Quote:
Originally Posted by
Akoue
Joe, thanks so much for providing the variant translations of these verses. One thing that I think I can offer is a little bit of clarity on this. The Greek word that is used for creation in vv.19-22 is "he ktisis". In vv.20-22 "He ktisis" is in the nominative singular, and this means that the correct translation in these verses is "the creation" or "creation" (if you leave the definite article, he, out); in v.19 it is in the genitive. I don't see mention of any variant readings in the manuscript tradition that would explain the plural found in some translations. I'm guessing this is the translators inserting some of their own interpretive preferences.
Now I'll confess, I was secretly hoping you would explain the differences. I just didn't want to ask straight out. I appreciate it.
Quote:
This does have some repercussions for the interpretation of the passage, inasmuch as "creation" allows for the possibility that it isn't just creatures (say, animals and humans) that long to be one with God. But it definitely doesn't decide things one way or another, since in some sense, everything that God created can be regarded as a creature. (Augustine famously referred to time as a creature, since it is part of the creation.)
Then couldn't (or shouldn't) we take the usage of 'creation' or 'creature' as allegorical. I'd suggest that since it doesn't significantly add to Paul's intended meaning it's likely to be figurative.
That is if you don't consider all of creation vs a creature or multiple creatures significant.
Quote:
The idea that creation itself longs for its creator, longs for union with the Godhead is really intriguing to me, and something I wish got more attention than it seems to.
I can agree with this.
Quote:
But that also raises the question, which we've been considering, of who placed it under subjection: God, Adam, or Satan? I think De Maria's post makes strong case for the view that it was Satan.
Yes, I picked up on the subjection by Satin. Where normally I agree with Juan on most things, I can't on this. But, let's see if one candidate at a time can be eliminated, especially Satin. According to V. 20 the ineffectiveness is born out of helplessness (subjection) in hope. Satin wouldn't offer hope, please remember “hope saves.” Satin doesn't want to 'save.' And the creature is unable to transcend the nature he was created in (or should I say created for); and Adam was 'creature'. We are only left with one other candidate. The One that saves with hope! Anyway, it seems to make sense.
You see if Satin causes our helplessness, presumably through sin, then how can God justify us (save us). We'd be automatically justified, “the devil made me do it!” I don't think God would buy it. I know my wife doesn't!
St. Augustine seems to hold the same view. God is the one who 'subjects': 8. I will be glad, and rejoice in Your mercy: which does not deceive me. For You have regarded My humiliation: wherein You have subjected me to vanity in hope. [Romans 8:20] You have saved my soul from necessities [Psalm 30:7]. You have saved my soul from the necessities of fear, that with a free love it may serve You. (St. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 31) see also St. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 25, 6
Quote:
Having said all that, I think you are in good company if you find yourself favoring Chrysostom's reading. He was as fine a biblical scholar as there's ever been, and I am uneasy at the prospect of being at odds with him on this. But I confess that I don't see how concupiscence fits in here--though that may just mean that I am missing something. In any case, I think there are several things going on in the passage simultaneously (this is part of what makes it difficult, i.e. it is very dense) and unless I am confused (again, a real possibility) I don't think that what you have said is at odds with anything jakester, De Maria, or I have proposed. I think it's just not yet entirely evident how all the pieces fall into place alongside one another. This at least seems to be where I am at the moment.
To my recollection, Chrysostom didn't use 'concupiscence' – that was me. So, don't blame him. I'm probably wrong doing it, but I use 'concupiscence' to describe man's lust for depravity or the propensity for sin.
But, OK we'll leave it alone for awhile.
Quote:
I think that some notion of a cosmic law, together with the idea that creation as a whole is somehow filled with longing for God and your point about the centrality of hope, must all together be involved in these verses. But it's rather a lot to sort through once you start digging into the details. But I'm a glutton for punishment: I never like to stay at just the surface of the text. There's always so much more waiting below.
Apparently I've got the same objection with 'cosmic law' as you had with the above. I just can't see it. But, if you get it figured out, you'll need to render it in its simplest form for this simpleton.
JoeT