Spiritual Death is Not Biblical

The text says that Adam would die the day he ate. The context of Genesis also says he didn't die physically that day, so go and figure; some aspect of Adam's being died the day he ate. One would be extremely contextually liberal to interpret otherwise. Contextual fact: God required a blood sacrifice for sins as per Abel and Cain, sons of Adam and Eve. Corroborate that with the animal skin covering etc.

I suggest that you not try to tell me when and where and what to write on this Forum.

From one point of view God hardened Pharoah's heart. From another point of view Pharoah hardened his own heart (First Samuel 6:6).Because the final judgment was delayed upon the disrespectful and stubburn Pharoah he was more encouraged to go on in his sinning. You are arbitrarily saying death is used creatively in Deuteronomy and not so elsewhere.The revelation of Scripture is also progressive. So I have no problem with a more penetrating analysis of man's fall being unvealed as the nature of God's economy is progressively developed in latter books.You have to answer for yourself whether Jesus had more insight into what the Torah meant or Moses. I say Jesus had more insight into the entire Hebrew Bible.The earlier audiences may have been responsible for that portion of the truth which was revealed to them. Latter audiences were responsible for that portion of the more developed truth which was revealed to them. It does not bother me that an ancient reader of Genesis did not understand what new testament regeneration was. It doesn't have to say he lost his faith. It only has to show that his faith was strengthened.The last verse of the Psalm shows that when he was not in compliance with the law of God he had gone astay like a lost sheep. Returning to God's word he is enlivened: "I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek Your servant, For I have not forgotten Your commandments." (v.176) To be lost was to be weak to be found of God was to be quickened and enlivened. So spiritual death is not as far away from the Torah as you would like to imagine claiming that it is only a Greek idea. I am saying that being under the judgment of the spiritual God Pharoah regarded as death. The concept of spiritual death is not totally alien to the Torah. It is just not phrased specifically as "spiritual death". Not altogether true. Man's condition is most accutely diagnosed in Paul's epistles. But Paul was not inventing things in a vacuum. He had before him the Old Testament and the Holy Spirit to enlighten him plus the words of the Son of God. Ecclesiastes 7:26 speaks of a entrapping woman is more bitter than death. And the one who pleases Jehovah will escape her.Something more bitter than death from which Jehovah can save can be viewed as a kind of "spiritual death." Isaiah 9:2 and Psalm 23:4 both speak of the shadow death which could be understood as a spiritual depression, weakness, darkness, uneasiness, unrestfulness, anxiety, ie. spiritual death.There are many passages in the Old Testament that mention death. And I am not saying that they all should be spiritualized. In Jeremiah 21:8 the way of death was to actually end up dead by pestilence, sword, or famine. But there is no good reason to teach spiritual death is totally alien to the Old Testament.For instance, Jehovah says that He will take out of the His people the "stony heart" and give them a heart of flesh - These passages must be spiritualized. Plain reading does not make sense in the fashion that you use in a hope to eliminate spiritual death from the Old Testament.A heart of stone implies a non-living heart. The context is a heart towards God who is of course spiritual. So an hardened heart of stone is a figure for spiritual deadness. And the heart of flesh that Jehovah promises to give the people does not mean physical life but spiritual life.There is therefore in the Old Testament this contrast between spiritual life and spiritual death. We do not have to wait until the Greeks inform us by any means. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi jaywill, You can search spiritual death in 14 different Bibles HereThose two words do not appear together in any of them.So what are you talking about?I am going to assume you are talking about what happened to the man in the garden when he willfully chose to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.As a result:The first thing that happened was that he was separated from God.
The second thing that happened was he died a physical death.
As you know I believe both of these happened the same day he ate the fruit.There is no such thing as spiritual death as the spirit can not die.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This is good! out of all the examples that have been cited, this is the one that I think comes the closest to showing that there were at least some people in Israel at the time when the Torah and Nephibim were being written who believed in spirits, ghosts, some form of life after death or existence separate from the body.Of course it's very strongly associated with the exact kind of superstition and demonolatry which the Law most vehemently condemns! But it's still better than anything else I've seen. Just as a side question, what do you really think was happening in this story? In terms of an interpretation, I mean, do you believe Samuel was actually in Sheol and was actually let out to fool with Saul and the witch? Nope, I would take that as a metaphor. The fact that the metaphor is immediately explained in the same phrase helps a lot, though. Metaphorical eyes, knowing-good-from-evil eyes, all good. But it takes some interpretation outside the story to advance those up to being spiritual eyes.If the death in this same story is to be seen as a metaphorical death, that's in line with a plain reading. When Johnny says "Dad's gonna kill me when he sees this F" he is speaking metaphorically. He is using death as a hyperbole to represent Extremely Bad Consequences.Interestingly though, he may not have known this the first time he said that! It may have taken some time for him to get to know his father properly, and develop enough faith in him to know that his bark is worse than his bite. This is important because events in Genesis are represented as all happening For The Very First Time. Again, I see a strong lesson about forgiveness here. It takes later apologetics to interpret "spiritual death" into it.

Hi Buz! I kind of like this reading, a little. Not as much as the Witch of Endor! But it does say something about progressive revelation. The way you are looking at it, from a late vantage point, kind of puts more into it than the reader would see back then. But it's something!Let's walk through it as if we were reading the book for the first time. First the reader sees what I've pointed out, in the story of the Fall: God says they are going to die, and then they don't actually physically die. Then the Curse follows here, and in the background, too subtle to pay much attention to, God kills some animals and skins them. Adam and Eve don't die, but some animals do.Then in the story of the Sacrifice, it's Abel who kills some animals. Some firstborn animals. Cain doesn't, he offers some vegetables instead. First fruits, sure, but it doesn't help, Abel wins. So then at this point Cain does some killing of his own, he kills Abel. A theme is developing here, yes? It doesn't by any means come out and say "spiritual death", but it does say Something Is Going On.This reminds me of a novel I had the good luck to read when I was much younger. I don't recall the title, but it was an attempt to do "historical fiction" or whatever with the Eden story. Anyway, Abel keeps yammering on about how important it is to kill the firstborn. Cain, being the firstborn himself, identifies with the lamb Abel is going to whack and tries to discourage him. Over time he gets the idea that Abel is implying that for his own offering, he ought to kill himself!His paranoia increases as his fruit offering is rejected, and he ends up killing Abel. Then he gets cursed and spends a long long time alone. Eventually he meets other people, later descendants of Adam, and gets married and has a son. And he kills that son, and builds a city over him, and starts the whole reputed ancient religious tradition of literally killing the firstborn son which turns up later in tales of Baal and Moloch. He hopes this will get him off the hook, so he wont't have to die, but it doesn't, eventually Lamech kills him anyway.The reason I mention this story is because I want to draw attention to the fact that the people in the story, and the original readers as well, could have certainly got some ideas from the events depicted. But they could have been different ideas from the ones you are getting. The implication that there is Something Special playing out is one thing; Paul's final version of "spiritual death" is a whole lot more, and later, and very hard to see until the Greeks have been arguing philosophy with you on Mars Hill for a bit, for example?

quote:

---

The text says that Adam would die the day he ate. The context of Genesis also says he didn't die physically that day, so go and figure; some aspect of Adam's being died the day he ate. One would be extremely contextually liberal to interpret otherwise.

---

Interesting that you wouldn't allow for God to be merciful. See Message 29. Read the story without the future baggage.

quote:

---

Contextual fact: God required a blood sacrifice for sins as per Abel and Cain, sons of Adam and Eve. Corroborate that with the animal skin covering etc.

PD writes:

​

That is not a textual fact. There is nothing in the text that says "something" within Adam died that day. The textual fact is that God didn't kill them when they ate from the tree. God disciplined them in a different way.

​

The text says that Adam would die the day he ate. The context of Genesis also says he didn't die physically that day, so go and figure; some aspect of Adam's being died the day he ate. One would be extremely contextually liberal to interpret otherwise.

​

PD writes:

​

Textual fact, God prepared covering for A&E. Nothing more. You're reading later concepts into the plain text.

​

Contextual fact: God required a blood sacrifice for sins as per Abel and Cain, sons of Adam and Eve. Corroborate that with the animal skin covering etc.

---

Again, read the story without future baggage. The simple reading does not speak of blood sacrifice for sins. You're looking at the text as it has been used for sermons.Neither Christianity or Judaism presents the idea that the spirit can die. In ancient Judaism the body and spirit weren't considered separate or monism. Even after death the spirit continued. See Message 38. Christianity followed the dualism of the Greek Philosophers. Body and Soul: Comparative Studies in Biblical Judaism, Greek Philosophy and Medieval ChristianityPaul's teachings are very clearly based on the dualism of body and soul. The body is sinful, but the soul is holy. I feel his creative writing style has lent itself to the development of the doctrine of spiritual death. Show me the text that leads one to believe the spirit of a live person can actually die, not verses that creatively describe depression or bad moods.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Latter audiences were responsible for that portion of the more developed truth which was revealed to them.

---

So the concept of spiritual death is a later development.

quote:

---

I am saying that being under the judgment of the spiritual God Pharoah regarded as death. The concept of spiritual death is not totally alien to the Torah. It is just not phrased specifically as "spiritual death".

---

The text doesn't support your contention at all. The writer was not speaking of any sort of spiritual death. I see nothing that links judgments in the OT with spiritual death. You haven't shown that the spirit can die separately from the living body.

quote:

---

Ecclesiastes 7:26 speaks of a entrapping woman is more bitter than death. And the one who pleases Jehovah will escape her.

​

Something more bitter than death from which Jehovah can save can be viewed as a kind of "spiritual death."

---

You're equating spiritual death with immorality. In the OT the body and soul/spirit are one. An immoral person still has a spirit. Their spirit is not dead.

quote:

---

These passages must be spiritualized. Plain reading does not make sense in the fashion that you use in a hope to eliminate spiritual death from the Old Testament.

---

God is going to give them a new attitude. The plain reading is not difficult to understand.From the verses you've shared you really don't have clear support for the spiritual death concept. You're equating depression, judgment, immorality, weakness, anxiety, and bad attitude with spiritual death.Unfortunately the poetic and creative styles of writing in the OT and NT lend themselves to creative manipulation. I don't see support that the spirit in a living person can die. Even the NT doesn't support that the spirit in a living person can die.The phrase seems to be a creation to cover anything outside the norm of the belief system using the phrase.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I figure I will officially enroll in the argument. This reply is not so much directed to you as it is everyone. I just needed a starting point to engage. I certainly agree that these two verses are contradictory and that it is a rather convenient argument to state one is talking about spiritual death while the other refers to physical death.It is debatable whether or not the writers of the bible borrowed from the Greeks version of Hades, as the reverse also may be true, that the Greeks borrowed from the Israelites.Extra-biblical references from Flavius Josephus make allusions that he is instructing Greeks [Gentiles] on what hell is like and who is thrown in to the pit. However, most scholars seem to believe that it is either misattributed or a fabrication by early Christians. I happen to think it is a forgery based on the wording which is quite different from some of Josephus' earlier works. The evolution of "hell" is much like the evolution of "Satan." There were sparse mentioning of Sheol and Satan, but Sheol seems not to be synonymous with the NT's concept of "Gahenna" (hell).In fact, there is evidence that there is a split between Judaisms two largest sects (Pharisees & Sadducees) concerning things like heaven, hell, angels, etc.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I agree with that. I already wrote that I believe.
The phrase "spritual death" is a theological discription.The question is is there ground for the fact in either NT or OT or Torah. I say yes. The clearest indication being in the New Testament.But a spiritual deadness is not altogether absent from the Torah or Old Testament as a whole. In the post which you replied to I refered to Ezek 11:19 and Ezek 36:26. Is "spiritual death" mentioned specifcally ? No.Look though what you have:The rebellious Israelites have a "heart of stone". God says it needs to be replaced with a "heart of flesh". In conjunction with this replacement is "a new spirit".I don't think you can ignore that sprituality is being spoken of here. And a heart of stone is a word picture for a non-living or spritually deadened heart. A heart of flesh, the new heart and new spirit is one a living spirituality towards God.In prototype form then I can I deny that the fact of spiritual death or deadness is addressed by God in the Old Testament? Remember - stone symbolized dead and flesh symbolized living and vital.Since it is a heart towards a spiritual Being - Jehovah, I regard this transplant as not merely emotional but spiritual. Please consider the examples in Ezekiel. Is not the implication that the Isrealites had a spiritual death towards God which required His promise of a living heart and new spirit ? I never understood Adam and Eve physically dying on the same day as when they were ate. Adam, I think, was surprised that he did not immediately expire. He called His wife "Living" - Eve, the mother of all living.This would better be discussed under what the Bible means. But I think this act showed some amount of hope within him. That hope was placed in him by God who preached a primitive gospel to Adam and Eve after their disobedience.There was death and disipline yet not altogether without hope in a salvation. I have been using the term comatose in regards to the damaged human spirit. But the dead is good too and it must refer to the human spirit in many places in the New Testament. One of the old threads that is inactive under Bible Study might be reactivated where we could discuss this more.The website below is on the subject of regeneration.I recommend it as good Bible teaching Witness Lee & Watchman Nee teach regeneration

Over spritualizing the Torah or OT is one danger. The other is dumbing it down to de-spiritualize everything.The former can make to much the interpretation of the Mystic.
The latter is the labors of the Humanist.I think the best teachers on the Bible seek balance. I think cultural backround should neither be completely ignored nor be a totally limiting factor.I don't think "a new spirit" is limited to a new attitude any more than Ezekiel's mention of the Spirit of God simply means the attitude of God.Because God then and now is abstract and man's creation has an abtract dimension as well, poetic language conveys what is hard for human language to express."There is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding" says the Old Testament. There is a spiritual component to man's inner being."The spirit of man is the lamp of Jehovah, searching out all the parts of the inner being".Dumbing down passages like this to just mean something of attitude may make the Bible more palatable for the Humanist. But I think you short change the deeper significances.The verse following Ezekiel 36:26 says "And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and my ordinances you shall keep and do." (v.27)If you want to read that as God taking out thier attitude and giving them a new attitude which is His attitude, go ahead. Taling about plain words - "My Spirit" ie. God's Spirit certainly touches the matter of spiritual life.Some of us see this must be a promise of regeneration developed under the teaching of Jesus and His apostles. "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." (Rom. 8:16)" ... the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:2)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It is more developed. Its development coincides with the further development of God's purpose and salvation.At the appropriate time BOTH are more clearly developed.Now above I would agree that spirit and soul are probably the same in many portions of the Old Testament. But I would not take it so far as some.For example - God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living soul. That is a dichotomy.Also the spirit of man being formed within him in Zechariah 12:1 I think shows a dichotomy.Also the spirit being the lamp of Jehovah searhing all the inward parts of the belly (or inner being) shows a dichotomy. One has to be there for the other to search out and inwardly illuminate it. And I don't think the writer meant that the physical stomach is what the lamp of Jehovah searches out. I don't think God is illuminating the bile and gastric juices in the belly.Rather the conscience, the motives, the will, the inward parts of the soul are being illuminated by the spirit - the lamp of Jehovah.While I would concede that spirit and soul seem synonomous in many places in the Old Testament, exceptions do exist.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Latter information is provided in the Bible by which we learn the meaning of earlier passages.Genesis says that the cherubim was guarding the way to the tree of life. You don't know what that is until latter biblical books are consulted.Why not the fuller meaning of Adam's death also or of the significance of a tree of life ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't think this is a good argument. It sounds like it might be, because "cherubim" is a strange word. But it's untranslated Hebrew! There's no reason to believe that the original Hebrew-speaking reader wouldn't have a concept of "cherubim".Let's use "griffin" as a cognate. If we have griffins in our folklore, and then we read a story that says a garden was guarded by griffins, we understand the plain reading just fine! If later we read another story that says there are griffins on poles as part of a magic box, or a diatribe that refers to an unliked king as "an oily griffin", it may add to our interpretation of the original garden story, sure. But we could read it just fine without the extra commentary.It's a particularly bad argument because we do have an idea of "cherubim" in common English. We think they are fat little cupid angels! When we read the garden story, we don't have any trouble thinking of the guardians as angels, if vacuous ones. When we read about the poles and the King of Tyre, we may still have this idea, without it messing us up too much.If, later, somewhere, we learn that cherubim aren't actually cupids but rather supernatural beings having attributes of both bird and beast (griffins!) it may deepen our understanding. But we still had the right idea all along, it's just a matter of detail.This is rather different from thinking death means real death, or at least the threat of real death, or at least a metaphor for really bad consequences; and then being told that it really means something about mortal ghosts that don't appear in the story at all and that we are stupid for not seeing it that way.

quote:

---

Over spritualizing the Torah or OT is one danger. The other is dumbing it down to de-spiritualize everything.

---

What is the definition of spiritual?Reading the plain meaning of the text is not "dumbing it down". It's looking at the foundation.One meaning of spiritual today is being concerned with religious values. Since the Bible is a religious book, there is no way to "de-spiritualize" it.To avoid falling for false doctrines or being conned into a cult, one needs to be able to go back to the foundation, which is the point of p'shat. Message 194

quote:

---

There is a spiritual component to man's inner being.

---

So far, none of my opponents have provided the meaning of spiritual in the phrase spiritual death. Some have used death to mean separation. You have equated the whole phrase with judgment. The way spiritual is being used by you and others, the meaning seems to be referring to religious values and not the actual human soul/spirit. After reading your response to ICANT, I see that your usage of spiritual also seems to be referring to religious thoughts. If I'm wrong, please provide the definition of spiritual as you are using it. Unfortunately, we have a habit of looking at the OT through a dualistic lens. Ruach (spirit) isn't used here. What's the dichotomy? I don't see the dichotomy here either. He's describing God as the creator by listing what he did. We know from the Genesis story that God put the breath of life in man. Just as I wouldn't assume the writer meant God is continually laying the foundation of the earth; I wouldn't assume that God is continually blowing into the nostrils of all men. What do you think spirit means here? Any teaching I've heard or commentary I've read depicts the stone as symbolizing hardness and therefore not impressible.I understand why you are saying what you are concerning spiritual death if you view spiritual to mean religious values or concerns; but we can't project that back to replace the use of the words translated as spirit and death in the OT.So in the phrase spiritual death, spiritual really has nothing to do with the spirit (animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms) and death has nothing to do with physically dying.So far the phrase is being used to describe those who are not following God's will. I can understand that application, but again even that application does not change the usage of the words translated as spirit and death in the OT.If I have the definition right, then the phrase is only supported scripturally in the sense that people are described as not following God's will in the OT. An ambiguous phrase for a continuing problem.So in Genesis 2:17 (still assuming I have the definition right) for the sake of a lesson one could say that Adam and Eve's disobedience is an example of "spiritual death"; but we can't say that the word translated as die refers to spiritual death. The text doesn't support it.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz