Young-Earth Creationism & “Death”
I am 100% convinced that the earth is slightly less than 6,000 years old. Most Evangelical Christians are also “Young-Earth Creationists,” and take the Genesis creation account literally, as well as the chronological data in the Bible, all of which requires this view.
However, Young-Earth Creation ministries often use a particular argument from Romans 5 & 8 in order to counter “Old-Earth Creationists” who claim that the earth itself is billions of years old, some of whom agree that Adam was created only about 6,000 years ago. In Old-Earth Creationism, death was a necessary component of evolution of animals throughout the alleged millions of years of evolving from pond scum into complex creatures. However, many of them agree with us that death came to man only about 6000 years ago when Adam was first created. The argument used against this view by Young-Earth Creationists is based on Romans 5:12 “just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin …”. The entire weight of this particular argument against Old Earth Creationism rests on the words “entered the world.” This is claimed to refer to the animal kingdom as well as humanity — death itself.
The following video is an excellent presentation of Young-Earth Creationism and the presuppositions held by both creationists and evolutionists which is really what drives the outcome. However, it uses the above argument against Old-Earth Creationism which in my opinion is very poorly exegeted from Scripture and based on bad theology concerning the nature of man, death, and immortality. It is a hinderance to the Gospel in my opinion.
This is a very strong case for why we ought to take the Genesis account literally. However, I believe the claim from Paul’s statements in Romans 5:12,15 is being taken out of context and used in a self-serving manner that is quite contrary to Paul’s intent. In the context, Paul was concerned with the fact that “death” overcame all of humanity, yet Christ’s death provides the victory over death for humans. But this comes through resurrection and access to the Tree of Life both of which the animal kingdom does not partake. “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MEN, because all sinned” (v. 12) and again “For if by the one man’s offense MANY died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to MANY.” (v. 15). The words “all men” in vs. 12 and “many” in both statements in vs. 15 do not refer to animals as the benefactors of the death of Christ. Paul was clearly drawing on the Genesis account. But the threat of “death” was given to mankind alone: “… in the day you eat of it YOU will surely die” (Gen. 2:17), and then after Adam sinned, “In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust YOU shall return” (Gen. 3:19). There is nothing in the Genesis account upon which Paul based his claim which implies that “death” would overtake the entire animal kingdom if he sinned or after he sinned.
Most likely the “curse” certainly affected the whole creation, since the presence of “thorns and thistles” (Gen. 3:18) are the result of the curse on the ground. Rom. 8 indicates that the “whole creation” groans under the curse. However, “death” of humans did not come about by a sudden change in his DNA or ontological nature, but rather a change in his environment. “Death” came about because access to the Tree of Life was removed when he sinned (Gen. 3:22-24). Humans no longer had access to the FOOD that would prevent gradual decay and eventual death. It is resurrection and the Tree of Life being restored to man when Christ returns that provides physical immortality for believers (Ezek. 47:12-13; Rev. 2:7; Rev. 22:2;14). If we as Young-Earth Creationists are going to insist on a literal reading of Genesis, we also need consistency in how we interpret the “Tree of Life” passages in Ezekiel and Revelation.
In harmonizing these, we should conclude that Adam and Eve were NOT created physically immortal and then their bodies were instantly transformed into decaying flesh when Adam sinned. Adam and Eve were created to always be fully dependent on God’s continued provision for both their immediate external needs and their perpetual survival into infinity. This was originally supplied by their God-created and sustained environment, air, water, daily food, and especially the “Tree of Life” which was specifically created exclusively for man’s perpetual existence and avoidance of death. The Tree of Life was not created for animals, but for man alone. Animals were inherently mortal from their creation. Animals were not created with the potential or intention that they would live forever (with God’s continued sustenance and provision), only mankind was. The natural cycle of life, death, reproduction and renewal has always been an essential feature of the original “very good” creation which cannot be sustained without it. There is no reason to suppose that carnivorous animals were not created that way or that the “food chain” did not exist as part of the original creation.
Some point to Genesis 1:29-30 to prove that all animals were vegetarians when created. “29 And God said, Behold I have given to you every seed-bearing herb sowing seed which is upon all the earth, and every tree which has in itself the fruit of seed that is sown, to you it shall be for food. 30 And to all the wild beasts of the earth, and to all the flying creatures of heaven, and to every reptile creeping on the earth, which has in itself the breath of life, even every green plant for food; and it was so.” (LXX).
This is claimed to limit the food of both humans and all animals to vegetation exclusively. But a careful reading makes no such limitation. Rather, God was indicating that He was personally supplying the necessary food (“I have given you“), and that man as well as land animals and birds were permitted to eat from this source. It is obvious that sea creatures, including mammals which are warm-blooded air-breathers, are excluded from the above statement. This is not only by their omission, but by the impossibility of their coming on land in order to eat. Sea creatures are carnivores by design, as most (especially the larger fist and mammals) have no plant source that could possibly sustain them.
IMO, the better interpretation of Romans 5:12,15, which I believe is consistent with Paul’s explanation of “death,” is that he was speaking exclusively about the “death” of humans. The original threat of death was to Adam, not to Adam and all animals. This is also supported by his comment that death passed upon all men BECAUSE all sinned. Animals do not sin, they merely do what is within their nature. Only mankind sins. Consequently, Paul’s statements about “death” are limited to mankind both by the Genesis account on which it depends and upon the context of Romans 5.
Another problem is the fact that the “curse” is removed from the creation upon Christ’s return according to Romans 8, yet there will be meat eaten during the Millennial Kingdom of Christ as this is required as part of the Feasts which Ezekiel 40-48 indicates will be celebrated then. Also, there will be fishing in abundance even from the Dead Sea, thus fish will die when caught and eaten by humans (Ezek. 47:8-11). “Death” and carnivores (man) will continue after the curse is removed from the ground according to Rom. 8, and the “Tree of Life” is accessible again to God’s people (Ezek. 47:12-13; Rev. 2:7; Rev. 22:2;14). As a meat lover, I would be greatly disappointed in the resurrection if it was otherwise. Likewise, the death of unresurrected people also continues in the Millennial Kingdom of Christ according to Isaiah 65, and “death” itself is destroyed AFTER the Millennium (which is 1000 years after the curse is removed from the creation) according to 1 Cor. 15:25-26 & Rev. 20:14.
All of these things strongly imply that the entrance of “death” into the world spoken of by Paul in Romans was limited to mankind, not the animal kingdoms. I do not believe that using Paul’s statements in Romans 5 & 8 as a defense against old-earth creationism is valid. Those of us who hold to Young-Earth Creationism should not be using this argument against Old-Earth Creationism, IMHO. There are better defenses against that view by sticking to sound exegetical principles in Genesis as well as a great deal of scientific material provided by creation ministries which points to a young earth.
7 thoughts on “Young-Earth Creationism & “Death””
Hi Tim, it seems reasonable that the universe was created with the entropy we see all around, so there was created decay which wasn’t a curse. It’s also fair that the animals lived and died, so there was indeed death before the fall. Adam and Eve too were subject to decay and eventual death being of the dust, albeit very gradual in all likelihood.
What are your thoughts on God observing in Gen 3:22 that they must not be allowed to eat of the Tree of Life, and the sense that this could have been a singular event, rather than a perpetual consumption to attain everlasting life? The verse could be read either way it seems.
The point about the Tree of Life emerging in a post-resurrection earth is interesting. How does that square with verses such as John 6:53-58 when Jesus says that consuming him leads to eternal life after he raises people to life? And 1 Cor 15:43-49 where Paul describes the difference between our current Adamic bodies and our future Christ-like bodies. One body of the earth (us) that dies, one of heaven (Christ) who we will be the image of after resurrection. Lastly, the references to a Tree of Life in Rev 2 and 22 would seem to indicate one of seven allegorical descriptions for all those victorious to the end in Christ. Each of the churches has a different description of ‘one who is victorious’, including but not limited to partaking of the Tree of Life. Does that mean all the others are to be understood as literal?
If the heavens and earth are reserved for final fire, destruction and renewal (2 Peter 3:10-13), I don’t understand how the new heavens and earth will be populated by resurrected people that are still ‘dust’ and require a physical tree to perpetuate life, instead of being as Jesus is, and the angels, who by their created order (not Jesus, the angels) cannot die (Luke 20:36). Thanks for any thoughts.
James,
I. I agree that Gen. 3:22 can be read either as a perpetual source of “life,” or a one-time transformation of ontological human nature. The underlying premise of which of these views we accept, however, depends on whether human “immortality” (an entirely new kind of human) as an inherent aspect of one’s ontological nature is ever portrayed in Scripture, either before or after the curse. The only way to harmonize Scripture IMO is conclude that INHERENT immortality is not the possession of anyone except the Father.
Scripture is pretty plain, IMO, on the following points:
1. God, the Father, alone possesses inherent “immortality”; He alone is Yahweh, the self-sufficient & self-sustaining one; He needs nothing external to Himself.
2. All living things are continuously dependent on Him for their sustenance (continued life).
3. In the resurrection we will “put on” (be clothed with) immortality over our “mortality,” so that our “mortality” is “swallowed up in life.” The clothing metaphor suggests that the “immortality” is external not internal. In other words, God continues to supply everything we need in order to live forever in a perfect environment in perfect health. We are always His dependents, never His peers.
4. The “Tree of Life” promises in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Revelation apply the same theme found in Genesis to the Kingdom. So those passages inform the meaning of the statement in Genesis. If in these prophecies the “Tree of Life” is not literal, then we ought to conclude that the Genesis account is also not literal, but just a parable. Yet, the entire Gospel message is based upon the literal account of how “death” came upon all men, and why Christ’s death and resurrection solve the problem presented in Genesis. Also, the “Tree of Life” is portrayed in Ezekiel and Revelation as many trees of a particular species called “the Tree of Life” (on both sides of the river of life). Eating the fruit of these trees is portrayed as a continual activity because these trees bear twelve different kinds of fruit according to the months. If this is not literal, then is any description of the Kingdom literal? Is even the Abrahamic Land inheritance literal? Why not follow Origen and Augustine, and claim it is all allegories of a heavenly destiny?
Now if we take the common view of Gen. 3:22 that a one-time bite from this tree provides immediate and inherent immortality, the implication is that we become God’s peers in the sense that we are indestructible like Him. But how does that work if God is the one who continually supplies our environment, food, water, air, gravity, etc. Can we do that ourselves? If we become inherently immortal, then we need none of His continued provision and we become “as gods.” This view is just a baby-step away from Gnosticism.
II. Eating Christ’s flesh is obviously not literal, but refers to receiving His broken body and spilled blood as our only hope of immortality. “Communion” is the physical act which is meant to be parallel to the spiritual truth. That in doing so we “have” eternal life clearly refers to possession of the PROMISE, not having immortality when we partake. Otherwise we would not die. But this passage and others which refer to having “eternal life” do not indicate the MECHANISM for how “eternal life” actually works. Regarding Paul’s description of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15, we will indeed be “changed,” but this does not mean we will become something other than human. Rather, we will be “changed” in the sense that our human bodies will be perfected, as Adam’s pristine state. Paul describes this as our mortality being concealed under immortality, being “clothed” with immortality. (Compare 2 Cor. 5:2-4).
III. Regarding the promises to the “overcomers” in the 7 letters, I see no reason to suppose that all of the promises are not literal. There are seven specific benefits promised to all overcomers. Jesus simply split them up among the 7 churches, mentioning the one He deemed most significant to them in their current situation.
IV. Luke 20:36 is misread, IMO. The critical clause is: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι δύνανται lit. “for they are able not to die.” (It does not say “They are unable to die”). This verse does not address at all whether the immortality is inherent or a continual provision from God for the angels. We know that the angels who sinned are to be destroyed. So they are not inherently immortal. The point of this passage was that angels by nature do not reproduce, since the question posed to Jesus concerned how one would carry on his brother’s name in the resurrection in accord with the Law of Moses. So Jesus’ answer was first to show that in the resurrection there will not be a joining in marriage (thus producing offspring), then He added “neither will they die.” The reason for this statement is because procreating and death go hand in hand in maintaining the population of God’s people. The opposite is true of God’s angels whom God continually sustains and does not need to replace either by procreation or a new creation event. For God’s people, when death is eliminated, then procreation is unnecessary and is actually problematic. So the Kingdom age brings to an end BOTH reproducing and death for God’s people. In the eternal state this will be the only scenario since all will be resurrected and all the wicked destroyed.
Thanks for this detailed reply Tim. You said that if in the resurrection we possessed inherent immortality, we would be peers of God. Would it be fair to suggest that this conclusion can be seen another way. If we received immortality as resurrected humans, that would be contingent on our faith, and conferred on us from an external source (the Father). The receiver is never on a par with the giver. Just as the angels, in their particular created ontology, could not die, they nevertheless could be destroyed by their creator. Eternal life is a gift bestowed upon resurrected man, but that doesn’t mean we are now as God, since he could remove that conferred state of being (not that this will happen).
I agree 100% the Father is alone in having eternality from within, and the Logos/Christ has that ontological quality by uniquely being of the same kind as the Father. Thereafter, everything is created and can be destroyed or given eternal existence. In simple terms, there is the first breath (in which all living creatures exist), which under Adam leads to the first death. Then the second breath (by faith in Christ) which defeats the second death (permanent destruction). In the now/yet to come of the gospel, I think that the inner presence of the Father through Jesus in believers is completed by resurrected life in that the mortal form of being is fully swallowed up, or totally consumed by, the gift of eternal life that changes our nature to one that cannot die of Adamic causes. Personally, I think that’s what Paul is driving at in 1 Cor 15.
I do want to thank you for this series on the Logos and Christ. It is indeed the only way to interpret monotheism, and integrate the clear presence of the Son from the beginning. I am also YEC, and agree that Genesis has to be taken at face value. I’ll admit to wrestling over the possibility that the two trees may have been real, but were external representations of what was in Adam and Eve’s hearts. In other words, they can exist, but one represents the desire for self-advancing gnostic knowledge, and the other submitting to the Father’s will in obedience from love. The trees brought out the heart rather than having any fundamental properties of themselves, even though the physical consumption of a piece of fruit led to their sudden self-awareness. Was that from the fruit or from God I wonder? Adam walked with God (the Logos), and I feel this represents the Tree of Life in no small way too. But I could well be compromising history for metaphor. It’s a wrestle that continues.
James,
For me, sticking to the literal sense, and then attempting to find harmony among all of the relevant passages, is THE most objective method of understanding the message of the Bible — what God intends us to learn and then apply to our lives. I have no problem with recognizing spiritual applications to the heart using metaphor, but only to supplement the literal sense, not at its expense.
I try to stay away from speculations into metaphysical and philosophical ideas that are not plainly stated in Scripture, as these at best will lead us into areas that we cannot know for certain, and at worst lead us into heresy, neither of which are conducive to faith. (That was precisely how the early Christians incrementally were led into error by men like Origen). Biblical “Faith” is child-like TRUST in what God has revealed and declared, not in our elaborate speculations beyond that. We must become like little children to enter the Kingdom. I do not believe metaphysical speculations are edifying for the believer. God has told us plainly what we need to know in order to successfully navigate the “difficult path” that leads to LIFE.
Now on the question of what kind of immortality we will possess, it is not truly inherent “immortality” IF we can be destroyed. That was my point when referring to Satan and his angels who WILL be destroyed in Gehenna at the end of the Millennium.
One more point worth noting is that the Holy Breath of God which indwells believers at our baptism is said to be the “deposit” on our inheritance (which includes immortality). Then Paul says in Rom. 8 that God’s “Breath” dwelling in us now will be the mechanism for our resurrection. So there is also a component to immortality that is more than physical (fruit from the Tree of Life) but is also spiritual. But again, I think it is wrong to cling to the one at the expense of the other. Yet in either case, the continual source of immortality is God, whether His “Breath” in us or His provision for our environment and continuous physical regeneration. He could potentially remove either or both at any time and we would cease to exist. So I do not see how anyone could conclude that we will be inherently immortal as God Himself alone possesses that quality (1 Tim. 6:16), and this necessarily excludes the angels.
Thanks for your replies Tim. I agree that we won’t be inherently immortal, rather gifted everlasting life. I don’t see that as being as God because we never possessed that quality prior to resurrection, unlike many in the church who believe we have an immortal spirit. I look forward to your future studies.
I appreciate your pointing out these discrepancies with the idea that the Renewed Heaven & Renewed Earth will be death-free for animals (the arguments from Ezekiel 47:8-11 and passages indicating sacrifices for Levitical feasts during the Millennium are particularly strong). I also agree that animals weren’t inherently immortal before the Curse, just like humans weren’t; both could only have avoided death by eating from the Tree of Life (fruit OR leaves, per Revelation 22:2). I just have questions about some implications of this for the period when Adam & Eve were still sinless, since I’d like to reconcile this with what I’ve already learned about the Biblical view of living things.
I understand that only creatures that have blood (Leviticus 17:14) and can move voluntarily (Genesis 1:20-21) in at least one stage of development (which accounts for the time when zygotes don’t yet have blood cells) are living souls; this means that plants, algae, bacteria, fungi, etc. aren’t living creatures by God’s reckoning, so eating such things doesn’t involve death (before or after the Curse). But what about sea creatures with blood? Or insects? Did they suffer if they were killed to be eaten by other animals before the Curse? If so, how can that be considered an “exceedingly good” created order (Genesis 1:31)? What would that say about God’s character?
On the other hand, Isaiah 11:6 & 65:25 imply that land animals will no longer be eating each other in the Renewed Heavens & Renewed Earth. Taken together with Ezekiel 47:8-11, doesn’t this imply that sea creatures are essentially “chopped liver” because they’d still have to eat each other? If God has indicated this, I can accept that, but I’m trying to figure out how to articulate WHY He would relegate sea creatures to such an existence, but not land creatures.
I can understand if eating animals wouldn’t be sinful for humans in the Millennial Kingdom (per Ezekiel 47:8-11 AND the passages indicating sacrifices during the Millennium; speaking of which, why is God described as offering a sacrifice on the Day of the Lord in Jeremiah 46:10 & Zephaniah 1:7-8? Is that referring to the wicked who’d be killed by Jesus that day?), because there’s no reason (strictly speaking) to think the Noahic Covenant (where God authorized humans to eat animals if as much blood as possible was drained from them; Genesis 9:3-4) will no longer apply in the Renewed Heavens & Renewed Earth. I guess it’s extrapolating that possibility to the original created order I’m having trouble with.
Karl,
I do not see a problem with animals eating other animals for food and the created order being called “very good” under this circumstance. The term “good” is relative. I understand this term to be a remark on the intricate design and creation of all things, mineral, plant, animal, human, as well as the whole cosmos to be a perfectly functioning and self-sustaining machine. I consider this statement to be something the Father spoke to the Son through whom He created all things — “Very good job, Son.” The term “good” here is not a moral statement. If it was, then it would still be wrong to kill animals for food since what is moral is based on God’s character which cannot change.
The question of fish may be debatable since one could argue that while they have blood, they do not have “breath,” and apparently fish were not destroyed in the flood. But then again, God did not give fish the herbs of the field to eat either.
I am not a scientist or a philosopher. My concern is with the proper interpretation of specific Scriptures. My objection to some Young Earth Creationists concerns their application of Rom. 5:12 to argue against Old Earth Creationists. I believe the argument in the video is wrong and actually does more harm to the Young Earth position.
Comments are closed.