Death Before The Fall

[panta dokimazete]

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]

Where in the bible is sex considered worship?

 

[Saiph]

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]

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

 

[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

 

[Larry Hughes]

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 supersede faith.

L

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

 

[Saiph]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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. "

mmm...Unicorn...

Almost as tasty as Spotted Owl.

 

[Saiph]

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

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?

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.

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]

Originally posted by Saiph
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 ??

Your kidding now right?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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]

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.

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

No problemo.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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]

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.)