English Español Français Italiano Português
English Español Français Italiano Português

"When death was not yet": The testimony of biblical creation

The biblical view of death is essentially different from the one proposed by evolution. While the belief in evolution implies that death is inextricably intertwined with life and therefore has to be accepted and eventually managed, the biblical teaching of creation implies that death is an absurdity to be feared and rejected.

People interpret the origin of death is differently, depending on whether they hold to the theory of evolution or to the biblical story of creation. While evolution teaches, on the basis of observation, that death is a natural and necessary process in the hard struggle for life—that is, that death is a part of life—the Bible tells us, on the contrary, that death was not a part of God’s original plan. From the testimony of biblical creation, four arguments can be used to support this assertion:

  1. The world was originally created “good”;
  2. The created world was therefore “not yet” affected by death;
  3. Death was not planned; and
  4. Death will no longer be in the new, re-created world of the eschatological hope.

THE “GOOD” OF CREATION

The divine work of creation at each stage of its progress is unambiguously characterized as ṭôb (“good”) (Genesis 1:4, 10, 18, 21, 25),1 and at the end of the last step, as ṭôb mĕʾōd (“very good”) (Genesis 1:31). The meaning of the Hebrew word ṭôb needs to be clarified here. Indeed, the Hebrew idea of “good” is more total and comprehensive than what is implied in the English translation. It should not be limited to the idea of “function,” meaning that only the efficiency of the operation is here intended.2 Rather, the word ṭôb may also refer to aesthetic beauty (Genesis 24:16; Daniel 1:4; 1 Kings 1:6), especially when it is associated with the word rāʾâ (“see”) as is the case in the creation story (Genesis 1:1, 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31).

The word ṭôb may also have an ethical connotation (1 Samuel 18:5; 29:6, 9; 2 Samuel 3:36)—a sense that is also attested in our context of the creation story, especially in God’s recognition, “‘It is not good that man should be alone’” (2:18). This divine statement clearly implies a relational dimension, including ethics, aesthetics, and even love and emotional happiness (Genesis 2:23; cf. Psalm 133:1). This divine evaluation is particularly significant, as it appears to be in direct connection to the first creation story, which was deemed as “good.”

In the second creation story (Genesis 2:4–25), the word ṭôb occurs five times, thus playing the role of a key word in response to the seven occurrences of ṭôb of the first creation story (Genesis 1:1–2:3). This echo between the two creation stories on the word ṭôb sheds light on the meaning of the word. While lōʾ ṭôb (“not good ») alludes negatively to the perfect and complete creation of the first creation story,3 the phrase ṭôb wārāʿ (“good and bad”), the word and its contrary, suggests that the word ṭôb (“good”) should be understood as expressing a dis- tinct and different notion than raʿ (“bad, evil”). The fact that creation was “good” means that it contained no evil.

The reappearance of the same phrase in Genesis 3:22 confirm this argument from another perspective. The knowledge of good and evil, suggesting discernment, knowing the difference between right and wrong, was possible only when “Adam was like one of us in regard to distinguishing between good and evil” (my literal translation). The verb hāyâ (“was”) is in the perfect tense and refers to a past situation. It is only when Adam and Eve were like God, not having sinned yet, that is, possessing the perspective of pure “good,” that they were still able to distinguish between good and evil.

The same line of reasoning may be perceived, in a somewhat parallel way, in regard to the issue of death, which is in our context immediately related to the issue of the knowledge of good and evil. Indeed, the tree of life is associated with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9) as they are located at the same place “in the midst of the garden” (Genesis 2:9; 3:3). And Adam and Eve are threatened with the loss of life as soon as they fail to distinguish between good and evil (Genesis 2:17). For just as good (without evil) is the only way to be saved from evil, life (without death) is the only antidote to death.

It is also noteworthy that this divine appreciation of “good” does not concern God. Unlike the Egyptian stories of creation that emphasize that God created only for his own good, for his own pleasure, and that his progeny was only accidental,4 the Bible insists that the work of creation was deliberately intended for the benefit of his creation and essentially designed for the “good” of humans (Psalm 8). Indeed the two parallel texts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 teach that perfect peace reigned initially. In both texts, humankind’s relationship to nature is described in the positive terms of ruling and responsibility. In Genesis 1:26, 28, the verb rādâ (“have dominion”), which is used to express humankind’s relationship to animals, is a term that belongs to the language of the suzerain-vassal covenant (see 1 Kings 4:24; Psalm 72:8) and of royal dominion (see Numbers 24:19) without any connotation of abuse or cruelty. In the parallel text of Genesis 2, humankind’s relationship to nature is also described in the positive terms of covenant. Humankind gives names to the animals and thereby not only indicates the establishment of a covenant between humankind and them but also declares lordship over them (see Genesis 41:45).5 That death and suffering are not part of this relationship is clearly suggested in Genesis 1 by the fact that this dominion is immediately associated with the food that is designated for both humans and animals; it is limited to the product of plants (Genesis 1:28–30). In Genesis 2, the same harmony is pictured in the fact that animals are designed to provide companionship for humans (Genesis 2:18).

At this point in the story, humankind’s relationship to God has not suffered from any disturbance. The perfection of this relationship is suggested through a description of that relationship only given in positive terms: Genesis 1 mentions that humankind has been created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:26, 27), and Genesis 2 reports that God was personally involved in creating humans and breathed into them the breath of life (Genesis 2:7).

Likewise, the relationship between man and woman is blameless. The perfection of the conjugal unity is indicated by mentioning that humankind has been created in “male and female” (Genesis 1:27), and in Genesis 2 through Adam’s statement about his wife being “‘bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh’” (Genesis 2:23). The whole creation is described as perfect. Unlike the ancient Egyptian tradition of origins, which implies that evil was present already at the stage of creation, the Bible makes no room for evil in the original creation. Significantly, at the end of God’s work, the very idea of perfection is expressed through the word wayĕkal (Genesis 2:1, 2), qualifying the whole creation. This Hebrew word, which is generally translated “finished” (NKJV) or “completed” (NIV) conveys more than the mere chronological idea of “end”; it also implies the quantitative idea that nothing is missing, and there is nothing to add, again confirming that death and all forms of evil were totally absent from the picture.

Furthermore, the biblical text does not allow for the speculation of a pre-creation in which death and destruction would have been involved. The echoes between introduction and conclusion indicate that the creation that is referred to the conclusion is the same as the one that is mentioned in the introduction.

“The heavens and the earth” mentioned in Genesis 2:4a, at the conclusion of the creation story, are the same as in Genesis 1:1, the introduction of the creation story. The echoes between the two framing phrases are significant.

The fact that the same verb bārāʾ (“created”) is used to designate the act of creation and with the same object (“the heavens and the earth”) suggests that the conclusion points to the same act of creation as the introduction. In fact, this phenomenon of echoes goes even beyond these two lines. Genesis 2:1 to 3 echoes Genesis 1:1 by using the same phrase but in reverse order: the words “created,” “God,” “the heavens and the earth” of Genesis 1:1 reappear in Genesis 2:1–3 as “the heavens and the earth” (vs. 1), “God” (vs. 2), and “creating” (vs. 3). This structure and the inclusion of “God created,” linking Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:3 reinforce the close connection between the two sections at the beginning and the end of the text, again confirming that the creation referred to at the end of the story is the same as the creation referred to in the beginning of the story. The event of creation found in Genesis 1:1–2:4a is thus told as a complete event. It does not complement a pre-work in a far past (gap theory) nor is it to be complemented in a post-work of the future (evolution).

THE “NOT YET” OF CREATION

It seems that the whole Eden story has been written from the perspective of a writer who already knows the effect of death and suffering and therefore describes these events of Genesis 2 as a “not yet” situation. Significantly, the word ṭerem (“not yet”) is stated twice in the introduction of the text (Genesis 2:5) to set the tone for the whole passage. And further in the text, the idea of “not yet” is indeed implicitly indicated. The ʿāfār (“dust”) from which humankind has been formed (Genesis 2:7) anticipates Genesis 3:19: “‘To dust you will return.’” The tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17) anticipates the dilemma of humankind later confronted with the choice between good and evil (Genesis 3:2–6). The assignment given to humankind was to šāmar (“keep”) the garden in its original state, which implies the risk of losing it, therefore anticipates God’s decision in Genesis 3 to drive them out of the garden (vs. 23) and entrust the keeping (šāmar) of the garden to the cherubim (Genesis 3:24). This same word (šāmar) is used in both passages, thereby showing the bridge between them; the former pointing to the latter suggesting the “not yet” situation. Likewise, the motif of shame in Genesis 2:25 points to the shame Adam and Eve will experience later (Genesis 3:7).6 The same idea is intended through the play on words between ʿārôm (“naked”) and ʿārûm (“cunning”) of the serpent; the former (Genesis 2:25) is here also a prolepsis7 and points forward to the latter (Genesis 3:1) to indicate that the tragedy which will later be initiated through the association between the serpent and human beings, which has not yet occurred.8

DEATH WAS NOT PLANNED

The reversal of creation. The biblical text (Genesis 3) tells us that an unplanned event happened and reversed the original picture of peace into a picture of conflict:9 conflict between animals and humans (Genesis 3:1, 2, 13, 15), between man and woman (Genesis 3:12, 16, 17), between nature and humans (Genesis 3:18, 19), and, finally, between humans against God (Genesis 3:8–10, 22–24). Death makes its first appearance when an animal is killed in order to cover humankind’s nakedness (Genesis 3:21), but it is now clearly profiled on the horizon for humankind (Genesis 3:19, 24). The blessing of Genesis 1 and 2 has been replaced with a curse of Genesis 3:14 and 17. Indeed, the original ecological balance has been upset, and only a new event― the sin of humankind―is to blame for this.

The biblical view of death. It is significant that the overwhelming majority of occurrences of the technical word for death, mût, refer to human beings, rarely to animals (Genesis 33:13; Exodus 7:18, 21; 8:9, 13; 9:6, 7; Leviticus 11:39; Ecclesiastes 3:19; Isaiah 66:24), and is never used for plants per se. The same perspective is reflected in the use of the word nepeš (“life”), whose departure is the equivalent of death,10 which also applies generally to humans, sometimes to animals, but never to plants. The reason for this accent on human death (versus animals and plants) lies in the biblical concern for human salvation and the place of human consciousness and human responsibility in the cosmic destiny. This is because death is related to human sin, as noted in Romans 6:23, since sin belongs essentially to the human sphere. It is significant that the first and the last appearance of death in the history of humankind are associated in the Bible with human sin and human destiny (Genesis 2:17; Isaiah 25:8; Revelation 21:3, 4).

Thus the biblical view of death is essentially different from the one proposed by evolution. While the belief in evolution implies that death is inextricably intertwined with life and therefore has to be accepted and eventually managed, the biblical teaching of creation implies that death is an absurdity to be feared and rejected. Evolution teaches an intellectual submission to death.

The Hebrew view of death stood also apart in the ancient Near East. While the Canaanites and the ancient Egyptians normalized or denied death through the myths of the gods of death (Mot, Osiris), the Bible confronts death and utters an existential shout of revolt and a sigh of yearning (Job 10:18–22; 31:35, 36; Romans 8:22). For the biblical authors, death is a contradiction to the Creator God, who is pure life. The expression often rendered “God [or the Lord] is alive [ḥay]” is one of the most frequently used phrases about God.11 Holiness, which is the fullness of life, is incompatible with death. The Mosaic law forbade consuming the blood of animals, precisely because “‘“the life of the flesh is in the blood”’” (Leviticus 17:11); corpses were considered unclean, and any person who had been in contact with death would become unclean for seven days and for that period of time would be cut off from the sanctuary and the people of Israel (Numbers 19:11–13). Priests, who were consecrated to God, were forbidden to come near a dead person; they were prohibited from entering a graveyard or attending a funeral, except for a close relative (Ezekiel 44:25). All these commandments and rituals were meant to affirm life and to signify the Hebrew attitude toward death “as an intruder and the result of sin.”12

WHEN DEATH SHALL BE NO MORE

It should not come as a surprise, then, that the biblical prophets understood hope and salvation only as a total re-creation of a new order where humankind and nature will enjoy God’s last reversal, where creation will be totally “good” again, and “no longer” affected by sin, and where death will be no more (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; Revelation 21:1–4). In this new order, “good” will no longer be mixed with “evil,” as death will no longer be mixed with life. It will be an order where the glory of God occupies the whole space (Revelation 21:23; 22:5). The hope for the new creation of heavens and earth, where death shall be no more, provides with an additional confirmation that death was not a part of God’s original creation.

CONCLUSION

The biblical narrative of origins teaches that death was not a part of the original creation, for four fundamental reasons:

  1. Death was not a part of creation, because the story qualifies creation as “good.”
  2. Death was “not yet,” because the story is characterized as a “not yet” situation, from the perspective of someone whose condition is already affected by death and evil.
  3. Death was due to human sin, which resulted in reversing God’s original intention for creation.
  4. Death was not intended to be a part of God’s original creation is evidenced in the future re-creation of heavens and earth where death will be absent.

The literary reading of the Genesis texts suggests that there is even a deliberate intention to emphasize these reasons to justify the absence of death at creation:

  1. In Genesis 1, the sevenfold repetition of the word ṭôb (“good”), reaching its seventh sequence in ṭôb mĕʾōd (“very good”).
  2. In Genesis 2, the twofold repetition of the word ṭerem (“not yet”) and the prolepsis anticipating the “not yet” of Genesis 3.

If on the basis of present observations evolution cannot conceive life without death, faith in creation takes us supernaturally beyond this reality to see that death has indeed nothing to do with life.

The original version of this article appeared as a chapter in The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament, edited by Gerald Klingbeil (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2015). It has been slightly edited and condensed for publication in Dialogue and is used by permission.

Jacques B. Doukhan (DHebLit, University of Strasbourg; ThD, Andrews University) is Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Berrien Springs, Michigan, U.S.A.

Recommended Citation

Jacques B. Doukhan, ""When death was not yet": The testimony of biblical creation," Dialogue 30:3 (2018): 5-9

NOTES AND REFERENCES

  1. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references in this article are quoted from the New King James Version of the Bible.
  2. See John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 51, 149–151.
  3. See James McKeown, Genesis (The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 33.
  4. See James Allen, Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Accounts (Yale Egyptological Series 2; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1988), 43, 44.
  5. Cf. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1974); Claus Westermann, Creation (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1974), 85.
  6. B. N. Wambacq, “Or tous deux étaient nus, l’homme et la femme, mais ils n’en avaient pas honte (Genesis 2:25),” in Mélanges bibliques en hommage au R.P. Beda Rigaux (A. Descamps and A. de Halleux, eds.; Gembloux: Deculot, 1970), 553–556.
  7. Jerome T. Walsh, “Genesis 2:46–3:24: A Synchronic Approach,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1977): 164. Cf. Doukhan, Genesis Creation Story, (Andrews, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1978), 76.
  8. See Walsh, “Genesis 2:46–3:24,” 161–177. See also Luis Alonso-Schökel, “Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Gen 2–3,” Theology Digest 13 (1965): 3–10; Doukhan, Genesis Creation Story, 76; Yosef Roth, “The Intentional Double-Meaning Talk in Biblical Prose” [Heb], Tarbiz 41 (1972): 245–254; Jack M. Sasson, “wĕlōʾ yitbōšāšû (Genesis 2:25) and Its Implications,” Biblica 66 (1985): 418.
  9. See McKeown, Genesis, 37.
  10. See J. Illman, “mût, תוּמ,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 8:191.
  11. See Joshua 3:10; 1 Samuel 14:39; 25:34; Ezekiel 5:11; etc.
  12. Elmer Smick, “mût, תוּמ,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, Il.: Moody Press, 1980), 1:497.