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
[Kevin Miller]But, who instituted the process of decay and designed every aspect of it and controls every aspect of it and who controls whatever “mutations” take place?Those aren’t the only reasons.
4. The process of decay introduced by the fall creates mutations that turn previous grass-eating animal into meat-eaters, and then those meat-eaters do things like shed man’s blood, which is displeasing to God.
[RajeshG]Are you seriously asking this? Haven’t you read Genesis 3?But, who instituted the process of decay and who controls whatever “mutations” take place?
[Kevin Miller]Obviously, I have read Genesis 3. It seem that you are missing the obvious implications of your proposed #4 that would make God responsible for the displeasing actions of the animals. Or, are you seriously prepared to say that you hold that God started the processes of the decay but He does not control them and what results they produce sometimes result in some animals that do things that displease Him?Are you seriously asking this? Haven’t you read Genesis 3?
[RajeshG]God did bring the punishment of decay upon the earth, didn’t He? There is certainly a sense in which the Sovereignty of God makes God the ultimate cause for all that happens, but I think you are overreaching to say that any results of decay makes God responsible for displeasing actions. That’s pretty much like saying God is responsible for man’s sin when he made every human after Adam be born in sin. When man does a sinful action, it is the responsibility of that man. When animals do an animal action, which being a carnivore certainly is, then it is the nature of that animal which is responsible. If the animal goes past a boundary that God has set up to show man the sanctity off life, then that animal has to pay with it’s life, but it is really just being an animal that is suffering from a consequence/curse that has been placed upon the earth because of man’s sin. So really, man is responsible for creation no longer being in perfection. Without the fall of man, creation would still be perfect.Obviously, I have read Genesis 3. It seem that you are missing the obvious implications of your proposed #4 that would make God responsible for the displeasing actions of the animals.
[RajeshG]I see this “reason” as being more of a wild speculation than an application of Biblical knowledge. I can only think of two examples in the Bible of demonic activity controlling animals. The first is in the Garden of Eden, but we have no other example of Satan or a demon using an animal to talk to humans. The other is in Mark 5 when the demons ask to be sent into animals instead of wherever else Jesus was going to send them, and the animals went absolutely berserk. They weren’t able to live their ordinary animal lives with the demons inside them. The vast bulk of the examples of demon activity in the Bible show that humans are the target of demons, not animals. I’m not saying it’s impossible, that I don’t see the concept of “animals displeasing God because of demon activity” as being taught in the Bible. It’s just speculation, and not a very solid speculation at that.3. After the Fall, some animals do things that displease God because they are influenced by or controlled by evil supernatural beings so that the animals do those things that displease God.
[Kevin Miller]I disagree. Prior to the fall of man, the devil and the serpent had already sinned. The creation was not perfect before the Fall; in fact, the devil—in some manner that Scripture does not explain—worked through an animal so that animal deceived Eve. The serpent that deceived Eve lied before Eve ever took of the fruit and ate it. The serpent had already sinned prior to any human sin had taken place. God punished that serpent by cursing it in ways that make clear that curse was a curse on an animal—going on its belly, eating dust—that are unintelligible for the devil as a spirit being.God did bring the punishment of decay upon the earth, didn’t He? There is certainly a sense in which the Sovereignty of God makes God the ultimate cause for all that happens, but I think you are overreaching to say that any results of decay makes God responsible for displeasing actions. That’s pretty much like saying God is responsible for man’s sin when he made every human after Adam be born in sin. When man does a sinful action, it is the responsibility of that man. When animals do an animal action, which being a carnivore certainly is, then it is the nature of that animal which is responsible. If the animal goes past a boundary that God has set up to show man the sanctity off life, then that animal has to pay with it’s life, but it is really just being an animal that is suffering from a consequence/curse that has been placed upon the earth because of man’s sin. So really, man is responsible for creation no longer being in perfection. Without the fall of man, creation would still be perfect.
[Kevin Miller]Wild speculation? Really?I see this “reason” as being more of a wild speculation than an application of Biblical knowledge. I can only think of two examples in the Bible of demonic activity controlling animals. The first is in the Garden of Eden, but we have no other example of Satan or a demon using an animal to talk to humans. The other is in Mark 5 when the demons ask to be sent into animals instead of wherever else Jesus was going to send them, and the animals went absolutely berserk. They weren’t able to live their ordinary animal lives with the demons inside them. The vast bulk of the examples of demon activity in the Bible show that humans are the target of demons, not animals. I’m not saying it’s impossible, that I don’t see the concept of “animals displeasing God because of demon activity” as being taught in the Bible. It’s just speculation, and not a very solid speculation at that.
In an event that changed the universe forever, the devil used an animal to deceive Eve. That animal was punished by God. That is not speculation; it is arguably the most important passage about the actions of an animal in the history of the universe.
[Kevin Miller]Those aren’t the only reasons.
4. The process of decay introduced by the fall creates mutations that turn previous grass-eating animal into meat-eaters, and then those meat-eaters do things like shed man’s blood, which is displeasing to God.
Concerning this purported reason for animals becoming carnivorous such that they kill/eat humans, consider what God revealed prior to His seminal statement in Genesis 9:5.
Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
After the Flood, God said that He put the fear of man and the dread of man upon every beast of the earth. Notice the use of two terms that together emphasize what this act of God produces in every animal.
Whenever an animal attacks a human to kill it, therefore, whether to eat it or not, it acts contrary to this fear and dread of man that God has put in every animal of the earth. To assert that some “mutation” is capable of undoing or overpowering this divine working is to set forth something that has no basis in Scripture. Positing such a view, therefore, has no biblical merit.
By strong contrast, it is entirely in keeping with what Scripture reveals about the murderous character and intent of demons to understand that demons would direct and control animals to kill humans in contradiction to the fear and dread of man that God has put in them, etc.
[RajeshG]I did mention that incident in my comment. Since you think the serpent was sinning when it was controlled by Satan, do you also believe the pigs were sinning when they were controlled by the demons in Mark 5.Wild speculation? Really?
In an event that changed the universe forever, the devil used an animal to deceive Eve. That animal was punished by God. That is not speculation; it is arguably the most important passage about the actions of an animal in the history of the universe.
You are the first person I’ve ever encountered who believes animals have the capacity to sin. I suppose it is just a semantic difference in the way the word “sin” can be used in various circumstances. Romans 5;12 says “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—”
That verse wouldn’t be using “sin” to refer to the serpent being used by Satan, would it? In that verse, sin didn’t come into the world until man sinned.
[RajeshG]So do you have Scriptures saying that “the murderous character and intent of demons” cause them to influence animals to kill humans? I mentioned the only two passages I could think of in which demons have controlled or influenced animals. What other ones do you have in mind? Satan certainly influences humans to kill other humans, but I’m just not understanding what Scriptural support you have for saying demons cause animals to do it. You made a claim that such thinking is “in keeping with what Scripture reveals,” but you didn’t give me any Scripture that says demons do that to animals.Concerning this purported reason for animals becoming carnivorous such that they kill/eat humans, consider what God revealed prior to His seminal statement in Genesis 9:5.
Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
After the Flood, God said that He put the fear of man and the dread of man upon every beast of the earth. Notice the use of two terms that together emphasize what this act of God produces in every animal.
Whenever an animal attacks a human to kill it, therefore, whether to eat it or not, it acts contrary to this fear and dread of man that God has put in every animal of the earth. To assert that some “mutation” is capable of undoing or overpowering this divine working is to set forth something that has no basis in Scripture. Positing such a view, therefore, has no biblical merit.
By strong contrast, it is entirely in keeping with what Scripture reveals about the murderous character and intent of demons to understand that demons would direct and control animals to kill humans in contradiction to the fear and dread of man that God has put in them, etc.
Do you also think demons are influencing all carnivorous or omnivorous animals to eat meat? After all, they were all created to eat vegetation. If you don’t think mutations can cause animals to act in a way contrary to God’s divine working, then you must be thinking demons are influencing every animal to eat meat in the first place. That would take hundred of millions of demons actively controlling all those animals. My claim in my post was “The process of decay introduced by the fall creates mutations that turn previous grass-eating animal into meat-eaters.” Do you deny that statement and think that demons cause all meat-eating animals to eat meat instead of vegetation?
[Kevin Miller]No, I do not think that the pigs were sinning when the demons drove them off the cliff to their deaths. Whereas Genesis 3 explicitly reveals that God punished the serpent for what it did, there is no indication in the passage about the swine that they were sinning in what they did.I did mention that incident in my comment. Since you think the serpent was sinning when it was controlled by Satan, do you also believe the pigs were sinning when they were controlled by the demons in Mark 5.
You are the first person I’ve ever encountered who believes animals have the capacity to sin. I suppose it is just a semantic difference in the way the word “sin” can be used in various circumstances. Romans 5;12 says “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—”
That verse wouldn’t be using “sin” to refer to the serpent being used by Satan, would it? In that verse, sin didn’t come into the world until man sinned.
As I think that I have said earlier, we know with certainty from Genesis 3 that neither Adam nor Eve was the first creature ever to sin. However you understand Romans 5:12, it does not mean that no creature had ever sinned in the world until Eve ate of the fruit of that tree. When the serpent lied to Eve, it sinned. Even if you hold that the serpent was merely a pawn of Satan in doing what it did, Satan still committed a sin in the world prior to Adam and Eve’s sinning.
[Kevin Miller]I do not have an all-encompassing explanation for why animals are carnivorous. I reject the notion that “mutations” caused animals to lose the fear and dread of man that God put in them (Gen. 9:2) so that they began attacking and killing humans.So do you have Scriptures saying that “the murderous character and intent of demons” cause them to influence animals to kill humans? I mentioned the only two passages I could think of in which demons have controlled or influenced animals. What other ones do you have in mind? Satan certainly influences humans to kill other humans, but I’m just not understanding what Scriptural support you have for saying demons cause animals to do it. You made a claim that such thinking is “in keeping with what Scripture reveals,” but you didn’t give me any Scripture that says demons do that to animals.
Do you also think demons are influencing all carnivorous or omnivorous animals to eat meat? After all, they were all created to eat vegetation. If you don’t think mutations can cause animals to act in a way contrary to God’s divine working, then you must be thinking demons are influencing every animal to eat meat in the first place. That would take hundred of millions of demons actively controlling all those animals. My claim in my post was “The process of decay introduced by the fall creates mutations that turn previous grass-eating animal into meat-eaters.” Do you deny that statement and think that demons cause all meat-eating animals to eat meat instead of vegetation?
I have already provided one other passage that links certain unspecified birds closely with demons (Rev. 18:2). Beyond that, I am still researching the subject to see what else Scripture may reveal about the subject.
Although they do not link animals to demons, there are other passages that reveal divine displeasure with animals that we have not talked about yet.
(1) God mandated the killing of both the humans and the animals who engaged in intimate relations between animals and humans:
Leviticus 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
(2) Scripture speaks of God Himself killing and punishing certain animals:
Psalm 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. 14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.
[RajeshG]I never said that mutations caused animals to lose their fear of man. You seem to be describing this “fear of man” like some iron chain that could only be broken by demonic influence. I see no problem with holding that animals WITH the fear of man can still attack humans. Fear doesn’t cripple a creature to such an extant that it can ONLY run away. Have you ever heard of the “flight or fight response”? Certainly most animals are going to flee when they see another creature they are afraid of. However, fighting the feared creature is also a legitimate response to fear.I do not have an all-encompassing explanation for why animals are carnivorous. I reject the notion that “mutations” caused animals to lose the fear and dread of man that God put in them (Gen. 9:2) so that they began attacking and killing humans.
I brought up mutations as a way for formerly vegetation-eating animals to be able to eat meat. A cow’s teeth, for example, are not designed to eat meat, so if all animals were created to only eat vegetation like a cow, then some sort of mutation would be needed to allow teeth to process meat. A tiger’s sharp teeth would have a very hard time eating vegetation, but I suppose it is possible for a tiger to have been created with sharp tiger teeth and still be able to find vegetation it could eat before the Fall. After the Fall, however, the ground was prevented from producing vegetation in the same fertile way it has done so previously. Animals looking for vegetation to eat would have a harder time doing so after the Fall, so hunger was going to be a very real condition for them. Any animal that had meat-processing teeth, whether through mutations or through God’s original design, was going to take advantage of their ability to eat meat if they got hungry enough. I don’t think we need any more of an “all-encompassing explanation for why animals are carnivorous” other than that animals get hungry and will eat what they are capable of eating. Hunger is a very strong, God-given response to the lack of food, and we can see by observing nature that hunger has, at times, overpowered an animal’s fear of man. One doesn’t need to resort to a demonic explanation to understand an action that simple hunger readily explains.
Psalm 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. 14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.I’m not sure where you see “divine displeasure” or “punishing” in this verse. God is expressing His power, but I don’t see a “punishing” of the dragons any more than I see a “punishing” of the sea.
[Kevin Miller]God does not capriciously or arbitrarily brake the heads of His creatures to display His power.I’m not sure where you see “divine displeasure” or “punishing” in this verse. God is expressing His power, but I don’t see a “punishing” of the dragons any more than I see a “punishing” of the sea.
I also provided you with a parallel passage that explicitly speaks of God’s punishing leviathan (Is. 27:1).
[RajeshG]But does Isaiah 27:1 refer to an actual animal? You initially mentioned Isaiah 27:1 under the heading “Scripture speaks of God Himself killing and punishing certain animals:” However, the commentaries I checked say that “leviathon” is metaphorical language referring to the nations that oppose Israel. The verse isn’t referring to an actual animal.God does not capriciously or arbitrarily brake the heads of His creatures to display His power.
I also provided you with a parallel passage that explicitly speaks of God’s punishing leviathan (Is. 27:1).
I felt Psalm 74:13 could at least be referring to an actual creature, but I did find commentaries that said leviathon in that passage referred to Egypt, so whatever punishment might be involved in that passage would be punishment against Egypt and not against an actual animal.
[Kevin Miller]Psalm 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. 14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.But does Isaiah 27:1 refer to an actual animal? You initially mentioned Isaiah 27:1 under the heading “Scripture speaks of God Himself killing and punishing certain animals:” However, the commentaries I checked say that “leviathon” is metaphorical language referring to the nations that oppose Israel. The verse isn’t referring to an actual animal.
I felt Psalm 74:13 could at least be referring to an actual creature, but I did find commentaries that said leviathon in that passage referred to Egypt, so whatever punishment might be involved in that passage would be punishment against Egypt and not against an actual animal.
A natural reading of 74:13 in connection with 74:14 supports understanding both verses as literal. Braking the head of leviathan in pieces and giving him to be meat for people very easily fits with taking the verses literally.
As for Is. 27:1, I was aware of that passage being taken metaphorically, but even so, a metaphor only works if it corresponds to some reality with which it is being compared.
[RajeshG]Dividing the sea by God’s strength is definitely a picture of what God did for the nation of Israel as they were escaping Egypt, and the breaking of the heads in the sea would refer to all the Egyptians who died in the waters. A metaphorical understanding fits just as well as a literal understanding might.Psalm 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. 14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
A natural reading of 74:13 in connection with 74:14 supports understanding both verses as literal. Braking the head of leviathan in pieces and giving him to be meat for people very easily fits with taking the verses literally.
Also, when God does use a literal creature as food that does not mean that God is displeased with the creature. On the contrary, displeasing creatures were not to be used as food. In regards to our present time period, the food restrictions involved with eating certain animals have been lifted, so it stands to reason that God is not displeased with any animals in our present time period.
As for Is. 27:1, I was aware of that passage being taken metaphorically, but even so, a metaphor only works if it corresponds to some reality with which it is being compared.Absolutely. A powerful creature is being compared to a powerful nation, but God’s power is over them all. The underlying reality is not that God is displeased with sea creatures.
[Kevin Miller]Dividing the sea by God’s strength is definitely a picture of what God did for the nation of Israel as they were escaping Egypt, and the breaking of the heads in the sea would refer to all the Egyptians who died in the waters. A metaphorical understanding fits just as well as a literal understanding might.
Also, when God does use a literal creature as food that does not mean that God is displeased with the creature. On the contrary, displeasing creatures were not to be used as food. In regards to our present time period, the food restrictions involved with eating certain animals have been lifted, so it stands to reason that God is not displeased with any animals in our present time period.
Absolutely. A powerful creature is being compared to a powerful nation, but God’s power is over them all. The underlying reality is not that God is displeased with sea creatures.
Interestingly, in my normal reading through the Bible this year, and without any thought about this discussion, I read Job 23-28 and Isaiah 27-28 this morning. I am amazed how that reading ties directly with what we are discussing right now.
Job 26:13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.
God did not make any serpent to be crooked in a moral sense. Furthermore, every modern translation that I looked at, including even the NKJ, renders this verse as God’s piercing the serpent
NAU Job 26:13 “By His breath the heavens are cleared; His hand has pierced the fleeing serpent.
Job wrote long before the Exodus so what he is writing cannot be explained as metaphorical speech about what God did to Egypt in the Exodus, etc. When what Psalm 74 and Isaiah 27 speak about is compared to Job 26:13, I believe it is plain that there is an underlying reality of divine displeasure with an animal that was crooked in a moral sense.
Discussion