Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Romans Commentary Chapters 1-8  /  Romans 8:19-23 All Creation Groans for the Sons of God  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 5
The transcript highlights an early-Christian idea: God may not have originally created plants and animals to die, but death spread to all material creation because man was sentenced to death; what does that claim suggest about God’s justice and “fit or right” order in creation, and what objections rise up in you against it?
Another way to ask: The lesson says plants and animals may not have been made to die, but death spread to all creation because humans were sentenced to death. What does that suggest about God’s justice and the “right order” of creation, and what feels hard to accept about it?

Direct Answer The claim suggests God ordered creation in a way He considered “fit” and consistent: it would be inappropriate for humanity to be mortal while the rest of what was made for humanity remained incorruptible. A likely objection (not answered in the transcript) is questioning whether it is just for animals and plants to share in death because of human sin.

Support from Transcript:

  • Theodoret’s explanation: visible creation became mortal because God “had foreseen Adam’s transgression and the sentence of death.”
  • He argues, “it was neither fit nor right” that what was created “for mankind” be incorruptible while “man himself was mortal.”
  • David restates the idea: God did not originally create plants and animals to die, but “because of the sentence of death imposed upon man, death was imposed on the plants and animals as well.”
  • An illustration is given: it would seem inappropriate if “our pets would live on while we would end up dying.”
  • David adds this is only “one of the viewpoints” and the church had “no official dogma” on it.
Discussion Follow-ups What part of this reasoning feels compelling, and what part feels troubling? Since David notes it is not dogma, how should we hold the idea while still taking Scripture’s language about futility and corruption seriously?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10
Back Questions Next