Never Go in Against a Serpent When Death is on the Line - Episode 075

Carey Griffel: Welcome to Genesis Marks the Spot, where we raid the ivory tower of biblical theology without ransacking our faith. My name is Carey Griffel, and I had fully intended on doing something else today, But then, it somehow turned into a discussion on death before the fall. So, that is what we're going to talk about in this episode.

There are several pieces to this topic, and it's definitely going to get a little bit granular. This is, frankly, one of those questions where some of us might wonder, what is the point of this? And, you know, fair enough. I understand that kind of perspective, but at the same time, I don't see this addressed fully in enough places.

So, we're gonna do that today because I think it's worth the [00:01:00] discussion. Specifically, the question we're tackling is, if Adam wasn't actually the first human, then what's the deal with death and these first chapters of Genesis? And how does that work out with the biblical text and the way the biblical author thought about it? How can Adam have brought death into the world according to Romans 5?

In answering this question, I'm going to presume a few things for the sake of the question, and in doing so I'm going to give some caveats. First of all, I'm not trying to suggest that this is the only way we should read the text or the only way we can read the text. I am likewise not trying to prop up evolution. I don't care about evolution and where you stand on that. I really don't. If your belief is that there was no death before the fall, and you think that [00:02:00] Genesis is proving that humanity started out as vegetarians, I'm not specifically trying to dismantle that idea with this question. I'm really not. I don't particularly care where you land on this topic, though, I do take it quite seriously that we should not presume that a particular interpretation of something this esoteric is definitive when, quite frankly, it's not.

This is as opposed to my adamant, and I do mean adamant, belief that the Bible cannot be used to calculate the date of the Earth, but that's another topic. Maybe one that we'll address soon as well. But at any rate, the reason for this topic today is that a lot of people have been wrestling with the idea that death existed from the start of creation, and that Genesis isn't saying necessarily that it couldn't or [00:03:00] didn't exist. The insistence that, well, we just can't believe in people before Adam, is not good enough. It's really not, because that is also a legitimate interpretation.

And let me separate out two different things in this conversation. And I know I've talked plenty about this before, but here we are again. I don't want new listeners to miss out on this, so one option we have is the idea that the text of the Bible just doesn't have anything to do with the science of human anthropology, meaning that the biblical author can have framed this Creation narrative without referencing how the early human history actually went down at all. And in that case, it doesn't scientifically matter how the author of Genesis talked about death beginning with Adam. What Genesis says, and what histories say, don't have to match up [00:04:00] because science and the Bible are just doing two separate things in this view.

Okay, so that's one option, and one way we can look at this in comparison to what we might call the usual way of reading Genesis as history. Maybe it's just not history at all, at least according to the way that we define history. Taking it as history would be reading it in a way that takes it out of its original genre. It doesn't matter what the matchup between history and the text may or may not have been, Because we take all of the biblical authors from Genesis to Paul as genuinely believing that death began with Adam and that humanity was not allowed to eat meat before the flood.

If that's the case, we have no more to discuss here in the Zone of Biblical Theology, and our topic is done as far as that's concerned. So, that's a fine way of looking at it, as is [00:05:00] the idea that Genesis is just as plain and literal as some of us read it today, and we can, again, just leave the discussion here. Those are both valid interpretive options.

But another, much more complex, interpretive option we have is more nuanced between these two options. And thus, it's harder to describe. Now, it's not harder to describe because it's hard to understand. It's just harder to describe simply because of our cultural distance from the text. If this interpretive option is actually how the original author thought, well, it wouldn't need describing to the original recipients of the text because they'd already all be on the same page. This stuff would be describing something they'd just all understood without the need for explanation. We, however, aren't in their context, so it [00:06:00] becomes a little bit tricky.

So, in this interpretation, we can still say that the Bible isn't a modern science book, and because of that, we don't need to look at the Bible for answers to scientific questions. The Bible isn't addressing our modern scientific concerns. But maybe there's still a sense in which The Biblical author wasn't trying to be as dogmatic about this as we usually think, and this is the option we're exploring in this question.

As always, our concern in this podcast is not the science of human origins, and I have no personal desire to go down the concordist path of trying to fit science into the Bible. If the understanding isn't in the Bible to begin with, then that is just outside the scope of Biblical theology per se. That's also not to say that Concordism can't be true. It's just not a [00:07:00] biblical theology framework.

Our concern here is how the biblical authors were presenting and understanding things. That's it. And maybe the way that they thought isn't what we presume. That's my starting point in this question. So, let's have a look at this. We're going to be laying out some thoughts here to set it up.

Part of what I'm going to be relying upon is a dissertation written by Joshua John Van Ee. His dissertation is called, Death and the Garden. An examination of original immortality, vegetarianism, and Animal Peace in the Hebrew Bible and Mesopotamia. This dissertation can be found online. Not everything that I'm going to be talking about is going to come from this dissertation, but if you're interested in this topic, I highly recommend reading this. Now, of course, it is a [00:08:00] dissertation, so it's quite long. With footnotes and bibliography and appendix, it's over 400 pages. But it does get into evidence from the biblical text, as well as a lot of literature from Mesopotamia. And he threw in some archaeology as well, specifically the archaeology of the people of the Bible.

Were they eating meat? What groups promoted the idea of vegetarianism in the past? And that kind of thing. The evidence we bring forth all ought to be focused on the time and circumstances and concepts of the time of the writing of the Bible. So, that's what we're looking at. And again, this dissertation is not the whole answer, but it's a good place to start.

I don't personally think you can answer this question fully without talking about the death of animals and meat eating, which is why I'm going to loop that into our conversation here. First, we're [00:09:00] going to start with the easier ways to look at this, because I think there are some useful and pretty simple and straightforward responses.

It will help if you understand the concepts of sacred space, and archetypes, and typology, and how all of that kind of thing works, as well as a basic understanding of the patterns that we see show up continually in scripture. To begin with, there is the distinction between the use of the term Adam or Adam, and by that I mean that one of these is a personal name of an individual, and one of these just references mankind in general. I'm pronouncing them differently, but it's the same word.

One way you can see the distinction between these terms is that sometimes we see the Adam, and you can't put the word the in front of a personal name. It doesn't work in English, and it doesn't work in Hebrew. So, when we see The [00:10:00] man. We're not using Adam as a name.

Again, what Adam can mean is humanity in general. So, if we look in Genesis 1, this is obvious. Because God creates man. Male and female, He creates them. So, Adam there means humanity in general. And, interestingly, no one really disputes this. And so, then you move into Genesis 2, and we see The man. Even later on, we finally come to Adam actually being used as a name.

So it's like Genesis is moving from generals to particulars. None of this is controversial, by the way. So okay, well, so what's the big deal then? Well, that's only part of our picture that we're going to look at here, but a possibility is that we really do have the view of creation being talked about in a more general way in Genesis 1 and then Genesis [00:11:00] 2 being a more particular or special account. Maybe zoomed in, but maybe not zoomed in. Maybe Genesis 2 is literally a special creation. This is a pretty common way of viewing Genesis 1 and 2 throughout history. So, even up to this point, we're not talking anything too different or crazy here.

But we do need to hit on this particular question of Is the special creation the zoomed in rendition from day 6? Or is this a legitimate, particular, special, new creation that occurs in Genesis 2? Meaning, do we have a whole bunch of people created in Genesis 1, and one particular individual created to occupy the garden in Genesis 2? And in which case, that would mean that people had been living and dying prior to the creation of this special Adam.

But then, what's the point of creating this special man? [00:12:00] Well, the point would be the same as we see in the rest of Genesis, where we have Noah, or Abraham, being a special ambassador of God's relationship to the rest of humanity. This is the context of covenant, and God taking a special relationship in order to work out His will throughout the world, and ultimately to bring humanity to Him.

So, Adam would be that man who would be tasked to bring God's goodness and order throughout the rest of creation. Now, as I've said, even last week in my last episode, I just said this, that we don't see the word covenant in the first few chapters of Genesis. We don't see the word covenant show up until after the flood.

So I don't want to read too much into this and say that Adam had a particular covenant that we can point to exactly. But also, in my last episode, I talked about the [00:13:00] difference between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, and how Genesis 1 is using the more general term for God, and Genesis 2 begins to use God's covenantal name.

So, even though we don't see an explicit covenant, we still have the concept here. The author is trying to get the reader to think of God in the form of a covenantal God. And I'm pointing this out specifically about the word covenant not being there, because some people will say that Adam had a covenant of works versus Noah's or Abraham's covenant of grace, and we simply don't see this supposed covenant of works in the first chapters of Genesis.

So, I think we need to be very careful not to read too much into it. But, even though we can't say that there was some explicit covenant, we should be guided into thinking about the concept of covenant and what that means, [00:14:00] especially for the way that God works, which is really important here. In other words, covenant isn't just there because humans messed up.

The concept of covenantal relationship is built into creation from the start, not just after the fall or after the flood. Again, taking care not to get pedantic about saying there's a formal covenant, but covenant as we see it later is, well, maybe we could say it's a formalization of how God set creation up to begin with.

What we can see here in Genesis 2 is the concept of sacred space. Remember Eden and its garden is set up quite similarly to the tabernacle, and we see a particular special creation, and we can see the way that God works in the world. Like, we tend to think that what happened with Noah and what happened with Abraham are exceptions or attempts to correct the Fall.[00:15:00]

But what I try to keep pointing out is that we tend to go to the Fall for our introduction of everything as if there aren't chapters that happened before that. I really think that the first two chapters of Genesis, we can see so much of God's purpose in creation and God's operation in the world. To bring that scholarly language in, this is the divine economy, and how God operates is absolutely connected to the work of humanity. God uses humanity in order to accomplish his will on earth. This is where we get the imaging language. This is where we get the idea of subduing and dominating and guarding and keeping. These are all things God could do by himself, but that's not how God operates.

Okay, so just these things can answer the question about death before the fall, to be quite frank. We can be done with the question right here, in seeing that yes, there is [00:16:00] the possibility just from these things that we might have had death before Adam. But I don't think that's particularly satisfying, to leave it at that. There's so much more we can look at.

And again, why does this matter? As tangential or unimportant as the question might seem to some, it does touch on the work of Jesus, right? I mean, he came to defeat death, so death is kind of a big deal. And we should talk about it. If anything is a historical reality in the Bible, it is the work of Jesus. So because Jesus came to defeat death, that makes us assume, out of the gate, that death can only have come about due to the Fall. And I don't think that's the case, because this touches on the work of the Messiah, this means that we need to be careful in the way we describe why that's the case because Jesus didn't just come because Adam sinned.

But of course, Adam and [00:17:00] Jesus are very connected. There are reasons for that, and I'm not discounting them. As I try to point out very frequently, the work of Jesus is so multifaceted. It's so deep and so beautiful. And I want to acknowledge that defeating death is a really integral part of what Jesus did. No question about it.

At any rate, let's go to a quote from Van Ee's dissertation, which again, it addresses the concepts of original immortality, vegetarianism, and what he calls animal peace, or the idea that early on, animals lived in peace with humans and each other.

He says, quote, An analysis of the relevant texts indicates that such a view of the original created state is not present in Mesopotamian literature or the Hebrew Bible. Neither describe humans as created immortal, although in the Hebrew [00:18:00] Bible the presence of the Tree of Life complicates the picture since it provides for the possibility of living forever. Neither restrict original human or animal diets to vegetation, and neither portray a time of perfect peace between humans and animals, or among animals themselves. The level and nature of the conflict may change, but it was always present. End quote.

Okay, so I can hear some of you now. You don't believe it. It seems so obvious that Genesis does show that meat eating wasn't a thing in the original creation. So we'll get to that, and we'll be tackling some very particular passages here. The biblical texts that Van Ee. looks at include Genesis 1, 28 30, Genesis 2 3, Genesis 6, 1 4, Genesis 9, verse 17, as well as Isaiah 11, 1 9.

[00:19:00] One of the points we can look at is the fact that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, uses the word paradise for the garden. And that matters to us, because in conjunction with the fact that God declared creation very good, we today are going to import certain ideas into what it means for the garden to be a paradise. We're not pulling these ideas out of the text necessarily, these are just our ideas of what a paradise should be. And you know, it's a fair enough question. Can you have a paradise if death is in the picture? Can you have a paradise if there's suffering? Why would God create the world with any kind of suffering built into it?

And even if the only thing going on is that animals are eating other animals, Then how is that right? Whatever your opinion on the state of animals in heaven, most of us have an intuitive sense that even the suffering of [00:20:00] animals is a negative, and we might even call it evil. We don't think God made the world evil, so how could we have predatory animals in the initial creation?

You can see how this question is going to impact the heart of many people, and I get it. Nature as we experience it is cruel and we humans are to rule and subdue the earth. Specifically, we're to rule animals. We are to provide God's goodness and order to all of creation. This surely means that we are to preserve the world the way that God made it at the beginning, right?

That's what we think, and this is, I believe, why many people believe that the fall from Genesis three necessarily included a fall of creation as a whole. The idea there is, there wasn't death before the fall, so our original stewardship over creation could conceivably maintain everything perfectly. But [00:21:00] now we can't actually do that, because death is in the picture. We can't stop death or predation. So that must be a result of the fall.

Well, I've addressed the question of the fall of all creation before. I'm not going to go through all of that here, but if you look on the blog on my website, you'll find an article called, Is All Creation Cursed? And I do a detailed rundown of basically why it's not. We read far too much into the text.

At any rate, let me read another section from Van Ee. He says, quote, The beginning chapters of Genesis, and the Garden of Eden in particular, are synonymous with Paradise for most readers of the Hebrew Bible, a time of blessedness that was lost. While such a characterization may be proper to some degree, it can obscure the message of the text. Commentators are liable to say what can and cannot be [00:22:00] true based on their assumptions about what a paradise is like. Thus, before examining the biblical texts relevant to original immortality, vegetarianism, and animal peace, it is necessary to examine what the biblical text says about the primeval period. The analysis will highlight some commentators who question the Paradise Interpretation since their critiques help to define more clearly the character of what is described. As with the Mesopotamian material, Two main questions need to be kept in mind. First, is the initial created state portrayed as ideal, better than the present? And second, is it described as complete or in need of development? End quote.

Those are really important questions. And some might use Isaiah 11 to indicate how Paradise was to begin with. Let's go ahead and read this. [00:23:00] Starting in verse 6 in the NASB, it reads, And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear will graze, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand in the viper's den. They will not hurt or destroy in all of my holy mountain. The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. End quote.

Okay, so first of all, we will note that this is a section of poetry. It's poetry that describes this amazing state where animals don't eat other animals and humans can hang out with them in no fear whatsoever. So there's a lot of potential figurative language rather than prescriptive prophecy, [00:24:00] but you know, I think we can certainly hold the door open for a quote unquote literal interpretation with this.

But, keep in mind also, even if this is a literal prophecy of the end times, Would it be fair to import all of that back into Genesis 1 through 3? Is this situation in Isaiah 11 describing a return to the Edenic state? Well, let's look at the passage. The context of Isaiah 11 is definitely the Messiah. Just before the section I just read, we have all kinds of messianic imagery. The chapter then continues with a discussion on the remnant of the people and destruction for the enemies of the people. Hmm. Destruction, you say? Interesting.

So even if this description in Isaiah 11 is to be seen as a literal hope, we can't really read it back into Genesis. It's not telling us, this is how it was at the beginning. [00:25:00] It's telling us, The reality that the Messiah will bring forth is more amazing than you can imagine, to the point that even animals will stop killing one another for food, and children can play with snakes.

As Van Ee. hinted in the quote we read, there are two larger things we're going to look at. One is the idea of animals in relation to death, either animal predation or human meat consumption, and the other is Whether or not the first chapters of Genesis are telling a time of perfection or not. Is this actually a state that we should expect to return to eventually when all things are put right?

Let's get into the second idea first. There are two primary ways that primeval history might be seen by different cultures. One way is that it was a primitive time in need of improvement. And Humans are barbarians and need to be saved from themselves with [00:26:00] progress. The other major way to view primeval history is that it was a golden age of sorts from which we fell.

Of course, as always, there is a middle ground here, but most of us see the Bible portraying this time in paradise as a time of goodness. After all, God created and it was not only good, but very good. The Greeks also saw this early time as that of a golden age. What about the Mesopotamians? Well, in a number of creation accounts, humans don't have it so good originally in Mesopotamia. They're basically a slave labor force for the gods. That's hardly a golden age. Even after humanity gained freedom from the gods, The state of humanity still wasn't great until the establishment of civilization, which came via kings.

Here's another quote from Van Ee's dissertation that might give us some interesting [00:27:00] insight to some things. He says, quote, A few texts depict humans as animal like until the gods granted the gifts of civilization. Ewe and grain is a Sumerian disputation that begins with a short cosmological introduction. It describes a time before grain or sheep existed, when humans went around naked, eating grass, and drinking from ditches. End quote.

So, there's a sharp distinction between humans and animals, and humans only, Quote unquote evolved past an earlier animal stage because of the great gifts of agrarian life that the gods provided to humans. Of course, I'm not using that word evolved in a modern scientific sense, but in Mesopotamia, humans were animal like before the granting of the Order of Civilization.

And though that's not really how the Bible is [00:28:00] portraying things, there are certain things biblical text from Genesis to even books like Daniel or Revelation even, which can reflect the same kind of idea of animals versus humans. It's not a good thing for humans to turn into an animalistic state. Humans are not to act like animals because we are something that they aren't. In Mesopotamia, the one that turns people away from being animals into being civilized is the king. Also note that in Mesopotamia, the king was the sole image of God. But of course in Genesis, all humans are the image of God. So even from Genesis 1, humans are not to act like animals, because they aren't animals. They are the image of God.

And what do we see in Genesis 1 regarding diet? Well, animals and humans might have different diets, [00:29:00] and we'll get more into that here in a bit, but for the moment I want you to keep in mind this immediate context of humans versus animals.

Another helpful and really surprising thing we can see, in at least some of the Mesopotamian literature, is that prior to civilization, no dangerous animals existed. Like, things like wolves or even snakes simply didn't even exist, or at least they weren't around being a threat to people. Now, of course we see a snake in Genesis, and of course it's likely that this snake is described in such a way as to make the original reader expect he's not just a snake, but a heavenly being.

But he's still described as a snake. Even if they were thinking Throne Guardian. It's not super explicit that he's a throne guardian, so it's quite conceivable [00:30:00] that maybe the Mesopotamian readers or hearers of the text, and that includes the Israelites who are in Mesopotamia, they would be surprised by the presence of the snake.

Maybe they would think that there's not supposed to be animals like that in paradise, but of course the Bible is flipping things upside down. The Bible's not saying that paradise comes from civilization in the form of a kingdom with one king, but rather the Bible is saying that even from the beginning, humankind were kings, and had at least some trappings of civilization. Not all of them yet, but enough that it mattered. That would have been really strange in a Mesopotamian context.

This connection of dangerous animals and civilization is really interesting because it seems to acknowledge that the benefits of civilization are balanced by some risks. But overall, the benefits are going to outweigh the [00:31:00] risks. Now, for those of you who are really familiar with Genesis, you might be thinking about the fear of animals that comes after the flood. But this is still very different from the Mesopotamian idea where mankind is supposed to fear the animals.

And of course, this is also not in relation to the institution of civilization, which we can see more from Genesis 4. The situation of Cain is associated with civilization, and that's not necessarily a good thing. But after the Flood, instead of humans being afraid of animals, it is the fear of humanity that is put upon the animals. So, this is a very upside down reality to what the people in Mesopotamia were thinking.

Quoting again from Van Ee, he says, quote, The main point is not whether the fearsome animals listed were present in the world, but whether they were feared by humans. Nevertheless, [00:32:00] while noting these two changes, no Mesopotamian texts describe a time of absolute peace between humans and animals. It is better to speak of differing levels of opposition. Animals themselves are not portrayed as changing, but their interactions with humans change as humans develop and as the gods bring about the normal state of the world. End quote.

Okay, so pausing here for just a moment to point out how important it is to get our heads into the minds of the ancient person, because we might be a little bit surprised. We might not realize the kinds of things they were thinking about. I mean, how many of us would have thought that there was an ancient context for this intersection of wild beasts and civilization? That maybe the author of Genesis is pointing out this distinction between humanity and beasts in contrast to the pagan literature of the day? How many of us have read this passage after the Flood about the fear of animals and scratched [00:33:00] our heads over why on earth it's included? What is that even about? This is the benefit of reading other literature. Again, if you want more of that, go ahead and find Van Ee's dissertation as he provides many examples from the ancient Near Eastern literature.

Since we're talking about animals, let's turn to address the question of meat eating, which is a really important aspect of this whole thing. It's much easier to try to argue for human death not happening before the fall than it is to argue for a lack of animal death, because Romans 5 speaks very specifically of death being brought to humans. So, maybe for some of us, we won't be surprised or entirely bothered by the presence of animal death, even if it doesn't seem quite right in a good creation. But, for the vast majority of Christians, we simply can't see how meat eating can be in the early chapters of Genesis. But it can, and I'm going to show you [00:34:00] how.

We need to look at Genesis 1, 29 through 30 for this. Which reads in the ESV, and God said, behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on 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 heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth. Everything that has the breath of life. I have given every green plant for food. And it was so end quote.

So in English, we have two lists here with two subjects, and two separate verbs. It looks like the man is given a type of food to eat, and beasts are given a type of food. And both of these types of foods are plants. But they're different plants. Humans get seed bearing plants and trees. Beasts and birds and creepy things get green plants. That's how it reads in English.

Note [00:35:00] here there is no prohibition. Nothing says that man cannot eat meat. But there's something we don't see in English that I'm going to point out here as well. That verb in verse 30, it isn't there. There are not two separate givings of plant food. So there's two ways we can interpret that. Most translations go ahead and put the verb there, supposing it's meant to be implied. And then that makes it look like humans are given one type of plant, and animals are given another type.

But another way of reading it is that both animals and people have the same food given by God. And so it's just showing what humans and animals have in common, and that both are provided for by God. But either way, we all eat plants, right?

The second interpretation, that animals and mankind are to eat seed bearing plants, trees, and green plants, does help to mesh with the [00:36:00] verse in Genesis 9, 3, where humans are also given green plants to eat but it doesn't specify the seed bearing plants and the trees.

I personally think that it's possible that there is still a distinction in Genesis 1 between the food of men and the food of animals. But the distinction is between agriculture and non agriculture. And that this is the point. Since Genesis 2 has such a focus on tending the land and the provision for agriculture, it can make sense that we could see here in Genesis 1 A designation of man's efforts for the benefit of man, and animals being provided for directly by God's provision.

Seed bearing plants and trees are products of agriculture. Green plants could be the kind of plants that grow without man's help. And yes, I realize that animals would also eat [00:37:00] grain from time to time, but the reason they'd eat grain is generally so they could be fattened for human consumption. So, even animals eating seed bearing plants is still in the service of mankind, so it maintains this distinction that I see.

But either way, with either interpretation of the verse, again, it's not a prohibition. And for those who suggest it's an implied prohibition, well, what about milk and honey? Are humans also prohibited from eating those, since they aren't plants? You see the logical inconsistency here of saying that meat is prohibited for human consumption because it's not listed, but milk and honey and eggs and maybe even fish are okay for eating, even though they're also not listed.

It's kind of a double standard for interpretation there, isn't it? Either it's a complete list of what we are allowed to eat, or it's not. And it's really [00:38:00] clearly not. The point is obviously not an exhaustive list of what's allowed. But rather, it shows a kind of ordering and provision. And after all, that's exactly what Genesis 1 is all about. Proper order. Maintaining realm distinctions.

Another thing we can toss into this mix is looking at ruling and subduing. Let's look at that for a moment. In Genesis 1, 28, it says, And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

Where else do we see the word subdue? Well, generally, we see it in military contexts, like here in 2 Samuel 8, verse 11, which says, These also King David dedicated to the Lord, together with the silver and [00:39:00] gold that he dedicated from all the nations he subdued.

Oh my, this is kind of a rough word, and we have a tendency to kind of mitigate that, but I think we really do need to acknowledge the roughness of this word. It seems to be used to speak of a kind of dominance that reflects something like force or strength of arms. And you know, we see Jesus talked about with the same kind of language, don't we? Not the same word, maybe, but the same type of idea. Jesus is to rule and put all of his enemies under his feet.

Because of that description of Jesus, we instantly kind of go into this idea of the upside down kingdom, right? Where the king is first a servant. And, you know, it's not like violent or anything. So, no, we should never impart violence into this idea of subduing. But there is a sense here of this need of dominance.

And, in fact, dominance is a really big theme [00:40:00] in these first chapters of Genesis, isn't it? The snake comes along, and Eve doesn't demonstrate dominance over it. She doesn't subdue it in the way that she should have. And then Adam did not portray the right kind of leadership over Eve, after she had brought him the fruit. And in the end, we have an upside down, wrong kind of dominance between the man and the woman.

It's not really that dominance itself is a bad thing, actually. It's not really that subduing something that needs to be subdued is a bad thing. It's not that humanity was to lead some kind of perfect life where we didn't have to work or enforce our will in some sense. Work and dominance isn't just an outcome of the Fall. In fact, the Fall happened because of poor dominance and subjection. The idea of subduing is something that suggests opposition.

This is what Van Ee says about the word subdue. [00:41:00] Quote. The subduing of the Earth is not referring to the carrying out of cultural activities like farming and building but to something that precedes them and makes them possible. Opposing forces must be defeated before a land is subdued. In fact, a subduing, a land is defeating the opposing forces. In these verses, the references to the land are metonymy for the opposing nations in the land. The land being subdued is equivalent to the people of the land being conquered. End quote.

Now, you can disagree with that, but at the beginning of Genesis chapter 2, the land is not supposed to have thorns and thistles, right? It's supposed to be fairly easy for Adam and Eve to farm it. And yet we have the word subdue show up in Genesis 1. And you know, I've cautioned before that in word studies, not every connotation of a word should be [00:42:00] brought into each particular use of the word. So. There is room for interpretation here, but again, that's room for interpretation rather than saying, this word subdue cannot mean anything violent.

Another quote from Van Ee. Quote, The different terminology used for humankind's relationship with the animals and plants does not imply that animals cannot be used as a food source. Instead, the terminology reflects the differences between animals and plants. The metaphor of dominion, to subdue and rule, is better suited for humankind's relationship with animals than with vegetation. Animals can be captured and tamed. They must be cared for and guarded against. Also, the notion of ruling fits well with the variety of ways in which humans use animals. Vegetation can also be used in a variety of [00:43:00] ways, but its primary role is that of nutrition. Meat, on the other hand, is a luxury and was not an everyday part of the diet in Israel or elsewhere in the ancient Near East. End quote.

The idea of dominance over animals isn't always a bad thing. I've taken my dog to obedience school that was really, really effective. Or, at least it would be effective if we put in the work to keep and maintain and embed the skills into my dog. But it was pretty tough stuff. Of course, it's not cruel corrections that I would give, but it was very stiff and direct ones, because animals need us to clearly communicate on their level, right? Just like an animal mom is going to bop her kids on the head when she needs to get them to do what they need to do to keep them safe and to learn proper beastly manners.

Animal domestication doesn't remove the instinct from an animal, but it can [00:44:00] radically adjust it. Domesticated animals generally do not have the level of aggression that a wild animal has, even towards other animals. Of course, there are exceptions and various levels of this, but it does seem like proper interaction with man has a genuine taming tendency.

Let's press the point a little bit more by going back into the distinction of animals and humans in the Ancient Near Eastern material, bringing the point back to what we were talking about before regarding animals and civilization.

Again, from Van Ee., a bit of a long quote here. The Mesopotamian texts studied did mention a different diet for primeval humans, but it was used to indicate their primitive, animal like nature. The descriptions were not concerned with whether primitive humans ate meat or not. A different diet for animals was never mentioned. The description of [00:45:00] lions and wolves that did not kill in Enki and Ninhursaga does not indicate that there were once lions and wolves that were satisfied by vegetation. Instead, it shows the opposite. Lions and wolves are so characterized by killing that their absence is described by the absence of that trait. Also, the lack of harmful animals described is not an indication of a lack of predators in the animal kingdom. Instead, the focus is on threats to humans. The issue of initial animal peace needs the most nuancing. There are no indications that there was a primeval peace among the animals for the same reasons just mentioned concerning vegetarianism. However, there are changes in the interactions of humans and animals described in Mesopotamian literature. It is best to speak of two related issues. First, The cultural development of humans created conflict and opposition. The [00:46:00] movement from an animal like state to a civilized society meant that humans would now have to protect their fields, livestock, storehouses, and more from the animal kingdom. Becoming civilized led to a separation from, and an enmity with, animals. Illustrated most clearly by the figure of Endiku in the Gilgamesh epic. Second, harmful animals were used in new ways by the gods to control human populations. There was an instability in the initial period of human history seen most clearly by the flood episode. End quote.

Okay, so, very interesting, and we have some more points we could make about the dietary passage in Genesis 1, but what about Genesis 9, where it seems to give a new statement about what humans are allowed to eat? Let's look at that passage. [00:47:00]

Genesis 9, 1 through 7 says, 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 give you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life. That is, it's blood. And for your life blood I will require a reckoning. From every beast I will require it, and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. And you, be fruitful and [00:48:00] multiply, increase greatly on the earth, and multiply in it. End quote.

We need to look at this whole passage, because you can see how the beginning and end connect, and quite likely there is a chiastic structure there. I think Van Ee lays that out, but this is very obviously hearkening back to Genesis 1. What can we notice in particular? Well, we have this fear language, which we've talked about. Rather than humanity being afraid of animals, animals are the ones who fear people. It gives particular permission here to eat animals, whereas it didn't in Genesis 1. So that feels like a change. But also remember in Genesis 1, the green plants were in theory for the animals, not the people. And yet Genesis 9 says, as I gave you, the humans, green plants, I give everything. So, that's a bit of a head scratcher, unless Genesis 1 is [00:49:00] saying all plants are for humans and animals both.

But we can't stop there. What else does it say here that it's never said before? This is essential to the passage. It's talking about lifeblood. And finally, we have capital punishment. Remember that episode in Genesis 4 with Cain? We assume that capital punishment should have been there, but it's not. So, that's interesting, especially in light of the talk of death in general as a judgment that we'll get to next. But this bit about the blood, what is the author saying here?

Well, it's complex and I don't know as though I can really do justice to this here, but we need to turn to Leviticus at least. Leviticus 17 tells us about eating meat and how that should be done. Remember that so much of the context of Leviticus is the sacrificial system, and sacrifices were about meals, but not every animal that the Israelites were going to eat [00:50:00] was going to be done in the context of sacrifice.

So what do they do about that? Let's read here a bit in Leviticus. Leviticus 17, starting in verse 10. If any one of the house of Israel, or the strangers who sojourn among them, eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger whose sojourn's among you eat blood. Anyone, also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten, shall pour out its blood, and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood. Its blood is its [00:51:00] life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off. And every person who eats what dies of itself, or what is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or a sojourner, shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. Then he shall be clean. But if he does not wash them or bathe his flesh, he shall bear his iniquity. End quote.

To sum up that long passage, blood eating is bad, and in particular it's because it makes atonement. And if you go out hunting, well, likely you're going to slaughter the animal there, and a wild animal isn't for sacrifice anyway. But apparently you can still eat it, but you need to pour the blood out and cover it with dirt. The killing isn't ritualized, but the pouring out of the blood is.

I want to point out [00:52:00] that in the flood narrative, we have that weird insertion of talking about clean and unclean animals, which seems really out of place when we associate that with the covenant on Sinai. But of course, we can think that God could have told his people before about all of that, but nowhere else in Genesis does it talk about clean and unclean animals. But when we see that elsewhere, we're thinking in terms of temple and sacred space and all of those kinds of things that relate to God dwelling with the people. I mean, we're also thinking about eating the animals, aren't we? And supposedly they weren't supposed to be eating them before the Ark?

Quite a few scholars have suggested that the Ark is the first man made sacred space that is more than just an altar. And Noah is making his sacrifice at the door of the ark, just as the priest would be sacrificing at the threshold of the tabernacle.

So, remember, I like to talk about concepts, and even though the text might not always be [00:53:00] explicitly laying out a concept in particular, the reader and receiver of the text would be thinking in certain ways. When clean and unclean animals are mentioned, They would be thinking about the temple, they would be thinking about sacrifice. They would be thinking about the proper way to do those things, and they'd know the proper way to do those things as laid out in Leviticus.

Okay. So what is the difference here in Genesis nine, and how does that relate to Leviticus 17? Well, we have to understand the meaning behind the blood. We today often jump immediately to the connection of blood with death. If you kill something, it's bloody. But, in fact, the Bible, you heard this , when I read Leviticus, it goes out of its way to connect blood with life, not death. Leviticus 1711 says that the purpose of blood is atonement, [00:54:00] which, as we've seen from the discussions of sacrifice, is about cleansing. That's the purpose of blood.

If the Ark is the first sacred space, then it makes sense this is where we're going to see an emphasis on the sacred nature of blood, even if atonement per se is not mentioned. Genesis 9 makes a point that meat eating cannot and should not involve blood eating. Maybe the typical ancient reader would hear this and think something like, Now we have some formal sacred space, well, that's going to need cleansing and suddenly blood matters.

But not only that, there is one other context of Genesis 9 that we haven't mentioned. The context is also murder, which seems a little strange, right? After the Flood, doesn't it? Seems like maybe we should have seen that in Genesis 4, but instead we see it after the Flood. , we think, well, maybe that's because the Flood came on account of violence, and maybe murder [00:55:00] in particular.

Actually, you know what, you guys? I know this episode is getting a little bit long and this is just a total aside, but one of my favorite authors is Dean Koontz, and in his book, The Taking, I don't want to spoil it, but it's got flood connotations, and two of the characters are talking about the biblical flood, and one of them is asking why the flood came, and the other character said it's because of violence, especially murder.

Now, Dean Koontz is, I believe, Catholic, so for years and years and years I wondered where he got this idea from, and I'm still not entirely sure, but the only thing I can think is this passage after the flood. But I've also wondered if it might be a particular Catholic interpretation. No Catholic I've talked to has ever heard anything as particular as murder causing the flood.

So, anyway, I don't know if any of you listening have any additional leads on that. I [00:56:00] would so love to hear from you, because it's just one of those things that's bugged me for so long. I want to know if Dean Koontz just made that up, or if it came from some particular interpretation elsewhere. Message me if you've got an answer for that.

But anyway, back to our normal topic here. What we might miss in Genesis 9 is that animals are looped into murder. Even an animal who kills a man is guilty of murder. But catch this, too, from both Genesis 9 and Leviticus 17. Life is in the blood. Genesis 9 may not specifically say that killing an animal is murder, But I feel like this is implied in some sense, because both men and animals contain lifeblood. Actually, I should put that differently. It's not, in fact, murder to kill an animal for eating, but I've got to lay out why that is the case. Also keep in mind, this is before the Sinai Covenant, and so whatever we see [00:57:00] described in Genesis 9 is going to apply not just to the Israelites, but also to all of the nations, because they came from Noah's lineage.

All right, I'm going to introduce the idea of how ritual can change the meaning of an action into something else. Specifically here, I'm going to talk about how ritual can turn death into something that is not a death.

I'm going to read a quote from Andrew Rillera's book Lamb of the Free. He says, quote, So how does the Torah deal with the seeming-contradiction that death cannot be brought into sacred space but that animal sacrifice rather obviously necessitates the biological death of the animal. It does this by capitalizing on the basic notions of what rituals do. Namely, as Jonathan Z. Smith argues, providing the means of overcoming this contradiction between word [00:58:00] and deed. In brief, According to Leviticus, although in deed an animal literally dies, in word, via the whole ritual process of how the animal dies, where it dies, what happens to its body and blood afterwards, etc., the death of the animal is reconceptualized and reconfigured so that what just took place was a not killing. but a sacrifice, and the sacrifice itself will take on different meaning and significance depending on the function of the particular sacrifice being offered. So, sacrifice is further construed either as a sacred gift, or, when used for kippur, or atonement, into a ritual detergent. So, decontaminating sancta, sacred objects and places. But, the validity of either of these purposes depends upon the sacrifice being transfigured into something completely [00:59:00] separate from anything having to do with the concept of death. In short, Leviticus 17 makes it clear that sacrifice functions within a ritual ontology wholly distinct from the realm of death. End quote. .

Now, Rillera does continue with the traditional idea that Genesis one does propose that humans are supposed to be vegetarians. But I think that what he's bringing out here in regards to the meaning of what's going on is really, really important in relation to Genesis chapters one and nine. What we have there is a new understanding, not of what can be eaten, but of how it is to be eaten.

Now that people understand that life is in the blood. The meaning of the eating of the animal is acceptable now only if the blood is respected as being what it is. If you don't respect that and you kill an animal and eat its blood, then you are guilty.[01:00:00] Guilty of something at least, even if not murder.

So, remember and realize here that prior to Genesis 9, there is no capital punishment. It doesn't exist. It's not a thing. But now that capital punishment is a thing, and with the emphasis on what blood means and what blood can do, then there is now a restriction. According to Rillera's explanation of Leviticus 17, meat becomes okay to eat through the proper manipulation of blood, because that turns it from a killing to a not killing.

By the time of Leviticus, there are a lot of particular ways you're supposed to use the blood after slaughtering an animal. But the problem is, people aren't always going to be at the tabernacle or temple slaughtering animals, and even if they were, not all animals could be used for sacrifice. So, Rillera's explanation is that Leviticus 17 gives the method of [01:01:00] how one can make the killing of an animal, in order to eat the animal, still a not killing. Just like it's made a not killing in any other kind of sacrificial ritual. The way that's done is the ritual manipulation of the blood by pouring it on the ground and covering it with earth. That's quite similar to how the ground took in Abel's blood, isn't it?

This might be a little bit hard to follow, but what I'm saying here is that what matters is the meaning of what's going on. And I'm saying that meaning changes according to the people's understanding. People prior to Genesis 9 are not going to be condemned for eating the blood, but after Genesis 9, they are going to be condemned for eating the blood. It's the same for Leviticus. Before the time of Leviticus, they're not going to be condemned for not pouring the blood on the ground, but after Leviticus, they have strict instructions on how to manipulate the blood.

So my overall point here is to show that Genesis 9 isn't giving new [01:02:00] dietary requirements. Except for the emphasis on not eating blood. And according to how an Israelite would read this, we can see that a pagan or a Gentile could be held to the standard of Genesis 9, but an Israelite would be held to the standard of Leviticus 17. No matter who you are, you ought to be held responsible for respecting the blood.

Also, it's important to note that this comes after the Flood, which the Flood was brought about because of humanity's violence. So, what Genesis 9 is giving is some clarification for the New World post Flood. Killing animals for eating is not the same as the violence that was going on before the Flood.

Another quote from Van Ee. He says, quote, The reason for the Flood given in Genesis 6, 11 through 13, is that all flesh, humans and animals, had corrupted their ways and filled the earth with violence. [01:03:00] Violence can be used as a more general term for sin, but in Genesis 6, 11, and 13, it is best taken in its more specific use to describe acts of violence and oppression, especially the destruction of human life.

Oh, hey, that connects to what Dean Koontz said, doesn't it? Interesting. Sorry, continuing on.

Carey Griffel: Some commentators, based on their interpretation of an original vegetarian state, argue that violence may also be referring to carnivorous acts by humans and animals. Even without an original vegetarian State, it is possible that violence in Genesis 6, 11 and 13 includes acts of violence and oppression done to animals. It is reasonable to assume that after the Flood God would seek to change, or clarify the interactions of humans and animals so that violence would be better controlled. This change or clarification is precisely what [01:04:00] seems to be recorded in Genesis 9. Commentators who argue that verse 3 grants permission to eat meat for the first time are faced with the problem of explaining how that new rite relates to the problem of violence. The majority of modern commentators, however, see the rite to kill and eat animals as a somewhat surprising accommodation to humankind's violent nature. In contrast to the uncontrolled violence before the Flood, their prohibition in 9 verse 4 requires the controlled killing of animals through the making of distinctions. End quote.

Okay, so the clarification about meat eating might primarily have to do with a clarification about how it could conceivably be seen as a violent act. And it's saying, hey guys, don't forget that the Flood was brought about due to violent acts, but It's okay, you won't cause another massive extinction event just because you're eating meat.

But [01:05:00] also note, I've got a lot of notes in this episode, sorry about that, there's another distinction here in Genesis 9 between humans and animals, just like there is potentially a distinction in Genesis 1 between the diets. Animals eat flesh with the blood still in it, but humans are not to do that, because again, Humans are above animals, and this is a prohibition, unlike what many people claim about vegetarianism.

There is no prohibition against eating meat anywhere. Nowhere in scripture does it say people should not eat meat. And with the entire emphasis and sacrificial system, in my opinion it seems absolutely bizarre to suggest that meat eating is any kind of a problem anywhere. Or that vegetarianism would be preferred idealistic way of being.

Keep in mind, too, that when Jesus was resurrected and came to hang out with his people, he, too, was eating just the same as [01:06:00] he was eating before. Now, you could say, well, he ate fish, not beef. Well, okay, fair enough, but where in Genesis 1 do you see that it's okay to eat fish? Yeah, you see the problems, don't you?

Okay, so we've spent enough time on this, probably way too much time on this. I had no idea this episode was going to be so long, but here we are. We're going to just continue and plow through the rest of this material. The next thing we need to talk about is the question of immortality and if man was originally made with the ability to not die. Well, my main exhibit for this would be the presence of the Tree of Life in the garden. Why would there be a tree of life if humans were already in a state that they wouldn't die? Boom. Done with the discussion. Just kidding. Of course we're not.

There is no suggestion of original human immortality in the other Ancient Near Eastern literature either. All things considered, it seems the belief of the ancient people was [01:07:00] not that humans would be immortal naturally. They could only achieve this by blessing from the gods in some way.

So, we were prevented from living forever because we lost access to the Tree of Life. What we can talk about next is the idea of death related to curse, or at least the consequences of the Fall, because, remember, God said to Adam that if he ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would surely die, and then the serpent came along and he disagreed with this.

Quoting Van Ee again, he says, quote, In analyzing the Eden narrative, the curses in Genesis 3 are crucial. They signal a change from what was then to what is presently known, and show that the former was in some way better than the later. The change for humans is spoken of as the addition of misery in verses 16 and 17. Life was better before the curses [01:08:00] because it was not characterized by this misery. The movement to a worse state aligns well with the common interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 as an account of sin and punishment. The curses indicate that the action of the man and woman in eating from the Tree of Knowing is best described as an act of disobedience. They are the negative consequences that result from transgression of the prohibition given by God in chapter 2, verses 16 and 17. Note that God's speech to the man in 3. 17 explicitly ties the curse to his breaking of the prohibition. End quote.

Another distinction between Mesopotamian ideas and biblical ideas of the state of early man is that, in the Bible, work is seen as a good thing. Mankind is given tasks by God in both Genesis 1 as well as Genesis 2, and so this actually ironically parallels the idea that humans were created to be workers for [01:09:00] God according to the Mesopotamians, but in the Bible, this work is seen as not something that we're doing to maintain God, as if this is something God needs for himself, but it's a blessed thing, a thing that's going to help promote human flourishing.

At least until we get to Genesis 3, where it becomes difficult, where our work becomes a type of misery. Basically, the major difference between the Edenic state and our state after the Fall is that work becomes toil. Both the first and second chapters of Genesis indicate that life isn't to remain static.

The concept of subduing and tilling and keeping the ground indicate that humanity is to do something with the Earth. So we aren't simply remaining in a simple state. I've also talked before about the need for a maturation of humanity. The idea of gaining knowledge of good and evil is elsewhere attached to the maturity of children. Not that Adam and Eve were children. They were married. [01:10:00] They were to cultivate the land. That requires adulthood.

But they were also described as being naked. And here's something essential, I think. If everything in the garden is seen as the perfect state, then that would suggest also that being naked should be our standard, just as much as anything, right? But we usually don't see it that way. The change in how they viewed their nakedness happened upon the loss of their innocence, or in conjunction with experiencing guilt or shame, so it seems that the description of being naked has something to do with that, which is another episode for later. My point here is that this original state is not one in which they were to remain, and not one that we're returning to explicitly.

So even the potential prescriptions of Eden are only applicable insofar as we see them elsewhere described in scripture. So, things like how we relate to the earth, How we are to rule and subdue, [01:11:00] what we are to eat, what we are to wear, what death means, those all need to be filtered through later revelation, rather than assuming what we see in the garden is what we should see in any ideal state.

Alright, so here we need to talk about the trees in the garden. Have you ever noticed that the Tree of Life is named after the effect it produces? Have That means that if you eat from the Tree of Life, you gain life, right? But what effect did Adam and Eve get from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad?

What happened to them? Or at least, what was supposedly to happen? Because I think there's a distinction there. Supposedly, they got death. So why isn't the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad called the Tree of Death? Because you get life from the Tree of Life, and you supposedly get death from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad.

I mean, they're pretty clearly opposites as far as that goes. But the tree isn't called the Tree of Death. I think [01:12:00] that's because the outcome of death wasn't really the point. And it wasn't what they actually got, I'd argue. The outcome of taking from it was, more specifically, the choice of disobedience.

Notice that the Tree of Life wasn't the test. That's interesting, isn't it? If you compare this with the Epic of Gilgamesh Gilgamesh is on a quest for life. He was seeking the Tree of Life. But the question before Adam and Eve wasn't being tempted with eternal life. They had access to that already, and then they gave it up.

They gave up the eternal life for the ability to choose for themselves what they found desirable. It was the choice of being able to make that decision according to their own wishes. And what I'm pointing out here is the test. The test that ultimately leads to their choosing something other than God, and that is what leads to death. At least Adam chose that. Maybe Eve didn't know what God said, but Adam had no excuse.[01:13:00]

So again, the choice that leads to death is the main crux of what we see here. This is the first test of mankind. It's almost their first, and really only place that they can disobey, right? I say almost, because humanity was given tasks in Genesis 1, but it's in Genesis 2 that we see the covenant name of Yahweh. And that seems to matter.

We don't see here the idea of them worshiping other gods, do we? The serpent isn't asking them to worship him, or even give him any real acknowledgement at all. But the serpent is opening the door to show how they can choose something other than God. The idea was that they could continue their development and maturation without regard to obedience.

So I said before that the presence of the Tree of Life itself demonstrates that humanity was not created immortal to begin with. And then we need to ask directly, what about what God [01:14:00] says in regard to the Tree of Knowledge? The tree was going to bring them death, right? So are they not going to die?

Let's look at that specifically. It says in Genesis 2, 17, that in the day you eat of it, you will surely die. Okay, essential question here that maybe you haven't thought about. Does this say that humanity will only die once they eat from the tree? Meaning they won't die unless they take of that tree. Or is the statement about death actually a pronouncement of judgment upon their disobedience, similar to a law about capital punishment?

In other words, Is the death mentioned in Genesis 2 not death in general, but a specific death that is related to disobedience? Similar to how you would get tried for a crime and sentenced. In such a [01:15:00] view, without the ability to eat from the Tree of Life, which, remember, is in the middle of the garden, Adam would die just like any other person.

The death he experienced had meaning on two levels. He died because he no longer had access to the Tree of Life, and he died, supposedly, because he disobeyed God and didn't pass the test. If he'd passed the test, he'd have retained access to the Tree of Life. So, too, would the rest of humanity have access to the Tree of Life if he hadn't sinned, either from within the garden, or perhaps from other trees that Adam would have brought out of the garden. Who knows? The point is, either way, the access to life would stem from God's holy place and would be available due to the lack of disobedience and the continued allegiance to God. Life comes from allegiance to God. Death comes from disobedience.

So just thinking out loud in a thought experiment now. [01:16:00] What about people outside the garden, who die not because of disobedience, but just because they didn't have access to the tree of life?, Well, we can get into that a little bit more with Romans 5, but my biggest suggestion is that maybe the judgment of death didn't actually happen.

Maybe God forgave instead of enacting the pronounced judgment. Now that's not saying that Adam didn't die, but he didn't die in response to the sentence. Maybe this is mercy, just as it's a mercy that they were clothed and it's a mercy that they were not allowed access to the Tree of Life because they would have continued life forever in disobedience.

When we see what happened in the Flood, we see this line about God's spirit in relation to 120 years, right? Some say this is referring to the amount of time before the Flood, but just looking at the [01:17:00] Age of Noah, that doesn't really pan out. People take that idea also because it also doesn't pan out that people's lifespans suddenly stop being long and they are only limited to 120 years.

But let's look at this in relation to what's going on in the Flood. People are being disobedient, they aren't repenting, they aren't turning back to God, so the idea of allowing people to do that indefinitely, either through access to the Tree of Life or through having really, really long lifespans, is just not a good thing. It's not conductive to repentance. It just allows people to build up more and more judgment upon themselves. So in the end, what we have is this idea of death in conjunction with judgment, but it's not always a punishment. Sometimes it's a mercy.

So what about what we see in Romans 5? Paul is talking about both Jews and Gentiles, and he's saying it's not just Jews who are under [01:18:00] judgment. It's also Gentiles. I won't take the time to look at that passage in depth right now, but Paul's point is that all are under condemnation, Jew and Gentile alike. Death is a judgment, and a just one, since we all sin if given the chance.

Since Adam is seen as being the first one who sinned, and he is the archetype, the head of humanity. The special creation of man, who is to lead the rest of mankind into good relationship with God. Well, we see how that worked out. Since the giving of commands, man has failed, and always fails. We all deserve that judgment of death, not because we inherit Adam's guilt, but because we are in relationship with God, and have all been given some form of law that we are to obey.

So, you can see how this wouldn't really relate to the unborn. Or those without the capacity to disobey. Or [01:19:00] those who are not under any law at all, because there was literally nothing to disobey against. Those humans all still die, but they aren't under judgment in the form of punishment. For some people, death can be a mercy. They're actually prevented from being judged in punishment for what they've done.

Again, death is absolutely related to judgment, and we want to say specifically that has to be about punishment, right? Well, yes, but not entirely, because it's also related to this concept of mercy. Mercy and punishment are two sides of judgment and justice.

Adam could have continued with access to the Tree of Life. Mankind could have continued living long lives full of debauchery, but instead, their lives are cut short. Not specifically because of what they've done, even though that could be the case because we are all under that judgment, but their lives are cut short so that they [01:20:00] can't dig themselves into even deeper problems than they already have.

Once we're under a curse, as we see in Genesis 3, it is in fact a mercy to have that curse end and not be forever in duration. Our toil in the mortal realm can only last so long.

Okay, so we've gotten into most of the corners of this topic that I think are productive, and we took way longer than I expected to do that, but in the end, what we can say that the Bible talks about death coming from Adam, is, it's true, it's about the meaning of what that is. Like, of course, none of us want to have to go through the suffering of death and the leaving behind of loved ones, but we have the hope of Christ who grants us life, and that life is not just an inability to die, and it's not just the next mode of existence, but it begins now, today, when we give our [01:21:00] lives to Jesus.

As for animals and whatnot, I am of the opinion that they too gain proper justice for their suffering, which, from at least a philosophical perspective, I really believe that means, by necessity, that they too will be resurrected just as we will. If they aren't, then that would mean that the defeat of their suffering could only be accomplished in this life, which we know that doesn't pan out. Like even if a deer could, or would say, that its giving life to the wolf is worthy of its death, there is so much suffering that animals endure that is not defeated, unless death for them is also swallowed up.

There are several books on this concept if you're interested. One in particular is called The Problem of Animal Pain that lays this out. I have not personally read the whole thing because it's expensive and I haven't found a cheap or available copy, but from what I have read of it, it's a very [01:22:00] good, but definitely highly philosophical treatment on the topic.

And again, I'm not trying to make an apologetic for the idea of death before the fall or meat eating or whatever else. Because I think we could likewise read these texts as if there's no death before the fall, and Genesis 1 is promoting an ideal of vegetarianism. My point here, though, is that multiple interpretations can be taken from the text, and that they are valid. And I do want to point out the places where we really are reading into the text, and we should not be doing that.

That doesn't mean we can't still interpret the text in those ways. But, we need to be aware of our tendencies. There is a difference between deciding to land somewhere in an interpretation, because we think the evidence points that way more strongly, versus deciding to land somewhere and saying that the text can only be interpreted that way.

In either case, the important thing is to try and see this the way that an [01:23:00] ancient person would have seen it. That's what matters to the foundations of biblical interpretation. So, I'm not trying to jam science into the text, but interestingly, there is this legitimate contextual way of seeing how our current scientific understanding of reality, and the Bible's understanding of reality, might not be so very far apart after all.

And I just find that very, very interesting. So I hope you enjoyed this episode. I hope it didn't wrap your mind into too many knots. It does get difficult to talk about the more nuanced ways of interpreting the text. This is probably why the more simplistic interpretations have been preferred over time.

If you guys have any questions, you can contact me via Facebook or through my website at genesismarksthespot. com where you can do things like read my blog posts, see my artwork, find out ways to support me financially, and And thank you to all of those who do that. You guys absolutely rock.

[01:24:00] If you sign up for my newsletter, you can find out things like where I'm showing up on YouTube outside of my own YouTube channel. I have a segment on the YouTube channel, Faith Unaltered, where I talk about church history and systematic theology. And right now I've just started a conversation that is launching into a deep, deep study of church history. And we're starting before the time of Jesus so that we can have a nice, solid foundation for the context of the first century Jews and the first century Christians. So if you're interested in that, you can find that on Faith Unaltered in the playlist entitled Pilgrims in a Holy Land. And I also share about those episodes from my newsletter. So anyway, lots of places to find me, lots of places to engage in the discussion. But that's it for this episode. I wish you all a blessed week, and we will see you later.