[JoeT777]

As lousy and obnoxious as The Da Vinci Code is, the Friday the 13th superstition can't be pinned on it. Been around too long. (Besides, Dan Brown isn't long on actual creativity. That's why he being sued for plagiarism.)

And the Holy See had never held the Templars guilty. In fact, it had opposed the action taken by Philip all along.

I wish you well as you struggle with your phobia. Try to forget it's Friday the 13th. Maybe get really drunk on Thursday the 12th and just stay in bed and sleep right through it. That's the kind of thing sick days were created for, after all.

I've got one of those unbelievable and tragic stories to tell about Friday the 13th - maybe some slow day I'll tell it. On the lighter side, I've got a friend that call's each Friday the 13th to berate me for being superstitious and to get the latest horror story. But, I've hijacked your thread long enough over silliness.

Unless I missed it, I think you owe us your thoughts on Romans 8.

That goes for you too arcura, I don't recall you weighing in.

JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT777
I have participated on that for quite some time. (several posts).
Basically I've been leaning from it.
Fred

[gromitt82]

Joe,
I'm sorry for you that you have paraskevidekatriaphobia, whatever that is. I'm completely unaware of what it is.
Your post has caused me to ponder more of what those verses intend to say to the layman such as I.
Again I am thankful of the presevered works of the saints and The Church fathers and people like you who can and do provide that information.
Thanks for the good post and I hope and pray that you will heal well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

Fred,
This is supposed to be applied to people suffering an irrational fear...

[Akoue]

Unless I missed it, I think you owe us your thoughts on Romans 8.

Funny, I thought that's what I've been doing all along.

[gromitt82]

Funny, I thought that's what I've been doing all along.

I thought so, too!

[JoeT777]

Funny, I thought that's what I've been doing all along.

I thought so, too!

Well, yes but only to suggest your “cosmic victory” theory. Surely, Paul had a lot more in mind than God is Great? Certainly, Paul’s audience understood the importance of being described as “sons of God.”

Where’s the beef?

On another matter, St. Thomas isn’t channeling Aristotle; you need to explain that one As I see it St. Thomas uses Aristotle to form, as it were, metaphysical algorithms. I suppose next you’ll be accusing St. Augustine of being a reformed sinner.


JoeT

[Akoue]

Well, yes but only to suggest your “cosmic victory” theory. Surely, Paul had a lot more in mind than God is Great? Certainly, Paul’s audience understood the importance of being described as “sons of God.”

Where’s the beef?

On another matter, St. Thomas isn’t channeling Aristotle; you need to explain that one As I see it St. Thomas uses Aristotle to form, as it were, metaphysical algorithms. I suppose next you’ll be accusing St. Augustine of being a reformed sinner.


JoeT

Good one. I like that and may steal it. (I said "steal", not "pay for".) I definitely think Aquinas is a first rate thinker; I've learned a lot from him and know that that he still has a lot to teach me. I do sometimes think that the Aristotelian superstructure of his thought stifles some of his own native brilliance, though. Besides, the quaestio-format just really starts to bug me after a while.

You're right to say that so far I haven't given a straightforward interpretation of Rom.8. But, and this is not a put-on, it's because I don't have one to offer. I would like to have one, and that's why I've been digging into the issues we've been discussing. They clearly play an important part in what's going on in the passage, but I don't quite understand what part that is. So I have a bunch of ideas swirling around, but not much else.

So far, I think, I'm persuaded that there is something in the vicinity of a cosmic law principle in play, but please note all my caveats about this. I agree with jakester that the cosmic law can't be thought of as something that somehow compels God to act in one way or another. But I do take very seriously the idea that creation (not just humanity) is suffering, groaning for an anticipated redemption. I'm just not at all sure what to make of that. I think my remarks above about evil are an important part of the story, but I definitely don't have all that worked out yet.

So I'm honestly not trying to keep my cards close to my vest. There's just still a lot about this short but very meaty passage that I haven't figured out yet. And since all the people who have posted to this thread so far are thoughtful guys, I have been shamelessly using you to help me sort things through. And it's helped a lot, even if I'm not quite there yet--in fact, I'm not even sure where there is, but I am confidant that I'll know it when I arrive. Do you think what I've said in previous posts makes sense? Because I'm not sure what to think about it. The feedback really does help.

[De Maria]

Hello my friend,

Another excellent thread. I've read some but not all of the entries. I'd like to post my own because I have thought about this quite a bit. And, I've never understood why some say that animals will not go to heaven. I say this, because I had a dream once that my grandmother showed me my childhood dog, in heaven. She was quite happy (the dog), but I don't think she knew where she was.

Anyway, to prepare the way, these are simply my speculative thoughts and may or may not adhere to Catholic doctrine. I hope they do, but I'm not certain they do.

For one thing, we rarely remember that the one who introduced sin into the world was Satan. Unfortunately, Adam became his lackey or pawn.

In addition, I practice the "Presence of God" devotion. From practice of this devotion, I've come to believe that we are never out of God's presence. Not on this earth, not in heaven and not even in hell.

Romans 8.19-22 reads:

v.19: For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God;

God knows who are the predestined. But no creature knows.

v.20: for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it,

I suggest that this subjection occurred when Satan fell and dragged with him 1/3 of the stars.

in hope

This introduces the next verse and in my opinion should be part of the next verse. Only by and through hope, will creation be set free from slavery...

v.21: that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption

In other words, then, only by and through hope in God will creation be set free from slavery to corruption, that is from slavery to Satan and sin which he introduced into the world.

and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

By whose faith, hope and love, the world will be freed from corruption.

v.22: We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now...

All creation is suffering because of the sin of Satan. Adam introduced sin and death to the human soul. In other words, mortal sin. But we can infer that physical death was already in the world because when God said, "you shall surely die the death". Adam didn't respond, "What's that?"

a) How do you understand this passage?

Well, if we compare to another passage:

Romans 5 12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Adam introduced sin and death to the human soul. In other words, mortal sin. But we can infer that physical death was already in the world because when God said, "you shall surely die the death". Adam didn't respond, "What's that?"

But suffering and death was introduced into creation by Satan. In my opinion.

b) What does this tell us about redemption?

John 12 32 And I, if I be lifted from the earth, will draw all things to myself.

Jesus is redeeming the world. Even sinners will be redeemed. But not to heaven.

I have heard it said that Christ came to save human beings and only human beings. But this passage seems to suggest that Christ's redemption is not reserved only for humanity but for the whole of creation. Is that true?

I believe it is.

If it is true, from what does creation (apart from humanity) need to be redeemed and how is it to receive its redemption?

From Satan.

John 12 31 Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

c) What exactly is it that "creation awaits with eager expectation"?

Union with God.

Why is "all creation groaning" and for what?

Union with God.

d) What, if anything, does this passage tell us about Christ's mission?

561 "The whole of Christ's life was a continual teaching: his silences, his miracles, his gestures, his prayer, his love for people, his special affection for the little and the poor, his acceptance of the total sacrifice on the Cross for the redemption of the world, and his Resurrection are the actualization of his word and the fulfillment of Revelation" John Paul II, CT 9).

Jesus the Son of man and Son of God conquers all, draws everything to Himself and then returns everything to the Father.

What do you think?

[arcura]

Akoue,
Like you I have not come to a complete understanding of that passage.
Hopefully more discussion on it will be of value.
Fred

[Akoue]

Hello my friend,

Another excellent thread. I've read some but not all of the entries. I'd like to post my own because I have thought about this quite a bit. And, I've never understood why some say that animals will not go to heaven. I say this, because I had a dream once that my grandmother showed me my childhood dog, in heaven. She was quite happy (the dog), but I don't think she knew where she was.

Anyway, to prepare the way, these are simply my speculative thoughts and may or may not adhere to Catholic doctrine. I hope they do, but I'm not certain they do.

De Maria,

It's so very nice to see you here with us for a while. I hope all is well with you.

Well, I am still working my way through your (typically) excellent post. I know I like it a lot and I know that I found myself nodding in agreement as I read along. But it's thoughtful and I'd like to give it a thoughtful (as opposed to off-the-cuff) response. I just had to take a quick moment to say how delighted I was by your first paragraph. I too have been a bit confused by the claim that animals will not go to heaven, and this is surely at least part of what motivates my interest in the present passage. (But only part.)

If either of us were advocating apokatastasis--the idea that everything, including Satan, is to be united with God in heaven--then we'd be on the wrong side of Catholic doctrine. But nothing you've said even hints at that, so I think the coast is clear.

I look forward to spending some time with your post. Knowing me, I'll have a long, and probably long-winded, reply before too long.

Be well.

[Akoue]

Akoue,
Like you I have not come to a complete understanding of that passage.
Hopefully more discussion on it will be of value.
Fred

I hope so too. At least it's a fun passage to ponder. Especially in good company.

[JoeT777]

v.19: For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God;

v. 19 For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. (Douay-Rheims)

V. 19 For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. (KJV)


v.20: for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope

v. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity: not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope. (Douay-Rheims)

v. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, (KJV)


v.21: that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

v. 21 Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. (Douay-Rheims)

v. 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (KJV)


v.22: We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now...

v. 22 For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now. (Douay-Rheims)

v. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. (KJV)

So far, I still can’t come to agreement with anybody who has posted a response. I see a different focus in these verses. Some of the fault may be mine - I get thick headed sometimes. Some of the fault may be that each of the translations can be construed with different connotation. (see above) One difference is the interchange of the word ‘creation’ and ‘creature’ in the different versions. I realize that this is a small substitution, but it seems to add or takeaway some inference. And what’s worse, is that if I take bits and pieces of all three of the versions above I come even closer to St. Chrysostom’s interpretation; I get frustrated trying to view it any other way.

In my opinion verse 24 is the focus when discussing verses 18 to 25.

v. 24 For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? (Douay-Rheims)

And verse 19 points to this conclusion.

v. 19 For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. (Douay-Rheims)

Here the ‘creature’ is man, and through original sin is made subject to vanity. Vanity is the causality for man’s walking “according to the flesh.” And as we know the way’s of the flesh lead to corruption, death. Thus, Paul wants us to look at the futility of our sufferings. Our sufferings become futile or otherwise ineffectual. Thus we groan in our labor longing for freedom from the condition of concupiscence.

So, where do we find our deliverance? In Christ we see that the chains of concupiscence break us from corruption (death); liberating man to become adopted children of God. “we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body” Paul tells us how this happens, “we are saved by hope!”

JoeT

[Akoue]

So far, I still can’t come to agreement with anybody who has posted a response. I see a different focus in these verses. Some of the fault may be mine - I get thick headed sometimes. Some of the fault may be that each of the translations can be construed with different connotation. (see above) One difference is the interchange of the word ‘creation’ and ‘creature’ in the different versions. I realize that this is a small substitution, but it seems to add or takeaway some inference. And what’s worse, is that if I take bits and pieces of all three of the versions above I come even closer to St. Chrysostom’s interpretation; I get frustrated trying to view it any other way.

In my opinion verse 24 is the focus when discussing verses 18 to 25.

v. 24 For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? (Douay-Rheims)

And verse 19 points to this conclusion.

v. 19 For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. (Douay-Rheims)

Here the ‘creature’ is man, and through original sin is made subject to vanity. Vanity is the causality for man’s walking “according to the flesh.” And as we know the way’s of the flesh lead to corruption, death. Thus, Paul wants us to look at the futility of our sufferings. Our sufferings become futile or otherwise ineffectual. Thus we groan in our labor longing for freedom from the condition of concupiscence.

So, where do we find our deliverance? In Christ we see that the chains of concupiscence break us from corruption (death); liberating man to become adopted children of God. “we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body” Paul tells us how this happens, “we are saved by hope!”

JoeT

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.

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.)

Your point about the centrality of hope to an understanding of the passage is well taken. I think that is right. Or at least, I agree. 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. 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.

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.

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.

[arcura]

JoeT777,
Thanks much for that it adds much to my pondering.
I also tend to go along with St. Chrysostom's offering on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

[arcura]

JoeT777
I agree.
Also I find it difficult tp think that creation as a whole is longing for the God who created all that is seen and unseen.
Much of that creation, I think, can not long for anything for it never had life as we know it.
While some religions do believe that things such as rocks and hills have spirits I do not believe that they do or even can have spirits.
Without the ability to think how can anything "long"?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

JoeT777
I agree.
Also I find it difficult tp think that creation as a whole is longing for the God who created all that is seen and unseen.
Much of that creation, I think, can not long for anything for it never had life as we know it.
While some religions do believe that things such as rocks and hills have spirits I do not believe that they do or even can have spirits.
Without the ability to think how can anything "long"?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

You and Joe raise a great question, but one that it's not easy to deal with. I say this because it makes perfect sense to me that those parts of creation that have life so long for God. In fact, St. Irenaeus and St. Gregory Nazianzen say this. So is there a kind of cosmic longing that perhaps humans just can't understand, or is the longing only that of those things in the creation that have life? I could see it going either way at this point.

Now you get why I've been so stumped?

[JoeT777]

You and Joe raise a great question, but one that it's not easy to deal with. I say this because it makes perfect sense to me that those parts of creation that have life so long for God. In fact, St. Irenaeus and St. Gregory Nazianzen say this. So is there a kind of cosmic longing that perhaps humans just can't understand, or is the longing only that of those things in the creation that have life? I could see it going either way at this point.

Now you get why I've been so stumped?

Good points Fred. I think Akoue was 'stumped' because this tree was cut long before he entered the woods. (just joking!)

Akoue; here's a few more problems. Hope is a theological virtue. Now if we give hope to re-unite creation with God, can we then have a virtuous rock, a virtuous lake, or how about a virtuous desert? If we mean creature, as in all living things, then can we have virtuous snakes (I hate snakes), a virtuous fish, how about a virtuous cow?

Wouldn't this be projecting humanity on nature?

JoeT

[arcura]

Joe,
Good questions.
I have no answers just wonderings.
Fred

[Akoue]

Akoue; here’s a few more problems. Hope is a theological virtue. Now if we give hope to re-unite creation with God, can we then have a virtuous rock, a virtuous lake, or how about a virtuous desert? If we mean creature, as in all living things, then can we have virtuous snakes (I hate snakes), a virtuous fish, how about a virtuous cow?

Wouldn’t this be projecting humanity on nature?

JoeT

I don't see why we couldn't say that hope is a theological virtue *in humans*. I don't think that runs the risk of being ad hoc.

I wonder, though, whether there isn't a way to understand it without anthropomorphizing nature. This has been on my mind, too, and all I have come up with so far is that hope on the part of creation may not look like human hope, or it might not look like hope to us but Paul is telling us that it is a kind of hope. In other words, we might be called upon to stretch our conception of what hope is. If there's anything to this (and I wouldn't want to have to defend it), then it might not be that we're anthropomorphizing nature but rather that we are being pointed in the direction of a less parochial understanding of what hope is.

Or it could be that it's late and I'm tired and my addled brain doesn't know which end is up. This is a live option.

EDIT:

I have placed asterisks around the phrase "in humans" above. As originally phrased, the first sentence of my post what unclear. What I meant to say is that we can consider hope to be a theological hope in humans but something other than a theological hope in non-humans. My purpose was to hive off a conception of hope that has application to creation as a whole without construing it as a theological virtue. I hope this makes sense to anyone who isn't me(!).