New Camera Fun

I've been on a forced 'stay-cation' while Lynn is in New Orleans. I decided to use the two hours Luke was in preschool on Tuesday to get used to my new camera. Ellettsville has some interesting stuff if you're looking through a camera.

Our Destiny in God, Part 3

Having seen that man was created for union with God (part 1) and that he was to grow in this union with his Maker (part 2), we can now think about how God plans to restore and advance this union in Christ. Geerhardus Vos’ writing helps set the trajectory for this section of the project.

Eschatology aims at consummation rather than restoration. Therefore redemptive eschatology must be restorative and consummative. It does not aim at the original state, but at a transcendental state of man. It must be curative and tonic. Every act of salvation must be medical and supernaturalizing whereby man is not made merely normal, but is prepared for the supernormal (Vos, The Eschatology of the Old Testament 74)

Each aspect of Christ’s work moves creation and more specifically mankind towards its original goal of consummation, not merely back to Adam’s original state of innocence. My goal in this section is to consider how the incarnation, Christ’s active as well as his passive obedience, and his resurrection and ascension all contribute to God’s goal of moving those who are “in him” to the goal of history.

Incarnation
John’s Gospel certainly has an incredibly high Christology, but this high Christology in no way diminishes the humanity of Jesus. John begins his account of the good news of Jesus asserting both the deity and humanity of Christ,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1-4, 14).

Since union plays such a critical role for Calvin’s understanding of salvation and also creation, it is not surprising that the incarnation is viewed in terms compatible with this focus. On John 1:14 he notes,

On this article there are two things chiefly to be observed. The first is, that two natures were so united in one Person in Christ, that one and the same Christ is true God and true man. The second is, that the unity of person does not hinder the two natures from remaining distinct, so that his Divinity retains all that is peculiar to itself, and his humanity holds separately whatever belongs to it (Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John).

For Calvin, if the true humanity of Jesus is lost, then all is lost. Canlis comments, “[Calvin] is profoundly convinced that it is only if Jesus is thoroughly human that we (as human) can participate in him” (Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder, 99). Were Jesus not fully human we could not participate in him (be united to him), and if we are not united to him, we can receive no benefit from him, for so long as we are without Christ and separated from him “nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us…all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him” (Calvin, Institutes 3.1.1). Earlier in the Institutes he writes,

We trust that we are the sons of God, because the natural Son of God assumed to himself a body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bones of our bones, that he might be one with us; he declined not to take what was peculiar to us, that he might in his turn extend to us what was peculiarly his own, and thus might be in common with us both Son of God and Son of man (Calvin, Institutes 2.12.2).

Canlis explains that for Calvin, “This is the supreme significance of the earthly life, or ‘flesh,’ of Christ: Christ’s participation in our condition (his relating to God in creaturely appropriate ways) allows us to participate in God in creaturely appropriate ways as well” (Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder, 101). For Calvin, this meant a fairly radical departure from earlier theologians in his understanding of Jesus’ relationship with the Father. Calvin moves away from more speculative discussions regarding the shared essence of the Father and incarnate Son and chooses instead to speak in terms of relationship. In this move, “he has shifted the primary bond between the human Jesus and the Father from divine substance to the divine person of the Holy Spirit” (Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder, 97). Canlis explains the significance of this move, arguing that the Spirit unites “two unlikes in a relationship of particularity and yet union” (Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder, 98). Thus Jesus reveals the mode through which mankind can enjoy union with God – it is through the Spirit that two unlikes, Creator and creation, can be bound together in union.

Without overshadowing the importance of Christ’s life and work, Calvin does not neglect the miracle of the incarnation or treat it merely as a necessary hoop to jump through on the way to the cross. Hart reflects on Calvin’s theology of the incarnation, writing, “The humanity of the Saviour is the place where God has worked out our salvation, and all that he wills to do for humankind he does, in the first instance, in this once man" (Trevor A. Hart, “Humankind in Christ and Christ in Humankind: Salvation as Participation in Our Substitute in the Theology of John Calvin,” Scottish Journal of Theology 42.1, January 1998: 72). More pointedly, “There is a very real sense in which Christ’s humanity, taken up into this personal union is salvation for of the human race" (Trevor A. Hart, “Humankind in Christ and Christ in Humankind,” 72).

Hart’s comments point towards a sort of “generic” humanity which Christ assumed; in other words, Jesus didn’t just take on particular flesh but humanity in general to save humanity in total. Men are united to each other by a common participation in humanity, and it is this humanity with which Christ has clothed himself; thus, as Calvin comments on Hebrews 5:2, “the Apostle before taught us that mankind is united to God in the person of one man, as all men partake of the same flesh and nature” (Calvin, The Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews).

Nineteenth century theologian John Williamson Nevin upheld and expanded upon Calvin’s theology of the incarnation [i]. Nevin writes, “The incarnation is the key that unlocks the sense of all God’s revelations. It is the key that unlocks the sense of all God’s works, and brings to light the true meaning of the universe…The incarnation forms thus the great central FACT of the world” (John Williamson Nevin, The Mystical Presence, Philadelphia: S.R. Fisher & Co., 1867, 199. Google Books. Web. 06 December 2010). Nevin, while owing much to Calvin and the Reformed orthodox tradition, was also greatly influenced by the ideas of Schleiermacher and the ‘mediating theologians’ that came after him. Schleiermacher argued that Jesus “embodies the culmination of creation,” and “the elevation of human nature” (William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2008, 151). This notion is clearly present in Nevin’s Mystical Presence where he contends that all nature looks up to mankind as lower existences look up to and strive towards superior ones. Likewise, mankind looks to Christ,

Humanity itself is never complete, till it reaches his person. It includes in its very constitution a struggle towards the form in which it is here exhibited, which can never rest till this end is attained. Our nature reaches after a true and real union with the nature of God, as the necessary complement and consummation of its own life…The incarnation then is the proper completion of humanity. Christ is the true ideal Man (Nevin, Mystical Presence, 200-201).

Clearly in Nevin the incarnation is the preeminent redemptive work of God; however, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ can in no way be neglected. We will make that turn in part 4.

NOTES
[i] Nevin is far more open to the notion that the Son would have taken on flesh even if Adam had not fallen, a view Calvin explicitly rejects (Institutes 2.12.5). Moreover, Nevin innovates on the notion of a generic humanity, writing, “The Word became flesh; not a single man only, as one among many; but flesh, or humanity in its universal conception” (Mystical Presence, 210). Flowing from that Nevin asserts, “Humanity, as a single universal fact, is redeemed in Christ, truly and really, without regard for other men, any further than as they are made to partake of his redemption by being brought into living union with his person” (Nevin, “Wilberforce on the Incarnation,” Mercersburg Review 2.2, March 1850: 169). These seems to lead Nevin inevitably to some sort of universalism, a conclusion he desperately seeks to avoid, though one could question how successfully he does so.

Our Destiny in God, Part 2

However, the union with God enjoyed by Adam was not to remain static. Going back to Aquinas’ Summa we encounter an expectation that man was to grow in his union with God. Williams writes that in his Secunda Pars, Aquinas grounds man’s union with God in the very structure of human persons. Williams explains, “The human person is described not only as by nature oriented towards God, but as constituted for continual growth towards God. Glory is thus in a sense the intended (though by no means inevitable) outcome of nature” (A.N. Williams, “Mystical Theology Redux,” Modern Theology 13.1 (January 1997): 67). Calvin also points in this direction, commenting on Genesis 3:19, “Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright" (Calvin, Commentary on Genesis). Also,

Paul makes an antithesis between this living soul and the quickening spirit which Christ confers upon the faithful (1 Corinthians 15:45) for no other purpose than to teach us that the state of man was not perfected in the person of Adam; but it is a peculiar benefit conferred by Christ, that we may be renewed to a life which is celestial, whereas before the fall of Adams man’s life was only earthly, seeing it had no firm and settled constancy (Calvin, Commentary on Genesis).

Calvin contends that man’s union with God was limited to a degree by his lack of inherent righteousness and by Adam’s creatureliness. Canlis articulates how this presupposition plays itself out in Calvin’s theology, “Christ’s mediation of all creation, to Calvin’s purpose, destabilizes all the old views that humanity (and creation, for that matter) is complete in se. It is always fundamentally oriented outside itself, needing another to be complete" (Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder, 73). Man was created for union with God, but this union is limited by man being creature. Calvin’s comments on 2 Peter 1:4 are helpful in fully understanding his position, “we shall be partakers of divine and blessed immortality and glory, so as to be as it were one with God as far as our capacities will allow" (John Calvin, Commentary on Second Epistle of Peter). We can reasonable summarize Calvin’s thoughts as follows: Adam experienced a sweet union with God as far his “earthliness” allowed. Had Adam withstood his testing, his capacity for partaking in the divine nature and for union with God would have been amplified, thus guaranteeing the eternality of this union and man’s life. He would have inherited immortality of soul and body and enjoyed deeper communion with his Maker.

Berkhoff strikes a similar note, describing Adam’s condition as one of “relative perfection”. He explains,

This does not mean that he had already reached the highest state of excellence of which he was susceptible. It is generally assumed that he was destined to reach a higher degree of perfection in the way of obedience…His condition was a preliminary and temporary one, which would either lead on to greater perfection and glory or terminate in the fall (Loius Berkhoff, Systematic Theology, 209).

One could say that man’s condition was perfect as a circle is perfect; but held out to man was the possibility of a deeper perfection, as a sphere is more perfect than the two dimensional images. Vos writes in the same vein, “The universe, as created, was only a beginning, the meaning of which was not perpetuation, but attainment" (Geerhardus Vos, The Eschatology of the Old Testament, ed. by James T. Dennison Jr.,73). Reflecting on this higher life held out to Adam as reward for obedience, Vos explains that it would be a highly religious life “characterized by the most intimate connection with God" (Geerhardus Vos, The Eschatology of the Old Testament, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., 75).

Within the framework of the covenant of creation (or covenant of works [i]), man was promised eternal life – an inviolable, permanent, and qualitatively richer life based on a deeper union with God made possible by an elevation of man’s nature. Had the first man remained faithful to his covenantal duties, namely perfect obedience to God’s command, this promised life would have been his. Forfeiture of this life, both in its quantitative and qualitative dimensions, was the curse guaranteed to Adam if he broke God’s command. Michael Horton explains that the familiar pattern of promise and fulfillment is found not only after the fall, but in creation itself. He writes, “Human identity was not finished at creation but was to be perfected by fulfilling the trial of the original covenant, winning the right to eat from the tree of everlasting life and blessedness" (Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way, 386). Having thus completed his work in faithfulness, man would be confirmed in righteousness and allowed to enter the Sabbath Rest of God, following, as image bearers, the pattern set before them by their Creator of work followed by rest.

Calvin uses quite explicit sacramental language in his discussions of the tree of life[ii], describing it as a visible sign, an “attestation of his grace by external symbol" (Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, comment on Gen.2:9). Direct connections can be made between this tree and man’s union with God. The chief function of the sacraments centers on our union with Second Person of the Godhead. If Christian baptism is the initiation of this union, and the Supper is given for the nurturing and growth of this union, it stands to reason that the tree of life as a sacrament was intended to foster man’s union with God. If our understanding of the tree of life as a sacrament is correct, we can conclude that had Adam partaken of its fruit the union he enjoyed with God would have been deepened in some profound way (or it would continue to have been solidified as he continued to partake of it). Man would have been elevated, his life passing from a merely terrestrial existence to include celestial aspects as well. He would experience, as Vos states it, “transformation and supernaturalization [iii]”(Vos, The Eschatology of the Old Testament, 74). This is quite similar to the language we find in the Orthodox teachings of theosis. Donald Fairbairn writes,

…by theosis the Orthodox mean the process of acquiring godly characteristics, gaining immortality and incorruptibility, and experiencing communion with God…gaining these blessings was the task which God set before humanity at creation, the task which through the fall humanity lost the capacity to achieve, and the task which the incarnation and work of Christ have made possible once again (Donald Fairbairn, “Salvation as Theosis: The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy,” Themelios 23.3(1998): 42).

We will return to the concept of theosis and weigh it more thoroughly in the third section of this paper below. We can conclude this section by affirming that man was made for union with God, experienced this communion unencumbered by sin prior to the fall. While this union was to be cherished, Adam stood to gain a deeper union with God upon successful completion of his covenantal duties. Had he not failed to keep covenant, he would have been confirmed in righteousness and been granted the right to eat of the tree of life. This confirmation would have meant the consummation of creation’s God given telos. Man’s capacity for union with God and participation in the divine nature would have been expanded as his nature would have been elevated [iv]. Needless to say, the first Adam failed to realize this potential. He chose life separated from his Maker and forfeited not only the blessings held out to him in the covenant but even the degree of union he enjoyed during his probation. It was a catastrophic choice. We now turn our attention to God’s plan to redeem and move his creation to its appointed goal in the unique person of Jesus Christ.

Notes
[i] The assertion that the covenant of creation was in fact a covenant based on works is highly contested. For a good discussion of the works based nature of this covenant see Michael Horton’s God of Promise (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006), 83-104. I think it is proper to acknowledge God’s act of covenanting with man was gracious in that God did not owe man this relationship or the blessings contained in it. However, as sin had not yet entered the picture, I prefer a more nuanced definition of grace as God’s unmerited kindness to us despite our sin (our demerit). Moreover, even though we can speak of the graciousness of the covenant, the terms of the covenant were devoid of grace, built strictly upon law. There were no provisions for forgiveness, etc.

[ii] Horton, and Vos and Kline with him, differ slightly from Calvin in their understanding of the role the tree of life had in the garden arrangement. Calvin suggests that Adam partook of the tree of life regularly prior to his fall. He writes, “The promise, which gave him hope of eternal life as long as he should eat of the tree of life” (Institutes, 2.1.4). On the other hand, Vos, Kline and Horton each argue that Adam had not yet earned the right to eat of the tree. They contend that eating from the tree of life was a right that Adam would earn for his faithful covenant keeping. Vos writes, “It appears from Genesis 3:22, that man before his fall had not eaten of it…the use of the tree was reserved for the future, quite in agreement with the eschatological significance attribute to it later. The tree was associated with the higher, the unchangeable, the eternal life to be secured by obedience throughout his probation. Anticipating the result by a present enjoyment of the fruit would have been out of keeping with its sacramental character. After man should have been made sure of the attainment of the highest life, the tree would appropriately have been the sacramental means for communication the highest life” (Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1975, 28). The debate cannot be settled simply to examining the early chapter of Genesis. Genesis 3:22 -23 can be taken to mean that it would not be good for man to reach out and take of the tree of life for the first time now that he has sinned or that it would not be good for man to continue taking of the tree now that he has fallen. Jesus’ words in Revelation 2:7 are helpful, “To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.” Based on this passage it seems best to conclude that the right to eat of the tree of life is reserved for those who conquer (or “overcome” in the NASB). Had Adam overcome, he would have been granted the right to partake of its fruits. Clearly he did not overcome.

[iii] Vos is careful to mitigate against any ‘magical’ view of the tree of life. As with the Supper and Baptism, there is a union between the sign and the thing signified, here eternal life in union with God, but these blessings are given by God, not by virtue of some magical property in the sacrament.


[iv] This in no way is meant to insinuate that had Adam passed the Garden test and eaten of the tree of life that he would have ceased to be human or that he would have become something other than human. Quite the contrary, the result is that we become more human, for as Millard Erickson explains, “We experience full humanity only when we are properly related to God” (Christian theology, 2nd ed., Electronic ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998, 534).

Our Destiny in God, Part 1

In the Spring of 2011 I found myself teaching a class on “Heaven, Hell and Everything in Between”. At the end of the last session in which we had discussed the new heavens and new earth, I was asked a question I was unprepared to answer (happens often enough). Here's my paraphrase of the question: “How can we be sure that there will not be a second fall sometime in eternity? Adam and Eve were in perfect fellowship with God, and you say this fellowship will be restored to us in the future. But Adam still rebelled, so how can we be certain we will not rebel at some point. After all, eternity is a long time for us to mess up!” The question comes down to this: how will our eternal condition be better than Adam’s original condition; so much better, in fact, that sin is precluded as a possibility? This question lead to a research/writing project this winter, and I'll be sharing it over a series of five or so blog posts.

In this project, I attempt to answer that questions in terms of our union with Christ, a union that goes beyond the experience of fellowship Adam and Eve experienced in the Garden and culminates in our “deification”. Moreover, I will attempt in this project to place the doctrine of union with Christ and of “deification” within a broader biblical theology. My proposal is this: In the New Heavens and New Earth we will experience a more exalted union with Christ than Adam did in the Garden, which makes sin an impossibility. This more exalted union, in which we become partakers of the divine nature, is possible because of Christ’s assumption of humanity, his covenant faithfulness as the Second Adam, his death, and his resurrection.

In this project, I explore this thesis, examining the nature of man prior to the fall, paying special attention to the image of God impressed upon him as well as his relationship with God as expressed in the covenant of works. Next, I consider the person and work of Jesus, including the role of Christ’s incarnation, of his active covenant keeping righteousness, his death, and his resurrection and ascension in suiting mankind for a more profound union with the Godhead. Third, I examine several passages that speak of the believer’s ultimate destiny in the New Heavens and New Earth in light of my proposal. After some theological conclusions, I intend to bring this short paper to a close with some practical pastoral applications.

The scope of this paper is both necessary and challenging. It is necessarily broad because we are comparing the “bookends” of the Bible while paying due attention to the cosmically significant person of Christ and his work. It is challenging in that I need to cover much ground in a little space. Thus, I will seek to establish my thesis without doing as much reflection on alternative viewpoints as I would like. These alternatives will be duly noted in footnotes, but not examined at length.

Part 1: Created for Compatibility

Man’s history begins with the words,

Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gen. 1:26–27).

God’s creation of man in his image is the capstone of his initial creative work, bringing it to a “very good” completion. Man was marked with a dignity that is unique among God’s creatures, for not even the angels are spoken of in Scripture as image bearers.

While the church through the centuries has struggled to define the image of God in man with precision, Calvin strikes a fair balance understanding that the image of God is reflected to some degree in every part of man’s being, though understood most properly as referring to the soul. He writes,

For though the divine glory is displayed in man’s outward appearance, it cannot be doubted that the proper seat of the image is in the soul…And though the primary seat of the divine image was in the mind and the heart, or in the soul and its powers, there was no part even of the body in which some rays of glory did not shine (Calvin, Institutes, 1.15.3).

More succinctly, “the image of God constitutes the entire excellence of human nature” (Calvin, Institutes, 1.15.4). While this image sets man apart from the rest of creation, it also distinguishes man from God. Calvin reacts vehemently against the notion set forth by Servetus (following the Manicheans) that when God breathed into man’s nostrils he imparted a soul that was part of God’s essence, “as if some portion of the boundless divinity had passed into man” (Calvin, Institutes, 1.15.5).

While distinct from the Creator, man was uniquely suited for intimate relationship with Him. As Letham asserts, one of the central messages of the first chapters of Genesis is that man was created in such a way that he is compatible with God, and intended for union with his Creator (Robert Letham, Union with Christ, 9). Fairbairn expands on this, reminding us that by virtue of being image bearers, humans are linked to the Son who is the exact image of God. Moreover, as humans are given the task of exercising dominion over creation, we are linked to the Son who, as one dimension of his fellowship with the Father “carried out the Father’s will through the creation and sustaining of the universe” (Donald Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity, 61). He concludes,

If the function of humanity was originally to exercise a role within creation similar to that which the Son has exercised over creation, and if humanity and the Son were linked by the possession of the image of God, then one may reasonable infer that human beings were originally meant to share in the Son’s fellowship with his Father as well (Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity, 61).

Man, by virtue of his creation in the image of God, as sons of God, with tasks resembling the Son of God’s, was intended to participate in the life of the Trinity as the Son does.

Julie Canlis traces this thought through many early theologians of the church. For example, she argues that for Aquinas, “Union with God is held as the supreme purpose of creation” (Canlis, Calvin's Ladder, 39). Calvin’s indebtedness to Aquinas can be seen in this regard. Canlis comments, “[For Calvin] Communion is the groundwork of creation, the purpose of anthropology, and the telos toward which all creation strains” (Canlis, Calvin's Ladder, 54). Calvin improves on Aquinas in turning creation’s union with God in an explicitly Christocentric direction, arguing that even pre-lapsarian man needed the Son to mediate this union with God. Canlis summarizes, “All creation is related to God in the second person of the Trinity, who mediates creation and its telos…He has not structured a universe in which life, grace, and ‘benefits’ can be had apart from him” (Canlis, Calvin's Ladder, 57).

In addition, Calvin’s Christocentric focus is buttressed by a “robust pneumatology.” It is the Spirit who is the “agent of participation” and who shepherds creation towards its goal of Trinitarian communion (Canlis, Calvin's Ladder, 60). Fairbairn points to a stream of interpretation in the church that also emphasizes the role of the Spirit in man’s pre-fall communion with God, linking God’s act of breathing into man’s nostrils (Gen. 2:7) with Christ’s breathing out the Holy Spirit upon his disciples (John 20:22). Some, including Cyril of Alexandria, have suggested that Adam was made to possess the Spirit in the same manner as believers in the post-Pentecost era. While acknowledging that most in the church have interpreted Genesis 2:7 as the bestowal of a soul to Adam, Fairbairn’s tentative assertion is that the Spirit was given to Adam, thus “linking him to the Son in whose image he was created and causing him to share in the fellowship of the Trinity…when God gives the Spirit anew through redemption, he is restoring people to a state akin to the original sharing in the life of the Trinity that humankind lost through the fall” (Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity, 62). Whether one follows Fairbairn or not, the general point remains: Adam was created to be compatible with God and was “united and bound to his Maker" (Calvin, Institutes, 2.1.5).

In post two of this series I'll explore, and defend, the idea that Adam's union with God was not static, but was from the beginning fashioned for growth and consummation.

Song of the Week

This song is good practice for every husband. I'm getting ready for when Lynn comes home on Friday and sees the house (just kidding, it'll get straightened up Friday afternoon).

The Maine, "I'm Sorry"