biblical genealogies... . . ...................................................................................3, 5, 292, 293
- in great chain of being.. . . . ....................................................................................................297
Genealogies
- supposed gaps i.n.. . . . ............................................................................................3, 5, 292, 293
- and U ssher's chronology. . . . ....................................................................................................5
Genetic endow m ent divinely ordained . . . .........................................................................45, 46
343
Gender
- of the First A dam ... . . . .........................................................................................................55-57
- origin o.f. . . . ................................................................................................................... 2, 59, 60
Germ Plasm . Continuity of. . . ..........................................................................................151, 152
Ghost
- m an not designed to be . . . .........................................11, 25, 32, 100, 101, 261, 269, 288, 316
- ‘in the m achine'. . . . ................................................................111, 115, 116, 120, 132, 309, 310
God
- appoints and ordain.s. . . . ................................................................................................. 45, 46
- breath o..f. . . ..............................................................................................................................46
- as the cause, evolution as the m ethod of creation. . .................................................... 3, 6, 8
- cannot di.e.. . . . ..................................................................................................................34, 273
- creator of
- A dam. . . . ..............................................................................58, 59, 136, 179, 182, 202, 288
- ange.l.s.. . . . ...........................................................................................................................26
- anim a.l.s. . . . .......................................................................................................................212
- m an. . . . . ...........................................................xvii, 6-11, 21, 24, 48, 49, 100, 145, 181, 285
- univers.e. . . . ..........................................................................................................24, 25, 113
- cursed m a.n.. . . . ..............................................................................................................233, 234
- the Father of all spirits.. . . . ....................................................................106, 107, 127, 285, 307
- as Father and M othe.r.. .. . .......................................................................................................57
- flesh o.f.. . . . ..........................................................................................................................48-50
- ‘hum anity' o.f. . . . . ..................................................................................................................175
- as Judge of m an..?. . . .................................................................................................36, 178-180
- justice o.f.. .. . .............................................................................................37, 228, 229, 323, 324
- love o..f.. . . . ..............................................................................................................................183
- m an in the im age of. . . . .................................................... 21, 61, 100, 136, 137, 145, 166, 181
- ‘objectified' by the incarnated Son. . . ...................................................168,169, 174, 175, 311
- as a Person, not a force.. . . . ...........................................................................................174, 311
- sovereignty o.f. . . .............................................................................................................. 45, 46
- as ‘surgeon..' . . ................................................................................................ xvii, 7, 55, 58, 59
- voice o..f. . . . . ....................................................................................................................311, 312
‘Gorilla and D ais.y..'. . . . .................................................................................................................44
‘Great C hain of Being.'. . . . . .......................................................................12, 43, 44, 113, 144, 288
Greek(s)
- ideal tim e for dying.. . . . ..........................................................................................................74
- ridicule bodily resurrection. . . . . ............................................................................................16
- view body as a prison.. . . . . .............................................................................................16, 289
Guilt(y) (see also O riginal Sin, W ashing)
- death of m an as proof o..f. . . . ................................................................................................223
- defilem ent a.s.. . . ....................................................................................................................140
- as experienced by the Lord.. . . . . ..................................................................................224- 226
- ritual w ashings prescribed for.. . . . ......................................................................................140
H alfw ay house betw een m an and ape.?. . . . ...............................................................................12

344
‘H anging on a tree..'. . . ...............................................................................................................233

H arvard definition of death.. . . . ............................................................................................76, 77
H eart ruptur.e.. . . ....................................................................................................................... 241
H eredit..y.. . . . ..........................................................................................................................46, 135
H erm aphrodite.. . . . .................................................................................................................56-59
H igh Priest
- on D ay of A tonem ent.. . . . ......................................................................234, 243, 260, 317-319
- Jesus a.s.. . . . .....................................................................................................................259, 260
H istory
- A dam in prehistory or h.?. . . . ...............................................................................................298
- a critical m om ent in.. . . . ..........................................................................................................54
- of the Fa..l.l. . . . ..................................................................................................................182-184
- Lord's death view ed as.. . . . . ..........................................................................................232-235
- a new thing i.n . . . . . ............................................................................................................76, 152
- under term s of the Fal.l. . . . ...................................................................................................190
- verifies fallen nature of m an. . . . ..................................................................................194, 202
‘H oly thing', Greek of Luke 1:35.. . . . ........................................................................................152
H om o- vs. H om o.i. . . . .........................................................................................................155-159
H ope of glor.y.. . . . .......................................................................................................................100
H um an Being. The (See also M an)
- constitution o.f.. . . . .............................................................................45, 46, 92-94, 96-100, 129
- consciousness in.. . ................................................................................................... 32, 33, 128
- created vs. evolved . . . . . . .................................................3, 39, 59, 266, 267, 295-297, 300-303
- creativity o.f.. . . . . .................................................................................................................41-43
- defined.. . . . . ........................................................................11,12, 39, 45, 62 100,, 101, 268, 273
- death as experienced by . . . ................................74, 87, 88, 141, 210, 218, 221, 245, 298, 299
- in eternity.. . . . ........................................................................15, 25, 32, 155, 247, 267, 269-282
- as an identifiable individual, unique. . . . ....................................................................103, 114
- in the im age of God.?.. . . . ..............................................................................................183, 184
- potential of.. . . . . .......................................................39-42, 57, 70, 144, 155, 202, 215, 266, 320
- redeem able. . . . ...............................................................................11, 13, 29, 54, 183, 295, 301
- a special creation of God.. . . . .....................................................................15, 21, 24, 45-49, 54
- of today differs from First and Last A dam. . . . ..............................................62, 63, 155-159
H um an nature
- vs. anim al nature. . . . .............................................................................................164, 193, 245
- and divine nature. . . . .....................................................................168, 169, 172, 179, 313-314
- the goodness of?.. . . . ...............................................................................189-191, 193, 194, 218
- of unfallen and of fallen m an.. . . . .................................................................................184-200
H um ani generi.s. . . . ................................................................................................................2, 299
H um anity
- of God . .. . . . . .......................................................................................................................34, 175
- as the ‘inhum anity' of m an.. .. . ............................................................................................182
- of Jesu.s. . . . . ...................................................................................11, 12, 34, 166, 167, 275, 276
H ybrids (A dam /Eve.). . . ............................................................................................................ 54
345
Identity
- body essential fo.r.. . . . ..........................................................................24, 33, 38, 103, 128, 277
- "in Adam " for hum an.. . . . .......................................................................................................55
- of Jesus in heave.n.. . . . ...........................................................................................................281
- recognition of one another in heaven. . . . .......................................................32, 38, 277-280
- spirit or soul essential fo.r. . . . .......................................................................................107, 130
‘Identical' vs. ‘Sim ilar..'. . . . . .................................................................................................155-159
Im age
- of fallen Adam in his descendants. . .. ................................................................136, 137, 181
- of God los..t. . . . .......................................................................................................................136
- of God in First A dam.. . . .........................................................................................61, 180, 182
- of God in m an.. . . . ..............................................................................52, 61, 100, 136, 166, 182
- Jesus in God's ‘express' I.. . . . ...............................................................................................145
- photographic.. . . . ............................................................................................................279-281
- now has to be reconstituted. . . . ...................................................................................183, 184
Im m aculate C onception.. . . . . .....................................................................................................110
Im m ortality. Physical
- absolute.. . . . ........................................................................................................................68-70
- A ugustine's definition of. . . . ......................................................................69, 70, 87, 155, 241
- of am oebae, cancer cells.. . . . .................................................................................64, 65, 75, 87
- biological fac.t.. . . . ........................................................................................................64, 68, 70
- body and spir.i.t. . . . ................................................................................................................217
- contingen..t. . . . ........................................................................................................63, 64, 68, 70
- of hum an ova.. . . . ...................................................................................................146, 147, 151
- lost in the Fa.l.l. . . . ....................................................................................................................68
- and m ortalit.y.. . . ................................................................................................................64, 68
- restored in C hrist by virgin birth.. . . ....................................................................................68
- as rew ard vs. retention.. . . ................................................................................................... 219
- as a theological concept and necessity . . . ............................................................70, 241, 242
- and Tree of Life.. .. ................................................................................................... 62, 63, 218
- and vicarious death. . . . ...................................................................................70, 241, 242, 298
Incarnation. The
- as the ‘flesh of God..'. . . . ..........................................................................................................48
- hum an and divine nature in.. . . . ..................................................................................165, 166
- for justice in judgm ent. . . ........................................................................30, 175, 176, 178-180
- and necessity of virgin birth. . . ............................................................................... 148 f., 231
- pointless if divorced from redem ption. . . . .........................................................................203
- a prepared body for.. . . ..............................................................................48, 149ff., 153, 154
- for redem ptio.n.. .. . .....................................................................................................33, 34, 37
- to reveal God to m an. . . . ...............................................................................................164-175
- to reveal m an to God.. . . . . ......................................................................................164, 174-180
- to reveal m an to m an.. . . . .......................................................................................164, 184-202
- vs. theophanie.s.. . . . ...............................................................................................................266
‘Infirm ity' of the flesh. . . .................................................................................................. 160, 175
346
Interactionism
- of body and spirit. . . . ..............................................................................................40, 121, 127
- betw een physical and spiritual w orlds.. . . ....................................................................30, 31
- effect of Fall on.. . . . ................................................................................................................131
- and interdependence.. . . . . .....................................................................................................139
- betw een m ind/brain. . . . .....................................................................................121 f.,308-310
Innocence and virtue. . . . ............................................................................................136, 190, 215
‘Instead of', Greek w ord fo.r. . . . ................................................................................................214
Instinc..t. . . . ...................................................................................................................136, 164, 193
Invisible becom es visible . . . ............................................35, 113, 163 ff., 174, 175, 263, 310-312
‘It is finished' as ‘Paid in full.'. . ............................................................................................... 229
Jesus C hrist. The Lord (see also first and Second (Last) A dam )
- body of
- in another form.. . . . .........................................................................................257, 314-317
- as a ‘filter' for his divine nature.. . . ...............................................................................266
- im m ortality of. . . .........................................................................67, 71, 154, 155, 242, 265
- infirm ity (vulnerability) o.f. . . . .......................................................................................160
- perfection o..f.. . . ...............................................................................................................212
- perm anent from incarnation through eternity. . . . ........................................................11
- prepared specifically . .. . . . . ................................................................................154, 155,161
- resurrected.. . ....................................................................... 33, 69, 247-249, 257, 259, 261
- sim ilar, only in likeness of ours. . . .................................................................157-160, 259
- supernatural origin of.. . . . . .......................................................................................34, 202
- as truly "A dam ic.". . . . ...............................................................137, 143, 149, 154, 161, 242
- virgin born . . . .........................................................................................144, 149, 155, 202
- in ‘express' im age of the Father. . . .................................................................34, 145,183, 311
- hum an and divine nature of . . . ...........................................161, 165, 166, 168, 169, 171, 313
- as H igh Pries.t.. . . ...................................................................................................259, 260, 319
- as the ideal m a.n.. .................................................................................................................281
- to be Judge of all m en......................................................................................35, 37, 174-179
- as Lam b of God . .. . . ................................................................................................259, 260, 201
- as a M an in heaven now.. . . . ...................................................................................11, 266, 268
- objectified God.. . ....................................................................................................74, 175, 265
- as a plum b line.. . . . ................................................................................................................200
- as portrayed in the Gospels.. . . . ...........................................................................280, 281, 290
- physical death of
- active, not passive.. . . .......................................................................................13, 231, 240
- by crucifixion necessary.. . . ..................................................................................233 - 235
- crucifixion not the cause o.f. . . . .............................................................................235, 241
- and of m an contrasted.. . . . .....................................................................viii, 158, 231, 238
- supernatura.l. . . ..............................................................................................234, 242, 299
- to ‘taste death.'. . ............................................................................. 35, 228, 231, 232, 323
- his relationship to fallen m an.. . . .........................................................................................202
- as Saviour of all "in A dam.". . . ...............................................................................................60
347
- spiritual death o.f.. . . . .....................................................................................................224-229

- the m om ent of hi.s. . . ..............................................................................................224-229
- vs. m an.'.s.. ..............................................................................................................229, 230
- tem ptations o.f.. . . . ....................................................................................36, 158, 175-177, 313
- and his transfiguration.. . . ....................................................................................................214
- tw o ascensions o..f. . . . ....................................................................................................249, 259
Jew (ish)
- belief in the androgynous nature of Adam as created. . . . .................................................59
- certification of death. . .. ...............................................................................................251, 252
- crucifixion as used by.. . . ..................................................................................... 233, 234, 251
- have no theolog.y . .. . . . ..............................................................................................................91
- and m eaning of the shekinah.. . . . ................................................................................311, 310
- and m eaning of ‘virgin..'. . . . ..................................................................................................148
- and reincarnation.. . . . ............................................................................................................104
- required tw o w itnesses.. . . . ..................................................................................................314
Judgm ent
- of C hristian for deeds done in this body. . . . ..............................................................179, 215
- death as .a.. . . . . ........................................................................................................................217
- of God upon Jesus Chris.t.. . ............................................................................................... 225
- of m en by Son of M a.n.. . . . ....................................................................................................178
Lam b of Go.d.. . . . .................................................................................................................260, 319

Language, origin o.f. . . . ................................................................................................................44
Last A dam (See under First and Second A dam )
Life
- in atom s, particles.?.. . . . ...........................................................................................74, 111, 112
- condem ned to..?. . . . ..................................................................................................................76
- "cutting short" vs. "cutting off" of. . . . . ..................................................................................71
- death not a part of. . . . . ..........................................................................................64, 66, 73, 74
- principle o.f.. . . .......................................................................................................................262
- size irrelevant to.. . . . ..........................................................................................65, 66, 211, 212
- tw o kinds of hum an. . . . ....................................................................20, 57, 208, 213, 218, 220
- unending (im m ortal). . . . .......................................................................65, 67, 70, 87, 147, 155
Logic
- consistency of C hristian Faith tested by. . . . . ..........................................................68, 69, 288
- precludes an anim al origin for m an. . . . ........................................................................14, 244
- uses o.f. . . . ........................................................................................................ 23, 266, 281, 283
Longevity. Lim ited . .. . . . ..............................................................................................................218
Lord Jesus Christ (see Jesus Christ)
M an
- an anim al?. . . ....................................................................12, 41, 52, 87, 91, 209, 215, 266, 298
- body of
- buried vs. ‘sow n..'. . . ...............................................................................................218, 232
- corrupted, defective, diseased . . ..................................138, 141, 142, 148, 157, 208, 211
348
- designed for im m ortality and m ortality.. . . .........................................................141, 217

- erect posture o..f. . . ...........................................................................................................43
- essential for
- character form ation.. . . .........................................................................................30, 31
- for the Plan of Redem ption.. . . .......................................................................13, 16, 18
- for perm anent personal identity. . . .................................23, 33, 37, 93, 107, 221, 269
- as m ediator and link betw een spirit and m atter . ........................... 27, 30, 32, 33, 273
- as instrum ent for the spiri.t. . . .................................................................10, 39 ff., 45, 46
- a "brute ancestry" of.?.. .. ..........................................................................................................7
- constitution of (see also body/spirit, spirit/body)
- dichotom.y.. . . ........................................................................................................92-94, 320
- hyphenate being . .. . . ..........................................................................................................11
- indivisible. . ...............................................................................................................88-101
- created specifically, uniquely . . .............12, 13, 15, 24, 26-33, 37, 43, 91, 130, 179, 181, 272
- creativity of (see also stereoscopic vision.). . . ...............................................................41-43
- death of (see also A dam , Jesus C hrist)
- vs. of anim als vs. of Jesus C hrist.. . . ...........................................................................xviii
- appointed now.. .. .....................................................................................................88, 218
- his attitude tow ards.. ....................................................................130, 216, 217, 219, 221
- cause o.f. . . . .......................................................................................147, 152, 155, 158, 231
- as consequence, penalty or rem edy. . . ............................10, 13, 67, 68, 88, 210, 211, 245
- contrasted w ith Jesus C hris.t. . . .....................................................................................241
- defined . . . .......................................................................................... 70, 71, 74-76, 131, 208
- divine purpose o.f. . . ...................................................................................................63, 70
- ‘entered ..'. . . .....................................................................................................67, 86, 87, 217
- as an execution vs. suicide
- a "legal fiction".. . . . ..........................................................................................................210
- passive vs. by choic.e. . . . .................................................................................................225
- process and even.t. . . ...........................................................................................63, 78, 208
- un-natura.l. . . ......................................................................................87, 210, 222, 298, 299
- destiny o.f. . . . ....................................................................16, 107, 127, 132, 216, 285, 287, 302
- fall o.f. . . ..........................................................................................73, 135, 147, 180f., 218, 228
- fallen vs. unfallen . . ....................................................................................................154, 201
- in the im age of God vs. im age of (fallen) A dam .....................165, 180, 181, 136, 145, 181
- lives under sentence of death.....................................................................154, 157, 159, 213
- longevity o.f.. ........................................................................................................................216
- as a m achin.e...........................................................................................................................23
- to m anage the eart.h...............................................................................................26, 270, 271
- m aturing process in...................................................................................29, 30, 37, 212, 318
- m oral accountability o.f. . . . .....................................................................................29, 242, 243
- in the natural w orld
- appointed governor of . ......................................................................................... 26, 172
- arch destroyer of. . . .................................................................................................191-193
- biologically and zoological unique. . . ..........................................................................143
- nature of..................................................................................48, 182, 183, 189, 192, 218, 298
349
- nature of his tem ptations......................................................................................35, 155, 174

- needs a Redeem er and a Saviour.. .....................................................................................302
- reality of resurrected body o.f. ...........................................................................................101
- redeem able
- and his sense of need .. .........................................................................................................240
- a single species
- all "in A dam " as a. ........................................................................28f., 52-54, 55, 136, 240
- an endangered. . . ............................................................................................................136
- a ‘spoiled..'. . . ....................................................................................................................136
- a ‘spoiled' species. .......................................................................................................135, 180
- as a disaste.r.. ........................................................................................................................189
- and tim e of his appearance
- in geological tim e?
- in history or pre-history?
- suddenness o.f. .............................................................6f., 14, 44, 59, 144, 200, 289f., 294
- as a unique creatur.e. .................................................................................................12, 13, 94
- as passiv.e.. ............................................................................................................................239
- prem ature.........................................................................................................70, 71, 157, 210
- a process and an event. ...................................................................................63, 77, 142, 206
- by sin . .............................................................................................................208, 211, 214, 228
- as suicid.e.. ............................................................................................................................228
- theological view of...........................................................70, 73, 130, 205, 206, 208, 230-237
- a threa..t.............................................................................................................................10, 67
- vs. transform ation...................................................................................209, 211, 212, 236
- of tw o kind..s.......................................................................................................86, 221, 222
- universality of m an'.s...................................................................................................85, 86
- un-natura.l..................................................................................................87, 214, 221, 295
M anhood of m an defined ....................................12, 18, 137, 161, 177, 179, 180, 198, 215, 303
‘M arriage' of body and spirit. . . . ........................................................................................99, 100
M ary
- age of (in Pieta.). . . . ...........................................................................................................279 ff.
- needing salvation.. . . . ............................................................................................................110
M aterialism
- evolution a philosophy of. . . . ........................................................................................22, 115
- sad consequences o.f.. . . . .......................................................................................................289
M atter
- consciousness in.?. . . . ...............................................................................74, 111, 112, 114, 115
- equated w ith spirit.?. . . .........................................................................................................112
- soul or spirit as epiphenom enon of..........................................................................112, 115
M ediator
- betw een God and m an. . . ..............................................................33-37, 48-50, 163, 164, 175
- betw een hum an w ill and the w orld.. . . . ..............................................................................27
M iracles
- anathem a to science.. . . .................................................................................................288, 289
- in the origin of the body of both A dam s. . . . ..............................................144, 147, 266, 202
350
M ind(s)
- as authority . .. . . . . ....................................................................................................................131
- vs. body . ... .. ...........................................................................................................................131
- vs. brain. . . . .............................................................................................116, 117, 119, 308-310
- w ithout brain . ..?. . . ................................................................................................................... 28
- language an.d.. . . . .....................................................................................................................44
- as self-consciou.s. . . . ..............................................................................................................129
- term s used as equivalents of. . . .....................................................................93, 115, 167, 127
M ind/brain interaction. . . . .......................................................30, 41, 43, 120, 122-126, 129, 130
M onad. Soul .a.. . . . ........................................................................................................................99
M oral(s)
- and accountabilit.y.. . . ...........................................................................................................242
- and freedom of choice.. . . .................................................................................1, 220, 224, 242
- view of the crucifixion.. . . . ............................................................................................235, 236
M ortogenic facto..r. . . . .........................................................................................................155, 158
M ount of Transfiguration . .. . .................................................................................................... 214
M urde.r.. . . . .........................................................................................................................189, 225
N ature
- aggression and cruelty in.. . . . .........................................................................185, 19, 193, 194
- effect of m an's fall on. . . . ........................................................................................53, 191, 193
- designed to serve the plan of redem ption.. . . . ...................................................................150
- law s i.n.. . . . ........................................................................................................................52, 150
- m an's place in.. . . ...............................................................................................................44, 45
- m utual aid i.n.. . . ....................................................................................................................193
- and over-population.. . . . ...................................................................................................78, 80
- w eb of life i.n.. . . . ......................................................................................................................72
N azi C oncentration C am ps. . . . ..........................................................................138-140, 185, 186
N ew earth
- to be governed by m an.. . . . ...................................................................................272, 273, 274
- prom ise of, related to the body. . . . ...............................................................................32, 247
- perm anence o.f. . . . .............................................................................................16, 25, 274, 275
O bjectification. . . . . .......................................................................................174, 175, 265, 310-312

O rigin (of)
- in creation/evolution controversy.. . . . ...............................................................................xvii
- Eve's bod.y . . . . ................................................................................................................ 2, 55, 60
- languag.e.. . ..............................................................................................................................44
- m an's body . . . ...........................................1, 2, 14, 15, 18, 23, 24, 182, 183, 242 266, 285, 298
- m an's spirit (soul).. . . . ............................................................................................102, 103-114
- tied to destiny.. . . . . ..........................................................................................xviii, 132, 284 ff.
O riginal righteousness.. . . .........................................................................................................242
O riginal sin, avoided by virgin birth. . . . . ................................................................147, 149, 151
‘Paid in full. '. . . ....................................................................................................................229, 239

351
Paradidom.i. ..............................................................................................................................238
Perfecting and m aturing of m an. . . ....................................................................... 30, 31, 46, 215
Photography
- vs. artistic representation.. . . . .......................................................................................279, 280
- in 3-D... . . . ............................................................................................................................122 f.
Pictures of C hrist, undesirable..?. . . . ..........................................................................................281
Pieta. The.. . . . . .............................................................................................................................279
Plan of Redem ption
- crucial relationship of First and Last A dam to . . ........................................xvii, 10, 12, 242
- dem ands a Federal H ea.d.. . . ........................................................................................... 28, 29
- evolution inim ical to.. . . . ...........................................................................xviii, 10, 11, 18, 242
- rationale o..f. . . . .................................................................................................................17, 242
- role of deaths in.. . . . .............................................................................................................xviii
- theology o.f. . . . ...........................................................................................................10, 18, 242
- vital role of hum an body in. . . . ........................................................................................16-18
Plan of Salvation (see also Salvation)
- applies to all "in A dam..".. . . . ...................................................................................................53
- bodily resurrection the capstone of the . . . ........................................................................247
- hinges on First and Last Adam.. . . . . ....................................................................................299
- physiology essential t.o.. . . . .....................................................................................................59
- rationale o.f. . . . . ......................................................................................................................244
- substitutionary vicarious sacrifice essential to. . . ............................................................ 161
Poison of forbidden fruit.. . . . .............................................................................137, 151, 210, 266
Prem ises essential to theories . . ...............................................................286, 287, 291, 299, 300
Princeton Theological Sem inary. . . . ......................................................................3, 4, 7, 292-294
Procreation
- vs. creation . .. . . . .........................................................................................................27, 29, 53 f.
- hum ans designed fo.r.. . . . ..................................................................................................51-60
- of spirit .?.. . . . ...........................................................................................................103, 108-110
Prototype. A dam as a p. of Jesus C hrist . . . ..................................................xvii, 2, 50, 298, 299
Purification, physical and spiritual. . . . ............................................................................140, 141
Q uantum Theory and the nature of angels. . . . .........................................................................29
Reality vs. trut.h.. . . . ....................................................................................................................284

Reason. . . . .............................................................................................................283, 296, 297, 299
Recognition in heaven.. . . . . .................................................................................................277-282
Redeem ability
- hinges on unique hum an nature. . . . ........................................................................11-15, 243
- only of those "in A dam ".. . . . .................................................................................11, 28, 29, 60
Redeem able. W ho are . . . ..................................................................10, 29, 54, 55, 295, 301, 302
Redeem ed. The
- death o.f.. . . . ............................................................................................................211, 217, 218
- as a fam ily w ith one ‘fathe.r..'. . . . ............................................................................................28
- in heave.n.. . . . ..................................................................................................................269, 282
352
- m ust be "in A dam.". . . . . .....................................................................................................54, 60

- need a Saviour and a Redeem er. . . ...............................................................................70, 306
- order of healing in.. . . . ............................................................................................................63
- as souls, body/spiri.t. . . ................................................................................................100, 101
Redeem er. The
- body of
- as a filte..r.. . . ................................................................................................................... 266
- form o.f.. . . . ...............................................................................................................303-305
- needed in heave.n.. . . . .........................................................................................11, 12, 261
- death as experienced by. . . . ..............................................................................13, 14, 237-239
- entry into history o.f. . .................................................................................................. 303-305
- is God H im sel.f.. . . . ......................................................................................................11, 12, 14
- im m ortality o.f.. . . . .............................................................................................................68, 70
- m ust have a "clean" birth. . . . .......................................................................................148, 149
- qualifications o.f. . . . ...................................................................................14, 28, 29, 148, 1419
- vs. Saviou.r.. . . . .......................................................................................................................305
- as substitute. . . ................................................................................................... 10, 11, 28, 305
- to taste death for m an. . . . .........................................................................................33, 34, 306
- and tim e of his appearance on earth. . . .............................................................................303
- vicarious sacrifice o.f. . . . .................................................................................................70, 306
- virgin birth o.f. . . . ...........................................................................................................146-149
Redem ption.
- application and m anner o.f. . . . .............................................................................................243
- bodily resurrection in.. . . . .......................................................................................16, 268, 269
- of the bod.y.. . . . ...............................................................................................................207, 208
- com pelling logic of. . . . ............................................................................................17, 298, 299
- evidence in heaven o.f. . . . .....................................................................................................259
- hinges on First and Last Adam.. . . . . ......................................................................................10
- hinges on unique hum an constitution .. . ....................................................13, 162, 242, 243
- involves physiology.. . . . . ...............................................................................................xviii, 60
- as new life.. . . . ........................................................................................................................306
- of our ow n body.. . . . ................................................................................................16, 107, 260
- physical im m ortality in.. . . . ....................................................................................................70
- place of death in.. . . . . .....................................................................................................xviii, 13
- precludes an anim al origin of m an . . . ............................................xviii, 11,13, 18, 243, 297
- vs. regeneration.. . . . ...........................................................................................15, 16, 207, 208
- role of A dam and Eve in.. . . . ..................................................................................................51
- and salvation.. . .. .............................................................................................60, 102, 305, 306
- substitution and . .. . . . . ...............................................................................................34, 148, 149
- theology o..f. . . . ...............................................................................................................242, 296
Reincarnation. . . . .........................................................................................................103-106, 113
Regeneration vs. redem ption.. . . . . ........................................................................15, 16, 207, 208
Resurrection. Bodily
- of C hrist
- as the capstone of God's Plan.. . . ...................................................................................245
353
- is of flesh and bone.. ........................................................................................................32

- m ore im portant than his crucifixion?. ........................................................................246
- by transform ation... . . .............................................................................................143, 316
- death becom es ou.r. . . ...................................................................................................101, 106
- denied by Greek..s. . . . . .............................................................................................................16
- evolution cannot account for.. . . ....................................................................................16, 201
- our certain hope.. . . ...............................................................................................267, 301, 302
- of our ow n bod.y.. . . . ...............................................................................................................16
- reconstitutes the w hole person.. . . . ...............................................................................98, 107
- view s of early Church Fathers o.f. . . .....................................................................................30
Revelation (See also Bible, Scriptures)
- and the C hristian evolutionist. . . . ...............................................................................285, 286
- essential role o.f.. . . . .......................................................................................................147, 148
- relation of an established fact and the truth of. . . . ............................................................284
‘Rib' of A dam.. . . . ....................................................................................................................55, 56
Rom an C atholic theology
- on the A tonem en..t. . . ............................................................................................................296
- H um ani generis encyclical. . . . .........................................................................................2, 296
- im m aculate conception.. . . . ..................................................................................................110
- origin of hum an bod.y.. . . . ........................................................................................................2
- origin of hum an spiri..t. . . . ......................................................................................................45
Sacrifice
- em bodim ent necessary for. . . . .................................................................33, 34, 212, 288, 319
- on the D ay of A tonem en.t.. . . ...............................................................................................234
- a full, perfect and sufficien.t. . . ............................................................................................230
- of God H im sel.f. . . . ....................................................................................................34, 37, 242
- of Jesus
- an eternal one.. . . .............................................................................................................262
- full, perfect and sufficien.t. . . .........................................................................................230
- of life itse.l.f. . .................................................................................................................. 306
- validated by bodily resurrection. . . . .............................................................................319
- role of H igh Priest in.. . . . ..............................................................................................259, 319
- for SIN and SIN..S.. . ............................................................................................................. 235
- as a satisfaction for m an's sins. . . ........................................................................................230
- as a substitute.. . . ...............................................................................................13, 14, 305, 306
- a sufficien.t.. . . ..................................................................................................................33, 242
- a vicarious. . . . . ...................................................67, 70, 157, 212, 241, 242, 288, 298, 305, 306
- vicarious and substitutionary. . . .....................................................................18, 71, 161, 242
Salvation
- creation designed fo.r. . . . ......................................................................................................160
- rationale o.f. ..................................................................................................................242, 247
- vs. redem ption . .. . . . ........................................................................................................305, 306
- role of death i.n.. . . ...................................................................................................................13
- is for the species of m an.. . . . .................................................................................................242
354
- tim e o.f. . . . ..............................................................................................................................325

Saviour
- is God H im se.l..f. . . . ..................................................................................................................34
- m ust be a Federal H ead.. . . . ...................................................................................................60
- m ust be hum an but m ore. . . . .................................................................................34, 160, 242
- m ust have im m ortality.. . . . ...............................................................................................13, 70
- m ust suffer tw o death.s.. . . . ..................................................................................................223
- as the Last A dam , Jesus.. . . . .....................................................................................................1
- vs. Redeem e.r.. . . . ...........................................................................................................305, 306
- as true M an.. . . . ......................................................................................................................161
Scapegoa..t. . . . ..............................................................................................................................230
Science
- on benefits of anim al death.. . . . ........................................................................................78-82
- canons of proof i.n.. . . . ...........................................................................................................286
- and causes of death.. . .................................................................................................. 208-211
- im placable offensive o.f. . . ...................................................................................................... 9
- on m echanism s of anim al death.. . . .................................................................................82-86
- and origin.s. . . . .......................................................................................................................209
- revealed truth and facts of. . . . ................................................................................xiv, 51, 284
Scientists and theologians.. . . . .....................................................................................................20
Scripture
- account of the U niverse in.. . . . ...............................................................................................25
- contradictions in Gospels?.. . . ............................................................................................. 247
- dram atic sim plicity of.. . . . . .............................................................................251-257, 261-265
- gaps in..?.. . . .....................................................................................................................292, 293
- nothing incidental in . .. . . .......................................................................................................247
- as poetry, allegor.y.. . . .....................................................................................................17, 295
- progressive revelation in . ... . ................................................................................................249
- taking seriously w ords o.f. . . . ....................................................................xiv, 17, 96, 155-160
- unfinished sentence in.. . . . ......................................................................................63, 218. 219
- verified by archaeolog.y.. . . . ..........................................................................................297. 298
- view of m an in.. . . . . ........................................................................................11, 21, 45, 97, 217
Second A dam (see also First and Second (Last) A dam , Jesus C hrist)
- ‘bridge' betw een First A dam 's descendants and . . . .........................................................166
- in God's im age. . . . ...........................................................................................34, 145, 166, 311
Seed of the w om an
- a "bundle of im m ortality.".. . . . . .....................................................................................147, 151
- continuity o.f.. . . .............................................................................................................151, 153
- originally in A dam ... . . . . ........................................................................................................151
- vs. seed of the m a.n.. . . . . ........................................................................................................146
‘Self' as sou..l. . . . ............................................................................................................................94
Self-consciousness
- em bodim ent necessary fo.r. . . . . ..............................................................................................37
- m ind a..s.. . . . ............................................................................................................................129
- only m an i.s.. . . . . .............................................................................................................128, 130
355
Sim ilarity vs. identica.l. . . . ..................................................................................................155-159

SIN , as root of sins
- body m ade defective by.. . . . . ................................................................................................211
- caused by one m a.n.. . . . ...........................................................................................................67
- death the result o.f. . . . .............................................................................................67, 210, 217
- "entered" into hum an life. . . . . ......................................................................................210, 217
- inherited by A dam 's descendant.s.. . . .............................................................................67, 68
- as a universal disease.. . . . .....................................................................................................189
SIN S, as fruits of SIN
- basis of forgiveness o.f.. . . . . . ..................................................................................229, 230, 242
- definition o..f. . . ..................................................................................................................... 230
- ecology affected by.. . . . ..................................................................................................191-193
- m an w illingly com m its suicide w hen he . . .......................................207, 220, 224, 230, 231
- unfallen A dam 's first and only.. . . . . .....................................................................................182
- universality o.f.. . . . .................................................................................................189, 190, 201
SIN S vs. SIN.. . . . . . ................................................................................................................230, 235
Size
- and behaviou.r.. . . . . ....................................................................................................65, 66, 212
- irrelevant to ‘life.'. ........................................................................................................211, 212
- relevance of? 66, 84
Son of M an
- Jesus a.s.. . . . .....................................................................................................152, 161, 165, 166
- as Judge of m an. . . . ............................................................................................36, 38, 177-179
- as ideal of every race.. . . . ......................................................................................................281
- as Second Adam ... . . . ...............................................................................................................15
Son of God and Son of M an in one Person . . ...............................11, 12, 37, 152, 165, 174, 180
Soul (see also Spirit)
- abhors death.. . . . ....................................................................................................130, 141, 217
- of anim als vs. of m an...........................................................................................126, 127, 287
- blood as life o..f. . . . .................................................................................................................316
- as body + spirit equals.. . . . ..............................................................................................98-100
- captured in portraitur.e.. . . . ..................................................................................................279
- at death in ‘state of violation..'. . . ........................................................................................ 321
- disappears at death . .. . . . ........................................................................................................320
- m an IS .a.. . . . .....................................................................................................................97, 320
- as a ‘m arriage..'. . . ............................................................................................................99, 100
- origin of
- C hristian evolutionists view of.. . . . ...............................................................................288
- evolutionists view of. . . ..........................................................9, 102, 110-114, 115 f., 285,
- in reincarnation... . ................................................................................. 103, 105, 106, 113
- results from fusion of body and spirit . . . ............................................................97, 100, 102
- salvation o..f. .. . ..................................................................................................................15, 16
- as se.l.f. . . . ..................................................................................................................................94
- as ‘sim ple and indivisible.'. . . .......................................................................................100, 101
- theological definition of. . . . . .............................................................................................96-99
356
- is the w hole person . . . . . . ......................................................................................................... 94

Soul vs. spir.i.t. . . . . . ...................................................................................................................94-96
Soul-stu.f.f. . . . . ......................................................................................................................107, 114
Space
- angels do not occupy . . . . . ........................................................................................................29
- resurrected bodies do not occupy.. . . . .................................................................................214
Spanned life of anim al.s. . . . ..................................................................................71, 834, 212, 214
Species
- com m unication betw een.. . . . . .......................................................................................165, 180
- each angel .a... . . .................................................................................................................27, 28
- extinction o..f. . . . .....................................................................................................................136
- definition o..f. . . . .................................................................................................................52, 53
- vs. fam il..y.. . . . .....................................................................................................................53, 54
- m an a single, specia.l. . . . ...........................................................................................29, 53, 242
- m an a "spoiled.".. . . . ...............................................................................................................136
Spirit (see also Soul)
- biblical definition of.. .......................................................................................................94-96
- body
- bonded, fused w ith.. . . ........................................................................................41, 92, 129
- as instrum ent of the.. . . . ........................................................................................39ff., 267
- m atched t.o.. . . .......................................................................................................45-48, 114
- as perm anent hom e o.f. . . . ..........................................................................................10, 11
- as servant o.f.. . . . ..............................................................................................................131
- death
- defined.. . . ........................................................................................207, 220, 223, 319, 320
- of m an vs. Jesus C hris.t. . . ......................................................................224-226, 229, 231
- destiny of. . . . ..........................................................................................100. 107, 127, 216, 285
- healing o..f. . . . .....................................................................................................................62, 63
- im m ortality o..f.. . . . ...........................................................................................................12, 217
- ‘insulted' by corrupt body.. . . . ...........................................................................................138f.
- m an has .a.. . . . ...................................................................................................................97, 320
- origin of
- by direct creation. . . ....................................................................18, 45, 103, 106, 107, 114
- evolutionary view o.f. . . ......................................................................................4, 7, 9, 115
- relationship of body and.. . . . . . ..........................................................10, 11, 24, 33, 97, 99, 100
- term s fo.r. . . . ...............................................................................................................93, 94, 127
- tw o "givings" o..f. . . ....................................................................................45, 94, 100, 307, 320
- unifies body's function.s.. . . . .................................................................................................131
Spirit/body interaction (interdependence)
- for achievem ents.. . . ....................................................................................................40, 43, 45
- purposes of
- for m aturity of characte.r.. . . ................................................................................ 30, 31, 37
- in tem ptatio.n.. . ........................................................................................................ 35, 158
‘Spiritual concussion..'. . . . ...........................................................................................................139
Stereoscopic vision . .. . . . . ......................................................................................................121-126
357
Substitution (see also Sacrifice, V icarious)

- basis o.f.. . . . .............................................................................................................10, 13, 14, 71
- essential to redem ption.. . . . . .........................................................................................241, 242
- of one for w hole specie.s. . . . . ............................................................................................28, 29
- for tw o kinds of death.. . . . ....................................................................................................223
Survival
- interaction of body and spirit in.. . . ....................................................................................138
- m or.a..l. . . .........................................................................................................................139, 140
- resurrection as physical and spiritual.. . . . . .........................................................................267
Task and talen..t. . . . .................................................................................................................45, 46

Tem ptation(s)
- of Jesus Chris.t. ................................................................................. 36-37, 157, 158, 174, 175
- fair judging o..f. . . . . ...........................................................................................36, 177, 179, 180
- nature of hum an . .. . . ......................................................................................................158, 176
- revealed to the Fathe.r. . . ............................................................................... 36, 175, 176, 313
Tetelestai! as ‘Paid in full.!.'.. . ...................................................................................................229
Theological vs. spiritual incom patibility. . . .................................................................... 287-289
Theology (see also Biblical theology)
- absolute im m ortality a concept o.f. . . ..............................................................................68-70
- of the body. . . . . ...........................................................................................17, 18, 287-289, 299
- as a devotional exercise.. . . . ..................................................................................................xiv
- and evolutionary theory incom patible . . ...................................102, 206, 243, 244, 286, 287
- nd relationship of scientific data to. . . ........................................................xviii, 60, 206, 288
- and science. .................................................................................................20, 59, 60, 206-209
- and the theistic evolutionist. . . . ...........................................................................102, 287, 288
Theory. H ow overthrow n.. . . . ...........................................................................................299, 300
Thought(s)
- conceptua.l.. . . . ......................................................................................................................130
- for m en vs. w ords for children.. . . . ........................................................................................59
- prem ise underlying system s of.. . . . .......................................................................23, 286, 287
Tim e of m an's appearance, still a problem. . . . ...........................................................1, 5, 6, 297
Traducianism.. . . ..................................................................................................................107-110
Transform ation (transfiguration)
- of the hum an body.. . . .................................................................... 98, 143, 269, 274, 316, 317
- of the Lord Jesus. . . ............................ 98, 155, 214, 229, 238, 239, 245 ff., 257, 258, 314, 315
‘Translation' instead of death. . . . . . ....................................................................................214, 215
Tree of lif.e.. . . . ..........................................................................................................61-63, 218, 324
Trichotom y of m an defined.. . . . . ...........................................................................................92, 93
Truth
- in ar..t. .................................................................................................................................277 f.
- and interpretatio.n.. ..............................................................................................................281
- perception o..f.. ..............................................................................................................230, 281
- vs. realit..y.. ............................................................................................................................281
- scientific fact vs. revealed.. . .......................................................................xiii, xv, 51, 61, 281
358
Tw o m en called Adam. ................................................................................xviii, 144, 180, 190f.

Tw o natures of Jesus C hris.t. .........................................................................................167f., 178
U nderstanding by faith.. . . . .......................................................................................................286

U nfallen M an
- body o.f.. . . . .............................................................................................................143, 159, 160
- vs. fallen m an.. . . . ............................................................................................184-193, 194-200
- bears ‘express im age of God.'. . . ................................................................................. 145, 183
U niverse. The
- a C osm os, not a Chao.s.. . . . ...................................................................................................161
- created for m an..?.. . . . .........................................................................................................26, 38
- creator o..f. . . . ....................................................................................................................14, 161
- evolutionary view of. . . . ...................................................................................21, 23, 115, 116
- Greek w ord for the.. . . . ...................................................................................................25, 276
- m an as governor o..f. . . . ...........................................................................................................30
- M edieval view o..f. . . . ..............................................................................................................25
- plan or acciden.t. . . . ...........................................................................................................21, 24
- prom ise of a new.. . . . ...............................................................................................25, 274, 275
- as a uni-verse.. . . . ...........................................................................................................115, 274
V icarious sacrifice
- defined . .. . . . .....................................................................................................................305, 306
- not a prem ature deat.h.. . . . ......................................................................................................71
V icarious substitutionary sacrifice. . . . ...............................................................18, 161, 305, 306
V irgin
- birth
- contingent im m ortality b.y.. . . . .........................................................................................68
- m eaningless..?.. . . . .....................................................................................................231, 245
- a natural proces.s.. . . . . ......................................................................................................144
- necessity of .a.. . . ...........................................................................................................146 f.
- birth vs. virgin conception.. . . . .............................................................................144, 150, 154
- conception
- planned . .. .................................................................................................................151, 153
- produced a unique hum an body . .. . . .............................................................................154
- a supernatural even.t. . . . .................................................................................................298
- a m iracle w hen a son by a.. . . . ......................................................................................146, 147
- w ords for a young w om an vs. a. . . . ............................................................................147, 148
V irtue vs. innocenc.e.. . ............................................................................................................. 215
V ulnerability
- of body of Jesus C hrist.. . . . ...........................................................................................174, 265
- and infirm ity of the flesh.. . . ................................................................................................160
- is not sinfulnes.s. . . ................................................................................................................160
‘W hole creation', m eaning of the term.. . . .................................................................................86

W ill acting on m atter (see also Interactionism ). . . ...........................................................27, 121
359
W om an's seed
- continuity o . ..f. .. ...............................................................................................................15, 153
- a ‘bundle of im m ortality..'. . . ........................................................................................147, 151
- w as originally Adam '.s. . . . ............................................................................................151, 154
W ords vs. thought..s. . . .................................................................................................................59
W orld
- evolutionary view of.. . . . ......................................................................................................115
- im portance to hum ans of.. . . ..............................................................................24, 27, 31, 274
- m an's relation to.. . . ..............................................................................................26 f., 30, 32 f.
- as a shadow of the new earth. . . ...........................................................................................25
W orld V iew (s)
- act of faith basic to any.. . . ............................................................................................286, 287
- C hristian vs. evolutionary . . ...........................................................................21-23, 286, 287
360

Two Men Called Adam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Men Called Adam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Men Called Adam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TWO MEN

A fresh look at the

Two Men Called Adam:

Custance, Arthur C., 1910-1985

Copyright © 2010 Doorway Publications, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Cover and text formatting by R. G. Chiang

2010 4 th Edition, ISBN 978-0-919857-80-3

Books by Arthur C. Custance

W ithout Form and Void (1970)

The Doorway Papers Series:

The Sovereignty of Grace (1979)

The M ysterious M atter of M ind (1980)

The Seed of the W oman (1980)

Journey Out of Time (1981)

Two M en Called Adam (1983)

THE DOORWAY PAPERS

1 Who Taught Adam to Speak?

37 Time and Eternity

Full text of The Doorway Papers

Introduction to the Fourth Edition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

MAN’S BODY: ITS SPECIAL DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

MAN’S SPIRIT: A UNIQUE CREATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

TRIUMPH OVER DEATH

Index to Biblical References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

Index of Names. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

Index of Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

Introduction to the Fourth Edition

About the Author

Arthur C. Custance (1910-1985) was a prolific writer in both

Society) were most significant in the forging of his worldview. He

About the Editors

Evelyn W hite became Dr. Custance's administrative

Gary Chiang obtained his M .Sc. and Ph.D. in

Acknowledgement to the First Edition

To Evelyn May White:

for whom I owe a great debt to the Lord for sending

Introduction to the First Edition

In the present creation/evolution controversy the basic issue

Furthermore, in this Plan of Redemption what the Lord Jesus

THE PROBLEM OF HUMAN ORIGIN

Can Evolution and Faith Be Reconciled?

When Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, it did not

was a man? Would he have been, as evolution necessitates, a

which apparently vastly exceeded the allotted biblical starting

How Darwin’s book impacted Christian Faith

met with considerable sympathy in Alexander Hodge's mind.

seems."9 To Alexander, this only meant that Adam must be placed

9. W illiam H . Green: quoted by A . A . H odge, ibid, p.150.

Then in his less well-known Christ in Creation, he frankly

The consequences of Faith bowing to Evolution

phenomenon of the human body as consciousness is an

The biblical view of man: a unique redeemable creature

designed to function.22 Both lived in the same environment: both

These very precise requirements of the nature of Adam's body

especially in view of the fact that Adam's descendants in the first

The vital importance of the body in the Plan of Redemption

It may well be objected that my approach is far too literal, that

preserved. There are many things that current biblical theology

ITS SPECIAL DESIGN