20 December 2008

Death Examined (Pt 2)

I have always been taught, as many of you probably have, that Adam was created immortal, and would never had died if he had been faithful and not eaten from the tree. I had never really questioned it, rarely ever giving it a second thought, until I started reading and asking questions about things, then found out that many other reputable theologians taught that this was not the case.

One of the first things that hit me was, why was Adam given free access to the tree of life if he was immortal? Why would he need life if he would never die?

Actually, the first thing that got me thinking and looking further, was the way it was written in the Young's Literal translation of the Bible:
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it — dying thou dost die
In dying you will die? That struck me as odd, and appears to be saying that when you die, you will die. I then flipped over to the Septuagint, which basically says "die by death." So, was there a way to die without being by "death" is one question? The English translations all basically say "shall surely die" yet looking at the original Hebrew there, the words thou shalt surely do not actually exist, and you have just two words, similar Hebrew words, both labeled with the same Strong's code for die; yet the two words differ slightly, so technically would be dying die.

Now remember, this is the same verse that says in the very day that they eat, they shall "die" (by death?), so whatever is being said here, we have every right to assume that it will take place on the very day they transgress. Since we know they did not drop down and physically die after eating, we have every right to understand the death being spoken of as differing from physical death. It does NOT say when they eat they will begin dying, as some stretch it to say; nor does it say they will become mortal and thus be on track to die. It says on the day they eat, they will die.

One thing we do know for certain, on the day they ate, within moments after the act, they were changed for sure. So, who was right, God or the serpent? God said they would die (by death), the serpent said they wouldn't die, but would have their eyes opened. Did they die? Did they have their eyes open? Yes, it seems they did both, which seems to imply that their eyes being opened is related to the death promised. So, was God's promise of "dying" on the day of eating relating to actual physical end of life?

Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period
to begin the search, and found the following regarding death:
Views of death in the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Jewish texts, and the New Testament vary widely. Death is seen as both natural and a result of sin. The tension appears already in Genesis 2-3. God warns the first humans that if they transgress the commandment they will die (2:17). Nonetheless, their exclusion from the immortality that the tree of life could give them indicates that they were mortal at the time they sinned (3:22-24).
So, we see the connection made as I mentioned before. The tree of life, in some way, would prolong their life, possibly even grant immortality, meaning they did not already possess immortality. It goes on:
The term "death" developed a moral dimension, particularly in the wisdom literature in the concept of the two ways of life and death. To sin was to walk in the way of death, in two senses. One's sins could lead to premature death. The person who lived an unrighteous life, apart from God, was already walking in the realm of death.
This is an important remark, I believe. Someone who is living in sin, living outside of God's righteous commands, later to be referred to as living outside of God's covenant, are said to already be dead. When Adam disobeyed God...when he broke the commandment...when he broke the "covenant"...he entered the realm of "death" and left the realm of life he previously enjoyed. He went from being alive in God, to being dead in the flesh, yet no physical transition occurred. This is commonly referred to in the theological world as spiritual death.

I will stop here, as I am still arranging my thoughts on how to best proceed beyond this point (and I try to keep these posts real short for ease of reading).

If you have not already, go back and read my series called Descended into hell...? which discussed where Christ went for three days after he physical life ended, the place of "death" that all mankind went after life above ground. The connection will be hopefully tied together in future segments of this series on death.

3 comments:

  1. Jeff,

    Do you think that the Tree of Life in Genesis was a physical tree? Could it be the Type of the Trees of Life in Revelation? Meaning that if the Tree of Life in Genesis is the Type and the Trees of Life in Revelation are the Anti-Type then are the latter, spiritual "trees"? If so what is there meaning/purpose? And why are there two?

    I actually had this conversation with one of the associate pastors at my church who told me that to say that there was physical death before the fall is reading into the text too much. That since it may be a picture of what heaven is like that it is doubtful that man was dying before the transgression since there is no death in heaven.

    I personally think you don't have to read to much into the text to figure out that Adam was created as a mortal being. IMO Here are two good example verses to prove so:

    Genesis 1:29-30(NRSV) God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food."

    So my questions to someone who says such things as mentioned before would be, what was the purpose of the food if man was immortal? Was it not for the same reason we eat today? To obtain the nutrients from the food our bodies need to sustain life even if it is temporal? And if there was no physical death in the garden how did Adam eat of the beast of the earth and birds of the air and everything that creeps on the earth that God gave to him for food, along with the plants/herbs yeilding seed, if Adam didn't kill them?

    Genesis 3:17-19(NRSV) "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you;

    (My understanding is that the "curse" ends here. The rest of v.17b-19 is God expounding on what the ground being cursed means for Adam.)

    in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

    Most people of course say that since God told Adam that he would return to the dust here means that he would now begin to die physically. I've also heard people say that God did tell Adam that he would die the day he ate of the tree and as an act of grace God postponed Adam's immediate death and that is why he lived 800 years beyond the transgression. (Talk about reading into the text.) As mentioned before God said cursed is the GROUND because of Adams sake. God didn't say cursed is the ground and your life. Again I believe God was just telling Adam that instead of living the easy life until he died he was now going to have to work his butt off until the day he died. The wording here, at least in the english, just doesn't support man's returning to dust as a direct result of God's curse on the ground. Which BTW for those interested was lifted after the flood when Noah offered burnt offerings to God. (Genesis 8:21) So sorry no reason for God to burn up the earth to rid the earth of its curse. It has already been lifted.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well Dave, I honestly am not sure what I think about the trees, so will reserve that answer for later after much more study.

    Great point about the need for eating and immortality. That is an aspect that never hit me before, so thanks for that "illumination" (lol).

    The comment about killing animals to eat though, is slightly more complicated. We actually do not see any comment or command that he eat the animals, and seem to be given our first taste of an animal dying only after the sin, when God kills some to make clothing for them. The verse you quoted says:

    See, I have given you every plant yielding seed...every tree yielding in its fruit...you shall have them for food. And to every beast...bird...creeps...I have given every green plant for food.

    So, the animals, he says, have been given every green plant for food, and humans have been given seeds and fruit. But it doesn't say we are to eat the animals, so people assume that Adam and Eve (and all mankind) should be vegetarian, but that after the fall, they became meat eaters. Of course, we know that after the flood God did plainly state:

    And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. (Gen 9:1-3 ESV)

    Of course these verses follow right on the heels of the verse you mention in Gen 8:20-22, which tells us that God has lifted the curse of the ground that was brought about by Adam. So he lifted the ground curse, and said we may eat of plants and animals too.

    I was going to deal with the other parts of the curse issue in a future segment, but I too see the return to dust as natural and not part of the curse. God says man came out of dust, he is dust, and therefore will return to dust. I don't see any inference that man had been "not dust" before the fall. I think this applies more towards the fact that the tree of life may have "cured" or prolonged the return to dust, but not that Adam somehow lost immortality within himself. If he had immortality, it was because he had access to the tree of life, and not something innate within him.

    There is one other aspect of the dying in the very day issue that is interesting, coming from the Book of Jubilees:

    "Adam died, and all his sons buried him in the land of his creation, and he was the first to be buried in the earth. And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die.' For this reason he did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it." (Chap. 4:29-31)

    The Book of Jubilees is like another expounded and detailed Genesis account, and does pitch an interesting aspect on it. Maybe I will examine that further in a future segment too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The "dying you shall die" construction is a common verbal one, and does mean (as has been traditionally translated) "you shall surely die." The same construction appears in the previous verse, Gen 2.16: "Eating you shall eat of every tree of the garden," which means "you may/will surely eat."

    Drawing conclusions from concordances or dictionaries is pretty dangerous without some basic understanding of how the languages work....

    ReplyDelete

Think out loud with me, and voice your position in a clean, charitable and well mannered way. Abusive posts will be deleted.