Cosmic and universal death from Adam s fall: an exegesis

JOURNAL OF CREATION 21(1) 2007 75

Papers

Translation of Romans 8:19–23

19 Fortheeagerexpectation2ofthecreation3eagerlyawaits2therevealingofthesonsofGod;

20 forthecreationwassubjected4tofutility5,notwillingly6,but on account of the one who subjected it7 inhope8

21 becausethecreationitselfalso9willbeliberatedfromthebondageofcorruption10intothelibertyofthegloryofthechildrenofGod.11

22 Forweknowthatthewholecreation12groanstogetherandsufferstogether13untilnow;

23aandnotonlythis,butourselvesalso,14

23bwhohavethefirstfruitsoftheSpiritgroaninwardlyaswewaitforadoptionassons,theredemptionofourbodies.

Larger context and exegesis

Throughverses8:1–17,15PauldeclaresthatthosewhoareinChristarenolongerunderthecondemnationofGod.

Headmonishes fellowbelievers to live according to theSpirit.Thecryof‘AbbaFather’isevidencethattheSpiritisbearingwitness to thehumanspiritwithin. BelieversareonewithChrist,sufferingbeingpartofthatoneness.Paulwritesinverse17:‘…wearechildrenofGod,andifchildren,thenheirs,heirsofGodandfellowheirswithChrist,providedwesufferwithhiminorderthatwemayalsobeglorifiedwithhim’(RSV).

Verses18–25areaparentheticalstatementinthecontextofthislargerdiscussionabouttheHolySpiritandsuffering.16Verse18thensetsuptheimmediatecontext:‘Iconsiderthatthesufferingsofthispresenttimearenotworthcomparingtotheglorythatistoberevealedinus’(RSV).Paulnowhasthefinalglorificationofthesaintsinview.TheknowledgethatglorificationiscertaingivestheChristianthehopeneededtopressthroughsuffering.17Paulpresentsacontrastbetweenpresentsufferingandfutureglory.TheendofallsufferingforfellowChristiansatglorificationisimmediatelyinviewasPaulturnstothetopicofthektisis.18

Additional uses of ktisis in the New Testament

Before proceeding with an analysis of the text, thewordktisis shouldbeexamined inotherNewTestamentcontexts.Eachcontextwherektisis3 isfoundintheNewTestamentisthedrivingforcebehinditsmeaning.Onlyinonecasedowefindamoreunconventionaluseoftheword:1Peter2:13.Mark 10:6—apo de archj ktisewj(apo de archēs ktiseōs).

‘Butfromthebeginning of creation, “Godmadethemmaleandfemale.”’And,o` ktisaj apV archj(ho ktisas ap’ archēs),inMatthew19:4,‘…at the beginning theCreatormadethemmaleandfemale.’Inbothverses,JesusisprovidingthePhariseeswithanexplanationofGod’soriginalintentionformarriagefromScripture,clear references to Genesis 1:27. Note also, this isanotherstrongsupport forayoung-earthview,sinceJesustaughtthatmarriagewastherefromthebeginningofcreation,notbillionsofyearsafterahypothetical‘big bang’ beginning. The samegoes for the otherreferencesbelowtopeoplepresent‘fromthebeginningofthecreation.’19

Mark 13:19—apV archj ktisewj(ap’ archēs ktiseōs).Jesusreferstosuchtribulationwhichhasnotbeen‘from the beginning of the creation.’

Romans 1:20—apo ktiewj kosmou(apo ktiseōs kosmou).Paulisreferringtotheplainlyunderstoodandobviousexistence ofGod, seen since ‘the creation of the world.’

Romans 1:25—th| ktisei para ton Ktisanta (tē ktisei para ton Ktisanta).Paul states: ‘… they exchange thePaulstates:‘…theyexchangethetruthofGodforalieandworshippedandservedthe creature rather than the Creator.’

Romans 8:39—oute tij ktisij e`tera (oute tis ktisis hetera).Paul’sadmonitionregardingtheassuranceofsalvation:‘…norheight,nordepth,noranythingelsein all creation.

2 Peter 3:4— apV archj ktisewj(ap’ archēs ktiseōs).Peter’sreferencetotheParousia.ThosewhomockthesecondcomingofJesusclaimthatallthingshavecontinuedastheywere‘fromthebeginningofcreation’.

Revelation 3:14—h` arch thj ktisewj tou Qeou(hē archē

Cosmic and universal death from Adam’s fall: an exegesis of Romans 8:19–23aHenry B. Smith Jr

Paul’s theological treatise in the epistle to the Romans clearly teaches that the animal kingdom and the entire universe experienced a universal death sentence at the time of Adam’s fall in Genesis 3. This provides solid support for a young-earth understanding of the Creation/Fall narratives found in the early chapters of Genesis. First, a detailed exegesis of Romans 8:19–23a1 demonstrates this. The Greek word for creation,κτίσις(ktisis), in this context refers to the entire sub-human created order. Second, ‘the one who subjected it in hope’ in verse 20 is God. Lastly, there is a direct connection between this passage and the universal death sentence caused by the fall of Adam in Genesis 3:14–19.

JOURNAL OF CREATION 21(1) 200776

Papers

tēs ktiseōs tou Theou).JohnwritestotheangelofthechurchinLaodicea,‘…thefaithfulandtruewitness,the beginning of God’s creation.’

Colossians 1:15—prwtotokoj pashj ktisewj(prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs).‘HeistheimageoftheinvisibleGod,the first-born of all creation.

Hebrews 9:11—ou tauthj thj ktisewj (ou tautēs tēs ktiseōs).‘…notmadewithhands,thatis,not of this creation.’Thisreferenceistotheperfecttent,not of this creation,whichChristenteredashighpriest.

2 Corinthians 5:17—wste ei tij en Cristw|( kainh ktisij (hōste ei tis en Christō, kainē ktisis). ‘Therefore, ifanyoneisinChrist,he is a new creation.’

Galatians 6:15—alla kainh ktisij (alla kainē ktisis).‘For neither circumcision counts for anything, noruncircumcision,but a new creation.’

Colossians 1:23—en pash| ktisei(en pasē ktisei).‘… the‘…thegospelwhichyouheard,whichhasbeenpreachedtoevery creature underheaven.’

Hebrews 4:13—kai ouk estin ktisij(kai ouk estin ktisis).‘Andbeforehimno creature ishidden…’

1 Peter 2:13—u`petaghte pash| anqrwpinh| ktisei(hupotagēte pasē anthrōpinē ktisei). ‘Besubject fortheLord’ssaketoevery human institution.’

ThisanalysisshowsthatktisisintheNewTestamentisusedtorefertothecreationoftheworld,toGodascreator,andtothecreationasawhole.Contextlimitsitsmeaning,particularlyinthefollowingverses:Galatians6:15and2Corinthians5:17,whichrefertothenewbirth.Colossians1:23referstohumanity,whilethecontextofHebrews4:13limitsthedefinitiontobelievers.Onlyin1Peter2:13dowefindamoreunconventionalusage,referringtohumanauthorities. Thisusagestill remainswithin thescopeofmeaning.18

Ktisis

ThepurposeinthissectionistodeterminetheexactdefinitionofktisijinthecontextofRomans 8:19–23a, and to also determinewhat shouldbe includedwithin the scopeof the ktisis. As previously noted, theglorificationofbelieversisimmediatelyinviewinverse18.Paulmovestoaparticularaspectofthetimeofglorification,thefateandstateof thektisis. Basedonrangeofmeaning,NTusageandcontext,thepossibledefinitions of ktisis are: 1) unbelievinghumanity, 2) angels, 3) believers, 4) thesub-human creation only, 5) the wholecreation,includingmanandtheangels,6)combinationsoftheabovesuggestions.20

Unbelieving humanity

Unbelievers21areneitherlongingfortherevealingofthesonsofGod,noraretheyunwillingsubjectsoffutility.Unbelieverswillingly rejectGod (Romans 1:18–32).22

Further,kosmoj (kosmos) is typically utilizedby theNTauthorsininstancesthatrefertounbelieversorthewaytheunbelievingworldoperates.23KtisisisnotusedintheNTtorefertounbelievers.Furtherevidenceagainstincludingunbelieversinthektisisisfurtherspelledoutinthesectionregardingbelieversbelow.

Angels

Fallenangelswouldnotbeincluded,astheywillinglyrebelled againstGodwith their leader, Satan.24 Theyarepermanentlycondemned to judgment, andcannotberedeemed(Jude6,2Peter2:4).Likeunbelievinghumanity,theyarenoteagerlyawaitingtherevealingofthesonsofGod, nor are theyunwilling subjects of futility. Angelswhodid not rebelwithSatan are not in the bondageofcorruption.25Theyawaitnoliberationforthemselves.Thepassagestatesthatthe‘ktisis willalsobeliberatedfromthebondageofcorruption’.Therefore,allangelicbeingsshouldbeexcludedfromthemeaningofktisis.

Believers

Fourpointsofcontrastbetweenbelieversandthektisismaketheinclusionofbelieversinthektisisuntenable:1. Inverse19,‘theeagerexpectationofthektisiseagerly

awaitstherevealingofthesonsofGod’. Thektisisisnotwaitingforliberation,strictlyspeaking,butratherit is waiting for the sons of God to revealed, henceallowingthe ktisistoescapefromitspresentstate.ThektisisandthesonsofGodareseparate.

2. Verse 21a states that the ‘ktisis itself will also beliberated from the bondageof corruption’. The useof itself and alsocreatetwoadditionalclearcontrastsbetween believers,26 whom Paul has in view in theimmediateandlargercontext,andthektisis.

‘

The Greek text of Romans 8:19–23 (UBS) supports a young-earth understanding of the creation/fall narratives found in the early chapters of Genesis.


Papers

3. When the liberation from thebondageof corruptionoccursinverse21a,the ktisiswillenterintothelibertyofthegloryofthechildrenofGodinverse21b.Thektisis isonceagainseparatefromthechildrenofGod.

4. Lastly,thestatementinverse23a,‘notonlythis,butourselvesalso’, establishesafourthcontrastbetweenthektisisandbelievers,consistentwiththecontrastsalreadyestablishedinthetext.Thephrase,‘butourselvesalso’,isdistinguishedfrom‘thewholecreation’bythephrase,not only this.14,27

The sub-human creation

When potential meanings of ktisis are eliminatedthroughthisgrammaticalanalysis,theimmediatecontextandrangeofmeaninglimittheunderstandingofktisistotheentiresub-humancreation—inanimateandanimatecreatedorder.Themeaningofktisisexcludesrationalbeings,butincludes everything else. Since the expression, pasa hē ktisis (pasa h` ktisij),‘thewholecreation’, isused,‘wearecompelled,intherestrictedsphereofthenon-rational,togivethetermcomprehensivescopeandwearepreventedfrompositing any further limitation’.28 The only limitsplacedonthemeaningof ktisisaretheexclusionofhumanbeingsandangels.Nootherpartofthecreationshouldbeexcluded:

‘Thewordspa/sa h` kti,sij[pasa hē ktisis],thewholecreation,aresocomprehensive,thatnothingshouldbeexcludedwhichthenatureofthesubjectandthecontextdonotshowcannotbeembracedwithintheirscope.’29

Thektisiswouldincludealllifeformsonearthatthesub-humanlevel,includingthewholespectrumofplantsandanimals:‘Itremains,then,thatthecreaturesdestituteofintelligence,animateandinanimate,theheavensandtheearth,theelements,theplantsandanimals,areherereferredto.’30Sinceourlocalsolarsystem,galaxyandthespacebeyondareunquestionablypartof thecreatedorder, theexpressionmustincludetheentireuniverse.31

Supporting evidence for this understanding is foundinColossians1:15,wherePaulreferstothepre-eminenceandpre-existenceofChrist,‘thefirst-bornofallcreation’,prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs (prwtotokoj pashj ktisewj).Thisparticularcontextallowsfortheinclusionofhumanityandtheangels,butneverthelesscloselyresemblesthephraseunderdiscussion,‘thewholecreation’,pasa hē ktisis (pasa h` ktisij).WhenPaulutilizespasa andktisis together,thephraseisintendedtoconveyacomprehensivescope.32

Understandingthe ktisisastheentiresub-humancreatedorder,thephrase,‘thewholecreationgroanstogetherandsuffers together until now’, can be properly understood.Paulhasutilizedtheexpression,sustenazei kai sunōdinei (sustenazei kai sunwdinei), twopresent tenseverbs, toconvey the unity of the sub-human created order in itsfutility and bondage of corruption. The groaning andagonizing suffering provides further descriptive detailsaboutthefutilityofthebondageofcorruption.Thestateofaffairsinthecreationisawful.Together ‘isbetterregarded

as referring tocreation in itsentiretyandall itspartsasunitinginthistravailthanasunitingwithbelievers.’13,33

Theeliminationofangelsandhumansascandidatesforinclusioninthektisisgivescredencetothisinterpretation.Thewhole creation groans together and suffers togetherandisaninterdependentandunifiedentity.Nopartofthecreationcanoperateorexistautonomously.Inthesameway,allpartsofthecreationexperiencethefutilityofitscorruptedstate.AsOkestates,‘thewholecreationhasbeengroaningandtravailinginunison’.34Everyaspectofthecreationlongstobeliberated,longstoenterintofreedom,together.

‘The one who subjected it in hope’

Thusfar,ithasbeenfirmlyestablishedthatPaul’suseofktisisinthiscontextreferstothewholesub-humanmaterialcreation,excludinghumanityandtheangels.Pasa hē ktisis,‘thewhole creation’, has been subjected to futility, andsomeone(the one)isresponsibleforthisact.

There are three possible candidates who could be‘theonewhosubjecteditinhope’,Adam,SatanorGod.35Theexactmeaningofthephraseappearstobesomewhatambiguous at first glance,36 but through further analysisthe identity of the ‘onewho subjected it in hope’ canbe ascertained. Verse 20 reads: ‘For the creationwassubjected to futility,notwillingly,butonaccountof theonewhosubjecteditinhope.’Severalobservationsshedlightonthemeaningofthetextandrevealtheidentityofthesubjector:1. Thecreationplaysapassiveroleinthesubjecting.The

aorist37passivehupetagē (u`petagh)isusedtodescribetheaction.Therefore,thecreationhasbeenacteduponby somethingor someone fromoutside itself. ‘Theinanimatecreationwasapassivesufferer, sharing inthecursewhichfelluponmanforhisapostasy.’4,38

2. Thephrase,ouch hekousa(ouc e`cousa),notwillingly,indicatesthatthecreationwasnotonlypassivelyacteduponbysomeoutsideforce,butitwasacteduponin opposition to its will.6Althoughthewholesub-humancreatedorderdoesnothaveasentientwill39per se,therepetitionemphasizesthatthecreationhadnocontrolover its subjection. The creation was acted uponpassivelyandunwillingly.

3. Thephraseeph elpidi (efV e`lpidi), in hope modifieseitherhupetagē orhupotaxanta(u`potaxanta).‘Itdoesnotmakemuchdifferencewhethereph elpidiistakenwithhupetagē orhupotaxanta. Butitispreferablytakenwiththeformerasthemainverbratherthanwiththeparticiple.’40Ineithercase,hopeisinviewwhentheactofsubjectionoccurs.Thissubjector,therefore,wouldhavetopossessthepowerandauthoritytosubjecttheentiresub-humancreationtofutility,andhavehopeinviewatthesametime.Theexpression,‘inhope’,isunderstoodashavingthepurposeofhope,or‘uponthebasisofhope’whentheactoccurs.8,41

The fact that this cosmic event took place ‘inhope’negatesthepossibilityofSatanbeingthesubjector.42


Papers

Clearly,hewouldnotberesponsibleforsuchanactforthepurposeofbringingabouthope. Althoughhepossessesmore power thanAdam and is directly responsible fordeceivingEve(2Corinthians11:3,1Timothy2:14),evenSatanwouldnotbeabletobringaboutsuchastateofaffairs.Evenifhewereabletodosuchathing,whatmotivewouldhehaveforcommittingsuchanact‘inhope’?

CanAdambe‘theonewhosubjectedthecreationtofutility,inhope’?AssumingforamomentPaulhasGenesis3inview(tobediscussedshortly),asthefederalheadofhumanity(Romans5:12–21),AdamisheldresponsiblebyGod for plunging theworld into sin (Genesis 3:14–19).Adamhadtheauthorityto‘handover’hisresponsibilityascreation’sstewardtoSatan(Luke4:6),buthandingoverauthority as a steward does not imply adequate enoughauthorityorpowertosubjectthecreationtofutilityonauniversalscale.Adamcertainlycouldnothavesubjectedthecreationtofutility‘inhope’.ThepowertobringaboutsuchasweepingstateofaffairscannotbeascribedtoAdam.43

TheonlyalternativeistochooseGodasthesubjector.4,35,44If the subjection took place during the creation of the

universe(tobediscussedshortly),theonlypossiblechoiceisGod.ButifittookplaceatthetimeofAdam’sfallinGenesis3,onlyGodwouldhavethepowertosubjectthewholesub-humancreationtofutilityandthebondageofcorruption,andtobringaboutsuchastateofaffairswithhopeinview.‘OnlyGod,beingbothJudgeandSaviour,entertainedhopefortheworldhecursed.’45Godcoulddosuchathingwiththeability,foreknowledge,authorityandpowertohavehopeinview.46OnlyGodcouldorchestratealltheeventsofhistorytobringhopeintheend.Theuseoftheaoristdivinepassive,hupetagē,pointstoaspecificeventinthepast,‘andtheanalogywithPaul’sargumentinRomans5indicatesadirectreferenceheretoGenesis3:17.ThepassivesuggestsGodistheagenthere,notAdam.’47

Theparallel statements, ‘the creationwas subjectedto futility’ and ‘the creation itselfwill alsobe liberated’strengthentheargumentthatGodisthesubjector.OnlyGodhasthepowertosubjectthecreationinhope,justasonlyGodhasthepowertoliberateitfromitspresentstate.

The analysis thus far has yielded the followingconclusions:1. theentire sub-humancreatedorderwas subjected to

futility,2. the‘onewhosubjectedit’wasGodhimself,3. thisactwasbroughtaboutwithhopeinview,and4. Paul is assuring believers that not only will they

be liberated, but the creation itself will be liberatedwhenthechildrenofGodcomeintotheirgloryattheapocalypse.

‘Subjected to futility’: Creation or Fall?

Biblicalcommentatorsregardthissubjectionashavingoccurredattwopossiblepointsintime.Eitherthecreationwassubjectedtobothfutilityandthebondageofcorruptionatthemomentofcreation,48orthecreationwassubjectedtofutilityandthebondageofcorruptionatthetimeofAdam’sfallinGenesis3:14–19.Thereareseveralpointstobemaderegardingthetimeofthissubjection.

The Creation Week

Ifthecreationwasinafutilestateattheinitialmomentof its existence, it technically could not be subjected tocorruptionanddecay.Itwouldsimplycomeintoexistencein that state. Itsnaturaland initial inclinationwouldbetowardfutility.Whenathingorpersonisactedupon,inthiscase,‘subjectedtofutility’,italreadyexists.IfGodsubjected the entire sub-human created order to futilityat thetimeHecreatedtheuniverse, thetextwouldread:‘thecreationwascreatedinfutility’not‘thecreationwassubjectedtofutility’.

ThereisnothinginthenarrativeofGenesis1,whichdescribesthecreationoftheuniverse,thatindicatesthereisanykindoffutilityorcorruption.49Infact,thesummarystatement regarding the days of creation, Genesis 1:31,indicatestheexactopposite:‘Godsawallthathehadmade,anditwasvery good’(NIV).50Romans8:18–23adescribesadesperateandfutilecondition,threefold,quiteantithetical

Life-destroying volcanic eruptions such as Mt St Helens occur due to Adam’s sin and the whole creation subsequently being ‘subjected to futility’.


Papers

tothedescriptionfoundinGenesis1:31:‘thecreationwassubjectedtofutility’,‘thecreationwillbeliberatedfromthebondageofcorruption’and‘thewholecreationgroanstogetherandsufferstogether’.IfthetextofRomans8:19–23aisteachingusthatGodsubjectedthecreatedordertofutilityatthecreation,thensomethingshouldbefoundinthetextofGenesis1tojustifythatunderstanding.AcursoryreviewofGenesis1revealsquitetheopposite.

The Fall

ThenarrativeofGenesis3:14–19,however, ismuchmoreconsistentwithPaul’sexpressionsfoundinthetextunderinvestigation.IfAdam’sfallwasindeedthecauseofthis‘subjectiontofutility’byGod,theideaofhopebeingdirectlyconnectedtotheactionmakesperfectsenseifPaulhadGenesis3inview.ManybiblicalcommentatorsseeGenesis3:15astheprotevangelium,51thefirstproclamationofthegospel.ThefirsthumanbeingshavedisobeyedGodinparadise,and,havingbeenfairlywarned,theyaretoreceivepunishment for their transgression. But thispunishmentoccurswithhopeinGod’sview.Thegospelistheultimatehopeinadesperateandimpossiblycorruptsituation.Thecombinedterms4,10hupetagēandtēs douleias tēs phthoras,(thj douleiaj thj fqoraj)inverses20and21areperfectlyconsistentwiththeeventsdescribedinGenesis3:14–19,adirectresultofAdamandEve’sdisobedience.

Hope

Paul describes exactlywhat ‘in hope’ entails: ‘thecreationitselfalsowillbeliberatedfromthebondageofcorruptionintothelibertyofthegloryofthechildrenofGod’. Thehopeof thecreation is inexorablyconnectedto the fate of the children ofGod. It therefore followsthatthecreation’sfutilityisalsoinexorablyconnectedtoman’sfutility,bothoriginatinginman’sfall. Thewholesub-humancreatedorderwasplungedintofutilitybyman’sfall,anditwillbeliberatedasaresultofman’sredemption.‘IfcreationsufferedwithmanintheFall,Godmeansitalsotoshareinhisfinalbeatitude.’52

Mutual fall, mutual destiny

Thelargercontextofthepassageunderinvestigationhas theglorificationofbelieversdirectly inview. Verse21reads: ‘Thecreation itselfwillalsobe liberatedfromthe bondage of corruption’, indicating the creationwillbeliberatedfromthesamefallenconditionasman.Paulmakesadirectconnectionbetweenman’sneedforliberationandcreation’sneedforliberation.Thisentireconnectionbetweentheglorificationofbelieversandtheliberationofthecreationislostifthecreationhasalwaysbeeninafutileandcorruptedstate,completelyunrelatedtoman’sfallencondition.Instead,therelationshipbetweenthefutileandcorrupted stateofmankind, and the futile andcorruptedstateofthecreatedorder,wouldbeperfectlyconsistentwiththerelationshipbetweenman’sredemptionandcreation’sredemption.53 Ultimately, a fallen creation is the onlyappropriatestageforfallenmantoliveandoperate:

‘ThepointPaulispresumablymaking,throughsomewhatobscurelanguage,isthatGodfollowedthelogicofhispurposedsubjectingofcreationtomanbysubjectingitfurtherinconsequenceofman’sfall,sothatitmightserveasanappropriatecontexttoengage the futilemindofman;a futile world to engage the futile mind of man. Bydescribingcreation’ssubjectionas“unwilling”Paulmaintainsthepersonificationofthepreviousverse.Thereisanout-of-sortedness,adisjointednessaboutthecreatedorderwhichmakesitasuitablehabitationformanatoddswithhiscreator[emphasisadded].’54

The doctrine of death

Paul’s theology regarding death’s entrance into thehumanraceisbuiltonthefactofaliteralAdamandhistransgressiononlythreechaptersearlierinRomans5:12–21.Deathcametohumanitythroughoneman(Adam),solifecomesthroughoneman(Jesus,theLastAdam).InPaulinetheology,Adamisresponsiblefortheentranceofsinintothehumanrace.TobinmakestheconnectionbetweenRomans5andRomans8asfollows:

‘Since Paul has already in Rom. 5:12–21tracedtherootsofthepresentsituationofsinanddeath toAdam’s transgression,8:20–21 isclosertotheJewishtextsthatbuildoninterpretationsoftheGenesisaccount, in that thefutility towhichcreation has been unwillingly subjected and thedecaytowhichitisenslavedaretheconsequencesofAdam’stransgression.’55

Blacksupportsthisview:‘Asmuchasanyothertext,thispassageattests

tothebroad,cosmicsweepofPaul’sthinkingaboutdeath. It is notmerely the case that individualhuman beings die; the whole creation has beensubjectedtofutilityandhasbeengroaningintravailtogether(vv20,22).Insuchstatementsasthese,we are reminded once again of the curse on thegroundofGenesis3’.56

Death is clearly in view in Romans 5:12–21,andhavingbeen shown tohaveadirect theological andlinguisticconnectiontoRomans8,itiscertainthatdeathis directly inview regarding the futility andbondageofcorruptionreference,furthercharacterizedbygroaningandsuffering. Thesetermsaredescriptiveoftheeffectsandconsequencesofdeath,humanorotherwise.Corruption,phthoras(fqoraj)inverse21isdefinedas‘decay,perish,ruin,destroy’10,57ThoughPauldoesnotusethestandardNewTestamentword fordeath, thanatos (qanatoj)—themeaningofphthorasinthiscontextclearlyreferstodeath.The phrase tēs douleias tēs phthoras, ‘the bondage ofcorruption’,57 is combined with the unwilling subjectionto futility, mataiotēs (mataiothj). The groaning andlamentation of the entire sub-human creation speaks ofuniversaldeathanddecay.Allthesewordsincombination:phthoras, mataiotēs, douleias, sustenazei and sunōdineiirrefutablyspeakofuniversaldeath,decayanddestruction.


Papers

ThepervasivedeaththatisfoundintheanimalkingdomhascomeasadirectresultofGod’scurseresultingfromAdam’sfall.AsBarthhassaidabouttheanimals,‘Vanityisnotthecreature’sprimalconstitution.’58

Genesis 3:14 supports the assertion that the animalsbegantodieafterthefall,asGoddeclarestotheserpent:‘…cursedareyouaboveallcattleandaboveallwildanimals’(RSV). The contrast ‘above all’ communicates that theserpent’scursewouldbegreaterthanthecurseoftheallotheranimals.Hence,allanimalsarebeingcursedatthismomentintime.ThereisnothinginthetextofGenesis1thatwouldleadonetobelievetheanimalswereexperiencingdeath beforeGod’scurse.ThetextofGenesis1indicatesthattheanimalswerenoteatingandkillingeachotherpriortothefallofAdam.‘Andtoallthebeastsoftheearthandallthebirdsoftheairandallcreaturesthatmoveontheground—everythingthathasthebreathoflifeinit—Igiveeverygreenplantforfood.Anditwasso.’59Animalswereoriginallydesignedtoeatvegetation,noteachother.

CertainOldTestamentprophetictextsthatlookforwardto the apocalypse portray animals as being benevolentin theMessianic age, especially animals that today areconsidereddangerous and/or carnivorous. For example,Isaiah11:6–9:

‘Thewolfwillliewiththelamb,theleopardwillliedownwiththegoat,thecalfandthelionand the yearling together; and a little child willleadthem.Thecowwillfeedwiththebear,theiryoungwillliedowntogether,andthelionwilleatstrawlikeanox.Theinfantwillplayneartheholeofthecobra,andtheyoungchildwillputhishandintotheviper’snest.Theywillneitherharmnordestroyonallmyholymountain,fortheearthwillbefulloftheknowledgeoftheLordasthewaterscoverthesea.’(NIV)

JohnMunday argues that this verse and others,

such as Isaiah 65:25, are looking to the future, and arenot a description of conditions in the world before theFall.60 Theseversesdospeakof theendof theage,buttheydescribeaconditioninthefutureofrestoration.Theimplicationisthattheanimalkingdomwillberestoredtoastatethatresemblesitsoriginalstate:perfect,harmoniousand benevolent. The end of the age will not just bringaboutpermanentchangeintheuniverse,itwillrestoretheuniversetoaconditionthatresemblesitsinitialcondition.61Theessenceofrestorationattheapocalypseisareturnto an initial condition!Thisreconciliationandtransformationwilloccurintheanimalkingdom,andtheanimalswillnotperishbydiseaseorcarnivoryinthenewage,justastheydidnotperishinthisfashionpriortoAdam’sfall.MotyercommentsextensivelyconcerningIsaiah11:6–9:

‘ThereisanEdenicelementinIsaiah’sthinking…thelifeofnatureitselfistransformed.Verse6-8offerthreefacetsoftherenewedcreationandverse9isaconcludingsummary.First,inverse6thereisthereconciliationofoldhostilities,theallayingofoldfears;predators(wolf, leopard, lion)andprey(lamb, goat, calf)arereconciled.Sosecureisthepeacethatayoungstercanexercisethedominionoriginallygiventohumankind.Secondly,inverse7 there is a change of nature within the beaststhemselves: cow and bear eat the same food, asdolion andox. Thereisalsoachangeintheveryorderofthingsitself:theherbivoralnatureofallthecreaturepointstoEdenrestored(Gn.1:29–30).Thirdly,inverse8thecurseisremoved.Theenmitybetweenthewoman’sseedandtheserpentisgone(Gn. 3:15ab). Infant and ‘weaned child’ havenothingtofearfromcobra andviper. Finally,inverse9thecomingEdenisMountZion—aZionwhichfillsthewholeearth.Peace(9a),holiness(9b), and ‘knowing theLord’ (9c) pervades all[emphasisadded].’62

‘Original animal immortality can hardly bemaintained without presuming vast anatomical,behavioral and ecological changes in animals atthetimeofthefall.Scriptureisfullysilentonsuchchanges,suggestingthattherewerenone.’63

Mundayissimplywrong. Theuniversallyfutileandcorrupt stateof affairs that pervades the sub-humancreatedorderdescribedbyPaulpointstooneeventasitscause:Adam’sfall.Thetextshowsthatthefutilityofthecreatedorderisfar-reachingandcomprehensive;allcreationisunderauniversaldeathsentence.Mundayiscorrectindescribingtheimmenseandvastchangesthatwouldhaveto transpire to subvert animal immortality and initiatecarnivoryanddeath,butthissortofchangeisexactlywhatRomans8:19–23aisdescribing!

Munday proceeds tomisinterpretRomans 8:22 bystating:‘Creation’sownorderhasnotbeenfundamentallyandpermanentlyaltered.Instead,man’ssinhasimposedon it aburden.’64 The futilityof the sub-humancreatedorder as describedbyPaul cannot be ascribed toman’s

The tragic 2004 tsunami demonstrates the horribly corrupted and futile state of the created order. Natural disasters like this will cease when: ‘There shall be no more anything accursed’ (Rev. 22:3; RSV).


Papers

mismanagementofitsresourcesoritscreatures.ThetextrevealsthatitwasGod whosubjectedthecreationtofutility,notman.65Theprobleminthesub-humancreationisfarworsethanman’sabuseofit.Arewetounderstandthatearthquakes,floods,volcaniceruptionsandhurricanesthatdestroybothhumanandanimallifearetheresultofman’senvironmentalabuse?

Cosmic Christology, cosmic restoration

PaulsetsforthacosmicChristologyinhiswritingsthatassertthepre-eminenceofChristoverallexistence.66HewritesinColossians1:15–20:

‘He is the image of the invisibleGod, thefirstbornoverall creation.Forbyhimall things werecreated:things in heaven and things on earth,visibleandinvisible,whetherthronesorpowersorrulersorauthorities;all thingswerecreatedbyhimandforhim.Heisbeforeall things,andinhimall thingshold together.…ForGodwaspleased tohaveallhisfullnessdwellinhim,andthroughhimtoreconcile to himselfall things,whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peacethrough his blood, shed on the cross [emphasisadded]’(NIV).67

TheGreekphrase,ta panta(ta panta)referstotheentirecreatedorderas the largercontextassertsChrist’ssupremacyovertheentireuniverse.‘Allthings’includeseverythinginthesub-humancreation.‘Allthings’requirereconciliation;henceChristwillreconcilehimselftoallthethingsthathecreated,includingtheanimalkingdom,theearthandtheuniversebeyond.The comprehensiveness of the reconciliation demands a comprehensive schism in the relationship.

HowcanChristreconcilehimselftoacreation,thingsonearthandthingsinheaven,thatHecreatedinafutileandcorruptedstateoriginally?Therewouldbenoreconciliation,forthestateofthecreationwouldalwayshavebeenafutile,corruptanddecayingone.Attheheartoftheconceptofreconciliationisarelationshipthatisrestored.ThislineofreasoningleadstotheconclusionthatChrist’screationwasnot futileandcorrupt,characterizedbydeath in thebeginning,butwasbroughtintoitscurrentcorruptedstatebyGod’sjudgmentasaresultofAdam’ssin.

Revelation22:3reportsthatattheendoftheage,‘Thereshallbenomoreanythingaccursed’(RSV).Theexpression,kai pan katathema ouk estai eti(kai pan kataqema ouk estai eti),contains thesameadjectivewithmerelyadifferentinflection,pasa,asPaul’sphrase,pasa hē ktisis (pasa h` ktisij). This is another universal expressiondescribingthescopeofthecurseandisanunambiguousreferencetoGenesis3:14–19.68TheuniversaleffectsofGod’sjudgmentonthecreatedorderwillbepermanentlyanduniversallyremoved.Petertellsusofa‘newheavenandnewearth’in2Peter3:13,andthisideaisrepeatedinRevelation21:1.‘Thenewearth’wouldincludetheanimalsandplantsthatGodcreatedinaninitiallyperfectcondition.JesusverifiesthisuniversalrestorationinMatthew19:28,whenheproclaims:

‘TrulyIsaytoyou,in the new world, whentheSonofManshallsitonhisgloriousthrone…’(RSV).TheseimagesofuniversalrestorationarealsofoundintheOldTestament,includingIsaiah11:1ff;65:17ff;66:22;Psalm102:25–27;Hosea2:18;andinnon-canonicalJewishliterature:1Enoch45:4–5;2Baruch31:5–32:6;4Ezra7:11,30–32,75.69

Based upon all these factors, it would be logicallyimpossibletojustifyaninterpretationthatassertsfutilityandthebondageofcorruptionatthemomentofcreation.Asubsequent,post-Genesis-1subjectionistheonlyexegeticalpossibility.TheonlyeventrecordedinScripturethatcouldprovideadditionalinsightintothesubjectionofthecreationinRomans8:19–23aisGenesis3:14–19.Thisanalysisisconsistentwith theviewofmostBiblicalcommentators,whohavedeterminedthatPaulhadthefallofAdamandthecurseofGenesis3:14–19inviewwhenauthoringthistext.70Haldanesumsup thecasemost succinctly: ‘ItwouldbederogatorytothegloryofGodtosupposethathisworksarenowinthesameconditioninwhichtheywerefirstformed,orthattheywillalwayscontinueasatpresent.’71

Conclusion

Romans8:19–23aclearlyteachesthatthefallofAdamcausedGodtosubjecttheentiresub-humancreatedordertothebondageofcorruption,auniversaldeathsentence.Thisactwasdonewithhopedirectlyinview.Thecreation’sonlyhopeisinexorablyconnectedtotheredemptionofthechildrenofGodattheendoftheage.Paul’sdescriptionofthestateofredeemedhumanityattheendoftheagecannotbeseparatedfromtheneedforthecreatedorderitselftoberedeemed.Thefateofthektisis dependssolelyonthefateofGod’schildren.Theonlyexplanationfortheirmutualdestinyisthatthecreatedorderandmankindalsomutuallyfellintotheircurrentstateoffutilityandcorruption.Mandidnotfallintothiscorruptedstatewhenhewascreated,andconsequently,neitherdidthesub-humancreatedorder.Theentiresub-humancreationgroansandsuffersinunison.Adam’s fall inGenesis 3:14–19was a far-reaching anduniversaleventthathadimmensecosmicimplications,notonlyonmankind,butalsoontheentiresub-humancreatedorder. The creation was given a cosmic death sentencethatcanonlybeeradicatedbyChrist.ThecombinationofnegativetermsusedbyPaulirrefutablyspeaksofuniversaldeath. The universal nature of Paul’s language and ananalysisofotherrelevanttextshaverevealedthatanimalsalso fell into this cosmic death sentence at the time ofAdam’sfall.

Itismostunfortunatethatmanyscholarsandexegetesfind itdifficult toaccept suchwide-rangingeffects fromAdam’s fall.72 The primary reason for this appears tobetheassertionthat‘science’hasproventhattherehavebeen millions of years of death and catastrophe on theearth,particularlyintheanimalkingdom,priortoAdam’sexistence.Manycommentatorsbelievethatscientistshaveproventhattheearthisbillionsofyearsold,andthelong-ageinterpretationofthefossilrecordsupportsthatconclusion.Nomatterhowoneapproachesthechronologicaldatain


Papers

theBible,no-onewouldargue thatAdam livedmillionsorbillionsofyearsago. Therefore,modernsciencehasassertedthatthereareeonsofdeath,diseaseanddestructionin theanimalkingdomwhichpredateAdam’sexistence.Destructive earthquakes, other natural catastrophesand mass extinctions in the animal kingdom, includingcarnivorousbehaviour,hadtakenplaceinagespast,andthereforewould still be taking place at the time Adam and Eve were created.

Ifthisistrue,thenRomans8:19–23awouldhavetobereinterpretedtomeansomethinginaverylimitedsense.Asnotedabove,manycommentatorshaveattemptedtodojustthat.ThesereinterpretationsofPaul’stheology,however,mustincludeinterpretationsfrommodernhistoricalscience(not empirical science), and not fromScripture alone.Otherattemptshavebeenmadetolimitthektisis toastrictanthropological-soteriologicaldefinition.73These fruitless attempts at reinterpretation cannot be justified by a sound exegesis of the Greek text.

HowcouldGoddeclareinGenesis1:31thatthecreationwasvery good, wheninfact,cataclysmiceventssuchasearthquakesandmeteoriteimpactshadbeenkillingmembersoftheanimalkingdomforeonsoftime?Nottomentiontheobviousevidencetodayandinthefossilstratathatanimalskilloneanotheranddiefromdisease,injuryandoldage.Therefore,basedonananalysisofRomans8:19–23aandotherrelevanttexts,thereisaglaringcontradictionbetweenPaul’stheologyandanyattempttoreinterpretScripturetoaccommodateold-earthdogmatism.

Romans 8:19–23a should point evangelical laymenandscholarsaliketotheplain,straightforwardandnaturalreadingofGenesis1.OnlywithScriptureasaguidecanthescientistaccuratelyreconstructtheeventsofthepast.Paul’streatiseinRomans8:19–23aservesasanabsolutelyessentialguidepostinunderstandingtheageoftheearth,because itdescribes thecurrentstateof thecreationandhowitsbeautyandperfectionwerehorriblymarredwhenAdamchosehimselfoverhisCreator.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledgeMr LesterHicks ofLancasterBibleCollegeGraduateSchool(whointroducedmetotheGreekLanguage)andMrScottLanser,ExecutiveDirectorofABR,fortheirinputandguidanceinwritingthispaper.

References

1. Thecentralpurposeofthispaperandspacelimitationsdonotallowafullexegesisofthecompleteliteraryunit,verses18–25.Verse23bhasbeenaddedinthissectiontocompletePaul’s thought. This translationhasbeenprovidedtodemonstratethattheGreektextfullysupportsayoungearth.

2. Strongdefinesapokaradokia (apokaradokia) as ‘intense anticipation,earnest expectation’. Strong, J.,Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,ThomasNelsonPublishers,Nashville,TN,p.14,1984.Thisanticipationisakintowaitingwiththeheaderectandarmsoutstretched.Hodge,C.,Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,Eerdmans,GrandRapids,MI,p.269,1953;Godet,F.L.,Commentary on Romans, Kregel

Publications,GrandRapids,MI,1883;reprint,1977;Cranfield,C.E.B.,The International Critical Commentary: Romans,T&TClark,10ed.,8vols.,vol.1,London,p.410,2003.Thissenseofexpectationisfurtheraugmentedandemphasizedwiththepresentmiddle/passiveindicativeverb:apekdechetai(apekdecetai).Apekdechetai canbeunderstoodasa‘concentratedwaiting’.Sanday,W.,The Epistle to the Romans,CharlesScribner’sSons,NewYork,p.208,1926.‘Eagerlywaitfor’isassertedby:Schreiner,T.,Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,BakerBooks,GrandRapids,MI,p.434,1998.

3. Inthispaper,ktisis (ktisij)willbetranslatedas‘creation’.Dunn,J.D.G.,Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8,WordBooks,Dallas,1988,p.465;Morris,L.,The Epistle to the Romans, W.B.Eerdman’s,GrandRapids,MI, p. 318, 1988. ‘Creature’ is an alternative possibility, asfoundintheKJV.Luther,M.,Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,trans.J.TheodoreMueller,Zondervan,GrandRapids,MI,p.107,1954.Hodgealsodefends‘creature’,butthecontentofhisargumentessentiallyprovidesadefencefor‘creation’. Hodge,Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,pp.269–73.Seealso:Barth,K.,Epistle to the Romans,trans.Edwyn,C.,Hoskyns,OxfordUniversityPress,London,p.303,1977. Afulldefenceandunderstandingofktisis as ‘creation’willbespelledoutintheexegesissectionofthispaper.Seealsoreference18.TheNIVandNRSVtranslatektisis asthesubjectofthesentence,‘thecreationwaits’. This translation differs from these versions becausektisisisinthegenitive,tēs ktiseōs(thj ktisewj).Dunn,J.,Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8,p.465:hē gar apokaradokia tēs ktiseōs … apekdechetai (h` gar apokaradokia thj ktisewj…apekdecetai).

4. The 3rd person aorist passive indicative verb hupetagē (u`petagh) istranslated as ‘was subjected’. Cranfield,The International Critical Commentary: Romans,pp. 413–414, 1975. Schreiner,pp.413–414, 1975. Schreiner,413–414,1975. Schreiner,1975. Schreiner,.Schreiner,Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,pp.434–435.Mosttranslationsagreeonthispoint.TheGreekphrasereads:tē gar mataiotēti hē ktisis hupetagē ouch hekousa (th| gar mataiothti h` ktisij upetagh ouc e`cousa).

5. Thedativesingularfemininenounmataiotēti(mataiothti)speaksofanobjectthatdoesnotfunctionasitwasdesignedto.Dunn,J.,Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8,470.BAGDdefines mataiotētias:‘stateofbeingwithoutuseorvalue,emptiness,futility.’Danker,F.W.,(Ed.),Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago,IL,p.621,2000.

6. Ouch hekousa,notwillingly.Fitzmyer,J.,Romans: A New Translation,Anchor Bible,Doubleday,NewYork,p.507,1993.Hodge,Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,p.274.Gienuszdefinesthephraseas:‘notitsownfault’.Gienusz,A.,Romans 8:18–30 Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory,Scholar’sPressAtlanta,GA,pp.154–6,1999.Also,Sanday,The Epistle to the Romans,p.208.NIV,NASandNRSValltranslatethisas‘notofitsownwill/choice’.Themeaningisessentiallythesame.

7. TheNIVandNRSVtranslatethisphraseas:‘butbythewilloftheonewho subjected it…’The will is absent from theGreek text. Morris,The Epistle to the Romans,p.321.ThisphrasewasprobablyaddedintheseEnglishtextstocontrastouch hekousa, not willingly.Theaoristactive participle hupotaxanta (‘υποτάξαντα) is derived from the rootverbhupotassō (u`potassw)and isused in theaccusative,alla dia ton hupotaxanta (alla dia ton upotaxanta).‘Tocausetobeinasubmissiverelationship,tosubject,tosubordinate.’Danker,Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,1042.Dia (dia)isusedwiththeaccusative,making‘onaccountof’anappropriatetranslation.Fitzmyer,Romans: A New Translation,p.227.Alla dia ton hupotaxanta canalsobetranslated‘butonaccountoftheonewhodidthesubjecting’.Dunn,Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8,p.470.Becausethisphraseologyissomewhatvague,the one isthepreferredtranslationoverthemorespecificword,him. Forhimsee,Plumer,W.,Commentary on Romans,KregelPublications,GrandRapids,MI,p.408,1971.Godet,Commentary on Romans,p.314.‘Theone’willbeidentifiedasGod,effectivelyrenderinghim correct.

8. Thephrase,eph elpidi (efV e`lpidi) is rendered in hope. Alla dia ton hupotaxanta eph elpidi. Thisphrase isunderstoodasnot justhopingthatthingswouldturnoutwell,butfor the purpose of hope.Gienusz,


Papers

Romans 8:18–30 Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory,pp.160–61.Barth,Epistle to the Romans,p.309.Cranfield,The International Critical Commentary: Romans,p.414.

9. Hoti kai autē hē ktisis (o`ti kai auth h` ktisij).Dioti (dioti)isfoundatthebeginningofthisphraseinseveralwitnesses,includinga,D*,F,G,and945.Aland,K.andB.,Nestle-Aland Greek English New Testament,DeutscheBibelgesellschaft,Stuttgart,Germany,pp.423,690–1,2005.Aplausibleexplanationforthevariantdioti couldbedittography—therepetitionofthelasttwolettersofthepreviousword,elpidi. Thus,thescribecouldhavemiscopiedΕΛΠΙΔΙΟΤΙasΕΛΠΙΔΙΔΙΟΤΙ(note,therewerenospacesbetweenwords,andtheoldestmanuscriptsareuncialsorcapitals).Hoti isthegenerallyacceptedtranslation,andcanbefoundinP46,A,B,C,D2,andotherwitnesses.Aland,Nestle–Aland Greek English New Testament, pp. 423, 690–91. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8,p.466.Also isnotfoundintheNRSVandNIV.Kai isrenderedasalso intheappropriatecontext. Mounce,W.,Basics of Biblical Greek,Zondervan,GrandRapids,MI,p.436,2003.Sincehoti (because) is placedfirst in the sentence and connectsPaul’s previousthought,kai wouldnotberenderedhereasand, butratherasalso.

10. Hoti kai autē hē ktisis eleutherōthēsetai apo tēs douleias tēs phthoras (eleuqerwqhsetai apo thj douleiaj thj fqoraj).AVandNKJVrender phthorasascorruption.TheNIVandNRSVrenderthephraseasbondage to decay.Themeaningisessentiallythesame.Douleias (douleiaj)carrieswithitalltheuglyanddestructiveideasbehindslavery/bondageinthiscontextandprovidesadditionalinformationaboutthecreation’sfutility.Dunn,Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8,pp.471–72.Phthoras (fqoraj)isdefinedas‘corruption,destroy,perish,ruin,decay’.Strong,Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,p.75.Phthorasfurtherdefines the condition of the creation, adding specificity tomataiotēti(mataiothti)utilizedinverse20.Thecreationwasnotonlysubjectedtofutility,butaslavish corruption andfutility.Stott,J.,Romans,IntervarsityPress,Downer’sGrove,IL,p.239,1994.This combination of phrases communicates an awful, hopeless, futile and desperate state of affairs in the creation.

11. TheGreekeij thj eleuqerian thj doxhj twn teknwn tou qeou(eis tēn eleutherian tēs doxēs tōn teknōn tou theou) isrendered:‘intothelibertyofthegloryofthechildrenofGod’, andisheldby:Dunn,Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8,p.472., andothers (seebelow). Tēn eleutherian isintheaccusative,whiletheadditionalphrasesareinthegenitivecase.Tōn teknōn tou theouaredescriptiveoftēs doxēs. Tēs doxēs is‘theleadingfact,notthesubordinatefact.’Sanday,The Epistle to the Romans,p.208.AVandNJKVrenderglorious liberty, understandingthephraseasadjectival.Seealso:Hodge,Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,p.274.Againstthisvieware:Cranfield,The International Critical Commentary: Romans,pp.414–16.,Morris,The Epistle to the Romans.,andMurray,J.,The Epistle to the Romans,Eerdmans,GrandRapids,MI,p.304,1997.Thesethreeauthorsareagainstanadjectivalphraseandargueforinto the liberty of the glory of the children of God.

12. Thephrase,pasa hē ktisis (pasa h` ktisij)referstothewhole creation.Allmajortranslationsagreethatpasa shouldbetranslatedaswhole. Therepetitionofktisis threetimesintheimmediatepassagesculminateswithpasa hē ktisisthewholecreation.

13. Sustenazei kai sunōdinei (sustenazei kai sunwdinei) are two active,indicativeverbsandaretranslatedinthepresenttense.Bothverbsaredefinedwith the inherent idea of together, so this translation repeatstogether todemonstratetheduplicateemphasisoftheverbsintheGreektext. Cranfield translates together, andmentions: ‘with one accord’,Cranfield,The International Critical Commentary: Romans, p. 417. Sustenazeiisdefinedas‘togroantogetherwith,lament,groan’.Danker,Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,p.978.Sunōdineiisdefinedas‘travailinpaintogether’,‘tohavepangsincompanywith’.Strong,Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,p.70.Also,‘sufferagonytogether’,Danker,Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,p.977.Althoughsunōdineiconveystheideaofpangs,birth pangs isnotstrictlyintheoriginaltext.Birthpangs/labourpangscanbefoundintheNJKV,NIV,NAS,andNRSV.BAGDprovideshistoricalexamplesof

thetranslationofbirthpangs,buttheseexamplesaredrivenbycontext.Danker,Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,p.977.Tsumuraarguesforbirth pangs, withEveinviewfromGenesis3:16a.Tsumura,D.T.,AnOTbackgroundtoRomans8:22,New Testament Studies40,1994.Dunnarguesforpains of childbirth. Dunn,Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8,p.472.

14. Thisphrase,ou monon de alla kai autoi(ou monon de alla kai autoi)and not only this, but ourselves also,istranslatedintheRSVas‘andnotonlythecreation,butweourselves’.Creationisnotintheoriginaltext,butcanbereasonablyinferredfromthecontrastsinthecontext.NIVrendersit:‘Notonlyso,butweourselves’.Schreinersupports‘Andnotonly’:Schreiner,Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,p.438.Ou monon de lacksamodifier,sothis isaddedinEnglish.Morris,The Epistle to the Romans,p.323.Alla kai autoiisunderstoodhereas‘butourselvesalso’.Plumer,Commentary on Romans,p.410.Kai canberenderedasalso intheappropriatecontext,andwithalla precedingit,thisphrasingisappropriate.Mounce,Basics of Biblical Greek,p.436.Gieniusznoteswithexamplesthatou monon de alla kai isarhetoricaldeviceusedbyPaultoheightenthepreviousstatement.Gienusz,Romans 8:18–30 Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory,p.191.

15. Thisisconsideredaunitofthoughtbymostcommentators,followedbyanotherunitofthoughtin8:18–25.Myers,C.D.,ChiasticinversionintheargumentofRomans3–8,Novum Testmentum 35:44,1993;Dunn,Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8;Morris,The Epistle to the Romans;Barth,Epistle to the Romans,p.302.

16. Barth,Epistle to the Romans.Murray,The Epistle to the Romans,Sanday,The Epistle to the Romans;Schreiner,Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Inverse26,PaulreturnstothetopicoftheHolySpirit:‘Likewise,theSpirithelpsusinourweaknesses…’(RSV).

17. Eastmannotesthatthereisamovementintimeimpliedintheseverses.‘Fromsufferingtoglory,fromanticipationtoapocalypse.’Eastman,S.,Whoseapocalypse?The identityof the sonsofGod inRomans8:19,Journal of Biblical Literature121(2):265,2002.

18. Ktisis (κτίσις) is definedbyStrong as: ‘original formation, building,creation,creature,ordinance.’Strong,Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,p.44.‘Actofcreation,creation,thatwhichiscreated’,Danker,Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,pp.572–573.‘Creation,creature,thatwhichiscreated’,Balz,H.andSchneider,G.,Ed.,Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament,vol.2,Eerdman’s,GrandRapids,MI,p.325,1981.

19. Mortenson,T.,Butfromthebeginningof…theinstitutionofmarriage?<www.creationontheweb.com/beginning>,1November2004.

20. Godet outlines some of the more obscure and obviously untenabledefinitionsofktisis such as: unconverted Jews,Christiansof thenewcreation,andthefleshintheregeneratebeliever.Godet,Commentary on Romans,p.314.

21. Gager unsuccessfully argues that ‘in Paul, this cosmic dimensionhas been significantly limited to an anthropological category, and itsprimaryreferencehasbecomethenonbelieving,humanworld.’Gager,J.,FunctionaldiversityintheuseofPaul’sendtimelanguage,Journal of Biblical Literature89:329,1970.

22. Schreiner,Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,435.Eastmanarguesthektisisincludestheentiresub-humancreationtogetherwith unbelieving humanity: Eastman, S.,Whose apocalypse? TheidentityofthesonsofGodinRomans8:19,Journal of Biblical Literature121(2):265,2002. Shemakes adirect connectionbetween this futileconditionandAdam’sfall,argumentsconsistentwith theviewof thispaper,exceptfortheinclusionofunbelievinghumanity.

23. 1John2:15,16;3:1,13;4:3,4;1Corinthians4:13;John15:19

24. Revelation12:7–12.

25. ‘They[theunfallenangels]arenotburdenedwiththeconsequencesofman’sapostacy,norcantheyberepresentedaslongingfordeliverancefromthatburden.’Hodge,Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,270.


Papers

26. Godet,Commentary on Romans,p.313.Alsoseereference9.Theuseofalso indicatesacomparisontosomethingelse,i.e.somethingelsewillbeliberated,also.Gienusz,Romans 8:18–30 Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory,p.163.

27. ‘Ifhumankind,includingbelievinghumankind,isincludedinthereferencetokti,sij[ktisis]inverses19–22,thecontrastwithbelieversinverse23thenbecomesmeaningless.’Bolt,J.,TherelationbetweenCreationandRedemption inRomans 8:18–27,Calvin Theological Journal 30:39,1995.

28. Murray,The Epistle to the Romans,p.302.Thisviewisgenerallyacceptedbycommentators,includingMorris,The Epistle to the Romans,p.322;Schreiner,Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,p.435;Barth,Epistle to the Romans,p.310.

29. Hodge,Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,p.273.

30. Haldane,R.,An Exposition of Romans,McDonaldPublishingCompany,Florida,p.370,1958.

31. StottnotesthatPaulhadnoknowledgeofgalaxies,soonlyearthcouldhavebeen inview. Stott,Romans,239.However,PaulwasnodoubtfamiliarwithGenesis1:16,‘Healsomadethestars.’(NIV)SheddagreeswithStott:‘Thereisnothingintheseportionsofrevelationthatnecessitatesthe assertion that the curse upon physical nature extends throughoutuniversalspace.’Shedd,W.A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, Zondervan,GrandRapids,MI,p.254,1967.Mostcommentatorsaresilentonthisparticularissue.TheusagehereandthecloseparallelofColossians1:15demandsacomprehensivescope. CertainlyPaulbelievedthatGodmadetheentireuniverse,nomatterwhathisunderstandingofthecosmosmayhavebeen.

32. Schneider, ed.,Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 326.Gienusz,Romans 8:18–30 Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory,p.194.‘Thesenseoftotalityofpajinv.22isplain,independentlyofwhetheroneagreesornot thatPaulalways follows the ‘rule’ that theadjectivepaj[pas]withanarticularnounmeans“thewholeof”’.

33. Murray,The Epistle to the Romans,p.305.Wuest,K.,Romans in the Greek New Testament,Eerdman’s,GrandRapids,MI,p.139,1955.

34. Oke,C.,AsuggestionwithregardtoRomans8:23,Interpretation11:460,1957.

35. Almostallcommentatorsagreeonthesethreepossiblechoices.

36. ‘Thephrasingisawkward….ThereasonforthedifficultyisprobablythatPaulwasattemptingtoconveytoobrieflyaquitecomplicatedpoint:thatGod subjected all things toAdam, and that included subjectingcreationtofallenAdam,toshareinhisfallenness.’Dunn,Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8,471.

37. Aoristverbs in languagessuchasGreekandSanskrit indicatesimplythatsomethinghashappened;compareimperfectwheretheactionwasongoingortheperfectwheretheactionandconsequencesarecompleted.E.g.‘hewasdribblingtheball(imperfect—ongoingaction)tillhescoredagoal(aorist—itdoesn’tsaywhen,justthathescored)andwhichwonthefinalmatch(perfect—gameover).Mounce,W.,Basics of Biblical Greek,Zondervan,GrandRapids,MI,2003.

38. Hodge,Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,p.274. Schreinerseeshupetagē(‘υπετάγη)asadivinepassive,Schreiner,Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,p.435.Gienusznotesthattheuseofhupetagē inPaulinewritingsalwaysreferstoGod/Christ.Gienusz,Romans 8:18–30 Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory,p.158.

39. ThepersonificationofnatureiswellknownintheOldTestament:Isaiah24:4,7;65:17,25;66:22.Jeremiah4:28;12:4.

40. Murray,The Epistle to the Romans,p.303.Schreinerprefershupetagēasthereferent.Schreiner,Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,p.436.Fitzmyerargueshupetagēistooremoteinthesentence,andthereforeeph elpidi modifieshupotaxantaFitzmyer,Romans: A New Translation,p.508.Hodgeassertsthatineithercasethesenseisthesame:Hodge,Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,p.274.

41. Wuest,Romans in the Greek New Testament,p.139.

42. Godetmakesaquasi-argumentforSatan,concernedthatthereisariskofassigningsomeimmoralculpabilitytoGodifGodisthesubjector.Godet,Commentary on Romans,3:14–15.MostcommentatorsquicklydismissSatanasthesubjector,basedmainlyonthesameargumentsstatedhere.

43. Fitzmyer,Romans: A New Translation,p.508.Schreiner,Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,p.434–35.Schreinerstates:‘…theword“subjection”impliesanauthoritythatdoesnotfitwiththetragicconsequences ofAdam’s sin inwhich subjectionwas lost rather thengained.’

44. Bruce, F.F., (Ed.), R. Tasker,Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries,InterVarsityPress,Leicester,UK,pp.168–74,1963.

45. Stott,Romans,p.239.

46. Hill,E.,ConstructionofthreepassagesfromSt.Paul,Catholic Biblical Quarterly23:297,1961.ForafullexpositionofGod’slordshipoverallthings,seeFrame,J.,The Doctrine of God: A Theology of Lordship, P&RPublishing,Phillipsburg,NJ,2002.

47. Bolt, J.,TheRelation betweenCreation andRedemption inRomans8:18–27,Calvin Theological Journal30:46,1995.Theuseof‘υπετάγηisconsideredadivinepassiveinthisinstance,asnotedinreferences4and38.

48. For this incorrect view, see: Lewis,G.E., ChristianTheodicy:AnExpositionofRomans8:18–39,Interpretation11,1957.Lewisarguesthecreationisinbondagemerelybecauseitexists.Manissinfulsimplybecauseheexists.Lewisassertsthattemporalitynecessitatesdeathanddecay.LampesadlyexpositsPaul’stheology,butthenadmitshedoesnotbelieveit:‘Wecannotfollowhim[Paul]here.Genesisandfqora,[phthora] in nature, including the physical death of the human body,have tobe recognizedaspartof thecreatedorderwilledbyGodandthereforegood.’Lampeprovidesnoevidenceforthisview,exceptthatheacceptstheso-calledevolutionarydevelopmentofmana priori,i.e.theisticevolution.Lampe,G.,TheNewTestamentDoctrineofKtisis,Scottish Journal of Theology17,1964.TDNTstatesthatthephthoras andmataiotēsareduetotheendlesscycleofreproductionanddeathintheplantandanimalkingdom.Kittell,(Ed.),Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,p.1031.None of these arguments are based on an analysis of the text itself, but instead rely on other theological or scientific presuppositions.

49. SomecommentatorshavepostulatedagapofbillionsofyearsbetweenGenesis1:1and1:2,characterizedbypre-Adamicmen,aglobalflood(notNoah’sFlood)andtheFallandjudgmentofLucifer.This,ofcourse,wouldbeafutileandcorruptstateofaffairs.ThistheorywasfirstpostulatedbyThomasChalmersin1814,andisknownastheGapTheory.ThemainproblemwiththistheoryisthatthemeaningoftheHebrewwords,tōhû andbōhû inGenesis 1:2 areunderstood asbeing connected toGod’sjudgment.ThejudgmentmeaningisillegitimatelytransferredfromthecontextofotherOldTestamentpassages,suchasJeremiah4:23. Forafullrefutationofthisexegeticallyunsound‘gaptheory’,see:Fields,W., Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory, BurgenerEnterprises,Collinsville,IL,1976.

50. Thissummarydescription,very good,isprecededbytherepetitiveuseofgood sixdifferenttimesinthecreationnarrative,hardlyadescriptionofacorruptandfutilestateofaffairs.Genesis1:4,10,12,18,21,24.

51. Greidanus,S.,PreachingChristfromtheNarrativeoftheFall,Bibliotheca Sacra161(643):272,2004.Grudem,W.,Systematic Theology, Zondervan,GrandRapids,MI,p.188,2000.Morris,H.,The Genesis Record,BakerBookHouse,GrandRapids,MI, p. 120, 1976. Fruchtenbaum,A.G.,Messianic Christology,ArielMinistries,CA,1998.

52. Hunter,A.M.,Romans,SCMPress,London,p.82,1955.

53. ‘Solidarity in thematter of restoration is naturally associatedwithsolidarityinthefall.’Godet,Commentary on Romans,p.314.


Papers

54. Dunn,Word Biblical Commentary 38a: Romans 1–8.Emphasismine.

55. Tobin,T.H., Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, Hendrickson Publishers,Peabody,MA,p.290,2004.ThisviewpointissupportedbyMyers,whoarguesthereisadirectlinguisticconnectioninstructurebetweenRomans5andRomans8. Myers,C.D.,Chiastic inversion in theargumentofRomans3–8,Novum Testmentum 35:42–43,1993.

56. Black,C.D.,PaulineperspectivesondeathinRomans5–8,Journal of Biblical Literature103(S):428,1984.

57. BAGDdefinesphthoras as:‘breakdownoforganicmatter,dissolution,deterioration, corruption’. Various references provided from non-canonicalworksrefertodeath,decayanddestruction.Danker,Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,p.1055.

58. Barth,Epistle to the Romans,p.309.

59. Genesis1:30,NIV.SomecriticsofthisviewpointoutthattherewasdeathbeforeAdam’sfall,theeatingofplantsascommandedbyGodinGenesis1:29–30.First,ourcommonsensetellsusthatplantsarenotconsciousbeings,theyarenotaliveinthesamesensethatanimalsare.ThisisactuallyverifiedinScripturebythedesignationoflifeprinciple,connectedislifeofdescriptionHebrewThis.(nephesh chayyāh)נפשחיהtoman,‘livingsoul’,andsomekindsofanimals,butisneverappliedtoplants.Sarfati,J.,Refuting Compromise, MasterBooks, GreenForest,AR,p. 205, 2004. Sarfati, J.,TheFall: a cosmic catastrophe—HughRoss’sblundersonplantdeathintheBible,Journal of Creation19(3):62,2005.

60. Munday, J.C.,Creaturemortality: fromcreation or theFall?Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35, 1992. Space does notpermita full refutationofMunday’sarticle,which ispostedonHughRoss’website, <www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/creature_mortality.shtml>,2002.Asuperficialreviewofhisarticlerevealsaminimumof20unprovableassumptionsanderrorsinexegesis,whichintendtorefuteinafuturearticle.

61. Thefuturestatewillnotbeexactlylikethepre-Fallworld,butsimilartoitinthesensethattherewillbenomoredeath,diseaseanddecay,bothforhumanityandtherestofGod’screation.Forexample,Revelation22:4seemstoindicatethatthesunwillnolongerbeneeded,becauseGodwillgivethelight.Somedifferencesinthepre-Fallworldversustheworldattheendoftheagecannotbeextrapolatedtomeanthattherewasrampantdeathanddiseaseintheanimalkingdominthepre-Fallworld,buttherewillbenoneattheendoftheage.Forfurthercommentsonthissubjectsee:Gurney,R.J.M.,Thecarnivorousnatureandsufferingofanimals,Journal of Creation18(3):70–75,2004. Motyer,A.,The Prophecy of Isaiah,InterVarsityPress,Leicester,UK,p.124,1993.

62. Motyer,The Prophecy of Isaiah,p.124.

63. Munday,J.C.,Creaturemortality:fromcreationortheFall?Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society35:67,1992.

64. Munday,ref.61.Severalothercommentators,expressingconcernfortheenvironment,havecometothesameerroneousconclusion.Essentially,theyarguethatthecreationhasbeensubjectedtoman’sevilexploitationofitsresourcesandabuseofitscreatures.Lampe,G.,TheNewTestamentdoctrineofKtisis,Scottish Journal of Theology17,1964.Santmire,P.,Theliberationofnature:LynnWhite’schallengeanew,Christian Century102,1985.Thistypeofinterpretationisa20thand21stcenturyaberration.

65. Gurney,R.J.M.,Thecarnivorousnatureandsufferingofanimals,Journal of Creation18(3):70–75,2004.

66. Bolt, J.,TheRelation between creation andRedemption inRomans8:18–27,Calvin Theological Journal30:34–40,1995.

67. Thephrase,and in him all things hold together, implies that theveryessenceofallthingsdependsonGodforitsveryexistence.IfGodweretoremovehimselfcompletelyfromtheuniverse,itwouldceasetoexist.SomeChristian scientistshavehypothesized, rightly inmyview, thatAdam’sfallcausedGodtoremovesomeofthissustainingpower,hencesubjecting the creation to futility as described inRomans 8:19–23a,Morris,The Genesis Record, p. 126–27. A temporary suspension of

currentdecayisseeninthepreservationofsandalsandsuspensionoffootfatigueinthewildernesswanderingsaftertheExodus.Itisasuspensionofcurrentconditions,andinterestinglygivesaglimpseofwhatthingsmayhavebeenlikeinthepre-Fallworld.

68. TheSeptuagintusesawordsimilarinmeaningforcursedinGenesis3:14,17,epikataratos(epikataratoj)alsofoundinGalatians3:10andLuke6:4. Danker,Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,p.373.

69. Schreiner,Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, p.437.

70. Calvin,J.,Calvin’s Commentaries,vol.19,BakerBooks,GrandRapids,MI,p.304,1979.Schreiner,Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,p.432.Morris,The Epistle to the Romans,p.321.Hodge,Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,p.271.Sanday,The Epistle to the Romans,p.205.Murray,The Epistle to the Romans,p.303.Stott,Romans, p. 238. Cranfield,The International Critical Commentary: Romans,p.416. Tsumura,D.T.,AnOTbackgroundtoRomans8:22,New Testament Studies40:620–621,1994.Wuest,Romans in the Greek New Testament,p.137.Fitzmyer,Romans: A New Translation,p.229.Griffith,T.,St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Eerdman’s,GrandRapids,MI,p.221,1947.

71. Haldane,An Exposition of Romans,p.372.

72. Notethefollowingsmallsamplingofcommentatorsandauthorswhodefertothefindingsofmodern‘science’astheirauthoritywhendiscussingthistext:Danker,Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,p.1031.Lewis,E.,Christiantheodicy:anexposition ofRomans 8:18–39, Interpretation 11, 1957. Lampe, G.,The NewTestament doctrine of Ktisis, Scottish Journal of Theology17,1964.Godet,Commentary on Romans,p.316.Timm,R.,Let’snotmiss the theologyof thecreationaccounts,Currents in Theology and Mission13,1986.Holmes,R.,Doesnatureneedtoberedeemed?Zygon29,1994.Munday,J.C.,Creaturemortality:fromcreationortheFall?Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society35,1992.Mundayendshispaperbystating:‘…theconsequenceofconcludingotherwiseleadstofloodgeology’.ThisviewpointrejectstheFloodinthedaysofNoahtoberecent,cataclysmicanduniversal,andthereforethecauseofmostgeological featuresseen todayon theplanet. Acceptanceofa recent,globalFloodinthedaysofNoahprecludesold-earthinterpretationsofthefossilrecord.Rejecting‘floodgeology’logicallymeansoneoughttoacceptold-earthgeologyandalocalflood,i.e.millionsofyearsofdeathandsufferingintheanimalkingdombeforeAdam’ssin.

73. Bolthasdoneanexcellentjobrefutingtheseinterpretations.Bolt,J.,TherelationbetweenCreationandRedemptioninRomans8:18–27,Calvin Theological Journal30,1995.

Henry B. Smith Jr currently serves as the Director of Outreach for the Associates for Biblical Research, a Christian ministry dedicated to upholding the Scriptures in the field of biblical archaeology. In 1992, he graduated with a B.A. in Economics from Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ. With a 13 year business background, he also earned an M.A. in Theology with an emphasis in apologetics from Trinity Seminary in Indiana. He is currently enrolled in the M.A.R. program at Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, PA.

Documents

Cosmic and universal death from Adam s fall: an exegesis