› ›

Did Adam really understand what death is?

HezekielHezekiel
edited June 2011 in Faith Issues
Hi,
 
There is a question that circulates in my mind every now and then.It is from Genesis.

In Genesis 2:17,God commands Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for if he eats from it he will certainly die.The warning is only one phrase and ends there.

Comparing it with the warnings that Jesus gave us in the NT, in Matthew 24 :23-28,the same God commanded us not only to love one another but also gave us detailed warning of false prophets that would appear in the form of the same serpent - "At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.   “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

I wonder if Adam really understood what death is, since he has not seen anyone dying before . Maybe he thought death was not such a horrible thing. Maybe he did not really know how miserable and destructive the world would be after he sinned. Most of the time, when doctors tell us to avoid certain things or else we would die as a result of those things, we do not give much attention to their advice. Perhaps, if God had told him,that his children would be in grave danger, Adam would have been more careful,for no parent would want to see his own child suffer.

Why  hasn't God, given Adam and Eve a more stern and detailed warning, such as "..the devil will try to tempt you into eating from the tree, but don't listen to him". God knew the serpent would tempt them, but He never warned them in advance as He did warn us in the gospel of Matthew. Any views on this will be appreciated.
«13

Comments

  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    Why be concerned about such questions?

    Concentrate on your own salvation.

    God is just. Because we do not know what He miht have said to Adam we should not guess, or seek to second-guess the will and ways of God.
  • HezekielHezekiel
    Fr Peter, Yes God is Just.

    I am only trying to understand what I am reading in the bible. Every now and then, there pop up questions in the mind , some that have to do with our salvation and many more that are general and I thought I'd share them here to see what folks think.Knowing the meaning of the biblical verses  does also help how to respond to others who , for their own reasons ,pose similar questions.
  • imikhailimikhail
    Relationship between man and God is based upon love and not fear. God created man so that man may enjoy His company and that God may "channel" His love towards man. Yet, God put a barrier around this relationship which is obedience.

    Certainly Adam understood what death is as He saw animals, birds, ...etc die and his fate would be the same if he disobeyed. Otherwise, God would be unjust in His commandment.
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    Adam probably didn't understand what death was. However, he did have a child like innocence and believed everything God told him. As such, God's words were enough for him to understand the gravity of what would happen if he ate of the fruit. He knew God was the creator of everything and was the source of life. Death was the opposite of life. Even if Adam didn't know what exactly death entailed, it was still not excuse enough for him to eat the fruit. It's like a parent telling a 2 year old child not to touch a hot stove. A 2 year old child has no concept of a hot stove and yet, if the child fully trusts their parent, they will not touch the stove.
  • lightening
    dear hezekiel,
    i think your question could be perceived by some as a good one, and by others a 'not so good' one.
    let me explain....
    readers of the biblical text, have the exegetical duty to accept that we cannot find answer to all the questions in the world in one bible verse or one bible story. one must accept, as a fundamental rule, that a text means what it says and it says what it means.  for instance, if the narrative in question does not actually contain the answer to your question then it means that the narrative itself is not addressing that particular aspect of knowledge. thus, Father Peter was right to point out that you asked 'the wrong' question.

    on the other hand, if your question is to be a valid question, its answer must be found in the broader framework of God's plan for mankind. that is, if one can legitimately claim that the genesis' narrative you refer to does not address your kind of queries you don't have to discard your question. you could instead try to find the answer looking at the bigger picture. from this point of view, i must say i do appreciate your question as an indicative of a good thinking brain!

    my personal view, with regards to your question, is that it requires a lot of thinking and writing. a good answer could well make a whole phd thesis. this is perhaps why you won't be easily satisfied with any reply on this forum, as you would only get 'personal opinions' of all sorts, but never a comprehensive answer . and should you be satisfied, i would be slightly concerned on your behalf....

    your question is suggesting that we should attempt to understand God's interaction with Adam through our contemporary 'human rights' lens. however, i suggest that we cannot, and should not, impose the perception of 21st century 'human rights' on the original 'human rights'. let me explain... recently, in australia, a muslim woman driver wearing a niqab was stopped by a traffic officer for a routine check. he asked the woman to unveil her face for the purpose of identification, and after she initially refused to do so she eventually showed her face. however she filed a law suit against the traffic officer for assaulting her. she lost the court case and was sent to prison for false accusations. but the defending lawyer managed to get her out of jail claiming that the person who filed the complaint was wearing a niqab, so it could not be proven that the jailed woman was the one who filled the case.
    well, you may say ... what does this niqab wearing woman have to do with your argument?... here is the answer:  this woman got out of jail on the basis of 21st century human rights (logic). she was legally jailed but got out because her lawyer found a loop hole saying that the police 'does not have the right to ask a person to remove a religious vail from her face'!!!!!!

    in the same way... with our 21st century human rights mindset, we may be claiming that God may not have given enough instruction to Adam when he banned the eating from the tree of knowledge. therefore... Adam should not have been 'jailed'...

    my conclusion is that ... we cannot prosecute God for not giving Adam all the reasons why the tree was forbidden. we must remember he is God!

    From the bigger picture we understand that God had a plan by which humanity was to discover God's grace. This grace would not have been necessary, had it not been for Adam's guilt.

    and since i did not promise to complete a phd thesis here... i may leave the rest for somebody else...


     
  • JoshuaaJoshuaa

    I won't try to answer as in a lot of things concerning GOD it is a mystery. What I do know is that it would be spritual.
  • MozesMozes
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11687.msg140094#msg140094 date=1308773754]

    Certainly Adam understood what death is as He saw animals, birds, ...etc die and his fate would be the same if he disobeyed. Otherwise, God would be unjust in His commandment.


    Did animals experience death before the Fall, that is, before Adam and Eve transgressed by eating the forbidden fruit?
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    [quote author=Mozes link=topic=11687.msg140120#msg140120 date=1308790732]
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11687.msg140094#msg140094 date=1308773754]

    Certainly Adam understood what death is as He saw animals, birds, ...etc die and his fate would be the same if he disobeyed. Otherwise, God would be unjust in His commandment.


    Did animals experience death before the Fall, that is, before Adam and Eve transgressed by eating the forbidden fruit?


    No.
  • MozesMozes
    [quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11687.msg140121#msg140121 date=1308791457]
    + Irini nem ehmot,
    No.


    That is what I thought too. imikhail is mistaken.
  • kokiiekokiie
    [quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11687.msg140121#msg140121 date=1308791457]
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    [quote author=Mozes link=topic=11687.msg140120#msg140120 date=1308790732]
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11687.msg140094#msg140094 date=1308773754]

    Certainly Adam understood what death is as He saw animals, birds, ...etc die and his fate would be the same if he disobeyed. Otherwise, God would be unjust in His commandment.


    Did animals experience death before the Fall, that is, before Adam and Eve transgressed by eating the forbidden fruit?


    No.


    Hi Cephas,

    Would you know of a reference that states/ suggests this?

    Thanks!
  • imikhailimikhail
    Were the dinosaurs extinct before or after Adam's creation?

    Were animals created to stay alive for eternity? I find this absurd as it equates human  nature with the animal one.

  • jydeaconjydeacon
    How do you know dinosaurs did not exist while Adam was alive? The earth has layers that suggest it is millions of years old, is that necessarily the case? Adam was created a man, not a child, yet his flesh and bones would seem to have gone through aging and growth. Everything was created to live not die. Why would God have created animals to die for? They had no purpose except to be subdued by Adam and Adam was an eternal being until he sinned so why would he see animals die while he lives?

    It in no way equates the human nature to that of animals. We are all physical beings, the difference is we have spirits while they do not. I don't understand why its absurd to think that animals were created eternal beings while not necessarily being given a spirit? Is God unable to sustain their lives? Of course not
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    From St. John Chrysostom's Homily on Romans (Homily 14)

    Ver. 19, 20. "For the earnest expectation of the creation waits," he says, "for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope."

    And the meaning is something of this kind. The creation itself is in the midst of its pangs, waiting for and expecting these good things whereof we have just now spoken. For "earnest expectation" (ἀ ποκαραδοκία, looking out) implies expecting intensely. And so his discourse becomes more emphatic, and he personifies this whole world as the prophets also do, when they introduce the floods clapping their hands, and little hills leaping, and mountains skipping, not that we are to fancy them alive, or ascribe any reasoning power to them, but that we may learn the greatness of the blessings, so great as to reach even to things without sense also. The very same thing they do many times also in the case of afflicting things, since they bring in the vine lamenting, and the wine too, and the mountains, and the boardings of the Temple howling, and in this case too it is that we may understand the extremity of the evils. It is then in imitation of these that the Apostle makes a living person of the creature here, and says that it groans and travails: not that he heard any groan conveyed from the earth and heaven to him, but that he might show the exceeding greatness of the good things to come; and the desire of freedom from the ills which now pervaded them. "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same." What is the meaning of, "the creation was made subject to vanity?" Why that it became corruptible. For what cause, and on what account? On account of you, O man. For since you have taken a body mortal and liable to suffering, the earth too has received a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles. But that the heaven, when it is waxen old along with the earth, is to change afterwards to a better portion (λἥξιν v. p. 384) hear from the Prophet in his words; "You, O Lord, from the beginning hast founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They shall perish, but you shall endure; and they all shall grow old like a garment, and You shall fold them up like a cloak, and they shall be changed." Psalm 102:25-26 Isaiah too declares the same, when he says, "Look to the heaven above, and upon the earth beneath, for the heavens are as a firmament of smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall perish in like manner." Isaiah 51:6. Now you see in what sense the creation is "in bondage to vanity," and how it is to be freed from the ruined state. For the one says, "You shall fold them up as a garment, and they shall be changed;" and Isaiah says, "and they that dwell therein shall perish in like manner," not of course meaning an utter perishing. For neither do they that dwell therein, mankind, that is, undergo such an one, but a temporary one, and through it they are changed into an incorruptible 1 Corinthians 15:53 state, and so therefore will the creature be. And all this he showed by the way, by his saying "in like manner" 2 Peter 3:13, which Paul also says farther on. At present, however, he speaks about the bondage itself, and shows for what reason it became such, and gives ourselves as the cause of it. What then? Was it harshly treated on another's account? By no means, for it was on my account that it was made. What wrong then is done it, which was made for my sake, when it suffers these things for my correction? Or, indeed, one has no need to moot the question of right and wrong at all in the case of things void of soul and feeling. But Paul, since he had made it a living person, makes use of none of these topics I have mentioned, but another kind of language, as desiring to comfort the hearer with the utmost advantage. And of what kind is this? What have you to say? He means. It was evil intreated for your sake, and became corruptible; yet it has had no wrong done it. For incorruptible will it be for your sake again. This then is the meaning of "in hope." But when he says, it was "not willingly" that it was made subject, it is not to show that it is possessed of judgment that he says so, but that you may learn that the whole is brought about by Christ's care, and this is no achievement of its own. And now say in what hope?

    Source (Emphasis mine)

    It seems St. John feels that corruptibility (and thereby death) was a direct consequence of the fall of man.

    As for the dinosaurs, well, it really depends on if you take Genesis and the Fall of Man literally or allegorically.
  • imikhailimikhail
    The notion that man would not have experienced death before the Fall is against against God's plan, the Bible's teaching and logic.

    First, to say that man would have lived in the paradise or the Garden of Eden forever is mixing the Garden with heaven. The Garden of Eden where Adam lived before the fall was on the earth. The death of which God forewarned Adam was the eternal death that he would experience as a result of disobedience. Following, the death in the flesh was to be experienced by Adam whether he disobeyed or not. The fate Adam faced was after his mortal death and depended solely on obedience to God’s command; whether he will be banned eternally from His presence. This explains why Adam did not die in the flesh right after his disobedience and why the salvation plan concerned the eternal life.

    If Adam was to live forever in the flesh, then there was no way for him to live in heaven and the salvation plan that God had put, even before creation, would have been flawed. God's plan for redeeming man was to bring him back not to the earthly paradise but to the heaven.

    To say that animals would live forever with Adam on earth is to give them the ability to live eternally, which is God’s grace given only to mankind. The difference between man and animal is the spirit that man has, which is eternal and the reason God created man after His own image.

    Man was to die without being rotten and but as St Paul explained would be changed in a blink of an eye and be found with the Lord. But he had to die to be able to go to heaven.

    If truly animals had the ability to live forever, then they too were created after God’s image and this is nonsense.

    Corruption befell the creation in the enmity between man and the creation. For example, no longer man can sit with a lion as he sits with a friend. Devouring was a consequence of sin for the animal. Aging, decaying and rotting became a characteristic of man’s mortal death.

    What Christ did was to alleviate the eternal death from mankind and gave man the ability to again live forever.

    Here is St Athanasius explanation of the consequence of Man’s sin. Notice the difference between living in paradise and living in heaven:

    “And among these, having taken special pity, above all things on earth, upon the race of men, and having perceived its inability, by virtue of the condition of its origin, to continue in one stay, He gave them a further gift, and He did not barely create man, as He did all the irrational creatures on the earth, but made them after His own image, giving them a portion even of the power of His own Word; so that having as it were a kind of reflection of the Word, and being made rational, they might be able to abide ever in blessedness, living the true life which belongs to the saints in paradise. 4. But knowing once more how the will of man could sway to either side, in anticipation He secured the grace given them by a law and by the spot where He placed them. For He brought them into His own garden, and gave them a law: so that, if they kept the grace and remained good, they might still keep the life in paradise without sorrow or pain or care besides having the promise of incorruption in heaven;”
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    St. Athanasius himself teaches that man was created mortal but incorruptible (i.e. he could not die). You really need to read more carefully and with greater understanding.

    From St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation

    Thus do they vainly speculate. But the godly teaching and the faith according to Christ brands their foolish language as godlessness. For it knows that it was not spontaneously, because forethought is not absent; nor of existing matter, because God is not weak; but that out of nothing, and without its having any previous existence, God made the universe to exist through His word, as He says firstly through Moses: "In Genesis 1:1 the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;" secondly, in the most edifying book of the Shepherd, "First of all believe that God is one, which created and framed all things, and made them to exist out of nothing." 2. To which also Paul refers when he says, "By Hebrews 11:3 faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the Word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which do appear." 3. For God is good, or rather is essentially the source of goodness: nor could one that is good be niggardly of anything: whence, grudging existence to none, He has made all things out of nothing by His own Word, Jesus Christ our Lord. And among these, having taken special pity, above all things on earth, upon the race of men, and having perceived its inability, by virtue of the condition of its origin, to continue in one stay, He gave them a further gift, and He did not barely create man, as He did all the irrational creatures on the earth, but made them after His own image, giving them a portion even of the power of His own Word; so that having as it were a kind of reflexion of the Word, and being made rational, they might be able to abide ever in blessedness, living the true life which belongs to the saints in paradise. 4. But knowing once more how the will of man could sway to either side, in anticipation He secured the grace given them by a law and by the spot where He placed them. For He brought them into His own garden, and gave them a law: so that, if they kept the grace and remained good, they might still keep the life in paradise without sorrow or pain or care besides having the promise of incorruption in heaven; but that if they transgressed and turned back, and became evil, they might know that they were incurring that corruption in death which was theirs by nature: no longer to live in paradise, but cast out of it from that time forth to die and to abide in death and in corruption. 5. Now this is that of which Holy Writ also gives warning, saying in the Person of God: "Of every tree that is in the garden, eating you shall eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it, but on the day that you eat, dying you shall die." But by "dying you shall die," what else could be meant than not dying merely, but also abiding ever in the corruption of death?

    Source

    You conveniently leave out the latter half of the statement, which I have added, bolded and underlined.

    St. Athanasius goes on to say:

    You are wondering, perhaps, for what possible reason, having proposed to speak of the Incarnation of the Word, we are at present treating of the origin of mankind. But this, too, properly belongs to the aim of our treatise. 2. For in speaking of the appearance of the Saviour among us, we must needs speak also of the origin of men, that you may know that the reason of His coming down was because of us, and that our transgression called forth the loving-kindness of the Word, that the Lord should both make haste to help us and appear among men. 3. For of His becoming Incarnate we were the object, and for our salvation He dealt so lovingly as to appear and be born even in a human body. 4. Thus, then, God has made man, and willed that he should abide in incorruption; but men, having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves (as was said in the former treatise), received the condemnation of death with which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they were made, but were being corrupted according to their devices; and death had the mastery over them as king. Romans 5:14 For transgression of the commandment was turning them back to their natural state, so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so also, as might be expected, they might look for corruption into nothing in the course of time. 5. For if, out of a former normal state of non-existence, they were called into being by the Presence and loving-kindness of the Word, it followed naturally that when men were bereft of the knowledge of God and were turned back to what was not (for what is evil is not, but what is good is), they should, since they derive their being from God who IS, be everlastingly bereft even of being; in other words, that they should be disintegrated and abide in death and corruption. 6. For man is by nature mortal, inasmuch as he is made out of what is not; but by reason of his likeness to Him that is (and if he still preserved this likeness by keeping Him in his knowledge) he would stay his natural corruption, and remain incorrupt; as Wisdom Wisdom 6:18 says: "The taking heed to His laws is the assurance of immortality;" but being incorrupt, he would live henceforth as God, to which I suppose the divine Scripture refers, when it says: "I have said you are gods, and you are all sons of the most Highest; but you die like men, and fall as one of the princes."

    (Emphasis mine)
  • imikhailimikhail
    The corruption  here is both the corruption of the flesh and the eternal damnation that I eluded to earlier in my last post.

    My question still remains:

    How would Adam reach heaven if he was to live forever in the Garden of Eden? Was the Grden of Eden the Heaven?

    If the death that God professed to Adam, as a consequence of eating, concerned the flesh, then the salvation plan is lacking since we all still die. However, the judgment of death was for the soul and the flesh was to die anyways as a pathway to heaven.

  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11687.msg140154#msg140154 date=1308846757]
    The corruption here is the corruption of the flesh that I eluded to earlier in my last post.


    Wrong again, because read the last sentence in the first quote from St. Athanasius: Now this is that of which Holy Writ also gives warning, saying in the Person of God: "Of every tree that is in the garden, eating you shall eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it, but on the day that you eat, dying you shall die." But by "dying you shall die," what else could be meant than not dying merely, but also abiding ever in the corruption of death?


    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11687.msg140154#msg140154 date=1308846757]
    My question still remains:

    How would Adam reach heaven if he was to live forever in the Garden of Eden?

    Was the Grden of Eden the Heaven?


    No, the Garden of Eden was not Heaven. As to how Adam and Eve would have reached Heaven? This is purely speculation and the some of the Fathers speculated that even if Adam and Eve did not eat of the fruit, Christ would still have become incarnate, albeit for a completely different reason than to restore our corrupt nature (which would not have been corrupted had our foreparents not eaten of the fruit). The idea is that man was still a creature, though he was incorruptible. However, to reach the full potential that God intended, Christ would still become incarnate to further exalt our human nature (as He does now). That is the idea behind theosis. Theosis has been God's plan from the beginning, and would have required Christ's incarnation regardless of the Fall. We cannot become gods if God did not become man: fall or no fall.
  • imikhailimikhail
    Here you present another problem: If there was no death before the fall, then man and animal are equal in their immortality.

    The difference however was man created after God's image immortal and animal was not. This immortality was tarnished by the fall and renewed by redemption.

    If the death that God professed to Adam, as a consequence of eating, concerned the flesh, then the salvation plan is lacking since we all still die. However, the judgment of death was for the soul (as St Athanasius explained)and the flesh was to die anyways as a pathway to heaven.
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11687.msg140157#msg140157 date=1308847906]
    Here you present another problem: If there was no death before the fall, then man and animal are equal in their immortality.
    You're confusing immortality with incorruption. All created beings, be they man or animal, are mortal. However, all created beings, be they man or animal, were created incorruptible before the fall. As a result of the fall, everything was transformed from incorruptible to corruptible.

    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11687.msg140157#msg140157 date=1308847906]
    The difference however was man created after God's image immortal and animal was not. This immortality was tarnished by the fall and renewed by redemption.

    The difference is man was created rational and animals were irrational. Again, St. Athanasius addresses this.

    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11687.msg140157#msg140157 date=1308847906]
    If the death that God professed to Adam, as a consequence of eating, concerned the flesh, then the salvation plan is lacking since we all still die. However, the judgment of death was for the soul and the flesh was to die anyways as a pathway to heaven.


    What?
  • imikhailimikhail

    All created beings, be they man or animal, are mortal. However, all created beings, be they man or animal, were created incorruptible before the fall. As a result of the fall, everything was transformed from incorruptible to corruptible.

    I think we are getting close to the point.

    If man was created mortal, then eventually he would have experienced death regardless of disobedience. Please, let me know if you agree with this point.

    Following, incorruptibly concerned the soul meaning eternal death. So, God's salvation concerned our salvation from the eternal death or spiritual death.
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    I'm going to say this as simply as I can.

    PRE-FALL
    Man was mortal but incorruptible. By incorruptible we mean that man was not subject to death and decay morally, spiritually and physically.

    POST-FALL
    Man was mortal but had now become corruptible. By corruptible we mean that man was subject to death and decay morally, spiritually and physically.
  • imikhailimikhail

    PRE-FALL
    Man was mortal but incorruptible.


    Ok  .. Would Adam have experienced death, being mortal, had he not eaten from the tree?

    If the answer is yes, then we are in agreement and nothing to argue about.

    If the answer is no, then how would mortality extend to put on immortality before fall? And how would a mortal being not taste death?

    Thanks.
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    Please re-read everything I've written. You'll have your answer.
  • user00
    I took a college course and we read Paradise Lost, and my teacher stressed that how could Adam really understand death when he was immortal? So I kind of believe that Adam did not really know what death was, other than that it was something terrible.
  • user00
    Sorry, I just read the quote by St. Athanasius, so I guess Adam was still mortal, but I still don't think he knew what death was.
  • imikhailimikhail
    If Adam did not know what death was, how would God have forewarned him of something he had never heard of?

    Let me elaborate, there are many warnings of hell and the gnashing of teeth but we have no knowledge of what that is except that it is a separation from God. Yet, we are held accountable for the command.

    Death in the Bible primarily refers to being apart from God, Adam surely must have understood this concept that if he disobeyed he would be banished from the presence of God. If Adam did not understand, then it would have been suffice for only the commandment without the punishment. However, God gave him both; the commandment and the result of breaking it.
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    How could Adam know or understand something that didn't even exist yet?
  • user00
    [quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11687.msg140194#msg140194 date=1308949275]
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    How could Adam know or understand something that didn't even exist yet?


    That was my point. Exactly.
  • imikhailimikhail
    Separation from God already existed when Satan was banished from serving before God.
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    The relationship between God and man is completely different than the relationship between God and Satan or God and the angels for that matter. Satan may have opted to separate himself from God, but he still would stand in His presences (cf. the story of Job). Satan was not bound until the crucifixion and death of Christ. So my question still stands.
Sign In or Register to comment.