1 INTRODUCTION The Nature and Destiny of Man written by Reinhold Niebuhr is a fascinating book.

On the one hand, this book succeeds in convincing modernists that the doctrine of sin is not myth but truth. On the other hand, this book challenges some parts of the traditional view of the doctrine of sin. For instance, he states, It can hardly be denied that the Pauline authority supporting the idea that physical death is a consequence of sin, introduced a note into Christian theology which is not fully in accord with the total Biblical view of the finiteness of man.1 He says that biblically speaking, the universality of the physical death of humankind is not the consequence of Adams fall but this fact merely shows the finitude of humankind. Further, according to Niebuhr, Paul misinterpreted the Book of Genesis and regarded physical death as the consequence of Adams fall. Is this true? 60 years after the publication of The Nature and Destiny of Man, systematic theologians still say that . . . physical death was not an original part of the human condition2 Which view should we hold? The controlling question that I thoroughly ask in this paper is Was Adam immortal before the fall? The thesis of this paper is as follows. I will prove that in the Book of Genesis, the authors intention is to describe that Adam was mortal even before the fall, but that Paul the apostle might regard Adam as immortal before the fall, and I will argue that in the systematic theology of Protestantism, it should be regarded that Adam was mortal before the fall. The table of contents is as follows. In the first chapter, I will examine the theology of the Book of Genesis concerning this issue. In the second chapter, I will examine Pauline theology concerning this issue. In the third chapter, I will synthesize the data concerning this issue in terms of the systematic theology of Protestantism.
Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man: vol. 1 Human Nature (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1964) 176. 2 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Bakerbooks, 1998) 1176.
1

I. THE THEOLOGY OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF ADAMS MORTALITY In order to construct the theology of the Old Testament (OT) concerning the origin of Adams mortality, we need to focus on the Book of Genesis, since Adam rarely appears in the books of the OT except for the Book of Genesis. There are three main passages that give us hints about the condition of Adam before the fall. A. The Book of Genesis 2:17 In the Book of Genesis, before his fall, God told Adam and says, You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die. (NRSV Gen 2:16-7) Our judgment about the condition of Adam before the fall would be depend on how we translate the verb to die tWm. 1. To Be Mortal or To Die: A Slight difference in the Meaning But a Great Difference in the Consequence With the phrase tWm)T'

tWm)T' tAm that is the duplication of

tAm, does God say to Adam that he will be mortal or will die?

If this

phrase means to be mortal, the fact that he will be mortal implies that Adam was immortal before the fall. If this phrase means to die, the fact that he can die implies that Adam was mortal even before the fall. 2. What Is the Meaning of tWm)T'

tAm?

3 The parsing of tAm is qal stem3 and infinitive absolute, and that of tWm)T' is qal stem, imperfect, 2nd person, masculine, and singular. The literal translation of tWm)T' you were dying to die.4 In the OT, we have plenty of usage of tWm)T'

tAm would be

tAm (Gen 20:7, 1 Sa

14:44, 22:16, 1Ki 2:37. 2:42, 2Ki 1:4, 1:6; 16, Jer 26:8, Eze 3:18, 33:8, 33:14), but there is not one single example of meaning to be immortal.5 With the duplication of the verb to die tWm)T'

tAm, God emphasizes the certainty of

immediate death of Adam. . . . in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." (NAS Gen 2:17) In other words, this phrase says nothing about immortality of Adam. 6 B. The Book of Genesis 3:19 After the fall of Adam, God told Adam, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return. (NRSV Gen 3:17-9)

Qal stem indicates that this verb is used with the basic meaning to die. Historically, this enigmatic expression stimulated the imagination of people. For instance, in his book Either Or, Kierkegaard uses this phrase and says, I die the death. Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or vol. 1 tras by David F. Swenson and Lillian Marvin Swenson revised by Howard A. Johnson (Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1971), 36. With the phrase to die the death, he probably expresses his life with terribly tedious tedium. However, this attractive interpretation is not faithful to authors intention, and the exegete needs to figure out the meaning of authors intention. 5 Gerhard von Rad says that God did not say that Adam will be mortal but will die. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commenatry (Philadeliphia, The Westminster Press, 1972) 95. Also, Victor P. Hamilton says, Indeed, in no OT passage does the phrase [tWm)T' tAm] mean to become mortal. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990) 173. The [meaning] you will become mortal . . . [is] quite impossible. Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary trans by John J. Scullion S.J. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984) 225. One Jewish scholar (probably, more or less, other Jewish scholars also) thinks that Adam was immortal before the fall, though they agree with that the meaning tWm)T' tAm of is to die, because Gen 2:7 tells us that Adam could eat the fruit of the life of tree. Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadeliphia, New York, Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 21. This typical Jewish interpretation teaches us the Jewish traditional understanding of the condition of Adam before the fall. Also see footnote 13. 6 Victor P. Hamilton, 172.
4

4 Traditionally, this passage was regarded as the evidence that the consequence of Adams fall is the physical death of Adam and of his all his descendants. From the context, this passage is certainly the sentence of Gods curse due to the fall of Adam. Yet, there are two reasons why I cannot agree with this traditional view. 1. Does God Curse Adam So That He Will Eventually Physically Die? The first reason that I cannot agree with a traditional view is that this passage itself does not say that physical death is the consequence of Adams fall. In his commentary, Gerhard von Rad comments on this passage and says as follows. Is death here a punishment (the wage of sin)? . . . The courses do not speak of death as a primary issue, but rather of life, and they affirm that hardship and wretchedness will continue until man in death returns again to the earth. One cannot say that man lost a germ of immortality any more than one can say that a material modification occurred in him, as a consequence of which he must now fall prey to death.7 May we take this comment as an appropriate one for our discussion? The issue is the method of von Rad. I am not convinced by the hypothesis of von Rad that Gen 3:17-9 consists of two independent resources. Von Rad says that at the point of pre-texts (two independent resources) the prospectus of death as mans return to the earth but in the present form of the passage this thought has become a threatening expression. 8 However, in my judgment, the present form is not necessarily a threatening expression either. In the present form of the passage, because of Adams fall, the ground is cursed rather than Adam himself. As the result of the curse of the ground, Adam has to suffer, but, interestingly, the direct curse against Adam is not sentenced while the serpent and his wife were cursed (Gen 3:14-6). Death is a release from the burden of earthly life so the death of Adam in the present form is not necessarily negative.

7 8

Gerhard von Rad, 95. Gerhard von Rad, 95.

5 2. What the Name ~d'a' (Adam) Implies The second reason that I cannot agree with the traditional view is because of the meaning of Adam in Hebrew. . . . then the LORD God formed man (~d'a'h ha adam the man) from the dust of the ground (hm'd'a]h ha adamah the ground). . (NRSV Gen 2:7 Personal emphasis and insertion added)9 This is the very moment of Gods creation and namely, this is before the fall of Adam. First, at the point of Gods creation, God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. (NRSV Gen 1:31) Especially, Adam/man was a supreme being, because . . . God created humankind (~d'a'h' ha adam) in his image. . . .10 (NRSV Gen 1:27 Personal insertion added) Second, the name of Adam itself shows his origin by a play on words with the ground (ha adamah) and man (ha adam). It is natural for God to say to Adam, . . . you return to the ground (ha adamah), for out of it you were taken. . . (NRSV Gen 3:19 Personal insertion added. Also see 3:23). Third, the facts above imply that the fact, that Adam consists of the ground and will return to the ground, is a part of Gods very good creation rather than Gods curse. Therefore, what Gen 3:19 tells us is that Adam would physically die not because of the consequence of sin, but because of his nature as a creature.

In Hebrew Adam means both man and Adam. Depending on the presence or absence of definite article, the translators of the Bible translate into either man or Adam. 10 It is said that the repetition of the same word/concept is the emphasis of the authors intention. In Gen 1:26-7, the word Gods image/likeness is repeated four times! We can be sure that how much the author of the Book of Genesis emphasizes the supreme being of humankind/Adam.

6 C. The Book of Genesis 3:22 1. Does God Imply That Adam Could Live Forever? God told Himself the reason to expel Adam from the Garden of Eden and says, 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 forever therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. (NRSV Gen 3:21-2) It seems that God expels Adam out of the Garden of Eden in order not to let him live forever. Does this passage not say that Adam could live forever, if he did not sin? 2. The Distinction between God and Humankind Rather Than the Possibility for Humankind to Live Forever First, we need to remember that there are ambiguities in the Scripture. Our questions and/or the aporia as the logical consequence, which an immediate context requires, might not be answered/solved in the passage. What the logical consequence of the passage makes us imagine is not always what biblical authors imply. 11 Second, we need to distinguish the original intention of the author from the traditional interpretation of the passage. Now, does this passage really tell us that Adam could live forever? In my judgment, it is not right to say that Adam could live forever based on this passage. One of distinctive features of the Book of Genesis in comparison with the literatures of Ancient Near East is Gods transcendence.12 If in other literature, it might be possible that the distinction

For instance, one may be able to argue that it is possible for person to be justified by the law by the following word. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. (NRSV Rom 2:13 Personal emphasis added) Now, does Paul affirm that one can be justified by the law? Definitely not. The context of Rom 1:18-3:20 is clear and is intensive claim of the universal phenomenon of humankinds guilty. The logical consequence of this sentence may say, One can be justified by the law, but it is not what Paul means. 12 In comparison with other Ancient Near Eastern literatures, the monotheistic characteristic [of the Book of Genesis] is intensive and even argumentative. R. Norman Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch (Tokyo: Kyobunkwan, 1998) 73.

11

7 between gods and creatures would be ambiguous. In fact, in one of the Ancient Near Eastern literatures, the Gilgamesh epic, Utnapishtim and his wife obtain eternal life.13 In comparison with other Ancient Near Eastern literatures, one of the distinctive and clear features of the theology of the Book of Genesis is a sharp distinction between God and humankind. With this passage, the author makes clear the distinction between God and humankind rather than the possibility for humankind to live immortally or mortally. One should not read the possibility that Adam could live forever but should read the fact that humankind never can live forever like God.14 D. Conclusion According to the theology of the Book of Genesis, Adam was mortal even before the fall.15
13

Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and old Testament Parallels: A Translation and interpretation of the Gilgamesh Epic and related Babylonian and Assyrian Documents (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963) 8. 14 One passage bothers my conclusion. through the middle of the street of the city. On either side of the river is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, producing its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. (NRSV Rev 22:2 Personal emphasis added) This passage seems to support the traditional view Adam could live forever, because in the Book of Revelation God allows Christians in Heaven to eat the fruit of tree of life and they will live forever (Rev 22:5). First, Paul and his contemporary Jewish theologians seemed to consider that Adam was immortal before the fall (See footnote 13 and chapter II). It is expected that the author of the Book of Revelation was on the track of these people. Second, therefore to these people, the recovery of the broken relationship between God and humankind would be naturally the recovery of the eternal life that Adam ought to obtain. Third, we need to remember that the view of death is different between the OT and NT. In the OT, the issue of death and life after death is not much paid attention to. There is not longing for happy life in Heaven and no fear about anguish Hell in the OT. However, in the NT, the interest in death and life after death is quite strong. Consequently, I would argue that though the author of the Book of Revelation mentions the tree of life, his/her interest and understanding of this tree is different from that of the author if the Book of Genesis. 15 In this chapter, we limited our discussion within the Book of Genesis. How about other books of the OT? In the OT theology, death is not also considered as the penalty of sin but considered as something natural. See John Drane, 376, and Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 99-118. We also have extracanonical literature that links sin and death. . . . for God created us for incorruption, and made us in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it. (NRSV Wisdom 2:23-4. Also see 1:13-4) And you [God] laid upon him [Adam] one commandment of yours; but he transgressed it, and immediately you appointed death for him and for his descendants. (NRSV 4 Esdras 3:7 Also see 4:10) It seems there was already the interpretation that death entered into the world due to Adams fall. First, these passages are helpful for us to know the history of Jewish interpretation about the narrative of the fall. We can assume that Paul was on the track of this tradition. Second, however, I will not do exegesis of these passages, because they are not canon in terms of Protestantism. Another reason why I do not study these passages is that the hermeneutics of Evangelical Protestantism is to go back to the historical/grammatical meaning of final editor of present form of the text in the Scripture. The interpretations of the

8 II. PAULINE THEOLOGY CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF ADAMS MORTALITY If Adam was mortal before the fall in the OT, where do we get the doctrine that Adam was immortal before the fall? It is probably from Pauline theology. In Pauline theology, we find the intimate link between sin and death.16 Death was something natural in the OT and was dealt with neutrally, but in Pauline theology, death is a fatal enemy. 17 A. The Letter to Romans 5:12 Along with 1 Cor 15:21, Rom 5:12 is a cornerstone to establish the doctrine that physical death came because of Adams fall. Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned. (NRSV Rom 5:12) 1. Sin and Death in Pauls Adam-Christology In his book The Epistle of Romans, Douglas J. Moo explains Rom 5:12 and says, Paul claim that sin came into the world through one man would have been nothing new to anyone who knew his or her OT or Jewish tradition. Nor would his second assertion in this verse: and through sin death [came into the world]. For the unbreakable connection between sin and death, made clear in Gen. 2-3, was a staple of Jewish theology. 18 First, we cannot agree with Moos presupposition that the Book of Genesis makes clear the link between Adams fall and physical death as the destiny of humankind. Second, it is right to say that Jewish tradition/theology premised that physical death entered into the world because of Adams fall.19 Third, Moo describes well Pauls assumption that orthodox Christians, more or

consequence of the fall of Adam are helpful but technically it has nothing to do with the meaning of the intention of the final editor of the Book of Genesis. Therefore, we cannot utilize these passages as the foundation of our doctrine. 16 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998) 125. 17 For instance, Paul says, The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (NRSV 1 Cor. 15:26) 18 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle of Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996) 319-20. 19 See footnote 13.

9 less, share as well. It is clear to me that from Paul we inherited the traditional Christian view about the link between Adams fall and the universality of death among humans. 2. What Sort of Death Does Paul Have in Mind? Is he talking about physical, spiritual, or eternal death? The categorization of these deaths is of systematic theology but not of Paul. While Greek philosophers distinguish soul from body, Paul seems to maintain the holistic view of death.20 Probably, he utilizes physical death as the evidence of the universality of sin, but he does not distinguish this death from that death.21 Again, it is clear that Paul premised physical death as the consequence of Adams fall. 3. Homiletical Symmetry Paul Ricouer critiques the logic of Paul in Rom 5 and says, . . . it is an artificial construction; Paul is really interested in Christ, not in Adam; he contrives a homiletical symmetry, but Adams part constitutes only a flying buttress, only a false column.22 Though his statement sounds harsh to Evangelical Christians, it seems to me that he points out a couple of significant truths. First, it is true that In every way the addition [of Adam] is belated and, in certain respects, non-essential . . . The prophets ignore him . . . Jesus himself never refers to the Adamic story.23 Paul probably is not interested in Adam much and his aim is to emphasize Christs grace rather than Adams transgression. 24 Second, it is fair to admit that in Pauls Adam-Christology, the role of Adam is heavy loaded. In other words, in order to
In Platos Phaedo, Socrates states, . . . our souls must also have existed without bodies before they were in the form of man, and must have had intelligence. Plato, Phaedo in The Dialogues of Plato vol. one trans by B. Jowett, M.A. (New York: Random House, 1937) 461. Historically, since the age of early church Fathers, Phaedo heavily influenced Christian understanding about the relationship body and soul. See Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead written by Oscar Cullmann in Immortality and Resurrection: Death in the Western World: Two Conflicting Currents of Thought edit by Krister Stendahl (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1965), 9-53. 21 . . . Paul may focus on physical death as the evidence, the outward manifestation of this total death; or, better, he may simply have in mind this death in both its physical and spiritual aspects. Douglas J. Moo, 320. 22 Henri Blocher, Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle (Leicestor: Apollos, 1997) 32. 23 Henri Blocher, 32. 24 We use the word Adam-Christology but some theologians doubt whether or not Paul developed such theology in his thought, because we do not have enough data about Adam-Christology in his letters (Rom 5:12-21, I Cor 15:21-22;45).
20

10 emphasize the grace of Christ, he might go a bit far about the description of what Adam has done. In this passage, Paul sets the framework and it is Adam as the type of Christ (Rom 5:14). In order to describe Christs grace, he mentioned Adams trespass (Rom 5:15). In order to describe Christs justification, he mentioned Adams condemnation (Rom 5:16). In order to describe Christs grace that gives eternal life, he mentioned Adams sin that caused death (Rom 5:21). As for the last one, it is fair to say that it went a bit far in comparing with what the Book of Genesis says. B. The Background of Pauline Theology The Decline of the State of Adam Then why does Paul go a bit far with the description of what Adam has done? Is there any reasonable explanation? According to Seyoon Kim, in Jewish theology, there was an age that Adam was considered a great man as well as Moses. 25 Yet, later on, . . . the greater the significance they saw in the Sinai revelation or in the messianic age, the more negatively the Jewish theologians judged Adams fall. Likewise, the greater the significance Paul saw in Jesus Christ, the more negatively he judged Adams fall.26 What does this historical background tell us? First, Paul negatively judged Adam, because it was the tidal current of his age. Second, Paul negatively judged Adam, like the contrast between Adam and Moses by Jewish scholars; the contrast between Adam and Jesus pushed Paul to do so. This historical background makes sense that Paul went a bit far in the description of what Adam has done. . . . it is probable that St. Paul followed the rabbinic teaching of his day in the belief that death was the consequence of Adams sin. . . . 27

Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Pauls Gospel (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981), 262. 26 Seyoon Kim, 262. 27 Reinhold Niebuhr, 174.

25

11 C. Ambiguity Remains However, ambiguity about Adams condition before the fall in Pauline theology remains. Interestingly, one of Pauline letters, 1 Tim 3:16 seems to imply that Adam was mortal before the fall. It is [God] alone who has immortality. . . . (NRSV 1 Tim 3:16) Adam is mortal, because he is not God but a human. We have contradictory agendas of Pauline literature concerning the reason for the universality of the physical death of humankind. I wonder if we could ask Paul whether or not physical death is because of our finitude or Adams fall, how would he answer? D. Conclusion The traditional Christian view that Adam was immortal before the fall was derived from Pauline theology (Rom 5:12, 1 Cor 15:21), but ambiguity remains (1 Tim 3:16) and we cannot be sure whether or not Paul considered that Adam was immortal before the fall.

III. SYNTHESIS How should we synthesize these data? First, we should not discard the doctrine of sin. Historically, the discussion of Adams mortality before the fall was destined not to be openly discussed, since Pelagius supported this view. It was regarded that those who support Adams mortality before the fall also support humans sinlessness. 28 Yet, we need to distinguish between the universality of sin and Adams condition before the fall. The universality of sin is a genuinely biblical doctrine and cannot be discarded. Second, we need to do justice to each text in the Scripture as the one who believes that All scripture is inspired by God. (2 Tim 3:16) Third, we have to admit that Christian doctrine was governed by the theology of Paul. We do

It is said that Pelagius advocated that, Adam was made mortal, and would have died, whether he sinned or did not sin; that the sin of Adam injured himself alone, not the human race. . . . Preface to the American Edition in Saint Augustines Anti-Pelagian Works trans by Peter Holmes, D.D., F.R.A.S., and Rev. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ph.D., revised by Benjamin B. Warfield, D.D., (Albany: Ages Software, 1997) 20.

28

12 need the framework in order to construct systematic theology and the framework of Pauline theology is the most useful framework for that construction. Yet, our exegesis of each text should not be influenced by the presuppositions of Paul.29 Fourth, in the systematic theology of Protestantism, it should be regarded that Adam was mortal before the fall. In the theology of the Book of Genesis, it is clear that Adam was mortal before the fall. In Pauline theology we cannot be sure whether or not Paul saw Adam as immortal before the fall. Therefore, it seems to be proper to regard Adam as mortal before the fall. Fifth, we should regard physical death not as the penalty of Adams fall but as the finitude of humankind. Surely everyone stands as a mere breath. (NRSV Psalm 39:5)

CONCLUSION The controlling question of this paper is Was Adam immortal before the fall? and the answer to this question is He was mortal even before the fall. According to our research, in the Book of Genesis, the authors intention is to describe that Adam was mortal even before the fall, but that Paul the apostle might regard Adam as immortal before the fall, and I argued that in the systematic theology of Protestantism, it should be regarded that Adam was mortal before the fall. In this paper, I pursued to reestablish the doctrine of the relationship between physical death and sin. My method is to do justice to each text. Is this method an obstacle for systematic theology to be shaped in the coherent fashion? In a sense, I challenged some parts of the traditional view of the doctrine of the relationship between physical death and sin. In other sense, my efforts provide the coherent view about God. The traditional view saw Gen 2-3 as merely the eulogy of the universality of humans sinfulness. Gen 2-3 is surely the eulogy of the universality
Paul says twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. (NRSV 1 Cor 10:8) but in Num 25:9 Nevertheless those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand. (NRSV Num 25:9) Due to the authority of Paul, should we say that twenty-three thousand died instead of twenty-four thousand? Paul cannot change what OT authors say.
29

13 of humans sinfulness, but the exegesis of Gen 2-3, which is free from the presuppositions of Paul, opens our eyes to find Gods love. For instance, contrary to Gods warning You will surely die in Gen 2:7, Adam did not die on the spot. Notice that God used the duplication of the word to die and made clear the certainty of Adams death. However, God preserved his life and even when expelling Adam from the Garden of Eden, He made garments of skins for the man and for his wife, and clothed them (NRSV Gen 3:21). Is this God not the same God who is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression (NRSV Num 14:18)? Is this God not the same God who is the Father of prodigal son (Lk 15:11-32)? I would suggest that we should see Gods love rather than His curse in Gen 2-3. It might be premised even among Christians that though God is love in the NT, He is not really so in the OT. Especially, in the story of the Adams fall in the Book of Genesis, the traditional view hardly sees Gods love. What does the exegesis of each text bring us? It is to contribute systematic theology by providing the coherent view of God, and from the beginning of the Scripture, God is love.

14 APPENDIX In this appendix, I will briefly introduce how two systematic theologians deal with the issue of sin and death and will evaluate the view of each person. A. The Case of Millard J. Erickson 1. Why Did Sinless Jesus Die, If Adam Was Immortal Before the Fall? In his book Christian Theology, Millard J. Erickson asks himself as follows. If Adam were immortal before the fall, Jesus would not die, because Jesus did not sin and did not inherit Adams corrupted nature. But He surely died. How is it possible to think that Adam was immortal before the fall? This is an enigma.30 By being led by this question, he develops his discussion. 2. Physical Death Is Linked to the Fall31 Erickson states, . . . we must observe that physical death is linked to the fall in some clear way. Genesis 3:19 would seem to be not a statement of what is the case and has been the case from creation, but a pronouncement of a new situation.32 According to Erickson, not only Pauline theology but also the theology of the Book of Genesis says that Adam became mortal due to his fall. 3. Conditional Immortality as the State of Adam before the Fall33 In order to solve the tension between Jesus death and Adams state before the fall, he says, I would suggest the concept of conditional immortality as the state of Adam before the fall. He was not inherently able to live forever, but he need not have died. 34 In other words, Adam had a possibility that he could live forever by eating the fruits of the tree of life, but due to his fall, he
30 31

Millard J. Erickson, 629. Millard J. Erickson, 629. 32 Millard J. Erickson, 629. 33 Millard J. Erickson, 630. 34 Millard J. Erickson, 630.

15 extinguished that possibility by himself. He was expelled from the Garden of Eden and was destined to be going to die without eating the fruits of the tree of life. Previously [Adam] could die; now [he] would die.35 As a result, as far as Jesus could not eat the fruit of tree of life, though He did not inherit the mortality and corruption of humankind, He had to die. 4. Evaluation The strengths of Ericksons synthesis are that he, first, stands on the side of traditional Christian orthodox view concerning the state of Adam before the fall. One can read his book with a peaceful heart. Second, he does not escape from and tackles the difficult questions. For instance, he wrestles with the question Why did sinless Jesus die, if Adam was immortal before the fall? Third, he is an arbitrator and makes an effort to reconcile the tension rather than to sharply make conflict between two data that are at variance. However, the weaknesses of his syntheses must be observed. First, he needs to pay attention to biblical theology. He speaks as if the Book of Genesis and Pauline theology are identical. But according to our study (chapter I and II), both are certainly different theologies. It may be harsh to say, but he needs to remember that The systematic theologian draws on the product of the biblical theologians work36. Second, he seems to see the Book of Genesis with Pauls eyes. It might be unavoidable to some degree for systematic theologians to see the Scripture with the eyes of Paul, because Pauline theology provides the framework of Christian doctrine. However, if one believes the canonicity of 66 books of the Scripture, as much as he/she can, he/she needs to do justice to each text. I am doubtful about that he did justice to the Book of Genesis. Third, though we need to bring theologies into consensus as much as we can, one needs to recognize the complexity of this job. In his book Theology of the Old Testament, Walter

35 36

Millard J. Erickson, 630. Millard J. Erickson, 26.

16 Brueggeman states, I concluded that it is impossible to fashion a coherent statement concerning theological substance or themes in the Old Testament unless the themes or substance be framed so broadly and inclusively as to be useless. 37 Of course, a systematic theologian should make an effort to fashion coherent theology. Yet, one needs to recognize and to bear the difficulty of the tasks. Even the OT theologian says that to fashion coherent theology is impossible. How much more difficult for a systematic theologian who has to deal with the OT, NT, philosophy, science, contemporary issues, and so on! Erickson works as an arbitrator, but my personal request to him is to continually recognize the variety of theologies, while synthesizing. Fourth, he himself says that he writes from the standpoint of a Christian traditional view Adam was immortal before the fall, but in reality, Erickson does not, because he says, . . . the potential of death was within the creation from the beginning, but so was the potential of eternal life. 38 The problem seems to me that he did not start the research with openness to any answer, but he started with his standpoint. Therefore, his research does not exactly match with his standpoint. B. The Case of Wolfhart Pannenberg 1. His Observation of Traditional Christian Dogma In his book Systematic Theology, Wolfhart Pannenberg observes and critiques the history of the Christian view of the relationship between death and sin. According to him, the turning point of the Christian view of relationship between death and sin occurred in the 18th century. Up to the threshold of the modern era the church clung to the view that physical death is the result of sin. From the 18th century onward, however, the opinion gained ground in Protestant theology that for us, as for other forms of life, death is part of the finitude of our nature. Only for sinners does natural death become an expression of Gods judgment on sin.

Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997) xvi. 38 Millard J. Erickson, 631.

37

17 Not the objective fact of death but our subjective experience of it is understood as the consequence of sin.39

Death as the consequence of sin came to be interpreted not as the objective fact but as subjective matter by Protestant theologians such as Schleiermacher and Ritschl. In fact, physical death is not fear but joy for Christians (Phil 1:21), but it is definitely fear for those who do not believe in Christ. Yet, does this psychological interpretation cover the whole biblical view concerning this issue?40 Against the tendency of this psychological interpretation, Pannenberg critiques and says, Ritschl completely failed to see, however, that the transforming of death in the sayings of Paul has its basis in the fact objective for Paul as least. . . .41 Against the tendency of psychological interpretation of the modern age, Pannenberg holds the Christian orthodox view that the fall of Adam does not merely bring the fear of the death but brings physical death to humankind. 2. The Critique of Rahners Theology Pannenberg evaluates Karl Rahners Theologie des Todes and calls this book one of the finest efforts of 20th-century theology to achieve a deeper understanding of the links between creaturely life, sin, and death.42 In this book, Rahner utilizes the philosophy of Martin Heidegger and in Heideggers philosophy death plays an important role to complete the wholeness of human existence.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology volume 2. trans by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994) 267. 40 It is still possible for human to peacefully die without God. For instance, David Hume, who denied Christian faith until the very last moment of his life, did not express any fear of death. Chuo University. David Hume: Works & Autograph Letters, Copyright 2002 All rights reserved. http://www2.chuo-u.ac.jp/library/hume/about/ 41 Wolfhart Pannenberg, 269. 42 Wolfhart Pannenberg, 273.

39

18 Pannenberg critiques and says, First, it is God, not death, who can bring to its totality the existence of the creature that he has posited. 43 It is needless to say that Heideggers philosophy is an atheistic philosophy. 44 In Heideggers scope, there is no God when thinking the issue of death. Second, . . . the totality cannot be our own act, not even as regards death, for death is not our own act. We have to suffer it.45 Pannenberg refers to the word of E. Jungel and says that death is anthropologically passive.46 3. The Critique of Traditional Theology: Death Is an Essential Consequence of Sin Rather Than a Punishment That God Has Arbitrarily Set and Imposed 47 On the one hand, Pannenberg holds the traditional view of the link between death and sin, but on the other hand, he critiques the traditional view and says, The traditional idea of the consequence of sin has the concept of punishment in view because this term carries with it the thought of a sanction imposed those who commit sin. Yet the thought of punishment does not do justice to the biblical idea of a natural connection between deeds and their consequence.48 God does not arbitrarily punish humans with physical death. Rather, Sin as separation from God already implies death as its consequence. Death is the result of the break with God, who is the source of life.49 In the end, Pannenberg critiques the Christian traditional view which tends

Wolfhart Pannenberg, 273. Is it right to call Heideggers philosophy atheistic? When, Jean-Paul Sartre categorized Heidegger as an atheistic existentialist in his address Is existentialism humanism? addressed in 1948, Heidegger was uncomfortable with this categorization atheistic. Yet, in my judgment, Heideggers philosophy cannot be categorized into theistic or Christian philosophy. In his younger age, he studies in Catholic and Protestant seminaries, and he intensively studied Christian theologians such as Augustine, dun Scotus, and Martin Luther so that we can see the influences from Christian theology in his philosophy (e.g. We can see the influence of the doctrine of original sin in his concept that human is initially inauthentic.). Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (Tokyo: Kodansha, 1980), 309-15. However, it seems to me that he wanted to construct Christian theological philosophy without God. Heidegger might hesitate to acknowledge the existence of God in being. . . . Hugo Otto, Martin Heidegger: Unterwegs su seuner Biographie (Tokyo: Miraisha, 1995) viii. Therefore, I dare to call his philosophy an atheistic philosophy, though he did not prefer to be called. 45 Wolfhart Pannenberg, 274. 46 Wolfhart Pannenberg, 274. 47 Wolfhart Pannenberg, 270. 48 Wolfhart Pannenberg, 270. 49 Wolfhart Pannenberg, 270.
44

43

19 to only overemphasize the negative impact of sin, and summons Christians to remember that God limits the power of evil and brings good from evil.50 4. Evaluation The strengths of Pannenbergs synthesis are that he first, properly sums up the history of interpretation of the issue of the link between physical death and sin. In order to critically think this issue through, the knowledge of history of interpretation of this issue is quite important. Second, he critically responds to those interpretations when it is needed, so that the reader can learn the interaction of the author with representative theologians. Third, in his scope, even thoughts of non-Christian thinkers are included (e.g. Heidegger) so that the reader can examine the appropriateness of systematic theology in the light of a wider context. Fourth, he challenges the traditional Christian view (e.g. physical death as a penalty of sin). He updates his systematic theology as his research develops. Fifth, he brings hope (e.g. God limits the power of evil and brings good from the evil) in the discussion of death and sin. If we isolate one subject from the other in the discussion of systematic theology, it is not really systematic. As a whole, the Scripture is the book of hope and it is biblical and systematic that Pannenberg includes hope even in the discussion of death and sin. However, in my judgment, in his discussion, first, the examination of the biblical word/concept is not deep enough. Second, as a result, the exegesis of crucial passages is not done enough. Again, we need to remember that The systematic theologian is dependent on the work and insights of the laborers in the exegetical vineyard. 51

50 51

Wolfhart Pannenberg, 274. Millard J. Erickson, 25.

20 BIBLIOGRAPHY Augustine. Anti-Pelagian Works trans by Peter Holmes, D.D., F.R.A.S., and Rev. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ph.D., revised by Benjamin B. Warfield, D.D., Albany: Ages Software, 1997. Blocher, Henri. Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle. Leicestor: Apollos, 1997. Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. Chuo University, David Hume: Works & Autograph Letters, Copyright 2002 All rights reserved. http://www2.chuo-u.ac.jp/library/hume/about/ Cullman, Oscar etc. Immortality and Resurrection: Death in the Western World: Two Conflicting Currents of Thought edit by Krister Stendahl. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1965. Drane, John Introducing the Old Testament. Tokyo: Kodansha, 2003. Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998. Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology 2nd edi. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Bakerbooks, 1998. Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Tokyo: Kodansha, 1980. Kierkegaard, Soren. Either/Or vol. 1 tras by David F. Swenson and Lillian Marvin Swenson revised by Howard A. Johnson. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1971. Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Pauls Gospel. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle of Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. Heidel, Alexander. The Gilgamesh Epic and old Testament Parallels: A Translation and interpretation of the Gilgamesh Epic and related Babylonian and Assyrian Documents. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963. Hugo Otto, Martin Heidegger: Unterwegs su seuner Biographie. Tokyo: Miraisha, 1995. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology volume 2. trans by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.

21 Plato, Phaedo in The Dialogues of Plato vol. one trans by B. Jowett, M.A. New York: Random House, 1937. Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis: A Commenatry. Philadeliphia, The Westminster Press, 1972. Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man: Vol 1 Human Nature. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1964. Sarna, Nahum M. The JPS Torah Commentary Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. Philadeliphia, New York, Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. trans by John J. Scullion S.J. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984. Whybray, R. Norman. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Tokyo: Kyobunkwan, 1998. Wolff, Hans Walter. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.