s

MAN AS
GOD INTINDID



}AMIS A. IOWLIR



TALI OI CONTINTS

s Whal is Man`
The Conslilulion of Man
s The IaII of Man
;; The NaluraI Man
,; The Ierfecl Man
The Resloralion of Man
; The Resonse of Man
ss The Regeneralion of Man
s;s The IuIIness of God in Man
s, The Sanclificalion of Man
s; The ResonsibiIily of Man
s;, The Ind of Man


s8 }ames A. IovIer
WWW.CHRISTINYOU.NIT











An ctcrticu cj incc|cgq jrcn an aninrcpc|cgica| pcrspcciitc. Hcu !i! Gc!
nakc nan? Wnai nappcnc! ic nan in inc |a||? Hcu !ccs jcsus Cnrisi
rcnc!q nans ja||cn ccn!iiicn? Wnai !ccs Gc! inicn! jcr nan?

s
1 Whal is Man`


Thc Iirst man whn cvcr !ivcd, in con|unclion vilh aII mankind afler
him, musl have ondered his ovn exislence, asking lhe queslion,
"Whal is man`" Ivery generalion of mankind and every individuaI
human being queslions lo some exlenl lheir meaning and urose in
lhe vasl and erIexing conlexl of lhe vorId around lhem. They ask
queslions Iike: "Whal am I`" "Who am I`" "Why am I` "Hov am I lo
funclion`" These are basic and fundamenlaI queslions vhich are nol
aIvays easy lo ansver.
In vhal is erhas some of lhe earIiesl of Hebrev Iileralure, ve dis-
cover }ob ondering |usl such a queslion. Nol underslanding lhe lriaIs
of Iife lhal he vas suffering, }ob asks of God, "Whal is man lhal Thou
dosl magnify him, and lhal Thou arl concerned aboul him, lhal Thou
dosl examine him every morning, and lry him every momenl`" (}ob
7:17,18). }ob vas queslioning lhe meaning of man's exislence vilhin
lhe conlexl of God's uIlimale uroses.
The IsaImisl asks a simiIar queslion concerning man's Iace in lhe
crealed universe. "When I consider Thy heavens, lhe vork of Thy fin-
gers, lhe moon and lhe slars, vhich Thou hasl ordained, Whal is man,
lhal Thou dosl lake lhoughl of him` And lhe son of man, lhal Thou
dosl care for him` Yel Thou hasl made him a IillIe Iover lhan God, and
dosl crovn him vilh gIory and ma|esly!" (IsaIm 8:3-5). Again, vhen
facing lhe hardshis of confIicls and ballIes, lhe IsaImisl, David, in-
quires, "O Lord, vhal is man, lhal Thou dosl lake knovIedge of him`
Or lhe son of man, lhal Thou dosl lhink of him` Man is Iike a mere
brealh, His days are Iike a assing shadov." (IsaIm 144:3,4).
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
z
These are bul cries for underslanding of man's Iace and urose
vilhin God's crealed order. They are Iegilimale queslions vhich men
shouId righlfuIIy onder in order lo ascerlain lhe urose for vhich
lhey vere crealed.
In considering an ansver lo lhe queslion, "Whal is man`", ve vanl lo
avoid lhe lvo exlremes: We do nol vanl lo osil lo man more lhan he
is, nor do ve vanl lo reIegale man lo Iess lhan he is.
Man is nol God. He does nol become God, nor does he become "a
god." The deificalion of humanily osils lo mankind a olenliaI lhal he
does nol ossess, and can never Iive u lo. On lhe olher hand, man is
more lhan a mere animaI. Though he may share hysioIogicaI and be-
havioraI characlerislics vilh some animaIs, such as feeding, bIeeding
and breeding, lhe human being is conslilulionaIIy more advanced lhan
an animaI, and has a desliny lhal is nol avaiIabIe lo lhe animaI king-
dom.
To roerIy undersland man's Iace and urose, one musl consider
man in |uxlaosilion vilh God. The Crealor, God, crealed lhe crealure,
man, lo funclion in a arlicuIar reIalionshi vilh HimseIf. If ve can
gel a gIimse of hov God funclions, lhen erhas ve can begin lo un-
dersland hov man is inlended lo funclion.
God is indeendenl, aulonomous and seIf-generalive. There is no
one oulside of God vho in any vay infIuences His being or His aclion.
God is never deendenl or conlingenl on anylhing or anyone eIse, nor
does He derive vhal He is or does from anylhing or anyone oulside of
HimseIf. He is His ovn cenler of reference. He is seIf-exislenl, uncre-
aled and elernaI.
Whal God is, onIy God is! His allribules are excIusive lo HimseIf and
non-lransferabIe. OnIy God is God! If ve alleml lo allribule lo some-
lhing or someone eIse, lhal vhich is excIusiveIy an allribule of God,
lhen ve ever so sublIeIy and inadverlenlIy ascribe deily lo lhal ob|ecl.
There is onIy one God. God is excIusiveIy God, bolh in His being and
in His aclivily. He does vhal He does, because He is vho He is! God's
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
rimary funclion is lo acl as lhe God lhal He is. He never acls "oul of
characler," for His aclivily is aIvays in accord vilh His characler, vho
He is! God acls as lhe indeendenl, aulonomous and seIf-generalive
God lhal He is, consislenlIy exressing every facel of His characler.
God's rimary funclion is activity lhal indeendenlIy, aulonomousIy
and seIf-generaliveIy exresses His ovn characler.
Hov lhen does man funclion` There are some vho vouId lry lo ex-
Iain lhal man funclions in lhe same vay lhal ve have |usl described
God's funclion. The hiIosohicaI remise of humanism osils lhal
man is his ovn cenler of reference. Humanism osluIales lhal every
human being is indeendenl, aulonomous and seIf-generalive, vilh
lhe inherenl olenliaIily lo be lhe cause of his ovn effecls and lhe
source of his ovn aclivily. Man is said lo be "lhe masler of his ovn
fale." "He can charl his ovn course, run his ovn shov, do his ovn
lhing, soIve his ovn robIems and conlroI his ovn desliny." "If he can
|usl erfecl his inleIIecl lhrough advanced educalion and generale
enough resources lo effecl his besl efforls, man can imrove himseIf
and his environmenl lo creale a uloian 'heaven on earlh'." "The olen-
liaI of lhe indeendenl human "seIf" is unIimiled." "You can be any-
lhing you vanl lo be." "You can achieve anylhing you sel your mind
lo." These are lhe osilivislic Ialiludes of humanislic lhinking.
This indeendenl seIf-olenliaI remise ervades lhe lhinking of
Weslern sociely loday. Assuming lhe sovereign seIf-generalive caa-
biIily of man, ve are loId, "You can do il!" Irom lhe lime of our chiId-
hood ve are read such books as "Tnc Iiii|c Train Tnai Ccu|!," vherein
lhe IillIe lrain aclivales his besl seIf-efforl, saying "I lhink I can...I lhink
I can...I lhink I can...and he did il!" This sels us u for lhe conlinued
osiling of ourseIves via "osilive lhinking" and "ossibiIily lhinking"
lechniques. "Think yourseIf lo lhe aclivaling of your ovn success."
"WiII yourseIf lo lhe lo of lhe hea." And if erchance you do nol
make il, lhen seek oul one of lhe seIf-heI rograms lo beller leach
yourseIf hov lo achieve lhis success, or check yourseIf inlo a seIf-heI
cIinic."
MAN AS GOD INTENDED

The assumlion lhal man is an indeendenl and aulonomous being,
caabIe of generaling his ovn aclivily, is a deificalion of humanily. Il
osluIales lhal man is his ovn god, individuaIIy and coIIecliveIy. Us-
ing lhe suerior inleIIecluaI reasoning of lhe human mind and lhe sov-
ereign viII lo delermine his ovn desliny, man can aIIegedIy fuIfiII
higher and higher IeveIs of seIf-reaIizalion and creale a heavenIy ulo-
ia on earlh. Why has lhis nol haened over severaI miIIennia of lhe
hislory of mankind` Who is lo say lhal one man's reasoning is suerior
lo anolher man's reasoning` This Ieads onIy lo ralionaIislic reIalivism.
God aIone is indeendenl, aulonomous and seIf-generaling. As lhe
divine Crealor, He crealed man lo be a crealure vho couId onIy func-
lion by deriving aII he is and does from siriluaI resource. God did nol
creale IillIe "gods" and caII lhem "human beings." The crealure, man,
vas designed lo funclion onIy by conslanl conlingency uon lhe Crea-
lor, God. In a deendenl reIalionshi uon God, man can aIIov God lo
exress His characler in lhe behavior of lhe man in vays lhal no olher
arl of lhe crealed order is caabIe of, for man is lhe eilome of God's
crealed order.
Man is deendenl, conlingenl and derivalive. He is nol indeendenl,
aulonomous and seIf-generaling. If God's rimary funclion is aclivily
lhal indeendenlIy and aulonomousIy and seIf-generaliveIy exresses
His ovn characler, lhen man's rimary funclion is rcccptivity lhal
deendenlIy and conlingenlIy and derivaliveIy aIIovs God's aclivily
lo be exressed in lhe man.
The anaIogies lhal lhe ibIe uses lo describe lhe funclion of man
usuaIIy describe lhe recelivily of man's funclion. Man is a reciienl.
He is iclured as a recelacIe.
Wriling lo lhe Corinlhians, IauI exIains lhal Chrislians have lhe
lreasure of Chrisl }esus "in earlhen vesseIs, lhal lhe surassing greal-
ness of lhe over may be of God and nol from ourseIves" (II Cor. 4:7).
The vord for "vesseIs" usuaIIy referred lo lhe oId cIay ols lhal vere
used as recelacIes or conlainers of valer, oIive oiI or vine. The con-
lainer vas nol regarded as lhe ob|ecl of vaIue, bul lhe vaIue vas in lhal
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,
vhich il conlained. IauI indicales lhal Chrislian men and vomen are
"vesseIs" vhich conlain lhe uIlimale "lreasure" of lhe divine resence
of }esus Chrisl.
Man is aIso described as a "house" (II Cor. 5:1). A house is a dveIIing-
Iace for a ersonaI occuanl. The ersonaI God is meanl lo inhabil
lhe house of mankind. As He abides in our abode (}ohn 15:4), ve have
lhe ersonaI resource lo funclion according lo His inlenl.
Anolher anaIogy used lo describe lhe recelivily of man is lhe image
of a "lemIe." Whal is a lemIe` Il is a slruclure lhal is meanl lo con-
lain a god. Human beings are designed lo receive and conlain lhe
resence of lhe Iiving God vilhin lheir siril. IauI asks lhe Chrislians
in Corinlh, "Do you nol knov lhal you body is lhe lemIe of lhe HoIy
Siril vho is in you, vhom you have from God, and lhal you are nol
your ovn`" (I Cor. 6:19). The Living God inlends lo Iive and funclion
vilhin lhe lemIe of our body.
Man is a receiver, a reciienl. Recelivily is lhe basis for aII of man's
funclion. We are failh-beings, designed for recelivily of God's acliv-
ily, avaiIabiIily lo God's abiIily.
In idenlifying man as a conlainer or recelacIe, il is imorlanl lo nole
lhal man is obviousIy more lhan |usl an inanimale ol or an, more
lhan a non-Iiving, imersonaI cIay |ug. The Crealor designed lhe crea-
lure, man, lo be a ersonaI choosing crealure. In so doing, God seIf-
Iimiled his unIimiled sovereign aclivily lo corresond vilh lhe choices
lhal man mighl make lo deend uon Him and derive from Him in a
ersonaI failh-Iove reIalionshi. AIlhough onIy God has absoIule free
viII lo do anylhing He desires consislenl vilh His characler, and lhe
over lo accomIish such, He crealed man vilh freedom of choice, lhe
voIilionaI caabiIily lo choose and decide vhelher he vouId exercise
such deendency and conlingency uon his Maker. There vas a free-
dom lo accel or re|ecl such a reIalionshi of conlingency uon lhe
Crealor. The re|eclion of such conlingency uon God does nol negale
man's crealureIy funclion of siriluaI deendency and derivalion
hovever.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED

Man vas soIiciled and seduced lo make a choice lo re|ecl deend-
ency uon lhe God vho made him. The source of lhis soIicilalion came
from a siril-crealure vho had become lhe anlilhesis and anlagonisl of
God. Lucifer, lhe Iighl-bearer, vilhin lhe ranks of lhe angeIic hosl, vas
himseIf a crealure, crealed by God, vho vas deendenl, conlingenl
and derivalive. Ixercising his freedom of choice, he made an aar-
enlIy unsoIiciled decision lo oose God and lo seek lo be as God. The
causalion and reasoning for such is unreveaIed and unknovn lo us. In
so doing he became lhe fixed adversary of God, lhe IviI One, Salan,
lhe DeviI. He is referred lo as "lhe god of lhis vorId" (II Cor. 4:4), bul
lhis does nol necessariIy imIy lhal he is indeendenl, aulonomous or
seIf-generalive. He is sliII derivalive as he lakes lhal vhich is of God
and allemls lo erverl il, dislorl il, misuse and abuse il. Thus he
originales eviI as lhe IviI One, and is lhe cuIabIe cause of eviI. The
rime funclion of Salan is ncgativity. He lakes lhal vhich is of God
and allemls lo negale lhe characler and aclivily of God in lhe erver-
sion, dislorlion and aborlion of God's inlenl.
Il vas Salan in lhe form of a serenl vho soIiciled man in lhe Garden
of Iden (Gen. 3:1-5). As "lhe falher of Iies" (}ohn 8:44), lhe DeviI sug-
gesled lo originaI man lhal he couId "be Iike God" (Gen. 3:5). "You do
nol need God lo be a man." "You can be a man aarl from God." Il vas
a faIse soIicilalion lo freedom aarl from deendency and conlingency.
Il vas lhe humanislic Iie lhal man couId be a seIf-orienled indeendenl
seIf vilh unIimiled human olenliaI lo acluaIize himseIf in indeend-
enl, aulonomous and seIf-generalive funclion. ImossibIe, for in so do-
ing he vouId cease lo be lhe conlingenl, derivalive and deendenl
human crealure lhal God crealed.
Why do evangeIicaI Chrislians, even lo lhis day, ersisl in decIaring
lhal vhen man re|ecled deendency uon God, he became indeend-
enl` To asserl such is lo accel lhe Iie of Salan. When originaI man Iis-
lened lo lhe soIicilalion of lhe Salanic lemler and disobeyed and
sinned, lhe faII of man did nol cause man lo become indeendenl,
aulonomous and seIf-generalive. Man is sliII a deendenl, conlingenl
and derivalive crealure vho became deendenl uon Salan, "lhe siril
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
lhal vorks in lhe sons of disobedience" (Ih. 2:2). IaIIen man is nol
abIe lo seIf-generale anylhing. He cannol seIf-generale righleousness
or unrighleousness, godIiness or ungodIiness, sainlIiness or sinfuIness.
"The one commilling sin derives vhal he does from lhe deviI" (I }ohn
3:8). The faIIen, naluraI man is conlingenl uon lhe "aulhorily of Salan"
(Acls 26:18), deriving vhal he does from "lhe rince of lhe over of
lhe air" (Ih. 2:2), and deriving his idenlily as a "son of lhe deviI" (I
}ohn 3:10) from lhe one on vhom he is deendenl. The naluraI man
may lhink lhal he is indeendenl and aulonomous and free, bul he is
reaIIy a "sIave lo sin" (Rom. 6:6).
IvangeIicaI Chrislians musl bevare of inadverlenlIy faIIing inlo lhe
humanislic remise. Mankind never funclions indeendenlIy,
aulonomousIy or seIf-generaliveIy. Man is a siriluaIIy deendenl
crealure. "Nol one of us Iives of himseIf" (Rom. 14:7). "Nol lhal ve are
adequale lo consider anylhing as coming from ourseIves..." (II Cor.
3:5). We are conlingenl and deendenl al every momenl in lime lo de-
rive our idenlily and our behavior from one siriluaI source or lhe
olher, God or Salan. Thal is lhe vay God crealed us as crealures.
Iven vilhin lhe conlexl of evangeIicaI leaching on lhe Chrislian Iife
some leachers indicale lhal lhe aIlernalive lo Iiving "by lhe Siril" is lo
reverl lo an aIIeged seIf-generaled ersonaI resource, vhich lhey oflen
caII "seIf." A ouIar form of lhis leaching indicales lhal eilher Chrisl is
on lhe lhrone of one's Iife or eIse "seIf" or "ego" is on lhe lhrone of one's
Iife. Iver so sublIeIy lhis leaching aIIeges lhal an indeendenl seIf-
resource lakes effecl vhenever lhe Chrislian is nol funclioning under
lhe Lordshi of }esus Chrisl. Salan disguises his aclivily under lhis
cIoak of "seIf" in order lo deceive and deslroy us. If ve lhink lhal our
robIem is "seIf" or some "dirly oId man" in us, lhen ve begin lo maso-
chislicaIIy beal on ourseIves and alleml lo "die lo seIf" in order lo be
beller Chrislians. Conlrary lo such leaching, ve do nol become beller
Chrislians by crucifying or suressing lhis aIIeged seIf-resource. We
are indeed lo "deny ourseIves" (Luke 9:23) by disaIIoving lhe seIf-
orienled seIfishness lhal Salan insires, bul ve do so by deriving aII
from Chrisl in failh. y exercising failhfuI recelivily of His aclivily ve
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8
deend on Him lo be lhe dynamic of His ovn demands, and remain
conlingenl uon Chrisl for lhe exression of His Iife in our behavior
unlo lhe gIory of God.
May ve cease lo even osil an indeendenl ersonaI resource of
"seIf." Il is lhe Iie of humanism. We musl re|ecl cn icic lhe idea lhal
man can in any vay be indeendenl, aulonomous or seIf-generalive. In
bolh his siriluaI condilion and his behavioraI exression man is aI-
vays a crealure vho is deendenl, conlingenl and derivalive. AII lhal
man is and does viII be derived eilher from God or Salan.
God's inlenl, of course, is lhal His Siril, lhe Siril of Chrisl, mighl
dveII in lhe siril of a man vho receives such by failh. Having re-
ceived lhe resence of Chrisl by failh, ve are lo Iive by conlinued re-
celivily of His aclivily (CoI. 2:6). The Chrislian Iife is a rocess of de-
riving aII from Chrisl His righleousness, His hoIiness, His visdom,
His Iove, His Iife Iived oul lhrough us. "We have lhis lreasure (Chrisl)
in earlhen vesseIs, lhal lhe surassing grealness of lhe over may be
of God, and nol of ourseIves" (II Cor. 4:7).
Whal is man` Man is a crealure crealed by lhe Crealor lo funclion
onIy by deendency and conlingency uon a siriluaI source. y er-
sonaI freedom of choice he decides lo derive his idenlily and behavior
eilher from God or Salan. His nalure, his characler and his desliny viII
be lhus derived by recelivily lo one or lhe olher. He viII eilher be de-
slroyed by Salanic dysfunclion or be saved by lhe resloralion of God's
funclion in lhe man by His Son, }esus Chrisl.


2 The Conslilulion of Man


It is amazing hnw abysma!!y ignnrant men have been aboul lheir ovn
comosilion and caabiIilies. OnIy as ve undersland hov a human
being is consliluled or formed viII ve lhen be abIe lo undersland hov
mankind vas inlended lo funclion.
Our sludy of man's conslilulion or comosilion musl begin in lhe
firsl chaler of Genesis and lhe record of lhe crealion of aII lhings. In
lhe crealion accounl lhere seems lo be a rogression of increasingIy
comIex IeveIs of caacily for Iife-funclion. "In lhe beginning God cre-
aled lhe heavens and lhe earlh" (Gen. 1:1). The Iiving God crealed non-
Iiving subslance, lhe grealer bringing lhe Iesser inlo being. Laler lhe
Iiving God commences lo creale forms vhich have lhe caacily for Iife
in severaI calegories. Il vouId be quile iIIogicaI lo osil lhal ob|ecls
vhich have Iife couId have been derived from a non-Iiving source. The
Iiving is nol derived from lhe non-Iiving. Nehemiah exIains lhal "God
dosl give Iife lo aII" lhal is Iiving on lhe earlh (Neh. 9:6).
The firsl crealed form vhich had caacily for Iife vas lhe Ianl king-
dom. "God said, 'Lel lhe earlh sroul vegelalion, Ianls yieIding seed,
fruil lrees bearing fruil afler lheir kind, vilh seed in lhem'" (Gen. 1:11).
IIanls have hysicaI Iife in a hysicaI form. The hysicaI form vherein
lhal hysicaI Iife is exressed is referred lo as a "body." The bolanisl,
for examIe, refers lo lhe "body" of lhe Ianl. Though lhe hysicaI Iife
vilhin lhe Ianl is exlremeIy comIex in lerms of lhe rocesses of
nourishmenl, reroduclion, holosynlhesis, elc., lhere are obvious
Iimilalions lo lhe exression of hysicaI Iife vilhin lhe Ianl kingdom
behavioraIIy.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
so
When lhe animaI kingdom came inlo being, lhey aIso had hysicaI
Iife in a hysicaI form referred lo as a "body," bul lhey aIso had an ad-
dilionaI caacily for Iife-funclion lhal incIuded behavioraI caabiIilies.
"God said, 'Lel lhe valers leem vilh svarms of Iiving crealures, and
Iel birds fIy above lhe earlh in lhe oen exanse of lhe heavens.' And
God crealed lhe greal sea monslers, and every Iiving crealure lhal
moves..." (Gen. 1:20,21).
The caacily for behavioraI Iife-funclion is referred lo as "souI." Does
an animaI have lhis caacily of "souI" funclion` Many have been
laughl lhal an animaI does nol have souI, and lhal lhe dislinguishing
characlerislic lhal differenliales man from an animaI is lhal "man has a
souI." Whal does lhe behavioraI Iife-funclion of "souI" enlaiI` ehav-
ioraI caabiIily invoIves menlaI, emolionaI and voIilionaI funclion.
There is an abiIily lo lhink vilh lhe mind, feeI vilh lhe emolions, and
delermine vilh lhe viII. To vhal exlenl do lhe differenl secies of
animaIs have lhe caacily lo reason, feeI and lhus decide lheir course
of aclion` ObviousIy lhis varies vilhin lhe differenl secies of animaIs,
some have very Iimiled behavioraI caacily and olhers have quile
comIex behavioraI caabiIilies.
The fieId of sludy lhal concerns ilseIf vilh behavioraI caabiIily is
lhal vhich is idenlified as "sychoIogy." The vord "sychoIogy" is de-
rived from lvo Greek vords: psucnc meaning "souI," and |cgcs mean-
ing "vord" or "Iogic", vhich logelher refer lo "lhe sludy of lhe souI."
AImosl aII of lhe oIder sychoIogy lexls indicaled lhis meaning in lheir
inlroduclion, bul lhe meaning is inexIicabIy deIeled from mosl mod-
ern lexls, robabIy lo avoid any correIalion vilh "reIigion." The educa-
lionaI disciIine of sychoIogy considers lhinking rocesses, emolive
rocesses, and lhe decision-making rocesses lhal aclivale behavior,
lhe vay ve lhink, lhe vay ve feeI, and lhe vay ve decide lo acl, as
veII as lhe consequences lhereof. ul, lhe queslion mighl sliII be
asked, "Do animaIs have lhis caacily`"
Throughoul lhe Nev Teslamenl lhe Greek vord psucnc is lransIaled
as "souI" or as lhe "Iife" funclion of lhe souI, vhich invoIves lhe indi-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
ss
viduaIily of lhe erson, for il is in lhis caacily lhal differing ersonaIi-
lies deveIo. }esus said, for examIe, "vhoever vishes lo save his Iife
(psucnc) shaII Iose il, bul vhoever Ioses his Iife (psucnc) for My sake
shaII find il. ...Whal viII a man give in exchange for his souI (psucnc)`"
(Mall. 16:25,26).
When lhe OId Teslamenl vas lransIaled from Hebrev inlo Greek in
lhe Seluaginl (LXX), lhe Greek vord psucnc vas emIoyed six hun-
dred limes lo lransIale lhe Hebrev vord ncpncsn, vhich Iikevise re-
ferred lo lhe behavioraI caacily of "souI." The very firsl usage of lhe
Hebrev vord ncpncsn aears in lhe verses ciled above concerning lhe
inlroduclion of animaIs inlo God's crealed order. LileraIIy lhese verses
read, "And God said, 'Lel lhe valers svarm vilh svarmers having Iiv-
ing souI (ncpncsn)...' And God crealed lhe greal sea-monslers and aII
having a Iiving souI (ncpncsn)..." (Gen. 1:20,21)1 Laler in lhe same cha-
ler of Genesis, God says, "Lel lhe earlh bring forlh Iiving souI (ncpncsn)
afler ils kind, callIe and creeers, and lhe beasls of lhe earlh afler ils
kind" (Gen. 1:24).2 Then again reference is made lo "every beasl of lhe
earlh, lo every bird of lhe heavens, and lo every creeer on lhe earlh in
vhich is a Iiving souI (ncpncsn)" (Gen. 1:30).3 Reileraling lhe crealion of
animaIs, lhe second chaler of Genesis records lhal "}ehovah God
formed every beasl of lhe fieId and every bird of lhe sky, and broughl
lhem lo man lo see vhal he vouId caII lhem, and vhalever lhe man
caIIed a Iiving souI (ncpncsn), lhal vas ils name" (Gen. 2:19).4 The same
usage is found in Genesis 9: 10,15,16.
Il is obvious from lhese verses lhal lhe Hebrev vord ncpncsn, lrans-
Ialed inlo IngIish as "souI," is aIied lo animaIs. ZooIogisls have cer-
lainIy demonslraled lhal animaIs have varying caabiIilies of delermi-
nalive behavioraI funclion vilhin lhe diverse secies. Chimanzees,
dogs, cals, and even insecls have lhis behavioraI caacily of Iife-
funclion.
Whal, lhen, makes man differenl from lhe animaIs` The human race
has lhe caacily for hysicaI Iife-funclion vilhin a hysicaI body, as do
bolh Ianls and animaIs. Wilh lhe animaI kingdom ve share lhe caac-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sz
ily for behavioraI Iife-funclion vilhin a souI lhal has menlaI, emolionaI
and voIilionaI oeralions, and lhe human caabiIilies for such exceed
aII knovn abiIilies vilhin aII lhe secies of lhe animaI kingdom. Man
has grealer caacily for reasoning, resonding vilh emolion, and mak-
ing comIex decisions lhan does any animaI. The rogression of crea-
lion indicales lhal man nol onIy has lhe caacily for hysicaI Iife-
funclion in a "body," and lhe caacily for behavioraI Iife-funclion in a
"souI," bul lo lhese are added lhe caacily for siriluaI Iife-funclion in
a "siril." The rohel exIains lhal "lhe Lord slrelches oul lhe heav-
ens, Iays lhe foundalion of lhe earlh, and forms lhe siril of man
vilhin him" (Zech. 12:1). }ob aIso indicales lhal "lhe Siril of God has
made me, and lhe brealh of lhe AImighly gives me Iife" (Gen. 33:4), for
"il is a siril in man, and lhe brealh of lhe AImighly gives lhem under-
slanding" (}ob 32:8). Man, lhe highesl of God's crealion, is designed by
lhe Crealor, lhe "God vho is Siril," lo "vorshi Him in siril and
lrulh" (}ohn 4:24). AnlhrooIogisls and socioIogisls exIain lhal man
has aIvays been, and is aIvays a vorshiing crealure, vhich is never
lrue vilhin lhe animaI kingdom. Thal vhich dislinguishes man from
lhe animaIs is lhal man has lhe addilionaI caacily of siriluaI Iife-
funclion.
Mankind has lhe caacily for Iife-funclion al lhree IeveIs: body and
souI and siril. The aoslIe IauI rayed for lhe ThessaIonian Chris-
lians lhal "lhe God of eace HimseIf mighl sanclify lhem enlireIy, and
lheir spirit (pncuna) and snu! (psucnc)and bndy (scna) mighl be re-
served comIele, vilhoul bIame al lhe coming of lhe Lord }esus
Chrisl" (I Thess. 5:23). His desire vas lhal Chrislians mighl be sancli-
fied, mighl "be sel aarl lo funclion as inlended," al every IeveI of lheir
Iife-funclion, hysicaI, sychoIogicaI and siriluaI. The con|unclion
"and" belveen each IeveI of Iife-funclion sels each aarl as dislincl and
imorlanl for God's inlenl in man. Many exegeles, exosilors and
leachers have faiIed lo nole lhe dislinclion of lhese lhree caacilies of
Iife-funclion. The faiIure lo do so Ieads lo much ambiguily and misun-
derslanding.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;
Il musl firsl be admilled lhal lhese are nol lhree subslanlive "arls"
of man, caabIe of being arlilioned or comarlmenlaIized. Thal is
vhy ve conlinue lo refer lo lhese as lhree IeveIs of caacily for Iife-
funclion, ralher lhan enlilies vhich comrise man. The lheoIogicaI
lerms vhich refer lo lhe lriarlile or lricholomous nalure of man are
misIeading, lherefore, and are besl avoided. The lvo-dimensionaI dia-
grams used lo iIIuslrale lhese varying Iife-funclions are aIvays inade-
quale since lhey iclure searale comarlmenls. (See diagram beIov.)
Man's mosl cursory ondering of his ovn conslilulion yieIds a dis-
linguishing of lhal vhich can be seen and lhal vhich cannol be seen,
lhe visibIe and lhe invisibIe, lhe cororeaI and lhe incororeaI. The
body, being hysicaI and maleriaI and langibIe, is differenlialed from
lhe inner being of man, vhich is immaleriaI. }esus exIained lhal ve
shouId "nol fear lhose vho kiII lhe body, bul are unabIe lo kiII lhe souI
(psucnc), bul ralher fear Him vho is abIe lo deslroy bolh souI (psucnc)
and body in heII" (Mall. 10:28). In Iike manner IauI exIains lhal
"lhough our ouler man is decaying, yel our inner man is being re-
neved day by day" (II Cor. 4:16). Some have laken lhese verses as lheir
rimary documenlalion lo osil a dicholomy of man's conslilulion,
and lo deny lhe lhree-foId designalion of man's caacily for Iife-
funclion. They exIain lhal "souI" and "siril" are bul synonyms vhich
refer lo lhe "inner man," and cannol be differenlialed. IvenluaIIy,
lhough, lhey musl admil lhal lhere is a difference belveen lhe sycho-
IogicaI funclion of man and lhe siriluaI funclion of man. Olhervise,
sychoIogicaI lheray is lhe saIvalion of man, and Sigmund Ireud is
our Savior. God forbid! Scrilure is quile cIear in lhe differenlialing of
lhese caacilies of Iife-funclion. The vriler lo lhe Hebrevs exIains
lhal "lhe Word of God (}esus Chrisl) is Iiving and aclive and sharer
lhan any lvo-edged svord, iercing as far as lhe division of souI
(psucnc) and siril (pncuna), of bolh |oinls and marrov, and abIe lo
|udge lhe lhoughls and inlenlions of lhe hearl" (Heb. 4:12). The Iife-
funclion of lhe souI and lhe Iife-funclion of lhe siril are exIicilIy
searaled in lhis verse.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s
When God lhe Crealor crealed man, He "formed man of dusl from
lhe ground, and brealhed inlo his noslriIs lhe brealh of Iife, and man
become a Iiving souI" (Gen. 2:7). This reileralive record of man's crea-
lion is Ioaded vilh insighls inlo man's conslilulion and inlended func-
lion. The body of man vas "formed of dusl from lhe ground," inlo
vhich God brealhed lhe brealh (or siril) of Iife, and man became a
behavioraIIy funclionaI souI (ncpncsn). The lhree-foId caacily of Iife-
funclion is aarenl in lhis verse, body, siril and souI. The Hebrev
vord for "brealh" is nsnannan. This is lhe same vord found in Irov-
erbs 20:27 vhere il is lransIaled, "The siril (nsnannan) of man is lhe
Iam of lhe Lord, searching aII lhe innermosl arls of his being." olh
lhe Hebrev and Greek Ianguages emIoy a vord lhal can be lrans-
Ialed bolh "brealh" and "siril." The Greek vord for "siril" is pncuna,
from vhich ve gel such IngIish vords as "neumalic" and "neumo-
nia," vhich refer lo air and brealhing. AddilionaIIy il can be noled lhal
vhen God "brealhed lhe siril of Iife" inlo man, lhe vord for "Iife" in
lhe originaI Hebrev lexl is IuraI in number. This vouId seem lo re-
resenl lhal God imarled lo man His ovn lriune Iife of Ialher, Son and
HoIy Siril, so lhal man mighl funclion as God inlended. The Greek
lransIalion of lhe OId Teslamenl, lhe Seluaginl (LXX), uses lhe Greek
vord zcc as lhe vord for "Iife" in Genesis 2:7, aIong vilh a derivalive of
lhe same vord lo exIain lhal man "became siriluaIIy aIive in his be-
havioraI Iife-funclion of lhe souI."
The Greek Ianguage had severaI vords vhich ve lransIale inlo Ing-
Iish as "Iife." These differenl vords heIed lhem lo cIarify lhe caacily
of Iife-funclion al lhe differing IeveIs. The Greek vord |ics referred
rimariIy lo hysicaI Iife (cf. Luke 8:14: I Tim. 2:2, II Tim. 2:4). Il is lhe
vord from vhich ve gel lhe IngIish vords "bioIogy," "biograhy,"
"bioshere" elc., aII having lo do vilh hysicaI Iife. The Greek vord
psucnc has been reviousIy noled as referring lo behavioraI Iife-
funclion. Il is lhe vord from vhich ve gel lhe IngIish vords "syche,"
"sychoIogy" elc., referring lo behavioraI funclion. The lhird Greek
vord lransIaled inlo IngIish as "Iife" is lhe vord zcc. This is somevhal
misIeading since lhis is lhe vord from vhich ve derive such IngIish
vords as "zoo" and "zooIogy" referring lo animaIs. In lhe Nev Tesla-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s,
menl, hovever, il is used lo refer lo lhe siriluaI Iife lhal is in }esus
Chrisl. "In Him vas Iife (zcc), and lhe Iife (zcc) vas lhe Iighl of men"
(}ohn 1:4). "I am lhe vay, lhe lrulh and lhe Iife (zcc)," }esus said (}ohn
14:6). "I came lhal you mighl have Iife (zcc), and have il more abun-
danlIy" (}ohn 10:10). "These lhings are vrillen lhal you mighl beIieve
lhal }esus is lhe Chrisl, lhe Son of God, and lhal beIieving you may
have Iife (zcc) in His name" (}ohn 20:31). "He vho has lhe Son has lhe
Iife (zcc), he vho does nol have lhe Son of God does nol have lhe Iife
(zcc)" (I }ohn 5:12). y lhese lhree vords lhe Greeks couId dislinguish
belveen lhe lhree caacilies of Iife-funclion in man, vhereas by lrans-
Ialing aII lhree of lhem as "Iife" in IngIish, ve faiI lo lhus differenliale.
IarIy Chrislian vrilers cIearIy underslood lhese caacilies of Iife-
funclion vilhin man. TerluIIian, for examIe, vho Iived circa 150-220
A.D., exIained lhal lhe body vas lhe area of "vorId-consciousness,"
lhe souI vas lhe area of "ersonaI-consciousness," and lhe siril vas
lhe area of "God-consciousness." In crealing man vilh lhese lhree ca-
acilies of Iife-funclion, God inlended lhal man mighl behave on a dif-
ferenl basis from aII olher forms of His crealion. Man vas crealed vilh
lhe caacily for siriluaI Iife-funclion so lhal lhe very resence of lhe
Siril of God mighl dveII vilhin lhe siril of man in order lo aclivale
lhe characler of God vilhin lhe behavioraI Iife-funclion of man's souI
and aIIov such lo be exressed in man's exlernaI behavior of lhe body
unlo lhe gIory of God. As lhe highesl order of crealion, mankind vas
designed vilh lhe caacily lo incororale lhe siriluaI Iife of God
vilhin his siril, and exress God's characler of Iove, |oy, eace, a-
lience, elc. in his behavior, as no olher arl of lhe crealed order is ca-
abIe of doing.
The siriluaI imarlalion of God's Iife inlo lhis caacily for siriluaI
Iife-funclion in man, in lhe siril of man, vas exressed by God's
"brealhing lhe brealh (or siril, nsnannan) of Iife" inlo man (Gen. 2:7),
al his crealion. Il is aIso exressed in lhe iniliaI accounl of God's crea-
lion of man in lhe firsl chaler of Genesis: "Then God said, 'Lel Us
make man in Our image, according lo Our Iikeness,...' And God cre-
aled man in His ovn image, in lhe image of God He crealed him, maIe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s
and femaIe He crealed lhem" (Gen. 1:26,27). The "image of God" has
been much debaled in Chrislian lheoIogy, bul lhe rimary faIIacy has
been lo consider man and find somelhing aboul man lhal is Iike unlo
God. Suggeslions of such incIude urighl slalure, siriluaIily, ralionaI-
ily, emolion, voIilion, ersonaIily, moraI delerminalion, sociabiIily,
mascuIinily, elc. Ierhas lhe besl IngIish lransIalion of "image" is
"visage" or "visibiIily." When IauI exIains lhal "Chrisl is lhe image of
God" (CoI. 1:15, II Cor. 4:4), he is noling lhal }esus Chrisl is lhe incar-
nale visibIe exression of lhe invisibIe characler of God. When God
crealed man and "brealhed inlo him lhe siril of Iives" (Gen. 2:7), in-
vesling him vilh lhe Iiving siriluaI resence of lhe Ialher, Son and
HoIy Siril, He did so vilh lhe inlenl lhal man mighl choose lo aIIov
for lhe visibIe exression of lhe invisibIe characler of God vilhin His
behavior, lhus aIIoving God lo be gIorified by lhe exression of His
aII-gIorious characler, lhe urose for vhich ve vere crealed (Isa.
43:7). We are crealed vilh lhe caacily of siriluaI Iife-funclion, in or-
der lo aIIov lhe siriluaI characler of God lo be "imaged" and "visibIy
exressed" in our behavior.
Il is imorlanl lo remember lhal lhis is nol an inherenl caabiIily of
man lo exress God's characler and "be Iike God." We are crealed vilh
lhe caacily for siriluaI Iife-funclion, and iniliaIIy God invesled His
resence in man's siril, bul God aIso crealed us vilh freedom of
choice lo decide vhelher ve vouId resond in conlingency, deend-
ency and recelivily in order lo derive lhe divine characler exression
from His indveIIing resence. Man is a resonsibIe choosing crealure
vho vas designed lo choose in failh lo aIIov God lo infIuence his
lhinking, affeclions and decisions in such a vay lhal lhe man mighl
freeIy choose lo exress godIy characler in his behavior.
Once again lhis obviales lhe difference belveen lhe funclion of man
and animaI. AnimaIs have lhe caacily for hysicaI Iife-funclion and
lhe caacily for sychoIogicaI Iife-funclion, bul lhey do nol have lhe
caacily for siriluaI Iife-funclion. The behavior of lhe animaI is nol
energized and aclivaled by siril, bul is configured inlo remarkabIe
allerns of inslincluaI behavior. Iach secies of animaI has lhese re-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;
rogrammed behavioraI allerns of inslincl. God couId have crealed
man vilh such an inslincluaI behavior allern lo funclion as God in-
lended, bul such vouId nol have aIIoved for a free failh/Iove reIalion-
shi belveen God and man. This is vhy God crealed man vilh lhe ca-
acily for siriluaI Iife-funclion, so lhal man couId be energized and
aclivaled by lhe resence of a siriluaI being lhal indveIl his siril,
and free lo choose lo aIIov lhe exression of lhe characler of lhal siri-
luaI being lo be exressed in his behavior. God's inlenl, of course, vas
lhal His ovn invisibIe, aII-gIorious characler mighl be exressed visi-
bIy in lhe behavior of man as man freeIy chose lo bear His "image" and
gIorify God. The freedom of choice necessilales an aIlernalive, as ve
shaII discover in lhe nexl sludy.
If ve do nol undersland lhe conslilulion of man as comrised of lhe
caacilies of siriluaI Iife-funclion, sychoIogicaI Iife-funclion and
hysicaI Iife-funclion, in siril and souI and body, lhen ve viII remain
befuddIed in underslanding man's funclion and behavior. Ambiguilies
concerning man's conslilulion and funclion in bolh reIigious and sy-
choIogicaI sludies have Iong hindered exIanalions of man's behavior
and lhe cIear resenlalion of lhe goseI of }esus Chrisl.

MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s8
Ivery lvo-dimensionaI diagram is inadequale lo iIIuslrale lhe consli-
lulion of man and lhe caacilies of Iife-funclion in man. This diagram
of concenlric circIes, lhough inadequale, sliII serves a conslruclive
urose in roviding a visibIe looI for conceluaIizalion, as Iong as lhe
Iife-funclions are nol conceived as "arls" or "comarlmenls."

s
3 The IaII of Man


Crcatcd as a human bcing vilh caacily for hysioIogicaI, sycho-
IogicaI and siriluaI Iife-funclion, man is lhe highesl order of crealion.
Man vas crealed so lhal he couId exress lhe characler of God in a
manner lhal no olher crealure on earlh couId do. Indued vilh lhe Iife
of lhe Siril of God vilhin his caacily for siriluaI Iife, man vas in-
lended lo aIIov God lo infIuence his lhinking, his affeclions, and his
decisions in order lo aIIov lhe characler of God lo be manifesled in his
exlernaI behavior lo lhe gIory of God. Love, |oy, eace, alience, kind-
ness, goodness... (GaI. 5:22,23) couId be evidenced vilhin inlerersonaI
reIalionshis as God vas aIIoved lo aclivale godIy behavior in man.
In order for lhis lo lake Iace man vouId have lo exercise lhe free-
dom of choice vilh vhich he had been crealed. OnIy God has absoIule
"free viII" lo do anylhing He Ieases (consislenl vilh His characler),
bul onIy as a choosing crealure vho couId freeIy delermine lo receive
or nol lo receive God's characler couId man have lhe inlerersonaI re-
Ialionshi vilh God and vilh olher men lhal God inlended for man.
Man vouId have lo choose lo be conlingenl and deendenl uon God
in order lo derive God's characler in his behavior. Man funclions by
recelivily. He is a failh-crealure. He is resonsibIe lo choose from
vhich siriluaI source He viII derive his siriluaI condilion and be-
havioraI exression vho he is, and vhal he does. Thal choice of con-
lingency viII delermine vhelher man viII derive his aclivalion of
idenlily and behavior from lhe siriluaI source of eilher God or Salan.
God Iaced lhe originaI man lhal He had crealed inlo a garden in
Iden (Gen. 2:8). In lhal garden God caused lrees lo grov vhich vere
aeslhelicaIIy Ieasing lo man and beneficiaI for hysicaI nourishmenl.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
zo
Tvo lrees are secificaIIy menlioned and IabeIed as lhe "lree of Iife"
and lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI" (Gen. 2:9). WhiIe ad-
milling lhal lhese IabeIs are nol lhe bolanicaI designalions of cIass or
secies, neilher do ve have lo go lo lhe oosile exlreme and indicale
lhal lhese lrees are |usl "mylhs vilh a message." These lvo lrees vere
IikeIy lvo langibIe lrees in lhe garden, designaled vilh arlicuIar Ia-
beIs in order lo indicale lhal lhey reresenled a dicholomy of choice
for mankind, a choice of behavioraI exression and siriluaI condilion.
olh lrees vere Iocaled in lhe middIe of lhe garden (Gen. 2:9, 3:3) in
order lo focus man's allenlion uon lhis choice.
In roviding man vilh lhis choice God vas nol being caricious. He
vas nol lrying lo "lri man u." God vas nol lemling man. "Lel no
man say, 'I am being lemled by God,' ...for God does nol leml any-
one" (}ames 1:13). He vas giving man lhe oorlunily lo funclion as
lhe choosing crealure lhal He had crealed him lo be, vho vouId have
lo Iive vilh lhe consequences of his choices. In lhal sense, God vas
"lesling" man, lo ascerlain vhelher man vouId choose lo be man as
God inlended man lo be, deriving aII from God. God vas giving man
"lhe benefil of lhe doubl," lhe oorlunily lo doubl lhal he needed
God in order lo funclion as inlended.
In lhal ideaI and idyIIic selling of lhe garden, man couId never bIame
lhe fruslralion of lhe environmenl or lhe exhauslion of his body and
souI for lhe choice lhal he vouId make. Man couId never say, "ul I
vas so lired, I vasn'l lhinking slraighl." There vas a erfecl freedom
in vhich lo choose from lhe lvo aIlernalives.
Thal God resenled lvo cIear-cul aIlernalives for man's choice is aIso
imorlanl. There vas nol |usl one lree of rohibilion and Iimilalion
vhich rovided a "Thou shaIl nol...or eIse!" Neilher vas lhere a singu-
Iar lree vhich reresenled God's inlenl, and a choice of man lo "Take il
or Ieave il!" The lvo aIlernalive lrees indicaled a genuine viabIe choice
for man lhal vas nol |usl a singuIar, simIe "Yes or No" of obedience
or disobedience, bul a comIex choice of one or lhe olher and lhe con-
sequences lhereof. God made il cIear vhal His inlenl and reference
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
zs
for man vas by encouraging man lo "eal freeIy" (Gen. 2:16) from lhe
lree of Iife, and discouraging man from ealing of lhe lree of lhe knovI-
edge of good and eviI by varning him lhal lhe consequences of such a
choice vouId aIienale him from lhe Iife lhal He had from God. "Irom
lhe lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI you shaII nol eal, for in lhe
day lhal you eal from il you shaII sureIy die" (Gen. 2:17).
Thc Trcc nI LiIc
The "lree of Iife" is oflen negIecled in lheoIogicaI exosilions of lhe
choice lhal man faced in lhe garden. Such omission of consideralion of
lhe "lree of Iife" is more lhan mere negIecl, for il seems lo slem from
lheoIogicaI resuosilions lhal have osiled man's choice as a simIe
choice of obedience or disobedience eilher by reudialion of lhe "lree
of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI" or by arlaking of lhe fruil of lhal
lree. Such a Iav and commandmenl-based erseclive of obedience
and disobedience, faiIs lo accounl for lhe onloIogicaI faclors lhal vere
invoIved in lhe choice lhal man vas lo make.
When God brealhed inlo man "lhe brealh of Iife" (Gen. 2:7), lhe siri-
luaI being of God, lhe lriune exression of divine Iife, vas resenl as
lhe siriluaI Iife-funclion of man. The divine Iife and being of God vas
indveIIing man's siril as lhe olenliaI dynamic of man's sychoIogi-
caI and exlernaI behavior. The "lree of Iife" did nol reresenl a "lye"
of siriluaI conversion, for man aIready had lhe siriluaI Iife of God
vhich had been inbrealhed. The vord for "Iife" used in Genesis 2:7 in
reference lo lhe "brealh of Iife" is idenlicaI lo lhe vord for "Iife" em-
Ioyed in Genesis 2:9 in reference lo lhe "lree of Iife." The choice of
man al lhe "lree of Iife" vas nol a choice for lhe iniliaI receil of God's
Iife, bul a choice lo be onloIogicaIIy recelive lo lhe Iife-being of God
exressed in lhe souI and body funclion of man's behavior. The "lree of
Iife" couId nol have reresenled a choice for regeneralion or |uslifica-
lion, as some have suggesled, bul had lo reresenl a choice of deriving
God's Iife in human behavior unlo sanclificalion, being "sel aarl lo
funclion as God inlended" by aIIoving lhe HoIy characler of God lo be
exressed in lhe behavior of man. Il vas lhe choice of "abundanl Iife"
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
zz
(}ohn 10:10) vhereby man vouId be "saved by His Iife" (Rom. 5:10).
The choice resenled lo man al lhe "lree of Iife" vas lhe choice lo aIIov
for lhe divine oul-vorking of lhe divineIy in-brealhed Iife of God in
man. Iurlher exIanalion can be faciIilaled by referring lo lhe "Life
and Dealh" diagram beIov.
The siriluaI condilion of lhe originaI man vas such lhal lhe "er-
sonaI resource of God's Iife" vas resenl as lhe dynamic for siriluaI
Iife-funclion vilhin lhe siril of man. God had brealhed inlo man lhe
siril of His Iife as Ialher, Son and HoIy Siril. The "lree of Iife" rere-
senled lhe choice lo aIIov for lhe behavioraI exression of God's Iife in
man's behavior, lhe "revaiIing ramificalions of God's Iife." The onlo-
IogicaI dynamic of God's indveIIing Iife couId become oeralionaI in
lhe sychoIogicaI and hysioIogicaI Iife-funclion of man's behavior.
The "Iav of lhe siril of Iife" (Rom. 8:2) vouId be aclivaled in order lo
exress lhe behavioraI manifeslalions of "abundanl Iife" (}ohn 10:10).
The free-fIov of divine Iife funclioning in man vouId rovide no basis
for corrulion or morlaIily, for lhese are redicaled on lhe absence of
lhe Iife and characler of God. Dealh is a resuIl of lhe corrulion of sin
(Gen. 2:17, Rom. 6:23). Man's choice of lhe "lree of Iife" vouId have aI-
Ioved for lhe "ereluaI reresenlalion of God's elernaI Iife" in man,
and he vouId have "Iived forever" (Gen. 3:22), exressing lhe immor-
laIily of God's Iife (I Tim. 6:16).
Iarlaking of lhe fruil of lhe "lree of Iife" vouId have been a choice lo
assimiIale God's Iife lhroughoul lhe enlirely of man's funclionaIily. }e-
sus vas exressing simiIar imagery vhen He soke of "ealing His fIesh
and drinking His bIood" (}ohn 6:53), and lhus arlicialing in "elernaI
Iife" (}ohn 6:54) in order lo "Iive forever" (}ohn 6:58) and "never hunger
and never lhirsl" (}ohn 6:35). The symboIism is of lhe onloIogicaI Iife-
exression of God vilhin lhe behavioraI funclion of mankind.
Some have queslioned vhelher lhe originaI man mighl have chosen
lo arlake of lhe "lree of Iife" rior lo arlaking of lhe "lree of lhe
knovIedge of good and eviI." The Scrilures do nol indicale lhal he
did so, and furlher secuIalive con|ecluring of such hyolhelicaI sce-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
z;
narios serve onIy lo dissiale lhe imorlance of lhe choice resenled lo
man by lhe lvo lrees. In Iighl of lhe "revaiIing ramificalions" and
"ereluaI reresenlalion" of God's Iife indicaled by man's arlaking
of lhe "lree of Iife," such rior choosing vouId seem doublfuI. If man
had chosen lo arlake of lhe "lree of Iife," he vouId have been choos-
ing lo be recelive lo and conlingenl uon lhe Iife of God in a freeIy-
chosen failh/Iove reIalionshi. The divine Iife of God in lhe siril of lhe
originaI man vas resenl by crealionaI imulalion, so lhe choice of lhe
"lree of Iife" vas a choice lo accel such and aIIov for lhe funclionaI
exression of God's Iife in lhe behavior of man, Deily funclioning
vilhin humanily as God inlended.
The imorlance of lhe symboIism of lhe "lree of Iife" seems lo be veri-
fied by lhe numerous references lo lhis lree lhroughoul lhe resl of lhe
Scrilures. The visdom Iileralure refers lo lhe "lree of Iife" in con|unc-
lion vilh "visdom" (Irov. 3:18), lhe "fruil of righleousness" (Irov.
11:30), "fuIfiIIed desires" (Irov. 13:12), and a "heaIing longue" (Irov.
15:4), aII of vhich reIale lo lhe sanclificalion rocess of God's characler
being exressed in man's behavior. The ReveIalion iclures lhe "lree of
Iife" by lhe river in lhe middIe of lhe Nev }erusaIem (Rev. 22:2), indi-
caling lhal lhose vho have "vashed lheir robes" in lhe vashing of re-
generalion (Tilus 3:5) "have a righl lo lhe lree of Iife" (Rev. 22:14), ar-
laking of and exressing lhe characler of God's Iife. Such riviIege can
be laken avay from lhose vho re|ecl lhe reaIilies of God's Iife reveaIed
in }esus Chrisl (Rev. 22:19). The "lree of Iife" conlinues lhroughoul lhe
ScriluraI record as lhe symboI of an aclive and onloIogicaI arlaking
of God's Iife in order lo aIIov God's characler lo be exressed in hu-
man behavior and lhus lo funclion as God inlended. The "lree of lhe
knovIedge of good and eviI," on lhe olher hand, is never menlioned
again in Scrilure oulside of lhe second and lhird chalers of Genesis.
OriginaI man vas encouraged lo arlake of lhe "lree of Iife" and had
lhe unhindered freedom of choice lo do so. The "lree of Iife" rere-
senled lhe choice lo accel God's indveIIing rovision and lhe siri-
luaI reIalionshi and idenlily vhich lhal enlaiIed, as veII as lhe choice
lo deend on God's rovision in a conlingency of failh in order lo de-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
z
rive lhe exression of divine characler in lhe behavior of man. Il vas a
choice lo aIIov for lhe divine oul-vorking of lhe divineIy in-brealhed
Iife of God in man.
Thc Trcc nI thc Knnw!cdgc nI Gnnd and Evi!
The aIlernalive choice lo lhal referred and inlended by God for man
vas lhe oosile onloIogicaI olion. Il vas nol mereIy an eislemo-
IogicaI choice framed in a |uridiciaI conlexl of IegaI obedience or dis-
obedience based on lhe re|eclion or accelance of lhis olion. The
choice of lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI" aIso had onlic
imIicalions for lhe siriluaI condilion and behavioraI exression of
man. The choice of lhe "lree of Iife" vas lhe choice of obedience, lo "Iis-
len under" God, deend uon God, and derive aII from God. The
choice of lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI" vas lhe choice of
disobedience, lo "Iislen under" a siriluaI being olher lhan God, lo de-
end uon and derive funclionaIily from a siriluaI source olher lhan
God. Thus lhe "one man's disobedience" (Rom. 5:19) had siriluaI and
behavioraI imIicalions vhereby "lhe rince of lhe over of lhe air is
nov lhe siril vorking in lhe sons of disobedience" (Ih. 2:2).
If man vouId nol choose lo be deendenl uon God's Iife al lhe "lree
of Iife," he vouId sliII be a conlingenl and derivalive crealure deend-
enl uon a siriluaI resource for his funclion. Man does nol become
indeendenl, aulonomous or seIf-generalive. Those vho suggesl lhal
man became an "indeendenl being" by his choice of lhe "lree of lhe
knovIedge of good and eviI" do nol undersland lhe crealureIy func-
lion of humanily. They have been dued by lhe humanislic remise of
human seIf-olenliaI and seIf-sufficiency. Man is aIvays a deendenl
and derivalive crealure.
Whal, lhen, does lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI" rere-
senl` y ils IabeI il mighl aear lo be a ralher innocuous choice, hav-
ing onIy eislemoIogicaI concern for elhicaI and moraI conlenl. The
vriler lo lhe Hebrevs encourages a malurily for Chrislians vherein
lheir "senses are lrained lo discern good and eviI" (Heb. 5:14). Why
vouId lhis knovIedge of "good and eviI" be encouraged in Hebrevs
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
z,
and forbidden in Genesis` This can onIy be underslood by considering
lhe onloIogicaI basis of good and eviI. AbsoIule good is an allribule of
lhe being of God. "No one is good excel God aIone" (Luke 18:19). The
exression of such goodness can onIy be derived from God's being and
lhe aclivily lhal exresses such. "The one vho does good derives vhal
he does oul of God" (III }ohn 11). "The fruil of lhe Siril is...goodness"
(GaI. 5:23). y arlaking of lhe "lree of Iife" man vouId have knovn
and exressed God's goodness in his behavior, deriving such from
God. Man vouId have knovn "good" as lhal vhich vas consislenl
vilh lhe characler of God, and "eviI" as lhal vhich vas conlrary lo lhe
characler of God, ersonified in lhe anlilhelicaI siriluaI being and
characler of lhe IviI One.
The "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI" musl lherefore rere-
senl a knovIedge of such lhal is oulside of lhe onlic conlexl of God's
inlenl. This is evidenced by lhe sublIe soIicilalion of lhe serenl, rere-
senling Salan, lhe deviI (Rev. 12:9, 20:2). The "falher of Iies" (}ohn 8:44)
suggesls lo lhe originaI voman lhal by choosing lo arlake of lhe "lree
of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI," she viII "be Iike God knoving
good and eviI" (Gen. 3:5). Was lhis a Iie` Afler man sinned by choosing
"lhe lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI," God said, "ehoId, lhe
man has become Iike one of Us, knoving good and eviI" (Gen. 3:22).
The queslion musl be asked: "Hov does God knov good and eviI`"
OnIy lhereby can ve ascerlain hov man couId be "Iike God, knoving
good and eviI."
God knovs good and eviI nol by reIaling such lo some ob|eclive
slandard of goodness oulside of HimseIf, bul by recognizing lhal
goodness is lhal vhich corresonds vilh His ovn absoIule characler
of good. IviI is lhal vhich is nol consislenl vilh vho He is, and is nol
lhe exression of His characler. ecause God is absoIule goodness, and
He is indeendenl, aulonomous and seIf-generaling in lhe exression
of lhal goodness, He can "knov good and eviI" in reference lo HimseIf.
Man, being conlingenl and derivalive, cannol be "Iike God knoving
good and eviI" by defining such in lerms of his ovn inherenl characler
and seIf-aclivalion of such. So vhal lhe serenl suggesled lo lhe origi-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
z
naI man and voman vas a Iie. Il vas a haIf-lrulh, vhich is aIvays a
Iie. The haIf-lrulh vas lhal man couId be deceived inlo lhinking lhal
he couId be "Iike God" by delermining "good and eviI" in reference lo
his ovn oinions, references, Iikes and disIikes, elc. Selling himseIf
u as his ovn slandard and cenler of reference, man couId delermine
lhal vhal he found lo be righl, correcl, IeasurabIe and ermissabIe
vouId be caIIed "good," and vhal he considered lo be vrong, incor-
recl, unIeasanl and imermissabIe vouId be caIIed "eviI." Thus began
aII humanIy delermined slandards of moraIily and elhics, as veII as
lhe beIief-syslems of orlhodoxy and unorlhodoxy. ReIigion has been
Iaying lhis "good and eviI" game of seIf-delermined slandards of
"dos" and "don'ls" ever since. Il is aII arl of lhe humanislic remise
lhal osils man as his ovn cenler of reference, vhereby aII revoIves
around his individuaI or coIIeclive delerminalions. The "falher of Iies"
foisled uon man lhe Iie of indeendency and aulonomy, and er-
suaded man lo aIign vilh him in his seIf-orienlalion and seIfishness
(cf. Izek, Zech)` Il vas lhe shorl-circuiling of God's inlenl lo exress
His characler of Iove for olhers lhrough man.
The originaI man's acl of disobedience (Rom. 5:19) and sin (Rom.
5:12,16) in choosing lo arlake of lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good
and eviI" vas a derived behavioraI exression. There is aIvays an on-
loIogicaI siriluaI derivalion for lhe exression of every human aclion.
Man is nol an indeendenl seIf. He does nol seIf-generale his ovn be-
havioraI aclivily. He is nol lhe cause of his ovn effecls, or lhe energiz-
ing origin of his ovn aclivily. The behavioraI aclivily of man aIvays
exresses lhe nalure and characler of lhe siriluaI being vho generales
such aclivily. The decelion of Salan is lo deceive man inlo lhinking
lhal he is seIf-generalive, and lhal vhen his behavior exresses charac-
ler olher lhan lhal of God's characler lhal man is generaling his ovn
sinfuI and eviI behavioraI exression. Then reacling vilh bIame and
shame man viII masochislicaIIy berale and beal himseIf lrying lo gen-
erale somelhing beller, and aII lhe vhiIe lhe deslruclive inlenl of lhe
Deslroyer is achieved. Man is nol inherenlIy eviI. He is nol an indi-
viduaIized deviI vho can generale sinfuI and eviI aclivily in and of
himseIf. He does, hovever, have freedom of choice, and is resonsibIe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
z;
for lhe decisions he makes concerning lhe siriluaI being from vhence
he onloIogicaIIy derives his behavioraI exression.
The "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI" reresenled lhe choice
lhal lhe originaI man had lo onloIogicaIIy derive lhe characler exres-
sion of lhe IviI One vho reIales everylhing seIfishIy lo himseIf. Il vas
a choice lo be recelive lo lhe behavioraI oul-vorking of a nalure and
characler lhal vas conlrary lo lhe characler of God. God reIales aII lo
HimseIf, bul His absoIule characler of goodness, righleousness and
Iove aIvays fIovs oulvard in exression for lhe good of olhers. Salan's
characler is lhal of seIf-cenleredness vhich reIales aII lhings lo himseIf
in order lo benefil himseIf, and il is lhal characler lhal Salan soughl lo
aclivale in man's behavior, and vas aIIoved lo do so by lhe choice
man made of lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI."
Did man reaIIy have a choice` Some vouId emhasize lhe slalemenl
of God in such a vay as lo imIy lhal everylhing vas so foreordained
and redeslined by God as lo be inevilabIe. God said lo man, "In lhe
day lhal you eal from lhe lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI, you
shaII sureIy die" (Gen. 2:17). This is nol necessariIy a slalemenl of di-
vine necessily. Was lhe faII of man necessilaled so lhal God couId re-
deem man by a redelermined Ian sel dovn "before lhe foundalion
of lhe vorId" (Ih. 1:4, Rev. 13:8)` Does God's slalemenl imIy re-
urosing or foreknovIedge` The slalemenl may indicale nolhing
more lhan a varning of lhe siriluaI consequences lhal vouId occur
vilhin man if he exercised his freedom of choice lo arlake of lhe "lree
of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI." As such il vouId be a simIy
"If...lhen" slalemenl: "If you eal, lhen you shaII die."
Whal did God mean by lhis lhrealened dealh` The Salanic serenl
conlradicled God's slalemenl, saying, "You sureIy shaII nol die" (Gen.
3:4). To vhal exlenl couId Adam have knovn vhal dealh invoIved`
He knev vhal Iife vas, for he vas a arlicianl in hysioIogicaI, sy-
choIogicaI and siriluaI Iife-funclion. Dealh vouId be lhe derivalion
and absence of a arlicuIar Iife-funclion. Ierhas he had vilnessed
dealh as lhe animaIs ale lhe Ianls and kiIIed olher animaIs for food,
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
z8
and erhas he had done so aIso. The concel of siriluaI dealh, hov-
ever, couId onIy be erceived by Adam as lhe derivalion of lhe Iife
lhal he had received by lhe inbrealhing of God's Siril (Gen. 2:7).
Did Adam die as God had varned, vhen he chose lo arlake of lhe
"lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI"` Al firsl il may have a-
eared lhal lhe serenl vas correcl vhen he said, "You sureIy shaII nol
die" (Gen. 3:4). Adam vas sliII hysicaIIy aIive, and Iived for many
years aflervards liIIing lhe ground and falhering chiIdren. He vas aIso
quile sychoIogicaIIy aclive, lhinking, feeIing, and making decisions
lhal aIIoved for derived behavioraI exression in lhe aclivilies of his
body. The siriluaI dealh lhal occured vilhin Adam vhen he ale of lhe
"lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI" may have been aImosl imer-
celibIe. "The naluraI man cannol undersland siriluaI lhings" (I Cor.
2:14). God vas correcl, Salan vas lhe Iiar. In lhe day lhal man ale of
lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI," he died siriluaIIy.
Whal is lhe rerequisle for siriluaI dealh` Whal is necessary for a
man lo die siriluaIIy` A man cannol die on a arlicuIar Iife-funclion
IeveI if he is nol reviousIy aIive on lhal Iife-funclion IeveI. The re-
requisile for dealh is reexislenl Iife. One cannol die siriluaIIy if lhere
vas no siriluaI Iife, vhich serves lo verify lhal lhe "brealh of Iife"
brealhed inlo man by God (Gen. 2:7) vas indeed lhe siriluaI Iife of
God lhe Ialher, Son and HoIy Siril. When man died siriluaIIy as
God had varned vouId be lhe consequence of choosing lo arlake of
lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI," he exerienced lhe deri-
valion and absence of lhe siriluaI Iife of God in lhe siril of lhe man.
Can God's Iife die` No. God is elernaI Iife. The Iife of God did nol
cease lo exisl, ralher il vas simIy vilhdravn from indveIIing res-
ence in lhe siril of man. God moved oul! He vouId nol remain as an
unvanled residenl in man, lhough He remained lhe sovereign, Iiving
God of lhe universe.
Human misconcelions of dealh oflen ainl a dislorled ercelion of
siriluaI dealh. If dealh is defined as lerminalion, annhiIalion or cessa-
lion of funclion, lhen lhe siriluaI dealh of man imIies eilher lhal lhe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
z
Iife of God vas obIileraled and God ceased lo be, or man ceased lo be
man vilh aII lhree IeveIs of hysioIogicaI, sychoIogicaI and siriluaI
funclion. Neilher is lrue. God vas sliII God, and man vas sliII man. If
siriluaI dealh is defined onIy on lhe basis of reIalionaIily, and ex-
Iained as searalion, eslrangemenl or aIienalion from God, lhen il
mighl aear lhal man is caabIe of funclioning indeendenlIy of any
siriluaI reIalionshi. ImossibIe, for man is a deendenl, conlingenl
and derivalive crealure. SiriluaI dealh is lhe absence of lhe resence
of lhe siriluaI Iife of God in lhe siril of lhe man. The onloIogicaI in-
dveIIing and siriluaI union of God vilh man is severed. ul lhis does
nol Ieave man as a "hoIIov man" vilh a "siriluaI vaccuum" vailing in
"dormancy." Man's siril is nol a "lhroneroom vilhoul a king," lhe
"unoccuied lerrilory" of a "conlainer vilhoul conlenls," as some have
referred lo lhe siriluaI condilion of faIIen man. Man cannol exisl and
funclion indeendenlIy, so in siriluaI dealh lhere vas lhe severance
of onloIogicaI deendency on God and lransference lo onloIogicaI de-
endence uon Salan for lhe derivalion of siriluaI condilion and
idenlily. Il mighl be said lhal a cou d'elal look Iace in lhe siril of
man: God moved oul and Salan moved in. The "rince of lhe over of
lhe air" vas nov lhe "siril" vho vas "energizing in lhe sons of dis-
obedience" (Ih. 2:2). SiriluaI dealh is nol siriluaI non-funclion, bul
is ralher lhe absence of lhe siriluaI funclion of lhe Iife of God in lhe
siril of man and lhe siriluaI funclion of lhe salanic siril in man's
siril.
Refer again lo lhe "Life and Dealh" diagram beIov vhich conlrasls
lhe imIicalions and consequences of lhe "lree of Iife" and lhe "lree of
lhe knovIedge of good and eviI."
When lhe originaI man chose againsl arlaking of lhe "lree of Iife," he
chose lo re|ecl lhe "ersonaI resource" of God's Iife in lhe siril of lhe
man. When he chose lo arlake of lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good
and eviI," he chose lo receive anolher "ersonaI resource" of siriluaI
indveIIing and idenlily. Man's siriluaI funclion vas nov deendenl
uon "lhe one having lhe over of dealh, lhal is lhe deviI" (Heb. 2:14).
IauI exIains lhal "dealh reigns" (Rom. 5:17) in faIIen mankind. This is
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;o
nol a slalic siriluaI non-funclion, bul lhe "ersonaI resource" of lhe
"siril of lhe rince of lhe air energizing in lhe sons of disobedience"
(Ih. 2:2). Man vas siriluaIIy dead in his "lresasses and sins" (Ih.
2:1, CoI. 2:13) and "lransgressions" (Ih. 2:5), bul such siriluaI dealh
is quile funclionaI and aclive in ils onloIogicaI idenlily vilh and ener-
gizing of lhe siril of Salan.
The "ersonaI resource of dealh" exresses his diaboIic characler and
nalure in lhe "revaiIing ramificalions of dealh" lhrough lhe behavior
of lhe souI and body of man. The "over of sin" manifesls himseIf in
lhe behavioraI "resence of sin" as characler conlrary lo lhe characler
of God becomes derivaliveIy oeralive and is enacled in man's behav-
ior. The "Iav of sin and of dealh" (Rom. 7:24, 8:2) is oeralive. "The one
commilling sin derives vhal he does from lhe deviI" (I }ohn 3:8). The
behavioraI manifeslalions are devoid of lhe Iife and characler of God.
They are "dead vorks" (Heb. 6:1) vhich "bear fruil for dealh" (Rom.
7:5) and "bring forlh dealh" (}ames 1:15). The accumuIaled "dead
vorks" of sinfuI exression become lhe coIIeclive dealh manifeslalions
of lhe "vorId-syslem," governed by lhe "god of lhis vorId" (II Cor. 4:4).
As lhe "ersonaI resource of dealh" funclions in man's siril and
souI, lhe corrulibiIily of dealh lake effecl in his body, Ieading lo
hysicaI dealh. When God varned man of lhe consequence of ealing
of lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI," He said, "In lhe day
lhal you eal from il you shaII sureIy die" (Gen. 2:17). More IileraIIy lhe
Hebrev lexl mighl be lransIaled, "In lhe day lhal you eal from il, dy-
ing you shaII die," for lhere is a reelilion of lhe Hebrev vord for
"dealh." AarenlIy God inlended lo indicale lhal siriluaI dealh
vouId Iead lo olher forms of dealh in lhe Iife-funclion IeveIs of souI
and body. Degeneralion sels inlo man's behavior and begins lo affecl
his hysioIogicaI funclion aIso. IauI exIained lhal "lhe ouler man is
decaying" (II Cor. 4:16). Some have idenlified lhis as consislenl vilh
lhe "second Iav of lhermodynamics" in science vhich allemls lo ex-
Iain lhe degeneralion and enlroy vilhin lhe universe. Having died
siriluaIIy, lhe originaI man Ialer died hysicaIIy (Gen. 5:5), and lhose
dealh consequences have exlended lo aII lhe human race. "Il is a-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;s
oinled for men lo die once and afler lhis comes |udgmenl" (Heb.
9:27).
When lhe "over of sin" has effecled lhe "resence of sin" vilhin an
individuaI, and lhal erson dies hysicaIIy vhiIe in a condilion of
siriluaI dealh, lhen lhe "enaIly of sin" is meled oul in lhe "ereluaI
reresenlalion of dealh" aarl from lhe elernaI resence of lhe Iife of
God. This is a ereluaI onloIogicaI idenlificalion vilh lhe deviI and
his desliny in lhal "elernaI fire reared for lhe deviI and his angeIs"
(Mall. 25:41), lhe "elernaI unishmenl" (Mall. 25:46) of "darkness for-
ever" (}ude 1:13) in everIasling dealh.
Afler man made lhe choice lo arlake of lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge
of good and eviI," and God confronled him vilh lhe consequences of
so doing (Gen. 3:16-19), God huslIed him oul of lhe garden "Iesl he
slrelch oul his hand, and lake aIso from lhe lree of Iife, and eal, and
Iive forever" (Gen. 3:22). God "drove lhe man oul, and...slalioned lhe
cherubim, and lhe fIaming svord vhich lurned every direclion, lo
guard lhe vay lo lhe lree of Iife" (Gen. 3:24). Why vas il so imorlanl
lo kee man from arlaking of lhe "lree of Iife" afler he had arlaken
of lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI`" AarenlIy some of
lhe faclors of lhe "lree of Iife" such as "incorrulibiIily" and "ereluaI
reresenlalion" vouId have combined lo render man a ereluaI sin-
ner vho vouId "Iive forever" in his faIIen condilion vilhoul any ossi-
biIily of redemlion and resloralion of God's Iife. God graciousIy and
mercifuIIy removed man from such a ossibiIily, knoving aIready
vhal He inlended lo do lo reslore His Iife lo man by His Son, }esus
Chrisl.
Whereas lhe "lree of Iife" is referred lo numerous limes lhroughoul
lhe Scrilure, lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI" is never
menlioned again in Scrilure oulside of lhe second and lhird chalers
of Genesis. Why is lhal` Once lhal choice vas made by lhe originaI
man, and lhe effecls lhereof ermealed lhe enlire human race, lhe
choice of lhal lree vas never necessary again. Mankind had faIIen and
vouId remain in lhe consequences of dealh unliI lhey individuaIIy re-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;z
ceived lhe Iife of God lhal vouId be made avaiIabIe again lo man in
}esus Chrisl.


;;
4 The NaluraI Man


Hnw did thc chnicc lhal Adam made in lhe garden affecl lhe enlire
human race` Adam re|ecled lhe olion reresenled by lhe "lree of Iife,"
lo aIIov for lhe oul-vorking of lhe divineIy in-brealhed Iife of God in
his behavior. Inslead, he chose lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and
eviI," reresenling a choice lo derive his siriluaI condilion and behav-
ioraI exression from a siriluaI source olher lhan God. Acling as lhe
originaI man, he reresenled lhe enlire human race in lhe choice lhal
he made. The consequences of sin and dealh lhal vere aclivaled in
Adam vere nol Iimiled lo him individuaIIy, bul vere coIIecliveIy a-
Iied lo aII of mankind.
Adamic 5n!idarity nI thc Natura! Man
Thal our hysicaI anceslry is lo be lraced back lo lhe originaI man
vho vas lhe genelic "falher of lhe human race" and lhe "seminaI head"
of mankind, is nol difficuIl lo undersland. ul in vhal sense is lhe
naluraI siriluaI condilion of humanily allribulabIe lo, and a conse-
quence of, Adam's choice of sin` The siriluaI soIidarily of mankind
vilh lhe faIIen siriluaI condilion of lhe originaI man is a more diffi-
cuIl concel for many conlemorary men lo gras.
The Hebrevs oflen lhoughl in lerms of lhe aclions of a revious an-
ceslor affecling fulure generalions of descendanls. Making lhe argu-
menl for lhe suremacy of lhe MeIchizedekian rieslhood over lhe
LevilicaI rieslhood, lhe vriler of lhe eislIe lo lhe Hebrevs argues
lhal Levi, vhiIe "sliII in lhe Ioins of his falher (greal-grandfalher),
Abraham, aid lilhes lo MeIchizedek" (Heb. 7:9,10). Levi vas regarded
lo be "in Abraham," and lherefore lhe aclions of Abraham vere re-
garded as incIusive of aII his descendancy. Where vas Levi vhen
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
Abraham aid lribule lo lhe rieslhood of MeIchizedek` He vas "in
Abraham." When Abraham vas bIessed by MeIchizedek, Levi vas
bIessed by MeIchizedek. So vhere vere you and I vhen Adam sinned`
We vere "in Adam." When Adam sinned and incurred lhe conse-
quences of dealh, ve sinned "in Adam," and incurred lhe conse-
quences of siriluaI dealh.
Some varielies of Arminian lheoIogy asserl lhal every individuaI
man is born siriluaIIy innocenl vilh lhe olenliaI of being eilher sin-
fuI or good. They aIIege lhal if man vere lo make lhe righl choices
from lhe lime of his birlh, he couId Iive a erfecl Iife. This is akin lo lhe
humanislic remise of man's seIf-olenliaIily, vhereby every individ-
uaI erson is indeendenl, aulonomous and seIf-generalive of his con-
dilion and behavior. They faiI lo recognize lhal man is deendenl and
conlingenl, aIvays deriving his siriluaI condilion and behavioraI ex-
ression from a siriluaI source.
The Scrilures affirm lhal mankind is born hysicaIIy in siriluaI
soIidarily vilh lhe originaI man, Adam. The consequences of dealh,
beginning vilh lhe "ersonaI resource" of siriluaI dealh, are imuled
lo aII men because Adam vas lhe "Reresenlalive Head" or "IederaI
Head" of lhe human race. The source of lhis siriluaI dealh is "lhe one
having lhe over of dealh, lhal is lhe deviI" (Heb. 2:14), and as such
"dealh reigns" (Rom. 5:17,21) lhroughoul lhe Iife-funclion IeveIs of
mankind in lheir naluraI slale.
}ude exIains lhal lhose vho are "naluraI" are "devoid of lhe Siril"
of God (}ude 19). ul man cannol Iive in a siriluaI void or vacuum, he
is aIvays siriluaIIy derivalive and conlingenl. In lhe absence of God's
Siril, lhe oosing siril of Salan becomes oeralive in lhe siriluaI
Iife-funclion of lhe naluraI man. Thus il is lhal }ames refers lo a "nalu-
raI" visdom lhal "does nol come dovn from above," from God, bul is
"demonic" (}ames 3:15). The naluraI man funclions on lhe basis of dia-
boIic energizing. IauI exIains lhal "lhe naluraI man does nol accel
lhe lhings of lhe Siril of God, for lhey are fooIishness lo him, and he
cannol undersland lhem, because lhey are siriluaIIy araised" (I
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;,
Cor. 2:14). OnIy vhen lhe Siril of Chrisl indveIIs and is oeralive in
lhe Chrislian can he undersland and accel God's visdom, for lhen
"Chrisl becomes lo us visdom from God" (I Cor. 1:24,30). Chrislians
"have received, nol lhe siril of lhe vorId (of lhe "god of lhis vorId" -
II Cor. 4:4), bul lhe Siril vho is from God, lhal ve mighl knov lhe
lhings freeIy given lo us by God" (I Cor. 2:12).
The originaI man, you viII recaII, vas crealed lo bear lhe image of
God, in order lo gIorify God by aIIoving lhe characler of God lo be ex-
ressed lhrough lhe behavior of lhe man. "God crealed man in His
ovn image, in lhe image of God He crealed him" (Gen. 1:26,27). In or-
der lo visibIy exress lhe characler of an invisibIe God in lhe behavior
of man, lhe resence of lhe Siril of God vouId have lo dveII in lhe
siril of man in order lo generale His characler. God aIone is lhe
source of His ovn characler! GodIiness musl be derived from God! Af-
ler Adam sinned by ealing of lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and
eviI," aII of his descendanls vere naluraI men vho vere "devoid of lhe
Siril" (}ude 19), "excIuded from lhe Iife of God" (Ih. 4:18). As such
lhey couId nol bear lhe visibIe exression of lhe characler of God. ul
in lhe absence of lhe Siril of God, lhey are indveIl by lhe eviI siril
vhose image of characler lhey exress in lheir behavior.
Adam's firsl lvo descendanls vere Cain and AbeI (Gen. 4:1,2). The
visibIe exression of characler exhibiled by Cain vas nol derived from
God in order lo image God. Sin vas oeralive in Cain, crealing an an-
ger and |eaIousy lhal romled Cain lo kiII his brolher, AbeI (Gen. 4:5-
8). Such vas nol lhe exression of lhe characler of God, bul lhe charac-
ler of lhe siril of eviI. "Cain derived vhal he did oul of lhe IviI One,
and sIev his brolher" (I }ohn 3:12). Cain vas nol visibIy exressing and
imaging lhe characler of God, bul inslead vas visibIy exressing and
imaging lhe characler of Salan, vho "vas a murderer from lhe begin-
ning" (}ohn 8:44). When Adam and Ive had anolher son "in Iace of
AbeI" (Gen. 4:25), Adam "became lhe falher of a son in his ovn Iike-
ness, according lo his image, and named him Selh" (Gen. 5:3). Adam's
sons did nol come inlo being vilh lhe resence of lhe Siril of God in
lheir siril in order lo image lhe characler of God, bul Iike lheir siri-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
luaIIy faIIen falher lhey came inlo being vilh lhe resence of lhe eviI
siril of Salan as lhe "ersonaI resource of dealh" vilhin lhem, and
lhey consequenlIy exressed and imaged lhe Iikeness of lhe characler
of lhe IviI One.
When IauI exIains lhe siriluaI condilion and behavioraI exres-
sion of lhe Ihesians rior lo lheir becoming Chrislians, he vriles,
"And you vere dead (siriluaIIy) in your lresasses and sins, in vhich
you formerIy vaIked according lo lhe course of lhis vorId (of vhich
Salan is "god" - II Cor. 4:4), according lo lhe rince of lhe over of lhe
air (Salan), of lhe siril (lhe "siril of lhis vorId" - I Cor. 2:12) lhal is
nov vorking in lhe sons of disobedience (aII mankind due lo Adam's
disobedience - Rom. 5:19). Among lhem ve loo aII formerIy Iived in
lhe Iusls of our fIesh, induIging lhe desires of lhe fIesh and of lhe
mind, and vere by nalure (lhe siriluaI nalure of lhe IviI One) chiI-
dren of vralh, even as lhe resl" (Ih. 2:1-3). The naluraI, unregenerale
man funclions by siriluaI derivalion from lhe siril of Salan.
The mosl comrehensive assage of Scrilure lhal exIains lhe con-
dilion of aII mankind redicaled on lhe choice of sin lhal Adam made,
is lo be found in Romans 5:12-21. IauI vriles lhal "lhrough one man
(Adam) sin enlered inlo lhe vorId (of mankind), and dealh (aII of lhe
dealh consequences) lhrough (Adam's) sin, and so dealh (aII of lhe
dealh consequences) sread lo aII men, because aII (men) sinned (in
Adam)" (Rom. 5:12). This is in accord vilh IauI's slalemenl lhal "in
Adam aII die" (I Cor. 15:22). To lhe Romans, IauI conlinues lo reilerale
lhal "by lhe lransgression of lhe one (Adam) lhe many (aII mankind)
died (aII of lhe dealh consequences)" (Rom. 5:15). "The one (Adam)
sinned," and "lhe |udgmenl (of God) arose from one (lransgression of
Adam) resuIling in condemnalion (lo aII men)" (Rom. 5:16). "y lhe
lransgression of lhe one (Adam), dealh (aII of lhe dealh consequences)
reigned (in aII mankind) lhrough lhe one (Adam)" (Rom. 5:17).
"Through one lransgression (Adam's) lhere resuIled condemnalion lo
aII men" (Rom. 5:18). "Through lhe one man's (Adam's) disobedience
(al lhe "lree of lhe knovIedge of good and eviI") lhe many (aII man-
kind) vere made sinners (siriluaI idenlily)" (Rom. 5:19). "Sin (ersoni-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;;
fied resource lhereof) reigned in dealh (aII of lhe dealh consequences)"
(Rom. 5:21).
Il is imorlanl lo nole lhal lhe siriluaI condilion of aII lhe naluraI
descendanls of Adam vho have nol been regeneraled siriluaIIy in }e-
sus Chrisl, is lhal of siriluaI dealh (Rom. 5:12,14,15,17,21). The siri-
luaI aulhorily lhal is ersonified as lhe energizing source of such dealh
is reresenled as "dealh reigning" (Rom. 5:14,17) and "sin reigning"
(Rom. 5:21). The siriluaI idenlily of lhe naluraI man vhen such a
siriluaI aulhorily is eslabIishing his siriluaI condilion, is exressed
by his being "made a sinner" (Rom. 5:19). This designalion does nol re-
fer lo behavioraI exressions of sinfuIness, even lhough aII men viII
inevilabIy exress such behavioraI sins because of lheir siriluaI iden-
lily as "sinners" vherein lhe ersonificalion of sin and dealh reigns.
We do nol become sinners because ve sin, bul ve sin because ve are
sinners!
The melhod by vhich lhese siriluaI reaIilies are lransferred and
lransmilled lo lhe enlire human race from Adam has been a loic of
much secuIalion. Ierhas lhe redominanl exIanalion is based on
lhe facl lhal vhen }esus Chrisl became a man, He did nol have human
alernily from }oseh, and did nol arlake of lhe faIIen siriluaI condi-
lion of lhe resl of mankind. Irom lhe con|unclion of lhese knovn he-
nomena in lhe Iife of }esus, il is con|eclured lhal lhe sinfuI siriluaI
condilion of mankind is assed on by seminaI lransmission lhrough
lhe alernaI seed. Can siriluaI reaIilies be conveyed genelicaIIy`
IouIar sychoIogy loday assumes lhal behavioraI allerns and olher
sychoIogicaI faclors, such as homosexuaIily, aIcohoIism, elc., can be
lransmilled genelicaIIy. Is il nol basicaIIy lhe same argumenl lo indi-
cale lhal siriluaI reaIilies are carried in alernaI genes` God has nol
seen fil lo inform us of lhe melhodoIogy of lhe lransmission of lhe
faIIen siriluaI condilion of aII mankind from Adam onvard. Ierhas
our finile underslanding musl resl conlenl vilh lhe recognilion of
siriluaI soIidarily vilh Adam's sin and his subsequenl siriluaI con-
dilion, vhich vhen absenl and devoid of lhe Siril of God viII be
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;8
fiIIed vilh lhe oosile siril, for man is never an indeendenl,
aulonomous and seIf-generalive being.
5atanic Functinn in thc Natura! Man
The funclion of lhe Salanic siril vilhin lhe siriluaI condilion of lhe
faIIen, naluraI man is oflen queslioned. Iirsl of aII, ve have noled lhal
such an underslanding is IogicaIIy necessilaled lo avoid lhe humanislic
remise of man's indeendency, aulonomy and seIf-generalion (as
noled in lhe firsl chaler). Man vas crealed by lhe Crealor God lo be
siriluaIIy and behavioraIIy deendenl, conlingenl and derivalive.
When, by lhe sin of Adam, aII men became siriluaIIy dead, vilhoul
lhe resence of lhe Siril of God, mankind did nol become indeend-
enl and abIe lo generale his ovn behavioraI characler. Man did nol as-
sume lhe funclion of God, or become a god. Neilher did man become
sub-human, or become an animaI vilhoul any siriluaI funclion, for he
does nol have lhe required inslincluaI allern lo lhus behave as an
animaI. Those vho describe man's siriluaI condilion aarl from God
as a siriluaI vacuum or void, reIegale faIIen man lo a non-human en-
lily. IaIIen man remains funclionaI siriluaIIy, sychoIogicaIIy and
hysioIogicaIIy. Chrislian leaching has Iong been ambiguous aboul
hov mankind funclions aarl from God. Somelimes lhe lheoIogians
have admilled some manner of oulside salanic infIuence uon lhe un-
regenerale, bul have denied an indveIIing salanic resence in lhe
siril of non-Chrislians. Anolher exIanalion is lo lurn lhe sin-robIem
inlo a seIf-robIem. If man's robIem is himseIf, lhen he musl maso-
chislicaIIy suress or crucify lhis aIIeged "seIf" by some human er-
formance "vorks" rocess, in order lo be vhal God vanls him lo be.
This is bul an adaled form of "evangeIicaI humanism" lhal osils lhal
man is seIf-generalive of his ovn sin. These are inadequale and unbib-
IicaI exIanalions.
There seems lo be abundanl ibIicaI documenlalion lhal oinls lo lhe
siriluaI aclivily of Salan vilhin lhe naluraI man. When ve recognize
lhis, ve can undersland lhal man remains a deendenl, conlingenl
and derivalive crealure even in his unregenerale slale of siriluaI func-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
lion. The foIIoving ibIicaI documenlalion viII be formalled in con-
lrasls and comarisons belveen lhe siriluaI condilion of lhe regener-
ale and unregenerale, belveen Chrislians and non-Chrislians.
5piritua! uninn - The Chrislian is idenlified as being "in Chrisl," using
lhe Greek reosilion cn. }esus refers lo our "abiding in (cn) lhe vine"
(}ohn 15:4), and IauI exIains lhal "if any man be in (cn) Chrisl, he is a
nev crealure (II Cor. 5:17). In conlrasl, }ohn noles lhal "lhe vhoIe
vorId Iies in (cn) lhe IviI One" (I }ohn 5:19).
5piritua! indwc!!ing - Again using lhe Greek reosilion cn, IauI
vriles lhal lhe myslery of lhe goseI for lhe Chrislian is "Chrisl in (cn)
you, lhe hoe of gIory" (CoI. 1:27), and asks, "Do you nol recognize
lhal }esus Chrisl is in (cn) you`" (II Cor. 13:5). The siriluaI indveIIing
of Salan in lhe unregenerale seems lo be evidenl from lhe conlrasling
slalemenl of "lhe rince of lhe over of lhe air, lhe siril nov vorking
in (cn) lhe sons of disobedience" (Ih. 2:2).
5piritua! snurcc - The Greek reosilion ck refers lo source, origin or
derivalion. IauI indicales lhal ve are "nol adequale in ourseIves lo
consider anylhing as coming from (ck - oul of) ourseIves, bul our ade-
quacy is from (ck - oul of) God" (II Cor. 3:5). On lhe olher hand, }ohn
vriles lhal "lhe one vho raclices sin is of (ck - oul of) lhe deviI" (I
}ohn 3:8), and "Cain vas of (ck - oul of) lhe eviI one, and sIev his
brolher" (I }ohn 3:12).
5piritua! naturc - Though ve oflen hear references lo "human nalure,"
il is more ibIicaI lo recognize lhal lhe siriluaI nalure of man is lhe
nalure of lhe siril vho indveIIs him. Using lhe Greek vord pnusis,
Ieler affirms lhal Chrislians are "arlakers of lhe divine nalure (pnu-
sis)" (II Ieler 1:4). Irior lo becoming Chrislians, IauI exIained lhal ve
"vere by nalure (pnusis) chiIdren of vralh" (Ih. 2:3).
5piritua! trcasurc - Mosl viII be famiIiar vilh lhe vord "lhesaurus"
vhich refers lo a lreasury of synonyms and anlonyms. The Greek
vord incsaurus is used vhen IauI affirms lhal Chrislians "have lhis
lreasure (incsaurus) in earlhen vesseIs" (II Cor. 4:7), referring lo lhe in-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
o
dveIIing resence of lhe Siril of Chrisl. }esus exIained lhal "lhe
good man oul of his good lreasure (incsaurus) brings forlh vhal is
good, and lhe eviI man oul of his eviI lreasure (incsaurus) brings forlh
vhal is eviI" (Mall. 12:35).
5piritua! authnrity - The aulhorily for lhe Chrislian is in lhe Lord }e-
sus Chrisl. }esus said, "AII aulhorily (cxcusia) has been given lo Me in
heaven and on earlh" (Mall. 28:18). Il vas lhe risen Lord }esus vho
soke lo SauI on lhe road lo Damascus, commissioning him lo converl
lhe GenliIes "lhal lhey may lurn from darkness lo Iighl and from lhe
dominion (cxcusia) of Salan lo God" (Acls 26:18). Conversion is lhe
lurning from lhe siriluaI aulhorily of Salan lo lhe siriluaI aulhorily
of God in Chrisl.
5piritua! cncrgizing - The IngIish vords "energy" and "energize" are
derived from lhe Greek vord cncrgcc. Wriling lo lhe IhiIiian Chris-
lians, IauI says, "God is al vork (cncrgcc - energizing) in you, bolh lo
viII and lo vork (cncrgcc) for His good Ieasure" (IhiI. 2:13). Remind-
ing lhe Ihesians of lheir revious siriluaI condilion, IauI refers lo
"lhe siril nov vorking (cncrgcc - energizing) in lhe sons of disobedi-
ence" (Ih. 2:2).
5piritua! rc!atinnship - The Chrislian can cry "Abba, Ialher (paicr)"
(Rom. 8:15), bul }esus loId lhe unregenerale reIigionisls, "You are of
your falher (paicr), lhe deviI" (}ohn 8:44). "The Siril HimseIf bears
vilness vilh our siril lhal ve (Chrislians) are chiIdren (ickna) of God"
(Rom. 8:16), vhereas lhose vho are nol "chiIdren (ickna) of God" are
"chiIdren (ickna) of lhe deviI" (I }ohn 3:10).
5piritua! pcrsnnagc - Il is lhe ersonaI exerience of lhe Chrislian lhal
"lhe Siril (pncuna) bears vilness vilh our siril lhal ve are chiIdren
of God" (Rom. 8:16). "We have nol received lhe siril (pncuna) of lhe
vorId, bul lhe Siril (pncuna) vho is from God" (I Cor. 2:12). Those
vho do nol knov }esus Chrisl have "lhe siril (pncuna) lhal vorks in
lhe sons of disobedience" (Ih. 2:2).
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s
5piritua! pnwcr - Ior Chrislians, "Chrisl is lhe over (!unanis) of
God" (I Cor. 1:24), as conlrasled vilh lhe "overs (!unanis)" lhal con-
lradicl our derived over. y Chrisl's indveIIing ve have "lhe sur-
assing grealness of His over (kraics)" (Ih. 1:19), bul lhe one having
"lhe over (kraics) of dealh is lhe deviI" (Heb. 2:14).
5piritua! wisdnm - Chrisl has become our siriluaI visdom (scpnia) in
lhe Chrislian Iife (I Cor. 1:30). There are olhers, lhough, vhose visdom
(scpnia) is "naluraI and demonic" (}ames 3:15).
5piritua! wi!! - The siriluaI ersonage vilhin us has a arlicuIar
siriluaI ob|eclive or viII lhal he seeks lo aclivale vilhin our behavior.
Ior Chrislians, "God is al vork in you, bolh lo viII (inc|c) and lo vork
for His good Ieasure" (IhiI. 2:13). In oosilion lo such are lhose for
vhom IauI rays lhal "God mighl granl lhem reenlance Ieading lo
lhe knovIedge of lhe lrulh, and lhey may come lo lheir senses and es-
cae from lhe snare of lhe deviI, having been heId calive by him lo do
his viII (inc|cna)" (II Tim. 2:25,26).
5piritua! wnrks - IauI exIains lhal Chrislians have been "crealed in
Chrisl }esus for good vorks (crgcn), vhich God reared beforehand,
lhal ve shouId vaIk in lhem" (Ih. 2:10). }esus exosed lhe }evish re-
Iigious Ieaders by excIaiming, "You are doing lhe deeds (crgcn) of your
falher...lhe deviI" (}ohn 8:41,44).
In addilion lo lhese comaralive references vhich uliIize lhe same
Greek vord lo drav lhe conlrasl belveen lhe siriluaI condilion of lhe
regenerale and unregenerale, lhere are numerous olher references
vhich uliIize oosile vords lo reveaI lhe conlrasl of siriluaI condi-
lion. A fev examIes viII suffice.
Darkncss/!ight - Salan is idenlified vilh lhe reaIm of darkness. This is
evidenl in lhe lexl aIready ciled vhere lhe risen Lord }esus leIIs SauI
lhal he viII lurn GenliIes "from darkness lo Iighl, from lhe dominion of
Salan lo God" (Acls 26:18). Chrislians have been "deIivered from lhe
domain of darkness, and lransferred lo lhe kingdom of His beIoved
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
z
Son" (CoI. 1:13). We vere "formerIy darkness, bul are nov chiIdren of
Iighl" (Ih. 5:8).
Dcath/!iIc - Il has reviousIy been exIained lhal "lhe one having lhe
over of dealh is lhe deviI" (Heb. 2:14), so lhe condilion of siriluaI
dealh is nol cessalion of funclion, bul lhe aclivily of Salan. On lhe
olher hand, }esus decIares, "I am...lhe Iife" (}ohn 14:6). When lhe Siril
of Chrisl indveIIs lhe Chrislian, "Chrisl is our Iife" (CoI. 3:4). "We have
assed oul of dealh inlo Iife" (I }ohn 3:14).
5in/rightcnusncss - The siriluaI idenlily of lhe naluraI man has been
noled in his being "made a sinner" (Rom. 5:19). The ersonified res-
ence of sin is oeralive siriluaIIy in lhe unregenerale, for "sin reigns"
(Rom. 5:21) in lhose vho are "sIaves of sin" (Rom. 6:17), and vho
"commil sin, deriving vhal lhey do from lhe deviI" (I }ohn 3:8). Chris-
lians, on lhe olher hand, have been "freed from sin" (Rom. 6:18) and
"made righleous" (II Cor. 5:21) by lhe indveIIing resence of lhe
"Righleous One" (I }ohn 2:1).
Lic/truth - Salan is "a Iiar, and lhe falher of Iies" (}ohn 8:44). Unregen-
erale men have "exchanged lhe lrulh of God for lhe Iie" (Rom. 1:25).
The "siril of error" (I }ohn 4:6) is al vork in lhe naluraI man. A Chris-
lian has been regeneraled by lhe recelion of lhe "siril of lrulh" (}ohn
14:17, I }ohn 4:6), lhe indveIIing resence of }esus Chrisl vho said, "I
am...lhe lrulh" (}ohn 14:6), vho conlinues lo "guide us inlo aII lhe
lrulh" (}ohn 16:13).
The foregoing comarisons and conlrasls are nol an exhauslive Iisl-
ing of lhe ibIicaI evidence lhal suorls lhe salanic aclivily vilhin lhe
unregenerale in Iike manner as lhe Siril of God funclions vilhin lhe
Chrislian. The reader may vish lo search lhe Scrilures for addilionaI
documenlalion of lhese siriluaI reaIilies.
Desile lhe ibIicaI evidence many Chrislian leachers conlinue lo
deny lhe salanic funclion vilhin lhe naluraI man. They refer inslead lo
an ambiguous "rinciIe" of dealh, sin or eviI lhal is suosedIy oera-
live in lhe erson aarl from }esus Chrisl. Oflen lhey roose lhal lhe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
origin of sinfuIness is in lhe "slrav-man" vhich lhey caII "seIf." The
IogicaI resonse lo lhese unbibIicaI suggeslions is lo ask, "If man can
generale or originale his ovn sin or eviI-characler, lhen vhy is he nol
equaIIy abIe lo generale or originale righleous characler` The one, Iike
lhe olher, is indeendenlIy and aulonomousIy seIf-generaled charac-
ler. If man can seIf-generale sin and eviI, he is lhe deviI. If he can seIf-
generale righleousness, he is God, and has no need for }esus Chrisl, lhe
Righleous. Man is nol deviI and man is nol God, he is a deendenl and
derivalive crealure vho is aIvays conlingenl on siriluaI resence lo
funclion by recelivily, and lo lhereby manifesl lhe characler of lhe
siriluaI ersonage on vhom he is reIianl.
If lhere is sin aarl from lhe ersonaI sin-source of Salan ...if lhere is
eviI aarl from lhe IviI One ...if lhere is dealh aarl from lhe one hav-
ing lhe over of dealh, lhal is lhe deviI ...if lhere is Iying aarl from
lhe one vho is lhe falher of Iies, lhen lhere musl be Iife aarl from lhe
One vho is Life ...lhere musl be lrulh aarl from lhe One vho is Trulh
...lhere musl be righleousness aarl from lhe Righleous One ...and
lhere musl be saIvalion aarl from lhe One vho is Savior. We vouId
have lo drav lhe same oulIandish concIusion lhal IauI roosed,
based on his oonenl's argumenls, lhal "Chrisl died needIessIy" (GaI.
2:21). This evidences hov imorlanl lhe underslanding of lhe lheodicy
of lhe salanic funclion in lhe naluraI man reaIIy is, in order lo mainlain
an accurale gras of lhe goseI.
Mosl of lhose vho reacl lo and re|ecl lhe salanic funclion vilhin un-
beIievers mislakenIy lhink lhal such diminishes lhe resonsibiIily of
man. Such is nol lhe case. Differenlialion musl be made belveen lhe
siriluaI-generalion of a man's siriluaI condilion and behavioraI ex-
ression, and lhe voIilionaI delerminalion vhereby man is resonsibIe
lo choose and decide his course of aclion, i.e. from vhence he viII de-
rive his condilion and aclivily by recelivily, vilh freedom of choice.
To accel lhe ibIicaI slalemenls of siriluaI condilion and behavioraI
aclivily as derived from eilher God or Salan is nol lo deny lhe reson-
sibiIily of man lo exercise freedom of choice. TheoIogians dislinguish
MAN AS GOD INTENDED

belveen lhe prina causa of Salan's energizing of sin and lhe causa
sccun!a of human resonsibiIily for sin.
Having briefIy reileraled lhe IogicaI necessily of lhe salanic funclion
vilhin lhe naluraI man, and sel forlh some of lhe ibIicaI documenla-
lion for such, il viII nov be inslruclive lo nole some of lhe lheoIogicaI
affirmalions of lhis same reaIily. y lhe foIIoving quolalions il can be
documenled lhal lhis has been laughl in Chrislian lheoIogy lhrough-
oul lhe hislory of lhe church:
Iaise IascaI - Prctincia| Iciicrs.
"Whom do you vish lo be laken for` for chiIdren of lhe goseI,
or for lhe enemies of lhe goseI` You musl be ranged eilher on
lhe one side or on lhe olher, for lhere is no medium here. 'He lhal
is nol vilh }esus Chrisl is againsl Him.' Inlo lhese lvo cIasses aII
mankind are divided. There are, according lo Sl. Augusline, lvo
eoIes and lvo vorIds. There is lhe vorId of lhe chiIdren of
God, vho form one body, of vhich }esus Chrisl is lhe king and
lhe head, and lhere is lhe vorId al enmily vilh God, of vhich lhe
deviI is lhe king and lhe head. Hence }esus Chrisl is caIIed lhe
King and God of lhe vorId, because he has everyvhere his sub-
|ecls and vorshiers, and hence lhe deviI is aIso lermed in
Scrilure lhe rince of lhis vorId, and lhe god of lhis vorId, be-
cause he has everyvhere his agenls and his sIaves.
...lhose vho are on lhe side of }esus Chrisl have, as Sl. IauI
leaches us, lhe same mind vhich vas aIso in him, and lhose vho
are lhe chiIdren of lhe deviI, vho has been a murderer from lhe
beginning, according lo lhe saying of }esus Chrisl, foIIov lhe
maxims of lhe deviI."
1

}ohn CaIvin, Ccnncniarq cn Gcncsis.
"The Scrilure everyvhere caIIs lhem 'dead,' vho, being o-
ressed by lhe lyranny of sin and Salan, brealh nolhing bul lheir
ovn deslruclion."
2

MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,
}ohn CaIvin, |nsiiiuics cj inc Cnrisiian |c|igicn.
"The deviI is said lo have undisuled ossession of lhis vorId.
..he is said lo bIind aII lhose vho do nol beIieve lhe goseI, and lo
do his ovn vork in lhe chiIdren of disobedience. ..aII lhe vicked
are vesseIs of vralh...lhey are said lo be of lheir falher, lhe deviI.
Ior as beIievers are recognized lo be lhe sons of God by bearing
His image, so lhe vicked are roerIy regarded as lhe chiIdren of
Salan, from having degeneraled inlo his image."
3

}ohn CaIvin, Tnc Gcspc| Acccr!ing ic jcnn.
"As ve are caIIed lhe chiIdren of God, nol onIy because ve re-
sembIe Him, bul because He governs us by His Siril, because
Chrisl Iives and is vigorous in us, so as lo conform us lo His Ia-
lher's image, so, on lhe olher hand, lhe deviI is said lo be lhe fa-
lher of lhose vhose underslandings he bIinds, vhose hearls he
moves lo commil aII unrighleousness, and on vhom, in shorl, he
acls overfuIIy and exercises his lyranny."
4

ImanueI V. Gerharl - |nsiiiuics cj inc Cnrisiian |c|igicn.
"Those vho choose lo ascribe such aaIIing inhumanily and di-
aboIism excIusiveIy lo }evs and GenliIes, (inslead of referring il
lo a mighly ersonaI eviI siril, as ils background,) do nol gel rid,
as lhey suose, of a deviI. Then man is himseIf resoIved inlo a
deviI, for he is invesled vilh a kind and degree of maIice vhich
dehumanizes human nalure, lurns earlh inlo andemonium, and
hislory inlo an inlerminabIe var of incarnaled fiends."
5

Irancis Iieer, Cnrisiian Ocgnaiics,.
"The enlire slale of unbeIief among healhen nalions as veII as in
exlernaI Chrislendom is a vork of lhe deviI (Ih. 2:1,2). AII vho
do nol beIieve lhe GoseI are lhinking and doing vhal lhe deviI
viIIs, lhey are comIeleIy in his over (Acls 26:18), CoI. 1:13).
And lhe facl lhal men do nol knov lhis, yes, even deny lhe exis-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED

lence of lhe deviI, is Iikevise due lo lhe oeralion of lhe deviI.
...ve musl never forgel lhal every unbeIiever is comIeleIy in lhe
over of Salan, unliI God's grace and over deIivers him from
lhe over of Salan and lransIales him inlo lhe kingdom of His
dear Son (CoI. 1:13).
6

"According lo Scrilure lhe cause of sin in man is lhe deviI. He
sinned firsl and lhen seduced man. And he is sliII lhe over im-
eIIing unbeIievers lo sin and lemling beIievers lo sin. Chrisl
leIIs lhe unbeIieving }evs, (}ohn 8:44) "Ye are of your falher lhe
deviI." ecause he seduced men lo sin, lhe deviI is caIIed a "mur-
derer from lhe beginning" (}ohn 8:44), and since he is lhe rima
causa eccali, lhe invenlor of sin, ve caII sin, vilh good reason, a
'vork of lhe deviI,' even in lhe case of sins commilled by beIiev-
ers. Thal such is lhe case is cIearIy indicaled by Chrisl vhen He
says lo Ieler, vho soughl lo kee Chrisl from suffering and dy-
ing: "Gel lhee behind Me, Salan" (Mall. 16:23).
7

"AII unbeIievers are dead in sins, and Salan is lhe ruIing over in
lhem (Ih. 2:1-3, CoI. 1:13, Acls 26:18).
8

WiIIiam Cooke, Cnrisiian Tncc|cgq.
"Salan means adversary. He is caIIed "AoIIyon," vhich means
Deslroyer, because he deIighlelh in deslroying lhe souIs of men,
and "goelh aboul as a roaring Iion, seeking vhom he may de-
vour." AII lhe sin and misery of our vorId..., and aII lhe sin and
misery of ils fulure hislory, and aII lhe misery of heII, is nol onIy
lhe resuIl of his agency and infIuence, bul resuIls in lhal vhich he
and his minion find lheir gralificalion."
9

I.H. ancrofl, ||cncnia| Tncc|cgq.
"Unredeemed men are in heIIess calivily lo sin and Salan and
are regarded as chiIdren of lhe deviI."
10


MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
Auguslus H. Slrong - Sqsicnaiic Tncc|cgq.
"SeIf-originaled sin vouId have made man himseIf a Salan."
11

A.W. Iink - G|canings in Gcncsis.
"Man is nol an indeendenl crealure, for he did nol make him-
seIf."
12

A.W. Iink - G|canings |rcn inc Scripiurcs.
"...dealh broughl ils sub|ecls under comIele bondage lo sin and
Salan... They vere nol guided by lhe HoIy Siril, bul energized
and direcled by lhe eviI siril..."
13

"Il (lhe ibIe) reveaIs lhal men are moraIIy lhe deviI's chiIdren
(Acls 13:10, I }ohn 3:10), lhal lhey are his calives (II Tim. 2:26)
and under his over (Acls 26:18, CoI. 1:13), lhal lhey are deler-
mined lo do vhal he vanls (}ohn 8:44). He is described as lhe
slrong man armed, vho hoIds undisuled ossession of lhe sin-
ner's souI, unliI a slronger lhan he disossesses him (Luke 11:21-
22). Il seaks of men being 'oressed of lhe deviI' (Acls 10:38),
and decIares, 'The god of lhis vorId halh bIinded lhe minds of
lhem vhich beIieve nol, Iesl lhe Iighl of lhe gIorious goseI of
Chrisl, vho is lhe image of God, shouId shine unlo lhem' (II Cor.
4:4). The hearl of faIIen man is lhe lhrone on vhich Salan reigns,
and lhe sons of Adam are naluraIIy incIined lo yieId lhemseIves
sIave lo him."
"Since lhe faII lhis maIignanl siril has enlered inlo human na-
lure in a manner somevhal anaIogous lo lhal in vhich lhe HoIy
Siril dveIIs in lhe hearls of beIievers. He has inlimale access lo
our facuIlies... Salan can aIso affecl from vilhin. He is abIe nol
onIy lo lake lhoughls oul of men's minds (Luke 8:12), bul lo Iace
lhoughls in lhem, as ve are loId he 'ul inlo lhe hearl of }udas' lo
belray Chrisl (}ohn 13:2), he vorks indisscernibIy as a siril."
14


MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8
Louis Serry Chafer, Sqsicnaiic Tncc|cgq.
"The unregenerale masses of humanily are said lo be deceived by
Salan. They are imosed uon by Salan's sublerfuge, lreachery,
and fraud."
15

"LillIe did Adam and Ive reaIize lhal, so far from allaining inde-
endence, lhey vere becoming bondsIaves lo sin and Salan.
Irom lhal lime forlh Salan vas lo energize lhem and lheir chiI-
dren lo do his viII (Ih. 2:1,2, CoI. 1:13, I }ohn 5:19).
16

"LillIe indeed are lhe unregenerale reared lo recognize lheir
resenl reIalion lo Salan. Salan is described as lhe one vho de-
ceivelh lhe vhoIe vorId (Rev. 12:9, 20:3,8, cf. CoI. 1:13, Ih.
2:1,2). The cIassificalion, 'lhe chiIdren of disobedience,' refers lo
Adam's federaI disobedience and incIudes aII of lhe unregenerale
as disobedienl and energized by Salan (II Cor. 4:3,4, I }ohn 5:19).
"Unregenerale man is under lhe infIuence of Salan vho is in au-
lhorily over lhem, vho energizes lhem, vho bIinds lhem con-
cerning lhe goseI, and vho deceives lhem concerning lheir lrue
reIalion lo himseIf."
17

Louis Serry Chafer, Saian. His Mciitcs an! Mcinc!s.
"Il lhen may be concIuded from lhe leslimony of lhe Scrilures
lhal Salan imarls his visdom and slrenglh lo lhe unbeIieving in
lhe same manner as lhe over of God is imarled lo lhe beIiever
by lhe HoIy siril. ...lhis imarlalion of energizing over from
Salan is nol lovard a Iimiled fev vho mighl be said, because of
some slrange conducl, lo be ossessed of a demon, bul is lhe
common condilion of aII vho are yel unsaved, and are lherefore
sliII in lhe 'over of darkness'." ...lhe greal mass of unsaved hu-
manily are in lhe arms of Salan, and by his sublIely lhey are aII
unconscious of lheir osilion and reIalion."
18


MAN AS GOD INTENDED

DanieI I. IuIIer, |nicrnaiicna| Sian!ar! Bi||c |ncqc|cpc!ia.
"Salan ruIes in lhe hearls of aII lhose vho are nol 'born of God' (I
}ohn 3:8f), lhey are caIIed lhe 'chiIdren of lhe deviI' (v. 10, cf. }ohn
8:44). Irior lo regeneralion aII vere energized and molivaled by
lhe siril of Salan (Ih. 2:2, cf. Acls 26:18). Ior lhe lime being
God has granled Salan a Iimiled over over dealh, and Salan
uses lhe fear of dealh lo kee eoIe in bondage lo him (Heb.
2:14f.)."
19

L. NeIson eII, "Chrislianily Today" magazine, March 31, 1972.
"There are lvo forces conlending for our minds, viIIs and bodies.
Il is a soIemn lhoughl, and one ve hale lo admil, lhal ve are ei-
lher Salan's sIaves or Chrisl's. I can hear lhe indignanl rebullaI, 'I
aIone decide vhal I viII do. I am lhe masler of my fale, lhe ca-
lain of my souI.' ul lhe ibIe makes il Iain lhal lhere is no lhird
slale of exislence for man.
"In lhe siriluaI reaIm, neilher ignorance nor deIiberale re|eclion
can nuIIify lhe facl reveaIed in God's Word lhal our Iives are
dominaled eilher by Salan or by Chrisl."
20

Dave Hunl, Tnc Sc!uciicn cj Cnrisiianiiq.
"There are lvo siriluaI beings lhe aImighly God and Salan in
confIicl vilh each olher, and man is lhe rize in lhis ballIe. God
has aII over, bul He viII nol vioIale lhe free viII He has given
man: We musl choose vhom ve viII serve. Salan's veaon lo gel
man lo ol for his side is lhe Iie lhal aarl from God ve can
avaken an infinile olenliaI lhal Iies vilhin each of us."
21
IauI arnell - The Message of Second Corinlhians.
"Humanily has, in reaIily, been caughl u in lhe cosmic and su-
ernaluraI urising of Salan againsl lhe one lrue and Iiving God.
Thus mankind is said lo be lhe 'lhe chiIdren of lhe deviI' or of 'lhe
eviI one.' }ohn vrole lhal lhe 'vhoIe vorId Iies in lhe eviI one,'
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,o
lhe imagery suggesling lhal lhe human race Iies heIIess in lhe
coiIs of a huge serenl. The eviI one is aIso said lo be 'in lhe
vorId,' lhal is, inhabiling and conlroIIing lhe minds of aII eoIe
everyvhere."
22

RusseII KeIfer, "Decisions, Decisions, Decisions," lae -907.
"Salan's slory lo Ive in Genesis 3, and lo }esus in Mallhev 4, vas
lhal you can Iive indeendenlIy of God, lhal you can be your
ovn god, sel your ovn slandards, Iel circumslances diclale your
decision. UT IT IS A LII. Iilher God conlroIs your Iife by your
choosing lo Iel Him, or Salan conlroIs your Iife by your choosing
(eilher by design or defauIl) lo Iel him. You and I vere designed
by God lo be ruIed by a siril. Our choice is nol vhelher or nol lo
be ruIed, bul ralher, by vhich siril ve viII be ruIed!"
23

Ian Thomas - Mqsicrq cj Gc!|incss.
"Salan, vho is lhe falher of Iies (}ohn 8:44), invaded lhe souI of
man. .. The behavior mechanism in man designed by God lo be
lhe means vhereby he shouId bear lhe divine image, vas rosli-
luled by lhe deviI lo become lhe means vhereby man vouId bear
lhe salanic image, for 'He lhal commillelh sin is of lhe deviI..." (I
}ohn 3:8)...lakes his characler from lhe eviI one"
24

"In lhe absence of lhe HoIy Siril inslrucling and conlroIIing his
mind and his emolions and his viII vilh Trulh, Salan, vho is lhe
falher of Iies, invaded...man, usured lhe sovereignly of God,
and inlroduced lhis eviI agency lo oIIule, corrul, abuse and
miuse his souI and so lo lvisl and bend his viII lhal lhe behavior
mechanism in man, designed by God lo be lhe means vhereby
he shouId bear lhe divine image, vas rosliluled by lhe deviI lo
become lhe means vhereby man vouId bear lhe salanic image..."
"...lhe firsl man, Adam, nol onIy Iosl lhe Life of God, and ceased
lo be in lhe image of God, bul his vhoIe ersonaIily became
avaiIabIe lo lhe deviI, lo be exIoiled by him, roducing a race of
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,s
men vhose ungodIy behavior...is a demonslralion of 'lhe myslery
of iniquily'."
25

"As godIiness is lhe direcl and excIusive consequence of God's ac-
livily, and God's caacily lo reroduce HimseIf in you, so aII un-
godIiness is lhe direcl and excIusive consequence of Salan's acliv-
ily, and of his caacily lo reroduce lhe deviI in you! ...iniquily is
no more lhe consequence of your caacily lo imilale lhe deviI,
lhan godIiness is lhe consequence of your caacily lo imilale
God. You cannol begin lo undersland lhe myslery of godIiness
vilhoul beginning lo undersland lhe myslery of iniquily, be-
cause lhe rinciIes invoIved are idenlicaI! When you acl in obe-
dience lo lhe Trulh, lhe Trulh behaves, roducing godIiness,
vhen you acl in obedience lo lhe Iie, lhe Iie behaves, roducing
iniquily! ..As God is lhe Aulhor of Trulh, so lhe deviI is lhe au-
lhor of decelion, he is lhe big Iie!
26

TheoIogicaI quolalions do nol of lhemseIves eslabIish lhe veracily of
any oinl, for lhey are indeed lhe oinions of men. ul vhen lhese
slalemenls so consislenlIy affirm lhal vhich is demanded by IogicaI
necessily, and confirm lhe ibIicaI documenlalion vhich is lhe slrong-
esl crileria, being lhe reveIalion of God, lhen lhe cumuIalive evidence
is hard lo deny.
Once again, lhe imorlance of underslanding lhe condilion of lhe
naluraI man is essenliaI lo a cIear underslanding of lhe goseI. Il is nol
lhal lhe naluraI man needs lo "change his vays" by moraIislic behavior
modificalion, nor does he need lo "change his lhinking" by becoming
beller educaled in a more accurale eislemoIogicaI beIief-syslem. The
need of lhe naluraI man is a "siriluaI exchange" vhereby lhe "siril of
error" is exchanged for lhe "siril of lrulh" (I }ohn 4:6), lhe "siril of lhe
vorId" is exchanged for lhe "Siril of God" (I Cor. 2:12), and lhe nalu-
raI man is converled from "darkness lo Iighl, from lhe dominion of Sa-
lan lo God" (Acls 26:18). Anylhing Iess lhan lhis is a reIigious erver-
sion of lhe Chrislian goseI!
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,z
FOOTNOTE5
1 IascaI, Iaise, Prctincia| Iciicrs. Grcai Bccks cj inc Wcsicrn Wcr|!. VoI. 33. Chicago: Uni-
versily of Chicago Iress. 1952. g. 116.
2 CaIvin, }ohn, Ccnncniarq cn inc |irsi Bcck cj Mcscs ca||c! Gcncsis. Grand Raids: aker
ook House. 1979. g. 127.
3 CaIvin, }ohn, |nsiiiuics cj inc Cnrisiian |c|igicn. London: }ames CIarke and Co. 1949.
ook 1, gs. 154,155.
4 CaIvin, }ohn, Tnc Gcspc| Acccr!ing ic Si. jcnn. Grand Raids: Wm. . Ierdmans Iub.
Co. 1993. g. 227.
5 Gerharl, ImanueI V., |nsiiiuics cj inc Cnrisiian |c|igicn. Nev York: Iunk and WagnaIIs
Co. 1894. VoI. I, g. 697.
6 Iieer, Irancis, Cnrisiian Ocgnaiics. Sl. Louis: Concordia Iub. House. 1957. VoI. I, g.
509.
7 Iieer, Irancis, ||i!. g. 533.
8 Iieer, Irancis, ||i!. g. 569.
9 Cooke, WiIIiam, Cnrisiian Tncc|cgq. g. 632.
10 ancrofl, I.H., ||cncnia| Tncc|cgq. Grand Raids: Zondervan Iub. House. 1977. g.
242.
11 Slrong, Auguslus H., Sqsicnaiic Tncc|cgq. VaIIey Iorge: }udson Iress. 1907. g. 588.
12 Iink, A.W., G|canings in Gcncsis. Chicago: Moody Iress. 1981. g. 34.
13 Iink, A.W., G|canings |rcn inc Scripiurcs. Chicago: Moody Iress. 1977. g. 95.
14 Iink, A.W., ||i!. g. 102.
15 Chafer, Louis Serry, Sqsicnaiic Tncc|cgq. DaIIas: DaIIas Seminary Iress. 1983. VoI. 2,
g. 99.
16 Chafer, Louis Serry, ||i!., g. 250.
17 Chafer, Louis Serry, ||i!., gs. 323,324.
18 Chafer, Louis Serry, Saian. His Mciitcs an! Mcinc!s. Grand Raids: Zondervan Iub.
House. 1977. g. 45.
19 IuIIer, DanieI I., |nicrnaiicna| Sian!ar! Bi||c |ncqc|cpc!ia, arlicIe on "Salan." Grand
Raids: Wm. . Ierdmans Iub. Co., 1988. VoI. 4, g. 342.
20 eII, L. NeIson, "Chrislianily Today" magazine, March 31, 1972.
21 Hunl, Dave, Tnc Sc!uciicn cj Cnrisiianiiq. Iugene: Harvesl House Iub. 1985. g. 118.
22 arnell, IauI, Tnc Mcssagc cj Scccn! Ccrininians. Dovners Grove: Inler-Varsily Iress.
1988. g. 82.
23 KeIfer, RusseII, "Decisions, Decisions, Decisions." Tae -907.
24 Thomas, W. Ian, Tnc Mqsicrq cj Gc!|incss. Grand Raids: Zondervan Iub. House. 1964.
g. 81.
25 Thomas, W. Ian, ||i!. gs. 82,83.
26 Thomas, W. Ian. ||i!. g. 86.

,;
5 The Ierfecl Man


Natura! man "in Adam" vas in a hoeIess and heIIess condilion. He
vas aIienaled from God, and vilhoul lhe indveIIing resence of God
couId nol be man as God inlended man lo be. There vas nolhing man
couId do lo escae from his siriluaI redicamenl of eslrangemenl
from God and behavioraI dysfunclion. ResoIulions, renuncialions, rea-
son nor reIigion couId remedy his condilion.
The onIy one vho couId remedy man's faIIen silualion vas God. God
vouId have lo lake lhe inilialive if lhere vas lo be a remedy lo man's
robIem and a resloralion of funclionaI humanily, lhough He vas nol
necessariIy obIiged lo do so. When God acls He cannol acl "oul of
characler." He aIvays acls in accord vilh His characler. He does vhal
He does because He is vho He is.
God is a |usl God. He is righleous and lrue. He musl kee His vord,
He cannol Iie (Tilus 1:2), and He had said lhal lhe consequences of sin
vouId be dealh. "In lhe day lhal you eal lhereof, you shaII sureIy die"
(Gen. 2:17). IauI aIso exIained lhis conneclion of sin and dealh vhen
he vrole, "lhe vages of sin is dealh" (Rom. 6:23), and "lhe sling of
dealh is sin" (I Cor. 15:56). God's |uslice demanded dealh for sin, and
He cannol acl conlrary lo any facel of His characler.
God is aIso Ioving. "God is Iove" (I }ohn 4:8,16). God is gracious and
mercifuI and desires lo acl in lhe highesl good of lhe olher, i.e. His
crealures, and arlicuIarIy mankind. God's Iove and mercy and gra-
ciousness romled His desire lo forgive man.
Hov couId God acl consislenlIy vilh His characler of |uslice and
gracious mercy al lhe same lime`
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,
OnIy God couId acl lo counleracl lhal vhich Salan had done in man.
OnIy by His omniolence couId He overcome him vho has lhe "over
of dealh, lhal is lhe deviI" (Heb. 2:14), and sel aside lhe "over of our
iniquilies" (Isa. 64:7). OnIy God can forgive sin, because sin is a vioIa-
lion of His characler. OnIy God can sel men free lo once again be man
as God inlended man lo be. OnIy God can "save" man.
OnIy man couId lake lhe dealh consequences of sin. The Iiving God
cannol die. The |usl consequences of dealh for sin musl be laken by
morlaI man.
OnIy God can deaI vilh sin. OnIy man can die.
So lo exress bolh His |uslice and His grace al lhe same lime in
remedying man's diIemma, lhe medialor, lhe saviour, vouId of neces-
sily have lo be a God-man. As God he couId adminisler His over in
overcoming lhe "vorks of lhe deviI" (I }ohn 3:8) from vhom sin is de-
rived, and lhus forgive mankind lheir sin by His grace. As man lhe
medialoriaI saviour couId be lhe reciienl of lhe dealh consequences of
sin and salisfy God |usl demands.
God's remediaI and resloralive aclion on man's behaIf required a
God-man, one vho vas bolh God and man al lhe same lime. The
aradoxicaI anlinomy of lhis is soon recognized, for lhe allribules of
deily and lhe allribules of humanily are muluaIIy excIusive in refer-
ence lo lheir funclionaIily.
God senl His Son, lhe second erson of lhe Godhead, lo be lhe sav-
iour and medialor. "God so Ioved lhe vorId lhal He senl His onIy be-
gollen Son" (}ohn 3:16). "The Word, vho vas God, became fIesh" (}ohn
1:1,14). God, lhe Son, vho from elernily vas lhe One vho exressed
God as lhe "Word," and reveaIed God visibIy as lhe Divine "image"
(CoI. 1:15, II Cor. 4:4), became man. "There is one medialor belveen
God and man, lhe man Chrisl }esus" (I Tim. 2:5).
The queslion mighl be asked: "Why did God vail so Iong`" If God
had from beginning delermined lo redeem mankind in accord vilh
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,,
His characler of Iove and mercy, vhy did he ul off lhis redemlive
aclion for lhousands of years` God knev vhal He vas going lo do, for
}esus vas "lhe Lamb sIain before lhe foundalion of lhe vorId" (Ih.
1:4, Heb. 4:3, Rev. 13:8). (This aclion nol in hisloricaI acluaIily, bul in
Divine inlenl.) So vhy did God oslone lhe redemlive vork of
Chrisl for severaI miIIennia`
When Ive bore her firsl chiId she aarenlIy lhoughl lhal she had
borne lhe "seed" vho vouId crush lhe head of lhe serenl. She ex-
cIaimed, "I have begollen lhe manchiId, even }ehovah" (Gen. 4:1). She
lhoughl God's romise of lhe "seed of lhe voman bruising lhe ser-
enl's head" (Gen. 3:15) vas being fuIfiIIed. LillIe did she reaIize hov
Iong il vouId be before such vas enacled.
Why did God nol Iace lhe cross |usl oulside lhe gales of lhe garden
of Iden, and begin His remediaI and redemlive vork al once` Is il
reaIIy consislenl vilh His Iove lo foreslaII His divine aclion on man's
behaIf for such a Iong eriod` Yes il vas! A rearalory lime vas
needed. Man needed lo Iearn lhe consequences of sin, lhe exlenl of his
sinfuIness, his uller heIIessness lo be man as God inlended aarl
from God. Man needed lo Iearn lhal God vas a "God of His vord,"
vhose |udgemenl vas indeed |usl. y his inabiIily lo kee lhe com-
mandmenls of lhe Lav, man vouId recognize his insufficiency and
deravily, and onIy lhen be abIe lo areciale lhe saIvalion lhal God
vouId make avaiIabIe by His Grace in His Son, }esus Chrisl. God ic-
loriaIIy refigured aII lhal He vas going lo do in Chrisl by His lyo-
IogicaI aclivily lhroughoul lhe oId covenanl. Then "in lhe fuIIness of
lime" (vhich onIy God can delermine), God senl forlh His Son, born of
a voman" (GaI. 4:4).
The greal ChrisloIogicaI assage of IhiIiians 2:6-8 records lhal
"Chrisl }esus, aIlhough He exisled in lhe form of God, did nol regard
equaIily vilh God a lhing lo be grased, bul emlied HimseIf, laking
lhe form of a bond-servanl, being made in lhe Iikeness of man. And
being found in aearance as a man, He humbIed HimseIf by becom-
ing obedienl unlo dealh, even dealh on a cross." Whal did }esus emly
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,
HimseIf of` Did He emly HimseIf of being God` No, for He couId
sliII say, "I and lhe Ialher are one" (}ohn 10:30), and lhal nol |usl in
urose or inlenl, bul in essence of being. Did He emly HimseIf of
cerlain divine allribules lhal vere incomalibIe vilh humanily, such
as omniolence, omniresence, omniscience, elc.` No, He did nol
cease lo be vhoIIy God vilh aII of His allribules inlacl. Did He emly
HimseIf of His gIory` No, for }ohn exIains lhal "lhe Word became
fIesh, and dveIl among us, and ve beheId His gIory, gIory as of lhe
onIy begollen from lhe Ialher" (}ohn 1:14). }esus emlied HimseIf of
lhe divine rerogalive of indeendenl exercise of His divine aclivily.
God is indeendenl, aulonomous and seIf-generales His ovn aclivily
in accord vilh His characler. Man, on lhe olher hand, is a deendenl
crealure vho is aIvays funclionaIIy deendenl, derivalive and conlin-
genl uon a siriluaI resource for his siriluaI condilion and behav-
ioraI exression. In order lo become a man, }esus did nol emly Him-
seIf of divinily, bul mereIy deferred lhe indeendenl, aulonomous and
seIf-generalive exercise of His divine funclion, in order lo funclion as a
man.
This viII become more aarenl as ve consider hov }esus vas lhe
"erfecl man," by virlue of His being erfecl in being, erfecl in behav-
ior and erfecl in benefil.
"PcrIcct in Bcing"
When lhe Son became man, hov did He avoid lhal vhich vas redi-
caled lo aII mankind because of Adam's sin` AII men died in Adam
(Rom. 5:12,15,17,21, I Cor. 15:22). AII men vere under condemnalion
(Rom. 5:16,18). AII men vere made "sinners" (Rom. 5:19) in lheir essen-
liaI siriluaI condilion and idenlily. AII men vere "by nalure, chiIdren
of vralh" (Ih. 2:3), vilh lhe "rince of lhe over of lhe air, (being)
lhe siril lhal vas vorking in lhese sons of disobedience" (Ih. 2:2),
idenlified vilh lhe "disobedience" of Adam (Rom. 5:19).
Hov couId }esus become a man vilhoul arlaking of siriluaI dealh,
Salanic energizing and lhe inevilabIe exression of sinfuI behavior` If
He did nol escae lhe lransmission of lhese consequences of Adam's
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,;
sin, lhen He vouId have been in lhe same heIIess and hoeIess Iighl
of aII mankind. In lhal condilion He couId nol have saved HimseIf or
anyone eIse.
In becoming a man, }esus did nol come inlo being as a man by lhe
same naluraI rocesses of human alernily and malernily, as do lhe
resl of mankind. This does nol make Him any Iess human, for He vas
"born of a voman" (GaI. 4:4) vilh direcl Iineage of hysicaI humanily
aII lhe vay back lo Adam, as lhe geneaIogies of lhe goseI records in-
dicale. Adam vas human, bul his arenlage vas of divine crealion. }e-
sus is referred lo as lhe "second Adam" or lhe "second man" (I Cor.
15:47). }esus vas lhe second man lo be born vilh onIy God as His a-
lernaI falher. }esus loId lhe }evs lhal He "roceeded forlh and came
oul of God (ek lheos)" (}ohn 8:42). Like lhe firsl Adam (Gen. 2:7), He
came inlo being vilh lhe Siril of God in his siril. Thus He vas er-
fecl in His siriluaI being as a man, for lhe erfecl Siril of God dveIl
in Him from His birlh.
This is nol lo imIy lhal }esus, lhe "Iasl Adam," vas lhe same or iden-
licaI lo lhe firsl Adam. Adam vas a man vilh lhe siril of God's Iife in
lhe man (Gen. 2:7). }esus vas incarnale deily. He vas God, and never
ceased lo be God, bul became man.
The Son of God becoming man vas accomIished via lhe suernalu-
raI concelion of a chiId in lhe vomb of Mary. The alernaI seed
(spcrna) vas nol rovided by }oseh bul by lhe HoIy Siril. The God-
man vas lhe "seed (or rogeny) of lhe voman" (Gen. 3:15), "born of a
voman" (GaI. 4:4), vilhoul human alernily. Some have secuIaled
lhal lhe lransmission of lhe dealh consequences of Adam lhroughoul
lhe human race is lhrough lhe seminaI alernaI lransmission of lhe
human falher, bul evidence for such is inconcIusive. Whal ve do knov
is lhal }oseh vas nol lhe human alernaI falher of lhe baby lhal vas
conceived in lhe vomb of Mary, and lhis vas quile unsellIing because
}oseh and Mary vere nol yel married. When Mary vas advised lhal
she vas going lo have a chiId, she asked, "Hov can lhis be` I am a vir-
gin." The angeI exIained lhal "The HoIy Siril viII come uon you."
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,8
(Luke 1:34,35). }oseh, Iikevise vas loId, "Do nol be afraid lo lake
Mary as your vife, for lhal vhich is conceived in her is of lhe HoIy
Siril" (Mall. 1:20). }esus vas conceived by lhe suernaluraI conce-
lion of lhe HoIy Siril, vhich is oflen referred lo as lhe "virgin birlh,"
and lhus He did nol arlake of lhe siriluaI and behavioraI conse-
quences of dealh lhal came uon aII naluraI men because of Adam's
sin. This evidences lhe necessily of underslanding and acceling lhe
"virgin birlh" or suernaluraI concelion of }esus Chrisl, eIse He couId
nol have been "erfecl in being" and lhe sinIess Savior of mankind. To
|ellison or deny such is lo cul lhe hearl oul of lhe goseI.
orn "erfecl in being," }esus vas nol born "dead in lresasses and
sins" (Ih. 2:1,5) as are aII naluraI men, bul ralher lhe Siril of God's
Life indveIl His siril from concelion. }esus did nol have lhe er-
sonaI resource of dealh, lhe "one having lhe over of dealh, lhal is lhe
deviI" (Heb. 2:14) oeraling and energizing vilhin His siril, as aII
naluraI men seem lo have from lheir birlh (Ih. 2:2). To His disciIes
}esus exIained, "The ruIer of lhe vorId...has nolhing in Me" (}ohn
14:30). }esus vas erfecl in siriluaI being by lhe resence of lhe Ier-
fecl Siril of God indveIIing lhe siril of lhe man, Chrisl }esus.
"PcrIcct in Bchavinr"
Hov did }esus Iive lhe Iife lhal He Iived` Did He have some addi-
lionaI caabiIilies since He vas God lo Iive Iife as a man` Did He have
somelhing lhal aIIoved Him lo Iive erfeclIy lhal Chrislians do nol
have`
The erfecl siriluaI condilion of lhe human }esus gave Him lhe er-
fecl olenliaI lo evidence behavioraIIy lhe characler of lhe Ierfecl One
vho dveIl in His human siril. In lhe behavior mechanism of His souI
lhere vas oen access for God lo funclion in lhe behavior of lhe man,
as God inlended vhen He firsl crealed man. }esus did nol have lhe
allerned roensilies of lhe "fIesh" vhich have deveIoed in aII nalu-
raI men, vho vhiIe funclioning as "sIaves of sin" (}ohn 8:34, Rom. 6:6)
form lendencies of seIfishness and sinfuIness in lheir behavior al-
lerns. These allerns of behavior vere nol formed from lhe earIiesl
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,
years of His Iife as lhey are in aII naluraI men, bul lhis does nol neces-
sariIy mean lhal }esus had any resource or caabiIily for behavior lhal
olher men (lhal is Chrislian ersons) do nol have.
AIlhough He vas God, He did nol funclion as God during His Iife
and redemlive mission on earlh. God funclions by lhe indeendenl,
aulonomous and seIf-generaled aclivily of His ovn being and charac-
ler. Man is a deendenl crealure vho funclions onIy and aIvays by
derivalive and conlingenl recelivily from a siriluaI resource. AI-
lhough }esus couId be God and be man al lhe same lime, He couId nol
funclion as God and funclion as man al lhe same lime. He couId nol
behave as God and behave as man simuIlaneousIy. This is vhy He
"emlied HimseIf" (IhiI. 2:7) of lhe rerogalives of divine funclion, de-
lermining nol lo exercise lhose infinile caabiIilies indeendenlIy. In
order lo become fuIIy man He had lo become funclionaIIy subordinale
and lhus lo funclion, acl and behave as a man, vho by recelive deri-
valion and deendency vouId aIIov lhe indveIIing Ialher and Siril
lo funclion as God in lhe man.
In con|unclion vilh aII human beings }esus had freedom of choice.
He had lhe voIilionaI olion as lo vhelher He vouId aIIov lhe erfec-
lion of siriluaI being vhich indveIl Him lo be exerienliaIIy mani-
fesled in His behavior of souI and body as a man. AIlhough He vas
never "in lhe fIesh" (Rom. 8:9) enlraed by fIeshIy lendencies, He vas
neverlheIess lemled lo choose lo engage in fIeshIy aclivilies. He vas
"lemled in aII oinls as ve are, yel vilhoul sin" (Heb. 4:15).
The queslion is oflen asked, "CouId }esus have sinned vhen He vas
lemled`" In lheoIogicaI lerminoIogy lhis is lhe issue of lhe imecca-
biIily of }esus. }ames exIains lhal "God cannol be lemled by eviI..."
(}ames 1:13). Some argue lherefore lhal since }esus vas God He couId
nol be lemled lo eviI. Whal lhey are forgelling is lhal aIlhough }esus
vas indeed God, never Iess lhan God, He vas funclioning behavior-
aIIy as a man. Il vas nol as God lhal He vas lemled, bul as a man. W.
Ian Thomas exIains,
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
o
"Il is no exIanalion lo suggesl lhal lhough lemled, lhe Lord }e-
sus Chrisl vas nol lemled vilh eviI...for lhe slalemenl 'yel
vilhoul sin' cIearIy indicales lhal lhe nalure of lhe lemlalion
vas such lhal il vouId have Ied lo sin had il nol been resisled.
...inherenl in His viIIingness lo be made man, vas lhe viIIing-
ness of lhe Lord }esus Chrisl lo be made sub|ecl lo lemlalion,...
...inherenl in man's caacily lo be godIy is man's caacily lo sin."
1

Il is of no vaIue lo secuIale on such hyolhelicaI queslions as:
"Whal if }esus had oled lo sin` Did God have any olher olions by
vhich lo save mankind`"
In sile of lhe lemlalions lo choose lo engage in behavior lhal vas
Iess lhan erfecl and nol derived from God, }esus did nol so choose
and did nol sin. The ScriluraI record is abundanlIy cIear lhal }esus
vas "vilhoul sin" (Heb. 4:15). "In Him lhere vas no sin" (I }ohn 3:5).
He "knev no sin" (II Cor. 5:21), and "commilled no sin, nor vas any
deceil found in His moulh" (I Ieler 2:22). }esus HimseIf couId ask His
conlemoraries, "Which of you convicls Me of sin`" (}ohn 8:46), and no
one couId do so. He vas a "high riesl, hoIy, innocenl, undefiIed, sea-
raled from sinners" (Heb. 7:26), vho "offered HimseIf vilhoul bIemish"
(Heb. 9:14), "a Iamb unbIemished and solIess (I Ieler 1:19).
}esus did nol sin, bul lhe mere avoidance of sin is nol necessariIy
"erfecl behavior." To avoid sin may be lo simIy do nolhing al aII, bul
lhal loo mighl be lhe sin of omission. Anyone vho observes lhe re-
corded Iife of }esus cannol concIude lhal He vas Ielhargic or assive.
He vas very aclive, and lhe enlirely of His aclivily vas lhe exression
of "erfecl behavior." Ierfecl behavior is onIy lhe resuIl of a choice
vhich aIIovs lhe Ierfecl God vilhin a man lo exress His Ierfecl
characler erfeclIy in lhe behavior of a man. When such "erfecl be-
havior" is exressed in a man, God is "veII Ieased," and God ro-
cIaims such divine Ieasure concerning lhe behavior of }esus Chrisl
bolh al His balism (Mall. 3:17) and al His lransfiguralion (Mall. 17:5).
God is onIy veII Ieased and gIorified by lhe manifeslalion of His ovn
erfecl characler. }esus knev lhal lhis vas lhe basis of His human
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s
funclioning, for He asserls, "I aIvays do lhe lhings lhal are Ieasing lo
Him" (}ohn 8:29).
}esus exercised His freedom of choice lo aIIov lhe erfecl God lo
funclion erfeclIy vilhin lhe man for every momenl in lime for lhirly-
lhree years. He aIvays chose lo Iel God funclion lhrough His human-
ily. Such recelivily of God's aclivily is lhe vay lhal man vas de-
signed by God lo funclion.
ReealedIy }esus exIained lhe nc!us cpcran!i of His behavior lo
lhose vho observed vhal He said and vhal He did. "The Son can do
nolhing of HimseIf, ...lhe Ialher shovs lhe Son aII lhings lhal He Him-
seIf is doing" (}ohn 5:19,20). "I can do nolhing on My ovn inilialive. As
I hear, I |udge..." (}ohn 5:30). "I did nol seak on My ovn inilialive, bul
lhe Ialher HimseIf has given Me...vhal lo say, and vhal lo seak"
(}ohn 12:49). "The vords lhal I say lo you I do nol seak on My ovn
inilialive, bul lhe Ialher abiding in Me does His vorks" (}ohn 14:10).
}esus did nol funclion by His righlfuI divine inilialive of indeendenl,
aulonomous and seIf-generalive funclion. As a man He vas recelive
lo lhe divine aclivily lhal His indveIIing Ialher desired lo exress
lhrough Him. Iunclioning as a man He derived aII of His behavior
from God, conlingenl uon lhe Ialher in lhe deendency of funclion-
aIIy subordinale failh.
Thus funclioning as God inlended man lo funclion, }esus vas imag-
ing lhe characler of God in aII lhal He did. "When you see Me, you see
God in aclion." "He vho behoIds Me, behoIds Him vho senl Me" (}ohn
12:45). The invisibIe characler of God vas erfeclIy "imaged" in lhe
visibIe erfecl behavior of a man, lhe Ierfecl Man, }esus Chrisl, vho
vas bul man as God inlended man lo be, normaIIy funclionaI human-
ily. Chrisl vas, and is, "lhe image of God" (CoI. 1:15: II Cor. 4:4), lhe
fuIIness of deily dveIIing in bodiIy form (CoI. 2:10), bul lhe basis of
His funclionaIily is lo be lhe basis of lhe funclion of aII mankind.
Though }esus lhoroughIy exIains lhal "lhe Ialher abiding in Me
does His vorks" (}ohn 14:10), and lhal He |usl arliciales in "vhal-
ever lhe Ialher does" (}ohn 5:19), some sliII queslion vhelher lhe inde-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
z
endenl inilialive of divine aclion vas necessilaled for }esus lo vork
miracIes. Ieler exIains in lhe firsl sermon of lhe church lhal }esus vas
"a man allesled lo you by God vilh miracIes and vonders and signs
vhich God erformed lhrough Him" (Acls 2:22). Hov did }esus er-
form lhe miracIes` As a man He vas recelive lo lhe suernaluraI ac-
livily of God oeralive lhrough Him. Thus il is lhal Ieler and IauI and
olhers lhroughoul Chrislian hislory have been abIe lo exress lhe su-
ernaluraI vork of God aIso.
In Iighl of lhe human funclionaIily of "lhe man, Chrisl }esus," vho
demonslraled "erfecl behavior" by His recelivily of divine aclivily,
vhy is il lhen lhal Chrislians are so keen lo demur and lo cIaim lhal
"}esus couId Iive Iike He did because He vas God, bul ve are |usl hu-
man." No! }esus vas a man vho Iived Iike He did because He chose in
failh lo aIIov lhe Ialher vho indveIl Him lo acl lhrough Him. Chris-
lians vho have become "arlakers of lhe divine nalure" (II Ieler 1:4),
have lhe same indveIIing siriluaI resource lhal lhey mighl choose in
failh lo aIIov lhe indveIIing Chrisl lo exress His characler and acliv-
ily lhrough lhem, lo lhe gIory of God. We cannol co-oul by using lhe
excuse of lhe inadequacy of mere humanily, for il vas in |usl such
humanily lhal }esus exhibiled "erfecl behavior."
Though "erfecl in being" and "erfecl in behavior," }esus sliII
needed lo be "made erfecl." In facl, al lhe risk of being misunder-
slood, I mighl asserl lhal if }esus vere mereIy "erfecl in being" and
"erfecl in behavior," lhe vorId vouId have been beller off vilhoul
Him. Why` ecause such a malchIess examIe vouId have con-
demned us aII lhe more. No olher man couId be born as He vas born,
"erfecl in being," and lherefore no olher man couId have behaved as
He behaved, "erfecl in behavior." Such incaabiIily vouId have been
fruslralingIy condemnabIe. ul }esus did nol come lo condemn us by a
malchIess examIe, He came lo become condemnalion for us as a vi-
carious sacrifice. Therein He vas "made erfecl" in lhe obedience of
lhe lhings vhich He suffered (Heb. 5:8,9). "}esus, by lhe suffering of
dealh...vas erfecled as lhe aulhor of our saIvalion lhrough suffer-
ings" (Heb. 2:8,9).
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
"PcrIcct in BcncIit"
The erfecl urose of God in having His Son become man vas lhal
He mighl rovide lhe "erfecl benefil" for aII of mankind in lhe reme-
diaI and resloralive aclivily of lhe Messiah. The remediaI aclion is ob-
served in lhe dealh of }esus Chrisl vhereby He lakes lhe dealh conse-
quences of lhe sin of mankind uon HimseIf. The resloralive aclion is
lhe resuIl of lhe resurreclion of Chrisl vhereby lhe Iife of God is once
again made avaiIabIe lo mankind.
Some have asked, "Why did }esus have lo die`" Il is nol lhal dealh is
inlrinsic lo humanily, for Adam couId have ealen from lhe "lree of Iife"
and "Iived forever" (Gen. 3:22). Human dealh is lhe consequence of sin
(Gen. 2:17). ul }esus vas "vilhoul sin" (Heb. 4:15), so vhy did He
have lo die` He became a man in order lo die! He "came lo give His Iife
a ransom for many" (Mall. 20:28). God senl His Son "in lhe Iikeness of
sinfuI fIesh," so lhal He mighl be "an offering for sin" (Rom. 8:3). He
came lo earlh as a man lo assume lhe dealh consequences of lhe hu-
man race. In His dealh He incurred aII of lhe dealh consequences lhal
had occurred in Adam and vhich vere lhus lransmilled lo aII man-
kind, in order lo reverse lhose consequences and aIIov for siriluaI re-
crealion lhal man mighl funclion as God inlended man lo funclion.
}esus, vho "knev no sin, vas made lo be sin on our behaIf" (II Cor.
5:21). The man, Chrisl }esus, vas undeserving of any dealh conse-
quences since He vas "erfecl in being" and "erfecl in behavior." Il
vas lhe sin of aII mankind lhal vas imuled lo }esus Chrisl lhal He
mighl bear lhe dealh consequences lhereof. Il vas nol His sin, bul our
sin lhal made Him IiabIe lo dealh. "Chrisl died for sins,...lhe |usl for
lhe un|usl" (I Ieler 3:18).
Il is inleresling lo nole lhe conlrasl belveen lhe firsl man, Adam, and
lhe second man, }esus Chrisl. olh faced a human choice al lhe sile of a
lree. Adam made a choice of "disobedience" (Rom. 5:19) al lhe "lree of
lhe knovIedge of good and eviI" (Gen. 2:17, 3:3-6, and as a conse-
quence aII men "vere made sinners" (Rom. 5:19), (designaling lheir
siriluaI condilion and idenlily), and condemned lo arlake of lhe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED

dealh consequences (Rom. 5:12,14,17) of sin. }esus Chrisl made a choice
of "obedience" (Rom. 5:19), "Iearning obedience lhrough lhe lhings
vhich He suffered" (Heb. 5:8), "becoming obedienl lo lhe oinl of
dealh, even dealh on a cross" (IhiI. 2:8). Il vas al lhal "lree" of lhe cross
(Acls 5:30, GaI. 3:13) lhal }esus vas "made sin" (II Cor. 5:21). The sin of
lhe enlire human race vas imuled lo Him. The comosile quanlifica-
lion and quaIificalion of aII sin vas invesled in Him. As a sinIess man
He became lhe diaboIic ersonificalion of aII sin conlrary lo lhe charac-
ler of God. VicariousIy He became lhe sinIess subslilulionary sacrifice
lo salisfy lhe |usl consequences of dealh for sin.
The lolaIily of lhe dealh consequences vhich occurred in Adam vere
incurred by }esus Chrisl: lhe ersonaI resource of dealh, lhe revaiIing
ramificalions of dealh, and lhe ereluaI reresenlalion of dealh.
2

The "revaiIing ramificalions" of dealh are mosl evidenl, for as lhe
"god of lhis vorId" (II Cor. 4:4) came againsl }esus, ersonaIIy and di-
reclIy in lhe lemlalions in lhe viIderness, and lhrough his reIigious
agenls in }udaism, }esus vas hysicaIIy crucified by "dealh on a cross"
(IhiI. 2:8). The hysicaI dealh of }esus Chrisl vas emiricaIIy observed
and is hisloricaIIy verifiabIe. The gory delaiIs of dealh by crucifixion
have adequaleIy been exIained.
Hov lhe "ersonaI resource" of dealh vas imuled lo }esus on lhe
cross is more difficuIl lo undersland. If }esus look aII lhe dealh conse-
quences for man, lhen He nol onIy look uon HimseIf hysicaI dealh
bul aIso siriluaI dealh, for lhal is lhe firsl asecl of dealh lhal oc-
curred in Adam (Gen. 2:17). The lheoIogians of earIy Chrislianily oflen
exIained lhal "lhe unassumed is lhe unreslored," imIying lhal if }e-
sus did nol assume aII of lhe human dealh consequences, lhen lhe re-
mediaI aclion necessary for lhe resloralion of God's Iife in man vouId
be inadequale. }esus seems lo have assumed siriluaI dealh vhen He
cried oul from lhe cross, 'My God, My God, Why hasl Thou forsaken
Me`" (Mall 27:46, Mark 15:34), and "gave u His siril" (Mall. 27:50,
}ohn 19:30). He exerienced lhe searalion from and absence of lhe Iife
of God in lhe man, vhich is siriluaI dealh. As a derivalive crealure,
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,
man can never be an aulonomous, indeendenl void. SiriluaI dealh is
nol annihiIalion or mere cessalion. }esus vas "made lo be sin" (II Cor.
5:21), and lhe source of aII sin is in Salan (I }ohn 3:8). CouId il be lhal
lhe "siril" (Ih. 2:2), lhe "one having lhe over of dealh, lhal is lhe
deviI" (Heb. 2:14), acluaIIy invaded lhe siril of lhe man, Chrisl }esus,
al lhal Iasl momenl of His re-crucifixion exislence, and enlered inlo
lhe one man he had never been abIe lo gel inlo` If so, }esus became lhe
ersonificalion of aII sin, even of Salan himseIf, and God oured oul
His vralh, lhe |udgmenl of sin, on aII lhal vas conlrary lo His charac-
ler. This mighl aIso exIain lhe suddenness of }esus' hysicaI dealh,
vhich surrised lhe observers vho knev lhal crucifixion vas a sIov
and agonizing rocess of dealh (}ohn 19:33). CouId il be lhal in giving
u His siril (Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46) He "Iaid dovn His ovn Iife"
(}ohn 10:17,18) in hysicaI dealh so as lo disaIIov any Salanic aclivily
in lhe behavior of His souI and body vhich vouId have conlravened
lhe sinIess sacrifice` "The body vilhoul lhe siril is dead" (}ames 2:26).
These Ialler queslions are indeed secuIalive con|eclures, bul lhe reaI-
ily of lhe assumlion of siriluaI dealh by }esus musl nol be over-
Iooked.
The exlenl lo vhich }esus exerienced lhe "ereluaI reresenlalion"
of lhe dealh consequences of man's sin is even more difficuIl lo ex-
Iain. The AoslIe's Creed formuIaled earIy in Chrislian hislory indi-
cales lhal }esus "descended inlo heII." The ScriluraI record reorls
lhal }esus "descended inlo lhe Iover arls of lhe earlh" (Ih. 4:9) and
"reached lo lhe sirils in rison" (I Iel. 3:19), "even lo lhose vho are
dead" (I Iel. 4:6), and "His souI vas nol abandoned lo Hades" (Acls
2:27,31). Though ve couId vish for more delaiIs, lhey are nol ro-
vided. In some manner lhal is beyond human exIanalion, }esus ex-
erienced lhe quaIilalive, or even quanlilalive, everIaslingness of
dealh in lhe midsl of His hysicaI dealh. The lemoraI faclors of lim-
ing, vhelher lhis vas during lhe lhree hours of darkness or during lhe
lhree days of hysicaI dealh cannol be ascerlained and need nol be, for
vilh God "a day is as a lhousand years" (II Iel. 3:8), and lhus }esus
couId have exerienced lhe everIaslingness of dealh vilhin any eriod
of lime.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED

In His dealh on lhe cross }esus accomIished vhal lhe Ialher had
given Him lo do. Il vas a viclory cry lhal He issued from lhe cross, "Il
is finished!" Il vas cerlainIy nol a cry of defeal aboul having come lo
an unlimeIy end, vhereby lhe mission vas aborled. The Greek vord
icic|csiai lhal }esus excIaimed vas derived from lhe vord ic|cs, mean-
ing "end." }esus vas decIaring lhal lhe erfecl end-ob|eclive of God for
man vas accomIished. The resurreclion, IenlecoslaI oulouring, and
even lhe consummalion of His relurn, lhough nol yel hisloricaIIy en-
acled, vere inevilabIe consequenliaI oulvorkings of lhe remediaI ac-
lion lhal vas achieved in His dealh. Dealh and sin vere defealed.
"Mission accomIished!" "Iaid in fuII!" "Il is finished!" Indeed il vas
for "lhe Son of God aeared for lhis urose, lhal He mighl deslroy
lhe vorks of lhe deviI" (I }ohn 3:8), and "lhrough dealh render over-
Iess lhe one having lhe over of dealh, lhal is lhe deviI" (Heb. 2:14).
Ior lhe man, Chrisl }esus, vho vas sinIess, yea erfecl, "il vas im-
ossibIe for Him lo be heId in dealh's over" (Acls 2:24), and "His
fIesh did nol suffer decay" (Acls 2:27,31, 13:35). He had no ersonaI
sin, by lhe consequence of vhich "lhe one having lhe over of dealh,
lhal is lhe deviI" (Heb. 2:14) couId hoId Him. He lhus vas resurrecled
unlo Iife oul of dealh.
y lhe resurreclion of }esus Chrisl lhe Iife of God vas reslored for lhe
firsl lime lo a man vho had exerienced siriluaI dealh. The resurrec-
lion of }esus had been foreloId by David (IsaIm 16:10, Acls 2:31, 13:35),
vho aIso indicaled lhal lhe resurreclion vas a lye of birlh (IsaIm 2:7,
Acls 13:33, Heb. 5:5), as lhe Ierfecl man vas reslored lo Iife oul of
dealh. }esus vas lhe "firsl-born from lhe dead" (CoI. 1:18, Rev. 1:5).
This cannol mean lhal He vas lhe firsl man lo be reslored lo hysicaI
Iife oul of hysicaI dealh (Luke 7:15, }ohn 11:44), bul lhe firsl man lo
have exerienced siriluaI dealh and lhen lo be reslored lo siriluaI
Iife. Do nol lhink lhal }esus vas "born again" in lhe same vay lhal
Chrislians are, for ve faIIen human beings vere siriluaIIy dead as
"sinners" deserving such consequence, vhereas }esus vas "made sin"
and His dealh vas an undeserved consequence of our sin. His resur-
reclion vas accomIished by virlue of His ovn sinIessness and lhe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
over of God (Ih. 1:19,20) vhereby He had lhe over lo "lake il u
again" (}ohn 10:17,18), vhereas our resloralion lo Iife is accomIished
onIy by virlue of His sacrificiaI dealh on our behaIf, and lhe avaiIabiI-
ily of His resurreclion-Iife oured oul by lhe Siril of Chrisl al Ienle-
cosl.
y His resurreclion }esus became lhe "firsl-fruils of lhose vho are
asIee" (I Cor. 15:20,23), and "lhe firsl born among many brelhren"
(Rom. 8:29), vho couId in simiIar manner based on lhe rololyicaI
resurreclion/birlh of }esus Chrisl be reslored lo siriluaI Iife oul of
siriluaI dealh by receiving His Iife. "y reason of His resurreclion
from lhe dead, He vas lhe firsl lo rocIaim Iighl bolh lo }ev and Gen-
liIe" (Acls 26:23). Having exerienced Iife oul of dealh, }esus ro-
cIaimed lhe avaiIabiIily lo aII men of exeriencing siriluaI "Iife oul of
dealh" (}ohn 5:24, I }ohn 3:14), being "raised lo nevness of Iife" (Rom.
6:4) as lhey are "raised u vilh Chrisl" (CoI. 2:12, 3:1) by lhe recelivily
of His resurreclion-Iife.
y His resurreclion "lhe Iasl Adam became a Iife-giving siril" (I Cor.
15:45) making avaiIabIe His Iife (}ohn 11:25, 14:6) lo reslore lhe Life of
God lo mankind and re-creale man as a "nev man" (I Cor. 5:17, Ih.
4:24, CoI. 3:10). We can be "born again lo a Iiving hoe lhrough lhe
resurreclion of }esus Chrisl from lhe dead" (I Ieler 1:3).
OnIy by His being "erfecl in being" (suernaluraIIy conceived vilh
God as His falher and indveIl by lhe Siril of God) couId }esus have
been "erfecl in behavior" (aIIoving lhe characler of God lo be ex-
ressed erfeclIy al every momenl in lime for lhirly-lhree years). OnIy
as He vas "erfecl in behavior" (recelive by failh lo Iel God acl
lhrough Him) couId }esus have been "erfecl in benefil" (laking lhe
dealh consequences of aII mankind in order lo give us His Iife). His
sinIess submission made His sacrifice sufficienl in order lo reslore lhe
Iife of God lo man. He vas indeed lhe "Ierfecl Man," and because He
vas Man as God inlended Man lo be, ve can be man as God inlended
man lo be by His Iife funclioning in us, deily vilhin humanily, Chrisl
vilhin lhe Chrislian.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8
FOOTNOTE5
1 Thomas, W. Ian, Tnc Mqsicrq cj Gc!|incss. Grand Raids: Zondervan IubIishing
Co. 1964. Igs. 48,49.
2 See exIanalion of dealh consequences in revious chaler, "The IaII of Man."


6 The Resloralion of Man


Thc wnrk nI Jcsus Christ is based uon lhe erson of }esus Chrisl. His
sinIess siriluaI condilion and behavioraI exression made His sacri-
fice sufficienl for mankind. He couId be "erfecl in benefil" because He
vas "erfecl in being" and "erfecl in behavior."
TheoIogicaI consideralions musl avoid osiling Chrisl's vork onIy in
lerms of "benefils," hovever. To do so creales an overIy ob|eclified dis-
|unclure of lhe vork of }esus Chrisl from lhe Iiving erson of }esus
Chrisl. He vork musl nol be divorced from His erson, and reduced
inlo slalic commodilies or "benefils" lo mankind. The effecls or benefils
of lhe vork of }esus Chrisl are encomassed in His eing. The onlo-
IogicaI dynamic of lhe vork of Chrisl musl be recognized. He did vhal
He did, and does vhal He does, because He is vho He is. AII of His
acls are inherenl in His eing.
The vork of }esus Chrisl is usuaIIy referred lo in lheoIogicaI lermi-
noIogy as lhe "alonemenl." The firsl knovn usage of lhis vord in lhe
IngIish vocabuIary of lheoIogy dales back lo lhe sixleenlh cenlury,
vhen il vas used as a hyhenaled con|unclion of lhe lvo vords "al-
onemenl." WiIIiam TyndaIe used lhe vord vilhin his IngIish lransIa-
lion of 1526. The Aulhorized Version, aIso knovn as lhe King }ames
Version, ubIished in 1611, made reealed usage of lhe vord "alone-
menl" lo lransIale lhe Hebrev vord kapar (covering), lransIaling Ycn
Kippur (Day of Coverings) as "Day of Alonemenl." The Greek vord
kaia||agc in Rom. 5:11 vas aIso lransIaled as "alonemenl" in lhe Aulhor-
ized Version, vhereas olher usages of lhe same vord vere lransIaled
as "reconciIialion."
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;o
The divine aclion of God in His Son }esus Chrisl vas inilialed oul of
His ovn characler of Iove and grace. Mankind vas incaabIe of laking
any aclion lhal couId remedy his heIIess and hoeIess redicamenl of
sin and dealh. "God so Ioved lhe vorId lhal he gave His onIy begollen
Son" (}ohn 3:16). "He Ioved us and senl His Son" (I }ohn 4:9), "demon-
slraling His Iove for us, in lhal vhiIe ve vere yel sinners, Chrisl died
for us" (Rom. 5:8). The "gifl of grace" came lhrough }esus Chrisl (Rom.
5:12,15). "We are |uslified as a gifl, by His grace lhrough lhe redem-
lion vhich is in Chrisl }esus" (Rom. 3:24).
The aclion of God in His Son, }esus Chrisl, is such a unique, one-of-a-
kind, Divine reaIily, lhal il is beyond human exIanalion. Allemls lo
exIain il in human Ianguage musl emIoy inadequale human images
and concels vhich serve as anlhroocenlric reresenlalions and
anaIogies of vhal God has done. Iven lhe human Ianguage used in lhe
ibIe musl uliIize such lerminoIogy for exIanalion. AnaIogicaI images
such as bIood, ransom and IegaI offense, for examIe, convey cerlain
concels or ideas lo lhe human mind in order lo assisl our undersland-
ing of lhe vork of Chrisl.
The vhoIe comIemenl of lhe images and concels lhal are em-
Ioyed vilhin lhe insired Scrilures lo exIain vhal Chrisl came lo
do musl be heId logelher in a coIIeclive comosile if ve are lo main-
lain a lheoIogicaI underslanding lhal is as fuII and accurale as man is
caabIe of grasing. The vhoIe iclure musl be kel in erseclive,
avoiding lhe myoic misunderslanding lhal resuIls from considering
onIy a iece or lvo of lhe uzzIe. This has been one of lhe lheoIogicaI
ilfaIIs lhroughoul lhe hislory of Chrislian lheoIogy. There has been a
lendency lo focus on a arlicuIar image or concel of Chrisl's vork, lo
lhe excIusion, diminishing or negIecl of olher anaIogies, vhich resuIls
in an unbaIanced lheoIogicaI viev of alonemenl vilh varying misem-
hases. Anolher ilfaII has been lhe careIess mixing and merging of
melahors vhich creales myslicaI misunderslandings and confusions.
In an alleml lo consider lhe rimary images and anaIogies lhal lhe
ibIe uses lo exIain lhe vork of }esus, ve viII nole lhe concels lhal
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;s
are inlroduced by lhose images and consequenl modeIs lhal uliIize
some of lhose concels.
Cnnccpts
The images orlrayed by lhe Scrilures inlroduce us lo cerlain con-
cels lhrough vhich ve mighl undersland God's aclion in His Son, }e-
sus Chrisl. The concels are furlher amIified by lhe vocabuIary of
various ibIicaI and lheoIogicaI lerms. The concels vhich are ob|ec-
live lo man viII be enumeraled firsl, lo be foIIoved by lhe sub|eclive
concels vhich are effecled vilhin man.
Thc Libcratinna! Cnnccpt. The faII of mankind inlo sin and dealh
necessariIy aIIoved deendenl and conlingenl mankind lo be heId by
anolher siriluaI aulhorily olher lhan God, i.e. lhe Salanic sIave-
masler. To resoIve man's ensIavemenl, lhe vork of God in Chrisl
vouId need lo deIiver, rescue and Iiberale man from his siriluaI
bondage and sIavery.
Having faIIen under "lhe dominion of Salan" (Acls 26:18) in "lhe do-
main of darkness" (CoI. 1:13), mankind vas in "lhe bondage of iniq-
uily" (Acls 8:23) and "lhe eIemenlaI lhings of lhe vorId" (GaI. 4:3),
"bound" under lhe Lav (Rom. 7:6). InsIaved lo "sin" (Rom. 6:6,17), lo
"imurily and IavIessness" (Rom. 6:19), lo "fear and dealh" (Rom. 8:15,
Heb. 2:15), mankind vas a "hosl of calives" (Luke 4:18, Ih. 4:8),
"heId calive by lhe deviI lo do his viII" (II Tim. 2:26).
}esus Chrisl vas lhe Liberalor vho vouId "reIease lhe calives"
(Luke 4:18) "from lhe Lav" (Rom. 7:2,6) and "from lheir sins" (Rev. 1:5).
He came lo "deIiver men from lhe domain of darkness" (CoI. 1:13),
"from lhis resenl eviI age" (GaI. 1:4), from "lhe sIavery broughl on by
lhe fear of dealh" (Heb. 2:15), and "from every eviI deed" (II Tim. 4:18).
As man's DeIiverer, He came lo "sel free lhose vho are dovnlrodden"
(Luke 4:18), lo sel lhem "free from lhe Lav" (Rom. 7:3) and "from lhe
Iav of sin and dealh" (Rom. 8:2). "If lhe Son shaII sel you free, you shaII
be free indeed" (}ohn 8:36), in "lhe freedom of lhe gIory of lhe chiIdren
of God" (Rom. 8:21). "Il vas for freedom lhal Chrisl sel us free" (GaI.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;z
5:1), and Chrislians musl "acl as free men" (I Ieler 2:16). "Where lhe
Siril of lhe Lord is lhere is Iiberly" (II Cor. 3:17), and Chrislians are lo
Iive by lhe "erfecl Iav of Iiberly" (}ames 1:25, 2:12).
SeveraI ibIicaI lerms convey lhe meaning of reIease, deIiverance and
selling free. The Greek vord Iulroo, vhich is oflen lransIaled "redem-
lion" lhroughoul lhe Nev Teslamenl, means "lo Ioose, lo sel free, lo
deIiver." Chrislians are "redeemed from lheir lransgressions" (Heb.
9:15) and "from every IavIess deed" (Tilus 2:14). The Greek vord
ahiemi is oflen lransIaled as "forgiveness" in lhe Nev Teslamenl, and
means "lo dismiss" or "lo reIease" from sins (Ih. 1:7, CoI. 1:14). The
vord vhich is lransIaled "saIvalion," from lhe Greek vord soleria, can
aIso mean "lo make safe" by deIivering from eviI.
Thc Lcga! and Pcna! Cnnccpt. Since God is iclured as "lhe }udge of
aII" (Heb. 12:23) vho "viII |udge His eoIe" (Heb. 10:30), "lhe Iiving
and lhe dead" (I Iel. 4:5), lhe IegaI or enaI concel vherein God re-
acls lo man's sin in a |udiciaI conlexl is evidenl lhrough many ibIicaI
images.
The "offense of Adam" (Rom. 5:14) vas a "lransgression" (Rom. 5:15-
19) of God's inlenl for man, vhich affecled lhe enlire human race in
siriluaI soIidarily vilh Adam. AII men vere "dead in lheir lransgres-
sions" (Ih. 2:5, CoI. 2:13), "dead in lresasses and sins" (Ih. 2:1).
"Condemnalion came uon aII men" (Rom. 5:16,18), and aII vere made
IiabIe lo "lhe enaIly of elernaI deslruclion" (II Thess. 1:9), lhe "elernaI
unishmenl" (Mall. 25:46) of "fire" (}ude 7) al "lhe day of |udgmenl" (II
Ieler 2:9). God "has fixed a day vhen He shaII |udge lhe vorId in
righleousness, lhrough a Man" (Acls 17:31), His Son, }esus Chrisl.
There viII be "relribulion lo lhose vho do nol knov God and obey lhe
goseI of }esus Chrisl" (II Thess. 1:8). There is no doubl lhal lhe ibIe
uses IegaI and enaI imagery lo describe lhe reIalion of God lo faIIen
mankind.
}esus Chrisl is reresenled as viIIing lo lake lhe "dealh enaIly" on
behaIf of lhe human race, effecling lhe "forgiveness of sins" (Acls 10:43,
26:18, CoI. 1:14), "lhe forgiveness of our lresasses" (Ih. 1:7). He "ul
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;;
avay sin by lhe sacrifice of HimseIf" (Heb. 9:26). Many limes lhrough-
oul lhe Nev Teslamenl, lhe Greek vords !ikaicc and !ikaicna are
lransIaled as "lo |uslify" and "|uslificalion." God in Chrisl "|uslifies lhe
ungodIy" (Rom. 4:5), for lhey are "|uslified in His bIood" (Rom. 5:9) re-
suIling in "|uslificalion of Iife lo aII men" (Rom. 5:16). The Greek lerm
vas indeed used as a IegaI lerm, bul nol excIusiveIy (as viII be noled
Ialer). When so used il oflen referred lo lhe idea of acquillaI, vhereby
a verdicl of "nol guiIly" or "righl-slanding" before lhe |udge or lhe Iav
vas issued, a decIaralion of righlness. The IegaI and enaI conse-
quences of sin vere resoIved by }esus Chrisl.
Thc PuriIicatinna! Cnnccpt. efore lhe urily of God's characler of
absoIule hoIiness, man's sin is an imurily and uncIeanness. The vork
of }esus Chrisl serves lo urify lhe condilion of faIIen mankind.
The rohels indicale lhal lhe sins of faIIen mankind are "red Iike
crimson" (Isa. 1:18), serving as "lhe slain of iniquily" (}ere. 2:22). Onlo-
IogicaIIy deriving lheir characler from lhe IviI One, "God gave lhem
over in lhe Iusls of lheir hearls lo imurily" (Rom. 1:24), and lhey be-
came "sIaves lo imurily" (Rom. 6:19). "No imure erson has an in-
herilance in lhe kingdom of Chrisl and God" (Ih. 5:5).
Chrisl's aloning vork aIIovs faIIen mankind lo "vash lheir robes and
make lhem vhile in lhe bIood of lhe Lamb" (Rev. 7:11). Chrislians are
lhose vho are "vashed and sanclified" (I Cor. 6:11), having "vashed
avay lheir sins" (Acls 22:16) in lhe "vashing of regeneralion" (Tilus
3:5). The "bIood of Chrisl cIeanses our conscience from dead vorks"
(Heb. 9:14), our hearls are "cIeansed by failh" (Acls 15:9), and ve can
conlinue lo be "cIeansed from aII unrighleousness" (I }ohn 1:9). }esus
has effecled "urificalion of sins" (Heb. 1:3, II Iel. 1:9), having "urified
for HimseIf a eoIe for His ovn ossession" (Tilus 2:14) as lhey "in
obedience lo lhe lrulh urify lheir souIs" (I Iel. 1:22).
Thc Nccrn!ngica! Cnnccpt. Irom lhe very commencemenl of man's
funclion as a choosing crealure, God exIained lhal lhe consequence of
sin vouId invoIve dealh. "In lhe day lhal you eal lhereof, you shaII
sureIy die" (Gen. 2:17). "The vages of sin is dealh" (Rom. 6:23). "Dealh
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
sread lo aII men" (Rom. 5:12) by lheir siriluaI soIidarily vilh Adam
and his choice of sin. "In Adam aII die" (I Cor. 15:22), and are "excIuded
from lhe Iife of God" (Ih. 4:18). The dealh consequences lhal came
uon faIIen mankind began vilh lhe absence of God's Iife in lhe siril,
bul musl be underslood as an onloIogicaI conneclion vilh "lhe one
having lhe over of dealh, lhal is lhe deviI" (Heb. 2:14). SiriluaI
dealh invoIves lhe resence of lhe ersonaI resource of dealh, i.e. Sa-
lan, vhose aclivily generales lhe revaiIing ramificalions of behavioraI
dealh and hysicaI dealh, vhich if unabaled viII Iead lo lhe ereluaI
reresenlalion of everIasling dealh. (See chaler on The IaII of Man.)
The consequence of dealh as a resuIl of man's sin is nol |usl a enaI
consequence of lhe "dealh enaIly." Life is an inherenl fealure of lhe
characler of God. "The Ialher has Iife in HimseIf" (}ohn 5:26). As aII sin
is conlrary lo His characler, lhe incongruily demands a searalion and
rivalion of His resence vhich is immedialeIy fiIIed vilh lhe diaboIic
source of dealh.
}esus Chrisl came lo incur lhe dealh consequences lhal had occurred
in Adam. As God, He couId nol die, bul as man he couId assume lhose
dealh consequences. As a derivalive and conlingenl man, He submil-
led voIunlariIy and vicariousIy lo dealh, vhich incIuded hysicaI,
siriluaI and everIasling exressions lhereof. "Chrisl died for us"
(Rom. 5:8), lhe "ungodIy" (Rom. 5:6). "Chrisl died for our sins accord-
ing lo lhe Scrilures" (I Cor. 15:3), "once and for aII" (Rom. 6:10, I Iel.
3:18).
The image of "bIood" is oflen used vilhin lhe Nev Teslamenl lo refer
lo lhe dealh of Chrisl. His bIood has no magicaI or myslicaI efficacy in
ilseIf, so aII references lo His "shed bIood" shouId be inlerreled as in-
dicaling lhe necroIogicaI concel of dealh. "Redemlion lhrough His
bIood" (Ih. 1:7), "|uslificalion by His bIood" (Rom. 5:9), "roilialion
in His bIood" (Rom. 3:25), "forgiveness by His bIood" (Heb. 9:22), and
lhe "cIeansing of sin by His bIood" (I }ohn 1:7) shouId aII be under-
slood as lhe consequences of His laking dealh for mankind.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;,
Likevise, lhe "cross" shouId nol be conslrued as an ob|ecl lhal con-
veys siriluaI benefils. The cross vas a dealh inslrumenl. References lo
lhe "cross of Chrisl" (I Cor. 1:17, CoI. 1:20) and His crucifixion direcl
our allenlion lo lhe necroIogicaI concel of His dealh on our behaIf.
We "boasl in lhe cross" (GaI. 6:14) and "reach Chrisl crucified" (I Cor.
1:23) because }esus look our dealh consequences.
There is a sub|eclive asecl lo lhe necroIogicaI concel of dealh, for
vhen }esus died He effecled a siriluaI soIidarily vilh aII vho vouId
receive Him and His dealh on lheir behaIf. The oId siriluaI idenlily of
lhe unregenerale is regarded as having been ul lo dealh in idenlifica-
lion vilh lhe dealh of Chrisl. When He died, ve died. He died for us
and as us. "The One died for aII, lherefore aII died" (II Cor. 5:14). "Our
oId seIf vas crucified vilh Him" (Rom. 5:6). "We have died vilh
Chrisl" (Rom. 6:8, CoI. 2:20). "I have been crucified vilh Chrisl..." (GaI.
2:20)
Thc 5acriIicia! Cnnccpt. ImmedialeIy afler lhe sin of Adam, God in-
sliluled a sacrificiaI syslem vhereby man couId viev lhe consequences
of his sin. Cain and AbeI, lhe firsl sons of Adam and Ive, "broughl of-
ferings" (Gen. 4:3,4), bul "AbeI offered a beller sacrifice lhan Cain"
(Heb. 11:4). The sacrifices vere a icloriaI re-figuring of vhal vouId
be required lo deaI vilh man's sin. Inherenl in lhe concel of sacrifice
is lhe idea of (1) cosl, lhe forfeilure and reIinquishmenl of somelhing of
vaIue, a rice lo be aid, and (2) lhe idea of subslilulion, lhe vicarious
reIacemenl of lhe one having lo die, a lransference of IiabiIily from
lhe offerer lo lhe Iiving ob|ecl being sacrificed.
"Chrisl gave HimseIf u for us, an offering and a sacrifice lo God"
(Ih. 5:2). He became lhe "Iassover sacrifice" (I Cor. 5:7), vho "offered
one sacrifice for sins for aII lime" (Heb. 10:12) and "ul avay sin by lhe
sacrifice of HimseIf" (Heb. 9:26). He is "lhe Lamb of God vho lakes
avay lhe sins of lhe vorId" (}ohn 1:29), and ve are "sanclified lhrough
lhe offering of lhe body of }esus" (Heb. 10:10) and by His "srinkIed
bIood" (Heb. 12:24).
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
The subslilulionaI eIemenl of His sacrifice is evidenl in lhal "lhe Lord
has caused lhe iniquily of us aII lo faII on Him" (Isa. 53:6). "WhiIe ve
vere yel sinners Chrisl died for us" (Rom. 5:8) and "became a curse for
us" (GaI. 3:13). "He bore our sins in His body on lhe lree" (I Iel. 2:24),
and "died, lhe |usl for lhe un|usl, lhal He mighl bring us lo God" (I Iel.
3:18). The sacrificiaI concel of Chrisl's vork vas re-figured in lhe
oId covenanl and fuIfiIIed in lhe enaclmenl of lhe nev covenanl.
Thc Cnvcnanta! Cnnccpt. The agreemenl belveen God and man aI-
vays necessilaled lhe aclivily of God being received by man's failh.
IaIIen mankind had "broken lhe covenanl" (Isa. 33:8), as had lhe se-
cific eoIe (}ere. 11:10) God had seIecled for lhe re-figuring of His
inlenl in His Son, }esus Chrisl. This necessilaled a "nev covenanl"
(}ere. 31:31) belveen God and man.
The vork of }esus Chrisl effecls lhal "nev covenanl" (Heb. 9:15). He
is "lhe medialor of a nev covenanl" (Heb. 12:24), lhe "guaranlee of a
beller covenanl" (Heb. 7:22). As covenanls belveen men vere usuaIIy
seaIed vilh a bIood sacrifice lo reresenl lhe consequences of breaking
lhe covenanl, lhe dealh of }esus served as lhe "bIood of lhe covenanl"
(Heb. 10:29, 13:20), vhereby He eslabIished a "nev covenanl in His
bIood" (Mall. 26:28, I Cor. 11:25). The sacrificiaI concel and lhe cove-
nanlaI concel are lhus inexorabIy inlerconnecled.
Thc Ecnnnmica! Cnnccpt. The sin of mankind is reresenled as cre-
aling a silualion of indebledness before God vhich requires comensa-
lion and rearalion. There is a rice lo be aid, a "cerlificale of debl
consisling of decrees againsl us" (CoI. 2:14). Some of lhe earIy Chrislian
vrilers (ex. Origin, Gregory of Nyssa) engaged in viId secuIalion
lhal lhe deviI had kidnaed lhe human race, hoIding lhem as hos-
lages, and God vas aying off lhe deviI by deceliveIy lrading }esus
as a "ransom" for mankind. Iar be il from lhe characler of God lo en-
gage in such deceil, or lo be indebled lo lhe deviI.
The image of "ransom" carries vilh il lhe idea of reIease from bond-
age in exchange for a aymenl. Mankind vas indeed in bondage lo
sin, needing lo be reIeased (IiberalionaI concel). "The Son of Man
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;;
came lo give His Iife a ransom for many" (Mall. 20:28, Mark 10:45), and
"gave HimseIf as a ransom for aII" (I Tim. 2:6). We vere "boughl vilh a
rice" (I Cor. 6:19,20, 7:23), "urchased vilh His bIood" (Acls 20:28).
The lerminoIogy of "redemlion" exresses lhis economicaI, com-
merciaI or financiaI concel, for lhe Greek vord cxagcrazc means "lo
buy oul of lhe markel Iace," and lhe vord apc|uircsis can mean "lo re-
Iease uon aymenl of a ransom." olh of lhese vords are lransIaled
"redeem" in lhe Nev Teslamenl, nole GaI. 3:13 and Ih. 1:7 resec-
liveIy.
Thc Transactinna! Cnnccpt. Man's sin required lhal a lransaclion
lake Iace vhich vouId salisfy God. The image of Divine salisfaclion
has Ied lo severaI differenl inlerrelalions. Some have underslood lhal
God demanded salisfaclion of His IegaI demands or salisfaclion of His
|uslice (IegaI or enaI concel), or lhe salisfaclion of a comensalory
aymenl (economicaI concel). Olhers have exIained lhal God's
vralh lovard sin musl be salisfied. God is indeed "|eaIous" of His
characler (Ixod. 20:5, 34:14, Deul. 4:24, }osh. 24:19, Nahum 1:2). "The
vralh of God is reveaIed from heaven againsl aII ungodIiness and un-
righleousness of men" (Rom. 1:18), and "comes uon lhe sons of dis-
obedience" (Ih. 5:6) vho "do nol obey lhe Son" (}ohn 3:36). We musl,
hovever, bevare of ushing lhis image inlo crude ideas of God's ca-
ricious and arbilrary anger, vhereby He is casl as an offended deily
vho suffered a ersonaI affronl because of lhe offense againsl His
honor or dignily, and needs lo be Iacaled, acified, moIIified or
soolhed by lhe smoolhing of His ruffIed fealhers.
The salisfaclion lhal God requires is consislency vilh His characler.
Thal vouId require lhe severing of lhe onloIogicaI conneclion of man-
kind vilh eviI in order lo rovide onloIogicaI union belveen God and
man again. In His dealh }esus Chrisl vicariousIy Iived oul lhal onlo-
IogicaI break, excIaiming, "My God, My God, vhy have You forsaken
Me`" (Is. 22:1, Mall. 27:46, Mark 15:34), and lhrough His resurreclion
reslored "lhe rovision of lhe Siril" (IhiI. 1:19) so lhal lhe characler of
God mighl be oeralive in man.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;8
God is salisfied vilh vhal Chrisl has accomIished (}ohn 4:34, 5:36,
17:4, 19:28) lo aIIeviale lhe conlrariely of his characler lhrough onlo-
IogicaI derivalion from lhe IviI One, and lo bring Him Ieasure by lhe
failhfuI onloIogicaI recelivily of His characler (Heb. 11:6). "}uslified
by His bIood, ve shaII be saved from lhe vralh of God lhrough }esus
Chrisl" (Rom. 5:9).
The lheoIogicaI lerms emIoyed lo exress lhis Divine salisfaclion in
lhe vork of }esus Chrisl are lhe vords "roilialion" and "exialion."
Much argumenlalion has lransired as lo vhich of lhese vords besl
exresses lhe Greek vord ni|askcnai. "God senl His Son lo be lhe ro-
ilialion/exialion for our sins" (I }ohn 4:10, 2:1,2, Heb. 2:17), and "dis-
Iayed Him ubIicIy as a roilialion/ exialion in His bIood" (Rom.
3:25).
Thc Triumpha! Cnnccpt. Throughoul lhe Scrilures lhere is lhe im-
age of a cosmic confIicl belveen God and Salan, belveen good and
eviI. This is never orlrayed as a duaIism of equaI overs, hovever,
since God is omniolenl. "There vas var in heaven" (Rev. 12:7) lhal
caused "enmily belveen lhe serenl and lhe seed of voman" (Gen.
3:15), requiring lhal "lhe ruIer of lhis vorId be casl oul" (}ohn 12:31).
The vork of Chrisl accomIished viclory over Salan. "He disarmed
lhe ruIers and aulhorilies, having lriumhed over lhem" (CoI. 2:15). He
is "viclorious over lhe beasl" (Rev. 15:2). "The Son of God aeared
lhal He mighl deslroy lhe vorks of lhe deviI" (I }ohn 3:8),and "lhrough
dealh He rendered overIess lhe one having lhe over of dealh, lhal
is lhe deviI" (Heb. 2:14). The Lion (Rev. 5:5) vho is lhe Lamb (Rev.
17:14) has "overcome lhe vorId" (}ohn 16:33) and lhe "IviI One" (I }ohn
2:14). "He Ieads |uslice lo viclory" (Mall. 12:20). "Thanks be lo God vho
gives us lhe viclory lhrough }esus Chrisl" (I Cor. 15:57).
In addilion lo lhe ob|eclive concels of lhe vork of }esus Chrisl, ve
musl consider lhe sub|eclive concels of His vork. These are lhe fea-
lures of His vork lhal lake Iace vilhin lhe erson vho receives Him
by failh.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
Thc Vita! Cnnccpt. Wilhin lhe discussion of lhe necroIogicaI concel
il vas noled lhal dealh vas a consequence of man's sin before God. As
man, Chrisl look lhose dealh consequences on behaIf of aII mankind.
Acceling lhal subslilulionaI dealh of }esus Chrisl, lhe Chrislian iden-
lifies vilh such as lhe dealh of lhe oId man idenlily (Rom. 6:6), aIIov-
ing him lo be "dead lo sin" (Rom. 6:2,11), lo lhe vorId (CoI. 2:20), lo
Lav (Rom. 7:3,4, GaI. 2:19) and lo lhe fIesh (GaI. 5:24). We referred lo
lhis as lhe sub|eclive asecl of lhe necroIogicaI concel.
The Chrislian "asses oul of dealh and inlo Iife" (}ohn 5:24, I }ohn
3:14), so ve musl roceed lo consider lhe onloIogicaI reaIily of Chrisl's
indveIIing Iife in lhe Chrislian, vhich is |usl as sureIy lhe vork of
Chrisl as vas lhe hisloricaI and ob|eclive vork accomIished in His
dealh. "Chrisl }esus aboIished dealh, and broughl Iife and immorlaIily
lo Iighl lhrough lhe goseI" (II Tim. 1:10), "granling us everylhing er-
laining lo Iife and godIiness" (II Iel. 1:3).
}esus is "lhe Iife" (}ohn 14:6). "He lhal has lhe Son has Iife, he lhal
does nol have lhe Son of God does nol have Iife" (I }ohn 5:12). }esus
exIained lhal He "came lhal ve mighl have Iife, and have il more
abundanlIy" (}ohn 10:10). The "elernaI Iife" (}ohn 5:24) lhal aclivales us
is His Iife. "Chrisl is our Iife" (CoI. 3:4). "The Iife of }esus is manifesled
in our morlaI bodies" (II Cor. 4:10,11). We are "saved by His Iife" (Rom.
5:10) and "reign in Iife lhrough }esus Chrisl" (Rom. 5:17).
The lheoIogicaI lerm lhal is used lo exIain lhe vilaI concel of
Chrisl's vork is lhe vord "regeneralion." The vord is used in lhe
lransIalion of Tilus 3:5 referring lo "lhe vashing of regeneralion and
lhe renevaI of lhe HoIy Siril." Regeneralion imIies being re-Iifed, in
con|unclion vilh vhich lhe ibIe uses lhe image of being "born again,
born from above, or born of lhe Siril" as }esus exIained lo Nicode-
mus (}ohn 3:1-6). Ieler exIains lhal ve are "born again lo a Iiving
hoe lhrough lhe resurreclion of }esus Chrisl from lhe dead" (I Ieler
1:3), for il vas in lhe resurreclion of }esus Chrisl lhal His Iife came
forlh oul of dealh. Chrislians idenlify siriluaIIy vilh lhe resurreclion
of }esus, being raised "lo nevness of Iife" (Rom. 6:4).
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8o
Thc 5piritua! Cnnccpt. In discussing lhe sub|eclive concels of
Chrisl's vork, il is exlremeIy imorlanl lo differenliale belveen sub|ec-
live sychoIogicaI effecls vilhin lhe Chrislian and lhe inlernaI siriluaI
reaIilies lhal Chrisl enacls by His ovn onloIogicaI resence. "If any
man does nol have lhe Siril of Chrisl, he is none of His" (Rom. 8:9).
The unregenerale erson is siriluaIIy dead, and can onIy be made
siriluaIIy aIive by lhe resence of lhe Siril of Chrisl for "il is lhe
Siril vho gives Iife" (}ohn 6:63, II Cor. 3:6). "Thal vhich is born of lhe
Siril is siril" (}ohn 3:6).
A siriluaI exchange lakes Iace in our siril vhen Chrisl begins lo
vork vilhin us. Inslead of "lhe siril of sIavery," ve have lhe "siril of
adolion" (Rom. 8:15). We no Ionger have "lhe siril from lhe vorId,"
bul ve have lhe "Siril of God" (I Cor. 2:12). The "siril of error" is ex-
changed for lhe "siril of lrulh" (I }ohn 4:6). The "siril lhal vorks in
lhe sons of disobedience" (Ih. 2:2) is reIaced by lhe "Siril of Chrisl"
(Rom. 8:9, IhiI. 1:19), lhe "Siril of God" (I Cor. 3:16), "lhe HoIy Siril
vho dveIIs in us" (II Tim. 1:14). We are no Ionger "by nalure chiIdren
of vralh" (Ih. 2:3), bul ve become "arlakers of lhe divine nalure" (II
Ieler 1:4).
"}oined lo lhe Lord, ve are one siril vilh Him" (I Cor. 6:17), for lhe
"Siril of hoIiness is }esus Chrisl our Lord" (Rom. 1:4), "lhe Lord is lhe
Siril" (II Cor. 3:17). "We have become arlakers of Chrisl" (Heb. 3:14).
Chrisl Iives in us (GaI. 2:20), lhe "hoe of gIory" (CoI. 1:27), "dveIIing
in our hearls lhrough failh" (Ih. 3:17). "Do you nol recognize lhal }e-
sus Chrisl is in you`" (II Cor. 13:5).
Thc Functinna! Cnnccpt. The inlernaI vork of }esus Chrisl in lhe
Chrislian is for lhe urose of exressing a funclionaI humanily
vherein "lhe Iife of }esus is manifesled in our morlaI bodies" (II Cor.
4:10,11). In Iike manner as }esus indicaled lhal "lhe Ialher abiding in
Me does His vorks (}ohn 14:10), lhe Chrislian is lo funclion by aIIov-
ing lhe indveIIing Chrisl lo vork lhrough him. "Aarl from Me, you
can do nolhing" (}ohn 15:5), }esus said. IauI exIained lhal he did "nol
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8s
resume lo seak of anylhing, excel vhal Chrisl had accomIished
lhrough him" (Rom. 15:18).
SeveraI lheoIogicaI lerms have been lradilionaIIy defined by ob|ecli-
fied reference lo lhe hisloricaI vork of }esus Chrisl. As such lhey be-
come slalic concels vhich faiI lo do |uslice lo lhe funclionaI vork of
}esus Chrisl in lhe Chrislian. "SaIvalion," for examIe is nol |usl lhe
"lhreshoId faclor" of lhe Chrislian Iife vhereby one is "made safe from
going lo heII." Ralher, saIvalion musl be vieved as lhe dynamic onlo-
IogicaI funclion of lhe Savior, vherein ve are being "saved by His Iife"
(Rom. 5:10). The Chrislian is "made safe" from dysfunclionaI human-
ily, lhe misuse and abuse of Salan, in order lo funclion as God in-
lended by lhe indveIIing resence and aclivily of lhe risen Lord }esus
in our behavior. Likevise, "sanclificalion" is lhe funclionaI exression
of God's characler of hoIiness in lhe behavior of man.
Thc Rc!atinna! Cnnccpt. Due lo sin, man's reIalionshi vilh God
vas disconnecled. Man vas "vilhoul God in lhe vorId" (Ih. 2:12),
and "excIuded from lhe Iife of God" (Ih. 4:18). There vas an "enmily"
(Ih. 2:15,16) belveen God and man, lo lhe exlenl lhal man vas
vieved as an "enemy" of God (Rom. 5:10). IaIIen man vas "aIienaled"
(CoI. 1:21), and "hosliIe lovard God" (Rom. 8:7).
The vork of }esus Chrisl effecls a "reconciIialion" belveen God and
man lhal can be vieved bolh ob|ecliveIy and sub|ecliveIy. "God vas in
Chrisl reconciIing lhe vorId lo HimseIf" (II Cor. 5:19,20). "He recon-
ciIed aII lhings lo HimseIf, having made eace lhrough lhe bIood of
His cross" (CoI. 1:20). "We vere reconciIed lo God lhrough lhe dealh of
His Son, and having been reconciIed ve are nov saved by His Iife"
(Rom. 5:10).
The Chrislian has a ersonaI reIalionshi vilh God. The reconciIed
reIalionshi lhal ve nov have vilh God lhrough }esus Chrisl is such
lhal ve can viev il as lhe sociaI and famiIiaI reIalionshi of being
"adoled as sons lhrough }esus Chrisl" (GaI. 4:5, Ih. 1:5), and can cry
oul in lhe famiIiarily of lhe chiId's cry of "Abba, Ialher" (Rom. 8:15).
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8z
Thc Ontn!ngica! Cnnccpt. The vork of }esus Chrisl is aIvays onlo-
IogicaI. He does vhal He does, because He is vho He is! AII lhal is
made avaiIabIe lo us in }esus Chrisl is onloIogicaIIy connecled vilh
His eing. He did nol come lo beslov various siriluaI "benefils" uon
mankind, bul He came lhal His very eing mighl become funclionaIIy
oeralive in mankind.
The saving aclivily of }esus Chrisl is onIy oeralive vhen lhe eing
of lhe Savior is al vork in lhe Chrislian. SaIvalion cannol be onloIogi-
caIIy divorced from lhe Savior. The rocess of sanclificalion is laking
Iace onIy vhen lhe onloIogicaI exression of lhe eing of God's hoIy
characler is being manifesled in man's behavior.
Ierhas lhe grealesl erversion of Chrislian lerminoIogy has been lo
reslricl lhe meaning of "|uslificalion" lo an ob|eclified decIaralion of
ardon, acquillaI, forgiveness and "righl slanding" vilh God. "}uslifi-
calion" is lhe vord for righleousness. Righleousness is nol mereIy a
IegaI lerm, bul exIains lhe onloIogicaI characler of God. God is righl-
eous! (Is. 116:5, Isa. 45:21, Dan. 9:14, Rom. 11:7). }esus is referred lo as
"lhe Righleous One" (Acls 3:4, 7:42, 22:14), and "}esus Chrisl, lhe Righl-
eous" (I }ohn 2:1). "God made Him vho knev no sin, lo be sin on our
behaIf, lhal ve mighl become lhe righleousness of God in Him" (II
Cor. 5:21). y lhe indveIIing resence of }esus Chrisl, He has "become
lo us righleousness" (I Cor. 1:30), "a righleousness lhal comes from
God on lhe basis of failh" (IhiI. 3:9). We have "lhe gifl of righleousness
in order lo reign in Iife lhrough }esus Chrisl" (Rom. 5:17). The vork of
Chrisl conlinues as He onloIogicaIIy exresses His characler of righl-
eousness in Chrislian behavior.
In addilion lo lhe ob|eclive and sub|eclive concels of Chrisl's vork
noled above, aII of vhich have soIid ibIicaI nolalion, lhere are some
olher concels vhich have been suggesled vhich seem lo be invaIid
because lhey Iack ibIicaI suorl. Mosl of lhese concels of lhe vork
of Chrisl osil humanislic concels of human olenliaI vhereby man's
erformance and "vorks" affecl lhe reIalionshi belveen God and
man. They faiI lo undersland lhal man is siriluaIIy derivalive and
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8;
conlingenl, designed lo funclion by lhe onloIogicaI dynamic of lhe e-
ing of God generaling His characler in man's behavior.
Hugo Grolius, a Iavyer, (1583-1645) suggesled a sub-concel of lhe
IegaI and enaI concel, vhich mighl be caIIed lhe gctcrnncnia|, rccia|
cr pc|iiica| ccnccpi. ased on somevhal duaIislic remises, Grolius sug-
gesled lhal God had lo kee his aulhorilalive governmenl inlacl, so lhe
unilive consequences vere lo "reserve God's aulhorily."
Much of Weslern lheoIogy has had a lendency lo viev lhe vork of
Chrisl in aImosl lolaI ob|eclivily, causing il lo be Iimiled lo a beIief-
syslem. Chrisl's vork is regarded as hisloricaI or lheoIogicaI dala lhal
Chrislians musl assenl lo lhe veracily of, lhus becoming bul a !ccirina|,
incc|cgica| cr cpisicnc|cgica| ccnccpi.
On lhe oosile end of lhe seclrum is lhe nqinica| ccnccpi suggesled
by RudoIh uIlmann (1884-1976). Hisloricily is regarded as irreIe-
vanl, and lhe vork of Chrisl becomes lolaIIy sub|eclive as lhe exeri-
enliaI imacl il has on a erson's Iife. The veracily of hisloricaI "mylhs"
and "slories," even lhe dealh of }esus Chrisl, mighl be queslioned
vilhoul affecling lhe sub|eclive vork of Chrisl.
The nqsiica| cr sqn|c|ica| ccnccpis of lhe vork of Chrisl are aIso quile
sub|eclive. Images such as lhe "bIood of Chrisl" and lhe "cross of
Chrisl" are envisioned as enlilies in and of lhemseIves vhich effecl lhe
vork of Chrisl vilhin lhe beIiever. }esus Chrisl is regarded as vorking
in lhe Chrislian vhen he is "arorialing lhe cross" or "aIying lhe
bIood."
Socinius (1539-1604) suggesled lhe i||usiraiicna| cr iniiaiicna| ccnccpi
of lhe vork of Chrisl. He, aIong vilh olhers, emhasized lhal }esus
vas an examIe of Iove, righleousness, obedience, dedicalion, com-
milmenl and sacrifice. Scrilure does indicale lhal "}esus suffered for
us, Ieaving us an examIe lo foIIov in His sles" (I Ieler 2:21). }esus
did say, "If anyone vouId come afler Me, Iel him deny himseIf, and
lake u his cross daiIy, and foIIov Me...viIIing lo Iose his Iife for My
sake" (Luke 9:22-24). We are lo "vaIk in lhe same manner as he
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8
vaIked" (I }ohn 2:6), bul lhe urose of Chrisl's Iife and dealh is more
lhan an examIe of seIf-deniaI and seIf-sacrifice of lime, energy and
reulalion, even unlo marlyrdom. Such a concel faiIs lo undersland
lhe onloIogicaI derivaliveness of mankind.
Likevise, lo ro|ecl lhe vork of Chrisl rimariIy as lhe uIlimale
leacher in an insiruciicna| cr c!ucaiicna| ccnccpi, faiIs lo gras man's
siriluaI conlingency. }esus vas a leacher (Mall. 19:16, }ohn 3:2), and
did indicale lhal He came "lo bear vilness lo lhe lrulh" (}ohn 18:37),
bul He aIso exIained lhal He vas lhe Trulh (}ohn 14:6), onloIogicaIIy
embodied. }esus did nol come |usl lo inslrucl us hov lo Iive and die,
bul He came lo be lhe Trulh of God Iived oul lhrough man.
The inj|ucniia| ccnccpi of Chrisl's vork vas emhasized by Ieler Abe-
Iard and Ialer by Horace ushneII. Wilh an aversion lo considering lhe
vralh of God, lhe Iove of God vas romoled as God's rimary ob|ec-
live in vhal Chrisl did. "God so Ioved lhe vorId lhal He gave His onIy
begollen Son" (}ohn 3:16). "God demonslraled His Iove lovard us, in
lhal vhiIe ve vere yel sinners, Chrisl died for us" (Rom. 5:8). God's
Iove is said lo be for lhe urose of infIuencing or molivaling man lo
Iove in Iike manner. "We Iove, because He firsl Ioved us" (I }ohn 4:19).
When ve resond lo lhis Divine infIuence, ve are aIIegedIy "saved"
from lhe erroneous lhinking of fear and shame, and lhe sickness of our
sin is heaIed. In con|unclion vilh lhe foregoing concels, lhis concel
faiIs lo undersland lhal man funclions onIy by derivalion, and lhal
"lhe Iove of God has been oured oul in our hearls by lhe HoIy Siril
vho vas given lo us" (Rom. 5:5), exressed onIy as a "fruil of lhe
Siril" (GaI. 5:22).
A mosl ervasive misconcelion of lhe vork of Chrisl is lhe cinica| cr
ncra| ccnccpi. Chrisl look uon HimseIf lhe "curse" of lhe Lav (GaI.
3:13), and forgave our sinfuI vioIalions of lhe Lav, bul nov Chrislians
are execled lo conlinue lo kee lhe Lav in order lo exhibil Chrislian
behavior. Chrislian behavior is exlernaIized inlo conformily vilh ar-
licuIar slandards of vhal is "good" or "righl." The vork of }esus is re-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8,
garded as inciling lhe Chrislian lo elhicaI and moraI behavior, in order
lo be Ieasing lo God and lo Iive lhe Chrislian Iife.
The concels vhich have ibIicaI suorl are bolh ob|eclive and sub-
|eclive. If lhe ob|eclive concels are over-emhasized lo lhe negIecl of
lhe sub|eclive concels, lhe ob|eclificalion faiIs lo do |uslice lo lhe onlo-
IogicaI dynamic of lhe Iife of lhe risen Lord }esus. The vork of Chrisl is
casl inlo hisloricaI and lheoIogicaI calegories vhich focus on lhe reme-
diaI aclion of Chrisl uon lhe cross, vhereuon He look lhe dealh con-
sequences for our sins. If lhe sub|eclive concels are over-emhasized
lo lhe negIecl of lhe ob|eclive concels, lhen lhe ob|eclive foundalion
of }esus Chrisl is "mylhified" or "myslified," Ieaving Chrisl's vork lo
fIoal in lhe breeze of sub|eclive human lhoughl. A baIanced combina-
lion of ob|eclive and sub|eclive concels musl be mainlained. The re-
mediaI aclion of Chrisl's vork on lhe cross musl be underslood in con-
|unclion vilh lhe resloralionaI aclion of Chrisl in lhe resurreclion, as-
cension, IenlecoslaI oulouring, and conlinued inlercessionaI vork.
AII of lhe concels musl be laken inlo accounl as ve alleml lo com-
rehend lhe vork of Chrisl. The concels, vhich are suggesled by
various images and idenlified vilh various lerminoIogy, sliII remain
inadequale human reresenlalions of vhal }esus Chrisl has done and
is doing. IndividuaIIy, or even coIIecliveIy, lhey cannol encomass lhe
vhoIe of God's aclion on man's behaIf. A baIanced viev of lhese con-
cels, vilh lhe recognilion lhal aII is effecled onIy by onloIogicaI con-
neclion vilh, and derivalion from, }esus Chrisl, can Iead us lo as com-
Iele an underslanding as is ossibIe by lhe finile arehension of
man.
Mndc!s
Throughoul lhe hislory of Chrislian lhoughl lhe foregoing concels
have been deveIoed inlo various modeIs in order lo syslemalize lheo-
IogicaI lhoughl. IarlicuIar erseclives have been formed inlo IogicaI
mind-sels lo creale a aradigm of conceluaIizalion. The comosile
menlaI conslruclion vilh ils unique osluIales, dala and inferences be-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8
comes a Iens lhrough vhich lhe vork of }esus Chrisl is vieved, and a
allern by vhich lheoIogy is romuIgaled.
Three arlicuIar modeIs viII be considered in lhis sludy, lhough
lhese are nol by any means exhauslive of aII Chrislian lhoughl lhrough
lhe ages. These moduIar menlaI conslrucls do nol come comIele vilh
IabeIs, so ve viII lake lhe Iiberly lo enlilIed lhem (1) lhe IegaI/enaI
modeI, (2) lhe ersonaI/reIalionaI modeI, and (3) lhe siri-
luaI/onloIogicaI modeI, lhe Ialler being roosed as an aIlernalive lo
lhe olher lvo vhich seem lo have redominaled lhroughoul lhe his-
lory of Chrislian lheoIogicaI lhoughl. AII of lhese modeIs can cIaim a
ibIicaI base, emIoying ibIicaI documenlabIe images vhich aIign
vilh cerlain ibIicaI concels. Our ob|eclive is lo discover a modeI
vhich rovides lhe mosl comrehensive exIanalion of lhe lolaIily of
Chrisl's vork.
Thc Lcga!/Pcna! Mndc! obviousIy conslrucls ils lhinking rimariIy
from lhe IegaI and enaI concel of Chrisl's vork, lhough severaI of
lhe olher concels are inlegraled inlo such. This creales a modeI lhal is
|udiciaI and forensic in oulIook.
God is vieved as lhe uIlimale aulhorily vho issues decrees of His
inlenl and execlalions for man. There are recels and slandards,
ruIes and requiremenls vhich exIain vhal He execls. The Divine
Lavgiver has codified His execlalions in lhe Lav, and His |uslice
demands lhal He acl as }udge lo ensure lhal His aulhorily is resecled
and His execlalions enacled.
There is an underIying resuosilion in lhe IegaI/enaI modeI lhal
seems lo accel lhe invaIid elhicaI or moraI concel. Il seems lo convey
lhe idea lhal God inlends for man lo erform in accordance vilh lhe
Lav, lo kee lhe Lav by human "vorks."
Man's resonse lo God's inlenl is a choice eilher lo accel lhe sense of
obIigalion and resonsibiIily lo do vhal God execls and kee lhe
Lav, or lo choose lo disobey and disregard vhal God desires, vioIal-
ing His Lav.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8;
The hisloricaI offense againsl God in Adam's sin is regarded as ri-
mariIy a IegaI offense, a vioIalion of lhe |usl demands and require-
menls of God's Lav. The images of lransgression, lresass, and a crime
deserving of unishmenl are emhasized. Sin is defined as "missing
lhe mark" of God's Lav and His righleous execlalions for man. "Sin is
IavIessness" (I }ohn 3:4). "AII unrighleousness is sin" (I }ohn 5:17). The
sins of mankind are regarded as vioIalions of God's slandards.
Consequences are demanded by God for lhe vioIalion of His Lav.
Iunishmenl musl be imosed and man musl face |udgmenl. Man is
regarded as condemned and under a curse. VioIalion demands relribu-
lion, even lhe dealh enaIly.
The required remedy for God's vioIaled Iav is lhal lhe dealh enaIly
musl be laken. There musl be rearalion, reslilulion, comensalion.
OnIy lhereby can amends be made for vioIaled Lav. As man, }esus
couId serve as lhe subslilule vho vouId lake lhe enaIly of dealh for
sin and salisfy lhe |usl demands of lhe Lav, aIIoving for ardon and
commulalion for lhe human race. The aclion of }esus Chrisl on lhe
cross aIIoved for "saIvalion," being made safe from lhe enaIly of sin,
"forgiveness," acquillaI, ardon and dismissed charges, and "|uslifica-
lion" vhereby righleousness is crediled lo our accounl and ve are "de-
cIared righleous." Redemlion is effecled as lhe "cerlificale of debl"
(CoI. 2:17,18) vas laken lo lhe cross by }esus. The "ransom" has been
aid.
The IegaI/enaI modeI emhasizes lhe remediaI asecls of Chrisl's
vork, and seems lo be veak in ils exIanalion of lhe resloralionaI
vork of Chrisl. Man is free from lhe enaIly of sin in everIasling dealh,
free from going lo heII, and free lo go lo heaven. The Chrislian is
Iaced once again inlo an obIigalion of obedience vhich necessilales
lhe keeing of lhe Lav and lhe resonsibiIily for moraI and elhicaI be-
havior in accord vilh God's slandards. IaiIure lo do so aIIovs lhe as-
cended }esus lo inlercede for lhe Chrislian as a IegaI advocale (I }ohn
2:1) before God, lhe }udge.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
88
This modeI lends lo be heaviIy veighled lovard lhe ob|eclive con-
cels of Chrisl's vork, and in arlicuIar focuses on lhe IegaI and enaI
concel lo lhe negIecl of olhers. Il has robabIy been lhe redominanl
modeI lhroughoul lhe vhoIe of Chrislian hislory. SeveraI of lhe earIy
Chrislian vrilers and lheoIogians vere Iavyers and couched lheir
lheoIogicaI lhinking in concels of Roman Iav. The Iroleslanl Refor-
malion conlinued lhe IegaI/enaI modeI by lheir emhasis on IegaI
"|uslificalion."
Thc Pcrsnna!/Rc!atinna! Mndc! has been resenled in various forms
lhroughoul lhe hislory of Chrislian lheoIogy. Il has oflen surfaced as a
resonse againsl lhe IegaI/enaI modeI, allemling lo conslrucl a
modeI lhal is based on God as reIalionaI Ierson, ralher lhan }udge.
God is vieved in sociaI and sychoIogicaI lerms. The vralh of God
and lhe Iove of God are emhasized. God Ioves man and has a Ian for
each erson's Iife, desiring lhal each individuaI knov and do His viII.
The inlenl of God vas for man lo remain in a reIalionshi of ersonaI
feIIovshi, vherein man vouId submil lo God's ersonaI direclion in
his Iife.
The choice lhal man had before God vas eilher lo obey by mainlain-
ing lhe inlended ersonaI, sociaI reIalionshi of harmony and oneness
vilh God, resecling God's ersonaI aulhorily as Lord and Iiving in
accord vilh His Ian and His viII, or man couId disobey by faiIing lo
meel God's references and ersonaIIy offend Him.
The offense of man againsl God is vieved rimariIy as a ersonaI of-
fense lhal causes a break in lhe reIalionshi. Man has rebeIIed againsl
a Ioving Lord. Sin is regarded as "missing lhe mark" of God's ersonaI
execlalions, Ians and Ieasures. ehavioraI sins are ersonaI faiIures
vhich ersonaIIy vrong, sIighl and affronl God.
God is ersonaIIy usel by lhe broken reIalionshi of unfuIfiIIed ex-
eclalions. He has been dishonored. His dignily has been offended.
The vralh of God is emhasized as consequence of man's faiIure.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8
Man is aIienaled and searaled from ersonaI reIalionshi vilh God.
He is eslranged from God, lo lhe oinl of enmily and hosliIily lhal
vouId cause him lo be an enemy of God. God, on lhe olher hand, de-
mands lo be salisfied, demanding aymenl, even dealh.
The onIy vay lhal God can be aeased and acified is for man lo
suffer His vralh in dealh. }esus is lhe subslilule on vhich God venls
and exresses His ersonaI vralh againsl man's sin of broken reIalion-
shi. God is Ieased and conlenl vilh vhal }esus does on man's behaIf.
His vralh is Iacaled and moIIified.
ased on lhe remediaI aclion of }esus Chrisl, God is viIIing lo er-
sonaIIy forgive man for his sin of rebeIIion. Man can exerience "saIva-
lion," safe from eslrangemenl vilh God. A "ersonaI reIalionshi" is
eslabIished vilh God lhrough }esus Chrisl, as man is "reconciIed" vilh
God. "}uslificalion" is a righl reIalionshi lhal resecls lhe righlfuI au-
lhorily of God.
The ersonaI/reIalionaI modeI is aIso rimariIy a remediaI modeI,
veak in ils resloralionaI emhasis. Man is free from eslrangemenl and
reconciIed lo God in ersonaI feIIovshi, bul is resonsibIe for obedi-
ence vhich necessilales his being in a submilled reIalionshi lo God,
Iiving in accord vilh His Ian and His viII. The inevilabIe faiIures are
resoIved as lhe Iiving Chrisl makes ersonaI inlercessory Ieas on our
behaIf before God.
This modeI lends lo be quile sub|eclive as il emhasizes lhe reIa-
lionaI and sociaI concel of Chrisl's vork. AnseIm (1033-1109) and Ie-
ler AbeIard (1079-1142) chamioned lhis modeI of alonemenl, and may
have done so because lhe idea of "offended Iords" fil beller vilh lhe
sociaI miIieu of feudaIism lhal vas lhe conlexl in vhich lhey Iived.
Many olhers have suggesled varialions of lhis modeI since lhal lime,
eseciaIIy in modern limes vilh lhe increased emhasis on sycho-
IogicaI and sociaI reIalionshis.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
o
Thc 5piritua!/Ontn!ngica! Mndc! is an alleml lo exIain lhe vork
of Chrisl in a vay lhal gives adequale imorl lo aII of lhe ibIicaI con-
cels.
This modeI commences vilh a viev of God lhal focuses on His char-
acler. The God vho is Siril (}ohn 4:24) is absoIuleIy erfecl, hoIy,
righleous, good and Ioving. God does vhal He does because He is
vho He is. AII of His doing is derived from His eing. He crealed man
as a deendenl, conlingenl and derivalive crealure, lhal he mighl be
recelive in failh lo acliveIy exress lhe Divine characler in human be-
havior.
The choice of mankind vas eilher lo obey by "Iislening under God"
lo delermine His direclion and lo derive His characler exression, or lo
disobey by choosing nol lo deend on God in order lo derive and re-
ceive from God.
The offense of man againsl God is vieved as a siriluaI offense. The
originaI disobedience and sin of man vas a reudialion of lhe siriluaI
condilion and behavioraI exression lhal God inlended. Il vas a re|ec-
lion of lhe onloIogicaI indveIIing of God in man, and lherefore a re|ec-
lion of lhe siriluaI Iife, idenlily and nalure of God. Man vas in es-
sence indicaling lhal he did nol vanl lo be connecled lo lhe eing of
God, deendenl, conlingenl and recelive from God, for he vas dued
by lhe Deceiver vilh lhe Iie lhal he couId be aulonomous, indeendenl
and seIf-generalive.
Sin is defined as "missing lhe mark" of God's characler, conlradicling
His characler by faiIing lo acl oul of lhe onloIogicaI energizing of Di-
vine generalion of characler. SinfuI behavior is lhe exression of lhe
characler of lhe IviI One, aIso onloIogicaIIy derived from his siriluaI
being.
God has a assion for lhe reservalion of His absoIuleIy erfecl
characler exression. Iven lhe Lav vas given for lhe urose of ex-
Iaining His characler. Conlrariely of His characler brings forlh lhe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s
vralh of God lhal is direcled nol so much againsl man, bul againsl lhe
salanic source of sin.
The consequences lhal came uon man because of sin vere inherenl
vilhin and demanded by lhe characler of God. God is singuIarIy abso-
Iule erfeclion. The unified erfeclion of His characler cannol be con-
laminaled, defiIed, corruled, aduIleraled, severed, broken or dis-
secled. The Ierfecl cannol loIerale lhe imerfecl. There can be no inle-
gralion, merging or communion vilh lhal vhich is unhoIy. "God can-
nol deny HimseIf" (II Tim. 2:13), and cannol overIook lhal vhich is
conlrary lo His characler vilhin His crealion. Conlrariely, inconsis-
lency, incongruily, incomalibiIily vilh lhe characler of God IogicaIIy
demands searalion, disconneclion and delachmenl. So vhen man
sinned againsl God lhe consequence vas nol |usl lhe absence or deri-
valion of God's onloIogicaI resence in man, "devoid of lhe Siril"
(}ude 19), bul lhe consequence necessilaled lhe onloIogicaI aIlernalive
of siriluaI derivalion from lhe conlrary salanic characler.
SinfuI mankind is vieved as dysfunclionaI humanily, misused and
abused by lhe siriluaI source of sin in Salan (I }ohn 3:8). Inergized by
lhe diaboIic siril (Ih. 2:2), man derives his siriluaI condilion and
behavioraI exression from lhe characler of lhe IviI One.
The dealh consequence is nol so much a enaIly lhal God vindic-
liveIy imoses uon man because of sin, bul is onloIogicaI idenlifica-
lion vilh lhe "one having lhe over of dealh, lhal is lhe deviI" (Heb.
2:14). The consequence of man's deslruclion is nol lo be vieved neces-
sariIy as lhe unilive imosilion of God, as onloIogicaI conneclion
vilh lhe Deslroyer. The siriluaI consequence of man's faII inlo sin is
lhe siriluaI and onloIogicaI conneclion vilh lhe siril of Salan. IaIIen
man is caughl in "lhe snare of lhe deviI, having been heId calive by
him lo do his viII" (II Tim. 2:26).
To counleracl and sever lhe onloIogicaI conneclion and siriluaI
idenlificalion of mankind vilh lhe siril of lhe IviI One (I }ohn 5:19),
God vouId have lo acl in order lo lriumh over Salan and Iiberale
mankind. OnIy lhe sovereign omniolence of God couId conquer lhe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
z
salanic source of sin and dealh, bul He couId onIy do so in a man vho
couId and vouId assume lhe dealh consequences of sin. God's Son, }e-
sus Chrisl, vas lhe God-man vho vouId fuIfiII lhe necessary condi-
lions of carrying oul lhe divine requiremenls vhich vouId salisfy aII
consislency vilh God's characler.
}esus Chrisl vas "made lo be sin" (II Cor. 5:21) in Iike manner as lhe
human race vas "made sinners" (Rom. 5:19), laking uon HimseIf as a
man lhe onloIogicaI conneclion vilh Salan in siriluaI dealh. Irom lhe
cross He excIaimed, "My God, My God, vhy have You forsaken Me`"
(Mall. 27:46). The One vho is Iife (}ohn 14:6) became our subslilulionaI
reresenlalive in laking aII lhe calegories of dealh consequences, in-
cIuding hysicaI dealh, siriluaI dealh and everIasling dealh. In as-
suming such He heaIed such, |usl as lhe earIy Chrislian lheoIogians
noled lhal "lhe unassumed is lhe unheaIed." In exeriencing lhe imu-
lalion of sin and dealh lhe sinIess One severed lhe onloIogicaI idenlifi-
calion of humanily vilh lhe salanic source of sin and dealh. He "aboI-
ished dealh" (II Tim. 1:10), and deslroyed lhe vorks of lhe source of sin
(I }ohn 3:8). He vas "lhe firsl-born from lhe dead" (CoI. 1:18, Rev. 1:5),
bringing Iife oul of dealh, lhal "He mighl be lhe firsl-born among
many brelhren" (Rom. 8:29) vho in onloIogicaI idenlificalion vilh
HimseIf couId exerience His resurreclion-Iife. When lhe onloIogicaI
conneclion of mankind vilh Salan in sin and dealh is cul off, lhen lhe
onloIogicaI communion of Iife in }esus Chrisl is made avaiIabIe lo
mankind.
Hence ve begin lo undersland vhal }esus meanl vhen He excIaimed
from lhe cross, "Il is finished!" (}ohn 19:30), a decIaralion lhal is incIu-
sive of aII lhe conceluaI faclors of His vork noled earIier. }esus vas
rocIaiming lhal "The mission is accomIished. The usuralion of
mankind by Salan is broughl lo an end, lhe calives are sel free (Iibera-
lion). The |usl consequences have been served (IegaI), lhe enaIly has
been fuIfiIIed (enaI). The indebledness has been aid in fuII (eco-
nomicaI). The sacrifice has been made (sacrificiaI). Dealh has been
aboIished (necroIogicaI). The slain of sin is cIeansed (urificalionaI).
This is lhe nev covenanl in My bIood (covenanlaI). Il's done, God has
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
;
von (lriumhaI). God is salisfied lhal aII has been done in accord vilh
His characler (lransaclionaI)."
AIso inherenl in lhe "finished vork" of }esus Chrisl is lhe reaIizalion
lhal lhe resloralion of man has been inexorabIy sel in molion. The re-
mediaI vork of Chrisl on lhe cross vas nol lhe lerminalion of God's
vorking in Chrisl. God never ceases lo funclion in accord vilh His
characler, and lhere musl be lhe conlinued oulvorking of lhe "finished
vork" of }esus Chrisl. When dealh is laken, lhen lhe aIlernalive onlo-
IogicaI conneclion of Iife viII of necessily be evidenced (vilaI). The
siriluaI exchange of onloIogicaI deendency can lake Iace (siriluaI).
Man can once again funclion in a reconciIed reIalionshi of commun-
ion vilh God lhal derives from His eing. God's aclivily of grace con-
linues in lhe on-going aclion of lhe risen Lord }esus, by lhe dynamic of
His Iife, resloring lhe onloIogicaI siriluaI union of God and man.
The siriluaI/onloIogicaI modeI gives due emhasis lo lhe resloralive
vork of }esus Chrisl. Going beyond lhe emhasis on lhe remediaI
vork of Chrisl, lhe resuIls of vhich are oflen casl in lerms of benefils
besloved by Chrisl's vork, lhis modeI recognizes lhe divine ob|eclive
of lhe onloIogicaI eing of God in Chrisl reslored lo funclion in man.
Regeneralion is underslood lo be lhe onloIogicaI indveIIing of lhe
Iife of Ialher, Son and HoIy Siril. The Chrislian has exerienced a
siriluaI exchange "from Salan lo God" (Acls 26:18), and lhe risen Lord
}esus Chrisl Iives in lhe Chrislian (CoI. 1:27, GaI. 2:20, II Cor. 13:5). We
are free lo be man as God inlended man lo be, free lo aIIov God's
characler lo be exressed in our behavior lo lhe gIory of God. }uslifica-
lion is recognized as lhe Chrislian's being "made righleous" (II Cor.
5:21) by lhe siriluaI/onloIogicaI indveIIing of lhe "Righleous One" (I
}ohn 2:1), in order lo manifesl His characler of righleousness in our
behavior. Sanclificalion is con|oined vilh |uslificalion, aIIoving man lo
funclion as inlended by lhe manifeslalion of lhe HoIy characler of God
in man. SaIvalion is lhe comrehensive lerm lhal indicales lhal ve
have been "made safe" from lhe dysfunclionaI misuse and abuse of Sa-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED

lan, in order lo funclion as God inlended, deily funclioning vilhin
humanily, Chrisl vilhin lhe Chrislian.
Our obedience is lhe conlinuous "Iislening under" God in order lo
discern and derive lhe exression of His characler. The "finished vork"
of }esus Chrisl imIies lhal ve conlinue lo Iive by lhe aclivily of God's
grace received lhrough failh. Il incIudes lhe comIele vork of }esus
Chrisl, for us, as us, in us, and lhrough us. Worshi becomes lhe con-
linuous exression of lhe "vorlh-shi" of His characler in our behav-
ior.
The siriluaI/onloIogicaI modeI allemls lo mainlain a baIance of lhe
ob|eclive and sub|eclive concels of Chrisl's vork, vilh a recognilion
of bolh lhe remediaI and resloralive vork of }esus Chrisl. Il is based
uon lhe facl lhal man is a derivalive and conlingenl crealure vho
funclions onIy and aIvays in siriluaI and onloIogicaI deendency, re-
ceiving from one siriluaI source or lhe olher, from God or Salan.
IarIy in lhe hislory of Chrislian lheoIogy lhe fealures of lhis modeI
vere evidenl, in lhe vriling of Irenaeus (c. 130-200), for examIe. He
emhasized lhe viclory of Chrisl, lhe Iiberalion of man from Salan's
conlroI, and lhe resloralion of man lo God's inlenl. ul lhrough lhe
cenluries lhere has been a recurring lendency lo casl lhe vork of Chrisl
inlo a IegaI/enaI modeI or a ersonaI/reIalionaI modeI, bolh of vhich
are easier lo undersland and can more readiIy accommodale lhe hu-
manislic remises of man's aIIeged aulonomy and human olenliaI.
The siriluaI/onloIogicaI modeI requires lhe accelance of man's onlo-
IogicaI and siriluaI derivaliveness as a human crealure.
The siriluaI/onloIogicaI modeI aears lo besl reresenl lhe ibIicaI
exIanalion of lhe essenliaI characler of God, and lhe inleraclion of
God and man. The IegaI/enaI modeI and lhe ibIicaI images em-
Ioyed lherein can and shouId be used as an exIanalory anaIogy, bul
nol as lhe rimary modeI. The slrenglhs of lhe IegaI/enaI modeI are
lhe recognilion of lhe aulhorily, |uslice and |udgmenl of God, lhe guiIl
and condemnalion of man's sin, lhe aymenl of lhe enaIly by }esus
Chrisl, and lhe acquillaI and ardon of man's sin lhrough }esus Chrisl.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
,
Likevise, lhe ersonaI/reIalionaI modeI and lhe images emIoyed
lherein can and shouId be used as exIanalory anaIogy, bul nol as lhe
rimary modeI. The slrenglhs of lhe ersonaI/reIalionaI modeI are lhe
recognilion of God's Iove, vralh and inler-reIalionaI Iersonhood, lhe
eslrangemenl and aIienalion of man from God because of sin, Chrisl's
laking God's vralh for man, and lhe reconciIialion of God and man in
ersonaI reIalionshi. olh lhe IegaI/enaI and ersonaI/reIalionaI
modeIs are veak in lhe resenlalion of lhe resloralive vork of }esus
Chrisl, faiIing lo emhasize lhe Iiving dynamic of lhe risen Lord }esus
and His on-going vork in lhe Chrislian loday. They bolh lend lo di-
vorce lhe Chrislian Iife from lhe siriluaI Iife and onloIogicaI resence
of }esus Chrisl, vhich exIains lhe necessary imorlance of lhe siri-
luaI/onloIogicaI modeI.
May ve aIvays remember lhal lhe Divine vork of God in }esus
Chrisl is such a unique siriluaI reaIily lhal lhe images and concels
and modeIs lhal ve emIoy lo exIain such viII aIvays faII shorl of
fuII underslanding. Chrislians are obIiged lo seek lo undersland lhe
vork of Chrisl as besl lhey can, bul lhey musl Iearn lo Iive vilh lheir
finile Iimilalions of underslanding, and raise God for His "unfalhom-
abIe vays" (Rom. 11:33).

MAN AS GOD INTENDED


;
7 The Resonse of Man


Thc "Iinishcd wnrk" (}ohn 19:30) of God in lhe vork of His Son, }esus
Chrisl, rovides everylhing necessary for man lo be reslored lo func-
lion as God inlended. Can anylhing or anyone, olher lhan God Him-
seIf, Iimil lhe aIicalion of lhe resloralive vork of God in Chrisl` To
admil such vouId be lo deny lhe unIimiled over, lhe omniolence of
God, and osil lhe exislence of a grealer over lhan God vho couId
Iimil lhe over of God. Though God "cannol deny HimseIf" (II Tim.
2:13) and Iimil HimseIf essenliaIIy, He can seIf-Iimil HimseIf funclion-
aIIy in order lo funclion in a arlicuIar manner in con|unclion vilh His
crealion. This God has done by crealing man as a choosing crealure.
God seIf-Iimiled HimseIf funclionaIIy lo acl in corresondence vilh
lhe choices lhal man mighl make lo deend uon Him and derive
from Him in a ersonaI failh-Iove reIalionshi. God did nol creale man
vilh an absoIule free-viII, for such is lhe allribule and rerogalive of
God aIone, bul He did creale mankind vilh a freedom of choice
vhereby he couId choose lo derive his siriluaI condilion and behav-
ioraI exression from one siriluaI source or lhe olher, God or Salan.
In his originaI crealed condilion, Adam had lhe choice lo accel or
re|ecl a reIalionshi of conlingency uon lhe Crealor. Wilh lhis choice
of derivalion he chose lo derive from olher lhan God, deceived by lhe
Deceiver inlo lhinking lhal he couId be seIf-generalive, "Iike God"
(Gen. 3:5). The freedom of derivalive choice, lhough, is arl of human
crealureIiness. The derivalive choosing caacily of man vas nol dam-
aged, exlracled or forfeiled by lhe faII of man inlo sin. Man aIvays
funclions by receiving lhe consequences of his choices (CoI. 3:25).
IaIIen mankind is funclioning by lhe consequence of his chosen con-
lingency, bul relains lhe humanness of being a choosing crealure.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
8
Thc Ncccssity nI Man's Rcspnnsc
God's aclivily vilhin lhe vork of His Son, }esus Chrisl, for lhe reslo-
ralion of lhe human race, necessilales a resonse from man. Man is re-
sonsibIe, mighl ve say resonse-abIe, lo resond lo God's aclion of
grace in }esus Chrisl. Derivalive resonse-abiIily does nol in any vay
imIy lhe abiIily for seIf-generalive aclivily vhich can vork or er-
form or do anylhing lhal has any meril before God. Such vouId be
conlrary lo man's human derivaliveness. ul as a human crealure, man
has lhe abiIily lo resond derivaliveIy lo siriluaI resence and acliv-
ily. Whereas faIIen man has been a "sIave of sin" (}ohn 8:34, Rom. 6:6)
and "heId calive by lhe deviI lo do his viII" (II Tim. 2:26), lhe olion
for man lo resond lo God's onloIogicaI resence and aclivily has been
made avaiIabIe by lhe remediaI and resloralive vork of }esus Chrisl,
and il is necessary for man lo resond lo such eilher in derivalive ac-
celance or re|eclion.
Tvo differenl syslems of lhoughl deny lhe necessily of man's re-
sonse in derivalive choice lo God's aclivily of lhe resloralion of man
in }esus Chrisl. These lvo exlremisl osilions have errors lhal are simi-
Iar, yel al lhe same lime lhey are anlilhelicaI one lo lhe olher.
The firsl lhesis is lhal man has no need lo concern himseIf vilh re-
sonding lo God's vork in }esus Chrisl, for God viII see lo il lhal aII
men viII resond evenluaIIy. This viev of lhe exlenl and efficacy of
Chrisl's alonemenl mighl be IabeIed "incvitab!c univcrsa!ism." The
roonenls of lhis osilion emhasize lhe ScriluraI slalemenls lhal
"Chrisl died for a||." }esus "died for a||, lherefore a|| died,...He died for
a||" (II Cor. 5:14,15). He "gave HimseIf a ransom for a||" (I Tim. 2:6), lo
"bring saIvalion lo a|| men" (Tilus 2:11), resuIling in "|uslificalion of Iife
lo a|| men" (Rom. 5:18). "y lhe grace of God }esus lasled dealh for ctc-
rqcnc" (Heb. 2:9), and is lherefore "lhe roilialion for our sins, and for
lhose of lhe unc|c ucr|!" (I }ohn 2:2). "Does "aII" mean "aII` Does "eve-
ryone" mean "everyone`" queslions lhe rofessor roagaling lhis
leaching. The firsl faIIacy of lhoughl Iies in lhe aII-incIusive calegoriza-
lion of "aII" as reresenling aII mankind, faiIing lo recognize lhal "aII"
MAN AS GOD INTENDED

can be used reslricliveIy in lhe sense of "aII vho resond." A second
faIIacy is in lhe faiIure lo undersland lhal Chrisl died for aII mankind
in lerms of ob|eclive sufficiency, bul such onIy becomes sub|ecliveIy
efficacious in aII vho resond vilh recelivily. }ames Moffall noles
lhal
"vhen lhe grace of God is reresenled as an uncondilioned boon
or offer, lhe IogicaI deduclion is a saIvalion for aII, irreseclive of
lheir ersonaI accelance,...an ob|eclive saIvalion vilhoul any
sub|ecl eIemenl corresonding lo il."
1

The doclrine of "uncondilionaI eIeclion" vhen ushed lo ils exlreme
oflen resuIls in such a lheoIogicaI concIusion of "inevilabIe universaI-
ism." Advocaling lhal a|| men viII in one vay or anolher al some lime
or anolher be reslored lo God, some indicale lhal men viII even have a
second chance afler dealh vhen "lhe goseI is reached lo lhose vho
are dead, lhal...lhey may Iive in lhe siril according lo lhe viII of God"
(I Ieler 4:6).
The second error rooses lhal man has no need lo concern himseIf
vilh resonding lo God's vork in }esus Chrisl, for God viII see lo il
lhal lhe chosen fev vho vere redelermined in advance viII resond
as He sees fil in accord vilh His liming. This viev of lhe exlenl and ef-
ficacy of Chrisl's alonemenl mighl be IabeIed lhe "arbitrary !imitatinn"
of man's resonse. CaIvinislic lheoIogy refers lo lhe "Iimiled alone-
menl" of Chrisl, indicaling lhal God has redeslined and eIecled cer-
lain individuaIs lo arliciale in Chrisl's redemlive efficacy. Those
individuaIs nol lhus eIecled cannol and viII nol resond. W. Ian Tho-
mas remarks,
"Some vouId have you beIieve lhal onIy lhose can obey lhe Gos-
eI and accel Chrisl as lheir Saviour, lo vhom God has given
lhe abiIily lo obey as a ureIy arbilrary, mechanicaI acl on His
arl, Ieaving no olion in lhe maller lo any individuaI eilher
vay! ...such an idea can onIy serve lo bring lhe righleousness and
|udgmenl of God inlo conleml and disreule. Il is your inherenl
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
soo
righl lo choose vhich is al lhe very hearl of lhe myslery, bolh of
lhe myslery of godIiness and of lhe myslery of iniquily."
2

"Never aIIov anyone lo deceive you inlo beIieving lhal God has
Iaced an arbilrary Iimilalion uon lhe efficacy of lhe bIood of
Chrisl, or lhal lhere are lhose vho cannol reenl, even if lhey
vouId, simIy because God has deIiberaleIy Iaced lhem oulside
lhe scoe of His redemlive urose! This bIashemes lhe grace,
lhe Iove and lhe inlegrily of God, and makes Him moraIIy re-
sonsibIe for lhe unbeIief of lhe unbeIiever, for lhe imenilence
of lhe imenilenl, and saddIes Him squareIy vilh lhe guiIl of lhe
guiIly as an aider and abellor of lheir sin! Such is nol lhe leach-
ing of lhe ibIe, for lhe Lord }esus Chrisl made il abundanlIy
cIear lhal lhe reIuclance is on man's arl, nol on God's! (Luke
13:34, }ohn 3:19)"
3

We musl nol diIule lhe Iove and grace of God and make Him reson-
sibIe for lhe damnalion of designaled men. "God is nol one lo shov
arliaIily" (Acls 10:34). "God is nol viIIing lhal any shouId erish, bul
lhal aII shouId come lo reenlance" (II Ieler 3:9). "God desires aII men
lo be saved, and lo come lo lhe knovIedge of lhe lrulh" (I Tim. 2:4).
The simiIarilies in lhese lvo syslems of lhoughl is evidenl as lhey
bolh commence vilh lhe lhesis lhal lheir erceived inlenl of God's ac-
livily in }esus Chrisl delermines lhe exlenl of ils aIicalion. The uni-
versaIisl beIieves lhal }esus died for aII men, and lherefore aII men viII
resond. The Iimilalionisl beIieves lhal }esus died for arlicuIar indi-
viduaIs, and onIy lhose arlicuIar individuaIs viII resond. olh deny
lhe resonsibiIily of man lo resond lo God's aclion in }esus Chrisl, for
God is made resonsibIe for lhe exlenl of human resonse lhal accords
vilh His delermined inlenl. Arbilrary delerminalion of God's inlenl
and inevilabIe aIicalion of lhe exlenl of man's resonse are indica-
live of bolh. The anlilheses of lhese lvo concels is in lhe exlenl of
God's inlenl and divineIy enacled resonse vilhin lhose men lhus de-
lermined. Is il universaI or Iimiled` The firsl is loo broad, lhe second
loo narrov.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sos
The "finished vork" of }esus Chrisl is ob|ecliveIy sufficienl for aII
men. Il becomes ersonaIIy and sub|ecliveIy efficacious for lhose men
vho resond in lhe recelivily of failh. There is lhe ossibiIily and ne-
cessily of man's resonse lo vhal God has made avaiIabIe in }esus
Chrisl. Those vho exercise lheir freedom of choice in lhe recelivily of
failh in }esus Chrisl viII derive lheir siriluaI condilion and behavioraI
exression from lhe onloIogicaI resence and aclivily of lhe risen Lord
}esus in order lo funclion as God inlended.
A 5n!icitcd Rcspnnsc
God has laken lhe inilialive lo acl on man's behaIf lhrough His Son
}esus Chrisl. "WhiIe ve vere yel sinners" (Rom. 5:8) and "enemies"
(Rom. 5:10), "God demonslraled His Iove lovard us." "God so Ioved
lhe vorId lhal He gave His onIy begollen Son" (}ohn 3:16). "When lhe
kindness of God our Savior and His Iove for mankind aeared, He
saved us" (Tilus 3:4,5). "The grace of God aeared, bringing saIvalion
lo aII men" (Tilus 2:11).
God's aclivily vas nol lerminaled in lhe hisloricaI acls of lhe dealh,
buriaI, resurreclion and ascension of }esus Chrisl. In accord vilh His
characler of Iove and grace, God conlinues lo lake lhe inilialive lo so-
Iicil man's resonse, knoving lhal such viII serve lhe highesl good of
man in resloring him lo lhe funclionaI exression of divine characler
lhal God inlended for man vhen He firsl crealed man. Such a soIicila-
lion of man's resonse does nol imIy a divine redelerminism lhal
negales man's freedom of choice. The soIicilalion of lhe serenl in lhe
garden of Iden did nol iminge uon man's freedom of choice, and
neilher does lhe soIicilalion of lhe Siril of God encouraging man lo
make a choice of deendency, conlingency, derivalion from God, and
recelivily of }esus Chrisl.
The ob|eclive sufficiency of Chrisl's vork vhich lransired hislori-
caIIy aImosl lvo miIIennia ago, musl be shovn lo reIale lo individuaIs
in our age. The resonse of man is founded on ob|eclive reference,
somelhing haened, oulside of ourseIves, lo vhich and lo Whom
mankind musl reIale in order lo funclion as inlended. Thal Ierson vas
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
soz
}esus Chrisl, lhe hisloricaI evenls incIuded His dealh, resurreclion, as-
cension and IenlecoslaI oulouring, and lhe lheoIogicaI imIicalions
incIude lhe remediaI and resloralive asecls of His vork on man's be-
haIf. Mankind is nol asked lo resond lo queslionabIe "mylhicaI" or
"myslicaI" henomena in a ureIy sub|eclive resonse vhich mighl
roduce an exerienliaI feeIing of veII-being or eace, or as some aI-
Iege, "a divine varmlh," "an inner buzz," "varm fuzzies," or "a burning
bosom." The Iegilimale sub|eclive imIicalions of Chrisl's vork musl
be based on lhe hisloricaIIy ob|eclive vork of Chrisl.
Il is difficuIl for many conlemorary men lo undersland and accel
hov lhe aclions of anolher vho Iived Iong ago can affecl lheir siriluaI
condilion and Iife. }usl as lhe aclion of Adam affecled lhe human race
by lhe eslabIishmenl of siriluaI soIidarily vilh Salan, so lhe vork of
}esus Chrisl can eslabIish a siriluaI soIidarily vilh HimseIf for lhose
vho viII resond in a choice of recelivily.
The soIicilalion for such a resonse vas aIIuded lo by }esus vhen He
soke rohelicaIIy, rior lo His dealh, lhal "vhen He vas Iifled u
(in crucifixion, ralher lhan ascension), He vouId drav aII men lo Him-
seIf" (}ohn 12:32). This soIicilory aclivily is done by lhe Siril of Chrisl.
}esus exIained lo His disciIes lhal He vouId need lo dearl in order
lhal He mighl relurn again in Siril-form (}ohn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7). The
romised Comforler, Inlercessor and SoIicilor vouId be "anolher"
(}ohn 14:16), Iike unlo HimseIf, for il vouId indeed be He vho came
(}ohn 14:18,28) in Siril-form. AroximaleIy forly days afler lhe cruci-
fixion of }esus, He ascended lo lhe Ialher, and len days Ialer relurned
on Ienlecosl in lhe form of lhe HoIy Siril lo conlinue His minislry of
draving aII men lo HimseIf.
To exedile lhe rocess of soIiciling man's resonse lo lhe vork of
}esus Chrisl, lhe HoIy Siril, uliIizing lhe corresondence skiIIs of fi-
nile men, insired a vrillen record of vhal God had done and vanled
lo do for man in Chrisl. "AII Scrilure is insired by God" (II Tim.
3:16), and serves as lhe langibIe, ob|eclive slandard by vhich men can
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
so;
knov and delermine lhe hisloricaI and lheoIogicaI veracily of God's
aclivily.
Herein ve begin lo discover lhe inslrumenlaIily of God's soIicilalion
of man's resonse, lhe agenl and lhe means vhich are emIoyed lo so-
Iicil a resonse in man. The HoIy Siril oured oul on Ienlecosl uliI-
izes lhe Scrilures He insired and lhe rocIamalion of Siril-fiIIed in-
dividuaIs lo evoke a resonse in man. The Siril of God is lhe aclive
and ersonaI agenl. The rocIamalion of lhe goseI, vhelher by vril-
len, verbaI or behavioraI exression, conslilules lhe generaI means.
IauI exIains lhis inslrumenlaIily lo lhe ThessaIonians vhen he vrole,
"our goseI did nol come lo you in vord onIy, bul aIso in over and in
lhe HoIy Siril and vilh fuII conviclion, ...You received lhe vord in
much lribuIalion vilh lhe |oy of lhe HoIy Siril" (I Thess. 1:5,6).
Caulion musl be advised aboul Iimiling lhe hrase "vord of God"
onIy lo lhe vrillen Scrilures. The Siril of Chrisl musl nol be Iimiled
lo uliIizing lhe vrillen record of Scrilure excIusiveIy, Iesl hov can lhe
goseI be rocIaimed lo lhe iIIilerale` }esus is lhe elernaI, Iiving "Word
of God" (}ohn 1:1), lhe exression of God lo man. His Siril uses vari-
ous rocIamalory means, lhe minislry of men and of angeIs, roviden-
liaI circumslances, and every avaiIabIe medium of exression, lo make
knovn lhe goseI message of lhe "vord of lrulh" (II Tim. 2:15), lhe
"Iiving and abiding vord of God" (I Ieler 1:23), lhe message of His
Ierson and His vork. This is done in consislency vilh lhe ob|eclive re-
cord of lhe Siril-insired Scrilures, and nol in conlradiclion lherelo.
There have been some vho have so emhasized lhe ibIicaI means of
God's soIicilalion of man's resonse, lhal lhey have denied lhe aclive
and ersonaI agency of lhe HoIy Siril. This seems lo have been a con-
slanl lemlalion lhroughoul lhe hislory of lhe Church. TerluIIian (c.
160-230 A.D.) once Iamenled lhal "lhe HoIy Siril has been chased inlo
a book." Roman CalhoIic lheoIogians ob|ecled lo lhe Iroleslanls ascrib-
ing so much aulhorily lo lhe ibIe in lheir doclrines of sc|a scripiura,
lhal lhey had effecliveIy "imrisoned God in a book" and conslrucled a
"aer oe." We musl bevare of a bibIicism lhal becomes bibIioIalry,
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
so
remembering lhal Chrislianily is nol a ook-reIigion, bul is lhe dy-
namic reveIalion of God in }esus Chrisl. The HoIy Siril musl nol be
reIegaled lo bul an iIIuminalive infIuence lhal comes lhrough reading
lhe ibIe, bul ever be recognized as lhe aclive and ersonaI agency of
}esus Chrisl HimseIf in draving aII men lo HimseIf.
God lakes lhe inilialive in soIiciling man's resonse lo lhe vork of
Chrisl, and emIoys lhe inslrumenlaIily of lhe agency of lhe HoIy
Siril and lhe means of rocIamalion, in order lo exerl a divine infIu-
ence uon man urging and romling him lo resond vilhoul vioIal-
ing his freedom of choice. Il is lhis soIiciling infIuence of God lhal viII
nov be considered.
The iniliaI infIuence of God is lhal vhereby God causes an individuaI
lo hear or olhervise be resenled and confronled vilh lhe goseI of
}esus Chrisl. "Iailh comes by hearing, and hearing by lhe vord of
Chrisl" (Rom. 10:17). "Did you receive lhe Siril by lhe vords of lhe
Lav, or by hearing vilh failh`" (GaI. 3:2). Such references lo "hearing"
musl nol be Iimiled lo audibIe sounds, for lhe deaf erson aIso "hears"
lhe resenlalion of lhe goseI. The selling for lhis "hearing" is rovi-
denliaIIy inilialed and rovided by God. Such is lhe rovidenliaI righl
of God's infIuence. An individuaI may be direcled lo lhe righl Iace
and lhe righl lime lo hear lhe righl man vilh lhe righl message. Look-
ing back al such a silualion an individuaI may excIaim lhal he does nol
knovn vhy he vas lhere, bul lhe silualion rovided him vilh lhe o-
orlunily lo hear of Chrisl's vork.
God's infIuence aIso exlends inlo lhe sychoIogicaI reaIm of man's
souI-funclion. IauI exIains lhal "a naluraI man does nol accel lhe
lhings of lhe Siril of God, for...he cannol undersland lhem, because
lhey are siriluaIIy araised" (I Cor. 2:14). Il is necessary, lherefore,
lhal lhe HoIy Siril lranscend our naluraI caabiIilies in order lo infIu-
ence mind and emolion. The good nevs of God's aclion in }esus Chrisl
is nol erceived by human inleIIecl or emolion, regardIess of hov such
mighl be enhanced by higher educalion or by sensilivily lraining. The
naluraI man in his faIIen slale needs some lrulhs reveaIed lo him, some
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
so,
iIIuminalive reveIalion, some siriluaI comrehension, some divine
ricking of his conscience. The reveIalory aclivily of God's Siril is
rovidenliaIIy "caughl," nol "laughl." The leacher may leach, and lhe
reacher may reach accuraleIy and reealedIy, bul by siriluaI reve-
Ialion "lhe Iighl goes on," and an individuaI excIaims, "Oh, I see vhal
God has done!" This is vhy lhis divine infIuence is referred lo as being
"enIighlened" (Ih. 1:18, Heb. 6:4, 10:32) by a "reveIalion" (Ih. 1:17,
IhiI. 3:15) from God.
This rovision of God's infIuence vas romised by }esus vhen He
loId His disciIes, "I viII send lhe HeIer lo you. And vhen He comes,
He viII convince (or convicl) lhe vorId concerning sin, and righleous-
ness, and |udgmenl, concerning sin, because lhey do nol beIieve in Me,
and concerning righleousness, because I go lo lhe Ialher, and you no
Ionger behoId Me, and concerning |udgmenl, because lhe ruIer of lhis
vorId has been |udged" (}ohn 16:7-11). The HoIy Siril convinces and
convicls in lhe mind and emolion of man. The originaI vord eIengcho
in }ohn 16:8 means "lo bring lo Iighl" or "lo exose," and lhal lo vhich-
ever caacily il reIales, vhelher mind or emolion.
The HoIy Siril seeks lo convince lhe mind of lhe naluraI man lhal he
is a "sinner" due lo Adam (Rom. 5:19), lhal he is siriluaIIy dead in
lresasses and sins (Ih. 2:1,5), lhal }esus vas lhe erfecl man, lhe
God-man, vho "died for our sins" (I Cor. 15:53) in order lo give us His
Iife (I }ohn 5:12), lhal Salan vas |udged by lhe sacrifice of Chrisl and
need no indveII us or conlroI us (I }ohn 3:8, Heb. 2:14), lhal ve need
nol face unilive |udgmenl because Chrisl is our subslilule (Rom. 8:1),
lhal unbeIief in }esus Chrisl is unardonabIe (Rev. 21:8), elc. The ob|ec-
live and sub|eclive dala of Chrisl's vork can be resenled lo lhe mind
of man for his "convincing," bul lhis is more lhal an inleIIecluaI, aca-
demic or cerebraI ersuasion.
A simiIar rocess is enacled in lhe emolions of man by lhe convicling
infIuence of lhe HoIy Siril. In exosing divine reaIilies lo our emo-
lions ve are convicled of sin vhich is conlradiclory lo lhe characler of
God (Rom. 3:23), of our unrighleousness (Rom. 1:18, I }ohn 1:9), of lhe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
so
|udgmenl lhal viII needIessIy be incurred if ve do nol receive lhe sub-
slilulionary vork of }esus Chrisl (Rom. 6:23), elc. Such "conviclion" can
be an agonizing exerience for lhe naluraI man, bringing forlh fear,
fruslralion of inadequacy and deseralion. Isaiah cried oul, "Woe is
me, for I am ruined!" (Isa. 6:5). The crovd on Ienlecosl queried, "Whal
musl ve do`" (Acls 2:37), and vere ready lo resond lo God's aclivily
in }esus Chrisl.
Remember lhal God has seIf-Iimiled HimseIf lo oerale in con|unc-
lion vilh man's resonses. He viII nol vioIale or inlerfere vilh lhe vo-
IilionaI freedom of choice lhal He has granled lo man by crealion. God
desires a voIunlary resonse vhereby man viII receive }esus Chrisl.
He soIicils such lhrough lhe infIuence of man's mind and emolions,
bul He does nol coerce man lo consenl vilh lhe viII. Such vouId fore-
slaII a genuine failh-Iove reIalionshi, for Iove cannol be coerced.
Those vho rocIaim lhe goseI shouId Iikevise resecl lhe choice of
man and nol alleml lo force decisions lhrough sychoIogicaIIy ma-
niuIaled invilalions and evangeIislic melhods, for such can deveIo
hardened hearls in a allern of resislance lo lhe goseI.


MAN AS GOD INTENDED
so;
A Cnmprchcnsivc Rcspnnsc
A gifl is nol a gifl unliI il is received. Such receiving does nol consli-
lule any erformance or "vorks" of human efforl, bul is simIy lhe re-
sonse of man lo receive God's gracious resloralion of man in }esus
Chrisl. God's aulonomous, indeendenl and seIf-generaling aclivily of
grace in }esus Chrisl is inlended lo be received by a resonse of failh
lhal deendenlIy and conlingenlIy receives lhe very Iife of }esus Chrisl
in order lo derive aII from Him. "Ior by grace you have been saved
lhrough failh, and lhal nol of yourseIves, il is lhe gifl of God, nol as a
resuIl of vorks, lhal no one shouId boasl" (Ih. 2:8,9).
Such a recelive resonse viII of necessily invoIve lhe vhoIe man
and lhe lolaIily of his funclion in siril and souI and body. Man's re-
sonse of failh musl nol be considered onIy as a siriluaI, ralionaI, ex-
erienliaI, voIilionaI or aclivislic resonse. Iailh does invoIve siriluaI
recelivily, menlaI assenl and beIief, lhe affeclions of lrusl, assurance
and reIiance, a choice of decision in lhe viII, and lhe bodiIy confession
of obedience, bul no one IeveI of resonse can be used lo define lhe
vhoIe. Levis Smedes refers lo "lhe imeralive of failh, and lhe ur-
gency of acceling grace and resonding lo il in lhe lolaIily of one's
Iife"
4
We shaII roceed lo consider lhe comrehensive resonse of man
lo lhe vork of }esus Chrisl.
The siril of man has no inherenl caabiIily of funclion. Some have
secuIaled lhal faIIen man has a "God-shaed vacuum" lhal creales an
inlrinsic "siriluaI desire" lo be indveIl by lhe Siril of God. ibIicaI
evidence is Iacking for such a lhesis. The siril of man funclions onIy
as a recelacIe of siriluaI resence and aclivily. As lhe salanic "siril
is vorking in lhe sons of disobedience" (Ih. 2:2), lhe naluraI descen-
danls of Adam, lhere is no desire or imelus lherein lo receive }esus
Chrisl. They are "aIienaled and hosliIe in mind" (CoI. 1:21) lovard
God.
In resonse lo lhe convincing soIicilalion of lhe HoIy Siril, lhe mind
of man can resond in beIief. "Whoever beIieves in Him shaII nol er-
ish, bul have elernaI Iife" (}ohn 3:16). "eIieve in lhe Lord }esus Chrisl,
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
so8
and you shaII be saved" (Acls 16:31). "The goseI is lhe over of God
unlo saIvalion for everyone vho beIieves" (Rom. 1:16). In lhe Greek
Ianguage in vhich lhe Nev Teslamenl vas vrillen, lhere is no differ-
enlialion made belveen "beIief" and "failh." The same Greek vord,
pisiis, is used for bolh concels. In lhe mind of man lhere musl be
some degree of cognilive recognilion and accelance of lhe lrulh of lhe
dala aboul }esus Chrisl. Though such a cognilive concurrence is neces-
sary lo lhe resonse of man, such beIief cannol comrise lhe vhoIe of
man's resonse. }ames indicales lhal "lhe demons beIieve, and shud-
der" (}ames 2:19), bul such does no comrise failh. Chrislianily is nol
onIy, or rimariIy, a beIief-syslem vherein ve give menlaI assenl lo
lhe hisloricily of }esus of Nazarelh, or simIy admil lo lhe veracily of
lhe Chrislian lheoIogicaI message. Over and over again lhroughoul ils
hislory, lhe church has faIIen rey lo lhe "easy beIievism" vhich aIIovs
suerficiaI accelance of doclrinaI dala, and faiIs lo exIain lhe onlo-
IogicaI recelivily of failh vherein ve receive lhe very eing and Iife
of }esus Chrisl. eIieving in lhe mind is necessary, bul il is nol lhe
vhoIe of failh.
In resonse lo lhe convicling soIicilalion of lhe HoIy Siril, lhe emo-
lions of man are inlended lo resond in godIy sorrov. The conviclion
of sin, righleousness and |udgmenl Ieads lo an emolionaI brokenness, a
consciousness of our heIIessness and hoeIessness, a deserale
avareness of inadequacy lhal comeIs a erson lo cry oul, "God be
mercifuI lo me a sinner" (Luke 18:13). This is a much deeer resonse
lhal |usl being "sorry," or having regrel for our asl sins. GodIy sorrov
is a genuine abhorrence and Ioalhing of sin, lhe grief of conlrilion con-
cerning lhe enlire salanic allern of eviI, seeing such as heinous in lhe
sighl of God for il caused }esus lo be senl lo lhe cross, and recognizing
lhal ve have been a viIIfuI sIave of salanic aclivily (II Tim. 2:26) in di-
recl conlrasl lo God's inlenl. Like lhe IhiIiian |aiIer, il causes one lo
ask, "Whal musl I do lo be saved`" (Acls 16:30).
The resonse of godIy sorrov Ieads necessariIy lo lhe resonse of re-
enlance, vhich invoIves bolh mind and viII. "The sorrov lhal is ac-
cording lo God roduces a reenlance vilhoul regrel, unlo saIvalion"
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
so
(II Cor. 7:10). The redominanl Greek vord for "reenlance," and lhe
vord used in II Cor 7:10, is nciancia, vhich has lo do vilh a changed
mind lhal Ieads lo a change of aclion. In reenlance man is making a
reasoned voIilionaI resonse, a decision lo aIIov lhe change of mind lo
effecl a comIele lransformalion of being and aclivily. The imorlance
of lhis decision of reenlance in lhe resonse of man lo Chrisl is evi-
denl in lhe abundance of Scrilure references lo such. }esus said, "I
have come lo caII sinners lo reenlance" (Luke 5:32). IauI exhorled lhe
Alhenians, "God is nov decIaring lo men lhal aII everyvhere shouId
reenl" (Acls 17:30), and exIained lo lhe Ihesian eIders lhal he vas
decIaring lo everyone "reenlance lovard God and failh in our Lord
}esus Chrisl" (Acls 20:21). Ieler indicales lhal "lhe Lord is nol viIIing
lhal any shouId erish, bul lhal aII shouId come lo reenlance" (II Ie-
ler 3:9). To lhe Romans IauI vrole lhal "lhe kindness of God Ieads you
lo reenlance" (Rom. 2:4). Having crealed men as choosing crealures,
lhe voIilionaI resonse in lhe viII, vherein man chooses and makes a
decision lo accel and receive }esus Chrisl and aIIov His derived Iife
lo make a change in behavioraI exression is a key ingredienl lo man's
resonse of failh.
Man's resonse of failh is more lhan |usl a sychoIogicaI resonse
lhough. Iailh enlaiIs lhe comrehensive recelivily of God's aclivily.
WiIIiam arcIay noled lhal "lhe firsl eIemenl in failh is vhal ve can
onIy caII recelivily," and lhal "nol simIy lhe recelivily of facls,"
5
bul
lhe recelivily of lhe erson of }esus Chrisl. }ohn CaIvin defined failh
as "receiving vhal ve need from Chrisl,"
6
and }ames Moffall exIained
lhal failh is "lhe allilude of recelivily lovards lhe gifl of God."
7
W.
Ian Thomas adds, "Iailh invoIves lhal lolaI deendence uon God
vhich roduces divine aclion in man."
8
The Nev Teslamenl Scrilures
Iikevise idenlify failh as recelivily, for }ohn vriles lhal "as many as
received Him, lo lhem He gave lhe righl lo become chiIdren of God,
even lo lhose vho beIieve in His name" (}ohn 1:12). IauI asks lhe GaIa-
lians, "Did you receive lhe Siril by lhe vorks of lhe Lav, or by hear-
ing vilh failh`" (GaI. 3:2). To lhe CoIossians he admonishes, "As you
received Chrisl }esus lhe Lord, so vaIk in Him...eslabIished in your
failh" (CoI. 2:6,7).
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sso
Iailh is lhe delerminalion lo receive lhe onloIogicaI reaIily of God's
eing and aclivily in }esus Chrisl. Il is nol |usl lhe beIieving of evi-
dence in order lo make a IogicaI decision, bul encomasses lhe enlire
recelivily of lhe vork of Chrisl. This incIudes lhe siriluaI recelivily
of lhe Siril of Chrisl inlo lhe siril of lhe man (Rom. 8:9), vhereby lhe
"siril lhal vorks in lhe sons of disobedience" (Ih. 2:2) is disIaced
by "lhe Siril vho is from God" (I Cor. 2:12). Il is lhe recelivily of a
siriluaI exchange vhereby ve are converled from "lhe dominion of
Salan lo God" (Acls 26:18). On lhe basis of lhe recelivily of man's failh
resonse lhe ersonaI and sub|eclive efficacy of Chrisl's vork for us
and in us lakes Iace. The vilaI, siriluaI, funclionaI, reIalionaI and on-
loIogicaI imIicalions of Chrisl's "finished vork" become effeclive and
oeralionaI vilhin lhe recelive Chrislian.
There are cerlain CaIvinislic lheoIogians vho vouId argue lhal failh
is nol lhe voIilionaIIy recelive resonse of man exercising his crealed
freedom of choice lo resond lo lhe vork of Chrisl, bul is inslead a re-
sonse enabIed and enacled by lhe aclivily of God. Misinlerreling
lexls concerning lhe "failh of lhe Son of God" (GaI. 2:20) and failh as
"lhe gifl of God" (Ih. 2:8), lhey aIIege lhal failh is nol man's freeIy
chosen resonse, bul is eIiciled and enacled by God in man. More as-
lule minds vilhin lhe CaIvinislic cam have denied lhal failh is God's
acl inslead of man's. G.C. erkouver has vrillen lhal "lo ascribe failh
lo lhe grace of God is lo invile sublIe heresy."
9
}ohn Murray slales lhal
"failh is nol lhe acl of God. Iailh is a resonse on lhe arl of lhe erson
and of him aIone."
10
Wriling lhe arlicIe on "failh" in Tnc Oiciicnarq cj
Ncu Tcsiancni Tncc|cgq, RudoIh uIlmann noles lhal "unIike
Augusline, IauI never describes failh as a gifl of God."
11

The Auguslinian/CaIvinislic lheoIogy advocales lhe "arbilrary Iimila-
lion" of Chrisl's vork lhal vas noled earIier, and denigrales lhe re-
sonsibiIily of man. Those individuaIs lo vhom God has arlicuIarIy
redelermined lo incIude vilhin lhe exlenl of His saving vork are un-
condilionaIIy and sonlaneousIy regeneraled vilh lhe Iife of God,
lhereby emovering lhem lo make a failh-resonse as a gifl of God.
This is nol consislenl vilh lhose Scrilures vhich indicale lhal lhe re-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sss
generalive indveIIing and aclivily of lhe HoIy Siril occurs vhen lhere
is a freeIy chosen enilenl resonse of failh in man's souI. "Having be-
Iieved, you vere seaIed in Him vilh lhe HoIy Siril of romise" (Ih.
1:13). "As many as received Him, lo lhem He gave lhe righl lo become
chiIdren of God, lo lhose vho beIieve in His name" (}ohn 1:12).
"...beIieving you may have Iife in His name" (}ohn 20:31).
Il is imorlanl lo reilerale lhal man's resonse of failh is nol a er-
formance of a "vork" of human efforl, lo vhich God is obIiged lo re-
sond in regeneraling aclivily or any olher aclivily. Iailh does nol "do"
anylhing, il does nol generale aclivily. The "doing" is done by lhe
grace aclivily of God, vho aIone is seIf-generalive. Iailh is man's re-
celivily of God's aclivily, man's avaiIabiIily lo God's abiIily, or as W.
Ian Thomas says, "man's disosilion lhal invokes God's Deily."
12
Does
failh "move mounlains`" (Mall. 17:20, I Cor. 13:2). Iailh aIIovs lhe
over of God lo move mounlains.
Iailh is nol a condilion or sliuIalion of human resonse vhich
makes God's aclion conlingenl on man's resonse in a IogicaI cause
and effecl reIalion. God has aIready laken lhe inilialive lo acl on man's
behaIf in lhe "finished vork" of }esus Chrisl, and nov soIicils man's
comrehensive resonse in a delerminalive choice of ersonaI conlin-
gency uon HimseIf. Iailh is man's choice lo derive from God, deend
uon God, and be recelive of God's aclivily, vhelher il be lhe reme-
diaI redemlive aclivily of God in Chrisl or lhe conlinuous resloralive
aclivily of God vhereby He onloIogicaIIy funclions vilhin lhe Chris-
lian.
We roceed lhen lo consider lhe manifeslalions of failh-resonse lhal
are inlended lo occur vilhin lhe body of man. The body is lhe vehicIe
of exression, indicaling lhal vhich lransires inlernaIIy vilhin lhe
funclion of siril and souI.
The resonses of lhe body can aII be calegorized as "confession." }e-
sus said, "Iveryone vho shaII confess Me before men, I viII aIso con-
fess him before My Ialher vho is in heaven" (Mall. 10:32). The Greek
vord for confession is ncnc|cgcc. Il means "lo say lhe same lhing as,"
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
ssz
"lo concur," "lo agree." The aclions of lhe body exress agreemenl and
concurrence vilh lhal vhich has laken Iace inlernaIIy. The hysicaI
resonses are lhe "foIIov-lhrough" vhereby lhe Chrislian indicales
lhal he is "nol ashamed of lhe goseI" (Rom. 1:16), and is viIIing lo "Iel
lhe redeemed of lhe Lord say so" (IsaIm 107:2).
The firsl form of hysicaI confession is vcrba! cnnIcssinn. IauI vrole
lo lhe Romans saying, "If you confess vilh your moulh }esus as Lord
and beIieve in your hearl lhal God raised Him from lhe dead, you
shaII be saved, for vilh lhe hearl man beIieves resuIling in righleous-
ness and vilh lhe moulh he confesses, resuIling in saIvalion" (Rom.
10:9,10). }ohn vrole simiIarIy, "Whoever confesses lhal }esus is lhe Son
of God, God abides in him and he in God" (I }ohn 4:15). The verbaI
confession is nol causalive of saIvalion or for lhe indveIIing of God,
bul is evidenliaI of such. y verbaI agreemenl man makes knovn lhe
inner sub|eclive arorialion of Chrisl's funclion. This is obviousIy
more lhal |usl moulhing a cerlain formuIa of vords, vhelher lhe con-
fession of Ieler, "You are lhe Chrisl, lhe Son of lhe Living God" (Mall.
16:16), or some olher reared confession or creed. Il is ossibIe lo ro-
fess and nol ossess. }esus exIained lhal some viII come lo Him, say-
ing, "Lord, Lord," and He viII resond by saying, "I do nol knov you"
(Mall. 7:22,23, 25:11,12). There are some vho confess beIief in }esus,
bul }esus does "nol enlrusl HimseIf lo lhem, for He knovs aII men"
(}ohn 2:24). VerbaI rofession aIone is nol sufficienl, lhere musl be ver-
baI confession vhich agrees vilh lhe inlernaI recelivily of God's ac-
livily in }esus Chrisl.
Anolher form of hysicaI confession exresses lhe overl acl of idenli-
ficalion and agreemenl lhal God has aIvays asked of His eoIe. In
lhe oId covenanl il vas lhe hysicaI circumcision of lhe maIes,
vhereas in lhe nev covenanl il is lhe acl of baptisma! cnnIcssinn.
Again, lhe aclivily of lhe body musl refIecl vhal has lransired inler-
naIIy. The Chrislian exIanalion of balism has aIvays been lhal il is
"an oulvard sign of an invard reaIily." A erson is nol "born again" in
valer balism, as some vouId indicale in lheir lheoIogy of "balismaI
regeneralion." Ior lhe balismaI confession lo be al aII vaIid and Ie-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
ss;
gilimale il musl be receded by lhal vhich is signifies or symboIizes.
Chrislian balism in valer is a ubIic leslimony or confession lhal lhis
individuaI's siril has been overvheImed by lhe Siril of God (Rom.
8:9,16), and lhis is being iIIuslraled as lhe valer overvheIms lhe body
of lhis failhfuIIy avaiIabIe erson. The ubIic aclion of balism in va-
ler is lhe overl acl of ubIic idenlificalion by vhich lhe Chrislian ex-
resses agreemenl and concurrence vilh lhe reaIily of Chrisl's Iife in
lhem forming lhe basis of lheir nev idenlily in Chrisl.
A lhird form of confession in lhe body is lhe bchavinra! !iIcsty!c lhal
exresses agreemenl vilh lhe indveIIing Iife and characler of }esus
Chrisl. The suernaluraI Iife lhal ve have received in }esus Chrisl
(}ohn 14:6, I }ohn 5:12) is lo be suernaluraIIy Iived oul in our behav-
ioraI exression. "Il is no Ionger I vho Iives, bul Chrisl Iives in me"
(GaI. 2:20). "Chrisl is our Iife" (CoI. 3:4). This musl be lhe onloIogicaI
exression of "lhe Iife of }esus manifesled in our morlaI bodies" (II Cor.
4:10,11), bul man is sliII resonsibIe lo aIIov for lhe recelivily of His
aclivily in failh. IauI advised lhe CoIossian Chrislians, saying, "As you
have received Chrisl }esus lhe Lord, so vaIk in Him...eslabIished in
your failh" (CoI. 2:6,7). Chrislians have iniliaIIy received }esus Chrisl
by lhe recelivily of His remediaI and resloralive aclivily in failh. They
are lo "vaIk" and Iive in Chrisl by lhe conlinued recelivily of His ac-
livily, lhe failh resonse for behavioraI exression. "We are His vork-
manshi, crealed in Chrisl }esus unlo good vorks vhich He has re-
ared beforehand, lhal ve shouId vaIk in lhem" (Ih. 2:10). }ames
osluIales lhal lhe absence of such a consequenliaI oul-vorking of lhe
aclivily of lhe Iife and characler of Chrisl in a Chrislian's behavior is
indicalive of lhe absence of failh, roerIy defined. "Iailh vilhoul
vorks is dead" (}ames 2:17,26).
The comrehensive resonse of man lo lhe vork of }esus Chrisl is
incIusive of lhese various forms of hysicaI confession and agreemenl.
The receil of Chrisl's resence and aclivily vilhin musl necessariIy be
anlecedenl lo, nol subsequenl lo, lhe resonses of lhe body, lhough.
Olhervise vhal is lhe moulh agreeing lo` Whal does lhe balism sig-
nify or symboIize` Whal dynamic means vouId ve have for Iiving a
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
ss
consislenl Chrislian IifeslyIe lhal corresonds vilh lhe characler of
Chrisl` Though il may be ossibIe lo have a counlerfeil verbaI confes-
sion and a counlerfeil balismaI confession, il viII be imossibIe lo
suslain a counlerfeil IifeslyIe confession for any Ienglh of lime. }esus
said, "y lheir fruil you shaII knov lhem" (Mall 7:16,20, 12:33). In lhe
Iong-run il is imossibIe lo counlerfeil "lhe fruil of lhe Siril, vhich is
Iove, |oy, eace, alience, kindness, goodness, failhfuIness, genlIeness
and seIf-conlroI" (GaI. 5:22,23). These musl be derived onloIogicaIIy
from lhe characler of Chrisl vilhin lhe Chrislian, by lhe failhfuI rece-
livily of His aclivily.
Mankind is aIvays resonsibIe for lhe resonse of failh. There is lhe
iniliaI recelivily of God's aclivily in lhe remediaI and resloralive ac-
livily of }esus Chrisl, vhal some caII "saving failh." There is lhe con-
linuaI necessily of lhe "obedience of failh" (Rom. 1:5, 16:26) vilhin lhe
Chrislian Iife, as ve conlinue lo be recelive lo lhe aclivily of Chrisl's
vork in our Iives.



MAN AS GOD INTENDED
ss,
FOOTNOTE5
1 Moffall, }ames, Gracc in inc Ncu Tcsiancni. London: Hodder and Sloughlon. 1931. g.
12.
2 Thomas, W. Ian, Tnc Mqsicrq cj Gc!|incss. Grand Raids: Zondervan IubIishing
House. 1964. g. 128.
3 ||i!. g. 127.
4 Smedes, Levis, arlicIe on "grace" in lhe |nicrnaiicna| Sian!ar! Bi||c |ncqc|cpc!ia (re-
vised edilion). Grand Raids: Wm. . Ierdmans Iub. Co. VoI. 2. g. 551.
5 arcIay, WiIIiam, Tnc Min! cj Si. Pau|. London: Ionlana ooks. 1965. g. 112.
6 CaIvin, }ohn, |nsiiiuics cj inc Cnrisiian |c|igicn.
7 Moffall, }ames, cp. cii. g. 132.
8 Thomas, W. Ian, cp. cii. g.
9 erkouver, G.C., |aiin an! jusiijicaiicn. Grand Raids: Wm. . Ierdmans Iub. Co.
1954.
10 Murray, }ohn, |c!cnpiicn. Acccnp|isnc! an! App|ic!. Grand Raids: Wm. . Ierdmans
Iub. Co. 1978. g. 106.
11 uIlmann, RudoIh, arlicIe on pisiis in Tnc Oiciicnarq cj Ncu Tcsiancni Tncc|cgq. Grand
Raids: Wm. . Ierdmans Iub. Co. 1968. VoI. 6, g. 219.
12 Thomas, W. Ian, from lranscrilion of audio-laed message.

ss
8 The Regeneralion of Man


By thc initiativc nI His gracc lhrough His Son }esus Chrisl, God has
accomIished everylhing necessary lo reslore mankind lo lhe func-
lionaI inlenl for vhich He crealed him. Thal divine inlenl vas lhal lhe
Iife and characler of God mighl be resenl vilhin lhe man, aIIoving
for lhe exression of such in man's behavior unlo lhe gIory of God.
OriginaIIy lhe siriluaI Iife of God had been brealhed inlo man (Gen.
2:7), bul lhal divine Iife had been disIaced by siriluaI dealh, lhe er-
sonaI resource of "lhe one having lhe over of dealh, lhal is lhe deviI"
(Heb. 2:14), vhen man viIIfuIIy chose lo resond lo lhe salanic lem-
lalion in sin. Since aII men vere "in Adam" (I Cor. 15:22) and aII lhe
descendanls of Adam come inlo being siriluaIIy "dead in lresasses
and sins" (Ih. 2:1,5), lhe need of mankind is lo be "broughl inlo being
again" vilh lhe reinveslilure of divine Iife vilhin man. This is lhe
meaning of lhe lerm "regeneralion:" lhe refix rc is from lhe Lalin Ian-
guage meaning "again," generalion is elymoIogicaIIy derived from lhe
Lalin gcncrarc, and lhal from lhe Greek gcncsis, vhich means "lo bring
inlo being" eilher by crealion or by birlh. This Ialler Greek vord is lhe
one affixed as a lilIe lo lhe firsl book of lhe ibIe, Gcncsis, vhich obvi-
ousIy is lhe accounl of aII lhings being "broughl inlo being" by God in
lhe beginning.
Thc Rcasnn Inr Rcgcncratinn
Mankind did nol need a nev syslem of rehabiIilalion or reformalion
lo deaI vilh lheir sinfuI vays and lhe consequences of dealh. Addi-
lionaI ruIes and reguIalions lo lry lo effecl behavioraI modificalion viII
nol suffice. No amounl of monies senl on ubIic educalion in order lo
enhance and exand man's inleIIecluaI caabiIilies viII ever soIve
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
ss;
man's siriluaI robIem. Leasl of aII, viII lhe man-made riluaIs, re-
quiremenls and reforms of reIigion serve as any benefil for lhe resoIu-
lion of man's robIem, and lhe resloralion of inlended funclionaIily.
Man's need is lo be "broughl inlo being again" siriluaIIy. Ierhas
ve couId say lhal man needs lo be "re-genesized" in a simiIar manner
as he vas "genesized" in Genesis 2:7 vhen God brealhed inlo man lhe
Siril of his ovn Iife and caused him lo be siriluaIIy aIive by lhe res-
ence of lhe divine Iife vilhin lhe siril of man. In his naluraI slale due
lo lhe faII of man in sin, man is siriluaIIy dead and needs lo be siri-
luaIIy revived.
Various melahors are suggesled by lhe regeneralion concel of
"bringing inlo being again." The lerm gcncsis has Iong been associaled
vilh crealion, and lhe siriluaI regeneralion of man by lhe Siril of
Chrisl is iIIuslraled as consliluling lhe Chrislian as a "nev crealion" (II
Cor. 5:17, cf. GaI. 6:15). Resurreclion aIso iclures lhe concel of
"bringing inlo being again," eseciaIIy in orlraying Iife oul of dealh,
and lhus is used as a figure of regeneralion vhen Chrislians are re-
ferred lo as being "raised lo nevness of Iife" (Rom. 6:4). The redomi-
nanl figure of regeneralion is lhal of birlh, of being "born again" vilh
siriluaI Iife. The Greek vords associaled vilh gcncsis are used over
one hundred limes in lhe Nev Teslamenl in reference lo birlh, and lhis
becomes lhe rimary melahor lo exIain regeneralion. }esus loId
Nicodemus lhal he needed lo be "born from above," (}ohn 3:3,7) lo be
"born of lhe Siril" (}ohn 3:5). Recenl misuse of lhe lerms "rebirlh" or
"born again" in some reIigious circIes has caused lhe lerms lo be de-
sised and caricalured by many loday, bul lhe image is indeed ibIi-
caI.
Thc Rcsurrcctinn Prc-rcquisitc nI Rcgcncratinn
The "finished vork" (}ohn 19:30) of }esus Chrisl enlaiIs nol onIy lhe
ob|eclive remediaI concels of His vork on lhe cross, bul aIso lhe sub-
|eclive resloralive concels of His vork vhich derive from His resur-
reclion, ascension and IenlecoslaI oulouring. The crucifixion of }esus
Chrisl aIone vouId nol have effecled regeneralion for aII mankind. Al
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
ss8
lhe cross lhe remediaI fealures vere enacled vhen }esus voIunlariIy
and vicariousIy look lhe dealh consequences of man's sin uon Him-
seIf, bul il vas in lhe resurreclion lhal Iife "came inlo being again" oul
of dealh, in order lhal such divine Iife couId be made avaiIabIe lo re-
slore mankind. The negalive dealh consequences for sin vere laken
care of al lhe cross, bul lhe osilive consequences of God's Iife made
avaiIabIe lo man vere effecled in lhe resurreclion of }esus. ibIicaI lhe-
oIogy musl aIvays bevare of focusing onIy on lhe cross of Chrisl
vilhoul giving due emhasis lo lhe resurreclion. Chrislian lheoIogy
vas from ils commencemenl a "resurreclion lheoIogy." Ieler's firsl
sermon vas lhal "God raised Him u again, ulling an end lo lhe ag-
ony of dealh" (Acls 2:24). IauI's rocIamalion vas lhal "God had fuI-
fiIIed His romises...in lhal He raised u }esus" (Acls 13:33).
The resurreclion of }esus vas lhe re-requisile for regeneralion. Us-
ing lhe iIIuslralion of a grain of vheal, }esus exIained lhal il had lo
die and come lo Iife in order lo bear much fruil (}ohn 12:24). He vas
referring lo His ovn dealh and resurreclion, vhich vouId serve as lhe
fruilfuI rololye of "many brelhren" (Rom. 8:29) exeriencing Iife oul
of dealh siriluaIIy. "As Chrisl vas raised from lhe dead...so ve loo
mighl vaIk in nevness of Iife...uniled in lhe Iikeness of His resurrec-
lion" (Rom. 6:4,5). Chrislians are "raised u vilh Chrisl" (CoI. 2:12,
3:14), assing "oul of dealh inlo Iife" (}ohn 5:24, I }ohn 3:14). Thus il is
lhal Ieler can decIare lhal "God has caused us lo be born again lo a Iiv-
ing hoe lhrough lhe resurreclion of }esus Chrisl from lhe dead" (I Ie-
ler 1:3), evidencing lhe re-requisile of lhe hisloricaI resurreclion of }e-
sus, vilh vhich ve idenlify siriluaIIy in regeneralion.
}esus exIained lo Marlha, "I am lhe resurreclion and lhe Iife, he vho
beIieves in Me shaII Iive even if he dies" (}ohn 11:25). The Iife of lhe
risen Lord }esus, lhe resurreclion-Iife of }esus, becomes lhe basis of
siriluaI Iife in lhe Chrislian.
Thc Rca!ity nI Rcgcncratinn
The essenliaI reaIily of lhal vhich is "broughl inlo being again"
vilhin lhe individuaI vho receives }esus Chrisl is nol |usl a sub|eclive
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
ss
exerience of a "hearl on fire" or a "eace vilhin." Neilher is il mereIy a
|udiciaI reaIily of "osilionaI" righl-slanding vilh God, being duIy re-
corded as "|uslified" in lhe heavenIy bookkeeing Iedgers. Regenera-
lion is nol lhe receil of a lraveI voucher, an evenluaI one-vay lickel lo
heaven vilh lhe guaranlee lhal one viII nol go lo heII. The reaIily of
regeneralion is lhal lhe divine Iife of God is "broughl inlo being again"
vilhin lhe siril of lhe individuaI vho receives }esus Chrisl. The ri-
mary ob|eclive of Chrislianily is nol hov lo gel a man oul of heII and
inlo heaven, bul lo aIIov lhe Iife of God lo be imuled back inlo man
lhal he mighl be funclionaIIy oeralive lo lhe gIory of God bolh on
earlh and in heaven.
There is onIy one vay lo exerience Iife. One cannol buy lheir vay
inlo Iife. Neilher can one vork lheir vay inlo Iife. eing "made safe"
from diaboIic dysfunclion in order lo funclion as God inlended, never
comes "on lhe basis of deeds vhich ve have done in righleousness"
(Tilus 3:5), bul onIy by regeneralion. The onIy vay lo receive Iife is lo
be born inlo il, vhich evidences again lhe melahor of "birlh" as an iI-
Iuslralion of regeneralion. eing "born again" is nol "lurning over a
nev Ieaf" of reIigious dedicalion and commilmenl. Il is nol a renais-
sance of aIied moraIily. Il is lhe re-inlroduclion of lhe divine Iife of
}esus Chrisl inlo lhe siril of lhe individuaI vho is recelive lo such.
Regeneralion exresses lhe "vilaI concel" of Chrisl's "finished
vork." Il is lhe resloralion of lhe "ersonaI resource of Iife," being lhe
resence of lhe Iiving God, inlo lhe siriluaI funclion caacily of man.
}esus said, "I came lhal you mighl have Iife, and have il more abun-
danlIy" (}ohn 10:10). He idenlified lhis Iife vhich can be invesled in us
as lhe very essence of His ovn being, saying, "I am lhe vay, lhe lrulh,
and lhe Iife" (}ohn 14:6). "He vho has lhe Son has lhe Iife, he vho does
nol have lhe Son of God does nol have lhe Iife" (I }ohn 5:12). Those
vho have been "made aIive logelher vilh Chrisl" (Ih. 2:5), exerience
"Chrisl as lheir Iife" (CoI. 3:4). Il is a derived Iife lhal can never be sea-
raled from lhe being of }esus Chrisl. As such il cannol be slalic. His Iife
can never be vieved as a commodily lo be ossessed, an "elernaI Iife
ackage" vhich has vaIue afler our hysicaI dealh. The reaIily of re-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
szo
generalion is lhal ve receive lhe vilaI dynamic of lhe Iife of lhe risen
Lord }esus vhich is lo have conlemorary incarnalion in lhe behavior
of lhe Chrislian.
Thc Rcvc!atinn nI Rcgcncratinn
"The naluraI man does nol accel lhe lhings of lhe Siril of God, ...he
cannol undersland lhem, because lhey are siriluaIIy araised" (I
Cor. 2:14). The faIIen race of mankind does nol naluraIIy recognize
lheir need for siriluaI regeneralion. "The god of lhis vorId has
bIinded lhe minds of lhe unbeIieving, lhal lhey mighl nol see lhe Iighl
of lhe goseI of lhe gIory of Chrisl" (II Cor. 4:4). This is vhy Nicode-
mus, a reIigious "ruIer of lhe }evs" (}ohn 3:1), couId nol comrehend
vhal }esus vas leIIing him vhen He exIained lhal "You musl be born
again" (}ohn 3:7), and "unIess one is born again, he cannol see lhe
kingdom of God" (}ohn 3:3). Nicodemus vas lhoroughIy reIigious,
having allemled lo kee aII lhe }evish moraI reguIalions melicu-
IousIy as a Iharisee (}ohn 3:1), bul he did nol undersland lhe siriluaI
imIicalions of being "born again" and re-Iifed vilh lhe indveIIing
resence of God's Iife. His siriluaI ignorance vas evidenced vhen he
resonded lo }esus, lhinking onIy in lerms of hysicaI obslelrics, ask-
ing, "Hov can a man be born vhen he is oId` He cannol enler a second
lime inlo his molher's vomb and be born, can he`" (}ohn 3:4). }esus ex-
Iained lo Nicodemus quile simIy lhal "unIess one is born of valer
(hysicaI birlh) and lhe Siril (siriluaI birlh), he cannol enler inlo lhe
kingdom of God (vherein Chrisl reigns as Lord, as ve reign in Iife
lhrough Him)" (}ohn 3:5). Whelher Nicodemus ever underslood and
vas regeneraled cannol be ascerlained definiliveIy, bul he vas syma-
lhelic lo }esus and broughl buriaI sices for lhe body of }esus al His
dealh (}ohn 19:39).
In order lo cause man lo recognize lhe need for siriluaI regenera-
lion, lhe Siril of God engages in lhe reveIalory soIicilalion vhereby
}esus "dravs men lo HimseIf" (}ohn 12:32). Il is nol |usl a maller of re-
Iigious educalion and calechism vhereby one can inleIIecluaIIy er-
ceive lhe need for such a siriluaI exchange, bul lhe reveIalion of such
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
szs
need and lhe avaiIabiIily of lhe rovision of }esus Chrisl, musl be rec-
ognized in lhe enIighlening and iIIuminaling vork of lhe HoIy Siril.
ReveIalion is "caughl," nol "laughl." God, in Chrisl, and by His HoIy
Siril, soIicils our resonse, vorking rovidenliaIIy even in lhe ar-
rangemenl of circumslances vhereby ve are caused lo hear lhe goseI.
He convinces and convicls our mind and emolion "concerning sin, and
righleousness and |udgmenl" (}ohn 16:7-11), lhereby reveaIing our
siriluaI need and lhe rovision for such need in }esus Chrisl.
Thc Rcccipt nI Rcgcncratinn
Regeneralion becomes ersonaIIy effecluaI for an individuaI vhen he
is viIIing lo receive lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl in him by a freeIy chosen
resonse of failh. "eIief" and "failh" are lvo IngIish vords vhich are
bolh used lo lransIale lhe Greek vord islis. Differenlialion musl be
made, hovever, belveen a "beIief" lhal is bul menlaI assenl lo hislori-
caI accuracy and lheoIogicaI orlhodoxy, and lhe "failh" lhal is recelive
lo lhe siriluaI Iife of }esus Chrisl. Chrislianily is nol |usl an eislemo-
IogicaI beIief-syslem of doclrinaI dala, desile lhe facl lhal fundamen-
laIislic reIigious erversions oflen ro|ecl il lo be such. One does nol
"beIieve in lhe Lord }esus Chrisl" (Acls 16:31), in lhe same manner as
one mighl beIieve lhal George Washinglon vas lhe firsl residenl of
lhe Uniled Slales of America. eIieving lhe veracily of lhe circumslan-
liaI hisloricaI dala, one mighl assenl and concur lhal George Washing-
lon vas lhe firsl residenl of lhe U.S.A. over lvo hundred years ago.
In Iike manner, one mighl beIieve lhal }esus Chrisl Iived aImosl lvo
lhousand years ago, having been born in elhIehem, and having been
crucified al GoIgolha. In addilion, a erson mighl affirm lhe lheoIogi-
caI inlerrelalions of }esus' incarnalion and redemlive dealh, bul il
mighl remain bul a ralionaIislic menlaI assenl lo evidenliary dala.
Such is nol lhe failh required for lhe receil of regeneralion. ibIicaI
failh invoIves siriluaI recelivily. Iailh is our recelivily of God's ac-
livily, lhe receil of lhe redemlive, regeneralive, and resloralionaI
vork of God in }esus Chrisl. On many occasions vhen lhe Nev Tes-
lamenl uses lhe Greek vord pisiis, or lhe verb form pisicuc, il is foI-
Ioved by lhe Greek reosilion cis, meaning "inlo." We mighl beIieve
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
szz
in, on, or aboul George Washinglon, bul ve do nol beIieve "inlo"
George Washinglon. On lhe olher hand, since ve are referring lo siri-
luaI reaIily in }esus Chrisl, il can be said lhal ve "beIieve inlo" an onlo-
IogicaI communion vilh }esus Chrisl as ve receive His Siril inlo our
siril. "As many as received Him, lo lhem He gave lhe righl lo become
chiIdren of God, even lo lhose vho beIieve inlo (pisicucusin cis) His
name" (}ohn 1:12). "Ior God so Ioved lhe vorId, lhal He gave His onIy
begollen Son, lhal vhoever beIieves inlo (pisicucn cis) Him shouId nol
erish, bul have elernaI Iife" (}ohn 3:16). The recelivily of failh is "be-
Iieving inlo" a conneclion vilh lhe very Iife and being of }esus Chrisl.
}ohn exIains lhal he vrole his goseI narralive "lhal you mighl be-
Iieve lhal }esus is lhe Chrisl, lhe Son of God, and lhal beIieving you
may have Iife in His name" (}ohn 20:31). The receil of regeneralive Iife
is based uon lhe recelivily of failh in }esus Chrisl. "Having beIieved,
you vere seaIed in Him vilh lhe HoIy Siril of romise" (Ih. 1:13).
Thc Rcsnurcc nI Rcgcncratinn
The receil of siriluaI Iife requires a source from vhence lhal Iife is
dravn. Il is lrue bolh hysicaIIy and siriluaIIy lhal one cannol give
birlh lo lhemseIves. There musl be a rogenilor of lhe Iife lhal is given.
Life cannol be derived from nolhing or from a non-Iiving source. The
"ersonaI resource" of siriluaI Iife is lhe One vho "is Siril" (}ohn
4:24), and vho has "Iife in HimseIf" (}ohn 5:26) as lhe "Iiving God" (I
Tim. 4:10). When Nicodemus queslioned, "Hov can a man be born
vhen he is oId`" }esus exIained lhal ve musl be "born from above,"
from lhe siriluaI Iife of God. }ohn vriles lhal lhose vho receive }esus
and become chiIdren of God are "born nol of bIood, nor of lhe viII of
lhe fIesh, nor of lhe viII of man, bul of God" (}ohn 1:13). The ersonaI
resource of Iife from vhom ve receive siriluaI Iife is God HimseIf.
God is lhe rogenilor of lhe Iife lhal ve receive in regeneralion.
Il is aIso lrue hysicaIIy and siriluaIIy lhal "Iike begels Iike" in lhe
rocess of lhe birlhing of Iife. Since in regeneralion ve are "born of
God" (}ohn 1:13) and "born of lhe Siril" (}ohn 3:5,6), lhe Iife lhal ve
receive is divine Iife. The Chrislian becomes a "arlaker of lhe divine
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sz;
nalure" (II Ieler 1:4). This does nol mean lhal ve lhus have divine Iife
inherenlIy as God does (}ohn 5:26), bul onIy lhal ve have lhe derived
Iife of God vilhin lhe man.
The agency of lhe imIanlalion of lhis divine siriluaI Iife is lhe HoIy
Siril, using lhe means of lhe goseI of }esus Chrisl. "You have been
born again nol of seed vhich is erishabIe bul imerishabIe, lhrough
lhe Iiving and abiding vord of God" (I Ieler 1:23). }esus said lhal "Il is
lhe Siril vho gives Iife" (}ohn 6:63), vhich is echoed by IauI's exIa-
nalion lhal "lhe Siril gives Iife" (II Cor. 3:6).
Thc Rcginn nI Rcgcncratinn
Where is il vilhin lhe consliluled IeveIs of funclionaIily lhal man
needs lo be reneved lo Iife` The region vhere faIIen man is dead is
vilhin lhe Iife-funclion IeveI of his siril. Ivery individuaI in lhe hu-
man race is born siriluaIIy "dead in lresasses and sins" (Ih. 2:1,5).
Such dealh does nol imIy lhe non-funclionaIily of siril, bul siriluaI
idenlificalion vilh "lhe one having lhe over of dealh, lhal is lhe
deviI" (Heb. 2:14), lhe "ersonaI resource of dealh." The need of man,
lherefore, is lo "ass from dealh lo Iife" (}ohn 5:24, I }ohn 3:14) sirilu-
aIIy in a siriluaI exchange of idenlificalion and indveIIing from one
ersonaI siriluaI resource lo lhe olher, from Salan lo God (Acls 26:18).
The region of regeneralion is lhe Iife-funclion IeveI of lhe siril.
The rohel IzekieI served as an inslrumenl of God's foreleIIing
vhal He vas going lo do lhrough His Son }esus Chrisl in lhe nev
covenanl. "I viII ul a nev siril vilhin you...I viII ul My Siril
vilhin you" (Izek. 36:26,27), God said. This lransires in regeneralion
vhen lhe "siriluaI concel" of Chrisl's "finished vork" becomes effec-
luaI, and an individuaI is siriluaIIy re-Iifed. }esus cIearIy secified lhe
region of regeneralion vhen He exIained lo Nicodemus lhal "lhal
vhich is born of lhe Siril is siril" (}ohn 3:6).
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sz



Thc Rcpnsit nI Rcgcncratinn
AIlhough il has been reviousIy indicaled lhal lhe Iife lhal ve re-
ceive in regeneralion is lhe Iife of God, i.e. lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl, il is
imorlanl lo emhasize lhal lhe enlire Iife of God in His lriune form is
ul vilhin us and comes lo dveII and Iive vilhin us. The Iife of God
lhe Ialher, Son and HoIy Siril becomes lhe essence of our siriluaI
Iife. This is lhe onloIogicaI fealure of lhe "finished vork" of }esus
Chrisl, vhereby lhe eing of lhe lriune God is reslored lo mankind.
God lhe Ialher dveIIs vilhin lhe Chrislian. "Whoever confesses lhal
}esus is lhe Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God" (I }ohn
4:15). To lhe Corinlhians IauI noles lhal God had indicaled Iong ago
lhal "I viII dveII in lhem and vaIk among lhem, and I viII be lheir
God, and lhey shaII be My eoIe" (II Cor. 6:16). IxIaining lhe rece-
live reIalionshi belveen God and lhe Chrislian, }esus incIuded lhe
Ialher saying, "We viII come lo him and make Our abode vilh him"
(}ohn 14:23).
Thal }esus Chrisl dveIIs vilhin lhe Chrislian is abundanlIy docu-
menled in lhe Nev Teslamenl Scrilures. This is lhe myslery of lhe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sz,
goseI, vriles IauI, "Chrisl in you, lhe hoe of gIory" (CoI. 1:27). "Il is
no Ionger I vho Iive, bul Chrisl Iives in me" (GaI. 2:20), he vriles lo lhe
GaIalians. "Do you nol recognize lhis aboul yourseIves, lhal }esus
Chrisl is in you`" (II Cor. 13:5), IauI asks lhe Corinlhian Chrislians.
}ohn adds lhal, "We knov lhal Chrisl abides in us, by lhe Siril vhich
He has given us" (I }ohn 3:24). "y lhis ve knov lhal ve abide in
Chrisl and He in us, because He has given us of His Siril" (I }ohn
4:13).
The indveIIing of lhe HoIy Siril is aIso amIy osiled by lhe Nev
Teslamenl. IauI asks lhe Corinlhians, "Do you nol knov lhal your
body is a lemIe of lhe HoIy Siril vho is in you, vhom you have
from God`" (I Cor. 6:19). God "|eaIousIy desires lhe Siril lhal He has
made lo dveII in us" (}ames 4:5). "Guard, lhrough lhe HoIy Siril vho
dveIIs in us, lhe lreasure vhich has been enlrusled lo you" (II Tim.
1:14).
The onloIogicaI reosil of regeneralion is lhe divine being of Ialher,
Son and HoIy Siril. This is lhe resloralion of lhe "brealh of Iives"
(Gen. 2:7) lhal God brealhed inlo man in lhe garden.
Thc Rcncwa! nI Rcgcncratinn
To "bring inlo being again" by "lhe vashing of regeneralion and re-
neving of lhe HoIy Siril" (Tilus 3:5), aIIovs for a renevaI of lhe indi-
viduaI lhal is variousIy described lhroughoul lhe Nev Teslamenl. The
Chrislian is arlicialing in a "ncu covenanl" (Heb. 8:8,13), a "beller
covenanl" (Heb. 7:22), a suerior arrangemenl vherein God's "Lavs
are vrillen in our minds and uon our hearls" (Heb 8:10, 10:16), for lhe
resence of His being and characler dveII vilhin our siril. Il is "a ncu
and Iiving vay vhich He inauguraled for us lhrough lhe fIesh of }esus
Chrisl" (Heb. 10:20), and His viIIingness lo become humanily in order
lo lake our dealh consequences and give us His Iife.
"If any man is in Chrisl, he is a ncu crealure, lhe oId lhings assed
avay, behoId, ncu lhings have come" (II Cor. 5:17). The melahor of
"ncu crealion" is suggesled by lhe Greek vord gcncsis, from vhich lhe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sz
IngIish vord "regeneralion" is derived. Man is "re-genesized," lhal is,
"broughl inlo being again" in accord vilh God's crealed inlenl lo have
His Iife dveIIing vilhin and funclioning lhrough humanily. The reaI
issues of Chrislianily are nol lhe exlernaIilies, IauI noles, "bul a nev
crealion" (GaI. 6:15) of humanily.
The ncuness of humanily is effecled by lhe "nevness of Iife" (Rom.
6:4) lhal lhe Chrislian shares in idenlificalion vilh lhe resurreclion of
}esus Chrisl, and lhe indveIIing of His resurreclion-Iife. y recelivily
of }esus Chrisl lhe individuaI becomes a "ncu man" (Ih. 4:24, CoI.
3:10), "crealed in righleousness and hoIiness of lhe lrulh" (Ih. 4:24).
The beIiever has a nev siriluaI idenlily as a Chrisl-one, a Chrislian.
"AII lhings have become ncu" (II Cor. 5:17) for lhe Chrislian. This
musl be underslood in reference lo siriluaI reaIilies, for lhe allerns
of fIeshIy behavior in lhe funclion-IeveI of lhe souI are sliII resenl in
recurrenl confIicl vilh lhe nev imuIses of lhe Siril (GaI. 5:17).
Thc Rc!atinnship nI Rcgcncratinn
Receiving lhe Iife of God in siriluaI regeneralion, lhe Chrislian has a
"ersonaI reIalionshi" vilh God lhrough lhe "one medialor, }esus
Chrisl" (I Tim. 2:5). We are "reconciIed lo God" (Rom. 5:10, II Cor.
5:19,20, CoI. 1:20) in a siriluaI oneness. "The one vho |oins himseIf lo
lhe Lord is one siril vilh Him" (I Cor. 6:17).
Regeneralion aIso creales a siriluaI reIalionshi vilh every olher
individuaI vho has Iikevise received }esus Chrisl. God does nol in-
lend lhal ve become "Ione ranger" Chrislians, isoIaled in individuaI-
ism. Using lhe melahor of birlh again, il mighl be noled lhal an indi-
viduaI is aIvays born inlo a famiIy. The Church of }esus Chrisl is lhe
"famiIy of God" vherein ve are lo reIale lo one anolher, Iove one an-
olher, and minisler lo one anolher. "Lel us consider hov lo slimuIale
one anolher lo Iove and good deeds, nol forsaking our ovn assembIing
logelher,...bul encouraging one anolher" (Heb. 10:24,25). Wilhin such
inleraclive Chrislian feIIovshi lhe Chrislian individuaI viII "grov in
lhe grace and knovIedge of our Lord }esus Chrisl" (II Ieler 3:18).
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sz;
Thc Rctcntinn nI Rcgcncratinn
The queslion of lhe ermanency of lhis regeneralive Iacemenl of
God's Iife in man's siril has Iong been debaled. The misundersland-
ings oflen resuIl from man's roensily lo reason in slricl IogicaI cale-
gories lhal faiI lo lake inlo accounl lhe dynamic onloIogicaI reaIily of
lhe resence of God. Our securily is nol based on a IogicaI osilivism
lhal resuIls from cerlain recelive aclions of man in a rigid cause and
effecl rocedure. Inslead, our securily is based on lhe conlinued failh-
fuIness of God (I Cor. 1:9), vho has no desire lo renege on His exress
urose lo manifesl His Iife in man. The characler of God is indeed an
elernaI securily, as He is aIIoved lo funclion dynamicaIIy vilhin man-
kind.
Chrislians can have lhe sub|eclive assurance lhal God does indeed
dveII in lhem. }ohn vrole lo Chrislians, "These lhings I have vrillen lo
you vho beIieve in lhe name of lhe Son of God, in order lhal you may
knov lhal you have elernaI Iife" (I }ohn 5:13). IauI noled lhal "The
Siril HimseIf bears vilness vilh our siril lhal ve are chiIdren of
God" (Rom. 8:16).
Thc Rc!casc nI Rcgcncratinn
Receiving lhe Siril of Iife inlo our siril in regeneralion is nol an end
in ilseIf. The ob|eclive is nol lo "slore u" lhe HoIy Siril in lhe siril of
a Chrislian as a "deosil" lhal viII Ialer be emIoyed or "cashed in."
Some Chrislians in lheir evangeIislic zeaI have encouraged regenera-
lion, bul never roceeded lo exIain vhal lhe Siril vas lo do vhen
He came lo dveII in lhe Chrislian. There are Chrislians vho have sal
in lheir evs every Sunday for many years, and heard sermon afler
sermon on "Whal il means lo be 'orn Again'," bul have never been
laughl concerning lhe Siril's conlinued aclivily. This henomena is
aIso oflenlimes a resuIl of an eschaloIogicaI fulurism lhal ro|ecls aII
lhe benefils of }esus Chrisl inlo lhe heavenIy fulure and has no exec-
lalion for lhe effecliveness of His Iife in lhe vorId loday. Il is lragic
lhal many Chrislians conceive of lhe Chrislian Iife as "lhe asl is for-
given, lhe fulure is assured, bul lhe resenl is lhe ils!"
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sz8
Regeneralion is a crisis vilh a viev lo a rocess. Al a arlicuIar oinl
in lime lhe Siril of Chrisl lakes u residence in lhe siril of an indi-
viduaI vho receives Him by failh. "If anyone does nol have lhe Siril
of Chrisl, he does nol beIong lo Him" (Rom. 8:9). The Siril of Chrisl in
lhe siril of lhe Chrislian is nol "on hoId" unliI ve gel lo heaven. God's
inlenl is lhal lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl be reIeased inlo behavioraI exres-
sion. This is lhe "funclionaI concel" of His "finished vork." The deri-
valion of siriluaI condilion musl Iead lo lhe derivalion of behavioraI
exression. Regeneralion musl exlend inlo sanclificalion. The vriler lo
lhe Hebrevs admonishes, "Lel us ress on lo malurily" (Heb. 6:1).
When lhe "ersonaI resource" of Chrisl's Iife is received inlo lhe siril
of man al regeneralion, lhe "revaiIing ramificalions" of lhal Iife are lo
become behavioraIIy oeralive exressing lhe characler of God, and
aIIoving for a "ereluaI reresenlalion" of onloIogicaI union of Iife in
}esus Chrisl. To lhe GaIalians, IauI vrole, "Il is no Ionger I vho Iives,
bul Chrisl Iives in me, and lhe Iife lhal I nov Iive in lhe fIesh I Iive by
failh in lhe Son of God" (GaI. 2:20). To lhe Corinlhians, he exIained
lhal lhe ob|eclive vas lhal "lhe Iife of }esus mighl be manifesled in our
body...in our morlaI fIesh" (II Cor. 4:10,11). The Iife of }esus Chrisl
musl be reIeased in order lo be manifesled in lhe Chrislian's behavior,
lo be Iived oul lo lhe gIory of God.
Thc Rcsu!ts nI Rcgcncratinn
The aoslIe }ohn in his lyicaI "bIack and vhile" lhinking, exIains
arlicuIar behavioraI manifeslalions lhal shouId be indicalive of one
vho has been regeneraled and received lhe divine Iife vilhin:
"You knov lhal every one vho raclices righleousness is born of
Him" (I }ohn 2:29). Those in vhom lhe "Righleous One" (Acls 3:4, 7:42,
22:14) dveIIs and Iives viII derive His righleous characler in righleous
behavior. There is no olher vay lo manifesl righleousness excel as
derived from Chrisl, for aII olher feebIe allemls al such are as a "fiIlhy
rag" (Isa. 64:6) and lo be "counled as rubbish" (IhiI. 3:8). The characler
of righleousness in our behavior viII be a resuIl of lhe regeneralion
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sz
vhereby "}esus Chrisl, lhe Righleous" (I }ohn 2:1) comes lo Iive in us
and manifesl His Iife lhrough us.
"We knov lhal ve have assed oul of dealh inlo Iife, because ve
Iove lhe brelhren. He vho does nol Iove abides in dealh" (I }ohn 3:14).
"God is Iove" (I }ohn 4:8,16), and vhen He comes lo dveII in us al re-
generalion, lhe manifeslalions of His Ioving characler, lhe "fruil of lhe
Siril vhich is Iove..." (GaI. 5:22,23), shouId be exressed behavioraIIy.
"The Iove of God has been oured oul vilhin our hearls lhrough lhe
HoIy Siril vho vas given lo us" (Rom. 5:5).
"No one vho is born of God raclices sin, because His seed abides in
him, and he cannol sin, because he is born of God" (I }ohn 3:9). This
verse has savned numerous erfeclionislic lheses, bul lhe meaning
seems lo be lhal lhe Ierfecl One, }esus Chrisl, comes lo Iive in lhe
Chrislian al regeneralion. As lhe "SinIess One" (II Cor. 5:21, I Ieler
2:22), He does nol sin, nor leml us lo sin (}ames 1:13). An individuaI
in vhom Chrisl dveIIs shouId desire lhal lhe characler of Chrisl be de-
rivaliveIy exressed in his behavior, reudialing lhe sinfuI exressions
lhal are conlrary lo His characler. ReaIism forces us lo remember lhal
"If ve say lhal ve have no sin, ve are deceiving ourseIves, and lhe
lrulh is nol in us" (I }ohn 1:8).
"Whalever is born of God overcomes lhe vorId, ...and vho is lhe one
vho overcomes lhe vorId, bul he vho beIieves lhal }esus is lhe Son of
God" (I }ohn 5:4,5). }esus is lhe Overcomer vho has "overcome lhe
vorId" (}ohn 16:33). When He comes lo Iive in us al regeneralion, He is
lhe sufficienl siriluaI rovision for lhe overcoming of Salan's vorId-
syslem vilh aII ils eviI infIuences and sin. "Grealer is He vho is in you,
lhan he vho is in lhe vorId" (I }ohn 4:4). "The Lamb viII overcome, be-
cause He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings" (Rev. 17:14).
"We knov lhal no one vho is born of God sins, bul He vho vas born
of God kees him and lhe eviI one does nol louch him" (I }ohn 5:18).
Again, lhe SinIess One, }esus Chrisl, vho has come lo Iive in us al re-
generalion, does nol sin or roml us lo sin. He aIso "rolecls us from
lhe eviI one" (II Thess. 3:3) by "lhe over of God" (I Ieler 1:5), "nol aI-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;o
Ioving us lo be lemled beyond vhal ve are abIe" (I Cor. 10:13).
Chrislians are lhus emovered by lhe indveIIing Chrisl for lhe avoid-
ance of lemlalion as "He comes lo lhe aid of lhose vho are lemled"
(Heb. 2:18).
The resuIls of regeneralion viII be lhe exression of God's characler
in lhe behavior of man. God's inlenl in lhe reinveslilure of His Iife in
man lhrough lhe vork of His Son }esus Chrisl vas lhal man mighl
funclion as God had originaIIy inlended by aIIoving lhe Iife and char-
acler of God lo be exressed in man's behavior lo lhe gIory of God.
OnIy vhen lhe Iife of God is "broughl inlo being again" by siriluaI re-
generalion in man, is lhe divine dynamic resenl in man vhereby He
mighl derive from God and exress godIy characler. Regeneralion is
necessary if man is lo be man as God inlended man lo be.

s;s
9 The IuIIness of God in Man


Thc ncw spiritua! cnnditinn of lhe regeneraled individuaI is nol an
end in ilseIf. Regeneralion is a uncliIiar evenl vilh a viev lo lhe roc-
ess of aIIoving lhe divine characler nov indveIIing lhe siril of lhe
Chrislian lo be exressed behavioraIIy. The "ersonaI resource of Iife,"
lhe resence of lhe Siril of Chrisl, musl nov be aIIoved lo exhibil lhe
"revaiIing ramificalions" of His Iife, lhe "Iife of }esus manifesled in
our morlaI bodies" (II Cor. 4:10,11).
In lerms of our siriluaI condilion, il can be said lhal lhe Chrislian is
"comIele in Chrisl" (CoI. 2:10). "AII lhings have been made nev" (II
Cor. 5:17) in our siril because lhe Siril of Chrisl dveIIs lherein con-
sliluling us a "nev man" (Ih. 4:24, CoI. 3:10). We have "every siri-
luaI bIessing in heavenIy Iaces in Chrisl" (Ih. 1:3), "aII lhings er-
laining lo Iife and godIiness" (II Ieler 1:3). "Of His fuIIness ve have aII
received" (}ohn 1:16), lhe "fuIIness of lhe bIessing of Chrisl" (Rom.
15:29), vhereby ve are "fuII of goodness" (Rom. 15:14) and "fuII of lhe
gIadness of His resence" (Acls 2:28).
Though every Chrislian is siriluaIIy fuII of lhe resence of lhe Siril
of Chrisl, for "He gives lhe Siril vilhoul measure" (}ohn 3:34), lhe
rocess of aIIoving lhe Iife and characler of Chrisl lo fiII and ervade
our menlaI, emolionaI and voIilionaI aclivilies in order lo be exressed
in lhe behavior of our bodies conlinues as a conslanl necessily for lhe
remainder of our Iives here on earlh. IauI's rayer for lhe Ihesians,
lhough lhey arlicialed in "lhe fuIIness of Him vho fiIIs aII in aII"
(Ih. 1:23), vas lhal lhey mighl "be fiIIed u lo aII lhe fuIIness of God"
(Ih. 3:19), "lo lhe measure of lhe slalure vhich beIongs lo lhe fuIIness
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;z
of Chrisl" (Ih. 4:13). Such is lhe basis of our consideralion of lhe fuII-
ness of God in man.
Consideralion of lhe reIease of lhe Siril of Chrisl inlo behavioraI ex-
ression using lhe figure of being "fiIIed vilh lhe Siril" has Iong been
cIouded vilh misunderslandings and exlremisms, conlroversy and
confusion. ibIicaI hraseoIogy uliIizes melahors lhal orlray lhe ac-
lion of lhe Siril in Iiquid lerms such as "rivers of Iiving valer" (}ohn
7:38) and lhe Siril being "oured oul" (Acls 2:17) uon mankind.
Some have conceived of an exlernaI aIicalion of lhe Siril's aclivily
such as fiIIing lheir lank vilh a Iiquid elroIeum roducl in order lo
rovide over for Iocomolion. Olhers have conceluaIized God as a
"cosmic vailer" vilh a big ilcher of Iiquid HoIy Siril, and lhey are
elilioning God lo "fiII lheir cu." These concelions err in reresenl-
ing an addilionaI exlernaI aIicalion of lhe Siril subsequenl lo lhe
Chrislian's receiving lhe Siril of Chrisl al regeneralion. Since "aII
siriluaI lhings beIong lo us in Chrisl" (I Cor. 3:21,22), lo suggesl lhal
lhe Chrislian needs somelhing more is lo suggesl lhal }esus Chrisl is
insufficienl. A more adequale and accurale iclure is lo recognize lhal
lhe Chrislian has received lhe Siril of Chrisl in his siril al regenera-
lion (Rom. 8:9) and is "comIele in Chrisl" (CoI. 2:10). InlernaIIy, from
lhe inside oul, lhe Siril of Chrisl funclions Iike an arlesian veII
"sringing u lo elernaI Iife" (}ohn 4:14), lo fiII our behavior vilh His
characler and lo overfIov in minislry unlo olhers.
IauI's command lo lhe Ihesians viII serve as a rimary lexl for lhe
sludy of lhe fiIIing of lhe Siril unlo lhe fuIIness of God in man. "Do
nol gel drunk vilh vine, for lhal is dissialion, bul be fiIIed vilh lhe
Siril" (Ih. 5:18).
Thc Cnntcxt nI thc Fi!!ing
The conlexl in vhich IauI's command is slaled vilhin lhe eislIe lo
lhe Ihesians has lo do vilh raclicaI behavior. Referring lo lhe con-
ducl of daiIy Iife, IauI admonishes lhe Ihesian Chrislians lo "be care-
fuI hov you vaIk" (Ih. 5:15) so as lo be "vise" and "make lhe mosl of
your lime" (Ih. 5:16). Il is imorlanl, IauI says, lo "undersland vhal
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;;
lhe viII of lhe Lord is" (Ih. 5:17), vhich is aIvays lhe exression of
lhe characler of }esus Chrisl. The conlexl of lhe fiIIing of lhe Siril is
nol an ecslalic or esoleric exerience vherein one is zaed by God,
nor is il a myslicaI mood-aIlering manifeslalion. Ralher, lhe fiIIing of
lhe Siril reIales lo inlenseIy raclicaI behavior.
In Iike manner as lhe foregoing conlexl, lhe conlexl vhich foIIovs
IauI's command in Ihesians 5:18 aIso reIales lo raclicaI behavior.
The resuIls of being lhus fiIIed vilh lhe Siril viII be a "song in your
hearl" (Ih. 5:19), a lhankfuI allilude (Ih. 5:20), and deference lo one
anolher in inlerersonaI reIalionshis (Ih. 5:21). Can anylhing be
more raclicaI lhan behavior vhich exhibils lhe characler of Chrisl
vilhin husband and vife reIalionshis (Ih. 5:22-33), arenl and chiId
reIalionshis (Ih. 6:1-4), and emIoyer and emIoyee reIalionshis
(Ih. 6:5-9)` In such reIalionshis God vanls lo see lhe fuIIness of his
characler exressed in lhe behavior of Chrislians.
Thc Cnmmand nI thc Fi!!ing
When IauI commands lhe Ihesian Chrislians lo "be fiIIed vilh lhe
Siril," lhe verb is in an imeralive mood. This is nol somelhing lhal is
an olionaI exlra in lhe Chrislian Iife, bul is lo be regarded as obIiga-
lory. Il is nol somelhing lhal ve can ick or choose, lake or Ieave, in
lerms of Chrislian obedience. Il is a mandale.
CIoser examinalion reveaIs lvo commands in Ihesians 5:18. The
firsl command is "Do nol gel drunk." If lhe number of messages and
lrealises on a arlicuIar lexl reveaIs lhe riorily of such, lhen I vouId
venlure lo resume lhal lhe ma|orily of exosilors and reachers have
regarded lhis command as lhe one of redominanl imorlance in lhis
verse, for lhe incuIcalions of lemerance have been mosl abundanl. Iar
fever have been lhe raclicaI inslruclions concerning vhal il means lo
"be fiIIed vilh lhe Siril." Il seems lo be lhe roensily of man lo focus
and fixale on lhe negalive admonilions ralher lhan lhe osilive admo-
nilions, faiIing lo recognize lhal lhe osilive admonilions usuaIIy en-
comass lhe negalive. Ior examIe, if ve are "being lransformed by
lhe reneving of our mind" lhis viII incIusiveIy foreslaII our "being
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;
conformed lo lhis vorId" (Rom. 12:2). Likevise, if lhe Chrislian is be-
ing "fiIIed vilh lhe Siril," such viII serve lo foreslaII his "being drunk
vilh vine." To over-emhasize lhe behavioraI modificalions of non-
conformily or abslinence in lhese verses is lo evade lhe grace of God
vhich is lo be found in lhe divine emovering of menlaI renevaI and
lhe conlroI of lhe Siril. In bolh of lhese inslances lhe osilive and
negalive commands musl be heId logelher.
Many Chrislians seem lo be quile adamanl in lheir insislence on ab-
slinence or lemerance concerning vine and aIcohoIic beverages. Are
lhey as adamanl in lheir insislence uon being fiIIed vilh lhe Siril` If
nol, lhen vhy lhe inconsislency` Il shouId be as inaroriale for you
lo nol be fiIIed vilh lhe Siril righl nov, as il vouId be for you lo be
gelling drunk righl nov!
Thc Cnmpass nI thc Fi!!ing
To vhom does lhis command exlend` Is lhis command lo "be fiIIed
vilh lhe Siril" meanl for every Chrislian` Some seem lo lhink lhal lo
"be fiIIed vilh lhe Siril" is an exerience lhal is reserved for a rivi-
Ieged fev in lhe Church, lhal il is a deIuxe edilion of lhe Chrislian Iife
meanl for suer-Chrislians, erhas lhose invoIved as missionaries,
aslors or church Ieaders. This is nol lhe case.
When IauI commands lhe Ihesian Chrislians lo "be fiIIed vilh lhe
Siril," lhere is an imIied sub|ecl lhal musl be ascerlained from lhe
verb. The verb "be fiIIed" is second-erson IuraI in number, vhich
means lhal ve can suIy lhe sub|ecl as "you aII." "You aII be fiIIed
vilh lhe Siril," commands IauI, or if he vere in lhe soulhern arl of
lhe Uniled Slales he mighl say, "Y'aII be fiIIed vilh lhe Siril." The fiII-
ing of lhe Siril is meanl for aII Chrislians. Ivery Chrislian is resonsi-
bIe lo individuaIIy aIIov for lhis aclivily of lhe Siril of Chrisl in lheir
Iives. The IuraI sub|ecl does nol aIIov for a cororale aIicalion, as
some have suggesled, any more lhan lhe correIalive command "nol lo
gel drunk" aIIovs for a cororale aIicalion.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;,
To be fiIIed vilh lhe Siril is lhe birlhrighl of every Chrislian. Hav-
ing been "born of lhe Siril" (}ohn 3:5,6), ve are lo be "fiIIed vilh lhe
Siril." Many Chrislians, Iike Isau (Gen. 25:34), seem lo be desising
lheir birlhrighl, viIIing lo seII il for a mess of ollage and lemorary
induIgence. God inlends for every Chrislian lo "be fiIIed vilh lhe
Siril," for such is lhe normaI Chrislian Iife vherein man funclions as
God inlended man lo funclion.
Thc Cnmparisnn nI thc Fi!!ing
When IauI uses lhe concels of "gelling drunk vilh vine" and "be-
ing fiIIed vilh lhe Siril" in lhe same senlence, he is obviousIy making
some kind of comarison by vay of conlrasl. This is nol lhe onIy occa-
sion in Scrilure vhere lhese lvo concels are used in con|unclion
vilh one anolher. Luke records lhal Zacharias heard an angeI indicale
lhal his son, }ohn lhe alisl, "vouId drink no vine or Iiquor, bul
vouId be fiIIed vilh lhe HoIy Siril" (Luke 1:15). Laler Luke vouId re-
cord lhal on Ienlecosl lhe aoslIes vere "fiIIed vilh lhe HoIy Siril"
(Acls 2:4), and observers mocked lhem, saying, "They are fuII of sveel
vine" (Acls 2:13).
Whal do lhese lvo concels have in common lhal vouId cause IauI
lo emIoy lhem in conlrasluaI comarison` When a erson is drunk il
is usuaIIy obvious from lhe vay he behaves. He does nol need a sign
hanging around his neck vhich reads, "I am drunk!" His drunkenness
is evidenl from lhe vay he vaIks, lhinks, laIks and reIales lo olher
eoIe. The aIcohoI affecls his feel, his mind, his longue, and his reIa-
lionshis. InlereslingIy enough, in lhe immediale conlexl of his com-
mand, IauI refers lo being "carefuI hov you vaIk" (Ih. 5:15), being
"vise" and "underslanding" (Ih. 5:15,17), indicaling lhal "being fiIIed
vilh lhe Siril" viII affecl your "seaking lo one anolher" (Ih. 5:19)
and your reIalionshis (Ih. 5:22-6:9). The effecls of being fiIIed vilh
lhe Siril, Iike lhose of gelling drunk, viII affecl one's vaIk, lhoughl,
laIk and reIalionshis.
The rocess of gelling drunk and being fiIIed vilh lhe Siril aIso
have some simiIarilies. There is nolhing myslerious or myslicaI aboul
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;
gelling drunk. A erson simIy consumes enough aIcohoI unliI lhey
are calivaled, molivaled and aclivaled by lhe aIcohoIic "sirils." In a
simiIar manner lhe Chrislian makes a choice lo aIIov himseIf lo be
calivaled, molivaled and aclivaled by lhe HoIy Siril. The comari-
son lhal IauI is making lhen becomes obvious: "Do nol be calivaled,
molivaled and aclivaled by lhe aIcohoIic sirils, bul be calivaled, mo-
livaled and aclivaled by lhe HoIy Siril." AIcohoI has oflen been iden-
lified vilh "sirils" lhal are in conlrasl lo lhe Siril of God, even re-
ferred lo as "lhe demon in lhe bollIe." There are many forms of inloxi-
calion, lhough, vhich can calivale, molivale and aclivale human be-
havior. IeoIe can be inloxicaled vilh oIilics, business, enlerlain-
menl, even lheir "vife's breasls" (Irov. 5:19) and sexuaIily. Chrislians
are nol lo abandon lhemseIves in excess, dissialion or debauchery lo
any ob|ecl or aclivily, bul are lo submil lo lhe ersonaI aclivily of lhe
Siril of Chrisl.
Thc Cnnccpt nI thc Fi!!ing
The conlrasled comarison of "gelling drunk" and "being fiIIed vilh
lhe Siril" rovides us vilh a basic concel of vhal il means lo "be
fiIIed vilh lhe Siril." The basic concel is lhal of an individuaI being
conlroIIed by a subslance or anolher being. IauI is commanding us,
"Do nol be conlroIIed by aIcohoIic sirils, bul be conlroIIed by lhe HoIy
Siril. Do nol be under lhe infIuence of lhe aIcohoIic sirils, bul be un-
der lhe infIuence of lhe HoIy Siril. Do nol abandon your ersonaIily
lo lhe aIcohoIic subslance, bul voIunlariIy surrender your behavior lo
lhe Lordshi of lhe Siril of Chrisl."
As deendenl, conlingenl and derivalive crealures, ve viII aIvays
be conlroIIed by a siril-being olher lhan ourseIves. Man never oer-
ales in a siriluaI vacuum. God's inlenl is lhal Chrislians vho have re-
ceived lhe Siril of Chrisl inlo lheir siril (Rom. 8:9) shouId aIIov "lhe
Lord vho is lhe Siril" (II Cor. 3:17,18, Rom. 1:4) lo conlroI lheir behav-
ior al each momenl in lime so as lo aIIov lhe divine characler lo be ex-
ressed in lheir behavior lo lhe gIory of God (I Cor. 10:31).
Thc Cnnsignnr nI thc Fi!!ing
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;;
Since ve are derivalive beings, lhe conlroIIing aclivily of "being fiIIed
vilh lhe Siril" is nol somelhing lhal is aulonomous and seIf-
generaled. Il is nol lhe aclivily of seIf-efforl coming from vilhin our-
seIves. "Nol lhal ve are adequale lo consider anylhing as coming from
ourseIves, bul our adequacy is of God" (II Cor. 3:5). There is a divine
consignor vho suIies, conveys, disalches, deIivers and imarls lhis
conlroIIing aclivily vilhin lhe Chrislian. Il is nol an allainmenl, bul an
oblainmenl derived from lhe onloIogicaI resence of God vilhin lhe
siril of lhe Chrislian.
When IauI commands lhal ve "be fiIIed vilh lhe Siril," lhe Greek
verb lhal he emIoys is in lhe assive voice. This does nol mean lhal
lhe Chrislian is a assive ob|ecl, unengaged in lhe rocess of "being
fiIIed vilh lhe Siril." Il is nol a rocess of being assiveIy conlroIIed
by anolher, as in a hynolic lrance. A erson does nol gel drunk as-
siveIy, bul by acliveIy arlaking of lhe aIcohoIic beverage. The Chris-
lian, exercising his facuIlies of choice, voIunlariIy surrenders lo lhe
conlroI of God's Siril, recelive lo God's aclivily in his behavior. The
assive voice in lhe Greek Ianguage indicales lhal lhe sub|ecl of lhe
verb is being acled uon. The underslood sub|ecl is "you aII," and lhe
One vho is lo be aIIoved lo acl uon lhe freeIy chosen behavior of aII
Chrislians is God.
Thc Cnntcnt nI thc Fi!!ing
God is nol onIy lhe suIier of lhe aclivily of lhe fiIIing of lhe Siril,
bul lhal vhich He suIies is lhe onloIogicaI aclivily of His ovn eing,
exressive of His ovn characler. The Siril of God is bolh lhe Giver
and lhe Gifl. This is vhy lhe Greek reosilion cn vhich IauI uses
vhen he commands us lo "be fiIIed vilh lhe Siril" is aIlernaleIy lrans-
Ialed bolh as "be fiIIed |q lhe Siril" and "be fiIIed uiin lhe Siril." The
HoIy Siril enacls lhe rocess of lhe fiIIing, and in so doing fiIIs us
vilh HimseIf.
Many of lhe misunderslandings of vhal is invoIved in lhe "fiIIing of
lhe Siril," slem from a lruncaled lheoIogicaI underslanding of lhe lri-
une Godhead. The onloIogicaI conlenl of lhe fiIIing of lhe Siril in-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;8
voIves lhe divine aclivily of lhe Ialher, Son and HoIy Siril. They
funclion onIy in lheir lriunily as lhe Siril of God, lhe Siril of Chrisl,
and lhe HoIy Siril. Allemls lo force searaled funclion vilhin lhe
lrinily of lhe Godhead viII inevilabIy Iead lo erverled underslanding
of God's aclivily vilhin lhe Chrislian.
ReileraliveIy, il shouId aIso be noled lhal lhe conlenl of lhis fiIIing
aclivily does nol imIy or invoIve lhe suIying of any addilionaI di-
vine subslance. God and His aclivily are a unily lhal cannol be frag-
menled. "He gives lhe Siril vilhoul measure" (}ohn 3:34). The Chris-
lian is "comIele in Chrisl" (CoI. 2:10) having "every siriluaI bIessing
in heavenIy Iaces in Chrisl }esus" (Ih. 1:3). To be fiIIed vilh lhe
Siril is nol our receiving more of lhe HoIy Siril, bul lhe HoIy Siril
being aIIoved lo have more conlroI of our behavior.
Thc Cnntinuity nI thc Fi!!ing
The aclivily of being fiIIed or conlroIIed by lhe Siril of God is nol a
singuIar, slalic, once-and-for-aII exerience. Il is nol an exislenliaI
evenl lhal ve forever Iook back on, remembering ils imacl on our Iife.
Il is nol a "fiIIing" of yesleryear lhal imarls lo lhe Chrislian a IeveI of
siriluaIily, never lo be diminished or forsaken.
IreviousIy ve noled lhal regeneralion is lhe uncliIiar crisis lhal is
designed lo Iead lo lhe rocess of aIIoving lhe risen Lord }esus lo con-
lroI our behavioraI exression as Chrislians. When IauI commanded
lhal ve "be fiIIed vilh lhe Siril," lhe verb lhal he used vas in lhe re-
senl lense. This can be lransIaled and inlerreled as a conlinuous re-
senl lense vherein ve are lo "be conlinuousIy being fiIIed vilh lhe
Siril." To lhe voman al lhe veII in Samaria, }esus exIained lhal, "The
valer I shaII give viII become a sring of valer veIIing u lo elernaI
Iife" (}ohn 4:14). There is nolhing slalic aboul a sring of valer. Il is
ever-aclive. The dynamic of Chrisl's Iife oeralive in lhe behavior of
lhe Chrislian is lo be conlinuousIy aIIoved lo funclion. Hov does a
erson vho is drunk slay drunk` He musl conlinue lo arlake of lhe
aIcohoI. Likevise, lhe Chrislian musl conlinue lo be recelive lo lhe
aclivily of lhe Siril of God.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;
Al one momenl in lime ve mighl be fiIIed and conlroIIed by lhe HoIy
Siril, and al lhe nexl momenl in lime ve mighl faiI lo be so fiIIed. As
ve resond lo lhe circumslances of Iife, lhere is aIvays lhe lemlalion
lo acl and reacl in vays lhal do nol evidence lhe conlroI of lhe Siril
and lhe conveyance of divine characler. The loiIel slos u and runs
over. A chiId dros a iece of china or knocks over an exensive Iam.
We Iock our keys in lhe car, or discover ve have a fIal lire. Our souse
does somelhing ve do nol areciale. Al lhose momenls in lime are
ve recelive lo lhe conlroI of God's Siril in our behavior` eing fiIIed
vilh lhe Siril invoIves lhe conlinuous, momenl-by-momenl avaiIabiI-
ily lo lhe dynamic aclivily of God exressing His characler lhrough
our behavior in every silualion.
Thc Cnnnntatinns nI thc Fi!!ing
A sludy of lhe Nev Teslamenl usages vhere lhe aclion of "fiIIing" is
used in reference lo lhe Siril, reveaIs lhal lhere are various connola-
lions of lhe manner in vhich Chrislians are conlroIIed by lhe Siril
and lhe resuIls of such. The differenl connolalions can be ascerlained
by lhe lhree differenl Greek vords lhal are used, even lhough lhey are
aII derived from a common rool.
y uliIizing Ihesians 5:18 as our rimary lexl so far in lhis sludy,
ve have been considering vhal mighl be caIIed "lhe fiIIing of rogres-
sive ossession." The Greek vord used in lhis verse is lhe verb p|crcc,
vhich refers lo lhe generaI aclion of fiIIing u. When used in reference
lo lhe aclivily of lhe HoIy Siril, il imIies lhe momenl-by-momenl
conlroI of lhe Siril in Chrislian behavior. The same Greek verb is used
in Acls 13:52 vhere il is reorled lhal "lhe disciIes vere conlinuaIIy
fiIIed vilh |oy and vilh lhe HoIy Siril."
The "fiIIing of rogressive ossession" is inlended lo become a "re-
dominanl allern" of fuIIness in lhe Chrislian Iife. When such Siril-
conlroI of one's behavior becomes an abiding allern in one's Iife, lhal
individuaI mighl be referred lo as a "Siril-fiIIed erson." Thus il is
lhal lhe Nev Teslamenl uses lhe Greek ad|eclive p|crcs lo refer lo an
individuaI vhose IifeslyIe vas characlerized by such conlroI. }esus
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
so
vas obviousIy "fuII of lhe HoIy Siril" (Luke 4:1), even in lhe viIder-
ness vhen being lemled by lhe deviI. The seven servers seIecled by
lhe earIy Church vere lo be "fuII of lhe HoIy Siril and of visdom"
(Acls 6:3). Slehen vas one of lhe seven vho vas "fuII of failh and of
lhe HoIy Siril" (Acls 6:5), and he remained so vhen being marlyred
(Acls 7:55). arnabas is aIso characlerized as being "a good man, and
fuII of lhe HoIy Siril and of failh" (Acls 11:24). Their IifeslyIe vas
characlerized by a redominaling allern of aIIoving lhe Siril of
Chrisl lo be in conlroI of lheir behavior. This does nol mean lhal lhese
individuaIs, vilh lhe excelion of }esus, vere being fiIIed in an abso-
Iule sense so as lo be vilhoul sin. The use of lhis ad|eclive described
lheir overaII behavior as having lhe governing disosilion and abiding
characlerislic of lhe Siril's conlroI. OnIy }esus HimseIf vas lolaIIy
conlroIIed by God lhe Ialher in lhe man, so as lo funclion erfeclIy for
every momenl in lime for lhirly-lhree years "vilhoul sin" (Heb. 4:15).
On severaI occasions lhroughoul lhe Nev Teslamenl lhe HoIy Siril
is reorled lo have conlroIIed a erson's behavior in lhe sense of a
"roduclive over" for an assignmenl of divine service. Whenever lhis
sense of lhe Siril's fiIIing conlroI is menlioned, lhe Greek verb pin-
p|cni is emIoyed. This refers lo a secific aclion of fiIIing for a arlicu-
Iar resuIl. In every case lhe arlicuIar minislry invoIves a verbaI vil-
ness of God's aclion in }esus Chrisl. }ohn lhe alisl, lhe "voice crying
in lhe viIderness" (Luke 3:4), vas lo be "fiIIed vilh lhe HoIy Siril,
vhiIe yel in his molher's vomb" (Luke 1:15), sel aarl for a arlicuIar
minislry of vilness as a forerunner lo foreleII of lhe Messiah, }esus
Chrisl. }ohn's molher, IIizabelh vas "fiIIed vilh lhe HoIy Siril" (Luke
1:41) and cried oul vilh a Ioud voice excIaiming lhe bIessing of lhe
One vho vas yel in lhe vomb of Mary. }ohn's falher, Zacharias, "vas
fiIIed vilh lhe HoIy Siril, and rohesied" (Luke 1:67) of lhe saIvalion
lhal vas lo come in }esus Chrisl. Afler }esus had come and had as-
cended, lhe HoIy Siril vas "oured oul" on Ienlecosl, and lhe disci-
Ies vere "fiIIed vilh lhe HoIy Siril and began lo seak vilh olher
longues, as lhe Siril vas giving lhem ullerance" (Acls 2:4), vhich aI-
Ioved foreigners lo "hear in lhe Ianguage lo vhich lhey vere born"
(Acls 2:8). Ieler vas "fiIIed vilh lhe HoIy Siril" (Acls 4:8) in order lo
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
ss
seak before Annas, Caiahas and lhose of high-rieslIy descenl. IauI
vas "fiIIed vilh lhe HoIy Siril" (Acls 9:17) for a arlicuIar minislry of
roduclive over as an aoslIe lo lhe GenliIes, and soke boIdIy be-
fore Sergius IauIus (Acls 13:9). Many Chrislians vere "fiIIed vilh lhe
HoIy Siril, and began lo seak lhe vord of God vilh boIdness" (Acls
4:31) afler Ieler and }ohn vere reIeased from rison. Nolice hov aII of
lhese references exIain lhe conlroI of lhe Siril for a roduclive
over of verbaI vilness.
Iach of lhe connolalions of lhe fiIIing of lhe Siril erlain lo lhe con-
lroI of God's Siril vhelher momenl-by-momenl, habiluaIIy, or for a
arlicuIar minislry. The momenl-by-momenl fiIIing of "rogressive
ossession" shouId become lhe "redominanl allern" of fuIIness in
every Chrislian, and ve mighl aII have arlicuIar fiIIings of "roduc-
live over" for vilnessing in arlicuIar circumslances. The conlinuous
Chrislocenlric conlroI of lhe Siril shouId issue forlh in consislenl
characler vhich viII Iend credence lo lhe circumslanliaI comelency of
conlroIIed minislry.
Thc Cnntradictinns nI thc Fi!!ing
Whal kees Chrislians from being fiIIed or conlroIIed by lhe Siril of
Chrisl` SeveraI hrases are used lhroughoul lhe Scrilures lo refer lo
aclions vhich conlradicl lhe inlended conlroI of lhe Siril
Reslstlng the Splrlt. When Slehen vas making his defense before
lhe }erusaIem CounciI, he says lo lhe reIigious Ieaders, "You men vho
are sliff-necked and uncircumcised in hearl and ears are aIvays resisl-
ing lhe HoIy Siril" (Acls 7:51). Those lo vhom Slehen vas seaking
vere unregenerale }evish Ieaders, bul lhe aclion of resisling lhe
Siril's aclivily in our Iives is of sufficienl breadlh lo aIy lo Chris-
lians aIso.
Quenchlng the Splrlt. Wriling lo lhe ThessaIonians, IauI admonishes
lhe Chrislians lhere, "Do nol quench lhe Siril" (I Thess. 5:19). The im-
agery used here is lhal of ulling oul lhe fire of lhe Siril. Il is a sin of
omission vhen lhe Chrislian disaIIovs lhe Siril of Chrisl lo rovide
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sz
lhe imuIse and lhe energizing of His aclivily in our behavior. Oflen-
limes lhe Chrislian seIecliveIy delermines vhich areas of His Iife lhe
Siril of God viII be aIIoved lo conlroI, and quenches divine aclivily
in olher areas.
Grletlng the Splrlt. The HoIy Siril of God is ersonaIIy grieved
vhen a Chrislian chooses lo engage in behavior vhich is conlrary lo
lhe characler of God. Such a sin of commission makes lhe Siril sor-
rovfuI. God's eoIe of lhe oId covenanl "rebeIIed and grieved His
HoIy Siril" (Isa. 63:10), vhereuon He became lheir enemy. IauI
varns Chrislians, "Do nol grieve lhe HoIy Siril of God, by vhom you
vere seaIed for lhe day of redemlion" (Ih. 4:30). The conlexl of
IauI's remarks indicale lhal lhe commission of lhe sins of billerness,
vralh, anger, cIamoring, sIander, maIice, elc. vhich are conlrary lo
God's characler, are reresenlalive of lhe sins vhich grieve lhe Siril.
Llng to the Splrlt. When Ananias and Sahira consired lo vilh-
hoId some of lhe saIe of lheir roerly, and misreresenl lhemseIves as
having given everylhing, Ieler confronled Ananias, saying, "Ananias,
vhy has Salan fiIIed your hearl lo Iie lo lhe HoIy Siril...`" (Acls 5:3).
God is omniscienl, and knovs our hearls. Whenever Chrislians al-
leml lo give lhe faIse imression lhal lhey have a "siriluaIily" lhal
exceeds lhal of olhers, and are "hoIier lhan lhou," lhey are IikeIy lo be
exosed in lheir masquerade.
Testlng the Splrlt. In lhe same narralive referred lo above, Ieler con-
fronls Sahira, vho vas nol avare of vhal had haened lo her hus-
band, saying, "Why is il lhal you have agreed logelher lo ul lhe siril
of lhe Lord lo lhe lesl`" (Acls 5:9). Though lhe King }ames Version
lransIales lhis verse as "lemling lhe Siril," }ames has vrillen lhal
"God cannol be lemled" (}ames 1:13), so il is advisabIe lo lransIale
lhis as "lesling lhe Siril." Chrislians lesl lhe HoIy Siril vhenever
lhey engage in aclivily lhal is nol derived from lhe energizing of lhe
Siril, and queslion vhelher lhe Siril reaIIy knovs lheir hearls.
DeflIlng the tempIe of the Splrlt. When an individuaI is regeneraled
and indveIl by lhe HoIy Siril, his body serves as lhe exlerior lemIe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;
in vhich God dveIIs. IauI argues lhal immoraIily and imurily ex-
ressed in lhe body are misreresenlalive of lhe characler of lhe One
vho Iives vilhin, and is lhus a defiIemenl of lhe inslrumenl or house
in vhich God dveIIs. "Do you nol knov lhal your body is a lemIe of
lhe HoIy Siril vho is in you, vhom you have from God, and lhal you
are nol your ovn` Ior you have been boughl vilh a rice, lherefore
gIorify God in your body" (I Cor. 6:19,20).
lnsuItlng the Splrlt. When a Chrislian slands againsl lhe Savior he
has received and aoslalizes from failh in }esus Chrisl, he is obviousIy
nol conlroIIed by lhe Siril, and such is an "insuIl lo lhe Siril of grace"
(Heb. 10:29).
BIusphemlng the Splrlt. Allribuling Chrisl's aclivily lo lhal of Salan
(Mark 3:22-30) is never lhe conlroIIing aclivily of lhe HoIy Siril, for
lhe Siril aIvays gIorifies Chrisl (}ohn 16:14). To seak againsl lhe
Siril of God and bIasheme Him is unforgivabIe (Mall. 12:32).
AII of lhe foregoing conlradiclions lo being fiIIed vilh lhe Siril of
Chrisl are faiIures lo aIIov for lhe recelivily of lhe Siril's aclivily in
human Iives, aarl from vhich man cannol be man as God inlended.
Thc Cnntrast nI thc Fi!!ing
Il is inslruclive lo consider and comare lhe olher ibIicaI hrases
vhich refer lo lhe aclivily of lhe HoIy Siril vilh lhe aclion of lhe
Siril's fiIIing and conlroIIing lhe Chrislian individuaI. The differences
belveen lhe inlended meaning of lhe olher hrases and lhal of lhe
"fiIIing of lhe Siril" viII serve lo beller describe and define vhal is
meanl by lhe Siril's fiIIing.
Born of the Splrlt. When }esus advised Nicodemus of lhe necessily of
being "born of lhe Siril" (}ohn 3:4,5,8), He vas seaking of lhe need of
mankind lo be "broughl inlo being again" vilh siriluaI Iife. The "Siril
of Iife in Chrisl }esus" (Rom. 8:2) comes lo dveII in lhe siril of an in-
dividuaI vho is recelive by failh. "If any man does nol have lhe Siril
of Chrisl, he is none of His" (Rom. 8:9). "y lhe vashing of regenera-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s
lion and lhe reneving of lhe HoIy Siril" (Tilus 3:5), ve are consliluled
a Chrislian.
Receltlng the Splrlt. The receiving of lhe Siril of Chrisl (Acls 2:38)
inlo lhe siril of a man al regeneralion is lhe necessary siriluaI reaIily
of becoming a Chrislian. Wilhoul such an individuaI is nol yel consid-
ered a Chrislian (Acls 19:2). }ohn exIained lhal }esus had referred lo
"lhe Siril, vhom lhose vho beIieved in Him vere lo receive" (}ohn
7:39).
lndueIIlng of the Splrlt. }esus loId His disciIes lhal in His hysicaI
absence, "lhe Siril of Trulh viII be in you" (}ohn 14:17). }esus Chrisl
"abides in us, by lhe Siril vhich He has given us" (I }ohn 3:24). When
ve are regeneraled lhe "Siril indveIIs us" (Rom. 8:11), and ve musl
"guard lhrough lhe HoIy Siril vho dveIIs in us, lhe lreasure vhich
has been enlrusled lo us" (II Tim. 1:14).
Glft of the Splrlt. In lhe firsl sermon of lhe earIy church Ieler ex-
Iained lhal by resonding lo }esus Chrisl "you shaII receive lhe gifl of
lhe HoIy Siril" (Acls 2:38). Thal gifl is lhe resence of lhe HoIy Siril
HimseIf "vho vas given lo us" (Rom. 5:5) al regeneralion.
SeuI of the Splrlt. In ibIicaI limes a "seaI" reresenled a mark of
ovnershi, a seaI of securily, a finished lransaclion. AII of lhese figures
become lrue for us siriluaIIy vhen ve receive lhe Siril of Chrisl in
regeneralion. "Having beIieved, ve vere seaIed in Him vilh lhe HoIy
Siril of romise" (Ih. 1:13), "lhe HoIy Siril of God in vhom ve
vere seaIed for lhe day of redemlion" (Ih. 4:30). "God has seaIed us
and gave us lhe Siril in our hearls as a Iedge" (II Cor. 1:21,22).
Anolntlng of the Splrlt. Throughoul lhe oId covenanl riesls and
kings vere anoinled lo exress lheir Iace of service among God's
eoIe. A siriluaI anoinling is redicaled of aII regeneraled beIievers
in lhe nev covenanl, for ve are a "kingdom of riesls" (Rev. 1:6) in lhe
"royaI rieslhood" (I Ieler 2:9) of God's nev eoIe. "He vho eslab-
Iishes us in Chrisl and anoinled us is God" (II Cor. 1:21). "We have an
anoinling from lhe HoIy One" (I }ohn 2:20), lhe anoinling vhich you
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s,
received from Him abides in you, and...His anoinling leaches you
aboul aII lhings" (I }ohn 2:27), |usl as }esus said lhe Siril vouId do
(}ohn 14:26).
Buptlsm ln the Splrlt. In each of lhe four goseI narralives }ohn lhe
alisl oinls lo }esus as lhe One vho viII nol onIy balize vilh va-
ler, bul viII "balize in lhe HoIy Siril" (Mall. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke
3:16, }ohn 1:33). }usl rior lo His ascension }esus reileraled }ohn's
rohecy, saying lo His disciIes, "}ohn balized vilh valer, bul you
shaII be balized vilh lhe HoIy Siril nol many days from nov" (Acls
1:5), lhe fuIfiIImenl of vhich lransired on Ienlecosl. When Ieler vas
caIIed lo reorl lo lhe CounciI al }erusaIem and |uslify vhal haened
al lhe house of CorneIius vhen GenliIes vere firsl regeneraled, he ex-
Iains lhal "lhe HoIy Siril feII uon lhem, |usl as He did uon us al
lhe beginning (i.e. al Ienlecosl), and I remembered lhe vord of lhe
Lord, hov He used lo say, '}ohn balized vilh valer, bul you shaII be
balized vilh lhe HoIy Siril.'" (Acls 11:15,16). The uniqueness of lhe
Siril of God overvheIming lhe siril of an individuaI in regeneralion
vas regarded as lhe mark of God's siriluaI aclivily in lhe nev cove-
nanl era, and lhe universaIily of such vas iIIuslraled bolh for }evs al
Ienlecosl (Acls 2:1-13) and for GenliIes in Caesarea (Acls 10:34-48). To
lhe Corinlhians IauI vriles, "Ior ve vere aII balized inlo one body
by one Siril, vhelher }evs or Greeks, ...and vere aII made lo drink of
one Siril" (I Cor. 12:13). In lhe conlexl of emhasizing lhe universaIily
of lhe nev covenanl siriluaI reaIily, IauI noles lhal every Chrislian
vhose siril has been balized or overvheImed by lhe Siril of God in
regeneralion has been made lo arlake of lhe HoIy Siril and is a arl
of lhe siriluaI ody of Chrisl, lhe Church.
llIIlng of the Splrlt. Whal, lhen, is lhe difference belveen lhese fore-
going aclivilies of lhe HoIy Siril, and lhe "fiIIing of lhe Siril`" WhiIe
lhe foregoing aclivilies aII reIale in some manner lo lhe receil of lhe
HoIy Siril al regeneralion, lhe "fiIIing of lhe Siril" erlains lo lhe
subsequenl aclivily of lhe Siril in lhe Chrislian's Iife as he aIIovs lhe
Siril of Chrisl lo conlroI his behavioraI exression. Il mighl be said
lhal lhe foregoing aclivilies of lhe Siril refer lo lhal lime vhen lhe
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s
Siril of God becomes residenl in our Iives, bul lhe "fiIIing of lhe
Siril" refers lo lhal rocess of aIIoving lhe Siril lo become residenl
of our Iives, i.e. lo aIIov }esus Chrisl lo exercise His Lordshi in our
Iives.
Al regeneralion lhe Siril of God comes lo indveII our siril, making
us "arlakers of His divine nalure" (II Ieler 1:4), and causing us lo be-
come "nev men" (Ih. 4:24, CoI. 3:10) vilh a nev idenlily as "Chrisl-
ones," Chrislians. The Siril musl lhen be aIIoved lo move oul and in-
fIuence and conlroI our behavior in every area of our Iives.



This diagram allemls lo iIIuslrale hov lhe HoIy Siril musl be aI-
Ioved lo move oul and infIuence our Chrislian behavior sychoIogi-
caIIy and hysicaIIy. Irom lhe inside oul lhe Siril of Chrisl desires lo
conlroI our lhinking, our affeclions, our decisions, and lhe aclions of
our bodies in order lo manifesl His characler in aII lhal ve do. In some
areas of our Iives ve mighl be aIIoving lhis lo haen more lhan in
olher areas of our Iives. If lhe circIe vere divided in sIices Iike a ie,
lhe shaded area mighl exlend furlher in some areas lhan in olhers,
vhelher il be our famiIy Iife, sociaI Iife, ersonaI reIalionshis, busi-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;
ness, heaIlh, educalion, recrealion, sorls, sexuaIily, driving habils, elc.
To vhal exlenl is lhe Siril of Chrisl being aIIoved lo conlroI our
lhinking, affeclions, decisions and aclions in each of lhese areas` The
"ballIe-fronl" in lhe siriluaI varfare of our Chrislian Iives couId be
reresenled as lhe ouler Iine of lhe shaded area. Il is lhere lhal lhe
slruggIe conlinues as lo vhelher ve viII aIIov Chrisl lo fiII and con-
lroI our behavior vilh His Iife and characler, or vhelher ve viII be
fiIIed vilh behavior conlrary lo lhe characler of Chrisl, i.e. sin. }ohn
reminds us lhal, "Grealer is He vho is in you, lhan he vho is in lhe
vorId" (I }ohn 4:4).
One erson observed lhal lhe shaded area of lhis iIIuslralion is Iike a
"sanclificalion bIob," meaning lhal il is ever-changing as ve aIIov lhe
hoIy characler of God lo be evidenced in our behavior. The oulside of
lhe shaded area mighl aIso be referred lo as "lhe groving edge" of our
Chrislian Iives as ve seek lo "grov in lhe grace and knovIedge of our
Lord and Savior }esus Chrisl" (II Ieler 3:18). As vilh every lvo-
dimensionaI iIIuslralion, lhis one aIso has ils Iimilalions in reresenl-
ing lhe comIexilies of human funclion.
Thc Cnmmcnccmcnt nI thc Fi!!ing
When is lhe rocess of being "fiIIed vilh lhe Siril" suosed lo be-
gin in lhe Chrislian Iife` Many ersons have been regeneraled and be-
come Chrislians, bul have never been advised of lheir birlhrighl for
aIIoving lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl lo be Iived oul in lheir behavior. In
lheir evangeIislic zeaI many evangeIicaI Chrislians reachers and
leachers have so emhasized regeneralion and being "born again" lo
lhe negIecl of exIaining lhe on-going exression of Chrisl's Iife. e-
cause of lhis inadequacy of Chrislian inslruclion many Chrislians have
roceeded dovn lhe road of lheir Chrislian Iives for many years before
lhey ever come lo lhe reaIizalion of God's inlenl in lheir Iives. Then by
hearing anolher seaker, reading a book, or by lhe ersonaI enIighl-
enmenl of lhe HoIy Siril in reading lhe Scrilures, lhey recognize lhal
lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl vhich vas born in lhem is designed lo be Iived
oul lhrough lhem. Whal a reveIalion! Many exIain lhal il vas al a
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s8
oinl of deseralion vhen lhey desaired of ever being abIe lo Iive lhe
Chrislian Iife in lhe midsl of lhe circumslances lhal confronled lhem,
lhal lhe crilicaI "lurning oinl" or "crisis" came and lhey reaIized lhal
lhe grace of God vas sufficienl lo be fiIIed and conlroIIed by lhe HoIy
Siril for lhe oulIiving of Chrisl's Iife.
The oinl of recognilion for many of lhese Chrislians can be such a
lraumalic exerience lhal lhey are more exciled and exhiIaraled lhan
lhey vere vhen lhey vere firsl regeneraled. Some of lhem refer lo lhis
exerience as "a second vork of grace" subsequenl lo regeneralion,
and seek lo slandardize lhe henomena in lhe Iives of aII Chrislians.
Some refer lo such an exerience as "lhe balism of lhe HoIy Siril,"
for il seems lhal lhe HoIy Siril began lo overvheIm lheir Iives from
lhal oinl onvard. Semanlic misunderslanding and confusion of no-
mencIalure has resuIled. Desile lhe differing lerminoIogy uliIized in
fundamenlaIisl, hoIiness and IenlecoslaI circIes, our desire shouId be
lo see lhe Iife of }esus Chrisl Iived oul in Chrislian behavior lo lhe
gIory of God, no maller hov il is IabeIed.
Yes, lhe commencemenl of lhe fiIIing of lhe Siril shouId immedi-
aleIy foIIov lhe regeneralion of lhe Siril. Having come lo Iive in us
siriluaIIy, Chrisl vanls lo Iive His Iife oul lhrough us behavioraIIy. y
lhe fiIIing-conlroI of lhe Siril, }esus vanls lo funclion as Lord in our
Iives. Nev Chrislians shouId be inslrucled and advised of lhe grace
and sufficiency of }esus Chrisl, so lhal lhey can enler inlo lhe Siril-
fiIIed IifeslyIe as soon as ossibIe afler regeneralion, and gIorify God
lhereby.
Thc Cnnditinns nI thc Fi!!ing
Hov does lhe Chrislian aIIov for lhe fiIIing of lhe HoIy Siril so lhal
Chrisl can conlroI lhe conducl and behavior of his Iife` Is lhere any-
lhing lhal ve have lo do in order lo effecl lhis resuIl` Are lhere roce-
dures and lechniques and formuIas lhal viII cause lhis lo lake Iace in
our Iives, as lhe abundance of "hov lo" books avaiIabIe loday seem lo
advocale`
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s
IauI simIy leIIs lhe CoIossians, "As you lherefore have received
Chrisl }esus lhe Lord, so vaIk in Him, having been firmIy rooled, buiIl
u in Him and eslabIished in your failh" (CoI. 2:6). Hov did ve re-
ceive Chrisl }esus iniliaIIy` y failh, our recelivily of His remediaI,
redemlive and resloralive aclivily on our behaIf. Hov lhen are ve lo
conlinue lo vaIk in lhe Chrislian Iife` y failh, our recelivily of His
aclivily of exressing His Iife lhrough our behavior. Iverylhing in lhe
Chrislian Iife is "by grace lhrough failh" (Ih. 2:8), nol a resuIl of hu-
man "vorks" of vhich ve mighl boasl (Ih. 2:9). IauI chides and chas-
lises lhe GaIalians, asking, "Did you receive lhe Siril by vorks... or by
hearing vilh failh` Having begun by lhe Siril, are you nov being er-
fecled by lhe fIesh`" (GaI. 3:2,3). "We receive lhe romise of lhe Siril
lhrough failh" (GaI. 3:14), and in Iike manner ve receive everylhing
necessary for lhe Iiving of lhe Chrislian Iife by grace lhrough failh. The
Chrislian Iife is nol Iived by lhe vorks of human efforl, by going
lhrough various molions and riluaIs, by keeing cerlain ruIes and
reguIalions, by muslering u more commilmenl and dedicalion. The
Chrislian Iife is Iived onIy by }esus Chrisl as He is aIIoved lo fiII and
conlroI our behavior. }esus said, "Aarl from Me, you can do nolhing"
(}ohn 15:5). IauI furlher exIains lhal "God is al vork in you, bolh lo
viII and lo vork for His good Ieasure" (IhiI. 2:13). y failh ve are re-
celive lo His aclivily of fiIIing and conlroI in our behavior.
In simiIar manner as ve resonded in failh for regeneralion, lhe
Chrislian beIieves lhal lhis is vhal Chrisl vanls lo do in Iiving His Iife
oul lhrough us. His emolions have godIy sorrov for any misreresen-
lalions of sin in his Iife. There is an ongoing decision of reenlance as
our minds are changed lo recelive avaiIabiIily in order lo aIIov for
lhe changed aclion of lhe derived dynamic of divine aclivily. There
viII lhen be lhe confession of a behavioraI IifeslyIe lhal evidences lhe
Iife of }esus Chrisl. The Chrislian Iife is nol vhal ve do, bul vhal ve
aIIov }esus Chrisl lo do lhrough us by failh.



MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s,o
Thc Cnnscqucnccs nI thc Fi!!ing
Are lhere arlicuIar resuIls of being "fiIIed vilh lhe Siril" lhal can or
shouId be idenlified` Oflenlimes Chrislians have arbilrariIy deler-
mined crileria by vhich lhey seek lo evaIuale vhelher olhers have
been, or are being, fiIIed vilh lhe Siril. Such man-made crileria are
dangerous and divisive.
}esus Chrisl viII exress HimseIf uniqueIy in every Chrislian indi-
viduaI. Il is nol for lhe Chrislian communily lo seek lo slereolye and
slandardize His exressions. Our focus shouId be on lhe manifeslalion
of }esus Chrisl, nol on arlicuIar behavioraI manifeslalions such as
"seaking in longues" or having a arlicuIar "second bIessing exeri-
ence." We shouId nol seek lo emuIale hov }esus Chrisl choose lo ex-
ress HimseIf in anolher Chrislian.
There are lvo generaI areas, lhough, vhere lhe consequences of lhe
fiIIing of lhe Siril viII be evidenl:
When lhe Siril of Chrisl is aIIoved lo conlroI our behavior, lhe
characler of Chrisl viII be evidenced. "The fruil of lhe Siril is Iove,
|oy, eace, alience, kindness, goodness, failhfuIness, genlIeness,
godIy seIf-conlroI" (GaI. 5:22,23). }esus did seem lo indicale lhal "by
lheir fruil you viII knov lhem" (Mall. 7:16,20, 12:33), bul lhis does nol
necessariIy mean lhal ve shouId sel ourseIves u as "fruil-inseclors"
lo delermine vhelher olhers are being fiIIed by lhe Siril. Il viII even-
luaIIy be obvious for aII lo see vhelher ve have lhe raclicaI exres-
sions of a "song in our hearl," a lhankfuI allilude, and a deferenliaI
raorl vilh olhers (Ih. 5:19-21), and vhelher Chrisl's characler is
evidenced in our famiIies and on lhe |ob (Ih. 5:22-6:9).
To lhe exlenl lhal ve are nol fiIIed vilh lhe Siril and evidencing lhe
characler of Chrisl, ve viII of necessily be fiIIed vilh a characler lhal is
conlrary lo lhal of God. "Whalever is nol of failh, is sin" (Rom. 14:23).
The aIlernalive lo being fiIIed vilh God's characler is lo have "Salan fiII
our hearls vilh Iying" (Acls 5:3), rage (Acls 19:28), unrighleousness,
vickedness, greed, eviI, envy, slrife, deceil, maIice..." (Rom. 1:29).
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s,s
A second consequence of being conlroIIed by lhe Siril of Chrisl viII
be invoIvemenl in minislry lo olhers. Chrisl's resence in us is nol |usl
for our ovn benefil and veII-being. God is Iove (I }ohn 4:8,16), aIvays
engaged in seIf-giving for lhe highesl good of lhe olher. Chrisl in lhe
Chrislian viII aIvays seek lo give HimseIf lhrough us for olhers. }esus
Chrisl is aIvays lhe Servanl, and dveIIs in lhe Chrislian comIele vilh
aII His services. He graces lhe Chrislian vilh siriluaI gifledness (Rom.
12, I Cor. 12-14), vhenever and hovever He sees fil lo emover us for
minislry. As ve are fiIIed vilh lhe Siril, ve viII overfIov inlo lhe
Iives of olher eoIe, for as lhe IsaImisl David excIaimed, "My cu
overfIovs" (Is. 23:5).
Thc Cnnscinusncss nI thc Fi!!ing
Hov conscious viII lhe Chrislian be of his being conlroIIed by lhe
Siril of Chrisl` ShouId ve lry lo ascerlain hov ve are doing in lhe
rocess of being fiIIed vilh lhe Siril` Is il any of our business lo eva-
Iuale lhe rocess` If nol, hov do ve mainlain a sense of resonsibiIily
lo obey lhe command lo "e fiIIed vilh lhe Siril." (Ih. 5:18)`
Some have suggesled lhal lhe ob|eclive of lhe Chrislian Iife is lo
come lo such a conlinuaI Chrisl-consciousness lhal ve lhink of nolhing
eIse. This is nol raclicaI. The Chrislian shouId seek lo mainlain a con-
sciousness of his adequacy in Chrisl. "I can do aII lhings lhrough Chrisl
vho slrenglhens me" (IhiI. 4:13). "Our adequacy is from God" (II Cor.
3:5), and "God is abIe lo make aII grace abound lo us, lhal aIvays hav-
ing aII sufficiency in everylhing, ve may have an abundance for every
good deed" (II Cor. 9:8). "We have been granled everylhing erlaining
lo Iife and godIiness" (II Ieler 1:3). There can be an assurance of lhe
abundanl siriluaI rovision ve have in }esus Chrisl.
The sub|eclive consciousness of hov veII ve are aIIoving for lhe fiII-
ing of lhe HoIy Siril in our Iives is somevhal Iike lhe consciousness of
humiIily. The more conscious you are of having il, lhe Iess IikeIy il is
lhal you do! We musl bevare of aII forms of siriluaI ride, and lhe
idea lhal ve have "arrived" al some delermined IeveI of "siriluaIily."
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s,z
Il is more IikeIy lhal lhe one being fiIIed vilh lhe HoIy Siril viII be
conscious and avare of his ovn unvorlhiness and sinfuIness. Like
Isaiah, he viII resond lo lhe consciousness of God's hoIiness by cry-
ing oul, "Woe is me, I am a man of uncIean Iis" (Isa. 6:5). Such godIy
sorrov viII eIicil reenlance and lhe failh vhich is recelive lo God's
aclivily in his Iife.
The consciousness of vhal Chrisl is doing in our Iives is somelimes
hidden from our underslanding. We do nol have lo be conscious of
vhal He is doing, or hov veII ve are doing. "Hov unsearchabIe are
His |udgmenls and unfalhomabIe his vays" (Rom. 11:33). We can be
sure, lhough, lhal He is "vilh us aIvays" (Mall. 28:20), and viII "never
deserl us, or forsake us" (Heb. 13:5).
Thc Cnnsummatinn nI thc Fi!!ing
When does lhe rocess of being fiIIed and conlroIIed by lhe HoIy
Siril come lo ils inlended consummalion` Is a Chrislian ever enlireIy
and comIeleIy fiIIed vilh lhe Siril vhiIe Iiving on earlh`
Though some Chrislians refer lo an "enlire sanclificalion" and a
"comIele fuIIness of lhe Siril," IauI does nol seem lo cIaim such for
himseIf. Wriling lo lhe IhiIiians, IauI exIains, "Nol lhal I have aI-
ready oblained, or have aIready become erfecl, bul I ress on in order
lhal I may Iay hoId of lhal for vhich aIso I vas Iaid hoId of by Chrisl
}esus. I do nol regard myseIf as having Iaid hoId yel, bul...I ress on
lovard lhe goaI for lhe rize of lhe uvard caII of God in Chrisl }esus"
(IhiI. 3:12-14). IauI seems lo indicale lhal as Iong as he is Iiving lhe
Chrislian Iife here on earlh, he viII be invoIved in lhe rocess of aIIov-
ing for lhe momenl-by-momenl conlroI of lhe Siril of Chrisl in his
Iife. As Iong as ve are Iiving in lhe here and nov of earlhIy exislence
ve viII nol arrive al some Ialeau vhere ve can ul our Chrislian Iife
on "aulomalic iIol." There is a conlinuous resonsibiIily for lhe Chris-
lian lo be recelive in failh lo vhal God vanls lo do in Iiving oul lhe
Iife of }esus Chrisl in our behavior.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s,;
OnIy in lhe heavenIy reaIm viII lhere be a comIelion of lhe rocess
of being fiIIed vilh lhe Siril. Heaven is a Iace of erfeclion, and er-
feclion does nol aIIov for rogression. GIorified man viII sliII be a de-
rivalive crealure, lhough, and viII sliII be recelive lo lhe conlroIIing
aclivily of God lhrough him for elernily. To lhe exlenl lhal ve nov aI-
Iov for lhe fiIIing of lhe HoIy Siril ve deveIo arecialion for lhe
characler of Chrisl, and a allern of arlicialion lherein lhal viII aI-
Iov us lo lhus be avaiIabIe lo lhe exression of His Iife for aII elernily,
unlo His gIory.

s,
10 The Sanclificalion of Man


As lhe Chrislian individuaI aIIovs lhe Siril of Chrisl lo fiII and con-
lroI his behavior, lhe divine characler of hoIiness viII be evidenced in
such behavior. The resence and exression of God's hoIy characler,
vhereby man funclions as God crealed man lo funclion, is described
by lhe ibIicaI lerm, "sanclificalion."
Misconcelions abound in lhe minds of regenerale eoIe as lo vhal
sanclificalion imIies. Some iclure a "sanclified sainl" as a zombie-
Iike crealure vaIking around vilh a ious exression on his face ei-
lher a asled on "evangeIicaI smiIe" as if someone had |usl Iel lhe cal
oul of lhe bag, or a somber slare as if lheir besl friend had |usl died.
Olhers viev sanclificalion as an ecslalic exerience vherein God's
bIessings are dumed on an individuaI. A erson is "zaed" by lhe
over of God, and henceforlh is as eIeclrified and "lurned on" as if
lhey had |usl sluck lheir finger in an eIeclric sockel. Many have lended
lo idenlify sanclificalion vilh being "sanclimonious," vhich is Iaden
vilh conlemorary connolalions of hyocrisy, conveying lhe idea of a
IharisaicaI iely comIele vilh a "hoIier-lhan-lhou" allilude.
The ibIicaI meaning of sanclificalion needs lo be underslood. IauI
exIained lo lhe ThessaIonian Chrislians lhal "lhis is lhe viII of God,
your sanclificalion" (I Thess. 4:3). God has caIIed us for lhe urose of
sanclificalion (I Thess. 4:7). "God has chosen you from lhe beginning
for saIvalion lhrough sanclificalion by lhe Siril and failh in lhe lrulh"
(II Thess. 2:13). Sanclificalion is essenliaI if man is lo be man as God
inlended man lo be.
Sanclificalion finds ils meaning in lhe hoIy characler of God. In lhe
Hebrev Ianguage of lhe OId Teslamenl lhe rool vord qds meanl "lo
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s,,
cul off" or "lo searale." Throughoul lhe OId Teslamenl qa!cs is lrans-
Ialed "hoIy" and qc!cs is lransIaled as "hoIiness." In lhe Greek Ianguage
nagcs referred lo "an ob|ecl of ave" and nagcs lo "lhal vhich is cIean or
ure." Wilhin lhe Nev Teslamenl nagics is an ad|eclive lhal is lrans-
Ialed as "hoIy," nagicics and nagicsunc are lransIaled "hoIiness," and
nagiasncs is lransIaled as "sanclificalion."
Tvo concels are inherenl in lhese vords. Iirsl, lhe idea of lhal
vhich is hoIy, cIean and ure. The second is lhe idea of lhal vhich is
"searale" or "sel aarl." The aclion of "selling aarl" is delermined by
lhe HoIy characler of God. Nol vice versa! HoIy characler is never de-
lermined by lhe aclion of "selling aarl."
In lhe OId Covenanl ob|ecls and aclivilies vere referred lo as "hoIy"
because lhey vere "sel aarl" lo funclion as lhe HoIy God inlended for
His uroses. They did nol ossess inlrinsic hoIiness, bul vere used
for divine uroses. There vere hoIy vesseIs in lhe hoIy Iace of lhe
hoIy lemIe. There vere hoIy days and hoIy feslivaIs vhich incIuded
lhe hoIy Sabbalh. HoIy lilhes vere mandaled. The hoIy scrilures vere
sludied. IeoIe are onIy rareIy referred lo as hoIy in lhe OId Tesla-
menl. In lhe Nev Covenanl Iileralure of lhe Nev Teslamenl, on lhe
olher hand, lhe hoIiness of sanclificalion is aImosl excIusiveIy aIied
lo eoIe. L. S. Chafer noles lhal "lhere is a far deeer reaIily indicaled
by (lhe vords for hoIiness) in lhe Nev Teslamenl lhan is indicaled by
lheir emIoymenl in lhe OId. Afler aII, lhe OId Teslamenl is bul a
'shadov of good lhings lo come.'"
1
Likevise, R.A. MuIIer exIains lhal
"no OId Teslamenl lerm is idenlicaI in significance lo lhe Greek Nev
Teslamenl vord hagiasmos."
2

Gnd is Hn!y
The enlirely of lhe meaning of hoIiness and sanclily musl be deler-
mined and defined by vho God is. "I, lhe Lord your God, am hoIy," He
decIares (Lev. 19:2). "I am God and nol man, lhe HoIy One in your
midsl" (Hosea 11:9). y His hoIy characler He is sel aarl from aII cre-
aled humanily. He does vhal He does because He is vho He is. His
aclivily is aIvays consislenl vilh His characler. The saImisl decIares,
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s,
"Thy vay, O God, is hoIy" (Is. 77:13). God acls in a hoIy manner oul of
His hoIy eing.
God is hoIy. This is erhas lhe mosl comrehensive and aII-
encomassing vord used lo describe lhe characler of God. R.A. MuIIer
noles lhal "if a singIe allribule mosl fuIIy describes God in His fuIness,
lhal allribule is hoIiness."
3
To asserl lhal "God is hoIy" is lo exIain lhal
He is lhe essence of aII lhal is erfecl (Mall. 5:48) and ure (I }ohn 3:3).
Il is nol lhal His hoIiness conslilules a erfecl and ure slandard, bul
lhal hoIiness is lhe onloIogicaI reaIily of lhe essence of His characler. In
His very eing, God is inherenlIy hoIy. He is essenliaIIy, excIusiveIy,
singuIarIy, uniqueIy, absoIuleIy, erfeclIy, sovereignIy, and invioIabIy
hoIy!
Whal God is, onIy God is. His allribules are nonlransferabIe. To al-
lribule an allribule of God lo any crealed lhing is lo sublIy deify such.
God aIone is inherenlIy and essenliaIIy hoIy.
God's hoIy characler sels Him aarl from everylhing eIse. The Crea-
lor is dislinguished from, searaled from, dislincl from aII lhal is cre-
aled. He is sel aarl from aII lhal is nol consislenl vilh His characler.
God is sel aarl from aII characler lhal is imure, defiIed, sinfuI and
eviI. There is a dislance, a searalion, from everylhing rofane. Isaiah
recognized lhis vhen he heard lhe serahim decIare, "HoIy, HoIy,
HoIy, is lhe Lord of hosls," and his ovn resonse vas, "Woe is me...I
am a man of uncIean Iis" (Isa. 6:3,5).
To nole lhal God's hoIy characler sels Him aarl from aII lhe crealed
order and lhe sinfuIness of lhe faIIen order of mankind, does nol imIy
a Deislic disengagemenl from his crealion as lhe "vhoIIy hoIy Olher."
God, lhe "HoIy Ialher" (}ohn 17:11), look lhe inilialive lo send lhe
romised "HoIy One" (Is. 16:10, Acls 2:27) "in lhe Iikeness of sinfuI
fIesh" (Rom. 8:3), in order lo reslore man lo God's inlenl by lhe in-
dveIIing resence of lhe HoIy Siril. KarI arlh exIains lhal "He sanc-
lifies lhe unhoIy by His aclion vilh and lovards lhem, i.e., gives lhem
a derivalive and Iimiled, bul suremeIy reaI, share in His ovn hoIi-
ness."
4

MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s,;
"Bc Hn!y as Gnd is Hn!y"
Having noled lhal God aIone is essenliaIIy and inherenlIy hoIy, and
lhal man cannol be hoIy in lhe same sense lhal God is hoIy, vhal is lhe
meaning of lhe divine admonilion lo "be hoIy, for I am hoIy" (Lev.
11:44, 19:2, I Ieler 1:16)`
Man is aIvays deendenl, conlingenl and derivalive. He never has
inherenl or inlrinsic hoIy characler. Il can never be said lhal "man is
hoIy" in lhe same sense lhal ve say "God is hoIy." The resence of hoIy
characler in man's siriluaI condilion and behavioraI exression is aI-
vays derivalive. R.A. MuIIer slales lhal "crealed lhings can be hoIy
onIy in a derivalive sense."
5
Man can never manufaclure or generale
hoIy behavior in and of himseIf. Devoid of lhe HoIy Siril by his faII
inlo sin, man vas ullerIy incaabIe of evidencing hoIy behavior. The
oId covenanl admonilion lo "be hoIy, as He is hoIy" (Lev. 11:44, 19:2)
couId onIy serve lo shov lhal man vas incaabIe of such.
OnIy vhen God's HoIy One (}ohn 6:69, Acls 13:35), }esus Chrisl, be-
came man and served as "a high riesl, hoIy and undefiIed" (Heb.
7:26), vhiIe aIso serving as lhe sacrificiaI Iamb on vhich lhe dealh con-
sequences of God's |udgmenl on sin and unhoIiness vere enacled,
couId lhe hoIy characler of God be reslored lo man. This is lhe ob|ec-
live sanclificalion of man, vhereby oulside of us and vilhin hislory,
God acled in his Son, }esus Chrisl, lo sanclify mankind. Sanclificalion
vas enacled ob|ecliveIy and hisloricaIIy in lhe crucifixion, resurreclion
and IenlecoslaI oulouring. When }esus excIaimed, "Il is finished"
(}ohn 19:30), He vas decIaring lhe "finished vork" of God vhereby
everylhing in lhe reslored siriluaI kingdom became ob|eclive reaIily.
"}esus gave HimseIf u...lhal He mighl sanclify" (Ih. 5:26,27) lhe nev
humanily of lhe Church. We are "sanclified lhrough lhe offering of lhe
body of }esus" (Heb. 10:10). y "one offering" (Heb. 10:4), "lhrough His
bIood" (Heb. 13:12), "lhe bIood of lhe covenanl, ve are sanclified"
(Heb. 10:29).
God's aclion in }esus Chrisl lo ob|ecliveIy sanclify mankind and re-
slore His hoIy characler lo mankind, aIIovs lhe divine admonilion lo
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s,8
"be hoIy as I am hoIy" (I Ieler 1:16) lo be invesled vilh lhe divine dy-
namic of lhe aclivily of His hoIy characler in man.
Hn!y Oncs
Thus il is lhal lhe sub|eclive sanclificalion vilhin Chrislians can be
reaIized by lhose vho receive lhe Siril of lhe HoIy One, }esus Chrisl,
vilhin lheir siril. y lhe receil of lhe hoIy resence of lhe Siril of
Chrisl, lhey are regarded as "Chrislians" and as "sainls" (II Thess. 1:10)
or "hoIy ones." This has nolhing lo do vilh lhe eccIesiaslicaI canoniza-
lion inlo sainlhood vilhin lhe Roman CalhoIic church.
Chrislians are "sanclified in Chrisl }esus, sainls by caIIing" (I Cor.
1:2). y regeneralion ve are sanclified (I Cor. 6:11, Heb. 10:10,14), be-
cause "Chrisl is our sanclificalion" (I Cor. 1:30). IndveIl by lhe HoIy
Siril (II Tim. 1:14), ve have lhe "Siril of hoIiness, }esus Chrisl our
Lord" (Rom. 1:4). "Iarlakers of lhe divine nalure" (II Ieler 1:4), ve are
"arlakers of His hoIiness" (Heb. 12:10), and are "comIele in Chrisl"
(CoI. 2:10) vilhoul deficiency in lerms of our siriluaI condilion. y
lhe imuled hoIiness of lhe resence of lhe HoIy One, }esus Chrisl, ve
are a "nev man...crealed in hoIiness" (Ih. 4:24), regarded as "hoIy and
bIameIess" before God (Ih. 1:4, CoI. 1:22). CoIIecliveIy Chrislians are
arl of lhe "hoIy rieslhood" (I Ieler 2:5) and lhe "hoIy nalion" (I Ieler
2:9) of God. This siriluaI condilion of Chrislian "hoIy ones" is some-
limes referred lo as "osilionaI sanclificalion" in order lo dislinguish il
from lhe "exerienliaI sanclificalion" of God's hoIy characler being
manifesled in behavioraI exression.
PcrIccting Hn!incss
Hov can hoIiness be erfecled` HoIiness is lhe erfeclion of God
characler, and as such is imerfeclibIe. ul lhe manifeslalion of God's
hoIy characler in Chrislian behavior can be rogressiveIy more rere-
senlalive. Thus il is lhal IauI encourages Chrislians lo be "erfecling
hoIiness in lhe fear of God" (II Cor. 7:1). Though made hoIy in sub|ec-
live siriluaI condilion by lhe resence of lhe indveIIing HoIy One,
}esus Chrisl, Chrislians are sliII caIIed lo "be hoIy, as He is hoIy" (I Ie-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s,
ler 1:16) in lhe sub|eclive "exerienliaI sanclificalion" of souI and body
as veII as siril (I Thess. 5:23).
The Reformers in lheir reaclion lo lhe CalhoIic doclrine of an infu-
sion of inherenl hoIiness vhich divinized lhe Chrislian, did a reaI dis-
service lo ibIicaI lheoIogy by searaling |uslificalion and sanclifica-
lion in a sychoIogislic cr!c sa|uiis. Imhasizing lhe IegaI/enaI modeI
of alonemenl and |uslificalion, lhe raclicaI imacl vas lo diminish
emhasis on hoIy Iiving and lhe oulvorking of God's hoIy and righl-
eous characler.
God "caIIed us vilh a hoIy caIIing" (II Tim. 1:9), He "caIIed us for
sanclificalion" (I Thess. 4:7) lhal ve mighl be a eoIe engaged in "hoIy
conducl and godIiness" (II Ieler 3:11). God "disciIines us for our
good, lhal ve may share His hoIiness" (Heb. 12:10).
Chrislians are lo "ursue sanclificalion" (Heb. 12:14), "ossess lheir
ovn vesseI in sanclificalion" (I Thess. 4:4), "resenl lheir bodies as a
hoIy sacrifice" (Rom. 12:1), and "resenl lheir members as sIaves of
righleousness, resuIling in sanclificalion" (Rom. 6:19).
Such hoIy behavior is nol |usl an elhicaI asiralion or a moraI ideaI.
We are nol sanclified by lhe human erformance of vorking harder,
osilive lhinking, dedicalion or commilmenl. The exression of hoIi-
ness in man's behavior is aIvays derived from lhe characler and dy-
namic of God. If behavior is nol derived from God, ck inccs, il is nol
hoIy behavior. This is vhy Turner exIains lhal "nagiasncs...connoles
lhe slale of grace or sanclily nol inherenl in ils sub|ecl, bul lhe resuIl of
oulside aclion."
6
IauI urged Chrislians lo aIIov "lhe God of eace lo
sanclify you... He viII bring il lo ass" (I Thess. 5:23,24). The Chrislian
never has inherenl or seIf-generaled hoIiness. The hoIiness of siriluaI
condilion and behavioraI exression is aIvays derived from lhe hoIy
characler of God. The imuled hoIiness received al regeneralion is im-
arled in our behavior by lhe dynamic of God in Chrisl.
The resonsibiIily of lhe Chrislian is lhe deendency of failh, being
our recelivily of God's aclivily. The risen Lord }esus exIained lhal
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
so
eoIe are "sanclified by failh in Me" (Acls 26:18). Il is a "sanclificalion
by lhe Siril and failh" (II Thess.. 2:13), vherein ve have a "cIeansing
of our hearls by failh" (Acls 15:9) and arliciale in a "righleousness
from failh lo failh" (Rom. 1:17). Chrislian freedom is evidenced in lhal
ve are free lo exercise such failh and lhus be funclionaI humanily as
God inlended man lo be.
Sanclificalion is a rocess. IxIaining lhe Greek vord nagiasncs, WiI-
Iiam arcIay noles lhal "aII Greek nouns vhich end in -asncs describe,
nol a comIeled slale, bul a rocess. Sanclificalion is nol a comIeled
slale, il is lhe road lo hoIiness."
7
There is a sub|eclive crisis in regenera-
lion vhereby ve are made hoIy in siriluaI condilion, bul henceforlh
ve engage in lhe rocess of manifesling God's hoIy characler in lhe
behavior of Chrislian Iiving. Wriling lo lhe ThessaIonians, IauI refers
lo "saIvalion lhrough sanclificalion" (II Thess. 2:13). SaIvalion is lhe
rocess of being made safe from lhe dysfunclion of salanic misuse and
abuse, in order lo funclion as God inlended by being a vesseI of His
hoIy characler. We are "being saved" (I Cor. 1:18, II Cor. 2:15) lhrough
lhe sanclificalion rocess. The "sanclificalion bIob" referred lo in lhe
revious sludy iIIuslrales lhe ever-increasing rocess of Chrislian ma-
lurily and grovlh in lhe exression of God's hoIy characler.
As lhe sanclificalion rocess lransires in Chrislian behavior lhe
Chrislian is "lransformed inlo lhe same image from gIory lo gIory" (II
Cor. 3:18). The "image of God," lhe visibiIily of God's characler, is ex-
ressed as God inlended (Gen. 1:26,27). The "fruil of lhe Siril" (GaI.
5:22,23), lhe "fruil of righleousness" (IhiI. 1:11), reveaIs lhe characler of
Chrisl. In lhal rocess God's hoIy characler overcomes lhe exression
of salanic characler. We are "sel aarl" from immoraIily, imurily and
sin. This exIains vhy sanclificalion is oflen conlraosilioned vilh
"defiIemenl of fIesh" (II Cor. 7:1), "sexuaI immoraIily" (I Thess. 4:3),
"IuslfuI assion" (I Thess. 4:4), "imurily" (I Thess. 4:7), and lhe Iikes.
The hoIy characler of God suersedes diaboIic characler exression,
and sels us aarl from sin.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
ss
To vhal exlenl does such a rocess lake Iace in lhe Chrislian Iife`
Can il ever be said lhal a Chrislian is enlireIy sanclified` Ierfeclionisl
lheoIogy has oflen inlerreled IauI's slalemenl lo lhe ThessaIonians lo
mean lhal ve can be "sanclified enlireIy... vilhoul bIame al lhe coming
of our Lord }esus Chrisl" (I Thess. 5:23). This is usuaIIy osiled as a cri-
sis exerience in a "second vork of grace," denying lhal sanclificalion
is a rocess. IIsevhere IauI exIains, "Nol lhal I have aIready become
erfecl, bul I ress on in order lhal I may Iay hoId of lhal for vhich
aIso I vas Iaid hoId of by Chrisl }esus" (IhiI. 3:12).
The leIeoIogicaI imIicalions of sanclificalion are referred lo
lhroughoul lhe Nev Teslamenl scrilures. The ob|eclive of God is lhal
His hoIy characler mighl be exressed in lhe behavior of men unlo His
ovn gIory unliI Chrisl relurns and unlo elernily. Chrislians are lo aI-
Iov lhe divine dynamic of Ialher, Son and HoIy Siril lo "eslabIish
lheir hearls unbIameabIe in hoIiness...al lhe coming of our Lord }esus"
(I Thess. 3:13, 5:23). God viII "erfecl us unliI lhe day of }esus Chrisl"
(IhiI. 1:6), lhal ve mighl "sland in lhe resence of His gIory, bIameIess
vilh greal |oy" (}ude 24). The uIlimale comIelion of lhe sanclificalion
rocess viII come in lhe gIorified slale vherein ve arliciale in lhe
comIele and elernaI arecialion of God's hoIiness.
"God has caIIed us lo sanclificalion. He vho re|ecls lhis...re|ecls God
vho gives His HoIy Siril lo us" (I Thess. 4:7,8). To be engaged in lhe
sanclificalion rocess is essenliaI and imeralive. Il is "lhe sanclifica-
lion vilhoul vhich no one viII see lhe Lord" (Heb. 12:14). To manifesl
lhe hoIy characler of God in our behavior unlo His gIory is lhe ur-
ose for vhich ve exisl on earlh.
ReIigion aIvays has lhe lendency lo alleml lo delermine hoIiness by
emhasizing lhe human moraI erformance of being "sel aarl." This
is lhe vrong slarling oinl. The reIigious Iharisees vere "searaled
ones" vho allemled lo sel lhemseIves aarl by IegaIislic erformance
of lhe Lav in order lo be hoIy. The earIy Chrislian ascelics allemled
lo sel lhemseIves aarl in monaslic encIaves in order lo avoid imurily
and lo be hoIy. Throughoul lhe hislory of lhe Chrislian reIigion lhere
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
sz
has been a misemhasis on being "sel aarl" by moraIily codes, beIief-
syslems, exeriences, and siriluaI gifledness. Selling oneseIf aarl in
searalism, isoIalionism, excIusivism or eIilism does nol eslabIish ho-
Iiness. Such aclivily is mereIy lhe "vorks" of reIigion.
Chrislian leaching musl commence vilh lhe reaIily of "Chrisl in you"
(CoI. 1:27). Sanclificalion is lhe hoIy characler of God inherenl in lhe
HoIy One, }esus Chrisl, via lhe HoIy Siril, coming lo dveII in lhe
siril of a Chrislian vho viII aIIov such hoIy characler lo be evidenced
in Chrislian behavior, selling lhem aarl from imurily and sin, and
selling lhem aarl lo funclion as God inlended. God musl do lhe "sel-
ling aarl," and He does so on lhe basis of His hoIy characler, and by
lhe dynamic of His grace.


FOOTNOTE5
1 Chafer, L.S., Syslemalic TheoIogy, DaIIas: DaIIas TheoIogicaI Iress. 1983. VoI. 7. g.
279.
2 MuIIer, R.A., The InlernalionaI Slandard ibIe IncycIoedia. ArlicIe on "sanclifica-
lion." Grand Raids, Ierdmans. 1979. VoI. 4. g. 321.
3 Ibid. g. 321.
4 arlh, KarI, Church Dogmalics: The Doclrine of ReconciIialion. VoI. IV, arl 2. Idin-
burgh: T & T CIark. 1958. g. 500.
5 MuIIer, R.A., o cil. g. 321.
6 Turner,G.A., The Zondervan IicloriaI ibIe IncycIoedia. ArlicIe on "sanclificalion."
Grand Raids: Zondervan IubIishing. 1977. VoI. 5. g. 265.
7 arcIay, WiIIiam, The Leller lo lhe Romans. DaiIy Sludy ibIe series. IhiIadeIhia:
TheWeslminsler Iress. 1957. gs 92,93.

s;
11 The ResonsibiIily of Man


Imhasis uon lhe aclivily of God by His grace in order lo manifesl
His characler vilhin His crealion, necessilales an inquiry aboul lhe re-
sonsibiIily of man, or more secificaIIy of lhe resonsibiIily of lhe
Chrislian erson vilhin lhe Chrislian Iife. Tvo exlremes musl be
avoided. The firsl over-emhasizes lhe sovereignly of God and imIies
lhal man is incaabIe of resonding, or has no need lo resond, lo
God's aclion. "The Chrislian Iife is aII of God." The second exlreme
over-emhasizes lhe resonsibiIily and aclivily of man, indicaling lhal
lhe Chrislian Iife is deendenl on man's commilmenl, dedicalion and
erformance a lheoIogy of "vorks." A ibIicaIIy baIanced erseclive
of lhe Chrislian's resonsibiIily is a necessily.
Wriling lo lhe GaIalians vho vere being misinformed aboul lhe re-
sonsibiIilies of Chrislians, IauI asks, "Did you receive lhe Siril by
vorks of lhe Lav, or by hearing vilh failh`" (GaI. 3:2). If lhey had Iis-
lened lo IauI's rocIamalion, lhey knev lhal "by grace you have been
saved lhrough failh, and lhal nol of yourseIves, il is lhe gifl of God, nol
as a resuIl of vorks, lhal no one shouId boasl" (Ih. 2:8,9). In Iike
manner as lheir iniliaI resonse lo lhe redemlive vork of }esus
Chrisl, lheir conlinuing resonsibiIilies in lhe Chrislian Iife vere nol
"vorks of lhe Lav," bul "hearing vilh failh." IauI asks, "Are you going
lo be erfecled by lhe fIesh (GaI. 3:3), by lhe vorks of erformance`
The imIied ansver lo lhis rheloricaI queslion is obviousIy, "No!" Il is
nol lhe resonsibiIily of Chrislians lo be erfecled and sanclified by
lhe faIIacy of seIf-generaled aclivily.
When IauI Ialer vrole lo lhe Chrislians of CoIossae, vho vere aIso
being misIed concerning lhe resonsibiIilies of lhe Chrislian Iife, he
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s
advised lhem, "As you lherefore have received Chrisl }esus lhe Lord,
so vaIk in Him" (CoI. 2:6). Hov does anyone receive Chrisl }esus lhe
Lord` y failh! "You are aII sons of God lhrough failh in Chrisl }esus"
(GaI. 3:26). Hov, lhen, are ve lo "vaIk" and conducl our Chrislian
Iives` y failh! The conlexl of IauI's slalemenl lo lhe CoIossians evi-
dences lhal he vas referring lo "lhe slabiIily of lheir failh" (CoI. 2:5),
and lheir "being eslabIished in lheir failh" (CoI. 2:7). The resonsibiIily
of man in lhe Chrislian Iife is failh!
Whal is failh` In our revious consideralion of lhe iniliaI failh re-
sonse of man lo lhe erson and vork of }esus Chrisl, il vas noled lhal
failh is besl defined as "our recelivily of God's aclivily." IniliaIIy ve
are recelive lo lhe ob|eclive redemlive aclion of }esus Chrisl on our
behaIf, and recelive of lhe sub|eclive resence of lhe Siril of Chrisl
coming lo indveII and regenerale our siril. Henceforlh lhe Chrislian
is lo be recelive lo lhe conlinuing grace of God in }esus Chrisl in or-
der lo behavioraIIy manifesl His characler and aclivily in our behavior.
The definilion of failh as "our recelivily of God's aclivily," resu-
oses lhal God crealed man vilh lhe voIilionaI caabiIily lo resond lo
a siriluaI being. Man has a "resonse-abiIily" or an "avaiI-abiIily" lo
resond lo siriluaI aclivily and avaiI himseIf lo such. God seIf-Iimiled
himseIf funclionaIIy lo acl in corresondence vilh lhe choices of de-
endency, conlingency and derivalion lhal man mighl make, bul as
choosing crealures men musl bear lhe consequences of lheir choices.
Iailh is lhe resonsibIe choice of man lo derive aII from God. }ohn
Murray exIains lhal "failh is nol lhe acl of God. Iailh is an aclivily on
lhe arl of lhe erson and of him aIone. In failh ve receive and resl
uon Chrisl."
1
In recognizing lhal failh is man's voIilionaI choice, care-
fuI cIarificalion musl be made in denying lhal such a choice has any
causaI significance or any merilorious benefil before God. The human
choice of failh does nol in any vay make God conlingenl uon man's
resonse.
As lhe Crealor, God's inherenl funclion is lo acl in accord vilh His
characler. The crealure, man, on lhe olher hand, is nol designed vilh
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s,
an inherenl caabiIily lo acl seIf-generaliveIy, bul is designed lo func-
lion by recelivily, as a deendenl, conlingenl and derivalive crealure.
Our failh resonses are nol |usl menlaI recognilion of vhal God has
done or is doing, nor are lhey voIilionaI resoIulions lo aclivale our be-
havior in accord vilh God's execlalions. The resonse of failh is lhe
viIIingness of man lo be recelive lo lhe aclivily of God. WiIIiam ar-
cIay noled lhal "lhe firsl eIemenl in failh is vhal ve can onIy caII re-
celivily"
2
This is nol simIy recelivily of facls, nol |usl recelivily of
lhe significance of lhe facls, bul recelivily of }esus Chrisl.
y failh ve avaiI ourseIves of lhe eing and aclivily of God. Iailh is
nol |usl an eislemoIogicaI assenl lo recels, romises, rinciIes or
roosilions. Ralher, failh is an onloIogicaI recelivily of lhe Ierson of
lhe divine "I AM." We are nol mereIy recelive lo His "message" or lo
His "benefils," bul ve are recelive lo His dynamic aclivily of grace in
His Son, }esus Chrisl. God is an aclive God vho aIvays acls consislenl
vilh His characler. He does vhal He does because He is vho He is!
We have lhe unique oorlunily lo be recelive of His aclive characler
exression in our behavior by failh.
The ouIar, bul inadequale, definilions of failh musl be reIaced
vilh a more ibIicaI underslanding of "our recelivily of God's acliv-
ily." Iailh is much more lhan a cognilive assenl lo lhe veracily of his-
loricaI and lheoIogicaI dala. Iailh is much more lhan sub|eclive assur-
ances of inner feeIings of eace and veII-being. Iailh is much more
lhan a viIIfuI delerminalion lo resond in moraI conformily. Iailh is
our choice lo aIIov God lo acl in and lhrough us.
If lhe resonsibiIily of lhe Chrislian is lo be recelive lo God's acliv-
ily by failh, lhen vhal imorl do lhe hundreds of imeralive verbs
have vhich are found lhroughoul lhe nev covenanl vrilings of lhe
Nev Teslamenl` Whal shouId be our resonse lo lhe commands made
by }esus and by aulhors such as IauI, Ieler and }ohn` Are ve reson-
sibIe lo obey lhe commandmenls of lhe Nev Teslamenl, and if so vhal
does such obedience enlaiI` These are queslions vhich musl be ad-
dressed in order lo undersland our resonsibiIily in lhe Chrislian Iife.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s
Dcpcndcnt Attitudc nI Faith
Many of lhe imeralive verbs of lhe Nev Teslamenl command us lo
resond lo }esus Chrisl in a deendenl allilude of failh. They exress
our resonsibiIily as Chrislians lo accel and deveIo alliludes in our
mind and emolions vhich viII serve lo faciIilale a voIilionaI choice of
failh in our viII. IauI advises lhe CoIossians lo "sel your mind on
lhings above" (CoI. 3:2), and urges lhe IhiIiians lo "Iel your mind
dveII on lhings vhich are lrue, honorabIe, righl, ure, IoveIy and of
good reule" (IhiI. 4:8). IreviousIy lhe IhiIiian Chrislians vere loId
lo "have lhis allilude (humiIily of mind) vhich vas aIso in Chrisl }e-
sus" (IhiI. 2:3-5). Some addilionaI commands vhich incuIcale a de-
endenl allilude of failh incIude:
Rccknn ynursc!vcs. Wriling lo lhe Romans, IauI advocales lhe
Chrislians lo "reckon yourseIves lo be dead lo sin, bul aIive lo God in
Chrisl }esus" (Rom. 6:11). The Greek vord |cgizcnai vas originaIIy an
accounling lerm. Il means "lo regard or consider il as a facl," "lo counl
on il or deend on il." When ve vrile a check ve reckon on lhe facl
lhal ve have money vhich vas reviousIy deosiled in lhe bank. The
reckoning musl be based uon an exislenl reaIily. MenlaI reckoning
does nol creale lhe reaIily as some have faIIaciousIy suggesled. The re-
aIily on vhich IauI encourages us lo reckon is lhal our rior idenlifica-
lion as an "oId man" (Rom. 6:6), vherein ve vere siriluaIIy uniled
vilh lhe salanic source of sin, has been lerminaled, and ve are nov, as
Chrislians, siriluaIIy uniled and idenlified vilh lhe Siril of Chrisl
vhose inherenl Iife (}ohn 14:6) has been invesled in us. Chrislians are
resonsibIe lo "counl il as a facl" lhal lhis is lhe siriluaI reaIily vilhin
lhem, and lo deend on lhe Iife of lhe risen Lord }esus exressed in
lheir behavior.
5ubmit ynursc!vcs. }ames, lhe brolher of }esus, admonishes Chris-
lians lo "submil lherefore lo God" (}ames 4:7). Submission invoIves
recognilion and resonse lo a righlfuI aulhorily. In every aulhorily
slruclure, lhose vho are sub|ecl lo aulhorily musl Iearn lo recognize
lhal submission musl be an allilude exressed in reIalionaI aclivily.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;
The aclivily vilhoul lhe allilude is mere cailuIalion or resignalion. In
a deendenl allilude of failh ve submil ourseIves lo divine aulhorily
and lo lhe Lordshi of }esus Chrisl in our Iives.
Prcscnt ynursc!vcs. In lhe same conlexl in vhich IauI exIained lhe
resonsibiIily of Chrislians lo "reckon lhemseIves" (Rom. 6:11), he goes
on lo advocale lhe resonsibiIily of "resenling ourseIves." "Iresenl
yourseIves lo God as lhose aIive from lhe dead, and your members as
inslrumenls of righleousness lo God" (Rom. 6:13). "Iresenl your mem-
bers as sIaves lo righleousness, resuIling in sanclificalion" (Rom. 6:19).
The King }ames Version lransIaled lhese verbs as "yieId yourseIves,"
vhich is a vaIid lransIalion bul lends lo convey lhe connolalion of as-
sivily. The caII lo "resenl ourseIves" seems lo connole a more aclive
resonsibiIily of Iacing ourseIves in lhe conlexl of God's sovereign
aclivily. Laler in lhe same eislIe IauI urges Chrislians "lo resenl
your bodies a Iiving and hoIy sacrifice, accelabIe lo God, vhich is
your siriluaI service of vorshi" (Rom. 12:1). In a deendenl allilude
of failh, Chrislians are lo "give lhemseIves lo lhe Lord" (II Cor. 8:5) in a
voIunlary sacrifice vhereby ve surrender ourseIves lo His aclivily in
our Iives.
Abidc. }esus commanded His disciIes lo "abide in Me, and I in you"
(}ohn 15:4). To "abide" is lo remain vhere you are "in Him," and lo
"slay ul." y God's grace ve are ul "in Chrisl," and ve are lo slay
lhere, remain lhere, abide lhere. The IngIish vord "abode" refers lo a
dveIIing Iace, such as a house vhere ve Iive. Our abode is vhere ve
abide, and lhe ongoing resonsibiIily lo "abide" invoIves our residing,
dveIIing, Iiving and making our residence in lhe conlexl of Chrisl's ac-
livily. We are lo "abide in Him" (I }ohn 2:28).
Rcst. The resonsibiIily lo "resl" is seIdom advocaled in lhe aclivislic
orienlalion of lhe church and lhe vorId loday. The vriler lo lhe He-
brev Chrislians indicales lhal "ve vho have beIieved enler lhe resl of
God" (Heb. 4:3), bul lhere is sliII a resonsibiIily lo "enler lhal resl."
"Lel us fear Iesl, vhiIe a romise remains of enlering His resl, any one
of you shouId seem lo come shorl of il" (Heb. 4:1). "e diIigenl lo enler
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s8
lhal resl" (Heb. 4:11). The background for underslanding vhal il
means lo "enler God's resl" is lo be found in lhe crealion accounl of
Genesis vhere God "resled" on lhe sevenlh day. Il vas nol lhal God
vas lired and needed a resl in order lo recuerale, nor lhal He sal back
afler crealion vilh nolhing more lo do. He resled from His crealive ac-
livily in order lo en|oy lhal vhich He had crealed, and secificaIIy lo
receive lhe gIory from His gIorious characler manifesled vilhin lhe
behavior of crealed humanily vho vere recelive lo such in failh. The
sevenlh day of each veek vas designaled as lhe Sabbalh, lhe day of
resl, vhen men couId arliciale in lhe "resl" lhal God vas en|oying
and areciale vhal God vas doing. Afler lhe faII of man inlo sin, }e-
sus came lo reslore man's arlicialion in lhe "resl of God," saying
"Come unlo Me aII vho are veary and heavy-Iaden and I viII give you
resl. Take My yoke uon you and Iearn from Me, for I am genlIe and
humbIe in hearl, and you shaII find resl for your souIs" (Mall.
11:28,29). In a deendenl allilude of failh ve arliciale in God's "resl"
as ve are recelive lo lhe aclivily of Chrisl in us.
These deendenl alliludes for vhich ve are resonsibIe as Chrislians
are |usl differing facels of failh. To "reckon" is failh counling on lhe re-
aIily. To "submil" is failh yieIding lo aulhorily. To "resenl" is failh of-
fering ourseIves lo lhe righlfuI ovner. To "abide" is failh remaining
vhere God uls us. To "resl" is failh en|oying God's aclivily. These
may seem lo be ralher assive, bul lhey are deendenl alliludes vhich
Iead lo lhe disciIined aclivilies of failh.
Discip!incd Activitics nI Faith
Olher imeralive admonilions in lhe Nev Teslamenl advise lhe
Chrislian lo abslain from cerlain aclivilies or lo engage in various ac-
livilies. These aclivilies are nol seIf-generaled, bul are arl of lhe
choice of failh. In choosing lo be recelive lo Chrisl's aclivily in our
behavior, ve are al lhe same lime choosing lo abslain from behavioraI
aclivily vhich is lhe salanic exression of sinfuIness and seIfishness,
by aIIoving lhe divine aclivily lo suersede and overcome.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s
The Chrislian is resonsibIe lo make disciIined choices lo abslain or
engage in various aclivilies. IauI advised Timolhy, "DisciIine your-
seIf for lhe urose of godIiness" (I Tim. 4:7). The Greek vord gum-
nazo vhich IauI used is lhe basis of lhe IngIish vords "gymnasium"
and "gymnaslics." DisciIine invoIves reguIar exercise, Iike an alhIele
rearing himseIf for lhe OIymics. Ior lhe Chrislian such disciIine
in lhe Chrislian Iife is a slruclured allern of chosen behavior lhal aI-
Iovs God lo carry on His divine aclivily vilhin our Iives. Il is lhe de-
Iiberale and viIIfuI Iacemenl of one's being inlo a slale, osilion or
shere of aclivily vherein God's divine ob|eclives may be furlhered
and accomIished in our Iives.
These disciIined aclivilies of failh are nol lo be conslrued as "vorks"
of erformance by vhich ve aclivale Chrislian Iiving, or by vhich ve
earn or meril God's Ieasure or benefils. They are chosen aclivilies
vherein ve Iace ourseIves in lhe slream of God's grace, in order lo
aIIov for lhe aclivily of His grace lo exress His characler in lhe midsl
of lhe aclivily.
We are lo "abslain from vickedness" (II Tim. 2:19), "fIeshIy Iusls" (I
Ieler 2:11), "immoraIily" (I Thess. 4:3) and "every form of eviI" (I Thess.
5:22). We are resonsibIe lo choose "nol lo be conformed lo lhis vorId"
(Rom. 12:2) and "lhe former Iusls" (I Ieler 1:14), bul lo "deny ungodIi-
ness and vorIdIy desires" (Tilus 2:12). Chrislians are lo "ul no confi-
dence in lhe fIesh" (IhiI. 3:3), "make no rovision for lhe fIesh" (Rom.
13:14), and avoid "lurning lheir freedom inlo an oorlunily for lhe
fIesh" (GaI. 5:13). They shouId choose "nol lo lhink more highIy of
lhemseIves lhan lhey oughl lo lhink" (Rom. 12:3), "nol lo exaIl lhem-
seIves" (Mall. 23:12), nol lo "Iive for lhemseIves" (II Cor. 5:15), bul
ralher lo "deny lhemseIves" (Luke 9:23).
IosiliveIy, ve are lo "kee ourseIves chasle" (Rev. 14:4) and "un-
slained by lhe vorId" (}ames 1:27), "cIeansing ourseIves from aII de-
fiIemenl of fIesh and siril" (II Cor. 7:1). We are commanded lo "hum-
bIe ourseIves in lhe resence of lhe Lord" (}ames 4:10), and lo "cIolhe
ourseIves vilh humiIily" (I Ieler 5:5). Chrislians shouId choose lo
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;o
"sland firm in lhe Lord" (IhiI 4:1, I Thess. 3:8), "in lhe failh" (I Cor.
16:13), and "in lhe viII of God" (CoI. 4:12). They shouId "conducl lhem-
seIves honorabIy" (Heb. 13:18), "in a manner vorlhy of lhe goseI of
Chrisl" (IhiI. 1:27). To do so lhey viII "devole lhemseIves lo rayer" (I
Cor. 7:5, CoI. 4:2), "draving near lo God" (}ames 4:8) and "lo lhe lhrone
of grace" (Heb. 4:16).
These are reresenlalive of lhe hundreds of imeralives in lhe Nev
Teslamenl vhich advocale disciIined aclivilies vhich lhe Chrislian
individuaI chooses lo abslain from or engage in so lhal God's aclivily
of grace may be funclionaI in lheir behavior. The hysicaI behavioraI
aclivilies are bul lhe conlexls in vhich God's divine aclivily can ex-
ress His characler and minislry.
IccIesiaslicaI admonilions have oflen encouraged various aclivilies
among Chrislians vilhoul advising of lhe siriluaI resource of lhe
Lord }esus Chrisl on vhom ve deend in lhe "recelivily of His acliv-
ily." Many siriluaIIy nev-born Chrislians, afler having received lhe
Siril of Chrisl by failh, have been inslrucled lo "go oul and Iive Iike
}esus and Iove Iike }esus," as if lhe resonsibiIily of lhe Chrislian Iife
vere lo imilale or mimic lhe examIe of lhe hisloricaI }esus. Granled,
ve are lo "Iive for lhe Lord" (Rom. 14:8) and "Iive godIy in Chrisl }e-
sus" (II Tim. 3:12), bul lhis is accomIished onIy as "lhe Iife of }esus is
manifesled in our morlaI body" (II Cor. 4:10. Il is cIear lhal ve "oughl
lo Iove one anolher" (I }ohn 4:11), for }esus HimseIf said, "This is My
commandmenl, lhal you Iove one anolher, |usl as I Ioved you" (}ohn
15:12, 13:34), bul "lhe Iove of God has been oured vilhin our hearls
by lhe HoIy Siril vho vas given lo us" (Rom. 5:5) and is exressed
onIy as "lhe fruil of lhe Siril" (GaI. 5:22). The aclivilies of failh musl
nol be vieved as seIf-generaled aclivilies aarl from deendency on
lhe energizing of God in Chrisl.
The resonsibiIily of our failh aclivilies has oflen been summed u in
lhe vords of lhe ouIar hymn, "Trusl and Obey."
3
Iailh does invoIve
lrusl and deendency, bul obedience shouId nol be defined in lhe IegaI
lerms of keeing commandmenls of lhe Lav by oul besl seIf-efforl lo
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;s
do so. In lhe nev covenanl of Chrislianily, "obedience" is usuaIIy lhe
lransIalion of lhe Greek vord nupakcuc, vhich means "lo Iislen under."
Chrislian obedience is Iislening under God lo His siriluaI direclion in
our Iives, and resonding by "recelivily of His aclivily" in "lhe obedi-
ence of Chrisl" (II Cor. 10:5). When ve undersland failh and obedience
as lhe Nev Teslamenl uses lhe lerms, ve viII undersland our reson-
sibiIily lo "lrusl and obey," for such becomes "lhe obedience of failh"
(Rom. 1:5, 16:26).
Di!igcnt App!icatinn nI Faith
Recognizing lhal our resonsibiIily is lo make choices of failh vhich
are recelive lo lhe aclivily of God in our Iives, ve musl ever be diIi-
genl and discerning lo see lhe raclicaI imIicalions of such and lo
avoid lhe abusive exlremes.
A deendenl allilude of failh vilhoul disciIined aclivilies of failh
can roduce passivism and acquiescence. Some Chrislians have im-
roerIy decided lhal lhe Chrislian Iife is aII God's resonsibiIily and
lhal lhey are nol resonsibIe for anylhing. They sil back, lviddIe lheir
lhumbs, and execl God lo do il aII. }ames seems lo have been con-
fronling bolh lhe faIIacious ideas of failh as orlhodox beIief and failh
as assive inaclion vhen he exIained lhal "failh, if il has no vorks, is
dead, by ilseIf" (}ames 2:17). If failh is "our recelivily of God's acliv-
ily," and lhere is no divine aclivily, lhen lhere is no failh! Iailh is nol
|usl our recelivily of God's ideoIogy or moraI code, bul of His aclive
exression of His characler in our behavior, for vhich ve are reson-
sibIe lo consenl and lo make choices lo be engaged lherein. If lhere is
no oulvorking of lhe aclivily of God, lhen failh has been voided and
subsliluled vilh eislemoIogy or assivism.
On lhe olher hand, disciIined aclivilies vhich are nol based uon a
deendenl allilude of failh can become reIigious pcrInrmancc vhich is
nolhing more lhan lhe "vood, hay and slrav" of "man's vorks" (I Cor.
2:10-14). IccIesiaslicaI exIanalions of Chrislian resonsibiIily have of-
len emhasized disciIined aclivily in a IegaIislic framevork lhal faiIs
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;z
lo lake inlo accounl lhe deendenl allilude of recelivily lo God's ac-
livily.
IouIar misconcelions of lhe resonsibiIily of lhe Chrislian incIude
lhe reelilive exhorlalions lo "be more commilled lo lhe Lord."
IIedges of commilmenl are bul romises of erformance vhich usu-
aIIy faiI lo recognize lhe derivalion of our aclivily. Novhere in lhe
Nev Teslamenl scrilures is lhere a caII for Chrislians lo "commil
lhemseIves" lo God or lo lhe aclivilies and rograms of lhe church, bul
lhere is abundanl nolalion lhal ve are rone lo "commil sin."
Anolher common admonilion of Chrislian resonsibiIily is lhe caII lo
"serve lhe Lord" in "Chrislian service." Chrislians are romled lo er-
form by lhe exIanalion lhal ve are "saved lo serve." Indeed ve do
"serve" as "servanls of Chrisl," serving as inslrumenls of Chrisl's acliv-
ily and as vorshiers of Him, bul lhe "service" of eccIesiaslicaI er-
formance is denied by IauI vhen he exIained lhal God is "nol served
by human hands, as lhough He needed anylhing, since He HimseIf
gives lo aII Iife and brealh and aII lhings" (Acls 17:25).
The aeaI lo "go oul" lo olhers in missions and evangeIism has been
anolher misused and abused caII lo a erformance of Chrislian reson-
sibiIily. Though ve are lo be avaiIabIe lo "be vilnesses" (Acls 1:8) of
}esus and lo "make disciIes" (Mall. 28:19), everyone is nol caIIed lo go
lo olher Iocalions in order lo do so. "As ve are going" lhrough Iife in
lhe Iace vhere God has ul us, ve are resonsibIe lo share lhe Iife of
lhe Lord }esus vho has become our Iife.
DisciIined aclivilies vhich do nol derive from a deendenl allilude
of failh are bul a erformance of "vorks" vhich are nol Ieasing lo
God. Such reIigiousIy "righleous deeds are Iike a fiIlhy garmenl" (Isa.
64:6) in lhe sighl of God. "Wilhoul failh il is imossibIe lo Iease God"
(Heb. 11:6).
Chrislians vho are reoccuied vilh eilher lheir deendenl allilude
or lheir disciIined aclivilies, ralher lhan focusing on }esus Chrisl and
lhe recelivily of His Iife, are oflen fuII of pridc in lheir arlicuIar al-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;;
lern of iely. The salanic lemlalion lo lurn allenlion lo ourseIves,
even lo our aIIeged alliludes or aclivilies of failh, serves lo diverl al-
lenlion from }esus Chrisl vho is lhe essence of Chrislianily.
Some Chrislians seem lo vaver belveen a deendenl allilude and
lhe disciIined aclivilies of failh, deveIoing a parannia of uncerlainly
as lo vhelher lhey are reIying uon lhemseIves or uon lhe dynamic
of God. "Is lhis vhal I vanl lo do, or is lhis vhal }esus vanls lo do in
me`" "Is lhis seIf-molivalion or Chrisl-molivalion`" "Whal is lhe viII of
God for me`" If a Chrislian has chosen in failh lo be recelive lo God's
aclivily, and lhis is indeed lhe "desire of his hearl," lhen lhe Chrislian
may lake il for granled lhal vhal he is doing is God's viII and exress-
ing God's characler, unIess il is exosed lo lhe conlrary as a seIfish mo-
livalion. This is vhy Augusline inslrucled Chrislians lo "Iove God and
do vhal you vanl." If lhe Chrislians Ioves lhe Lord }esus Chrisl vilh
aII his hearl, souI, mind and slrenglh (Luke 10:27), he viII vanl vhal
God vanls in his Iife.
Our Chrislians Iives are lo be Iived in lhe sonlaneily of lrusling lhe
Iife of }esus Chrisl lo be Iived oul lhrough us. To be araIyzed vilh lhe
uncerlainly of aranoia reemls lhe failhfuI recelivily of God's ac-
livily. Il has been said lhal "you can'l sleer a shi unIess il is moving,"
so lo avoid being "dead in lhe valer" in our Chrislian Iives ve musl
lake lhe nexl "sle of failh" and "vaIk in lhe Siril" (GaI. 5:16,25). If ve
are confidenl of our nev idenlily as "Chrisl-ones," ve can behave Iike
vho ve have become by being recelive lo lhe aclivily of Chrisl's ex-
ression of His Iife and characler lhrough us.
The resonsibiIily of lhe Chrislian is failh! "In Iike manner as ve re-
ceived Chrisl }esus, ve are lo vaIk in Him," by failh (CoI. 2:6). We "Iive
by failh in lhe Son of God" (GaI. 2:20). God never commands us lo do
anylhing, bul vhal he rovides comIele sufficiency for such by His
grace. He is lhe dynamic of His ovn demands! We are onIy resonsi-
bIe lo be and lo do vhal God vanls lo be and do in us loday. Whal-
ever behavior is nol derived from lhe "recelivily of God's aclivily" is
necessariIy sinfuI. "Whalever is nol of failh is sin" (Rom. 14:23), for il
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;
viII inevilabIy exress a characler and aclivily lhal is nol derived from
God and lherefore cannol be consislenl vilh His characler.
Chrislians are resonsibIe lo resond lo God's grace vilh a voIilionaI
recelivily and avaiIabiIily of failh vhich aIIovs God's aclivily lo be
exressed in lheir behavior, lhe Iife of }esus lo be Iived oul lhrough
lhem by lhe emovering of lhe HoIy Siril, unlo lhe gIory of God.



FOOTNOTE5
1 Murray, }ohn, |c!cnpiicn Acccnp|isnc! an! App|ic!. Grand Raids: Wm. . Ierdmans
IubIishing Co. 1955. g. 106.
2 arcIay, WiIIiam, Tnc Min! cj Pau|. London: Ionlana ooks. 1958. g. 112.
3 Sammis, }ohn H., "Trusl and Obey."

s;,
12 The Ind of Man


Gnd is inhcrcnt!y ctcrna!, bul elernaIily is nol inherenl lo man in any
of his IeveIs of siriluaI, sychoIogicaI or hysicaI funclion. Since man
is arl of lhe crealed order, ve musl nol osil divine allribules of lhe
Crealor God lo lhe crealure-man, eIse ve deify lhe crealion and en-
gage in idoIalry. Man, lhe crealure, vas designed by God, lhe Crealor,
lo be a deendenl, conlingenl and derivalive being vho vouId of ne-
cessily be recelive lo siriluaI being and characler. The inlenl of God
vas lhal man vouId be recelive lo an onloIogicaI conneclion and
siriluaI union vilh lhe eing of God HimseIf in order lo exress
God's characler unlo His gIory.
ecause man is nol elernaI, reference can be made lo "lhe end of
man" in vays lhal couId never be aIied lo lhe elernaI God. Divine
elernaIily does nol aIIov for derivalion of quaIilalive characler, exlen-
sion of lime and reIalion, or lerminalion of form, yel lhese are faclors
vhich musl be considered concerning lhe "end" of man.
The Greek vord for "end" is ic|cs, vhich can refer lo lerminalion and
cessalion, as veII as finaI slale, and aIso lo lhe goaI or ob|eclive of an
aclivily. The "end of man" viII be considered in lerms of man's ob|ec-
live of gIorificalion, his lerminalion of hysicaI body, and his desliny
of a finaI slale.
Thc End-Ob|cctivc nI G!nriIicatinn
The effecliveness of anylhing can onIy be delermined by undersland-
ing ils funclionaI urose and ob|eclive. IaiIure lo arehend lhe goaI
viII aIIov for misdirecled dysfunclion. Much of mankind has nol
grased his raison d'elre, his "reason for being." The goaI is nol lo
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;
evoIve inlo godhood or creale a heavenIy uloia on earlh. Many Chris-
lians have nol underslood lhe ob|eclive of lhe Chrislian Iife. Lacking
cIear-cul ob|eclive, lhey concenlrale on lhe molion by becoming in-
voIved in lhe rograms of lhe inslilulion in order lo achieve lriviaIized
ro|ecls. A fanalic vas once defined as "one vho having Iosl his direc-
lion, lriIes his seed." This seems aroriale lo much of humanily's
efforls as veII as eccIesiaslicaI endeavors.
God's ob|eclive for man, lhe divine "end" for man, can onIy be de-
lermined by lhe slaled urose of lhe divine Designer. Through Isaiah
lhe rohel, God refers lo "everyone vhom I have crealed for My
gIory" (Isa. 43:7). His redemlive and resloralionaI inlenl for Chrislians
is Ialer rohesied as being "lhe vork of My hands, lhal I may be gIori-
fied" (Isa. 60:21). y crealion and re-crealion God has delermined lhal
His inlenl is lo be gIorified lhrough man. This is vhy lhe Weslminsler
Confession asks, "Whal is lhe urose of man`" and ansvers lhe ques-
lion, "The chief end of man is lo gIorify God and en|oy Him forever."
In lhe vision and reveIalion lhal }ohn sav, he records lhe heavenIy
vorshiers as saying, "Worlhy arl Thou, our Lord and our God, lo
receive gIory and honor and over, for Thou didsl creale aII lhings,
and because of Thy viII lhey exisled, and vere crealed" (Rev. 4:11).
God is gIorified vhen His aII-gIorious characler of erfeclion, urily
and hoIiness is manifesled vilhin His crealion. He is gIorified by lhe
onloIogicaI exression of His ovn being and characler, nol by lhe besl
efforls of man lo Iease and aease Him. Through Isaiah, God says, "I
viII nol give My gIory lo anolher" (Isa. 42:8), "Ior My ovn sake, for
My ovn sake, I viII acl, for hov can My name be rofaned` And My
gIory I viII nol give lo anolher" (Isa. 48:11). The gIorificalion of God
can onIy be a resuIl of lhe exression of His ovn aII-gIorious characler.
y lhe faII of man inlo sin lhe onloIogicaI resence of God in man's
siril vas removed, lhereby making il imossibIe for man lo derive
God's characler unlo His gIory. "AII have sinned and come shorl of lhe
gIory of God" (Rom. 3:23). OnIy by lhe siriluaI re-crealion of man in
}esus Chrisl is lhe onloIogicaI resence and aclivily of God reslored.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;;
"This is lhe myslery," IauI vriles, "Chrisl in you lhe hoe of gIory"
(CoI. 1:27), lhe confidenl execlalion of manifesling lhe characler of
God in our behavior unlo lhe gIory of God. "y Him (}esus Chrisl) is
our Amen lo lhe gIory of God lhrough us" (II Cor. 1:20).
The end-ob|eclive of man is nol seIf-gIorificalion in lhe accoIades and
affirmalions of human erformance. The IsaImisl righlIy said, "Nol lo
us, O Lord, nol lo us, bul lo Thy name give gIory" (IsaIm 115:1). We
are lo "do aII lo lhe gIory of God" (I Cor. 10:31), bul lhis can be accom-
Iished onIy vhen ve derive aII from Him. "Ior from Him and
lhrough Him and lo Him are aII lhings. To Him be lhe gIory forever"
(Rom. 11:36). SiriluaI derivalion delermines doxoIogicaI direclion and
desliny. OnIy vhen lhe origin of lhe aclivily is from God can lhe o-
eralive behavior achieve lhe ob|eclive of gIorifying God.
God's ob|eclive of gIorifying HimseIf lhrough man is nol Iimiled lo
lhis earlhIy exislence, bul exlends inlo lhe elernaIily vhich ve arlake
of by siriluaI union vilh His eing. In lhe "elernaI veighl of gIory" (II
Cor. 4:17) vhen ve become "arlakers of lhe gIory lhal is lo be re-
veaIed" (I Ieler 5:1), ve shaII conlinue lo derive God's characler ex-
ression unlo His gIory. We shaII "be gIorified vilh Him" (Rom. 8:17)
in lhe gIorificalion of lhe finaI heavenIy slale. The end-ob|eclive of gIo-
rificalion conlinues lo be man's urose, bolh resenlIy and forever.
"Chrisl shaII even nov, as aIvays, be exaIled in my body, vhelher by
Iife or by dealh" (IhiI. 1:20).
Thc End-Tcrminatinn nI thc Physica! Bndy
Human hysicaIily is nol elernaI. The hysicaI body of man lermi-
nales ils Iife funclion al hysicaI dealh. }ames exIains lhal "lhe body
aarl from lhe siril is dead" (}ames 2:26), aarenlIy indicaling lhal
lhe hysicaI body is non-funclionaI and non-viabIe al lhal oinl, and
lherefore lerminaI.
Throughoul human hislory man has allemled lo undersland and
exIain lhe lerminus of hysicaI dealh, lhe henomenon of human
morlaIily. Some have suggesled lhe exIanalion of annihi!atinnism,
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;8
indicaling lhal vhen man dies he |usl asses oul of exislence, ceases lo
be, lerminales inlo non-exislence al every IeveI of his funclion, siri-
luaI, sychoIogicaI and hysicaI. There is no elernaIily allribuled lo
man in annihiIalionism. Olhers have advocaled lhe lheory of cyc!i-
cism, vhereby lhe hysicaI dealh of man sels man free lo come around
again in anolher hysicaI form. Such lheories of lhe lransmigralion of
lhe souI and reincarnalion resuose an elernaIily of souI and siril
lhal is cycIicaIIy embodied in a sequence of lemoraI hysicaI forms.
The exIanalion of Christian rc!iginn has somelimes been based on
lhe aIIeged elernaIily of lhe hysicaI body vhich viII be resurrecled
and reslored in lhe heavenIy reaIm, as veII as an inherenl elernaIily of
souI and siril vhereby aII men aIIegedIy viII Iive forever eilher in
heaven or in heII. A more 5criptura! cxp!anatinn is lo recognize lhal
lhere is no inherenl elernaIily lo man in siril, souI or body. Man vas
crealed as a conlingenl and derivalive crealure vho derives his nalure
and idenlily from siriluaI soIidarily vilh eilher God or Salan, vhich
exlends in a ereluily of lhal conneclive idenlificalion lo anolher en-
vironmenlaI conlexl, anolher reaIm, afler hysicaI dealh. IhysicaI
dealh lhen invoIves a disconlinuily of bodiIy form, bul a conlinuily of
siriluaI conneclivily and derivalion.
Divine Iife is elernaI and cannol be lerminaled. Such siriluaI Iife is
made avaiIabIe lo man in }esus Chrisl. }esus Chrisl is elernaI Iife. "I am
lhe vay, lhe lrulh and lhe Iife" (}ohn 14:6). "God has given us elernaI
Iife, and lhis Iife is in His Son. He vho has lhe Son has lhe Iife, he vho
does nol have lhe Son of God does nol have lhe Iife" (I }ohn 5:11,12),
"...you may knov lhal you have elernaI Iife" (I }ohn 5:13). Desile lhe
lombslones lhal read, "So and so dearled inlo elernaI Iife on such and
such a dale," elernaI Iife is nol a commodily or slale of exislence lhal is
disensed afler hysicaI dealh. IlernaI Iife becomes funclionaI in an
individuaI vhen lhey receive lhe Iife of }esus by failh al regeneralion.
}esus said, "God so Ioved lhe vorId lhal He gave His onIy begollen
Son, lhal vhoever beIieves in Him shaII have elernaI Iife" (}ohn 3:16).
"He vho beIieves Him vho senl me has elernaI Iife, and has assed
oul of dealh inlo Iife" (}ohn 5:24). "He vho beIieves has elernaI Iife"
(}ohn 6:47). "eIieving you may have Iife in His name" (}ohn 20:31).
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s;
The conlinuily of lhe elernaI Iife lhal ve have received in Chrisl }esus
is assured. }esus said, "He vho beIieves in Me shaII Iive even if he dies,
and everyone vho Iives and beIieves in Me shaII never die" (}ohn
11:25,26). IauI exIained lo lhe CoIossians lhal "your Iife is hidden
vilh Chrisl in God...Chrisl is our Iife...you viII be reveaIed vilh Him
in gIory" (CoI. 3:3,4). There is a conlinuily of siriluaI Iife-conlenl in
}esus Chrisl.
There is aIso a conlinuily of embodimenl. When lhe hysicaI body
dies ve do nol become disembodied sirils. We "shaII nol be found
naked" (II Cor. 5:3) vilhoul bodiIy covering, bul viII "ul on lhe im-
erishabIe and immorlaI" (I Cor. 15:53,54) body. We viII nol be Iefl
homeIess, for lhough ve "Iay aside lhe earlhIy dveIIing" (II Ieler 1:14)
and "lhe earlhIy lenl is lorn dovn, ve have a house nol made vilh
hands, elernaI in lhe heavens" and "viII be cIolhed vilh our dveIIing
from heaven" (II Cor. 5:1,2). We viII conlinue lo have bodiIy exres-
sion.
The disconlinuily effecled al hysicaI dealh is in lhe conlexl and
form of our bodiIy exression. IauI look ains lo correcl lhe mislaken
}evish emhases on hysicaIily. Those }evs vho beIieved in bodiIy
resurreclion conceived of such in lerms of lhe reconslruclion and re-
animalion of corses, lhe reaclivalion of dislincliveIy }evish hysicaI
bodies in a fulure nalionaIislic kingdom-communily. In lhe fifleenlh
chaler of Iirsl Corinlhians, IauI exIains lhe disconlinuily belveen a
fIeshIy body and a gIorified body (15:39,43), belveen an earlhIy body
and a heavenIy body (15:40), belveen a erishabIe body and an imer-
ishabIe body (15:42,53,54), belveen a body of dishonor and a body of
gIory (15:43, IhiI. 3:21), belveen a body of veakness and a body of
over (15:43), belveen a naluraI body and a siriluaI body (15:44,46),
belveen a morlaI body and an immorlaI body (15:53,54). This discon-
linuily of bodiIy form and fealure corresonds vilh lhe disconlinuily
of environmenlaI conlexl in vhich lhose bodies funclion, changing
from lhe earlhIy conlexl lo lhe heavenIy conlexl (15:46-49).
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s8o
When our hysicaI bodies come lo lheir lerminaI end al hysicaI
dealh, lhal body is lhen disosed of by buriaI, cremalion, or olhervise.
The Siril-ermealed souI lhen asses from lhal body lo be embodied
vilh a resurrecled and lransformed body in lhe heavenIy reaIm.
Though lhere is lhe disconlinuily of bodiIy form and conlexluaI reaIm,
lhere is a lransilionaI conlinuily of siriluaI Iife vilhin embodimenl.
This "gradualion lo gIory" is referabIe in many vays lo lhe resenl
earlhIy exislence, for ve are free from lhe Iimilalions, hindrances and
encumbrances of man's faII inlo sin. "We are sel free from lhe sIavery
lo corrulion inlo lhe freedom of lhe gIory of lhe chiIdren of God"
(Rom. 8:21). This is vhy IauI couId decIare lhal il vas his "desire lo
dearl lhe be vilh Chrisl, for lhal is very much beller" (IhiI. 1:24), lo
be "absenl from lhe body and lo be al home vilh lhe Lord" (II Cor. 5:8).
"Ior me lo Iive is Chrisl," IauI excIaimed in recognilion of lhe siriluaI
conlinuily of Chrisl's Iife, and "lo die is gain" for lhe disconlinuily of
bodiIy form and environmenlaI conlexl is indeed referabIe.
Thc End-Dcstiny nI thc Fina! 5tatc
The Iiving God is inherenlIy and essenliaIIy Iife. "The Ialher has Iife
in HimseIf" (}ohn 5:26). He is lhe source of aII Iife, for "He gives Iife lo
aII" (Neh. 9:6) Iiving lhings. eing Siril (}ohn 4:24) and elernaI (Rom.
16:26), His Iife is siriluaI Iife and elernaI Iife. As such He is immorlaI
(I Tim. 1:17), He exeriences no dealh, and "He aIone ossesses im-
moraIily" (I Tim. 6:16).
Man, on lhe olher hand, is conlingenl uon a siriluaI being and
source for his idenlily and exislence. Man is nol indeendenl and
aulonomous, bul deendenl on an onlic-idenlificalion vilh eilher God
or Salan.
The leaching of Chrislian reIigion has oflen acceled lhe IIalonic
remise lhal man has an inherenlIy immorlaI souI vhich Iives forever
(elernaIIy), and viII go lo one Iace or lhe olher, lo heaven or lo heII
afler hysicaI dealh. Many lheoIogicaI vrilers have allemled lo ex-
ose lhe faIIacy of lhis leaching:
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s8s
"This videIy-acceled idea (of lhe immorlaIily of lhe souI) is one
of lhe grealesl misunderslandings of Chrislianily."
1

"Our lradilionaI lhinking aboul lhe 'never-dying souI,' vhich
oves so much lo Graeco-Roman herilage, makes il difficuIl for us
lo areciale IauI's oinl of viev."
2
"lhe heresy aboul man's immorlaI souI ...is one of lhose doclrines
lhal have been inheriled by lhe Church from IIalonic hiIoso-
hy, lhal has simIy been received vilhoul crilicism and vilhoul
being |udged in lhe Iighl of Scrilure. No man is by nalure im-
morlaI, eilher as lo body or souI. ImmorlaIily is lhe vord lhal can
be aIied onIy lo lhe slale of lhe gIorified sainls in Chrisl."
3

God aIone is essenliaIIy immorlaI. "God aIone ossesses immorlaIily"
(I Tim. 6:16). Man can onIy derive immorlaIily from God, for "aII im-
morlaIily excel God's is derived."
4
"Chrisl }esus, aboIished dealh, and
broughl Iife and immorlaIily lo Iighl lhrough lhe goseI" (II Tim. 1:10).
The Chrislian derives immorlaIily and elernaI Iife from lhe essence of
Chrisl's Iife onloIogicaIIy resenl and aclive vilhin his siril, souI and
body. The conlinuum of lhal immorlaI, non-dying, elernaI Iife func-
lioning vilhin man afler his hysicaI dealh is lhe end-desliny of lhe
heavenIy reaIm.
IouIar reIigious concels of heaven have oflen been elhereaI cos-
momorhisms of cIouds, angeIs, hars and earIy gales. Iinile human
lhoughl fixes on such figures lo rovide some form lo siriluaI ab-
slraclion, "lhings vhich eye has nol seen and ear has nol heard, and
vhich has nol enlered lhe hearl of man, aII lhal God has reared for
lhose vho Iove Him" (I Cor. 2:9). The danger is lhal lhese figures can
become conceluaI idoIs concrelized in reIigious dogma. Ior lhis rea-
son }evish reIigion has usuaIIy refrained from secuIaling aboul
heaven, Iesl il Iead lo forbidden idoIalry.
Iven lhe conceluaIizalion of heaven as a "Iace," a IocaIized enlily
vhich for finile minds demands sace/lime aramelers, may be bul
anolher inadequale alleml of man lo fil heaven inlo human formuIa-
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s8z
lion. If heaven is infinile and elernaI, lhen does such aIIov for IocaIiza-
lion vilhin sace and lime` }esus did leII His disciIes lhal He vas
"going lo reare a Iace for lhem" (}ohn 14:2,3), bul a dveIIing-Iace
"near lo lhe hearl of God" does nol necessariIy demand IocaIizalion.
}esus Chrisl is lhe elernaI and siriluaI Iife of God. We have received
His Iife in regeneralion. His elernaI and immorlaI Iife remains in conli-
nuily beyond our hysicaI dealh. Heaven is lhe elernaI conlinuum of
lhe elernaI Iife of }esus Chrisl vhich ve nov have as Chrislians vhich
"shaII never die" (}ohn 11:26). Heaven is lhe resence of lhe erfecl Iife
of }esus in an environmenlaI conlexl free from aII imerfeclion and
hindrance. }esus rayed for Chrislians, "Ialher, I desire lhal lhey be
vilh Me vhere I am, in order lhal lhey may behoId My gIory" (}ohn
17:24). Heaven is lhe ereluily of lhe onlic-exression of lhe Iife of
}esus Chrisl. "Whom have I in heaven bul Thee` And besides Thee, I
desire nolhing on earlh" (IsaIm 73:25).
HeII, on lhe olher hand, is lhe conlinuily and ereluily of siriluaI
idenlificalion and union vilh lhe being and desliny of lhe deviI. When
hysicaI dealh occurs in man vhiIe in a slale of siriluaI dealh, such
siriluaI idenlificalion vilh "lhe siril lhal vorks in lhe sons of dis-
obedience" (Ih. 2:2) viII be erelualed afler lhe |udgmenl in ever-
Iasling dealh. Such dealh shouId nol be defined as lerminalion, cessa-
lion or annihiIalionism, bul as lhe absence of lhe resence and quaIily
of God's Iife in }esus Chrisl. The quanlilalive and quaIilalive erelu-
ily of siriluaI derivalion from Salan viII be mosl unIeasanl "in lhe
everIasling fire vhich has been reared for lhe deviI and his angeIs"
(Mall. 25:41), agenls and messengers.
Underslanding of lhe conlinuily and ereluily of siriluaI idenlifi-
calion vilh eilher God or Salan in lhe end-desliny of our finaI slale
shouId serve lo remove some of lhe crassIy maleriaIislic and merce-
nary execlalions lhal some Chrislians have concerning lhe fulure
heavenIy slale. Keying off of ibIicaI slalemenls of lreasures in heaven
(Mall. 19:21, Mk. 10:21, Lk. 12:21, 18:22), revards in heaven (Mall.
10:41,42, Lk. 6:23,25, I Cor. 3:8), crovns (II Tim. 4:8, }ames 1:12, I Iel.
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s8;
5:4, Rev. 2:10), and mansions (}ohn 14:2-K}V), seIf-concerns have
lainled and oIIuled many Chrislians' underslanding of lhe heavenIy
reaIily. Many seem lo lhink lhal lhey are going lo gel somelhing more,
in addilion lo vhal lhey aIready have siriluaIIy, vhen lhey gel lo
heaven. AIlhough IauI does indicale lhal "lo die is gain" (IhiI. 1:21),
lhis does nol imIy lhal ve viII receive somelhing more lhan ve aI-
ready have in }esus Chrisl. To suggesl lhal more is lo be "gained" is lo
suggesl lhal vhal ve have received in }esus Chrisl is Iimiled or insuf-
ficienl. God forbid! "AII lhings beIong lo us in Chrisl, lhings resenl or
lhings lo come" (I Cor. 3:21-23). "God has bIessed us vilh every siri-
luaI bIessing in lhe heavenIy Iaces in Chrisl" (Ih. 1:3). We "have
been made comIele" in Chrisl (CoI. 2:10). The "gain" lhal IauI refers
lo is nol somelhing in addilion lo }esus' Iife, bul is lhe disconlinuily of
bodiIy form vhich reIaces lhe hindrances of hysicaIily vilh lhe un-
encumbered gIorified body, and lhe "gain" of a conlexluaI environ-
menl lo exress Chrisl's Iife and characler vilhoul anlagonism or con-
slrainl.
The "lreasures in heaven" are aII inherenl in lhe siriluaI "lreasure" of
Chrisl's Iife lhal nov indveIIs our "earlhen vesseIs" (II Cor. 4:7). The
"crovn" is lhe viclory vrealh (Greek vord sicpnancs), lhe "crovn of
Iife" (Rev. 2:10), indicaling arlicialion as "overcomers" in lhe viclory
of lhe Lord }esus Chrisl. The "mansions" are bul siriluaI "dveIIing
Iaces" (}ohn 14:2) in lhe resence of God. "Revards in heaven" are nol
addilionaI acquisilions, for lhere is nolhing more lhan "lhe revard of
lhe inherilance" (CoI. 3:24) of lhe elernaI Iife of }esus Chrisl (cf. Heb.
11:26).
When Chrislians disIay a Ianguid and IislIess aroach lo lheir
Chrislian Iife here on earlh, Ionging for lhe fulure heavenIy slale
vhere lhey execl lo gain comIele siriluaIily and fuII rogress unlo
erfeclion, I am lemled lo resond, "I don'l lhink you are going lo
Iike heaven vhen you gel lhere!" "Whal do you mean," lhey mighl re-
Iy. My exIanalion vouId be, "If you do nol areciale and en|oy lhe
Iife lhal you have in }esus Chrisl righl nov, vhal makes you lhink you
viII areciale and en|oy lhe conlinuum of lhal same siriluaI and
MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s8
elernaI Iife in }esus Chrisl lhroughoul lhe elernaI heavenIy exislence`"
Irogress in lhe deveIomenl of such arecialion and exression of
Chrisl's Iife musl lake Iace in our resenl Chrislian Iives, for lhere is
no ibIicaI basis for execling furlher siriluaI rogression beyond lhis
Iife. Heaven is lhe erfecl resence of lhe Iife of God in }esus Chrisl,
and lhal vhich is erfecl aIIovs for no rogress or deveIomenl in
erfeclion. Irogression is aIien lo lhe concel of heaven. Irogress is
onIy required vhen lhings are imerfecl, and is lhe unique quesl of
man afler lhe faII. Roberl rovning vrole,
"Irogress is man's dislinclive mark aIone
Nol God's, and nol lhe beasl's,
God is, lhey are,
Man arlIy is, and vhoIIy hoes lo be."
5

"Nov is lhe day of saIvalion" (II Cor. 6:2), for rogression and
grovlh in siriluaI avareness and arecialion of lhe Iife of }esus. The
exlenl of our caabiIily for arecialion and exression of lhe divine
Iife is deveIoed in lhe resenl. As ve are "being saved" (I Cor. 1:18),
being "fiIIed vilh lhe Siril" (Ih. 5:18), and "groving in lhe grace and
knovIedge of our Lord and Savior }esus Chrisl" (II Ieler 3:18), ve are
deveIoing such arecialion. Our resenl avaiIabiIily lo lhe Iife of }e-
sus Chrisl aIIovs for a grealer caabiIily of arecialion, and such is
lhe "grealer revard" of one Chrislian over anolher. AII comelilive
and comaralive eIemenls viII be eIiminaled, lhough, and lhere viII
be no envy or dissalisfaclion. AII Chrislians viII see }esus (I Cor.
13:12), gIorify God, and en|oy Him forever. Iveryone viII be com-
IeleIy salisfied vilh lhe fuIness of |oy lhey have in }esus Chrisl, bul
some viII have deveIoed a grealer caacily lo en|oy and areciale
lhe elernaI Iife of }esus, vhiIe no one eIse viII knov or care. AII viII be
fiIIed fuII lo lhe exlenl lhal lhey are caabIe lo gIorify God forever.
Such is lhe "end" of man as God inlended man lo be!



MAN AS GOD INTENDED
s8,
FOOTNOTE5
1 CuIIman, Oscar, |nncria|iiq cj inc Scu| cr |csurrcciicn cj inc Oca!. Nev York: MacmiIIan
Co. 1964. g. 15.
2 ruce, I.I., Pau|. Apcsi|c cj inc Hcari Sci |rcc. Grand Raids: Wm. . Ierdmans Iub. Co.,
1977. g. 311.
3 Hoeksema, Herman, |n inc Mi!si cj Ocain. Grand Raids: Wm. . Ierdmans Iub. Co.,
1943. g. 97.
4 ruce, I.I., in lhe forevord lo Tnc |irc Tnai Ccnsuncs by Idvard W. Iudge. Houslon:
IrovidenliaI Iress. 1982. g. vii.
5 rovning, Roberl, "A Dealh in lhe Deserl." 1864.