Is Death the Consequence of Sin?

[Pete Vecchi]

Is death the consequence of sin? By that I mean not "Somebody sinned, so they died." Rather, I mean was it sin that introduced physical death into the world?

[Benjamin Burch]

No, it doesn't appear that this is the case scientifically, or biblically.

[Larry Parsons]

Is death the consequence of sin? By that I mean not "Somebody sinned, so they died." Rather, I mean was it sin that introduced physical death into the world?

If man didn't sin he would still have to die to keep thing in balance.
Thanks
Larry

[Bill Morrison]

A cornerstone of belief to those of us who are YEC's, because we believe the Bible clearly teaches it. Not an issue science can appropriately or adequately deal with. An interesting God we serve, to say the least, if he delights in pain,suffering, and death and would describe it as very good.

BILL

[Paul DeBaufer]

22 Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’— 23therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden

Seems to me that death existed because there was a Tree of Life that Adam did not eat from.

[Hans Deventer]

Seems to me that death existed because there was a Tree of Life that Adam did not eat from.

It's a mixed thing. I simply don't know about death regarding plants and animals, so I merely took the question as relating to humans. You make a good point, Adam and Eve were definitely not immortal by nature. They would, however, have retained eternal life if they would have remained faithful to God commandments. Which, as we all know, they were able to.

However, we also know they did not and hence is specifically says in Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Therefore, "24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life."

So on the one hand one can say that death came because of sin, on the other, it potentially was already there and only the tree of life, which was of course dependent on a good relationship with God, would prevent them from dying.

Which means people weren't meant to die, but outside of God's active sustenance, they would. Creation did not include eternal life in itself, but rather death.

And yes Bill, that was good, because God meant us to live with Him and find our life in Him. In any sense of that word. In fact, He still does. Some things don't change.

So I voted no, but the answer should be more nuanced than a mere yes or no.

[Todd Erickson]

It seems that, to put it in shorthand, there always would have been physical death, but not necessarily spiritual death.

[Pete Vecchi]

It seems that most have thus far responded that physical death is not the consequence of sin. For those who have answered in that way, let me ask this question: Why did Jesus have to physically die?

[Ryan Pugh]

It seems that most have thus far responded that physical death is not the consequence of sin. For those who have answered in that way, let me ask this question: Why did Jesus have to physically die?

Because Jesus was physically alive?

[Dennis M. Scott]

It seems that most have thus far responded that physical death is not the consequence of sin. For those who have answered in that way, let me ask this question: Why did Jesus have to physically die?

In part, to demonstrate that death did not hold dominion.

Sorry, I guess it's not mine to answer, since I didn't answer the original question in the negative.

[Hans Deventer]

It seems that most have thus far responded that physical death is not the consequence of sin. For those who have answered in that way, let me ask this question: Why did Jesus have to physically die?

Pete, the thread has another question than the poll. That is confusing. Physical death is the consequence of sin in that sense that because of sin, we no longer have access to the tree of life, which would have prevented our death. I don't understand the relation with Jesus' death yet, could you explain?

[Pete Vecchi]

Pete, the thread has another question than the poll. That is confusing. Physical death is the consequence of sin in that sense that because of sin, we no longer have access to the tree of life, which would have prevented our death. I don't understand the relation with Jesus' death yet, could you explain?

I'm trying to learn.

I'm trying to gain different perspectives.

The "Tree of Life" references are interesting. I've been taught and have generally followed the idea that humans were created immortal, but that sin caused a change which made them mortal, which would mean that therefore death did indeed enter the world as a consequence of sin.

I know that others have different understandings, and I'm simply trying to hear them out.

To me, if sin didn't bring about physical death, then it doesn't make sense to me that Jesus had to die to forgive sin. If the forgiveness of sin was so important that Jesus had to die (instead of, say, God just declaring that people's sin was forgiven and more or less just giving them a new start).

The Scripture says that death has been swallowed up in victory. Jesus died, but His Resurrection showed that He had defeated death.

Yet there are many Christians who believe that death occurred prior to sin, which would mean that death did not come as the consequence of sin.

As I said, I'm just trying to hear other perspectives.

[Doug Ward]

I'm trying to learn.

I'm trying to gain different perspectives.

The "Tree of Life" references are interesting. I've been taught and have generally followed the idea that humans were created immortal, but that sin caused a change which made them mortal, which would mean that therefore death did indeed enter the world as a consequence of sin.

I know that others have different understandings, and I'm simply trying to hear them out.

To me, if sin didn't bring about physical death, then it doesn't make sense to me that Jesus had to die to forgive sin. If the forgiveness of sin was so important that Jesus had to die (instead of, say, God just declaring that people's sin was forgiven and more or less just giving them a new start).

The Scripture says that death has been swallowed up in victory. Jesus died, but His Resurrection showed that He had defeated death.

Yet there are many Christians who believe that death occurred prior to sin, which would mean that death did not come as the consequence of sin.

As I said, I'm just trying to hear other perspectives.

Let me try. Undoubtedly, Paul's linkage of sin and death in Romans 5 is the main reason we have tended to view sin and death in this way, although I think there are other ways to read Romans 5. Follow along and see if this makes any sense to you. It may not, but let me take a shot at it here.

Adam and Eve, representing humanity, are given two ways in which we can be like God. We can choose eternal life, or we can choose to personally know evil, as well as the good. Unfortunately there is a price to be paid for choosing to know evil. Our problem is that like Adam and Eve, we have chosen to know evil. As a result, the potential for eternal life is closed to us. We now sit in the mess of our own making, as we come to know the evil that we have chosen, and all of the things that come with it, hatred, envy, strife, violence, prejudice, etc. We are now imprisoned by the choice that we made.

As a result, God the Son comes in human form, in every way that it means to be human. As a man Jesus is susceptible to the mess that we have created - including the hatred, rage, envy, and violence that marks us so often. That rage and hatred is concentrated upon Him. Not only this, but allowing this focus of evil upon Himself, means that Christ is also being faithful to the covenant made with Abraham. We broke the covenant, but only God is dying. This death is the fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham, and the natural result of our choice to know evil. So Jesus dies as a result of our choice of evil, and in faithfulness to His covenant.

However, we are still left rather hopeless. Sure the covenant penalty has been exacted, and God has been faithful, but we are still left here. Then comes Resurrection morning!!! This is the news. The resurrection starts all things over. Covenant has been fulfilled, this is why Paul can proclaim it to be over and done. There was one who was righteous, and He has been vindicated. The resurrection has happened, except that it did not take place at the end, it happened right in the middle of history. This new start, this vindication was ongoing and we are invited to participate.

So the death of Jesus fulfilled the old covenant. The death of Jesus concentrated all the rage and sin that we chose, and concentrated it upon Christ. With the resurrection we can once again choose the eternal life that we ignored previously. All things have started anew.

[Hans Deventer]

To me, if sin didn't bring about physical death, then it doesn't make sense to me that Jesus had to die to forgive sin. If the forgiveness of sin was so important that Jesus had to die (instead of, say, God just declaring that people's sin was forgiven and more or less just giving them a new start).

The Scripture says that death has been swallowed up in victory. Jesus died, but His Resurrection showed that He had defeated death.

Yet there are many Christians who believe that death occurred prior to sin, which would mean that death did not come as the consequence of sin.

As I said, I'm just trying to hear other perspectives.

Well, I certainly believe death occurred as a consequence of sin, but for me, Jesus death is best understood in His own words:

Luke 22:20 - In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

The covenants are a main topic in the Old Testament. Jesus, fulfilling them, poured out his life for us in order to establish the promised new covenant. In that new covenant, sin would be dealt with, as Jeremiah prophesied:

Jer 31:31 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband,* says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.

There is much to learn from the OT here, which is obviously the background of the NT. And of course, as Hebrews rightly concludes, "9.22 - Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."

I think our problem is that we have focussed solely on judicial images, and while they have their place, we have neglected the rich background of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins that the OT provides. I have learned a great deal from Larry Shelton's Cross and Covenant

(BTW, Marcus, this post was written because Pete asked for it. Not in order to start the 789th instalment of the endless discussion on the PST.)

[Roland Hearn]

Richard Taylor had lots of thoughts that required at least some process to be useful however one of the things he did say that made a lot of sense to me. If there was no death before the fall why would the idea of death as a punishment be introduced it would have no clearly understood application. Death meant something to the original pair or else there would be no point in saying that the eating of the fruit would bring about death.

[Michael Flowers]

I have chosen to believe death entered the world through sin because if the world was in a perfect state at creation, which tends to be the belief, then death would not have existed. Death is an imperfection of life and as such would not have existed in a perfect world. God gave life, not death at creation. Death is part of the punishment as indicated by our separation from the Tree of Life.

[Benjamin Burch]

To me, if sin didn't bring about physical death, then it doesn't make sense to me that Jesus had to die to forgive sin. If the forgiveness of sin was so important that Jesus had to die (instead of, say, God just declaring that people's sin was forgiven and more or less just giving them a new start).

I've always thought this was interesting, so maybe you can help me with this. I wonder why we use the phrase "had to die to forgive sin." If God is all-powerful, and if God is sovereign over all that is in heaven and the earth, and under the earth, then why would God be required to do anything a particular way, and why couldn't God do something a different way (say, God just declaring people's sin was forgiven and more or less giving them a new start)?

I would suggest the phrase "God chose to have Jesus die", instead of "God had to have Jesus die."

Because the questions immediately change. Instead of "why did God have to do it this way" the question becomes, "why did God choose to do it this way?" Again, the answers to those questions are very different.

The Scripture says that death has been swallowed up in victory. Jesus died, but His Resurrection showed that He had defeated death.


Yet there are many Christians who believe that death occurred prior to sin, which would mean that death did not come as the consequence of sin.

You seem to be combining things here. What sort of death do you speak of? Any biological death at all? Or only the death of those humans who are created in the image of God?

It's an important distinction. I do not know of any scripture which would lead us to believe that plants or animals have or will ever be without death.

As far as human death goes, I think the discussion of Genesis 3 has been carried out well by others. As far as Romans 5 goes, it actually isn't inconsistent with Genesis 3 if we keep the narrative in mind. That is, while humans were mortal, they had access to the tree of life. However, through Adam's trespass, they, and all humanity, now had no access to the tree of life, and thus death became a reality for all of humanity. Likewise, since all sin, none could claim to be worthy of access to the tree of life again, due to their sinlessness.

Thus, I think that even if we're following a mere surface reading of Romans 5, it in no way suggests that humans were immortal before Adam's sin, and it certainly doesn't suggest that plant and animal death were not realities.

Secondly, on a deeper exegetical level, we have to keep Paul's theology and word usage in mind. For Paul, Sin is more than something we do, it is a force which keeps humanity in bondage, from which we need freed. The metaphor of a slave-owner carries with it the idea of payment, since they paid slaves (even if very modestly) in Paul's context. Thus, when Paul says in Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.

He really means what he says. Sin, the slave-owner, pays those who serve him as master with their members, in the form of death. Death carries a two-fold meaning for Paul. The life in slavery to Sin is already dead, and ends in death, with no resurrection. Life, too, is a two-fold term. The life in Christ (in slavery to God) is one of "new life" and "new creation" which ends in "resurrection", and an everlasting life. Even better, this isn't even payment for our work, which we receive at the end of the day, it is a free gift we are given as soon as we enter this slavery, before we've done any work.Thus, when Paul says that death enters the world through sin, he speaks of Adam's exchange from "life" to "death", whereby humanity entered into slavery to sin, a slavery under which all of humanity has found itself. Christ comes, conquering this slave master, putting it to death, and then rising victorious over death, putting an end to both sin and death, and bringing humanity into a new exchange, from "death" to "life."

We cannot lose the slavery metaphor, because it begins in Romans 5 and extends to a fuller explication in Romans 6, and it is only within this metaphor can Romans 6:23 make any sense. We are not punished for sin with death, we are compensated by sin, with death. And this is the compensation we have chosen, by choosing the master whose currency is death.

We have for too long read Paul without this imagery in mind, and we get lost in Paul's words, thinking Paul is saying something he's not..... which I think I have shown a surface reading doesn't even necessitate.

Lastly, from a theological perspective, I would suggest, as I always have, that one does not need to start with reasons for a problem in order to start with a problem. Thus, why did God choose to die? Because we die. Why do we die?..... why does that matter?

What we know is:

(1)we all sin,
(2) and we all die.
(3) We all are incapable of saving ourselves from the problem of sin and death.

Thus, God has chosen to enter into our plight of sin and death, conquering it, terminating it, and rising victoriously over it. Then, through Baptism, we are united to this death and resurrection, and thus we are united in this victory over sin and death, being brought into newness of life, which is sustained and nourished through the bread from heaven, Christ's Body and Christ's Blood, the Bread and the Cup, until the day that Christ shall come again, and we will be resurrected physically from physical death, to everlasting life, which will be celebrated with a never-ending feast of bread and wine where we give thanks to our Lord and Savior for what he has done.

You see, I just articulated the Christian Gospel without a single mention of the idea that we die because we started dying after someone sinned way back in the past.

[Benjamin Burch]

I have chosen to believe death entered the world through sin because if the world was in a perfect state at creation, which tends to be the belief, then death would not have existed. Death is an imperfection of life and as such would not have existed in a perfect world. God gave life, not death at creation. Death is part of the punishment as indicated by our separation from the Tree of Life.

I would caution against "perfection", as I'm not sure we're ever told this in Scripture.

[Ryan Pugh]

I would caution against "perfection", as I'm not sure we're ever told this in Scripture.

How do you think we should speak of the world as God created it to be? "Good"? "Very good"? "Whole"? "Shalom"?

[Michael Flowers]

I would caution against "perfection", as I'm not sure we're ever told this in Scripture.

Hence my disclaimer of "tends to be the belief", though it is one which I am favor personally because I do not believe that God created anything imperfectly (outside of his plan which was/is perfect).

[Benjamin Burch]

How do you think we should speak of the world as God created it to be? "Good"? "Very good"? "Whole"? "Shalom"?

It seems that "good" and "very good" are pretty good words to use. They're the words God used, according to Scriptural tradition. For me, those are good enough.

Now, from there, I would suggest - again, as I always have - an Irenaean model of the fall over against an Augustinian model of the fall.

For Irenaeus, humanity was created with the capacity to move upward, to seek God, righteousness, and life, but we chose to move downward, seeking satan, evil, and death. This is the path we continued on until God entered our humanity, recapitulating our sin, and setting us on back to where we were pre-fall, with the ability to move upward, seek God, righteousness, and life.

We are joined to this reality through our being joined to God through Christ in Baptism and nourished along the way by partaking of Christ's Body and Blood, until the day that our transformation is complete, and we reach the goal for which we'd been striving, and are resurrected from the dead in perfect unity with God, in heaven. This is Theosis. This is our salvation, and the Orthodox Church has never strayed from this telling of our salvation.

This gets me back to this thread. Baptism with the Holy Spirit does, in fact, reverse the affects of the fall, putting us in a "pre-fall state." Baptism with the Holy Spirit comes at our Baptism......

God made him who knew no sin to become sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
God became what we are so that we might become what he is.
God became human so that humans might become God.
God took on the corruptible so that we might become incorruptible.

What was not assumed is not redeemed.

What is funny to me is that if I were in Greece, this would all sound very normal. But in the U.S.A.....

[Benjamin Burch]

Because Jesus was physically alive?

Was he not physically alive when he resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven? Is he not physically alive as he sits at the right hand of the father? Will he not be physically alive when he comes again to judge both the living and the dead? Is he not physically alive in the elements of the Table?

And yet, will he never die again?

I suggest that starting with Jesus' physically alive-ness is not the best place to start with Jesus' death. Rather, it would appear that our own death and need of life is a better place to start.

[Ryan Pugh]

Was he not physically alive when he resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven? Is he not physically alive as he sits at the right hand of the father? Will he not be physically alive when he comes again to judge both the living and the dead? Is he not physically alive in the elements of the Table?

And yet, will he never die again?

I suggest that starting with Jesus' physically alive-ness is not the best place to start with Jesus' death. Rather, it would appear that our own death and need of life is a better place to start.

I was just thinking of the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. He was born a baby and lived a human life just like the rest of us. He was going to die a physical death because he was physically alive. It might not be the best place to start, but it's what came to mind when I saw the question.

[Benjamin Burch]

I was just thinking of the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. He was born a baby and lived a human life just like the rest of us. He was going to die a physical death because he was physically alive. It might not be the best place to start, but it's what came to mind when I saw the question.

Gotcha. I'm just not sure the presupposition that he was going to die works, because he will not die. I think it is better to say he would die because we die.

[Ryan Pugh]

I think it is better to say he would die because we die.

Jesus was physically alive just like we are physically alive.
Jesus was going to physically die because we physically die.

That's what I'm saying. Is it not what you are saying?

[Benjamin Burch]

Jesus was physically alive just like we are physically alive.
Jesus was going to physically die because we physically die.

That's what I'm saying. Is it not what you are saying?

Your initial statements:

Because Jesus was physically alive?

I was just thinking of the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. He was born a baby and lived a human life just like the rest of us. He was going to die a physical death because he was physically alive.

Do not include our death as reasoning for his death, but rather his life as a human. I do think that the inclusion of our death is of paramount importance. As such, I would say that you did not say in your first two posts what you have said here in this last post, and I think it's important.

[Larry Parsons]

It seems that most have thus far responded that physical death is not the consequence of sin. For those who have answered in that way, let me ask this question: Why did Jesus have to physically die?

We could say that he came to die to complete the blood covenant that he made with Abraham. Even those sin may not be the cause of physical but spiritual death which make us slaves to sin. It is the blood of Christ that set us free from sin and make us spiritual alive.
I don't know how long man has been on earth I did read some where man has been here over 100,000 years. If that is so and there were no death there would be so many people here we would just become mass of human flesh we would be so over crowded we could bend over I better shut my mind is going wild with this.
Thanks
Larry

[Larry Parsons]

Well, I certainly believe death occurred as a consequence of sin, but for me, Jesus death is best understood in His own words:

Luke 22:20 - In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

The covenants are a main topic in the Old Testament. Jesus, fulfilling them, poured out his life for us in order to establish the promised new covenant. In that new covenant, sin would be dealt with, as Jeremiah prophesied:

Jer 31:31 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband,* says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.

There is much to learn from the OT here, which is obviously the background of the NT. And of course, as Hebrews rightly concludes, "9.22 - Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."

I think our problem is that we have focussed solely on judicial images, and while they have their place, we have neglected the rich background of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins that the OT provides. I have learned a great deal from Larry Shelton's Cross and Covenant

(BTW, Marcus, this post was written because Pete asked for it. Not in order to start the 789th instalment of the endless discussion on the PST.)

Hans, thanks, I forgot about Jer.31:31 when i mention Abraham in my post I would like to read Larry shelton book thank for suggesting it.
Thanks
Larry

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, thanks, I forgot about Jer.31:31 when i mention Abraham in my post I would like to read Larry shelton book thank for suggesting it.
Thanks
Larry

You're welcome. I found it very interesting and a great help to see Jesus' sacrifice in line of what God ordained in the OT. Actually first read about his ideas on the subject in a Wesleyan Theological Journal from the early 80's. I was happy to see he expanded that article into a full fledged book.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I would suggest the phrase "God chose to have Jesus die", instead of "God had to have Jesus die."

Jirair Tashjian has addressed this very issue from a biblical perspective: The Death of Jesus:
Historically Contingent or Divinely Ordained? Also in a shorter article: Did Jesus Have to Die?

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Steven Burton]

There are also others who argued about Jesus having to die such as, William of Occam and John Duns Scotus. So this concept it not new to Christianity.

[Pete Vecchi]

Interesting. As of this point there have been 26 votes cast, with 11 saying yes, 11 saying no, and 4 saying "I don't know." Yet the vast majority of the comments seem to be supporting the "no" side.

I have an idea as to why this may be, but before I say anything, does anyone else want to offer a possible reason or reasons?

[Ryan Scott]

I voted I don't know because I don't and while I have an opinion, I'm not sure it's good enough or important enough to really make a big deal about.

I do hold that death is not a punishment for sin, but I'd be ok talking about it as a consequence.

For me, it's difficult to believe that death didn't exist before humans did. That doesn't seem likely.

When we talk about the pain of suffering and death as intrinsically evil, I'm not sure I buy it. Certainly death and suffering and pain aren't ideal - they're not fun - but I can't call them evil. Certainly suffering and pain are only evil when they're encountered alone without love and support from others and from God.

In our world, death is a part of life. It's not something out of place. We seem to see that in the fulfillment of God's plan, death is no more - but that eternal life also seems to exist after death (for most of us).

I prefer to look at it as creation and new creation. While I don't see them as entirely separate from one another, I don't think they have to operate in analogous ways all the time. Scripture clearly teaches that death is not a part of new creation, but I think scripture is much more vague on death's role in the current creation.

As for Jesus, he had to die to show us how to live. God created the world with a specific way for us to live in it - knowing full well if we chose selfishness over reliance on God, we would miss that created purpose for life (and suffer resulting consequences). Jesus came (at least in part) to show us how to live the way we were created to live - part of that is being willing to die for love, hence Christ's example.

I just don't see how the world functions if something as central to life as death were a variable.

[Wilson Deaton]

Is death the consequence of sin? By that I mean not "Somebody sinned, so they died." Rather, I mean was it sin that introduced physical death into the world?

I voted "yes" that death was a consequence to sin but I was restricting my answer to humans.

Furthermore, I do not believe that man was created as immortals.

Rather, sinless man living in the garden in a right relationship with God was a good thing and since it was good thing, God chose to keep it going by keeping naturally mortal man alive. (By way of analogy note Deut.29:5--"Yet the LORD says, 'During the forty years that I led you through the wilderness, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet.'" There was nothing inherently "un-wearout-able" about these clothes; God just kept them from wearing out.) Man was never immortal, yet death would have been avoided were it not for sin.


Wilson

[Benjamin Burch]

Interesting. As of this point there have been 26 votes cast, with 11 saying yes, 11 saying no, and 4 saying "I don't know." Yet the vast majority of the comments seem to be supporting the "no" side.

I have an idea as to why this may be, but before I say anything, does anyone else want to offer a possible reason or reasons?

My thought is that you have, in a very irenic way, stated that you hope to learn other perspectives. Since, from your perspective, that would mean you're looking to learn from those who support the "no" side, it would be more likely that those from the "no" side would comment. I also expect that, due to our context, those here on NN are far more familiar with the more traditional, evangelical reading and reasoning on this.

[Gary Condon]

From The Forgotten Books of Eden; (the undated work of unknown Egyptians)

Chapter XXII verses 5,6 (Adam and Eve have been forced out of Eden and are conversing with God over the sorrow and despair of their new existence.)

“ And Adam wept and said, ‘O Lord, do not cut me off for this neither smite me with heavy plagues, nor yet repay me according to my sin; For we, of our own will, did transgress Thy commandment, and forsook Thy law, and sought to become gods like unto Thee, when Satan the enemy deceived us.’

“Then God said again unto Adam, ‘Because thou hast borne fear and trembling in this land, languor and suffering treading and walking about, going upon this mountain, and dying from it, I will take all this upon Myself in order to save thee.”

Chapter XXIII verses 6, 7

“Then Adam and Eve stood under the altar and wept, thus entreating God, “Forgive us our trespass and our sin, and look upon us with Thine eye of mercy. For when we were in the garden our praises and our hymns went up before Thee without ceasing.

“But when we came into this strange land, pure praise was no longer ours, nor righteous prayer, nor understanding hearts, nor sweet thought, nor just counsels, nor long discernment, nor upright feelings, neither is our bright nature left us. But our body is changed from the similitude in which it was at first, when we were created…”

Chapter IV verses 8-10

“And Adam said to Eve, ‘Look at thine eyes, and at mine, which afore beheld angels in heaven, praising; and they, too, without ceasing. But now we do not see as we did: our eyes have become of flesh; they cannot see in like manner as they saw before.’ Adam said again to Eve, ‘What is our body today, compared to what it was in former days, when we dwelt in the garden?”

Just another idea of how sin affected mankind.

[Gary Condon]

Was Jesus' death on account of our sin?

[Benjamin Burch]

Was Jesus' death on account of our sin?

I would want to say an unequivocal "yes" to this but it depends on what you mean by your question...

[Steven Burton]

Was Jesus' death on account of our sin?

I would have to say that depends on your idea of the sin that lead to this not so much just sin itself.

[Pete Vecchi]

OK, now that I've given people sufficient time to respond (and have read the responses), here's how I see the entire issue:

Humans were created to be immortal. Their sin caused a change in them and in the world. Before sin, there was no death--at least of animals (I'm not sure how to deal with plant death--it's possible there was a re-generation of all plants that were picked and that they didn't decay or die). The point is that human sin caused the world to cease functioning the way God originally designed it to function. Sin did indeed bring about death.

The result of sin is death. Human beings die because they are infected and affected by sin, and have been so since Adam and Eve first sinned. Adam and Eve were created in a state of "primitive holiness", which means that their natural inclination was to follow God instead of following self. Once they came to know the difference between good and evil, their natural human tendency was to follow self rather than God. This is the root of sin, and all human beings have that tendency from the time they are in the womb.

Jesus was born in a state of "primitive holiness"--with the ability to sin but with the natural tendency to follow God rather than self. In that way He was the "second Adam." But unlike Adam, Jesus lived His life totally for God rather than self, yet still took the penalty/punishment/consequence/judgment for human sin--physical death--upon Himself. His death was sufficient to forgive our sin. Yet we still live in this imperfect world that has been infected and affected by sin. We inhabit imperfect bodies that have been infected and affected by sin. While this means that our current bodies will eventually die (unless Jesus returns before we die), our spirits will live on until the resurrection of the body occurs and we are changed physically--the perishable will be replaced with the imperishable. Those who have not yet died physically at this point will also experience the physical change of their bodies to immortal bodies. Then all will be judged. Those who belong to God through Jesus Christ will live eternally in the presence of God; those who have chosen to reject the atoning work of Jesus Christ will live eternally separated from God. This will be what we call Hell--eternal separation from anything that is good, because apart from God there is nothing good.

That's how I see it, and that's how I teach and preach it. While I appreciate the words of all of those who have offered other explanations, they have not persuaded me to altar my views and understandings (although I do admit that the references to the "Tree of Life" will likely cause me to do some more investigation into the subject matter).