No true. Scripture speaks in various places about inanimate objects being personified (trees clapping their hands, rocks crying out, and creation antisipates..etc.). Sorry but the fact is the apostle 'is' talking about all things in creation, both animate and inanimate. He doesn't negate one or the other but includes it all since all creation is held in sins corrupted sway as described variously throughout scripture.
One shouldn't accept it because it isn't saying any such thing. (not meaning to be rude, but I can't think of any other way to say - I appologize)
This passage says 'nothing' about animals of any type going to heaven, but that it is 'waiting' or 'antisipating' for itself to be freed. Nothing about going into heaven because this is not IN heaven and it absolutely say nothing here about the dead coming back to life so those risen animals can be there, when (in the future) this happens.
LOL, you didn't come across as rude. One thing I keep in mind is that when we write these things we try to be clear about what we're saying, and yet there's no body language to convey our tone. We could have the same discussion in person and say the exact same things and have a perfectly cordial discussion. That's my intent here too.
I concede that I don't yet have a completely coherent explanation yet, and I'm not even certain that I'm right about this. All I can say at this point is that it's not cut and dry in my mind.
It wasn't even cut and dry in Solomon's mind. He asked if anyone knew of a spirit of man that went upward, or of a spirit of a beast that went downward to the earth. Eccl. 3:21. I don't. I've never seen a spirit after it died, man or beast. All he was sure of was that they both suffered the same fate of returning to dust (3:19) and whatever spirit there was would return unto God who gave it (12:7).
The fact that inanimate objects have been personified in some passages does not force the conclusion that Paul is doing so in Romans 8. In this passage he does not specifically mention any inanimate objects, and whether "creation" includes inanimate objects in this passage is the very question at issue.
In this passage he specifically mentions "the creature" but not trees or rocks. And what makes me think "the whole creation" refers to the totality of all the creatures is that in verse 23 he says "And not only
they, but ourselves also..." Who's "they?" Why, that must refer to whatever he had just previously identified as being distinct from ourselves -- the creature. He didn't mention rocks and trees previously, but he *did* just mention "the creature."
He's talking about things that have the breath of life and then die, things that are in the bondage of corruption and will be delivered into the glorious liberty of the children of God. This wouldn't be trees and rocks -- their condition is not different now than it was before the fall. Even before the fall trees and fruit and plants were destroyed and eaten. Rocks were rocks then, and they are so now. And after the manifestation of the sons of God, rocks will still be as they are now, and trees and fruits and plants will be eaten. There's nothing for them to look forward to -- the bondage of corruption is no different for them than the glorious liberty of the children of God.
But the creature, now that's a different story. "The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope." verse 20. After the fall, creatures die. Before the fall, they didn't. For them, the manifestation of the sons of God is something to look forward to, for then "the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."
So I don't see how Paul can be talking about rocks, trees, and hills when he says "the whole creation."
But here's the thing. Suppose in verse 22 he did actually mean that the entire creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Suppose that included literally every thing in the creation. I can see that possibly he meant that every created thing, animate or not, including angels and other heavenly creatures, stars, rocks, seas, and electrons, that these were all groaning and travailing, in some sense, under the burden of the fall. Even if we granted this for the sake of the argument, it still wouldn't prove that "the creature" in the previous verse referred to all of these created things. Surely the fallen angels will not be released from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Surely the faithful angels are not now *in* the bondage of corruption.
Someone also said that "the creature" really should have been translated "the creation" because the same Greek word ktisis is used in both places. That is an interesting point, and one I have considered for several years. It's true that the same Greek word is variously translated "the creature" and "the creation" in this passage. But this actually helps me prove my point: the translators saw a distinction, a difference, between "the creature" and "the creation."
Follow me now: When I say "my little girl is sweet," I mean something different than when I say "the cake is sweet," even though I'm using the same word. In English I use the same word, but you know the difference based on context.
Here's another example: In French I might say "j'aime ce gateau," and "j'aime ma femme." The first means "I like this cake," and the other means "I love my wife." They use the same word to say "like" and "love," but I know the difference based on the context, and so when I translate it into English I use different words in order to avoid confounding the intended difference in meaning. In English I *could* say "I love this cake," but then I wouldn't have said it that way in French. What I mean there is that I really really like cake a whole lot, and so in French I would have said "j'adore ce gateau." I would also point out that when I said "I love my wife," I didn't actually transliterate the word wife, because in French the word was "woman." But in English, to say "I love my woman" doesn't mean precisely what I meant in French. So in order to accurately translate the meaning of the French into English, I had to use a different word. See how this works?
What this all means is that you can't prove that "the creature" and "the creation" are synonymous simply by pointing out that the Greek word ktisis was used in both verses. If anything, it actually strengthens my case that their meaning is different -- certainly it is *some* evidence that the translators thought so. It tends to show that in the one case it refers to an animal, and in the other case it refers to the sum total of all animals, or at least those that have the breath of life.
I agree that we, as distinct from the beasts, were made in God's image, but that doesn't logically force the conclusion that the beasts have no spirit. God made another kind of spirit -- angels Heb. 1:7. Possibly others?
The fact that animals have a spirit (if they do) does not force the conclusion that they need salvation. Not all angels sinned, and they are spirits. "Sin is not imputed when there is no law," Rom. 5:13. If animals were not given a law, they wouldn't sin, and so wouldn't need salvation.
My point here is that if I concluded that animals have a spirit, and if they were going to be resurrected ("delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty"), I wouldn't be logically forced to conclude that they also were made in God's image as we were, nor that they had sinned and needed salvation.
Therefore, asserting without more that we, and not beasts, were made in God's image; or that we, and not beasts, need salvation; does not prove that they have no spirit. Q.E.D.
I understand that not everyone will reach the same conclusion I do. I'm just sharing my reasoning.
raying:
