Deathisdefeated

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

Was Eve the mother of all the living, or the mother of all the living?

In general, preterists see the curse in Genesis 3 in reference to covenantal life and death.

So when that same chapter addresses Eve as "the mother of all the living," which type of life is it?

Physical? Or Covenantal?

Views: 200

Comment by Norm on July 13, 2009 at 4:29pm
Jeff,

It blew my mind to read Sam's article to a “minor yet vocal group”. He seemed to understand that the "Death" in Genesis 3 is a spiritual application and not a biological outlook from our Ardmore meeting last year. However with his biological application it now seems to escape him that Eve as the "mother of all the Living" is the spiritual parallel to the curse of the “Death”. Eve is in essence the embodiment of Israel, the Church, or the Woman in Rev 12.

Rev 12:1-9 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A WOMAN clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (2) She was pregnant and was CRYING OUT IN BIRTH PAINS and the agony of giving birth… And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. … And the dragon and his angels fought back, (8) but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. (9) And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan,

And as the wife of Adam she represents the body of believers and as the Woman who will have “pain in child birth” conceiving faithful children in the last days. This will occur while fleeing the attempts of Satan whom are the evil children of his seed as represented by antichrist Jews. Sam trying to turn the discussion back to a biological version is just a picture of how one can get off track and end up taking you to some strange destinations.

In Romans 7:1-4 we know the wife’s husband (Adam)was dead or dying and that her new husband (Christ)would fulfill that prophetic proclamation about her being the “mother of all the living”.


Eph 5:29-32 … but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

Norm
Comment by JL Vaughn on July 13, 2009 at 4:51pm
Norm,

What surprised me most about Sam's recent article, his commentary on Genesis 3 insists on covenantal death all the way through.

I went back and read it today. He clean missed Gen. 3:20 in his discussion of the text. Vs. 1-19 are covenantal and vs. 21-to the end of the chapter are covenantal.

Obviously, my error to assume that Sam would have thought vs. 20 was also covenantal.

Also obviously, my error to assume Sam had read that chapter of BCS.

Sam certainly explains why he holds to a physical, biological mother in vs. 20
I had my ideas of the top of my head taught to me from college days (some twenty years ago), and have not really paid much attention to it since then, only noting that I was satisfied with the answer then as I am now. Preterism made no difference to this answer ...
Preterism makes a difference in vs. 19 and in vs 21, but it makes no difference in vs. 20.
Blessings.
Comment by Tim Martin on July 13, 2009 at 8:57pm
Jeff,

That's actually pretty funny!

Tim
Comment by Tami on July 13, 2009 at 11:34pm
Vs. 1-19 are covenantal [verse 20 is biological] and vs. 21-to the end of the chapter are covenantal.

I'm sorry. But would it really be considered unreasonable for me to suggest this makes absolutely no sense? Actually, I already did. And excerpt from The Language of Creation:

The problem comes for those who hold to a literal, cosmological reading of Genesis creation and yet see eschatology, and thereby redemption from the curse, as fulfilled. They are forced to employ a pretty convoluted hermeneutic in the early chapters of Genesis:

Eve, “the mother of all the living,” is the mother of all the physically living, but her “pain in childbirth” is not referring to physical procreation. The “ground” is a physical ground, but the “thorns” it produces are not physical thorns. And perhaps the most convoluted construction of all: Adam is physically formed from the physical “dust of the ground,” but the “dust” he returns to is a metaphor for “spiritual death.”


I have just one question:

How is it even possible to read Genesis 3:20 physically without espousing a physical curse? Has anyone ever seen the hermeneutical basis for this explained?
Comment by Tami on July 13, 2009 at 11:47pm
Norm,

Thanks for that explanation. The connection between Ephesians 5 and Genesis 2 is undeniable. Another connection which specifically ties "the mother of all the living" with the church is Galatians 4:26:

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Here is another excerpt from The Language of Creation:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children;

This passage in Isaiah sheds some light on the covenantal nature of this curse pronounced in Genesis:

Isaiah 26:17,18 Like a woman with child, that draws near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and cries out in her pangs; so have we been in your sight, O LORD. We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.

The “sorrow” in bringing forth children was that in the old covenant they all remained in bondage under the law, awaiting deliverance. As Paul stated, “Jerusalem [in the first century was] in bondage with her children” (Galatians 4:25). That was the problem, now for the cure. In the very next verse, the prophet makes it plain that the curse of “sorrow in childbirth” is removed by resurrection:

Isaiah 26:19 Your dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, you that dwell in dust: for your dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

Furthermore, in this familiar passage describing the new heaven and the new earth, Isaiah foretells a reversal of the curses pronounced in the garden, including this specific reference to child bearing:

Isaiah 65:23 They shall not labor in vain, Nor bring forth children for trouble; For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the LORD, And their offspring with them.

Whereas those under the curse of the Old Covenant were in bondage with their children, those under the blessing of the New Covenant are free. This is illustrated by the two women, Hagar and Sarah, who represent the contrast between bondage and freedom, respectively:

Galatians 4:22-26,31 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all…So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

“Jerusalem above, which is the mother of us all” is the church. Eve is called “the mother of all the living” in Genesis 3:20, which is also a prophetic reference to the church. Again, if that statement was a reference to physical life, as inconsistent preterists suggest, both the curse and its removal in Christ would by definition have to be physical as well.
Comment by John on July 14, 2009 at 7:14am
Tami,
You asked "How is it even possible to read Genesis 3:20 physically without espousing a physical curse?
I don't think you can and thats a big problem for "full preterist" that we have been pointing out over and over.

You also asked "Has anyone ever seen the hermeneutical basis for this explained"?
Yes i believe the dispensationalist call it the "dual fulfillment".Here is how Marvin Pate in "Four Views on the Book of Revelation." puts it.
"The progressive dispensationalist sees both perspectives [preterist and futurist] as viable: There is partial fulfillment (the past) as well as final realization (the future) regarding those things in history.

This isn't the first time that i have seen tis type of confusion ..here is a quote from Sam a few months ago at the SGP ning .
Comment by sam on April 15, 2009 at 1:11pm
.With that being said, let us ponder for a moment that Isaiah 65:17 and the following verses are ultimately realized on earth. Length of age spans, disease and sickness a rarity, everyone prosperous and free from tyranny and oppression, in short, a fully and entirely Christian world - all nations living in unity under faith in Jesus Messiah. I believe that even in this realization, child procreation and the like will continue forever. Even though physical death still happens, there will be no fear of it. It will be as natural as floating down a river. Earth and its "good" creation by God is, I believe, forever a part of the Kingdom program. God will, for the most, eradicate crimes and brutality in this world. Give it time. 2,000 years of this hasn't even matched the length of the "reign of sin and death." Imagine 10,000 years of preaching the cross. 20,000. 100,000. Do you think God has room for a people "as countless as the sands on the seashore"? I do.

Now this didn't go unnoticed by everyone there.
Comment by HeidiS on April 15, 2009 at 2:50pm
Please tell me from scripture where it ever says this will be a truth on our physical earth? As I seem to recall, Is.64:20 still mentions the "sinner being accursed". Doesn't sound like they are all gone. This sounds more like a pre-millenial or univeralist view to me. I think the same mistake the Jews made when Jesus was alive by looking for a "physical kingdom" is also being made with this type of interpretation. These are spiritual truths now!

Unfortunately Sam never responded to Hedi.After a few comments from other members Hedi latter asked again
Comment by HeidiS on April 16, 2009 at 11:50am
Sam,
My question to you is to please clarify your stand on this. Do you believe that one day, on this physical earth, sin will be gone and all humans will be believers in Christ?
Heidi

Heidi never got an answer and so we are all left wondering.

So Tami to your question again "Has anyone ever seen the hermeneutical basis for this explained"? Well... no.. not explained,but yes i have seen it used.
Comment by Tami on July 14, 2009 at 8:59am
Interesting quotes, John.

Heidi wrote:

I think the same mistake the Jews made when Jesus was alive by looking for a "physical kingdom" is also being made with this type of interpretation.

She is right on the money. And we need to seriously consider the implications of this. We need to consider the implications of embracing a physical curse in the garden, which in turn demands a physical and future fulfillment of Isaiah 65. Not only can this view not be classified as "full preterism," but it is a view which denies a victorious cross. Indeed, it diminishes the cross of Jesus Christ.

Why does this matter so much? Because if the curse in the garden--any part of it--was physical, then we are stil under it, and this hasn't happened yet:

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

We can't be glad and rejoice for something, when we are looking for something else. I concluded The Language of Creation with this statement, and I have yet to see it logically or scripturally refuted by those who have claimed it unreasonable or somehow unfounded. Notice the mention of the physical kingdom sought by those Jesus rebuked, and compare it to Heidi's statement above:

Inconsistent preterists cannot have it both ways: if their Genesis “tree of life” was a literal tree destroyed by Noah’s flood, then the “life” Adam was denied in the garden was merely a physical life, pertaining to a physical body. The glaring contradiction in their view of the curse in relation to the cursed creation is exposed, and they are forced to reconcile it. To hang on to their cosmological view of Genesis creation, they must posit a (at least partial, or in the case of some, “dualistic”) physical, global, and future fulfillment of the new heaven and new earth of Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21 and 22. In the end, they must refuse a fulfilled redemption, and deny a victorious cross. They must exchange the kingdom of God, which is “not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Romans 14:17), for a kingdom sought by those Jesus rebuked in the first century, who didn’t walk with Him anymore upon hearing Him say, “I am the bread of life” (John 6:66). Harsh words? Perhaps. Unduly harsh? I don’t think so. I don’t think we can ever be too zealous in pursuing the glory of the cross, and only the cross. The ‘sensualized’ kingdom being sought by inconsistent preterists, driven by their physical, cosmological reading of the creation story—the beginning of redemption’s story—will always end with a diminished view of the cross because it denies its victory by suggesting that there are redemptive blessings which remain unfulfilled. But in truth, “all the promises of God in him are yes, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God (2 Corinthians 1:20).

The language of creation, from Genesis to Revelation, tells one story:

“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new.”


A few people got a little upset and claimed I was saying that just by believing Genesis creation is about the origins of the physical universe, one diminishes the cross. But that is not what I said. I said that what diminishes the cross is a physical and future view of redemption. However, I also laid out a strong case in that article for the relationship between a cosmological reading of Genesis creation, and both a physical curse and physical/future redemption from that same curse. Now, if someone can show me how it is possible to disassociate the nature of creation from the nature of the curse upon that same creation--ie, if anyone can show how their physical first creation does not demand a physical new creation--then bring your exegesis forward to be examined. That's all I did with mine. I am certainly open to correction.

On a side note, for anyone studying these things who might be interested in a consistently full preterist exegesis of Isaiah 65 and "the new heavens and new earth," we are doing one here.
Comment by John on July 21, 2009 at 1:46am
Tami,
It's funny how you have to constantly explained what you meant by "what diminishes the cross is a physical and future view of redemption."

Does "preterism" not mean PAST?

You asked "if someone can show me how it is possible to disassociate the nature of creation from the nature of the curse upon that same creation--ie, if anyone can show how their physical first creation does not demand a physical new creation--then bring your exegesis forward to be examined".

But yet 4 days after you made this post the same accusation is posted again making the same false accusation.No exegesis to show why your wrong...But just the same old tired false accusations and the constant whining.

Jason wrote "John Scargy wonders why we get offended for being called "partial preterists".

I guess it just depends on whos doing the name calling with my friends Jason and Mike..You Might Be A Partial Preterist if
Here is just a few by Mike B. If you are a modern day Pharisee / heretic hunter - you might be a Partial Preterist.

If you can’t answer emails from a Preterist - you might be a Partial Preterist.

If every argument you make starts with an ad hominem attack - you might be a Partial Preterist.

If you are scared to debate Don Preston - you might be a Partial Preterist.

If your only explanation to any eschatological question is “it’s the already and the not yet” - you might be a Partial Preterist.

If you try to say that 2 Peter 3 is still future even though it begins with the “last days” which in other verses you hold as past - you might be a Partial Preterist.

If you can't let the last day be the last day of the last days - you might be a Partial Preterist.

If you don’t think that soteriology and eschatology are linked - you might be a Partial Preterist.


It's called when the shoe is on the other foot.

Now these last two are precious..If you believe that the dead judged in Revelation 11 is in the past, and Revelation 20 is a different group using the exact same language - you might be a Partial Preterist.

If you say that you hold to the time texts, but then someone shows you that that means you are in the city in Revelation 21 and 22 where death is conquered / heaven and earth passed away / and God is living with you - and you have no response - you might be a Partial Preterist.


I'm sure anyone following this discussion can see why the last two are so special!!

Even Sam wrote "The Embarrassment of Partial Preterism"

Again my hope is Sam and the others will "consider the implications of embracing a physical curse in the garden, which in turn demands a physical and future fulfillment of Isaiah 65.

We're not asking them anymore then they have asked of the "OTHER" partial preterist.

Comment

You need to be a member of Deathisdefeated to add comments!

Join Deathisdefeated

Events

Forum

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Boyardee in Eschatology. Last reply by Dustin Curlee 12 hours ago. 15 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by John Aug 8, 2016. 17 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 Boyardee 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 Boyardee in Eschatology. Last reply by Boyardee Jan 21, 2015. 60 Replies

The Day of Atonement

Started by K1 in Eschatology. Last reply by K1 Apr 25, 2015. 9 Replies

© 2017   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service