Gordon H. Clark: The Biblical Definition of Man Part IX (B)

This will conclude Part IX which I began earlier today.

There we were noting the comparisons between the Son of God, Adam, and the Son of God, Son of Adam, Jesus. Paul’s material in Romans 5 (and I Corinthians 15) clearly is drawn from already existing biblical material and exegesis. He is not making up what is not in the OT texts.

The final point of the comparison is the cosmic and universal relationship these two sons of God have with their “seed.” Adam and Eve, being the “mother of all the living” and Adam being “the first man” (“the man was formed first” – I Tim 2.13) parented “seed” in the fashion of “according to the flesh.” Every single human being we see came from this single pair. That is the biblical doctrine, and until this can be overturned with a clear BIBLICAL argument (not one from “science”), we should be inclined to accept it.

John spoke of “children of God” in this contrast: “…children of God, the ones not born out of blood, neither out of will of flesh, nor will of a husband, but born of God” (1.12b-13). This the “flesh” way. We can see, then, that the children of Adam of Eve were all born according to the “flesh and blood.” This is contrasted with “children born of God.” This would be “according to the Spirit.” What we have then, and what is often missed, is that Adam is not ever called “the son of man.” The last Adam, though, Jesus, is BOTH son of God AND son of Adam. This means that those who are born to him, were first born to Adam.

This is crucial to understand here: those born to Adam are “sons of God” or “sons of man” according to the flesh. We have no “spiritual births” in the OT (Isaac’s is the closest, but this too is a type, for he clearly had two natural parents that formed him in coitus). In Christ Jesus, though, a “spiritual birth” by the “Spirit of God” brings about sons who were previously born of the flesh. Hence, if the OT speaks of a “children” in the new covenant – and says, “there, you shall be called, “sons of God”" – when, in fact, Israel was already designated as “sons of God” – then the new covenant MUST introduce A NEW BIRTH: “Nicodemus, your nation, your people, you must be born again – don’t you know that your Scriptures force this conclusion? For, if natural decent and genealogical lineage made one a son of God, why would the Scriptures foretell of a new people who would be called sons of God? Are they called that which they already were? Or are they called that which they never, truly were: Children of God!”

You see, Israel was God’s child “according to the flesh.” By “natural descent” and “physical descent”. They were marked out by “blood line.” This they got from Adam. In order to change this, God would have to bring about a NEW BIRTH. He would have to bring about a NEW CREATION. He would have to bring about a NEW THING. Yet, short of annhilating everyone on planet earth (Noah’s day), he would have to bring this about while those who ALSO sons of Adam could be turned into sons of God. They must be born again.

Enter the solution: Jesus, son of God, from God. He will “become flesh” and, though part, be born of flesh – but also born of Spirit. Those “in Him” will be “born again” in Him. They will become his “seed”; His “children.” Former “sons of Adam” will now become “sons of God” in Christ. Former sons of Israel will now become, truly, “sons of God” in Christ. These children born to Christ do not include all the children born to Adam. Even with Israel, not every Israelite born the natural way is Israel that would be born the spiritual way. We could say the same for the human race. Not every member of Adam’s seed is a member of Adam From Above’s Seed.

If we grasp this point, then we can clearly see that when Paul wrote, “all in Adam die, but all in Christ shall be made alive” the “all” is not equally distributed in a quantative sense. The COMPARISON would break down if “all” was the same qauntity for both. The point of comparison between Adam and Christ is that “all” born to Adam die; “all” born to Christ are made alive. “All” born to Christ were formally of “Adam” (born naturally). Logically, we would say, All born to Adam does not mean All born in Christ. All born in Christ were all born in Adam, but all born in Christ are not all born in Adam. Frame that. Put it on your tee-shirts, coffee mugs and dream dreams about it. Pay attention to the verbs “were” and “are”. Read it till you get it. It took me an ounce of blood to write that.

It has to do with distributing the “all”. The perfect typology we can use here is Noah. Noah and his sons were “sons of Adam”. However, so were they other poor schleps that got wacked. They were “all” sons of Adam. Only those “in the Ark” survived. Now, we had only one new family: sons of Noah. All the sons of Noah were sons of Adam, but all the sons of Noah are not all the sons of Adam, for all the sons of Adam died except the sons of Noah. See, the “all” is not to be distributed in terms of quantity.

If this point is understood, all the appeals to “universalism” completely fail in the Preterist scheme. In other words, it has to do with “births” and how one is “included in the number” (qauntity) of “all.” By birth.

Hence, Paul is now set to see the comparison between Adam and Messiah. Adam cannot redeem Adam, for Adam was never a SEED. Put that on your tee shirt, too. Adam was not a SEED of Eve, so Adam could never REDEEM that which HE NEVER WAS. It is here that the Jesus factor sets in for Paul, for Jesus is THE SEED. He is BOTH of Adam (Mary and Joseph) and Israel (Mary and Joseph), and Judah (Mary) and David (Mary). Jesus has it all going for him. The line of Adam began with Adam who was never a Seed, since he was the first created person. The “seed of the woman”, then, could not ENTIRELY be from a corrupt LINE of Adam – who was never the seed of the woman. He was made from the dust, see? His line is “of the dust”. His line is “earthly”, natural. How can “natural” save “natural”? How can “dust” save “dust”? For Paul, this introduces the idea that a BREAK IN THE LINE in terms of origins must occur: the “seed” of the woman must be of Adam, the First Man – so as to share in the humanity of the human race bound in Adam and bound in the rule and reign of his sin and death. But, he must ALSO be of a NEW RACE. A NEW SEED. The Son of God, the Word of God, “one of US” will become FLESH. “Man has become like one of us, so one of us will now become like Man.” The Word became Flesh. A New Race was introduced. A new Circumcision. A New Preist hood. New Sons of God and a New Nation will be made. God will make One New Man OUT OF pre-existing Man. Prehistoric times for the Bible was Old Testament times!

You got all this from Gordon Clark? No. I am using Clark to springboard, probably, into areas Clark never thought about because he was not a Preterist (eschatology was the least of his concerns it seems). Nonetheless, Clark’s position on the Federal Headship of Adam (62-67) is right on. Christ is also to be seen as Federal Head.

This brings us to another aspect of the comparison Paul used. What happened to Adam, happened to all those in Adam. So, what happened to Christ, happened to all those in Christ. Paul has to first infer from the Bible that all those who came from Adam are under the same dilemma as Adam BECAUSE of Adam. This he does in Romans 5, which Clark brings out with force (63,64). All man are under “the sin” of Adam. All men are under “the death” of Adam. Why? Because “all men sinned when Adam sinned” (5.12). This would have to be the force of the Greek in terms of translation. It’s not that all men “WILL” sin. It’s, “all men SINNED” (aorist tense). When? They sinned when Adam sinned because when Adam sinned they all sinned. They were ALL in Adam.

We can see this corporate dimension at work in the argument that Levi was “in Abraham” when Abraham bowed to Melchizedek. Levi was not born until a couple of hundred years later. How could this argument be used at all? Well, it can. It’s a technical, theological argument the Hebrews used. It is rooted in covenantal concepts and corporate concepts. Paul brings this over to Christ.

Those in Christ will have happen to them what happened to Him. If he died. They died. If he was buried, there were buried. If he was raised, they were raised. If he is glorified, they are glorified. If he ascended to the heavenly places, they are seated in the heavenly places. If he is going ahead before them into the holy of holies, they are going with him to the holy of holies. Where he is, they are also so that what He is, they are, too. If Adam was a transgressor, so are all those in Adam. If Jesus is a Glorified Son, so are those “in Christ.” And, we didn’t need new back hair to become that (this has implications for the immortal body at death view as well).

What is resurrection of the dead if resurrection were “in Adam”? Clearly, it means standing again after death in the same body one recieved in Adam. What is being born in Adam? Clearly, we discussed in this series creationism and traducianism. The soul and body come from the fleshly act of coitus (traducianism). So, what is being born in Christ mean? You get the same body from the SPIRIT. A spiritual body. You become a member of His body. What about resurrection? How would that be a standing again in the body we received from Adam? But that is precisely what Traditionalism never consistently carried through in the comparison between Adam and Christ. Wouldn’t resurrection in Christ be a STANDING AGAIN IN THE BODY OF OUR MAKER, CHRIST? And, clearly, that is a SPIRITUAL BODY. See, the comarison for Paul is one of “natural” and “spiritual.” The Greek word is “psuchikos” (we get “physical” from this). For Paul, this comparison carries all the way through in terms of the “spiritual” (that which is of the Spirit – heavenly, invisible reality).

It is here that we can see those aspects of Christ applied to the “body of Christ” and even to the specific cruciform manner of living Paul took upon himself, “filling up” in the suffering of Christ. The Body of Christ was “being put to death” (Christ’s cross-death was being applied), as well as being made alive (His resurrection was being applied), so that the Pre-Cross Body of Christ (those saints of the OT and the elect of Israel in Paul’s day) was BOTH undergoing death in terms of dying to the old covenant aeon and Law (the Jewish element of the Body), as well as life being at work in terms of the nations (Gentiles) coming in. This body was sown so that death to the old covenant as well as life in the new covenant were BOTH already and not yet happening. This was carried through to the Parousia of Christ, when this One new man, and one Body was perfected together, Jews and Gentiles, Males and Females, Greeks and Slaves, so that all those DESIGNATIONS in terms of ADAM’s WORLD were “no more.” The powers were broken.

I won’t go further than this consideration, only to say that Alan Bondar and myself, as well as some others are seeing the conclusions of this in terms of living in the New Age (our own time) – and it is exciting. Some have left at this point, seeing no “so what” dimensions in our own time. But, if Larry Siegle has anything to say about it…..stay tuned. We do not have to “go back” to Futurist Egypt in the forms of Preterist Idealism, or Realized Preterism. Preterism announces to the world: We CAN have our cake AND eat it, too.

But, that’s another development. We were talking about Clark, right? As for “the many” and “all” in Romans 5.12-ff, let me add that, in the Greek, “the many”, I believe, refer to “the elect” or “the remant”. The word often translated “many” is also translated “remnant”. It is a designated term in the Hebrew Bible as well – “the many” and the LXX used the same Greek phrase we find here in Paul. It’s not “many”, but “the many”. So, Paul has in mind here “all” (every human being, particularly Gentiles), and “the many” (elect Israel) – He is showing that the same redemption that will apply to the eschatological “many” in the last days will ALSO apply to the “all” – so that Jewish salvation in the last days will look like Gentiles salvation as well, since the salvation of BOTH occur in the ONE MAN, Jesus. There are not TWO salvations, one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles in the last days. The Prophets clearly depict “the nations” as being “saved” in the last days as well as the “remant” of Israel (“the many”). Paul’s point is that this is a salvation from “the sin” of Adam, and “the death” that came through the One Man. “Sin and Death” didn’t operate any differently for the nations than it did for the Jews, so why would salvation from “the sin” and “the death” be any different? By seeing the comparison here in Adam and Christ, and seeing the outworking of the two Men on the “all” and “the many” in history (OT history), Paul’s conclusion all along has been that “all” are “alike” under the sin and death that came through the One Man, Adam. Therefore, All must come to salvation in the One Man Christ in the same manner: faith.

Now, with this, we will next move on to consider the death of Adam. Clark has an interesting paragraph at this point that I would like to share: “Depravity is a part of death itself. Scripture uses the term death both for physical death and spiritual death. Both together are the penalty for sin.” He then quotes Genesis 2.17, “in the day you eat of it you shall surely die”, and continues, “And die that day he did. About 900 years later he died physically” (65). As Preterists, we would all sigh at this interpretation in that there is no division of this sort in the text of 2.17 itself. It has to be read into the text and gathered from what happens later to Adam. In other words, Clark is practicing the exegetical technique we all practice to some degree: backwards and forewards reading. The question is, does the text itself tell us to do this?

A good point was brought out about Abel dying physically before Adam died. Abel, then, it would seem, was the first person we see in the Bible who physically died. We would also have to conclude that “the sin” of Adam in terms of “spiritual death” was also already imputed to Abel’s account. Abel was the first, then, to receive the full brunt of “death” – at least Clark would have to logically deduce this fact.

However, what we can glean from Clark on this point is that “spiritual death” (for lack of a better term) must be seen to make sense of the phrase “in the day” (or, more idiomatically in Hebrew, “when”). Some have tried to erroneously make the Hebrew syntax of “die” mean “dying, he shall die”, and may even cite Young’s Literal Translation. But, all the Hebrew grammars we have denounce this translation, and when we understand that Young’s translation is a literal translation, not a grammatical translation, the force of citing this translation is seen for what it is. The Hebrew repetition of “death” (infinitive absolute with an imperfect) emphasizes the certainty of the event, and that’s all. There are not “two deaths” going on here, and two deaths cannot be inferred from the two verbs here.

So, Clark would appear to acknowledge this fact. “Death” as he is defining it, is BOTH spiritual and physical and started “when” Adam ate. This is plausible. Or, should I say, more plausible. The ONE DEATH of Adam “when” he ate began at that point and worked itself out 900 years later. I say, plausible, because our interpretation is as “plausible” as his is. We define only “one death” here. We also see an “outworking” of that death. However, we limit death to the “spiritual” or “covenantal” aspect only. There is nothing in the text that suggests “spiritual death”. This is read from the force of the word “when.” Obviously, Adam didn’t physical die “when” he ate. This aspect or dimension of death has to be read into the text from later considerations. When one can see, then, the way Futurists deal with this text, and the way we deal with it, it comes down, not to technique, but definition. If the Bible uses two different aspects or definitions of “death” – then we have an opening made for our interpretation. Adam fully and entirely “died” the day he ate, and there is nothing in the text of 2.17 itself that would indicate that our interpretation here is ipso facto to be rejected.

The fact of the matter is that we only need to see what happened “when” he ate. He knew shame, guilt and fear. He was cursed. He was cut off from ever attaining “eternal life”. He was “exiled” from the Paradise of God. Hence, Adam’s “death” was purely from a covenantal aspect, and this death surely, immediately happened to him and all his posterity afterward: none had opportunity to eat of the Tree that gives eternal life. Death is a separation from life, is it not? And, surely, Adam was cut off from eating from the Tree that could give “life forever.” It is in this grand narrative that we have the effects of “the sin” of Adam, and how “the death” that came through Adam “reigned” over all men. The reign of the death was the irreversible judgment of God to Adam’s posterity: cut of from Life with God “forever.” The Sin of Adam in the transgression of the commandment equally “reigned” in that its “power” resided in “the law” given to Adam. It could not be reversed. Its was issued from the bench of God’s courtroom. The ruling stood, and no court could overturn it. In this way, the Death “reigned”, and the Sin of Adam reigned in the Death. The sting of the death of Adam was in the Sin of Adam, and the power of the Sin of Adam was made effective by the Law given to Adam. Without the the enforcment of the Law, the Sin would have no power, and if the sin had no power, the death that came as a result would have no sting. Not for Adam, not for anyone. But, sting it did – for Adam, and for everyone born from Adam and his lovely wife, Eve.

The tragedy of physical death was not in its coming about, for we believe it would have come about naturally. Adam would have been created and lived for several hundred years on earth. He would have obeyed God and eventually would have eaten of the Tree of eternal life. His children would have inherited this and would have the same immortality he enjoyed so that when they all eventually, physically expired, they would have been received into the highest heaven with God and live and enjoy him forever in Heaven. And on and on this would have gone. The tragedy is that physical death without Eternal Life (immortality) meant sheol. It meant “ongoing life cut off from God in the land of the living”. It meant a shadowy, fearful and gloomy expectation of the underworld, the grave, the pit, the abyss, deep darkness – the realm of the shadows and despair. That’s the tragedy. Physical death in and of itself is not the tragedy or even the penalty for Adam’s sin. Physically dying WITHOUT ETERNAL LIFE was. This is what Adam experienced when he died some 900 years later. And, looking ahead, would have to be the SAME DEATH experienced by “the seed of the woman” if He was to undue what Adam did. Jesus would first have to be “forsaken” by God because of transgression (and he was as sin was imputed to him on the cross). Secondly, he would then have to enter into sheol as one forsaken, cut off from God in the land of the living. When we see the full dimension of Jesus’ suffering and death, and not limiting this suffering to his physicality only, but to his spirit as well, only then do we see the depths He underwent to secure salvation for those “in Adam” – Jesus became Adam willingly. Jesus took on the flesh of Adam, being of Adam’s line. He also, willingly, took on the sin of Adam and was counted as a “transgressor”. Yet, because of who He is in his divinity, he, as a Man, was raised by the sole power of God so that through Him, those in Adam who are also counted as “in Him” could come into that “eternal life unto righteousness” – that which was originally forfeited by Adam.

Salvation in the NT must be understood entirely in the reversal of what Adam did. This is why a current view of “salvation” that limits itself to A.D. 70 in some very aberrant views is absurd. Jesus did not come again to “save” his church from Rome, or from the Jews, or even from the “old covenant”. Salvation is from what Adam did. Salvation is from “the sin” of Adam and “the death” that came through Adam. That is what we are saved from. Saved from, and saved TO eternal life in righteousness with God forever in the highest heaven. Living, talking, worshipping, communicating, and understanding our Father in a divine, intimate relationship that will take infinity divided by forever to fully appreciate! And here they say we Preterists cut off hope……O’ how my soul rejoices in what God our Father has in store for us in Christ Jesus. We ain’t seen nothing, yet.

This has been a long paper. In fact, two parts. But the material is necessary for building a systematic approach in Preterism. Clark’s next chapter is “Immediate Imputation”, followed by “Total Depravity”, “The Heart” and “A Philosophical Appendix.” They are all good chapters, and I will deal with them in a couple of more essays in this series before we close this out. Suffice it to say, if a systematic theology that integrates traditional anthroplogical concerns with a Full Preterist framework is to be done, this series would at least be my attempt and answer for the most part on that issue. And, it didn’t cost you a dime.

Related Posts