Romans 8:20-24, evolution, and death before the fall

[E_CT]

I was wondering how to reconcile romans 8:20-24 with evolution and death before the fall. The catechism says creation was created in a state of journeying towards perfection so there would be natural evils. Aquinas seems to agree as he says that matter corrupts by nature and there were predator animals before the fall and man was preserved from death by original justice. So the church and tradition seem to be fine with evolution and animal death before the fall, but this verse from romans makes it harder to reconcile these views. Could the proper interpretation be that creation was “subject to the bondage to decay” since creation and if our first parents did not commit original sin creation would have been perfected but since they did creation continues to be subject to the bondage to decay until creation is perfected with the new heavens and earth.

 

[Mythicalbio]

The bible presents angels as ruling over creation. When some of them fell, so did the world they ruled. There are two falls. There is no natural death of any creature. Where there is death, sin was before it.

 

[BartholomewB]

It’s a difficult passage, as Bible translators generally recognize. Ronald Knox’s footnotes may be of help.

https://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom008.htm

 

[bob4]

Death before the fall??

 

[White_Tree]

I’m having a hard time seeing what the conflict is here. Here’s the verses, for reference:

For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now; and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance. – Romans 8:19-25

What Paul is describing here seems entirely consistent with death before the Fall.

The conflict arises if you assume “the one who subjected it” is somehow an aberration or a flaw in God’s plan for salvation.

But if you assume “the one who subjected it” is the Creator, then the conflict vanishes.

Look:

For creation was [originally] made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the [the Creator] who subjected it, in [the Creator’s] hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

In other words, the salvation plan that God has for humanity is not simply a return to the state of the Garden of Eden, but something greater. So, creation was made with an inherent futility to it, with the intention that it would birth something more than merely what it was originally.

That is why Paul goes on to talk about creation groaning in labor pains. He’s not talking about salvation being a return to the way it was in the beginning–because the beginning was subject to futility. He’s talking about the birth of something new.

In that context, death and evolution make perfect sense.

 

[SeekHisFace]

I’m having a hard time seeing what the conflict is here. Here’s the verses, for reference:

Interesting perspective, how does this creation created in “futility” square with the fact that it was created “very good”?

 

[White_Tree]

Interesting perspective, how does this creation created in “futility” square with the fact that it was created “very good”?

“Very good” (Gen 1:31) doesn’t necessarily mean it was perfect. God can create something “very good” but it can still be only a step towards creating something even better. Mary was without sin (very good), but she was only a step in the process of arriving at Jesus, who was even greater.

As Paul writes here:

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. – 1 Cor 15:42-45

So God’s plan for resurrection involves something greater, or beyond, what Adam was.

A few verses earlier, he applies the analogy of a seed to the resurrection:

But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. – 1 Cor 15:35-38

So again it’s the same message. When you plant a seed in the ground, if the seed grows it is destroyed, and what emerges from it is not the seed again, in some sort of restored form (“thou sowest not that body that shall be”), but something completely different. The oak tree is different from the acorn. The mustard tree is different from the mustard seed (cf. Matthew 13:31-32).

So the “seed” is “very good.” But the tree is even greater.

 

[E_CT]

Great explanation for the passage and Iike what you said about very good as it does say creation was good then very good but not perfect.

 

[E_CT]

Yes many church fathers including Augustine and Thomas Aquinas believed there was animal death before the fall. Our first parents ate fruit so it could be said there was also plant death. Our first parents were preserved from death by original justice which was lost when they sinned and Paul says that death spread to all mankind from one man which was Adam.

 

[SeekHisFace]

I’m afraid I disagree, not with the concept of the fact that in the resurrection all creation will be made better, better even than it’s original plan, that is clear in scripture, but I disagree that “futility” was God’s original plan for creation.

I think it’s clear that this is referring to post fall when God subjected it to futility as a result of sin. There is nothing “very good” about a futile creation. Note also the use of the expression "pangs of childbirth " bearing in mind these extreme pains in women were a part of the curse due to the fall. It’s quite an extreme picture of pain, not just “not yet perfect” but actually reminiscent of the curse. So I cannot agree with your interpretation.

 

[White_Tree]

There is nothing “very good” about a futile creation.

By their nature, seeds are meant to be temporary. And I would say that a seed which gives rise to a perfect tree is “very good” even if the seed was never meant to last forever.

On a deeper level, though, I agree with you. I was going to touch on this point in my earlier post, but a forum like this is not a medium where it can be explained adequately, so I decided not to mention it.

There are many levels to be comprehended of the stories in the Bible, and a deep reading of the first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:3) reveals that it is not (only) a description of events in the past, but is more accurately a description of events that are yet to come. That one story synthesizes the entire Torah, which describes the process of God creating the “spiritual body” described by Paul. So when we get closer to the true meaning of the story, the use of “very good” in Genesis 1:31 is actually not referring to the futile creation (which we live in now), but is in fact referring to the creation that is yet to come (still not perfected, but not futile either).

It is almost as if Moses wrote the “executive summary” at the beginning of the Torah, and then wrote the rest as commentary for those who needed further explanation.

I don’t expect you to believe me, and I’m not going to try to convince you. But I wanted to chime in to say that, on a deep level, you are right. I still think my response answers the original question adequately, and it is broadly correct, but I agree that it is “imperfect.” I knowingly chose a second-best response, because the first-best response, the one that truly answers your question, was a bit too much to get into on this forum.

So I tried to do a bit of a sleight of hand, to see if I could satisfy you with a simpler answer, and you caught me. Well done.

 

[E_CT]

I feel that just as creation was made imperfect so was man as man was able to sin, if man was perfect he would not be able to sin. Creation was intended to become perfect but it did not because man sinned. If man chose not to sin then creation would have became perfect. Now creation has to wait to reach perfection when it would be very good just like man has to. Creation and man are in a futile state of reaching perfection as we cannot accomplish it on our own, only God can do this which he will at the general resurrection.

 

[SeekHisFace]

There are many levels to be comprehended of the stories in the Bible, and a deep reading of the first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:3) reveals that it is not (only) a description of events in the past, but is more accurately a description of events that are yet to come

You’re right, I don’t agree with you this is the first I’ve heard of Genesis 1/2 being an outline of things to come so you’ll forgive my scepticism. Though I’ll happily say that Adam is a type of Christ (or antitype in the end!) And that Christ is the fulfillment and purpose behind all we read in genesis and all the OT.

But you are right, perhaps this is not a discussion for this thread.

 

[bob4]

Yes many church fathers including Augustine and Thomas Aquinas believed there was animal death before the fall. Our first parents ate fruit so it could be said there was also plant death. Our first parents were preserved from death by original justice which was lost when they sinned and Paul says that death spread to all mankind from one man which was Adam.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Cathoholic]

E_CT . . .

Could the proper interpretation be that creation was “subject to the bondage to decay” since creation and if our first parents did not commit original sin creation would have been perfected but since they did creation continues to be subject to the bondage to decay until creation is perfected with the new heavens and earth.

Some of this is ABOVE reason. It is a mystery.

It is a mystery - “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution", said St. Augustine”

CCC 385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution”, said St. Augustine,257 and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For “the mystery of lawlessness” is clarified only in the light of the “mystery of our religion”.258 The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace.259 We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.260

CCC 387a Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. . . .

I don’t know but I think part of the answer lies in the fact that there were two falls.

1 - The fallen angels.
2 - Adam and Eve.

“Through the devil’s envy death entered the world” too.

WISDOM 2:23-24 23 for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, 24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.