Romans 8: Creation Groans (RJS)

Thanks for making this point and doing so in such a clear way. I've often encountered individuals who believe that the pre-Fall world was free from carnivores and death, and yet the most obvious meaning of Genesis 2-3 is that the tree of life was an "antidote" to death, not that death did not exist. If there was no death, there was no need for a tree that counteracted it!

Once one has God making carnivores and flesh-eating viruses after the Fall, it also raises serious issues about the goodness of God. Whether it is the pain of literal childbirth or the pain of bringing a new and better world into existence, such things become trauma and travail not because of physical sensations of pain, but because of our broken relationships and the fear of death and failure that agonizes us at times.

It seems to me that evangelicalism, that generally accepts some flavor of evolution (as opposed to Christian Fundamentalism which doesn't), still hasn't developed an intellectually rigorous hermeneutic for 'the fall'. Nor do I think that this problem is confined to where I live (Sydney, Australia).

It seems to me that many evangelical preachers on the one hand acknowledge that the first 11 chapters of Genesis were written in a non-literal (allegorical, mythic) genre. On the other hand, however, they still believe that 'the garden' and 'the fall' were real places and events, and that natural disasters (earth quakes, tsunamis etc) are a direct consequence of human rebellion. This sort of confused thinking I would suggest is contributing to the declining numbers of those who profess our faith (at least in developed countries).

Now it seems almost certain that Paul in Romans understood 'the garden' and 'the fall' to be historical. However, accepting that this is not correct, this weakens neither Paul's credibility nor the points he's making. Likewise, Paul's misunderstanding on this point undermines neither our belief in the inspiration of Scripture, nor its authority as some might fear - it simply reflects the very human medium though which God has chosen to reveal himself. Evidently, God's purpose was not to reveal (and most probably confuse us with) the mechanics of creation, but to reveal his own character, how we are to respond to him and each other, our proper role within creation, and to reveal his promise to us of restoration and renewal.

I accept it's reasonable to understand that at some point humankind evolved to the moment we became morally responsible before God. At some point (presumably soon after), a person (let's call him Adam) exercised the freedom God gave to choose to deny God (as he was revealed). However, can we understand 'the fall' as primarily an allegory for our corporate and individual rebellion - the desire we all have to 'do our own thing' - and that any desires to love (without God) are overwhelmed by our own self interests? Can we also understand that the world is not 'groaning' as the result of rebellion, but is 'groaning' to remind us of our precarious state with our creator, and that this isn't our real and final home since God has promised restoration and renewal of the world/cosmos too?

RJS,

First off, thanks for continuing these series. On a bit of a sidenote (I'd email you directly but don't have an email address), I'm wondering if you got a chance to see the video of Phyllip Clayton explaining what he terms "emergence science"? It sounds like really interesting and consequential stuff. But I'm curious how it sounds to someone trained in the sciences such as yourself. I'd be really curious to hear your take. The video was on Tony Jones' blog and has been making the rounds in emergent circles. Here's the link:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/tonyjones/2009/03/what-is-emergence-science.html

angusj,

Interesting, this is a topic worth some discussion. How literally should we take the curse of Gen 3 that is alluded to by Paul in Romans 8?

I think that the curse is primarily one of relationship - the relationship between mankind and the earth. But the metaphorical groaning here is a result of rebellion, not simply a reminder, rebellion that severed relationships.

I am interested to know however, how others view this "groaning."

I think its worth noting that God revokes the Genesis 3 curse in Genesis 8 (verse 21) following Noah's sacrifice.

Josh,

I don't think Gen 8:21-22 removes the curse of Gen 3 - after all the earth still produces thorns and thistles and sweat of the brow is required for enough food - many don't have enough.

As a follow up to my last post, I think it's logical to assume that God anticipated our rebellion and knew that a perfect world wouldn't be a conducive environment for us to experience moral autonomy and rebellion and still turn from that rebellion to worship him as creator.

Ken, I'm not sure I see the problem you allude to with 2 Peter 3. Isn't it reasonable to accept that the author of 2 Peter was wrong in his understanding about 'how' the world was created (eg 2 Pet 3:5) while still accepting Biblical inspiration and appreciating the theological merit of this letter?

Great post Micheal. Thanks.

Kruse # 16,

In addition to the Mona Lisa, Westminster Abbey, and Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, let's not also add to our cultural achievements the hallowed artistic wonder that is a well-poured ale.

Thanks for your clear explanation of the Peter passage... I've stumbled vaguely into various bits of that, but never really heard it so clear. Way to be. :)

On the matter of Mr Kruse's thought, making me think as it did :
Oiling my rusty Greek and delving into its lexica, I’ve come to see 2Peter3:10 more precisely as: ‘But the day of the lord will have come like a thief, in which the heavens, with a (great) rushing sound, will come undone and, by way of intense heat, the elements will be freed of their bonds (molecular & otherwise?) and the earth and the works therein will be found out.’

'Will have come' has a future perfect sense implying that it'll come so fast that none will notice til it's already come, ...too late.

As stewards of the earth, we have worked not for the communal integrity of our stewardship, but against it, and concomitantly not for the earth but against this as well, which is to say, not for the health of it, for sure. Historical context places Peter as a believer in the 4 elements. I wonder if he considered the fifth.

The Greek word for work, transliterated as 'ergon' denotes
business, employment, that in which any one is occupied (=occupation); that which one undertakes to do, enterprise, undertaking; any product whatever, anything accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind; an act, deed, thing done: the idea of working is emphasized as opp. to that which is less than work.

It thus connotes the work of humankind, whatever it be, be it kind or not. Thus ‘the earth and the works therein’ means ‘the earth and the human works therein’. That they 'will be found out' signifies that they will have been revealed, with an absent dative implicitly universal. To whom shall it be revealed anyway? Will all have been reduced to plasma? If so, then who will be left for the 'revelation' to matter? Maybe it is to the saints and surely to Him, despite our insistence on His masculinity, that in the end of the present age all shall be revealed.

Of course, since 'world' the word derives from the Anglo-Saxon
wera-ieldu, 'age of man', I tend to think of the end of the world
as the end of the present age, and not necessarily of the earth.
I would hate to think that the Lord would allow His creation to be completely undone because of our spiritual inanity.
____________________________________________________________

Re Mr Ken's thought : Its empiric illogic notwithstanding, Ken’s deduction that there likely was no rain before the purgative flood may be extended to include all the variations thereof : no ice, no snow, no clouds, not even enough moisture in the heavens to effect the appearance of a rainbow. Within a hair’s breadth of torrid aridity, the humidity might have been pleasant. And the flora were in need no water, or at least in no need of a heavenly sprinkle or two. The water table may have such that they thrived. Yet I wonder, does speculative knowledge such as this render us more salvageable from ignorance, more worthy therefore of salvation?

Chaplain,

I'm not sure what 'evidence' you have of dinosaurs being vegitarians, but I'm pretty sure the large majority of scientists have rejeted the idea (including Christian Scientists). Likewise, why does this smack of 'Liberation Theology'? Can't we be interested in what the Bible says regardless of what title it seems to follow? Also, NO ONE here is saying Christ's return is dependent upon the actions of man; only that we have a mission to accomplish (pursue) in the interim.

RJS,

This is going to be quite odd to throw into this conversation, but have you read The Shack? Oddly enough, it seems to offer a great answer to the question that some of us seem to have been throwing around and considering throughout this series. That is, man, having eaten from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, decided for themselves (and continue to do so) what is "good" and what is "evil." Our judgments are based off of self-centered conceptions of the universe, and anything which seems bad to me, is bad, regardless of whether it accomplishes an overall, universal good (the example used was poisonous plants).

I find this to be a plausible answer which i was already considering, and it is consistent with the whole of the Biblical Story. Man is fallen, the relationship with creation, God, and mankind, is all broken and fallen. The restoration of mankind will be reason for celebration for all three parties, as all relationship will be restored, and everything set right.

To all,

This brings me to the question of "will physics change for the New Creation?"

I think the answer for me is becoming no. Why? Because that allows us to imagine what it might look like according to our fallen, broken concepts of Good and Evil. Maybe it will be very much the same as it is now, we will simply know the good in all of God's creation which is good. After all, God said "it was good," and we determined certain things were "bad." Then we decide "things must have drastically changed" even though this is never said in the Bible, instead of saying "we must have drastically changed" which is always said in the Bible.