Younker (Biblical and Ancient Extra-Biblical Perspectives ...

35

ations of life. It is suggested that theinitial one occurred millions or bil-lions of years ago and accounts forthe bulk of the geologic column andthe fossil record it contains. In viewof the evidence of predation anddeath (including mass mortality lay-ers and the like) in this fossil record,some add the idea that perhaps Godpermitted Satan to rule over theEarth during this period. Then thisEarth was somehow destroyed, andthere was a second creation. Thissecond creation is supposedly theone we find recorded in Scripture,wherein the Earth was created in sixdays in the more recent past and thecurrent biota, including humans(which appear at the very top of thegeologic column), came at aboutthis time.Concerning the so-called first

creation, it is difficult to accept anidea for which there is not a scrap ofevidence in Scripture. There is sim-ply no positive biblical support forsuch a suggestion.

A Perfect, Completed CreationOf course, this lack of any refer-

ence to an earlier creation has pro-vided an open field wherein specula-tion can and has run withoutrestraint. Though the Bible providesno knowledge of a “precreation cre-ation,” nuances in the Hebrew textappear to preclude it.Jacques Doukhan argues that

each stage of the Creation is unam-

biguously characterized as good.Moreover, both Genesis 1 and 2teach that perfect peace reigned, notjust between the human couple, butalso between humans and the ani-mal kingdom. The end of the cre-ative process is characterized by aword generally translated as “fin-ished” or “completed” (2:1, 2, NIV).Doukhan argues that this word con-veys more than the mere chronolog-ical idea of “end.” It also implies thequantitative idea that nothing ismissing and there is nothing to add,confirming that death and all theevil that will strike later have not yet(an important concept in Hebrew)affected the world.Doukhan then goes on to argue:

“At the same time, the biblical textdoes not allow for speculation orsupposition of a precreation inwhich death and destruction wouldalready have been involved. It clearlyindicates that the ‘heavens and earth’which are presented in Genesis 2a(the conclusion of the creationstory) are the same as those in Gen-esis 1:1 (the introduction of the cre-ation story).”1 Doukhan concludes,“The event of creation (Genesis 1:1to 2:4a) witnesses to, and is told as, acomplete and total event whichadmits neither the possibility of aprework in a distant past (gap-the -ory) nor a postwork in the future(evolution).”2

Doukhan’s argument becomeseven more potent if one accepts

3534

he issue of whether or notdeath occurred before theentrance of sin on Earth pre-sents many fascinating facets,all of which have potentially

significant theological implicationsfor Seventh-day Adventists. Wasthere death on Earth before the Fall?Was death part of God’s originalplan for creation before sin enteredthe world, or was it introduced as apunishment for wickedness after theFall? Was animal death included inthe death sentence at the Fall, or didanimals die before the Fall?

Does the Bible Recognize DeathPrior to the Fall?One of the ideas we occasionally

hear that would supposedly solve thetension between the Bible’s shortEarth history and the deep time thatconventional science demands isthat there were perhaps two cre-

BIBLICAL AND ANCIENTEXTRA-BIBLICAL

PERSPECTIVES ON DEATH

B Y R A N D A L L W . Y O U N K E R *

TThe relationship between death

and the Fall creates some intriguing points of discussion and study.

*Randall W. Younker, Ph.D., is Pro-fessor of Old Testament and BiblicalArchaeology and Director of the Insti-tute of Archaeology at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminaryin Berrien Springs, Michigan.

36

being forced out, whereupon thecherubim are entrusted to keep thegarden.It could be added that the “not

yetedness” of thorns and thistles(and grain plants for bread thathumans are to cultivate) occur onlyafter the Fall. Prior to this, humansare tasked to cultivate the gardenthat God planted, and rain does notappear as a source of agriculturalwater until the Flood.Doukhan shows that the not-yet

concept is also displayed in a play on

words between arom (naked, as itpertains to the humans) and arom(cunning, as it pertains to the ser-pent). The former points to the lat-ter to indicate the tragedy that willbe later initiated through the associ-ation between the serpent and hu -man beings, which has not yetoccurred. Taken together, these allpoint to a great divide in Earth’s his-tory—a time before sin and death,and a time after. Sin and death donot occur until Genesis 3, whenAdam and Eve disobey God.

Richard Davidson’s analysis of Gen-esis 1. Davidson’s work is significantbecause he argues that the phrase“in the beginning” in verse 1 pointsback to the “ultimate” beginning ofthe universe, not simply the begin-ning of this Earth. Davidson sup-ports Sailhammer’s linguistic argu-ment that Genesis 1:1 refers to thisinitial creation of the universe andthat it is separate from the creationfound in the rest of Genesis 1,which would have happened morerecently. (Though this can supportan old Earth but young life argu-ment, the time between the begin-ning of the universe and the Earthitself was not the focus or even aconcern of an ancient Hebrew.)Combining Douk han and David-son’s analyses, the Hebrew writer isarguing that God’s creative activitythroughout the universe was notcompleted until this Earth, itself,was created. If this analysis is cor-rect, it not only precludes an earthlyprecreation with its subsequentdeath, but also denies that deathoccurred anywhere in God’s entire

created universe prior to the Fall.Nevertheless, even if one rejects Da -vidson’s argument, Douk han’s ar -gu ment alone maintains that theHebrew text denies any precreationor death before the Fall.

The “Not Yet” of CreationDoukhan offers additional argu-

ments on why death did not existbefore the Fall. One of these dealswith the Hebrew word terem, whichconveys the concept of “not yet.”The entire Eden story is clearly writ-ten from the perspective of a writerwho has already experienced theeffects of death and suffering andtherefore describes the events ofGenesis 2 as a “not yet” situation.Doukhan adds other textual ele-ments that support the idea thatGenesis 2 does indeed serve as a pro-logue for Genesis 3. Though someare explicit, many more are implicit.For example, the dust from whichman is made anticipates the dust towhich he will return after the Fall;the assignment of Adam and Eve tokeep the garden anticipates their

In many respects, the ancient peoples of the

Near East were obsessed with the topic of death, as is evident

in their elaborate burial rituals and in many of their

writings. However, there is not much in ancient literature

on the origin of death.

3938

typical historical-critical perspectiveprevalent at the time of his study. Heposits that the Bible’s views on deathchanged through time as firstancient Israel and then the ChristianChurch reacted to specific historicalcircumstances around them. Bailey acknowledges that ancient

Israel’s “canonical” understanding ofdeath is found in the Genesis cre-ation accounts. He suggests, how -ever, that behind chapters 2-3 theremay be two earlier folk explanationsof human mortality. The first,according to Bailey, concerns a “pro-tohuman” couple in primeval timewarned by their creator not to par-take of the fruit from the tree ofknowledge. If they did, they “wouldsurely die.” Bailey explains thataccording to this parti cular folkstory, “death would be an intrusioninto the Creator’s design, a curseunder which humans were of neces-sity placed, a manifestation of theirfallen state.”3

The second folk story Baileydetects is that humans were in -tended to be mortal—to die—fromthe very beginning. His evidence forthis is the verses that show thathumans share a common essencewith the animal kingdom. Since heassumes that animals died from thebeginning, so must humans havedied. He also assumes that in thisfolk story, humans were always for-bidden access to the tree of life.Unfortunately, he asserts, only afragment of this second explanationis preserved in the Bible, includingonly a part of the following verse:“The Lord God said, . . . lest[humankind] put forth his hand,and take also of the tree of life, andeat, and live for ever” (Gen. 3:22,KJV). Bailey bemoans the fact that atthis point the text breaks off, leavingus without the ending of this secondstory. Nevertheless, this verse frag-ment shows, according to Bailey,that God never intended to make

Was Death Part of the Original Creation?In many respects, the ancient peo-

ples of the Near East were obsessedwith the topic of death, as is evidentin their elaborate burial rituals and inmany of their writings. However,there is not much in ancient literatureon the origin of death.The closest such story, perhaps, is

from the Epic of Gilgamesh, and iscommonly referred to as “Gilgameshand the Magic Plant.” The essence ofthe story is that after the death of hisdear friend and companion Enkidu,with whom he had shared manyadventures, a distraught Gilgameshsets off in search of eternal life. Gil-gamesh learns that the long-livedhero of the Flood, Utnapishtim,knows the secret of avoiding death.Gilgamesh seeks out Utnapishtimand learns from him that before theflood, continued eating of a certainplant would forestall death.Gilgamesh asks Utnapishtim for

the location of the plant and learnsthat it is now at the bottom of thesea, submerged there during thegreat flood. Determined to retrievethe plant, Gilgamesh obtains a boatand rows out to the middle of thesea. When he arrives over the spotwhere the plant is submerged, hetakes a great breath, dives down intothe depths, finds the plant, andretrieves it. He rows back to shore,where, exhausted from his ordeal, hefalls into a deep sleep. While he is

sleeping, a snake slithers along theshore, sees the plant, and eats it.When Gilgamesh wakes up, he findshis plant gone! He spies a snake skinnearby and realizes that the snakehas deprived him of eternal life! Various scholars have contem-

plated what this story might havemeant to the ancients. Some havesuggested it was intended to answerthe question, Why do snakes shedtheir skin? They apparently under-stood this as a way the snake rejuve-nated itself. Others note that therewere strong traditions among an -cient Mesopotamians that the ante-diluvians had incredibly long lifespans. Gilgamesh and the MagicPlant answers why this is so. Others have pointed out, how -

ever, that Gilgamesh begins his questfor the magic plant after the death ofhis dear friend Enkidu, and that thestory, perhaps, was intended toanswer the question, Why do peopledie, or conversely, why don’t theylive forever? The answer seems to bethat death had its origins whenhumankind lost access to the magicplant—that we were deprived ofeternal life because a nasty snakestole it from us.The imagery and parallels invite

comparisons with the biblical ac -count. According to contemporarycritical scholarship, the most au -thoritative work is probably Lloyd R.Bailey’s Biblical Perspectives onDeath. Bailey’s approach reflects the

Others have pointed out that Gilgamesh begins his

quest for the magic plant after the death of his dear friend

Enkidu, and that the story, perhaps, was intended to

answer the question, Why do people die, or conversely, why

don’t they live forever? The answer seems to be that

death had its origins when humankind lost access to the

magic plant—that we were deprived of eternal life

because a nasty snake stole it from us.

4140

to the creation of humankind? Thisseems especially incongruent withthe description given of our Creatoras a God who assures us of His loveby reminding us that He does notforget even a sparrow (Luke 12:6)and that He feeds the ravens (vs. 24).Therefore we should not worryabout whether He will care for us,for are we not “‘of more value thanmany sparrows’” (vs. 7, NKJV)?It is often suggested that the Bible

is concerned only with human death(Rom. 5:12), that the death of animalsis not a moral problem. This argu-ment seems to be contradicted byRomans 8:19–23: “The earnest expec-tation of the creation eagerly waits forthe revealing of the sons of God. Forthe creation was subjected to futility,not willingly, but because of Himwho subjected it in hope; because thecreation itself also will be deliveredfrom the bondage of corruption intothe glorious liberty of the children ofGod. For we know that the whole cre-ation groans and labors with birthpangs together until now. Not onlythat, but we also who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselvesgroan within ourselves, eagerly wait-ing for the adoption, the redemptionof our body” (NKJV).Advocates of the idea that death

reigned in nature for millions of yearsprior to the appearance of human -kind have given considerable atten-tion to this passage. This is be causethe common reading of the text sug-

gests that nature was di rectly affectedby the Fall. Since this interpretationcontradicts the model that holds thatdeath existed in nature for millions ofyears prior to the seven-day Creation(and hence the Fall), there have beenseveral attempts to reinterpret thepassage.The focus of attention has been

on the word ktisis, “creation.” Oppo-nents of the traditional view arguethat it can be translated as “creature”(which is true) and that “creature” isthe intended meaning here. More-over, they argue that the creaturereferred to is not the sub-humancreation, but rather is a non-Chris -tian human. They differ on whothese individuals are, but the promi-nent suggestions are either Gentilesor Jews.There are several problems with

this alternate interpretation. For onething, this translation seems to goagainst the majority of commenta-tors and translators.For another, for the “creature”

interpretation to work, interpretersmust deny that the author intendedto personify nature. To accomplishthis, they simply assert that earlyChristians did not personify “cre-ation.” However, there is consider-able evidence that ktisis was indeedpersonified and represented as awoman in both the Greek and earlyChristian world. Indeed, severalmosaic floors illustrate the personi-fication of ktisis. Moreover, the refer-

humans mortal from the beginning,and that this verse fragment waslater merged into the first story.Bailey argues that the idea of

death as punishment does notappear in the rest of the Old Testa-ment and, thus, explanation number2 provides the basic perspective ofthe rest of the Old Testament. Theidea that death was divine punish-ment did not emerge, he says, untilthe intertestamental period and,especially, the New Testament pe -riod.In a more recent study on death

in the Bible, Kent Harold Richardsacknowledges that there seems to belittle preoccupation with the originof death in the Old Testament, thatis, few texts directly address thisissue, Genesis 3 being the majorexception. In contrast with Bailey,however, Richards notes that “theunderstanding of death as part ofsome original plan is far less com-patible with the wide range of texts.”That is to say, death was not a built-in part of God’s original creation

according to the Bible.Rather, Richards argues, the

most obvious explanation for theorigin of death is as a punishmentfor disobeying God. Whereas Baileyfails to identify any Old Testamenttexts, apart from Genesis 3, thatsupport the idea that death was theresult of divine punishment,Richards identifies numerous oth-ers, e.g., “‘Behold, all souls are Mine;the soul of the father as well as thesoul of the son is Mine; the soulwho sins shall die’” (Eze. 18:4,NKJV). Other such texts includePsalm 37:9, 10, 20, 34; 68:2; Isaiah40:24; Malachi 4:1; and John 3:16.Though these latter don’t refer tothe original death sentence, theyemanate from that judgment andwere indeed part of the ancient Is -raelite understanding.

Is the Death of Animals a Moral Issue? How could a loving God allow

millions of years of death and suf-fering in the animal kingdom prior

There are indications within Scripture in addition to

Romans 8 that indicate that the death of animals is a moral

problem and that their death—indeed, their present behavior

as manifested in the predator/prey relationship—is tied

directly to the acts of humanity, especially the human disobe-

dience that led to the Fall.

4342

volves inhibiting its reoccurrence.What, precisely, is ? Fry -

mer-Kensky shows that the answerto the problem is in the solution. Inthe case of Genesis 1–11, the solu-tion is provided in the laws that Godestablished in God’s covenant withNoah immediately after the Flood. According to Genesis 9, God

issued three commandments toNoah and his sons immediately afterthe Flood: (1) He commandedhumans to be fruitful, to increase,multiply, and swarm over the Earth;(2) He announced that althoughhumans may eat meat, they mustnot eat animals alive (or eat theblood, which is tantamount to thesame thing [Gen. 9:4]); and (3) Hedeclared that no one, neither beastsnor humans, can kill a human beingwithout forfeiting their own life(Gen. 9:5, 6, NKJV).That animals are included in the

new law implementing capital pun-ishment is an indictment of the rolethey played in bringing violence into

the world. The world had descendedinto an environment of wanton may -hem, indiscriminate killing, whereinhumans were killing humans, hu -mans were killing animals (and eatingthem alive), and animals were killinghu mans (and, no doubt, eatingthem). Though the text does notspecifically address this, animals wereno doubt killing and eating other ani-mals.Frymer-Kensky’s emphasis is on

how blood shed through violent actspollutes and how the Flood cleansedthe Earth from the pollution of

—the blood spilled throughacts of violence. However, it is signif-icant that this act of was notperpetrated solely by hu man kind—rather, it was also perpetrated by theanimal kingdom. It is the actions ofhumans and beasts that call forth thejudgment of the Flood—not simplythat of humanity alone. Neither isacting in the manner ordained tothem by God at the time of their ini-tial creation. What was this manner?

ence in Romans 8 to the pains ofchildbirth reinforces the idea thatthe early Christians did indeed adaptthe Greek personification of nature,and that is how ktisis is being usedhere.There are, however, indications

within Scripture in addition toRomans 8 that indicate that thedeath of animals is a moral problemand that their death—indeed, theirpresent behavior as manifested inthe predator/prey relationship—istied directly to the acts of human -kind, especially the human disobedi-ence that led to the Fall. Insights intothis issue come from two studies—the one by Doukhan and another byTikva Frymer-Kensky, an Israelischolar.Frymer-Kensky’s study into the

cause of the Flood provides valuableinsights into human/animal behav-ior prior to the Flood. According toFrymer-Kensky, Genesis states ex -plicitly that God decided to destroythe world because of the wickednessof humankind (Gen. 6:5). Althoughthis traditionally has been under-stood to mean that God destroyedthe world as a punishment forhumanity’s sins, this understandingof the passage entails serious theo-logical problems, such as the propri-ety of God’s destroying all life onEarth because of the sins of human -kind. She is arguing that rather thanthe sins of human beings, it was theshedding of blood—the Flood was

That animals are included in the new law implementing

capital punishment is an indictment of the role they played

in bringing violence into the world. The world had descended

into an environment of wanton mayhem, indiscriminate

killing, wherein humans were killing humans, humans were

killing animals (and eating them alive), and animals were

killing humans (and, no doubt, eating them).

not so much punishment as acleansing act. Frymer-Kensky goes on, however,

to answer this dilemma by notingthat, according to the Book of Gene-sis, the God caused the Floodbecause of the world’s . Thisword may sound familiar because itsArabic cognate is essentially thesame as the name for a current mili-tant Palestinian terrorist group. It isusually translated into English as“violence,” but as Frymer-Kenskipoints out, the term is very complex,with a wide range of meanings thatrender normal lexical analysis insuf-ficient. Rather, she employs a se -mantic analysis to grasp more fullythe nature of this evil that was sogreat that it necessitated the Flood.Semantic analysis includes a closeexamination of the context of theword, not only of the biblical text,but also of its extra-biblical parallels,such as the Atrahasis Epic. Frymer-Kensky points out that in

both the Atrahasis Epic and Genesis1–11, solutions are proposed to dealwith the problem of humankind andto prevent these problems fromreoccurring. Since the problems areperceived as quite different in eachof these primeval histories, however,the solutions are likewise different.In Atrahasis, the problem is over-population, and the solution in - volves ways of inhibiting humanreproduction. In Genesis, the prob-lem is and the solution in -

4544

one an other.This is not to say that the violence

did not include humans killing eachother (murder); it certainly includedthat, but the bloodshed went wellbeyond that, extending into the ani-mal kingdom itself. It also includesthe emergence of a carnivorousappetite—a taste for blood—on thepart of both humans and beasts.Hence we can understand the sternnew prohibitions that God placesupon both humans and beasts afterthe Flood subsides.God attempts to reduce the

aggressiveness of the animal king-dom toward humankind by pro-claiming: “‘The fear of you and theterror of you shall be on every beastof the earth and on every bird of thesky; with everything that creeps onthe ground, and all the fish of thesea’” (Gen. 9:2, NASB). God conde-scends toward humans by allowingthem to eat flesh: “‘Every movingthing that is alive shall be food foryou; I give all to you, as I gave thegreen plant’” (vs. 3, NASB). How -ever, God prohibits the eating of ani-mals alive or eating their blood:“‘Only you shall not eat flesh with itslife, that is, its blood’” (vs. 4, NASB).God then institutes capital punish-ment for both humans and beasts inthe event that either kills a humanbeing: “‘Surely I will require yourlifeblood; from every beast I willrequire it. And from every man,from every man’s brother I will

require the life of man. Whoeversheds man’s blood, by man his bloodshall be shed, for in the image ofGod. He made man’” (vss. 5, 6,NASB). As Frymer-Kensky pointsout, these latter commands are toreduce the possibility that —the polluting of the planet by theindiscriminate and wanton shed-ding of blood—will again appear onthe Earth.The significance of this Old Tes-

tament understanding of from the time of Noah did not sim-ply fade away in later biblical times.Indeed, it continued to be embeddedwithin later Old Testament laws and,according to Frymer-Kensky, wasstill significant during the time ofthe New Testament church—theywere seen as Pre-Jewish and, hence,universal.It is important to note that these

prohibitions delivered to Noah didnot restore the Earth to its pre-Fallstate. The benevolent lordship andpeaceful relationship between hu -mans and beasts described in Gene-sis 1:28–30 no longer existed—thecovenant was broken. The strife andcompetition that emerged betweenhumans and the former subjects oftheir kingdom continues, althoughanimals now fear humankind. Thefood source for both humans andbeasts was no longer restricted toplants; both now ate flesh, althoughhumans were prohibited from eatingthe blood. And the killing of humans

Jacques Doukhan describes boththe relationship of humans and ani-mals, and the nature of their behav-ior as they were ordained by Godduring Creation week. He points outthat the Hebrew verb radah (to havedominion), which is used to expresshumanity’s special relationship tothe animal kingdom, “is a termwhich belongs to the language of thesuzerain-vassal covenant withoutany suggestion of abuse or cruelty.In the parallel text of Gen 2, man’srelationship to nature is alsodescribed in the positive terms ofcovenant. Man gives names to theanimals and not only indicatesthereby the establishment of acovenant between him and them,but also declares his lordship overthem. That death and suffering arenot part of this relationship is clearlysuggested in Genesis 1, where man’sdominion over the animals is di -rectly associated with the question offood source. The food provided,both for man and animal, is to bethat produced from plants, not ani-mals (cf. Gen 1: 28–30). In Gen 2 thesame peaceful harmony lies in the

fact that animals are designed toprovide companionship for man,even if neither complete nor ade-quate (Gen 2:18).”4

This is quite the opposite of howthe Bible describes the antediluvianworld—a world in which the animalkingdom is in rebellion, and thepeaceful relationship between hu -mans and beasts, and beast withbeast has broken down—not onlywere humans killing one another,but animals were killing humans aswell.In essence, hrepresents

the complete breakdown of thecovenant that God had establishedbetween humankind and the animalkingdom in Genesis 1:28–30. Ratherthan the peaceful, non-predatoryworld where humans rule over theanimals benevolently, and the onlyfood sources for both are plants,

hsignals a planet in rebel-lion in which humans no longerrule and the animals no longer sub-mit. Both are now locked into amutu ally aggressive relationship ofkill or be killed, and the mouths ofboth are stained with the blood of

God attempts to reduce the aggressiveness of the animal

kingdom toward humankind by proclaiming: “‘The fear of

you and the terror of you shall be on every beast of the earth

and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on

the ground, and all the fish of the sea’” (Gen. 9:2, NASB).

4746

The key is verse 23, which sum-marizes the preceding verses by pro-claiming that God’s people will notlabor in vain or bear children forcalamity. The threats of the past—including very real threats that Israelwas confronting, such as siege war-fare—will not exist in the NewEarth. Verse 20 is not saying thatpeople won’t live forever in the NewEarth; rather, it is saying they willnot be subject to the ravages of con-flict that characterized their presentexistence.The anti-strife message of verses

19–22 is capped off in verse 25,where the wolf and the lamb willgraze together, and the lion will eatstraw like the ox. This verse standsapart from 19–22 in that it is notdescribing the ravages of war; rather,it is simply describing a new worldorder that will not be characterizedby strife. It is interesting that it doesnot say the Babylonian will get alongwith the Israelite—even though this

is certainly included. But the newworld order extends to all aspects ofGod’s domain, including nature.The Lord says: “‘They will not hurtor destroy in all My holy mountain’”(Isa. 11:9, NASB). By failing to view this passage in its

historical context, critics miss theidiomatic characteristic of the verses.The point is not that we might ormight not build houses in the NewEarth, but that others won’t takethem from us in battle. The point isnot that we might or might not plantvineyards in the New Earth, but thatothers won’t deprive us of the fruitsof our labors through conflict. Andfinally, the point does not concernthe nature and/or length of life inthe New Earth, but that the deadlyconflict that typified Israel’s exis-tence will no longer claim life.In short, the nature and/or length

of life in the New Earth is not thepoint of Isaiah 65—only that lifewon’t be lost through conflict. The

by both other humans and animalswas explicitly prohibited and to bepunished by death. These latterrestrictions were intended to reducethe negative impact of the Fall onnature by restricting in the strongestpossible way (through capital pun-ishment) the savagery of .The emergence of hin-

troduces a new element that appearsin the post-Fall world that was notpart of the original creation. The re -peated pictures throughout the OldTestament of a New Earth must beseen within the context of .The new world order is a world inwhich humanity no longer striveswith nature. Rather, the peacefulcoexistence that pertained to theedenic world is seen as restored. It isnot just coincidence that theseutopian descriptions are linked toyearnings for deliverance from astrife-torn world. Thus, we read pas-sages such as Isaiah 11:6–9: “‘Thewolf also shall dwell with the lamb,the leopard shall lie down with theyoung goat, the calf and the younglion and the fatling together; and alittle child shall lead them. The cowand the bear shall graze; their youngones shall lie down together; and thelion shall eat straw like the ox. Thenursing child shall play by thecobra’s hole, and the weaned childshall put his hand in the viper’s den.They shall not hurt nor destroy in allMy holy mountain, for the earthshall be full of the knowledge of the

Lord as the waters cover the sea’”(NKJV).

Two “Problem” Texts (Isaiah 65:20; Psalms. 104)Some suggest that Isaiah 65:20

indicates that the ancient Hebrewsbelieved there would be death in theNew Earth: “‘No longer will there bein it an infant who lives but a fewdays, or an old man who does notlive out his days; for the youth willdie at the age of one hundred andthe one who does not reach the ageof one hundred shall be thoughtaccursed’” (NASB).As is often the case, the key to

understanding this passage is con-text. The expressions in Isaiah 65 arenot metaphorical; rather, they areidiomatic. That is, they are idiomsthat are familiar and appropriate tothe historical circumstances thatIsrael found itself in when this pas-sage was penned. What was that sit-uation? Israel was facing annihila-tion from invading powers (due totheir rebellion against God).Idioms can contain literal ele-

ments with regard to the immediatehistorical context. For example,building houses and having othersinhabit them, or planting a vineyardand having another reap the harvestwas a very real concern in Iron AgeIsrael, which found itself constantlyunder attack from outside invaders.Premature death was also associatedwith warfare and siege conditions.

Idioms can contain literal elements with regard to the

immediate historical context. For example, building houses

and having others inhabit them, or planting a vineyard

and having another reap the harvest was a very real concern

in Iron Age Israel, which found itself constantly under

attack from outside invaders. Premature death was also

associated with warfare and siege conditions.

48

reference in verse 22b to the days ofHis people being like the lifetime ofa tree can actually be viewed as asymbolic of eternal life. To arguethat Isaiah 65 envisions death in theNew Earth is not only incorrect, butis completely missing the point ofthe passage. Other passages, ofcourse, are more explicit about eter-nal life (Isa. 25:8; Dan. 12:2, 3).Regarding Psalm 104, there is no

question that it is a Creation Psalm.Some suggest, however, that it teachesthat death was a part of the originalcreation. The implication of this isthat animal death is not tied to theFall and could have, therefore, ex -isted for possibly millions of yearsbefore the Fall, which then broughtdeath to humans as well. This inter-pretation, however, erroneouslyassumes that Psalm 104 is describingthe pristine creation—God’s cre-ation as it was after the first week,but before the Fall. There is nodoubt that Psalm 104 is a CreationPsalm, but its intent was not todescribe the pristine, pre-Fall cre-ation. Rather, its point is simply togive God credit for the creation as itwas at the time of the psalmist. There are several indicators that

it is the psalmist’s contemporaryworld of creation that is beingdescribed: (1) the reference to thecedars of Lebanon [vs. 16], whichwould be important and of interestonly to Israel during the Iron Age;(2) ships sailing on the seas [vs.

26]—ships were certainly not part ofthe original pristine creation, butwere a major component of theeconomy of Iron Age Israel; (3)earthquakes and volcanoes [vs. 32]were typically instruments of God’sjudgment in the post-Fall world,both of which were well known dur-ing the time of Israel, and thepsalmist is giving credit to God forHis power over His own creationhere; (4) the writer’s appeal to Godthat sinners, who were unfortu natelypart of God’s creation as it was at thetime the psalmist was writing, be con-sumed and the wicked be no more(vs. 35). This latter statement makesno sense in a pristine, pre-Fall world.Within the context of these indi-

cators that show it is the psalmist’sworld that is being described andnot the pristine, unfallen world, thereferences to “beasts of the forest[that] prowl about” (vs. 20, NASB)and “young lions” (vs. 10, KJV)make perfect sense. God’s creativeacts penetrate the fallen world—Heis still the Creator, even of this fallenworld.

49

“To be known and read” by all. . . .

IF YOU LIKE PERSPECTIVE DIGEST, YOU'LL LOVE THE

Your annual membership entitles you to:• A one-year subscription to the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, or Perspective Digest.• A subscription to the ATS newsletter, carrying announcements and informationabout ATS conventions, publications, and other activities.

• Voting rights at the society's business sessions held at the spring and fall meetings.• Satisfaction that you are helping to affirm and advance solid, centristAdventist belief in a church that is rapidly becoming theologically diverse.

Name___________________________________________

Address_________________________________________

City_______________________State_____Zip_________

send me application materials to join the Adventist Theological Society.Mail to: ATS, P.O. Box 86,Berrien Springs, MI 49103

ATS encourages bibli-cal, theological, and histor-ical studies that will helpbring about spiritual re viv -al and reformation withinthe church. It provides aplace for its current mem-bership of nearly 2,000 church admin-istrators, scholars, pastors, and laypeople to address vital questions of theAdventist faith in the context of

prayer, fellowship, andresponsible discussion. ATS sponsors Conven-

tions, scholarly presenta-tions, Bible conferences, andpublications all ground edon two great interests: The

authority of Scripture and the respon-sible principles of biblical interpreta-tion that uphold, rather than compro-mise, biblical authority.

ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Yes, Member dues are $25 for an individual; $35 for husband/wife; and $10 for retirees and students.

A dynamic organization dedicated to advancing the fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists and strengthening the heart of Adventist theology.

REFERENCES1 Jacques B. Doukhan, “Where Did Death

Come From? A Study in the Genesis CreationStory,” Adventist Perspectives 4:1 (1990), p. 16.

2 Ibid., pp. 16, 17.3 Lloyd R. Bailey, Sr., Biblical Perspectives

on Death (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), pp.38, 39.

4 Doukhan, op cit., p. 16.