Norman Metzler

New Creationist Eschatology, championed by the New Testament scholar N.T. Wright, addresses the substantive character of the end-time kingdom of God.[1] Wright asserts that this “new creation” will be a physical reality, very similar to our present physical creation. Since Wright is an extensively published and highly respected biblical theologian, his New Creationist view of the eschatological coming kingdom of God has been broadly influential across the theological spectrum, including within the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.[2] The concept of the heavenly kingdom being very much continuous with this present physical world can be more appealing and relatable to Christians in our contemporary culture than the wispy, idealistic notion of angels in white robes sitting on clouds playing harps. This view of a physical new creation also supports contemporary environmental initiatives, inasmuch as our Christian responsibility to care for the earth becomes even more meaningful if we believe that this present physical creation is going to become our eternal abode.

One aspect of the New Creationist portrayal of our resurrected bodies as restored physical bodies is its understanding of the nature of the physical bodies of the first humans prior to their Fall into sin. The biblical records of creation report that God warned Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, for “in the day that you eat of it you will surely die.” [Gen. 2:17] Christian theology traditionally has interpreted this warning to imply that apart from eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve could have lived forever in their original innocent physical state. The medieval theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas suggests that Adam and Eve were actually eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and therefore would have been able to live forever had they not fallen into sin. This is obviously a moot point, given that the first humans lost their original immortal physical condition by succumbing to temptation and eating the forbidden fruit. Christian tradition has accepted the de facto mortality of humanity because of the Fall into sin, and therefore typically describes resurrected human bodies as transformed spiritual bodies, according to the explanation of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.[3] Jesus demonstrated that his resurrected spiritual body was capable of doing physical activities, like eating fish and preparing breakfast, in order to confirm for his followers that he was not a ghost but was actually his living, resurrected self.  However, he could pass through locked doors and suddenly appear and disappear, which is clearly only possible for spiritual bodies.

N.T. Wright and the New Creationists affirm the traditional view of the original immortality of humanity, but they depart from tradition in claiming that humanity will actually be raised in restored physical bodies at the end-time resurrection, rather than in spiritual bodies. Wright does acknowledge that there will be a certain difference between the original physical human bodies and the resurrection bodies, due to a special infusion of the Holy Spirit. He suggests that resurrected believers will receive what he labels “transphysical bodies.” Wright avoids using St. Paul’s term “spiritual bodies” because he equates “embodiment” with physical bodies, despite Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 explaining the different types of bodies in nature, and  contrasting “physical” and “spiritual” bodies.

Given his view of embodiment, Wright found it necessary to reframe St. Paul’s argument. He claims that when Paul discusses “flesh” he is not talking about our physical bodies, but rather a “sinful nature” acquired in the Fall that is an overlay covering our otherwise perfectible physical bodies. It is this sinful nature, according to Wright, that will be cleansed by the Holy Spirit when our physical bodies are “restored” to their original physical perfection at the resurrection.[4] Contrary to this revisionist interpretation of Paul by Wright and New Creationism, we hold that the apostle is speaking of our sin-ridden physical bodies as such, not some “sinful nature” overlaying those physical bodies, when he declares categorically that “flesh and blood” cannot inherit eternal life.

In contrast to the traditional Christian view of the original immortality of Adam and Eve, we propose that a close examination of the Genesis creation accounts reveals that immortality was not in fact inherent in their physical bodies. Adam and Eve did have the potential for eternal life, but this was contingent upon their making the god-pleasing choice and eating the fruit of the Tree of Life. [Gen. 3:22] When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, God planted two trees in the center of the garden, namely this Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Both trees stood unavoidably in the middle of the Garden, clearly symbolizing God giving humans the ability to choose their destiny. They could choose to follow the will of God, eat from the Tree of Life and live with God forever; or they could choose to disobey the will of God, eat the forbidden fruit, and be alienated from God in death. Because they succumbed to temptation and ate the forbidden fruit, they never got to eat the fruit that could have given them eternal life. In fact, once they fell into sin, it was divine mercy that moved God to declare that the human “. . . must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever.” [Gen. 3:22] God did not want the humans to live forever in their fallen sinful physical condition. This decision of God to banish them from the Garden clearly infers that the first humans were living in their original mortal bodies and had not actually eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life that could have given them immortality.

In fact, upon close examination, the Genesis creation accounts reveal the mortal, perishable nature of  the whole physical creation as such. (1) According to Genesis, plant life was created by God to feed animal life. [Gen. 1:29,30] Vegetation necessarily involves a life cycle of gestation, growth and death in order to provide nourishment for the animals. God provided the plants with seeds in order to be able to continue their reproductive life cycle and provide an ongoing food supply for the animals. [Gen. 1:11-12] (2) Animal life was commanded by God to “be fruitful and multiply,” that is, to reproduce according to their kinds. [Gen 1:22, 27] Both plant and animal life, therefore, were created by God with the capacity for reproduction and physical life cycles that included gestation, birth, growth, and death. God’s plan for all plant and animal life to be able to reproduce clearly demonstrates that all created life is inherently mortal and perishable. (3) Following the curses on the humans because of their Fall into sin, God states matter-of-factly that Adam would have to work hard until he returned to the ground, “since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” [Gen. 3:19] This factual observation of God regarding humans being created from and returning to the earth is not part of the curse upon Adam but rather simply recognizes that his hard work would persist until his death, which would be the end of his natural, mortal life cycle. These life cycles for plant and animal life were set in place by God from the very beginning, prior to humanity disobeying God’s command. Therefore, the inherent mortality of creation did not change with the human Fall into sin. [Gen. 1:22]

What did change with the Fall was the human fight for survival. Creating and sustaining mortal life (childbearing and farming) became a constant struggle for humanity, and death became an enemy, rather than simply the final stage of the human life cycle. [Gen. 3:16-19; 1 Cor. 15:26] In fact, all creation was doomed to suffer because of humanity’s choice to disobey God. These struggles hypothetically might not have existed apart from the Fall. Had the first humans made the god-pleasing choice and eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life, they may well have lived in a harmonious earthly circumstance and transitioned seamlessly from their mortal, physically embodied condition to an immortal, spiritually embodied state at the end of their physical life cycle.[5] Given their actual fateful choice, of course, this is a moot point. What did not change was the inherent mortality and perishability of the physical creation.

We therefore conclude that the popular view of N.T. Wright and the New Creationists regarding the immortality and perfectibility of human physical bodies from the very beginning, apart from the Fall, is not actually supported by the Genesis accounts. This in turn undermines their claim that the eschatological new creation will be a “restored” or “renewed” physical creation, essentially continuous with the present physical creation, although augmented by the Holy Spirit to become what N.T. Wright calls a “transphysical” entity. In addition to it being inconsistent  with the accounts in Genesis, the New Creationist approach belies the Gospel accounts of the risen Jesus acting in ways that are impossible for physical bodies. The resurrected body of Jesus was able to suddenly appear and disappear; to pass through locked doors; to make himself unrecognizable and then recognizable; and finally to ascend into the clouds while talking with his disciples. The New Creationist approach also contradicts the carefully developed and straightforward explanation of St. Paul in 1 Cor. 15 that physical human bodies are incapable of inheriting eternal life in the kingdom of God. We affirm with St. Paul that our resurrection bodies will be marvelous new spiritual bodies capable of inheriting eternal life, just as God demonstrated for us in the resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

[1] It is important to distinguish between the “New Creationism” of N.T. Wright, and Christian fundamentalist “Young Earth Creationism” that rejects evolution science as contradictory to its literalistic interpretation of the creation accounts of Genesis. However, some theologians, like the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod authors mentioned below, subscribe to both Young Earth Creationism and New Creationism, which is not the case with N.T. Wright and many New Creationists.

[2] An example of the broad impact of New Creationist Eschatology is found in the recent text by Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod theologians Kent Burreson and Beth Hoeltke in Death, Heaven, Resurrection, and the New Creation (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2019). These authors refer to “two aspects of our resurrected bodies, physical and spiritual . . . ”; or again, they observe that “we have not fully become spiritual, physical creatures. . .” (pp. 183, 184.) This juxtaposition of “physical” and “spiritual” in reference to our resurrection bodies fails to acknowledge that in his most extensive theological explanation of the nature of the resurrected body, St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 explicitly contrasts the physical body which is mortal and perishable with the spiritual body which is immortal and imperishable. Only the immortal spiritual body is capable of inheriting eternal life.

[3] See e.g. Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), p. 552.

[4] The influence of New Creationism is reflected in the initial editions of the New International Version (NIV) translation of the Holy Bible, which generally translates the Greek term “sarx” as “sinful nature,” even though that term is otherwise typically translated in biblical translations as “flesh.” It is noteworthy that in its most recent edition, the NIV translates the Greek term “sarx” as “flesh” rather than “sinful nature,” thereby quite evidently acknowledging and correcting the undue influence of New Creationist Eschatology.

[5]  For the issue of pain in childbirth due to the Fall into sin, see e.g., Lorraine Cleaves Anderson, “The Legacy of Pain: An Analysis of Genesis 3:16a,” in CBE International, April 30, 2006.

Dr. Norman Metzler taught theology, ethics and philosophy at Concordia University Portland from 1993 to 2012.