The following is a production of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. For more information about the seminary, visit us online at gpts.edu. Well, thank you for those kind words of introduction. And thank you to the faculty of Greenville Seminary for inviting me to present this paper and serve you in this manner on what is a very important topic to the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. And you may well be wondering, why on earth are we discussing the issue of death before the fall? After all, isn't scripture perfectly clear on the nature, the origins of death? Is not scripture perfectly clear on the doctrine of man, the doctrine of sin? Does not scripture teach us that the wages of sin is death? But the question of death before the fall is not a new question. Ten years before Darwin's On the Origin of the Species, Tennyson had penned his poem In Memoriam, in which he described creation's final law, nature read in tooth and claw, arguing that death was inherent in the created order. But the question was not new to Tennyson, of course. You go back as far as the early church fathers and you witness them beginning to ask questions about the nature of origins, the nature of the creation week, the nature of life prior to the fall of Adam. And the question is very much before us today as Dr. Belcher summarized for us yesterday. The question is very much before the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is not a discussion that is happening somewhere out there. It is not just happening in academia. It is happening in churches, in seminaries, in Christian colleges, in the academic world, and also the popular press. It is a matter which is not just on our doorstep as a reformed community, but it is within our camp. and thus we have to find some sort of faithful and biblical response. And as soon as you begin to read the literature of those who are advocating for an old earth and some kind of evolutionary process, which leads to death before the fall, you quickly discover that there are all manner of theological difficulties tied up with their position. Naturally, one has to question one's doctrine of scripture if one holds to an evolutionary process. After all, they present two different accounts of origins. Naturally also, you have to question your doctrine of man. Is man the process of an evolutionary system, or is he the special creation of Almighty God? The doctrine of sin seems to go out the window, as we also see. What is morality? Is there such a thing as morality? These are questions being asked within our camp. And above all, we end up questioning the doctrine of the Atonement most seriously. Let me give you a foretaste of what is to come. I quote from Peter Enns in his 2012 work The Evolution of Adam. Enns, who embraces an evolutionary paradigm, writes, The Christian tradition had generally attributed death and sin to Adam, but evolution removes that cause, and thus leaves open the question of where sin and death have come from. Is it any wonder that Enns no longer knows where sin and death have come from? After all, he has adopted an anti-God paradigm in evolution. I'm reminded of what Paul Wanlis, an outstanding Christian physicist, writes of such biblical interpretation. Wanlis writes, Christians imbibe to, sometimes thinking it humble to renounce certainty, choosing to poke themselves in the eye and interpret their theology through the latest theories of science. No sane person should admire the man who, after blinding himself, denies what he is no longer able to see. And so the purpose of this paper today is to provide firstly for you a survey of the field. It's a very brief survey and most certainly insufficient given the nature and complexity of the various positions that are out there. And then secondly, I want to present two arguments to you for a pristine, deathless creation. So first of all, let's examine the lie of the land. What's being said and who is saying it? Inevitably, there is a connection between one's view of the Genesis 1 creation week and one's view of death before the fall. And so, as we observe something of a sliding scale, at the one end of the spectrum, we have a position that I would take, that would be a Young Earth creationist position, which takes Genesis 1 to be a literal and an historical account of origins, And I know no young earth creationist that holds to any kind of death before the fall. It seems to go hand in glove with the position. But then we have a multitude of positions which might fit under the term or the rubric old earth, progressive, creationism. And there is a problem here because there is great diversity within this field. Different people holding to different ideas. But by and large within this old earth camp there are two main divisions. Those who believe that the earth is ancient and have no room in their system for macroevolution, and those, on the other hand, who believe in the antiquity of the earth and yet allow for some form of macroevolution. The second group, those that do allow for macroevolution, are becoming more and more vociferous in the manner in which they put out their message, and thus it is beholden upon the church of the Lord Jesus Christ Christ to come up with answers. Let me provide you with a few examples, just as a taste of what is out there. Perhaps an example of an old Earth paradigm, which makes no room for evolution, would be the framework hypothesis of creation, put forward most notably, or at least popularized most recently by Meredith Klein and many of his followers. For Klein, the creation week in Genesis 1 is a literary framework and not an historical or chronological account of origins. It is thematically arranged to teach us certain theological truths. And strictly speaking, the framework is agnostic on the length of the days of creation. But almost every framework man I've met would hold to an old earth. Now Klein and Lyons, who is one of Klein's followers, are categoric in the fact that they deny macroevolution. They have no place for macroevolution in their system, and they accept the creative fiats of God. But in spite of Klein's substantial and, in my opinion, often inaccurate exegesis of the creation week, One has to note that Klein has had at least one eye on the world of science while doing his exegesis. He wrote, to rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young earth theorists is a central concern of this article. And the article was Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony. At the same time, he continues, The exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the timeframe is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins. Now why would a theologian have any interest about freeing scientists from biblical constraints. One wonders, in spite of Klein's rigorous exegesis, was he motivated in some part by the flood of data pointing to the supposed antiquity of the earth? Consequently, he and Irons and many other framework proponents allow for Animal and plant death prior to the fall, but no human death. Note that, animal and plant death. Now, let's move on. Let's consider those who hold an old earth, but allow for some measure of evolution. And perhaps the most prominent proponent of a limited evolutionary process at the moment is Dr. Timothy Keller of Redeemer Church, New York. Keller believes that we can, as the church, we can and we should find some sort of rapprochement between evolutionary science and faith. He adopts a variation of the framework hypothesis, which allows for what he calls an evolutionary biological process for mankind. And yet he describes himself in an interview with Eric Metaxas for the New Canaan Society in 2012 as an old earth progressive creationist who believes in Adam and Eve. So how does he arrive at his position? He has this evolutionary biological process, but a literal Adam and Eve. Keller says in that same interview, if the Bible says something, and he's speaking now, so make allowances for grammar, it's not written. If the Bible says something, and science comes along and seems to contradict the Bible, if the science is there, rather than just sneering at it, I would say maybe I misread the Bible. I will let the science make me relook and rethink the Bible, but ultimately, I can't say that science trumps The Bible. Science doesn't trump the Bible, he says, but if science comes along and contradicts the Bible, it is the Bible that he goes back to to reinterpret, not the science. Now what Keller is actually saying here is something quite subtle and yet profound. He is acknowledging that science can indeed trump scripture, but only in areas which he determines are non-essential to the faith. Because in that same interview with Eric Metaxas, he then goes on to describe doctrines which are essential to the faith as Apostle's Creed doctrines. Anything outside that, frankly, for Keller, is fair game when it comes to science. Again, in a scholarly essay for the BioLogos Foundation, shows his hand with regard to his position on the historical Adam and the evolutionary biological process that he believes in. He doesn't acknowledge the grand theory of evolution as a worldview, but he does say this, God did use natural selection in some way. I'd be a little happier in saying human beings were evolving and God just created out of nothing. That seems to fit with Genesis 2-7 a little better. If you believe in an old earth, you have to believe in some way, you've got to believe that God did use natural selection in some way. My understanding of progressive creationism means that God intervenes, interjects, and directs. And so he has death in the animal kingdom, He appears to have death in humanity as well, but still attempts to hold to the direct fiat creation of Adam and Eve. The whole position to me sounds rather like having one's cake and eating it. Now let's move on further along the scale and it gets more troublesome as we examine it. Peter ends. Not sure how to assess ends really in terms of his thinking on evolution because he doesn't write about it. He simply assumes that evolution, without telling us which model of evolution he's adhering to, that evolution is a true paradigm. Again, in his book, The Evolution of Adam, he tells us that science provides an accurate version of origins. He writes, evolution is a game changer. If evolution is correct, one can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word historical, the instantaneous and special creation of humanity as described in Genesis. There we are. That says it all. He argues against any literal approach to Genesis, labeling it literalistic, and the two are different. He says, literalism can lead thoughtful, informed people to reject any semblance of the Christian faith. Isn't this interesting? In N's estimation, he also says one other thing, we mustn't allow the Bible, our literalistic interpretation, to bring the Bible into disrepute and allow us to be ridiculed. N's estimation, the most important concern in the witness of the church is to not open yourself to ridicule. We also get a taste, I think, of his evolutionary anthropology. If you've got a credible message and you've got thoughtful and informed listeners, there is nothing to stop people accepting the faith. so much for total depravity, so much of the doctrine of regeneration and the work of the Holy Spirit. But these, frankly, are the least of N's worries and our worries. What does he do with sin, morality, and death? He writes, evolution is a serious challenge to how Christians have traditionally understood at least three central issues of the faith, the origin of humanity, of sin, and of death. But evolution removes that cause, as Paul understood it, and leaves open the questions of where sin and death have come from. More than that, the very nature of what sin is and why people die is turned on its head. Some characteristics that Christians have thought of as sinful, for example, in an evolutionary scheme, the aggression and dominance associated with survival of the fittest and sexual promiscuity to perpetuate one's gene pool, are actually understood as means of ensuring survival. Likewise, death. is not the enemy to be defeated. It may be feared, it may be ritualized, it may be addressed, listen to this, in epic myths and sagas, but death is not the unnatural state introduced by a disobedient couple in a primordial garden. Actually, it is the means that promotes the continued evolution of life on this planet and ensures workable population numbers. Death may hurt, but it's evolution's ally." My assessment. First of all, I thank the Lord that Peter Enns is not my pastor. Again, we go back to Womlis, don't gouge your eyes out with science and then deny what you can't see. Or perhaps as Bavinck wrote over a century ago of such people at that time, the same problem, he says, beginning and continuing without God, they are determined also to end without God. What troubles me most about ENDS, and I think Daniel Harlow, who Dr. Belcher might have referenced yesterday, Daniel Harlow from Calvin College, is not their proximity to theistic evolution, but their proximity to atheistic evolution. Their redefinition of sin, death, life, and morality, and so on, brings them to the brink of spiritual disaster. Indeed, it reminds me of the work of Dr. Alex Rosenberg, the R. Taylor Cole Professor and Chair of Philosophy at Duke University. He argues that if one is consistent with one's evolutionary science, then atheism is the only answer, the logical conclusion. And so Rosenberg provides his own version of ultimate questions. He asks, is there a God? No. What is the nature of reality? He says, what physics says it is. Is there a soul? Is it immortal? He replies, are you kidding? What happens when we die? Everything goes on before except us. What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? He says there is no moral difference between them. is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don't like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory. He says, anything goes. Could it be then that evolution is in fact a product of a God-denying mind, and that the natural destination of those embracing it is where Rosenberg says it leads. Well, let me move on then to present to you a case in the remaining time we have, a case for a deathless, pristine creation. And the case is twofold, two distinct arguments, one general, one more narrow. which will forcefully point us to the fact that in the creation of the world according to the biblical account, death played no part in God's creative acts. The first argument is that we will try and arrive at a biblical definition of life. And in my reading, this is wholly absent from those who attempt to deal with issues of life and death. In arriving at a biblical definition of life, we will demonstrate that God could not have created using evolution and death. The second argument will build, I hope, on Dr. Waters' paper yesterday, looking at the federal headship of Adam in the covenant of works, and then Christ in the covenant of grace. What is lost in Adam is recovered for us in Christ. And that will focus more narrowly on some of the issues we deal with within the Reformed camp on this subject. So let's attempt to define life biblically. If we're dealing with issues of death, we must surely know what life is. and we must root our thinking in the very source of life himself, and that is God. We have to humble ourselves and understand that we do not define what life is, and neither, in fact, does life revolve around us. But life is found in another. It is found in God. Indeed, Scripture states that God is life, Psalm 84, verse 2, and also that God has life. He is life and has life. Our Lord Jesus Christ says, for as the father has life in himself, so he has granted the son also to have life in himself, John 15, 26. And perhaps we have the most expressive and extravagant and complete expression of the idea of God's life in the name by which he reveals himself to Moses, sending him back into Egypt. I am that I am. Surely this is the most complete and absolute statement of existence, of life, its very self. And so our first conception of life must begin with God, the source of all life. Calvin draws out the implications of this idea for man's relationship to God. He writes, hence, certain of the philosophers have not improperly called man a microcosm, that is, a miniature world, a microcosm as being a rare specimen of divine power, wisdom, and goodness, and containing within himself wonders sufficient to occupy our minds. Calvin then rightly connects the life of mankind and creation to the life that is in God, He continues citing Paul in Acts 17, 28, where Paul says, in God, in him, we live and move and have our being. You see, our very being exists in the context of God and the life that he has. Moreover, Paul says that we are his offspring. Now, we like to look at children in our family or in our friends and try and see the similarities of features and traits from parent to child. But the most fundamental attribute or characteristic that a parent passes on to a child is life. There may be many dissimilarities, but the parent passes on life to the child. We are God's offspring. He has passed on of himself to his people. All life, you see, is derived from God. Life has no definition outside God. There is no other source of life. And thus the concept of life is a most precious thing indeed, because we understand that in human life, in life on this earth, God has communicated of himself to his creation. And this is a fundamental factor when we deal with the issue of death before the fall. God has communicated of himself to his creation. Creation, man, animate creation, becomes the microcosm of God. And I mean no more of that than Calvin did in the original quotation. But we're also told that the life that God made in Genesis 1 has a certain quality or a character. And we're told that that life is good. And then we're told that that life is very good. Now once again, from where do we get our definition of goodness? It is from the Lord Himself who is good. Psalm 100 verse 5. Goodness is an aspect of God's character. It is not defined by us. It is defined by God. And he looked down and saw the creation, everything that he made, and behold, it was very good. God imparted life and goodness to his creation. However, some theologians today want to redefine the nature of creation and thus redefine the nature of life and of goodness. John Walton, in his book, The Lost World of Genesis 1, argues this. The people of the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of it having a function. in an ordered system. Thus, goodness, the character of Genesis 1, has nothing to do with the actual creation, material creation, substantial creation. It has everything to do with the function for which God created it. And so he concludes, if the Bible does not offer an account of material origins, we are free to consider contemporary explanations on their own merits. Now, I don't have time to examine Walton's work, but it is flawed, and he doesn't do nearly enough work for my liking on the multitude of creative words that are found in Genesis one through three. Moreover, he is shackled, I'm afraid, to the studies of the literature of the ancient Near East, and because the ancient Near Eastern creation stories are purpose-driven, function-driven, he then assumes that Israel's was also. So, we've got life imparted from God, we've got goodness imparted from God. What is then the structure, the substance of life? And the structure and the substance of life is found in three ideas contained in scripture. First of all, there's the idea of the breath of life. Then there's the idea of life found in blood. And then there's the idea of flesh. The breath of life, Hebrew nefesh hayah, the idea of a living being or the breath of life. Genesis 1.20, it's used of sea creatures and birds. Genesis 1.24, of livestock. livestock, creeping things, and beasts, Genesis 1.30 of all created animals, and interestingly, Genesis 2.7 of Adam himself. Life is common between the creatures and Adam. The same is true of blood. Genesis chapter 9 the Lord says you shall not eat flesh with its life that is its blood and clearly there's a distinction made between the inherent value of blood of a human and of an animal for the Lord says you may kill an animal but you may not eat of its blood which is its life there is inherent value in lifeblood but if you kill a man Your own blood shall be shed. A connection that there is life in both the blood of man and animals, but disparity in the respective value. Then there's the idea of flesh. Genesis 2.21, God takes out Adam's rib, closes up the flesh, and there stands Eve before him. He says, she is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. The act of sexual union between the two is then termed two becoming one flesh. Genesis 6.3 again, man is described as flesh by God. And yet in the flood, God promises to destroy all flesh. And he makes it explicit that that includes both animals and man. And so what we have before us is a biblical definition of life. We have the idea that life is imparted to us from God, that life is good, that life has inherent value, great value indeed, and that life is comprised, manifested, the life of God in us is manifested in these three factors, breath, blood, and flesh. Now how does this help us disprove death before the fall? Life then, defined by the three elements I have just spoken of, immediately deals with one objection from the old earth camp, and that is plant death before the fall. It's a consistent argument that plants died before the fall. In fact, that's how Adam would have known the concept of death. Clearly, plants do not fit the category of life as I've just laid out for you. That's not to say that they're inanimate. That's not my point. But there is a special kind of life derived from God, manifested in these three ways in mankind and in animals. Plants clearly do not fit the bill. We continue with our question, how does this help us disprove death before the fall? If life and goodness is that which God communicates of himself to his creation, can we conceive of death being part of that very same act of creation? Life and death are diametrically opposed if God is and God has life, death is utterly contrary, utterly opposed, at war in a sense, with God. And thus for God to create a world, man, animals, and so on, with death inherent in it, is an act which is wholly contrary to the character of Almighty God. It is an act which he cannot perform, for he cannot act inconsistently with his being and his character. For God to create with death inherent in creation is a self-denying and self-defeating act on the part of God. And we know he can do no such thing. God cannot act contrary to his character Death in the natural pre-order fall is contrary to his very being, that he is the true and living God, that he communicates life to his creation. There is the objection raised against me. You argue that death is contrary to the character of God, but was it not God who placed the death sentence upon man? Good question, but there's a good answer. There was a cause for the death penalty. There is no cause for God to administer a judicial penalty against His created order as He makes it, but there was a cause, an infinite offense as we heard last night. an infinite offense, high treason, revolt against God, which God could only punish with the death penalty. And in fact, the objection substantiates the point I am making. God can only ever behave in a manner which is consistent with his character, hence the death penalty, hence no death in the created order. God can no more create with death inherent in the creation than he could overlook Adam's sin. And so as we arrive at a biblical definition of life, we understand that life is from God, is of God, is God communicating himself to his creation, and death can most assuredly play no part in that created order. In the remainder of our time, I want to look at a more narrow issue in the field of death before the fall. And this is where we'll deal with the federal headship of both Adam and Christ as it relates not only to their posterity, as Dr. Waters explained yesterday, but also their relationship to creation as a whole. Now the argument here is more specific to the reformed world than the previous argument I've just offered. In the reformed world, the historicity of Adam is, by and large, taken seriously. And my target is thus those who are willing to accept an historical Adam, but still allow for animal death prior to the fall, and also allow for what we now call natural disasters, which we should actually call unnatural disasters, if we understood them properly. So that's a narrow target. Reference my earlier comments earlier, Meredith Klein, Lee Irons, John Fesco, my predecessor at Geneva OPC, amongst many others, argue for animal death prior to the fall. And their position is this, basically. We've got an old earth, science tells us that. The fossil record has shown us that there is animal death way back when, and here, at this point in time, is really the first record of human life. And so in these millions or billions of years, however much you want it to be, there is clearly animal death, there is decay, there is suffering, and so on, there is bloodshed. So animals and natural disasters. They actually argue for animals, plants, although we've already dealt with that. And natural disasters were all part of the created order. And then they turn to Psalm 104. Now every old earth proponent turns to Psalm 104 and assumes from the outset, almost presuppositionally, that this psalm speaks to us from the standpoint of the psalmist standing within the creation week. So this is the point they're making. There is the Psalmist, inspired by the Holy Spirit, speaking as if he was there, looking at the whole of creation and seeing how God lays out the creation. And then we get to verse 21, and what does it say? It talks about the young lions roaring for their prey. And they go, there you are, bloodshed in the created order, death in the animal kingdom. Now while the pattern of Psalm 104 is clearly creational, no one would dispute that, we have no reason whatsoever to say that the standpoint of the psalmist is from within the creation week as opposed to looking at the completed work of creation, either after the fall of man, after the Noahic flood, or even thousands of years later. He looks at the completed work of God. inspired to praise God and express his creative acts this way. We can just as easily read Psalm 104 from outside the creation week looking on it. Moreover, I think we are obliged to do so. If you've got your Bibles open you can look at the last verse and what does it say? Let sinners be consumed from the earth and the wicked be no more. Doesn't that tell us that this couldn't possibly be taken to be within the framework of the creation week? Unless, of course, framework hypothesis allows for sinners and wicked men prior to the fall. So Psalm 104 is not a good place to go for old earth creationists. Now my argument is this. Adam, under the covenant of works, as Dr. Waters said yesterday, is the representative of his posterity. I want to argue also that he is the representative of the whole of creation. In like manner that under the covenant of grace, our Lord Jesus Christ is the representative of his posterity, the elect, and indeed of the whole creation. And so we have the in Adam, in Christ paradigm that we know so well. What is lost in Adam is recovered in Christ. But what is true in Adam is also true of that which he represents. By definition, that must be the case. What is true in Adam must be true of what he represents. And that's one of the cardinal things we have to understand. If Adam is indeed the representative of creation, the state in which he finds himself must also be replicated in the state of that which he represents. Opinions on this issue of Adam being the representative of both posterity and also of the whole of creation. Berkhoff in his systematic theology, at least as far as I can tell, doesn't treat Adam's relationship with the creation, but go back to Calvin, Institutes, Calvin writes that Adam's sin, and I quote, perverted the whole order of nature in heaven and earth, and deteriorated his race by revolt. The whole creation groaneth, saith St. Paul, being made subject to vanity not willingly, Romans 8.20. If the reason is asked, there cannot be a doubt that creation bears part of the punishment deserved by man, for whose use all other creatures were made. Therefore, since through man's fault a curse has extended above and below, over all the regions of the world, there is nothing unreasonable in extending it to his offspring. Yet, listen to this, the presence of a second creational covenant in Genesis 9, where God covenanted with Noah and his offspring and with every living creature, lends great credibility to the argument for an initial creation covenant. Calvin's quite clear. Adam's sin was reflected upon all that he represented. The whole order of nature was perverted. Bavinck agrees with Calvin on this matter. He argues that the substance of creation remains the same pre and post fall. But he says this, the form of creation is deformed by sin. Notice that, it's deformed by sin, not creation sin, Adam sin. Deformed by sin in order to be reformed by grace. So Adam is clearly the representative, not just of those who descend from him by ordinary generation, but also of the entirety of creation And this pattern of federal or covenantal headship is seen throughout scripture, man's relationship to creation. It's a pattern of federal headship, Adam as the one head, Christ Jesus as the other. We see that pattern, that commonality between the representative and those that are represented, first of all, in a unity of substance. You see, there must be commonality between the representative and those he represents. That's why Christ had to become incarnate in order to represent us. He had to be made like us. That's a cardinal principle of this paradigm of federal headship. There must be a likeness between the head and those that are represented. That's why there's a unity of substance between Adam and creation. Genesis 1 tells us that the earth brought forth various aspects of life at God's command. The Hebrew verb there for bringing forth is a rather generic term. It has a broad lexical range, yet in various passages in the Old Testament, Numbers 12, Job 311, Jeremiah 1.5, it has the connotation of bringing forth children in childbirth. And interestingly, the same verb is used in Genesis 1.12 for the vegetation. The earth brought forth out of itself vegetation. Of Genesis 1.24 of beasts, livestock, creeping things, and in Genesis 2.7, the Lord God formed, it's actually the same verb, brought forth Adam from what? The dust of the ground. there is substantial commonality in the substance of all things that came forth from the earth. And notwithstanding certain important distinctions, such as the image of God, which we'll come to in a minute, we see that Adam shares a commonality of substance. Mankind shares a commonality of substance with many other things on this earth. And again, this deals immediately with the evolutionists' objection to our position, their position on common ancestry based upon the similarity of DNA through various species. We're told that our DNA is 98% the same as a chimpanzee's. I'm not surprised. We all came from the earth. We're all made of the dust of the ground. This is where these very beasts have come from. Calvin and both Bavinck acknowledge this commonality of substance in their writings. And so we are, in a sense, united substantially with our environment. Moreover, there's a unity of blessing between Adam and that which he represents. The first blessing that God pronounces upon all of creation is the good character, the good quality and nature of what he has made. What a remarkable thing when God looks down, sees what he's made, says, yes, very good. Yet then there's a commonality in what he tells man and animals to do. He tells both, man and animals, be fruitful and multiply. Is it not interesting? that the very matter we're dealing with, death before the fall, God blesses and commands his creation to produce what? Life, not death. God says, be fruitful and multiply, have offspring, populate the world, spread life throughout this world, whether you're a beast or whether you're a man, be fruitful and multiply. Make more life, make more life. But then we come to an important disunity or a disconnect between man and the animals. And this is what sets man over and above the creation. This is what sets him over and above all other things. It's the image of God, of course, an important distinction. Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness, and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens. Turretin says the image of God in man is the principal glory of man by which he far excels other animals and approaches God. This image consisted in gifts bestowed upon man by creation by which he was placed in such a degree of nature, perfection, and authority that no visible creature was either more like or more closely allied to God. And that is why God could say then to Adam, be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, subdue the earth, have dominion over the creatures. From where do we get our idea of dominion? Once again, it's from God. And Turretin picks up on this also. He says, the dominion of man over creation is an impress, a stamp of the supreme dominion of the creator, whose preeminence, listen to this, whose preeminence in this respect was in some measure communicated to man. God communicates the power. God communicates dominion. To Adam, of himself, he has ultimate dominion. Adam becomes his vice-regent to rule over the earth. And so he names the animals. He names his wife. He tends and he keeps the garden to spread that garden across the world, stewarding and caring for the creation, ensuring its life and welfare as he should have ensured his own life. and welfare, yet we know he did not. He failed. And yet we also witness between Adam and his posterity, and indeed all of creation, a unity also of cursing. In Adam's sin we witness all he represents afflicted by the curse. Curse on the woman, according to her calling, pain in childbearing, marital strife. Curse on the man, not only death, but also in light of his calling. His tending and keeping of the earth would now become blighted and burdensome because there is a curse on the ground that he is to tend and keep. Cursed is the ground because of you, Genesis 3, 17. And thorns and briars and thistles come forth. The very substance, you see, of Adam's existence has been cursed. The earth has been cursed. These thorns and thistles are plants which are hostile to man's mandate from God to fill the earth, subdue it, tend and keep. And we see the ultimate sense of cursing and man's relationship to the earth when the very substance of life becomes the substance of death. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return. No longer is the earth that which brings forth life, but which keeps death within it. And we see this pattern of curse replicated throughout all of scripture. I haven't got time to go through all these, but let me just give you a taste. Plagues of Egypt. Who died when the angel of death went over? Firstborn of all the people, right? Wrong. Firstborn of all the people and of the livestock. Exodus 11, four and five. Also in the flood, we see God explicitly stating He will wipe out man and animals. We see the land becoming unclean by the Canaanite sin, where we see Saul commanded to destroy the Amalekites, including their ox, their sheep, their donkeys. Achan's sin is judged on himself, his family, even his tent, and, I quote, his oxen, his donkeys, and his sheep. I haven't got time to talk about the atonement. I'm running out of time. Got five minutes, is it? Ten minutes? Seven? But let me just say, because we understand that there is inherent value in blood and in life, that really has profound effects for our understanding of the atonement. Life has inherent value. It is sourced from God, after all. If death is natural to man and animals, animals themselves cannot provide a picture of the great sacrifice of Christ. After all, according to the evolutionists, they are created with death inherent in them. But in atonement, there must be some sort of restitution, some fair price paid for the penalty, for the sin. Of course, what if man is the result of an evolutionary process? What implications does that have for our Lord Jesus Christ, who took to himself a true body, but according to the evolutionists, it's a true body that is riddled with death, made with death inherent in it, and there is absolutely no way he can say these words, for this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life for the sheep. that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to take it up again. He could not say that if an evolutionary process of mankind was true, because Christ would have been born with a deathly nature. Whereas the virgin birth is actually the surest answer against human death before the fall. Because Christ, the second Adam, has now lived the life we could not live having been born without sin, just like Adam, having been born without sin, and he's died the death that we could not die. And so he is fitting. He is worthy. His blood is of sufficient value to pay the price for our sins. Thanks be to God. There is also a unity of redemption between Christ and creation. We're reminded, are we not, of Genesis 6-9, that Peter describes the ark of Noah as a type of the Lord Jesus Christ and the flood as a type of judgment. Inside that ark is a remnant of creation, not just people, but animals also. Psalm 84, I love this psalm so much. How lovely is your dwelling place, O Lord of hosts. For a day in your courts has beddened a thousand elsewhere, but who else makes their way into the courts? No, not into the courts, into the holy of holies. Even the sparrow finds a home, and the swallow finds a nest for herself where she may lay her young at your altars. the sparrow, the swallow, the most insignificant part of creation, find their home on the blood-drenched altar of the temple. Picture of Jesus Christ the altar is. bringing into Himself creation, redeeming it by His blood and His cross. Psalm 148, another one, I haven't got time to go through it, but briefly, we see there a great call to earthly worship. Everything is to worship. The environment is to worship. sorry, the deeps, the fire, the hail, snow, mountains and hills, the inhabitants of those things of the environment are to praise. The great sea creatures, the beasts, the livestock, creeping things, flying birds, Genesis 1 language there, kings of the earth, peoples, princes, rulers, and so on, they're all to praise God. Why? Because He has raised up a horn for His people. That's Christ Jesus. That's what Simeon said of our Lord Jesus Christ. He has raised up a horn of salvation. And creation is included in this redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ. I'm not talking about culture. I'm not talking about art or anything. I'm talking about creation, the very stuff of life. And so we see, brethren, As we progress through to the end of scripture, we see that creation is brought all of it to a whole, redeemed, consummated in Christ Jesus. If Adam was created with life, by definition, what he represented must have been created with life. That's where the framework hypothesis gets it wrong. And so as with Christ, As he has been raised from the dead, ascended into glory, so does all that he represents. And so we can read these words. Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride, as the church, a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, behold, the dwelling place of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear. And death shall be no more. Neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain any more for the former things have passed away. Revelation 22.3 No longer will there be anything accursed. but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it and His servants will worship Him. And where do we see that most beautiful picture of heavenly and earthly worship? Revelation 5 verse 11. Revelation 5 verse 11. Then I looked and I heard around the throne the living creatures, angels, and the elders, the church. the voice of many angels numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands saying with a loud voice, worthy is the lamb who was slain to receive power. and wealth, and wisdom, and might, and honor, and glory, and blessing. And listen to this, and I heard every creature in heaven and on earth, and under the earth, and in the sea, and all that is in them saying, to him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be blessing, and honor, and glory, and might forever and ever. And the four living creatures said, amen. And all God's people said, Let's pray. We worship you and bless your name. You who are high and lifted up. For that right man who is on our side, Jesus Christ the righteous. We bless you that in him we have life and have it abundantly. And we long for that day, Lord God, where the heavens and the earth are united, crying out, holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty. And there we will be joined by all of creation, even the sea creatures of which we have just read, singing your praise and glory. To your name be all the glory. and through Jesus Christ we pray. Amen.