[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12546.msg147415#msg147415 date=1321081273] + Irini nem ehmot,
Last I checked, the Bible was silent when it comes to animals or what happens to them, seeing as how the primary focus is on God's plan of salvation for mankind. God saw fit to create animals once before, I see no reason in the new Heaven and the new Earth, there will be no animals.
That being said, if you want to read into the text, feel free. You have a knack for it anyway.
Oh, and here is St. John Chrysostom's take:
The saints are exceedingly loving and gentle to mankind, and even to the beasts.... Surely we ought to show them great kindness and gentleness for many reasons, but, above all, because they are of the same origin as ourselves. Homily XXXIX: 35 Comentary on Epistle to the Romans
In the end, we don't know if there will be animals in Heaven or not.
Cephas, I used to read your posts when looking for that voice of reason! But if you honestly think animals will be in heaven, I am at a loss for words. . .
Let's forget the fact that we eat them, let's put aside the fact that they are not allowed in the church. The fact is there is little to no mention of animals in the Bible because they are not a part of God's plan to save man. Animals have no rationality, they can't sin or do good works. How will they be judged?
Animals were created for us, what need would we have of them in heaven? There are so many other things to say but I feel silly even typing this up!
[quote=Matthew 12:12]How much then is a man better than a sheep?
[quote=Matthew 6:26]Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
[quote=Matthew 7:6]"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
I guess the last sentence in my previous post was lost on you. Pity, I thought you were smarter than that and were able to pick up on certain nuances of what a person does and does not say.
As an FYI, your selection of verses proves nothing aside from the fact that animals are different than humans. As a tip in future debates (particularly since you're keen on going to law school), that's called setting up a straw man. If you didn't know, here's the definition of what a straw man is:
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent's actual statement.
No, Cephas, I read it. Let me correct it for you: You (Cephas) do not know whether animals will be in heaven, I am 100% sure animals will not be in heaven.
The verse I listed prove not only that man and animal is different, it's pretty obvious that animals are inferior and unworthy of communion with God. I didn't think I had to spell it out for you but here goes: Since animals are unworthy of communion with God and their only purpose on earth is for man's sake, they will not be in heaven.
Abba Antony the Great:
Man alone is capable of communion with God. For to man alone among the living creatures does God speak - at night through dreams, by day through intellect. . .
If you want to argue that something that is both unworthy of God and of no more use to man can end up in heaven, go for it.
I understand you may have lost your dog (actually you seem like a cat type) recently, Cephas. I am sorry for being so insensitive. It must have been tough when you buried him and all. . .not knowing whether he would be in heaven or not. But please put your emotions aside.
Once you have done that take a look at this article on whether pets will go to heaven (it's written for children so I hope you can understand it).
You never cease to entertain me. That much is certain. If you believe 100% that animals won't be in heaven, good on you. I couldn't care less. To use the Bible to prove it though is just outright ridiculous, because again, as most people know, the core message (i.e. focus) of the Bible is the salvation of mankind. So, just as the Bible cannot be used as a science textbook, likewise it cannot be used to prove or disprove matters it does not go into details on; though I do seem to recall a story about a flood and an ark and animals being saved along side man, but hey, maybe I read that somewhere else. I also seem to recall animals being created in Paradise (pre-fall), in the presence of God, for the purpose of companionship for man (seeing as how man was vegetarian up until the time of Noah (post-fall)), though man did have God as a companion. Then God went further and created woman as an equal companion for man (without wiping out animals in the process). But hey, maybe I read about that somewhere else as well.
I'm sure if the great Abba Antony were still present on earth, he'd smack you upside the head for using a fragment of a quote to prove your point. Fact of the matter is, if we take that quote on its own merits, without any context, we'd also have to throw out angels as well, seeing as how angels are not man and are thus unable to commune with God, though somehow, they stand in His presence (unless of course, that's all be a fabricated lie). Ahhh the beauty of prooftext.
Anyway, this is not a matter I'm going to lose sleep over. I couldn't care less one way or the other. And as for having lost a dog (or cat, since I'm apparently a cat person), that is clearly not the case since you are still posting, which would indicate to me that you are very much alive and kicking. ;)
Oh, and as for that article, it deals with the issue of the OP... what with the priest saying that there are special blessings for animals and what not. Or are we just going to take parts of the article because they back our view up, and toss out the rest?
I was expecting better than this, Cephas. I'm dissapointed.
Nothing really worth arguing against in your post.
As for the reference to me as your cat: Look I understand these are hard times and you wish you could lick little Cece when times are tough and posts aren't going your way. But you are going to have to adapt to life without Cece. Imagining me as a replacement to your only friend and companion isn't healthy. Maybe you should get a chimpanzee or something. You two will have more in common and I think they tend to live longer than cats. Plus, if you buy into the theory of evolution (which I am sure you do), your Chimp might have a better chance of making it into heaven.
I think you're both on the wrong track about this; I will say a couple things that I believe are very relevant.
Elder Spohrony the disciple of St Silouan the Athonite wrote on the subject of the relationship which we ought to have with animals if we are to be truly spiritual people. He said some very surprising things (which I'm very syre are not for people of our spiritual level but I figure I'll say them anyway). In the main record he wrote of the life o of St Silouan (titled 'St Silouan the Athonite'), he said that we ought to display 2 virtues detachment and compassion; the first is one where we should be disengaged from animals. Sophrony writes that it is inappropriate for us to speak to a cat and say things like 'kitty, kitty' and to bond or play with animals in that way. At the same time as being detached from animals he has a greater deal of empath for them than anyone else alive because he related to them in a general sense as one of God's fellow creatures and his compassion for them was extraordinary.
I 'think' that if you look carefully at the liturgy of St Basil and the short prayer, they both reflect this same attitude and if you look at us as posters, we don't. I emphasis again that this man is an extraordinary saint that this is well - well - well beyond our spiritual level. For us it is probably appropriate to learn not to harm animals and to also remember that they too like us need to be sustained by God during the liturgy. The reason that the saint had this attitude is because he needed it to sustain his gift of prayer which is also something for people of a different spiritual level to us.
At the same time I will say that this expression 'heaven' is badly overused. There is only really one Gospel which used this term, the Gospel of St Matthew because it was written to the Jews and they had an awareness of Heaven as a place where God dwells; the other Gospels are satisfied with the term 'kingdom of God' and the way in which it is used is quite different to the contemporary protestant influenced way in which we use the term 'heaven'.
The kingdom of God was preached as a place near to men, found within them who are temples of the Holy Spirit (the exact Greek work used to denote temple means something like 'most holy place' specifically not just the temple). Christ followed this up in all His Gospels by using allusions in the parables for the kingdom which are very rural and earthly like wedding feasts and workers in a field. This paints for us an image of heaven which isn't too far from what we already know and experience on earth.
I will also add to this that the second coming of Christ or the parousia/epiphanaea in Greek represents a coming with power or a manifestation more so than a return as our often protestant influenced thinking portrays it. The new heaven and the new earth much like ourselves represents a restoration and renewal of the old things rather than a doing away with the old heaven and earth. This is God's style because he is a redeemer not an abolisher.
I haven't really connected the dots in the thoughts above but I will do so shortly, please be patient in the meantime and please pray for me as always,
[quote author=LoveisDivine link=topic=12546.msg147444#msg147444 date=1321171018] I think you're both on the wrong track about this
Seeing as how I agree with much of what you've said, I don't think your above statement is quite accurate.
I do have to say I don't necessarily agree with Elder Sophrony. As you pointed out, he is a monastic, and speaking as a monastic to other monastics, what he says makes sense. As a person who has left the world, they should absolutely have no ties to it. However, I don't think we should apply what he says to those who are not ascetics. Like you said, when reading the works or monastics, we do require guidance as a lot of what they say is not necessarily applicable to those who live in the world.
[quote author=LoveisDivine link=topic=12546.msg147459#msg147459 date=1321224932] I intended to post again to better formulate my thoughts so you've kind of replied to half a post.
I know. I just wanted to comment on what you have said so far.
I've thought about this thread a bit but I've unfortunately been quite busy this week. I'm going to connect the dots but I think my conclusion has since changed and I don't think that there is a big divergence of opinion as I presumptuously first thought.
The focus of the synoptic Gospels, especially in the parables is indeed based on very rural parables and images; the Gospel of St John shys away from parables in favour of deeper dialogues in which Christ gives Spiritual discourses to almost dumbfounded hearers. There is an immediacy about the parables where the hearer is drawn into the story and is forced to make a judgement about themselves. The meditations from the Gospel of St John are much harder to understand and become involved in; Christ challenges His listeners by speaking using earthly images like wind, water, fire, body and blood in a way which was only understood by people of the right disposition. These images should rightly be seen as vehicles for understanding the Spiritual reality of the Kingdom of God which is in us but we are too blind or deaf to see and hear for ourselves unaided. It demonstrates to us clearly that the whole of creation was made by its Author as a window of the unseen God so that His invisible and incomprehensible attributes become visible. The early Christians only really started to understand Christ's teaching in its proper depth when they received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and they were led into His Mysteries according to Christ's promise.
I'm making this comparison between the parables and the dialogues from the Gospel of St John because the early Church used to make a distinction between the Dogmata and Kerygmata in its tradition (the teaching and the mysteries). The 3 synoptic Gospels can more or less be said to constitute the teaching of the Church or the necessary knowledge for anyone who wants to be a Christian. The Gospel of St John is unique because it represents the hidden treasure of the Church, in the same way that Communion is only for Baptised Christians the Gospel of St John is the mysteries for the baptised because it can only be understood by those who live in the Spirit and are moved by His revelations. Thanks to the protestants the Bible has become an item of mere curiosity for anyone who has $10 and can make their way to the bookshop when rightly it should be a treasured and protected artefact of the Church. While we don't protect and preserve the text as we would like we still uphold and protect its correct interpretation.
There seems to be, at least in my limited interpretation of these things a journey which takes us from knowing only the seen to having an ever growing sense and understanding of the invisible God and His operations. It is as Cephas said the focus of the Scripture to create awareness of the Kingdom and synonymously our salvation through repentance; it is impossible for one to have one without the other and in the monastic life these things are seamlessly blended together.
The beautifully portrayal in the experience of fathers whose earthly natures were sanctified and raised above nature to experience heavenly things. They are given this as a foretaste of things to come because they commit themselves to the kingdom even before they have left this life. The journey is described by the Catholic father St John of the Cross as a journey like the sun going down, passing through the middle of night and then reaching the break of dawn. The first two phases are described as sunset and darkness of night because they represent the path of repentance which the soul has to walk ending with sunrise and a promise of the eternal day which will come when Christ will become our light. The monks say this is the hardest endeavour in the whole of human life because of the darkness and the coldness of the night that they pass through to be comforted and illuminated by the glory of the rising sun.
In the end I think my patchwork summary serves as a basic description of some of the key elements albeit tainted by my inexperience perhaps best described by those more in the know. In this journey there are few symbols which involves animals like the unity of some desert fathers with nature around them (which we already mentioned) and the symbols which Christ has taken from nature to describe Himself such as the Lamb and the Lion. The central themes of this journey is repentance and coming to know God, even the image of the Cherubim with the heads of the eagle, lion and ox would be symbolic.
Its funny I took all that time to produce such a modest and small conclusion, maybe I should stick to world of warcraft.
Here, let me challenge you guys with a nice chunk from St. Paul's letter to the Romans (8:18-23). Note carefully that he refers to "creation" (i.e. living and non-living creatures) separately from "children of God" and "we ourselves" (i.e. humanity), both which hope and wait for the resurrection and freedom from our corruptible nature:
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies."
Here, let me challenge you guys with a nice chunk from St. Paul's letter to the Romans (8:18-23). Note carefully that he refers to "creation" (i.e. living and non-living creatures) separately from "children of God" and "we ourselves" (i.e. humanity), both which hope and wait for the resurrection and freedom from our corruptible nature:
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies."
I too have never noticed this. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I take it to mean that creation shall participate in a better nature, namely, one "free from decay." But there is nothing to say that they will partake in the same glory as the sons of God.
Those are just my thoughts. . .any commentary on it??
Comments
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Last I checked, the Bible was silent when it comes to animals or what happens to them, seeing as how the primary focus is on God's plan of salvation for mankind. God saw fit to create animals once before, I see no reason in the new Heaven and the new Earth, there will be no animals.
That being said, if you want to read into the text, feel free. You have a knack for it anyway.
Oh, and here is St. John Chrysostom's take: In the end, we don't know if there will be animals in Heaven or not.
Cephas, I used to read your posts when looking for that voice of reason! But if you honestly think animals will be in heaven, I am at a loss for words. . .
Let's forget the fact that we eat them, let's put aside the fact that they are not allowed in the church. The fact is there is little to no mention of animals in the Bible because they are not a part of God's plan to save man. Animals have no rationality, they can't sin or do good works. How will they be judged?
Animals were created for us, what need would we have of them in heaven? There are so many other things to say but I feel silly even typing this up!
[quote=Matthew 12:12]How much then is a man better than a sheep?
[quote=Matthew 6:26]Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
[quote=Matthew 7:6]"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
I guess the last sentence in my previous post was lost on you. Pity, I thought you were smarter than that and were able to pick up on certain nuances of what a person does and does not say.
As an FYI, your selection of verses proves nothing aside from the fact that animals are different than humans. As a tip in future debates (particularly since you're keen on going to law school), that's called setting up a straw man. If you didn't know, here's the definition of what a straw man is: Source
The verse I listed prove not only that man and animal is different, it's pretty obvious that animals are inferior and unworthy of communion with God. I didn't think I had to spell it out for you but here goes: Since animals are unworthy of communion with God and their only purpose on earth is for man's sake, they will not be in heaven.
Abba Antony the Great: If you want to argue that something that is both unworthy of God and of no more use to man can end up in heaven, go for it.
I understand you may have lost your dog (actually you seem like a cat type) recently, Cephas. I am sorry for being so insensitive. It must have been tough when you buried him and all. . .not knowing whether he would be in heaven or not. But please put your emotions aside.
Once you have done that take a look at this article on whether pets will go to heaven (it's written for children so I hope you can understand it).
You never cease to entertain me. That much is certain. If you believe 100% that animals won't be in heaven, good on you. I couldn't care less. To use the Bible to prove it though is just outright ridiculous, because again, as most people know, the core message (i.e. focus) of the Bible is the salvation of mankind. So, just as the Bible cannot be used as a science textbook, likewise it cannot be used to prove or disprove matters it does not go into details on; though I do seem to recall a story about a flood and an ark and animals being saved along side man, but hey, maybe I read that somewhere else. I also seem to recall animals being created in Paradise (pre-fall), in the presence of God, for the purpose of companionship for man (seeing as how man was vegetarian up until the time of Noah (post-fall)), though man did have God as a companion. Then God went further and created woman as an equal companion for man (without wiping out animals in the process). But hey, maybe I read about that somewhere else as well.
I'm sure if the great Abba Antony were still present on earth, he'd smack you upside the head for using a fragment of a quote to prove your point. Fact of the matter is, if we take that quote on its own merits, without any context, we'd also have to throw out angels as well, seeing as how angels are not man and are thus unable to commune with God, though somehow, they stand in His presence (unless of course, that's all be a fabricated lie). Ahhh the beauty of prooftext.
Anyway, this is not a matter I'm going to lose sleep over. I couldn't care less one way or the other. And as for having lost a dog (or cat, since I'm apparently a cat person), that is clearly not the case since you are still posting, which would indicate to me that you are very much alive and kicking. ;)
Oh, and as for that article, it deals with the issue of the OP... what with the priest saying that there are special blessings for animals and what not. Or are we just going to take parts of the article because they back our view up, and toss out the rest?
Nothing really worth arguing against in your post.
As for the reference to me as your cat: Look I understand these are hard times and you wish you could lick little Cece when times are tough and posts aren't going your way. But you are going to have to adapt to life without Cece. Imagining me as a replacement to your only friend and companion isn't healthy. Maybe you should get a chimpanzee or something. You two will have more in common and I think they tend to live longer than cats. Plus, if you buy into the theory of evolution (which I am sure you do), your Chimp might have a better chance of making it into heaven.
Don't thank me ;)
I think you're both on the wrong track about this; I will say a couple things that I believe are very relevant.
Elder Spohrony the disciple of St Silouan the Athonite wrote on the subject of the relationship which we ought to have with animals if we are to be truly spiritual people. He said some very surprising things (which I'm very syre are not for people of our spiritual level but I figure I'll say them anyway). In the main record he wrote of the life o of St Silouan (titled 'St Silouan the Athonite'), he said that we ought to display 2 virtues detachment and compassion; the first is one where we should be disengaged from animals. Sophrony writes that it is inappropriate for us to speak to a cat and say things like 'kitty, kitty' and to bond or play with animals in that way. At the same time as being detached from animals he has a greater deal of empath for them than anyone else alive because he related to them in a general sense as one of God's fellow creatures and his compassion for them was extraordinary.
I 'think' that if you look carefully at the liturgy of St Basil and the short prayer, they both reflect this same attitude and if you look at us as posters, we don't. I emphasis again that this man is an extraordinary saint that this is well - well - well beyond our spiritual level. For us it is probably appropriate to learn not to harm animals and to also remember that they too like us need to be sustained by God during the liturgy. The reason that the saint had this attitude is because he needed it to sustain his gift of prayer which is also something for people of a different spiritual level to us.
At the same time I will say that this expression 'heaven' is badly overused. There is only really one Gospel which used this term, the Gospel of St Matthew because it was written to the Jews and they had an awareness of Heaven as a place where God dwells; the other Gospels are satisfied with the term 'kingdom of God' and the way in which it is used is quite different to the contemporary protestant influenced way in which we use the term 'heaven'.
The kingdom of God was preached as a place near to men, found within them who are temples of the Holy Spirit (the exact Greek work used to denote temple means something like 'most holy place' specifically not just the temple). Christ followed this up in all His Gospels by using allusions in the parables for the kingdom which are very rural and earthly like wedding feasts and workers in a field. This paints for us an image of heaven which isn't too far from what we already know and experience on earth.
I will also add to this that the second coming of Christ or the parousia/epiphanaea in Greek represents a coming with power or a manifestation more so than a return as our often protestant influenced thinking portrays it. The new heaven and the new earth much like ourselves represents a restoration and renewal of the old things rather than a doing away with the old heaven and earth. This is God's style because he is a redeemer not an abolisher.
I haven't really connected the dots in the thoughts above but I will do so shortly, please be patient in the meantime and please pray for me as always,
LiD
[quote author=LoveisDivine link=topic=12546.msg147444#msg147444 date=1321171018]
I think you're both on the wrong track about this
Seeing as how I agree with much of what you've said, I don't think your above statement is quite accurate.
I do have to say I don't necessarily agree with Elder Sophrony. As you pointed out, he is a monastic, and speaking as a monastic to other monastics, what he says makes sense. As a person who has left the world, they should absolutely have no ties to it. However, I don't think we should apply what he says to those who are not ascetics. Like you said, when reading the works or monastics, we do require guidance as a lot of what they say is not necessarily applicable to those who live in the world.
I will be back shortly.
LiD
[quote author=LoveisDivine link=topic=12546.msg147459#msg147459 date=1321224932]
I intended to post again to better formulate my thoughts so you've kind of replied to half a post.
I know. I just wanted to comment on what you have said so far.
The focus of the synoptic Gospels, especially in the parables is indeed based on very rural parables and images; the Gospel of St John shys away from parables in favour of deeper dialogues in which Christ gives Spiritual discourses to almost dumbfounded hearers. There is an immediacy about the parables where the hearer is drawn into the story and is forced to make a judgement about themselves. The meditations from the Gospel of St John are much harder to understand and become involved in; Christ challenges His listeners by speaking using earthly images like wind, water, fire, body and blood in a way which was only understood by people of the right disposition. These images should rightly be seen as vehicles for understanding the Spiritual reality of the Kingdom of God which is in us but we are too blind or deaf to see and hear for ourselves unaided. It demonstrates to us clearly that the whole of creation was made by its Author as a window of the unseen God so that His invisible and incomprehensible attributes become visible. The early Christians only really started to understand Christ's teaching in its proper depth when they received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and they were led into His Mysteries according to Christ's promise.
I'm making this comparison between the parables and the dialogues from the Gospel of St John because the early Church used to make a distinction between the Dogmata and Kerygmata in its tradition (the teaching and the mysteries). The 3 synoptic Gospels can more or less be said to constitute the teaching of the Church or the necessary knowledge for anyone who wants to be a Christian. The Gospel of St John is unique because it represents the hidden treasure of the Church, in the same way that Communion is only for Baptised Christians the Gospel of St John is the mysteries for the baptised because it can only be understood by those who live in the Spirit and are moved by His revelations. Thanks to the protestants the Bible has become an item of mere curiosity for anyone who has $10 and can make their way to the bookshop when rightly it should be a treasured and protected artefact of the Church. While we don't protect and preserve the text as we would like we still uphold and protect its correct interpretation.
There seems to be, at least in my limited interpretation of these things a journey which takes us from knowing only the seen to having an ever growing sense and understanding of the invisible God and His operations. It is as Cephas said the focus of the Scripture to create awareness of the Kingdom and synonymously our salvation through repentance; it is impossible for one to have one without the other and in the monastic life these things are seamlessly blended together.
The beautifully portrayal in the experience of fathers whose earthly natures were sanctified and raised above nature to experience heavenly things. They are given this as a foretaste of things to come because they commit themselves to the kingdom even before they have left this life. The journey is described by the Catholic father St John of the Cross as a journey like the sun going down, passing through the middle of night and then reaching the break of dawn. The first two phases are described as sunset and darkness of night because they represent the path of repentance which the soul has to walk ending with sunrise and a promise of the eternal day which will come when Christ will become our light. The monks say this is the hardest endeavour in the whole of human life because of the darkness and the coldness of the night that they pass through to be comforted and illuminated by the glory of the rising sun.
In the end I think my patchwork summary serves as a basic description of some of the key elements albeit tainted by my inexperience perhaps best described by those more in the know. In this journey there are few symbols which involves animals like the unity of some desert fathers with nature around them (which we already mentioned) and the symbols which Christ has taken from nature to describe Himself such as the Lamb and the Lion. The central themes of this journey is repentance and coming to know God, even the image of the Cherubim with the heads of the eagle, lion and ox would be symbolic.
Its funny I took all that time to produce such a modest and small conclusion, maybe I should stick to world of warcraft.
Here, let me challenge you guys with a nice chunk from St. Paul's letter to the Romans (8:18-23). Note carefully that he refers to "creation" (i.e. living and non-living creatures) separately from "children of God" and "we ourselves" (i.e. humanity), both which hope and wait for the resurrection and freedom from our corruptible nature:
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies."
I've read that so many times but I've never thought about it before, I'm pretty much speechless.
Please pray for me,
LiD
Agape,
Here, let me challenge you guys with a nice chunk from St. Paul's letter to the Romans (8:18-23). Note carefully that he refers to "creation" (i.e. living and non-living creatures) separately from "children of God" and "we ourselves" (i.e. humanity), both which hope and wait for the resurrection and freedom from our corruptible nature:
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies."
I too have never noticed this. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I take it to mean that creation shall participate in a better nature, namely, one "free from decay." But there is nothing to say that they will partake in the same glory as the sons of God.
Those are just my thoughts. . .any commentary on it??