Did the fall initiate death and predation?

[Hazelelponi]

My exact claim is that it’s spiritual death. Someone other than me is inserting words like “only” and “exclusively,” a narrowing that I have explicitly rejected. I agreed that death is the judicial punishment for sin and stated that it is “primarily” spiritual death. The word “primarily” logically excludes “only” (for it entails at least “secondarily”).

What I am denying is not the judicial character of death or its broader consequences. I am denying that life and death are defined in terms of anthropocentric biology, as if man were the controlling category. Such an approach is derived not from Scripture but elsewhere. In Scripture, life and death are defined in terms that are fundamentally theocentric and covenantal.

A person who wants to disagree with my position must engage how I’ve actually stated it, not a version that has been narrowed by inserting words I didn’t use.

I happen to be communicating clearly, but clarity can’t always overcome the inertia of entrenched tradition. When inherited vocabularies have defined in advance what death must mean, anything that falls outside those guardrails is reflexively misheard. That is not a failure of communication but a failure to notice how much interpretive work tradition is already doing.

I appreciate the clarification regarding “primarily” and “secondarily.” My concern, however, is that this distinction itself is not one Scripture makes when speaking of death. Scripture consistently treats death as a unified reality flowing from sin, not as a layered phenomenon where one form is penal and another merely incidental.

When Paul speaks of death entering through one man and reigning because of sin (Rom 5:12–21), or calls death “the last enemy” to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26), he does not qualify that claim by distinguishing spiritual death as primary and bodily death as secondary. That hierarchy is an interpretive framework brought to the text, not one derived directly from it.

This matters because how death is defined shapes the gospel itself. If physical death is merely creaturely or incidental rather than judicial, then Christ’s bodily death and bodily resurrection lose their penal and redemptive necessity. Scripture presents Christ as undoing Adam’s curse not only by restoring communion with God, but by conquering death itself—the same death introduced through sin. A merely covenantal or spiritualized account of death risks weakening the connection between Adam’s fall, Christ’s incarnation, and the necessity of bodily resurrection.

So my objection is not rooted in “entrenched tradition” overriding Scripture, but in concern that a philosophical distinction (primary vs. secondary) is being allowed to do explanatory work Scripture itself does not assign—while the biblical unity of sin, death, and redemption is quietly fractured.

 

[John Bauer]

I appreciate the clarification regarding “primarily” and “secondarily.” My concern, however, is that this distinction itself is not one Scripture makes when speaking of death.

Except it does, as your own post proves—using the very scripture that I would have called upon.

When Paul speaks of death entering through one man and reigning because of sin (Rom 5:12–21), … he does not qualify that claim by distinguishing spiritual death as primary and bodily death as secondary.

On the contrary, he does that exactly in this verse: “Just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness to eternal life.” If Paul was talking about physical death as such, the claim that sin “reigned in death” would be incoherent. Decomposing corpses and skeletal remains (physical death) can’t be the domain of sin, for they possess no dispositions, intentions, or wills (by which sin is made manifest).

The domain of sin is fallen humanity, all of whom are truly dead even while they carry on in physical subsistence (e.g., 1 Tim 5:6; Rev 3:1). When Paul talks about sin reigning in death, he has in view fallen humans who function biologically but are categorically dead in Adam. Conversely, grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life for those justified in Christ, such that believers are said to live (cf. Col 3:4) regardless of whether they are functioning biologically or not. The entire contrast operates at a theological level that transcends the biological dimension.

Nobody has life in himself but God alone. Therefore, life is a communicable attribute of God, which means life is an analogical predicate, not a univocal one. Life is not an abstract property that creaturely biology possesses, but a divine person in whom all creation participates at God’s will (Deut 30:20; Ps 104:29-30; 90:3; Acts 17:25, 28; Rom 11:36; Rev 4:11). Creatures subsist as living beings only by participation in the life of God, mediated through Christ Jesus and ordered to his glory in accordance with the pactum salutis. For those who are raised to new life in Christ, that is the first resurrection (i.e., from the dead). Life is analogical, contingent, and covenantally conditioned.

This is why separation from God really is death in the proper sense. Spiritual separation constitutes the first death, which makes metaphysical separation from God (at the judgment) the second death—a final, complete, and permanent separation from God. In both senses, spiritual and metaphysical, death is the wages of sin and the final enemy to be eliminated at the eschatological consummation. There is also no tertium quid. Those spiritually separated from God are dead, and those metaphysically separated from God are gone—completely and forever.

The contrasts of sin and righteousness, condemnation and justification, death and life, Adam and Christ, all serve to inform us that the context of Paul’s epistle here addresses theological anthropology and soteriological issues in covenantal terms with mankind in view. It is not defining life in biological terms and certainly doesn’t have the whole animal kingdom in view.

This matters because how death is defined shapes the gospel itself.

I agree completely. How death is defined has an impact on the gospel itself, which is exactly why death cannot be reduced to creaturely biology. Paul defines death in covenantal and soteriological terms, and that is the death which the gospel answers (e.g., 2 Tim 1:10).

If physical death is merely creaturely or incidental rather than judicial, …

I am making it clear now: This is a distortion of my position—because “merely” flattens my view, and “rather than judicial” pretends I denied the judicial aspect (which I actually affirmed). To persist in this would be deliberate and a violation of the rules.

… then Christ’s bodily death and bodily resurrection lose their penal and redemptive necessity. Scripture presents Christ as undoing Adam’s curse not only by restoring communion with God, but by conquering death itself—the same death introduced through sin.

Right. And, as we have just seen, the death introduced through sin was not the cessation of all biological function. Paul’s argument is framed covenantally and soteriologically, not biologically.

A merely covenantal or spiritualized account of death …

You keep imposing reductionistic or totalizing terms on my position, terms that I don’t use or accept—“merely” covenantal, “only and exclusively” spiritual, “merely” incidental—and then critiquing that simplification. What those terms expose is that you are describing your evaluation of my position, not my position itself. The persistent and repetitive use of “merely” functionally strips my position of its internal distinctions, reducing it to a single dimension, and that simplification is what you then critique, not my view as articulated.

In other words: The position you are trivializing is not mine. Mine is over here, unaddressed.

[A merely covenantal or spiritualized account of death] risks weakening the connection between Adam’s fall, Christ’s incarnation, and the necessity of bodily resurrection. So, my objection is not rooted in “entrenched tradition” overriding Scripture, but in concern that a philosophical distinction (primary vs. secondary) is being allowed to do explanatory work Scripture itself does not assign—while the biblical unity of sin, death, and redemption is quietly fractured.

It is your strawman reconstruction that does that, not my position as held and articulated by me.

… not as a layered phenomenon where one form is penal and another merely incidental.

Strawman. You are replacing what I said with this word “merely.”

Scripture consistently treats death as a unified reality flowing from sin, …

“Unified” neither precludes multilayer nor means single layer.

 

[Arial]

On the contrary, he does that exactly in this verse: “Just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness to eternal life.” If Paul was talking about physical death as such, the claim that sin “reigned in death” would be incoherent. Decomposing corpses and skeletal remains (physical death) can’t be the domain of sin, for they possess no dispositions, intentions, or wills (by which sin is made manifest).

Grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life, expressed eschatologically int he resurrection of the body as the decisive victory over death.
It is physical death that Paul is speaking of.

"Reigning" does not require the thing ruled over have intentions or moral agency. Paul is using personification. Sin is depicted as a king exercising dominion through death as its sphere. Sin reigns over humans by means of death---not over corpses. Physical death in theological terms is judicial (a penalty) and covenantal (a curse).

 

[John Bauer]

Grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life, expressed eschatologically in the resurrection of the body as the decisive victory over death.

I agree.

But I’m also confused because this is orthogonal to my claim (so it’s not a rebuttal). I never denied bodily resurrection, its eschatological centrality, or its role as victory over death. I explicitly affirmed all of that.

"Reigning" does not require the thing ruled over to have intentions or moral agency. Paul is using personification.

I think you missed a crucial point of my argument. Sin’s reign presupposes a domain in which sin operates as sin.

Sin reigns in death, not over death—and certainly not over decomposed matter. These are covenantal-moral realities that presuppose human subjects, not decomposed matter.

Sin reigns over humans by means of death—not over corpses.

This actually concedes my point, even while trying to resist it—so, thank you.

If sin reigns over humans by means of death, then death must be something humans are subject to while they are still human subjects (i.e., while biologically alive). That is precisely my claim.

It is physical death that Paul is speaking of.

This is an assertion without any meaningful engagement of my biblical and theological argument to the contrary.

And no explanation is provided for how physical death functions as the operative domain of sin’s reign over people who are biologically alive.

 

[Paul]

The names written in the book of life since the creation of the world that belongs to the lamb.
Adam and Eve were judged according to the flesh and they died.
They were kept from eating of the tree of life in regard to that judgment. Hence their bodies experienced death.

The tree of life had a location in the garden. Which has nothing to do with plants eating or many species that don't eat fruit and certainly fish who don't exist on land.

I believe the creation. (Heavens and earth), was made subject to decay and Adam and Eve's sin had no bearing on that point.

 

[Arial]

I agree.

But I’m also confused because this is orthogonal to my claim (so it’s not a rebuttal). I never denied bodily resurrection, its eschatological centrality, or its role as victory over death. I explicitly affirmed all of that.



I think you missed a crucial point of my argument. Sin’s reign presupposes a domain in which sin operates as sin.

Sin reigns in death, not over death—and certainly not over decomposed matter. These are covenantal-moral realities that presuppose human subjects, not decomposed matter.



This actually concedes my point, even while trying to resist it—so, thank you.

If sin reigns over humans by means of death, then death must be something humans are subject to while they are still human subjects (i.e., while biologically alive). That is precisely my claim.



This is an assertion without any meaningful engagement of my biblical and theological argument to the contrary.

And no explanation is provided for how physical death functions as the operative domain of sin’s reign over people who are biologically alive.

I have no interest in arguing with you. The topic of this thread is did the fall initiate death and predation. The title itself indicates what type of death is being discussed. I have not read many posts in the thread and just happened to come across the one in which I quoted a portion and responded to. No matter how many "ologies" you compartmentalize the discussion in to, this is what you said:

On the contrary, he does that exactly in this verse: “Just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness to eternal life.” If Paul was talking about physical death as such, the claim that sin “reigned in death” would be incoherent. Decomposing corpses and skeletal remains (physical death) can’t be the domain of sin, for they possess no dispositions, intentions, or wills (by which sin is made manifest).

And it was in response to @Hazelelponi post:

When Paul speaks of death entering through one man and reigning because of sin (Rom 5:12–21), or calls death “the last enemy” to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26), he does not qualify that claim by distinguishing spiritual death as primary and bodily death as secondary. That hierarchy is an interpretive framework brought to the text, not one derived directly from it.

In your response you clearly stated "if Paul were talking about physical death. the claim that sin "reigned in death" would be incoherent. Decomposing corpses and skeletal remains (physical death) can't be the domain of sin, for they possess no dispositions, intentions, or wills (by which sin is made manifest)."

You used this very argument of "reigned in death" to deny that Paul was speaking of physical death. I simply showed you my interpretation of why Paul was speaking of physical death and that his sentence was not incoherent. The body dies because of sin, but that does not interfere one iota with grace reigning through righteousness to eternal life---because that dead decomposing body will be resurrected in glory.

And I did so without mentioning the five logical fallacies in that one statement so as to not sideline the conversation while they are dealt with. No matter what you may have meant, I was dealing only with what you said.

 

[Arial]

Romans 5:12 in context is about what I think of as spiritual death. One might extend that to physical death as a side issue, but the context doesn't speak to that, in my opinion. That Christ died for us, is not being argued against here, but I have a real problem with the notion some seem to get from the passage, that his death was merely a physical matter, to pay for what we would have had to pay with MUCH worse than mere physical death.

Well---after physical dearth is judgment and experiencing the wrath of God, unless he remedies the situation---as Christ did for the elect.

Then too, very few of us just quietly lay down and die when the time comes. Things precede that death such as accidents, debilitating sickness, murder. Not to mention the decline of aging.

In Romans 5:12 Paul is precisely speaking of physical death---it is the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor). To insert "spiritual" death into that passage is just that. An insertion. The idea of spiritual death is a human construct in an attempt to explain something whose principle is in the Bible, but that is nowhere explicitly stated. It is a very elusive term, bandied about as if it were not, and I don't think should be used without clearly defining what is meant by its use when the user uses it (yes I did that last on purpose). What does "spiritual" mean? We are not spiritually dead. We still have a spirit, and spirit is physical life.

It is sin that we are dead in. Subject to death because of it, and no way out to save ourselves from that judicial verdict. Because we are sinners, the natural man has no access to the throne of grace and mercy. We are not his children and not of his household. The natural man is as blind as a bat when it comes to understanding the things of the Spirit.

Physical dearth is the issue, and I believe the issue addressed in the OP. There was no predation before the fall. If skins in Gen 3 refers to the skins of an animal, that was the first death. What are now carnivores were created as herbivores.

It was not until after the flood that we have the first recording of man or animals being carnivores and beasts became afraid of humans. Gen 9:1-6. All of creation changed after the flood. It had not even rained until the flood came. God subjected creation to futility on account of our sinfulness. It groans right along with us, waiting the fullness of our redemption. It is then that again the bear eats grass like the ox, and the lion lies down with the lamb, and a little child plays at the adder's den. And there is no more death (Rev 21). No more physical death.

 

[Josheb]

I know there are many believers who do not believe the physical laws changed until after the Fall, and also that none of the animals died until after the Fall. The main passage they seem to use is Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— But does this really support that view?

Thoughts? Can you support your understanding with scripture?

Well, to start with it makes no sense to tell an immortal creature he or she can and will die if they disobey you. Immortal creatures, by definition, cannot die. Therefore, a logical reading of Genesis 2:17 necessitates humans were made mortal, not immortal. Unless they partook of the tree of life (which enables a person to live forever) those creatures and their progeny were going to physically die.

However, there is more in scripture indicating physical death was part of the created order. Among those many texts are...

John 12:24
Truly, truly I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

1 Corinthians 15:36-37
That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body, which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.

The natural, created order of creation is that a plant grows from a seed that was previously planted, a seed that had previously died. Furthermore, the plant itself is not immortal. When a tree ages it eventually reaches it state of maturity, decays and becomes food for other creatures, who themselves are not immortal. To suggest otherwise would necessarily mean 1) God made all the animals except humans immortal, and 2) Adam's act of disobedience was so powerful it brought death to all the immortal aspects of creation (both flora and fauna). It contradicted immortality. That is simply irrational because it violates the law of non-contradiction (something immortal cannot die).

Some of scripture is challenging in these regards because everything written after Genesis 3:7 is post-disobedient text. Most of it is post-disobedient text written about post-disobedient conditions. However, there are a few places where the post-disobediently-written text makes a report about pre-disobedient conditions. The phrase "In the beginning..." or "He created..." would be one example of where we can know the text is about the created order, or conditions existing prior to Genesis 3:7. So, for example, when Peter writes,

1 Peter 1:23
...for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable, but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

the implication of not being born of "seed which is perishable" implies we had been originally made of perishable seed and only the new birth from above makes us imperishable. This reconciles with Paul's exposition of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. Not only does that which you sow not come to life unless it dies, but...

1 Corinthians 15"42-44
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Had Paul been referring to a post-disobedient state he would have said, "perished" or "corrupted," not "perishable" or "corruptible." The word he used means "able to perish," not "already perished." The word he used means mortal, not immortal. Paul and Peter are referring to the created order, not the post-sin order.

Then there is the matter of what we consider normal physics. If there was no death existing on earth prior to Genesis 3:7 then a moose or a human who slipped off a mountain side and plummeted thousands of feet below would have survive the sudden stop at the end of the fall. That creature would either get up alive and walk on in life in a two-dimensional, body-flattened stated, or ALL of the otherwise "normal" effects of the pull of gravity into a solid mass of earth did not exist. The current laws of force, gravity, mass, etc. did not exist if death is denied.

The death experienced by Adam's disobedience is sinful death, not physical death.

Ephesians 2:1-2
And you were dead in your offenses and sins, in which you previously walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

A person can be physically alive but sinfully dead*. The wages of sin is death but a person can be physically alive and dead in sin. The wage of sin is death, but eternal life is a gift from God. That gift could have been bestowed upon sinless creatures but because of Genesis 3:7 sin and death have come to all humans. Sinful death is a post-disobedient state.



Prior to Genesis 3:7 Adam and Eve were physically mortal, and death was a normal process of creation by God's design.
















* Some people call this "spiritual death," but I personally eschew that term in favor of the more scripturally consistent sinful death.
.

 

[John Bauer]

The natural, created order of creation is that a plant grows from a seed that was previously planted, a seed that had previously died. Furthermore, the plant itself is not immortal. When a tree ages it eventually reaches it state of maturity, decays and becomes food for other creatures, who themselves are not immortal. To suggest otherwise would necessarily mean (1) God made all the animals except humans immortal, and (2) Adam's act of disobedience was so powerful it brought death to all the immortal aspects of creation (both flora and fauna).

According to Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International, nepesh chayyah applies only to vertebrates; he says that “it is never applied to plants or invertebrates.” [1] More than a decade earlier, Jim Stambaugh had argued the same thing. [2] I think most young-earth creationists probably agree with your point. They seem to be okay with prelapsarian death among the plants and invertebrates.

But that produces a really weird fact: They are willing to accept nearly 100% of all life on Earth experiencing predation, decay, and death prior to the fall and that this is consistent with God declaring his creation “very good,” but they draw the line at any of the remaining 0.006% of life—vertebrates—being subject to death. Somehow, that produces an incorrigible theological difficulty. [3]

I don’t pretend to understand this. It seems to me that if they’re okay with 99.99% of all life experiencing predation, decay, and death, then they really forfeit the rhetorical argument they were trying to make. Some kind of ad hoc move is needed to rescue their reasoning—which, at that point, is no longer about what Scripture says and is strictly hypothetical detached from even the pretense of reality.

The principle is quietly reduced to “death before the Fall is problematic only for a very small, specially protected subset of creatures.” That seems less like a biblical thesis and more like an ad hoc exemption designed to preserve a conclusion—which would also be an example of the Special Pleading fallacy.

---

Footnotes:

[1] Jonathan Sarfati, “The Fall: A Cosmic Catastrophe—Hugh Ross’s Errors on Plant Death in the Bible,” Journal of Creation 19, no. 3 (2005): 62.

[2] Jim Stambaugh, “‘Life’ According to the Bible, and the Scientific Evidence,” Journal of Creation 6, no 2 (1992): 98–121.

[3] As a percentage of biomass: plants (82.0%); archaea (1.8%); bacteria (13.0%); fungi (2.0%); animals (1.2%). The biomass of animals breaks down to 99.5 percent invertebrates and 0.5 percent vertebrates (60 percent of which are humans).

 

[Josheb]

According to Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International, nepesh chayyah applies only to vertebrates; he says that “it is never applied to plants or invertebrates.” [1] More than a decade earlier, Jim Stambaugh had argued the same thing. [2]

Sarfati and Stambaugh may be correct as far as the uniqueness of humanity goes, but they are both incorrect thinking that can be a foundation for concluding an absence of death (or an inherent immortality). The second command alone ("Do not eat...") should have precluded that position. Stambaugh, however, does say chay nephesh"is shared by both animals and humans, but he also asserts a different kind of being and appeals to extra-biblical sources to do so. Both men also consider the book of Enoch a valid source (I do not).

I think most young-earth creationists probably agree with your point. They seem to be okay with prelapsarian death among the plants and invertebrates...................

I suspect the explanation lies in 1) bad teaching and 2) a lack of critical thinking. Way too many Christians are reliant upon what they hear and read from sources other than the Bible. Supposedly, the polls say 60% of US evangelical Christians have read the Bible in its entirety. That number drops to 20-30% for non-evangelicals worldwide. AND, according to Barna, only around 30% believe the Bible factually true in its entirety and only about 40% think the Bible is "totally accurate in all the principles it teaches." In other words, most Christians get their understanding of scripture from sources other than the Bible itself. I'll give Sarfati and Stambaugh the benefit of the doubt as far as their having read the whole Bible, but it is from the case they present they haven't thought through what they've read to its logically necessary conclusions.

The chief place this occurs relative to this op is the conflation of "death." Scripture uses the term quite diversely; there are at least five different types of death.

1. physically dead
2. dead in sin
3. dead in Christ
4. dead to sin
5. the second death

None of those deaths is identical to another. If a person dies physically while dead in sin but not dead in Christ then, not being dead to sin, he or she suffers the second death. That is pretty straight forward, linear and understandable, but if I say to another, "If you die dead then you're going to die," most hearers will respond with confusion, questions at best but ad hominem is also too often the response I receive. It doesn't help that "dying you will die" is interpreted diversely. Too many teach that means Adam began to die the day he ate and would, therefore, eventually die but that is inconsistent with all the content I posted in my op-reply. If all we had was Genesis 1 and 2 that might be a reasonable reading but once knowledge from whole of scripture is attained that interpretation isn't possible. Humans were sown mortal. The problem to be solved is inherent mortality, not obtained mortality. This notion of mortality being "achieved" by an act of disobedience should fall on its face simply because the word "immortal" literally means unable to die (or not subject to death). An inherently immortal nephesh chayyah cannot undo his own inherent immortality. That's just dumb.

It's even more inconsistent to say each day of creation is a literal 24-hour day but the day in which Adam died due to his eating the forbidden kiwi took 900+ years .

Genesis 2:17
...the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die.

Hugely inconsistent. And these misinterpretations are very odd because the solution, the reconciliation of whole scripture, is easy. The entire Bible has to be read, but after that the whole of scripture's commentary on the matter is readily understood. Sarfati and Stambaugh are unnecessary. So too is the daily list of radio preachers and what passes for theological reasoning in most Christian bookstores.






Sarfati is a smart guy, but he missed the correct answer on this one. I suspect both he and Stambaugh were unduly influenced by Jewish teachings. I know they're both influenced (perhaps only to a small degree) by Michael Heiser, and Stambaugh majored in Biblical Hebrew. This usually leads to some degree of Judaization but not knowing either man's work well enough, I'll withhold that particular judgment. I do know Sarfati is a chemist who thinks the Nephilim were "the offspring of foreign angels" .
.

 

[John Bauer]

Sarfati and Stambaugh may be correct as far as the uniqueness of humanity goes, but they are both incorrect thinking that can be a foundation for concluding an absence of death (or an inherent immortality). … Sarfati is a smart guy, but he missed the correct answer on this one. I suspect both he and Stambaugh were unduly influenced by Jewish teachings.

Just to be clear: I cited Sarfati and Stambaugh only as representative of what young-earth creationists tend to believe, namely, that the absence of prelapsarian death applied only to vertebrates, including man. I am not aware of any young-earth creationist who holds that prelapsarian death was absent in every biological domain—plants, fungi, bacteria, archaea, and animals.