This was fascinating! Thank you sir. Would you also contend that since plant life does not have the "breath of life" like animals and Mankind, that it's better to refer to plant life as "decaying" and not "dying"? I agreed with the article, just wanting to probe deeper.
Thanks, you’re very kind. Should we limit our definition of death to those things that have the breath of life? I.e., should we rather speak of plants decaying? I think no — strongly no. That’s the *opposite* of the biblical approach.
The point I’m making in the OP is that death is a *pattern,* which expresses in different ways depending on what it is dying (and even on why).
So Adam goes through the *pattern* of death, in order for Eve to be created from his side. We need to have a substantive enough understanding of death to not become confused if we hear that Adam “died” to create Eve. One reason for this is because of the recapitulation of this pattern in the second Adam: Jesus also died to create his bride. His death was worse and different, because of sin — but the only way for us to make this connection (and it is a profound connection) is if the same *pattern* fundamentally holds pre- and post-fall. Without some higher pattern of death to hold Adam’s “deep sleep” and Christ’s crucifixion together, we can’t make that connection at all!
Or, to take another example, think of how Paul says that “some have fallen asleep.” We easily understand that he means some have died. Sleep and death are the same thing; the same pattern. And for Christians, physical death is no more alarming than sleep, because the sting of death is gone. But in that case, Adam died to create Eve just as much as we fall asleep when our bodies fail.
All this to say, I would favor using *fewer,* “archetypal” (pattern-focused) words, rather than more, “atomized” (instantiation-focused) words. We should be *expanding* the meaning of words like death, to cover all the ways in which their patterns are exemplified — rather than *contracting* their meanings, and using *more* words in their place. And I would point to scripture itself for justification of this practice, because it uses words in this way. God used far fewer words in writing scripture than we use in translating it. I think that is a mistake on our part.
To augment what I’ve said here, this article may be helpful; it not exactly the same topic, but it kinda is, because this all fundamentally comes down to hermeneutics, and whether we have a scientific, univocal approach to words, or a scriptural, analogical one: https://www.discipleshipdominion.com/p/got-a-verse-for-that
Fantastic, thank you Pastor, that clears a lot up.
Side Note: My wife LOVES listening to you and Smokey (as do I). The last couple episodes on head coverings have really blown us both away. Keep up the good ministry!
This was fascinating! Thank you sir. Would you also contend that since plant life does not have the "breath of life" like animals and Mankind, that it's better to refer to plant life as "decaying" and not "dying"? I agreed with the article, just wanting to probe deeper.
Thanks, you’re very kind. Should we limit our definition of death to those things that have the breath of life? I.e., should we rather speak of plants decaying? I think no — strongly no. That’s the *opposite* of the biblical approach.
The point I’m making in the OP is that death is a *pattern,* which expresses in different ways depending on what it is dying (and even on why).
So Adam goes through the *pattern* of death, in order for Eve to be created from his side. We need to have a substantive enough understanding of death to not become confused if we hear that Adam “died” to create Eve. One reason for this is because of the recapitulation of this pattern in the second Adam: Jesus also died to create his bride. His death was worse and different, because of sin — but the only way for us to make this connection (and it is a profound connection) is if the same *pattern* fundamentally holds pre- and post-fall. Without some higher pattern of death to hold Adam’s “deep sleep” and Christ’s crucifixion together, we can’t make that connection at all!
Or, to take another example, think of how Paul says that “some have fallen asleep.” We easily understand that he means some have died. Sleep and death are the same thing; the same pattern. And for Christians, physical death is no more alarming than sleep, because the sting of death is gone. But in that case, Adam died to create Eve just as much as we fall asleep when our bodies fail.
All this to say, I would favor using *fewer,* “archetypal” (pattern-focused) words, rather than more, “atomized” (instantiation-focused) words. We should be *expanding* the meaning of words like death, to cover all the ways in which their patterns are exemplified — rather than *contracting* their meanings, and using *more* words in their place. And I would point to scripture itself for justification of this practice, because it uses words in this way. God used far fewer words in writing scripture than we use in translating it. I think that is a mistake on our part.
To augment what I’ve said here, this article may be helpful; it not exactly the same topic, but it kinda is, because this all fundamentally comes down to hermeneutics, and whether we have a scientific, univocal approach to words, or a scriptural, analogical one: https://www.discipleshipdominion.com/p/got-a-verse-for-that
Fantastic, thank you Pastor, that clears a lot up.
Side Note: My wife LOVES listening to you and Smokey (as do I). The last couple episodes on head coverings have really blown us both away. Keep up the good ministry!