Patristic views of Romans 8

The work I’ve done on the changed position of the Christian Church regarding the supposed damage inflicted by the Fall on nature was prompted by revisiting the usually cited biblical supports for a “fallen creation.” See here and the several posts following. I concluded that there is a very poor scriptural case for it. Amongst them was the passage in Romans 8.18-27.

Following some conversations with Church Historian “penman” I then chased as many ancient sources as I could, and found that they gave little support for “fallen creation” either, prior to the sixteenth century. However, I didn’t particularly chase the ancients’ comments about the Romans passage, because it seemed only tangential to the matter of the fallen creation.

Prompted by Seenoevo’s mention of the passage on this thread, however, it seemed worthwhile trying to get some idea of how this particular passage was interpreted in old times, bearing in mind that on pretty well all sides nowadays, the “groaning” of the creation in its bondage to decay seems clearly to refer to the results of sin on nature. Such an obvious parallel ought to be evident in at least some of their comments if the doctrine of a corrupted creation were commonplace in the past.

First, let me repeat links to my own and Dan Leiphart’s studies that show the problems with the common interpretation.

I’ve covered only the Ante-Nicene Fathers in my search as I have a complete set here, with a Scripture index, and have included all who make any relevant references to the passage in Romans. I’ve also included one slightly later dissenting voice in John Chrysostom, who takes something like the modern position, and whom penman drew to my notice. Augustine also gets a look in as his work is widely referenced, though often not available in English, sadly. Lastly I’ve included Luther’s observations in his Romans Lectures, as a voice transitional to the modern era.

IRENAEUS quotes Rom 8.21 in Ad. Haer.V. XXXVI.3 in a discussion of the resurrection of the dead. Ever the conservative exegete, he gives no direct interpretation of “creature”, but goes on to use “creature” twice of human beings in the page or so of comment. It seems clear that he assumes the human creation is the subject of the passage.

METHODIUS, however, does seem to apply the term to the created order as a whole. In his Discourse on the Resurrection VI he speaks of the whole world being ordained to continue rather than be destroyed (in contradiction of heretical teaching that the physical world is temporary). The verse appears in describing the created order’s intrinsic material corruptibility and mortality, and its future transformation to incorruptibility. There is no reference to sin in his treatment.

ARCHELAUS is also dealing with heretics. In his Disputation with Manes he writes, alluding to the passage:

Then the universal creation will be moved and perturbed, uttering prayers and supplications, until he delivers it from its bondage.

By this he clearly implies the rational creation (capable of prayers and supplications), and probably the human rather than the angelic.

ORIGEN is characteristically influenced by contemporary philosophical ideas, and comes at the passage in a rather left-field way from our point of view, though striving, he says, to teach “what is in accordance to the creed of the church.” It is actually quite a favourite text of his, quoted several times. In De Principiis 1,VII.5 he is discussing rational beings, both corporeal and incorporeal. Largely this is to discountenance any pagan tendency to worship the heavenly bodies as gods, on the grounds that they too are created rational beings. He reasons that in Romans 8 “creature” signifies the sun, moon & stars, because they are clothed with bodies, and set apart to the office of giving light to the human race. His point seems to be that Paul mentions them as the greatest of the non-human creation. The “vanity” to which they have been subjected, he suggests, is simply their corporeal nature “as a kind of burden which enfeebles the vigour of the soul.”

In other words, in accordance with one of my suggested interpretations (though from a distinctly Platonic position) the contrast is between the corruptible first creation and the transformed creation in Christ – not between a good creation corrupted by sin and then restored by Christ.

In II.IX.7 the verse is again used of heavenly creatures as rational beings; as it is also in III.V.4, but here Origen clearly spells out the “creature” as descending from the higher spiritual realm against its will to serve in the present creation (so not because of sin) – in it he encompasses the sun, moon and stars as well as the angels and those rational creatures of a lesser, bodily, nature, that is ourselves. This may all sound rather sub-Christian, and is verging on the heretical, but bear in mind how much of Paul’s creation teaching refers to the “powers and principalities in the heavenly realms”, and this is clearly at the forefront of Origen’s mind.

Origen also quotes our passage a little earlier in III.V.1, but here it seems to mean the whole world, again subjected to vanity by its innate perishability. He may well assume his readers would take the “rational” qualification for granted.

The passage is also referenced three times in Contra Celsum. In VIII.5 the application is uncertain, but seems once more to to apply to spiritual beings. In V.XIII the “creature” is again “sun, moon and stars”, and the context avoiding their worship. VII.LXVI has exactly the same signification.

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM’S commentary on Romans, in contrast to the others, suggests that the personification of creation in Romans 8 is a literary technique signifying the lower (irrational) creation’s bondage to corruption because of man’s sin. This he sees, however, as God’s work “intended for our correction.” Questioning the unfairness of this apparently unjust action of God’s, he argues that creation has had no wrong done to it for (a) it was made on our account anyway (b) there is no evil involved to a creation “void of soul and feeling” and (c) it will become once more incorruptible for our sake. You’ll note that even in Chrysostom the modern idea of the Devil’s agency in nature’s change is completely absent. Also note that the “corruptibility” of the whole created order rather than “animal death” is his concern, though that might well be included. If, however, he has in mind the provision of only plants for food in Genesis 1, he does not mention it. It’s hard to see how plants could be eaten if they were incorruptible, or why animals would be any different in that respect.

AUGUSTINE returns to the more common (in those days) interpretation of “creature” as the rational creation, and in his case he means the human creation. I’ve not found English sources relevant to this, but in a modern book by Daniel Patte and Eugene TeSelle, Engaging Augustine on Romans the authors comment:

Augustine understands this verse [8.22] to refer to the entire human being, which includess body, soul and mind and in this sense “all creation”, on the grounds that the text says “ommi creatura”, not “tota creatura” (De diu.quaest.67,5). The former adjective is understood distributively, as applying to all created things which have body and soul and mind, and only human beings meet this definition; the latter adjective is understood collectively, as applying to all created things without restriction. According to this interpretation in its entirety is subjected to vanity, ie to earthly change and vulnerability, but in hope of resurrection (Exp.prop.Rom. 53; De diu.quaest. 67).

In summary, then, the early interpretation of Romans 8 is pretty varied, but refers in most cases (a) to some aspect of the rational creation, rather than to nature and (b) to the corruptibility inherent in our material condition rather than to the effects of the fall, Chrysostom being the only exception.

From a much later age MARTIN LUTHER has a rather ambiguous attitude to the question of a fallen creation, and his Lectures on Romans gives probably his most mixed message about it. Interestingly he starts by saying that most interpreters of the passage take it to refer to humanity as the “creature”. For himself, he prefers to see is as nature, subjected to vanity by humanity. Yet he mainly attributes this vanity not to a change of character, but to the misuse of nature by man (in a rather novel understanding), for he says:

For all that God made “was very good” (Gen 1.31) and is good to this day.

Its redemption he takes to mean a restoration of its proper use by man, which is not inconsistent with the Patristic views we have seen. Yet he also condemns philosophers and theologians for talking of nature’s felicity and not perceiving its mourning and sighing, and fields the idea (admitting it to be without Scriptural proof) that the sun was brighter before the Fall. Yet even this relatively late interpretation is a far cry from the almost universal assumption now that Paul teaches that nature has been rendered evil by the Fall, and is groaning to be purified at the second coming of Christ.

Jon Garvey

About Jon Garvey

Training in medicine (which was my career), social psychology and theology. Interests in most things, but especially the science-faith interface. The rest of my time, though, is spent writing, playing and recording music.
This entry was posted in Creation, Science, Theology. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Patristic views of Romans 8

  1. Cal says:

    Interesting quotes and insights so far. Two thoughts I had:

    1) What does this say to the fear that enters the animal kingdom when YHWH speaks to Noah after the Ark? There is now a tension that was not there previously. And also, the covenant with Noah is not just him, but all ‘living flesh’, which included his family, but also the animals on board. Is this not apart of redemption?

    2) What do you think of the theory (advocated by Irenaeus) that while Man in the garden was good, he was not yet perfected. It is a stretch to speak of creation, with Man as king and queen, being yet perfect, but what do you think about that. I’m not so sure of it myself, interesting though. I’ve read some advocates of this, mostly based on tying some loose ends in Scripture together.

    I’m on board with the idea that a world where trees rot, and bacteria exists, and tektonic plates shift etc. is not a bad world. I just tend to think that Scripture speaks of a taint on creation on account of Adam’s transgression. Man was not meant to die, but that’s in the context of a Tree of Life, not an immortal Platonic soul.

    Cal

  2. Jon Garvey Jon Garvey says:

    Hi Cal

    (1) I doubt the Gen 9 passage speaks directly to Rom 8, since the context isn’t judgement but a renewal of the creation covenant and blessing AFTER judgement. John Walton (NIV Applicaton Commentary) suggests the permission to eat animals refers to wild, as opposed to domestic animals (which he sees no reason to suppose weren’t always eaten, having been distinguished in the Gen 1 account), and was intended as a mitigation of the hardship produced on man by the cursing of agriculture. The “fear and dread” bit follows naturally from that, and is a sub-heading of dominion, not a subjection to “vanity”. He notes that the permission is only for man (not a new permission for general meat eating), and also that each animal is accountable for the lifeblood of man, again suggesting that the sacredness of human life is in view. Seems sensible to me.

    (2) Irenaeus’ concept is, in my view, often misrepresented (and I blame John Hick!) as denying a real Fall, and seeing the first sin as a kind of childhood naughtiness that’s all part of mankind’s maturation. I don’t read him that way at all, since he has plenty to say on the subsequent bondage of all mankind to sin and death, breaking free from Satan’s captivity etc. He does, indeed, suggest the concept of mankind’s “childish” naivety as the reason for his being fooled by Satan, and hence a concept of sin as a disease needing “healing” – and I don’t disagree with that since, after all, it’s a picture used by the prophets, the apostles and the Lord himself, as well as that of rebellion requiring forgiveness.

    Augustine doesn’t deny Ireaneaus’ view in putting forward his own, and I suspect if Irenaeus had met Augustine he’d have said, “Yes, that’s a good way to look at it too.” It does seem that A&E were put in the garden perfect in the sense of sinless, but with the intention of growing to greater wisdom/holiness etc.

    The Fathers have a bunch of concepts about post-fall creation, but the commonest is that man becomes prone to evil from it either because he becomes mortal (so Aquinas) or because God turns it against man as punishment (so Augustine and others). What is almost entirely missing is any idea that nature itself changes, and certainly not that it becomes in any sense evil. I’d say that’s in accordance with what Scripture says.

    Lastly I totally agree with your assessment that man was only ever only immortal in connection with the tree of life, which of course is to do with God’s holy presence and has all kinds of Christological echoes in the Bible.

    Of course, a literally-understood creation, in which man eats all the seed-bearing plants and animals only green plants, is a world without dung-beetles, fungus-eaters, seed-eaters, whales, coral-polyps, extremophiles etc. It would be smelly.

  3. Cal says:

    Thanks for the response!

    Good thoughts on 1, but on 2, what I had in mind was nothing like Hicks. Man was good, but fell, without attaining to perfection. Like you said, Irenaeus did take the fall and its consequences seriously.

    My thought was that a middle-ground could be approached on this: as man was good, yet to be perfected in the Garden, so is Creation good, and also needing perfecting. Where would that perfecting come from? Man as the Ikon of God. The commission was to perfect the world (‘be fruitful, which, and now is speculation, may be to spread that Tree of Life into the world.

    I think this is perhaps leaning too far, and I’m reticent to completely dismiss the sentiment that the New Jerusalem has something in store for creation as is. However, I leave that in the King’s hands.

  4. Jon Garvey Jon Garvey says:

    Cal

    Yes, I agree very much with your point here. The Scripture itself teaches that, as man was to rule and subdue the earth, which had been operating OK before (assuming deep time) but under the regime of “tohu wabohu”, ie functionless at least as far as man is concerned.
    And it was also was “good” at his creation under any viewpoint.

    The shape of that subduing is really impossible to be pontifical about, because the Fall supervened. I think theologically we see Jesus as the perfect man who fulfils what Adam should have done – but again the trend of Scripture is another Patristic idea, that God brings out of the evil of sin even greater good than would have been before. So the new heavens/new earth theme is informative but not coterminous with what man was created to do – not to mention that eye hasn’t seen more than the shadow of the future anyway.

  5. eric says:

    Doesn’t Chrysostom say that romans 8:20 is referring to the curse on the ground as being the “corruption” because he says “Why that it became corruptible. For what cause, and on what account? On account of you, O man. For since you have taken a body mortal and liable to suffering, the earth too has received a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles.” I also believe in his genesis commentary on genesis 1 he concludes that there is both good and bad in nature but we can’t question it, such as predatory animals, because creation is very good.

  6. Jon Garvey Jon Garvey says:

    Hi Eric, and welcome.

    Yes,t hat’s the sense of Chrysostom on Rom 8:20 as far as I can see. “Corruption,” of course, needs to be unpacked, but in his thought I judge it means primarily “perishability,” which it suffers (he concludes) for our instruction, and I agree with him that in due time (almost as compensation, in Chrysostom’s thinking) it will take on the incorruption of the resurrection along with us.

    I think on Genesis it would be self-contradictory to say that creation is bad because it is very good. In fact Chrysostom seems to share the general sense I took from the Fathers (which became my book God’s Good earth many moons after this post was written!) that what is bad for us (such as harmful animals) is good in God’s overall scheme of things, and therefore not truly evil in itself. For the most part the Fathers regarded these things as bad for us because we became vulnerable to them through the Fall.

    So for animals to predate is not intrinsically evil, but because nature no longer obeys us, being eaten by a lion is pretty bad for us.

    • eric says:

      Thank you for answering my question! I discovered this post around the time I discovered your book, which was very good. I had that question regarding what he meant in his homily on Romans 8 because I was trying to understand if he was referring to corruption as that curse or all “natural evil” in general. The passage in your book did not mention how he mentions the curse on the ground in his homily on that passage so I had a hard time understanding what your conclusion was on his thought. I understand he sees “natural evil” as God correcting us for our sins, but I did not know if all of that was included with his interpretation of that verse or just the curse on the ground. I have a big interest in studying the church fathers so I’m always trying to understand how they read the scriptures.

    • eric says:

      I also forgot to add that I understand that him as saying the good and bad in creation as very good is him referring to what we would perceive as good and bad not that it’s actually bad. I also assume from his conclusion on Romans 8 that it refers to the curse on the ground affecting its productivity also means that he does not believe that the curse ended at Gods command in genesis 8:21 which likely influenced his conclusion on this passage in romans.

    • eric says:

      I also forgot to add that I understand that him as saying the good and bad in creation as very good is him referring to what we would perceive as good and bad not that it’s actually bad. I also assume from his conclusion on Romans 8 how it refers to the productivity and cooperation of the ground with man also means that he does not believe that the curse ended at Gods command in genesis 8:21 which likely influenced his conclusion on this passage in romans.

      • Jon Garvey Jon Garvey says:

        I’m sure you’re right that Chrysostom, like the other Fathers, does not regard the curse (however he takes it) as lifted after the Flood.

        As you’ll understand already, my purpose in GGE was to show that there is a strong tradition amongst the Fathers that does not endorse the so-called “traditional view” of an evil creation. Their individual understandings may be erroneous, or sometimes discerning important truths. As with all Patristic doctrine, it can act as a mirror to enable us to critique current views – sometimes theology has progressed, and sometimes degenerated.

        In the major writers I studied, Chrisostom was in fact closest to the “pessimistic” modern view, but my conclusion was that he doesn’t actually support it on close examination, and that he was more nuanced (as your posts illustrate).

        What’s also interesting is that he illustrates both the diversity of Patristic thought, and a mainstream we often forget, such as their widepread assumption that “good and evil” from our point of view are not necessarily so from God’s point of view. Nowadays many people tend to assume that currently fashionable human views of good and evil are the final arbiter, and that any departure from them by God or his word requires correction.

        • eric says:

          Also I had one more question, when you say his focus was on the corruptibility of the whole created order are you referring to how the current created order will end and there will be a new one. You also previously said that corruptibility in his thought meant perishability, so does that term mean that this current creation will perish with the new heavens and new earth being what will be incorruptible(imperishable). Thank you for responding.

          • Jon Garvey Jon Garvey says:

            Brief answer is I’m not sure, at least without returning to Chrysostom or my church historian friend.

            Nowadays, we tend to think of “corruption” in terms of sin and evil, and to have almost lost its other meaning, which is simply perishability. That may be because theology developed along the lines of linking the two inextricably – the world is perishable because it has become evil.

            I suspect, but won’t stake my life on, Chrysostom having in mind the latter primarily, in common with some other Fathers, though it seems in his case he regards the world as having become perishable through the Fall.

            I read Scripture, however, in terms of a two-creation model: God creates the perishable material creation in all its goodness, but with Adam’s arrival and call he plans a transformation to a new imperishable, spiritual creation. It’s a transformation rather than trashing it and starting it again, the model being the resurrection of the dead – Jesus remains Jesus, and the believing individual remains himself or herself, but transformed into greater glory.

            What the Fall does is to impede that transition (hence the metaphorical groaning of creation), but also to introduce actual evil (opposition to God) into a good, if limited, creation, for a period.

            In Christ the transformation is finally accomplished, demonstrated in his resurrection body and the new birth of believers, and to be consummated at his second coming. And also, the evil of Satan and mankind is remedied at the cross, thus undoing the harm and bringing greater glory to both Father and Son.

            That big picture is fully explored in my other book, The Generations of Heaven and Earth, but I found the seed of it, like so much other good doctrine, in the Fathers, in this case primarily Irenaeus.

            • eric says:

              Ok thank that’s the one thing that was confusing to me. I am just trying to understand what the church fathers taught and sometimes if you don’t look into what they are saying you may think they are contradicting themselves such as chrysostom in his homilies on romana 8 and on genesis. One looks like he believes nature changed at the fall and the other does not.

  7. eric says:

    Thank you for the replies. I agree that the church fathers doctrines could act as a mirror for us. They lived closer in time to Jesus and the culture that the New Testament was written in, obviously the fathers are not perfect so they will disagree on some points, but they have a better understanding of scripture than many today. Their view on good and evil should receive wider attention for those who question natural evil because I believe the church fathers views would help those who ask why God allows them. Lastly regarding what chrysostom believes the curse to be is discussed in his 17th homily on genesis: “So, says the Lord, the earth is cursed in your work; and to teach us the effects of this curse, he adds: and you will only eat fruit, during all the days of your life, with a great work. Do you not see this chastisement go through all ages, and after having been useful to the first man, still learn from his descendants what is the origin of their misfortunes? But let us listen to the following words which better specify the kind of this curse, and the cause of this painful work. And God says, the earth will produce you thorns and thistles only.“ I think it’s good to look at his homily on romans 8 in light of this because he mentions the same curse as being what the passage refers to, at least that’s how I see it I always try to see what others would say about these passages. I would agree with you that it appears he has the pessimistic view, but when examining him closely, he actually does not take that view.

Leave a Reply