The Creation Controversy, Part Nine: Life and Death in the Pre-Fall Animal World I

Also in this series:

Introduction
Part One: Biblical Authority
Part Two: Authority from Tradition - The Jewish Sages and the Early Church Fathers
Part Three: The Weight of Traditional Views
Part Four: Man's Fallible Opinions
Part Five: Clues in the Text
Part Six: More Clues in the Text
Part Seven: What are the Days of Genesis?
Part Eight: Misconceptions of Paradise

The first textual evidence young-earth teachers usually present to argue that animals did not die before the Fall of Man is God’s statement in Genesis 1:29-30, where he says the following to man:

 

Then God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food’, and it was so.

This is usually followed up with an appeal to Genesis 9:1-4:

 

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is its blood.

From here, the case typically progresses to Romans 5:12, arguing that death first entered the creation through the sin of Adam:

 

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

Romans 8:20-22 is alleged to prove that the entire creation now exists in a cursed or “fallen” state, not just humans and animals:

 

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

The curse on the ground in Genesis 3:17-18 is cited as further proof of a general curse on the entire creation:

 

Cursed is the ground because of you;

In toil you will eat of it

All the days of your life.

Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you,

And you will eat the plants of the field.

In light of such passages, young-earth creationist Tommy Mitchell places responsibility for “the sad things…that happen around us” squarely on the shoulders of Adam’s sin, and then goes on to tie the gospel itself to that interpretation:

 

In the beginning, God sustained His creation in a perfect state…when Adam sinned, however, the Lord cursed the universe. In essence, there was a change, and along with that change God began to uphold the creation in a cursed state. Suffering and death entered into His creation. The whole universe now suffers from the effects of sin…

 

God took pleasure in all of His creation (Revelation 4:11), but He loved people most of all. He uses the deterioration of the created universe to show us the consequences of our sin. If we did not experience the consequences of our rebellion against the Creator, we would never understand that we need salvation from our sin, and we would never receive His offer of mercy for our sin.[1]

Ken Ham also sees all of creation as cursed due to Adam’s sin:

 

Adam’s work of caring for creation was a joyful task. But, after sin, God cursed the ground—it now produces thorns and thistles. The Bible tells us all of creation groans because of sin.[2]

Thus, young-earth creationists see the whole physical creation as cursed and all life as subject to death due solely to the Fall of Adam, and they make this belief foundational to the gospel message itself. Indeed, Ken Ham argues that old-earth interpretations actually amount to an attack on the integrity of the gospel because they make animal death a part of the created order rather than a result of sin:

 

We have told generations of our kids millions of years has nothing to do with the gospel. Actually…millions of years in an incredible attack on the gospel…It’s basically because you’re blaming God for death and suffering. The Bible blames our sin for death and suffering.[3]

Having made this case, young-earth teachers proceed to the claim that prophecies concerning the return of Christ and the Millennial Age demonstrate what the pre-Fall world must have been like because God has promised that the world will be “restored” to its initial state. Simon Turpin presents this view in part by referencing the apostle Peter’s sermon in Acts 3:21:

 

Peter refers to the holy prophets who spoke about this restoration of ‘all things’ (Isaiah 11:6-10; 35:1-10; 65:24-25; Ezekiel 34:23-31). Several passages indicate that the restoration will affect the animals, causing them to be no longer carnivorous and dangerous to man…

 

The plan of God in scripture speaks about a restoration of creation in the future because of the Curse brought on it through Adam’s rebellion (Acts 3:21; Romans 8:19-25). This restoration and reconciliation of all things comes about because of Christ’s work on the Cross (Colossians 1:15-20). Old earth creationists must be able to explain what creation will be restored to. Will it be restored to a state of death and suffering?[4]

Here are some excerpts from the passages Turpin lays out as indicating a future restoration of creation to the pre-Fall paradise young-earth teachers envision:[5]

Isaiah 11:6-11:

 

And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,

And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,

And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;

And a little boy will lead them.

Also the cow and the bear will graze,

Their young will lie down together,

And the lion will eat straw like the ox.

The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra,

And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den.

They will not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,

For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord

As the water cover the sea.

Isaiah 35:7a, 8-9:

 

The scorched land will become a pool

And the thirsty ground springs of water…

A highway will be there, a roadway,

And it will be called the Highway of Holiness.

The unclean will not travel on it,

But it will be for him who walks that way,

And fools will not wander on it.

No lion will be there,

Nor will any vicious beast go up on it;

These will not be found there.

But the redeemed will walk there.

 Isaiah 65:24-25:

 

“It will also come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain,” says the Lord.

 Ezekiel 34:25-27a, 28:

 

I will make a covenant of peace with them and eliminate harmful beasts from the land so that they may live securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods. And I will make them and the places around My hill a blessing. And I will cause showers to come down in their season; they will be showers of blessing. Also the tree of the field will yield its fruit and the earth will yield its increase, and they will be secure on their land…They will no longer be a prey to the nations, and the beasts of the earth will not devour them; but they will live securely; and no one will make them afraid.

Having laid out these young-earth arguments and supporting scriptures, let’s examine them in detail and see what relevance they really have to the gospel, the initial creation, the restored creation, and the question of pre-Fall animal death.

Pre-Fall Animal Diet

To begin with, in Genesis 1:29-30, God is setting animals forth as an example for man, telling man that he is giving humans the green plants for food in the same way he gave them to the animals of the earth. Yet, this does not require that all animals exclusively ate vegetation. It would be an altogether different matter if God had said something like, “You may eat only green plants for food, just as the birds, beasts, and creeping things of the earth eat only green plants.” But that is not what he said. So, how then might we plausibly understand this?

God’s pointing out the vegetarian habits of animals may simply have been an indication of the particular animal dietary behavior he wanted humans to emulate, not a statement to the effect that vegetation was all that animals ate. Even now, I can say “Animals eat plants,” and the observation is perfectly true, but it is also extremely general, and it does not mean that animals don’t eat anything else. Most animals—even those thought of primarily as being carnivores—should really be classified as omnivores; that is, they will eat plants or fruits and seeds as well as meat, depending on their nutritional requirements and whatever food source is most readily available. Bears are a good example of this. Relatively few animals are what we call ‘obligate carnivores,’ meaning that they eat only meat.

On another front, the reader may have noticed that sea creatures are not mentioned in Genesis 1:29-30. Instead, God refers only to the birds and the creatures of the earth. The word “earth” (Hebrew – erets) most often refers to dry land in scripture rather than to the entire globe,[6] and the omission of sea creatures in Genesis naturally fits with this limited usage. It would, after all, be difficult to see how animals living in the ocean could be expected to eat green plants that were growing on the land.

Thus, it seems at least possible that the text may be implying that sea creatures were carnivorous before the Fall. Simon Turpin acknowledges this possibility, although he also correctly points out that it is an argument from silence, and that the diet of modern sea creatures may not necessarily tell us anything about the diet of sea creatures in the pre-Fall world.[7] Fair enough: the omission of sea creatures in Genesis 1:29-30 may not have anything to do with their diet. Given that God was using animal diet as an example for man, it may simply be that he omitted sea life from his description because man had not yet ventured onto the oceans and become acquainted with the creatures that lived in them.

That said, however, as Turpin acknowledges, the omission of the sea creatures does leave open the possibility that they were not vegetarian, and thus it must be admitted that the text allows that predation may have existed on at least a limited scale even before the Fall. And if predation existed, then, naturally, animal death must also have existed. Again, while the text does not prove this, it does allow for this. As I’ve stated previously, in examining the creation controversy I’m looking mainly for interpretations that are plausible, not necessarily provable. If an interpretation is plausible, then it must be allowable without charges of heresy being leveled against it.

Meat Not Expressly Prohibited to Humans

Some old-earth creationists have pointed out that God does not expressly prohibit humans from eating meat in Genesis 1, and that is certainly true. Yet, the text does seem to indicate that God intended at least humans to be vegetarian in the beginning because this is the behavior he drew their attention to. For example, if I tell my son, “Do what you see Fred doing,” I’m not specifically telling him to not do anything else, but the intent is nonetheless clear. Genesis 9:1-4 supports this assumption by drawing a contrast between what God gave man for food prior to the flood and what he was giving man from that time forward. If it didn’t really matter to God what man ate, why would he bother drawing this kind of contrast?

Man’s commission to exercise forceful dominion over the earth and its creatures may, and I think does, imply the right to kill animals if and when necessary, but whether it was permissible to eat slain animals is another matter. This is an instance where scripture provides too little information for us to draw conclusions with any certainty. Perhaps God did allow slain animals—such as those offered in sacrifices after the Fall—to be eaten, just as he provided for under the Law of Moses, even if it was not his primary provision for man’s diet. Scripture provides instances of God allowing other behaviors that, while not ideal, are nonetheless not condemned, either. Polygamy is an example of this. In fact, in II Samuel 12, God actually tells David that he had given him Saul’s wives, a fact that some believers might find at odds with their view of God’s character were it not plainly stated in the text.

So perhaps it would be more fitting to maintain that a vegetarian diet was God’s primary or preferred diet for humans when they were first created, just as most animals eat plant material to at least some degree. Again, a plausible case can be made either way here.

Hyperbole and Limited Context

Some have speculated that it’s possible God was referring only to the animals located within close proximity to the Garden of Eden in Genesis 1:29-30, rather than to all animals everywhere, for perhaps the same reason he does not mention sea creatures: because Adam and Eve were not familiar with them. Just as God placed the garden in a favorable location for its maintenance, he may have placed it where there were few or no predatory animals at the time because Adam and Eve had not learned how to deal with them.

It may be objected here that God appears to include all animal life in the statement “to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life.” Anyone who has spent any real time with the biblical text at all, however, will surely have noticed that the Bible routinely employs hyperbole: exaggeration for the sake of emphasis, including language that appears to be all-inclusive at first but, upon further reflection, must be more limited in application. Here are some noteworthy examples:

Ezra 1:2 records a proclamation that Cyrus, king of Persia, sent out to his kingdom concerning the rebuilding and repopulating of Jerusalem. In it, he says: “The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth.” Would anyone think that this is literally true as we would understand it today? Did Cyrus rule over the entire globe? The Persians were intelligent people; they knew very well that there were lands and peoples beyond their dominion. The word translated “earth” in this passage is once again erets—literally, “land.” What land? The land of Persia. Cyrus is simply saying that God had allowed him to consolidate the rule of Persia over territory once controlled by numerous independent kingdoms.

We see similar phraseology in Daniel 4, where Nebuchadnezzar relates a dream and the events that followed it in a proclamation to his people. He begins as Cyrus does in Ezra 1, by establishing his authority: “Nebuchadnezzar the king to all peoples, nations, and men of every language that live in all the earth” (Daniel 4:1). The word translated “earth” here is ara, the Aramaic counterpart to erets, and simply means “land.” What land? The land controlled by Babylon, which consisted of numerous conquered nations.

In his dream, Nebuchadnezzar saw himself symbolized as a great tree that was “visible to the end of the whole earth,” or, in other words, stretched as far as the eye could see (Daniel 4:11). Of this tree, Nebuchadnezzar says:

 

Its foliage was beautiful and its fruit abundant,

And in it was food for all.

The beasts of the field found shade under it,

And the birds of the sky dwelt in its branches,

And all living creatures [literally, flesh] fed themselves from it. (Daniel 4:12)

In interpreting this dream, Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar:

 

“It is you, O king; for you have become great and grown strong, and your majesty has become great and reached to the sky and your dominion to the end of the earth” (Daniel 4:22).

Note how similar some of the terms used in this passage are to the terms used regarding animal life in Genesis. The language of Daniel 2 is even more striking.

 

“You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory; and wherever the sons of men dwell, or the beasts of the field, or the birds of the sky, he has given them into your hand and has caused you to rule over them all.” (Daniel 2:37-38)

Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel knew quite well that there were lands, people, and animals beyond the dominion of Babylon, yet to the modern reader the language they use here makes it sound as if nothing exists apart from Babylon. This sort of phraseology is found over and over again throughout the scriptures.

In II Chronicles 1:15, we’re told: “The king [Solomon] made silver and gold as plentiful in Jerusalem as stones, and he made cedars as plentiful as sycamores in the lowland.” Were nuggets of gold and silver literally as common as rocks on the ground in Jerusalem? That seems a bit of a stretch. This is clearly hyperbole, exaggeration for the sake of emphasis. Further, note that this hyperbole is found within the context of historical narrative, which is very important for our purposes here, as young-earth teachers insist that because Genesis 1-3 is historical narrative it must therefore be strictly literal in meaning.

Moving on with more examples…

 

Everyone who was in distress, and everyone who was in debt, and everyone who was discontented gathered to him [David]; and he became a captain over them. Now there were about four hundred men with him. – I Samuel 22:2

It seems unlikely that there were only four hundred or so discontented persons in all of Israel, that all of them were men, and all of them chose to join David. Again, we see the use of hyperbole within historical narrative.

 

John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. – Mark 1:4-5

Did every single person in Judea, including Jerusalem, repent and undergo the baptism of John? Luke 7:29-30 indicates that “the Pharisees and lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by him [that is, John].” Later, in John 3:36, John’s disciples tell John the Baptist that Jesus is now baptizing and “all are going to him.” Yet, according to verse thirty-five, John was still baptizing as well, so clearly not everyone who was going to be baptized was going to Jesus; some were still going to John. In these examples, we see the same sort of hyperbole being used in two different contexts—the first, in a historical narrative; the second, in dialogue.

 

He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God… – John 1:11-12

 

What He has seen and heard, of that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. He who has received His testimony has set his seal to this, that God is true. – John 3:32-33

In the above passages, John tells us that no one received Christ or his testimony, but then goes on to describe those who did in fact receive Christ and his testimony. This is a form of emphasis meant to indicate that, for the most part, Christ and his message were rejected. But they were not rejected by everyone. Both of these instances appear in narrative form.

 

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth…And everyone was on his way to register for the census. – Luke 2:1, 3

As with the references we saw to the empires of Persia and Babylon, it seems clear that the whole Roman world is indicated here, rather than the entire inhabited globe. No one from China or Indonesia or South America would have been included in this census. Yet, taken literally, the text could be read this way. It also seems to read as if everyone in the Roman Empire was law-abiding and obeyed the emperor’s decree, which is rather unlikely. Note again that this use of hyperbole is found in the context of historical narrative.

 

For one last example, consider Revelation 13:8 and 15:

 

All who dwell on the earth will worship him [the Beast], everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain…And it was given to him [the False Prophet] to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

If everyone on the planet is worshipping the Beast, how is it that people are being killed for not doing so?

We could easily include a host of other scriptural examples along with these, in narrative, poetical, and conversational contexts. Most instances of hyperbole and limited context in scripture are obvious, but some may require a bit of thought and consideration in light of related passages. Thus, it is reasonable that the seemingly all-inclusive references in Genesis 1 may well be hyperbole or a matter of limited context, indicating, as mentioned previously, a generalized view of most birds and land animals—and even more likely those native to the garden area—consuming plant matter to one degree or another. This is a perfectly plausible explanation unless one can either present a passage that clearly contradicts the idea, or else one simply dismisses the nuances of language that appear all throughout the Bible as being inapplicable to the creation account.

God’s Provision for Animals

The Bible indicates that God provides food for animals just as he has provided sustenance for man. Interestingly, this divine provision also includes the carnivores of the earth, as per the following scriptures:

Job 38:39-41:

 

“Can you hunt the prey for the lion,

Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,

When they crouch in their dens

And lie in wait in their lair?

“Who prepares for the raven its nourishment

When its young cry to God

And wander about without food?”

Job 39:26-30:

 

Is it by your understanding that the hawk soars,

Stretching his wings toward the south?

Is it at your command that the eagle mounts up

And makes his nest on high?

On the cliffs he dwells and lodges,

Upon the rocky crag, an inaccessible place.

From there he spies out food;

His eyes see it from afar.

His young ones also suck up blood;

And where the slain are, there is he.

Psalm 104:14, 20-21, 24-29:

 

He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,

And vegetation for the labor of man…

 

You appoint darkness and it becomes night,

In which all the beasts of the forest prowl about.

The young lions roar after their prey

And seek their food from God…

 

O Lord, how many are your works!

In wisdom You have made them all;

The earth is full of Your possessions.

There is the sea, great and broad,

In which are swarms without number

Animals both small and great.

There the ships move along,

And Leviathan, which you have formed to sport in it.

 

They all wait for You

To give them their food in due season.

You give it to them, they gather it up;

You open your hand, they are satisfied with good.

You hide your face, they are dismayed.

Psalm 145:16:

 

The eyes of all look to You,

And you give them their food in due time.

You open your hand

And satisfy the desire of every living thing.

These passages are clear indicators that God provides food for all of his creatures, including carnivores. Speaking in Job 38, God himself testifies to Job that he feeds the lions and the ravens. In Psalm 104, the psalmist praises God for the wonders of his creation, including his provision for the creatures of the earth. Note the reference to beasts that prowl in the forest, and think back on Ezekiel 34:25, which clearly indicates that the beasts of the forest are dangerous to man. Note the mention of Leviathan here as well, a creature that has a deadly reputation. God himself drew Job’s attention to Leviathan, characterizing it as a menacing creature and calling it “king over all the sons of pride” (Job 41).

Young-earth teachers are quick to dismiss these passages on the basis that they tell us nothing of the pre-Fall world. For instance, on God’s provision for predators in Psalm 104, Simon Turpin remarks that this language is merely “the psalmist’s reflection on the world in which he lived and not the original creation.”[8] The idea that God’s provision for predators is different in the post-Fall world than it was in the pre-Fall world is merely an assumption. As it happens, the language of the text does not support this assumption. In fact, it implies just the opposite.

Immediately before he discusses the sea creatures, including the predatory Leviathan, the psalmist says “O Lord, how many are Your works! In wisdom, You made them all.” The psalmist then goes on to call God’s provision for the predators “good,” and in verse thirty-four says, “Let the Lord be glad in His works.” So, yes, the palmist does indeed seem to be connecting the post-Fall world in which he lived with the world as God made it to be—as though they are one and the same. He sees the state of the created order around him and remarks that it came about as a result of God’s wisdom, and then exhorts the Lord to be glad in his works.

But how can the Lord be glad when his initial “good” works fell due to the corruption of sin? How can he be magnified in providing prey for the lions if predation is a monument to man’s sin, as young-earth teachers insist it is? Is the psalmist really just congratulating God on how well he has managed to adapt his creation to the presence of sin? Is he remarking on God’s wisdom in smoothly transitioning over to Plan B, as it were? The tone and straightforward wording of the text suggest otherwise: the psalmist is praising God for all of the things he mentions as if they exist just the way God made them, including the predators.

Romans 5:12 and 8:20-22

 

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

Young-earth teachers argue that all death is a result of sin, and since this verse tells us that sin entered into the world through “one man” (that is, Adam), then all death must be a result of Adam’s sin. Yet, the apostle Paul is quite specific when he goes on to tell us that “death spread to all men” as a result of Adam’s sin. Humanity is in view here, not the animal kingdom.

The fact that this verse is referring exclusively to humanity is further bolstered by the comments Paul goes on to make afterward:

 

 For until the Law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offence of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

 

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. – Romans 5:13-17

Who can receive the gift of justification to reign in life through Jesus Christ? Those who previously offended and were condemned through Adam. For this reason, unless one is willing to argue that animals somehow qualify for the gift of justification to life through Christ, it’s exceedingly difficult to see how they can be included among those who were previously condemned to death through Adam. Forcing the animal world into this equation completely upsets the logic of Paul’s comparison. Only humans are in view here of necessity.

What then do we make of Paul’s reference to sin entering “the world” as a result of Adam’s fall? The word translated “world” here is kosmos. Taken from the root word komizo, meaning “to tend or take care of,” kosmos refers to an orderly arrangement or system of some type.[9] Kosmos can refer to the planet Earth or even to the entire universe, but in the New Testament it most often refers to mankind, the human race, and in particular the portion of humanity that rejects God. This is perfectly compatible with the human emphasis of Paul’s remarks in Romans 5:12-17. Adam’s transgression brought death, not into the physical world at large, but into the world of mankind.

This is also entirely consistent with the curse pronounced upon Adam in Genesis 3:19, where God tells him:

 

“By the sweat of your face

You will eat bread,

Till you return to the ground,

Because from it you were taken;

For you are dust,

And to dust you shall return.”

It is also consistent with God’s statement upon driving Adam from the garden just two verses later:

 

Then the Lord God said, “Behold the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and live forever”—therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. – Genesis 3:22-23

Contrary to popular teaching, there is no indication at all in Genesis that Adam was somehow naturally immortal, nor is there any indication that God somehow altered Adam’s body to facilitate the process of aging with the ultimate result of death. The text clearly indicates that Adam’s potential for immortality was dependent upon access to the Tree of Life. Notice how, even after God told him he would return to the dust, God makes the comment that Adam might yet eat from the Tree of Life “and live forever.” To prevent this, and thus enforce the curse he had pronounced against Adam, God banished him from the garden. Immortality was possible—though not assured—within the garden because of the presence of the Tree of Life. Outside of the garden, however, where there was no access to the tree, death was assured.

This simple understanding lays to rest an old theological debate: namely, why God had told Adam previously, “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” (Genesis 2:17)—and yet, Adam did not actually die until centuries later. Critics of Christianity have long alleged that this amounts to a contradiction in the text. Theologians have responded to the criticism by invoking the concept of “spiritual death,” alleging that this is the actual death Adam died the day he ate from the tree. Yet, the text does not support the spiritual death conclusion.

God did not have spiritual death in mind when he told Adam, “You will return to the dust.” On the contrary, this is a clear reference to physical death, and it is further underscored by God’s statement that Adam could yet eat from the Tree of Life and live forever—after God had already cursed him. The only way around this dilemma for spiritual death advocates is to argue that eating from the Tree of Life could somehow impart spiritual life, and if you are prepared to argue this you’ll run headlong into the atonement. After all, could Adam really have had eternal, spiritual life apart from the sacrifice of Christ?

The Hebrew word translated “die” (muth) in Genesis 2:17 is the word used for normal, physical death all throughout the Old Testament.[10] A more literal translation of the Hebrew in the phrase “You shall surely die,” might be “dying you shall die.” This construction is a form of emphasis, highlighting the certainty of death if Adam and Eve transgress the commandment to not eat from the tree. The Complete Jewish Bible brings this emphasis out more clearly in its translation of the passage: “You are not to eat from it, because on the day that you eat from it, it will become certain that you will die.” The same construction is found a number of times in the Old Testament, particularly in the provisions of the Mosaic Law. Here are a few examples:

 

You shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, “Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.” – Exodus 19:12

 

He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. – Exodus 21:12

 

If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death. – Leviticus 20:9

 

So Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.” – Judges 13:22

As in Genesis 2:17, these passages emphasize that death is the certain outcome of a given action or actions, but without respect to any particular timeframe. God did not say when Adam would die, only that he would in fact die. We see this mirrored in the examples I cited from the Law of Moses. A man who struck someone else so severely that the person died would certainly—that is, inevitably—be put to death for his crime, but he did not drop dead instantly. A period of time would necessarily elapse from when the crime was committed until the sentence was carried out, especially given the fact that the Law required two or three witnesses before a capital sentence could be imposed (see Deuteronomy 17:6). Adam did not die on the day that he ate from the forbidden tree; it simply became certain on that day that he would in fact die.

At first, this discussion of Genesis 2:17 may seem like I’m drifting a bit afield of the main topic, but it ties into the case I’ve been developing in the following critical ways:

 

1. The subject of the curse in Genesis 3:19 is man. God says Adam will return to dust because of his sin, but he says nothing whatsoever of animals. Attempting to tie animal death to man’s sin and the curse of death upon man is reading into the text what is neither stated nor even implied there, both in Genesis 3 and in Romans 5.
2. The fact that God said that Adam’s death was a certainty if he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, combined with the fact that God said Adam could live forever if he ate from the Tree of Life, confirms that Adam was not naturally immortal even while in the garden.
3. The only direct statement regarding the possibility of physical immortality in the pre-Fall world is thus tied directly to the Tree of Life, is spoken of only with regard to man, and required access to the Garden of Eden. We are not told that animals had access to the tree. For that matter, we are not even told that animals had access to the garden beyond the point where God brought them to Adam for him to name them, but even this demonstrates that they had to be brought to him from elsewhere for that purpose. The garden appears to have been man’s exclusive domain. This last point cannot be definitively proven from the text, but I believe it is strongly implied, particularly given Adam’s commission to protect the garden.
4. In light of the above, reading animal immortality into the Genesis text is utterly without basis, as is attempting to blame animal death on Adam’s sin.
5. As stated previously, the garden was a place of particular blessing, distinct from the world that lay beyond it. In a larger sense, it represented the place of God’s covenant favor and protection, a choice between life (within the garden) and death (outside of the garden), a comparison I outlined in more detail at the end of chapter five. This sort of contrast is repeated consistently throughout scripture (most prominently Noah’s Ark, the Land of Goshen, the Land of Canaan, Christ himself, and the New Jerusalem), but fails if the land outside of the garden was just as harmless and blessed as the garden itself. Animals belonged to the world outside of the garden, the place outside of God’s special favor. God initially created Adam in this realm, and later moved him to the place of blessedness.
6. Death is only a curse if one is forcefully subjected to it who otherwise need not be. Adam did not need to die, and would not have died had he remained obedient to God. In that state, he would have retained access to the Tree of Life, but he disobeyed and death was imposed upon him as a penalty. By the same token, to argue that animals are cursed with death, one must prove that death is not a part of their natural, created condition, but rather, has been imposed upon them as some sort of consequence (more on this later). In light of all of the above, this is an exceedingly difficult case to make.

Romans 8:19-22

 

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

Young-earth teachers have argued that this passage shows that God cursed all of creation as a result of man’s sin, likely by introducing entropy or else by somehow enhancing its effect, thus ensuring the decay and demise of the physical universe and everything in it. There is another answer, however—one that is more consistent with the overall witness of scripture.

The word translated “futility” in this passage is the Greek word mataiotes, which Vines Expository Dictionary defines as meaning “emptiness as to results.”[11] The word is used two more times in the New Testament, including Ephesians 4:17, where Paul uses it in regard to Gentiles walking “in the futility of their mind,” and II Peter 2:18, where Peter speaks of false prophets “speaking arrogant words of vanity.” The definition and context of New Testament usage (limited though it is) thus lends this word the sense of something that ultimately produces nothing useful, profitable, or lasting.

Just as the Gentiles and the false prophets would ultimately gain nothing from their fleshly pursuits, so the creation, up until the present time, has not produced a useful, enduring, profitable result from its “pains of childbirth.” Paul says that the creation will continue in this state until the children of God are revealed in glory. What does he mean by this? Consider the very next verse, Romans 8:23:

 

And not only this [speaking of the groaning of creation], but also we ourselves, groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

Paul speaks here of the resurrection, which will take place at the second coming of Christ (I Corinthians 15:12-57). Adam was intended to be God’s steward of the creation, but he went his own way, seeking knowledge and power apart from God. In response, God exiled Adam from the Garden of Eden, but he did not step in and appoint another steward immediately. Instead, he allowed the earth to languish under the corrupt, incompetent rule of fallen humanity.

 

Why are You silent when the wicked swallow up those more righteous than they? Why have You made men like the fish of the sea, like creeping things without a ruler over them? – Habakkuk 1:13d-14

Christ, whom scripture calls “the last Adam,” will appropriate the mantel the first Adam cast off and will rule over the earth in righteousness. Those who are his will govern the earth along with him. The creation now awaits this event, when proper stewardship will be restored and it will be cared for as God originally intended.

What then of the curse on the ground in Genesis 3:17-18?

 

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

 

Cursed is the ground because of you;

In toil you will eat of it

All the days of your life.

Both thorns and thistles it will grow for you;

And you will eat the plants of the field;

By the sweat of your face,

You will eat bread.”

First of all, you can see that the curse closely mirrors the nature of Adam’s sin, once again illustrating for us that these curses are very specific in nature. God provided a blessed environment for Adam and Eve, one in which the ground readily produced beneficial plants for them to cultivate and harvest. God gave them all of this bounty with only one stipulation: Do not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. By disobeying God, Adam effectively decided that God’s provision wasn’t good enough, and in cursing him for his disobedience, God effectively said: “Since you listened to your wife and trusted your own judgment above mine, deciding that my provision wasn’t complete enough for you, you’ll just have to provide for yourself through hard labor in any way you can. The soil will no longer help you as it has until now.”

Note that, when God pronounced the curse, he followed it with this explanation: “in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.” Thus, the curse on the ground is quite specific in that it directly affected man’s labor for food. The Septuagint clarifies the matter in rendering Genesis 3:17 this way: “cursed is the earth in your labors” (NETS).[12] Going strictly by the text, there is no basis here whatsoever for extrapolating the limited nature of the curse on the ground into some sort of sweeping statement that the entire universe and all of its physical dynamics are “fallen,” yet young-earth teachers persist in blaming everything from hurricanes to craters on the moon to galactic collisions on the Fall of Man.

In regard to the contention that thorns and thistles did not exist prior to the curse, there are a few factors to consider:

 

1. I cannot emphasize enough that the garden was a place of particular blessing in comparison to the rest of the world. The soil outside the garden was not cursed before Adam sinned, but neither was it of the quality of the soil found in the garden. This is evident from Moses’ description of the types of plants that grew in the garden, as well as from God’s statement to Adam that he would “eat the plants of the field.” Evidently, the plants of the field were not as desirable as the plants of the garden, nor as easily cultivated, and Adam’s work in making his “bread” from them would be exacerbated by the presence of thorns and thistles. Adam had been taken from the soil outside of the garden, but to our knowledge he had never tried to work it. God was letting him know that the nature of his labor was about to change drastically, possibly because thorns and thistles already grew in the environment he was about to be cast into.
2. I note God does not say he is creating something new here, nor does he bother to explain the nature of thorns and thistles to Adam. The text reads as if God is describing things Adam already knew about. Given what I’ve outlined above, and in light of the fact that Adam was created outside of the garden and later moved into it, it seems at least possible that he had encountered thorns and thistles before and already knew what they were. If so, then thorns and thistles already existed outside the garden but, as a result of the curse, became more virulent than they had been before, and as a direct result of man’s efforts to cultivate the soil. As the soil of the garden had readily produced beneficial plants in response to man’s cultivation efforts, so the soil outside of the garden would readily produce nuisance plants in response to man’s cultivation efforts.
3. Following the account of the flood, God remarks that he will “never again curse the ground on account of man” (Genesis 8:21). For this reason, it is debatable whether the curse on the ground is even still in effect today, yet thorns and thistles persist. It may well be that, as already stated, they became more virulent as a result of Adam’s sin, but that this state of affairs only continued until the time of the flood. So, if thorns and thistles can be present after the curse has ended, is it not at least possible that they could have been present before it as well?
4. Thorns and thistles do provide some benefits that could have justified their inclusion in the original creation. For instance, they serve to protect certain types of plants that man finds beneficial or desirable (such as flowers) from the activity of herbivores that would otherwise destroy them. In fact, humans sometimes even use thorny plants as barriers to protect gardens and other areas they wish to keep animals out of. In this way, they act as a natural check on animals, and may help to keep herbivore populations under control in certain areas by limiting the food supply.

However you view the issue, the presence of thorns and thistles interfering with the labor of man cannot be enlarged into a general curse on the entire creation. The biblical text simply will not support this conclusion, either in Genesis 3 or in Romans 8.

A Closer Look at the Restored Creation

As we saw previously, Simon Turpin laid out a case whereby he sought to prove from scripture that the earth’s future restoration under Christ “will affect the animals, causing them to be no longer carnivorous and dangerous to man.” Upon closer inspection, however, the Bible’s restoration passages overturn this notion. If the future restoration spoken of in scripture mirrors the pre-Fall world, then the pre-Fall world was not as Turpin and other young-earth teachers have envisioned it at all.

Speaking of the “Highway of Holiness,” in Isaiah 35:9, the prophet says: “The unclean will not travel on it…And fools will not wander on it. No lion will be there, nor will any vicious beast go up on it. These will not be found there.” This may not seem like an important issue to those of us in the modern, civilized world, where we’re used to moving quickly and safely from one location to another, but in the ancient world people traveled primarily by foot or on animals, and matters were quite different. Travelers along the highways of the ancient world faced two very real threats: bandits and dangerous animals. Isaiah assures his readers that travelers in the future will not need to fear these things, however. Neither will be permitted along the Highway of Holiness.

But does this passage say that animals we currently recognize as dangerous, such as lions, will no longer be dangerous, that they will be transformed somehow? No, it simply says that dangerous animals will not be found along the particular area to which it refers. At the very least, this leaves open the possibility that they will continue to exist elsewhere. Why mention their specific exclusion from the Highway otherwise? Note that Isaiah also mentions that there will be no unclean persons along the Highway, and no fools—in other words, morally degenerate and dangerous people.[13] Such people will exist—Isaiah 11 says that at least some will be slain by Christ during the Kingdom Age—but they will not be permitted along the Highway corridor. Given that dangerous animals are lumped in with these nefarious persons as potential threats to travelers, it is perfectly reasonable to infer that they will continue to exist elsewhere as well.

Another passage Simon Turpin laid out as allegedly presenting a restoration age of harmless animals, and which I quoted previously, is Ezekiel 34. In verse twenty-five, the Lord says “I will make a covenant of peace with them and eliminate harmful beasts from the land so that they [his people] may live securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods.” Does this say that dangerous animals will no longer be dangerous? No, it quite clearly says that “harmful beasts” will be “eliminated from the land.” Once again, the scripture strongly implies that they will continue to exist elsewhere. Later, in verse twenty-eight, the Lord says, “They [his people] will no longer be a prey to the nations, and the beasts of the earth will not devour them.” Does this indicate that carnivorous animals will no longer be carnivorous or harm humans? No, it simply says that God’s people will not have to worry about them because they will be eliminated from that particular area.

Furthermore, the context of this passage makes me think that it may not be referring to literal animals at all. If you read the entire chapter, you’ll see that God compares the leaders of Israel to shepherds and the people to sheep, noting that, because the shepherds have failed in their duty, the sheep are endangered “and have become prey for every beast of the field.” God then goes on to say that he will restore the proper shepherding of his people, with the outcome that they will be cared for and live in safety. For this reason, I do not think it wise to draw any firm conclusions about the nature of animals in the Kingdom Age from Ezekiel 34.

Now let’s look at a few other passages that speak of the future restoration age: the age of Christ’s Kingdom on earth. Speaking to Christ, the Father says:

 

“Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your

inheritance,

And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.

You shall break them with a rod of iron.

You shall shatter them like earthenware.” – Psalm 2:8-9

Note that Christ will exercise forceful rule over the nations from Jerusalem, testifying that men will still rebel against the authority of God even when he is manifestly present on the earth.

Zechariah 14 says that the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths) will be celebrated during the Kingdom Age, but that some will resist the mandate:

 

And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them…This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.

Withholding rain from non-compliant nations is one way in which the Lord will rule “with a rod of iron” during the Kingdom Age.

In Hosea 2:14-23, God speaks to the Jewish people of their future restoration in language that is similar to what we saw in Ezekiel 34, promising that:

 

In that day I will also make a covenant for them

With the beasts of the field,

The birds of the sky

The creeping things of the ground

And I will abolish the bow, the sword and war from the land,

And will make them lie down in safety.

Does this sound like God changing the animals? To me, it simply sounds like he commands the creatures to not harm his people. They likely retain the capacity to harm, but will not do so. After all, it would be unnecessary for God to “make a covenant” with them to not harm his people if they lacked any capacity to harm in the first place.

In Isaiah 34:9-10, God speaks of a great judgment that will come on the land of Edom when he finally unleashes his wrath on the nations (at Christ’s second coming):

 

Its streams will be turned into pitch, and its loose earth into brimstone, and its land will become burning pitch. It will not be quenched night or day; its smoke will go up forever. From generation to generation it will be desolate; none will pass through it forever.

In verses 11-13, God goes on to tell us what will happen to the land and the ruins of its former inhabitants following this judgment. We’re told that it will be given over to a host of predators and carrion-eaters, including jackals, wolves, owls, ravens, and snakes, and that “Thorns will come up in its fortified towers, nettles and thistles in its fortified cities.” Again, the animals depicted as inheriting the desolation that was formerly Edom all have somewhat sinister reputations, and note also how thorns, nettles, and thistles will grow in the ruins. We’re told that this state of affairs will continue “from generation to generation.”

In Revelation 21:10-27, John gives us a depiction of the New Jerusalem,[14] from which Christ will rule with the saints. Of the city, we’re told:

 

The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

Revelation 22:14 reads:

 

Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

For one last passage, let’s look at Zechariah 8, where we find another prophecy of Israel’s future blessed state during the Kingdom Age. In verses 20-23, we read:

 

Thus says the Lord of hosts, “It will yet be that peoples will come, even the inhabitants of many cities. The inhabitants of one will go to another, saying, “Let us go at once to entreat the favor of the Lord, and to seek the Lord of hosts; I will also go.” So many peoples and mighty nations will come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the Lord.” Thus says the Lord of hosts, “In those days, ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’”

Comparing the Restoration Age with the Pre-Fall World

While this is controversial amongst old-earthers, I actually agree with Simon Turpin and other young-earth teachers that the restored creation—the Millennial or Kingdom Age—will mirror the pre-Fall world—with the exception of the presence of human sin. That said, however, young-earth teachers tend to read the restoration passages selectively, and in doing so they overlook some crucial details.

First, as I’ve already indicated to some degree, the restoration passages refer to what we might think of as “zones of exclusion” when it comes to dangerous animals and other potential sources of harm in the Kingdom Age. Note how Isaiah 11:9 and 65:25 say, “They will not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord.” Where will they not hurt nor destroy? In the holy mountain of the Lord. Is this the entire world? Isaiah 27:13, 66:20, Daniel 9:6, Joel 3:17, and Zechariah 8:3 clearly identify the “holy mountain” as the city of Jerusalem. Ezekiel 34:36 clarifies the issue further when it records the Lord saying in regard to Israel, “And I will make them and the places around My hill a blessing.”

Thus, Jerusalem of the Kingdom Age, and the land surrounding it, will be places of particular blessing. Further, Isaiah 35 speaks of the Highway of Holiness, which will be known as a place of safe travel, and Revelation indicates that nothing unclean will enter the New Jerusalem, from which Christ and his saints will reign.[15]

Some are doubtless confused when they read the line in Isaiah “…for the earth will be full of the knowledge of God,” as modern readers usually see the term “earth” as a reference to the entire planet. As I mentioned previously, however, the Hebrew word erets, which is translated as “earth” here, would really be more appropriately translated “land.” It usually refers to specific regions, most often the land of Israel, which is what Isaiah and Ezekiel are writing about in the prophetic passages we’ve examined. As such, it presents no problem to the view I am outlining here.

Thus, the restoration age will feature a world where the presence of God will be localized, and in which the area around him and his people will be blessed and protected. God himself will dwell among men, but his presence will not be directly felt everywhere, for as Zechariah 8 tells us, men will seek out Jews in order to accompany them to where the Lord may be found. Like the Garden of Eden, the restored land of Israel will be a protected place of peculiar peace and blessing during the Kingdom Age—a place unlike the rest of the world, which will require the forceful rule of Christ and the saints in order to be subdued. As Adam was intended to care for the Garden of Eden and rule forcefully over the outside lands, so Christ—the “last Adam”—will care for his people in the New Jerusalem and reign “with a rod or iron” over the surrounding nations. The parallels are very strong indeed.

Second, as I also pointed out in my analysis of the restoration passages, we are never told that animals will be changed somehow to render them harmless. Instead, we’re told that dangerous animals will be excluded from certain areas, and those that remain will be under some sort of covenant with God that will not permit them to harm humans. We are not told that they will lose the capacity to harm, but simply that they will not harm. There is a great difference between these ideas.

For these reasons, in response to Simon Turpin’s challenge that “old earth creationists must be able to explain what creation will be restored to,” I would argue that the only things that really need to be restored are: man’s relationship to God, and his stewardship of the earth under divine guidance. Led by Christ, man will at last fulfill the Genesis mandate to “subdue” the earth in righteousness.

Summary of this Section

The young-earth textual case against animal death and predation prior to the Fall of Man fails for the following reasons:

 

1. The vegetarian habits of animals are given as an example to man in Genesis 1, but the text does not exclude the possibility that animals ate other things as well. Sea creatures are excluded from the list of animals that ate green plants, and given that most animals eat plant materials to one degree or another, the example to man could be valid without presenting an absolute restriction to animal diet. Hyperbole and exclusive language are often used in scripture in situations where it is obvious that it cannot literally apply, and the language of Genesis is not really that restrictive to begin with.
2. Man was never told not to eat animals. Following the Fall, man offered animal sacrifices, and may well have eaten part of those sacrifices. God’s instructions to man to forcefully rule over the “land” beyond the garden may have involved killing animals when necessary, and animals killed in this way may have been eaten. It is thus possible that the vegetarian mandate in Genesis 1 reflects God’s primary intent for mankind at that time; but just as God allowed other less than ideal practices in scripture, he may have allowed meat to man as well. The text does not say that he didn’t, just as it does not say that men were forbidden from taking more than one wife.
3. Scripture tells us that God provides food for the animals, including prey for the predators, and links this to the wisdom by which God made the world. It refers to this state of affairs as “good.” There is no indication at all that predation is the result of God falling back on some kind of contingency plan when his original creation was spoiled. Scripture seems to indicate that predation is a natural part of the created order, and functions as God intended it to.
4. Animal death is a non-factor with respect to the gospel. The gospel has to do with Christ dying for man in order to reverse the divine death sentence upon mankind. The redemption of man will have positive results for the animal kingdom because redeemed men will govern the world in righteousness under Christ, but there is no textual evidence whatsoever that man’s sin brought death upon animals as a consequence.
5. Eschatalogical passages referring to dangerous animals dwelling safely with man refer specifically to “the mountain of the Lord,” the city of Jerusalem, and the surrounding lands in the Kingdom Age. These passages do not teach that animals will be made harmless at that time. Instead, it appears that animals will remain capable of harm but will not actually do any harm to God’s people and those living in the land of Israel or traveling to the land from abroad. Outside of the blessed land, the world will remain a hostile place to some degree. This is strongly reminiscent of the Garden of Eden as a special place of protection and blessing in the pre-Fall world, and it overturns idyllic young-earth assumptions concerning that world. 
6. There is absolutely no exegetical evidence that the death curse on man was somehow extended to affect the animal kingdom. Further, the curse on the ground was quite evidently targeted to affect man’s labor, may no longer be in effect, and is not a sound basis for arguing that the entire creation is somehow cursed or “fallen.”

 

 Next in this series: Life and Death in the Pre-Fall Animal World, II

---

[1] Tommy Mitchell, “Why Does God’s Creation Include Death and Suffering?” in The New Answers Book: Over 25 Questions on Creation/Evolution and the Bible, ed. Ken Ham (Glen Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 2006), pp. 330-331.

[2] Ken Ham, “Fighting Thorns and Thistles: This Isn’t the World God Made!” Answers in Genesis, June 13, 2018.

https://answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-with-ken-ham/volume-129/fighting-thorns-and-thistles/

[3] “How to Present the Gospel in a Secularized Culture with Ken Ham,” YouTube video, 49:13-49:35, posted by Answers in Genesis, August 1, 2018.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV6SAK4ttVo

[4] Simon Turpin, “Did Death of Any Kind Exist Before the Fall?” Answers in Genesis, April 3, 2013, accessed January 1, 2020. https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/did-death-of-any-kind-exist-before-the-fall/

[5] Others could be referenced, of course, but space (and likely the reader’s patience) limits what we can look at here. This is an adequate representative sampling of the “restoration” passages, however, and should suffice to address the arguments fairly.

[6] Often it refers to specific regions, such as the “land of Israel.”

[7] Simon Turpin, “Did Death of Any Kind Exist Before the Fall?”

[8] Simon Turpin, “Did Death of Any Kind Exist Before the Fall?”

[9] Strong’s # G2889.

[10] Strong’s # H4191.

[11] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3153&t=KJV

[12] Quotations marked NETS are taken from A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ©2007 by the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Inc. Used by permission of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/01-gen-nets.pdf

[13] In modern usage, the word “fool” primarily means “stupid.” But in scripture, a person is designated a fool who is rebellious and immoral. Examples: Psalm 14:1, 53:1; Proverbs 10:23, 20:3.

[14] Unlike many evangelicals, I do not believe that the New Jerusalem will be a city that actually comes down to earth from heaven at the end of the Millennial Age, marking the beginning of the eternal state. Rather, I believe that New Jerusalem will be the restored and enhanced city of Jerusalem during the Millennial Age. Compare Isaiah chapters 54, 60, 62, 65 and Ezekiel chapters 43 and 47-48 with Galatians 4:25-27 and Revelation chapters 21-22. It’s clear that the apostle John referenced Isaiah and Ezekiel while describing the New Jerusalem.

[15] Again, I believe that the “holy hill of the Lord,” the Jerusalem of the Kingdom Age, will be the New Jerusalem.