The most you could say is that nothing is explicitly noted as having died yet in the text (although the cycling on and off of the light God created in chapter 1:2 puts an interesting spin on the supposed “eternal perfection” of everything God creates), but concluding from that that humans can’t die before the fall runs afoul of George’s good pushback.
The garden story ties human longevity, at least after the fall, to continued access to the singular “tree of life,” and He specifically revokes that access in the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden.
That suggests to me that physical life in this earthly body is always dependent upon God’s continuing provision, which He can also revoke at any time. Obviously, that’s a testament to God’s grace, as is the story of the garden, the fall, the measured consequences which God announces as coming from the result of their sin, and the beginning of the mess that rapidly ensues. God, in His grace, works despite our rebellion, to save us from ourselves, from the sin which so easily entangles us, and from the fallout from Lucifer’s own rebellion.
Couple that with the looming and rapid ecological disaster which would ensue from a created order devoid of natural death, and you have a basis for asking the questions about just what kinds of death were involved in the fall and what kinds are simply the result of God’s gracious provision for the earth. Death is not really an enemy when it doesn’t have the power to interfere with our relationship with God; it is only a temporary hurdle on the way to God’s kingdom, which doesn’t have to totally wait until the “sweet by and by.”
OK I see where you are coming from now Ronald, but I am still fuzzy about what scripture you are referring to. And in that link I gave Martin Luther wasn’t just saying that animals died physically before the fall, but that even Adam needed access to the tree of life to keep from aging and dying and that at the end he would have been translated -not kept immortal as-is “for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”.
Christ has died for our sins and removed the curse, but we still “die” a natural death which we understand as sleep until the resurrection. Is our goal to get back to the Garden, or is it to get to Heaven? And if our goal is Heaven, is it not true that this world is only but a stepping stone, a test to bring glory to God? Don’t the sages tell us that this world is not our home? It wasn’t our home before the fall either. It’s not that Christ’s atonement somehow failed to fully redeem us from the curse of the fall. He has fully redeemed us. This world was never meant to be eternal. Nor were our bodies within it meant to be eternal.
Early Genesis says as much in chapter three verse six when Adam and Eve are about to eat the forbidden fruit. It says “and she gave unto her husband with her, and he ate.” The word translated “husband” there is enosh. Like a’dam, it is a word which means “human” or “humanity” but, according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, in a less dignified sense than a’dam because it emphasizes man’s mortality. That this word was used to describe Adam just before he ate of the forbidden fruit indicates that he was a mortal. “Mortal” is a fair translation of the word enosh. Adam was a mortal man about to cut his own lifeline.
That Adam had to eat of the Tree of Life to become immortal is another indication that He was not immortal prior to his fall. One might say “but maybe he did not need to eat of the tree of life before he fell because he already had eternal life on earth until his fall.”
If that was true, then the existence of the Tree of Life becomes superfluous. If that view of physical death is true, then the Tree of Life is not needed to produce eternal existence unless Adam chooses to be his own god, at which point God makes it unavailable anyway. The Tree of Life is a type of the Kingdom of Heaven and it makes no sense at all for this tree to be an unnecessary element. This should be a clue to us that Adam did not have eternal physical existence without access to the Tree of Life, even prior to his fall.
The Tree of Life did not grant immortality, in my view, but only sustained mortal life as one had continued access to eat from it.
Good question. Assuming my position for now, one could argue that it’s simply stylistic (i.e., the narrator liked variety, and this would form a chiasm of plural [26], singular [27a], singular [27b], plural [27c]). Or, one could add a theological nuance: Taking advantage of the collective noun, the narrator wants to emphasize that image of God applied individually and corporately (counter-intuitively, the plural focuses on individuals; the singular focuses on corporate). This is done elsewhere. One thinks of the “seed” (another collective noun) in Gen 3:15 and 22:17-18 (though this example may help your case), or in another vein the David’s “son” in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7), which refers both to a succession of sons (i.e., dynasty) and to the greater Son. My own work in Deuteronomy shows the tension in the alternation of the singular “you” vs. the plural “y’all” (perhaps the only time Southern English is helpful!). The point is there could be a good explanation for the phenomenon within the traditional reading.
I’d have to think about this more on whether there’s a real distinction intended. It’s also possible different phrases are being used without too much distinction (though, I admit, it’s possible depending on authorial intent). The main differences with Day 6B (humans) that I see are: more time/text spent on it; divine deliberation (“Let us”); the lacking “according to their kinds”; the status as image of God; the added “very good” which is also delayed as a reflection on all 6 Days and not just Day Six (though “good” lacking in Day 2 since, as Waltke quips, God hates Mondays too!); and the use of the definite article “the sixth” (it also appears on “the seventh” in 2:3, but not Days 1-5; though I’m not quite sure the significance of it; I wonder what this does to our previous discussion of the article).
Jesus taught the thought to sin is as bad as the sin. Matthew 5:21 says “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court;"
Clearly, Cain sinned prior to Abel dying. There is no circularity.
Ahhh an ongoing supplement vs a one time immunization against mortality!
Romans 5:12-13 - 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 5:18-19 - 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Clearly, there was no sin before Adam. It’s hard to imagine that so many people would live and die without sin. Through Adam’s sin, all the humans in the world were born into sin.
I think Guy’s proposal fits the text of Genesis tolerably well, but I don’t think it fits these important theological passages well at all.
Part of the GA science is that within about 2000 years … even with VERY conservative assumption on global migration… All humanity can be descended from several couples… by the time of the birth of Jesus!
If you interpret Romans 5:12 as speaking of Adam as the one man through whom sin entered the world, spreading death to all men --as I do, then according to verse 13, and the reading offered by @deuteroKJ as the view advocated by virtually every NT scholar, sin was not accorded until the Mosaic law entered the world. How does that even begin to make sense? Pretty sure God called Adam and Eve on their sin of defying God’s “Thou shalt not,” and things got immediately worse from there. This is, apparently, where I’m forced to differ with the “guild.”
Verse 13 is not saying that sin did not exist until the law of Moses. Rather it is saying that when the law came, then guilt and penalty was increased - sin was imputed to the sinner - because the sinner knew he was sinning.
Certainly, Cain was guilty when he killed Abel even though there was no law against murder at the time. And God punished Cain for the murder, although we would consider that Cain got off easy. Under the law, the penalty for murder is the murderer’s life. There are no second chances. That’s what it means when sin is imputed. It means the sinner is going to pay.
Have you tried to actually read their arguments rather than assume a caricature? The answer lies in how to understand “(not) counted/imputed/charged/reckoned.” For those who take “law” as Mosaic law in v. 13, there are generally two camps: (1) people between Adam and Moses died b/c of Adam’s sin not their own sin [which I find highly unlikely if not laughable]; and (2) it doesn’t mean they were exempt from punishment (for their own sin), but that it’s not treated in the same way as a transgression of a positive law (like Israel under Mosaic law, or like Adam to the prohibition). That is, Paul is (among other things) distinguishing “sin” from “transgression.”
That it doesn’t mean exempt from punishment is confirmed in Rom 2:12 (“For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law”) and 5:14 (“Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam”). That sin is not equivalent to transgression (i.e., to a positive law) is confirmed by Rom 4:15 (“For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression”) and, again 5:14. I don’t see how “law” can mean anything other than Mosaic law in these other verses.
No caricature. I honestly don’t see how this makes sense, from Paul’s, the reader’s, or God’s point of view. Highly unlikely or laughable doesn’t even cover it. Adam’s sin WAS, in fact, a transgression of a “positive law” (“Thou shalt not” --not a “mere” sin), and it brought wrath, first within Adam towards God (“the woman, whom Thou gavest”), then from God upon the serpent, then between Adam’s sons in Cain’s actions, and even eventually upon Adam and Eve, through an expulsion from the garden. I’m pretty sure Paul saw all of this in the narrative.
So, the proposal that verse 13 is actually Paul distinguishing the non-imputed sinfulness of the first “Imago Dei” humans, qualifying his first thought, from the narrative’s focused emphasis upon Adam’s paradigm-changing actions, makes much more sense to me.
Hopefully that’s not just laughed off. All it takes is expanding the semantic reach of “nomos.”
Yes, of course, that’s stated in v. 14 (thus the use of “transgression”). The point is whether v. 13 is referring to that or something else. On either reading, those between Adam and Moses did not sin against a positive command like Adam or Israel The question is whether v. 13 is looking to a time before Adam.
Certainly not laughed off, though I’m yet to be convinced (still searching). Yes, nomos is part of the issue. In my initial research, I did just come across Hendricksen’s view that sees it as a reference to moral law (i.e., “law written on the heart”) rather than Mosaic law. I’m still searching for more arguments for the prohibition to Adam (I haven’t been able to re-check Walton yet).
A couple of thoughts come to mind, deserving more study. One, can we really speak of “sin” (in the Pauline sense) for those outside the garden (i.e., not [yet] represented by Adam)? I know “sin” is a familiar term, but sometimes familiarity with language is an obstacle to seeing its technical sense by a specific author, like Paul. Two, it’s interesting that Paul personifies Sin in Romans–it’s a power that is present and wreaks havoc, even causing “death” apart from law (even allowing death to reign…it seems “death” here is taking on a special nuance as well). It’s interesting even in v. 13 that Paul speaks of “sin was in the world” and “sin is not counted” rather than “sinners were in the world” and “sinners are not counted” (though vv. 12 and 14 do focus on people who sin). I’m not bringing these points up as objections, necessarily, but matters to pursue further.
No, @deuteroKJ actually that’s helpful.
A lack of moral sophistication is precisely what we’d expect in “Imago Dei” beings who have nothing but the “creation mandate” to comply with, formally, and the nagging doubts which would begin, perhaps, to arise in applying the “imago Dei” insight interrelationally --it’s like the first “all created equal” ethic.
How do you apply that in a hunter-gatherer setting?
Intertribal contact is virtually assured.
Who is “entitled” to what, and by what rationale?
If you ever saw “The Gods Must Be Crazy,” we have in that story a mini-parable about that stage in history, of sorts.
In any case, it’s the sudden and consequential change Adam’s sin introduced to the neuroanatomy and neural complexity of the human neocortex, I hypothesize, that changed the paradigm for EVERY human that followed from his lineage, who now possessed, irreparably, “the knowledge of good and evil,” accountable moral sophistication, with the increased cognitive capacities that came along with it, engendering an inevitable “greatly increased pain in childbirth.”
If that’s TMI, sorry! Somehow, @swamidass tolerates things when I pull out my pole vault.
BTW, by the time of the Paul, “sin” was communicated via “hamartano,” a term used in archery contests when you even barely miss the mark. The shorthand I use is “moral imperfection.” For too many “sin” means taking your bow, and turning it to shoot at the audience --which is actually, “evil.” Hope that’s illuminative.
Um @Guy_Coe, I’m pretty sure @deuteroKJ knows that already…
It provides context for our public discussion.
If we understand the tree image as representing eternal life in God’s presence (or in NT terms, in the Son - the way that John’s gospel and Revelation, for example use it), then it’s hard to think in terms of “delayed mortality.”
To have the Son is to have life, not to have the Son is not to have life. By losing fellowship with God, Adam and Eve lost the source of life. The uniqueness of the gospel is that the reconciliation with God is permanent, and ergo so is the life.
Bear in mind that the Christian hope is physical life, in the body.
It is hard to imagine. In a certain sense, there was no life either before Adam.
In the biblical sense we derrive life from God through a relationship with him.
Acts 17: 26 From one man he made every nation of humanity to live all over the earth, fixing the seasons of the year and the national boundaries within which they live,
27 so that they might look for God, somehow reach for him, and find him. Of course, he is never far from any one of us.
28 For we live, move, and exist because of him, as some of your own poets have said: ‘…Since we are his children, too.’
In Paul’s theology, our Ability to know God and relate to him is rooted in Adams nature which we all share .I.e the image of God.
In the biblical sense ,life also means union with God and death means separation.
Its possible that the people before Adam had no covenant with God and lived and died without an awareness of God.
If we look at Gods creation, nothing is eternal. Human beings beings immortal is an aberration. And its possible only because the uncreated one took on flesh. And because God breathed his life into Adam which became the human spirit. And Christ restored that life in us through the Holy Spirit.
“Delayed mortality” is the wrong semantic descriptor; “contingent immortality” captures it.
The “people before Adam” are the “imago Dei” humanity from chapter 1, who are indeed in a covenant relationship with God, having been given a mandate, having heard God’s speech, even, and having been given a role to serve in accountable dominion as regents of God. No negative stipulations are cited, as no particular “nomos” has been given that would likely be resisted.
Acts 17:26’s “one man” is an affirmation of monogenism, but the noun is, at least AFAICT, a collective, since without breeding, you can have no such legacy.