Nephesh #5315 Genesis 2:7

[random person]

And the LORD God formed man of the dust (aphar # 6083) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (nephesh #5315). Genesis 2:7

Is immortality really unconditional? We generally hear that Adam was created immortal, not subject to death, and that because of Adam's sin, he died physically, as did his descendants.

But was Adam created immortal, not subject to physical death? It appears not. Let's briefly review the Bible's teaching concerning man being a living soul. The word soul in the Old Testament comes from the Hebrew nephesh, which fundamentally refers to man's animal life, i.e., the life he shares with all animals. Hence, in Genesis 2:7, we read:

And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.​

Here, Adam consisted of (1) a physical body, composed from the earth, which was not living. However, when God gave this body (2) the breath of life, Adam became a living soul (nephesh. It's interesting that the term nephesh is applied to animals many times in that same creation chapter. For example, Gen. 2:19 says: "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures (nephesh)." In Gen. 1:21, the same word is translated living creature: "And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moves wherewith the water swarmed." In Gen. 1:24, it's again translated animals: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth." In Gen. 1:30, it's translated life: "And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creeps upon the earth, wherein there is life." Hence, the term a living soul, is applied to animals as well as man. They are all living souls.

Not only were Adam and all the living creatures living souls before Adam sinned, but they were all subject to death before he sinned. After his creation outside the garden, God placed Adam in the garden and gave him access to the tree of life to sustain his life. This fact tells us that he wasn't immortal, but subject to death before he sinned. Some suggest that even the fact that Adam had to eat at all, much less of the tree of life, before he sinned, shows that he was mortal (as much so as all other living creatures) before he sinned. Would he not have starved to death had he not eaten? If not, why did God arrange for him to eat anything at all? Where he sinned, he lost access to the tree of life, "lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Gen. 3:22).

God forbade Adam to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil saying in Gen. 2:16-17:

From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.​

Obviously, Adam didn't die physicallyh the day he ate from the tree of knowledge, but hundreds of years later. However, he did die in the sense of being separated from God by his sin the day he ate, and he knew it. Suddenly, his relationship with God changed. He became fearful of approaching God, and attempted to hide from him. This broken relationship with God was Adam's sin-death.

Notice some conclusions thus far concerning whether Adam was immortal. First, Adam didn't die physically because of sin. The physical death of Adam and his descendants was not a punishment for Adam's sin, any more than the physical death of any other living creatures was punishment for Adam's sin. Like all others of Adam's descendants, you and I will die physically, but not because of Adam's sin. We die physically for the same reason Adam did. We're mortal, and we lack access to the tree of life.

Second, Jesus was resurrected from the dead to remedy the effect of Adam's sin (Rom. 5:12-21, 1 Cor. 15:22,45), which was not physical death. Adam wasn't immortal because he was subject to death both before and after he sinned. Nor are we immortal. Christ's resurrection provides the remedy of Adam's spiritual death - his separation from God.

- Samuel G Dawson

 

[Papias]

Yep. The YEC, human idea that Adam was initially immortal is unscriptural.

 

[Resha Caner]

And here I was all excited to discuss "nephesh" ... Oh well ...

I suppose the intent here is to imply that if Adam wasn't immortal, that death occurred in Eden. Those two propositions are not necessarily connected. Whether or not Adam was immortal says nothing of whether he was procreated by some prior non-human and whether that non-human died.

For some time I've been of the position that words have little to no meaning without experience. IOW, Adam could not have understood God's warning regarding death in Genesis 2:17 unless he had some personal experience with death. That he would have seen plants and animals die, and learned of death through those events, is not problematic for me.

But that doesn't mean Adam had ancestors who died. My own view is that Adam wasn't fixedly immortal, but sustained himself by eating of the other tree - the one people seem to forget about - the tree of life. As such, eating of the tree of knowledge didn't directly introduce death to humanity, nor did the banishment. It was the fact that banishment meant Adam could no longer eat from the tree of life that meant he would then die ... and random person seems to say much the same thing.

Like all others of Adam's descendants, you and I will die physically, but not because of Adam's sin.

As I said, any related points don't necessarily follow ... which I assume is the reason for posting in this forum. So I will note I really don't like the above statement. It's horrible theology.

First of all, remember there are different kinds of causes. Aristotle expressed them as material, formal, efficient, and final. Adam's sin did cause our physical death. It was the indirect cause. And Scripture makes that link. Not all talk of death in the Bible is "spiritual" death. Trying to separate physical and spiritual death causes all kinds of problems.

 

[gluadys]

If one thinks of Adam as an individual person, then scripturally, Adam's sin did not cause our physical death. It is our own sin that causes our physical death. "so death spread to all because all have sinned". But if one thinks of Adam typologically, then it is appropriate to say that Adam's sin caused our physical death because we are all exemplars of Adam who repeat the cycle of sin, thus spreading death. Paul seems to be thinking of Adam typologically.

I don't see these two ways of thinking as being mutually exclusive. One can think of the same person both individually and typologically. But the typological approach seems to me the more fundamental here. I hear Paul saying that all of us, as exemplars of Adam, are subject to physical death because all of us have followed in his footsteps by engaging in sinful behaviour, in breaking the law and so confirming the dominion of death. But in Christ we have a new typological figure of whom we can become exemplars and by the grace of God receive justification to eternal life.

As Adam-type people we sin and we die, spiritually and physically; as Christ-type people we live and live eternally.

 

[Resha Caner]

If one thinks of Adam as an individual person, then scripturally, Adam's sin did not cause our physical death. It is our own sin that causes our physical death. "so death spread to all because all have sinned". But if one thinks of Adam typologically, then it is appropriate to say that Adam's sin caused our physical death because we are all exemplars of Adam who repeat the cycle of sin, thus spreading death. Paul seems to be thinking of Adam typologically.

I don't see these two ways of thinking as being mutually exclusive. One can think of the same person both individually and typologically. But the typological approach seems to me the more fundamental here. I hear Paul saying that all of us, as exemplars of Adam, are subject to physical death because all of us have followed in his footsteps by engaging in sinful behaviour, in breaking the law and so confirming the dominion of death. But in Christ we have a new typological figure of whom we can become exemplars and by the grace of God receive justification to eternal life.

As Adam-type people we sin and we die, spiritually and physically; as Christ-type people we live and live eternally.

I've no problem speaking of Adam individually and/or typologically, and I think the Bible does both. But I don't like the implications of what you're saying. First of all, you would have to mean "our sin" collectively, because dying in a traffic accident after being hit by some random driver is not "my" sin. If you mean it collectively, you need to include Adam. If you're excluding Adam, narrowing it to "my" sin, you're implying there is something I can do apart from Christ to avoid death. If so, I don't really need Christ, and he becomes just one of many ways.

Second, it moves salvation from faith to works. The focus is now on my sin, not Christ's redemptive work. Christ becomes just an example of being good, and so again, I don't need Christ because I've got a recorded example.

 

[gluadys]

I've no problem speaking of Adam individually and/or typologically, and I think the Bible does both. But I don't like the implications of what you're saying. First of all, you would have to mean "our sin" collectively, because dying in a traffic accident after being hit by some random driver is not "my" sin. If you mean it collectively, you need to include Adam. If you're excluding Adam, narrowing it to "my" sin, you're implying there is something I can do apart from Christ to avoid death. If so, I don't really need Christ, and he becomes just one of many ways.

Second, it moves salvation from faith to works. The focus is now on my sin, not Christ's redemptive work. Christ becomes just an example of being good, and so again, I don't need Christ because I've got a recorded example.

I don't think any of that is implied by what I said. I don't know where you are getting that from. It is certainly far from my understanding of my own words. And I think I am the best judge of what I mean.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't think any of that is implied by what I said. I don't know where you are getting that from. It is certainly far from my understanding of my own words. And I think I am the best judge of what I mean.

You may not have implied it, but it can be inferred because ... well ... that's exactly what I did. Misunderstanding is the root of many philosophies. But I take it from the brevity of your reply that you're not interested in expounding further.

 

[gluadys]

You may not have implied it, but it can be inferred because ... well ... that's exactly what I did. Misunderstanding is the root of many philosophies. But I take it from the brevity of your reply that you're not interested in expounding further.

The question is whether you inferred it legitimately. As I said, I don't see how you did that. So you will need to expound further. How, for example, can you get from what I said to the idea that one doesn't need Christ? That just makes no sense to me. It seems a huge and unsupported leap from one idea to the other, not a logical inference at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

The question is whether you inferred it legitimately. As I said, I don't see how you did that. So you will need to expound further. How, for example, can you get from what I said to the idea that one doesn't need Christ? That just makes no sense to me. It seems a huge and unsupported leap from one idea to the other, not a logical inference at all.

I didn't go looking for excuses to poke holes. My inferences were my immediate first impression of what you said. I tried to indicate the key elements that led me in that direction. We can circle back and look at it in more detail.

First, you said it is "our sin" that causes death (and not Adam's). So what do you mean by "our sin"? Did you mean our collective sin or our individual sins?

Second, you said we become "exemplars of Christ". I understand that to mean Christ is a model we copy. Did you mean something different?

FYI: My experience has been that random person throws these threads out there, but never really engages in a conversation. As that behavior repeats, I become less and less likely to respond.

 

[random person]

As I said, any related points don't necessarily follow ... which I assume is the reason for posting in this forum. So I will note I really don't like the above statement. It's horrible theology.

First of all, remember there are different kinds of causes. Aristotle expressed them as material, formal, efficient, and final. Adam's sin did cause our physical death. It was the indirect cause. And Scripture makes that link. Not all talk of death in the Bible is "spiritual" death. Trying to separate physical and spiritual death causes all kinds of problems.

And what if the Tree of Life is a symbol for God, a type of Christ.

And what if the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a symbol for Satan, a type of Satan.

It could be an analogous allegory.

 

[random person]

FYI: My experience has been that random person throws these threads out there, but never really engages in a conversation. As that behavior repeats, I become less and less likely to respond.

I always respond to my threads, but sometimes it goes off topic or takes a life of its own or I simply do not post for the sake of not repeating myself.

 

[Resha Caner]

And what if the Tree of Life is a symbol for God, a type of Christ.

And what if the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a symbol for Satan, a type of Satan.

It could be an analogous allegory.

I can do a lot of "what ifs" as well. They're fun, but unless they can be substantiated they don't mean much. Making the Tree of Life symbolic of God is fine. The problem would be trying to imply it is only symbolic. Making the Tree of Knowledge symbolic of Satan is a different matter, as that has a certain gnostic flavor I would try to avoid.

 

[random person]

I can do a lot of "what ifs" as well. They're fun, but unless they can be substantiated they don't mean much. Making the Tree of Life symbolic of God is fine. The problem would be trying to imply it is only symbolic. Making the Tree of Knowledge symbolic of Satan is a different matter, as that has a certain gnostic flavor I would try to avoid.

Eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is disobedience to God?

They were told to explicitly told not to eat of the tree, and what was lurking within the foliage of that tree? A serpent.

 

[Resha Caner]

They were told to explicitly told not to eat of the tree, and what was lurking within the foliage of that tree? A serpent.

Yes, and so Satan is differentiated. Tree. Serpent. Different. To say otherwise is to equate Satan with a knowledge of good. That's theologically problematic and bears similarity to gnostic ideas that the material is bad and only the transcendent is good.

 

[random person]

Yes, and so Satan is differentiated. Tree. Serpent. Different. To say otherwise is to equate Satan with a knowledge of good. That's theologically problematic and bears similarity to gnostic ideas that the material is bad and only the transcendent is good.

No, it may mean possession of the knowledge of both realities, pre-fall and post-fall. It was good while they obeyed God, it turned instantly bad when they disobeyed God.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, it may mean possession of the knowledge of both realities, pre-fall and post-fall. It was good while they obeyed God, it turned instantly bad when they disobeyed God.

I understand the tree had both aspects - knowledge of good and evil. I just don't think it works as a symbol of Satan.

 

[random person]

I understand the tree had both aspects - knowledge of good and evil. I just don't think it works as a symbol of Satan.

God forbid them to eat of it? If it is good why was it bad? Unless it was the knowledge of their differences?

 

[Resha Caner]

God forbid them to eat of it? If it is good why was it bad? Unless it was the knowledge of their differences?

I don't understand what you're leading up to. Are we discussing 2 different issues? All I disagreed with was using the tree as a symbol of Satan, and I don't see how this reply answers that.

As far as post #17 goes, it's close to my thinking. Prior to the fall it wasn't about good and evil. It was about obedience to God's will. Adam and Eve didn't make private judgements of good and evil apart from God. They obeyed God. The problem began when they ate of the tree and began to make those judgements for themselves.

 

[random person]

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could be said to represent rebellion and disobedience, yes?

 

[gluadys]

I didn't go looking for excuses to poke holes. My inferences were my immediate first impression of what you said. I tried to indicate the key elements that led me in that direction. We can circle back and look at it in more detail.

First, you said it is "our sin" that causes death (and not Adam's). So what do you mean by "our sin"? Did you mean our collective sin or our individual sins?

I don't know if "individual vs. collective" is a helpful distinction here. What I am getting at is that Adam, as an individual, is not to blame for us being sinners. Nor is he to blame for anyone's death but his own. What Paul specifically says is that through his disobedience one man "brought sin into the world". One thing he does not say is that we inherit Adam's sin. Now when we think of Adam typologically, i.e. in the sense that each one of us is Adam, we can say the same of ourselves. When we go against the will of God, we bring sin into the world.

Paul also goes on to say that in bringing sin into the world, Adam also brought death. Death comes through sin. I don't think this means that each particular death can be connected to a specific sin--especially not a sin of the person who died. But death did spread from Adam to all humanity, and Paul again says this was specifically "because all sinned".

I doubt that this is applicable to nature and non-human plants and animals. And to some extent, maybe some human demises are simply the natural fate of all animals. But it is certainly the case that sin, our sin, spreads death (even to other animals). I don't know that Paul would have expressed it in this terminology, but in modern parlance we would say that sin is systemic and therefore death reigns, because sin brings death. And we all participate in the generation of a system dominated by sin and death through our own sin. In fact, we can't help ourselves because to survive within this system we have to participate in it.

Maybe this is what you mean by "collective". Basically I want to avoid the implication I have sometimes seen articulated that this is all Adam's fault, not ours--that we are basically innocents in a problem imposed on us by our ancestors. As I see it, whatever fault adheres to Adam for bringing sin into human life, we have all participated in spreading sin and death, and we have to own up to that.

One can ask then, why do we do this? And that is where I think the fundamental typology of Paul's approach comes in. We do this because Adam is a type of all of us; we are, each and every one of us, ontologically Adam. We need to understand that if it had been ourselves rather than another individual standing by that tree, we would have done exactly the same thing. Because, typologically, we are the same person that Adam was/is. Adam's sin is my sin and my sin is Adam's.

Second, you said we become "exemplars of Christ". I understand that to mean Christ is a model we copy. Did you mean something different?

Yes, I do understand something quite different. I am talking about typology, not imitation. By "exemplar" I meant a specific instantiation of the type. Not the best choice of wording, it seems.

The relation of type to specific instantiation of type is not of a copy imitating a model. The type exists ontologically in each and every individual instantiation of it, such that each instantiation possesses something of the same being as the type. Paul expresses this elsewhere with the preposition "in" As "in Adam" all die, so "in Christ" all are made alive. What it means to have eternal life is to have the life of Christ within us. And it would be futile to attempt to imitate Christ or model our behaviour on his without that.

It is that ontological connection to Christ that I was referring to. When we can say that Christ lives in us and we in him, only then are we "exemplars" of Christ, only then do we defeat sin and death, because we now live through Christ's eternal life.

So I certainly meant quite the opposite of saying there is anything we can do apart from Christ; being in Christ, ontologically connected to Christ, is fundamental to being an exemplar of Christ, and we are completely dependent on Christ to bring us to that station.