Does Romans 8:19-22 apply to music without words?
Scripture teaches that the entire creation was subjected to corruption:
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Does the teaching of this passage apply to music without words?
Poll Results
Does Romans 8:19-22 apply to music without words?
Yes, Rom. 8:19-22 applies to music without words. Votes: 1
No, Rom. 8:19-22 does not apply to music without words. Votes: 5
Unsure Votes: 0
Other. Please explain in the comment section what you mean. Votes: 0
- 40 views
It would be good to hear why those who say that Rom. 8:19-22 does not apply to music without words believe that is true.
When I think about “music without words” from before the Fall, the main thing I think about is bird songs. I can’t even imagine how beautiful birds must have sounded in the Garden of Eden. Were birds affected by the “bondage of corruption” that affected everything else in creation? Absolutely. So it makes sense that their music would also be affected in some way, though we won’t know to what extant until creation is delivered from corruption.
I don’t think God is displeased with present day bird songs, however, even though those songs have been affected by the bondage of corruption.
[Kevin Miller]Interesting. You hold that both birds and their music were affected by the universal bondage of corruption, but you do not think that God is displeased with any present day bird songs?When I think about “music without words” from before the Fall, the main thing I think about is bird songs. I can’t even imagine how beautiful birds must have sounded in the Garden of Eden. Were birds affected by the “bondage of corruption” that affected everything else in creation? Absolutely. So it makes sense that their music would also be affected in some way, though we won’t know to what extant until creation is delivered from corruption.
I don’t think God is displeased with present day bird songs, however, even though those songs have been affected by the bondage of corruption.
What do you do with this passage?
Revelation 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
This passage explicitly speaks of unclean and hateful birds, which clearly is not what God created any birds to be. Moreover, these birds are directly linked to demons. Do you believe that these unclean and hateful birds still produce music without words that pleases God? If so, why?
[RajeshG]Because I can’t think of any verse that says that the reason God declared certain birds to be unclean was because of their songs. Do you really think that God is displeased with the bird calls of eagles, ravens, gulls, hawks, owls, herons, and storks? God told the children of Israel that they couldn’t eat those birds because those bitrds were unclean, but I don’t see how this means that their bird songs were displeasing to God.Interesting. You hold that both birds and their music were affected by the universal bondage of corruption, but you do not think that God is displeased with any present day bird songs?
What do you do with this passage?
Revelation 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
This passage explicitly speaks of unclean and hateful birds, which clearly is not what God created any birds to be. Moreover, these birds are directly linked to demons. Do you believe that these unclean and hateful birds still produce music without words that pleases God? If so, why?
[Kevin Miller]It appears that you have only tried to account for one aspect of this verse, but have not addressed two other things that this verse reveals. The text says that these birds were hateful. Do you believe what the text says?Because I can’t think of any verse that says that the reason God declared certain birds to be unclean was because of their songs. Do you really think that God is displeased with the bird calls of eagles, ravens, gulls, hawks, owls, herons, and storks? God told the children of Israel that they couldn’t eat those birds because those bitrds were unclean, but I don’t see how this means that their bird songs were displeasing to God.
The text also directly connects these birds to demons and speaks of their dwelling with demons in Babylon after God’s judgment of it. Your explanation does not account for either of these explicitly stated truths about these birds.
This statement does not require us to believe that these things were true of all birds that were/are unclean but they are divine revelation about some birds that were/are unclean. Furthermore, the text is not saying that God declared them to be unclean because of the music that they produce.
I am raising the issue of why you would hold that the music that they produce would still be pleasing to God given that they are unclean and hateful birds that are directly associated with demons.
[RajeshG]The fact that demons and birds are living in the same place - Babylon - does not imply that the birds themselves are somehow having their bird songs affected by the demons. How do you think this “association” with demons has anything to do with their music? I don’t see the connection.It appears that you have only tried to account for one aspect of this verse, but have not addressed two other things that this verse reveals. The text says that these birds were hateful. Do you believe what the text says?
The text also directly connects these birds to demons and speaks of their dwelling with demons in Babylon after God’s judgment of it. Your explanation does not account for either of these explicitly stated truths about these birds.
This statement does not require us to believe that these things were true of all birds that were/are unclean but they are divine revelation about some birds that were/are unclean. Furthermore, the text is not saying that God declared them to be unclean because of the music that they produce.
I am raising the issue of why you would hold that the music that they produce would still be pleasing to God given that they are unclean and hateful birds that are directly associated with demons.
Besides, the verse in Revelation describes something that takes place in the future. At the present time, we are not to consider any birds unclean, so I don’t see as how God considers any bird songs to be displeasing at the present time, even if, by some odd reasoning, the idea of uncleanness or hatefullness during the Tribulation did affect God’s view of bird songs.
[Kevin Miller]As the text reads, it is plain that the demons dwelling there and these birds dwelling there will not be just some “odd” thing that happens for some unexplainable reason.The fact that demons and birds are living in the same place - Babylon - does not imply that the birds themselves are somehow having their bird songs affected by the demons. How do you think this “association” with demons has anything to do with their music? I don’t see the connection.
Besides, the verse in Revelation describes something that takes place in the future. At the present time, we are not to consider any birds unclean, so I don’t see as how God considers any bird songs to be displeasing at the present time, even if, by some odd reasoning, the idea of uncleanness or hatefullness during the Tribulation did affect God’s view of bird songs.
Why does God even mention these birds in a verse revealing the state of Babylon after He will have judged it unless that is also part of His judgment of it?
How do you know that what is revealed about these birds will only be true of them then and is not already true of them now?
[Kevin Miller]The songs of these birds does not even have to be “affected by the demons” in order for it to be displeasing to God. They are unclean and hateful birds. Even that description of them itself requires an explanation for why we are supposed to believe that they nevertheless still only produce music that is pleasing to God.The fact that demons and birds are living in the same place - Babylon - does not imply that the birds themselves are somehow having their bird songs affected by the demons. How do you think this “association” with demons has anything to do with their music? I don’t see the connection.
….perhaps, but I figure a response might be appropriate here. The reasons that this passage does not address “music without words” are many, starting with the simple fact that the root word for “groan” here refers to the sounds made by a woman in labor.
Having been around women in labor and having heard their groaning, and also knowing many people who play instruments (e.g. my whole family), I’m pretty sure that if I told most instrumentalists that their art sounded like a woman in labor, that would not be taken well. It would be picking a fight. The only near fit to “groaning” in music that I can think of is along the lines of scat singing in jazz, and even that only rarely fits as a “groan”, even in modern jazz.
Going further, if we expand our look at the use of this word to the rest of Romans 8, we find that it is not just ourselves which groan (Romans 8:23), but also the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:27) and the entire creation—but not any soloist or group of musicians. It’s simply not describing music, but is rather describing something we can not comprehend in words, the miracle of God bringing us to faith.
Really, to argue this passage has anything to do with “music without words” is to introduce exegetical nonsense into this passage to the extend where I have to wonder if the main point is to direct peoples’ attention away from Paul’s actual point here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
What have you done!?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[RajeshG]Goes the passage mention why God uses the picture of unclean birds? Not really. It seems to me, though, that since unclean birds were supposed to be stayed away from, and demons are supposed to be stayed away from, that God might be telling people to stay away from Babylon, since it will be judged in ways that you don’t want to have any part of. You’ve still given me no reason to think why this judgement has anything at all to do with bird songs outside of that judgement situation. It’s possible God will be displeased with any birds singing while this judgement is happening in Babylon, but that wouldn’t mean God is displeased with any bird songs today.As the text reads, it is plain that the demons dwelling there and these birds dwelling there will not be just some “odd” thing that happens for some unexplainable reason.
Why does God even mention these birds in a verse revealing the state of Babylon after He will have judged it unless that is also part of His judgment of it?
How do you know that what is revealed about these birds will only be true of them then and is not already true of them now?Because the verse is talking about a time of judgement that we are not currently in now.
[RajeshG]Why would God be displeased with the music? That’s what I’m still trying to understand. The list of unclean birds in Leviticus tells us that the people were not to eat those birds, but rather were to despise them. You seem to be under the impression that when the people were to despise them, then every aspect of the birds were also to be despised, and not just their meat for food. I don’t think that is clear from the command in Leviticus. Using your logic, Elijah should have turned up his nose in hatred at the food being brought to him by ravens. After all, those unclean birds were flying in their unclean ways, carrying food in their unclean beaks, and making all sorts of unclean sounds.The songs of these birds does not even have to be “affected by the demons” in order for it to be displeasing to God. They are unclean and hateful birds. Even that description of them itself requires an explanation for why we are supposed to believe that they nevertheless still only produce music that is pleasing to God.
The way I understand it, the concept of uncleanness regarding birds was about eating the bird’s meat, not about hating the sounds produced by those birds. Besides, the passage about unclean birds was a command to humans about how they should treat the birds. The passage doesn’t tell us that God Himself is displeased with the birds he has declared unclean for human consumption. That would especially be true today, since we aren’t under the regulations today about unclean birds.
I still see no reason why the “bondage of corruption” that affects nature in Romans 8 would cause God to be displeased with any bird songs today.
Matthew 10:29 comes to mind here. Sure, birds die because of the consequences of sin, there may be other effects on their physiology and such, but it’s not as if every part of their nature is to be despised here. God still loves them, after all.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Kevin Miller]You still have not dealt with the fact that the text says that the birds are unclean and hateful birds. These birds were not just unclean. That designation shows that this is something beyond just the unclean designation.Why would God be displeased with the music? That’s what I’m still trying to understand. The list of unclean birds in Leviticus tells us that the people were not to eat those birds, but rather were to despise them. You seem to be under the impression that when the people were to despise them, then every aspect of the birds were also to be despised, and not just their meat for food. I don’t think that is clear from the command in Leviticus. Using your logic, Elijah should have turned up his nose in hatred at the food being brought to him by ravens. After all, those unclean birds were flying in their unclean ways, carrying food in their unclean beaks, and making all sorts of unclean sounds.
The way I understand it, the concept of uncleanness regarding birds was about eating the bird’s meat, not about hating the sounds produced by those birds. Besides, the passage about unclean birds was a command to humans about how they should treat the birds. The passage doesn’t tell us that God Himself is displeased with the birds he has declared unclean for human consumption. That would especially be true today, since we aren’t under the regulations today about unclean birds.
I still see no reason why the “bondage of corruption” that affects nature in Romans 8 would cause God to be displeased with any bird songs today.
[RajeshG]You still have not dealt with the fact that the text says that the birds are unclean and hateful birds. These birds were not just unclean. That designation shows that this is something beyond just the unclean designation.
Yes, I did deal with it. I wrote, ” Besides, the passage about unclean birds was a command to humans about how they should treat the birds. The passage doesn’t tell us that God Himself is displeased with the birds he has declared unclean for human consumption.” The passage in Leviticus listing the unclean birds DOES put their despising of those birds in the context of the birds being unclean. The verse in Revelation simply seems to be joining the two concepts in the same way that the list in Leviticus does. I’m just using the Bible to parse out the reason for the birds being hateful. Do you have any passages to show why the music itself of despised/hateful birds should be hated by God?
[Kevin Miller]Yes, Romans 8:19-22. Why do I need any other passage when this passage says that the entire creation was subjected to corruption? If you hold that all the music of all birds is an exception to that universal truth, what Scripture do you have to support that belief?Yes, I did deal with it. I wrote, ” Besides, the passage about unclean birds was a command to humans about how they should treat the birds. The passage doesn’t tell us that God Himself is displeased with the birds he has declared unclean for human consumption.” The passage in Leviticus listing the unclean birds DOES put their despising of those birds in the context of the birds being unclean. The verse in Revelation simply seems to be joining the two concepts in the same way that the list in Leviticus does. I’m just using the Bible to parse out the reason for the birds being hateful. Do you have any passages to show why the music itself of despised/hateful birds should be hated by God?
[RajeshG]From this comment, I understand you to be saying that God is displeased with the music of all birds, since birds are not an exception to the universal truth that “the entire creation was subjected to corruption.” Is that really what you’re saying? Does being subjected to corruption mean that God is displeased with everything in creation that has been subjected to corruption?Yes, Romans 8:19-22. Why do I need any other passage when this passage says that the entire creation was subjected to corruption? If you hold that the music of birds is an exception to that universal truth, what Scripture do you have to support that belief?
[Kevin Miller]Because Scripture reveals that after the Fall there were some things that God Himself created that humans were able to sacrifice to God that pleased Him and other things that they were not able to sacrifice and please Him, we have basis to hold that there is music of some birds that does please God but there is no basis to hold that all music of all birds pleases God in spite of the entire creation’s having been corrupted. Furthermore, we have the basis to hold that some music of some birds does not please God.From this comment, I understand you to be saying that God is displeased with the music of all birds, since birds are not an exception to the universal truth that “the entire creation was subjected to corruption.” Is that really what you’re saying? Does being subjected to corruption mean that God is displeased with everything in creation that has been subjected to corruption?
Moreover, consider the following passage:
Malachi 1:7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible. 8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts.
Who made the animals that were blind, lame, or sick? They did not make themselves that way. Human beings did not make them that way.
These animals that were made by God could not be offered to Him pleasingly as a sacrifice, and this passage does not even specify that this was only true for unclean animals.
[RajeshG]So that fact that the Israelites could not sacrifice certain things means that some bird music is displeasing to God? I don’t see the connection. You’re just repeating something you said earlier without giving me an answer to my question about your statement.Because Scripture reveals that after the Fall there were some things that God Himself created that humans were able to sacrifice to God that pleased Him and other things that they were not able to sacrifice and please Him, we have basis to hold that there is music of some birds that does please God but there is no basis to hold that all music of all birds pleases God in spite of the entire creation’s having been corrupted. Furthermore, we have the basis to hold that some music of some birds does not please God.
I asked you for a passage to show why the music itself of despised/hateful birds should be hated by God, and you gave me Romans 8, declaring that all things are subjected to corruption. Is that your answer for why not being able to sacrifice certain birds makes their music displeasing to God? Wouldn’t Romans 8 apply to all birds?
[RajeshG]What does the restriction on blind, lame, or sick animals being sacrificed have to do with God being displeased by the animal’s music. Are you saying that God is displeased today with the music of blind birds? Offering those birds to God as a sacrifice was evil. How can you think this means that the music of those birds was evil. That just doesn’t make sense.Moreover, consider the following passage:
Malachi 1:7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible. 8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts.
Who made the animals that were blind, lame, or sick? They did not make themselves that way. Human beings did not make them that way.
These animals that were made by God could not be offered to Him pleasingly as a sacrifice, and this passage does not even specify that this was only true for unclean animals.
[Kevin Miller]You want to hold that the realm of music without words is the one realm in the universe that was not corrupted by the Fall and the Curse. Romans 8:19-22 refutes that notion. You have to prove using Scripture why music without words is an exception.So that fact that the Israelites could not sacrifice certain things means that some bird music is displeasing to God? I don’t see the connection. You’re just repeating something you said earlier without giving me an answer to my question about your statement.
I asked you for a passage to show why the music itself of despised/hateful birds should be hated by God, and you gave me Romans 8, declaring that all things are subjected to corruption. Is that your answer for why not being able to sacrifice certain birds makes their music displeasing to God? Wouldn’t Romans 8 apply to all birds?
I gave you Scripture for birds that God Himself designated as being unclean and hateful. You want to hold that regardless of their being unclean and hateful, all their music still pleases God. You do not have any Scripture to support that view when Romans 8:19-22 teaches that the entire universe was subjected to corruption. You need to explain why all their music still pleases God and was not corrupted.
The Bible never teaches that music without words, whether of birds or from any other source, is the one realm that God made to be incorruptible and that was not corrupted when the rest of the creation was subjected to corruption.
[Kevin Miller]I did not say that the music of those birds was necessarily evil. I am not saying anything specifically about the music of blind birds today. I gave that Scripture to show that not everything that God created still pleases Him for whatever use humans want to employ it after the Fall, especially not for worship.What does the restriction on blind, lame, or sick animals being sacrificed have to do with God being displeased by the animal’s music. Are you saying that God is displeased today with the music of blind birds? Offering those birds to God as a sacrifice was evil. How can you think this means that the music of those birds was evil. That just doesn’t make sense.
[RajeshG]Did you even read my first post in this thread? I was the one who first mentioned bird songs as being affected by the Fall.You want to hold that the realm of music without words is the one realm in the universe that was not corrupted by the Fall and the Curse. Romans 8:19-22 refutes that notion. You have to prove using Scripture why music without words is an exception.
I gave you Scripture for birds that God Himself designated as being unclean and hateful. You want to hold that regardless of their being unclean and hateful, all their music still pleases God. You do not have any Scripture to support that view when Romans 8:19-22 teaches that the entire universe was subjected to corruption. You need to explain why all their music still pleases God.If you are going to use Romans 8:19-22, then you need to answer whether the subjection and resulting displeasure of God in those verses applies to all birds or not. Do they? Please answer directly.
The Bible never teaches that music without words, whether of birds or from any other source, is the one realm that God made to be incorruptible and that was not corrupted when the rest of the creation was subjected to corruption.I never said it was incorruptible.
[RajeshG]Well, then what do those verses have to do with our conversation about the music of birds? If a bird cannot be used for sacrificial worship, why would you think that makes it’s music displeasing to God.I did not say that the music of those birds was necessarily evil. I am not saying anything specifically about the music of blind birds today. I gave that Scripture to show that not everything that God created still pleases Him for whatever use humans want to employ it after the Fall, especially not for worship.
[Kevin Miller]Did you even read my first post in this thread? I was the one who first mentioned bird songs as being affected by the Fall.
Yes, I read your first post. In your last sentence, you asserted the following:
“I don’t think God is displeased with present day bird songs, however, even though those songs have been affected by the bondage of corruption.”
In this sentence, you say that although they were affected, their music still pleases God. To hold that view, is in effect, to hold that their music was unaffected by the universal corruption.
[Kevin Miller]If you are going to use Romans 8:19-22, then you need to answer whether the subjection and resulting displeasure of God in those verses applies to all birds or not. Do they? Please answer directly.
I do not know what you mean by answering “directly.” The only way to answer that question is to compare Scripture with Scripture and bring all that it says to bear on how the question is to be answered. When that is done, what the Scripture shows is that although all birds were affected, not all birds were corrupted in the same way.
[Kevin Miller]You are right that you have never said in so many words that it is incorruptible, but the way that you argue points in that direction.I never said it was incorruptible.
[Kevin Miller]God originally created all birds and pronounced them all as very good, just as He did also of all His creation. After the Fall, He subjected all His creation to the bondage of corruption. Birds that once were pleasing to Him in every respect were and are no longer so, as Rev. 18 directly states and Mal. 1 implies.Well, then what do those verses have to do with our conversation about the music of birds? If a bird cannot be used for sacrificial worship, why would you think that makes it’s music displeasing to God.
To hold that none of the music of any of the birds was corrupted in such a way so that it no longer pleases God is something that requires explanation for why that aspect of the birds was not corrupted for any of the birds.
Two parallel passages to Mal. 1:7-8 also show that the nature of corruption in animals takes varying forms:
Lev. 22:19-24 Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats. 20 But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you. 21 And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein. 22 Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the LORD. 23 Either a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted. 24 Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land.
Deut. 15:19-21 All the firstling males that come of thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thy bullock, nor shear the firstling of thy sheep. 20 Thou shalt eat it before the LORD thy God year by year in the place which the LORD shall choose, thou and thy household. 21 And if there be any blemish therein, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto the LORD thy God.
In understanding what the bondage of corruption entails for the entire creation, we are to hold that corruption takes numerous different forms and is not the same for all entities of a given kind or in a given realm.
[RajeshG] In understanding what the bondage of corruption entails for the entire creation, we are to hold that corruption takes numerous different forms and is not the same for all entities of a given kind or in a given realm.Yes, I think an understanding of “the bondage of corruption” is essential to furthering this conversation. So let me ask you this. When the Israelites chose a Passover Lamb, one that had no blemish or spot, were they choosing an animal that was subject to the bondage of corruption? I would answer “yes.” My position is that ALL animals were and are subject to corruption (as I’ve been saying from the beginning of the thread), but the corruption from the Fall, which even a Passover lamb would be suffering from, did not make said lamb displeasing to God. Do you agree?
[Kevin Miller]Based on Romans 8:19-22, all animals, as also all the rest of the creation, are subject to the bondage of corruption. As I have shown from three passages, that corruption includes characteristics that take many different forms.Yes, I think an understanding of “the bondage of corruption” is essential to furthering this conversation. So let me ask you this. When the Israelites chose a Passover Lamb, one that had no blemish or spot, were they choosing an animal that was subject to the bondage of corruption? I would answer “yes.” My position is that ALL animals were and are subject to corruption (as I’ve been saying from the beginning of the thread), but the corruption from the Fall, which even a Passover lamb would be suffering from, did not make said lamb displeasing to God. Do you agree?
Even when an animal may not have any outward defects, such as the Passover Lamb (and also all the other animals that God approved to be sacrificed to Him), it still is subject to the bondage of corruption in other ways, such as its body’s continually decaying, aging, and ultimately dying.
God has not explained why the offering of certain animals without any outward defects pleases Him and why the offering of other animals without any outward defects does not please Him.
[RajeshG]I think we can get a pretty good sense why the offering of animals without outward defects pleases God. I think it’s because the lack of outward defects gives us a picture, however imperfectly, of the need for perfection in God’s ultimate sacrifice that would take place on the cross. Therefore, offering a marred sacrifice would diminish the picture God wanted to present.Based on Romans 8:19-22, all animals, as also all the rest of the creation, are subject to the bondage of corruption. As I have shown from three passages, that corruption includes characteristics that take many different forms.
Even when an animal may not have any outward defects, such as the Passover Lamb (and also all the other animals that God approved to be sacrificed to Him), it still is subject to the bondage of corruption in other ways, such as its body’s continually decaying, aging, and ultimately dying.
God has not explained why the offering of certain animals without any outward defects pleases Him and why the offering of other animals without any outward defects does not please Him.
I don’t think these ceremonial requirements would really have an impact on the loving relationship God has with all his created animals. Just because God was displeased with certain animals being used in a sacrifice does NOT mean that the animal has qualified for some inherent displeasure from God in regards to any other aspect of the animal other than it’s suitability for sacrifice. A blind bird could not be sacrificed, but that doesn’t mean, in my understanding, that a blind bird’s music would be displeasing to God. The thing that would be displeasing is the human’s action in sacrificing that animal to God. I can’t think of any reason why a blind bird’s music would be displeasing to God.
We talked about the unclean birds, those birds which could not be eaten. Did the classification of being an unclean bird mean that God would be displeased with everything produced by that bird, including it’s nest and it’s flying patterns and it’s music? I’ll grant that as a remote possibility, but since we no longer have the classification of unclean birds in our present church age, then we don’t have to worry today about God being displeased with any bird music due to the bird being unclean.
If a bird were to be doing something sinful while producing music, then perhaps the production of music specifically during that sin would be displeasing to God. However, I can’t think of any instance in which sin could be ascribed to a bird. The fact that birds will decay and eventually die does not mean that the bird has been sinning or is capable of sin. I think it’s likely the decay has affected the vocal cords of birds, such that they can’t sing a high or as low or for as long as what they could in the Garden, but we won’t know what extent this decay has reached until everything is restored. (Thinking of all this has made me wonder whether Adam’s ears were capable of hearing whale songs before the Fall. They are in too low of a frequency for us to hear today, but perhaps Adam’s perfect ears could.)
[Kevin Miller]It’s hard for me to tell, but it seems that you have not accounted for a key point that I have made. Even when there were no outward defects in the animals, there were many animals that God did not accept for offering in sacrifice.I think we can get a pretty good sense why the offering of animals without outward defects pleases God. I think it’s because the lack of outward defects gives us a picture, however imperfectly, of the need for perfection in God’s ultimate sacrifice that would take place on the cross. Therefore, offering a marred sacrifice would diminish the picture God wanted to present.
I don’t think these ceremonial requirements would really have an impact on the loving relationship God has with all his created animals. Just because God was displeased with certain animals being used in a sacrifice does NOT mean that the animal has qualified for some inherent displeasure from God in regards to any other aspect of the animal other than it’s suitability for sacrifice. A blind bird could not be sacrificed, but that doesn’t mean, in my understanding, that a blind bird’s music would be displeasing to God. The thing that would be displeasing is the human’s action in sacrificing that animal to God. I can’t think of any reason why a blind bird’s music would be displeasing to God.
We talked about the unclean birds, those birds which could not be eaten. Did the classification of being an unclean bird mean that God would be displeased with everything produced by that bird, including it’s nest and it’s flying patterns and it’s music? I’ll grant that as a remote possibility, but since we no longer have the classification of unclean birds in our present church age, then we don’t have to worry today about God being displeased with any bird music due to the bird being unclean.
If a bird were to be doing something sinful while producing music, then perhaps the production of music specifically during that sin would be displeasing to God. However, I can’t think of any instance in which sin could be ascribed to a bird. The fact that birds will decay and eventually die does not mean that the bird has been sinning or is capable of sin. I think it’s likely the decay has affected the vocal cords of birds, such that they can’t sing a high or as low or for as long as what they could in the Garden, but we won’t know what extent this decay has reached until everything is restored. (Thinking of all this has made me wonder whether Adam’s ears were capable of hearing whale songs before the Fall. They are in too low of a frequency for us to hear today, but perhaps Adam’s perfect ears could.)
In such cases, it was certainly not anything to do with the humans offering those animals; God, for His own purposes, determined which animals from all the animals that He Himself created could be offered to Him acceptably in sacrifice and which animals could not.
Defects in the animals was a separate consideration. Again, the notion that just because God created all the animals, all of them should have been able to have been offered acceptably to Him was never true. God never explains the basis or reason(s) for why certain animals were in the one category and the others in the other category.
Similarly to how not all the animals that God created could be offered to Him in sacrifice, regardless of whether they had outward defects or not, I hold that there is no basis to assert that because God created all the birds to produce music, the bondage of corruption did not have any effects on any of the music of any of the birds. I doubt that we are going to come to any agreement on this point and further discussion is probably not going to help.
[RajeshG]But what does acceptability for ceremonial sacrifices have to do with an animals music? That’s what I’m still trying to figure our from you. If an animal can’t be offered for sacrifice, does that mean that the craftiness of it’s nest is displeasing to God? Why would an animal’s music be unacceptable to God simply because it can’t be sacrificed?It’s hard for me to tell, but it seems that you have not accounted for a key point that I have made. Even when there were no outward defects in the animals, there were many animals that God did not accept for offering in sacrifice.
In such cases, it was certainly not anything to do with the humans offering those animals; God, for His own purposes, determined which animals from all the animals that He Himself created could be offered to Him acceptably in sacrifice and which animals could not.
Defects in the animals was a separate consideration. Again, the notion that just because God created all the animals, all of them should have been able to have been offered acceptably to Him was never true.Who claimed that all the animals should have been offered acceptably? I didn’t express that notion.
God never explains the basis or reason(s) for why certain animals were in the one category and the others in the other category.And God doesn’t have to explain why they can’t be sacrificed. However, if YOU are going to say that music from a defect ridden animal is also displeasing, when God hasn’t said such a thing, then I start to wonder what YOUR reasons are for saying such a thing. God only tells us that sacrificing them is unacceptable. Where do you get the notion that their music would also be unacceptable?
[quote4] Similarly to how not all the animals that God created could be offered to Him in sacrifice, regardless of whether they had outward defects or not, I hold that there is no basis to assert that because God created all the birds to produce music, the bondage of corruption did not have any effects on any of the music of any of the birds. I doubt that we are going to come to any agreement on this point and further discussion is probably not going to help. But I didn’t assert such a thing. How can you read my posts and claim i asserted such a thing? Or are you just arguing against some hypothetical person, who’s not even in our conversation, who might assert such a thing? You said we are not going to come to an agreement, but I AGREE that the bondage of corruption has affected the music of birds. I even described what such effect might be. I said, ” I think it’s likely the decay has affected the vocal cords of birds, such that they can’t sing a high or as low or for as long as what they could in the Garden,” Wouldn’t that be a legitimate effect of the bondage of corruption? I can’t think of any other way in which the introduction of decay into the natural world would affect a bird’s music. Can you?
[Kevin Miller]Who said that “an animal’s music [must] be unacceptable to God simply because it can’t be sacrificed”? The point is that even though God created all the animals, not all of them could be acceptably sacrificed to Him after the Fall. In the same way, just because God created all the birds, why must all their music still be pleasing to Him when the whole creation has been subjected to the bondage of corruption?But what does acceptability for ceremonial sacrifices have to do with an animals music? That’s what I’m still trying to figure our from you. If an animal can’t be offered for sacrifice, does that mean that the craftiness of it’s nest is displeasing to God? Why would an animal’s music be unacceptable to God simply because it can’t be sacrificed?
[Kevin Miller]Again, you are wrongly asserting that I am saying that music from a defect ridden animal is displeasing … Regardless of whether the animal has any defects or not, there is no basis to hold that its music must be unaffected by corruption such that all its music still pleases God.And God doesn’t have to explain why they can’t be sacrificed. However, if YOU are going to say that music from a defect ridden animal is also displeasing, when God hasn’t said such a thing, then I start to wonder what YOUR reasons are for saying such a thing. God only tells us that sacrificing them is unacceptable. Where do you get the notion that their music would also be unacceptable?
[Kevin Miller]Just because you cannot think of a way that something could have been corrupted does not mean that no other types of corruption exist in the universe. The bottom line is that you have a presupposition that the actual music without words that any birds (or any other entity for that matter) produce has not been corrupted so that it no longer pleases God. That is a presupposition that you have to defend when Scripture says that the whole creation was corrupted.But I didn’t assert such a thing. How can you read my posts and claim i asserted such a thing? Or are you just arguing against some hypothetical person, who’s not even in our conversation, who might assert such a thing? You said we are not going to come to an agreement, but I AGREE that the bondage of corruption has affected the music of birds. I even described what such effect might be. I said, ” I think it’s likely the decay has affected the vocal cords of birds, such that they can’t sing a high or as low or for as long as what they could in the Garden,” Wouldn’t that be a legitimate effect of the bondage of corruption? I can’t think of any other way in which the introduction of decay into the natural world would affect a bird’s music. Can you?
[RajeshG]Just because you cannot think of a way that something could have been corrupted does not mean that no other types of corruption exist in the universe. The bottom line is that you have a presupposition that the actual music without words that any birds (or any other entity for that matter) produce has not been corrupted so that it no longer pleases God. That is a presupposition that you have to defend when Scripture says that the whole creation was corrupted.
Oh, so now you are telling me what my own presuppositions are. How could you possibly know my presuppositions without being God. Are you claiming that you have the power to read minds like God does? Why can’t you just go with what I’ve written as my perspective, without making up stuff that you imagine I’m believing?
Also, I’ve said nothing in this thread about the music from “any other entity for that matter.” I was only discussing my opinion about the music of birds. Only birds. Why would my comment about the music of birds make you think I was talking about music produced by every other entity? If we had been talking about music produced by man, then a bunch of other factors would be in place that don’t apply to birds.
You have yet to explain WHY God would be displeased with any bird song, even though I have asked you multiple times for your reasoning. I’ve given you my reasoning behind my opinion, and I certainly admit that my opinion is NOT a theological assertion. There simply isn’t enough information given in the Bible to make definitive theological assertions about bird music being pleasing or displeasing to God. Yet you insist I must be wrong in my opinion that since God created birds and loves birds that God is pleased with the music of birds. Can you show me even one instance in the Bible where God is displeased with the music of birds? If you can’t then why in the world would I assume that God would be displeased with it?. What kind of mental picture do you have of the God of the Bible that you think he would be displeased with the music of His divinely created birds?
Besides, this thread is NOT about every type of corruption that exists in the universe. You were the one who presented Romans 8;19-22 as the context for the type of corruption we are discussing in relation to the natural world. What is your definition for the “bondage of corruption” in that context? I’ve already given you the definition as I understand it to be, that of decay leading to eventual death. Sure, there are other ways corruption is used in the Bible, such as being sinful, but God did not place animals into the bondage of being sinful. Or maybe you think God did? Is that what you really think? Can animals commit sin? Are animals sinful? Is that really your definition for the bondage of corruption in terms of plants and animals? Is it a consequence of man’s sin that plants and animals are groaning under the situation of being sinful?
If the “bondage of corruption” means being sinful, then I can understand why you might think God would be displeased with those creatures under such bondage. Sinfulness causes God displeasure. However, if the “bondage of corruption” just means decay leading to death, then birds could very well suffer this consequence of man’s Fall without being sinful themselves. Bird are affected by decay. They are affected by the bondage of corruption. What makes you think this decay is displeasing to God? You keep telling me that my presupposition is that birds are not affected by corruption, but I’ve been very clear that birds are affected by decay, which is what the corruption is in Romans 8. If you think corruption in this passage refers to something else, then please explain what. If you think that decay is displeasing to God, then wouldn’t God be displeased with all the autumn tree colors, since we only see the colors due to the leaves dying? Do you think God is displeased with the autumn colors?
I’ll repeat the main thing I’d like you to answer in order to make any headway in this discussion, so that neither on of us is presuming what the other believes. “You were the one who presented Romans 8;19-22 as the context for the type of corruption we are discussing in relation to the natural world. What is your definition for the “bondage of corruption” in that context?”
[Kevin Miller]I will repeat what I have said before. God has not defined what He means by “bondage of corruption.” The only proper theological method for understanding what He means therefore must include examining whatever else He has revealed in Scripture that pertains.I’ll repeat the main thing I’d like you to answer in order to make any headway in this discussion, so that neither on of us is presuming what the other believes. “You were the one who presented Romans 8;19-22 as the context for the type of corruption we are discussing in relation to the natural world. What is your definition for the “bondage of corruption” in that context?”
Furthermore, I have never studied this subject in the past with the thoroughness that I am now studying it. There are many aspects of what Scripture reveals that I am examining carefully to learn what all God has revealed about the subject.
I do not have a definition that I can provide for you, and I am not going to offer you any definitions; I am only going to discuss whatever else Scripture reveals that is pertinent. You are going to waste your time and mine if you continue to ask for a definition of a term that God Himself has not defined.
[RajeshG]I see this answer as your classic deflection technique. You’ve been insisting I am wrong in my opinion, but you don’t really have any Scripture to back up your belief that I am wrong. You were entirely willing to bring up Scripture verses about unclean animals. You were entirely willing to bring up Scripture about defect ridden animals. You claimed those verses were showing levels of corruption from Romans 8. You then insisted that this corruption from Romans 8 would engender displeasure from God. However, when I asked you for your reasoning about what corruption actually means within the context of Romans 8 and whether God is actually displeased with all creation in Romans 8, you told me he is pleased with some corrupt creatures and displeased with other corrupt creatures. I explained that God’s displeasure in those instances had to do with ceremonial sacrifices and not with their Romans 8 corruption. If Romans 8 corruption brings displeasure from God, then that displeasure would apply equally to all creatures since all creatures are under Romans 8 corruption. Aren’t all creatures under Romans 8 corruption? I’ve insisted this whole thread that they are, but if your position is that this corruption brings displeasure from God, then why don’t you think all creatures are under God’s displeasure? You’re not being consistent.I will repeat what I have said before. God has not defined what He means by “bondage of corruption.” The only proper theological method for understanding what He means therefore must include examining whatever else He has revealed in Scripture that pertains.
Furthermore, I have never studied this subject in the past with the thoroughness that I am now studying it. There are many aspects of what Scripture reveals that I am examining carefully to learn what all God has revealed about the subject.
I do not have a definition that I can provide for you, and I am not going to offer you any definitions; I am only going to discuss whatever else Scripture reveals that is pertinent. You are going to waste your time and mine if you continue to ask for a definition of a term that God Himself has not defined.
I’m trying to figure out your position here. All you’ve been doing this entire thread is telling me that my position about Romans 8 corruption is wrong. You must have a position of your own about it if you think mine is wrong, however, when I ask you for your understanding of corruption from Romans 8, you draw a complete blank and actually blame God for your lack of understanding. I’m not asking you for a Bible verse with a definition. I’m asking for your own thought process so I can understand your position. What you are telling me is that God hasn’t revealed anything that backs up your thought process. That’s what it sounds like your telling me.
[Kevin Miller]Who says that because Romans 8 teaches that the whole creation is under the bondage of corruption that corruption must apply equally to all creatures such that they all manifest exactly all the same characteristics of corruption to exactly the same extent for each one? This is merely an assertion or presupposition or both. That is why the rest of Scripture must be examined to determine whether that assertion is true or not.I see this answer as your classic deflection technique. You’ve been insisting I am wrong in my opinion, but you don’t really have any Scripture to back up your belief that I am wrong. You were entirely willing to bring up Scripture verses about unclean animals. You were entirely willing to bring up Scripture about defect ridden animals. You claimed those verses were showing levels of corruption from Romans 8. You then insisted that this corruption from Romans 8 would engender displeasure from God. However, when I asked you for your reasoning about what corruption actually means within the context of Romans 8 and whether God is actually displeased with all creation in Romans 8, you told me he is pleased with some corrupt creatures and displeased with other corrupt creatures. I explained that God’s displeasure in those instances had to do with ceremonial sacrifices and not with their Romans 8 corruption. If Romans 8 corruption brings displeasure from God, then that displeasure would apply equally to all creatures since all creatures are under Romans 8 corruption. Aren’t all creatures under Romans 8 corruption? I’ve insisted this whole thread that they are, but if your position is that this corruption brings displeasure from God, then why don’t you think all creatures are under God’s displeasure? You’re not being consistent.
I find no reason to hold that what Romans 8 teaches must apply equally to all creatures in exactly all the same ways to the same extent for every aspect of corruption.
The passages that I have shown prove that not all creatures have been corrupted in exactly the same way. God did not create any animals at the Creation with any defects. If you assert that the differing defects that exist now in the animal world are not the result of Romans 8 corruption, what explanation do you have for those defects and the differences in what defects different animals have?
[RajeshG]Who says that because Romans 8 teaches that the whole creation is under the bondage of corruption that corruption must apply equally to all creatures such that they all manifest exactly all the same characteristics of corruption to exactly the same extent for each one? This is merely an assertion or presupposition or both. That is why the rest of Scripture must be examined to determine whether that assertion is true or not.
I find no reason to hold that what Romans 8 teaches must apply equally to all creatures in exactly all the same ways to the same extent for every aspect of corruption.
The passages that I have shown prove that not all creatures have been corrupted in exactly the same way. God did not create any animals at the Creation with any defects. If you assert that the differing defects that exist now in the animal world are not the result of Romans 8 corruption, what explanation do you have for those defects and the differences in what defects different animals have?
Can you show me in my posts where I have said that all creatures manifest the same level of corruption to exactly the same extent? You are arguing against that assertion, but I haven’t said that. Instead of answering the questions I ask of you, you start arguing against something I haven’t said. Of course all creatures are not corrupted in exactly the same way. Why would you think I believe that? Of course Romans 8 is the reason for the various levels of defects. Why would you think I don’t believe that? Why don’t you just answer the questions I ask about your position instead of lying about what my opinion is.
Do you believe that birds reach a level of corruption that means sinfulness? Corruption that means sinfulness is certainly is a level that mankind reaches, and that level would cause God displeasure. If you think that any bird song today could cause God displeasure, you must think that birds can commit sin and are sinful. Is that what you really believe?
[Kevin Miller]Here are comments that you made in an earlier post:Can you show me in my posts where I have said that all creatures manifest the same level of corruption to exactly the same extent? You are arguing against that assertion, but I haven’t said that.
[Kevin Miller]
If Romans 8 corruption brings displeasure from God, then that displeasure would apply equally to all creatures [underlining added to original] since all creatures are under Romans 8 corruption. Aren’t all creatures under Romans 8 corruption? I’ve insisted this whole thread that they are, but if your position is that this corruption brings displeasure from God, then why don’t you think all creatures are under God’s displeasure? You’re not being consistent.
You raised the issue here that “if Romans 8 corruption brings displeasure from God,” that displeasure should apply equally to all creatures. Who says that it would have to apply equal to all creatures? Why would that have to be true?
[Kevin Miller]Your whole line of commenting here assumes that sinfulness is the only possible reason for divine displeasure with something. The Bible does not support that assumption.Do you believe that birds reach a level of corruption that means sinfulness? Corruption that means sinfulness is certainly is a level that mankind reaches, and that level would cause God displeasure. If you think that any bird song today could cause God displeasure, you must think that birds can commit sin and are sinful. Is that what you really believe?
Jesus cursed a fig tree (cf. Mk. 11:21), which clearly shows divine displeasure with that fig tree. Does that mean that fig tree sinned? I do not think that it does. Divine displeasure with an entity does not result only from the sinfulness of an entity itself.
Discussion