Pages

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Adam, animals, and death


Young-earth creationists typically reject animal mortality before the Fall. One oddity with that position is that Adam and Eve were created naturally mortal. They had they opportunity to acquire immortality by eating from the tree of life. 

It would be incongruous if man, the apex of creation, was naturally mortal, while animals were naturally immortal. Or do young-earth creationists think every plant was a tree of life for herbivores? 

11 comments:

  1. Bavinck claims that the belief that human meat-eating was permitted apart from the Fall is the norm in the Reformed tradition, implying that animal mortality before the Fall was also the case. I posted on this issue a while back. The denial of animal mortality involves an extremely far-reaching claim about something—the 'miraculous' establishment of predation—upon which the text itself is completely silent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    Were they "naturally mortal" or created immortal - where the tree of life was simply that which they joyfully partook of to give them continual life and nourishment?

    +Nathan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your question is equivocal. In what sense were they created immortal if they'd die unless that ate from the tree of life for continual life?

      I think Gen 3:22:24 makes it clear that immortality wasn't theirs to lose, but theirs to gain:

      Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

      Delete
    2. Steve,

      I am not sure how it would be equivocal. Before the fall, they were created as human beings to live forever - but not apart from the food God provided from His hand. That seems rather logical. In this reading the issue with them eating from the tree would be that they would be doing so post-fall, after their natures had been changed through Satan's venom. Not good for persons bearing such a curse in their bodies and souls to live forever.

      +Nathan

      Delete
    3. They were mortal both before and after they ate from the tree of knowledge. The tree of life is what confers immortality (in this account). Not creation.

      Delete
  3. That's still equivocal. What do you mean by "created to live forever"? Do you mean created with the *opportunity* for immortality?

    Yes, it's bad for sinners to live forever. That's why God banished them from Eden and guarded the tree of life. To deny them access to the tree of life. As of yet, they hadn't eaten from the tree of life. They were still mortal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve,

    No, I mean we were literally made to live forever not just with regular food, but special "tree of life" food. *With* the tree of life constantly provided by God's hand they *are* immortal. The 'tree of life" is associated with creation, yes, it seems to be more than that as well. No problem for us Lutherans who see Christ giving us heavenly medicine/food - that is, His true body and blood - through creaturely material.

    How do you know for sure that they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Life? I don't think its necessary for my scenario that they did (we only eat the Lord's Supper at most once a week now), but I don't think you can say this for sure.

    +Nathan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, you are saying that even if they never fell, they'd always be mortal. They'd have to eat regularly from the tree of life to avoid dying.

      Delete
    2. infanttheology:

      "How do you know for sure that they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Life?"

      Because that's what the text says and implies. God banished them from the garden before they had a chance to eat from the tree of life to prevent them from becoming immortal

      You keep referring to the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. That's deforming how you read the text.

      Delete
  5. Steve,

    "Actually, you are saying that even if they never fell, they'd always be mortal. They'd have to eat regularly from the tree of life to avoid dying."

    Steve - its hard for me to understand your view. It seems that man's continued immortality need not really be continually dependent on God. I'm sure you would not say that in which case I am not sure why the view I am expressing would be much different than yours. It is just involves spiritual nourishment through material means.

    'Because that's what the text says and implies. God banished them from the garden before they had a chance to eat from the tree of life to prevent them from becoming immortal."

    Does it? I'm not sure why you would assume this seeing that there was but one tree in the Garden they were not to partake of: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    +Nathan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Steve - its hard for me to understand your view."

      That's because you view everything through your Lutheran tinted spectacles.

      "It seems that man's continued immortality…"

      Actually, the problem lies in your failure to understand your own view. Your real position isn't "continued immortality" but continued *mortality*. It must be periodically renewed before the next expiration date. Like insurance policies.

      "…need not really be continually dependent on God."

      You confuse dependence on God with continual dependence on God, as if "continual dependence" means the need to constantly restock, resupply, renew.

      Do you apply that same thinking to sola fide? Must God continually justify us, or can that be a one-time act of God? We can be continually dependent on justification without having to continually renew our justification. Or do you think justification suffers from planned obsolescence?

      "It is just involves spiritual nourishment through material means."

      The tree of life doesn't involve "spiritual nourishment." In context, it refers to physical life. The distinction between perpetual youth or dying of old age.

      "Does it?"

      You willfully disregard what 3:22 means.

      "I'm not sure why you would assume this seeing that there was but one tree in the Garden they were not to partake of: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

      Before they sinned, there was no urgency about eating from the tree of life. They didn't expect to sin and be expelled from the garden. They didn't expect to be cut off from the tree of life. There was no hurry. In fact, it took centuries for them to die of old age.

      Is the source of your persistent problem that you approach the text with a Lutheran agenda? Are you trying to make the three of life a type of the Eucharist? Prooftext Lutheran sacramentology from your allegorical interpretation of the tree of life?

      Delete