# Death Before The Fall



## Saiph (Mar 17, 2006)

This side discussion was spawned here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=17351

I did a search and did not find any previous discussions so here goes.

Was there death of any kind before the fall ?
Adam died covenantally of course, and then physically, but I think death must have been there before though.

How else would he know what death meant when God said, the day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die ?

What was the tree of life for then if not protection and healing ?

Did adam not cook fish for Eve, or hunt and eat delicious juicy steaks ? (It could hardly be called paradise if not)

Even if they ate plants, didn't the fruit have to die as they ate it ?

Did Adam never step on a bug or swat a fly ?

Did Adam, or the animals urinate, or defacate before the fall or did all food just get absorbed by the body ?

The idea offered by Ruben Zartman is that : (parenthesis mine)

*Nature was disordered in the fall;* (I agree with that) * death is unnatural;* (maybe human death) * greed is unnatural; disease is unnatural; insanity is unnatural; idiocy is unnatural.*

Are there any theological problems with thinking some of those things, including plant and animal death occured before the fall ? The fall subjected nature to vanity, but not death. Man was uniquely cursed with death I think.

Help me out here, I am confused.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> This side discussion was spawned here:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=17351
> ...



Death is a secondary cause of sin.

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 

Hell was never intended for man.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 17, 2006)

So you agree, Adam ate animals and rolled up tobacco to smoke right ??


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 17, 2006)

"So you agree, Adam ate animals and rolled up tobacco to smoke right ?? "

Depends if he was a Baptist or a Presbyterian, the scriptures are silent on this. 

When honey dripped into a shallow pool and sat for 6 months did he drink the mead or abstain? We don't know. When the bees chose a new queen did they pull out the unfortunate potential pupae queens and kill them or did that happen after the fall?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Did Adam, or the animals urinate, or defacate before the fall or did all food just get absorbed by the body ?




I'm sorry Mark, you're killing me! Maybe the question is not "Was Adam created with a belly button" but "Was Adam created with bowels, intestines, and a urinary tract?"

God does say that the animals are food for man. I think there is certainly a physical component to understanding what the Lord said when He said Adam would die but it was more than just the physical loss of life in mind.

The death of men is treated much differently than the killing of a creature for sustenance. The death penalty is commanded, after all, because man is created in God's image. This is not true of the animals. Part of their created purpose is to feed man.

I might be missing something but I don't see anything scandalous in the idea that Adam ate meat.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



I don't know if Adam ate meat??? Thats why I haven't answered Mark yet. I have always held to the idea that man was originally to eat only plants...........

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 

I would think that Adam had to offer blood sacrifices etc. But did he actually eat meat?


----------



## CDM (Mar 17, 2006)

I am confused. Adam before he fell into sin, was given plants and herbs to eat. Then, only after the fall, was he given permission to eat meat, correct?

Gen 1:29
And God said, "œBehold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. *You shall have them for food.* 

This implies fruit and vegetables were food for Adam & Eve doesn't it? Meat was not given for food PRE Fall. 



> I would think that Adam had to offer blood sacrifices etc. But did he actually eat meat?



You mean AFTER the Fall he had to offer blood sacrifices right? 

Gen 2:15-17
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "œYou may surely 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 surely die."

Again, mentioning Adam's food not including meat.

I always assumed that Ch. 3:21: _And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them._ was the first animal(s) killed.



[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> I am confused. Adam before he fell into sin, was given plants and herbs to eat. Then, only after the fall, was he given permission to eat meat, correct?
> 
> Gen 1:29
> ...



Chris,
I hit the edit button on your post by mistake; sorry bout that.

My mistake; after the fall.......


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 17, 2006)

Chris


----------



## Saiph (Mar 17, 2006)

Unless Gen. 1:29 is parenthetical, like, by the way, you can eat plants also.

Jesus ate fish post resurrection. We are designed to eat meat, and will continue to do so in heaven.


----------



## Ravens (Mar 17, 2006)

Actually I laughed to myself when you mentioned stepping on a bug, as that's something that often crosses my mind. I mean it sounds absurd and sophistic and irrelevant, but if you take the Biblical position seriously, and the "no death for animals" seriously, you have to wonder how Adam and Eve would walk around all day without steppingf on an ant, spider, slug, etc. It doesn't in any way, shape, or form make me doubt anything, far from it. Just a bit of a mind boggler.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 17, 2006)

i'm interested in the topic. i tried to write an essay on the topic at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/deathfall.html
however i'm not happy with it. 

if anyone has links to good online essays on the topic i'd appreciate getting them into my notes. It is an interesting theological topic all though i'm not sure how much of the work on it is really very good theology. It appears to be driven by forces really outside of theology proper, which are using theology as an place to argue from, rather than an issue that arises because of problems within theology itself.

thanks.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Unless Gen. 1:29 is parenthetical, like, by the way, you can eat plants also.
> 
> Jesus ate fish post resurrection. We are designed to eat meat, and will continue to do so in heaven.



I hear you Mark and I don't think I disagree but........

Rev 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



We will not eat because we are hungry, we will eat because it tastes good. You think Christ ate fish on the beach because he was hungry ?


----------



## py3ak (Mar 17, 2006)

Mark, how would your view of food in the new heavens and the new earth square with the cessation of sexual activity?


----------



## Saiph (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Mark, how would your view of food in the new heavens and the new earth square with the cessation of sexual activity?



You lost me. Can you explain what you mean ? I know Christ taught there is no marriage in heaven but does that imply no gender and no sexuality ?


----------



## py3ak (Mar 17, 2006)

Well, I am assuming that with no marriage there is also no sexual activity (trying to stay away from Islamic ideals of paradise here...). 

I think we have masculinity and femininity, of course. I think physical gender and sexual activities are expressions of that underlying reality (and no, I am not an Ebionite). 

But if sexual activity ceases (which I would have a hard time seeing how it doesn't given the cessation of marriage and God's creation ordinance) and that is a legitimate pleasure in the right context for this time, then why would we assume that other legitimate pleasures of this time persist? The verse "there is no more sea" is undoubtedly rather cryptic; but it seems to me to indicate a radical difference between that time and this.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 17, 2006)

When Christ said marriage would cease, He did not mention what it would be replaced by. Whatever that is, and whatever sexuality is in a glorified state, are indeed left to be revealed I guess. I have a hard time thinking that the inexplicable joys of heaven will be anything less than the utmost of lawful pleasures we experience here.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## py3ak (Mar 17, 2006)

I agree "it" will be better --but what I don't grasp is why it would be via the same instrumentality as it is here....


----------



## Saiph (Mar 17, 2006)

Perhaps it will not. I just know the resurrected Christ appeared in the form of a seemingly anatomically correct male. LOL


----------



## py3ak (Mar 17, 2006)

Yes, you are right; and the fact that there is access to the tree of life again suggests that there is at least a pleasure analogous to food. I have difficulty with assuming too much continuity, though, precisely because of the marriage difference....
That post made me laugh; your "spawned" at the beginning of this thread also caught my eye. These posts are somewhat like breeding horseflies aren't they?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 17, 2006)

I realized after I posted last night that God had said animals were food for man later but not precisely in the creation account. My main point remains that there has never been anything "fallen" about eating meat. Pure vegetarians have issues getting the amount of protein they need in their diet to remain healthy. I think we were designed to eat meat and it was not necessarily consequent to falling.

Animals were not afraid of us before the Fall so they probably walked right up to Adam and let him eat them. 

Seriously this is pure speculation but is the death of all things that which is in view when God warns of sin or just man's death? Did leaves never fall and decay? Perhaps they fell and just continued to pile up more and more. What happened to all the pits and apple cores? Did they not decay? 

It just seems to me that it is the death of man that is significant in the Fall - not the fact that other animals and plants might have had to die in order to be utilized for their created purpose.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2006)

Apparently, God initially gave plants for all the animals to live on as well:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 

H402
××›×œ×”
'oÌ‚klaÌ‚h
ok-law'
Feminine of H401; food: - consume, devour, eat, food, meat.

Is it possible that Noah was the first to eat meat?

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 
Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 17, 2006)

Interesting Scott...perhaps so.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 17, 2006)

I reckon that man as flesh-eater is almost certainly a post-fall phenomenon. It may even be more properly a post-flood phenomenon, although Abel being a herdsman might militate against that view. But flocks are useful not merely for their meat. My thinking is that since the available biblical data on foodstuff direction are given solely in the form of "allowances" or permissions, (Gen. 1:29, & 9:3), it is unlikely that men were much given to meat-eating, if at all, before the flood.

But I do not think that Adam had to watch his step in the garden. God gave animals and bugs whatever degree of sense they needed to avoid self-destruction, but that doesn't mean they were not capable of being hurt. Adam was a perfect king in the garden, able to look after everything properly. But I don't think that his care essentially immobilized him. Past a reasonable point (I emphasize each word), he remained _wisely unconcerned_ about the survival creatures that were given to him as his servants and property (stewardship). His responsibility was bounded, because God constituted Man a *finite* vassal.

It is an evolutionary thought to bring Man down to the level of animals, and for certain people, plants too. Biblically, however, Man is qualitatively superior to every other thing in creation, outside the exclusively spiritual realm (i.e. angels). This means that he had rights over and even in animals, as well as everything else. But as his responsibility was limited by God, so also were his rights. Evolutionary thought proves itself schizophrenic here, insofar as the other side of its dialectic proclaims the "survival of the fittest" (that being man), and his _unrestricted_ right of might. Man, says he, is accountable to no one but self. Godless thought is ultimately incoherent.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Mar 17, 2006)

I love this thread! I love a nice juicy steak, and Christ's post-resurrection eating of fish encourages me that I just might get a filet mignon at the marriage supper of the lamb.


And Mark, you are the first Christian person (other than myself) I have ever heard suggest that there may be sexuality in Heaven. I figure we don't have enough information to know either way. But I certainly am right there with you in liking the idea.





While I like the idea of eating meat in paradise, I still wonder if this passage has any bearing on this discussion about food:

"The *wolf and the lamb shall graze* alike, and the *lion shall eat hay* like the ox (but the serpent's food shall be dust). None shall hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain, says the LORD. " (Isaiah 65:25)

If this passage is saying that wolves and lions will eat grass in paradise, then wouldn't it follow that they ate grass in Eden before the fall? And would possibly the same hold true for man? 

I'm certainly not saying Jesus did anything wrong to eat fish. But perhaps He was just doing what can only be done on this side of paradise. Once death has been destroyed, maybe fish won't die, and Jesus won't eat them anymore. 

It's just a thought.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 18, 2006)

I do not see how it follows that simply because animals will no longer be hostile to one another, and no longer be hostile towards man, that it means they will also no longer be for food.

I think Adam ate meat before the fall. Nothing suggests he didn't.

Also, throughout scripture, God enjoys the smell of burning fat and animal flesh. Why would His immutable tastes change at our glorification ?
Some may try to make that theological, by saying the sacrifice for sin pleases Him, but I think that diminishes the idea that while God certainly needs nothing, He still enjoys music, food, story, relationship, history, nature. . . . He created such a diversity in the plant and animal kingdoms that I have no doubt eternity will include the same creativity beyond measure.


----------



## gene_mingo (Mar 18, 2006)

Was there death before the fall? I am unsure of the answer. I imagine that plants would die when you ate them. So in a sense there was death.

What I find more interesting is the discussion of eating and sex in paradise. I really believe that it is not a matter of whether you can, but whether you will desire to. Personally I believe that once we are exposed to the full glory of God our only desire will be to worship Him.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I do not see how it follows that simply because animals will no longer be hostile to one another, and no longer be hostile towards man, that it means they will also no longer be for food.
> 
> I think Adam ate meat before the fall. Nothing suggests he didn't.
> ...



mark,
The passages I presented seem to imply otherwise. In fact, even the animals ate plants.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 18, 2006)

> mark,
> The passages I presented seem to imply otherwise. In fact, even the animals ate plants.



The passages you presented only imply that perhaps there were no poisounous plants to mankind before the fall. Note that we fell by eating a plant, not an animal. Clean and unclean animals came later.



> Personally I believe that once we are exposed to the full glory of God our only desire will be to worship Him.



And how do we worship now ? Through music, eating, and sex.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 18, 2006)

Quick Disorganized Thought: Since Christ was the second Adam - and post resurrection, He made all animals clean for consumption (paraphrasing - too lazy to look up passage) - isn't that indicative of the state of Man pre-fall? All things clean and available for consumption?

Saiph - cool thread and feeds into my "Ancient Adam" hypothesis (again, too lazy to find and link to hypothesis thread)

-JD

[Edited on 3-19-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## gene_mingo (Mar 18, 2006)

Where in the bible is sex considered worship?


----------



## Saiph (Mar 19, 2006)

Try Song of Somolomon for one. It is an image of the infinite pleasures at His right hand. The union of Christ and His Bride, the church. If you are not becoming more spiritually intimate with God your spouse during sexual intercourse, and are limiting it to some gnostic fleshly desire, then what are you worshipping through it ?

JD, I am interested in hearing about your "Ancient Adam" idea.

[Edited on 3-19-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## gene_mingo (Mar 19, 2006)

So is Paul wrong in his message on abstinence? Is he limiting true worship?


----------



## SRoper (Mar 19, 2006)

"Some infer, from this passages that men were content with herbs and fruits until the deluge, and that it was even unlawful for them to eat flesh. And this seems the more probable, because God confines, in some way, the food of mankind within certain limits. Then after the deluge, he expressly grants them the use of flesh. These reasons, however are not sufficiently strong: for it may be adduced on the opposite side, that the first men offered sacrifices from their flocks. This, moreover, is the law of sacrificing rightly, not to offer unto God anything except what he has granted to our use. Lastly men were clothed in skins; therefore it was lawful for them to kill animals. For these reasons, I think it will be better for us to assert nothing concerning this matter."

-John Calvin, _Commentary on Genesis_


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 19, 2006)

This issue also gets into, among all things, the issue of the age of the earth and the rock record in geology. If there was no death before the fall, then there are some painfully obvious conclusions one is forced to make, because the fossils are voluminous in certian rock types.

Of course if the lion lies down with the lamb, what do we make of this! Is this just a friendly relationship before dinner time?

I believe ther was no death before the fall personally, yet I don't deny the difficulty of rationally explianing it - I just take it on faith. And I'm I scientist who loves rational, but it must serve not supercede faith.

L


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 19, 2006)

I'm expositorily working through Genesis right now.

Genesis indicates that men, beasts, birds, creeping this, etc., ate only herbs and plants for food. It surrounds the limitation of God's providence.

Genesis 1:29-30 And God said, "See, *I have given you* every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, *I have given* every green herb for food"; and it was so."

Food for men was 1) herb that yields seeds, 2) and every tree who seed yields fruits.

Food for beasts, bords, creeping things 1) every green herb.

These desginations fit with Paul's commentary on the affects of the fall - 

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned --

Sin brough death. Beasts ate herbs, not each other, not until after the fall where the earth "the ground" (bearing seeds) is cursed.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 19, 2006)

Matt,
As I told Mark, apparently Noah was the first to eat meat.

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 
Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

[Edited on 3-19-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Saiph (Mar 19, 2006)

Matthew & Scott, your ideas are just as much speculation as mine are regarding Adam's carnivorous activities.

Genesis 1:29-30 obviously leaves out the tree of life. So it can not be seen as a distinct and universal law. 

Genesis 9:3 might just as simply be reiterating a creation ordinance given to Adam. Noah is like a new Adam in the sense that the hiatosry of mankind starts over with him.

And Romans 5 speaks only of death brought by sin, and specifically within the lives of men, not animals or plants.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 19, 2006)

1) Mark, I don't think the text is speculating. I think the herbs, and trees were given as their food, with the only restriction, the negative, given as eating the tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil. All other trees were fair game, including the tree of life. 

2) Genesis 1:29-30 does not "obviously" leave out the tree of life. The only restriction is the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which is negatively asserted in the narrative. 

3) Genesis 9:3 is definitely not reiterating a creation ordinance since God was not creating anything, and already created, and was setting down a covenantal structure that including universal providence. I would agree that Noah is like a new Adam in the sense that the history of mankind starts over with him, but certainly not with Noah being a representative, or being free from sin, etc. 

4) Romans 5 speaks of death brought by sin - correct. Death not only brought death for men, but for all of creation, which groans now, in the hopes of redemption soon. Creation was as much affected by the fall (men being part of that overall creation).

There was no death before the fall in any way. In the Hebrew mind, the destruction or consumption of plant life was not considered, or held, death. The destruction of animal life, or of men, which hold the life "int he blood" was not present until after the fall.

I guess a better question would be _"Why would you WANT death to be present before the fall?"_ What theological purpose (remember, Genesis is primarily a religious book) is there in Moses' narrative to assume death before the fall, when the entire narrative is demonstrating the blessedness of creation (without death) and that man's disobedience brought it? What good would there be in asserting, and _all of Christendom accepting_, that death was present before the fall, and that Adam ate "meat?" Or maybe, "why do you NEED to have Adam eat meat?"

I "need" to have no death to not contradict other passages and moses intent behind the narrative. I'm curious why one would want death IN the narrative when Moses' point is to culminate that "point" in Genesis 3.

The Hebrew text of Genesis, to me, would be exceedingly confusing if death was present, and would destroy the overall tenure and point of Genesis 1-2, culminating in 3.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 19, 2006)

1) Mark, I don't think the text is speculating. I think the herbs, and trees were given as their food, with the only restriction, the negative, given as eating the tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil. All other trees were fair game, including the tree of life. 

*Right, the only negative restriction was the TOTKOGAE. NOT animals of any kind.*


2) Genesis 1:29-30 does not "obviously" leave out the tree of life. The only restriction is the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which is negatively asserted in the narrative. 

*The narrative of chapter 1 is a summary of creation, so I think we agree.
By obvious, I simply meant there are no restrictions mentioned yet.*

3) Genesis 9:3 is definitely not reiterating a creation ordinance since God was not creating anything, and already created, and was setting down a covenantal structure that including universal providence. I would agree that Noah is like a new Adam in the sense that the history of mankind starts over with him, but certainly not with Noah being a representative, or being free from sin, etc. 


*I will disagree amicably with you. Noah is not free from sin, but the reformation of creation after the flood is a creative act. It is just simply not ex nihilo.*


4) Romans 5 speaks of death brought by sin - correct. Death not only brought death for men, but for all of creation, which groans now, in the hopes of redemption soon. Creation was as much affected by the fall (men being part of that overall creation).

*Nature was subjected to vanity by the fall, I agree, but I still think death was part of the biological process and cycle of living things excluding man. (Tree Of Life)*

There was no death before the fall in any way. In the Hebrew mind, the destruction or consumption of plant life was not considered, or held, death. 

*The hebrew mind is not a concern for me. I am speaking as a man in the 21st century. Therefore, when I pull a piece of fruit from a tree, or cut down a plant to eat it, I am killing it, or severing it from its life system.* 

The destruction of animal life, or of men, which hold the life "in the blood" was not present until after the fall. 

*Again, that is speculation. It can not be proven. So if you would like to say you prefer that idea, just as I prefer the idea of death before the fall, then I will accept your intellectual integrity on the issue.*


I guess a better question would be _"Why would you WANT death to be present before the fall?"_ What theological purpose (remember, Genesis is primarily a religious book) is there in Moses' narrative to assume death before the fall, when the entire narrative is demonstrating the blessedness of creation (without death) and that man's disobedience brought it? What good would there be in asserting, and _all of Christendom accepting_, that death was present before the fall, and that Adam ate "meat?" Or maybe, "why do you NEED to have Adam eat meat?"


*I do not agree that genesis is a theological book. It is a historical narrative. Theology is secondary. And Genesis 1:29 implies to me that man and woman are not an afterthought in the creation account, but rather the crown and glory of it. They are the finishing touch, and the end for which all other created things serve. In God's great redemptive story, he sets the stage before placing his actors upon it. I do not NEED Adam to eat meat. I NEED someone to show me why it is a dangerous idea if he did. And I need people who think that all men and animals were vegetarian before the fall to simply be honest and say it is an educated guess, not a proven fact. Because it is embarassing for Christians to go around asserting speculation as fact.*

I "need" to have no death to not contradict other passages and moses intent behind the narrative. I'm curious why one would want death IN the narrative when Moses' point is to culminate that "point" in Genesis 3.

*I do not think the point of Genesis 3 is sin or death per se, and it especially not about death in general. That idea seems andro-centric to the core. This is God's book about himself. The point of every chapter in the bible is God's grace. And God's glory in condescension. So only man's death matters. God did not become flesh to die for plants, animals, angels or anything else.*

The Hebrew text of Genesis, to me, would be exceedingly confusing if death was present, and would destroy the overall tenure and point of Genesis 1-2, culminating in 3. 

*The death in focus is covenantal, and relational, not biological, so no, it wouldn't. *

[Edited on 3-19-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 19, 2006)

> 1) Mark, I don't think the text is speculating. I think the herbs, and trees were given as their food, with the only restriction, the negative, given as eating the tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil. All other trees were fair game, including the tree of life.
> 
> *Right, the only negative restriction was the TOTKOGAE. NOT animals of any kind.*



The positive command was to eat herbs and the fruit of trees. Not meat. The negative command was to not eat of the Tree of KoGE. Don't forget to include what God DID tell them what to eat. In other words, we do what God commands, not what we think He didn't command.



> 2) Genesis 1:29-30 does not "obviously" leave out the tree of life. The only restriction is the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which is negatively asserted in the narrative.
> 
> *The narrative of chapter 1 is a summary of creation, so I think we agree.
> By obvious, I simply meant there are no restrictions mentioned yet.*



OK.



> 3) Genesis 9:3 is definitely not reiterating a creation ordinance since God was not creating anything, and already created, and was setting down a covenantal structure that including universal providence. I would agree that Noah is like a new Adam in the sense that the history of mankind starts over with him, but certainly not with Noah being a representative, or being free from sin, etc.
> 
> 
> *I will disagree amicably with you. Noah is not free from sin, but the reformation of creation after the flood is a creative act. It is just simply not ex nihilo.*



I would say it is a sustaining act of God's indiscriminate Providence in the Noahic covenant not to destroy what is _already_ created. Not to "renew" anything or "form" anything. The verbs "create", "form", "shape" etc. used in the creation account, are nowhere to be found in the Nohaic covenant.



> 4) Romans 5 speaks of death brought by sin - correct. Death not only brought death for men, but for all of creation, which groans now, in the hopes of redemption soon. Creation was as much affected by the fall (men being part of that overall creation).
> 
> *Nature was subjected to vanity by the fall, I agree, but I still think death was part of the biological process and cycle of living things excluding man. (Tree Of Life)*



Paul disagrees with you as was already quoted. Paul does not say "a certain kind of death" or "a certain form of death" but "death." Through Adam's fall "death" came. If death (any kind of death) was present before, then Paul's argument in Romans is simply stupid.



> *The Hebrew mind is not a concern for me. I am speaking as a man in the 21st century. Therefore, when I pull a piece of fruit from a tree, or cut down a plant to eat it, I am killing it, or severing it from its life system.*



OK, I see. You are not talking about God's revelation, but just some ideas. I'm with you now. I thought you were talking about the Bible and the Genesis narrative. 

But, if we were talking about _the Genesis narrative_, then you would HAVE to be concerned about what MOSES thought, and how that affects the way we think about the passage 4500 years later, unless of course proper interpretation is not what you are after. It would irresponsible to think that Moses thought about picking fruit in the garden the same we you do here today.



> The destruction of animal life, or of men, which hold the life "in the blood" was not present until after the fall.
> 
> *Again, that is speculation. It can not be proven. So if you would like to say you prefer that idea, just as I prefer the idea of death before the fall, then I will accept your intellectual integrity on the issue.*



I don't think it is a matter of choice - 

Genesis 3:21 Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. (After the fall, not before)

Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men."

Romans 5:17, "For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)"

Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses."

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die,

1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death,

If death came by man (not a form of death, but "death" - a noun that is in the nominative masculine singular use and is very common), then "death" had not come before the fall. If it had, Adam would have killed something and brought death. Paul would be wrong. It is only in the context of sin and the fall that "death" comes.

To have death before the fall is to deny that the fall brought death. 



> I guess a better question would be _"Why would you WANT death to be present before the fall?"_ What theological purpose (remember, Genesis is primarily a religious book) is there in Moses' narrative to assume death before the fall, when the entire narrative is demonstrating the blessedness of creation (without death) and that man's disobedience brought it? What good would there be in asserting, and _all of Christendom accepting_, that death was present before the fall, and that Adam ate "meat?" Or maybe, "why do you NEED to have Adam eat meat?"
> 
> 
> *I do not agree that genesis is a theological book. It is a historical narrative. Theology is secondary. And Genesis 1:29 implies to me that man and woman are not an afterthought in the creation account, but rather the crown and glory of it. They are the finishing touch, and the end for which all other created things serve. In God's great redemptive story, he sets the stage before placing his actors upon it. I do not NEED Adam to eat meat. I NEED someone to show me why it is a dangerous idea if he did. And I need people who think that all men and animals were vegetarian before the fall to simply be honest and say it is an educated guess, not a proven fact. Because it is embarrassing for Christians to go around asserting speculation as fact.*



We've already done that. To have death before the fall demonstrates that the Scripture is false which asserts that death came after the fall. Whether Adam killed and ate meat (which God did not tell him to do, but actually told him to eat his food - the plants) or death was simply present, Paul is ultimately wrong. On that point alone the Scriptures are false.



> *I do not think the point of Genesis 3 is sin or death per se, and it especially not about death in general. That idea seems andro-centric to the core. This is God's book about himself. The point of every chapter in the bible is God's grace. And God's glory in condescension. So only man's death matters. God did not become flesh to die for plants, animals, angels or anything else.*



For the Hebrew, who wrote the narrative you are trying to figure out, the life is in the blood of men, and beast. God instituted a sacrificial system that was exceedingly important to the Hebrew. Death is associated with sacrifice in this way, and is why God told them not to eat blood. The life is there. Again, for the Hebrew, eating a plant is not killing a plant. A study of OT theology on that would bear that out. The life is in blood in their mind. And that is the way God communicated it to us, and wanted us to understand the same thing Moses understood.

[Edited on 3-19-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_JD, I am interested in hearing about your "Ancient Adam" idea.
> 
> [Edited on 3-19-2006 by Saiph]



Here ya go! Feedback welcome:

Ancient Adam and the Old Earth 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Issue

For many Christians, strict Creationism has a seeming weakness that the proponents of evolutionary theory exploit. Why does everything seem older than the 6 - 10K period of time Scriptural Creation is supposed to relate? This has lead to the development of several systematic creation viewpoints; Evolutionary Creationists, Young Earth Creationists, Days as Age Creationist, Creation Scientists, and most recently - Intelligent Design. None of which seem to satisfactorily resolve non-Darwinian-evolutionary, old earth, Adam and Eve biblical evidence, as well as supposed geologic and paleontological evidence and theories.

I have formulated an alternative theory I believe can help resolve many of the questions raised by Christians and non-Christians alike. I call it the Ancient Adam theory.

Creation

In my theory, Creation was completed within the 6 day stricture proclaimed by the Bible. Earth was developed as a complex biosphere that existed now as it did then. All lifeforms existed simultaneously, not as a product of common descent. Life and death, adaptation, extinction, decomposition, geologic change: all present and sustained by the Master Creator and within His will, however inscrutable that will is.

This was true for all Creation except Man.

Man and the Garden

Man was created and placed in a protected place from destructive, sudden change, the Garden of Eden. He was given great freedom within this protected area and prohibited from only one thing; eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:17)

Please note that there was one other special tree in the Garden: the Tree of Life. Man was not prohibited from eating from this Tree until after the sin of eating from the other Tree. (Gen. 4:22)

Ancient-Adam 

There is no Scriptural indication of how much time passed from the end of the Creation period until the Fall. It is my theory that man existed in the Garden communing with God and Creation for multi-eons, sustained by the fruit of the Tree of Life.

Some Theory Weaknesses and Resolutions

On the Creationist, strict Biblical interpretation side, I have found one apparent weakness in my theory. Genesis 5:3 gives the apparent age of Adam as 930 (Gen. 5:5) years, but the count starts with Seth. Where are the firstborn, Cain and Abel? I believe they and many others were born before the Fall (..be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28)) and existed as those sustain by the Tree of Life.

Before the fall, years of life were irrelevant, only after their eyes were opened (Genesis 3:7) would years be counted or have real meaning. Thus I believe my theory resolves how and who Cain could marry.

I believe it also resolves the "Sons of God" - Nephilim - issue. They were Adam and Eve's pre-Fall children.

I have posted it on my blog, so i can work on it some more and get some feedback.

[Edited on 3-19-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Saiph (Mar 19, 2006)

Once again Matt, we simply disagree, I do not care what Moses thought as he was writing God's word, because for all I know, he may not have even understood the full implications of any of it. I do not live in the Ancient Near East either, I live in Denver, in the 21st century. And what God came to save mankind from, could hardly be mere biological death. That is the most inane thing I have ever heard of. And if that is true, He failed miserably, because last time I checked, no one makes it out of here alive. Death in the biblical sense is certainly seperation from God, not cessation of existence, not mere biological system failure, and not the change of one state to another. What happened to Christ on the cross was real absolute death in every sense of the word. Notice, while he did physically die, he cried out "My God My God why hast Thou forsaken me." That is what matters in the atonement. Adam lost the fellowship and favor of God by the fall. That is the death that matters most. Physical death is a picture, and a secondary aspect. Otherwise how could the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob be called the God of the living ? 

Paul only asserts that Adam's death came by sin and the fall. And I know of a hebrew mind that asserts plant death is actual, and throws your theory that hebrews did not see plants being eaten, or reproduction in their natural biological cycle as death out the window. His name was Jesus:

John 12:24-25 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

The only theological problem I see is if one asserts that man was capable of physical death before the fall. Romans 5 is about the spiritual life and spiritual death of man. Both of those include the physical regarding man but do not necessitate it, nor do they include animals and plants.

The point is soteriological:

Yet *death reigned from Adam to Moses*, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if *many died through one man's trespass*, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 

If that implies merely physical death, then the entire passage is an absurd tautology. It is the death of being separated from the life of God, and under the bondage of rebellion. Physical death is just a picture of that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "Some infer, from this passages that men were content with herbs and fruits until the deluge, and that it was even unlawful for them to eat flesh. And this seems the more probable, because God confines, in some way, the food of mankind within certain limits. Then after the deluge, he expressly grants them the use of flesh. These reasons, however are not sufficiently strong: for it may be adduced on the opposite side, that the first men offered sacrifices from their flocks. This, moreover, is the law of sacrificing rightly, not to offer unto God anything except what he has granted to our use. Lastly men were clothed in skins; therefore it was lawful for them to kill animals. For these reasons, I think it will be better for us to assert nothing concerning this matter."
> 
> -John Calvin, _Commentary on Genesis_


Calvin said it, I agree with it, that settles it. 

Seriously, I think I can grant a positive command that God gives herbs and plants to Adam and the animals in the prelapsarian state. I find Calvin's reasoning regarding the use of animal skins after the Fall convinicing that the consumption of meat may be assumed.

1. Animals are likely consuming animals at this point - the creation is fallen with Adam.

2. The ground is cursed. It likely will not yield the amount of food necessary to sustain man. Is it possible, also, that his physiology has changed as well? We know that man now is unable to have a healthy diet without some meat.

3. Did man just skin the animals and then leave the meat alone to rot on the ground?

I've just never thought of the Flood as this great transition point where man is suddenly given permission to consume flesh as if it was positively prohibited before. I believe that, if one admits that man was prohibited from slaying and eating animals before the Fall, God removes that prohibition in showing Adam and Eve how to make skins after the Fall.

[Edited on 3-19-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Saiph (Mar 19, 2006)

> I've just never thought of the Flood as this great transition point where man is suddenly given permission to consume flesh as if it was positively prohibited before.



Exactly, to me it is more like saying to Noah, "Do not worry that there are only two left of that delicious unicorn over there. Dig in. "


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > I've just never thought of the Flood as this great transition point where man is suddenly given permission to consume flesh as if it was positively prohibited before.
> ...



mmm...Unicorn...

Almost as tasty as Spotted Owl.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 19, 2006)

You know when your eating the last of an endangered species, it must be the most savory meal in the world.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I do not care what Moses thought as he was writing God's word...



That's why you are a poor exegete and like to speculate on things that get you into trouble. 

You should care.

BTW: John 12:24-25, the Greek "die" there is not "thanatos" (as we have been discussing as a point to the Hebrew and LXX) but "apothnesko" and when applied to "seeds and plants" means "to rot when planted (i.e. die)." No Hebrew thought plants were like animals or men in regards to death, though rotting may be applied. It also means to "dry up" as when a tree withers.

Stop speculating and guessing - its not helpful. You owe the Scriptures more than that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2006)

Matt,

What do you think of Calvin's commentary? Does he make a convincing argument that we cannot rule out the consumption of meat?

For the record, I don't spend too much time speculating about stuff that is beyond what God has revealed. There's just so much to occupy my time with what God _has_ revealed.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 19, 2006)

Matt, I read the scriptures as the mind of God, not the mind of Moses, Daniel, Isaiah, Paul, Peter, etc. . . .

And as far as thanatos/apothnesko goes . .have you heard of synonyms ?

Behold apothnesko used several ways including the contextual idea to which you refer:

Rom 14:8 If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 

Heb 10:28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 

1Co 15:35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" 
1Co 15:36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 


Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. (apothnesko)
Rom 7:10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death (thanatos) to me. 


1Co 15:31 I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day!


2Co 6:7 by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; 
2Co 6:8 through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; 
2Co 6:9 as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; 

Rev 3:2 Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. 



But since I am a poor exegete, just disregard those scriptures. And thanks for the slander.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 19, 2006)

From the time of Creation to Adam's transgression is the question.

Calvin is setting this in that context. He is working all the way up to the Flood.

I am contending that is Scripturally erroneous to take the Creation epic and set in it a context of death of any kind. Paul explicitly states that death was brought into the world, and was not created as part of the world. That alone would overthrow the perspicuity, innerrancy, and infallibility of the Scriptures. 

If such "was" the case (that God created creation with "death" as part of creation) then heaven is really going to be an antithesis to creation, not actually the restoration of paradise. Revelation 21:4 gives us a glimpse of the new earth (the earth refined by fire to restore paradise and communion with God) as that in which "there shall be no more death." Paradise, Abraham's bosom, and all the other designations of heaven used throughout Scripture representing the renewed garden experience, would have to radically change the events of paradise. That does not stand Scripturally either. 

I don't thin, then, that Calvin is really dealing int his same context. I', not arguing that after the fall men should be vegetarians. I am arguing that Scripture is very plain about the Hebrew concept of what it means to have death present as something completely contrary to death of any kind. 

I can see Adam now - let me name the animals, having dominion over them, and then think about which one I want to cook up. I'm unaware where "cooking" at that point is introduced, much less fire in that regard. The whole idea of rotting carcasses and garbage in pre-fallen and perfect paradise is completely NOT what Moses is intending int he narrative. To introduce it is to introduce that which is utterly foreign to the text in every way. The only negativity that Moses bring into the creation narrative up to Genesis 3, is "formless and void" int he beginning which should give the reader a sense that {something is not completely right just yet" and then the Spirit of God fixes that quickly in His "hovering over" the deep and shaping through separation. Everything about the narrative exploits life. Death in every form, even in terms of the earth, is a result of sin. That is why Christ was crucified with a crown of thorns - symbolizing the renewal that creation must have as a result of the curse in Genesis 3. Adam and Eve knew nothing of death until the curse and until God killed the first two animals and clothed them with the skins of animals now rotting in fallen world.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> For the record, I don't spend too much time speculating about stuff that is beyond what God has revealed. There's just so much to occupy my time with what God _has_ revealed.



You are right, this is fruitless, since no one can prove what damage is done to the glorious gospel of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, it makes no difference which side is right. It is a biblical lacuna.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 19, 2006)

Matt, seriously, check out the bol:



> Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and *death through sin*, and so death spread to *all men* because all sinned--



It has nothing whatsoever to do with animal death, just like the passage you quoted from Revelation. There will be animal death in heaven . . what are we going to eat ?



Isaiah 25:6-8 On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, *a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow,* of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. *He will swallow up death forever;* and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. 

Is that broccoli marrow Matt ??


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Matt, I read the scriptures as the mind of God, not the mind of Moses, Daniel, Isaiah, Paul, Peter, etc. . . .
> 
> And as far as thanatos/apothnesko goes . .have you heard of synonyms ?
> ...



I'm not slandering you. Slander is when its wrong, correct? 

You said you didn't care about the transmission of the text as God intended it - To be reminded - "I don't care what Moses said..." 

You said it not once but twice.

You shoudl care what the text says, how it was trnasmitted, what menas God used, what Moses was thinking when he wrote it, why the Holy Spriti carried him and not another to write it, what influecnes God used in Moses to write it, etc. That is what careful students of Word desire to know - what the TEXT actually says. God's mind on this matter is Moses' mind. Without knowing what Moses meant, you will never know what God meant. You'll have to stick to guessing then.

As for the others Scriptures, I have 50 more to quote just like those, but they all don't have anything to do with _plants_. Here are a few more - 

Matt. 8:32; 9:24; 22:24, 27; 26:35; Mk. 5:35, 39; 9:26; 12:19ff; 15:44; Lk. 8:42, 52f; 16:22; 20:28f, 31f, 36; Jn. 4:47, 49; 6:49f, 58; 8:21, 24, 52f; 11:14, 16, 21, 25f, 32, 37, 50f; 18:14, 32; 19:7; 21:23; Acts 7:4; 9:37; 21:13; 25:11; Rom. 5:6ff, 15; 6:2, 7ff; 7:2f, 6, 10; 8:13, 34; 14:7ff, 15; 1 Co. 8:11; 9:15; 15:3, 22, 31f, 36; 2 Co. 5:14f; 6:9; Gal. 2:19, 21; Phil. 1:21; Col. 2:20; 3:3; 1 Thess. 4:14; 5:10; Heb. 7:8; 9:27; 10:28; 11:4, 13, 21, 37; Jude 1:12; Rev. 3:2; 8:9, 11; 9:6; 14:13; 16:3

All of them have nothing to do with plants.

Again, God inspired the text in such a way as to refer to plants in a different manner than beasts or animals in terms of dying or death. Plants rot and decompose as to bear root. Animals are sacrificed as object lessons. Plants are not acceptable in that way unless by some provisional designation (see Cain's offering voer Abel's). 

What you need to be able to indisputably demonstrate is 1) God intedned death as part of paradise in both pre-fallen paradise and in the renewed paradise to come, 2) That Adam killed and ate meat contrary to what God instructed him to do which was to eat herbs and fruit (which is the princple you are disregarding in the Regulative Principle), 3) That the Apostle Paul is wrong in Romans, in that death is only with men in Romans and not pertaining to all of creation (which is easily overthrown in other area of his stating creation longs for renewel and Christ's death represents redeeming creation as well via the crown of thorns), 4) That plants are equal, to the Jew, as men and beasts when they are "killed" (which mean's I can't wait to see your study of OT theology).....ok.......this is getting boring.

Believe whatever you want.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Matt, seriously, check out the bol:
> 
> 
> ...



Your kidding now right?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2006)

Matt,

Sorry to confuse the issue. There are some who argue that God didn't really permit the consumption of meat until the Flood. I think I mixed up what someone else wrote with what you wrote.

I agree that Calvin is speaking post-Fall and not to the issue you are dealing with.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Matt,
> 
> Sorry to confuse the issue. There are some who argue that God didn't really permit the consumption of meat until the Flood. I think I mixed up what someone else wrote with what you wrote.
> ...



No problemo.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2006)

This is an interesting topic. I'm convinced now that man did not eat meat in the Garden.

Nevertheless, it does seem to raise the issue of the consumption of meat being something "fallen" or sinful. I can see some twisting the idea that vegetarianism is somehow more Godly because that's how God originally created us before we corrupted things. Usually we carry over regulative principles from Creation - Marriage and the Sabbath being two obvious ones.

Why does meat consumption become a point of Divine "acceptance"? I can't think of the word I want to use. It does seem, though, that God blesses the consumption of meat, partakes of it Himself in His humanity. He even uses the consumption of flesh as a picture of our nourishment on Him.

Maybe somebody can _flesh_ this issue out a bit more...

[Edited on 3-20-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 19, 2006)

Rich,

I could be wrong, but I think it may have something to do with "typology" and ultimate fulfillment in the work of Christ.

Eating the sacrifice of the OT, eating the sacrifice in the meal of the NT, etc. There is no doubt a connection. But sanctioning it is interesting to ponder.

I'd have to ponder that a bit more. Good question.

(All of this thread is a good question and good study. We just need to be careful we don't disregard God's constituted means of revelation, or rest in speculation.)


----------



## Saiph (Mar 19, 2006)

Matt, I do not recall saying I did not care what Moses wrote, I believe I said I did not care what Moses thought. Big difference. No one, inspired author or not, understands everything regarding scripture. God granted them the revelation, but that no way implies they comprehended without limits. And as far as I know,
O.T. individuals didn't see much of Christ in it at all.

You seem to keep equivocating on what point you want to argue, as to whether or not plants actually die, and whatever significance you think that had on the hebrew understanding of nature (which was extremely primitive), or whether or not Paul is referring to death in any form whatsoever. Pick one, because as you have presented both they contradict one another.

Either Paul is referring to all death, including plant death, and the fall happened before Adam and Eve ate anything else at all, or Paul is simply referring to human death (my belief).

And yes, Isaiah is speaking of a heavenly feast.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Rich,
> 
> I could be wrong, but I think it may have something to do with "typology" and ultimate fulfillment in the work of Christ.


Interesting...

We didn't need clothes before the Fall either but, after the Fall, God skins an animal and from death, something brought about by Sin, He covers us - a typology of the Atonement. Clothing is something "good" because of our sinful state though not needed in the Garden.

Likewise, perhaps, from death man is nourished physically just as Christ is our nourishment. Prelapsarian man could be nourished by plants/herbs. Fallen man needs flesh for sustenance...


----------



## biblelighthouse (Mar 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Nevertheless, it does seem to raise the issue of the consumption of meat being something "fallen" or sinful. I can see some twisting the idea that vegetarianism is somehow more Godly because that's how God originally created us before we corrupted things.



Yes, this is what would worry me too. My dad has suggested before that if we were going to _really_ follow God's perfect will for our lives, we would never eat meat. But I think that's baloney . . . 



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> Why does meat consumption become a point of Divine "acceptance"? I can't think of the word I want to use. It does seem, though, that God blesses the consumption of meat, partakes of it Himself in His humanity. He even uses the consumption of flesh as a picture of our nourishment on Him.



Bingo.

In fact, not only does Christ partake of meat in His humanity . . . He even partakes of it in His *glorified* humanity, after His resurrection!

Now, if in our glorified resurrection bodies, we will be just like Christ, then how can we suggest that we will be prohibited from eating meat? It's just a thought.


Also, it might be worthwhile to consider the important differences between the Garden of Eden and the New Heavens & New Earth. Just for one example: Adam and Eve were naked in the garden. But in Heaven we will wear clothes (cf. Revelation). I would suggest that Adam and Eve had not yet reached the maturity which we will have in Heaven. Had they persisted in holiness, I believe they would have gradually taken dominion over the entire earth, turning all of it into a literal Edenic paradise. And as they grew in knowledge and responsibility, I have no problem believing that God would have given them royal robes to wear, perhaps made of linen (a plant material . . . cf. Revelation 19).

In other words, we shouldn't necessarily try to draw a 1-to-1 parallel between Paradise in Eden and Paradise in Heaven. Both are Paradise. But one was for man, freshly created, in inexperience and immaturity. The other is for the eschatological man, fully matured in wisdom. Of course, I think Eden would itself have eventually led to the New Jerusalem, had Adam successfully completed his probationary time in the Covenant of Works, so there is a definite conceptual continuum there. --- In short, God's eschatological plan for man never changed. The New Jerusalem has always been the goal. 

And Eden was pure like the New Jerusalem, but it was not yet mature like the New Jerusalem.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 19, 2006)

Thanks Joseph. Right on !


----------



## Peters (Mar 21, 2006)

What does it mean that *God* made Adam and Eve garments of skin? 

Does this meant that He took on a human form and saw to it Himself, or that He made provision for the act through other means, or what?

Joseph,

I like your point about the garden potentially maturing into the New Jerusalem.

2 Things:

Do you think that means flesh eating would have eventually been introduced, since Jesus ate flesh after His resurrection?

Do you not understand the New Jerusalem to be the sanctified Church?

Thanks

[Edited on 3-21-2006 by Peters]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> Joseph,
> 
> ...



It is clear that eating meat (dead animals) does not defile a person in any way. Otherwise, the resurrected Son of God would not have been able to partake of cooked fish. 

And when we are resurrected, we will have physical bodies just like Christ's physical body. So it seems impossible that there would be anything wrong with us eating meat in paradise.

It is the _other side_ of the question that makes me scratch my head. Even if it's OK for a resurrected person to eat meat, is it OK for animals to die in paradise?

I don't know the answer to that.

Maybe there will just be T-bone steak-trees in paradise. We won't need to kill any animals, because juicy steaks will grow on plants. :bigsmile:




> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> Do you not understand the New Jerusalem to be the sanctified Church?
> 
> Thanks



I think the sanctified church is very closely related to the New Jerusalem, but I don't know if we can quite equate them. Here are a few reasons behind my thoughts here:


(1) *Genesis-Revelation parallelism:*

The Tree of Life was in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:9). And it was a literal garden with a literal tree.

The Tree of Life will be in New Jerusalem (Rev. 22:2). I assume it will be the same tree that was in Eden. Thus, just as Eden was a real place, I likewise believe that the New Jerusalem will be a real place. Make the New Jerusalem totally non-literal, and you allegorize Eden out of existence.


(2) *Parallelism in Revelation 3:*

God writes his Name on us (Rev. 3:12), but that doesn't equate us with God.

God writes the name "New Jerusalem" on us (Rev. 3:12), but that doesn't equate us with the New Jerusalem.



(3) *Parallelism of language in Matt. 23 & Rev. 21:*

I realize it is tempting to utterly equate the sanctified church with the New Jerusalem, because the New Jerusalem is called the bride of Christ, just as the Church is called the bride of Christ. However, as compelling as that may be, I do not think total equivalency is required here.

Elsewhere in Scripture, God addresses people, but instead of calling them by their name(s), He addresses them according to the name of the city they live in. For example, when addressing the religious leaders, Jesus said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets . . ." (Matt. 23:37). 

But of course the city of Jerusalem did not kill any prophets. Rather, it was the wicked leaders in that city who killed the prophets. Thus, Jesus was talking to the Pharisees and Saducees, but nevertheless addressed them with the name of their city.

I agree that the bride of Christ in Revelation 21 is the sanctified church. But I would argue that they live in New Jerusalem, which is an actual place. So when the New Jerusalem is called the bride of Christ (Rev. 21:2), it is simply an example of a group of people being called by the name of the city in which they live, similar to passages like Matthew 23:37.

Also, it might be worth noticing that the New Jerusalem is not exactly said to *be* the bride of Christ in Revelation 21:2. More accurately, the New Jerusalem is said to be beautiful *like* a bride adorned for her husband. 

The Holy City is beautifiul like the bride, but is not itself *the* bride. Rather, the bride of Christ dwells *in* the Holy City, and has the name of the city stamped on her forehead (Rev. 3:12).


Your thoughts?


----------



## Saiph (Mar 21, 2006)

> It is the other side of the question that makes me scratch my head. Even if it's OK for a resurrected person to eat meat, is it OK for animals to die in paradise?
> 
> I don't know the answer to that.



Animal death is not the result of penology. They are designed as disposable creatures. Same with plants. The fact of there being no death in heaven is certainly human death, of those who bear God's image. Keep in mind, hell is simply eternal death, seperations from God covenantaly.

I have no doubt that we will hunt and kill animals for sport and eat them. And as I have stated, when we chop down plants, or parts of a plant to eat them in heaven, that is also a form of death. It is only spiritual death and human death Christ delivered us from.


----------



## Peters (Mar 22, 2006)

> It is clear that eating meat (dead animals) does not defile a person in any way. Otherwise, the resurrected Son of God would not have been able to partake of cooked fish.
> 
> And when we are resurrected, we will have physical bodies just like Christ's physical body. So it seems impossible that there would be anything wrong with us eating meat in paradise.



I am with you. 

If Adam did not fail for whatever period of time his probation was set for, and since the resurrected Christ ate meat, do you think, given your thoughts on the maturing of the Garden into the New Jerusalem where meat can clearly be eaten (and me supposing that you don't hold to a meat-before-the-fall-paradigm), that God would have eventually introduced meat to the human diet? What would that introduction look like?

I'll get back to you on the New Jerusalem/Church parallels. I think you make a good case though.

And steaks on trees? I'd be like, "Paul! Throw me some A1, brother!"

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Peters]


----------



## Peters (Mar 22, 2006)

Mark, do you, then, not hold to a cosmological redemption?


----------



## Saiph (Mar 22, 2006)

Yes, cosmological redemption is certain. I simply think it includes hunting, killing, and eating animals for pleasure. As well as chopping down trees and plants for food. Simply because animals will no longer be hostile towards humans does not imply they will no longer taste good.

Where is animal death spoken of as a consequence of the fall ??


----------



## Peters (Mar 22, 2006)

Hebrews 9:22? 

_And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness_ 

What do you make of the Bible's blood-theology?


----------



## Saiph (Mar 22, 2006)

Hebrews 9 again, is not referring to animal blood . . . since the blood of lambs and doves and bulls and goats cannot cover sin.

Bloodletting is symbolic of pacts, covenants, and treaties.

When God clothed Adam and Eve, it was both the bloodletting and the covering that typified Christ. I just do not think the bloodletting in that instance was the first time.


----------



## Peters (Mar 22, 2006)

So animal death was there before the fall, but after the fall God chose to import a new significance to it in order to typify that redemption would be brought about through it. Right?


----------



## Saiph (Mar 22, 2006)

Seems to make sense to me. And, it is complete speculation.
However, redemption never came about through animal death . . .it was merely a symbol.


----------



## satz (Mar 22, 2006)

A very interesting view you are holding to Mark. I assume these animals we would hunt in heaven would not feel pain or fear?


----------



## Saiph (Mar 22, 2006)

Where in all of scripture does animal death, pain, or fear = bad, curse, or wrong ? ?


----------



## Peters (Mar 22, 2006)

_and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, *or pain*; the first things have passed away_

Reverlation 21:4

Have i played right into your hands by presenting this verse to you, brother? 

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Peters]


----------



## Saiph (Mar 22, 2006)

LOL


So he is wiping away animal tears ? How about plant tears . . .

The verse is completely talking about humans . . who he died for. . .


----------



## sastark (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_JD, I am interested in hearing about your "Ancient Adam" idea.
> ...



JD, I'd like to give some feedback, if I may...

First, Adam's age is not measured from Seth. We are told in Gen. 5:3 that Adam was 130 years old when he had Seth. We are also told a couple verses later that "all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty". There is no distinction made between pre- and post-fall years. Adam was alive for 930 years and then he died.

It seems pretty clear that Cain was born after the Fall. The order of events goes: Adam and Eve created, the Fall, Adam knows his wife and she bares a son named Cain. The reason the chronologies "skip" Cain is because he was not the man through whom the Covenant line would descend. Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters besides Cain, Abel and Seth (Gen. 5:4), all after the Fall. We don't know their names becuase they are not Covenantly important. Seth was because through his line we eventually get the Christ.

As a side note, I personally hold to a "quick-fall" view of Gen. 3. In other words, I believe Adam and Eve fell on either the 7th or 8th day (I tend to favor the 8th day as the day Adam fell and God then provided a sacrifice for him, on the first day of the week). I see no reason to think otherwise.

Anyway, just my 

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by sastark]


----------



## Peters (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> LOL
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, did you mean animal pain? I thought you just meant pain


----------



## Saiph (Mar 22, 2006)

Animals will still have pain and fear . . . why wouldn't they . . . but sorrow and tears I believe are strictly human attributes. The verse can only be referring to humans.


----------



## sastark (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Animals will still have pain and fear . . . why wouldn't they . . . but sorrow and tears I believe are strictly human attributes. The verse can only be referring to humans.



Possibly because the fear of man that animals have is a post-fall condition? (that should not be read in a sarcastic tone, I'm only trying to contribute to the conversation). See Gen. 9:2.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 22, 2006)

I take the biblical idea that man's relationship with the animals began without fear, and after the fall, gradually became more hostile and threatened.

In heaven I really do not know how they will react, but if we eat them, or hunt them, I assume there will be some remnant survival instinct or pain . . .

I simply think the Bible only offers a painless existence to redeemed man, not the reprobate, and not necessarily animals.


----------



## sastark (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I simply think the Bible only offers a painless existence to redeemed man, not the reprobate, and not necessarily animals.



This may be the fundamental difference between you and I. Whereas you seem to limit eternal blessings to mankind, I look forward to a new heaven and a new earth. That's not to say you don't, only to say that it seems to me (and I could be wrong) that you are limiting the blessings creation will enjoy in eternity.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 22, 2006)

Nope, I see being eaten the highest blessing for tasty animals. They are created for us and our enjoyment. For beauty, pets, and food. Does the dominion mandate go away in heaven ?


----------



## Peters (Mar 24, 2006)

But if their "being eaten" is associated with fear and pain, how can that be their highest blessing? 

So an elk is walking around in the New Heavans and New Earth happy and blessed. But, until fear grips his inner-elk and his gizzard is shot through thanks to a cracking, sanctified longbow arrow fired from a glorified Apostle causing a fair amount of pain and discomfort in the beast's gut, his blessings are yet to peak? 

Part of me wants to agree with you, but thoughts like this...


----------



## Saiph (Mar 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> But if their "being eaten" is associated with fear and pain, how can that be their highest blessing?
> 
> So an elk is walking around in the New Heavans and New Earth happy and blessed. But, until fear grips his inner-elk and his gizzard is shot through thanks to a cracking, sanctified longbow arrow fired from a glorified Apostle causing a fair amount of pain and discomfort in the beast's gut, his blessings are yet to peak?
> ...



Don't take this the wrong way, but I think Disney has poisioned your mind. I have killed many animals, and looked strait into their eyes when they die. Their pain seems only physical, no fear of death, only an instinct to survive. They do not have any last regrets or unfulfilled desires. They are biological robots, who need pain triggers survival systems.

They need not suffer in heaven. Even here torture is cruel and wrong.

When you go hunting, or even fishing, do you hold the trout in your hand and eulogize over it and apologize for the pain you have caused it, and tell it that unfortunately you must satisfy your hunger over and above this poor creatures happiness ?



[Edited on 3-24-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## Peters (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL 

Probably. 

I'm fairly convinced. What do you make of Genesis 3:21? I was thinking that if animal death was caused by the fall, then surly the author of Genesis would have lingered here a bit more. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Saiph (Mar 24, 2006)

> By this clothing, God imparted to the feeling of shame the visible sign of an awakened conscience, and to the consequent necessity for a covering to the bodily nakedness, the higher work of a suitable discipline for the sinner. By selecting the skins of beasts for the clothing of the first men, and therefore causing the death or slaughter of beasts for that purpose, *He showed them how they might use the sovereignty they possessed over the animals for their own good, and even sacrifice animal life for the preservation of human;* so that this act of God laid the foundation for the sacrifices, even if the first clothing did not prefigure our ultimate "œclothing upon" (2Co_5:4), nor the coats of skins the robe of righteousness.
> 
> Keil & Delitzsch



Now, they probably believe animal death only took place after the fall (like most people today), but what I wanted to point out was the aspect of man's sovereinty over the beasts of the earth, to use for food, clothing, medicine, research, pets, etc . . .


----------



## SRoper (Mar 24, 2006)

Augustine taught that animals, not having a rational soul, live a life that is neither blessed nor cursed.


----------

