Consequence of Sin

[JM]

Is death the consequence for sin?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Is death the consequence for sin?

If I may say,

There are a couple of differing views on the issue but it is always an interesting dynamic when considering how one understands death. When speaking on the issue, you tend to run into two camps - those feeling all forms of death are not of God and others claiming certain forms of death were allowed/part of nature's design (as in the animal kingdom). Some of this has been discussed before with regards to the latter, as seen here.

Here is one attempt to deal with the issue of death coming into the world via sin that I came across. Seems like it's worth taking into consideration:

Does Death Predate Adam?

The first argument, evolution presupposes the change of generations. The change of generations presupposes death. The essence of the problem is that if there were generations of developing animal forms before the appearance and fall of man then in this case we have to say that death was in the world before the appearance of sin! We know that death is the consequence of sin, and the sin of man. Hence, there was no sin in the world, before man than theologically it is impossible to presuppose the existence of death in it.

If death was in the world before the fall of man, then the universe became corrupted, not through man. This statement is against the biblical belief. Here, we have to stop and think hard about the meanings of the words “death” and “sin”.

The word “death” is too human; the word “death” is very rich with human tragedy. Can we apply the word “death,” that is so full, up to the brim with human meaning, to a non-human world? Death for a person is a tragedy, it is something outrageously wrong. It is not by chance that in Russian Philosophy the terrifying fear of death was taken as an experiential witness of its non-human origin. Suppose that man was a legitimate outcome of natural evolution and a struggle for survival; then he would not experience disgust towards that (death) which is so “natural.”

Undoubtedly the death of man entered into this world through sin. Death is evil and it was not created by God. This is also an axiom of Biblical Theology.

Hence, it seems to me, that only one conclusion should be drawn from this: the departure of animals is not death, and it is not the same as the departure of a man. When we say “The death of Socrates” we do not have a right to apply the same word to the phrase “The death of a dog”. The death of a star is a metaphor. We can use the same metaphor to say the “death” of an atom or a chair. Animals were disappearing from existence, they were going out of the world before the time of man. This was not death. Hence, it is impossible to talk about the phenomenon of death in a theological or philosophical meaning of the word, while applying this to a non-human world. The death of a lifeless star or atom, the splitting of a living cell or bacteria, and the discontinuance of a physiological process in monkeys: this is not the same is the death of man.

Yes, death is a consequence of sin! Sin is a violation of the will of the Creator. Can we be sure that the death of animals is also a violation of the Creative will? Did God create animals for eternal life? Did he want to create them as participants in eternity? Did he intend them to partake in the Bread of Life, and Eucharist?

If not — it means those temporary limitations of animals and their accessibility to decay is not a violation of the Plan of the Creator.

It is not a sin or distortion of the creative will. If the Eucharist is the only Bread of Life, and in our Cathedrals we do not administer communion to puppies, it means that this Bread is not for them and Eternity is not for them either. The death of animals is not a violation of the Plan of God. The Bible does not promise eternal life for our world. Only the human soul is prepared for Eternity. The Savior appeals to people, not to kittens, when he says: “Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Mathew 25:34). The rest will be burned up.​

There are, of course, many within Orthodoxy who've spoken on the issue. Specifically, - and thankfully, there are many articles and books by Orthodox Christians who have either accepted and written or spoken on the theory of evolution charitably for what it is.

Breck, Archpriest John V. "Ex Nihilo" Life in Christ, February 2008 #1. Ex nihilo (1) - Orthodox Church in America

Fritts, Kevin Basil, "On the Dogma of Creation" On the Dogma of Creation | Kevin Basil

Hallam, Fr. Gregory, "Orthodoxy and Creationism" Antioch Abouna: Orthodoxy and Creationism

Kalomiros, Dr. Alexandre, "The Six Dawns" zephyr.gr

Maletis, John P., "Let There Be Light: An Orthodox Christian Theory of Human Evolution for the 21st Century". Theandros Vol. 5 No. 3. Green Smoke Coupon Codes for (10-50% OFF) in Savings at GreenSmoke.com


Mileant, Bishop Alexander of Buenos Aires and South America (ROCOR). The Origins of the World and Mankind: An Attempt to Reconcile the Biblical Account with Scientific Discoveries. Transl. by Karyn and Michael Grigoriev. Ed. by Natalia Semyanko. Holy Trinity Orthodox Mission, La Canada, California, 2004. http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/patrology/metallinos_faith_and_science.htm


Nicozisin, Fr. George, "Creationism versus Evolution" Creationism Versus Evolution​

On what was noted, Evolution was never about denying death - and others have noted that what generally happens (when understanding the argument) is that death has differing levels. Things being made MORTAL in the world (unless one tries to make the argument that even animals themselves were immortal and ate from the Tree of Life as Man did ) is a matter of dealing with how only man had special priveleges.

And that's where the irony lies - people claiming that you can't have evolution and deny death do not realize where death is still present even for others who DO NOT support evolution since the text of scripture from Genesis alone does not say all creatures died when Adam ate the Forbidden Fruit - nor does it say that all the animals in the sea/oceans God made ate herbs and food. The text NEVER advocates such. As said before, the statement given by the Lord to beasts eating plants, if saying it was a commandment forbidding animals from killing, CANNOT apply to all creation....for the creatures of the SEAS/great deep are not included in the command.

Gen. 1:21 says that on the fifth day of creation week God created ‘great sea creatures’ (‘great whales’ (KJV) / ‘great sea monsters’ (NASB)) along with all the other moving living things in the oceans. (Scholars inform us that in the original Hebrew this would have been their word used to describe specifically a monster, particularly a ‘huge marine animal’ or a ‘hideous land animal’.) . The Levitithan/great monstets of the waters and other creatures.....the Bible declares that “The darkness, the sea, the leviathan ....all good things for which God is praised” ( Psalm 104:4, Job 41:1-3 / Job 41, Psalm 74:13-15 /Psalm 74 , Isaiah 27:1-3 , etc ).

But the command of Genesis 1 for eating herbs/fruit was given to the LAND-DWELLING animals alone - nothing was ever said of other creatures in differing realms eating meat. Thus, you can't argue for no death according to the text and really be complete.

And it never says Adam and Eve were ever made IMMORTAL from Day One - so you're still dealing with issues of mortality even before anything of evolution comes on the scene.

Thus, people tend to redefine death whenever they assume that no animals or creatures on the planet could die in order to tackle what they see in Romans 5 when it speaks of death entering the world through Adam. The entire story of Romans (especially when seeing Romans 6) was centered on the death that comes from living for self - and the life that comes to living for Christ. And before there were chapters added much later, it was one flowing letter with every chapter building upon itself.

And there's nothing saying St. Paul was speaking of sin in regards to the animals when he was talking on new life for the believers. It all goes back to actually seeing how the Apostles and Jesus defined death to begin with - many noting, in consistency with Matthew 16 on dying to self being the path to life, that the DEATH Adam brought was the death that comes from not dying to self......something Christ changed. But it was not focused on all animals or plants dying since the context never supported that.

Moreover, it is a false scenario claiming evolution only deals with death - if that's the case, that one needs to cease saying mankind was able to grow/develop new skills and technologies as time went on. As said elsewhere,
I think what many tend to struggle with is the concept that believing God to gradually develop things isn't counter to God making something "perfect" - there are stages and process.

Man was made in God's image (not a physical image). So his nature, his psyche and spirit comes from God's breath. Yes, "God formed man of the dust of the ground". The word "formed" implies a process, and we need not see God forming man like we would put together a gingerbread man. "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field". The same word "formed" is used and the human body has the physics of the universe in it.

The word formed could refer to cellular ancestry. However, the inbreathing of God clearly refers to man's spiritual nature which separates him decisively from the animals. biologically, man is a type of animal and always has been. To do otherwise would not be logical as many believers in the sciences have always noted, as man doesn't cease being a Mammal (a type of creature/animal) simply because he is made in the Image of God. Moreover, saying that man did not develop in stages doesn't really deal with the Biblical text since Man was not made fully all at once. God first formed man from the dust of the ground (just as He did with the beasts of the field), then he breathed life into Him...and man became a living being. The Image of God was something that God blessed man with upon creation--but it could have easily taken time time.

God made Adam and Eve perfect - yet they were still able to develop/grow in WISDOM and knowledge (no different than Christ in Luke 2 when he grew up in wisdom/understanding gradually). One doesn't assume that man didn't grow over time when the evidence points otherwise - to take dominion over the entire planet, you need to be resourceful. They did not have airplanes, media technology, dams for rivers/lakes, space ships designed to go into space (as well as mathematical formulas for creating the designs and understanding physics of the world), crop rotation and using tools...or boats to travel the seas.....or even making MUSICAL instruments and iron-working (as Genesis 4:20-22). Yet those things were developed in time. We don't say "Man is IMPERFECT" because he creates/develops new skills and abilities over the centuries - that is a process of development....trial and error.

We have to actually be honest with the text if we're going to deal with it on its own terms.

Of course - and in the same way one leans that way, others note that scripture need not be pitted against evolution in order to support the Word of God. Others believes we die as a result of sin - but others also believe God's Word also notes where not all forms of death are a result of sin. Thus, one cannot do the "I stand for the Word of God" dynamic as if others are not of the same mindset - what is present is one disagrees on interpretation of God's Word.
Yep - and of course, so do chimps (even though chimps eat meat and other monkeys) AND other species without sharp teeth still prey on others.

Genesis 1:29-30 does not explicitly say that meat was forbidden...for it only says the positive: God gave man and beast "every green plant for food." One individual suggested that this passage has a special literary purpose....not given to define man's diet comprehensively, but to set the stage for the prohibition of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the following chapter (Gen. 2:16-17).


And creatures of the SEAS/great deep are not included in the command.

Genesis 1:26
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
​

The Levitithan/great monstets of the waters and other creatures did not get notice for eating plants...and that is something on my mind greatly when it comes to seeing how the Bible declares that “The darkness, the sea, the leviathan ....all good things for which God is praised” ( Psalm 104:4, Job 41:1-3 / Job 41, Psalm 74:13-15 /Psalm 74 , Isaiah 27:1-3 , etc ). Perhaps some creatures were made to eat vegetarian, including others that were considered predatory in our times..while others were not and always remained as such due to the way the Lord wanted certain creature to represent what it meant to fear the Lord.

As scripture notes:

Genesis 1:29

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Genesis 2:7
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
​

The verse says that God created plants with seed and fruit and gave it to the animals for food. However, the verse does not say that all animals ate only plants. It merely says that the plants were given as food. Ultimately, all animals rely upon plants for food - even the carnivores. God specified to three distinct groups what they could or couldn't eat--and the groups were in the class of air and ground/earth. If going from a strictly literal interpretation at all points, then one would logically have to conclude that he was not speaking to other animals in other areas.If saying something could be assumed, one must wonder how far to take it.

IMHO, A partial list is given, including the beasts of the field, the birds, and the creatures that creep around. Notably missing from the list are the large creatures of the sea, created on the fifth day. With few exceptions, these animals are all carnivores. Did God make them starve until after the Fall?

...."There is the sea, great and broad, In which are swarms without number, Animals both small and great... They all wait for Thee, To give them their food in due season." (Psalm 104:25, 27)

There are several differing views on the issue which I've engaged in - I have my inclinations toward the Old Earth Creationist model even though I'm very for the simplicity of anything noting that there is a God who is Love and created the entire world while sending His Son to redeem it later.

Gophers could've easily eaten above the ground for grass if they wanted to. The grass above would still die in the same way that it is with over-grazing when animals feed in massive quantities and seeds are carried to start the process again. And with gophers themselves, they don't just burrow to avoid predators. It is a part of keeping the eco-system going since it irrigates the soil....in the same way that Bats are present throughout most of the world, performing vital ecological roles of pollinating flowers and dispersing fruit seeds (with many tropical plant species depending entirely on bats for the distribution of their seeds). There's a natural balance for earth’s sustenance - and certain rodents (especially for example, the prairie dog) are recognized to be keystone species upon which other species depend, and who are markers for the ecological health of a bioregion.

Specifically, Gopher tunnels funnel off irrigation water and cause soil erosion. Every animal has a purpose - something that seems to be seen even later with the Law of Moses when certain animals were forbidden from being eaten (but that's another story). The point is that gophers being underground wouldn't just be tied to predation from today

.....I am open to certain things due to the fact that NO ONE on the planet was there and will ever know fully. Some things speculated upon might be closer in truth than others - but no one will ever have it all connected since we'd literally need to be there for that.

There are things happening today that may not have happened necessarily in times past, as many against evolution or any concept of animal predation have argued before when saying we can't judge things according to what's seen. On the same token, however, there's just as much unknowns with claiming that nothing of what's seen today was able to happen before (as others have said in regards to where scripture is silent and how others for evolution/similar views have said it tends to be assuming too much in order to claim nothing with animal predation occurred). When I see animal species with designs for predation that are HIGHLY fine-tuned and Psalm 104 (for example) noting where the Lord provides for them and is pleased, I don't assume that predation was not glorifying God. On the same token, seeing how even Lions and other animals have been able to eat grain, I don't assume they couldn't of eaten herbs/fruit as well ...or think they were made with sharp teeth/claws as if to say they could ONLY hunt others or assume they ONLY ate herbs because they can do so.

The vegetarian lion at Vienna Zoo - YouTube

I've already argued before for things like Vegetarianism being what was emphasized for the Fall (The Lion, the Lamb &...Lettuce?: Was Torah Meant for Vegetarian Leanings? ) - as I've equally argued for a Pre-Fall state of having certain forms of predation occurring. For me, it really isn't something that is all that problematic depending on how one sees it. Specifically if focusing in on the garden and not assuming that is representative of the ENTIRE world...

As said best in Death Before the Fall | Alastair's Adversaria :

three ways in which we might choose to reconcile the text with the reality that we observe:

• 
  
  • Possibility One. After the sin of Adam, God gave over the animal kingdom to natural predation.
  • Possibility Two. God cursed or dramatically modified the animal kingdom after Adam’s Fall.
  • Possibility Three. Predatory animals are a result of demonic forces at work in the world.

.... the following are a few thoughts on a fourth possibility. I believe that this possibility is suggested by reflection upon the text of Genesis itself, rather than being a highly speculative theory to fill a crucial gap in the biblical account.

The fourth possibility begins by challenging the premise that there was no animal death before the Fall (along with the assumption that human beings were naturally immortal). The claim that there was no animal death before the Fall is not one that the text itself gives us, but arises out of the conviction that animal death is characteristic of the futility and bondage of corruption to which creation was subjected following the Fall of Adam. For this fourth approach, death is associated with the state of innocence, immaturity, wildness, and being unperfected.

....The world was never created ‘perfect’, but was created ‘good’. In Genesis 1:2, the entire creation was formless, void, and untamed. In Genesis 2:5, this situation is recapitulated on a smaller scale. God begins to address this situation by creating a man. Then, after creating the man, he creates the Garden and places the man within it. It is not unreasonable to assume that the man would have witnessed both the unformed, void, and untamed creation and then God’s planting of the Garden within it. The Garden is the divine sanctuary, the place where God walks in the midst of mankind, and the template for the solution to the problem of the wider world. The Garden is walled or hedged and there is limited access to it, enabling those within it to defend it against intrusion (cf. Genesis 3:24). In creating the Garden, God establishes boundaries within the land, preventing unauthorized access and dividing one zone from others. The act of creating the Garden is one of forming and filling, much like that of Genesis 1. The Garden is walled off from the untamed creation that surrounds it and then it is filled with trees and with beauty. Within the Garden itself there are further boundaries established. The Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil were placed in the heart of the Garden. These trees don’t only organize space—identifying the centre of the Garden—but also create a world with new ethical boundaries.

As the man upholds the order of the Garden, it will provide a model that he will bring out into the world and a temple into which he will bring in the riches of the world (we should note the references to precious stones and metals in the description of the lands surrounding Eden). He must make the world into a Garden and the Garden into a glorious garden city, clothed with all of the riches of the world, much like the city that we see in Revelation. He learns within and from the order of God’s own creative work, so that he can engage in creative work of his own as God’s image.

....The world is unlike the Garden and doesn’t yet have any gardener working within it. It is formless, void, and untamed, and the beasts that dwell within it are also untamed. It remains to be subdued by a gardener and a tamer of wild beasts. God brought the animals to the man for him to name. Just as God had planted the Garden after the man’s creation, providing the man with a model for his own work within the world, the bringing of the animals to the man also served to acquaint him with the nature of his task.

I think it should be considered that of course it is the case that plants don't have to die in order to be food - and no one saying that plants DID die when eaten before the Fall has ever been of the mindset that all plants eaten died afterward. What is noted is that there is a good degree of death that does occur for many plants when they are eaten. Where others are coming from (and to be clear, I also mean those who are NOT evolutionists such as Old Earth Creationists since they feel the same) is that it doesn't make sense to assume no death/dying occurs in the eating process - nor do things being different in the Post-Fall era mean that NOTHING we see today was already happening.

Even with God’s permission to eat fruit, there are many fruits that still experience death when you eat them. Specifically, the death of the fruit’s flesh (and its seeds, if those get chewed up, too) - as well as the fruit’s flesh (and its seeds) are alive, made of living cells. Those seeds are tiny fruit embryos, making them independent organisms. They do die when we eat and digest them. And the same thing is true of other plant matter we eat. Thus, even on a highly literal reading of Genesis, that there was plant death before the Fall. animals. The idea that no creatures, including plants, died prior to the Fall is the extreme position of a minority of young earth creationists...and whenever it's claimed that only parts of plants are eaten, and, therefore, no plants actually died in the Fall, the argument seems to be a bit inconsistent.


And then there's what Christ noted (as mentioned before elsewhere):

John 12:23
23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.
​

It was not accidential that the Lord used the language of "death" to describe what it was that the trees experienced in the Garden. There was a serious spiritual view that was always in place within Judaism when it came to plant life and the way it experiences things just like the animals.

Although a number of grazing animals eat only the tops of grass or leaves, leaving the plant alive, there are a number of exceptions - as even grass grazers pull up whole plants (including the roots) on occasion, which results in the death of entire plants. Some animals eat only roots, such as gophers. Once the roots are eaten, the plant quickly dies. From an aquatic perspective, many sea animals eat diatoms and microscopic plants - ingesting and killing entire organisms. And thus, unless God changed the way these herbivores eat, plants surely died during the fifth and sixth days of creation.

Even outside of that, we still have the issue of how even in the plant kingdom, some species such as sundews and Venus Fly Traps obtain much of their nutrition by trapping and digesting insects and other small animals.

​

My own views tend to land somewhere between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution - as I am not opposed to Evolution provided that we know how we're defining it properly. I stand with others who stood against Darwin, such as Asa Gray - more shared in the following:

• Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design
• Asa Gray | Darwin Correspondence Project
  
  
• Essays & reviews by Asa Gray
• ¿A historical Adam « The GeoChristian (
  ).
• Asa Gray and Charles Darwin Discuss Evolution and Design, Part 1w

And on others open to certain aspects of evolution, If you'd like some good places for review on the issue, you may wish to investigate others like Kallistos Ware:

• Kallistos Ware - Orthodoxy and Evolution
• DANCING WITH UNICORNS: Creationism

From what I understand, it seems that the Orthodox Church/the Church Fathers were very complicated when it comes to what they stated as it concerns how it's easy to see patterns toward the allegorical and not being 100% literal in all things. - more at Darwin, Evolution, Adam & Eve - Coptic Orthodox Divine Justice.

That said, as it concerns death of man, that is something that seems very nuanced. In example, some in the Early Church felt that our bodies weren't meant designed to be eternal before the Fall.

I recall where it was the Tree of Life which the Lord prevented man from partaking of - for after he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good/Evil, he became aware/self-autonomous and distant from the Lord. Knowing things ahead of time he should not have known outside of God teaching him - no different than parents wishing to instruct their children on sex BEFORE they get exposed to it since they cannot handle it on their own standards.

Genesis 2:17

Life in God's Garden
8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

....15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; ...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.​

God doesn't seem afraid of man eating the Tree of the Knowledge of Good/Evil. However, he does seem VERY concerned with them accessing the Tree of Life:

\Genesis 3:22
22 Then the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever.... therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

​

As seen in Genesis 3, there were severe consequences for eating of the Tree of Life---not many times (as in habit)...but only ONCE, as if when eating of that tree, it was a done deal/man became truly immortal. For if man had been eating of the Tree of Life continually, then it'd seem odd that somehow to think that it had yet to make them immortal---with them continually having to keep eating it and later having the effects wear off in time till they had their next session of eating from the Tree.

It seems that in Genesis 3, there's an indicator that the fruit was so strong that once one ate of it ONE TIME, that'd be it......................immortality for all seasons/reasons.

IMHO, the Tree of Life couldn't of been available to man to eat of since the day he was in the Garden (unless, of course, like all trees that one took extensive time to grow/develop until it was ripe for eating).

It seems reasonable to think the Tree of Life was something that was intended to be given to Him later on/seal him into immortality within the state of perfection he was developed into. Tree of Life was something special that both God and the Enemy knew of-------and that as man grew up, that tree would a reward..........much like a teenager with his father going out to buy his own car due to his development/maturity, even though prior to that transportation was given to the indiviudal since he was a child (for his own safety) before he grew into adulthood.

And that same tree is present later on in Revelation:

Revelation 22
[ The River of Life ] And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. ...

Revelation 22:14-15
Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.​

There are footnotes in the OSB (Orthodox Study Bible) to see what it had to say about that passage. Here's the explanation:

22:2, 3 The tree of life, a symbol of Christ Himself, gives immortality. It fulfills the tree of life in Paradise (Gen. 3:22) and the other tree of life, the Cross of the Savior, the tree of obedience (1 Pt. 2:24), a tree of curse (Gal. 3:13). But there is no more curse (v. 3) in the Holy City: a reversal of the curse of Gen. 3:16-19. The fruits and leaves of the tree are completely and universally therapeutic, reversing the effects of the fruit of the tree of disobedience (Gen. 3:16). ​

It's explained there that the Tree of Good and Evil is the tree of disobedience.


Some of what I'm thinking of goes into the concept of Theosis--the process of growing in relationship with the Lord/becoming like him. And reading this in Lossky he states:

Can one say that Adam, in his paradisiacal condition, was really immortal? God did not create death; says the book of Wisdom. For archaic theology...;St. Irenaeus for example;Adam was neither necessarily mortal nor necessarily immortal: his nature, rich in possibilities, malleable, could be constantly nourished by grace & transformed by it to the point of surmounting all the risks of aging & death. The possibilities of mortality existed but in order to be made impossible. Such was the test of Adam& Eve's freedon. The tree of life at the center paradise & its nourishing of immortality offered therefore a possibility: thus our Christo-ecclesiastical realities, the Eucharist, which heals us, nourishes & fortifies us, spiritually & bodily. One must feed oneself with God to attain freely deification. And it is this personal effort that Adam failed.; (Orthodox Theology: An Introduction, pp77-78)
​

As an aside, it is interesting to consider how Origen thought that souls were created before bodies and were put in bodies as a punishment for earlier sin, which didn't mean that bodies were bad, necessarily, but did mean that souls didn't need bodies and so the body wasn't seen as intrinsic to human nature.

On the issue, Clement of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopseustia held that human death was part of Gods plan before the Fall - in addition to holding the mindset that Adam was created immortal from day one as a part of his nature.

Theodore notes in his treatise Against Those Who Assert That Men Sin by Nature and Not by Will:

Whether God did not know that Adam was going to sin: this should be the response for these exceedingly wise men, that it is most insane even to consider this notion. It is obvious that [God] knew he was going to sin, and that on account of this he would, without a doubt, die. How then is it not suggestive of extreme madness to believe that first [God] made him immortal, for six hours,; but appointed him to be mortal after the sin? Because it is certain that if [God] had wanted him to be immortal, not even the intervention of the act of sin would have changed the divine decree, for God did not reduce the devil from immortality to mortality, and he was the originator of all evils!​

To be clear, this argument by no means surrenders the foundational theological principle that death is a punishment for sin, but on the contrary, it assumes it. What it tries to safeguard, however, is divine sovereignty: for if God had created Adam immortal, Theodore argues, he should have remained immortal even in his post-lapsarian state, forever under the punishment of death, with no possibility of redemption ...just like the devil. Essentially, what is on the line is not just Adam & is ontological transformation, but God's justice and sovereignty as well. It was in God's justice that death is the appropriate punishment for Adam's sin and also the means of deliverance.

As said best elsewhere, Mortality is at once the consequence of sin and an aspect of humanity's original state.

As stated by Theodore of Mopsuestia on the need for death:

God did not place death upon man either unwillingly or against his better judgment, neither did he provide access to sin for no good purpose; for he was able, if he did not wish this to be so, to do otherwise. But he knew it was beneficial for us, nay more, for all rational creatures, at first to have access to evils and inferior things, and thereafter for these to be blotted out and better things introduced.

Therefore God divided the creation into two states, the present and the future. In the latter he will bring all to immortality and immutability. In the former he gives us over to death and mutability. For if he had made us at first immortal and immutable, we should not have differed from irrational animals, who do not understand the peculiar characteristics by which they are distinguished.​

Augustine held views similar to that:

"God, who is supremely good in his creation of natures that are good, is also completely just in his employment of evil choices in his design, so that whereas such evil choices make a wrong use of good natures, God turns evil choices to good use. . . . Evil things are allowed to exist in order to show how the righteousness and foreknowledge of the Creator can turn even those very evils to good account."

City of God 11.17; 14.11.​

On the issue, holding the view that Adam and Eve were created mortal and were to become immortal after a period of probation in the garden was held by Theophilus of Antioch, Second Century Bishop (more shared in CHAPTER XXVII.—THE NATURE OF MAN. from Fathers of the Second Century and here and here). He felt that we were created neither mortal or immortal ...

As he said:

CHAP. XXVII.--THE NATURE OF MAN.


"But some one will say to us, Was man made by nature mortal? Certainly not. Was he, then, immortal? Neither do we affirm this. But one will say, Was he, then, nothing? Not even this hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God; but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power over himself. That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death upon himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting.

To Autolycus, Book II
​

Augustine held to a variation of this view in which the bodies of Adam and Eve, though created mortal, were preserved from decay and lustful desires by being able to feed on the Tree of Life. Exclusion from the Tree of Life after the Fall therefore resulted in human death. Had Adam and Eve not fallen they would have received what we know as resurrection bodies.


This is what St. Augustine said (in The Literal Meaning of Genesis ) on the issue and where I've often leaned toward.

"He was mortal ... by the constitution of his natural body, and he was immortal by the gift of his Creator. For if it was a natural body he had, it was certainly mortal because it was able to die, at the same time immortal by reason of the fact that it was able not to die. Only a spiritual being is immortal by virtue of the fact that it cannot possibly die; and this condition is promised to us in the resurrection. Consequently, Adam's body, a natural and therefore mortal body, which by justification would become spiritual and therefore truly immortal, in reality by sin was made not mortal (because it was that already) but rather a dead thing, which it would have been able not to be if Adam had not sinned." (pp. 204-205)​

Augustine suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were created mortal

AND I appreciate how Augustine asked the question of why would Adam and Eve have to eat if they were created immortal - and as he noted:

"It is difficult to explain how man was created immortal and at the same time in company with the other living creatures was given for food the seed-bearing plant, the fruit tree, and the green crops. If it was by sin that he was made mortal, surely before sinning he did not need such food since his body could not corrupt for lack of it" (p. 97).​

What St. Augustine proposes is that Adam and Eve were created with mortal bodies - indeed, their death was the result of their sin, but Augustine suggests that, had they not sinned, they would have been given the spiritual bodies with which we will be endowed at the resurrection. Of course, in all cases, it is already understood that Adam and Eve need the Grace of God to survive and live their lives - all of the creation is CONTINUALLY relying upon the Grace of the Lord to continue on, even as it has been created naturally to do many differing types of things. This is the basic concept behind what many in Orthodoxy have advocated when it comes to Panentheism - God is distinct from His Creation and yet His creation exists because He animates it as it lives within Him and he touches it in every way.

It is because of this dynamic that Augustine can note rather easily that man was created to be mortal - with the potential for immortality as long as he chose to actively do his part. Man being made MORTAL (able to die physically) isn't the same as saying that all forms of death (i.e. death of the soul, death by disease or murder/war physically, the second death, etc.) were going to happen as well since Augustine already noted directly in his other works. However, as it concerns nature, St. Augustine had no issue noting how man was never made immortal. As said before, St. Augustine held to the view in which the bodies of Adam and Eve, though created mortal, were preserved from decay and lustful desires by being able to feed on the Tree of Life. ...and Exclusion from the Tree of Life after the Fall therefore resulted in human death. For Had Adam and Eve not fallen they would have received what we know as resurrection bodies.

As he said:

When the first human beings—the one man Adam, and his wife Eve who came out of him—willed not to obey the commandment which they had received from God, a just and deserved punishment overtook them. The Lord had threatened that, on the day they ate the forbidden fruit, they should surely die. Now, inasmuch as they had received the permission of using for food every tree that grew in Paradise, among which God had planted the tree of life, but had been forbidden to partake of one only tree, which He called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to signify by this name the consequence of their discovering whether what good they would experience if they kept the prohibition, or what evil if they transgressed it: they are no doubt rightly considered to have abstained from the forbidden food previous to the malignant persuasion of the devil, and to have used all which had been allowed them, and therefore, among all the others, and before all the others, the tree of life. For what could be more absurd than to suppose that they partook of the fruit of other trees, but not of that which had been equally with others granted to them, and which, by its especial virtue, prevented even their animal bodies from undergoing change through the decay of age, and from aging into death, applying this benefit from its own body to the man’s body, and in a mystery demonstrating what is conferred by wisdom (which it symbolized) on the rational soul, even that, quickened by its fruit, it should not be changed into the decay and death of iniquity? For of her it is rightly said, “She is a tree of life to them that lay hold of her.”589 Just as the one tree was for the bodily Paradise, the other is for the spiritual; the one affording a vigour to the senses of the outward man, the other to those of the inner man, such as will abide without any change for the worse through time. They therefore served God, since that dutiful obedience was committed to them, by which alone God can be worshipped. And it was not possible more suitably to intimate the inherent importance of obedience, or its sole sufficiency securely to keep the rational creature under the Creator, than by forbidding a tree which was not in itself evil.

Chapter 35 [XXI.]—Adam and Eve; Obedience Most Strongly Enjoined by God on Man.​

More in full can be found in The Works of Aurelius Augustine: A New Translation - Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.) - Google Books

For Augustine, the tree of life is a kind of “sacrament,” a sign that somehow makes present that which it signifies: “God did not want man to live in Paradise without the mysteries of spiritual things made present in material things. Man, then, had food in the other trees, but in the tree of life there was a sacrament.”


Adam's failure to keep Gods command and obey him by abstaining from eating from the forbidden fruit resulted in his expulsion from the Garden of Eden. He was already supplied with food - for the food of the first man was abundant - as seen by Gods address to Adam and Eve - "Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, to you it shall be for meat. (Gen. 1:29). But he was to exercise restraint with only one tree...

And along with the theme of sacrements, I think the Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolize learning via independence from God and NOT trusting in Him to reveal things in time. ....to wait on the Lord is a form of obedience and patience, denying ourselves so that we can have life.

As St. John Chrysostom noted best (who often compared the state of monks to Adam):

Not only monks with angelic life are accompanied by the fasting power, but also laymen, who are flying on the wings of fasting till the heights of holy contemplation.

I recall that the two great prophets of the Old Testament, Moses and Elijah, although they had great daring towards God, by their virtues, they often fasted, and fasting brought them closer to God.

Even long before them, in the beginning of creation, when God created man, He immediately gave the command to fast. If Adam fulfilled this commandment, he would be saved. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.(Genesis 2, 16-17).

This was no other than the command to fast. If in Paradise was a need for fasting, there is a bigger need outside it. Before man was spiritually hurt, fasting had been a medicine for him; now more than ever when his soul is hit by sin, fasting is a medicine. Before the war of pleasures begun, there had been a need for fasting; the need is grater now, when we wage wars against devil. If Adam had obeyed this commandment, he would not have heard the words: for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. (Genesis 3, 19). Because Adam didn’t obey, there subsequently came death, worries, sufferings, and a life worse than any death.

Do you see how God becomes angry when fasting is despised? And you cannot imagine how much He rejoices at our fasting. Death touched man because he despised fasting and also through fasting death can not have power on man.​

Also, as Father Alexander Schmemann notes:

It is important, therefore, to discern the uniquely Christian content of fasting. It is first of all revealed to us in the interdependence between two events which we find in the Bible: one at the beginning of the Old Testament and the other ar the beginning of the New Testament. The first event is the ;breaking of the fast; by Adam in Paradise. He ate of the forbidden fruit. This is how man;s original sin is revealed to us. Christ, the New Adam ;and this is the second event begins by fasting. Adam was tempted and he succumbed to temptation; Christ was tempted and He overcame that temptation. The results of AdamS failure are expulsion from Paradise and death. The fruits of Christs victory are the destruction of death and our return to Paradise. . . .​

It makes sense to say that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was created by God as well as all other trees in Paradise and, as such, preceded the Satan and his sinful machinations - meaning that Gods commandment to Adam and Even not to eat of the particular fruit was given as a method of mans discipline of self-control and growth in spiritual disciplines, seeing that man was made "good" rather than "perfect" ....and he still needed to learn and develop as all people do (just as Christ had to according to Luke 2 ). While the first man in Paradise was not perfect, he was good and capable of improving and developing his personality.

Fr. Michael Pomazansky from his book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology pointed out the following:

Man was created immortal in his soul, and he could have remained immortal also in body if he had not fallen away from God. The Wisdom of Solomon says: God did not make death (Wis. 1:13). man's body, as was well expressed by Blessed Augustine, does not possess the "impossibility of dying," but it did possess "the possibility of not dying," which it has now lost. The writer of Genesis informs us that this "possibility of not dying" was maintained in Paradise by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, of which our first ancestors were deprived after they were banished from Paradise.​

There is an excellent review on the issue that may come in handy - as seen in Dumitru Staniloae on The Fall :: Eastern Orthodox Theology « T h e o • p h i l o g u e.'

Also, In the Book of Jubilees (Jubilees 4:29 - more in Links | THE ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX BIBLE PROJECT ), it notes the following:

And at the close of the nineteenth jubilee, in the seventh week in the sixth year thereof, Adam died, and all his sons buried him in the land of his creation, and he was the first to be buried in the earth. And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die. For this reason he did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it.​

In many ways this is all premature death. Moreover, in the Book of Enoch Chapter XV (more noted on Enoch here/here), we read the passage where God explains to Enoch why the angels were not given wives:

And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: You should intercede for men, and not men for you: 3. Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? 4. And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those & do who die and perish. 5. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were ; spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.​

In other words, we marry only because we are not immortal/eternal. For Immortal/eternal beings according to Enoch (and the Messiah for that matter, as seen in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 22) clearly teach that humans were always mortal, because they were always intended to marry in this life, even before the fall of Adam.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, death is the consequence of sin

 

[Hoghead1]

I found it interesting, Gxg, where you spoke of pantheism and St. Augustine. Yes, there and elsewhere he certainly does come very close to panentheism. However, in the end, he capitulates completely to classical theism. For example, he won't allow the universe to be the body of God, said this was the worst analogy possible, since implied God would be hit every time a child is hit. And, as you may have noted, in his "Genesis in the literal Sense," he argues Genesis cannot be taken literally, since God is atemporal, doss not work though corporeal movements in time, and therefore created the world poof, like that, in an externionless instinct, and not over six days.

 

[Lukaris]

Romans 5:12-14

 

[JM]

Is death the punishment for sin?

 

[Lukaris]

Is death the punishment for sin?

No, Adam was warned not to eat of the tree of life before Eve was formed.
Genesis 2:15-18
Genesis 2:21-22

 

[prodromos]

Is death the punishment for sin?

It prevents us from sinning for eternity. It is God mercifully putting a cap on how much we can sin in our lifetime, as I suspect that what one suffers in Hell would bear some relationship to how much we have turned our back on God by rebelling against Him

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It prevents us from sinning for eternity. It is God mercifully putting a cap on how much we can sin in our lifetime, as I suspect that what one suffers in Hell would bear some relationship to how much we have turned our back on God by rebelling against Him

Fr.John Behr seemed to discuss the dynamic in his book "The Mystery of Death" when showing how dying to self as Christ lived/proclaimed was actually the means of having life. ...that embracing one's imminent death rather than living in fear of death is the way Eternal life was re-opened to man.

"Death is indeed a tragedy, an outrage, and the apparent subversion of all God’s intentions for his creature. This cannot be minimized. Yet, as we continue to reflect on our common fate, in the light of Christ’s Passion, that mourning turns into joy as we begin to see the mystery of Christ unfolded, in that it was we who subvert God’s intentions, by living for ourselves and so committing ourselves to death, but that even this apostasy is nevertheless embraced within the overarching economy of God, in which life comes through death."​

Hebrews 2:14-16 (NKJV)
14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 1​

Very challenging perspective..

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is death the punishment for sin?

no, it is the natural end to sin.

 

[JM]

It is a natural law?

 

[ArmyMatt]

It is the natural end to the unnatural act of sinning

 

[JM]

It is the natural end to the unnatural act of sinning

Lol ok

 

[prodromos]

James 1:13-15
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

 

[JM]

Natural law declares sin leads to death. Legally.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Legally?

If I understand you correctly, then ... why do babies die? Or maybe I don't understand what you are saying by that - in that case please forgive me.

 

[JM]

Matt answered why babies die, death is "the natural end of sin."

 

[ArmyMatt]

Matt answered why babies die, death is "the natural end of sin."

yes, but we have a different view of what sin is I think.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think such very short answers and statements can very easily be taken to mean something other than what the poster means by them. But if you are ok with all of this, it's not my place to object.

 

[JM]

Why according to orthodoxy do infants die?