Biblical Examples of Physical Changes to Creation since the Rebellion
The creation of life on this earth was just perfect. On the fifth creative logical time division came forth aquatic creatures, avian life and the great sea monsters, all according to their kinds. God saw that it was good and they were fruitful and became many.
On the sixth creative logical time division land animals were produced; domestic, creeping and wild animals and they too multiplied according to their kinds. It was good. What did they eat? They were all vegetarians according to Genesis 1:30. Whilst the aquatic creatures are not specifically mentioned here is there any reason to suppose that their diet in the water was different? Are not the waters also full of plant life?
Also in this sixth period Adam was created. He was settled in Eden and was told to eat to satisfaction from the trees of the garden. He did not need to work for his food, toil and cultivate. It was all just there. He had in subjection, or dominion, all these creatures created earlier by God. They were not afraid of, dominated or exploited by Adam. They were there for his enjoyment and enlightenment. It was very good! Nowhere in this idyllic scene is there any mention of the cessation of life, death, for any of these creatures. There were no carnivores, therefore no killing, no hunting, no maiming and injury; just an abundance of life in perfect harmony, perfectly regulated by God. He did not need to await the birth of Thomas Malthus to advise him on population control. Only a lack of obedience concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and bad could change that. And it did! The first change to note affected the serpent. The words of Genesis 3:14 tell us that the serpent was cursed, would go on his belly and eat dust. This does suggest physical changes to form and diet. However we do need to be careful. The two verses in our modern Bibles are actually one paragraph. In verse 15 the serpent is not the serpent but Satan and the woman is not Adam’s wife. This is the foundation verse upon which the entire Bible is built and addresses issues of universal importance. Even so, is verse 14 directed to the serpent or Satan, or both? You decide. Going on one’s belly could be a metaphor for being brought low, humiliated, and ‘biting the dust’ is a well known idiom for utter defeat. Both would be appropriate. There is a QfR in w07 that argues against the idea that the serpent had legs, whilst interlinearly saying ‘we don’t know’. Whatever interpretation is appropriate, changes certainly took place.
The woman was next; pregnancy and childbirth were to become painful experiences. Even today childbirth is a dangerous activity. The threat of death to either the child, the mother, or both is ever-present. Even if things go well it is generally an extremely painful and traumatic experience. But this was not the intention. Adam and his wife were commanded to be fruitful and become many in that death-free environment. Childbirth should have been a joyous, pain-free and safe event. Exactly how the woman’s body physically changed cannot be stated, but it did.
The woman’s relationship with her husband was to change. It was to become one of craving and domination. There had been no reasons for the woman to worry about liberation and sexual equality. Adam and his wife had a perfect, complementary relationship. But look where we are now.
What about the man? No longer would he be able to eat to satisfaction from the trees. ‘Cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground…’. This was the beginning of a life of hard labour merely to fulfil basic human needs: a meal on the table and a roof over one’s head. The earth itself changed physically. Because of Adam’s behaviour the earth would no longer grow food as the default. Thorns and thistles even now are the standard uncultivated vegetation.
Man’s general relationship with the animal kingdom also changed. As noted earlier, the animals were in subjection to and in harmony with Adam. They did not attack and devour him when he was studying, naming and living amongst them. Neither did they devour Noah, or each other, when brought together on the ark. It seems that Noah also had them in some form of subjection and they were happy to eat the food that he gathered for them. It is likely that they were still entirely vegetarian – the difficulties of storing meat for well over a year can be imagined. Of course, the ark was a divinely inspired project so Jehovah would have provided Noah with all the help he needed. This could well have included a temporary suppression of their fear, appetites and vigour through some stupefying or hibernation process. But further changes were in store upon disembarkation. Genesis 9:2 says that a ‘fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature’. Note the use of the word ‘continue’. Fear and terror was not a feature of God’s original creation nor indeed is there anything to suggest that it existed within the Garden of Eden. When has fear and terror been ‘good’, indeed ‘very good’? So when did this new and uneasy relationship begin? No doubt when all these other aforementioned changes occurred. It was another consequence of disobedience and rebellion. Now, in the postdiluvian world, mankind was authorised to use the animals as food – they could now eat meat. No wonder the animals would be afraid! The animals would also start to eat meat. This new, aggressive, internecine, relationship would even lead to the death of humans but with God ‘demand[ing] an accounting for your lifeblood… from every living creature’. What physical changes were instantly required for this new state of affairs? For the lion, the leopard, the wolf and the bear to eat meat no doubt required adaptations of their teeth, digestive systems and behavioral patterns. If Jehovah is so powerful that he can create life, an animal, from scratch then he can amend and adapt any life form to changing circumstances as and when required. That is a perfectly logical assumption.
What other changes were needed? Genesis 8:22 is an enigmatic verse. ‘From now on, the earth will never cease to have seed-sowing and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night.’ One assumes that seed-sowing, harvesting, day and night were already part of human life and experience. However, the reference to cold, heat, summer and winter is interesting. A water canopy that no doubt acted as a radiation shield and greenhouse had surrounded the antediluvian planet. All corners of the globe would have been pleasantly warm, lush and verdant. The weather would have been completely benign. But in its absence, very few parts of the earth have an ideal climate. Mostly it is too hot or too cold. When disparate temperatures meet, violent weather events happen. Humans have sufficient intelligence and ingenuity to make clothes and harness energy to keep themselves cool or warm. But what of the animals? How do we harmonise the existence today of polar bears and penguins that thrive in arctic conditions; lizards and ants that live quite happily in the hottest of deserts; with a globally pleasant and warm antediluvian environment? The logical conclusion is that just as their bodies were adapted to cope with a new diet so their bodies were also adapted for the new weather patterns and climate that would now afflict the earth.
This might seem far-fetched at first but it does beautifully harmonise with Bible prophecy, particularly the restoration prophecies of Isaiah chapters 11 and 65. Here we read that the above-mentioned animals, the wolves, bears, leopards and lions, will eat straw and co-habit peacefully with lambs, goats and calves. Such fearsome creatures will not endanger even a little boy and a nursing child. They will, once again, be in subjection to, be lead by, humankind. These animals of prophecy are primarily used as metaphors. It is the knowledge of Jehovah by which such changes are wrought. Humans with savage, wild, beast-like personalities are moulded and reworked into meek, mild and peaceable creatures. But if God was able to adapt the animals of the antediluvian world that he himself created to cope with the environment with which we are so familiar today, then he can certainly undo those changes. So why should these promises not also apply to the fauna of this world when paradise is restored?
Interestingly, Isaiah 65:25 includes the serpent among the creatures that will not do harm or cause ruin but that its food will still be dust, in continual fulfilment of Genesis 3:14. Does this refer to serpents or Satan? Surely it must be the former; Satan is heading for oblivion, the second death. In Romans 8:22 the apostle Paul states that ‘all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together’. Here we have confirmation that Adamic sin affected far more than the relationship between man and his maker. All creation, yes all creation, was affected. The creation itself will be released and have glorious freedom, according to v21. And ‘death will be no more’ says Revelation 21. Where in the Bible is that statement limited to humans? True, Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that mankind has ‘eternity in his heart’ indicating that in some way his outlook, hopes and aspirations are, or will be, somehow different from other earthly creatures. But where is it stated that all other creatures, whilst not desiring to live forever, are doomed to die? Death is the result of disobedience to God. Animals do not disobey. That is not a choice they have. They are instinctively wise, lacking free will. Once all creation has been released and receives ‘glorious freedom’ why should the animal kingdom still be enslaved to death? If it remains so enslaved, will that not also negatively affect humankind? For example, will we have pets in paradise restored? The Bible refers to domestic animals as being distinct from other animals. A pet is a domestic animal although a domestic animal is not necessarily a pet. However Isaiah’s prophecy recorded in chapter 65 tells us that ‘the former things will not be called to mind’. To watch our pets and farm animals age, sicken and die and for their owners to dispose of the bodies and to grieve doesn’t seem to be a process designed to prevent the former things coming to mind. How do we explain to little Johnny that Fido is dead and that that strange lump in the lawn is his final resting-place? It would be just like the ‘old world’! Having left it all behind, it would seem incongruous to have to continue explaining what death is and where Fido (or for that matter Dolly, or Ermintrude) has gone and why he won’t be coming back. God needed another dog in that great kennel in the sky. It doesn't bear thinking about! It is true that the Bible is a book about God and his dealings with intelligent creation – human and spirit. Death being ‘no more’ primarily refers to Adamic death, human death through sin. But given that Adamic sin had such far-reaching and devastating consequences for the entire planet and all creation upon it, restoration must likewise be all encompassing. It will, once again, be very good.
Liberating, isn’t it? Discuss.
Back