The Tree of Life and the AD 66 / 70 Rapture Theory
The Tree of Life and the AD 66 / 70 Rapture Theory
In my written debate with Ed Stevens on the question of the AD 66 (or 70) rapture, the issue of the Tree of Life has been an important subject.
Stevens insists that the original Tree of Life (ToL) was to give physical life. In his second negative he said this:
When that sacrificial animal died the threatened death in Adam’s place, it resulted in at least three consequences and benefits to Adam and all of his descendants: (1) Exempt from immediate physical death on the day we sin because of the animal dying in Adam’s place, (2) Provisional forgiveness and escape from eternal death to those who have the same kind of faith that Adam has, and (3) Subjection to eventual physical death because we are separated from the Tree of Life like Adam was (Stevens– 2nd Neg. #53).
He also added this about Adam and Eve in regard to the ToL, had they not sinned:
If they had remained in the garden with access to the Tree of Life, they would have “lived forever” in a fallen world. But God mercifully spared them from that eternal misery by removing them from the Tree of Life so that “natural death” would occur (2nd Neg- #62).
So, per Stevens, eating of the Tree of Life gives physical life. Not only that, had Adam and Eve not sinned they would have been able to eat of that Tree and lived physically on earth forever. However, due to their sin, (this is a critical point!) They were cast out of the Garden and had no access to the Tree. That means that due to sin, they lost access to the Tree of Life. Which likewise means that due to sin, Adam and Eve died physically.
However, Stevens tells us, when God (supposedly) killed a substitutionary animal to clothe Adam and Eve with the skins, that the animal sacrifice was incredibly powerful! Here is what Stevens says of that one time original animal sacrifice:
I affirm that [PENAL] physical death was included in the DoA, and that it was provisionally covered by the substitutionary animal sacrifices until the Cross, at which time it was permanently abolished by the substitutionary physical death of Jesus (4th Neg. #24).
Imagine that! That original animal sacrifice prevented Adam and Eve- and all others!!!!– from dying a penal death for 900 years, but it did not prevent their natural death at all! (Stevens never has explained where “NATURAL DEATH” came from and when– and I suspect he will not try). And that animal sacrifice was effective, evidently for all mankind, from the time of Adam until the sacrifice of Christ! Of course, the reader needs to note that Stevens never cited a single bit of Biblical exegesis to support this (unprecedented) claim. All he gave us was his idiosyncratic assertions.
For Stevens, “penal” death is death the very day of sin. And the animal sacrifice prevented men from dying the day they sinned, from Adam until Christ, when, he says, Christ’s sacrifice destroyed penal death. Yet, the animal sacrifice did not keep Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1ff) from dying the day they sinned, and the death of Christ did not prevent Ananias and Sapphira from dying the very day they sinned! (Many other examples could be cited).
BTW, Ed needs to explain how that singular animal sacrifice prevented penal death from being imposed on every human being from Adam to Christ. Evidently, since men universally do not (or seldom) die the very day they eat, does that not demand that ALL MANKIND received the benefit of that substitutionary animal sacrifice? If not, why not?) Amazing!!
The reader needs to understand that Stevens does NOT believe that the Cross destroyed penal death in its entirety. He believes that we today “should die the day we sin” but we don’t because of Christ’s substitutionary death. Thus, penal death has not been abolished. It has, at best, been deferred and nothing more.
In spite of his claim that penal death was forestalled by the animal sacrifice and Christ’s physical death has abolished the threat of penal death, he nonetheless says in regard to the Adamic threat of death:
Physical death was obviously included in the threat, since Adam was removed from the Tree of Life and consequently died (Gen 3:17-24). So physical death, in some sense, is inseparably connected with the death that God threatened against Adam’s sin (3rd Neg- #11).
So, removal from the Garden and separation from the Tree was due directly to sin. Not only that, physical death 900 years after the Garden was the result of separation from the Tree. Any way you want to twist it, this mans that Adam’s “natural death” was due to sin which separated him from the Tree of Life, which was ostensibly to give him physical life. How can one call physical death as a result of sin natural in this scenario?
Stevens claims: //Then Paul further clarified this when he stated that immortality would be “put on over the top of” their existing mortal bodies, without taking off their mortal bodies first (2Cor 5:2-4). And when that immortality was put on, it “swallowed up” their mortality and changed their mortal bodies into immortal bodies (2Cor 5:4). Thus, when Christ came, he transformed their “lowly” mortal bodies to be like his “glorious” body (Phlp 3:21). (1st AFF #6).
Here is Stevens’ argument on Philippians 3 and by extension the Tree of Life:
☛ Christ’s resurrected body was transformed into an incorruptible body.
☛ Philippians 3 teaches that our lowly bodies of humiliation must be transformed like Christ’s body.
☛ His transformation is the pattern for all believers today.
☛ YET– (an absolutely HUGE “YET”) – Stevens does not believe that Christians today have their physical bodies transformed, in any way, shape, form or fashion in the way that Jesus’ body was transformed! You simply MUST catch the power of that!
Instead of our physical bodies being transformed like Jesus’ body Christians lay aside their lowly bodies of humiliation in the grave where they decompose. We then go to heaven where get a brand new immortal body. Yet, supposedly, that immortal and incorruptible body still has to eat from a physical tree that grows physical fruit that will then give us immortality. There is NOTHING in Stevens’ view that even remotely resembles that transformation of Jesus’ body. So, how can Stevens claim that the transformation of Christ’s body is the pattern for our bodies when our bodies are not transformed like his?
First off, his view flatly contradicts his claim that the long dead did not have bodies to be transformed. They got brand new bodies. That is not transformation.
Second, it contradicts his claim that today, when the Christian dies, they go to heaven to get a new body. Stevens literally has no place in his theory for the transformation of the mortal body of ANYONE today. And yet, he claims that Philippians 3 is the pattern for all believers today. Well, if Philippians 3 is the pattern for all believers today, then since Philippians 3 demands Transformation of the lowly body of humiliation, (whatever Paul meant by that) then when Ed NOW SAYS that OUR physical bodies are NOT transformed, he is rejecting his own view of Philippians 3! If our mortal bodies are not transformed, with immortality being put on over our mortal bodies, then since Stevens admits that this does not take place today, he has utterly destroyed one of the foundational tenets of own novel doctrine.
This is reinforced by the fact that although he says we get new immortal bodies in heaven– not transformed bodies- we have the right to ask: When the Christian dies today, and goes to heaven, and there receives an immortal, incorruptible new body, why do they need to eat of the Tree of Life?
The Tree of Life, per Stevens, was to give physical life! Well, if, when we get to heaven we are given brand new immortal bodies, (which by definition are not physical and not subject to death) why would we need to eat from the Tree of Life to have physical life? Why would immortal people need to eat fruit of any kind to live forever? Aren’t they, after all, immortal and incorruptible?
Keep in mind that Stevens says that “flesh and blood” i.e. our mortal physical bodies, cannot enter heaven. And, also keep in mind that he does not believe that our physical flesh and blood bodies are actually transformed with immortality being put on over our mortal, flesh and blood bodies. We get a brand new, incorruptible body. So, this is a direct repudiation of his claim that our mortal physical body of humiliation must be transformed.
Early on, Stevens had this to say about the Tree of Life. He was trying to explain why Christians today do not actually have access to the Tree of Life and was commenting on why Revelation 21 can only be speaking of when we die and go to heaven. He was trying to explain how the River of Life and the Tree of Life are not images of Christ:
//In these two verses, the river is NOT the Lamb, nor is the Tree of Life the Lamb. Christians alive on earth today do not yet experience the full benefits of the Tree of Life, which is immortality in immortal bodies in heaven forever. Our individual physical bodies are still mortal (subject to death). We do not receive our immortal bodies until we die and go to heaven.//
So, even though those in Christ are
A – No longer subject to the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1-3) and,
B – Even though in Christ we have the Water of Life, (and never thirst), and,
C – Even though in Christ we have the manna from heaven that gives life, and,
D – Even though in Christ we have eternal life…
None of this is actually true now! Not really. We are waiting to die– meaning we still have to experience the Death of Adam – in order to drink from the River of Life and to eat of the Tree of Life!
What this amounts to is crass materialism. It raises all sorts of serious questions that Stevens refuses to answer:
Why do Christians still die physically if Christ’s physical death was substitutionary. Stevens says it is because we are separated from the Tree of Life– just like Adam. Well, Adam was separated from the Tree for ONE REASON– sin. It was not geography; it was SIN.
Is Stevens actually claiming that there is a physical River of H2o in heaven? And if that River of Life gives Life, is that a different kind of life from what the Tree of Life gives?
Is there a physical Tree that we have to eat from to have eternal life? Stevens is on record stating that the Tree of Life gives us immortality. But WAIT! When we die, Stevens says that we receive new immortal bodies. So, how can eating a literal, physical fruit give immortality to immortal bodies? This is totally illogical.
In case you missed the point above, let me drive it home. You have to keep in mind that, Stevens has made yet ANOTHER HUMONGOUS change of positions, right in the midst of our debate! He has appealed to Philippians 3 to supposedly prove the TRANSFORMATION of our human bodies of humiliation. But then he turns around and TOTALLY DENIES ANY SUCH TRANSFORMATION OF OUR PHYSICAL BODIES! No, we die, our body of humiliation returns to the dust forever. But we go to heaven and get a brand new immortal body.
Stevens needs to inform us clearly if he now repudiates what he has argued in our debate, i.e. that in Philippians 3 Paul was teaching that our mortal, physical bodies of humiliation must be transformed without being discarded, or whether our physical bodies of humiliation are in fact discarded and return to the dust forever, and we go to heaven where we get a totally new immortal body that, although it is ostensibly immortal, it still needs for us to eat literal fruit to have immortality.
Stevens cannot have it both ways. If our lowly human body is TRANSFORMED, with – as Stevens has said- immortality being put on over mortality, without leaving our lowly body behind then he cannot argue at the same time that our physical bodies are in fact “left behind” and that we get brand new bodies! A brand New Body that is not put on over the old, is NOT the transformation of the lowly body of humiliation.
Here is where Stevens is at in regard to the Tree of Life
If we receive immortal bodies to enter heaven– since our physical bodies cannot enter heaven- then we don’t need to eat of the Tree of Life to live. We are, after all, immortal and incorruptible. But you MUST catch the power of the fact that Ed has now totally rejected and surrendered his claim that Philippians 3 teaches that Christians today have our mortal, lowly “bodies of humiliation” transformed.
To reiterate: Per Stevens, the long dead were not transformed. They received their new immortal bodies at the parousia. Thus, being immortal THEY shouldn’t need to eat of the Tree of Life to live.
And as just noted, Christians who die do not have their bodies transformed, they too get brand new immortal bodies. Thus, like the long dead who get NEW bodies, being immortal THEY should not need to eat of the Tree of Life to live.
In reality, in Ed’s new and novel theory, the ONLY people who were the recipients of the blessings of Philippians 3 was a tiny handful of first century saints who had their physical bodies transformed. Yet, per Stevens, they too have to eat of the Tree of Life to live! (Keep in mind that Stevens claims that the majority of Christians were killed in the Neronic persecution. But he has given us no proof for that claim).
So, Stevens says that Philippians 3 serves as the “pattern” for our bodies in heaven.
Yet, there is no need for the Tree of Life if we are given immortal bodies.
Per Stevens’ own words, his own doctrine, our bodies are not transformed.
Per Stevens, when the Christian dies they get that new, immortal body. No need for a bodily transformation. And thus, no need for a physical tree, producing physical fruit, to give eternal physical life.
ALL OF STEVENS’ CLAIMS ABOUT THE NECESSITY FOR TRANSFORMING OUR PHYSICAL BODIES OF HUMILIATION (I.E. UNDER THE CURSE OF ADAM!) ARE TOTALLY FALSIFIED.
That means there was NEVER a need for a rapture. Ask yourself why that small handful of first century believers are the ONLY believers in history that had to experience the transformation of their lowly human bodies of humiliation but OUR bodies do not need transformation?
Only if the human physical body was / is under the Adamic Curse does it need the redemptive work of Christ!
THUS, STEVENS’ INSISTENCE THAT PHYSICAL DEATH– THUS, THE PHYSICAL BODY– WAS NEVER THE FOCUS OF CHRIST’S REDEMPTIVE WORK, ABSOLUTELY NEGATES ANY NEED FOR A RAPTURE, OR FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE LOWLY HUMAN PHYSICAL BODY.
Stevens’ own teaching concerning the Tree of Life falsifies his entire view of Philippians 3– and the rapture.