What is Covenantal Death?

[Morris]

What is meant by the phrase "covenantal death"?

I keep reading the phrase here and there, but I honestly don't have a conceptual understanding of it. I have read that Adam's death wasn't a "physical death" because he continued to live. I have read that people say it can't be a "spiritual death" because they don't know what that means.

So then, what does it mean to experience a "covenantal death"?

[This thread is not meant for debate - presentations of opinion (and supporting reasons if desired) will suffice. Thank you.]

[Allyn]

Jun 23, 2011 16:29:03 GMT -5 Morris said:

What is meant by the phrase "covenantal death"?

I keep reading the phrase here and there, but I honestly don't have a conceptual understanding of it. I have read that Adam's death wasn't a "physical death" because he continued to live. I have read that people say it can't be a "spiritual death" because they don't know what that means.

So then, what does it mean to experience a "covenantal death"?

[This thread is not meant for debate - presentations of opinion (and supporting reasons if desired) will suffice. Thank you.]

Hi Morris,
I have been meaning to share this link with you for a while now and since this is sort of the topic you have been dealing with I thought this might be the right time. Norm Voss has written this and I think he does the best job of anyone so far in explaining Covenant Creation even though Jeff coined the phrase. I am not yet totally convinced and may never be except for what I have learned on my own from the simple study of Scripture on who the covenant began with (I believe to be Abraham), but this may certainly help you to understand the concept better.

here is the link

[Morris]

Thanks Allyn. I'll give it a good read.

[Once4all]

Very interesting! I'd be lying if I said I understood it all, but I grasped enough of the connections he was making to be very intrigued.

[Morris]

Actually, I've seen this several times before, in various incarnations. I think every view of scriptures has their own flavour of it. It appears as an exercise in "connect-your-favourite-dots". These presentations look for connections where ever needed to draw the picture desired.

Perhaps I should say this before anything more; I have not made up my mind as to whether or not any of these connect-the-dot pictures are true or untrue. They certainly are fascinating. All I know is that there are many ways of connecting the different dots, and many common ways as well.

In this particular version (as in some others) the foundation of a day being a thousand years is laid out for us and built upon, only to have that supporting foundation abandoned when it no longer works out.

Anyway, that is my opinion on it and I'll leave it at that.

Regarding the meaning of 'covevantal death', it unfortunately didn't help me at all. Sorry Allyn.

[Allyn]

Jun 24, 2011 9:45:57 GMT -5 Morris said:

Actually, I've seen this several times before, in various incarnations. I think every view of scriptures has their own flavour of it. It appears as an exercise in "connect-your-favourite-dots". These presentations look for connections where ever needed to draw the picture desired.

Perhaps I should say this before anything more; I have not made up my mind as to whether or not any of these connect-the-dot pictures are true or untrue. They certainly are fascinating. All I know is that there are many ways of connecting the different dots, and many common ways as well.

In this particular version (as in some others) the foundation of a day being a thousand years is laid out for us and built upon, only to have that supporting foundation abandoned when it no longer works out.

Anyway, that is my opinion on it and I'll leave it at that.

Regarding the meaning of 'covevantal death', it unfortunately didn't help me at all. Sorry Allyn.

Just for the record I wasn't attempting to answer your question. I was just reminded of the article.

Covenant Creation is not my first or even second choice on how to believe things. I am still only convinced that it is an actual creation account which has been used as an example to help identify other subject matter within Scripture. I believe that it was never Moses' intention to show how God made His covenant eventually with Israel but rather is exactly how he saw things pertaining to the creation of the universe whether his information was from different sources which had similar stories or was actually inspired by God to illustrate it exactly has he did.

For me it is much more profitable to see the covenant relationship God made as it is reflected back upon by the NT writiers rather than try and flesh it all out from the OT.

[Morris]

Sorry Allyn. I just assumed there was something in it regarding covenantal death. It was still an interesting read though.

[Morris]

Well, I'm still searching for a meaning to this phrase and I haven't had too much luck so far.

The only advance I've had is that all three, 'physical', 'spiritual', and 'covenantal', are all adjectives. So, using their definitions;
- to say "physical death" is to say "death of, or pertaining to, the body",
- to say "spiritual death" is to say "death of, or pertaining to, the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature",
- to say "covenantal death" is to say "death of an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified".

All three, being adjectives, seem to indicate to what the death applies to, and not the causal nature of the death. In other words, they are saying 'death of' as opposed to 'death by'. Anyway, I'm still researching to find out what people mean by this phrase.

[JLVaughn]

Jun 27, 2011 9:24:20 GMT -5 Morris said:

Well, I'm still searching for a meaning to this phrase and I haven't had too much luck so far.

The only advance I've had is that all three, 'physical', 'spiritual', and 'covenantal', are all adjectives. So, using their definitions;
- to say "physical death" is to say "death of, or pertaining to, the body",
- to say "spiritual death" is to say "death of, or pertaining to, the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature",
- to say "covenantal death" is to say "death of an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified".

All three, being adjectives, seem to indicate to what the death applies to, and not the causal nature of the death. In other words, they are saying 'death of' as opposed to 'death by'. Anyway, I'm still researching to find out what people mean by this phrase.

Morris,

Very simply. There is a debate in Christendom. Was it "physical" death or was it "spiritual" death? What is the definition of "spiritual" death? They don't have a positive definition. They have a negative definition.

Spiritual = not physical.

So to prove "spiritual" death, prove that the death was "not physical." You know the proof. Satisfied with it?

The majority of "spiritual" death people preach a "physical" resurrection of the dead to overcome "spiritual" death. Why? If the death was not physical, then why do we need to be saved from it?

The debate is really, the death is physical death vs. the death is not physical death, but we need to be saved from physical death anyway.

Tell me how that goes over with CBV preterists?

Until my coauthor and I tackled the question, no CBV preterist said significantly more than "it was spiritual death."

It wasn't physical death. Spiritual death doesn't cut it. We need a positive definition. We chose the term "covenant death," defined it in pages 189-236 of Beyond Creation Science, and tested that definition against Scripture in pages 311-317, and 401-403.

[Once4all]

I thought a widely-accepted definition of spiritual death was separation from God.

[JLVaughn]

Jun 27, 2011 17:16:05 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I thought a widely-accepted definition of spiritual death was separation from God.

Bev,

Yes, but is it really a definition?

What does "separation from God" mean? Cain still talked to God. Enoch walked with God. Noah talked to God. Etc.

Has anyone used that definition of "spiritual death" as an argument for "spiritual death" over some other kind of death?

The primary understanding of separation is trivially demonstrated false. Who has told us which of the other definitions is being used? Who has argued the concept from Scripture? Who uses the concept in debates about the nature of the death?

[Allyn]

To me spiritual death is slightly more than just not having a relationship with God and thus needing a redemptive act in order to get back what was lost. It is also a separation within the person himself. The spirit now struggles with the flesh and when the spirit gives over to the flesh the flesh has dominion.

[MoGrace2U]

Personally I think 'spiritual death' is just another invented phrase. What would change for Adam when he sinned, was that in death he would die. And like Jeff says, neither Adam nor Cain was without a relationship with God after that, so it must be something else. Seems to me that it was death that took on a new role it did not have before.

[Morris]

Thanks so much for responding Jeff. I really appreciate it. But I have to be completely honest with you, and this isn't meant to offend or slight you in any way, but I'm finding these kind of answers frustrating. I feel as though I can't get a simple, straight forward answer. I've searched the internet to find someone that says 'this is what covenantal death means', and I have not yet found it. Despite this, I see the phrase used over and over again. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

Jun 27, 2011 15:27:19 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Morris,

Very simply. There is a debate in Christendom. Was it "physical" death or was it "spiritual" death?

I don't see why this must be an "or" proposition. Is there a reason that this must be an "or" question? If death means the cessation of life why wouldn't it mean both? And if the objection is based on them not dying that "day" literally, why aren't the days in Genesis 1 not literal? Or put another way, if the days of Genesis 1 are not literal, why should the day in Genesis 2:17 be? So from my perspective, the question is kind of moot and the potential objection inconsistent.

[The following became a bit of a study for me, collecting pre-existing thoughts with some new discoveries, and thought I'd post them for others to see as well.]
Allow me to add this much, the sentence may very well have been given before the execution was enacted. This may also be true in each individual's case. I believe Solomon spoke on this;
Ecclesiastes 8:10-13,
"Then I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of holiness, and they were forgotten in the city where they had so done. This also is vanity. Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Though a sinner does evil a hundred times, and his days are prolonged, yet I surely know that it will be well with those who fear God, who fear before Him. But it will not be well with the wicked; nor will he prolong his days, which are as a shadow, because he does not fear before God."

He may have been speaking of the same things we find in the NT regarding the delayed nature of sin toward death. By that I mean the execution of the consequences of sin, not that you have to sin a certain amount before death is given (didn't want anybody misreading me here). Some brief examples;

Romans 6:16
"you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?"

Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death"

Romans 7:5
"the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death"

Romans 7:13
"But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good"

James 1:15
"Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death"

James 5:20
"let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins"

There appears to be a period of grace between sin/failure/disobedience, and the consequence. I think Paul illustrates this in the first few chapters of Romans. Romans 1:28,32 says, "God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting... that those who practice such things are deserving of death". They deserved death, and death would be the wages, but they didn't have the sentence executed on them right away. Paul says exactly that in a few more verses.

Romans 2:3,4,
"And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?"

This is why the sentence isn't executed at the moment of sin; to allow us to be lead to repentance! This repentance is found by God's grace and in Christ. As Paul continues these thoughts in Romans 3:22-26,
"For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

I could go on and on but I'll stop at this; if death was immediate, there would be no opportunity for repentance - if death was relational, how can there be goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, since these require relation.

What is the definition of "spiritual" death? They don't have a positive definition. They have a negative definition.
Spiritual = not physical.

I just gave it in a post above didn't I? "To say "spiritual death" is to say "death of, or pertaining to, the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature". I myself don't believe that to be a negative definition. And just for clarity, I don't subscribe to the 'separation from God' definition. *[Edit: I realized only after Jeff's responding post that I should have stated "I don't subscribe to the 'separation from God' definition as the exclusive meaning of 'spiritual death'. My apologies.]

Tell me how that goes over with CBV preterists?

Well, I'm slightly embarrassed Jeff, because I don't know what "CBV" stands for. I'll be even more embarrassed if I knew and have forgotten!

It wasn't physical death. Spiritual death doesn't cut it. We need a positive definition. We chose the term "covenant death," defined it in pages 189-236 of Beyond Creation Science, and tested that definition against Scripture in pages 311-317, and 401-403.

I realize that you may have taken 47 pages of a book to expound on, and present the case of, what covenant death is but is there really no way to give its meaning in just even a paragraph or three? Is it so complex that it cannot be readily stated?

I know I went into some discussion and I'm not aiming for this to be any kind of debate, but instead of a 'here's the meaning' type of answer, I got a short series of ponderings and other questions. And while these are good for discussion (and I'm appreciative of them) they don't help me understand what "covenantal death" means (other than the death of a covenant).

[JLVaughn]

Jun 27, 2011 23:02:15 GMT -5 Morris said:

Thanks so much for responding Jeff. I really appreciate it. But I have to be completely honest with you, and this isn't meant to offend or slight you in any way, but I'm finding these kind of answers frustrating. I feel as though I can't get a simple, straight forward answer. I've searched the internet to find someone that says 'this is what covenantal death means', and I have not yet found it. Despite this, I see the phrase used over and over again. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

Morris,

I understand fully. However, you have to understand my position. I can't define it in 1 page or less. It is bad enough that there are people claiming we place Gen. 1 after the Exodus. Now do they get that? Not from us.

Adam was in covenant with God. He broke that covenant with God. Adam was now "dead" with respect to that covenant. Please don't go jumping to any specific conclusions as to what we mean by each of those parts. They each needed pages of explanation.

Jun 27, 2011 15:27:19 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Morris,

Very simply. There is a debate in Christendom. Was it "physical" death or was it "spiritual" death?

I don't see why this must be an "or" proposition. Is there a reason that this must be an "or" question? If death means the cessation of life why wouldn't it mean both? And if the objection is based on them not dying that "day" literally, why aren't the days in Genesis 1 not literal? Or put another way, if the days of Genesis 1 are not literal, why should the day in Genesis 2:17 be? So from my perspective, the question is kind of moot and the potential objection inconsistent.

It's not my point here to debate that issue. I am only pointing out the existence of this debate. Do you agree or disagree, that the primary debate in Christendom is "physical death vs. "spiritual death?" If you disagree, then what is the primary debate? If you agree, then what is the primary definition of "spiritual death," the definition that is actually used in the debate? Examples for either?

The fact that we've taken a third way should be evidence that we disagree with both sides. If you want to explore a third way, then by all means do. Just be aware that you also will be outside the two "allowed" orthodoxies, and you will be agreeing with me that both of those orthodoxies are wanting.

I just gave it in a post above didn't I? "To say "spiritual death" is to say "death of, or pertaining to, the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature". I myself don't believe that to be a negative definition. And just for clarity, I don't subscribe to the 'separation from God' definition.

Please find someone who claims "spiritual death" in Gen. 3, who 1) defines it in any way other than "not physical death," and 2) uses that definition to prove or illustrate a biblical testable point.

Well, I'm slightly embarrassed Jeff, because I don't know what "CBV" stands for. I'll be even more embarrassed if I knew and have forgotten!

Corporate Body View of the Resurrection of the Dead. AKA Covenant Eschatology, the dominant form of preterism.

I realize that you may have taken 47 pages of a book to expound on, and present the case of, what covenant death is but is there really no way to give its meaning in just even a paragraph or three? Is it so complex that it cannot be readily stated?

I tossed you a bone above. I'll toss another at the end.

I know I went into some discussion and I'm not aiming for this to be any kind of debate, but instead of a 'here's the meaning' type of answer, I got a short series of ponderings and other questions. And while these are good for discussion (and I'm appreciative of them) they don't help me understand what "covenantal death" means (other than the death of a covenant).

An answer requires a context. Your comments about "spiritual death" demonstrate you don't understand those who argue "spiritual death." Therefore, you don't understand the context.

Please don't tell me how you would define "spiritual death." It is irrelevant. It doesn't help the discussion for you to redefine terms and use your own dictionary. Use the definitions that the terms have. Tell me how those who regularly use the concept define it. That's what matters to your question. Once you understand that, you will see why "spiritual death" is 1) weak, 2) defined negatively, 3) that "separation from God" is added to the concept as an afterthought and not actually used, 4) is not testable against Scripture. The only thing the "spiritual death" people have right is that the "physical death" people are wrong.

Covenantal death is not death of a covenant.

Your examples of sin leading to physical death. Under the covenant, that person is guilty and condemned or at least condemnable to physical death. He is covenantally dead. (Now you are going to bring up King David. See why I can't define it as simply as you would like?)

A person outside the covenant is not condemnable under the covenant. He's just dead to the covenant. He doesn't exist. Acts 18:17 is an excellent example. Gallo had no authority to act towards those outside of Gallo's/Rome's covenantal authority. (Covenant with Rome? Yes. Gallo was a local Roman ruler who enforced Roman rule. A non-citizen had no standing in a Roman court.)

Paul often used his covenant with Rome to his advantage. (Yes, Paul was a citizen of Rome.)

The prodigal son was dead. Was he physically dead? No! Was he spiritually dead? I don't know. We don't have a definition for spiritual death. Was he outside the covenant? Yes!

Whatever covenant Adam might have been in before, Adam became dead to that covenant when the Old Covenant was established in Genesis 1. In Genesis 3, Adam violated that covenant and became dead to it, but dead from within that covenant, not dead outside that covenant. Promises were given that were not fulfilled until AD 70. Adam's Genesis 1 covenant could not end until all of those promises were fulfilled. It could not end before AD 70.

The cherubs of Gen. 3 had there own covenants with God (Ez. 28). They became dead to those covenants and had physical judgments that followed. From Ez. 28, we see that one of these cherubs became a king and that he was rich from the spoils of Eden. That is, God drove Adam out of the garden by the sword point of these "kings."

Judgment under a covenant is a legal judgment. A physical judgment may or may not be part of that legal judgment. If it is, that physical judgment is not part of a "both/and," it is part of the legal/covenantal judgment.

A simple definition is not possible because we do not have an ancient understanding of covenants. You gave examples in your list of verses. I've given more examples. I hope they help.

[Morris]

Jun 28, 2011 11:49:47 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

It's not my point here to debate that issue. I am only pointing out the existence of this debate. Do you agree or disagree, that the primary debate in Christendom is "physical death vs. "spiritual death?" If you disagree, then what is the primary debate? If you agree, then what is the primary definition of "spiritual death," the definition that is actually used in the debate? Examples for either?

Of all the debates I've seen debated within 'Christendom', I have to admit that this one is far from primary. In fact, it's pretty low on the scale. Most accept their 'spiritual death' definition with a 'physical death' following afterward.

The fact that we've taken a third way should be evidence that we disagree with both sides. If you want to explore a third way, then by all means do. Just be aware that you also will be outside the two "allowed" orthodoxies, and you will be agreeing with me that both of those orthodoxies are wanting.

Actually, the more I think about it, I have to say I agree with both sides more than I disagree with either, although the exact meanings are slightly different.

Please find someone who claims "spiritual death" in Gen. 3, who 1) defines it in any way other than "not physical death," and 2) uses that definition to prove or illustrate a biblical testable point.

Charles Finney. I haven't really seen anyone who defines 'spiritual death' as 'not physical death'. Where do you find people saying this?

Corporate Body View of the Resurrection of the Dead. AKA Covenant Eschatology, the dominant form of preterism.

Ah. Ok, I have heard of it but not as "CBV". Thanks.

An answer requires a context. Your comments about "spiritual death" demonstrate you don't understand those who argue "spiritual death." Therefore, you don't understand the context.

Actually that's kind of funny because you completely missed the context under which I gave those definitions (which may very well be my fault for not making it clear). Those were "definitions"; meanings according to those word's definitions and grammatical structure. They were not meant to be what people understand those words to represent within the context of the fall.

It was meant to demonstrate that in my search for a meaning of "covenantal death" I looked at the definitions of the words and their grammatical structure. In English, that phrase literally means "death of an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified". I knew that isn't what you mean by these words, thus I concluded, "I'm still researching to find out what people mean by this phrase".

Please don't tell me how you would define "spiritual death." It is irrelevant. It doesn't help the discussion for you to redefine terms and use your own dictionary. Use the definitions that the terms have. Tell me how those who regularly use the concept define it. That's what matters to your question. Once you understand that, you will see why "spiritual death" is 1) weak, 2) defined negatively, 3) that "separation from God" is added to the concept as an afterthought and not actually used, 4) is not testable against Scripture. The only thing the "spiritual death" people have right is that the "physical death" people are wrong.

Hmm... I find all this to be irrelevant to my question of 'what does covenantal death mean?'. It may relate to why the idea of covenantal death came to be, but not what it is.

Covenantal death is not death of a covenant.

Just as some people say spiritual death is not death of a spirit?

Your examples of sin leading to physical death. Under the covenant, that person is guilty and condemned or at least condemnable to physical death. He is covenantally dead. (Now you are going to bring up King David. See why I can't define it as simply as you would like?)

I missed the connection here with King David. Sorry. Also, you ignored that I also said it leads to death of the spirit/soul as well. It leads to death of the being in totality, as I understand scriptures at this point.

A person outside the covenant is not condemnable under the covenant. He's just dead to the covenant. He doesn't exist.
...
Whatever covenant Adam might have been in before, Adam became dead to that covenant when the Old Covenant was established in Genesis 1. In Genesis 3, Adam violated that covenant and became dead to it, but dead from within that covenant, not dead outside that covenant.

I'm not following. What is the difference between "dead from within" and "dead outside" the covenant? This is what I'm seeing you saying here, "Whatever covenant Adam might have been in before, Adam [doesn't exist] to that covenant when the Old Covenant was established in Genesis 1".

Can you see why I say that? You said "He's just dead to the covenant. He doesn't exist". So if Adam "became dead to that covenant", I see your connection of 'dead' and 'doesn't exist'. But then God continues to deal with them as a covenant people?

The prodigal son was dead. Was he physically dead? No! Was he spiritually dead? I don't know... Was he outside the covenant? Yes!

Alright. So, why was he dead outside the covenant and not dead within the covenant? What is the difference and how do we know which one applies?

We don't have a definition for spiritual death.

Why do you keep saying this? I can find it all over the internet; I may not agree with it fully, but I can certainly find it. What I can't find is the meaning of covenantal death.

Adam's Genesis 1 covenant could not end until all of those promises were fulfilled.

You'll have to explain this one to me. I don't see any promises in Genesis 1. Also, how did you come to the conclusion that the covenant can't end until all promises are fulfilled? Wouldn't that make a covenant 'unbreakable'? Yet the covenant of marriage is broken upon "death" and used as an example of release from the first covenant (Romans 7). Why then isn't Adam's covenant broken upon death?

The cherubs of Gen. 3 had there own covenants with God (Ez. 28). They became dead to those covenants and had physical judgments that followed. From Ez. 28, we see that one of these cherubs became a king and that he was rich from the spoils of Eden. That is, God drove Adam out of the garden by the sword point of these "kings."

This was raised in another thread and my questions regarding this were not answered. We can continue it there if you'd like.

Judgment under a covenant is a legal judgment. A physical judgment may or may not be part of that legal judgment. If it is, that physical judgment is not part of a "both/and," it is part of the legal/covenantal judgment.

Perhaps the question could be restated as "what was the legal judgment given to Adam for breaking the covenant?"

A simple definition is not possible because we do not have an ancient understanding of covenants. You gave examples in your list of verses. I've given more examples. I hope they help.

Unfortunately, not much. I have a better idea of what covenantal death is not, but I actually have more questions now than before. Thanks for the effort though.

[Allyn]

very interesting exchange of ideas, guys.

[JLVaughn]

Jun 29, 2011 10:58:22 GMT -5 Morris said:

Jun 28, 2011 11:49:47 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

It's not my point here to debate that issue. I am only pointing out the existence of this debate. Do you agree or disagree, that the primary debate in Christendom is "physical death vs. "spiritual death?" If you disagree, then what is the primary debate? If you agree, then what is the primary definition of "spiritual death," the definition that is actually used in the debate? Examples for either?

Of all the debates I've seen debated within 'Christendom', I have to admit that this one is far from primary. In fact, it's pretty low on the scale. Most accept their 'spiritual death' definition with a 'physical death' following afterward.

Morris,

The context here is debates and discussions on the death of Gen. 3. You started the discussion. Why are you now ignoring that context?

Actually, the more I think about it, I have to say I agree with both sides more than I disagree with either, although the exact meanings are slightly different.

You agree that black is white? You agree that physical is non-physical?

Charles Finney. I haven't really seen anyone who defines 'spiritual death' as 'not physical death'. Where do you find people saying this?

Morris, they usually don't come out and say it. That definition is implied in their argument. When they do say it, they usually misquote 1 Cor. 15:46.

Actually that's kind of funny because you completely missed the context under which I gave those definitions (which may very well be my fault for not making it clear). Those were "definitions"; meanings according to those word's definitions and grammatical structure. They were not meant to be what people understand those words to represent within the context of the fall.

So you've written your own dictionary and didn't tell anyone.

It was meant to demonstrate that in my search for a meaning of "covenantal death" I looked at the definitions of the words and their grammatical structure. In English, that phrase literally means "death of an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified". I knew that isn't what you mean by these words, thus I concluded, "I'm still researching to find out what people mean by this phrase".

So sue me. I wasn't an English major. We need a term to describe our understanding of Gen. 3 death to distinguish it from the other two views.

Also, you ignored that I also said it leads to death of the spirit/soul as well. It leads to death of the being in totality, as I understand scriptures at this point.

I mistakenly hoped you would understand and see how the spiritual aspect applied, once I showed how the physical aspect applies under covenant.

I'm not following. What is the difference between "dead from within" and "dead outside" the covenant? This is what I'm seeing you saying here, "Whatever covenant Adam might have been in before, Adam [doesn't exist] to that covenant when the Old Covenant was established in Genesis 1".

What are you not understanding? You can't understand the difference between being in covenant and irrevocably violating that covenant vs. never being in the covenant at all?

Can you see why I say that? You said "He's just dead to the covenant. He doesn't exist". So if Adam "became dead to that covenant", I see your connection of 'dead' and 'doesn't exist'. But then God continues to deal with them as a covenant people?

Yep. He sure does.

Alright. So, why was he dead outside the covenant and not dead within the covenant? What is the difference and how do we know which one applies?

Good question. Tim Martin discussed some other examples in his talks at the 2 Covenant Creation Conferences. You can look them up in the archives at preteristradio.com

Basically, some biblical examples end with the person completely permanently cut-off, some received a new, separate covenant, and some the returned. We can't tell you why each became what it became. We can only give examples.

Why do you keep saying this? I can find it all over the internet; I may not agree with it fully, but I can certainly find it.

You can find it all over the internet? I say you can't. I specifically requested a positive, testable definition, that is used in an argument. I will settle for an implied definition. Find one.

You'll have to explain this one to me. I don't see any promises in Genesis 1. Also, how did you come to the conclusion that the covenant can't end until all promises are fulfilled? Wouldn't that make a covenant 'unbreakable'? Yet the covenant of marriage is broken upon "death" and used as an example of release from the first covenant (Romans 7). Why then isn't Adam's covenant broken upon death?

After Adam's death, we see God making more promises (Gen. 3:15), the covenant didn't end then. As for the promises in Gen. 1, Paul addressed them frequently. There fulfillment was still in Paul's near future.

Perhaps the question could be restated as "what was the legal judgment given to Adam for breaking the covenant?"

It was called "the death" and it was reversed by "the standing again." To the extent that you understand the CBV of "the standing again," you understand "the death."

[Morris]

Jun 29, 2011 17:41:35 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Jun 29, 2011 10:58:22 GMT -5 Morris said:

Morris,

The context here is debates and discussions on the death of Gen. 3. You started the discussion. Why are you now ignoring that context?

What I started was a question; What is Covenantal Death? Discussion of physical death and spiritual death is fine and dandy, but I didn't ask what was meant by them. I have a pretty good idea of those. Now, if you need to define these so that we can say covevantal death is not those, that is also fine. But I don't otherwise know how their meanings affect the meaning of spiritual death.

You agree that black is white? You agree that physical is non-physical?

Pardon? I thought I have been fairly transparent in saying that death has physical and spiritual applications. Thus, I can have certain agreements with both sides.

Morris, they usually don't come out and say it. That definition is implied in their argument. When they do say it, they usually misquote 1 Cor. 15:46.

They say "spiritual death is separation from God". That is a positive definition. If there is any implied definition found here is absolutely ancillary.

So you've written your own dictionary and didn't tell anyone.

Pardon me? Are you accusing me of making up word definitions that nobody knows about? Generally speaking, if I desire to find out what something means I look up the necessary words in a dictionary. That was the first step I took. It was apparent that the literal meaning of the words were not what you using them for.

So sue me. I wasn't an English major. We need a term to describe our understanding of Gen. 3 death to distinguish it from the other two views.

That is why you need to define those terms if you're going to use them. I realized after reading many of your posts in which the term appears that I didn't know what you meant. Therefore, the question.

What are you not understanding? You can't understand the difference between being in covenant and irrevocably violating that covenant vs. never being in the covenant at all?

Sure I can, but not when both are equally called 'dead to the covenant'. If they have the same status, it is as if the violator of the covenant was never in it (or the other way around; the one not in it was in violation of it). Either way, you say both are dead to the covenant.

Yep. He sure does.

Then they are not dead to the covenant. Otherwise, God deals with those who do not exist to the covenant, and that becomes everybody alike.

Good question. Tim Martin discussed some other examples in his talks at the 2 Covenant Creation Conferences. You can look them up in the archives at preteristradio.com

Basically, some biblical examples end with the person completely permanently cut-off, some received a new, separate covenant, and some the returned. We can't tell you why each became what it became. We can only give examples.

I will look up those discussions, but you didn't answer my question. You said, "Was he outside the covenant? Yes!", and I would like to know how it is you can say that. So, not looking at whether he stayed cut-off, or entered a new covenant, or returned, I would like to know how you can say he was outside the covenant.

You can find it all over the internet? I say you can't. I specifically requested a positive, testable definition, that is used in an argument. I will settle for an implied definition. Find one.

It's the first non-wikipedia result I googled. It states, "Question: What is spiritual death? Answer: Death is separation." Do I agree with the article? I have no idea. But, it is a positive definition, a testable definition (they apply it to scriptures, rightly or wrongly), and use it in an argument ("A man without Christ is spiritually dead").

After Adam's death, we see God making more promises (Gen. 3:15), the covenant didn't end then.

So these promises were added to a dead (covenantally non-existent) people? What was the covenant again?

As for the promises in Gen. 1, Paul addressed them frequently. There fulfillment was still in Paul's near future.

Can you give me any examples so that I'm on the same page?

By the way, you didn't answer these questions:
Also, how did you come to the conclusion that the covenant can't end until all promises are fulfilled? Wouldn't that make a covenant 'unbreakable'? Yet the covenant of marriage is broken upon "death" and used as an example of release from the first covenant (Romans 7). Why then isn't Adam's covenant broken upon death?

It was called "the death" and it was reversed by "the standing again." To the extent that you understand the CBV of "the standing again," you understand "the death."

To be honest, I don't understand it all that well. So, again, what was the legal judgment given to Adam for breaking the covenant?

[JLVaughn]

Jun 29, 2011 19:33:34 GMT -5 Morris said:

Jun 29, 2011 17:41:35 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

What I started was a question; What is Covenantal Death? Discussion of physical death and spiritual death is fine and dandy, but I didn't ask what was meant by them. I have a pretty good idea of those. Now, if you need to define these so that we can say covevantal death is not those, that is also fine. But I don't otherwise know how their meanings affect the meaning of spiritual death.

Morris,

You started with a definition of spiritual death that does not match what those who argue for physical death mean.

Pardon? I thought I have been fairly transparent in saying that death has physical and spiritual applications. Thus, I can have certain agreements with both sides.

The two sides contradict each other. Your statements also contradicted each other. You can believe both sides arguments have merit. But you can not believe both sides are true, without holding to a contradiction. Your comments towards the latter were what I was referencing.

They say "spiritual death is separation from God". That is a positive definition. If there is any implied definition found here is absolutely ancillary.

That definition is not used in their arguments against physical death. It is not demonstrated biblically. It is added as an afterthought.

Pardon me? Are you accusing me of making up word definitions that nobody knows about? Generally speaking, if I desire to find out what something means I look up the necessary words in a dictionary. That was the first step I took. It was apparent that the literal meaning of the words were not what you using them for.

No. You are making up new definitions for commonly used terms. That's what you said you were doing. You assembled definitions from English grammar instead of looking at how the phrases are actually used.

That is why you need to define those terms if you're going to use them. I realized after reading many of your posts in which the term appears that I didn't know what you meant. Therefore, the question.

And my reference to the source.

Sure I can, but not when both are equally called 'dead to the covenant'. If they have the same status, it is as if the violator of the covenant was never in it (or the other way around; the one not in it was in violation of it). Either way, you say both are dead to the covenant.

Yep. It's a problem that those who have read BCS are aware of.

It's the first non-wikipedia result I googled. It states, "Question: What is spiritual death? Answer: Death is separation." Do I agree with the article? I have no idea. But, it is a positive definition, a testable definition (they apply it to scriptures, rightly or wrongly), and use it in an argument ("A man without Christ is spiritually dead").

In the first paragraph, this article argues, "Adam does fall, but his physical death does not occur immediately; God must have had another type of death in mind—spiritual death." That is, "spiritual" = "not physical." They do not demonstrate "separation from God." They defined, "spiritual" = "not physical."

Not one of the Bible verses linked says that death is "separation from God" nor can any of these passages be considered to reasonably imply such a definition.

By the way, you didn't answer these questions:
Also, how did you come to the conclusion that the covenant can't end until all promises are fulfilled?

I accept Don Preston's argument on this.

[Morris]

Jun 29, 2011 20:53:15 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Morris,

You started with a definition of spiritual death that does not match what those who argue for physical death mean.

I know. I never claimed it to be their definition. As I've said a few times already, I was looking at definitions from a strictly dictionary (literal) viewpoint in an effort to gain insight into the meaning of covenantal death. The point was to realize that neither spiritual death or covenantal death are literal in meaning. Both of these phrases have created their own meaning and therefore I was not going to learn there meanings from the words themselves.

The two sides contradict each other. Your statements also contradicted each other. You can believe both sides arguments have merit. But you can not believe both sides are true, without holding to a contradiction. Your comments towards the latter were what I was referencing.

Again, I never claimed that both sides were true. I said, "I agree with both sides more than I disagree with either, although the exact meanings are slightly different". As for the contradictory statements, please note them for me so I can address them.

That definition is not used in their arguments against physical death. It is not demonstrated biblically. It is added as an afterthought.

Please demonstrate this for me. As I understand their arguments, they say it wasn't physical death because Adam didn't physically die immediately. They do not use their definition of spiritual death to disprove physical death.

You are sidestepping what I really want to understand, that being the meaning of covenantal death, with this whole physical verses spiritual argument. It is interesting but it is still a side topic.

No. You are making up new definitions for commonly used terms. That's what you said you were doing. You assembled definitions from English grammar instead of looking at how the phrases are actually used.

I think you've completely misunderstood me. I did not 'make up' anything. I did not use anything 'new'. I assembled existing definitions of words according to their grammatical rules. From the resulting meanings I concluded that these were not the meanings of the phrases as used in the context of the fall. I was able to see that the meaning of the phrases, in this context, were not literal.

Allow me to reprint the post that I think may be confusing you:

Well, I'm still searching for a meaning to this phrase and I haven't had too much luck so far.

The only advance I've had is that all three, 'physical', 'spiritual', and 'covenantal', are all adjectives. So, using their definitions;
- to say "physical death" is to say "death of, or pertaining to, the body",
- to say "spiritual death" is to say "death of, or pertaining to, the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature",
- to say "covenantal death" is to say "death of an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified".

All three, being adjectives, seem to indicate to what the death applies to, and not the causal nature of the death. In other words, they are saying 'death of' as opposed to 'death by'. Anyway, I'm still researching to find out what people mean by this phrase.

Now, let me walk you through this. The first underlined word, "their", is referring back to the three words themselves; physical, spiritual, and covenantal. It was their definitions, not other peoples definitions of those words, but their own definitions.

Again, when I said "three" and "they", it is referring to the words physical, spiritual, and covenantal themselves. I haven't referenced anybody else or anybody else's definitions, only the literal, dictionary definitions. Up to this point I have mentioned or suggested that anybody used these definitions in the context of the fall.

Finally, I note in the last sentence, that I am still researching to find out what people mean by the phrase, because it is obviously different than what a strictly literal meaning gives those words. Please tell me I've cleared this up for you.

And my reference to the source.
Yep. It's a problem that those who have read BCS are aware of.

So then I take it, that in the context of these forums, these will not be addressed. Is this correct or incorrect?

In the first paragraph, this article argues, "Adam does fall, but his physical death does not occur immediately; God must have had another type of death in mind—spiritual death." That is, "spiritual" = "not physical." They do not demonstrate "separation from God." They defined, "spiritual" = "not physical."

Is this not the same formula used to define covenantal death? It wasn't physical, it wasn't spiritual, so it must be covenantal. That is, covenantal = not physical or spiritual. So far, that's the only definition I've seen. It has been in these terms that you've tried to explain covenantal death when you say things like, "The fact that we've taken a third way should be evidence that we disagree with both sides" and, "The prodigal son was dead. Was he physically dead? No! Was he spiritually dead? I don't know... Was he outside the covenant? Yes!"

Not one of the Bible verses linked says that death is "separation from God" nor can any of these passages be considered to reasonably imply such a definition.

As for the article, just because you disagree with his understanding doesn't mean he didn't use verses to show separation from God as being a death. He uses several to show the concept. By this same judgment I haven't seen any verses showing a definition of covenantal death either.

Despite disagreement, that article gave a positive definition ("Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God"), showed it within scripture (to their understanding of it), and demonstrated it ("A man without Christ is spiritually dead. Paul describes it as “being alienated from the life of God” in Ephesians 4:18. (To be separated from life is the same as being dead.)").

Do you realize how it looks when you belittle another view as being unable to provide a positive definition, and yet don't provide one yourself? I honestly had no idea it was going to be this difficult when I first thought to ask the question. That's why I suggested this wasn't for debate purposes, just for someone to give their opinion on it and support if desired. I figured this thread would be a three or four post shorty.

I accept Don Preston's argument on this.

And that is...?

[JLVaughn]

Morris,

Jun 29, 2011 23:28:03 GMT -5 Morris said:

Jun 29, 2011 20:53:15 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Again, I never claimed that both sides were true. I said, "I agree with both sides more than I disagree with either, although the exact meanings are slightly different". As for the contradictory statements, please note them for me so I can address them.

Morris,

"Spiritual" = "not physical." I demonstrated that from their own words. Both sides claim that their positions are mutually exclusive. You are saying both positions are mostly true, that is, most of their claims are not mutually exclusive. That is a complete contradiction of both positions.

Please demonstrate this for me.

Demonstrate what? That they didn't use "separation from God?" That they didn't get separation from God" from Scripture? They did not demonstrate that "spiritual death" = "separation from God." They only claimed it. You are asking me to commit a logical fallacy. I demonstrated from their own words that "spiritual" = "not physical."

As I understand their arguments, they say it wasn't physical death because Adam didn't physically die immediately. They do not use their definition of spiritual death to disprove physical death.

Great! You agree with what I've said all along. They did not use "spiritual death" = "separation from God" to disprove physical death. They disproved physical death and called the death "spiritual." Their argument defines "spiritual" as "not physical."

You are sidestepping what I really want to understand, that being the meaning of covenantal death, with this whole physical verses spiritual argument. It is interesting but it is still a side topic.

I have side-stepped nothing. You want a concise definition. I can't give you one. I gave you a reference. You don't want to read it. You can't fathom the issues and continue to insist on a concise definition.

In BCS, we started from the back and went forward in developing the covenantal context of Scripture. You refuse to work backwards, the direction of our development and insist on working forward.

In the beginning God covenanted heavens and earth. (Bara is the verb form of berith, translated covenant.) ... "Let us covenant with Adam in our image." From that point on, Scripture follows one judgment after another. Every single one of these judgments is against a people in covenant with God. The first of these judgments is in Gen. 3. Adam, the son of God, was reduced to a servant of God. This judgment was called "the death."

By the time we start discussing the Fall and the Curse, our readers have already seen about 150 pages on judgments made within covenants. In chronological order and in primacy, the Curse was the first such judgment. (We saved the best for last.) It is not a matter of definition. It is a matter of seeing a recurring pattern an recognizing that pattern.

Everybody sees this pattern. No one misses it. The problem is, when you read forward, no one initially sees the pattern in Genesis 3. It is not until you've seen this pattern several times that you begin to recognize it. Once you recognize it, you apply the pattern.

Once you see the pattern, you apply it forward. The next place you see the pattern of judgment made within the covenant, you recognize it.

For some reason, people are adverse to applying that pattern backwards. That's all we've done in BCS. We showed that the pattern applied to the Flood. We showed that the pattern applied to Cain. We showed that the pattern applied to Sodom and Gomorrah. We showed that the pattern applied to Babel. We showed that the pattern applied to the Fall and the Curse. We applied the pattern to those judgments that occurred before where we recognized the pattern and demonstrated that all of these judgments were made from within a covenant.

Very simply. Pick the appropriate point in Scripture. You, as a preterist, believe that every judgment in Scripture, from that point on is a judgment from within a covenant. Call it a covenant judgment, if you will. Allyn picks Abraham. Others pick Sinai. You pick?

Every preterist agrees that the pattern that the pattern continues forward in time. The question is, when did the pattern start. A pattern always starts before you recognize it. This seems to me to be a given. After you recognize the pattern, you work backwards looking at all of the instances you missed.

We showed that all of these other judgments, chronologically before that point of your choosing, were also covenant judgments. That is, they all fit the same pattern.

The first of these judgments is so important, that it is the singular topic of Biblical eschatology. The purpose of Biblical eschatology is the reversal of this judgment against God's people. It is so important, that it was given a special name, "the Death."

We can not define these things. We can only point out the details of the pattern. That requires the careful analysis of numerous examples. That requires pages of text.

[Morris]

Jun 30, 2011 12:06:51 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Call it a covenant judgment, if you will.

That's fine, but what was the judgment?!

I do not disagree that, in general, breaking a covenant brings judgment. The point of this thread was to find out what the judgment was that Adam was subject to. If covenantal death simply means judgment, what was the judgment?

The first of these judgments is so important, that it is the singular topic of Biblical eschatology. The purpose of Biblical eschatology is the reversal of this judgment against God's people. It is so important, that it was given a special name, "the Death."
We can not define these things.

If you cannot define what the judgment was against Adam, how can you define what the restoration was in Christ?

If the judgment was against Adam, why do I need to be restored?

If all biblical eschatology came about in the first century, what application does it have toward me?

Do you have any scriptures to show me answers to these questions?

In the beginning God covenanted heavens and earth. (Bara is the verb form of berith, translated covenant.) ... "Let us covenant with Adam in our image."

Genesis 1:26,
"Then God said, “[`asah] man in Our image, according to Our likeness" ".

This shows that "Bara" has a similar concept to "Asah". Genesis 1:26 shows God saying "let us make", and 1:27 follows it up showing that God did make, "and He created".

By the way, if you say that God "covenanted" Adam, you have to also accept that everything in Genesis 1 was "covenanted". This includes the heavens and earth (1:1, which I know you agree with), great sea creatures, every living thing that moves, every winged bird (1:21), and everything mentioned in Genesis chapter 1 (2:3).

Now, if everything was covenanted, Adam was not a special 'covenantal people'. There would be no concept of Gentile, or anything that is "out of covenant".
__________________

Note: This is a holiday weekend up here in Canada so it is very likely that I will be unable to post, or in only a very limited fashion at least, since I will be away from both home and office. I guess it is also a holiday weekend for those south of the border too. To everyone down in the states, have a great July 4th.

[Once4all]

Jun 27, 2011 22:31:45 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Personally I think 'spiritual death' is just another invented phrase. What would change for Adam when he sinned, was that in death he would die. And like Jeff says, neither Adam nor Cain was without a relationship with God after that, so it must be something else. Seems to me that it was death that took on a new role it did not have before.

I have somehow managed to get several days behind in reading these forums! And I probably won't catch up today. So much to do and so little time...

Anyway, when I read what you wrote, "in death he would die," it seems to me that the first "death" refers to physical death, which happens to everyone. And the dying mentioned that would happen at death would be "spiritual." What I'm getting at is a form of living of the spirit.

"In death he would die" is the same thing Jesus was talking about when he said , "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"
(John 11:25-26 NASB)

Obviously, he was offering a reversal of "in death he would die."

[JLVaughn]

Jun 30, 2011 16:06:03 GMT -5 Morris said:

Morris,

If you cannot define what the judgment was against Adam, how can you define what the restoration was in Christ?

Chapter 20 of BCS.

If the judgment was against Adam, why do I need to be restored?

Who says you did. Restored implies you were once in, removed, then restored.

If all biblical eschatology came about in the first century, what application does it have toward me?

Chapter 21 of BCS.

Do you have any scriptures to show me answers to these questions?

Plenty. Go read.

In the beginning God covenanted heavens and earth. (Bara is the verb form of berith, translated covenant.) ... "Let us covenant with Adam in our image."

Genesis 1:26,
"Then God said, “[`asah] man in Our image, according to Our likeness" ".

This shows that "Bara" has a similar concept to "Asah". Genesis 1:26 shows God saying "let us make", and 1:27 follows it up showing that God did make, "and He created".

By the way, if you say that God "covenanted" Adam, you have to also accept that everything in Genesis 1 was "covenanted". This includes the heavens and earth (1:1, which I know you agree with), great sea creatures, every living thing that moves, every winged bird (1:21), and everything mentioned in Genesis chapter 1 (2:3).

Now, if everything was covenanted, Adam was not a special 'covenantal people'. There would be no concept of Gentile, or anything that is "out of covenant".

If only it was so simple. We barely only started on the issue in BCS Chapters 13-18.

Enjoy your weekend.

[stephenpatrick]

Jun 29, 2011 16:17:22 GMT -5 Allyn said:

very interesting exchange of ideas, guys.

Yes it has been interesting.
I'm on Chapter 13 of BCS again. 3rd read of the book for me.
Have a good weekend everyone.

Blessings.

[Morris]

Thanks for the comments everyone.

Jeff, are you offering me a copy of the book?

[Morris]

Anybody else have a grasp on the meaning of covenantal death?

As I asked just two posts ago, "The point of this thread was to find out what the judgment was that Adam was subject to. If covenantal death simply means judgment, what was the judgment?"

[Once4all]

Jul 11, 2011 9:55:06 GMT -5 Morris said:

Anybody else have a grasp on the meaning of covenantal death?

As I asked just two posts ago, "The point of this thread was to find out what the judgment was that Adam was subject to. If covenantal death simply means judgment, what was the judgment?"

That he was put outside of the covenant? I recall that this was already detailed in one of the posts above, though, so I guess this isn't the answer you're seeking.

[Morris]

Jul 11, 2011 19:55:29 GMT -5 Once4all said:

That he was put outside of the covenant? I recall that this was already detailed in one of the posts above, though, so I guess this isn't the answer you're seeking.

Is that the answer though? Because I was also told above, "Whatever covenant Adam might have been in before, Adam became dead to that covenant when the Old Covenant was established in Genesis 1. In Genesis 3, Adam violated that covenant and became dead to it, but dead from within that covenant, not dead outside that covenant".

So this is why I still don't understand, was Adam still in the covenant or not? How can we say that "covenantal death" means "outside the covenant" when there were other people who did not experience covenantal death but were outside the covenant nonetheless? Are those people considered "covenantally dead" as well because they were not in the covenant? Or how can we say it means "outside the covenant" when they were still within it? Do you see why I don't believe I have an answer? Whether 'dead from within' or 'dead from without', dead is dead, it's just a matter of how one got there (i.e. lost life or never had it).

If the judgment for breaking the covenant was to be put outside the covenant, that merely placed them back to square one with everybody else. Thus the Gentile could turn to the Jew and say, "Welcome to the club". The only difference I can see in this scenario is that the Jew could turn back to the Gentile and say, "But you don't know how second class this club is; I've lost membership in a first class club that you don't know anything about".