Is it possible to derive from the aorist ‘passivus divinus’ (Romans 8:20) that, between the act of God’s creation and Adam’s fall, there was a state of creation without physical death of animals?

This text is from a letter written by David Gooding in 2005.

First of all, as regards the Greek verb hypetage, the term passivus divinus seems to me to be a theological term which is meant to explain that, when Scripture says that the creation was subjected to vanity, Scripture implies that it was God who subjected creation to vanity. No one, as far as I know, disputes this. In the second place, the tense of this Greek verb is aorist. That points to a definite act in the past; namely that the creation was, at a certain, specific time in the past, subjected to vanity.

In the third place, it is unlikely that this is meant to be a description of God's original creation, for Genesis 1:31 says, 'God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good'. If, therefore, at the beginning God had right from the start subjected creation to vanity, it could hardly be described as 'very good'.

We next need to ask what is meant by 'vanity'. It is the word used in the Greek translation of Ecclesiastes, 'all is vanity and vexation of spirit'. It means that, in the end, all comes to nothing, and fails to reach its expected goal.

Next, the question arises as to whether this vanity is the same as 'the bondage to corruption' mentioned in the very next verse (see Romans 8:21), from which creation shall eventually be delivered. Now, these verses (see Romans 8:20–23), together with Romans 5:12, are the basis upon which serious scholars argue that there can have been no death of animals before the fall of man.

The only curse on an animal that is mentioned at the fall of man in Genesis 3 is the curse upon the serpent. On that occasion God cursed the ground because of man's sin, with the result that it brought forth thorns and thistles, and turned agriculture from being a gentleman's occupation into hard labour. As far as death was concerned, Adam and Eve were put out of the garden explicitly so that they should not put forth their hands and take and eat of the tree of life and live for ever.

At this point, questions arise. When God created man in the first place, did man have inherent, essential, physical immortality? Or did his continuing to live depend upon his constant eating of the tree of life? It seems to me to be clear that he did not have essential physical immortality; for when he sinned he was put out of the garden and beyond reach of the tree of life, so that he should not continue to live for ever.

Some have argued that the phrase 'lest he put forth his hand and take and eat of the tree of life' implies that in the garden he had not yet put forth his hand and eaten of the tree of life, and therefore, when Adam fell, God removed him as quickly as possible from the garden, so that now he should no longer have even the chance of putting forth his hand and eating of the tree of life. In other words, God was glad that, when he was in the garden, Adam had not eaten of the tree of life; for, had he done so, he would have lived for ever, even though he subsequently sinned. It was fortunate, therefore, that he hadn't eaten of the tree before he was banished from the garden.

But the phrase 'lest he put forth his hand and take and eat of the tree of life' does not necessarily imply that he had hitherto not put forth his hand and eaten of the tree. It implies rather that, while he was in the garden, he had constant access to the tree of life; and if he wanted to eat from it, all he had to do was to reach forth his hand and take some of the fruit of it. But when he was expelled from the garden, however much he wanted to eat of the tree, he was now far distant from it, and could not simply stretch forth his hand and take and eat of its fruit. Moreover, the way into the garden was barred by the sword and the cherubim.

To sum up this argument so far is to say that, before the fall, man did not have essential physical immortality. His continuing to live depended on access to the fruit of the tree of life. But that raises questions about the animals. Did all animals on the face of the earth live in the garden of Eden? And did all animals, wherever they lived, have essential physical immortality in themselves? And if not, did they too have to eat of the fruit of the garden in order to continue to live, so that when Adam was expelled from the garden the animals too were expelled, so that they no longer had access to the fruit of the tree of life, and therefore began to experience corruption and death?

A secondary question is whether there should be thought to be a distinction between death as a necessary part of the food chain among animals, and death as the result of disease and decay. The two are surely not the same thing. It is true, of course, that through the prophet Isaiah God tells of a time when the lion shall eat straw like the ox. Should that be taken to mean that in the coming day killer whales and sharks will not attack and devour dolphins, which we now know to be highly intelligent creatures?

These my questions are not, I trust, frivolous. I want to say that, whatever Scripture teaches, I believe; and if the Scripture teaches that there was no animal death before the fall, then, of course, I am prepared to believe it. On the other hand, I believe that we ourselves must do our best to think through what both Genesis and the New Testament epistles teach upon this subject. Certainly, we must respect the views of all sincere believers who urge their case on biblical grounds.

Yours truly in Christ,