Deathisdefeated

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

Shortly after I posted my latest article (in my estimation not enough time had passed for it to have even been read), a critic posted his previously stated position that Revelation 22:3 ("there shall be no more curse") could not be referring to the curse of Genesis 3 because "the curse on the ground" of Genesis 3 (which is associated in that context with sin and death) was removed immediately after Noah's flood. As I and others have thoroughly pointed out, this position is exceedingly erroneous in that it contradicts numerous Old and New Testament prophetic texts. And it cannot be overstated how it does violence to the beauty and glory of the cross of Christ, rendering it a vain show rather than the actual performance of the mercy promised to the Fathers (and thereby contradicting more Scripture), much the way that "preterist idealism" does.

The "curse on the ground" of Genesis 3 (ie, the Adamic curse of sin and death, of which the "cursed ground" is an integral part) was not removed at the time of the flood, nor at any time prior to the cross. (Please pause to consider the implicatons of denying this.) God forbid that such a shameful thing should even be suggested. In fact, contrary to another preterist who actually claims that the flood is never even called a curse in the text, the "curse of the ground" of Genesis 8:21 is the flood!

Let's look at this context (You see, not only did my critic give no consideration for the analogy of Scripture when he made his erroneous claim and "proof-texted" with this passage, he didn't even acknowledge the immediate context of the passage itself.)

Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

Look at the two things in this verse which are equated:

1. never again will I curse the ground
2. never again will I destroy every living thing as I have done [by the flood!]

The flood was the curse of the ground to which this verse refers.

Now look at some very particular wording which should sound familiar:

I will never again curse the ground, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth

Compare it to this:

Gen 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

Man's evil intentions and thoughts (ie, the imaginiation of his heart) is stated as the reason for the flood, the reason that God would destroy man from the face of the earth. And after the flood, even though this evil imagination remains (in those very ones who were saved on the ark!) God promises to never again "curse the ground," or destroy them as He has done by the flood.

The claim that Genesis 8:21 "proves" the Adamic curse was removed prior to the cross is falling apart, just with the simplest and most surface-level read. Even for those who place credibility in such a shallow argument as a single text pulled out and interpreted in a way that contradicts Scripture so pervasively as has been exposed here, this should now be clear.

As we have also discussed, there are prophetic aspects of the flood account, and what immediately follows it, including dominion prophecies of the gospel echoing the words of Genesis 1. And it is certainly possible that God's promise to never again curse the ground as He had done by the flood, in addition to referencing what physically happened with Noah, is prophetic of the ultimate removal of the "curse of the ground" pronounced at the fall by the cross of Christ. We see this suggested in Genesis 5:29 when "Noah" (a type of Jesus Christ) is said to bring comfort and rest from the toil which existed as a result of the Genesis 3 curse. There can be little doubt that this statement is prophetic of the New Covenant.

So we could discuss this text from a number of angles, and dismantle the erroneous paradigm of redemption from the Adamic curse apart from Christ's cross.

But here, because of the extremely loud clanging currently resonating from those associated with this falsehood (which has resulted in some vicious attacks on my character), I just wanted to lay out a simple and straighforward refutation, and again remind people of why these things matter so much. Hopefully some will be encouraged to think through the implications of their statements before spewing them forth so recklessly.

Views: 1357

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Tami,
Great work sister.I think we need to remember the source of the attacks and just put it in perspective.Some of theses people are reminding me of the usual suspects against preterism in not only their inability to have a honest discussion but it seems when confronted with a sound argument they resort to the personal attacks.Now who does that remind you of?

This post does an excellent job of showing how not following a "true preterist" hermeneutic leads people to such erroneous views.

Tami said "The "curse on the ground" of Genesis 3 (ie, the Adamic curse of sin and death, of which the "cursed ground" is an integral part) was not removed at the time of the flood, nor at any time prior to the cross. (Please pause to consider the implicatons of denying this.) God forbid that such a shameful thing should even be suggested. In fact, contrary to another preterist who actually claims that the flood is never even called a curse in the text, the "curse of the ground" of Genesis 8:21 is the flood"!

This is very important Tami and people need to take a long hard look at what they are espousing. You can be sure opponents of preterism are going to notice the inconsistency of these guys and be more then happy to point it out for them.
Thanks again Tami for stepping up and being willing to take the heat and abuse.I think you've done an excellent job of making your argument with some sound exegesis and i can sense the love for the Lord you have in your writings.Something i have alway admired.

Blessings
John
Tami,

The reaction to your article on the SGP web site is a disgrace. I will be candid and say that full Preterist that depend upon some of those who are presenting these articles are being led by the nose down the same path that the futurist ventures. These are some of the worst examples of exegetical material that one can find in full Preterism and I will venture to surmise that those who listen to these folks by and large are not helping themselves anymore than if they started following the likes of the dispensationalist.

I’m frankly amazed that Sam Frost continues to frequent a site that is such a theological mess when it comes to issues such as this recent episode. Sam is a strong proponent of the “spiritual” understanding of the nature of the “death” that Adam incurred in Gen 3 and speaks and writes upon this subject. If Sam continues to associates with friends who continue to perpetuate such a counter full Preterist theology concerning the nature of the curse then he is going to discredit himself and his scholarly credentials concerning anything to do with Gen 2 & 3.

If his desire is to become serious in discussing Genesis 2 & 3 and the curses implication then he needs to present something on his site that is scholarly on this matter. Otherwise it will be assumed that he fully agrees with some of this derision and is helping perpetuate it. His participation in forums like he did last year at Ardmore in which the “death” curses was the main topic will be less influenced by him in many Preterist circles besides just the CC crowd. It will be readily obvious that he is not a serious player when it comes to Genesis expositors if he continues to be part of perpetuating some of these absurd discussions about the curse.

Sam Frost, I challenge you to write an article on your SGP site in refutation of what Tami has presented in her new article if you disagree with its basic premise. Otherwise it will be assumed that you believe what Michael Bennett and Jason Bradfield are espousing and we can lump you in with their rejection of the Ezekiel 34 & 36 reversal of the Gen 3 constituent elements of Adams curse described at the coming of Christ. If you reject Ezekiel 34 & 36 language as related to the curse then you need to make a Preterist case why you do so.

Norm
Norm,

I think Rev. Frost is scheduled to speak on Ezekiel 34 & 36 at PPW in Ardmore this summer. Should be interesting!!

Tim Martin
Tim,
Interesting indeed.I sure hope no one walks out on Sam when he goes to give his lecture..That would be such a childish and immature thing to do.

John
John,

I wouldn’t think of doing such a thing. ;-) as I’ll be taking notes in preparation for the question and answer session. I have a feeling that Sam will tiptoe around the edges though as much as possible as he will know that he is in an audience that is not quite as supportive as his SGP site is.

It may indeed be interesting.

Norm
Tami,
I don't know all the issues revolving around this "curse of the ground" question, but I have a few of my own. At this point, I am ignorant, but of course don't want to stay that way ;) Can yo uanswer some of my questions, please?

1. Why did God place a curse on Adam's labors, and proclaim that he would earn his living by the sweat of his brow? Why the metaphor of weeds (if indeed it was a metaphor)?

2. When God said He would never again curse the ground, and He said this after the flood, why did He choose the event of the flood to proclaim a future when Jesus would be the release of the curse? What was it about the just ended flood that prompted this statement. IN other words, what connection does the flood have with Jesus removing the curse?

You said the flood was the curse of the ground. Why then was this curse pronounced at Adam's fall from grace when he left the garden? What connection do the two have?

These are just my thoughts. Maybe I don't understand the nuances of the argument well enough to understand what you are trying to counter from the SGP side. Either way, I would like to hear what you have to say. Thanks.
Doug wrote:

"You said the flood was the curse of the ground. Why then was this curse pronounced at Adam's fall from grace when he left the garden? What connection do the two have?"

I think I answered this distinction and nuance in the original post in this discussion. (The Genesis 3 curse on the ground was in no way, shape or form removed prior to the cross, and I really cannot state this strongly enough.) As I mentioned already, the promise to "never again curse the ground" is clearly in that context referring to the flood, and it may very well be also prophetic of the new covenant, as confirmed by other language around it which reiterates the gospel dominion prophecies from the creation story.

As to the nature of the curse on the ground at Adam's fall (which is an integral part of the curse of sin and death and cannot be separated from it--I believe I also stated this in the original post), I deal with this to a significant degree in the article, The Language of Creation from Genesis to Revelation, which is also being discussed on this site.

John also brought up a commentary by Gil on Genesis 8:21 in the thread here which follows that article, and several of Norm's posts here include some parallel passages which shed a lot of light on the nature of the curse on the ground of Genesis 3.

Furthermore, we have discussed this extensively in our podcasts, The Heavenly Visions of the Prophets , especially in our current study of Isaiah 65, which predicts the removal of the ground curse of Genesis 3 in Christ (further confirmation that any suggestion that it was removed prior to that is not only erroneous, but gospel-denying).

Doug also wrote:

1. Why did God place a curse on Adam's labors, and proclaim that he would earn his living by the sweat of his brow? Why the metaphor of weeds (if indeed it was a metaphor)?

This has been discussed here and in all the places mentioned above as well."Laboring" of course is not a reference to farming, but to toiling in vain under the law, which could never produce the fruit of righteousness. This was the plight of all of God's covenant people prior to being redeemed from the curse of the law.

Doug, you ask if the weeds are indeed a metaphor. Actually, in the text, the words are "thorns and thistles." Let me ask you this in response, what did Isaiah mean when he said that in the new covenant kingdom, "instead of the thorn, shall come up the fir tree?"

Again, this should answer most of what you are asking:

http://www.newcreationministries.tv/Articles/languageofcreation.htm

Let me know if you have any questions about the article, if you decide to read it.
I came across a few things in reading Jordan's"Through New Eyes" that i thought were interesting.Actually the whole book is.

"In fact, the primary feature of clean animals is their feet, in
one sense or another. To understand this, we must bear in mind
that the ground was cursed under the Old Covenant (Genesis
3:17). Men normally wore shoes, and it was ceremonially important
to wash the cursed soil off one’s feet
before entering a house
(Genesis 18:4; 19:2; 43:24; Judges 19:21; Luke 7:44; John
13: 3-15). Holy ground, where the curse was removed, required
men to go barefoot
(Exodus 3:5; Joshua 5:15)".


"Bear in mind that animals are symbols of men. We find that
clean land animals wear “shoes,” while unclean land animals do
not....Clean land animals also chew the cud, traditionally regarded
as an image of meditating on God’s Word (e. g., Psalm 1:2; 119:103; Jeremiah 15:16)...

All unclean animals resemble the Serpent in the Garden.
They are boundary transgressors who break into the domestic
garden and bring death.

In the New Covenant, of course, this distinction is removed
(Mark 7:19; Acts 10-11). Christ has cleansed the world, once and
for all.
15 We can go barefoot in the dirt, and wear shoes to
church.


I'm sure you can see where this is going in the debate about the ground curse being removed after Noah's flood. James Jordan seems to agree with the Covenant Creation view that the ground curse was not lifted immediately after Noah's flood.
John,

Yes, that is a good point.

Yet Jordan's thinking is still very problematic in that he has a physical view of the curse. Of course, that is why he is a YEC, and it that also explains why he maintains a future consummation of the physical universe that coincides with his supposed **final** coming of Jesus.

I think that this could be reconciled if we were to view the law as a shadow. What I mean by that is that the law uses physical things to highlight spiritual things. In that sense the original curse was spiritual, yet the law, being the shadow, made that "incarnate" in physical things.

Does that make sense or do you see problems with that?

I see very clearly that if Jordan were to ever give up his YEC beliefs, then he would necessarily abandon the foundation of his remaining futurism. I have reason to believe that he already understands that very clearly.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

P.S. I think the Covenant Creation Conference recordings will help to bring some clarity to a lot of these issues. The reason I am not interested in jumping into all of these arguments is that many, if not most, of the critics' complaints were dealt with effectively in one way or another during that one-day Covenant Creation Conference. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to waste any more time repeating things for those who willfully ignore what is said. Besides, after the CDs from the Covenant Creation Conference go out, a lot of this kind of reaction will be recognized for the theological smokescreen that it truly is. That is the beautiful thing about putting out the energy and time to actually do a conference on the subject. The resulting material is carefully considered, tested, and then available widely to those interested in actually studying the issue in depth.
John,


I agree with Tim about Jordan concerning his physical curse outlook. He gets so much right that it’s amazing that he still is not full Preterist.


Let me point you to a very interesting article of Jordan’s that has quite a bit of implication for our current discussion concerning the Noahic Covenant and the flood. Jordan presents an argument that the Noahic Covenant was primarily for the Covenant people (he calls them the church which basically means that he believes the church is all of God’s Covenant believers from Adam onward which technically I agree with). Now Jordan mixes the physical curses in to the mix which is reflecting Tim’s point but this article if you wade through it will see some very interesting prophetic understandings and application derived from the Flood story. I think Jordan is making some very valid points at times but his mixing in the physical curse idea throws him off to a degree. Putting that aside though I wish he had made a better case for some of his points that he presents.


Here is an excerpt.

“We shall see that the Noahic Covenant was not addressed to man as man, but to covenant-man, to the Church. The benefits and duties of the Noahic Covenant are not addressed to all mankind, but only to believers.”

End quote.

Here is the link to the article.

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-19-who-rules-t...


A lot of Jordan’s assumptions seem to parallel mine concerning the usage of aw-dawm (adam/man) in scripture to denote Covenant man or as he is saying the church or the body of believers. I have drawn many of my understandings separate from Jordan and to me there is some validation when I find articles like this that are pointing to similar observations. But not all, because where he sees physical ramifications I see spiritual and I also see much of the flood language prophetic of the last days. That is why I believe he is misreading the idea about shedding the “blood of man”. In the New Covenant believers are not to shed blood but they were to let Christ/God bring vengeance upon those who shed innocent blood of Covenant man. He is right to an extent that it is not about unbelievers but he gets off because of his physical reading.

Here is another excerpt.

“The covenant and its provisions are actually addressed only to believers. God says here that if the courts do not act to avenge His saints, He will do so Himself: "I will require . . . I will require . . . I will require"!

Verse 5 says "from the hand of every beast I will require it." Now that the animals are repositioned into union with the Church, they are accountable in a new way if they attack covenant-man. Throughout the Bible, unbelievers are symbolized by beasts, and possibly they are also in view here. It may be that the "man" here is covenant man, while unbelievers are included among "beasts."

End quote.


One thing Jordan gets wrong completely is that God did not allow Cain to remain in the covenant. He was driven away from God’s face and out of God’s presence east of Eden. This is of course prophetic news for the seeds of the devil that Cain represents. If we remember from the beatitudes that Christ told the crowd that they were not to extract vengeance. That would be left to Christ/God. All this ties back to the background of early Genesis especially the bit about Peter is now free to eat of the animals in the vision representing the Gentiles. This point ties in with Jordan’s observation but he doesn’t bring it out.


The biggest mistake Jordan makes is when he recognizes the dominion that Christians are to have over the world he sees it as a physical dominion and thus he really takes off on that rabbit trail not realizing the spiritual nature of the dominion. Just another example where reading literally gets your worldview all in a messed up.



Another item of interest is that Jordan makes what I think are semi valid observations concerning the Likeness and Image of Man. He is positing that Adam did not acquire the Image of God immediately but that it was a maturing process. Well that is one way of putting Gen 1:26 that I can possibly agree with because when God said let us make “aw-dawm” in our Image and likeness. We know that it started out with Covenant man Adam only having the attributes of God’s likeness (Gen 5:1) but in the fully maturing of the Covenant that Covenant man eventually matured when Christ completed the Process by providing God’s full Spiritual Image upon the Covenant man thus creating the “very good” results of Day 6 and opening the door to the 7th Day Sabbath Rest at the Parousia.


Another excerpt

“We have seen, and we shall see again, that it is the Church that is being addressed in Genesis 9, not humanity in general. The fact that the Church is in view means that the Church is going to fulfill God’s original intention regarding the "image." All men are images of God, but the Church is the undistorted and true image.”

End quote.


Jordan is on the right track above but “all men are not images of God” otherwise there would have been no need for the Spiritual to come through Christ. Jordan doesn’t quite remember 1 Cor 15:40-49 and what came first. The natural and then the Spiritual.
So I strongly disagree with his conclusion that mankind in general had God’s image because Gen 1:26 is speaking of Covenant Man (aw-dawm) and not mankind at large.


Finally we know that Jordan is correct about the covenant believers receiving dominion over the world at the consummation because of (Dan 7:27). But he runs with it physically just like he does in Gen 1 and Rev 22. This is where full Preterism can shine and straighten out his mess.


This article is nearly 20 years old and Jordan may not back everything he wrote in it now although it is quite interesting but also quite a mess due to his literalness.


Norm
Norm,
Thanks for the link and your notes here.I'm working today and tomorrow and will make time to read them and get back to you.Thanks again for all your posts,they really have been beneficial.
Tim,
"Law as the shadow"..Interesting concept and I'm guessing this is something you speak of in the conference tapes? If so I'm looking forward to hearing about it.

I'm not too upset with Jordan..I guess i have seen so many great scholars like him and Gary and Dr Sproul stop just short of taking that last step that i have just accepted thats the way it is.I don't even try and figure out why anymore..I'm sure they have their reasons just like the folks that are still stuck with the physical curse.

Anyhow thanks for the preview I'm starting t think that maybe there is a Beyond Creation Science 2 in the works!!

RSS

Events

Forum

Resurrection of the wicked

Started by Ron McAnally in Eschatology. Last reply by william f. Aug 13. 8 Replies

TFCmagazine

Started by Allyn Morton in Eschatology. Last reply by Allyn Morton Sep 7. 6 Replies

Is fasting ever commanded?

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology Jun 28. 0 Replies

Has anyone noticed Max King's latest book ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by william f. Jul 3. 1 Reply

Choosing Life or Death

Started by Delom Dongo in Eschatology. Last reply by Jesus_Is_Risen Apr 23. 1 Reply

490 Year Countdown

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Eohn Rhodes 1 hour ago. 53 Replies

Satan is eternally dead?

Started by Joy Ackerman in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Mar 4. 40 Replies

Resurrection and 2000 years of Christian History

Started by Jesus_Is_Risen in Eschatology. Last reply by Jesus_Is_Risen Jan 2. 20 Replies

Resurrection and Paul's trial (Acts 23:6)

Started by Jesus_Is_Risen in Eschatology. Last reply by Jesus_Is_Risen Feb 25. 7 Replies

Resurrection

Started by Jesus_Is_Risen in Eschatology. Last reply by Jesus_Is_Risen Jul 18. 518 Replies

Renewal of Covenant

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Eohn Rhodes May 19, 2013. 5 Replies

© 2014   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service