Frankly, I've heard the OP question before, and I have found (and find it now) to be tedious, unhelpful and used only to hurt others' faith. I for one, would wish that Dr. Gonzales would take up better pursuits than posting every atheistic canard to see how people respond to it.
Fred,
I'm sorry you find this discussion tedious and unhelpful. Moreover, I am certainly not raising the question in order to "hurt others' faith." I am certainly not an atheist, nor do I have sympathies with their objections to the Christian faith. Admittedly, I don't see the connection between atheism and a
possible predatory/prey relationship between animal life before the fall.
Below I'll give my present thoughts about the question. I teach a course on the doctrine of man and sin, and the question I raised in this thread was first raised by others whom I was teaching--in some cases, laypeople. I don't think it's intrinsically wrong to speak about such matters provided that we maintain our highest allegiance to the infallible and inerrant word of God. You may not agree with my interpretation, but be careful not to impugn evil motives to someone you don't know personally.
Before I offer my own reflections on the question of this thread (which will include arguments from both sides), let me make it clear (again) that I unreservedly hold to the verbal and plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Where Scripture and the claims of science disagree, Scripture wins hands down. Second. I am presently (as I indicated above) a "young-earther." In that regard, I'm more "conservative" than many Reformed scholars who are esteemed on this PB. Hopefully, this preface will disarm any unnecessarily hostile reactions to my post below.
Traditionally, Bible scholars have argued that God’s curse did not merely spell death for the human race, but it also introduced death into the animal kingdom—at least with respect to the higher forms of animal life. Those who argue in favor of this position point to the fact that God’s curse upon the earth because of Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:17) affected animal life as well as plant life. In support of this interpretation, they point to many other passages of Scripture that link human sin to alterations in the ecosystem that affected both man and beast. For example, in Deuteronomy 28:18, God warns the Israelites that if they break His covenant, He would curse “the increase of [their] livestock.” Because of Israel’s sin and impenitence, the prophet Hosea declares, “Therefore the land will mourn; and everyone who dwells there will waste away with the beasts of the field And the birds of the air; Even the fish of the sea will be taken away” (Hos. 4:3). And God issues Judah the following threat through the prophet Zephaniah:
I will utterly consume everything from the face of the land, says the LORD; I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, the fish of the sea, and the stumbling blocks along with the wicked. I will cut off man from the face of the land, says the LORD (Zeph. 1:2-3).
Of course, the worldwide Flood-judgment of primeval history is the most prominent example. Because mankind filled the earth with violence and corruption (Gen. 6:5, 11-13), God sent a flood that destroyed both man and beast (Gen. 6:17; 7:21-23).
Romans 8:20-22 is a key NT passage in this debate. In these verses, Paul seems to allude to a curse on all of creation and from which all creation will be freed at the end of the age:
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
The apostle begins verse 20 with an assertion that can be translated literally, “For unto transitoriness the creation was subjected.” Then he identifies God as the agent who affected this state of transitoriness or futility. In verse 21, he depicts the present creation as in “the bondage of corruption.” Though the Greek term translated “corruption” is mainly used in context referring to moral impurity, it does occur in at least two places referring to the physical decay of the body (Ps. 103:4 [102:4, LXX]; 1 Cor. 42, 50). Finally, in verse 22, Paul compares the creation to a woman in labor pains, which may be an allusion to God’s curse upon the woman (Gen. 3:16). John Calvin seems to link this passage to the Fall when he writes,
We may, it is true, infer from this [passage] how dreadful is the curse which we have deserved, since all innocent creatures from earth to heaven are punished for our sins. It is our fault that they struggle in corruption. The condemnation of the human race is thus imprinted on the heavens, the earth, and all creatures.
So it would seem that man’s fall into sin brought a curse not only on himself but also on the entire creation, including animal life. And yet, Paul does not merely focus on the present state of creation. He speaks of a day when “the creation itself also will be delivered.” And according to certain OT prophecies, this final eschatological redemption of the earth will result in radical changes in animal behavior, eradicating the present relationship between predator and prey. Thus, the prophet Isaiah foretells a day when
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea. (Isa. 11:6-9; cf. 65:25).
The animal behavior described in this apocalyptic passage, according to some, points to conditions before man’s fall into sin. Before the fall, there were no carnivorous animals. Lions did not feed on lambs but ate grass with lambs. And so will it be in the age to come.
But if these passages are describing conditions before the Fall, then how do we account for the radical changes in anatomy that must have resulted after the fall? How did animals that were originally herbivores develop the kind of teeth and claws and digestive systems that presently characterize carnivores? Henry Morris, a Christian scientist, offers the following explanation in his commentary on God’s curse in Genesis 3:17-19:
If deteriorative mutational changes occurred in plants, it seems reasonable and even probably that they also would occur in animals. As smoothly rounded structures deteriorated to thorns in plants, so perhaps teeth and nails designed for a herbivorous diet mutated to fangs and claws which, in combination with a progressively increasing dietary deficiency of proteins and other essentials, gradually generated carnivorous appetites in certain animals.
But other Christian scientists and Bible scholars disagree with this kind of reasoning and argue that animal death did exist before man’s fall into sin. In the first place, they point out that the mutational changes called for to account for strictly carnivorous animals would require a kind of macroevolution on an accelerated scale. In other words, how could an originally algae eating fish develop so quickly into a sharp-toothed eating machine like a shark? How could a plant eating reptile turn into a ferocious dinosaur like the Tyrannosaurus Rex? It’s difficult to conceive of an anteater consuming grass with his funnel like snout and protrud¬ing tongue. How could such a specialized anatomical structure develop so quickly? And this difficulty does not merely apply to predatory animals. Many insects, fish, and animals have highly sophisticated protection devices that enable them to escape predation. How could the protective armor and horns and camouflage and chemical releasing organs develop so quickly within a limited space of time? David Snoke, a Christian physicist and astronomer, remarks,
The change in nature of these animals to eat grass or other plants would require a total re-creation of them, as any biologist will testify. Yet such an utter change of all species is not mentioned in Genesis 3:14-24. All we read is that thistles will proliferate.
Hugh Ross, another Christian scientist highlights the difficultly created by those who argue for radical mutations and changes in the physical structures and behaviors of animals:
One irony for the creation scientists … cannot be overlooked: the approach they chose to crush the serpent of evolution forces them to embrace the principles of evolutionism more tightly than any atheist biologist would…. Accordingly, they propose that meat-eating crea¬tures alive now and evident in the fossil record must have evolved in just several hundred years or less, by natural processes alone, from the plant-eating creatures!
Neither of these Christian scientists I’ve cited supports the idea of theistic evolution. Furthermore, they both affirm the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture. Therefore, we need to ask whether the Scriptures constrain us to embrace the position that all animal death is a result of the Fall.
Presently, I’m not certain that the biblical data requires us to reject the idea of animal death before the Fall. Let me offer three reasons for my present position: first of all, the Bible doesn’t seem to portray carnivorous animals negatively but as creatures whose very design reflects the wisdom of God. Consider God’s words to Job:
Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens, or lurk in their lairs to lie in wait? Who provides food for the raven, when its young ones cry to God, and wander about for lack of food? (38:39-41).
In the same context, God also refers to mountain goats and deer that experience “labor pains” (39:3, NAS), the eagle who captures its prey and feeds it to its young who “suck up blood” (39:30), and the creature leviathan who has “terrible teeth” (41:14). It’s impor¬tant to remember that God’s answer to Job in these chapters seems to focus upon God’s inscrutable wisdom as evident in His works of creation and providence. Similar is the language of Psalm 104:20-28:
20 You make darkness, and it is night, in which all the beasts of the forest creep about. 21 The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from God. 22 When the sun rises, they gather together and lie down in their dens. 23 Man goes out to his work and to his labor until the evening. 24 O LORD, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions -25 this great and wide sea, in which are innumerable teeming things, living things both small and great. 26 There the ships sail about; there is that Leviathan which You have made to play there. 27 These all wait for You, That You may give them their food in due season. 28 What You give them they gather in; You open Your hand, they are filled with good.
Once again, we have a passage that portrays predatory animals as a facet of creation that display God’s wisdom and their consumption of other animals as an indication of God’s providential care rather than an evidence of God’s curse.
One final passage that appears to portray animal death in a positive light as part of the created order is found in 1 Timothy 4:1-4:
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
Paul is probably addressing certain Jewish legalists who were attempting to impose their celibate practice and dietary restrictions upon the Gentiles. And note that in warning Timothy against these false doctrines, Paul appeals to the creation ordinance. Not only did God institute marriage as a gift for humanity, but He also created “foods,” which in this context is referring to animal flesh since he identifies “every creature of God” as “good” in verse 4. Lee Irons draws out the implications of this passage and argues,
If marriage was a pre-Fall ordinance given to man in his innocence and, on that ground, is not to be rejected, there must also have been a divine permission before the Fall to partake of “every creature of God.”
How then should we interpret the prophetic passages that describe lions eating grass with lambs? Do these passages teach that animal predation is contrary to God’s original design? There are at least two options open to us. We could follow many commentators who interpret the passages metaphorically. The references to wolves and leopards and lions peacefully cohabiting with animals that are normally their prey is a figurative picture of the peace and safety God’s people will experience when Messiah reigns upon the earth. According to J. A. Alexander,
Most Christian writers, ancient and modern, with Aben Ezra and Maimonides among the Jews, explain the prophecy as wholly metaphorical, and descriptive of the peace to be enjoyed by God’s people. Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (1846-47; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1953), 1:253.
Albert Barnes argues,
The fair interpretation of this passage is, therefore, that revolutions will be produced in the wild and evil passions of men—the only thing with which the gospel has to do—as great as if a change were produced in the animal creation, and the most ferocious and the most helpless should dwell together. Isaiah, Barnes’ Notes on the Old Testament (1851; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 1:228.
More recently, John Oswalt has conceded that the literally interpretation “is possible.” But “the fact that the lion’s carnivorousness is fundamental to what a lion is and that literal fulfillment of the prophecy would require a basic alteration of the lion’s nature suggest that another interpretation is intended.” So he prefers to interpret the passage as “an extended figure of speech,” which is “being used to make a single, overarching point, namely, that in the Messiah’s reign the fears associated with insecurity, danger, and evil will be removed, not only for the individual but for the world as well (Rom. 8:19-21).
The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39, NICOT, ed. Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 283.
On the other hand, if we felt constrained to interpret the passages literally, we need not take them as referring to the original state of affairs. Instead, we could interpret them as pointing forward to radical changes in nature that will obtain in the new heavens and new earth (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet. 3:13). The two literal approaches to these prophetic passages can be contrasted as follows:
View 1: Predation is Part of the Curse
The Original Eden ................................................. The New Earth
...Genesis 1-2 .......................................................Revelation 21-22
...................................Our Present World..........(return to Edenic conditions)
......................................(Digression)
View 2: Predation is Part of the First Creation but not the Second Creation
..............................................................................The New Earth
..............................................................................Revelation 21-22
The Original Eden .......................................................(glorification)
....Genesis 1-2
....................................Our Present World
.......................................(Digression)
But what about Paul’s description of creation’s deliverance from “the bondage of corruption” and the “futility” to which God subjected it (Rom. 8:20-22)? Does this passage refer to the negative environmental and ecological effects that God imposed upon creation in general and the animal kingdom in particular as a consequence of man’s sin? In response to these questions, we can point to at least three alternative ways to interpret this text.
First, Paul may be referring to a transitory and perishable state that God imposed upon the original creation. The only creature that was promised immortality in Genesis 2 was mankind (2:9, 16-17; 3:22). Therefore, we need not assume that all the animals would have been exempt from death and lived forever. Presumably, had Adam remained loyal to God, and had he successfully filled and subdued the earth, he would have received the gift of a glorified body and the creation itself would undergo a radical change. This radical change in nature is what Paul is referring to in Romans 8.
Second, even if we grant that the creation’s “futility” and “bondage” in Romans 8 refers to divinely imposed alterations within the environment and ecosystem as a consequence of man’s sin, we would not be forced to include animal death and predation per se in that depiction of creation. Perhaps nature and the animal world became harsher and crueler towards mankind as a result of man’s sin. But predators and prey may still have existed before the Fall.
Finally, Meredith Kline has suggested a completely different reading of Romans 8:18-23. Basing his interpretation on elements in Isaiah 24-26, Kline argues that God has enlisted the creation to serve as a mass graveyard for humanity. In that case, the “corruption” from which the creation yearns to be set free is a reference to the rotting corpses that are presently buried in the earth. Creation’s emancipation from the role of humanities graveyard will obtain at the resurrection, argues Paul (Rom. 8:23).
Some of these interpreters also argue that God’s death-threat given to Adam in the Garden (Gen. 2:17) would have been unintelligible to Adam unless he had possessed some empirical knowledge of death. Many of these scholars argue that the world outside the Garden of Eden would have included wild beasts, particularly, predators. Since Adam was created outside the Garden, then placed into the Garden, it’s conceivable that he would have witnessed animal death and therefore had a point of reference with which to interpret God’s warning. The Garden served as a picture of what the entire world would some day become—a sanctuary from death. However, until mankind filled and subdued the entire earth, there would be a degree of disorder and chaos outside the confines of the Garden sanctuary.
In light of these considerations, it is possible that the NT passages that speak of death entering the world on account of and as punishment for Adam’s sin refer specifically to human death (Rom. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 15:20-23). Human sin has provoked a divine curse on the earth that has probably increased animal death and has even turned animals against humans (cf. Gen. 9:3). But it does not seem that the Bible absolutely constrains us to view all animal death as a produce to God’s curse on human sin. On the other hand, I’m not certain the biblical data requires animal death before the Fall. Perhaps God could have intervened supernaturally after the Fall to cause the rapid mutations and behavioral changes in animals that transformed plant-eating animals to become carnivores. The question of whether animals died before the Fall may have to await Christ’s return for a clear and unambiguous answer.
That's my present reflections on the question. But I'm open to input and correction. Indeed, that's why I posted this question on the PB. I've usually found this a place where iron sharpens iron.
In Christ,
-----Added 2/21/2009 at 11:22:05 EST-----
Once again, I see your point. There are even texts of Scripture that seem to depict the predator/prey relationship as well as animal food as part of the natural order (Job 39:30; 41:14; Psa. 104:20-28; 1 Tim. 4:1-4).
Job 39:30 speaks of predatory lions right after language describing the warhorse's excitement about participating in battle. The context is evidently not limited to pre-Fall creation. I'm not sure what relevance Job 41:14 has. It mentions the presence of sharp teeth on Leviathan as part of the fearsome presence it presents to humanity. Surely perceiving Leviathan as a threat to humans is clearly a post-Fall perspective? Psalm 104 speaks of the flood in verses 7-9. Again, a post-Fall event in the immediate context demonstrates that this psalm takes the Fall into account in its description of Creation.[/quote}
Bryan, the point of these passage is that they speak of or allude to predatory habits or anatomy that is represented as part of the world God made. True, the passage in Job 39 that speaks of eagle's feeding their young flesh is in the same context that speaks of horses in battle. A distinction should be made, however, between what is part of nature, i.e., feeding one's young and eating, and what is clearly a post-Fall situation, i.e,. horses in battle. The sharp teeth of Leviathan may indicate that he was a carnivore. Of course, those teeth may have developed post-Fall. But that's what's being debated. The reference to God giving lions their prey may also suggest that being predators is part of their God-given nature. But maybe not.
I really don't understand how 1 Timothy 4:1-4 could be interpreted to support animal death as part of pre-Fall creation. If you start down that road, "everything created by God is good" could also be used to argue for the normalcy of homosexual relations and all manner of bizarre propositions.
See my comments above (#). If animal food is a gift of God like marriage, then it may, like marriage, predate the Fall. I'm uncertain how such a conclusion opens the door to homosexuality, which the passage does not address and which is clearly condemned elsewhere in Scripture.
Your servant,
:
