18 minute read
The Threat of Death - Alan Bondar A CBV perspective of the death of Adam and Eve
Perspectives Perspectives
Advertisement
How many deaths were threatened by God in the Garden? The answer is one. Only spiritual death was threatened by God as a consequence for sin. Physical death was always a natural part of being human, not a consequence of sin.
To prove this, we’ll begin by dealing with the Hebrew idiom, “in/on the day.” Some have attempted to make a case for physical death as a result of sin because this Hebrew idiom can be translated as, “dying you shall die,” or “as certain as.” The idea is that the idiom applies to the day on which they ate the fruit rather than the day on which the death would take place. In other words, when you eat the fruit, that day the curse of certain death will be enacted. But when that certain death will take place is unknown. Here are a couple other places this idiom is used: For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die. Your blood shall be on your own head. (1 Kings 2:37) Then Pharaoh said to him, “Get away from me; take care never to see my face again, for on the day you see my face you shall die.” (Exodus 10:28) These are two of the verses sometimes used to make a case that the idiom “on the day” means simply, “as certain as.” In the 1 Kings example, it is certainly plausible that the death which was threatened would not necessarily take place on the day they went out and crossed the brook Kidron. But the reason why this is plausible is not because “on the day” makes it plausible, but because “know for certain” makes it plausible. “For on the day you go out . . . know for certain you shall die.” What will happen on the day they go out? They would know for certain. The verse does not say “on the day you go out you will die.” It says “on the day you go out you will know for certain.” In the Exodus verse, Pharaoh did not mean, “on the day I see your face, you will die in 930 years.” Surely, his threat was intended to mean, “if I see you again, I’m going to kill you right then and there.” Genesis 2:17 matches Exodus 10:28, not 1 Kings 2:37. What we have, then, in Genesis 2:17 is not a threat that a death will certainly take place at some point in time, but that a death will take place in the day they would eat the fruit.
Even if we were to grant the proposition that the idiom in Genesis 2:17 simply means that the death would certainly occur, then all we need to do is find out when the death took place. Did Adam and Eve die in the day; albeit as soon as they ate the fruit? The answer is yes. They died a death that day—spiritual death. You see, if the meaning of “in the day” means simply “as certain as,” that does not remotely imply that two deaths were threatened in the Garden. It simply implies that whatever kind of death was threatened would certainly take place. The only reason one would seek to find another death beyond the death that they died that day is if they are bringing presuppositions into the text from a faulty eschatology that demands a physical death as a result of sin. Even the dialogue between Eve and the Serpent demands that they understood that an immediate death would certainly take place the very day they ate the fruit. Look at the dialogue: Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” (Gen 3:1-3 ) When would they die? How did Eve and the Serpent understand God’s threat? Let’s read on: But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4-5) Did Eve sit down and think, “Now if I just eat this fruit, I know I will begin to know good and evil over the course of the next 930 years until one day I will just know it all?” Of course not. That’s ridiculous. She thought what anyone else would think: “If I eat this fruit, I’ll be like God knowing good and evil right away.” This is evident from the verses that follow:
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. (Gen 3:6-7) When were the eyes of both of them opened? Right away! That’s how they knew they were naked. And notice that we’re talking about spiritual eyes here, just like the curse of death The Threat of Death
by Alan Bondar
To wrongly identify the death of Adam is to wrongly construct eschatology.
Death in the Garden
Alan is author of The Journey between the Veils and Reading the Bible through New Covenant Eyes. alanjay63@hotmail.com (239) 898-5388
FULFILLED MAGAZINE • SUMMER 2019 11 was spiritual. It didn’t take 930 years for their spiritual eyes to gradually be opened. They immediately felt the repercussion of their action. And that repercussion was recognition of their sin (eyes were opened) and separation from God (death). God did not wait 930 more years to separate them physically. He removed them from the Garden right away. Physical death had nothing to do with it. In fact, when we let the text speak for itself, what we discover is that the curse had nothing to do with physical death at all, but rather, the curse had to do with WHERE that physical death would take place, namely, outside the Garden separated from God’s presence. This is all laid out in Genesis 2-3:
Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. (Gen 2:7-8) So man is formed of dust from the ground and THEN placed into the garden that is planted toward the east. Compare this with the curse of Genesis 3:
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” (Gen 3:17-19) The phrase, “till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken,” refers to how long Adam would eat bread by the sweat of his face and is therefore stating nothing more than the fact that he had been taken from the ground and so he would return to the ground. The ground to which Adam would return was the ground from which he was created. Where was that ground? Let’s compare Genesis 2:7-8 with Genesis 3:19: 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground . . . . 2:8 The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 3:19 . . . Till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Adam was created from the dust of the ground outside of the Garden and then he was placed into the Garden. This order is made even clearer when we consider that only after the Garden was completed and the two famous trees were already in the midst of the Garden that Genesis 2:15 tells us, “Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.” Now, as a result of his sin, he would return to the dust of the ground from where he was created outside of the Garden. It was to that ground that Adam would return because he would now spend the rest of his days on earth outside the luscious Garden and in the desert (cf. Israel in the wilderness). This is the curse that Adam now faced. This is spiritual death—separation from God. That this indeed is what God meant when He declared the curse upon Adam for his sin is demonstrated by the fact that God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden and made sure they could not return. This whole interpretation is clearly summarized in Genesis 3:23-24:
Therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. What is so significant about the tree of life? Was it some sort of magic tree that would give you eternal physical life if you ate its fruit, sort of like the apple from Snow White? Doubtful. Think about it as the antithesis to the other tree. What was it about eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that caused death? Was it because the fruit of that tree was poisoned by God so that Adam and Eve would gradually die physically from the poison? Of course not. There was nothing poisonous about that tree. It was simply the tree that God commanded them not to eat from. It was sin that brought death. It was the act of feasting on a tree that God said not to feast from that brought death, not the actual fruit. So the tree of life is also not a tree that had some sort of magical qualities to its fruit. It was simply the tree that God would provide life through because of the obedience of faith. It is why this tree returns at the end of the redemption story and provides healing to the nations (Rev 22:2). Eating from the tree of life is faith in Christ. And general access to that tree was blocked until Christ came to put away sin and bring resurrection (a “standing again” in the presence of ...continued on page 13 . . . the phrase “in the day you eat” in the context of Genesis 2-3 means that Adam would certainly die some kind of death within the same twenty-four-hour day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
Death of Adam by Ed Stevens
...continued from page 9
Her spiritual eyes had not been opened yet. But she was able to see the delightful-looking tree with her physical eyes. And since she associated the threatened death with those three physical actions (eating, touching, and seeing), it strongly, if not necessarily, implies that her concept of the threatened death was physical. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that when the Serpent reassured her that they would not die by touching it or eating it, she understood that the fruit was safe to eat (i.e., “good for food”). It would not kill them. It does not appear that she had any concept of spiritual death (sindeath) whatsoever. Her only concern appears to have been whether they would physically die from touching and eating the fruit.
Furthermore, Eve got this physical concept of death from Adam, and Adam got it straight from God, which necessarily implies that physical death was at least included in the kinds of death that God threatened to execute upon them “in the very day they ate.”
This means that when God showed up “in the cool of the day” they should have been struck dead on the spot, in the same way Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead on the very day they lied to Peter and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5). God did that very kind of thing to Ananias and Sapphira, so why did he not kill Adam and Eve “on the very day they sinned”? Below we explain how there actually was a physical death on behalf of Adam and Eve on the very day they sinned. How Was That Physical Death Carried Out? “The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.” (Gen 3:21, NAS95) Notice that little word “skin.” Many commentaries point out that this necessarily implies that an animal was slain by God in order to provide these “garments of skin” for Adam and Eve. But God was not merely concerned about covering their physical nakedness. He was even more concerned about their forgiveness and spiritual well-being.
Chandler and McKeever explain how the physical death of that animal in the garden on the very day they sinned brought provisional forgiveness to Adam and Eve, and was the beginning of the substitutionary sacrificial system which pointed straight to Jesus who provided the full and final oncefor-all atonement through His physical death on the Cross: In harmony with God’s preplanned arrangement for atonement, physical death was required “in the day” of the sin, and was just as surely given! An animal was slain from which clothes were taken in the form of skins. It must be so that the slain animal was the substitute victim for Adam and Eve. Physical death came into Eden “in that day,” but it came upon man’s sacrificial substitute. When the animal was slain, it represented the death owed by the man. (Darwin Chandler. “The Fate of Innocence,” Expository Review (vol. 1, no. 10, Oct. 1982)) Throughout the rest of the Old Testament, this pattern of atonement for sins is followed: physical death of a perfect animal (i.e., without blemish or spot) on behalf of the sinner, although the blood of these bulls and goats could not take away sins (Heb 10:4). This pattern culminated in the real thing, which God had promised in the beginning —Gen 3:15—the physical death of the perfect Lamb of God on the Cross on behalf of his people. [Stacia McKeever, “What Does Jesus’s Death Accomplish?” Answers in Genesis website article] The Protoevangelium, or first statement of the gospel (Gen 3:15), provides proof that God had forgiven them. The promise of a descendant to crush the Serpent shows that God gave them a future. They were not going to die on that day. The animal was slain in substitute for them, and its skin was a visible reminder of its substitutionary sacrificial death on their behalf. Thus, Adam and Eve left the garden in a forgiven state. Conclusion Preston claims (and I agree) that if we wrongly identify the Death of Adam, we will automatically mis-interpret the story of redemption, wrongly construct eschatology, and wrongly identify the nature of the resurrection in the whole New Testament. This means that if the CBV has mis-identified the Death of Adam as being spiritual-only (and they have), then their whole CBV view of eschatology is “wrong” and “misguided” (Preston’s words).
We have shown (and Preston agrees) that no matter what kind of death was threatened against Adam, it had to be carried out on the very same twenty-four-hour day that Adam ate the forbidden fruit (Gen 2:17). We also showed that Eve understood that threat to at least include physical death (Gen 3:1-6). And we saw how an innocent animal did die physically on that day to not only provide a covering for their nakedness, but also to be a substitute sacrifice for the provisional forgiveness of their sin (Gen 3:21; Heb 9:22). This demonstrates that physical death was included in the kind of death that was threatened against Adam, and was carried out on the very day he sinned. This means that the CBV has mis-identified the Death of Adam by saying it was spiritual-only. And therefore, the whole CBV view of eschatology is “wrong” and “misguided.” V
God). Consider how Paul teaches this:
But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (Gal 3:22-26) Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. (2 Cor 3:15-16) Access to the tree of life is a restoration of life from death— the death that came through the sin of Adam. It was separation from God. Physical death is just a natural part of God’s amazing creation. These bodies were never meant to last forever. They were designed to die because the death of our bodies is how we enter the invisible realm of eternity with God. Even the writer of Hebrews recognized that there was only one death that was appointed as a result of sin: . . . he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. (Heb 9:26b-28) Notice that the writer of Hebrews states that it is appointed for man to die once, not twice. We know that the writer is referring to the death appointed as a result of sin because he goes on in verse 28 to contrast that death with Christ being offered once to bear the sins of many. We also know that he is referring to the death appointed as a result of sin because of what he wrote right before it in verse 26 about putting away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
What is the judgment then? There are two other times in Hebrews that the word “judgment” is used. The first is in Hebrews 6:2. There it speaks of eternal (lit. “age-during”) judgment within a context of anticipating the powers of the new covenant age that was approaching and moving past the foundation of repentance from the dead works of the old covenant. It would appear that “judgment” in this
The Threat of Death by Alan Bondar
...continued from page 11
context is about covenantal judgment.
The other time “judgment” is used in Hebrews is Hebrews 10:27, which is also about covenantal judgment under the law of Moses. I propose, then, that the writer of Hebrews also has covenantal judgment in mind in Hebrews 9:27. This covenantal judgment is the result of the one death that is appointed for man to die except for those for whom Christ was offered. They would be saved instead.
The writer of Hebrews did not believe in two deaths threatened in the Garden. He only believed in one—the one that was appointed for sin. If Christ’s death was intended to fix both spiritual and physical death, then why do believers still die physically? Did His death not take? I surmise the response from those who maintain that physical death was threatened in the Garden is that Christ’s death and resurrection brings resurrection to our physical bodies, or some new immortal body of some sort, after death. But this doesn’t work.
The death Christ died for spiritual death was to unite those of faith to Him so that they could also be like Him in His resurrection (Rom 6). This is because all died in Adam. They were already dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph 2). What they needed was the death and resurrection of Christ so they could be raised from the death that they were already in. But strangely, when it comes to physical death, Christ is dying for people who are not physically dead yet. This is a problem for two reasons: 1. If the curse of Adam included physical death, then why isn’t everyone for whom Christ died already physically dead just like with spiritual death? 2. Those who are raptured do not get to participate in the full work of Christ on their behalf. It would seem that if the value of Christ’s death is to ensure that those who die physically get to share in His physical death so they could be raised like Him, then it would actually be a loss for anyone in Christ to miss out on physical death. So, in the case of a rapture, God would be robbing people of the application of Christ’s physical death to them by not allowing them to participate in His physical death like they did in His spiritual death. These are just a few thoughts regarding the threat of death in the Garden. But just this quick overview is sufficient to recognize that God only threatened one death in the Garden—spiritual death. V
