Kruse Kronicle

Creation Groans; But Why? (RJS)

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

Jesus Creed: Creation Groans; But Why? (RJS)

RJS is a Chemistry professor and a regular blogger at Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog. It is a fascinating take on the Romans 8 passage where Paul talks about all creation groaning. She writes:

… Most of the commentaries on Romans 8 I've looked at trace the reference back to Genesis 3. This includes John Stott, F.F. Bruce, and N.T. Wright, scholars for whom I have a great deal of respect. So I put forth my thoughts with a bit of caution, but it seems unlikely to me that Paul's thought was fixed on Genesis 3 as the source of his reflection on creation in Romans 8. Rather, it seems more likely that his primary source was the prophets and the whole of Israel's story. Images of the earth groaning because of the sins of Israel are common in the prophets. …

 and

… In the imagery of the prophets there is a curse on the earth. But this curse is not the result of Adam. It also is not a change in the physical nature of the world. It does not reflect some cosmic change in the laws of physics worked by God in response to sin. In a figurative and physical sense, the earth groans result of the covenant unfaithfulness of Israel. Romans 8 turns this dark image around to an eager expectation of the renewal that comes through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, according to Scripture, and  thereby through the renewed children of God, transformed by the working of the grace of God.

I don't put any of this forward as a final answer – but I think it is a topic worth some thought and discussion.

This is part of a larger discussion that sees Genesis 1 as talking about God ordering creation and Genesis 2 as talking about the formation of Israel. I'm curious to know what the theological brain trust of Kronicle readers thinks. What do you think?

Comments

2 responses to “Creation Groans; But Why? (RJS)”

  1. Gordon Jewett Avatar
    Gordon Jewett

    I’m curious as to how RJS gets the formation of Israel out of Genesis 2.

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Gordon, RJS would never claim to be an authority on such claims. She is interacting working with OT scholarship from people like Peter Enns. His recent book “The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins” touches on this topic but does not delve deeply. This topic has been recurring topic at the Biologos website.
    Drawing on Enns, he believes both creation stories were edited into present form about the time of the Babylonian exile. He thinks the Adam story (and probably the flood story) is probably the older of the two, predating Babylonian exile. It was Israel’s story about their formation, independent of concern of where other nations came from. The point of the creation stories is not to explain mechanics of origin but rather who it is the appoints.
    The exile brings Israel into crisis, God’s people now being captive to others who aren’t part of the story. Gen 1, likely emerging from pre-exilic stories, becomes a “bigger” statement of God and sovereignty. All the things that the surrounding culture deified are show to be subject to the God of Genesis 1 who assigns everything its function.
    So Gen 1 becomes Israel’s statement about the primacy and sovereignty of God. Beginning at Genesis two, the archetypical narrative of call, rebellion, and exile is established. It previews Israel’s coming history. Enns writes:
    “… I’m noncommittal as to whether the Adam story ever functioned for Israel as a story of universal human origins, although referring to Eve as “the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20) suggest as much. Perhaps the Adam story always functioned primarily as a story of Israel, with the world stage as a backdrop. But however it functioned originally, when it was subsumed under the universal story of origins in Genesis 1, the Adam story took on, its seems to me, a clearer Israelite-centered focus. As we saw in Chapter 4, the Adam story seems to be a preview of Israel’s history, from exodus to exile. …” (141)
    I know Enns isn’t the only one taking this take, but he is only one I’ve read so far. The quote is from the conclusion and he begins this portion saying, “What follows is speculative but hardly random.” The first half of the book gives a very brief overview of the issues in understanding the OT stories in context and the second half deals with how Paul interacted with these stories as a Jew in Second Temple Judaism, trying to make sense of the Jesus’s resurrection.
    That is a long answer but that is the context.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading