What is Covenantal Death?

[JLVaughn]

Morris,

You are not a preterist. You do not understand Covenant Eschatology. You deny my starting premise of Covenant Eschatology. My views follow from that.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

Rev. 21:1 has been fulfilled. Whatever the H&E of Rev. 21:1 was, it was "created" in Gen. 1:1. The H&E has passed away.

Ultimately, you are demanding my definition of the H&E. Why? My definition is irrelevant. All that matters is: 1) Do you believe Scripture? 2) Do you believe that the first H&E of Rev. 21:1 has passed away? 3) Do you believe that the first H&E of Rev. 21:1 was the H&E of Gen. 1:1?

You deny #1, so the rest is irrelevant. There's no point in discussing anything else.

[Morris]

Jul 12, 2011 22:43:00 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Morris,

You are not a preterist. You do not understand Covenant Eschatology. You deny my starting premise of Covenant Eschatology.

Don't confuse disagreement with an inability to understand. I fully disagree with dispensationalism and therefore am not a Dispensationalist, but I understand their position very well. I may not be a Preterist either but I understand the position and can even have points of agreement.

Now granted, I don't understand covenant eschatology fully but I do have some knowledge about it and continue to learn more, as I am also attempting to do with Covenant Creation. I am reading articles and listening to messages which raise questions that I'd like to gain understanding on. One of these is on 'death' and 'judgment'.

You deny my starting premise of Covenant Eschatology.
My views follow from that.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

Rev. 21:1 has been fulfilled. Whatever the H&E of Rev. 21:1 was, it was "created" in Gen. 1:1. The H&E has passed away.

I would like to point out that you explicitly stated that Covenant Eschatology is "not the premise of CC". Here is your full post:

Jun 14, 2011, 11:05am, MoGrace2U wrote:

The main premise of CC is then that if the end is covenantal, so must the beginning be for consistency's sake.

Robin,

That's not the premise of CC. Nor was it a premise of our book. That was the conclusion of the book and is essentially the definition of CC.

The book demonstrates that the Bible teaches a first century covenantal judgment of Jerusalem. It then demonstrates that the Bible teaches a physically local Flood, that Babel was a covenantal judgment, that the curse/death was a covenantal judgment, and that physical death was already in the garden. From there it develops Covenant Eschatology and demonstrates that the old covenant began in Genesis 1 with Adam. The name Covenant Creation was coined to describe this conclusion.

If you are going to comment and make claims like this, please do it from knowledge and not from ignorance.

Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi#ixzz1RzrCLjGZ

Furthermore, you've said;

The original purpose was to demonstrate that preterism, specifically Covenant Eschatology, demands that the Flood was a physically local/regional event, primarily for a covenantal purpose, that is judgment of the covenant people.

It has expanded from there.

Since finishing the book, we have come to realize that our conclusions were more far reaching than we had imagined. Everything in Scripture needs to be read in a covenant context.

Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi#ixzz1S0E4wT2M

I hope this helps to illustrate some of the difficulties I am having in understanding this view. Is covenant eschatology the premise or the conclusion? It appears as though you say at one point that it is the premise and not the conclusion, and at another point that it is conclusion and to say otherwise is ignorance.

This is what I read from the above; you started with the premise that covenant eschatology demands scripture to be read in a covenant context, and so when scripture is interpreted as such, the conclusion is covenant eschatology whereby the heavens and earth of Revelation is the same as those in Genesis and are covenantal.

Once the premise demands scripture to be read in a certain way, the premise will redefine what scripture says, even redefining words themselves, so that the premise's interpretation fits, because it must fit. From here, there are no conclusions because the premise is the conclusion.

Allow me show this. You have also stated,

We carefully demonstrated that "heavens and earth" always has a covenantal context. It is never used in a physical context.

We have also demonstrated that the physical land called "face of the earth" is limited in area, it is not the entire planet, or even all of the land known to the writer. It is the land where a people (typically the covenant people) reside.

Every time a word is used to define a large amount of physical land, that physical land is covenantally defined. When a word is used to define men, the men in question are covenantally defined. Etc. And some words, the Greek kosmos in particular, is translated in a way that communicates global land for ever and ever to us, but is truly limited to a covenant people (with or without their land) of a single generation.

Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi#ixzz1S0OyXQlI

In the above quote you say you demonstrated covenantal context. However, the premise was covenantal context. Scripture was then read in a covenantal context resulting in words and phrases being re-understood within that context. The premise demanded this, not scripture by itself.

Ultimately, you are demanding my definition of the H&E. Why? My definition is irrelevant. All that matters is: 1) Do you believe Scripture? 2) Do you believe that the first H&E of Rev. 21:1 has passed away? 3) Do you believe that the first H&E of Rev. 21:1 was the H&E of Gen. 1:1?

You deny #1, so the rest is irrelevant. There's no point in discussing anything else.

I know your definitions of heavens and earth; you've provided them for me elsewhere. What I am asking for is the definition of 'death' and 'judgment'. So far I've been told it wasn't physical or spiritual. I have no idea what it means to be dead to the covenant from within the covenant. Personally, I don't think anybody really knows what that is supposed to mean.

If 'the death' simply means that Adam was once in covenant but was removed from it at the fall, how did his children partake of 'the death' if they were never in covenant? If they were in covenant, by what means did they come into it?

As for #1) I do believe scripture. What I deny so far is your premise that is placed on the reading of scripture.
#2) I'm not entirely sure but it is a possibility.
#3) Not yet.

[JLVaughn]

Morris,

You can't even read. I have made no contradictions here. You have chosen, at every turn, to misinterpret my words, and create contradictions where none exist.

Covenant Eschatology was my starting premise. No statement I've made contradicts that.

Covenant Creation is my conclusion. Again, no statement I've made contradicts that. Robin has claimed that Covenant Creation was my starting premise. It wasn't. Robin has also claimed that I started with the premise that the beginning must match the end. Again, it wasn't. Maybe it should have been, but it wasn't.

We never thought of the now seemingly obvious connection between Gen. 1:1 and Rev. 21:1 until we had been working on this for years.

I use that connection, because for some preterists, the effects are immediate. They see instantly what took me years to see. Those who don't see it, haven't refuted it. They can't.

Where have I said (concerning Covenant Creation) that Covenant Eschatology is my conclusion? I haven't. Where (concerning Covenant Creation) have I denied that Covenant Eschatology was my premise? Again, I haven't. Your misreading of my comment to Robin confirms that I haven't and demonstrates that you are unable or unwilling to read carefully. Why do you feel the need to assume that I've contradicted myself? Why do you make up these contradictions?

[Morris]

Jeff, I will concede that it is possible that I don't follow what you say at times. That is why I ask for corrections and ask questions.

What I read, rightly or wrongly, was that the conclusion was "if the end is covenantal, so must the beginning be for consistency's sake", and that it "is essentially the definition of CC". Put in other words, the conclusion was that "everything in Scripture needs to be read in a covenant context". Specific to covenant creation, I understood it that "from there it develops Covenant Eschatology and demonstrates that the old covenant began in Genesis 1 with Adam".

Perhaps I'm not grasping covenant eschatology as well as I thought because to me it meant that end things were covenantal in nature because the first things were; that Scripture needs to be read in a covenant context. So when I read that the conclusions were "if the end is covenantal, so must the beginning be", I thought it strange because, to my understanding, that is the same as the premise, that being covenant eschatology.

So that you understand why I was thinking the way I was (and still am to an extent), here are my reasons for it:

Where have I said (concerning Covenant Creation) that Covenant Eschatology is my conclusion? Where (concerning Covenant Creation) have I denied that Covenant Eschatology was my premise?

What lead me to this was your statement "from there it develops Covenant Eschatology and demonstrates that the old covenant began in Genesis 1 with Adam". It caused me to think that covenant eschatology entered the argument because of the demonstrating of covenantal judgments prior to this point. The other reason being that, again to my understanding, covenant eschatology says that the beginning and ending (last things) are both covenantal in nature.

Now with all that said, I am not going to press this issue anymore. But I would like some of my lingering questions answered surrounding death and judgment.

By what means did Adam, or any others, enter into covenant with God?
How did they know they were in covenant?
What represented the making of the covenant? The creation of the heavens and the earth, the making of the garden, or something else?
Was Adam still in covenant after the fall?

I'll leave it there for now.

[JLVaughn]

Morris,

Below you quoted:

The book demonstrates that the Bible teaches a first century covenantal judgment of Jerusalem. It then demonstrates that the Bible teaches a physically local Flood, that Babel was a covenantal judgment, that the curse/death was a covenantal judgment, and that physical death was already in the garden. From there it develops Covenant Eschatology and demonstrates that the old covenant began in Genesis 1 with Adam. The name Covenant Creation was coined to describe this conclusion.

Okay, I see now. Sorry for the confusion. BCS presents stuff in a certain order. The first 4 chapters develop preterism in general. The development of, say Gary DeMar-style preterism. We leave the rest of the development of our specific view of preterism, Covenant Eschatology, until later. Covenant Eschatology was certainly our starting premise, but we tried to make a more general form of preterism the actual premise of the book and develop our specific form as it was needed.

Please keep the difference between Eschatology and Creation straight.

Covenant Eschatology: The view that the Eschaton was the end of the Old Covenant. This view, attributed to Max King, Ron McRay, and others, is the most common, well-developed, and written about version of full preterism.

Covenant Creation: The view that the Genesis creation, not Sinai, was the account of the creation of the Old Covenant. We wrote Chapters 13-18 to develop and demonstrate this.

This book was the third edition. The second edition had nothing on Genesis 1-5 except to demonstrate what those texts were not about. At the time we started the revision, we had no thoughts of Gen. 1-2, except that we had more to add about what Gen. 1-2 didn't mean.

1 Cor. 15, shows that Jesus' "awakening from the dead" demonstrates that the covenant body was then in the process of the "standing again of the dead." The "standing again of the dead" undoes Adam's "death."

I don't need to understand what "the death" was to understand that the "standing again of the dead" undid that death.

It is not my job or duty to define "the death." That has already been done by God.

Ask one of the big names in Covenant Eschatology what is his understanding of "the death." If he takes it back to Adam and calls it spiritual death, that is, not physical death, then press him harder. Covenant Creation can handle whatever definition you get out of him. Covenant Eschatology requires that "the death" be defined covenantally. "The death" was God's judgment against Adam. The judgment was made from within a covenant. The judgment ended when that covenant ended.

I am not here to define things that affect the work of these men who have gone and are going before me. I'm here to make sure they don't continue to ignore Genesis.

Any view of "the death" that is compatible with Covenant Eschatology should be compatible with Covenant Creation. Any view of "the death" that is compatible with Covenant Creation will be compatible with Covenant Eschatology.

I do not have a definition. Those who say "physical death" have a definition. Those who say "spiritual death" have a negative constraint, but no definition. In BCS, we have several pages of positive constraints. These are technically not a definition, but can serve as a definition.

Jul 13, 2011 22:02:49 GMT -5 Morris said:

Perhaps I'm not grasping covenant eschatology as well as I thought because to me it meant that end things were covenantal in nature because the first things were; that Scripture needs to be read in a covenant context.

Who told you this? To my knowledge, my coauthor was the first person to say this. When? At the time the third edition of BCS came out. If your understanding of Covenant Eschatology were true, then somebody else would have developed Covenant Creation a generation ago. No, unfortunately, Covenant Eschatology says no such thing.

By what means did Adam, or any others, enter into covenant with God?

Genesis 1:1-2:4 has the basic form of the account of a 4th-3rd Millenium BC Sumerian or Akkadian temple dedication. The temple is given the standard name H&E. God is called by his standard title which from the Sumerian or Akkadian would translate Lord of Lords. The primary differences between this account and a standard ANE temple dedication are: A typical account would say In the beginning, Lord (Eloha) so-in-so bara H&E for Lord of Lords (Elohim) named deity." And the text would end "Written by (toledah) Eloha so-in-so on the day he formed H&E," where the Genesis account claims H&E wrote the account on the day H&E was formed.

I don't know how ANE temple dedications were performed. And this one appears to have been a bit different.

How did they know they were in covenant?

Huh? Can you show me an example of a people at any time who weren't in a covenant? Every example I can think of are among the most pathetic people of all history. The mutineers on Pitcairn. Refugees of most wars. The first century Christians had no earthly or natural covenant and were treated as such. Are you a Canadian? You are in a covenant with the government of Canada. You were born into that covenant.

What represented the making of the covenant? The creation of the heavens and the earth, the making of the garden, or something else?

The "temple," the H&E of Gen. 1:1.

Was Adam still in covenant after the fall?

He appears to have been. He was judged as one inside the covenant. He doesn't appear to have been banished from that covenant when he was banished from the garden.

[Morris]

Jul 14, 2011 10:52:42 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Okay, I see now. Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks.

1 Cor. 15, shows that Jesus' "awakening from the dead" demonstrates that the covenant body was then in the process of the "standing again of the dead." The "standing again of the dead" undoes Adam's "death."

I don't need to understand what "the death" was to understand that the "standing again of the dead" undid that death.

It is not my job or duty to define "the death." That has already been done by God.

But I see this as vital. If I haven't participated in Adam's death I can't participate in Jesus' standing again.
1 Corinthians 15:22,
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive."

Backing up a verse, 1 Corinthians 15:21 says,
"For since by man [singular] came death [singular], by Man [singular] also came the resurrection of the dead [plural]".

How did Adam, the singular human being, bring the death to me? If he didn't, Christ, the singular human being, didn't bring resurrection to me. How did I get in Adam? If I didn't, Christ will not make me alive.

How can we understand 'life' if we don't know what 'death' means? Are we simply to say that 'life' means 'not dead', and 'death' means 'not alive'? Now neither has any meaning whatsoever.

Romans 8:6,
"For to be carnally minded ["mentally inclined to the flesh"] is death, but to be spiritually minded ["mentally inclined to the spirit"] is life and peace."

How would this be interpreted under covenant creation?

Covenant Eschatology requires that "the death" be defined covenantally. "The death" was God's judgment against Adam. The judgment was made from within a covenant. The judgment ended when that covenant ended.

Was it also made against Abel? If 'the death' is covenantal, how did Adam's judgment extend to anybody else?

I do not have a definition.

Do you have a definition of 'the life' that comes by faith in Christ?

Those who say "physical death" have a definition. Those who say "spiritual death" have a negative constraint, but no definition. In BCS, we have several pages of positive constraints. These are technically not a definition, but can serve as a definition.

As I've said before, I don't buy this 'negative definition' argument. I have posted other people's definition of "spiritual death" that was in the positive. Just because you can also say it has the aspect of "not physical" is no reason to disqualify it, just as saying that covenantal death also has the aspect of meaning "not physical or spiritual". Either way, a negative definition is still more useful than no definition. Look at Romans 8:6 again; can you provide me with a definition of "spiritually minded"?

Who told you this? To my knowledge, my coauthor was the first person to say this. When? At the time the third edition of BCS came out. If your understanding of Covenant Eschatology were true, then somebody else would have developed Covenant Creation a generation ago. No, unfortunately, Covenant Eschatology says no such thing.

Did you not just say above that "Covenant Eschatology requires that "the death" be defined covenantally"? If the eschatology (as opposed to the covenant creation) requires that the resurrection be covenantal and that the death be covenantal, it seems covenant eschatology told me. The difference between us, I think, is that I believe the death was covenantally caused rather than... I'm not even sure what to write here.

I'll use an illustration. A man in the old west broke the law by murdering people and was sentenced to death. The law stated that if a man killed another he was to be hanged. As I see it, the sentence of death is covenantal in nature; the covenant/law was violated and the covenant/law determined the penalty. But it was the noose around the man's neck that carried out the sentence prescribed by the law. The death here was hanging by a rope until life expired.

With covenant creation, I don't know what either the sentence or the 'noose' were. Is 'the death' just the sentence itself?

Genesis 1:1-2:4 has the basic form of the account of a 4th-3rd Millenium BC Sumerian or Akkadian temple dedication. The temple is given the standard name H&E. God is called by his standard title which from the Sumerian or Akkadian would translate Lord of Lords. The primary differences between this account and a standard ANE temple dedication are: A typical account would say In the beginning, Lord (Eloha) so-in-so bara H&E for Lord of Lords (Elohim) named deity." And the text would end "Written by (toledah) Eloha so-in-so on the day he formed H&E," where the Genesis account claims H&E wrote the account on the day H&E was formed.

I am aware of these. (I started commenting on this but realized I was merely getting myself side trekked, plus time isn't unlimited.)

Huh? Can you show me an example of a people at any time who weren't in a covenant? Every example I can think of are among the most pathetic people of all history. The mutineers on Pitcairn. Refugees of most wars. The first century Christians had no earthly or natural covenant and were treated as such. Are you a Canadian? You are in a covenant with the government of Canada. You were born into that covenant.

I meant "in covenant with God". I should have been more clear.

The "temple," the H&E of Gen. 1:1.

Can you tell me what that covenant of Genesis 1:1 was and who it was made with?

He appears to have been. He was judged as one inside the covenant. He doesn't appear to have been banished from that covenant when he was banished from the garden.

What was the covenant that Adam remained in? Did it matter if he still observed it or not? If someone else entered that covenant, did they enter it 'alive' or already dead as though they had disobeyed it?

Thanks for the answers thus far, by the way.

[JLVaughn]

Morris,

A few weeks back, there was another fellow who complained about the use of covenant. I told him to use legal. In your latest post, you ask questions that imply you have no clue about legal judgment. Yet others imply you understand quite well. So which is it? Do you understand legal judgment or don't you?

You already know Adam's death was a legal judgment. That makes it covenantal by definition. The question then is the legal extent of that judgment.

Was it against Adam only? Or did it include the sons of Adam, mistranslated sons of man? These sons of Adam, were they biological descendants of Adam or covenantal descendants. (George Washington, who had no offspring of his own, is my father. If W. had had children, they would be part of the same covenant, that I'm a part of.)

You already know Jesus didn't save us from biological death. If biological death is the result of sin, then you will die for your own sins withing the next 100 years. Jesus won't save you from that.

The "positive" definition of "spiritual death" is never used in an argument nor is it demonstrated from Scripture. I asked you to show otherwise. All you provided were links that demonstrated my claim was true. You don't buy my claim. That's your business. But until you show even one example that my claim is false, it will represent 100% of those who claim "spiritual death."

You didn't read the article you linked and you didn't read what I wrote. Show me one place where that "positive definition" is used to argue for "spiritual death" or one place where that definition is demonstrated from Scripture. The "negative definition" is the only definition that they use. I could replace "separation from God" with any pious sounding phrase and it would not change the argument in any significant way. Let's try it. "Spiritual death" means "condemned to Hell." Put that into the article you found. I can even do better than they did. I can come up with verses to support that definition.

Jul 14, 2011 14:09:34 GMT -5 Morris said:

But I see this as vital. If I haven't participated in Adam's death I can't participate in Jesus' standing again.
1 Corinthians 15:22,
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive."

The Presbyterians assume that those naturally born in the church are born into Christ's covenant and were never in Adam. So why would is this a problem?

Backing up a verse, 1 Corinthians 15:21 says,
"For since by man [singular] came death [singular], by Man [singular] also came the resurrection of the dead [plural]".

How did Adam, the singular human being, bring the death to me? If he didn't, Christ, the singular human being, didn't bring resurrection to me. How did I get in Adam? If I didn't, Christ will not make me alive.

Adam didn't. As for Christ, no, you were brought into covenant under Christ. Our ancestors were not part of the old covenant. They were dead by definition. Unlike Adam, they did not need judgment to be dead. Outside the covenant, they were just dead.

How can we understand 'life' if we don't know what 'death' means? Are we simply to say that 'life' means 'not dead', and 'death' means 'not alive'? Now neither has any meaning whatsoever.

Life is being in standing with God. It is being a son of God. It is carrying God's image and His name.

Romans 8:6,
"For to be carnally minded ["mentally inclined to the flesh"] is death, but to be spiritually minded ["mentally inclined to the spirit"] is life and peace."

How would this be interpreted under covenant creation?

The same way as it is interpreted under Covenant Eschatology.

Was it also made against Abel? If 'the death' is covenantal, how did Adam's judgment extend to anybody else?

Rom. 5:12-14. Remember the article I linked? How do you extend a legal judgment to anybody else? By a decision of the Judge.

If the death is biological, then how do you extend it to anybody else? Change their DNA? And when Jesus saves them from that death, He changes it back? Two questions then. 1) Why die on the cross? Why not just change it back? (Your answer here will demonstrate that you already know Adam's death extended to others for legal/covenantal reasons. You just have a habit of putting yourself into Adam's covenant.) 2) If we are saved from physical death, then how come you and I are going to die within the next 100 years? Are we still in sin? Jesus can't save us. Jesus has failed. If the death is biological, you will die for your own sins. Jesus won't save you from death. You will rot in the grave until Jesus decides to rescue what's left of your corpse.

If the death is spiritual, how did Adam's judgment extend to anybody else?

Do you have a definition of 'the life' that comes by faith in Christ?

Any Covenant Eschatology definition will do. See above or read anything by Max King, Ron McRay, Don Preston, William Bell, David Curtis, or any of the numerous Covenant Eschatology authors out there.

Look at Romans 8:6 again; can you provide me with a definition of "spiritually minded"?

The answer is found in a correct reading of 1 Cor. 15:46. The natural, the fleshly, points to Adam and the things of the old covenant. The spiritual points to Christ and the new covenant. In basest terms, are you thinking that the sacrifice of sheep and pigeons will save you, or are you thinking that the sacrifice of Jesus will save you? (It has been demonstrated from these letters that Paul believed the Roman and Corinthian churches were predominantly Jewish at the time he wrote.)

I'll use an illustration. A man in the old west broke the law by murdering people and was sentenced to death. The law stated that if a man killed another he was to be hanged. As I see it, the sentence of death is covenantal in nature; the covenant/law was violated and the covenant/law determined the penalty.

Yes. Therefore, you understand that Adam was subject to a legal and therefore covenantal judgment. Why do you not apply what you already know to the text? Why do you complain when I apply what you already know?

But it was the noose around the man's neck that carried out the sentence prescribed by the law. The death here was hanging by a rope until life expired.

With covenant creation, I don't know what either the sentence or the 'noose' were. Is 'the death' just the sentence itself?

And why do you not know? The text says what happened to Adam. He was promised several things and kicked out of the garden. You have the transcript of the hearing. You have the commentary by the prophets and the apostles. And yet you still don't know what the sentence was.

Haman was hanged. Judas went and hanged himself. We know from that culture, that hanging was not with a rope around the neck. So you don't know how Haman or Judas died.

The serpent was cursed and was promised he would see Adam's deliverance. Eve was cursed. Adam was cursed. All of these sentences were recorded.

The Hebrew text says Adam was thrown out of the garden and returned to the dust. One action, all at the same time. The translators and theologians certainly don't know what it means, because they purposefully mistranslate the passage to try to give it a meaning. They have Adam thrown out of the garden and eventually returned to the dust. Two actions at separate times.

Can you tell me what that covenant of Genesis 1:1 was and who it was made with?

I have told you. The old covenant. The heavens and earth.

[Morris]

Jul 15, 2011 10:11:39 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Morris,

A few weeks back, there was another fellow who complained about the use of covenant. I told him to use legal. In your latest post, you ask questions that imply you have no clue about legal judgment. Yet others imply you understand quite well. So which is it? Do you understand legal judgment or don't you?

To be absolutely sure that I understand it, perhaps you could comment on it for me. That way we can verify if my understanding matches yours. (Does my illustration of the guy in the old west say to you that I don't understand legal judgment?)

However, I made no complaints about the use of covenant. (If you would like, please indicate which of my statements lead you to believe such, and I will address them.) In fact, I said "As I see it, the sentence of death is covenantal in nature; the covenant/law was violated and the covenant/law determined the penalty".

Ah, perhaps you are referring to this comment, "I believe the death was covenantally caused rather than... I'm not even sure what to write here". I believe the death was covenantal in nature; the terms of violation and corresponding penalty were contained within the covenant. However, the covenant itself did not execute the penalty. That was performed by the 'officer' of the covenant.

Just as in my illustration the terms of violation and sentence were prescribed by the law but the sentence was carried out by an officer of that law. Here's another way to look at it; the offender performs the violation and the official performs the sentence, but the covenant performs nothing. Instead, it dictates the requirements of those performances.

Therefore I say 'the death' was covenantally caused. Now this gives no insight into what 'the death' may mean. I know that it should involve "the penalty/sentence being performed". Up until then there was merely the sentence of death.

Let me expand upon my illustration. The man that violated the law against killing another person became guilty the instant he performed the violation, but the sentence was not performed instantly. There was time for arresting, incarceration, trial, and then at the appointed time, the culmination of the sentence. During this process the man did not have freedom. He was a "dead man walking".

Additionally, no amount of forgiveness would change the fact that he was guilty. Only one thing could change this state; a witness during the trial that proved that the man in question did not commit the violation he was accused of.

You already know Adam's death was a legal judgment. That makes it covenantal by definition. The question then is the legal extent of that judgment.

Was it against Adam only? Or did it include the sons of Adam, mistranslated sons of man? These sons of Adam, were they biological descendants of Adam or covenantal descendants. (George Washington, who had no offspring of his own, is my father. If W. had had children, they would be part of the same covenant, that I'm a part of.)

Can you explain what "covenantal descendants" means? I will be brutally honest with you and everyone else reading this, I feel as though people throw the word "covenantal" in front of anything that can't be explained. This may not be the true case, and that is absolutely possible, but nevertheless that's how I feel.

You said that instead of covenant we could use the word legal. Are you saying you are a legal son of George Washington? Do you have rights to any inheritance from him? When did he adopt you legally?

I believe that the New Testament shows that 'son of man' is not a mistranslation. Hebrews 2:6 says, "But one testified in a certain place, saying: “ What is man that You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him?". This is speaking of Psalm 8:4 and possibly also Psalm 144:3. In Hebrews it says "anthropos", not "adam" (as is seen in 1 Corinthians 15:45). To my knowledge, if it wasn't for the New Testament we wouldn't have any reason to assume Adam as a proper name in the Old Testament.

You already know Jesus didn't save us from biological death. If biological death is the result of sin, then you will die for your own sins withing the next 100 years. Jesus won't save you from that.

I never claimed that Jesus would save us from biological death. I claim that He will save us from absolute death; the death of our being. "He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live" (John 11:25).

The "positive" definition of "spiritual death" is never used in an argument nor is it demonstrated from Scripture. I asked you to show otherwise. All you provided were links that demonstrated my claim was true. You don't buy my claim. That's your business. But until you show even one example that my claim is false, it will represent 100% of those who claim "spiritual death."

I showed it in this thread. The article stated "Question: What is spiritual death? Answer: Death is separation... Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God". Here is it being used in an argument and demonstrated from scripture; "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.)". I can't buy your claim when the evidence against it is right there.

The "negative definition" is the only definition that they use.

Is a negative definition worse than no definition?

I could replace "separation from God" with any pious sounding phrase and it would not change the argument in any significant way. Let's try it. "Spiritual death" means "condemned to Hell." Put that into the article you found. I can even do better than they did. I can come up with verses to support that definition.

Of course you can; the definition of hell they use is "absolute and eternal separation from God".

You continually attack their use of spiritual death. Why? Is it because you need to show that spiritual death is not what 'the death' refers to so it must mean something else? As I shared at the start of this post, it feels as though covenant creation says, 'the death wasn't physical, it wasn't spiritual, so it was something else - what is that else? We don't know so let's place the word "covenantal" in front of it'. I sincerely apologize if this offends anyone, but that is how I feel. The only remedy for this feeling that I can think of is to have "covenantal death" defined. I can't believe it until I know what it is?

The Presbyterians assume that those naturally born in the church are born into Christ's covenant and were never in Adam. So why would is this a problem?

That's their right to hold their own opinion.

Adam didn't. As for Christ, no, you were brought into covenant under Christ. Our ancestors were not part of the old covenant. They were dead by definition. Unlike Adam, they did not need judgment to be dead. Outside the covenant, they were just dead.

1 Corinthians 15:21 ("For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead") doesn't specify dead inside the covenant only. If dead is dead, inside or outside, this verse says it came by one single man.

Life is being in standing with God. It is being a son of God. It is carrying God's image and His name.

I don't disagree, but I would like to know what you mean by "being in standing with God".

The same way as it is interpreted under Covenant Eschatology.

Fine, How would this be interpreted under covenant eschatology?

Rom. 5:12-14. Remember the article I linked? How do you extend a legal judgment to anybody else? By a decision of the Judge.

Because that other person was also guilty of the same offense, correct? Otherwise the judge would find them not guilty.

As for that article, I have already dealt with it and answered it's questions.

If the death is biological, then how do you extend it to anybody else? Change their DNA? And when Jesus saves them from that death, He changes it back?

Think the other way around. Life is the substance, death is the lack or absence of that substance. Death wasn't extended The substance of life was withdrawn. God is that substance, that source. (I think it was in the Genesis 3 thread where I gave this in greater detail.) God didn't put death in us. He withdrew the source that sustains life.

1) Why die on the cross? Why not just change it back?

Because the sentence of death that sin demands must be carried out. A Holy God cannot overturn this justice. Only death frees one from the sentence of death.

2) If we are saved from physical death, then how come you and I are going to die within the next 100 years? Are we still in sin? Jesus can't save us. Jesus has failed. If the death is biological, you will die for your own sins. Jesus won't save you from death. You will rot in the grave until Jesus decides to rescue what's left of your corpse.

We are not saved from physical death and neither was Jesus. In fact, the only way to become free from sin is to die. I can either die my own death or I can die in Christ's death. That is the choice the Gospel presents us with.

If the death is spiritual, how did Adam's judgment extend to anybody else?

It just dawned on me that this thread was started by me asking what the meaning of covenantal death was, and now I'm being asked to answer questions on views I don't even completely agree on!

How is it that I believe Adam's judgment extended to anybody else? We are are guilty of the same offense! Adam's sin isn't ours. We have our own sin. But the penalties are the same. Same as in a legal case. If the law says you get one year's imprisonment for a particular offense, every person who breaks that law gets one year's imprisonment (theoretically ). Each is sentenced according to their own offense.

The answer is found in a correct reading of 1 Cor. 15:46. The natural, the fleshly, points to Adam and the things of the old covenant. The spiritual points to Christ and the new covenant. In basest terms, are you thinking that the sacrifice of sheep and pigeons will save you, or are you thinking that the sacrifice of Jesus will save you?

Isn't this basically what "spiritually dead" proponents say; being spiritually dead is to be separated from "Christ and the new covenant". To be "spiritually minded is life". To 'not be spiritually minded is death'.

(It has been demonstrated from these letters that Paul believed the Roman and Corinthian churches were predominantly Jewish at the time he wrote.)

I have my reservations of these demonstrations.

Yes. Therefore, you understand that Adam was subject to a legal and therefore covenantal judgment. Why do you not apply what you already know to the text? Why do you complain when I apply what you already know?

As I said, I'm not objecting to covenantal judgment. I'm asking what that covenantal judgment was. When the judgment was carried out, what was it that was 'carried out'? What did the judgment result in?

And why do you not know? The text says what happened to Adam. He was promised several things and kicked out of the garden. You have the transcript of the hearing. You have the commentary by the prophets and the apostles. And yet you still don't know what the sentence was.

No, not according to covenant creation, I don't. Please spell it out for me.

Haman was hanged. Judas went and hanged himself. We know from that culture, that hanging was not with a rope around the neck. So you don't know how Haman or Judas died.

I completely miss the point of this. Sorry.

The serpent was cursed and was promised he would see Adam's deliverance. Eve was cursed. Adam was cursed. All of these sentences were recorded.

So the death was these things?

The Hebrew text says Adam was thrown out of the garden and returned to the dust. One action, all at the same time. The translators and theologians certainly don't know what it means, because they purposefully mistranslate the passage to try to give it a meaning. They have Adam thrown out of the garden and eventually returned to the dust. Two actions at separate times.

Um... The Hebrew text doesn't record Adam returning to dust. It just says 'you-shall-return'.

I have told you. The old covenant. The heavens and earth.

So, it was the old covenant and made with the heavens and the earth?

[Once4all]

Just want to say that both of you have made some excellent observations as well as asked great questions. I wanted to comment on all of them, but soon felt overwhelmed.

But while reading, I had this thought:

(Genesis 3:23 NASB) therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.


The word for "cultivate" means to work, serve, be in bondage. That verse, combined with that definition, made me think of Israel being sent into bondage (to Egypt, to Babylon) and freed from bondage, then sent into bondage again, then freed again.

Since Adam "returned" to the dust from which he was taken, it seems to be the beginning of that pattern. He was at first in bondage, then freed and put into the garden to tend it, then sinned and returned to bondage.

Ack. Gotta go. Expecting company and just heard a car door.

[JLVaughn]

Jul 15, 2011 16:51:01 GMT -5 Morris said:

Jul 15, 2011 10:11:39 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Morris,

A few weeks back, there was another fellow who complained about the use of covenant. I told him to use legal. In your latest post, you ask questions that imply you have no clue about legal judgment. Yet others imply you understand quite well. So which is it? Do you understand legal judgment or don't you?

To be absolutely sure that I understand it, perhaps you could comment on it for me. That way we can verify if my understanding matches yours. (Does my illustration of the guy in the old west say to you that I don't understand legal judgment?)

This was one of the things I was referring to when I wrote, "Yet others imply you understand quite well."

However, I made no complaints about the use of covenant.

I didn't say you did. Please reread my comment which you quoted.

In fact, I said "As I see it, the sentence of death is covenantal in nature; the covenant/law was violated and the covenant/law determined the penalty".

Hooray. That's what I've said all along.

Ah, perhaps you are referring to this comment, "I believe the death was covenantally caused rather than... I'm not even sure what to write here". I believe the death was covenantal in nature; the terms of violation and corresponding penalty were contained within the covenant.

Finally we may be making some progress.

However, the covenant itself did not execute the penalty. That was performed by the 'officer' of the covenant.

Scratch "however." You are implying that I have said the covenant did execute the penalty.

Just as in my illustration the terms of violation and sentence were prescribed by the law but the sentence was carried out by an officer of that law. Here's another way to look at it; the offender performs the violation and the official performs the sentence, but the covenant performs nothing. Instead, it dictates the requirements of those performances.

Right.

Therefore I say 'the death' was covenantally caused. Now this gives no insight into what 'the death' may mean. I know that it should involve "the penalty/sentence being performed". Up until then there was merely the sentence of death. ...

Right.

Can you explain what "covenantal descendants" means? I will be brutally honest with you and everyone else reading this, I feel as though people throw the word "covenantal" in front of anything that can't be explained. This may not be the true case, and that is absolutely possible, but nevertheless that's how I feel.

You said that instead of covenant we could use the word legal. Are you saying you are a legal son of George Washington? Do you have rights to any inheritance from him? When did he adopt you legally?

This is just silly. Why do you do this? Why do you rip everything I write out of context and apply it where it doesn't belong?

Everybody knows that G. Washington is "The Father of the United States." In that sense he is my father in this covenant we call the US government. I have certain rights within that covenant. Everybody knows what that means. No one expects title to Washington's estate.

I believe that the New Testament shows that 'son of man' is not a mistranslation. Hebrews 2:6 says, "But one testified in a certain place, saying: “ What is man that You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him?". This is speaking of Psalm 8:4 and possibly also Psalm 144:3. In Hebrews it says "anthropos", not "adam" (as is seen in 1 Corinthians 15:45). To my knowledge, if it wasn't for the New Testament we wouldn't have any reason to assume Adam as a proper name in the Old Testament.

The Hebrew text says "What is man(ish) that You are mindful of him, Or the son of Adam that You take care of him?"

Jesus asked, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Was the Sabbath made for my ancestors in the British Isles? My wife's ancestors in Western Africa? No. Your interpretation of anthropos does not hold.

I never claimed that Jesus would save us from biological death.

I never said you did. I was trying to demonstrate that everybody, even those who claim biological death, ultimately believe the death in Gen. 3 was covenantal.

I claim that He will save us from absolute death; the death of our being. "He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live" (John 11:25).

I showed it in this thread. The article stated "Question: What is spiritual death? Answer: Death is separation... Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God".

You did not show this. You made a claim.

Here is it being used in an argument and demonstrated from scripture; "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.)". I can't buy your claim when the evidence against it is right there.

Eph. 4:18 says nothing about death. You have used your definition to interpret the passage. Purely circular.

You continually attack their use of spiritual death. Why? Is it because you need to show that spiritual death is not what 'the death' refers to so it must mean something else?

You are completely out of control. I showed you what "spiritual death" means. You refuse to consider what I wrote. You insist on a phrase that is never used to prove "spiritual death" and is never demonstrated from Scripture. You just demonstrated the circular reasoning behind the definition. Even so, what is the logical connection between that verse and Gen. 3?

I'm done.

[Morris]

Jul 16, 2011 15:59:18 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Hooray. That's what I've said all along.

Finally we may be making some progress.

Who doesn't believe the cause was covenantal in nature. As far as I can tell all sides view it that way. The differences I see is what people say that covenant was; some say it was the covenant to not eat of the tree, while CC says it was the equivalent of the Mosaic covenant (the old covenant, assuming I'm understanding this correctly which I think I am).

The violation and judgment being spelled out in the covenant, the sentence being carried out by God the Judge.

This is just silly. Why do you do this? Why do you rip everything I write out of context and apply it where it doesn't belong?

I did this as a means of gleaning from you your view of covenant. You extended it further than I would have so I was trying to see how far you do extend it. If covenant can be applied to Washington being your "father", I wanted to know if all aspects of covenant applied in this case.

Everybody knows that G. Washington is "The Father of the United States." In that sense he is my father in this covenant we call the US government. I have certain rights within that covenant. Everybody knows what that means. No one expects title to Washington's estate.

But that's only a figure of speech, not a legal reality. Under this analogy, "covenant" is based on political organization and biological extension; "Covenant" coming down to 'where were you born' and 'who's your father', instead of mirroring the biblical examples we see in places such as Genesis 6:18,22, Genesis 17:9-11,23-24, Exodus 19:8, Exodus 24:3.

The pattern of covenant is that when God says 'I will..., you will...', the person(s) say, 'I (we) agree; I (we) enter into this covenant'. Sometimes scripture records verbal agreement while other times it is agree by accepting their side's responsibility (performing the action required to enter into covenant). That is the type of covenant as we see in scripture, to the point where often (especially when speaking of covenant with God), the only means out of it is death (Romans 7:1-6).

The covenant of laws of a nation, while useful in some aspects of demonstrating covenant relationships (those of violation and punishment), are a little more suspect when being used to establish some form of "covenantal genealogy".

The Hebrew text says "What is man(ish) that You are mindful of him, Or the son of Adam that You take care of him?"

But that was my point. In a sense, it doesn't matter what those two Hebrew words were since the new testament demonstrated them to be interchangeable within that context. It did so by using the exact same Greek word in both instances, that being "anthropos", which was also shown to be distinct from "Adam", the proper noun. "Anthropos" was used in place of the Hebrew "anush" and it was also used in the place of "adm". Are we not supposed to allow scripture to interpret the meanings and intentions of words?

Jesus asked, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Was the Sabbath made for my ancestors in the British Isles? My wife's ancestors in Western Africa? No. Your interpretation of anthropos does not hold.

I didn't 'interpret' the word "anthropos". I merely wanted to show the distinction between it and Adam, and to show the implication on "son of man". If I am wrong on this, instances of "anthropos" in the new testament can be read as saying "Adam", and then the word "Adam" fails to hold any distinct meaning.

Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for [anthropon], and not [anthropos] for the Sabbath". This isn't speaking of Adam only or it would have said "Adam". The 'rest' was made for human-kind. We were not made to serve the 'rest'. I do believe that the Sabbath was made for your ancestors in the British Isles just as surely as it was made for me, and it was made for Moses. The Sabbath isn't merely a day of the week of the old covenant. That was just the foreshadow, a type of object lesson, for the rest found in Christ. The "copy" and the "genuine" were made for anyone (Leviticus 24:22). That is what I believe.

I never said you did. I was trying to demonstrate that everybody, even those who claim biological death, ultimately believe the death in Gen. 3 was covenantal.

Yes, but that isn't my question for this thread. The question is "what was that death referred to as 'covenantal death'". As I believe it, the death was covenantally caused, but covenantal refers to the 'mechanism' if you will that brought the death. I'm asking, what was it that the mechanism brought. I guess I could say I'm asking for the 'what', not the 'how'.

You did not show this. You made a claim.

Technically, the author of the article made the claim. I showed that somebody made the claim and used scripture to demonstrate that claim. It had nothing to do with whether either of us believe that claim.

Eph. 4:18 says nothing about death. You have used your definition to interpret the passage. Purely circular.

It isn't my definition. And, honestly, covenant creation doesn't do this as well?

You are completely out of control. I showed you what "spiritual death" means. You refuse to consider what I wrote. You insist on a phrase that is never used to prove "spiritual death" and is never demonstrated from Scripture. You just demonstrated the circular reasoning behind the definition. Even so, what is the logical connection between that verse and Gen. 3?

The phrase "separation from God" (if this is indeed the one you're referring to) appears in meaning within Ephesians 4:18, "alienated from the life of God". If that's what they believe it means, so be it. I can't disagree with the meanings of the words. The logical connection with Genesis 3 is that "death" is to be "alienated from the life of God"; death is to be alienated from life. I don't think it's a difficult connection at all, really.

I don't understand your objections, that they don't demonstrate their definition, at all. I just repeated their demonstration of it. Again, disagreeing with the conclusions is not the same as saying they didn't demonstrate it.

And again I have to wonder why there is such an effort to 'disprove' a spiritual death. All I can see is that it is in an attempt to cause people to "look for another death", just as others claim the death wasn't physical so they look for another death, that being spiritual death. Can you clarify what the purpose of discussing spiritual death has to do with discussing covenantal death?

I'm done.

That's unfortunate.

I know Bev made an attempt at giving me a definition for "covenantal death", that being "outside the covenant", but Jeff doesn't appear to accept that. Jeff, is this a definition that covenant creation would use? Thanks.

[Morris]

Jul 15, 2011 20:31:04 GMT -5 Once4all said:

But while reading, I had this thought:

(Genesis 3:23 NASB) therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.


The word for "cultivate" means to work, serve, be in bondage. That verse, combined with that definition, made me think of Israel being sent into bondage (to Egypt, to Babylon) and freed from bondage, then sent into bondage again, then freed again.

Since Adam "returned" to the dust from which he was taken, it seems to be the beginning of that pattern. He was at first in bondage, then freed and put into the garden to tend it, then sinned and returned to bondage.

Sorry Bev. Didn't mean to skip over you! I'm just going to add some thoughts.

The definition of "cultivate/till" is correct. But do you think we can say that Adam returned to bondage/service given that it says that before "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7), "there was no man to till the ground" (Genesis 2:5)?

I did some quick research on "dust" and found something interesting. In Genesis 18:27, and this being after Abram had his named changed by God and entered into covenant with Him, Abraham says, "I who am but dust and ashes".

The Psalmist, in Psalms 22:28, relates going "down to the dust" to the death of a soul/person, "he who cannot keep himself alive". The context of this dying is even that of a righteous and meek person that praises, worships, and fears the Lord. There appears to be a few passages that relate "dust" to bodily death; such as Psalm 30:9, Psalm 103:14,15.

Here's a thought that just popped into my head just before I was about to submit this post. If "dust" relates to "dead", and "ground" relates to "people", wouldn't the phrase "dust of the ground" mean 'dead of the people', which would also imply that among those people there were those who were dead and those who were not dead?

[Edit Add: I'll be away for the next few days at a business conference and will likely not be able to post during that time. See everybody on Thursday or Friday, and God bless!]

[Once4all]

Jul 18, 2011 10:31:35 GMT -5 Morris said:

Jul 15, 2011 20:31:04 GMT -5 Once4all said:

But while reading, I had this thought:

(Genesis 3:23 NASB) therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.


The word for "cultivate" means to work, serve, be in bondage. That verse, combined with that definition, made me think of Israel being sent into bondage (to Egypt, to Babylon) and freed from bondage, then sent into bondage again, then freed again.

Since Adam "returned" to the dust from which he was taken, it seems to be the beginning of that pattern. He was at first in bondage, then freed and put into the garden to tend it, then sinned and returned to bondage.

Sorry Bev. Didn't mean to skip over you! I'm just going to add some thoughts.

The definition of "cultivate/till" is correct. But do you think we can say that Adam returned to bondage/service given that it says that before "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7), "there was no man to till the ground" (Genesis 2:5)?

I did some quick research on "dust" and found something interesting. In Genesis 18:27, and this being after Abram had his named changed by God and entered into covenant with Him, Abraham says, "I who am but dust and ashes".

The Psalmist, in Psalms 22:28, relates going "down to the dust" to the death of a soul/person, "he who cannot keep himself alive". The context of this dying is even that of a righteous and meek person that praises, worships, and fears the Lord. There appears to be a few passages that relate "dust" to bodily death; such as Psalm 30:9, Psalm 103:14,15.

Here's a thought that just popped into my head just before I was about to submit this post. If "dust" relates to "dead", and "ground" relates to "people", wouldn't the phrase "dust of the ground" mean 'dead of the people', which would also imply that among those people there were those who were dead and those who were not dead?

[Edit Add: I'll be away for the next few days at a business conference and will likely not be able to post during that time. See everybody on Thursday or Friday, and God bless!]

Good stuff, Sheldon. You questioned my idea of Adam being "returned" to bondage. But then your own research revealed that "dust of the ground" could mean "dead of the people." This makes me think of the New Testament idea of being "dead in sins" and letting "the dead bury their own dead." Scripture says that God formed the man from the dust of the ground, might that not imply that he was previously "dead of the people" (or dead/in bondage to sin)?

God forming Adam from the dust of the ground may be like saying that He called him from darkness to light:

1 Peter 2:9-10 NASB
(9) But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
(10) for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

I know I'm stretching, but sometimes stretching is good exercise.

[Morris]

Jul 18, 2011 16:26:10 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Good stuff, Sheldon. You questioned my idea of Adam being "returned" to bondage. But then your own research revealed that "dust of the ground" could mean "dead of the people."

Thanks Bev. I should clarify here that it isn't my own research that revealed "dead of the people" as a possible meaning. I was simply running with what some people believe the terms to refer to; I'm not convinced. The whole point of which was to show that IF these references are used, we have an inference that there were some people before Adam who were "dead" and some people who were not "dead". This essentially means that, again, IF these meanings of 'dust' and 'ground' are used, Adam (and/or the people he represented) were merely brought up to the same status of "life" that some other people were already in.

For me, that opens a Pandora's Box of covenant speculation as I then look at scripture with 'dust/soil', 'ground', and 'earth'. That is why I included the example of Genesis 18:27. What will our assumptions of "dust and ash" lead us to here? Are we going to say that Abraham, who was at this time in covenant with God, was 'dead'? If Abraham in an unbroken covenant here, how can we say he was 'dead'? Or, if even he was 'dead', how could we possibly consider anybody else 'alive'?

Another point would be that if we take that "cultivate/till" word to mean a particular concept (that being 'serve, work') and apply it uniformly to all instances of that word, we would have to do the same with "dust/soil". This would force us to completely reinterpret many passages such as Job 2:12 where we read "and sprinkled dust on his head toward heaven". Are we prepared to say 'and sprinkled dead on his head toward Israel'? If not, why not?

This makes me think of the New Testament idea of being "dead in sins" and letting "the dead bury their own dead." Scripture says that God formed the man from the dust of the ground, might that not imply that he was previously "dead of the people" (or dead/in bondage to sin)?

God forming Adam from the dust of the ground may be like saying that He called him from darkness to light:

1 Peter 2:9-10 NASB
(9) But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
(10) for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

I know I'm stretching, but sometimes stretching is good exercise.

Stretching can be a good exercise but it must be done carefully and examined thoroughly. We must also recognize if we are stretching an analogy or a reality.

[Once4all]

Jul 21, 2011 20:32:59 GMT -5 Morris said:

Jul 18, 2011 16:26:10 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Good stuff, Sheldon. You questioned my idea of Adam being "returned" to bondage. But then your own research revealed that "dust of the ground" could mean "dead of the people."

Thanks Bev. I should clarify here that it isn't my own research that revealed "dead of the people" as a possible meaning. I was simply running with what some people believe the terms to refer to; I'm not convinced. The whole point of which was to show that IF these references are used, we have an inference that there were some people before Adam who were "dead" and some people who were not "dead". This essentially means that, again, IF these meanings of 'dust' and 'ground' are used, Adam (and/or the people he represented) were merely brought up to the same status of "life" that some other people were already in.

For me, that opens a Pandora's Box of covenant speculation as I then look at scripture with 'dust/soil', 'ground', and 'earth'. That is why I included the example of Genesis 18:27. What will our assumptions of "dust and ash" lead us to here? Are we going to say that Abraham, who was at this time in covenant with God, was 'dead'? If Abraham in an unbroken covenant here, how can we say he was 'dead'? Or, if even he was 'dead', how could we possibly consider anybody else 'alive'?

Another point would be that if we take that "cultivate/till" word to mean a particular concept (that being 'serve, work') and apply it uniformly to all instances of that word, we would have to do the same with "dust/soil". This would force us to completely reinterpret many passages such as Job 2:12 where we read "and sprinkled dust on his head toward heaven". Are we prepared to say 'and sprinkled dead on his head toward Israel'? If not, why not?

This makes me think of the New Testament idea of being "dead in sins" and letting "the dead bury their own dead." Scripture says that God formed the man from the dust of the ground, might that not imply that he was previously "dead of the people" (or dead/in bondage to sin)?

God forming Adam from the dust of the ground may be like saying that He called him from darkness to light:

1 Peter 2:9-10 NASB
(9) But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
(10) for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

I know I'm stretching, but sometimes stretching is good exercise.

Stretching can be a good exercise but it must be done carefully and examined thoroughly. We must also recognize if we are stretching an analogy or a reality.

I think Job sprinkling "dead" on his head would be a good example of stretching an analogy (or metaphor). Why do you think that a metaphorical meaning must apply to all instances of a word?

[Morris]

Jul 21, 2011 20:41:56 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I think Job sprinkling "dead" on his head would be a good example of stretching an analogy (or metaphor). Why do you think that a metaphorical meaning must apply to all instances of a word?

Indeed. I don't believe it must apply to all instances either, although some use that method.

The thing that we must be able to do, in applying analogy to only some instances, is to be able to defend why we do when we do, and don't when we don't.

[Ken Palmer]

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

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.)

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.

I think that covered quite well.

[Morris]

Jul 26, 2011 12:21:45 GMT -5 @Ken Palmer said:

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

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.)

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.

I think that covered quite well.

I just noticed that I had not responded to this.

Unfortunately, the above explanation didn't cover the question at all (hence the continuation of the thread). First of all, there has been no substantiation of Jeff's use of citizenship and covenant in the ancient world (this being the subject of a separate thread that was never addressed).

Second, the whole concept of being 'dead from within' and 'dead from without' could not be defined or distinguished from each other. In fact, I was told above that they "do not have a definition" for death. Yet there is an awful lot of theology based on something they can't define.