Which brings us to 283, the crux of the matter. “Because of man, creation is now subject ‘to its bondage to decay.’” Please allow me to ask a very simple question. Genesis 1:29-30 states very clearly
“God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon.” The seed that man, and beast, and foul and all moving things and all living things will feed upon, does it die? Is there cell death in the process?
It’s an important question, because your position is that prior to the fall, there was no decay nor death. My position is that there was, but only for non-human life. My evidence? Genesis 1:29-30, for living plants must die when they are consumed. And you cannot make the case that Paul was speaking of only animal life when talking about the bondage to decay. He says simply, “creation,” which has a finality to it.
The question then becomes, what the heck is Paul talking about then? Well, for one thing, Paul doesn’t say that because of man creation is **in **bondage to decay. He says creation is
subject to its bondage to decay. This is an enormous distinction. The modifier “its” implies that decay belongs to creation. And to say “subject to” implies it need not be. But if decay was
only a consequence of human sin, Paul would more properly say that creation is simply in bondage to decay. Just as man was slave to sin. It would be strange to say that because of Adam, man is subject to his bondage to sin. It would be strange because that implies sin belongs to man, and that he may or may not need to be in bondage to it. Sin is alien to man, because God did not create man to sin. Thus, it is proper to say simply that man is in bondage to sin.
I might be splitting hairs here, but I don’t think so. Have you ever asked the question, “why did God command man to ‘subdue the earth,’ if it needed no subduing?” Man was the crowning of creation, that bridge between the material and spiritual. Man was to be a corporate entity with creation. He was to subject it to his spirit in as much as his own body was subject to it. Without the human spirit subduing creation, it would have been as it is now, hostile and in bondage to decay. God’s plan was to unify creation through the dominion of man, its pinnacle. But because of man, creation loses its harmony, and is subject to
its bondage to decay.
From this paragraph we can see that death’s entry was both physical and spiritual. Before the fall the physical creation was not “in bondage to decay” and man’s body didn’t “return to the ground”. Your premise is not based in Catholic teaching.
Yes, before the fall, creation was not in bondage to decay… because man had dominion over it. Yes, death’s entry was both physical and spiritual
for man.
The Creation of the world was without sin and death, without bondage to decay, and people’s bodies decaying in the ground. All of this was not part of the original creation, but a consequence of sin. Adaptations to death and the bondage to decay are not within the original plan of nature.
I believe I’ve answered this above.
Your having difficulty in that you might be trying to place Eden within time and there is no time in the history of our universe where Eden can fit. God has bared us so completely from it that it can’t be fit in history. This shows the complete revolution that sin’s entry brought into the world that it affected all matter in all time, but the “Good” creation didn’t include this decay and death. To claim physical death is “Good” you’d have to re-write the teaching of the Church.
This suggests all of creation was part of eternity. That is false. Eternity is the duration of simultaneity. It means that if all of creation were in eternity, then the seven days of creation is nothing but a post-fall attempt to understand creation, but is effectively inaccurate in having any sequence to it at all. I
know this isn’t what you intend to mean.
However, even if you wanted to posit that Eden is outside of time, then let me call something to your attention. In Genesis 2:8 we read, “And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed.” God places man in Eden
after forming him, after creating all that He had created in the six days of creation. BUT, Eden was there
from the beginning. This means it is separate from creation, and also separate from what is essentially human nature. Thus, even if what you say is true, that Eden doesn’t fit into time and history, creation, both before and during man’s time there, does fit into time and history.
Christ didn’t just suffer a spiritual death, His was a physical and spiritual ordeal to be resurrected to a glorified body free from physical and spiritual death and in this way Eden is restored, but also wonderfully surpassed.
Absolutely agreed!
EDIT: Actually, I’m not so certain Christ suffered a spiritual death, since we define spiritual death as sin… so maybe I don’t absolutely agree with this after all. LOL!
Now, if you would you claim the “Good” nature of the resurrected body of Christ is one of decay and death you are too far down the rabbit hole for me to convince that the truly good nature of the physical world does not include death.
Of course I wouldn’t claim that. This is because Christ’s resurrected body is restored to its natural perfection, which is fully subject to the restored human spirit.
