Did Christ shed his blood for trees?

[Gold Dragon]

Reconciliation is changing for the better a relationship between two or more persons.

I disagree that two people are necessarily involved in reconciliation, while that is the most common and primary usage of the word and concept of reconciliation.

Merriam-Webster: Reconcile
1: to restore to friendship or harmony.
2: to make consistent or congruous
3: to cause to submit to or accept something unpleasant
4: to check (a financial account) against another for accuracy

In the fall of man, it wasn't just man that was cursed and in need of reconciliation, but also other parts of God's creation.

KJV - Genesis 3: 14, 17b

...And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle...

...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Also, the word translated as "all things" is exactly the same word as is translated "whoever" or "whosoever" in John 3.16, and "everyone" or "all men"in John 11.48. Paul uses the same word at the ends of many of his letters, where he prays that God's grace would be "with you all."

I agree that this greek word can be used to refer to people, but it can also be used to refer to things. The correct translation depends on the context of the word which I believe is strongly suggested to be inclusive of more than people from the clear allusion to the creation story in verse 16: For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

I agree with you Gold Dragon. I think it's a corollary to a proper doctrine of the fall. If creation was judged because of man's fall (understanding the image of God in man to partially include his role as vice regent on earth), then creation needs to be restored (reconciled if you will) through atonement. Atonement does not just mean Christ taking the place of sinners, but it also includes triumphing over evil. Many Church Fathers reflected on Ephesians 1:10 and argued that Christ headed up all things (recapitulation), which includes the creation. This is another reason why we should never flatten the atonement to include only one aspect of it to the exclusion of others. In my opinion, it isn't wise to mock reflection on Scripture that indicates the atonement is multifaceted and broader than the penal substitution theory.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The following is the third entry for the word reconcile in the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition.

3. To set (estranged persons or parties) at one again; to bring back into concord, to reunite (persons or things) in harmony.

1429 Pol. Poems (Rolls) II. 145 Eschew flatery+, Folkes reconsile that stonde desolate. 1495 Trevisa's Barth. De P.R. x. iii. (W. de W.) 373 Though the elementes ben neuer so contrary eueryche to other yet by influence of heuen and vertue of planetes they ben reconsyled in theyr dooynges and broughte to acorde. 1588 Shakes. Tit. A. i. i. 467 Let it be mine honour+That I haue reconcil'd your friends and you. 1681 T. Jordan London's Joy 8 Till an Invasion make them Friends too late, And Reconcile in Ruine. a1727 Newton Chronol. Amended ii. (1728) 227 An embassador who reconciled two contending nations. 1782 Cowper Lily & Rose 25 Thus sooth'd and reconciled, each seeks The fairest British fair. 1877 Froude Short Stud. (1883) IV. i. vii. 80 Lewis and Henry were reconciled amidst general satisfaction and enthusiasm.

 

[Revmitchell]

Did Jesus shed His blood so He could reconcile trees? Or is that a by product?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Did Jesus shed His blood so He could reconcile trees? Or is that a by product?

Your original question was: did Christ's sacrificial shed blood include creation other than man? My answer is yes because of Col 1:15-20.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your original question was: did Christ's sacrificial shed blood include creation other than man? My answer is yes because of Col 1:15-20.

There was no difference in the context of the op or the statement you quoted. Christ did not shed his blood for trees.

 

[gb93433]

Did Christs sacrificial shed blood include creation other than man? Was that part of the purpose?

Can a tree sin?

 

[Revmitchell]

Can a tree sin?

That is the million dollar question isn't it? It seems some conflate God's dealings with man to His dealings with all other creation and tie His shed blood in with trees.

 

[preachinjesus]

what an inflammatory thread...

regardless of whether or not one believes Christ died for trees, humanity is still commanded to be excellent stewards of the creation given to us by God.

If the biblical account demonstrates anything it is that mankind doesn't get to decide what happens to creation, rather we are to tend it and see it managed excellently.

 

[russell55]

Did Jesus shed His blood so He could reconcile trees? Or is that a by product?

Whoa there! How can God have by-products? Isn't any result that comes from a work of God an intended result. If the whole of creation will eventually be redeemed as a result of Christ's work then isn't that one of the intended purposes of Christ's work? How can you call something that is purposed a by-product

There can be secondary purposes, I suppose—purposes that come about as a direct result of other, more primary purposes—but never "by-products."

 

[gb93433]

God gave trees so I could use them in my home.

 

[just-want-peace]

If one looks at the vast majority of the environmental movement today, I think the purpose of this thread (correct me if I'm wrong Rev) is to get the proper balance of MAN vs NATURE.

Most of the environmentalists are putting the creation far, far above the Creator.

In other words, sans man, the death of Christ was/is useless, since trees & rocks don't die and go to hell/heaven either way; Calvary or no!

 

[Alcott]

Can a tree sin?

Walt Disney had doing lots of things, so maybe....

 

[Revmitchell]

If one looks at the vast majority of the environmental movement today, I think the purpose of this thread (correct me if I'm wrong Rev) is to get the proper balance of MAN vs NATURE.

Most of the environmentalists are putting the creation far, far above the Creator.

In other words, sans man, the death of Christ was/is useless, since trees & rocks don't die and go to hell/heaven either way; Calvary or no!

You're not wrong.

 

[Rippon]

Walt Disney had doing lots of things, so maybe....

I don't understand this post. Please explain.

 

[Gold Dragon]

For those who do not believe the reconciliation of the rest of creation besides man was involved in Christ's sacrifice on the cross, how do you reconcile your belief with what it says in Colossians 1:15-20?

 

[JustChristian]

For those who do not believe the reconciliation of the rest of creation besides man was involved in Christ's sacrifice on the cross, how do you reconcile your belief with what it says in Colossians 1:15-20?

I'm sorry but I don't see the connection.

1Cr 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 1Cr 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 1Cr 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1Cr 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1Cr 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

 

[Alcott]

I don't understand this post. Please explain.

I left out the word "them." It shoud have read: "Walt Disney had them doing lots of things, so maybe..."

And that refers to is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhnpFkjwhT8

 

[Gold Dragon]

I'm sorry but I don't see the connection.

1Cr 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 1Cr 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 1Cr 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1Cr 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1Cr 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Colossians, not 1 Corinthians. I have the Colossians verses several posts above.

 

[David Lamb]

If one looks at the vast majority of the environmental movement today, I think the purpose of this thread (correct me if I'm wrong Rev) is to get the proper balance of MAN vs NATURE.

Most of the environmentalists are putting the creation far, far above the Creator.

I cannot speak for "most of the environmentalists", but is it really necessary to hold one of two polarised views on this? Of course Jesus Christ did not shed His precious blood for trees (or for rocks, snakes, tigers, dogs, cats, tortoises....) But that doesn't mean we can say, "Jesus didn't die for trees (or for rocks, snakes, tigers, dogs, cats, tortoises....) so if I will treat them exactly as I please. If I want to treat them cruelly or destroy them merely for my pleasure, I'll do it!"

I would also suggest that anybody who does not believe in our Creator God, whether or not they are "environmentalists", will put creation above the Creator (though of course they wouldn't call it "creation" :laugh: !)