Death Before The Fall

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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]
 
Originally posted by Peters

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?

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?
 
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.
 
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]
 
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 ??
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
Seems to make sense to me. And, it is complete speculation.
However, redemption never came about through animal death . . .it was merely a symbol.
 
A very interesting view you are holding to Mark. I assume these animals we would hunt in heaven would not feel pain or fear?
 
Where in all of scripture does animal death, pain, or fear = bad, curse, or wrong ? ?
 
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]
 
LOL


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

The verse is completely talking about humans . . who he died for. . .
 
Originally posted by jdlongmire
Originally posted by SaiphJD, 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]

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 :2cents:

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by sastark]
 
Originally posted by Saiph
LOL


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

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

Oh, did you mean animal pain? I thought you just meant pain :um:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
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...:chained:
 
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?

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

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]
 
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?
 
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 . . .
 
Augustine taught that animals, not having a rational soul, live a life that is neither blessed nor cursed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top