Science in Christian Perspective 


A Speculative model

Biblical Evolutionism?
Department of Materials Science Stanford University Stanford, California 94305

Additional comments by Russell L. Mixter, Russell W. Mattman ( Reply to Maatman),
and Walter R. Hearn

From: JASA 23 (December 1971): 140-145.

Evolutionism is a philosophical perspective on life which sees evolutionary process as a dominant mechanism in the unfolding of world history. The impact of anti-Christian evolutionists has been so pronounced that Christians tend to write off any statement of evolutionism as unbiblical and unchristian. Writers such as Teilhard have had some influence to the contrary, but even Teilhard does not make clear the relationship between evolutionary process and Biblical Christianity. It is not necessary for this sharp dichotomy to exist between evolutionism and biblical Christianity, since a model can be constructed which will be reasonably faithful to the perspectives of both disciplines. It is the purpose of this paper to present such a speculative model for comment and criticism.

Traditional Philosophical Evolutionism

Traditional philosophical evolutionism has been so anti-Christian that the very phrase is practically anathema in orthodox or evangelical circles. Anti-evolution Christians attack the validity of the General Theory of evolution and the relevance of the Special Theory primarily because they are convinced that philosophical evolutionism is one of the greatest evils in the world, and that philosophical evolutionism in turn is based on the General Theory.

Traditional anti-Christian evolutionism holds to the following points which are in fundamental opposition to biblical Christianity.

1. Denial of the importance or reality of divine Creation. The laws of nature (whose origin is unknowable) arc sufficient to account for the origin of life and spirit in its various manifestations.
2. Substitution of metaphysical for moral evil. The evil in the world results from the incompletion of the evolutionary process. What appears to he moral evil is only a remnant of man's bestial nature. There is no ultimate right or wrong, no responsible moral choice.
3. The nature of man is defined by his being a higher evolutionary animal. If man is not guilty of moral sin, he is also not capable of unselfish love. (This is a double contradiction of Biblical Christianity. It vastly underestimates the exalted position that man has as a creature made in the image of God It vastly underestimates the debased position that man is in as a creature engaged in moral rebellion against his Creator.)
4. Man can save himself by taking charge of the evolutionary process. If there is no such thing as moral guilt, then there is no need for deliverance from moral guilt, for the forgiveness of sins, or for a divine Savior from the bondage and guilt of sin.
5. Reality is confined to the natural. Natural processes are sufficient to account for the being and nature of man; it may be concluded that only natural processes are needed to describe man and the universe.
6. The evolutionary process will deliver all men. Since the evolutionary process has brought us to the present state of development, it will continue to work until the whole race is brought to a higher state of consciousness and fulfillment. Possibilities of judgment do not exist, unless man frustrates the evolutionary program and destroys himself and his world.

It is true that traditional philosophical evolutionism has generally developed the themes summarized above, and that therefore Christians have been impelled to oppose such a system of thought. What is not true, however, is that any possible scheme of philosophical evolutionism must be based on these themes.

Christians frequently find themselves in the dilemma of fighting a given perspective because that perspective is used by others to discredit Christianity. It is important to know whether or not the same data or starting points could be used in a Christian perspective to arrive at quite different conclusions that would be consistent both with the data and with the biblical revelation. It is the purpose of this paper to present a speculative model, the purpose of which is to show that the basic concepts underlying philosophical evolutionism can he consistently interpreted in a Christian and biblical framework.
Scientists are accustomed to proposing models simply for the usefulness they may provide in guiding thinking or experiment, without making any initial commitment about the relationship between the model and physical reality. This is the kind of model proposed in this paper. I do not "believe" it. I propose it as a possible approach to cutting the knot that binds us when we attempt to hold simultaneously the insights from evolution and the Bible.

Teilhard de Chardin

One of the most thorough attempts to unify evolutionism and Christian faith is that carried out by the French priest-paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He identified the evolutionary process with the triumphant work ofGod in the world, and sought to show that the previously diverging branches of evolutionary development began to converge when man became conscious of himself and the universe, the final focus of convergence being none other than the Omega Point, God Himself.

Teilhard proposed that the love ofGod was the driving force of evolution, and that the love of man was the sign of our participation in this process. To hate is to resist the work ofGod in evolution. Rather man is called upon to oppose every effort that would lead to divergence between men, and to support every effort that would lead to convergence between men.

Teilhard's thought has been criticized as taking little account of the reality of sin and of the necessity of Christ's work of atonement. Because the driving force of evolutionary process so dominates Teilhard's thought, evil and sin are relegated to simple by-products of the uncompleted process of evolution, and appear to have no real importance for the central issues of life. Either all men will arrive at Omega or none will.

In the long run it may be Teilhard's optimism that is the most destructive. In his adoration of the Creation and the Incarnation, lie seems to find it difficult to accept the reality of moral guilt and the need for divine forgiveness.

In the model proposed in the remainder of this paper, we attempt to appreciate the efforts made by Teillsard, but also to learn from his shortcomings in coordinating a scheme of philosophical evolutionism with biblical revelation.

Creation of Man

The Bible says that God created man from the dust of the earth.

The intrinsic points that Biblical evolutionism must encompass are (1)God created, (2) He created man as distinct from the animals, and (3) He created man from the "stuff" of the earth.

In biblical evolutionism, the process of evolution is the manifestation of the work ofGod in nature. The creative work ofGod may therefore be considered to have two aspects: (a) the foundational aspect in that the finite existence of the natural world depends moment by moment upon the activity of God and (b) the progressive aspect in that new creatures and characteristics emerge creatively in the process of evolution. Before all else, therefore, biblical evolutionism affirms that God created.

The evolutionary process results in the emergence of the human being as distinct from the animals. As God produced a living creature by the appropriate patterned interaction of nonliving matter, so He produced a living creature with a soul by the appropriate patterned interaction of living matter. Although all

The purpose of this paper is to show that the basic concepts underlying philosophical evolutionism can he consistently interpreted in a Christian and biblical framework.

living creatures have attributes of soul, the higher animals more obviously than the lower, it is the unique attribute of human soul to have communion with God to be able to make responsible choices on the basis of the knowledge of a man-God relationship. Biblical evolutionism certainly affirms thatGod made man as distinct from the animals.

The General Theory of evolution proposes that living matter emerged from non-living matter when the combination of environmental conditions was appropriate to bring about that particular patterned interaction of non-living matter that we recognize as life. In almost a drastically literal sense, therefore, biblical evolutionism affirms thatGod mode man from the dust or stuff of the earth.

Nature of Evil

The Bible says that evil in the world results partially from human sin (moral evil-as when one man murders another), and partially from forces not directly related to human sin, although possibly indirectly related even in the case (metaphysical evil-as when an earthquake, flood, or falling tower destroy human life).
Biblical evolutionism recognizes the necessity for the involvement of the human being in order for evil
to exist, and recognizes the distinction between metphysical evil and moral evil-between an amoral product of the natural environment which assumes the category of evil only when injury to human beings is involved, and the deliberate choice of a human being to harm another human being.

When rocks slide down a hill and kill a rabbit, when volcanoes overflow and kill mice, when a lion kills a deer, or when a cat kills a bird, we do not attribute the category of "evil" to the event at all. When sliding rocks kill a man, or when volcanoes or lions kill a man, we recognize that this is a case of metaphysical evil. It is evil because human life was taken, but it is not moral evil because rocks, volcanoes and lions are not moral agents. Only a man can he guilty of moral evil.

In the process of evolution, therefore, there is no evil on earth before man appears on the scene. Since metaphysical evil requires the involvement of man as victim, and moral evil requires the participation of man as both perpetrator and victim, only amoral events transpired among subhuman creatures before man emerged. The analogy with the absence of evil from the Garden of Eden is readily drawn.

When the human being emerged in the process of evolution, both metaphysical and moral evil became possibilities. The creation of the human being in the image ofGod endowed him with the ability and the responsibility to make moral choices. When lie rebelled against his role as a child of God lie became guilty of moral evil. Moral evil requires atonement and forgiveness.

The Entrance of Sin into the World

The Bible says that sin entered the world when man made a deliberate choice to disobey God.
Biblical evolutionism affirms that sin (moral evil) as well as metaphysical evil entered the world when the human being emerged in the process of evolution, and made a deliberate choice to disobey God. The first man sinned. In a common biblical interpretation, sinless man is transformed into sinful man at the sin of the first man. In the perspective of biblical evolutionism, the emergence of the first man made metaphysical evil possible, and the sin of the first man made moral evil a reality. What might have been only metaphysical evil with man as the victim, became moral evil as man's first sin made him the perpetrator. The end result is sinful man with moral guilt.

The Need for a Savior

The Bible say's that sinful man needs a Savior from the guilt and power of sin.

Biblical evolutionism affirms in an identical way that sinful man needs a Savior. The human being is in rebellion against God and since this rebellion is the result of a responsible moral choice, he is also guilty of moral evil. Every aspect of the biblical presentation of the need for the forgiveness of sin and for restoration to the position that a man created in the image of God should have, is present in identical form in biblical evolutionism.

Christian Conversion as an Evolutionary Process

The Bible says that when a man becomes a Christian, lie becomes a new creature. He is to be described as the firstfruit of a new order in Christ, as the representative of a coming order that will glorify God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Biblical evolutionism agrees with the traditional biblical theology which considers the ultimate goal for man to be realized in his restoration to full fellowship with God forgiven and freed from sin, and engaged in \vilhrsg and fulfilling service. The way that man is advanced toward this ultimate goal is through Christian conversion, through recognizing his need of a Savior and committing himself to God through faith in Jesus Christ. A man becomes a better man when be accepts Christ; he undergoes an "evolutionary" experience that may be rapid or may extend over many years.

Biblical evolutionism is at one with biblical theology is seeing the spreading of the Gospel and the winning of men to Christ as the only effective way of making men truly siren, made in the image of God. Sometimes we act as if we were little more than animals; vet we are destined to he like Christ.
The uriiversahism of traditional philosophical evolutionism need not be adopted. Biological evolution has never been universalistic, weeding out those forms that did not contribute to the continued flow of evolution. There is no reason to attribute any universality to the ultimate success of the evolutionary process other than the universality of those who have committed themselves to Christ.

To speak of Christian conversion as an evolutionary process ceases to he an offensive phrase if it is remembered that evolutionary process" means God's activity in the world. Certainly it is biblical to view Christian conversion as the product of God's activity.


It is possible to develop a model of biblical evolutionism which includes the affirmation that God created man, that He created him distinct from the animals, that He created him out of the stuff of the earth, that man is the participant in real moral guilt, that sin entered the world through the first man's choice to rebel against God, that man guilty of moral evil needs a Savior, and that the only way to bring man to his creation-intended position is through his acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his sins.

It is suggested that the intense animosity generated between Christians and traditional philosophical evolutionism may be only a special ease, and that careful consideration of tile possibilities of this speculative model of biblical evolutionism he given before Christians make any kind of ultimate decision on what kind of model may or may not he consistent with the biblical data.

Russell L. Mixter 
Department of Biology 
Wheaton College Wheaton, Illinois

It is my impression that one's attitude toward evolution depends a great deal on his educational and religious background. IT he is well read in Dobzhansky, Simpson, Stebbins and others he sees biology as a dynamic science revealing considerable possibilities of change. If he is steeped in the anti-evolutionary books of O'Toole, Rimmcr, Price, Wilder-Smith and Davidbeiser, he is likely to feel his faith is challenged by any implications of the evolutionary scientists. In plain English, there is much prejudice in this whole business of evaluating evolution. So one should be careful to sec if it is his preferences or his reason that are dictating his attitudes.

There is much prejudice in this whole business of evaluating evolution.

Just one objection to Bube's evaluation. He says that traditional anti-Christian evolutionism holds that "there is no ultimate right or wrong, no responsible moral choice." This attitude may be true of some, but I think Huxley, Dohzhansky and Simpson, as examples, would believe that moral wrong is any activity that impairs the full development of one's personality. Man has now arrived at a level where he can determine values, and it is morally evil if he does not use his intelligence instead of his urges to provide a good life for mankind. Herman Mnller believed evolution has no programs so it was up to man to supply the program, such as disseminating scientific information. C. C. Simpson believes man is the result of a purposeless process that did not have him in mind, but he is responsible to himself and society. lie can introduce purpose into evolution. And Dobzhansky comments that "It is up to man to supply the program for his evolutionary developments which nature has failed to supply."

In Genesis I the word soul means "a living creature" and is not synonymous with "spirit" as used in the New Testament. Animals were called living souls or living creatures (Gen. 1:24) and man was called the same (Gen. 2:7). The same Hebrew word is used in both verses. Man's spirit is mentioned in Genesis 1 as the image of God.

One more suggestion. Since it is true that many of the forty million evangelicals object to the term "evolutionism", why not speak of biblical "developmentalism" instead of biblical "evolutionism". If you call something a rose you expect it to smell like a rose. Any use of the disparaged term will be an offensive odor in the sense of many Christians.


Russell W. Maatman 
Department of Chemistry 
Dordt College 
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250

As I see it, it is very important to examine carefully the creation of man in Buhe's model. I say this because the creation of man in the model seems not to he part of what is ordinarily meant by "evolution", i.e., that which is encompassed by the General Theory of Evolution. According to the General Theory, the events in an evolutionary process hear a cause-and-effect relation to one another. Furthermore, the causes are physical, e.g., mutation, and the evolutionary process is held to be not random, but with a favored direction, with improvement or progress; and progress occurs because of the survival of the fittest.

But according to Bribe's thesis, man became man when the acts performed by the animal(s) which became man (men) could potentially break the law of God. That is, moral evil entered the universe. At one moment an animal could die, and no evil would be involved. At the next moment, after the creation of man, the same physical event, the death of the animalbecome-man could still occur, but now evil-metaphysical evil-would he associated with the event. Furthermore, the animal-become-man was now able to commit moral evil. What happened to bring about the transformation? According to Bnbe, that which had the attributes of soul in the animal was transformed: the new soul could commune with God Such a transformation is qualitative, not quantitative-the being either communes or does not commune with God, and there is no half way point-and the transformation could only take place instantaneously.

Can such a qualitative change, such a quantum (hut not quantified) jump, be related to the General Theory? That is, can this transformation be caused by that which existed in the physical world before the change? According to the General Theory, changes are indeed related to that which exists in the physical world before the change takes place. But Bube properly emphasizes that man and animal are distinct. Man can commune with God, arid the animal cannot. In other words, the change which took place was in the very nature of the being which was changed. With good reason Buhe does not attempt to connect whatever happened when man was created, with other events in the hypothesized evolutionary process. He does state that all evolutionary events are caused by God, but he does not show that physical causes are behind the transformation of man in the same way they are involved in other evolutionary steps. F doubt that Bribe would suggest that anything like a mutation would change an animal without a soul into a being who is not a body-with-soul-added, but something new under the sun, a "bodysoul", an image of God. Whatever "vestigial" organs, mutations, etc., tell us, they tell us nothing about the transformation which Bube postulates, the formation of the image of God.

What proof is there that at some point in time an animal was changed to a body-soul, a man?

Let us now turn to the conditions a model must satisfy. A model must not only fit the known facts, but we may not put into a model an unnecessary element. For example, suppose a student performing a typical elementary physical science experiment attempts to declare by weighing, shaking, etc. what an object inside of a "black box" is like. Very likely the instructor will reprove him if he concludes not only something about the shape, density, etc., of the object but also that it is a green object. His experiments just don't answer the question about its color. If the object is a model, i.e., if deductions concerning its nature are to be used to predict the results of future experiments, the student may not specify the object's color as part of the model. Similarly, llolir put too much into his model of the atom when he described the path of the electron. Had the Principle of Uncertainty been known at that time, the Principle could have been used to prove the Bohr model incorrect, since according to this Principle the path of the electron cannot be known. Bohr's description of the path of the electron was an unprovable, and therefore an inadmissable, element in his model.

If Bube's description of the origin of man is indeed not a part of the evolution referred to in the General Theory of Evolution and any proof of this theory does not apply to his model, then what proof is, there that at some point in time an animal was changed to a bodysoul, a man? First of all, we do know that there were animals before man came on the scenic. Although Bribe does not explicitly offer Scripture as proof, lie does cite Scripture at this point. He says that man was created from the dust of the earth, and that the term "dust" in Gen. 2:7 could refer to the material which produced life and eventually the animal which produced man. Let us assume for the moment that there is nothing in Gen. 2:7 which contradicts this understanding of "dust". Even so, no one holds that the Scriptures tell is that thus is the interpretation. As far as I can tell, the dispute over "dust" in Gen. 2:7 is only whether or not "dust" as used here can include the idea of a living animal, or alternately, the dust from which life evolved.

The student who said that the object in the black box was green knew that the object had some color, but he had no right to deduce that it was green. In my opinion, Bube knows that man was created from some pre-existing material, dust, but be does not have the right-on the basis of the evidence he presents or refers to-to be as specific as lie is about the nature of that preexisting material. In other words, since the General Theory seems not to lie relevant, Bube has apparently introduced an unprovable, and therefore inadmissible, element-the animal origin of man-into his model.

I realize that the element in his model which I call unnecessary is a key element. I do not, however, propose to examine here what happens to his model if the animal-origin question is left unanswered. Rather, I suggest we attempt to decide if we eon know something about the (lust of Gen. 2:7. We read there

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, arid breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life; and man became a living soul.

I have discussed this question in some detail elsewhere1, and here I shall make only one point. The Hebrew word which is translated "living soul", nephesh, means nierehv "living creature", used for either animal or mmni in other passages (see Gen. 1:24 and 9:16). In other words, the soul is not mentioned in Gen. 2:7, but the passage does state twice that man was given life-in the sense that both man and animals have lifewhen lie was created from the (lust of the ground. The event of Gen. 2:7 was not a soul-adding event, but a life-giving event. Animals have the kind of life re ferred to here-since nephesh can refer to them- and they cannot receive the life which they already have. Thus, the dust in Gen. 2:7 could not have had life before it was changed into man. I conclude that although there is a question concerning what the dust was, the dust could not have been alive. Bube does suggest that the dust was the material from which the first life was made. However, if my contention that man in his model cannot be logically associated with the General Theory of Evolution, there is then no more reason to expect that man was made from non-living dust via animals, than that lie was made from non-living dust without intermediate animals. Relating man to this pre-life dust would he another way of including an improvable, and therefore inadmissible, element in the model.


1  R. W. Maatman, The Bible, Natural Science, and Evolution, Reformed Fellowship, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970; pp. 147-154.

Reply to Maatman
Richard H. Bube 
Department of Materials Science 
Stanford University, 
Stanford, California 94305

1. I am concerned primarily with the philosophical and theological implications of evolutionism. In speaking of evolution I do not therefore feel constrained either to accept or defend currently proposed scientific zncchaoiims for the evolutionary process. The possibility that what I propose is or is not fully expressihle ill terms of currently understood evolutionary mechanisms does not hear on the issue I raise.

2. In the two great areas of evolutionary emergence (if this view is to be held) : the area of the emergence of life from the appropriate patterned interaction of 0011-living matter, and the area of the emergence of human soul from the appropriate patterned interaction of living matter, there must of necessity-or so it seems -he gray areas where it is not possible to ascribe with certainty the specific state of matter. I do not know in detail how to describe this; I believe it is justifiable 00 the basis of our present knowledge however, to bold this position with respect to the non-living to living transformation, and I do not see a priori wily the same should not he held of the non-human to iluman transformation.

3. Although Maatman is correct ill assuming that I would not imply' that anything as simple as a single mutation would change an animal with animal "soul" nto a man with human soul the implication that I would not attribute this transformation to physical causes at all is not correct. First of all, when I speak of physical causes, I mean God's activity. Second in my model emergence of the human soul results from a multitude of processes concerned primarily with the size and complexity of the brain and nervous system, processes and matter interacting according to a pattern appropriate for the manifestation of human soul as a systems property. I have discussed this question at much greater length in my book, The Human Quest: A New Look at Science and Christian Faith. (Word Books, Waco, Texas 1971).

4. The type 0f argument from Genesis 2:7 by which Dr. Maatmen derives the conclusion that the "dust" from which God "made man" could not he alive when God "made man" is curious indeed. It is based on the assumption that the phrase "God made man from the dust of the earth" must have a hterahstic interpretation in terms of an event that occurred on one day. The model of biblical evolutionism maintains that God made marl from the dust of the earth, by a process which started with the dust of the earth literally and then proceeded through a series of evolutionary developments until man was produced. The kind of exegesis proposed by Maatmall, ill which it is assumed that the Hebrew devotional literature of Genesis 2 was written to reveal subtle scientific chronology and mechanisms, has long been the source of confusion.

(Sec pp. 153 and 157 of this issue for a continuation this ths discussion. Watch for the Maatman/Buhe Dialogue on "Inerrancy, Revelation and Evolution" in next year's journal ASA.)

Walter R. Hearn
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 50010

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called soils of God." True. But we are likely to be called other things as well for trying to reconcile opposing people or opposing ideas. To stand in the middle, often means catching it from both sides, since to each, we appear to be out i front leading the vanguard of the other side. And trying to identify with both sides simultaneously (wearing a green beret with a Viet Cong outfit) may make us look to both like half-traitor, half-spy. Recently I circulated among my university departmental colleagues a paper on "A Christian View of the Origin of Life" prepared for a symposium at a conservative Christian college. To one group this paper identified me as something of a fundamentalist, to the other as a theological "rad-lib."

Perhaps that question mark in the title of Bube's "Biblical Evolutionism?" is the white flag intended to keep both sides from firing on a truce parley going on in no-man's land.

Many of the battle-weary will welcome Bube's attempt to bring together ideas and people that never should have been at odds in the first place. Even his discordant nomenclature (Viet Cong Americanism?) may help the combatants reexamine their categories. On the other hand, it is quite a gamble to expect the undesirable connotations of the two terms to cancel each other out. I acknowledge the features of Bube's speculative model as being part of my own thought over the years, but I have reservations about being identified as a "biblical evolutionist."

If we have a biblical theology of discontinuous supernatural acts only, and a biological science of continuous natural processes only, the twain never meet-except on the battlefield.

Bube points out the present atheistic connotations of philosophical evolutionism that make many of us hesitate to call ourselves evolutionists, even though we embrace evolution in biology. When forced to choose between "evolutionist" and "anti-evolutionist" camps, we have tried to insist on being "theistic evolutionists" to negate atheistic accoutrements. At times I have borrowed the terminology of the "special creationists" and called myself a "general creationist and special evolutionist." What designation is appropriate to indicate "belief" in evolution as a concept useful for some purposes but of no use for others?

The same difficulty faces us with the Bible. The Bible is useful for some purposes ("for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness") but not for others. We often hear the Bible described as the answer to all of life's questions, even to questions undreamed of when its contents were written. Trying to be "biblical" is thus pushed to ridiculous extremes of wringing from Scripture what was never intended to be there. With that connotation, some of us are also reluctant to be known as "biblical" even though we are certainly not "anti-biblical." Does taking the Bible seriously but not always literally make one biblical? Does taking evolution seriously as science but not as atheistic philosophy make one an evolutionist? Then perhaps I am a biblical evolutionist, after all. 

For me at present, to take the creation narrative in Genesis seriously means to consider it a parable, as thoroughly inspired and as "true" as New Testament parables. The parables of Jesus about seeds and weeds and soil contain a commonplace agricultural wisdom along with their religious message, but hardly form a basis for a science of agronomy. References in the rest of the Bible to the Genesis creation account all seem to me to focus on its religious message: the relationship of God to nature, of man to nature, and of man to God. Bube's model shows that these same relationships fit into a conceptual framework emphasizing God's continuous creative activity just as well as into a framework of discontinuity. Both aspects can be subsumed under the biblical category of fiat creation. ("let it be done") but only the continuous mode seems amenable to scientific understanding. Hence a model such as "biblical evolutionism" is necessary for rapprochement. If we have a biblical theology of discontinuous supernatural acts only, and a biological science of continuous natural processes only, the twain never meet-except on the battlefield.

It is worth holding our fire to see what kind of truce this new parley may bring us. Admitting that a biblical view of creation can include far-reaching but gradual change is not really much of a concession to make in the 20th century. Making it in the right spirit, at a time when science is under fire from other quarters, might lead to the concession that mechanistic explanations of bio!ogical processes do not exclude the possibility of divine purpose beyond the scope of science. If divine purpose is possible, then so is moral responsibility. If moral responsibility must be faced, then so must the possibility of failure, of guilt, of sin. If men (theologians, philosophers, scientists) have sinned, then we have need of atonement-and so on to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both toGod in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end.