Would Adam have lived (physically) forever but for the fruit bite?
- Thread starter RedFan
- Start date
It absolutely does not!
The idea that a just God would ever punish A for B’s sin―whether or not A volunteered for the substitution―is a troubling one. A bloodthirsty God just might decide that “someone has to pay!” and accept such an offer. But a just God―at least as we humans reckon justice―would never do so. It is central to our notions of justice that the guilty, not the innocent, are punished. The guilty may be forgiven as an exercise in mercy (mercy being in effect a suspension of justice), but not at the expense of the innocent.
Nevertheless, even though God enjoins the opposite on us (Deut. 24:16), it seems that God is not skittish about punishing children and grandchildren for the sins of the father (Ex. 34:7, Num. 14:18, Deut. 5:9; but see Ezek. 18:20). On the other hand, when Moses offered to take the rap for the Golden Calf if God would thereby spare Israel, God turned him down, insisting that the wrongdoers must themselves be punished. Ex. 32:31-35. That comports quite nicely with human notions of justice.
But when Christ “died for our sins,” 1 Cor. 15:3, God went the other way, punishing A for B’s offense.
SteVen
Active member
Reminds me of The Parable of the Unforgiving Slave (Matthew 18:23-35)
A picture of God's mercy (a suspension of justice, as you say) toward us and our responsibility to forgive others.
/
I think that you are inline with their understanding. It's interesting to me that Paul offers a caveat in his description-- that Christ died-- for our sins according to the scriptures. It then becomes that he didn't die for our sins, but in a sense because of how sins were defined according to the scriptures. Paul uses the same denotation twice in the same verse- and says also that Jesus was buried, and then raised on the third day according to the scriptures...
In the second instance-- we can easily understand both the what and the where it comes from. According to the scriptures-- like in the Book of Jonah- the example is offered of Jonah spending three days in the belly of the whale. Also in Hosea 6:2 there is a loose reference that says that Yahweh will revive us after two days, on the third day.... Could this be the 'according to the scriptures' that Paul was referencing? Jesus mentions 'the sign of Jonah.'
Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.
But where in the scriptures-- according to the scriptures does it say anywhere, that the messiah must die for our sins? This was not a Jewish belief. I can point to thousands of places where sins are defined according to the scriptures, but not one instance where the messiah must die for our sins.
Yes, Paul's reference to Christ dying for our sins "according to the Scriptures" in 1 Cor. 15:3 is far less well attested than Christ being resurrected "according to the scriptures" in 1 Cor. 15:4. I suppose Is. 53:5 is the closest scripture passage we can find in support of 1 Cor. 15:3. Maybe that's enough to let Paul slide on this one.
Are you familiar with the Psalms of Solomon?
The Jewish expectation was not a hope that an anointed one would come and die for them. It was much more in alignment with some current Christian expectations of a second coming of Christ, who will set up a millennial kingdom, to reign and rule. They were looking explicitly for a son of David to fulfill this role.
Psalms 72
I haven't studied them. Could Paul have thought them to count as Scripture?
They would have been considered as contemporary to the times. They lay out specifically the Jewish expectation of a messiah.
They weren't anticipating a messiah who would come and die for their sins. Not even Isaiah 53 sets an expectation like that.
I say no. The reason is the other tree. Once man ate the forbidden fruit, God had an angel guard with a flaming sword the Tree of Life.
If man was already immortal, there would be no point to guarding the Tree of Life.
You've lost me. The angel guard was paced after the forbidden fruit was consumed -- so if Adam had lost immortality as a result, there would be a point to the guard.
My point is there is no point for the Creation of the Tree of Life in the first place unless it served a purpose before Original Sin.
The Tree of Life was Created before Original Sin. Why was that?
Because that was Planting Day, when both trees were planted.