Split from "Salvation"

[Ovedya]

I would think that we would need to know whether or not the death resulting directly from eating of the tree of the knolwedge of good and evil refers only to spritual separation from God, or if it includes all of the symptoms of that separation including physical death.

What I have always been taught is that all of creation was affected by the fall of Adam.

Should we assume that the patterns of life and death in the natural order, which we are familiar with today, part of the original created order prior to the fall? Was physical death a part of what God intended for creation?

I think that the stigma of death is generally what is written of in the negative sense. I have always believed the evidence in Genesis of a restoration of the earth. That is neither here nor there, but it does point to resurrection - of death as not being final but merely an instrument of resurrection. In the beginning the earth was without form and void, and darkness moved upon the face of the earth. That certainly speaks of death. However, God caused dry land to appear and then the plant life to spring forth. That speaks of resurrection.

I believe that the creation testifies within itself of the Creator. As such I also believe that it testifies of the essential aspects of redemption. The seasons testify of death and resurrection, as does the natural life cycle of all things. In fact, death and resurrection is a current theme in most world religions. I think that's due to the observable events in creation.

Like you, I also believe that all of creation fell with Adam. But I can only speculate as to in what aspect creation fell. One clue may be the fact that various animals, like lions for example, may have begun to kill other animals for their food. Isaiah (65?) talks about the wolf eating with the sheep and the lion eating straw like the oxen. Many Bible scholars believe that this is the restoration of creation to its original state. So therefore it may be that the fall brought corruption to all creation, bringing in un-natural death, like murder.

[Ovedya]

Yet what Scripturally would lead you to such a presumption? There is no accounting of Adam's eating of the tree of life to begin with. Secondly, if the fruit of the tree contains the eternal life of God wouldn't it be safe to assume that only one eating would have been needed? After all, only one eating of the tree of knowledge produced countless generations of fallen nature in humanity.

to be honest, I am not sure I could back it up Scripturally, though I will look. I think that in the end we are both saying the same basic thing, and that is that had he not sinned, Adam would not have died a physical death.

No, actually, I am arguing that physical death is an inbuilt design of God's creation. Adam would have died physically because he was created as a physical being. I do look forward to the results of your search of Scripture, however.

[Ovedya]

No, actually, I am arguing that physical death is an inbuilt design of God's creation. Adam would have died physically because he was created as a physical being. I do look forward to the results of your search of Scripture, however.

but before his sin he was allowed to eat from the tree of life, which would indicate that he would not have died, if I am not mistaken

Allowed to eat, yes. But that he did eat of it is not evidenced by Scripture.

[EricH]

Death came to man through Adam's sin. The Earth did not know death prior to that. The idea that the death of humankind occurred prior to Adam's sin contradicts New Testament teaching that indicates the death of humankind entered this world as a result of Adam's sin.

1 Corinthians 15:20-22 "But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruits of those who are asleep.

21 For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man.

22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive." (WEB)

Romans 8:20-22 "For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of it's own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope

21 that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of decay into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now." (WEB)

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned." (WEB)

I added a response to this post last Friday, but for whatever reason it didn't make it into the thread. I'll try again.

The idea that physical death was the direct result of the fall is hard to reconcile with Scripture, which is why I do not believe that physical death, but spiritual death - or "deadness" - was the result. Here is my reasoning:

First, if we observe the cycles in creation we find that there are times of darkness and light, life and death, changes in seasons. Our galaxy was created like a timepiece, with each component working in its turn to sustain creation. The position of the earth in the "habitable zone" in relation to our sun sustains life. The positioning of our moon establishes the tide and influences the weather systems. The rotation of the earth around the sun and upon its axis establishes our seasons, our day and our night. If we observe creation here on the earth we know that it passes through seasons Spring and Summer is where everything grows, Fall is where living things prepare for Winter, and Winter is where some plants die or go into dormancy. In the creation life and death are natural components of the cycle, of the ecosystem. The Lord Jesus even observed that death is needed for life, or resurrection (life or rebirth is a picture of resurrection and reproduction) when He said, "...Unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." (John 12:24)

Second, we have a problem with God's Word taking the notion that man was created immortal. To begin with it is only God's life that is eternal in nature. It is the eternal life of God Himself which enables immortality (1 Cor. 15:53-54; 1 Tim. 6:16). Then we have a logical problem with the account of the fall in Genesis:

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Gen. 2:16-17)

"And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:2-5)

"And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" -- therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Gen. 3:21-24)

So we have a problem here with these verses in believing that the fall produced physical death.First is the fact that God said, "...for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Well we know that neither Adam nor Eve died "in the day" that they ate of the tree of knowledge. So either God lied and the Serpent was right, or the type of death described is not actually physical death.

Then we have the issue of the tree of life. As indicated by the Scriptures the tree of life produced a fruit which contained the eternal life of God. We know this because of God's concern that Adam, in his fallen state, would eat of it "and life forever." So this fruit had the capability of producing within man a metabolic change which would enable man to live forever - in other words to be immortal. Now, had God created man immortal to begin with there would have been no need for the tree of life to be in the garden at all. So apparently simply breathing the breath of life into man in his creation did not impart anything of divinity into man, as some have claimed (and as some here maintain). The element of God was contained in the fruit of a tree - the tree of life - which would have enabled man to live forever had he eaten it.

More on this to follow, hopefully, as my day allows. I still want to get back to my response to Thaddeus.

I look forward to hearing the remainder of your thoughts on this

Regarding the tree of life there is still more. If we examine the Scriptures carefully we can find that the tree of life is a recurrent theme, or thread, in the Bible. In fact, if you look at the materials or elements in the book of Genesis and then examine the book of Revelation, you can see that those materials are all constituted into the Holy City, New Jerusalem. In Genesis there is the river (one river which divides into four) the materials gold, bdellium and onyx, and there is the tree of life. In the New Jerusalem there is the river, the tree of life, and the precious materials which constitute the foundation, walls, the gates and the street of the city. All of these items signify the transformation work of the Triune God in one aspect of another.

After His creation of man God only had one commandment: "Of all the trees you may eat...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not eat." So right away there are two items to consider: What to eat and what not to eat. Of all the things that God could have told Adam after his creation God was primarily concerned with what Adam would eat. This signifies that God's concern is what we eat. In fact, eating is also a recurrent theme in the Bible, and again, if we examine the matter of eating carefully, we may find that eating is a means of God's salvation. Time after time eating precedes salvation: The children of Israel were to eat of the pure lamb before leaving Egypt, then they were commanded to eat the manna in the wilderness; then after wandering in that wilderness for a generation they were brought into the land "flowing with milk and honey." Then when Christ began His earthly ministry He revelaed Himself as the reality of many items: The Lamb of God, the reality of Jacob's vision (the ladder), the manna, and the tree of life. As the reality of the manna Jesus is the "bread which came down out of heaven" (John 6) which can bring eternal life. As the tree of life He is the vine tree, the source of the eternal life, for the growth and nourishment of God's people, who are the branches to produce fruit for God's pleasure (John 15:5).

Therefore concerning God's economy, His plan, God's way of salvation is presented in a very simple way: By eating. God's intention for Adam was for him to take of the tree of life, to eat of that tree, to have the eternal life of God. However, through Satan's influence and frustration, man was cut off from the tree of life, becoming dead in his offenses and sins (Eph. 2:1). But God, because of His great mercy and His love with which He loved us, sent His Only Begotten Son, as food, to restore man's function and to fulfill God's purpose for man. Now we have Christ, as the reality of the tree of life who we can "eat" by believing into Him and who we can contain. The new creation is built from the old creation: Adam, yet it is constituted with the divine life - Christ as food - for our life, for our constitution and for God's complete satisfaction. So our salvation is not merely a "restoration" back to Adam. In fact, it is the true fulfillment of God's desire for Adam, for we now have our "tree of life" which may eat of freely. Eventually in the New Jerusalem, this tree of life will be for our eternal enjoyment and satisfaction.

That is the true Gospel.

Good post. But I don't see from this how physical death existed before the fall?

[Ovedya]

No, actually, I am arguing that physical death is an inbuilt design of God's creation. Adam would have died physically because he was created as a physical being. I do look forward to the results of your search of Scripture, however.

but before his sin he was allowed to eat from the tree of life, which would indicate that he would not have died, if I am not mistaken

Allowed to eat, yes. But that he did eat of it is not evidenced by Scripture.

but we have to assume that had he not sinned he would have eaten, since he was given the authority to do so. take the sin away there is nothing to suggest that he would not have eaten from the tree, since that is what it was there for

Yet the fact that God was concerned for Adam's eating of the tree of life in his sinful condition. He said, "No lest he put forth his hand..." That appears to indicate that he had not previously "put forth his hand." The mere fact that the tree was there, coupled with Adam's authority to eat of it, does not necessitate his eating.

[EricH]

No, actually, I am arguing that physical death is an inbuilt design of God's creation. Adam would have died physically because he was created as a physical being. I do look forward to the results of your search of Scripture, however.

but before his sin he was allowed to eat from the tree of life, which would indicate that he would not have died, if I am not mistaken

Allowed to eat, yes. But that he did eat of it is not evidenced by Scripture.

but we have to assume that had he not sinned he would have eaten, since he was given the authority to do so. take the sin away there is nothing to suggest that he would not have eaten from the tree, since that is what it was there for

Actually all of it is an argument from silence.

[Ovedya]

Yet the fact that God was concerned for Adam's eating of the tree of life in his sinful condition. He said, "No lest he put forth his hand..." That appears to indicate that he had not previously "put forth his hand." The mere fact that the tree was there, coupled with Adam's authority to eat of it, does not necessitate his eating.

ok, lets assume you are right and that he had not eaten of it prior to sinning.

The question is had he not sinned would he have tasted death, you say yes, and I have to ask what in the world the tree of life was for then.

I say no beause God put the tree of life there for that very reason, so that as long as he was in the garden he would not face death.

I think that I outlined above what the tree of life was for. It was designed by God for man to eat and partake of the eternal life of God. So you are right in the sense that had Adam eaten of the tree of life he would have been immortal. But he was not created immortal. That was the point of my original post.

[OneLight]

Ovedya, you have put into words how I believe very nicely. Well Done!

[Ovedya]

I think that I outlined above what the tree of life was for. It was designed by God for man to eat and partake of the eternal life of God. So you are right in the sense that had Adam eaten of the tree of life he would have been immortal. But he was not created immortal. That was the point of my original post.

I agree with this, I dont think he was created immortal in the way that we think of immortal, but had ne not sinned he would have never died.

I don't understand. So you think that there is something between mortal and immortal?

[Ovedya]

I think that I outlined above what the tree of life was for. It was designed by God for man to eat and partake of the eternal life of God. So you are right in the sense that had Adam eaten of the tree of life he would have been immortal. But he was not created immortal. That was the point of my original post.

I agree with this, I dont think he was created immortal in the way that we think of immortal, but had ne not sinned he would have never died.

I don't understand. So you think that there is something between mortal and immortal?

yes, I do.

seems that Adam was that inbetween in fact.

I would put the inbetween as someone who could die, but that death was not expected

Now I'm really confused If someone can die, doesn't that make him mortal?