Death Before the Fall
by
Glenn R. Morton
Copyright 1998 G.R. Morton
This may be freely distributed, freely posted on listservs so long
as it is not altered and no charge is made and reference to my web
page is retained.
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/death.htm
I have recently received a letter from a famous young-earth
creationist. I have a respect for this gentleman because he does
think out of the ordinary young-earth box. He informed me that he
could not accept my harmonization because of the existence of
death before the fall. He strongly believes that the Scripture
rules this out. Because of the respect I feel for this individual
and the widespread belief among young earth creationists that man
was originally created immortal, I am going to address this head
on.
The first issue that must be addressed is the issue of
immortality. Who or what was offered immortality in the Scripture?
Genesis 2:17 says
Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die.
What is interesting is that this verse actually does not say that
they will live forever, it merely states the opposite. It says
that in the day they eat, they will die. Does this actually imply
that Adam and Eve would live forever? Traditionally this is the
way that this verse has been interpreted, but in the day one eats
a toadstool, they will die. Their liver will fail and they will
die within 24 hours. Yet if someone tells them that the day they
will eat a toadstool, they will die, it does not imply that they
otherwise would live forever. To conclude that Genesis 2:17
implies immortality is a non sequitur. Do these verses teach that
mankind was given eternal life? Maybe not.
The function of the Tree of Life was obviously to give eternal
life. Of this tree God says:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as
one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his
hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for
ever:
What is clear from this verse is that the treeās fruit could give
the eater immortality. If Adam and Eve already possessed
immortality, why was the tree there? There are three
possibilities. 1. The tree was there to provide eternal life for
people after the fall. 2 The tree was there to provide a one time
Īrewardā of immortality after a period of life on earth. 3. The
tree was there to provide continuing Ītreatmentsā of immortality.
The context clearly falsifies the first option, the idea that the
tree served some purpose for life after the Fall.. God removed the
Tree specifically to avoid the fallen creatures from partaking of
the tree. So this would suggest that the only reason for the tree
was to provide immortality for the UNFALLEN Adam and Eve, either
as a single or continuing dose, options 1 and 2.. But both of
these options imply strongly that they did not originally possess
immortality. As noted above one can not give a trait like
immortality if they already have immortality. Both of these two
possibilities contradict the widespread view that Adam and Eve
were created immortal (in spite of the fact that no statement to
that effect actually occurs in the Scripture.)
What about the New Testament references to death entering the
cosmos through sin? Romans 5:12 needs to be discussed in this
regard. It says:
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all
have sinned:
The verse would be reconciled to the lack of original immortality
by merely noting that death did spread to all men because the Tree
of Life was removed. If immortality was to be given to men by
either a single or continuing dose (options 1 and 2) then the
treeās removal would have severe consequences for the history of
humanity. Death would have entered the human order via the removal
of the tree. Such a view is consistent with Revelations 22:2 which
says,
Rev. 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of
the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of
fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the
tree were for the healing of the nations.
This verse hints that the tree is for continued healing, not a one
time dose. This then allows one to understand that other verses
can be interpreted as death entering the normal order for mankind
by the removal of the Tree of Life rather than by the direct
effect of eating the tree. Death entered the world through the
consequences of Adam's actions. This is also consistent with the
proclamation made by God that death would follow Adam's sin. It
did. They were the walking dead after the tree was removed from
their reach. They were doomed die the day they lost access to the
Tree of Life.
Romans 5;17-18 says:
Romans 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned
through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's
abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign
in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was
condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of
righteousness was justification that brings life for all
men. (NIV)
Because the Tree was removed, the consequence was the condemnation
for all of humanity. One other interesting item about the above
verses is that death was spread to MEN, not to animals. This is
supported by the fact that the word 'men' is the Greek word,
anthropos. This Greek word means men NOT animals. Adamās sin
spread to men. This passage, cannot be used to support the concept
that Adamās sin affected the animals.
What about the passage in Romans 8?
Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by
its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in
hope
21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to
decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of
God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the
pains of childbirth right up to the present time. (NIV)
The creation can groan even if it was not originally offering
immortality to the animals. Humans have an ability to destroy
which surpasses anything else in the creation. We are driving
animals to extinction; we are fouling the environment. Creation
groans even without immortality.
One final item, it is illogical to believe that animals had
immortality for several reasons.
First, if animals couldnāt die, why did God create them with
reproductive abilities? If no cow could die, then God need not
have created two cows and told them to populate the earth; He
could have created 10,567,890,002 cows and been done with it. None
of them could die, and there would be no need for replacements.
Sex and reproduction were needless. The fact that God told the
animals to reproduce strongly implies that they were going to need
replacements, implying death was part of their natural state.
Could it be that God planned for man to sin? If this were so, then
traditional views of Godās causation of evil would not be correct.
God would have created a world in which man was doomed to sin
regardless of manās own decision. This violates the theology of
most of the young-earth creationists yet they donāt notice this
contradiction.
Secondly, if animals were not able to die, it would imply things
like the following. If a twenty-ton meteor, moving at 20
kilometers per second were to smash onto the head of a fox in the
field, then in a cartoon-like manner, the fox would get up and run
away after this event. An ant, crawling on grass which was eaten
by a cow, would have had to have been able to withstand the
crushing of the cowās teeth, and a passage through the ruminantās
four stomachs. It would be able to resume its life after
elimination from the cow no matter how far from home the cow had
taken it.
Thirdly, eating would not be necessary. If animals were unable to
die, then, they would also be unable to die from starvation. So
God giving the various animals food would have been pointless.
They really didnāt need to eat at all because they couldnāt die.
Finally, there is a strange dichotomy between what YECs say about
death and what they themselves actually admit as being the case.
When an animal in the prefall world ate a plant, hundreds of
thousands of plant cells would DIE. These cells, and the plant
itself would be digested and incorporated into the structure of
the animal. So, plant death was a reality no matter what the
theology says. Death, plant death and cell death, existed prior to
the fall. Those denying death before the fall are only interested
in denying animal death.
Yet this raises an interesting question. Could animal cells die
before the flood? There is really little fundamental difference
between plant and animal cells in relation to their fundamental
structure. Both have DNA, both have cell membranes etc. Why is it
that only cells with chloroplasts were believed to be subject to
death prior to the fall? Were chloroplasts an Achilles heel for
survival? It would be doubtful.
Could it be that plants don't have the breath of life and this is
why plant death is not important? Obviously the plant has no
breath of life. Plant cells have no breath of life. But then
neither again do animal cells, at least not in the sense that the
term 'breath of life' is generally understood. So was it possible
for an animal to eat the leg of another animal prior to the fall,
as long as the animal itself is not killed? Such a possibility
sounds preposterous, yet animal cells no more have the breath of
life than do plant cells. If the differentiation between plant and
animal death is solely based upon the criterion of the breath of
life, that preposterous case can not be ruled out.
To conclude, it seems highly likely that there was death before
the Fall. There was most certainly plant death and cellular death,
and the existence of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden
suggests that it was there to give Adam and Eve something that the
did not originally possess ö immortality. And if they were not
immortal, then they were mortal. Adam and Eve were offered
immortality originally through the Tree of Life in some fashion.
And this involved giving them a quality they didnāt originally
possess--immortality.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm