Deathisdefeated

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

On another thread here, it was proposed that "the curse upon the ground" of Genesis 3 has both a physical manifestation and a spiritual meaning. It has been furthermore proposed here and elsewhere that the physical manifestation of this curse was removed at the time of Noah (even though the curse was originally pronounced because of sin, and no one's sin had been forgiven at the time of Noah). So far, only the "ground curse" has been cited as being removed by the flood, and assigned some type of agricultural or dietary meaning, in vague terms. The spiritual meaning of "the ground curse," to my knowledge, has not been proposed by those who claim it has both a physical and spiritual connotation. It has also been separated from other elements of the same curse in Genesis 3, without explanation of how such slicing and dicing within an immediate context is hermeneutically defensible.

But furthermore, for that (albeit vaguely defined) physical interpretation of "the ground curse" to be valid, and the "combo" (both physical and spiritual) view of the curse of sin and death to be valid, we would of course have to apply the same hermeneutic (after such rule was defined and explained) to the rest of the elements of the curse as well. We would have to define for each of the following elements both the physical manifestation and the spiritual meaning. We would also have to provide an explanation of when and by what means each of these elements of the Genesis 3 curse was removed (excepting the serpent which remains unredeemed in the new creation). Or, if we were taking a futurist view as some "preterists" are now doing, we would have to explain by what means a given element or elements would be removed in our future. And again, if we were insistent on dividing the elements one from another and claiming some were removed in the past, whereas others will be removed in our future, we would have to explain our guiding principle. In other words, all of the blanks below would have to be filled in before we could consider the premise that the "curse on the ground" of Genesis 3 had a physical manifestation and was referring to literal thorns and thistles, from which we remain unredeemed today, even though in the new creation "there is no more curse" according to Revelation 22:


1. Serpent cursed above all cattle (so of course the curse on the cattle, not just the serpent must be identified here as well):

Physical manifestation of curse on cattle and serpent: _________________
Spiritual meaning of curse on cattle and serpent: _____________________

2. Serpent to eat dust:

Physical manifestation of serpent eating dust: ______________________
Spiritual meaning of serpent eating dust: _________________________

3. Sorrow and pain in conception and childbirth:

Physical manifestation of sorrow and pain in childbirth: ____________________
Spiritual meaning of sorrow and pain in childbirth: _________________________

4. woman's desire for husband and his rule over her:

Physical manifestation of woman's desire and husband's rule: _________________
Spiritual meaning of woman's desire and husband's rule:____________________

5. Cursed ground bringing forth thorns and thistles:

Physical manifestation of cursed ground and thorns and thistles: (definition still not adequately supplied, but its removal was apparently at the flood): ____________________________
Spiritual meaning of cursed ground and thorns and thistles: ________________________

Remember it is of paramount importance that we define not only the nature of these things, but identify when and by what means they were remedied--ie, when was redemption from this curse, both physically and spiritually, accomplished? (Again, it is a given that the serpent was not and will not ever be redeemed.) This information would be required it would seem, before one could give their consideration to the "combo curse" view as it has been presented.

Views: 361

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Tami… agree or not agree [and I'm not totally convinced] but "tradition" can pretty much account for the "physical" aspects – however, from your 'Covenant Creation' perspective, can you share your "spiritual" understanding of the same:

1. The serpent was cursed above all cattle [so of course the curse on the cattle, not just the serpent must be identified]

What is the spiritual meaning of curse on cattle and serpent? … … …

2. Serpent to eat dust:

What is the spiritual meaning of the serpent eating dust? … … …

3. Sorrow and pain in conception and childbirth:

What is the spiritual meaning of sorrow pain in childbirth? … … …

4. Woman's desire for husband and his rule over her:

What is the spiritual meaning of a woman's desire and the husband's rule? … … …

5. Cursed ground bringing forth thorns and thistles:

What is the spiritual meaning of the cursed ground bearing thorns and thistles? … … …

Remember, it is of paramount importance that you biblically define and identify each of these.

Your answers will be appreciated and help clarify for me your position on this.

Thanks, Davo.

This goes a long way toward explaining my current understanding (which is in *no way* completely worked out) of those various elements of the curse and how it is that they are no more in the new creation:

The Language of Creation from Genesis to Revelation

Yes, it's long, but it is divided up into segments so you can easily spot the relevant parts to the above "blanks."

In addition, this is an article by Ward Fenley from over a decade ago which identifies the spiritual significance of those various elements of the curse. I had not even seen this until a couple of days ago, but as you can see there are a lot of parallels to what I presented in my article:

Adam and Resurrection

And notice that he places the various elements of the curse listed above as constituent elements (or manifestations) of "sin death." I think this is signifcant toward our "big picture" understanding of the nature of redemption--a redemption which could only be accomplished in Christ.

Thanks Tami I shall check these out.
Hi Tami, I have a few questions from your article linked above.

"It could not be clearer: “thorns and thistles” are evidence of a cursed creation, and proof that we live in a fallen world:"

Would it be right to include "we" in the fallen world of the cursed creation? Genesis is the account of the "covenanted people" and as such would not apply to those NOT in covenant [Heb 9:15], and as such the likes of "for all have sinned" can ONLY encompass and be universally applied to those in covenant, and NOT those beyond it – even though those beyond covenant in the chaos of darkness, i.e., ignorance, did sin [Rom 2:12], yet NOT having Law suffered no covenant wrath etc [Rom 4:15].

"But again, there is a problem for those who ‘spiritualize’ or ‘covenantalize’ the removal of the curse while ‘physicalizing’ the creation which was subjected to it. … Hopefully all now see the problem for those preterists who on one hand profess a covenantal resurrection from the dead, or dust; and on the other cling to a literal view of “the dust of the ground” from which Adam was formed.

My question is this: in light of your strong, broad and expansive metaphoric hermeneutic and consequent aversion to "the literal" – what is the basis for you claiming any literal, local or physical "Adam" in the Genesis account? IOW, how in your schema does Adam with any consistency remain "physical" and "local" when you champion and ‘spiritualize’ or ‘covenantalize’ EVERYTHING else.

So… I'm still trying to get my head around how you rationalise this. Why would it not be equally consistent in your paradigm to reject "physical" Adam in favour of "metaphoric" Adam and thus its appropriate application in sync with the rest of the paradigm you are advocating? not being smart, this is a genuine question.
Davo, you wrote:

My question is this: in light of your strong, broad and expansive metaphoric hermeneutic and consequent aversion to "the literal" – what is the basis for you claiming any literal, local or physical "Adam" in the Genesis account? IOW, how in your schema does Adam with any consistency remain "physical" and "local" when you champion and ‘spiritualize’ or ‘covenantalize’ EVERYTHING else.

Davo, you seem to be continually distorting and exaggerating my position. I hope it is not intentional, but it is getting difficult to maintain that hope. I believe Adam was a real preson for the same reason I believe you and I are real people. I answered this on the other thread, so maybe you missed it. I am just going to copy that previous response here (if this is insufficient, then regardless, I have nothing further to add to this point at this time):

*********

Does it make sense to you Davo, that the "ground" is physical, and the "thorns and thistles" upon that physical ground are metaphorical? In the same sentence, it switches back and forth between literal and metaphorical? Would it really be a "gross overstatement" for me to say that this doesn't work?

The fact that Adam and Eve were real people has no bearing whatsoever upon my argument. I am a real person, who has been washed in the blood of the lamb. But I didn't have that blood poured over my physical body. The cleansing took place in my *conscience*.

The fact that Adam was a real person who was cursed to work a "ground" which would produce "thorns and thistles" does not demand that the ground and the thorns are physical, in order for him to have *literally* experienced that curse. *Those* two images (the ground, and the thorns it produced) *do* need to be reconciled to one another however, in that context, for it to make any sense at all.

To all: this is the point. It doesn't make sense for the ground to be physical and the thorns upon it be metaphorical references to covenantal things. This is why preterists who literalize the creation in Genesis 1 are now positing a physical curse upon that creation in Genesis 3. They have no choice, and they know this.

What problem does this present for "preterism," you might ask?

They also have no choice but to posit a physical--and future--removal of that curse in the New Heavens and New Earth, as it is described in Isaiah 65. Which is exactly what is happening.
Davo, you seem to be continually distorting and exaggerating my position. … I believe Adam was a real preson for the same reason I believe you and I are real people.

Yes Tami I understand that, and sorry no I'm not trying to distort your view, but I am left wondering why your position simply doesn't afford Adam the same consistent metaphoric figuring which would be in line with the rest of your supposition. This as opposed to saying such a literal Adam doesn't have any bearing on your proposition – ONLY in light of your tenacious pursuit for metaphor [which I'm not entirely opposed to] for all else I think YES, it has to have a bearing – viewing Adam accordingly could with a higher degree of consistency be seen for example as "Israel" to come.

Now I can understand your potential fear of the logical consequence of adopting this more consistent approach in that one could easily challenge: well then how far along the biblical record do we travel before adopting the "literal" character as being the focus of the story etc; but surely that is something to be explored. I raise this for your consideration because your present explanation "seems to me" to be less than adequately thought out – any thoughts?

Also Tami… does what I shared about your "we" make sense?
Davo, yes, I realize there are some additional points in your post to which I have yet to respond. I am heading out of town for a couple of days and will get back to this discussion.

However, I don't think you have ever responded to this simple, straightforward question:

Does it make sense to you Davo, that the "ground" is physical, and the "thorns and thistles" upon that physical ground are metaphorical? In the same sentence, it switches back and forth between literal and metaphorical? Would it really be a "gross overstatement" for me to say that this doesn't work?

Is there a reason that you keep reframing the discussion by going off with these elaborate descriptions of what you *think* I am saying, rather than just responding directly to what I have *actually* said? When I have presented straightforward statements and questions to which you have not responded, I am confused as to why you seem to want to complicate things with ambiguous language and insinuations about my motives or what I potentially "fear." Couldn't we at least start by dealing directly with what has been stated? Otherwise I am not sure where this is going to be beneficial to anyone.
"Does it make sense to you Davo, that the "ground" is physical, and the "thorns and thistles" upon that physical ground are metaphorical? In the same sentence, it switches back and forth between literal and metaphorical?"

Sorry again Tami… no, IMO it doesn't make sense – and I'm not convinced further that one is justified in applying a strict metaphorical meaning alone to the specifics BUT RATHER drawing off these mundane material things their greater metaphoric application. So this is not a switching back and forth but rather, the material being used as object lessons pointing to the expanded story of redemption that followed – again to real people.

The fact that natural man can be spiritually affected tells me that any unbalanced view at either of the extremes becomes rightly questionable when done so at the expense of context. And just to clarify, I tend to lean in the CC direction, only less so at the moment than yourselves.
Tami,
The "combo view" is making about as much sense as the "partial preterist" view.I think the hermeneutics being utilized by those that see a physical fulfillment of Isaiah 65 has become the new standard and affecting how people are trying to " equate the curse with the quality of physical life".

Why stop there..after all it leads right back to the futurist view of a flesh and blood bodily resurrection!

Opponents of Covenant Eschatology have already noticed the problems that this view has and are commenting on the inconsistency of those promoting the "combo view".

Just as the Bible doesn't teach a "spiritual" and a "physical bodily" resurrection ..It doesn't teach a "spiritual" and a "physical" redemption from the curse.

I understand that our friends are still working on their view and maybe we just need to give them more time to figure it out or at least figure out another argument then the straw man that i have seen so far.The misrepresentation of what your actually writing and what some are arguing against is bewildering.

Your chart lining Daniel 12:2 up with Genesis 3:19 should be enough to get them started on the right track .. Then maybe they could do the same with Isaiah 26:19, and Ephesians 5:14...Are they really prepared to say that these are not direct references to the "man from the dust" in Genesis 2?
John, with all due respect, this "combo view" as presented makes less sense because it is an invention created for no other reason than to allow a particular argument to be run along positional lines – it makes broad sweeping false assumptions, and wrongly places "anybody" in the one school of thought and all the trapping said to go with it.

The greatest problem as I see with the CC position as presented here is the constant mantra that anything "physical" cannot be mixed with that which is "metaphorical" – and yet speaking for no one else but myself; when I have pointed out the weakness of THIS proposition CONSIDERING the acceptance of a then "physical" Adam according to the CC position, it is NOT dealt with but to say "we/I hold to a personal Adam, so stop misrepresenting…", that is to say, you accept a "physical" Adam – well that's great, but so do I.

But here's the rub – you cannot with any logical legitimacy make claims against others "consistency" in challenging them regarding holding any form of "physical" expectation of the Genesis texts under discussion WHEN you guys do that very selfsame "personal/literal/local/physical" thing with Adam – this in itself if not dumbfoundingly inconsistent is blatantly hypocritical, and I wish you guys would address this because this IS a major flaw in need of attention IMO.

IOW… IF it is fine to hold to an actual Adam then other aspects of the Genesis account might just fall into the same "actual" category, and IF this is so then you folks need to be more circumspect as to how you berate others views accordingly. Again, this is just my opinion.

Spoken in the spirit of investigation…
Davo,
I tried my best to make the combo view work and it's not going to happen.IMO. Even Sam Frost in his book Essays on the Resurrection had this to say "Page 82..If Ezekiel 40-48 were to be fulfilled physically (as, perhaps, the errorists in I Co 15 imagined"...Sam is saying that it's an error to try and fulfill prophecy's physically that are spiritual.I agree with Sam here and just follow the logical conclusions of his hermeneutics's .

And i do appreciate your desire to have things clearer and i think Tami,Tim,Norm and JL have gone a long way in trying to be as up front and answer everything that has been thrown at them.I'm not finished working all this out Davo,but i do feel comfortable following the same hermeneutic in the Garden that preterist do in Rev.The charge that were are starting in Revelation is false i would add.
I'll leave it there for now as i don't want to start going down the "he said she said" route.I'm willing to admit there is enough to go around.
I just got the Cd's today and am looking forward to the following discussions.I hope people take Tami's advice and get the Cd's and listen and join in.Davo, I have always reserved the right to be wrong and change my mind.

Davo you said.."you folks need to be more circumspect as to how you berate others views accordingly" I'll take that advice under advisement :)...But if i or anyone else here has come across that we are berating anyones views it is only done in the heat of discussion and not meant to be an attack.I know everyone here is only interested in being fair and honest.
Thanks for joining us Davo
Doug: Even Sam Frost in his book Essays on the Resurrection had this to say "Page 82..If Ezekiel 40-48 were to be fulfilled physically (as, perhaps, the errorists in I Co 15 imagined"...Sam is saying that it's an error to try and fulfill prophecy's physically that are spiritual.I

Yes, and I heartily agree – what I'm saying ISN'T the same thing; please note what I said previously about this supposed combo view – "it makes broad sweeping false assumptions, and wrongly places "anybody" in the one school of thought and all the trapping said to go with it."

Doug: Davo, I have always reserved the right to be wrong and change my mind.

Yep that's fair enough – been there done that and no doubt will so continue :).

Doug: But if i or anyone else here has come across that we are berating anyones views it is only done in the heat of discussion and not meant to be an attack.

Yes Doug I can appreciate that too – there's nothing wrong with a bit of robustness.

RSS

Events

Forum

Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 26. 6 Replies

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Joseph Rehby Jul 6. 16 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by John Aug 8, 2016. 17 Replies

The 10 Tribes of Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 22, 2016. 9 Replies

Online Teaching Elders

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Dec 22, 2015. 4 Replies

Who is the abomination of desolation ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Dec 11, 2015. 3 Replies

Divine council

Started by Sharon Q in Eschatology. Last reply by Sharon Q Oct 3, 2015. 5 Replies

Marriage and Divorce Motif Between God and Israel

Started by Andrew Reish in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Jul 5, 2015. 5 Replies

Millennium

Started by Mark Baker in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 4, 2015. 48 Replies

Fulfilled prophecies of Jesus

Started by joy sung in Eschatology Mar 22, 2015. 0 Replies

The End of the Old Covenat

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Jan 21, 2015. 60 Replies

© 2017   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service