Carnivorous animals before the fall...

[dayage]

DannyM,

I understand the issue, but I want him to show me my circular reasoning. I am interpreting the text by its context, not my old-earth view. I saw this problem with the young-earth view of Romans 5:12 when I was still a young-earther. I'm going to look back at the Ken Ham debate and give a quote of what he said about this verse.

[Jac3510]

You can broaden the text as much as you like, Jac. Romans 5:12 is dealing with human sin, and the term "death" is referring to *human* death. You might choose to push Rom 3-4 aside but the context speaks for itself: Romans 5 is, in context, follows on from the preceding two chapters.

I agree that Rom 5:12 is speaking of human sin. The question is what is the impact of human sin. If you look at the unit of thought in 5-8, Paul is dealing with the universal impact of sin. He extends that thought in 9-11, where he goes on to explain the universal restoration that he explains at the end of chapter 8.

Now, if the only way for you to hold your position is to take Rom 5:12 with complete disregard to its position in the flow of the entire book, then fine. As expected, we have a hermeneutical difference. I believe in taking every verse--every statement--in the context of the whole argument the book is making; that is, where it is in the book, how it contributes to that argument, etc. If you don't, then fine. I just think that will lead to misinterpretations thought Scripture, this being one example.

Yes we suffer, but we have been given the grace of the Holy Spirit through Christ; there is salvation for these sufferings. Why 5-8 and not 3-8? Why are you splitting 3-4 from 5? You have acknowledged Paul has "restated" 3-4 but this is just not so; Paul is in full flight through 3, 4 and 5 and his theology speaks clearly to me.

Let's suppose that the whole reason we suffer and die is because of sin. Since God has justified us of all sin, tell me, why do we still suffer and die?

What is your point here, Jac? No where does the bible indicate that salvation is offered to any other creatures except humans, or even that animals are capable of sin.

I think you are missing two vital points, both of which I tried to emphasize, apparently not very well.

1. While you are correct that the Bible does not offer salvation to anyone other than humans (a point I have made repeatedly when people try to use James 2:19 to refute justification by faith alone), it is not true that the salvation of man affects only humans. In fact, the whole of OT theology points to the restoration or redemption of the whole world, and that will certainly include the animal kingdom. That was and is a very Jewish idea. That is the eschatology Paul works from, and, as I said before, it drips from the pages of Romans.

2. Paul makes it clear that he is dealing directly with the affect of sin on the whole world and what the restoration of man means to it in Romans 5-8 (and continuing into 9-11). How can you explain the universal scope of all creation that we find in chapter eight if you ignore its context: chapter five? When and why did the whole creation come to be put under bondage? When and why did it "conceive" and find itself in "labor pains"? Did God create the world under the curse? It seems evident enough to me that He did not, but rather, the world came under the curse, just as Paul says, when Adam sinned.

My approach is to focus on the context of the text. The context of the text is dealing with mankind. It's not about being man-centred/obsessed; it is what it is, and that's man's salvation through Christ.

How can you say your approach is focused on the context of the text when you ignore the context in which it is found, namely, the universality of salvation--that is, the redemption of the entire world? Do you not recognize that every verse and every unit of Scripture must contribute to the overarching purpose of the book? Do you really think the whole book of Romans is about the salvation of man?

[DannyM]

Let's suppose that the whole reason we suffer and die is because of sin. Since God has justified us of all sin, tell me, why do we still suffer and die?

The justification of sin comes in salvation. Sin entered the word; it's there. The justification comes with the grace of Christ, who came to shoulder our sins and redeem us.

1. While you are correct that the Bible does not offer salvation to anyone other than humans (a point I have made repeatedly when people try to use James 2:19 to refute justification by faith alone), it is not true that the salvation of man affects only humans. In fact, the whole of OT theology points to the restoration or redemption of the whole world, and that will certainly include the animal kingdom. That was and is a very Jewish idea. That is the eschatology Paul works from, and, as I said before, it drips from the pages of Romans.

Romans 8:18 "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." Romans 8:20 "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it..." Romans 8:22 "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." Romans 8:26 "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express." Romans 8:28-29 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." Romans 8:31-32 "What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all - how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?" Romans 8:35 "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?" [See Romans 8:22] Romans 8:36 "As it is written: For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." [See Psalm 44:22]

Paul is saying that nothing can separate us from the Lord. He is explicitly addressing salvation.

2. Paul makes it clear that he is dealing directly with the affect of sin on the whole world and what the restoration of man means to it in Romans 5-8 (and continuing into 9-11). How can you explain the universal scope of all creation that we find in chapter eight if you ignore its context: chapter five? When and why did the whole creation come to be put under bondage? When and why did it "conceive" and find itself in "labor pains"? Did God create the world under the curse? It seems evident enough to me that He did not, but rather, the world came under the curse, just as Paul says, when Adam sinne

Chapter 8 is dealing with man and his salvation. It is indeed about the future glory. God tells man to subdue the earth. Right from the beginning there seems to have been a threat, and this could well be what the "labour pains"is describing. In 9 and 10, Paul talks of Israel's unbelief and his hope that they may be saved. The focus is still firmly on mankind, and specifically on Israel. Romans 10:19-21 talks of Israel's disobedience and obstinance. [see Isaiah 65:2]

How can you say your approach is focused on the context of the text when you ignore the context in which it is found, namely, the universality of salvation--that is, the redemption of the entire world? Do you not recognize that every verse and every unit of Scripture must contribute to the overarching purpose of the book? Do you really think the whole book of Romans is about the salvation of man

Jac, I'm ignoring nothing, my brother. Romans IS about the salvation of man, and Romans 11 is dealing explicitly with Israel's salvation. Of course, the new order undelies it all, but it is MANKIND who Paul is explicitly dealing with. It's neither man-centric or arrogant of me to read the book like this; it is plain in the text.

[Jac3510]

The justification of sin comes in salvation. Sin entered the word; it's there. The justification comes with the grace of Christ, who came to shoulder our sins and redeem us.

Yes, but you didn't answer my question. If the reason we suffer is because of our sins, then once we are justified, why do we suffer at all for our own sins?

I'm ignoring, for the sake of argument, the suffering we face at the hands of other people's sins. I'm sure you recognize that you still sin, even as a believer, and that you suffer for it. This is a major reason Paul is writing this section of Romans. I am trying to get you to see the line of thought as you believe you aren't ignoring anything.

Romans 8:18 "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." Romans 8:20 "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it..." Romans 8:22 "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." Romans 8:26 "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express." Romans 8:28-29 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." Romans 8:31-32 "What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all - how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?" Romans 8:35 "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?" [See Romans 8:22] Romans 8:36 "As it is written: For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." [See Psalm 44:22]

Paul is saying that nothing can separate us from the Lord. He is explicitly addressing salvation.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point. You quoted a lot of Scripture that of course I agreed with. So let me make it again:

Yes, salvation is only offered to humans. That does not mean the entire world will not be redeemed. Thus, while salvation is only offered to humans, it is not true that our salvation does not affect the entire world. That's the point Paul is making in Romans 5-8, and then the basis of his argument in 9-11. THAT is a major point that you are missing. THAT is the context you are ignoring in your exegesis.

Chapter 8 is dealing with man and his salvation. It is indeed about the future glory. God tells man to subdue the earth. Right from the beginning there seems to have been a threat, and this could well be what the "labour pains"is describing. In 9 and 10, Paul talks of Israel's unbelief and his hope that they may be saved. The focus is still firmly on mankind, and specifically on Israel. Romans 10:19-21 talks of Israel's disobedience and obstinance. [see Isaiah 65:2]

It is dealing with the impact that man's salvation will bring on the entire world.

"The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed"

Tell me, to what is Paul referring by the word "creation"?

Jac, I'm ignoring nothing, my brother. Romans IS about the salvation of man, and Romans 11 is dealing explicitly with Israel's salvation. Of course, the new order undelies it all, but it is MANKIND who Paul is explicitly dealing with. It's neither man-centric or arrogant of me to read the book like this; it is plain in the text.

Unfortunately, your position is entirely man-centered. The salvation of man is not the end in and of itself. It is the means to the end, and that end is the glorification of God in the redemption of God's entire creation, of which man is the head. To think that Paul is just focused on human salvation is to Christianize the book. One of the problems I have with Christians generally, and preachers in particular, is their obsession with seeing the salvation of man from Hell in everything. Do we really think that's what the Bible is all about? That it is a huge manual on salvation? Sheesh, if that is so, none of us have a chance to be saved, because none of us have learned the manual yet!

So maybe it's really about how to live the Christian life! Please. I don't need the Bible to tell me not to lie or cheat on my wife. That's written on my heart. Besides, even worse, that makes the Bible into the world's biggest rulebook (excluding, of course, the US Taxcode :p), and I'm pretty sure Jesus came to set us free, not give us sixty-six books worth of do's and don't's.

So here's a thought . . . maybe the Bible isn't about us at all. Maybe it is really about God! Maybe it is about His plan for His entire creation, not that one little part we are obsessed with: ourselves. It's just normal human arrogance to see ourselves as the point of everything. Our interpretation of Rom 5:12 isn't any different.

Anyway, I want to make one more exegetical point for your consideration, and let me limit it to the translation of Rom 5:12 itself. I'm going to give the Greek and then my own:

δια τουτο ωσπερ δι ενος ανθρωπου η αμαρτια εις τον κοσμον εισηλθεν και δια της αμαρτιας ο θανατος και ουτως εις παντας ανθρωπους ο θανατος διηλθεν εφ ω παντες ημαρτον

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, even in the same way death came to all men, in that all sin. (Mine)

The important thing to note is the bolded words. ωσπερ is translated "just as" and ουτως is translated "in the same way". Also important is the word και just before ουτως, which you will see I have translated "even." Now, notice that my translation is a complete sentence. Pretty much every other translation treats this as an unfinished sentence fragment. I don't know why. They don't have to (they do that by translating και as "and"). Paul is making a complete thought, as I draw out here.

Second, the "just as" and "in the same way," while not strong enough translations, bring out the fact that Paul is making a strong comparison between something in the first half of the sentence and the second half. So, let's look at the two clauses:

A: through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin;
B: death came to all men, in that all sin

(A) is dealing with the mechanism by which death entered the world, which is sin.
(B) is dealing with the mechanism by which death entered each individual man, which is his sin.

The point is that sin brings death. Now, that creates a problem for trying to take κοσμον as a reference to "humanity," because if you do, you just have a tautology. Paul would be saying:

"Just like death came into humanity by sin, all men die by sin."

There is no comparative in that rendition, which violates the grammar of the sentence, since both ωσπερ and ουτως are comparatives. You have to take κοσμον as a reference to the whole world to preserve the comparative.

The bottom line is that Paul is appealing to a commonly known fact ("Just as . . .") to explain a lesser known fact ("in the same way . . ."). It was well known in that day that death entered the entire creation through Adam's sin. That was the commonly held Jewish view. Unfortunately, your view makes the comparison void and ignores the commonly known fact (in that it was the common view of the day).

So, in my view, the broader purpose of the book of Romans, the flow of the argument, the semantics of the specific words in the passage, the historical theological context, and the authorial theological context all way heavily against your reading. Obviously, I could be wrong, but I have seen no warrant for taking kosmos to refer to humanity so far and a great deal of it for taking it in the basic, plain meaning of "world."

[DannyM]

Yes, but you didn't answer my question. If the reason we suffer is because of our sins, then once we are justified, why do we suffer at all for our own sins?

Because sinning continues. Most people if not all people sin. The justification comes with the next life. We are not relieved of the suffering because we are not relieved of sin.

I'm ignoring, for the sake of argument, the suffering we face at the hands of other people's sins. I'm sure you recognize that you still sin, even as a believer, and that you suffer for it. This is a major reason Paul is writing this section of Romans. I am trying to get you to see the line of thought as you believe you aren't ignoring anything.

You are right. Salvation is offered to humankind. If I'm being man-centric then surely Paul is being man-centric. If there is more detail to this, involving anything other than mankind and its redemption, then Paul is silent on it.

Yes, salvation is only offered to humans. That does not mean the entire world will not be redeemed. Thus, while salvation is only offered to humans, it is not true that our salvation does not affect the entire world. That's the point Paul is making in Romans 5-8, and then the basis of his argument in 9-11. THAT is a major point that you are missing. THAT is the context you are ignoring in your exegesis.

I'm ignoring it, Jac because it is not there. You are rreading "creation" to mean the humankind/sub-humans/inanimate; I see Paul using "creation" to mean human beings only. The mataphor of the labour pains [Rom. 8:22] is rather apt. The creation is crying out in pain. Blood lies everywhere, humanity struggles with death, pain and misery. The problem of poverty and the issue of survival are prevalent.

It is dealing with the impact that man's salvation will bring on the entire world.

"The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed"

Tell me, to what is Paul referring by the word "creation"?

Jac, I believe you are reading this entirely wrong. "Creation" here means "human beings". In the context of Romans, this is surely what Paul is speaking of. "Ktisis" means not the sub-human and inanimate creation but mankind; this is evident from the hope of emancipation from the "slavery of corruption" held out in Romans 8:21. Nevertheless Romans 8:21, where it is said that "...the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God"; and Romans 8:23, "Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the spirit," show that Paul is speaking, not of sub-human creation, but of mankind, and of its earnest desire of immortality. Paul is distinguishing between mankind and Christians. Paul is surely speaking in reference to the unredeemed proportion of humanity, who are an overwhelming majority. He is speaking of the human's desire for eternal life. Such longings are self-evident in society. Who doesn't wish they could see their deceased loved ones again? I know not one atheist who does not have such longings; I even know atheists who have inadvertently slipped that they hope to see their loved ones in heaven... THEN Paul speaks of "ourselves," who have the firstfruits of the spirit...

Unfortunately, your position is entirely man-centered. The salvation of man is not the end in and of itself. It is the means to the end, and that end is the glorification of God in the redemption of God's entire creation, of which man is the head. To think that Paul is just focused on human salvation is to Christianize the book. One of the problems I have with Christians generally, and preachers in particular, is their obsession with seeing the salvation of man from Hell in everything. Do we really think that's what the Bible is all about? That it is a huge manual on salvation? Sheesh, if that is so, none of us have a chance to be saved, because none of us have learned the manual yet!

If my position is man-centric then surely Paul is being man-centric. What else is the bible about if it is not about God, man, life, morality and love? Nature is certainly a part of the bible to some extent, but you appear to be turning your attention away from the issue of our relationship with God, and onto the passing over of the fluffy bunny rabbits of this world.

So maybe it's really about how to live the Christian life! Please. I don't need the Bible to tell me not to lie or cheat on my wife. That's written on my heart. Besides, even worse, that makes the Bible into the world's biggest rulebook (excluding, of course, the US Taxcode :p), and I'm pretty sure Jesus came to set us free, not give us sixty-six books worth of do's and don't's.

So tell me what you think the bible is about?

So here's a thought . . . maybe the Bible isn't about us at all. Maybe it is really about God! Maybe it is about His plan for His entire creation, not that one little part we are obsessed with: ourselves. It's just normal human arrogance to see ourselves as the point of everything. Our interpretation of Rom 5:12 isn't any different.

It's got NOTHING to do with being obssessed with ourselves; man and his relationship with God is the CENTRAL part of the bible. The Christian recognises how lowly he is; he knows he's a sinner; he knows that no matter how much he tries, he can never live up to Christ; he knows his place and limitations in the grand scheme of things. What you're doing is presenting a false argument, Jac. To recognise our rtelationship to God for what it really is is not to be obssessed with ourselves at all. You could not be further off-key with that line.

δια τουτο ωσπερ δι ενος ανθρωπου η αμαρτια εις τον κοσμον εισηλθεν και δια της αμαρτιας ο θανατος και ουτως εις παντας ανθρωπους ο θανατος διηλθεν εφ ω παντες ημαρτον

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, even in the same way death came to all men, in that all sin. (Mine)

The important thing to note is the bolded words. ωσπερ is translated "just as" and ουτως is translated "in the same way". Also important is the word και just before ουτως, which you will see I have translated "even." Now, notice that my translation is a complete sentence. Pretty much every other translation treats this as an unfinished sentence fragment. I don't know why. They don't have to (they do that by translating και as "and"). Paul is making a complete thought, as I draw out here.

Paul is speaking as Paul does. Paul near-repeats himself to force his point home. Carry on down Romans 5 to see exactly this. 1 Corinthians 15 is another example. Paul never fails to ram home his point.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned."

Here, Paul is saying death came "into the world." It says nothing of "the world" being touched by the sin of one man. Death "came into the world through the sin of one man, and death through sin," and IN THIS WAY DEATH CAME TO ALL MEN, BECAUSE ALL SINNED. Paul is talking about human beings; that's my overriding impression from the text.

Second, the "just as" and "in the same way," while not strong enough translations, bring out the fact that Paul is making a strong comparison between something in the first half of the sentence and the second half. So, let's look at the two clauses:

A: through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin;
B: death came to all men, in that all sin

(A) is dealing with the mechanism by which death entered the world, which is sin.
(B) is dealing with the mechanism by which death entered each individual man, which is his sin.

The point is that sin brings death. Now, that creates a problem for trying to take κοσμον as a reference to "humanity," because if you do, you just have a tautology. Paul would be saying:

"Just like death came into humanity by sin, all men die by sin."

There is no comparative in that rendition, which violates the grammar of the sentence, since both ωσπερ and ουτως are comparatives. You have to take κοσμον as a reference to the whole world to preserve the comparative.

I understand what you are getting at here; it is a neat point that you make. But Paul is simply continuing the point by saying, "...and in this way death came to all men, because all have sinned." Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, AND IN THIS WAY DEATH CAME TO ALL MEN... "In this way" is precisely referring to the previous "sin entered the world"... SIN ENTERD THE WORLD...AND DEATH THROUGH SIN...AND IN THIS WAY DEATH CAME TO ALL MEN... You make a good point in regards to tautology, but this is because you are ignoring the text in that it DOESN'T hold to a tautology. Sin entered the WORLD. Sin never TOUCHED the world - at least not directly. Sin touched MANKIND. The whole human family is fallen because of one man's transgression.

[Jac3510]

Because sinning continues. Most people if not all people sin. The justification comes with the next life. We are not relieved of the suffering because we are not relieved of sin.

So you don't think we are already justified in this life?

You are right. Salvation is offered to humankind. If I'm being man-centric then surely Paul is being man-centric. If there is more detail to this, involving anything other than mankind and its redemption, then Paul is silent on it.

On the contrary, he speaks of it quite a bit: Rom 1:20, 25; 5:12; 8:19-22; 11:12, 15, etc. Certainly, Paul speaks quite a bit about the condition of man, but you are making the mistake of making that the end in and of itself. Paul speaks of our salvation in context of the entire world and its condition and redemption.

I'm ignoring it, Jac because it is not there. You are rreading "creation" to mean the humankind/sub-humans/inanimate; I see Paul using "creation" to mean human beings only. The mataphor of the labour pains [Rom. 8:22] is rather apt. The creation is crying out in pain. Blood lies everywhere, humanity struggles with death, pain and misery. The problem of poverty and the issue of survival are prevalent.
.
.
.
Jac, I believe you are reading this entirely wrong. "Creation" here means "human beings". In the context of Romans, this is surely what Paul is speaking of. "Ktisis" means not the sub-human and inanimate creation but mankind; this is evident from the hope of emancipation from the "slavery of corruption" held out in Romans 8:21. Nevertheless Romans 8:21, where it is said that "...the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God"; and Romans 8:23, "Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the spirit," show that Paul is speaking, not of sub-human creation, but of mankind, and of its earnest desire of immortality. Paul is distinguishing between mankind and Christians. Paul is surely speaking in reference to the unredeemed proportion of humanity, who are an overwhelming majority. He is speaking of the human's desire for eternal life. Such longings are self-evident in society. Who doesn't wish they could see their deceased loved ones again? I know not one atheist who does not have such longings; I even know atheists who have inadvertently slipped that they hope to see their loved ones in heaven... THEN Paul speaks of "ourselves," who have the firstfruits of the spirit...

The word ktisis doesn't ever mean, "humanity," Danny. Now you are just going against all the standard lexicons. I'm sorry, but if to adopt your view, I have to make up a meaning for a word, I don't find it very appealing.

If my position is man-centric then surely Paul is being man-centric. What else is the bible about if it is not about God, man, life, morality and love? Nature is certainly a part of the bible to some extent, but you appear to be turning your attention away from the issue of our relationship with God, and onto the passing over of the fluffy bunny rabbits of this world.
.
.
.
So tell me what you think the bible is about?

The Bible as a whole is about the Kingdom of God and His self-revelation. It speaks to man, our condition and salvation, life, morality, and love, only to the extent to those subjects deal with the Kingdom. That's your problem, Danny. The Bible isn't about you. It's about Him.

It's got NOTHING to do with being obssessed with ourselves; man and his relationship with God is the CENTRAL part of the bible. The Christian recognises how lowly he is; he knows he's a sinner; he knows that no matter how much he tries, he can never live up to Christ; he knows his place and limitations in the grand scheme of things. What you're doing is presenting a false argument, Jac. To recognise our rtelationship to God for what it really is is not to be obssessed with ourselves at all. You could not be further off-key with that line.

If man's relationship with God is the central aspect of the Bible, then what do the geneologies in Chronicles have to do with anything? What do you do with the vast portions of Scripture that do not address the relationship between man and God?

Paul is speaking as Paul does. Paul near-repeats himself to force his point home. Carry on down Romans 5 to see exactly this. 1 Corinthians 15 is another example. Paul never fails to ram home his point.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned."

Here, Paul is saying death came "into the world." It says nothing of "the world" being touched by the sin of one man. Death "came into the world through the sin of one man, and death through sin," and IN THIS WAY DEATH CAME TO ALL MEN, BECAUSE ALL SINNED. Paul is talking about human beings; that's my overriding impression from the text.

You are making Paul a bad grammarian, Danny. It's one thing to repeat yourself. It's another thing to compare something to itself and try to use that as an argument. That would be like saying, "That apple is like an apple; for you see, apples and apples are exactly alike!"

Look, Paul uses a comparative particle. That's something else you can ignore, but that doesn't make it go away.

I understand what you are getting at here; it is a neat point that you make. But Paul is simply continuing the point by saying, "...and in this way death came to all men, because all have sinned." Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, AND IN THIS WAY DEATH CAME TO ALL MEN... "In this way" is precisely referring to the previous "sin entered the world"... SIN ENTERD THE WORLD...AND DEATH THROUGH SIN...AND IN THIS WAY DEATH CAME TO ALL MEN... You make a good point in regards to tautology, but this is because you are ignoring the text in that it DOESN'T hold to a tautology. Sin entered the WORLD. Sin never TOUCHED the world - at least not directly. Sin touched MANKIND. The whole human family is fallen because of one man's transgression.

Take the final clause of 5:12 as "because all men sin." I'll justify that translation later. Can you see how that invalidates your point? Try to make the point you are making here with that understanding, and see what happens to your argument.

God bless

[DannyM]

So you don't think we are already justified in this life?.

Jac, did the disciples suffer even after they had been justified?

On the contrary, he speaks of it quite a bit: Rom 1:20, 25; 5:12; 8:19-22; 11:12, 15, etc. Certainly, Paul speaks quite a bit about the condition of man, but you are making the mistake of making that the end in and of itself. Paul speaks of our salvation in context of the entire world and its condition and redemption..

I'm not denying the importance of creation/nature to Paul, Jac; I'm saying that, for the purpose of our discussion, mankind's redemption is what is on Paul's mind.

The word ktisis doesn't ever mean, "humanity," Danny. Now you are just going against all the standard lexicons. I'm sorry, but if to adopt your view, I have to make up a meaning for a word, I don't find it very appealing..

Jac, you are absolutely wrong on this; Colossians 1:23 "This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant." "Ktisis" is the word used for "creature" here. Mark 16:15 "He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." Again, the word "Ktisis" is used for "creation" here to describe humanity. So "Ktisis" CAN and HAS been used to describe human beings.

The Bible as a whole is about the Kingdom of God and His self-revelation. It speaks to man, our condition and salvation, life, morality, and love, only to the extent to those subjects deal with the Kingdom. That's your problem, Danny. The Bible isn't about you. It's about Him..

Jac, I have to tell you again that I don't believe the bible is about "me". The bible is, among other things, about us finding God, identifying God, and having a relationship with God; God wants a relationship with us. Do you think God just created the universe, with all it encompasses, just to flaunt his Kingdom? A man might go and by an Audi A8, that does 0 to -- in 7 seconds, just to flaunt it and boast, but God - the WORD of God - is a little more sophisticated than this... But you are right to an extent: who witnesses His self-revelation, Jac?

If man's relationship with God is the central aspect of the Bible, then what do the geneologies in Chronicles have to do with anything? What do you do with the vast portions of Scripture that do not address the relationship between man and God?.

I'm not with you here Jac?

You are making Paul a bad grammarian, Danny. It's one thing to repeat yourself. It's another thing to compare something to itself and try to use that as an argument. That would be like saying, "That apple is like an apple; for you see, apples and apples are exactly alike!"

Look, Paul uses a comparative particle. That's something else you can ignore, but that doesn't make it go away..

The grammar is fine, Jac. Paul is "following on" in a "flow." Your problem is with "just as" and "in this way"... right? Well, you need not worry, because you take the beginning of the sentence, "Therefore" - which basically means "consequently" - and has followed on from the previous text, and take the flow of the argument/statement that Paul is making and read it in its context.

"Therefore*, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin..." *Consequently.

"...and in this way* death came to all men, because all sinned." *Consequence/result.

The flow of the statement is neither ungrammatical nor hard to follow.

Take the final clause of 5:12 as "because all men sin." I'll justify that translation later. Can you see how that invalidates your point? Try to make the point you are making here with that understanding, and see what happens to your argument.

Because ALL have sinned. Just as sin entered the world through ONE man...and death through sin... [nothing is explained as yet about death coming to ALL men. We know only about sin entering the world through one man; we know that DEATH is here through this sin. But we DON'T yet know that this SIN/DEATH has touched us all...

...AND in this way DEATH came to ALL MEN, because ALL SINNED." Now we KNOW the consequences of this original sin in all its stark detail. Death came to US, ALL MEN, because WE ALL SINNED...

I'm still not seeing your problem, Jac. Like I said, I understand your concern in the confines of which you have restricted yourself; but the bigger picture of the context tells you that there is not a problem grammatically for Paul.

[Jac3510]

Danny, just letting you know I haven't forgotten about you here. I'm very, very pressed for time, and want to give your response the attention it deserves, especially now that we are getting into arguments of grammar.

[DannyM]

Danny, just letting you know I haven't forgotten about you here. I'm very, very pressed for time, and want to give your response the attention it deserves, especially now that we are getting into arguments of grammar.

Okay Jac.

[dayage]

Well, after two weeks of illness, a sunday school member dieing and a sister getting married, I'm finally back.

My position seems to split both of yours.

In Genesis 1:26-30 God created man and put him in charge of the environment of earth (both animals and plants; see Gen. 2:15-16, 19-20 and also Ps. 8:6-8).

In Gen. 3:6-13 man became sinners. Not only did man disobey God, but they hid from Him and started passing the blame for their disobedience.

Romans 1:18-3:23 make it clear that all of humanity are sinners.

Roman 5 speaks of how we, who have believed, have been justified through Christ from our state of spiritual separation from God (spiritually dead). This is found in Paul's other writings as well (Eph. 2:1, 5; Colo. 2:13).

Romans 6 begins the section on sanctification where Paul instructs us not to continue to let sin rule over us, we are to die to sin (verses 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, 14-15, 22, etc.).

The second half of Romans 7 shows us that there still remains a struggle between the flesh, still affected by our old sin nature, and the mind/spirit, reborn through Christ. Paul writes about this elsewhere as well (I Cor. 3:1-3; Galatians 5:17).

In chapter 8:9-10 Paul still speaks to sanctification while again acknowledging the believer's struggle with sin (vs. 10).

In Romans 8:11 Paul speaks of our future resurrection.

In Romans 8:14-17 Paul states that believers are adopted children of God and heirs with Christ.

In verse 18 Paul refers to our current struggles (tribulations — Romans 5:3 and against sin — see above). He again mentions our future glory (see verse 11 above).

Then Paul refers to the groaning of this creation. I believe it is the earth's environment since that is what we were put in charge of (Gen. 1:26-30; Gen. 2:15-16, 19-20; Ps. 8:6-8).

Paul also tells us that this creation is longing for something. He says it "waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God" (vs. 19), will be "set free from slavery…into the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (vs. 21), creation is "suffering the pains of childbirth" (vs. 22). The creation is awaiting the bodily resurrection of the righteous.

In verse 23 Paul says we (believers) also groan and are awaiting the completion of our adoption, our resurrection.

Creation's cure is the same as ours, our resurrection. Therefore, the problem is the same for creation as it is for us. It has nothing to do with animal death or the changing of the laws of physics.

When man was put in charge of the earth, he was sinless. After Adam sinned he was still in control, so now earth was subjected to a sinful ruler. In Romans 1:18-8:18 Paul has been talking about sins effects with respect to humanity (both lost and saved), now he has shown that our sinfulness affects the world around us. When believers are resurrected we will have glorified bodies, unaffected by sin. We will rule with Christ (during the millennium) as the sinless rulers we were meant to be and earth will be set free from its bondage to our sinful ways.

[RickD]

Well, after two weeks of illness, a sunday school member dieing and a sister getting married, I'm finally back.

My position seems to split both of yours.

In Genesis 1:26-30 God created man and put him in charge of the environment of earth (both animals and plants; see Gen. 2:15-16, 19-20 and also Ps. 8:6-8).

In Gen. 3:6-13 man became sinners. Not only did man disobey God, but they hid from Him and started passing the blame for their disobedience.

Romans 1:18-3:23 make it clear that all of humanity are sinners.

Roman 5 speaks of how we, who have believed, have been justified through Christ from our state of spiritual separation from God (spiritually dead). This is found in Paul's other writings as well (Eph. 2:1, 5; Colo. 2:13).

Romans 6 begins the section on sanctification where Paul instructs us not to continue to let sin rule over us, we are to die to sin (verses 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, 14-15, 22, etc.).

The second half of Romans 7 shows us that there still remains a struggle between the flesh, still affected by our old sin nature, and the mind/spirit, reborn through Christ. Paul writes about this elsewhere as well (I Cor. 3:1-3; Galatians 5:17).

In chapter 8:9-10 Paul still speaks to sanctification while again acknowledging the believer's struggle with sin (vs. 10).

In Romans 8:11 Paul speaks of our future resurrection.

In Romans 8:14-17 Paul states that believers are adopted children of God and heirs with Christ.

In verse 18 Paul refers to our current struggles (tribulations — Romans 5:3 and against sin — see above). He again mentions our future glory (see verse 11 above).

Then Paul refers to the groaning of this creation. I believe it is the earth's environment since that is what we were put in charge of (Gen. 1:26-30; Gen. 2:15-16, 19-20; Ps. 8:6-8).

Paul also tells us that this creation is longing for something. He says it "waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God" (vs. 19), will be "set free from slavery…into the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (vs. 21), creation is "suffering the pains of childbirth" (vs. 22). The creation is awaiting the bodily resurrection of the righteous.

In verse 23 Paul says we (believers) also groan and are awaiting the completion of our adoption, our resurrection.

Creation's cure is the same as ours, our resurrection. Therefore, the problem is the same for creation as it is for us. It has nothing to do with animal death or the changing of the laws of physics.

When man was put in charge of the earth, he was sinless. After Adam sinned he was still in control, so now earth was subjected to a sinful ruler. In Romans 1:18-8:18 Paul has been talking about sins effects with respect to humanity (both lost and saved), now he has shown that our sinfulness affects the world around us. When believers are resurrected we will have glorified bodies, unaffected by sin. We will rule with Christ (during the millennium) as the sinless rulers we were meant to be and earth will be set free from its bondage to our sinful ways.

Dayage, Where are you saying that Paul has shown that our sinfulness affects the world around us? If you're talking about Romans 8:19, it doesn't say that man's sin was what subjected creation to frustration.

[dayage]

RickD,

In Romans 8:20 God is the one who subjects. With what I said above about sin being throughout these first 8 chapters, God put man in charge knowing that they would fall into sin. Vanity/futility mataiotes is emptiness as to results.

Verse 21 says "slavery to corruption." Corruption phthora means to be brought into an inferior or worse condition. With our past present and future relationship to sin being the main focus of these chapters, it makes sense to me that sin must be connected to what is taking place in these couple of verses as well.

When man fell (see previous entry), his leadership became distorted. Therefore, creation could not live up to its potential (vanity) and was brought into an inferior condition (corruption).

And as I showed earlier, the cure for believers (battling with the fleshly nature) and creation is the same. The cure comes when believers are resurrected with glorified bodies to match our glorified souls. We will be the sinless rulers over creation that we were meant to be.

Theologians have referenced a few different ways in which we corrupt creation. We mistreat it and it is the arena in which God judges us for sin (thorns in Eden, the flood, famines, etc). Also, some have pointed out that earth has become the graveyard for man.

[Jac3510]

OK, Danny, sorry for the very long time in getting back to you on this. Life is extremely busy, but I can't sleep tonight, and I've kept you waiting long enough, so here ye be:

So you don't think we are already justified in this life?.

Jac, did the disciples suffer even after they had been justified?

That's my point, Danny. Yes, they did. Paul says this explicitly in our passage:

• Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. (Rom 5:1-5)

Now, we need to get this straight, because this is an important part of my argument that you seem to be denying. It goes right to the issue of the flow of the book of Romans. Paul just spent chapters three and four arguing that we are justified through faith. He summarizes both those chapters in once sentence in 5:1, saying that we have been justified (past tense), but then goes on to recognize the reality of suffering in this life. How is it, then, that you say:

"The justification comes with the next life. We are not relieved of the suffering because we are not relieved of sin"?

You seem to be contradicting Paul here.

I'm not denying the importance of creation/nature to Paul, Jac; I'm saying that, for the purpose of our discussion, mankind's redemption is what is on Paul's mind.

But is that the only issue on his mind? If it is, why the frequent references to the entirety of creation? What you aren't seeing is that Paul is speaking of man's redemption in the context of the coming redemption of the entire world.

Jac, you are absolutely wrong on this; Colossians 1:23 "This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant." "Ktisis" is the word used for "creature" here. Mark 16:15 "He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." Again, the word "Ktisis" is used for "creation" here to describe humanity. So "Ktisis" CAN and HAS been used to describe human beings.

No, I'm not wrong here. First of all, if ktisis does mean "human beings," why has no major translation rendered it that way? Are you telling me that every major translation is wrong? Certainly, it is possible, but you are going to need to provide me with one heck of a reason for that. (Full disclosure: you can appeal to some off-translations, like the CEV, if you like . . .)

More to the point, the word ktisis has a very, very deep history in both secular and Jewish sources. The bottom line is that it is always tied to the concept of the Creation (note: it can refer to the concept of man's creation, i.e., laws, but you can, I'm sure, see the exact parallel in concept here). Thus, God is the "creator." And what is He the creator of? EVERYTHING. This--everything around us--is His creation, that is, His ktisis. You can certainly say that humans are God's ktisis, but that doesn't mean the word ktisis refers to "humanity" anymore than the English word "creation" refers to humanity.

So the question arises, why did Mark choose the word ktisis in 16:15 (assuming that verse is original) and Paul use it in Col 1:23? It is rather simple. In both cases, the Gospel is what is being preached to the creation. Man was and is supposed to be the ruler of the Creation. Do remember that "Gospel" simply means "good news." The thought in both passages is perfectly parallel to the argument Paul is making in Romans as I am explaining it. Man is the means by which creation hears and receives the Gospel, which will lead to its redemption.

An illustration may help: if I am speaking in public and I say, "I want every ear to hear these words!", to whom am I addressing my message? Merely to ears? Of course not, but to every person listening. Why, then, did I use the word "ear"? Because the ear is the instrument by which the body hears. It has no other way. Precisely the same thing is going on in both of those verses and in Romans. It is remarkably consistent. The fact that Paul and Mark do not use the word for "man" (anthropos) is telling--the Gospel isn't merely intended for humans; it is intended for the whole of creation, because it is the whole of creation that will be redeemed The bottom line in these passages is that Paul and Mark are connecting the preaching of the Gospel to mankind with the entire creation.

A second observation about ktisis is worth noting if we are going to have ourselves a little word-study. It is used 19 times in the NT, 11 of which by Paul. Amazingly, in Paul, 7 of the 11 occurrences are found in the book of Romans (which further demonstrates Paul's interest in the whole of creation, as I have been arguing). Of the remaining times, Paul uses it in 2 Cor 5:17 and Gal 6:15 to refer to the believer as a new creation, and the other two times are Col 1:15, which refers to Jesus as the head of all creation and 1:23, as already mentioned (note: the fact that ktisis is universal in scope in 1:15, the direct context for 1:23, is, again, telling as to the point Paul is making, and perfectly in line with what I am arguing). In other words, Paul overwhelmingly uses the word in Romans when he does use it, and in all cases he uses it with reference to God's creation.

With that concept in mind, let's look at the seven usages in Romans, namely, 1:20, 25; 8:19, 20, 21, 22, 39. First off, the distribution is very interesting. The first two occurrences are clearly referring to the totality of creation ("For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" and "and served the creature more than the Creator", respectively). The point is clear: as the heavens declare the glory of God, so mankind can look at creation and understand who God is; and yet, rather than serve Him, they instead served that creation in the form of idolatry. It's also worth noting, by the way, that 1:20 refers to the "creation of the world"--that is, of the kosmos--which has bearing on 5:12, but I'll leave you to ponder that on your own. So here we are, at the beginning of Paul's letter, and he clearly states his universal view of creation with respect to humanity right up front, using ktisis in precisely this manner.

The next five occurrences are clustered together at the end of chapter eight, at the end of Paul's long discussion on sanctification. Remember that he started this discussion in 5:12 by referring to the death that had entered into the kosmos--the same kosmos of 1:20--and is now wrapping his thoughts up. Here's the NIV's rendering of these verses:

• 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
  20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
  21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
  22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. . . .
  39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord

It should be obvious enough to anyone that ktisis in all of these usages refers to the whole of creation. But just for completeness, a comment on each:

19: "creation" can't refer to humanity here because the "sons of God" refers to humanity. Such a rendering would have it say, "For mankind awaits in eager expectation for mankind to be revealed" . . . it makes no sense.
20: "creation" would be an odd way to refer to mankind by calling him an "it" twice. Further, note the word "for" at the beginning of the verse; it is explaining v. 19. The reason creation is eagerly awaiting the sons of God to be revealed is that it was subjected to frustration and thus needs to be redeemed. Since the "creation" in v. 19 can't refer to mankind, neither can it here.
21: Again, creation is referred to by the neuter "itself" and again distinguished from the "children of God," which most certainly refers to mankind. Now, if you look carefully, you will see that the creation is brought into the freedom of the children of God--that would be impossible if the two words had the same referent.
22: In case there is any confusion, Paul refers to the whole creation--not just part called mankind! Further, the fact that the creation is in childbirth pains implies that, at some point, it was "impregnated." Pray tell, Danny, when did this happen? At creation itself? Did God create the world is such a state? No, because Paul Himself said the creation was "subjected" to frustration. So unless you believe that either the whole creation or mankind was created in a state of frustration, you have to accept the fact that this was something that happened after the creation took place.
39: finally, the "creation" in this verse obviously refers to the entirety of creation. Paul isn't merely saying that no man can separate us from God's love; that is evident from the phrase "anything else in all creation."

So . . . what do we see in all this? Paul is referring very much to the entirety of creation in chapters one and eight, which is exactly what I have been arguing the entire time. If, then, you want to take the flow of Paul's argument in the book seriously, you are forced to recognize Paul's universal viewpoint in his argument, which has direct bearing on Rom 5:12, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. Put simply, neither ktisis nor kosmos refer only to humanity, but both refer to the entirety of creation.

Jac, I have to tell you again that I don't believe the bible is about "me". The bible is, among other things, about us finding God, identifying God, and having a relationship with God; God wants a relationship with us. Do you think God just created the universe, with all it encompasses, just to flaunt his Kingdom? A man might go and by an Audi A8, that does 0 to -- in 7 seconds, just to flaunt it and boast, but God - the WORD of God - is a little more sophisticated than this... But you are right to an extent: who witnesses His self-revelation, Jac?

God created everything for His enjoyment. As to who witnesses His self-revelation, the whole of creation does, and at the highest level, that means intelligent beings, including men and angels. In any case, I still find your idea that the whole reason God created was so that He could have a relationship with us to be man-centered. God created for Himself, not for us. We are a part of His creation. The highest part, no doubt. The part in His image, no doubt. But you seem to have this idea that mankind is something of a demi-god . . . that below us is creation, above us is God, and we are somewhere in the middle, separate from that creation. Danny, do you not realize that we were made in the same creation-week (however you define it, be it six solar days or six periods of time) as all the rest of creation? We are a PART of it, dude.

I'm not with you here Jac?

I'm trying to point out that when you make an argument or write a book or tell a story or whatever, all the elements in it contribute in some way to your central point. There certainly may be and pretty much always are subpoints that may or may not relate to one another, but every point relates to the central argument. If, for example, I am writing a book on how to repair a car, I'm not going to include a recipe for chicken salad.

Now, your contention is that the central theme of the Bible is God's relationship with mankind. I'm telling you that your central theme is too narrow, precisely because it isn't the central theme. Let me give you an example I think we agree on. Do you remember the paper I wrote on the Gospel of John? In it, I pointed out that most people have the purpose of John's Gospel all wrong. They look at 20:31 and assume that the "these things" in that verse must refer to the entirety of the book, and therefore, they take the purpose of the book to be evangelistic. That, sadly, wreaks havoc on their ability to interpret it correctly. What, for instance, are they to do with chapters 13-17, which have NOTHING to do with evangelism? The truth is that the Gospel of John is NOT a book about evangelism; it is written about who Jesus Christ is, namely, the Son of God, and what that entails. If those interpreters were to stop and take chapters 13-17 seriously, they would see that their "central purpose" of John is entirely wrong, because they have not accounted for all the data.

In precisely the same way, your central purpose for the Bible does not take into account all the data. There are large sections of books that have nothing to do with God's relationship with man. I cited the genealogies as one example. There are many others, which I'm sure you would have no problem finding.

I believe that you would do well to stop seeing mankind in any fashion as being a central figure in Scripture. No man is the hero of any story . . . not Adam, Abraham, David, Esther, Paul, Peter . . . no one. The hero is ALWAYS God. God is at the center. The book is about God. It's not about us. It's not about God's relationship with us. It is about God. It is about who He is and what He is doing in and with this entire creation of which we are a part. An important part, yes, but just a part, nonetheless.

The grammar is fine, Jac. Paul is "following on" in a "flow." Your problem is with "just as" and "in this way"... right? Well, you need not worry, because you take the beginning of the sentence, "Therefore" - which basically means "consequently" - and has followed on from the previous text, and take the flow of the argument/statement that Paul is making and read it in its context.

"Therefore*, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin..." *Consequently.

"...and in this way* death came to all men, because all sinned." *Consequence/result.

The flow of the statement is neither ungrammatical nor hard to follow.

I've highlighted in bold where you are missing the grammatical point.

First off, the "therefore" ties 5:12 into 5:1-11. You could render it "this is because." The Greek here is δια τουτο, literally "Because of this." What is the "this"? The immediate context: 1-11. Specifically it is going back to the phrase "shall we be saved through his life!" Read 5:1-12 and substitute "therefore" (which is really not a good rendering, anyway, as the normal Greek word for that is the post-positive oun, as in 5:1) with "this is because."

Second, the comparative is NOT between consequence and result. That wouldn't be a comparative, anyway. Grammatically, that would be a simple if/then and would require a causal word. What you actually have are two DISTINCT statements. Look at them again:

1. Death came into the world;
2. Death comes to all men.

That is what we are comparing. Paul starts with the a better known fact ("just as") . . . the better known fact to his audience is that sin entered the world and then death came through sin. Using their understanding of THAT, he explains to them that ON THAT BASIS, death comes to all men--what basis? That all men sin. Let's use a modern example.

Suppose you were trying to explain to someone how we know that God exists, and you are using the moral argument. You say this:

"Ok, John . . . imagine you get caught speeding. You were doing a hundred miles an hour in a fifty. The judge asks you if you are guilty. Now, it doesn't matter that you followed all the other laws of the road, like having on your turn signal and stopping at red lights, does it? You are guilty before him and will be sentenced accordingly, right? Just like that, in the same way, when you stand before God, it won't matter how good you have been, because you will have broke some of His laws, and will be sentenced accordingly!"

Now, look what you are doing here. You are making a comparison. First, you appeal to something John already understands to help him get something he doesn't understand. You show him something about the modern legal system. Then, comparing the God to the modern legal system (Just as . . . in the same way) you bring the point across you want him to see.

That is exactly what Paul is doing here. He starts with the well known fact that death came into the world through sin. That his readers get. They know that this world is dying because of sin. On the basis of THAT, he wants them to understand the second half: that they die FOR THE SAME REASON: their own sin. Can you see how your rendering makes Paul's point totally absurd? In your view, Paul is appealing to their knowledge that men die because of their sin to explain to them that men die for their own sin. It's tautological. It makes no sense. It's pointless.

Of course, you can just take kosmos as a reference to the entire world as the flow of the book, the argument of the unit in which it is found, the historical theology of the day, and the linguistic evidence based on the words for death and creation all indicate, and this absurdity goes away, and Paul ends up making a fantastic point.

Because ALL have sinned. Just as sin entered the world through ONE man...and death through sin... [nothing is explained as yet about death coming to ALL men. We know only about sin entering the world through one man; we know that DEATH is here through this sin. But we DON'T yet know that this SIN/DEATH has touched us all...

...AND in this way DEATH came to ALL MEN, because ALL SINNED." Now we KNOW the consequences of this original sin in all its stark detail. Death came to US, ALL MEN, because WE ALL SINNED...

I'm still not seeing your problem, Jac. Like I said, I understand your concern in the confines of which you have restricted yourself; but the bigger picture of the context tells you that there is not a problem grammatically for Paul.

What do you mean, we don't yet know that sin/death has touched us all? Paul already made that clear earlier in the book:

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3:23

So try again. Your point here is invalidated. I also find it odd that you think I am constraining myself. I'm the one taking the broader view and appealing the flow of the whole book. You are the one limiting yourself to chapters three and four and now, apparently, ignoring even 3:23, which obviously relates since the exact same wording is used there as here.

At every point, Danny, your argument fails. I understand your concern here. You HAVE to take this verse this way because if Paul IS saying that death entered the entire world at Adam's sin, then OEC can't be true. Maybe you should very carefully consider how much of your systematic theology is driving your interpretation of this text. You are deeply constrained. I can take the passage either way and it not affect my systematic theology one way or the other. You can be YEC and take Rom 5:12 to refer only to humanity. You cannot be OEC and take Rom 5:12 to refer to the world.

[DannyM]

• Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. (Rom 5:1-5)

Now, we need to get this straight, because this is an important part of my argument that you seem to be denying. It goes right to the issue of the flow of the book of Romans. Paul just spent chapters three and four arguing that we are justified through faith. He summarizes both those chapters in once sentence in 5:1, saying that we have been justified (past tense), but then goes on to recognize the reality of suffering in this life. How is it, then, that you say:

"The justification comes with the next life. We are not relieved of the suffering because we are not relieved of sin"?

You seem to be contradicting Paul here..

How am I contradicting paul? Sure, we are justified. But when do you think we bear the fruits of this justification? This is certainly where faith plays its part...

No, I'm not wrong here. First of all, if ktisis does mean "human beings," why has no major translation rendered it that way? Are you telling me that every major translation is wrong? Certainly, it is possible, but you are going to need to provide me with one heck of a reason for that. (Full disclosure: you can appeal to some off-translations, like the CEV, if you like...More to the point, the word ktisis has a very, very deep history in both secular and Jewish sources. The bottom line is that it is always tied to the concept of the Creation (note: it can refer to the concept of man's creation, i.e., laws, but you can, I'm sure, see the exact parallel in concept here). Thus, God is the "creator." And what is He the creator of? EVERYTHING. This--everything around us--is His creation, that is, His ktisis. You can certainly say that humans are God's ktisis, but that doesn't mean the word ktisis refers to "humanity" anymore than the English word "creation" refers to humanity.

"The noun ktisis “creation,” “what is created,” or “creature” is used nineteen times in the NT...The term ktisis, “creation” refers to “every human
institutions/creation” once (1Pet 2:13)...In Mark 16:15 and Col 1:23, however, when the gospel is preached to “all creation,” the term describes humanity only, however, throughout the centuries of the Christian era."

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.or ... tament.pdf

I don't know if Ekkehardt Mueller is any good to you, but he does agree with you on Romans 8.

So the question arises, why did Mark choose the word ktisis in 16:15 (assuming that verse is original) and Paul use it in Col 1:23? It is rather simple. In both cases, the Gospel is what is being preached to the creation. Man was and is supposed to be the ruler of the Creation. Do remember that "Gospel" simply means "good news." The thought in both passages is perfectly parallel to the argument Paul is making in Romans as I am explaining it. Man is the means by which creation hears and receives the Gospel, which will lead to its redemption.

So in other words the context of these passages can go hang if it doesn't fit with your own preference...

An illustration may help: if I am speaking in public and I say, "I want every ear to hear these words!", to whom am I addressing my message? Merely to ears? Of course not, but to every person listening. Why, then, did I use the word "ear"? Because the ear is the instrument by which the body hears. It has no other way. Precisely the same thing is going on in both of those verses and in Romans. It is remarkably consistent. The fact that Paul and Mark do not use the word for "man" (anthropos) is telling--the Gospel isn't merely intended for humans; it is intended for the whole of creation, because it is the whole of creation that will be redeemed The bottom line in these passages is that Paul and Mark are connecting the preaching of the Gospel to mankind with the entire creation..

From what I've read, "creation" can be used to mean mankind, whole creation, or can even be used in a figurative manner.

19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed
20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time

This comes from a footnote in the Greek Diaglott:

"[Greek: Ktisis] (as used in Rom. 8:19,20,21, and 22), CREATION, has the same signification here as in Mark 16:15: "Proclaim the glad tidings to the whole creation," that is, "all mankind;" and also Col. 1:23, where a similar phrase occurs. That the brute and inanimate creation is not here spoken of, but mankind, is evident from the hope of emancipation from the "slavery of corruption" held out in the 21st verse, and the contrast introduced in the 23rd verse, between the [ktisis] and those possessing the "first fruit of the Spirit.""
The Emphatic Greek Diaglott, pg 531.

What I don't understand, Jac, is how you cannot see that "creation" here is referring to mankind. The creation waits in eager expectation. The creation was subjected to frustration. The creation will be liberated from its bondage. The creation has been groaning (like the pains of childbirth). The human metaphor should not be lost on you. Paul is also referring to that passionate desire of the human race for eternal life. You appear to be downgrading such longings for the "longings" of an inanimate and sub-human creation. Do you deny that there are deep and irrepressible longings in the human heart for something better than the poor years of agony and frustration on earth? All such agony and frustration is indeed an "expectation," looking to the revelation of the sons of God. But what you are telling me is that the inanimate creation is looking forward to the revelation of the sons of God, yes?

So . . . what do we see in all this? Paul is referring very much to the entirety of creation in chapters one and eight, which is exactly what I have been arguing the entire time. If, then, you want to take the flow of Paul's argument in the book seriously, you are forced to recognize Paul's universal viewpoint in his argument, which has direct bearing on Rom 5:12, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. Put simply, neither ktisis nor kosmos refer only to humanity, but both refer to the entirety of creation..

I disagree entirely.

God created everything for His enjoyment. As to who witnesses His self-revelation, the whole of creation does, and at the highest level, that means intelligent beings, including men and angels. In any case, I still find your idea that the whole reason God created was so that He could have a relationship with us to be man-centered. God created for Himself, not for us. We are a part of His creation. The highest part, no doubt. The part in His image, no doubt. But you seem to have this idea that mankind is something of a demi-god . . . that below us is creation, above us is God, and we are somewhere in the middle, separate from that creation. Danny, do you not realize that we were made in the same creation-week (however you define it, be it six solar days or six periods of time) as all the rest of creation? We are a PART of it, dude..

Unless you are talking figuratively then I'm a little lost. Could you explain to me how the inanimate creation witnesses God's self-revelation...?

Jac, how many times do I need to tell you that I am not man-centred? I happen to think mankind is depraved; in fact, I think the dog is more deserving of eternal life than man is.

I'm trying to point out that when you make an argument or write a book or tell a story or whatever, all the elements in it contribute in some way to your central point. There certainly may be and pretty much always are subpoints that may or may not relate to one another, but every point relates to the central argument. If, for example, I am writing a book on how to repair a car, I'm not going to include a recipe for chicken salad..

I don't disagree. Paul is talking about mankind, and of course mankind is part of a bigger picture.

Now, your contention is that the central theme of the Bible is God's relationship with mankind. I'm telling you that your central theme is too narrow, precisely because it isn't the central theme. Let me give you an example I think we agree on. Do you remember the paper I wrote on the Gospel of John? In it, I pointed out that most people have the purpose of John's Gospel all wrong. They look at 20:31 and assume that the "these things" in that verse must refer to the entirety of the book, and therefore, they take the purpose of the book to be evangelistic. That, sadly, wreaks havoc on their ability to interpret it correctly. What, for instance, are they to do with chapters 13-17, which have NOTHING to do with evangelism? The truth is that the Gospel of John is NOT a book about evangelism; it is written about who Jesus Christ is, namely, the Son of God, and what that entails. If those interpreters were to stop and take chapters 13-17 seriously, they would see that their "central purpose" of John is entirely wrong, because they have not accounted for all the data.

In precisely the same way, your central purpose for the Bible does not take into account all the data. There are large sections of books that have nothing to do with God's relationship with man. I cited the genealogies as one example. There are many others, which I'm sure you would have no problem finding..

I remember that well, but the point you are making here assumes me to be man-centric just for stating the obvious fact that God's self-revelation is something which needs to be received. If we do not recognise, appreaciate and stand in awe of this then who else can? I think you are over-compensating, Jac, in an effort to make the text fit with your position. This is understandable.

I believe that you would do well to stop seeing mankind in any fashion as being a central figure in Scripture. No man is the hero of any story . . . not Adam, Abraham, David, Esther, Paul, Peter . . . no one. The hero is ALWAYS God. God is at the center. The book is about God. It's not about us. It's not about God's relationship with us. It is about God. It is about who He is and what He is doing in and with this entire creation of which we are a part. An important part, yes, but just a part, nonetheless..

Tell it brother! I agree with you! But I feel you are over-egging my position in order to justify your own position.

First off, the "therefore" ties 5:12 into 5:1-11. You could render it "this is because." The Greek here is δια τουτο, literally "Because of this." What is the "this"? The immediate context: 1-11. Specifically it is going back to the phrase "shall we be saved through his life!" Read 5:1-12 and substitute "therefore" (which is really not a good rendering, anyway, as the normal Greek word for that is the post-positive oun, as in 5:1) with "this is because.".

Or how about "because of this" ?

Second, the comparative is NOT between consequence and result. That wouldn't be a comparative, anyway. Grammatically, that would be a simple if/then and would require a causal word. What you actually have are two DISTINCT statements. Look at them again:

1. Death came into the world;
2. Death comes to all men.

That is what we are comparing. Paul starts with the a better known fact ("just as") . . . the better known fact to his audience is that sin entered the world and then death came through sin. Using their understanding of THAT, he explains to them that ON THAT BASIS, death comes to all men--what basis? That all men sin. Let's use a modern example..

"Because of this, sin entered the world." This isn't saying that sin affects every man; it is saying that sin merely entered the world. Cancer entered the world, but (God willing) I am not automatically given over to cancer. Paul THEN goes on to tell how "death came to all men, because all sinned."

"Ok, John . . . imagine you get caught speeding. You were doing a hundred miles an hour in a fifty. The judge asks you if you are guilty. Now, it doesn't matter that you followed all the other laws of the road, like having on your turn signal and stopping at red lights, does it? You are guilty before him and will be sentenced accordingly, right? Just like that, in the same way, when you stand before God, it won't matter how good you have been, because you will have broke some of His laws, and will be sentenced accordingly!"

Now, look what you are doing here. You are making a comparison. First, you appeal to something John already understands to help him get something he doesn't understand. You show him something about the modern legal system. Then, comparing the God to the modern legal system (Just as . . . in the same way) you bring the point across you want him to see..

I understand.

That is exactly what Paul is doing here. He starts with the well known fact that death came into the world through sin. That his readers get. They know that this world is dying because of sin. On the basis of THAT, he wants them to understand the second half: that they die FOR THE SAME REASON: their own sin. Can you see how your rendering makes Paul's point totally absurd? In your view, Paul is appealing to their knowledge that men die because of their sin to explain to them that men die for their own sin. It's tautological. It makes no sense. It's pointless..

No. What Paul is doing is telling his readers that THEY, too, sin. He is pointing out that, just as sin entred the world through one man, IN THIS WAY death came to ALL men because ALL sin. Paul is relating the incredible and awful truth that because of only one man's sin, a single solitary sin, death had passed upon the entire race of people. We are confronted with the impenetrable mystery of the fall of the human family. The old creation fell in Adam; the new creation stands eternally secure in Christ. And again, this all coincides with Paul's "theme" of the moment.

Of course, you can just take kosmos as a reference to the entire world as the flow of the book, the argument of the unit in which it is found, the historical theology of the day, and the linguistic evidence based on the words for death and creation all indicate, and this absurdity goes away, and Paul ends up making a fantastic point..

I don't understand you here, Jac. Sin entered the world. It did not TOUCH the world. A new born baby enters the world...

What do you mean, we don't yet know that sin/death has touched us all? Paul already made that clear earlier in the book:

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3:23.

We have already agreed that Paul can be repetative, so why would you seek to interrupt the flow of his message? Paul does not fail to make the same point if his current message requires that that point be made.

So try again. Your point here is invalidated. I also find it odd that you think I am constraining myself. I'm the one taking the broader view and appealing the flow of the whole book. You are the one limiting yourself to chapters three and four and now, apparently, ignoring even 3:23, which obviously relates since the exact same wording is used there as here..

You ARE constraining yourself, Jac. You appear to need the passage to mean what you think it should mean. I just don't see it. You are creating a grammatical problem out of nothing. Because you are reading the passage incorrectly, you are seeing a problem that does not exist. At least that's my humble view.

At every point, Danny, your argument fails. I understand your concern here. You HAVE to take this verse this way because if Paul IS saying that death entered the entire world at Adam's sin, then OEC can't be true. Maybe you should very carefully consider how much of your systematic theology is driving your interpretation of this text. You are deeply constrained. I can take the passage either way and it not affect my systematic theology one way or the other. You can be YEC and take Rom 5:12 to refer only to humanity. You cannot be OEC and take Rom 5:12 to refer to the world.

Jac, you are wrong. I feel the reverse is in play here. Either way, one of us is wrong. If someone can jump in and point me to what, if anything, I'm missing then I'd be grateful.

[dayage]

I find myself in a position somewhere between Jac and someone else again.

Jac,
I have shown the context of Romans 5. It only deals with a death spiritual death man, because only man sins. In Romans 8 sin tainted man is the problem. Believers are awaiting the completion of our redemption (resurrection) and so is the creation. It has nothing to do with creation being redeemed. It is not fallen. It is awaiting our redemption.

What is the gospel "good news?" It is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (I Cor. 15:1-4). Go ahead; tell it to your dog, a tree, etc. It will not make one bit of difference. Creation will not be redeemed, it will be replaced.

Ktisis does usually mean creation, but the problem is found in the translations of Colossians 1:23 and Mark 16:15.

Colo. 1:23 should read

"….which was preached in (en) all creation which is under the heaven."

The preaching was done "In" not "to" all creation.

The same concept is found in verses 5-6

"because of the hope laid up for you in (en) heaven, of which you previously heard in (en) the word of truth, the gospel,
6 which has come to you, just as in (en) all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing…"

Romans 10:18

"But, I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for 'Their voice has gone out into (eis) all the earth, and their words unto (eis) the ends of the world.'"

Romans 1:8

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed in (en) all the world.

Mark 16:15-16

And He said to them, "Go into (eis) all the world and preach the gospel all creation.
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

The preposition is missing after gospel in verse 15, so an interpretive decision must be made. Verse sixteen shows that they were to preach to people, so that rules against the translation "to all creation." Therefore, like the other verses mentioned it should be understood to read "in or throughout all creation."

This is also backed by Mark 14:9

Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached in (eis) all the world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her."

Luke 7:17

And this report about Him went throughout (en) all Judea and all the surrounding region.

Nobody is supposed to preach "to" creation. They are to preach wherever they find people.

DannyM,

Romans 8 is speaking about how our sinfulness effects creation, but as I stated it earlier, not as Jac suggests.