In my seminary classes, instructors try to account for why God said Adam would die on the day he ate of the tree of knowledge, but he did not die.
They say that Adam, and mankind at large is permitted to live because, although God threatened death, he held it off by immediately starting substitutionary atonement with the death of the animal(s) he made clothing from.
A couple of thoughts:
First, it seems to me Paul understood that Adam and all mankind entered death on that day, and it does not mean for the heart to stop. Paul speaks multiple times about being dead in sin. So God was right, Adam died on the day he ate from the wrong tree. It was just not a physical death.
Second, the belief in substitutionary atonement seems to believe that the death was punishment from God. However, nowhere does it say the death came as punishment from God. God did not say, "The day you eat of that tree is the day I kill you."
I can tell my child, "Daddy is cooking, so I have a burner on. You can touch those 3 burners, but the moment you touch this one is the moment you get burned."
If he chooses to touch it, the consequence is built into his relationship to the burner, the burn is not my judgement upon him.
So, at this point my understanding is that the death foretold to Adam DID happen on the day he ate of the fruit, and the death is NOT some death penalty from God which had to be satisfied, but is a byproduct of Adam and his relationship with sin.
Input?
Dead in sins
-
Singalphile
- Posts: 903
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm
Re: Dead in sins
I've just been reading commentaries, old and new, on Genesis from various Jewish and Christian writers. There's a mind boggling range of interpretation - stuff I could never have imagined.
Interestingly, everybody's opinions about Genesis 1-3 seem to fit nicely with their other theological hobby horses. In fairness, it is difficult to determine how much to take plainly and literally. My tendency is to want to take it very plainly. However, there are also strong indications that it may be allegorical. So I'm just not sure.
My input on your thoughts:
Is death a consequence or a punishment? I'm not sure that there's much difference, since God could just as well have created or arranged things differently, in any way you or I can imagine (unlike a human father who cannot control the existence and attributes of fire).
To me, the account does seem to indicate that death was a punishment, at least in part (Gen 3:14-19, Gen 3:22-24).
But it certainly may be that it (and toil, thorns, child-bearing pain) also serves other purposes as any good punishment should. It's just that the account doesn't plainly tell us that. Well, actually maybe it does in verse 22 - to control the spread and influence of evil?
The idea that Gen 3:21 was meant to be a reference to substitutionary atonement certainly goes beyond the plain reading, but no less so than what you'll hear from just about anyone regarding Gen 2-3. So if that's what folks want to think about that then ... what're you gonna do.
Finally, as far as the NT, Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:12-45 are most relevant, I guess.
Interestingly, everybody's opinions about Genesis 1-3 seem to fit nicely with their other theological hobby horses. In fairness, it is difficult to determine how much to take plainly and literally. My tendency is to want to take it very plainly. However, there are also strong indications that it may be allegorical. So I'm just not sure.
My input on your thoughts:
Is death a consequence or a punishment? I'm not sure that there's much difference, since God could just as well have created or arranged things differently, in any way you or I can imagine (unlike a human father who cannot control the existence and attributes of fire).
To me, the account does seem to indicate that death was a punishment, at least in part (Gen 3:14-19, Gen 3:22-24).
But it certainly may be that it (and toil, thorns, child-bearing pain) also serves other purposes as any good punishment should. It's just that the account doesn't plainly tell us that. Well, actually maybe it does in verse 22 - to control the spread and influence of evil?
The idea that Gen 3:21 was meant to be a reference to substitutionary atonement certainly goes beyond the plain reading, but no less so than what you'll hear from just about anyone regarding Gen 2-3. So if that's what folks want to think about that then ... what're you gonna do.
Finally, as far as the NT, Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:12-45 are most relevant, I guess.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23
Re: Dead in sins
I don't know Hebrew, but in the Greek Septuagint, God's word to Adam was, "In whatever day you eat of it, you shall die in death."—or maybe "surely die."
When we read this, we tend to think the sentence is tantamount to, "You shall surely die, in the very day you eat of it." But that may not be the meaning.
The meaning may be that in the very day you eat of it, the death process will begin, and shall come to completion some day in the future.
In the very day you eat of it, you SHALL (some day in the future) surely die.
When we read this, we tend to think the sentence is tantamount to, "You shall surely die, in the very day you eat of it." But that may not be the meaning.
The meaning may be that in the very day you eat of it, the death process will begin, and shall come to completion some day in the future.
In the very day you eat of it, you SHALL (some day in the future) surely die.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Dead in sins
I think Paidion is onto something. I have felt similarly for a few years now.
Consider the following line of reasoning, and see if you can point out the weak points (scriptural or logical) this argument:
a) Man, like all creatures was created subject to death. Only God is intrinsically immortal (1 Tim.6:16), so only God is not subject to death under any circumstances.
b) Unlike other creatures, man was created with the opportunity to prolong his mortal life indefinitely, by eating from the tree of life (Gen.3:22). The original intent was for man to eat of this tree, probably, on a monthly basis (see Rev.22:2). The tree was in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gen.2:9). Had man not sinned, this tree (and, hence, eternal life) would have been accessible to Adam, Eve and to all their offspring.
c) Like all creatures, fallen or unfallen, man was created with instincts for self preservation, but, unlike other creatures, he was made having a distinct "selfhood" or "personhood," capable of relating to God. "Personhood" is a phenomenon that includes volitional capacity. This means the existence of persons, other than God, involves the risk of those persons competing with God for the fulfillment of their own perceived interests and desires.
d) The only thing that God provided for man to prevent his giving full vent to selfish instincts was God Himself. That is, in the Garden, where God communed with man, the direct contact with God would tend to encourage humility, and un-self-centeredness, on the part of humans. Fellowship with God, which cultivates and feeds man's spirit, is the only preventative for man's giving a slack rein to every selfish instinct, and thus becoming carnal and self-absorbed (this remains true today, which explains Paul's teaching: "Walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the desires of the flesh").
e) God gave man access to every tree, including and especially the tree of life. Only one action could interrupt that access—rebellion, as expressed in violating the only negative command God gave Adam. If Adam were to violate this command, then, in the actual phraseology of the Hebrew text: "In the day you eat of it, dying you shall die."
f) Since man was, by nature, mortal, and sustained graciously by God's provision of the tree of life (which, incidentally, I see as representing Christ), death would take hold on humanity as soon as access to that tree was denied (this happened the day Adam sinned). That day, the sentence, "dying you shall die" became a reality. The fatal dying process began, with nothing to prevent the inevitable death of a mortal creature separated from the tree of life.
In other words, it is not necessary to assume that Adam's act of sinning magically injected into man a "death element" that had been previously absent, and would now be genetically passed down, along with a "sin element" to man's posterity. Adam's fall may merely have involved banishment from the Garden and the removal of the grace provided in the tree of life. Death, which had always been potentially a possibility, had previously been counteracted by that grace. The cutting-off of man from that grace meant that death would now have nothing to prevent its following its natural course in man, even as in animals (which, I believe, were never created to live forever—as anyone who has ever had cockroaches in his home can easily appreciate).
The idea that human nature was altered so that we all inherit a "death element" and a "sin element" that did not exist before the fall was first clearly enunciated by our old friend Augustine, in his debates against Pelagius. It certainly is not a hypothesis necessitated either by scripture or by human experience. It was based upon Augustine's questionable use of Psalm 51:5 and his misunderstanding (because he only read Latin and not Greek) of Romans 5:12. Augustine was almost certainly wrong in his interpretation of the latter passage, and probably in the former as well. It does not seem that such an remarkable and counterintuitive doctrine can adequately be established on two questionable and ambiguous texts.
But, if we question Augustine's doctrine of hereditary sin and death, what else is there to account for the historical universality of sin and death, and for Paul's attributing to Adam's sin the sin and death of the race? Well, unless I have missed my step in any of the points reasoned above, it would seem possible to suggest:
1) That Adam's banishment from the Garden impacted all his offspring, because every child thereafter spawned by Adam has been born, and has had to live, outside that Garden;
2) The Garden was the place of intimate fellowship with God—who is the only power that can overcome our natural fleshly and self-interested desires. Without having this ongoing connection to God, man can do little else than to place his own interests at the center of his pursuits—which is what sin is;
3) The Garden was also the place of access to the tree of life—the only provision of God that could prevent man's natural mortality from eventually ending in physical death. People are born mortal, and all die—not necessarily because of the inheritance of a "death element", but possibly only because of being excluded from the Garden and the tree of life.
I may be wrong in all of this reasoning—and I suspect that Pelagius (whom I have never read) may have reasoned similarly. If so, then it is clear why the Augustinian churches had to label Pelagius a heretic! What better way to silence a view that has arguments in its favor more compelling than one's own, than to slap the "heresy" label on it?
I welcome correction on any of the above points that may be flawed, or on the logic of the argument as a whole.
Consider the following line of reasoning, and see if you can point out the weak points (scriptural or logical) this argument:
a) Man, like all creatures was created subject to death. Only God is intrinsically immortal (1 Tim.6:16), so only God is not subject to death under any circumstances.
b) Unlike other creatures, man was created with the opportunity to prolong his mortal life indefinitely, by eating from the tree of life (Gen.3:22). The original intent was for man to eat of this tree, probably, on a monthly basis (see Rev.22:2). The tree was in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gen.2:9). Had man not sinned, this tree (and, hence, eternal life) would have been accessible to Adam, Eve and to all their offspring.
c) Like all creatures, fallen or unfallen, man was created with instincts for self preservation, but, unlike other creatures, he was made having a distinct "selfhood" or "personhood," capable of relating to God. "Personhood" is a phenomenon that includes volitional capacity. This means the existence of persons, other than God, involves the risk of those persons competing with God for the fulfillment of their own perceived interests and desires.
d) The only thing that God provided for man to prevent his giving full vent to selfish instincts was God Himself. That is, in the Garden, where God communed with man, the direct contact with God would tend to encourage humility, and un-self-centeredness, on the part of humans. Fellowship with God, which cultivates and feeds man's spirit, is the only preventative for man's giving a slack rein to every selfish instinct, and thus becoming carnal and self-absorbed (this remains true today, which explains Paul's teaching: "Walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the desires of the flesh").
e) God gave man access to every tree, including and especially the tree of life. Only one action could interrupt that access—rebellion, as expressed in violating the only negative command God gave Adam. If Adam were to violate this command, then, in the actual phraseology of the Hebrew text: "In the day you eat of it, dying you shall die."
f) Since man was, by nature, mortal, and sustained graciously by God's provision of the tree of life (which, incidentally, I see as representing Christ), death would take hold on humanity as soon as access to that tree was denied (this happened the day Adam sinned). That day, the sentence, "dying you shall die" became a reality. The fatal dying process began, with nothing to prevent the inevitable death of a mortal creature separated from the tree of life.
In other words, it is not necessary to assume that Adam's act of sinning magically injected into man a "death element" that had been previously absent, and would now be genetically passed down, along with a "sin element" to man's posterity. Adam's fall may merely have involved banishment from the Garden and the removal of the grace provided in the tree of life. Death, which had always been potentially a possibility, had previously been counteracted by that grace. The cutting-off of man from that grace meant that death would now have nothing to prevent its following its natural course in man, even as in animals (which, I believe, were never created to live forever—as anyone who has ever had cockroaches in his home can easily appreciate).
The idea that human nature was altered so that we all inherit a "death element" and a "sin element" that did not exist before the fall was first clearly enunciated by our old friend Augustine, in his debates against Pelagius. It certainly is not a hypothesis necessitated either by scripture or by human experience. It was based upon Augustine's questionable use of Psalm 51:5 and his misunderstanding (because he only read Latin and not Greek) of Romans 5:12. Augustine was almost certainly wrong in his interpretation of the latter passage, and probably in the former as well. It does not seem that such an remarkable and counterintuitive doctrine can adequately be established on two questionable and ambiguous texts.
But, if we question Augustine's doctrine of hereditary sin and death, what else is there to account for the historical universality of sin and death, and for Paul's attributing to Adam's sin the sin and death of the race? Well, unless I have missed my step in any of the points reasoned above, it would seem possible to suggest:
1) That Adam's banishment from the Garden impacted all his offspring, because every child thereafter spawned by Adam has been born, and has had to live, outside that Garden;
2) The Garden was the place of intimate fellowship with God—who is the only power that can overcome our natural fleshly and self-interested desires. Without having this ongoing connection to God, man can do little else than to place his own interests at the center of his pursuits—which is what sin is;
3) The Garden was also the place of access to the tree of life—the only provision of God that could prevent man's natural mortality from eventually ending in physical death. People are born mortal, and all die—not necessarily because of the inheritance of a "death element", but possibly only because of being excluded from the Garden and the tree of life.
I may be wrong in all of this reasoning—and I suspect that Pelagius (whom I have never read) may have reasoned similarly. If so, then it is clear why the Augustinian churches had to label Pelagius a heretic! What better way to silence a view that has arguments in its favor more compelling than one's own, than to slap the "heresy" label on it?
I welcome correction on any of the above points that may be flawed, or on the logic of the argument as a whole.
Re: Dead in sins
I don't have anything of substance to add to what has already been stated, but it has occurred to me over the years that if we assume that demons are rebellious angels (hence "sinful) then there are either a) Dead angels somewhere in another dimension, or b) sin in and of itself does not necessitate death, since these "demons" are still alive. Or, perhaps their "DNA" for lack of a better term, is so superior that it can last thousands if not millions of years without God sustaining it?
As for subtitutionary atonement and the comments by your profs; I suspect they are over-reaching in their views. I'm not so convinced anymore that God is bound by some need to satisfy legal justice in order to extend grace.
Regards, Brenden.
As for subtitutionary atonement and the comments by your profs; I suspect they are over-reaching in their views. I'm not so convinced anymore that God is bound by some need to satisfy legal justice in order to extend grace.
Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]
Re: Dead in sins
On a related point, there is no verse in scripture that says that people are born dead in sins. Paul said that the Colossians and the Ephesians had been dead in sins before being converted (Eph.2:1; Col.2:13). However, there is no suggestion that they were born that way. They were adult converts from paganism, and may have incurred this "death" subsequently to their birth. In the parable, the prodigal son, while away from his father, was also described as "dead" (Luke 15:24, 32) but this was not a condition into which he was born. It was a result of his rebellious choice. Paul seemed to think that his own birth condition was "alive"—but that condition changed when he became aware of his own rebellion against Torah (Rom.7:9ff).
Some think that this is refuted by Paul's statement that we were "by nature children of wrath" (Eph.2:3). But this does not tell us whether Paul thought the "nature" of an innocent child might, or might not, be altered into something else after choosing sin (this is, after all, what most Christians think happened in Adam's case). Human nature (especially the spiritual aspects of human nature) do seem to be changeable. For example, Paul describes the heathen Ephesians as "having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart, who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." (Eph.4:18-19).
This could reasonably be said to describe their perverted and benighted nature, but it does not speak of their birth condition. In order to become "darkened" one must have previously had light. To become alienated, one must have had a previous relationship. To be "past feeling," one must previously have had feeling. To have "given oneself over" to lewdness, etc., one must have previously not been lewd. If this passage describes the "sinful nature" of the pagans, it would seem to be describing an acquired, chosen nature.
Some think that this is refuted by Paul's statement that we were "by nature children of wrath" (Eph.2:3). But this does not tell us whether Paul thought the "nature" of an innocent child might, or might not, be altered into something else after choosing sin (this is, after all, what most Christians think happened in Adam's case). Human nature (especially the spiritual aspects of human nature) do seem to be changeable. For example, Paul describes the heathen Ephesians as "having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart, who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." (Eph.4:18-19).
This could reasonably be said to describe their perverted and benighted nature, but it does not speak of their birth condition. In order to become "darkened" one must have previously had light. To become alienated, one must have had a previous relationship. To be "past feeling," one must previously have had feeling. To have "given oneself over" to lewdness, etc., one must have previously not been lewd. If this passage describes the "sinful nature" of the pagans, it would seem to be describing an acquired, chosen nature.
Re: Dead in sins
Another thought I had about the matter of Adam and Eve's disobedience, Steve, is that God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil there with a purpose other than merely to test Adam and Eve. I think He INTENDED them to eat of that tree eventually, but that they should first eat from the tree of life and become mature. God didn't forbid them from eating from the tree of life, but there is no scriptural evidence that they ever did so. If they had eaten from the tree of life first, (and continued to do so until they matured), then they would have benefited from the knowledge of good and evil.
It seems that the ability to distinguish good from evil is of great benefit, but only for the mature:
But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Heb 5:14 ESV)
But Satan wanted the order to be reversed, so as to be destructive. He uses the same tactics to this day. But when they ate from the wrong tree first, as we all know, God wouldn't allow them to eat from the tree of life and live forever.
It seems that the ability to distinguish good from evil is of great benefit, but only for the mature:
But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Heb 5:14 ESV)
But Satan wanted the order to be reversed, so as to be destructive. He uses the same tactics to this day. But when they ate from the wrong tree first, as we all know, God wouldn't allow them to eat from the tree of life and live forever.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Dead in sins
Paidion,
You are probably aware (and it may be no coincidence!) that some of the church fathers, prior to Augustine, held a view like that which you have described above. It may be so, but, up to this point in my studies, it is not a conclusion that I have been able to reach simply by my independent processing the scriptural data. the strange view I presented above is strictly a result of my own synthesis of biblically declared points. Any resemblance it may bear to the views of Pelagius, or of anyone dead or living, is strictly coincidental.
You are probably aware (and it may be no coincidence!) that some of the church fathers, prior to Augustine, held a view like that which you have described above. It may be so, but, up to this point in my studies, it is not a conclusion that I have been able to reach simply by my independent processing the scriptural data. the strange view I presented above is strictly a result of my own synthesis of biblically declared points. Any resemblance it may bear to the views of Pelagius, or of anyone dead or living, is strictly coincidental.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Dead in sins
God told them they would die, so it is a punishment, because God purposefully and knowingly sent them out of the garden. Sin leads to death is a natural order, by God if you will and: The wages of sin is death.'So, at this point my understanding is that the death foretold to Adam DID happen on the day he ate of the fruit, and the death is NOT some death penalty from God which had to be satisfied, but is a byproduct of Adam and his relationship with sin' (OP)
Being kept from the tree of life caused their death, but God Himself put them out of the Garden of Eden, and God 'could' have let them continue to eat of the tree of life, but God kept His word and didn't allow it. So death was Gods decision. This isn't really my favorite topic, but the the Garden of Eden is my favorite chapter.
Dead in sins
Steve, I like your process of thought above. I just submitted a paper with much of your exact train of thought for one of my classes.
Part of my thought process looked at the Greek "hamartia" which is popularly taken to mean "miss the mark" and is related to essentially acting criminally. However, in the popular Greek usage it more related to a fatal flaw within the hero than legal trouble.
In a Greek play, a hero's flaw was revealed, but it led to a fall from glory, not legal troubles.
I contended that men are born essentially neutral, but in the absence of communion with God they are left to their own devices and will always sin - fall prey to their fatal flaw.
I had been stuck on Paul's statements but it makes sense to believe the death is a comment on their present state, not inherent state from birth.
Part of my thought process looked at the Greek "hamartia" which is popularly taken to mean "miss the mark" and is related to essentially acting criminally. However, in the popular Greek usage it more related to a fatal flaw within the hero than legal trouble.
In a Greek play, a hero's flaw was revealed, but it led to a fall from glory, not legal troubles.
I contended that men are born essentially neutral, but in the absence of communion with God they are left to their own devices and will always sin - fall prey to their fatal flaw.
I had been stuck on Paul's statements but it makes sense to believe the death is a comment on their present state, not inherent state from birth.