PHYSICS OF THE FALL

Physics of the Fall: PART 1 [Randy]

The following 7-part essay conflates a number of posts written by three correspondents.

What was Eden like and what changed, biologically, in Adam, when he and Eve experienced sin's curse? This question seeks to clarify the nature of the transformation in Adam. There was spiritual death, yes, but could have the pre-Fall Adam indeed physically died? What about him, what about Eden, was different before and after the Fall?

Physics of the Fall: PART 2 [Nick]

Adam may have been capable of physical death but kept alive by the Tree of Life as well as the lack of stupid things brought on by sin which rob our health and lead to accidental or intentional trauma and/or death. In other words, "immortality" means "moment to moment dependence" on God's sustenance, much like caring for an infant or child – nurturing, protecting and guiding them – rather than some kind of Superman-like invincibility. There is biblical basis for this view of God's constant care for creation and life expressed several places in scripture.

If this be the case, then the biology pre-fall was pretty much like it is now, with respect to the natural processes and cycles driving it (providentially designed and maintained, as now), except for the degradative effect of sin on lifestyle which shortens life considerably. Affluent America is a prime example as degenerative and other chronic conditions brought on by our lifestyles gnaw away at our life expectancies.

God may very well have meant for this creation to mature to the point where it would be replaced by the new creation, presumably one where the law of entropy was not in effect. Why, then, didn't God do this from the start?

Many Christians have projected this final "new creation" back on the original creation or Edenic "paradise" and claim that the Fall changed it into the groaning mess we now live in. However, what is to be made of the fact that Eden was but a small part of a large planet and of an even much larger cosmos?

Perhaps this space/time/energy/matter realm is a "proving ground" or a kind of "incubator" preparing free-will creatures for a permanent eternal state; a kind of necessary stage requirement [purgatory?]. Certain Scriptures do support this supposition; there is also plenty of material (the cosmos) that reveals what God actually chose to do, rather than what we speculate He could have done. In the course of exploring these things, this combination of special and general revelation needs to be kept in mind.

Physics of the Fall: PART 3 [Craig]

Our knowledge of the world before the Fall is drawn mostly from the two accounts of Creation. How significant is it that one Scriptural account of Creation (Genesis 1:1 – 2:3) seems to entail the whole earth, while the second account (Genesis 2:4-25) focuses narrowly on Eden? Given that the Creator Himself first cultivated the Garden of Eden, might there be some special science involved in that cultivation that differed from the science beyond the borders of the Garden? Might Eden be considered as an experimental laboratory designed for scientific discovery?

It is quite significant that Eden was merely a part of the greater world. By definition, a garden is a particular place prepared especially to be cultivated according to the will of the gardener. It is a fallacy to speak of all Creation as though it was this particular place called "Eden." The possibility of maturing toward becoming a new creation is an intriguing idea. This is the proper understanding of death even now – death does not end life but becomes the gateway to new life begun by being baptized into Christ.

Perhaps we should take Christ's word on the cross as a hermeneutical key to understanding Eden; Jesus promised the repentant thief that he would be with Him in "paradise." This "place prepared" for followers of Christ may help us understand the place God prepared to put the man He created:

"The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. ... the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it."

Surely Man did more than mere taxonomic research! In addition to naming all the animals, might Adam have discovered more within those special boundaries of the Garden? Did he later share those discoveries with Cain, who then wandered off, bloody-handed, with that knowledge to pass it on to his own progeny? Consider Jabal's agricultural program or Jubal's musical accomplishment or Tubal-cain's implementation of bronze and iron tools.

All these innovations had to begin somewhere and where better than a prepared place protected from chaotic nature?

The cultivated environment of Eden was probably perfect for developing ways to live in this world without struggling just to survive. If it hadn't been for the blessed existence of Eden, mankind would have been hard-pressed to be fruitful and multiply enough to fill the earth, let alone subdue it. Mankind would instead be subject to the struggle to survive. But God was gracious; rather than making man find his own way in the wild world, God "planted a garden" where "He placed the man."

The text shows us a God causing and forming, quite involved in what went on in the Garden –

"Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food ..... Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called the living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field ..."

Now that is some scientific enterprise!

So man studied the natural sciences and, eventually, went on to do coursework in behavioral sciences as well. Enter his lab partner, Eve. You know the rest of that experiment.

It is interesting to note the environmental differences with which man had to contend after the Fall. Before, Man operated with God's blessing. He even had a ready source of water which watered the Garden in which grew what was readily available to eat. Following his Fall, Man had to contend with cursed ground, toiling against thorns and thistles growing in fields where he had to find plants he could eat (incidentally, did Man sweat as he cultivated the Garden? Or was that particular place temperate enough to work comfortably otherwise?). No longer allowed in the lush Garden, Man fearfully faced the dusty domains of the rest of Creation. Although God remained gracious by not letting Man go out naked into the world, He made sure that Man could not reach the Tree of Life from the Garden anymore, driving Man away to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. How did this ground of exile differ from the ground in the Garden?

Another question is, how was Man's new knowledge of good and evil related to his ability to "to stretch out his hand" to "take from the tree of life" so that, eating, he would "live forever"? Could the phrase "stretch out his hand" be applied significantly to other goals other than the tree of life? For example, later in the Genesis narrative, the story of the Tower of Babel mentions how "nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them." Might "the tree of life" be the ultimate goal toward which Man stretches his hand? Constantly grasping but getting nothing to eat would surely be frustrating. Rather than continue to act faithfully, trusting in God's promise revealed in the words spoken to Eve regarding future redemption in her seed, Man acted from frustration, grasping for goals other than those leading to life. Focusing on the wrong goals, Man wandered farther and farther away from the Garden.

The thread of this discussion regards the "roots of violence." Violence is force wrongly applied (it is anthropomorphic to call what happens in nature "violent"; like calling the lion a "murderer" for killing the lamb).

The roots of violence are not in Creation itself, but in Man's frustrated response to his struggle for survival following the Fall. Finding ourselves outside of the Garden, unable to get in, we have knowledge of good and evil but lack the wisdom to discern the difference. We ignore God's grace that helps us survive, and grasp to get what we imagine we need to have, applying our efforts toward getting what we want and subjecting others to yield to our will.

God obviously intended that Man would have the opportunity to live forever, but that way remains guarded by His angel, swinging sword in hand. However, that angel also carries a message of Good News – the way is now open through Christ Jesus.

Physics of the Fall: PART 4 [Nick]

I have often wondered what God and Adam talked about "in the cool of the evening."

On such evenings, I often walk the paths in our woods and reflect on what is going on all around me – the budding trees, the green leaves, the insects, the soil, the clouds, the fractal forest, the ecological niches, the biochemical processes underlying and geologic cycles driving it all – and the sheer beauty of the every detail and grandness of the whole scheme. And I feel a strong sense of the Lord 'directing" my gaze, guiding my thought patterns, bringing to mind scriptures and things I learned, opening new insights (sometimes I stop to take notes right on the spot).

Beethoven and Bach both drew inspiration from nature for their music for God's glory.

I have often taken the boys along on such walks and enjoy watching them discover (ant hills, bird's nests, animal tracks, mushrooms) and listening to their explanations and questions. If a post-fall sinner like me (and "father, being evil") has such an experience, is it that hard to imagine Adam's Heavenly Father strolling with Adam and later Eve, detailing for them the wonders of His creation just to see their looks of wonder and expressions of awesome praise for such a goodly world; as well as for their knowledge in "subduing the earth and being fruitful" ... as well as basic body stuff like how not to cut open a cantaloupe and where the best place for a latrine would be, etc.

The thesis of "Eden as Lab" (as well as Theatre and Studio and Kitchen and Basic Training School) – makes sense to me. How much was lost and how much got passed on (probably distorted in some Darwinian way, perhaps) we don't know. But the skills which did beget human culture are strong evidence to me that God was quite the Teacher on those Edenic afternoons long ago. Archaeological and fossil evidence bear this out in showing that, of all animals (including hominids) only Man developed culture beyond mere survival – we find with his (sophisticated) tools ancient (less than 50,000 years) artifacts of instruments (exquisite flutes for instance), decorative jewelry, ritual relics, etc. And it appears suddenly rather than gradually – so suddenly that, like the Cambrian and Avalon explosions of lifeforms ("biology's big bang" - seriously undermining Darwin), it is sometimes called the "Cultural Big Bang".

Amazing isn't it? That God didn't "take back" the stuff He shared with Adam (maybe he even knew about DNA – why not?) but, saddened, God watched man run off with it to use for his own selfish purposes, distorting it all with each generation. (Like Elvis whose talents were nurtured in an Assemblies of God church when he was young - but look at his end; like Michael Jackson – the one bloated, the other bizarre beyond recognition). Noah's family might have preserved a lot; and we know that Abraham, Moses, Joseph, Daniel and others received the best courtly education in the greatest empires the world has ever seen; or, perhaps, were they actually sharing the knowledge passed on to them with their masters (or attempting to) which is why they were so sought after; I am sure it was a two way street, with these patriarchs and prophets taking from these ancient cultures necessary know-how which helped form the durable Jewish people, right up to the present day.

Thanks to the insights from Genesis voiced in the previous post, perhaps we have a clearer path to identifying the original Source of such knowledge back to the Creator Himself!

Physics of the Fall: PART 5 [Randy]

What was different, biologically, in Adam, after the fall, so that he was then subject to death? The things said about God's actively cultivating the garden are most interesting to me, along with the idea of Adam and his kin taking divine knowledge with them on their exit from the garden. I think we consider too little how much we lost from sin.

Physics of the Fall: PART 6 [Nick]

The true effect of sin is something to contemplate. How much the locust have eaten! But how much the Spirit restores with salvation! That is why I am careful with factoring in the "noetic effect of sin" which is a popular way some try to get around why we can't trust secular science today.

As for Adam's biology, why should it have been different if, as I pointed out, God was taking care of him anyway – just like now. In other words, had he not providential protection, no kind of biology would be invincible. It is a fearful thing to consider how vulnerable we carbon-based creatures are, made up as we are of 63% water packaged in little cells that need constant links to the cosmic cycles, all maintained and sustainted (as well as designed and created) by God Himself. (So much for deistic thinking.)

As for how sin affected Adam's biology directly (apart from the "doing stupid things" or "not doing healthy things" effect), we know that, with each replication cycle, something is lost; in other words, the DNA / RNA / protein mechanism, as efficient and accurate as they are (it's been constantly at work for thousands of years – I'll just leave how many thousands at that for now), there is a demonstrable degradation which has occurred, and is occurring (perhaps at an accelerating rate, just like the expansion of the universe albeit for different reasons). This "built-in obsolescence" spells temporal doom for humanity – and in fact, any species. For a fuller treatment of this, I could suggest some references which actually calculate the outside parameters. Suffice it to say, we wear out far sooner than say, the earth or sun, making biblical prophecies of humanity's end quite reasonable to contemporary minds who comprehend the true nature of Nature.

Whether this process was begun or accelerated at the Fall, and whether God originally programmed humans for a longer tenure, is hard to say. From the declining biblical life-spans, we can get some general feel for what I am talking about here. Adam surely was not some kind of mythical superhero or superhuman, but was Adam perfect? What does “perfect” mean? Protein metabolism is not "perfect" but it is optimal, for instance. To be "perfect" would drain all the energy of the universe just fighting the entropy which drives it – so, in one sense, perhaps God had a new creation in mind from the start.

This, of course, is merely speculation, very much subject to further consideration.

Physics of the Fall: PART 7 [Craig]

Man's relationship with God changed when Eve, then Adam ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We know this for sure from the text. Let's look to see what hints the text may have regarding not the obvious relational difference but what physical differences there were.

Note that there seems to have been no difference between that tree and any of the other trees in the Garden, except for the status of being off-limits. "Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow EVERY tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; and the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. ... [T]he women saw that the tree was good for food, and it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise ..." "The LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'From ANY tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.' "

This is almost all we know about that fateful tree and its fruit. The only physical description we have, that it seemed to have been located in the midst of the garden near the tree of life (of which very little is said), and that it was good for food. Other descriptive language focuses on non-physical aspects of the tree, one might say metaphysical – the look of it was delightfully pleasing and something about it aroused in Eve the desire to be made wise. It is somewhat confusing to read that Eve saw that the tree was good for food, but God said that in the day the man (can one rightly assume that God meant the woman as well) ate from it, he would surely die. Was the goodness that Eve saw a deception? I don't think so, but the fact that we only have a description the tree of the knowledge of good and evil from the perspective of Eve may be significant.

Given my understanding of goodness as being inextricably related to God, I posit that our understanding should be founded on the verb not the noun - the fruit of the tree was not evil (and, from Eve's perspective looked good for food), but EATING of that fruit was undoubtedly evil because God forbid it. We can only wonder what might have been if Adam, instead of taking of the fruit as well, would have instead paused, then gone to God to seek counsel on what to do next. After all, according to the text, the command had been given directly to him, not the woman.

Of course, he did take the fruit his wife gave to him and ate. The next thing the text tells us is that "the eyes of both of them were opened." This describes a physical act transitively; one wonders, were their eyes closed before? Did they close their eyes somewhere in the process after seeing the tree? What is the significance that their eyes were opened rather than them opening their eyes? It is interesting to read that then "they knew that they were naked." The text says nothing of them being dead. Hmmmm. How are we to understand the relation between the two phrases: "you shall surely die" and "they knew that they were naked"? Previously the text told us that "the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." The language leads one to connect nakedness, shame and death. Before the Fall, no coverings seemed to be needed, but after the Fall, the shamed couple, knowing now that they were naked, made coverings for themselves - loin coverings to hide their genitalia. Hmmmm. This recalls the first command, "Be fruitful and multiply." Covering themselves as they did, they placed an obstacle in the way of being able to obey God. Then they "hear the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day." Their physical senses still operate just fine - they can taste, see and hear; however, such sensation now serve much more selfish ends than those guiding them prior to the Fall. Before the Fall, Man used his senses to discover what might be revealed in God's Creation; after the Fall, the senses alerted the man and wife so that they "hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden."

I have tried to read the text closely to understand the physics of the Fall. Further study is necessary, but my conclusion so far is that the text supports the notion that no physical change resulted immediately from the Fall. My father insisted that of the four components of love, eros, the only one which is wholly physical, was unchanged; in contrast, the most radically changed was agape - in fact, agape became impossible for Man on his own (review my father's paradigm for love at http://tavani-family.blogspot.com/2008/08/paradigm-foundational-to-understanding.html). I wonder, then, if the primary consequence of sin is not to be found in the physical realm.

I admit there remains the question of how to understand what God meant when he warned the man, "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Perhaps a hint is hidden in the possible consequences of eating from the tree of life: "he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever." What does God mean to "live forever"? Is this the same as the "eternal life" promised in the Gospel? If so, then it is possible to understand all this as one understands the "old age" and "new age" - the phrase "already-not-yet-here" comes to mind. The Fall ushered in "the old age." Prior to the Fall may or may not have been like what was ushered in by Christ, "the new age." The old shall pass away, the new shall remain. For now, however, we exist in in both.

THE IDEA OF AMERICA

America is an idea, even a good idea. That idea is expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution. The idea of America is more than some mere "-ism" (capitalism, socialism, etc.). The American idea is symbolized by the "Stars and Stripes" waving in the wind. American soldiers and statesmen swear to defend that idea, even at the cost of their lives. American allies and enemies both recognize the power of that idea. Politicians must act to appear aligned with that idea. Many may mock America, but the idea of America remains untarnished. Citizens of America form communities holding on to the hope of that idea. Children are raised to realize the truth of the American idea, learning how they, too, may participate in making that idea prosper. It is a durable dream that drives Americans to realize freedom as their birthright and thus to live free in the face of all other apparent realities.

I am unapologetically American. It grieves me how this great idea has been reduced to facile political sloganeering plastered on bumpers and flaunted in photo-ops and bandied about on blogs. Let's work to re-imagine the idea that is America, willing the best that can be, rather than the worst that might be. We are blessed to be Americans. Let us not be ashamed to always pray, "God bless America!"

STATEMENT OF FAITH (under constant reconsideration)

I believe in God.
My belief is provoked by God’s love for me, which is an act of grace.
God’s grace also has provided me with a measure of faith

by which I am able to believe.

My first experience of God’s love

was through the loving nurture of my family.

Having been conceived in the nuptial embrace

of my father and mother,

I was born into this world a helpless human being

wholly dependent on others.

My whole experience of love in the beginning was erotic.
As I matured, I discovered more mutual ways of loving

and began to love others less self-interestedly.

Through my family I came to accept the Bible as the Word of God.
Because of my family, I found myself in a community of people

who gathered together in the name of Jesus Christ.

As I matured in this community, I came to an understanding
that
I must make a personal decision concerning reconciliation to God

given that my relationship to God is not right

apart from accepting Jesus Christ as the way to be reconciled to God.

I trusted my family and the Christian community to which I belonged,

believing them to be truthful in teaching me these things.

Given my understanding of God,

especially how God is holy

and how we too should live holy lives,

I often found myself at odds with my profession of faith,

finding resolution

in confession and repentance,

but not enduring in my resolve

to live in such a way as to be found holy in all I thought, said or did.

I developed secretive habits that became part of my lifestyle

that provoked much awareness
for the need of confession and repentance,

yet miserably persisted.

I believe the grace of God kept me in spite of my persistent sin.
It is my hope

that the character of Christ Jesus is forming in me

by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Thank God for his lavish goodness.

Begin here in God and God will take you there.

God is God, beyond comprehension.
God provides, by His Spirit alongside/within/all about us,

what we require to think of Him,

but we must not think that our thoughts can wholly comprehend Him.

We have the Word of God

to which we must go to measure our musings against His awesome Majesty.

In doing so, we will inevitably end up like Job, who confessed,

"I have uttered what I did not understand.

Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

... I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you.

Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

We might learn also from Elijah's experience,

who, in beholding the LORD's passing by, realized where the LORD was not.

This recalls the via negativa

to which theo-philosophical discussion must usually resort.

Transcendence is troubling to those trying to take God's measure.
Immanence is God's solution,

and that is found in the person of Jesus Christ.

Begin here in Him and He will take you there.

Truth as relational/revelational rather than propositional

A correspondent wrote: "Theology, even on the disputable matters, is relevant, in that it makes us better or worse prepared to live a life worthy of Christ, and makes us more or less interested and effective in sharing the Gospel, which is one more reason we should do our best to get it right."

This statement is of utmost importance. Theology, as I understand it, involves telling; telling implies communication, communication implies relationship. One engages in theology for the purpose of communicating to others one's experienced understanding of God. Given that language is a primary means of communication, words come into play in particular.

Although "all experiences are not equivalent," all experiences are mediated by some relationship. Right relationship leads to truth. Although "we do not abandon the objective claims of the scripture for the self-authorizing subject," we do need to be sure that we submit such so-called objectivity to the Self-authorizing God of Truth, whose Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."

I understand the Pentecostal emphasis to be on experienced Truth being informed by God's Word while informing understanding of God's Word and compelling obedience to God's Word. (Many other Christian groups are skeptical about experience and often discount it in theological intercourse; for the Pentecostal, experience is very significant - theology is an active verb to be spoken in the present tense.) The words in God's Word are the common coin exchanged back and forth in the Household (economia) of God and the Spirit of God is the measure of their value. Theology may be the effort to facilitate the means of exchange.

When unbelievers enter the theological conversation, it is like a foreigner without any Euros entering a European country. Perhaps apologetics is the place to exchange currency. Consider Proverbs 23:23 – "Buy the truth and do not sell it; get wisdom, discipline and understanding."

I am speaking of Truth as relational/revelational rather than propositional given that Truth is true because God is the source and sustainer of what is true. Apart from God, there is nothing true; thus does the father of lies distort what is otherwise true to become false. Apparent truth must be closely examined with the discerning light of the Holy Spirit who Jesus promised will guide us into all truth. All truth is God's truth and any proposition must be put to the test of agreeing with what is revealed in the Word of God. I insist - there is no truth apart from God; reality itself confronts us with what is true because all creation declares God's glory, so sinful Man avoids what is real by creating his own ideal, proposing this or that idea to make reality seem to conform to him.

Thus does it behoove us to submit to the Spirit's renewal of our minds so that, becoming transformed, we are able to perceive what is really true. Propositional truth depends on language, language depends on understanding, understanding depends on relationship, relationship depends on grace. Let us then celebrate the glorious Incarnation of the Logos who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The erosive consequence of Pentecostals joining the NAE

I am convinced the present generation of Pentecostals has almost altogether abandoned its historic roots. Both by experience and by disposition the earliest Pentecostals were a lay movement, where there was little interest in "clergy" and all were called "brother" and "sister." At the same time, there were a large number of women who had been ordained for ministry. But in three generations of the Assemblies of God, I have watched all that change. When the Pentecostals joined the National Association of Evangelicals, an erosion took place in the area of church and ministry that is bidding fair to destroy the very thing that God the Holy Spirit created in the first place. Despite protest to the contrary, we are now de facto a denomination of clerics, second only to Roman Catholicism; and, unfortunately, we have become a denomination of white male clerics. Although I have little hope that one voice can stem this overwhelming tide, I include this essay because it expresses the convictions not only of a New Testament scholar, but of a Pentecostal that bemoans the dissolution of the "restoration" on this very crucial theological issue. For some, this essay may seem to have a dimension of "clergy bashing" to it; if so, it probably gives expression to my own deeply populist roots, which I am convinced in this case are also the roots of the New Testament church.

[Gordon Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics page xi]

Fee's verdict concerning the erosive consequence of Pentecostals joining the NAE is right on; it was a classic case of pouring new wine into old-wineskins. In my opinion, evangelicalism was/is riddled too much with modernism, accepting the presumptive mind-set of the Enlightenment. The Pentecostal movement, with its supra-rational restorationist focus on letting the Truth of God's Holy Spirit lead scripturely-correct religious practice, trumped modernism's rationalism with its Spirit-quenching Kantian restrictions on religion while at the same time exposing the spiritually-counterfeit masquerade of theosophism/anthrophosophism with its neo-gnostic nonsense. The late 20th century drift toward post-modernism seemed to be a secular attempt to escape the modernist dead-end; that effort is failing and will continue to fail because it too quenches the Spirit of Truth with its embrace of radical poly-valence and abhorrence of Real Presence.

I doubt that the "christianity" emerging from post-modern culture will fair any better.