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
- 74 views
[RajeshG]I was asking the question that way only to get to your position about God’s displeasure. I realize that not all creatures show decay at the same rates and some take longer to die than others, but all plants and animals are under the same Curse. Aren’t they? Do some get more Curse than others? Does a greater level of decay cause greater displeasure from God? That’s what I’ve been trying to determine in regards to your position about God’s displeasure.Here are comments that you made in an earlier post:
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?
[RajeshG]Okay, that is one specific fig tree. Does that account mean that God is displeased with any fig trees present on earth today? Is there any reason at all for us to think that God is displeased with any fig trees today. My opinion is that God is not displeased with fig trees today. I realize that is just my opinion. Do you have a differing opinion about fig trees?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.
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.
[Kevin Miller]I do not know the answers to any of your questions. The only way to attempt to answer these kinds of questions is to continue studying the Bible to see what God has revealed to see if there are answers provided. There is no guarantee that God has provided answers to one or more of them and even to numerous other questions that could be asked.I was asking the question that way only to get to your position about God’s displeasure. I realize that not all creatures show decay at the same rates and some take longer to die than others, but all plants and animals are under the same Curse. Aren’t they? Do some get more Curse than others? Does a greater level of decay cause greater displeasure from God? That’s what I’ve been trying to determine in regards to your position about God’s displeasure.
[Kevin Miller]I do not know with certainty what is true today. I do not see any reason to hold that there aren’t fig trees or other entities that are also displeasing to God for one or more seemingly non-sinful reason(s) as that tree was.Okay, that is one specific fig tree. Does that account mean that God is displeased with any fig trees present on earth today? Is there any reason at all for us to think that God is displeased with any fig trees today. My opinion is that God is not displeased with fig trees today. I realize that is just my opinion. Do you have a differing opinion about fig trees?
More importantly, you need to consider why there was a tree even back then that was displeasing to God and the ramifications of that for your positions about other similar questions.
[RajeshG]Okay, that is one specific fig tree. Does that account mean that God is displeased with any fig trees present on earth today? Is there any reason at all for us to think that God is displeased with any fig trees today. My opinion is that God is not displeased with fig trees today. I realize that is just my opinion. Do you have a differing opinion about fig trees?
I do not know with certainty what is true today. I do not see any reason to hold that there aren’t fig trees or other entities that are also displeasing to God for one or more seemingly non-sinful reason(s) as that tree was.
More importantly, you need to consider why there was a tree even back then that was displeasing to God and the ramifications of that for your positions about other similar questions.
That tree would be part of my consideration. Unless there is some direct statement by God, as there was at that time, that He is displeased with a tree, then I don’t see any reason to think He would be displeased with a tree in our present time. I just don’t see a legitimate Biblical reason to think there would be any displeasure with present day trees. I’m not saying I know with certainty, but I just can’t see a reason. Could God have a reason for displeasure without telling us. I suppose so, but if he hasn’t told us, then we certainly won’t be held responsible for not knowing it.
My opinion about present day birds not being displeasing to God was the same sort of opinion. Even if God may have been displeased in the past with using certain birds for sacrifice or for eating, that doesn’t mean God is displeased with any birds today. Could God be displeased with present day birds without telling us? I suppose so, but he certainly won’t hold us responsible for not knowing. I’m not going to just assume that some birds are displeasing if the Bible doesn’t give that indication.
[RajeshG]Well, if you don’t know those answers about God’s displeasure, then why were you arguing about my opinion regarding birds when i first posted in this thread. The fact that you disagreed with me made me think that you had a position of your own regarding God’s displeasure, but now you tell me you’ll have no such position until you study the Bible more.I was asking the question that way only to get to your position about God’s displeasure. I realize that not all creatures show decay at the same rates and some take longer to die than others, but all plants and animals are under the same Curse. Aren’t they? Do some get more Curse than others? Does a greater level of decay cause greater displeasure from God? That’s what I’ve been trying to determine in regards to your position about God’s displeasure.
I do not know the answers to any of your questions. The only way to attempt to answer these kinds of questions is to continue studying the Bible to see what God has revealed to see if there are answers provided. There is no guarantee that God has provided answers to one or more of them and even to numerous other questions that could be asked.
[Kevin Miller]This is why I say that you have presuppositions even though you deny that you do. I have proven that there was a tree that God was displeased with even though He made all the fig trees. You have no explanation for why that was true, and yet you want to deny that the same is true today.That tree would be part of my consideration. Unless there is some direct statement by God, as there was at that time, that He is displeased with a tree, then I don’t see any reason to think He would be displeased with a tree in our present time. I just don’t see a legitimate Biblical reason to think there would be any displeasure with present day trees. I’m not saying I know with certainty, but I just can’t see a reason. Could God have a reason for displeasure without telling us. I suppose so, but if he hasn’t told us, then we certainly won’t be held responsible for not knowing it.
My opinion about present day birds not being displeasing to God was the same sort of opinion. Even if God may have been displeased in the past with using certain birds for sacrifice or for eating, that doesn’t mean God is displeased with any birds today. Could God be displeased with present day birds without telling us? I suppose so, but he certainly won’t hold us responsible for not knowing. I’m not going to just assume that some birds are displeasing if the Bible doesn’t give that indication.
The bondage of corruption that the whole creation was under then is still in effect today. Even though all the fig trees were under that bondage of corruption, biblical data shows that God was pleased with some fig trees and displeased with at least one of them.
That fact shows that no one can validly assert that the corruption that the whole world is still under today (as it was back then) means either everything is all equally displeasing to God or none of it is displeasing to God. Biblical data shows that the right starting point is to believe that of all the things that are under the bondage of corruption, some are pleasing to God and some are not.
Applying that to music without words, you have no Bible to assert that all music without words is pleasing to God unless proven otherwise.
[Kevin Miller]Just because I do not have answers to those specific questions does not mean that I have no basis to hold that your opinion is wrong. I provided you with a biblical basis for holding that there are birds that are unclean, hateful, and directly associated with demons. You want to say that will only be true sometime in the future, but it is not true now. You do not have any Bible to support that view; that is merely your assertion.Well, if you don’t know those answers about God’s displeasure, then why were you arguing about my opinion regarding birds when i first posted in this thread. The fact that you disagreed with me made me think that you had a position of your own regarding God’s displeasure, but now you tell me you’ll have no such position until you study the Bible more.
[RajeshG]I don’t have the explanation because i didn’t see it as necessary to dig through the commentaries to show you the exact point Jesus was making as he cursed the fig tree. Whatever that point was, it applied specifically to THAT fig tree, and the story does NOT suggest that it would apply to any other fig trees, let alone fig trees today. I don’t see why you think that story would affect God’s displeasure with a fig tree today. There is no other indication in Scripture that God would be displeased with any other fig tree, so i can’t see why i would have to hold to a principle that isn’t contained in Scripture. Please give me something, anything, from Scripture that would even suggest that God is displeased with any tree today. I’m all ears. I wouldn’t have to show you God IS pleased with trees any more than i would have to show you God is pleased with helium or puppies or quartz.This is why I say that you have presuppositions even though you deny that you do. I have proven that there was a tree that God was displeased with even though He made all the fig trees. You have no explanation for why that was true, and yet you want to deny that the same is true today.
The bondage of corruption that the whole creation was under then is still in effect today. Even though all the fig trees were under that bondage of corruption, biblical data shows that God was pleased with some fig trees and displeased with at least one of them.
That fact shows that no one can validly assert that the corruption that the whole world is still under today (as it was back then) means either everything is all equally displeasing to God or none of it is displeasing to God. Biblical data shows that the right starting point is to believe that of all the things that are under the bondage of corruption, some are pleasing to God and some are not.Again, you are lying about what I’ve been trying to assert. I have never said that ALL music without words is pleasing to God.Applying that to music without words, you have no Bible to assert that all music without words is pleasing to God unless proven otherwise.
Do you believe music itself decays and dies in the same way that animals decay and die. The way I understand music to be affected by the decay evidenced from God’s curse is due to the producer of the music being affected by decay. I don’t see music itself as somehow decaying as if it was a living entity. Do you?
Some birds are more evidenced by decay that others, but I don’t think that decay causes God displeasure, since God instigated the decay. Saying God is displeased with decay would be the same as saying God is displeased with the consequences God Himself put on the earth due to man’s sin. Now, God did not allow sacrifices to be made out of animals that strongly showed evidence of decay, but that doesn’t mean God was displeased with the animals themselves, only with their use as sacrifices.
[Kevin Miller]I am not lying now nor have I ever lied in anything that I have said on SI. You have wrongly charged me twice in this thread with lying. You owe me an apology for saying that I have made incorrect statements with the intent to deceive by what I have said.Again, you are lying about what I’ve been trying to assert. I have never said that ALL music without words is pleasing to God.
[RajeshG]I acknowledge that your definition of lying includes “intent to deceive” and it was never my intention of charging you with an intent to deceive. So I hereby publicly apologize for using a term of which you have a different definition than what I have.I am not lying now nor have I ever lied in anything that I have said on SI. You have wrongly charged me twice in this thread with lying. You owe me an apology for saying that I have made incorrect statements with the intent to deceive by what I have said.
My definition of lying is simply “to express something that is untrue.” You claimed I had been asserting something which I had never asserted, and I found that claim to be untrue. It would have been better if I had asked you to stop “misrepresenting” my position, but I had already done that once in this thread. At that time, you even acknowledged that I hadn’t specifically asserted what you claimed I asserted, but it simply seemed to you I had an underlying presupposition. I even asked you to tell me which words of mine made you think I had that presupposition, since I wanted to correct any unclear language on my part. I asked you “Why would my comment about the music of birds make you think I was talking about music produced by every other entity?” You didn’t bother answering that question.
So when you misrepresented me a second time, i called out your statement as an untruth. I still think it was untrue, but if you are uncomfortable with me using the word “lying’ because you think it denotes only an “intention to deceive,” than I apologize for making you uncomfortable in that manner.
Just please refrain from misrepresenting my position about bird music to be a position about ALL music without words.
[Kevin Miller]I accept your apology. Thanks.I acknowledge that your definition of lying includes “intent to deceive” and it was never my intention of charging you with an intent to deceive. So I hereby publicly apologize for using a term of which you have a different definition than what I have.
My definition of lying is simply “to express something that is untrue.” You claimed I had been asserting something which I had never asserted, and I found that claim to be untrue. It would have been better if I had asked you to stop “misrepresenting” my position, but I had already done that once in this thread. At that time, you even acknowledged that I hadn’t specifically asserted what you claimed I asserted, but it simply seemed to you I had an underlying presupposition. I even asked you to tell me which words of mine made you think I had that presupposition, since I wanted to correct any unclear language on my part. I asked you “Why would my comment about the music of birds make you think I was talking about music produced by every other entity?” You didn’t bother answering that question.
So when you misrepresented me a second time, i called out your statement as an untruth. I still think it was untrue, but if you are uncomfortable with me using the word “lying’ because you think it denotes only an “intention to deceive,” than I apologize for making you uncomfortable in that manner.
Just please refrain from misrepresenting my position about bird music to be a position about ALL music without words.
For the record, what you say is my definition is the first sense given in three dictionaries that I checked.
Now, concerning the matter of misrepresentation, let’s look closely at the exchange:
You claim that I said that you asserted the following, “All music without words is pleasing to God.”
Here is what I actually said:
“Applying that to music without words, you have no Bible to assert that all music without words is pleasing to God unless proven otherwise.”
Note the crucial differences between what I actually said and what you claim I said that you asserted: I qualified what I said in two ways.
(1) You have no Bible to assert …
(2) unless proven otherwise.
Both the beginning of my statement and those final three words are crucial to what I actually said but you chose to leave them out in your misrepresentation of my words.
My statement concerns what Scripture does not provide for you (or anyone else) concerning the ability to assert that the correct default position for understanding all music without words is that it pleases God unless someone can prove otherwise.
[RajeshG]I accept your apology. Thanks.
For the record, what you say is my definition is the first sense given in three dictionaries that I checked.
Now, concerning the matter of misrepresentation, let’s look closely at the exchange:
You claim that I said that you asserted the following, “All music without words is pleasing to God.”
Here is what I actually said:
“Applying that to music without words, you have no Bible to assert that all music without words is pleasing to God unless proven otherwise.”
Note the crucial difference between what I actually said and what you claim I said that you asserted: I qualified what I said in two ways.
(1) You have no Bible to assert …
(2) unless proven otherwise.
Those final three words are crucial but you chose to leave them out in your misrepresentation of my words. I think that you now owe me a second public apology for misrepresenting what I said and then wrongly claiming that I lied by saying something that I did not say.
I think I was quite accurate in portraying your assertion, and feel no need to apologize further. My first comment in this thread was about bird music and my opinion that bird music today would be pleasing to God. We then discussed birds for a while.You eventually claimed I was asserting something about “all music without words” when my only claims were about bird music. Where did you get the idea I was asserting something about any music other than bird music?
The two factors you listed do not change the basic idea that you misrepresented my position about bird music to be about all music. If you had said, “you have no Bible to assert that bird music is pleasing to God unless proven otherwise,” I would not have charged you with misrepresentation. I would have disagreed with you, since I do think the general principles of the Bible support that proposition, that bird music is pleasing to God unless proven otherwise. That’s the opinion I’ve been expressing since my first post in this thread, and I still see no reason to change that opinion. You’ve tried to “prove otherwise” with a few verses about appropriate sacrifices, but I don’t see those verses to be at all convincing that God would disapprove of music from birds today.
[Kevin Miller]I believe that there is no Bible that supports anyone’s asserting that all bird music of all birds is pleasing to God unless proven otherwise. What is your position about this specific statement?If you had said, “you have no Bible to assert that bird music is pleasing to God unless proven otherwise,” I would not have charged you with misrepresentation. I would have disagreed with you, since I do think the general principles of the Bible support that proposition, that bird music is pleasing to God unless proven otherwise.
[RajeshG]I would say you are correct that there is no particular Bible verse saying that, but it is also true that there is no particular Bible verse supporting any other particular assertion about bird music. That’s why I described my “assertion” as an opinion earlier. I make it from my general understanding of the Bible, not from some particular verse.I believe that there is no Bible that supports anyone’s asserting that all bird music of all birds is pleasing to God unless proven otherwise. What is your position about this specific statement?
If someone has an opinion that some bird music today would be displeasing to God, I would wonder what their standards are for recognizing God’s displeasure, and I would also wonder how some bird music today fits within those parameters of what displeases God. I think those are legitimate questions to ask. Since I personally see no Bible principles that describe God’s displeasure in a way that would apply to bird music today, I find it legitimate to hold to my original opinion. I recognize I may be missing something, which is why I am totally open to hearing any other person’s opinion about why God would be displeased with bird music today. I may end up disagreeing with their interpretation of a principle and they may end up disagreeing with me, but that’s okay.
I would hope that describing my position as just an opinion, as I’ve tried to do throughout the thread, would be enough of a disclaimer to show that even though I might disagree with someone else’s interpretation of a principle, I try not to hold too tightly to my own sense of “being in the right.”
[Kevin Miller]You “see no Bible principles that describe God’s displeasure in a way that would apply to bird music today.”I would say you are correct that there is no particular Bible verse saying that, but it is also true that there is no particular Bible verse supporting any other particular assertion about bird music. That’s why I described my “assertion” as an opinion earlier. I make it from my general understanding of the Bible, not from some particular verse.
If someone has an opinion that some bird music today would be displeasing to God, I would wonder what their standards are for recognizing God’s displeasure, and I would also wonder how some bird music today fits within those parameters of what displeases God. I think those are legitimate questions to ask. Since I personally see no Bible principles that describe God’s displeasure in a way that would apply to bird music today, I find it legitimate to hold to my original opinion. I recognize I may be missing something, which is why I am totally open to hearing any other person’s opinion about why God would be displeased with bird music today. I may end up disagreeing with their interpretation of a principle and they may end up disagreeing with me, but that’s okay.
I would hope that describing my position as just an opinion, as I’ve tried to do throughout the thread, would be enough of a disclaimer to show that even though I might disagree with someone else’s interpretation of a principle, I try not to hold too tightly to my own sense of “being in the right.”
I hold that the bondage of corruption to which God subjected the entire creation provides a biblical basis for holding that there is at least some bird music today that is not pleasing to God.
I showed from the Bible that there was a fig tree with which God was displeased. Your response was something to the effect that was only true for that particular tree and does not apply to any such trees today.
I do not see any reason why we should believe that is the only tree that we can know was displeasing to God. Barring the existence of some other valid explanation that I am missing, the only explanation for that one tree being displeasing to God has to be something to do with the bondage of corruption that manifested itself differently in that tree as opposed to other trees.
In the same way, I see something similar applying to trees, bird music, etc. today. We should expect that there are some trees that are similarly displeasing to God today, and we should hold that there is at least some bird music today that does not please God.
Otherwise, we would have to say that the aspect of the bondage of corruption that caused that fig tree to be displeasing to God has ceased to corrupt anything in our day. For me, that is an untenable position.
[RajeshG]How does the “bondage of corruption” provide that basis? I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion. What do you think the “bondage of corruption” is in reference to bird music?You “see no Bible principles that describe God’s displeasure in a way that would apply to bird music today.”
I hold that the bondage of corruption to which God subjected the entire creation provides a biblical basis for holding that there is at least some bird music today that is not pleasing to God.
I showed from the Bible that there was a fig tree with which God was displeased. Your response was something to the effect that was only true for that particular tree and does not apply to any such trees today.Exactly. How do you think it would apply to trees today? I don’t understand how you would come to that conclusion.
I do not see any reason why we should believe that is the only tree that we can know was displeasing to God. Barring the existence of some other valid explanation that I am missing, the only explanation for that one tree being displeasing to God has to be something to do with the bondage of corruption that manifested itself differently in that tree as opposed to other trees.I already presented an alternative valid explanation that had nothing to do with the bondage of corruption.
In the same way, I see something similar applying to trees, bird music, etc. today. We should expect that there are some trees that are similarly displeasing to God today, and we should hold that there is at least some bird music today that does not please God.Why should we expect that? I don’t see as how Christ’s pronouncement of one particular curse upon one particular tree in one particular time frame would cause us to think that any other trees are under that same pronouncement from that same time period, and furthermore, I can’t understand why you would think that God’s pronouncement against one particular fig tree would cause bird music to be displeasing to God. That doesn’t make sense to me at all.
Otherwise, we would have to say that the aspect of the bondage of corruption that caused that fig tree to be displeasing to God has ceased to corrupt anything in our day. For me, that is an untenable position.What makes you think that “an aspect of the bondage of corruption” caused the fig tree to be displeasing to God? I don’t understand how you come to that position. Is that reason given in the fig tree account?
[Kevin Miller]I do not recall any valid explanation that you have provided for why a tree that God created was not pleasing to Him. Where did you provide that explanation and what is that explanation?How does the “bondage of corruption” provide that basis? I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion. What do you think the “bondage of corruption” is in reference to bird music?
Exactly. How do you think it would apply to trees today? I don’t understand how you would come to that conclusion.
I already presented an alternative valid explanation that had nothing to do with the bondage of corruption.
Why should we expect that? I don’t see as how Christ’s pronouncement of one particular curse upon one particular tree in one particular time frame would cause us to think that any other trees are under that same pronouncement from that same time period, and furthermore, I can’t understand why you would think that God’s pronouncement against one particular fig tree would cause bird music to be displeasing to God. That doesn’t make sense to me at all.
What makes you think that “an aspect of the bondage of corruption” caused the fig tree to be displeasing to God? I don’t understand how you come to that position. Is that reason given in the fig tree account?
[RajeshG]Rajesh, you asked me in a private message to revisit this thread and provide you with this explanation you’re seeking. I’ll do that, but to be honest, re-reading this post only made me remember the reason I stopped posting in this thread in the first place. I asked you six questions in this very post you quoted, and all you want to do is challenge my statement that I’ve provided an explanation for God’s displeasure with the fig tree, an explanation that actually IS quite easy to see if you would bother to pay attention to my points.I do not recall any valid explanation that you have provided for why a tree that God created was not pleasing to Him. Where did you provide that explanation and what is that explanation?
So here goes. I’ll start with your very first comment about the fig tree. I thought about going back further to provide more context about why we were discussing “sinfulness,” but that would only add length to my explanation. You said “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.”
I then responded with “Okay, that is one specific fig tree. Does that account mean that God is displeased with any fig trees present on earth today?”
You answered with “I do not know with certainty what is true today. I do not see any reason to hold that there aren’t fig trees or other entities that are also displeasing to God for one or more seemingly non-sinful reason(s) as that tree was. More importantly, you need to consider why there was a tree even back then that was displeasing to God and the ramifications of that for your positions about other similar questions.”
I then said “That tree would be part of my consideration. Unless there is some direct statement by God, as there was at that time, that He is displeased with a tree, then I don’t see any reason to think He would be displeased with a tree in our present time. I just don’t see a legitimate Biblical reason to think there would be any displeasure with present day trees. I’m not saying I know with certainty, but I just can’t see a reason.”
You answered with “This is why I say that you have presuppositions even though you deny that you do. I have proven that there was a tree that God was displeased with even though He made all the fig trees. You have no explanation for why that was true, and yet you want to deny that the same is true today.”
NOW we get to my explanation. It has to do with Jesus making a point to his disciples, but I felt the specific point was not necessary to cover in this thread. It was enough to know that Jesus was displeased with the fig tree because he was making a point and not because the tree was under the bondage of corruption. I wrote “I don’t have the explanation because i didn’t see it as necessary to dig through the commentaries to show you the exact point Jesus was making as he cursed the fig tree. Whatever that point was, it applied specifically to THAT fig tree, and the story does NOT suggest that it would apply to any other fig trees, let alone fig trees today. I don’t see why you think that story would affect God’s displeasure with a fig tree today.”
Now, there is one aspect of this exchange that I didn’t bother dealing with at the time, since I didn’t want to start too many parallel discussions in the thread. You said that the curse on the fig tree “clearly shows divine displeasure” and that you’ve “proven that there was a tree that God was displeased.” That’s fine for the curse on the fig tree, but does a curse always result in God’s displeasure? For example, does the curse on the ground in Gen. 3 clearly show divine displeasure with the ground? In my opinion, the ground is suffering consequences of mankind’s sin, but that wouldn’t automatically mean that the ground is displeasing to God. The “bondage of corruption” that is suffered by plants and animals is a consequence of mankind’s sin, but I don’t see how this bondage results in God’s displeasure of plants or animals. God PUT the bondage in place as part of His divine plan. so why would God be displeased with plants or animals simply for suffering under this bondage? If God is displeased with any plant or animal today, then it’s my opinion that there would have to be some other reason, besides the “bondage of corruption,” for God’s displeasure.
[Kevin Miller]In my opinion, your explanation does not work. Saying that Jesus cursed the fig tree to prove a point for His disciples does not account for the fact that He cursed a fig tree that was not doing what it was supposed to be doing. Jesus did not pick a random tree and curse it; He cursed a tree that was unproductive in a manner that it should have been.Rajesh, you asked me in a private message to revisit this thread and provide you with this explanation you’re seeking. I’ll do that, but to be honest, re-reading this post only made me remember the reason I stopped posting in this thread in the first place. I asked you six questions in this very post you quoted, and all you want to do is challenge my statement that I’ve provided an explanation for God’s displeasure with the fig tree, an explanation that actually IS quite easy to see if you would bother to pay attention to my points.
So here goes. I’ll start with your very first comment about the fig tree. I thought about going back further to provide more context about why we were discussing “sinfulness,” but that would only add length to my explanation. You said “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.”
I then responded with “Okay, that is one specific fig tree. Does that account mean that God is displeased with any fig trees present on earth today?”
You answered with “I do not know with certainty what is true today. I do not see any reason to hold that there aren’t fig trees or other entities that are also displeasing to God for one or more seemingly non-sinful reason(s) as that tree was. More importantly, you need to consider why there was a tree even back then that was displeasing to God and the ramifications of that for your positions about other similar questions.”
I then said “That tree would be part of my consideration. Unless there is some direct statement by God, as there was at that time, that He is displeased with a tree, then I don’t see any reason to think He would be displeased with a tree in our present time. I just don’t see a legitimate Biblical reason to think there would be any displeasure with present day trees. I’m not saying I know with certainty, but I just can’t see a reason.”
You answered with “This is why I say that you have presuppositions even though you deny that you do. I have proven that there was a tree that God was displeased with even though He made all the fig trees. You have no explanation for why that was true, and yet you want to deny that the same is true today.”
NOW we get to my explanation. It has to do with Jesus making a point to his disciples, but I felt the specific point was not necessary to cover in this thread. It was enough to know that Jesus was displeased with the fig tree because he was making a point and not because the tree was under the bondage of corruption. I wrote “I don’t have the explanation because i didn’t see it as necessary to dig through the commentaries to show you the exact point Jesus was making as he cursed the fig tree. Whatever that point was, it applied specifically to THAT fig tree, and the story does NOT suggest that it would apply to any other fig trees, let alone fig trees today. I don’t see why you think that story would affect God’s displeasure with a fig tree today.”
Now, there is one aspect of this exchange that I didn’t bother dealing with at the time, since I didn’t want to start too many parallel discussions in the thread. You said that the curse on the fig tree “clearly shows divine displeasure” and that you’ve “proven that there was a tree that God was displeased.” That’s fine for the curse on the fig tree, but does a curse always result in God’s displeasure? For example, does the curse on the ground in Gen. 3 clearly show divine displeasure with the ground? In my opinion, the ground is suffering consequences of mankind’s sin, but that wouldn’t automatically mean that the ground is displeasing to God. The “bondage of corruption” that is suffered by plants and animals is a consequence of mankind’s sin, but I don’t see how this bondage results in God’s displeasure of plants or animals. God PUT the bondage in place as part of His divine plan. so why would God be displeased with plants or animals simply for suffering under this bondage? If God is displeased with any plant or animal today, then it’s my opinion that there would have to be some other reason, besides the “bondage of corruption,” for God’s displeasure.
I see no support for holding that tree was unproductive for some reason other than the bondage of corruption.
Concerning the difference between the curse on the tree vs. the curse on the ground, it’s clear that they are not talking about the same thing. Scripture reveals that the one resulted from a failure concerning the tree but the other was not due to any failure concerning the ground.
[RajeshG]Isn’t it possible that God specifically designed that tree to be unproductive as an object lesson for the disciples about, say, the unfruitfulness of Israel? You may not agree with that opinion, but that opinion DOES work as an explanation. Consider the blind man that Jesus healed in John 9. The disciples asked Jesus about the reason for the man’s blindness. Was it because of his sin or because of his parent’s sin? They could just as easily been asking if the man was blind because of the “bondage of corruption.” John 9:3 then tells us, ““Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” Do you deny the possibility that God could set up a circumstance so that a lesson could then be taught? That’s what He did with the blind man after all.In my opinion, your explanation does not work. Saying that Jesus cursed the fig tree to prove a point for His disciples does not account for the fact that He cursed a fig tree that was not doing what it was supposed to be doing. Jesus did not pick a random tree and curse it; He cursed a tree that was unproductive in a manner that it should have been.
I see no support for holding that tree was unproductive for some reason other than the bondage of corruption.
Concerning the difference between the curse on the tree vs. the curse on the ground, it’s clear that they are not talking about the same thing. Scripture reveals that the one resulted from a failure concerning the tree but the other was not due to any failure concerning the ground.So would you agree with me then that the curse on the ground did NOT make the ground displeasing to God?
[Kevin Miller]Do you deny the possibility that God has designed (or designated that there are) specific combinations of musical elements that human influenced by demons have originated or produced that are displeasing to Him as a vital lesson to His people not to have any fellowship with the works of darkness?Isn’t it possible that God specifically designed that tree to be unproductive as an object lesson for the disciples about, say, the unfruitfulness of Israel? You may not agree with that opinion, but that opinion DOES work as an explanation. Consider the blind man that Jesus healed in John 9. The disciples asked Jesus about the reason for the man’s blindness. Was it because of his sin or because of his parent’s sin? They could just as easily been asking if the man was blind because of the “bondage of corruption.” John 9:3 then tells us, ““Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” Do you deny the possibility that God could set up a circumstance so that a lesson could then be taught? That’s what He did with the blind man after all.
[Kevin Miller]To answer this question requires comparing Scripture with some other Scripture passages. I do not have time this morning (because of work obligations) to respond further, but I hope to respond in detail, possibly this evening.So would you agree with me then that the curse on the ground did NOT make the ground displeasing to God?
[RajeshG]So is this question an admission that my explanation for Christ’s displeasure at the fig tree is a valid explanation, that it was because he wanted to deliver a lesson rather than being displeased with the tree’s bondage of corruption?Do you deny the possibility that God has designed (or designated that there are) specific combinations of musical elements that human influenced by demons have originated or produced that are displeasing to Him as a vital lesson to His people not to have any fellowship with the works of darkness?
I don’t see a reason to start talking about human produced music if we haven’t even finished discussing the concept of the “bondage of corruption” in the parts of creation that I’ve previously been talking about in this thread.
[Kevin Miller]No, it is not. It is a specifically designed parallel to provoke you to think about the implications of taking the approach that you are trying to set forth as valid about the fig tree. Yes, there is much more to discuss.So is this question an admission that my explanation for Christ’s displeasure at the fig tree is a valid explanation, that it was because he wanted to deliver a lesson rather than being displeased with the tree’s bondage of corruption?
I don’t see a reason to start talking about human produced music if we haven’t even finished discussing the concept of the “bondage of corruption” in the parts of creation that I’ve previously been talking about in this thread.
[RajeshG]So … I asked you a couple of specific questions in my post. I asked “Isn’t it possible that God specifically designed that tree to be unproductive as an object lesson?” and “Do you deny the possibility that God could set up a circumstance so that a lesson could then be taught?” Instead of answering my questions, you gave me a “specifically designed parallel.” It seemed to me you were providing the parallel to show that you think possibilities DO exist for God to set up circumstances to teach a lesson. Now you tell me that’s NOT the case.No, it is not. It is a specifically designed parallel to provoke you to think about the implications of taking the approach that you are trying to set forth as valid about the fig tree. Yes, there is much more to discuss.
Why does it seem like pulling teeth to get a straight answer from you when I ask you questions? Do you or do you not agree that God can set up circumstances to teach a lesson? Is that really so hard a question to answer? You could either say, “No, I don’t think God would ever do that, in spite of John’s evidence to the contrary” or you could say, “Yes, God has done it in certain instances, but my opinion is that God didn’t do it with the fig tree.” In which case, I would say, “Well, since you acknowledge the possibility, then there is at least a remote chance that God COULD have done it in the case of the fig tree, and therefore such a possibility IS, in my opinion, a valid alternative to the idea of God cursing the tree simply because it showed signs of the bondage to corruption.”
How about, from now on, you answer my questions first, and THEN try to “provoke me to think about implications”? I’m not even sure what “implications” you want me to think about when you present a parallel that’s not even analogous to the situation with the fig tree. You said, “yes, there is much more to discuss,” but if the discussion consists of you ignoring my questions when I’m trying to understand your point of view, then it doesn’t make sense for me to continue in this “discussion.”
[Kevin Miller]You are the one who tried to use your analysis of biblical revelation about God’s dealings with a human being as “evidence” for your understanding about the subject that we have been discussing; I responded with a parallel concerning humans beings because you expanded the discussion …So … I asked you a couple of specific questions in my post. I asked “Isn’t it possible that God specifically designed that tree to be unproductive as an object lesson?” and “Do you deny the possibility that God could set up a circumstance so that a lesson could then be taught?” Instead of answering my questions, you gave me a “specifically designed parallel.” It seemed to me you were providing the parallel to show that you think possibilities DO exist for God to set up circumstances to teach a lesson. Now you tell me that’s NOT the case.
Why does it seem like pulling teeth to get a straight answer from you when I ask you questions? Do you or do you not agree that God can set up circumstances to teach a lesson? Is that really so hard a question to answer? You could either say, “No, I don’t think God would ever do that, in spite of John’s evidence to the contrary” or you could say, “Yes, God has done it in certain instances, but my opinion is that God didn’t do it with the fig tree.” In which case, I would say, “Well, since you acknowledge the possibility, then there is at least a remote chance that God COULD have done it in the case of the fig tree, and therefore such a possibility IS, in my opinion, a valid alternative to the idea of God cursing the tree simply because it showed signs of the bondage to corruption.”
How about, from now on, you answer my questions first, and THEN try to “provoke me to think about implications”? I’m not even sure what “implications” you want me to think about when you present a parallel that’s not even analogous to the situation with the fig tree. You said, “yes, there is much more to discuss,” but if the discussion consists of you ignoring my questions when I’m trying to understand your point of view, then it doesn’t make sense for me to continue in this “discussion.”
Furthermore, Scripture declares that God is the One who makes people blind, dumb, deaf, etc.
Exodus 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?
I do not find any evidence that requires understanding that the man born blind in John’s account was born blind through direct divine activity in specifically making him to be born blind instead of through divine direction of all the processes that God put in place as part of the bondage of corruption. What Christ said about that man’s being born blind is not affected at all by understanding that his being born blind was still a result of the bondage of corruption.
Whether or not the cursing of the ground recorded in Genesis 3 made all the ground everywhere or any of it or some part of it displeasing to God cannot be determined solely from that passage:
Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
In later revelation, God says,
Hebrews 6:7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
Comparing Hebrews 6:7-8 with Gen. 3:17-18 raises the issue of how we are to understand the cursing of the ground in Genesis 3.
Heb. 6:7-8 shows that some of the ground, because it is productive as it should be, is blessed by God, but other ground that is not productive the way it should be but rather brings forth thorns and briers is not blessed by God.
Ground that God blesses because it has been productive is ground that has pleased God. Unproductive ground is not so. Allowing Scripture to interpret itself points to not all ground on an ongoing basis being displeasing to God because He cursed the ground after the Fall—but some ground after the Fall is displeasing to Him.
[RajeshG]You’re correct that the blindness could have been the result of the result of being born under the bondage of corruption, but it also could have been through direct divine activity. The lack of fruit on the fig tree could have been the result of the bondage of corruption, but it also could have been the result of direct divine activity. My point is only that the second option is a valid possibility. I see you still haven’t answered my question with your response. I didn’t ask you if the situation REQUIRES anything. I asked “Do you or do you not agree that God can set up circumstances to teach a lesson?” I asked you if you accept the possibility that God can work in that way. Why do you continue to ignore the specific question I asked?I do not find any evidence that requires understanding that the man born blind in John’s account was born blind through direct divine activity in specifically making him to be born blind instead of through divine direction of all the processes that God put in place as part of the bondage of corruption. What Christ said about that man’s being born blind is not affected at all by understanding that his being born blind was still a result of the bondage of corruption.
[RajeshG]Thanks for presenting those verses in Hebrews. They definitely relate to the question I had asked you about the curse on the ground. The lesson I see the verse in Hebrews to be teaching is that when the ground is “dressed,” that is, worked in a way Adam was told to work the ground, then God will allow productivity to come to those who are doing the work, but if man allows the thorns and briers to grow in the land, then man will not receive any benefits of productivity. So really, God isn’t showing displeasure with “the ground itself.” God is showing displeasure with those who do not work diligently.Whether or not the cursing of the ground recorded in Genesis 3 made all the ground everywhere or any of it or some part of it displeasing to God cannot be determined solely from that passage:
Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
In later revelation, God says,
Hebrews 6:7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
Comparing Hebrews 6:7-8 with Gen. 3:17-18 raises the issue of how we are to understand the cursing of the ground in Genesis 3.
Heb. 6:7-8 shows that some of the ground, because it is productive as it should be, is blessed by God, but other ground that is not productive the way it should be but rather brings forth thorns and briers is not blessed by God.
Ground that God blesses because it has been productive is ground that has pleased God. Unproductive ground is not so. Allowing Scripture to interpret itself points to not all ground on an ongoing basis being displeasing to God because He cursed the ground after the Fall—but some ground after the Fall is displeasing to Him.
God then uses this analogy of working the ground to then go further and speak of spiritual things and of being diligent in one’s spiritual life. Hebrews 6:9-11 says 9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. So, considering the context, we can tell that God isn’t really expressing displeasure with “the ground itself” in Hebrews 6:8, but His displeasure is with those people who are not diligent in working, whether it is working the ground or being diligent in their spiritual lives.
[Kevin Miller]Your explanation is grammatically faulty and does not reflect what the text says.Thanks for presenting those verses in Hebrews. They definitely relate to the question I had asked you about the curse on the ground. The lesson I see the verse in Hebrews to be teaching is that when the ground is “dressed,” that is, worked in a way Adam was told to work the ground, then God will allow productivity to come to those who are doing the work, but if man allows the thorns and briers to grow in the land, then man will not receive any benefits of productivity. So really, God isn’t showing displeasure with “the ground itself.” God is showing displeasure with those who do not work diligently.
God then uses this analogy of working the ground to then go further and speak of spiritual things and of being diligent in one’s spiritual life. Hebrews 6:9-11 says 9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. So, considering the context, we can tell that God isn’t really expressing displeasure with “the ground itself” in Hebrews 6:8, but His displeasure is with those people who are not diligent in working, whether it is working the ground or being diligent in their spiritual lives.
Hebrews 6:7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
The subject of the verb “receiveth” in 6:7 is not people, and the passage does not say that people who work the ground receive blessing from God; it is the ground itself. The actions of humans in tilling the ground is not what made the difference in that case.
Similarly, it is not people who supposedly failed to work the ground in 6:8 who are rejected, near to cursing, and whose end is to be burned—it is the ground that is unproductive, as it should have been.
What is being paralleled is people who have received the supernatural working of God in them and yet fall away (6:4-6) and ground that has been tilled and has received rain and yet is not properly productive (6:8).
[Kevin Miller]God can work in whatever ways He wants, which ways will never contradict what He has revealed about Himself and His workings.You’re correct that the blindness could have been the result of the result of being born under the bondage of corruption, but it also could have been through direct divine activity. The lack of fruit on the fig tree could have been the result of the bondage of corruption, but it also could have been the result of direct divine activity. My point is only that the second option is a valid possibility. I see you still haven’t answered my question with your response. I didn’t ask you if the situation REQUIRES anything. I asked “Do you or do you not agree that God can set up circumstances to teach a lesson?” I asked you if you accept the possibility that God can work in that way. Why do you continue to ignore the specific question I asked?
It is irrelevant to this discussion that God could work in a particular way if there is no evidence to support that He did work in that way in specific instances. You have not provided any data to support the validity of your possible explanation for the cursing of the fig tree.
[RajeshG]It seems to me that you are the one who is not understanding the parallel. The passage is saying that the ground which has been tilled, in other words “dressed” IS the ground that is receiving the rain and is productive. The “dressing” or tilling is what allows that hard ground to receive the rain and be productive. I don’t see any indication in the passage of untilled ground being able to receive the rain. Rather, the untilled ground is that which only produces the thorns and briars. If the ground had been diligently tilled, it would have received the rain.Your explanation is grammatically faulty and does not reflect what the text says.
Hebrews 6:7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
The subject of the verb “receiveth” in 6:7 is not people, and the passage does not say that people who work the ground receive blessing from God; it is the ground itself. The actions of humans in tilling the ground is not what made the difference in that case.
Similarly, it is not people who supposedly failed to work the ground in 6:8 who are rejected, near to cursing, and whose end is to be burned—it is the ground that is unproductive, as it should have been.
What is being paralleled is people who have received the supernatural working of God in them and yet fall away (6:4-6) and ground that has been tilled and has received rain and yet is not properly productive (6:8).
Yes, grammatically speaking, the object of the blessing or cursing is the ground, but the focus of the blessing or cursing in Hebrews is much the same as the focus of cursing of the ground in Genesis 3:17, which says “cursed is the ground for thy sake.” The ground was cursed because of man’s activity, not because God was displeased with the ground’s lack of productivity. The focus of the curse was upon man. After the Fall, man was now going to have to work the ground to allow productivity to come to a cursed ground that would naturally be unproductive (full of thorns and briars). In Genesis, God is not saying he is displeased with the ground now that it is producing thorns and briars. God is going to be displeased, however, if man fails to work the ground so it can be productive. The ground would only be blessed with productivity if man worked it.
So I definitely see the explanation of the parallel in Hebrews 6:9-11, regarding the “things that have to do with salvation,” to be a lesson that man can not claim salvation and live a life without any evidence of spiritual activity after salvation, of working one’s “spiritual ground” so to speak.
[RajeshG]I provided a human example, but I guess you don’t think that’s a valid example because it had to do with a human, so I’ll provide a plant example. God caused a plant to grow up in one day big enough to shade Jonah, and then God caused that plant to wither and die the very next day. A plant withering can certainly happen due to the bondage of corruption, but in the book of Jonah, it happened due to direct divine activity.God can work in whatever ways He wants, which ways will never contradict what He has revealed about Himself and His workings.
It is irrelevant to this discussion that God could work in a particular way if there is no evidence to support that He did work in that way in specific instances. You have not provided any data to support the validity of your possible explanation for the cursing of the fig tree.
God directly causing a fig tree to be without fruit would not contradict anything God has revealed about Himself.
[Kevin Miller]A key difference is that the plant in Jonah was not cursed by God because it was unproductive, as it should have been.I provided a human example, but I guess you don’t think that’s a valid example because it had to do with a human, so I’ll provide a plant example. God caused a plant to grow up in one day big enough to shade Jonah, and then God caused that plant to wither and die the very next day. A plant withering can certainly happen due to the bondage of corruption, but in the book of Jonah, it happened due to direct divine activity.
God directly causing a fig tree to be without fruit would not contradict anything God has revealed about Himself.
Your explanation makes God the One who caused the fig tree to be unproductive and then permanently cursed it for being unproductive, and He did it supposedly as a lesson to people. That explanation means God permanently cursed something that was defective by His own doing.
If you hold that God created a fig tree that was permanently accursed by Him because He made it to be displeasing to Him, then you do not have any basis to say that God has not made birds that are permanently accursed by him because He made them to be displeasing to him.
You also have no basis to deny that God has produced birds that produce music that is permanently accursed by Him because He made them to produce music that is displeasing to Him.
[RajeshG]What difference does that “key difference” make to my point? None whatsoever. My point is that God CAN make things happen in plants through divine intervention. You admitted that “God can work in whatever ways he wants,” but you just didn’t see any examples in the Bible of God doing it to plants. I provided you with one.A key difference is that the plant in Jonah was not cursed by God because it was unproductive, as it should have been.
Your explanation makes God the One who caused the fig tree to be unproductive and then permanently cursed it for being unproductive, and He did it supposedly as a lesson to people. That explanation means God permanently cursed something that was defective by His own doing.I don’t know why you have a problem with that idea. That seems to be the way you are interpreting the curse on the ground in Hebrews 6:8. God cursed the ground in Genesis 3, causing the ground to be unproductive, and then, if I’m reading your point correctly, he curses it additionally in Hebrews 6 for being unproductive in the very way He had caused it to be. That explanation means God curses something that was defective by His own doing.
If you hold that God created a fig tree that was permanently accursed by Him because He made it to be displeasing to Him, then you do not have any basis to say that God has not made birds that are permanently accursed by him because He made them to be displeasing to him.We DO have Scriptural evidence that one particular fig tree at one particular point in time was displeasing to God, but we don’t have any evidence that such displeasure extends to any other fig trees at any other points in time. It could, I suppose, but I don’t see any reason from Scripture to think that it does.
I’m don’t see any reason to say that because God was displeased with that one fig tree, then He very well could be displeased with birds. Fig trees and birds are not close to being the same thing, so even a categorical displeasure of ALL fig trees would not mean that God would be displeased with birds. I don’t have any examples of God being displeased with birds, other than the examples we previously discussed in this thread which no longer apply to today. I’ve admitted earlier in the thread that there is a possibility God is displeased with some birds, but based on the lack of Scriptural evidence that He is, I’m willing to hold to my opinion that He isn’t.
You also have no basis to deny that God has produced birds that produce music that is permanently accursed by Him because He made them to produce music that is displeasing to Him.My response to this is something I wrote earlier in the thread, so I’ll just repeat it here, in case you’ve forgotten it. I said, “If someone has an opinion that some bird music today would be displeasing to God, I would wonder what their standards are for recognizing God’s displeasure, and I would also wonder how some bird music today fits within those parameters of what displeases God. I think those are legitimate questions to ask.”
So, do you think the Bible gives us standards for determining God’s displeasure? Is it possible, based on those Biblical standards, to KNOW that a particular bird’s music is displeasing to God?
[Kevin Miller]Actually, there are several other passages, including some that deal with plants, that are relevant that I have not yet talked about in this discussion.What difference does that “key difference” make to my point? None whatsoever. My point is that God CAN make things happen in plants through divine intervention. You admitted that “God can work in whatever ways he wants,” but you just didn’t see any examples in the Bible of God doing it to plants. I provided you with one.
It’s true that I had not thought about the account about the plant in Jonah, but that passage is irrelevant to my point about the fig tree that Christ cursed because God did not curse the plant in the account in Jonah.
[Kevin Miller]No, you are not understanding correctly what I am saying about either Hebrews 6 or Genesis 3. I will try further to explain why in a later reply because I am currently studying another passage that directly pertains, but I have not yet finished studying it.Your explanation makes God the One who caused the fig tree to be unproductive and then permanently cursed it for being unproductive, and He did it supposedly as a lesson to people. That explanation means God permanently cursed something that was defective by His own doing.I don’t know why you have a problem with that idea. That seems to be the way you are interpreting the curse on the ground in Hebrews 6:8. God cursed the ground in Genesis 3, causing the ground to be unproductive, and then, if I’m reading your point correctly, he curses it additionally in Hebrews 6 for being unproductive in the very way He had caused it to be. That explanation means God curses something that was defective by His own doing.
[RajeshG]Okay, but could you start by explaining what you see as the initial cause for unproductive ground? I see all ground being productive before the Fall and then the Genesis 3 curse affects all ground, making it bring forth “thorns and thistles,” requiring “painful toil” and “sweat of your brow” in order for any of it to be productive. I’m not saying all ground produces the same level of thorns and thistles as other ground, but simply that, due to God’s curse, all ground is subject to the unproductiveness represented by the addition of thorns and thistles to the creative order. Do you agree with that so far?No, you are not understanding correctly what I am saying about either Hebrews 6 or Genesis 3. I will try further to explain why in a later reply because I am currently studying another passage that directly pertains, but I have not yet finished studying it.
[Kevin Miller]I’m not sure yet fully what I believe now about what Genesis 3 teaches because my recent examinations of other passages have led me to reconsider how to interpret that passage. Studying Hebrews 6 for some time now, what God said to Cain in Genesis 4:11-12 about the ground, and the account at the beginning of Isaiah 5 makes me think that a right understanding of Genesis 3 is likely different than what I have previously believed. I haven’t yet settled on what I believe the combined teaching of these 4 passages (and others) teach us about God’s cursing of the ground after the Fall.Okay, but could you start by explaining what you see as the initial cause for unproductive ground? I see all ground being productive before the Fall and then the Genesis 3 curse affects all ground, making it bring forth “thorns and thistles,” requiring “painful toil” and “sweat of your brow” in order for any of it to be productive. I’m not saying all ground produces the same level of thorns and thistles as other ground, but simply that, due to God’s curse, all ground is subject to the unproductiveness represented by the addition of thorns and thistles to the creative order. Do you agree with that so far?
[RajeshG]Thanks for pointing out Isaiah 5 to me. That’s an interesting passage. God does seem to use quite a bunch of productivity/barrenness illustrations in regards to Israel. Those illustrations do have a basis in some literal facts about the actual ground, but it can be tricky trying to determine if those illustrations are also trying to teach us something about the ground itself.I’m not sure yet fully what I believe now about what Genesis 3 teaches because my recent examinations of other passages have led me to reconsider how to interpret that passage. Studying Hebrews 6 for some time now, what God said to Cain in Genesis 4:11-12 about the ground, and the account at the beginning of Isaiah 5 makes me think that a right understanding of Genesis 3 is likely different than what I have previously believed. I haven’t yet settled on what I believe the combined teaching of these 4 passages (and others) teach us about God’s cursing of the ground after the Fall.
Discussion