Effects of the Fall on the Physical Creation: A Biblical Analysis

Keywords: Fall, curse, death, predation, Genesis

Introduction

Our understanding of the effects of the Fall is of
obvious importance in the dialogue between old-earth
and young-earth creationists, especially concerning
the problem of natural evil (Stambaugh 2008, 373;
Wise 2017). However, this discussion is also critical
to the development of scientific frameworks within
young-earth creationism, as it affects every major
field of scientific inquiry. In biology, the problem of
natural evil is especially acute (Wood 2013; e.g. Ingle
2015; Wilson 2004); in geology, we wonder to what
extent catastrophe and geologic processes may have
been active, before and after the Fall (Coulson 2018,
384), and how “very good” was expressed geologically
(Wilson and Locke 2018, 6–7); astronomical
phenomena related to stellar aging are variously
interpreted in relation to the Fall (Burgess 2002, 26–
28; Lisle 2009); even the laws of physics have been
argued to have undergone modification at this event
(discussed in Faulkner 2013; Hill 2001).

This discussion must take into account the biblical
description of the Curse as given in Genesis 3:14–19,
as well as other scriptural allusions to the effects
of sin and its effects on the created order. While a
central component here is the issue of death and its
entry into the world, most creationists (old-earth or
young-earth) understand the Curse to carry broader
implications (e.g., Keller 2008, 170). In some cases,
arguments that a specific natural phenomenon is
particular to the post-Fall world, versus part of the
created order, are rather subjective (Faulkner 2013).
In contrast, one (old-earth creationist) author has
recently argued that the Fall had no direct effects at
all on the non-human creation (Garvey 2019).

Our purpose in this study then is twofold: to
demonstrate and affirm the biblical teaching that the
physical, non-human creation was indeed affected
by the Fall of mankind, and to develop a description
that clearly and concisely identifies those effects that
are directly stated in Scripture.

Definitions

In this analysis we will be using two terms that
deserve defining: the Curse, and the Fall:

The Curse refers to the trifold decrees from God in
Genesis 3:14–19, establishing specific punishments
in response to the act of Adam’s rebellion in the
garden of Eden.

The Fall (more completely, “The Fall of Man”) is
used according to the definition found in Easton’s
Dictionary of the Bible: “The revolt of our first
parents from God, and the consequent sin and misery
in which they and all their posterity were involved.”
The term is broader than the Curse, encompassing
both the act of Adam’s rebellion and God’s ensuing
judgment in the form of the Curse.

Methods

Our approach in this analysis will be to survey the
scriptural data that are relevant to describing the
effects of the Fall, and then to generate a description
of those effects that is consistent with and warranted
by that data.

The steps in our approach will be as follows:

Define general categories of scriptural data.
We have identified four categories as especially
relevant to the topic at hand, which are described
below:

A.The Pre-Fall World: Descriptions of features and
phenomena of the creation as it functioned prior to
the Fall.
B.The Instatement of the Curse: Alterations in the
original creation, pronounced by God as judgment
for Adam’s sin.
C. Effects of the Fall: Biblical data regarding the
effects of the Fall upon the natural world, from
both the Old and New Testaments.
D.Future Restoration: The Bible indicates that there
will be a future redemption of the creation, which
will reflect its original condition. Eschatological
passages referring to this future redemption will
be examined for further clues

Identify passages of Scripture that speak,
directly or implicitly, to the above categories. A text
may appear in multiple categories.
Identify one or more particular consequences
of the Fall that can be understood, either directly or
as an immediate inference, from each passage.
Based on the collective consequences drawn
from this study, we will create a definition of the
effects of the Fall on the physical creation.

As stated above, we have limited our analysis
to those consequences of the Fall that can be
derived either from direct statements in the text,
or those that can be established by immediate
inference. We have intentionally avoided
including passages that may cast light on our
topic through more indirect lines of reasoning (for
example, Deuteronomy 28:15–46, which speaks of
aspects of creation being used by God as means
of judgment or cursing; also Psalm 104:10–32,
which extols various aspects of creation, but in
a post-Fall setting). Our reasoning is thus: it is
necessary to first establish the consequences of the
Fall that are directly stated in the text, before we
can correctly interpret the biblical data that “postdates” the Fall, with regard to the characteristics
of the initial (pre-Fall) creation. The clear must
be properly understood before the unclear can be
properly interpreted.

The selection criteria for each of these categories
is necessarily varied. The criteria for each category,
together with the texts selected, are summarized
below.

1. The Pre-Fall World: Primarily descriptive passages
from the creation account referencing the newly created world and the Garden of Eden. Secondarily,
references to Eden found elsewhere in Scripture.
Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 14–15, 16–18, 21–22, 25, 28–30,
31; Genesis 2:8–15; Genesis 3:8–9; Genesis 13:10;
Isaiah 51:3; Ezekiel 36:34–35; Joel 2:3.
The Instatement of the Curse: The trifold decrees
of God’s response to Adam’s sin, and the ensuing
expulsion of mankind from Eden. Genesis 3:14–19,
22–24
Effects of the Fall: From the Old Testament:
Passages describing conditions on earth during
the antediluvian era, offering a contrast between
the original created state and the creation
immediately following the Fall. From the New
Testament: Passages referencing the effects of the
Fall upon the physical creation. Genesis 6:11–12;
Romans 5:12, 18; 8:18–23; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22,
26
Future Restoration: Eschatological passages
describing the fate and future conditions of earth.
Isaiah 11:6–9; 65:17, 25; Acts 3:21; Romans
8:18–23; Colossians 1:15–20; 2 Peter 3:10–13;
Revelation 21:1–5; Revelation 22:3

Scripture quotations are from the New King
James Version.

Limitations

Obviously, some interpretational bias will be
unavoidable in this process, both in the selection
of texts and the particular observations made from
them. However, a sincere effort has been made not to
bring any particular creation model or assumption to
any of these texts, and to be as thorough as possible
in examining relevant aspects of each passage to the
topic at hand. The authors’ hope is that this analysis
might provide a resource for future creationist
research and the building of biblically based models,
by allowing the Scripture to “speak for itself” to the
best of our ability.1

The Pre-Fall World

The biblical account of the world prior to the
Fall is relatively brief and omits many details. As
a result, there are numerous hypothetical scenarios
that simply may not be answered from the text.
Nevertheless, Genesis 1–2 contains a number of statements regarding the state of creation at the
beginning and provides basis for some inferences as
to the operation of that “very good” world.

The Creation Week

With the exception of Day 2, each day of the
Creation Week is concluded with a statement that
God “saw” that what He had made was good.

Light (Genesis 1:4)
Land and seas (Genesis 1:10)
Vegetation (Genesis 1:12)
Stars and celestial bodies (Genesis 1:16–18)
Marine animals (Genesis 1:21)
Flying animals (Genesis 1:21)
Terrestrial animals (Genesis 1:25)

As God reviews the completed creation upon the
sixth day, He emphatically declares the entirety of
His works as “very good” (Genesis 1:31). This would
implicitly include such things as “the expanse”
(Genesis 1:6–8) and mankind (Genesis 1:26–27),
which are not specifically called out as “good” in the
creation account.

The meaning of “good” in the context of God’s initial
creation is not without controversy among young-earth creationists (Anderson 2013). The Hebrew
adjective toḇ is a very broad word that includes the
ideas of moral goodness (Genesis 2:17; Psalm 37:27),
fruitfulness (Genesis 41:22), abundance (Judges
8:32), as well as pleasing in an aesthetic sense
(Esther 1:11). In the context of Genesis 1:31, all of
the above meanings would seem appropriate in God’s
assessment of His own handiwork.

However, it seems unwarranted to interpret the
goodness of the original creation as requiring a form
of rigid or mathematical perfection as some have
argued (e.g. Williams 1966, 23–24; Wilson and Locke
2018). This sense does not come from any biblical
usage of toḇ, while there are in fact other, unrelated
Hebrew words that might correspond more closely
with our abstract concept of “perfection” (which
itself may borrow more from Greek idealism than
Scripture [Faulkner 2014, 15; Vlach n.d.]), such as
tāmiym (sometimes translated “blameless”; e.g.
Genesis 6:9; 17:1; Psalm 18:30). But this is not the
term that God used in Genesis 1.

Thus, it may be reasonable to assume that there
was room for variety in form and precision even
in the “very good” creation, and that not every
structure or creature was exactly “perfect” according
to our contemporary understanding (Wise 2014).
Ultimately, any standard of perfection that is not
rooted in Scripture is vulnerable to the charge of
subjectivity (Garvey 2019, xviii) as what strikes
one observer as “perfect” may not comport with the
evaluation of another observer (Faulkner 2013, 406).
Instead, we should affirm that the original “very
good” creation was perfect in accordance with God’s
own good character (Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18),
and perfect in regard to fulfilling each entity’s God-designed function—i.e, that everything worked as
God had designed it to work. To determine exactly
what this “very good” state would have looked like
will require a holistic approach using both the data of
Scripture (to determine exactly what are the “effects
of sin” as pertaining to the natural world) and science
(to identify the ways in which specific biological and
ecological systems were affected by those effects). It
is, in fact, this very question that is the impetus of this
present study. It is only with a robust and thoroughly
biblical definition of the effects of the Fall that we
can hope to “look back” into the pre-Fall world and
objectively identify the contrasts and continuities
between that world and our own.

The World at Creation

Genesis 1:21–22

So God created great sea creatures and every living
thing that moves, with which the waters abounded,
according to their kind, and every winged bird
according to its kind . . . And God blessed them, saying,
“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the
seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

Genesis 1:28

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be
fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it;
have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds
of the air, and over every living thing that moves on
the earth.”

From these passages we can affirm that
reproductive activity was present from the very
start of creation, and that God’s intention was for
the original population of animals and of humans to
reproduce and establish themselves across the earth.
It is worthwhile to note that there is no requirement
to understand this command as an open-ended
mandate to reproduce (and, in the absence of death,
ultimately lead to overpopulation of the planet). In
fact, the command “fill the earth” seems to imply
that, at some future point, the earth would have been“filled”, and reproduction on earth would come to an
end (Gurney 2004, 74; Wise 2002, 163–164).2

In addition to reproduction, mankind is also given
a dual mandate to “subdue [the earth], and to “have
dominion” over the animal kingdom. The Hebrew
verb kabash (“subdue”) is used elsewhere in the Old
Testament to refer to conquering or enslaving an
enemy people, as well as to invasion (Numbers 32:22;
Joshua 18:1). However, the context of this passage
does not present the earth as an active adversary of
mankind, but rather as an undeveloped yet fruitful
environment intended for human flourishing. In this
context, we submit that this term speaks to an act of
effort on the part of Adam to put the earth “to work”
for the benefit of mankind, not in an exploitive sense
but in a productive one, as noted by the editors of the
New English Translation Bible:

None of these nuances adequately meets the
demands of this context, for humankind is not viewed
as having an adversarial relationship with the world.
The general meaning of the verb appears to be ‘to
bring under one’s control for one’s advantage.’

The verb radah (“have dominion”) is often a royal
term in the Old Testament, used both of human kings
(1 Kings 4:24) and of God (Psalm 110:2). This seems
to reflect the status of man as bearing the “image of
God” within the created order, as mentioned only
two verses prior. The context of these statements
(the creation and commissioning of mankind) also
indicates that it is the role and status of man that is
in view, rather than a characteristic of the creation.

It is not our purpose to thoroughly exegete and
define either the meaning of these Hebrew words
or the broader theology regarding the “dominion
mandate”, as these have been discussed and debated
in detail elsewhere (e.g., Isaacs 2013 and discussion).
For our purposes, it is sufficient to establish that
man was given a divinely defined role over, and
relationship to, the animal kingdom and indeed, the
entire creation.

Genesis 1:29–30

And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that
yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and
every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be
for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird
of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth,
in which there is life, I have given every green herb
for food”; and it was so.

While some proponents of old-earth creationism
have argued otherwise (Garvey 2019, 30–34; Kidner
1967; Snoke 2006, 64–68), the most straightforward
interpretation of this passage seems to be that God
originally intended for mankind and animals to have
vegetarian diets (Matthews 1996, notes on Genesis
1:29–30; Stambaugh 1991). Keil and Delitzsch
summarize this interpretation:

From this it follows, that, according to the creative
will of God, men were not to slaughter animals for
food, nor were animals to prey upon one another;
consequently, that the fact which now prevails
universally in nature and the order of the world,
the violent and often painful destruction of life, is
not a primary law of nature, nor a divine institution
founded in the creation itself, but entered the world
along with death at the fall of man, and became a
necessity of nature through the curse of sin (Keil and
Delitzsch 1857, 65).

The fact that this herbivorous diet was universal
across the terrestrial animal kingdom is emphasized
by the enumeration of categories of animals to which
plants were to be food.3
As marine animals are not
mentioned, their diet cannot be strictly determined
from the text (Berndt 2003).

Mankind’s vegetarian diet (at least with Noah and
his family) apparently survived the Fall itself, as it is
not until Genesis 9:3 that God specifically allowed the
consumption of animals by man. No such indication
is provided by the text as to when animals deviated
from their original diet, though various authors have
agreed that this most likely happened at the Fall or
sometime afterwards as a result (Mortenson 2012;
Stambaugh 1991).

The references to the dietary input of man and
animal indicate that intake and digestion of food
were present from the initial creation (Faulkner
2013, 405). This would appear to require that the
Second Law of Thermodynamics was in effect, which
can also be said of the energy flow from the sun to the
earth, in fulfilling the function of giving light upon
the earth (Faulkner 2017, 117). The extent to which
the Second Law was in effect before the Fall has
been disputed by some creationists (Anderson 2013;
Jones 2016; Morris 1963, 58; Williams 1969, 144).
However, there is no clear biblical evidence that at
any point since the creation the physical mechanisms
of energy production and consumption were altered
to their present operation. So far as the biblical text is
concerned, man and animal ate their food before and
after the Fall in the same manner, though the kind of
food and manners of obtaining it were affected by the
Curse of Genesis 3. This would suggest that the laws
of thermodynamics were in fact part of the original
creation, and yet without the inevitable destructivity that we experience today. To what degree the
Second Law was in effect, or whether an additional
mechanism was in place to replenish what was lost
to entropy, appears undeterminable from the biblical
text alone.4

The Garden in Eden

The Garden in Eden, according to the creation
account, was intended as an initial habitat for
mankind. Some old-earth proponents have portrayed
the Garden as a sort of “haven” from a world that was
otherwise just as hazardous as the world of today
(Garvey 2019, 52–58; Snoke 2006, 54–55). However,
as we will see, there is nothing in the description of the
Garden to suggest that it was fundamentally different
from the rest of the “very good” creation, other than in
being specially arranged to accommodate and occupy
the first humans and to test their obedience. In fact,
the major natural features of the Garden (trees,
water, and mineral deposits) all fall into categories
that were created during the previous five days of the
Creation Week.

Genesis 2:8–15

The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden,
and there He put the man whom He had formed. And
out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow
that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The
tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden,
and from there it parted and became four riverheads.
The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which
skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.
And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the
onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is
Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land
of Cush. The name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is
the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The
fourth river is the Euphrates.
Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the
garden of Eden to tend and keep it

The Garden was made as a habitat for man,
the primary purpose of which was to provide an
occupation for man (“tend and keep it”), rather than
as a place of refuge from the “outside”. It is clear that
the Garden was also designed to provide for man’s
need of food, and the appointment of a gardener
implies a level of agricultural development as well as
fertility. The Garden seems to have been designed to
appeal to man’s aesthetic senses as well, with trees
selected both to provide food and to be “pleasant to
the sight” for man.

As stated above, the Garden clearly provided
for mankind’s need for food, water, and a worthy
occupation. But there is no indication that the garden
was itself fundamentally different from the “outside”,
other than in making these provisions for mankind
close at hand for the first human beings. The only
exception of course would be the placing of the two
trees—of Knowledge and of Life—exclusively within
the Garden.

The Garden of Eden is only referenced in passing
outside of Genesis 2–4, and while these passages
provide little additional information on the character
or features of the Garden, they do emphasize that a
defining characteristic of the Garden was its fertility,
being well watered and fruitful.5

Genesis 13:10

And Lot lifted his eyes and saw all the plain of
Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere (before
the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah) like the
garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt as you go
toward Zoar.

Ezekiel 36:34–35

The desolate land shall be tilled instead of lying
desolate in the sight of all who pass by. So they will
say, “This land that was desolate has become like the
garden of Eden; and the wasted, desolate, and ruined
cities are now fortified and inhabited.”

Joel 2:3

The land is like the Garden of Eden before them,
And behind them a desolate wilderness;
Surely nothing shall escape them.

Notice that in the last two passages, the key
feature of the Garden is that of being tilled (and
by implication, fruitful), and that it is contrasted
against “desolate” or “wasted” land under judgment
at the time of Ezekiel and Joel. Again we find nothing
to suggest that the Garden was remembered as a
“haven” or place of refuge, but rather as a place of
fertility and provision.

Isaiah 51:3

For the LORD will comfort Zion,
He will comfort all her waste places;
He will make her wilderness like Eden,
And her desert like the garden of the LORD; Joy and gladness will be found in it,
Thanksgiving and the voice of melody.

While thematically similar to the previous
passages, this one is notable in that the entire
geographic region of “Eden” (as opposed to merely
the Garden within it; see Genesis 2:8) is portrayed
as the antithesis of “waste places” (Kulikovsky 2009,
187).

Immanence of God to the Creation

After describing the events of Creation Week, the
scriptural account continues almost immediately
to the events leading up to the Fall. There is very
little biblical data on God’s interactions with Adam
and the creation during that time. However, many
interpreters have inferred that there was such
interaction (Jamieson 1871, notes on Genesis 3:6–9,
Matthews 1996, notes on Genesis 3:8), based upon
the confrontation immediately following Adam and
Eve’s eating of the forbidden fruit.

Genesis 3:8–9

And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking
in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and
his wife hid themselves from the presence of the
LORD God among the trees of the garden. Then the
LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where
are you?”

From this encounter we can infer that God was
present and accessible to man before the Fall, within
the Garden of Eden. We can only speculate as to what
the nature of these interactions and conversations
might have been, but it seems reasonable to conclude
that God intended to remain immanent to the
creation until the time of the Fall.

God’s particular presence with man in Eden is also
emphasized by the Tree of Life, a point we will return
to later.

The Instatement of the Curse

The account of the Fall of man and the Curse
are both detailed in Genesis 3. We will deal with
this passage independently, while other biblical
references to this event will be reviewed in the
subsequent sections.

To the serpent

Genesis 3:14–15

So the LORD God said to the serpent: “Because you
have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle,
and more than every beast of the field; on your belly
you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of
your life.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise
your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

The initial statement of the Curse is delivered
directly to the serpent, for its role in the deception
of Eve. While it is agreed by most interpreters that
Satan himself is the target of the curse (e.g, Gray
1915, 16), there are elements that clearly apply
to the physical creature itself, as Matthew Henry
comments:

The sentence passed upon the tempter may be
considered as lighting upon the serpent, the brute-creature which Satan made use of which was, as the
rest, made for the service of man, but was now abused
to his hurt. (Henry 1706, notes on Genesis 3:14–15)

In the opening clauses of verse14, the serpent is
declared to be “cursed more than all cattle” and “more
than every beast of the field.” The phrase “more
than . . . all” renders the Hebrew preposition min
(“from”, “among”, “above”, etc), joined with the noun
kôḻ (“all”, “every”). While it is possible to understand
this phrase to mean “apart from all” or “separate from
all” other creatures (Faulkner 2016, 226–227; Young
1964, 97), min-kôl ̱ can also be used in a comparative
sense (“above all”, or “more than all”), as seen in
Genesis 37:3–4 (Israel loved Joseph “more than”
his brothers) and Numbers 12:3 (“Moses was very
meek, above all . . . men”). This comparative rendering
would suggest that both the serpent and “all cattle”
have been cursed, but the serpent to an even greater
degree (Baldwin 2007; Kulikovsky 2009, 215). This
is the sense used by numerous English translations
(including the NET, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, NIV
and others), which renders the phrase “above all”
or “more than.” This would also be consistent with
the usage of the preposition in Genesis 3:1 (“Now the
serpent was more cunning than any beast . . .”), where
the comparative sense is more consistent both with
Scripture and experience.6

Therefore, by implication, this passage indicates
that all cattle and beasts of the earth were placed
under the curse, but to a lesser degree than the
serpent.7

The first physical effect of the serpent’s curse is
given at the end of verse 14: “on your belly you shall
go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life”.
While it is probably reading too much into the text to
say that the serpent was a legged creature prior to the
curse, it is apparent that the animal was demoted to a “lower” status within creation, and given a new set
of physical behaviors compared to its original created
role. Modern snakes of course are characterized by
“going on the belly”, and the “tasting” sense of many
snakes could well be described as “eating dust”
(Wieland 1988). In Micah 7:17, the phrase “lick[ing] the dust like a serpent” is used as an analogy to
humbled Gentile nations, underscoring this behavior
as a physical distinctive of the animal, and not merely
a metaphor.

While specific changes in the physical form of the
serpent is not determinable from this text, it seems
apparent that at least some measure of physiological
and behavioral change was decreed upon the animal
as a result of its role in the temptation and Fall of man
(Hodge 2010a).

The final message delivered to the serpent is that
of its relationship with the “image of God”—from this
point on, there would be “enmity between you and the
woman” and the woman’s seed. Biblical interpreters
are in agreement that the ultimate meaning of
this portion of the curse is a foreshadowing of the
coming “Seed” who would defeat Satan and his
plans, and effect the redemption of the fallen human
race (Constable 2011, notes on Genesis 3:14–15).
However, this ultimate meaning does not exclude the
obvious short-term application of “enmity” between
serpents and mankind: namely, attacks against the
lower extremities of humans, and overwhelming
force delivered by humans to the heads of serpents
(Henry 1706, notes on Genesis 3:14–15)! Thus, this
passage marks the first biblical reference to conflict
between mankind and the animal kingdom, and
directly links it with the Fall.

To the woman

Genesis 3:16

To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your
sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring
forth children; your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

It is widely agreed that the “sorrow and conception”
spoken of in the passage are “linked” in a grammatical
construction known as a hendiadys (Constable 2011,
notes on Genesis 3:16), where the two nouns are
linked to describe a single, more complex term. The
Hebrew noun hêrôn (“conception”) appears to refer
to the entire process of pregnancy to childbirth (and
perhaps even beyond), as described by the editors of
the New English Translation:

“Conception” . . . must be figurative here since there
is no pain in conception; it is a synecdoche [a figure
of speech in which a part is made to represent the
whole or vice versa], representing the entire process
of childbirth and child rearing from the very start.

From the statement “I will greatly multiply . . .”,
we can directly infer that “sorrow and conception”
was already present, but in a lesser form, in the
original creation. To what degree this “sorrow” (also
translated “toil” or “labor”, c.f. Genesis 5:29) was
manifested prior to the Curse is unclear, and likely
unknowable as there is no biblical evidence that Eve
ever experienced the process of childbirth prior to
the Fall. Nonetheless, we can affirm that, in contrast
the curse as given to the serpent and to man (where
God introduces novel elements, e.g. “on your belly
you shall go” and “thorns and thistles [the ground] shall bring forth”), to the woman God here decrees an
increase of an already present reality: an intensifying
(evidently to an high degree, “greatly”) of the labor
pains (see following discussion) of childbirth.

The following clause introduces, at least in most
English translations, the first instance of the word
“pain” in the Bible, again linked to childbearing.
This translation has led to some confusion however,
as the Hebrew noun ‘eṣeb is in fact taken from the ̱
same root (âṣaḇ) as the noun ‘iṣâḇôn (tr. “sorrow”)
in the preceding line. The suffix -ônis described by
the Hebrew Aramiac Lexicon of the Old Testament
(Kohler and Baumgartner 2001, entry on “(b)âṣâbon”)
as “indicat[ing] the duration of the condition,” and
contextually there seems to be no reason not to
understand both words as referring to the same
concept of pain in childbirth. It should be noted that
the meaning of ‘eṣeḇ (“pain”) is not limited to physical
sensations, but can include emotional pain as well
(c.f. Proverbs 10:22), and is often linked with the idea
of laboring (e.g., Proverbs 14:23; Psalm 127:2).

Contra some young-earth interpreters (e.g. Hodge
2010b), the multiplication of “sorrow” (‘iṣâḇôn) and
“pain” (‘eṣeḇ) spoken of in this verse seem to indicate
that both were (at least potentially) experienced even
in the original creation, though to a much lesser extent
than today. The expression “greatly multiply” (harbâ
’arbe—where both words are forms of the root râḇâ)
is used only two other times in the Old Testament,
and in both cases it speaks of the “multiplication”
of offspring from an extant child (Genesis 16:10;
22:17). That some form of pain reception was present
in the original creation should not be dismissed as
incongruous with the “very good” state of creation prior
to the Fall. While pain today is correctly understood
as a negative experience, our ability to perceive pain
and discomfort is closely linked to the entire human
sensory system, including our perception of hunger,
or thirst (as well as the pleasure of relieving those
“painful” feelings) (Lightner 2016). Further analysis
of both the biblical data as well as the biological and
neurological aspects of pain reception may help to
better distinguish between the kind and degree of
pain that may have been experienced prior to the
Fall, and that which we experience in the present.

The final clause of verse 16 has been the subject
of much discussion and debate, in particular as
to the meaning of the words “desire” (ṯešûqâ), and
“rule” (mâšal). Some interpreters have argued that
this clause is not part of the Curse at all, but rather
a descriptive statement that Eve would continue
to experience desire and longing for her husband,
and that the marriage institution (and mankind’s
mandate to reproduce) would persist despite the Fall
(Busenitz 1986). Contrariwise, it has been argued,
based on the striking parallel to God’s warning to
Cain in Genesis 4:7, that “desire” in this context
carries the idea of a desire that is contrary to her
husband, and speaks of the beginning of marital
struggle in maintaining the created order within the
marriage relationship (Foh 1975; Smith 2012).

We agree with the latter viewpoint, for multiple
reasons. The parallel wording in Genesis 4:7, while
it must be taken with caution due to the difference
in context, nonetheless is clearly intentional
and even suggests that God was calling Cain’s
attention back to His statement from Genesis
3:16. Additionally, while it has been argued that,
were this a proclamation of marital disharmony,
it should primarily concern the man (Busenitz
1986, 207), the biblical account clearly links the
creation of woman with the institution of marriage
(Genesis 2:23–24), and thus the deleterious effects
of sin upon this relationship are also addressed to
the woman (similarly, as the creation of man was
synonymous with the beginning of human life
(Genesis 2:7), it is man who is addressed with the
reality of death, though it would obviously affect
both sexes equally).8

For the purposes of this analysis, we can include
marital disharmony, and thus, disharmony among
human beings, as a direct result of the Fall.9

To the Man

Genesis 3:17–19

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded
the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree
of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat
of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you
shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns
and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall
eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you
shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out
of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you
shall return.”

The scope of the Curse broadens dramatically
in God’s statements to Adam. The opening decree,
“cursed is the ground,” is particularly significant, as it
expands the scope of the judgment beyond the animal
kingdom and man to include the very ground on which
man and animal were dependent for food and habitat.
While man’s original task upon creation was to tend
and keep the garden, now his work would be made
more difficult, whilst also becoming less productive.
The introduction of “thorns and thistles” appears to
be a direct consequence of this curse of the ground,
and thus marks the second major description of a
change to the natural world as a result of the curse
(the first instance being the curse upon the serpent
and the other animals in verses 14–15).

The statement “for dust you are, and to dust
you shall return” is a clear allusion to the creation
of man in Genesis 2:7, and indicates to Adam that
his death, while inevitable, would not be immediate
but rather the culmination of a process in which
his body would revert to the dust from which he
was formed. The clause is, at a minimum, a clear
description of physical death, of which Adam was
warned in Genesis 2:17. An effort could be made to
interpret this phrase in Genesis 3:19 as referring to
the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the decay of
physical entities. However, it is doubtful that such
an interpretation is supported by the context. For the
purposes of this analysis, we will take the position
that it is the physical death of Adam, and mankind
by extension (c.f. 1 Cor. 15:22), that is being decreed.

Expulsion from Garden

Genesis 3:22–24

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has
become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And
now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the
tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—therefore the
LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till
the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out
the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the
garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned
every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

The reason given for the expulsion from Eden is
to cut off man’s access to the Tree of Life, indicating
that this tree remained in the Garden, and would have, if accessible, enabled man to circumvent the
consequences of the Curse.

This apparent dependence on the Tree of Life to
stave off death has led some interpreters (including
some young-earth creationists) to conclude that
the eating from the fruit of this tree was necessary
even prior to the Fall, in order for life to persist (e.g.,
Kulikovsky 2009, 193). Logically, this means that a
failure to eat from the Tree of Life would have resulted
in death, even without taking from the forbidden Tree
of Knowledge.

However, there are several problems with this view.
While both trees are mentioned as being “planted” in
the Garden, and the Tree of Life would implicitly be
included among “every tree” from which Adam and
Eve could have eaten, God only gave instructions to
not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, for to do so would
result in death. It would seem to be of at least equal
(if not greater) importance for Adam and Eve to know
they must also eat from the Tree of Life, and that the
failure to do so would also result in death (Beall 2018).

Additionally, both trees were features of the Garden
of Eden, which would only have been a small portion
of the entire earth that mankind was commissioned
to subdue (Genesis 1:28). A dependence on the fruit
of a single tree would seem to run counter to this
commission, as those who migrated throughout the
earth in obedience to God’s command would be less
able to obtain the fruit that kept them alive.

Finally, there are theological problems if human
death—which elsewhere in Scripture is clearly named
as a result of sin (Romans 6:23)—would actually
result from a simple failure to eat from a particular
tree, which God had not commanded man to do.

An alternative (and, we would argue, more
satisfactory) view is that the Tree of Life was a
manifestation of God’s life-giving presence on earth,
and especially in the Garden, but that it was not
“required eating” to preserve life in the absence of
sin. The Bible is abundantly clear that God is life (e.g,
Psalm 36:9; John 1:4; Acts 17:28), and the Tree of Life
(as seen in Genesis 2 and Revelation 22:2) can be seen
as the “standard” of divine life. As John Calvin argues:

[God] gave the tree of life its name not because it
could confer on man that life with which he had been
previously endued, but in order that it might be a
symbol and memorial of the life he had received from
God. . . .In that tree there was a visible testimony to
the declaration, that ‘in God we are, and live, and
move.’ (Calvin 1554, notes on Genesis 2:9)

Based on Genesis 3:22–24, it is evident that it
was (at least theoretically) possible for fallen man to
stave off the consequences of sin by availing himself
of this tree’s fruit, which necessitated God’s actions
to physically separate mankind from the Tree of Life.
Just as mankind had been separated from God’s
presence spiritually (Genesis 3:8; cf. Isaiah 59:2),
he must also be separated from the manifestation
of God’s presence in the Tree of Life, until the time
that God Himself chose to bridge that divide with
the coming of Jesus.

Effects of the Fall

The Antediluvian Era

The biblical descriptions of the antediluvian era
in Genesis are key in understanding the immediate
consequences of the Fall upon the physical world.
Second Peter 3:5–6 implies that the world prior to the
Noahic Flood was significantly different from ours,
by contrasting “the earth which [is] now” against “the
world that then existed”. Furthermore, God’s decree
following the Flood in Genesis 9:2–3 indicates that
further changes to the relationship between man and
animal were put in place following the Deluge: “And
the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every
beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that
move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea.”
It should also be noted that even these post-Flood
effects would have been the result of God’s judgment
upon sin (in Genesis 3) and should be considered in
that context. However, in keeping with the focus of
the present study, we will limit our discussion to the
direct consequences of the Fall itself.

Genesis 6:11–12

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the
earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon
the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had
corrupted their way on the earth.

God’s expressed regret in the state of creation
(Genesis 6:7) gives us a solid basis to infer that the
original creation (Genesis 1) would not have been
affected by the corruption described in verses 11–12.
Violence had filled the earth, as a direct result of the
corruption of all flesh which had taken place since
the Fall. We can therefore assert that prior to the
Fall, violent behaviors of both man and animal (“all
flesh”) would not have been present, and that since
the Fall some form of corruption had taken hold
upon a previously “very good” creation

Here we must address the claim, recently made
by Garvey (2019, 38–40), that the phrase “all flesh”
in Genesis 6:12 refers not to all living creatures (man
and animal), but to mankind exclusively. In defense
of this view, Garvey points to the preceding verses of
Genesis 6, which describe the wickedness of mankind
(but not that of animals). However, this argument
fails to take into account the consistent use of the
phrase “all flesh” (Hebrew, kôḻ ḇâśâr) throughout
Genesis 6–9, where it unambiguously refers to both
mankind and animals. In Genesis 6:17, “all flesh”
is equated with creatures “in which is the breath of life”. In 6:19; 7:15–16, the phrase refers specifically to
the animals who boarded the ark. In 7:21, “all flesh” is
equated with “birds and cattle and beasts and every
creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every
man.” Noah is commanded to bring “all flesh” out of
the ark in 8:17, and in 9:11–15 the rainbow covenant
is established “between [God] and you and every
living creature of all flesh.” The consistent usage of
this phrase throughout the Flood narrative confirms
that, contra Garvey, “all flesh” of Genesis 6:12 does
indeed refer to all living creatures, and therefore we
are on solid biblical ground in affirming that animals
were included in the corruption that befell the world
following the Fall of man.

The Curse in the New Testament

In addition to the Genesis records of the
antediluvian world, the New Testament also gives
us valuable insight as to the physical effects of the
Fall described in Genesis. In fact, the writings of the
Apostle Paul give the clearest declarations of the
consequence of sin and the Curse: death.

Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the
world, and death through sin, and thus death spread
to all men, because all sinned.

Romans 5:18

Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment
came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so
through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to
all men, resulting in justification of life

Romans 5 makes one of the clearest connections
between death and sin in the New Testament.
Interpreters have differed in the meaning of the
phrase “death through sin”, and whether its scope
includes death of men only (as in the subsequent
statement: “death spread to all men”) or of death in
general. While an argument can be made that the
unqualified statement applies more broadly, the
context most clearly speaks to the spread of death
to mankind in particular. This should not be taken
to mean that Paul argues that animal death (for
example) is not a consequence of sin, however, the
plain intent of the passage is to contrast the bringing
of physical death by one man, against the bringing of
“justification” and life by another Man.

1 Corinthians 15:21–22

For since by man came death, by Man also came the
resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even
so in Christ all shall be made alive.

This text reiterates the points made in Romans
5:12 and 5:18. Again, while it is certainly possible
to interpret “death” to refer to the death of any
creature, this passage in context is most clearly
speaking to the death of man (contrasted with the
resurrection of man through Jesus Christ). That
physical death is in view in these verses, and not
only spiritual death, is made clear by the context
here, which is the (physical) resurrection of the dead.
First Corinthians 15:22 clearly contrasts life (and
resurrection) through Christ with death through
Adam; certainly there is “spiritual life” in Christ,
but that does not discount the physical nature of
Christ’s death and resurrection (1 Corinthians
15:14). The necessity of Christ’s physical death
strongly implies that Adam’s physical death is in
view (Turpin 2013).

1 Corinthians 15:26

The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

In concluding his discourse, Paul again emphasizes
death’s position as an “enemy”, and by implication,
an intruder in God’s creation, thus not part of His
original design. The abstract nature of this statement
seems to also leave open the possibility that more
than only human death is in view—however, we do
not believe the immediate context of this passage
necessitates such an interpretation.

Romans 8:18–23

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time
are not worthy to be compared with the glory which
shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation
of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the
sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility,
not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in
hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered
from the bondage of corruption into the glorious
liberty of the children of God. For we know that the
whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs
together until now. Not only that, but we also who
have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves
groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the
adoption, the redemption of our body.

This text suggests an external change to creation
from its original state. Careful contextual analysis of
this passage indicates that ktisis (“creation”) refers
in this passage to the entirety of the sub-human
created order (Smith 2007). This creation is said to be
subjected to futility, directly implying that creation at
one time existed in a “non-subjected” state. Similarly,
the current “bondage of corruption” that now rules
creation implies that an external force “bound” and
“corrupted” creation at some point, again indicating
a drastic change being imposed upon creation. While
the text does not explicitly connect this “subjection”
with the Fall, the context strongly suggests that God
Himself is the external force imposing this subjection,
as the same agent that subjects the creation “to futility” does so “in hope”, with the deliverance of
creation clearly in view (v.21). This link, between the
subjection of creation and the hope of redemption,
constitutes a strong thematic connection with the
Curse and Protevangelium of Genesis 3.

Finally, the creation is said to be “groaning” and
“laboring” till the present time, anticipating a future
restoration together with the “children of God”. This
statement makes an explicit parallel between the
destinies of the people of God and the sub-human
order created by God: as both groups currently suffer
under corrupting effects of sin, both look forward
to a future redemption where these effects will be
eradicated completely (Godet 1883, 314).

Future Restoration
Is There a Restoration

Young-earth creationists frequently make the
comparison between the Edenic state and the future
condition of the “new heavens and new earth” (NH/
NE) (Revelation 21:1; 2 Peter 3:13). They argue that
creation will one day be “restored” to a condition
similar to that of the pre-Fall world (Mortenson 2012;
Smith 2007, 81; Stambaugh 2008, 383–385). It should
be noted that this viewpoint is not at all exclusive to
creationists, but has been held by many interpreters
and systematic theologians (Ladd 1974, 567; Miller
1996; Oden 1987, 243). In fact, this understanding
of the biblical metanarrative of Creation, Fall, and
Restoration is deeply rooted in historical Christian
interpretation (Zuiddam 2004).

By contrast, old-earth creationists tend to
emphasize continuity between the pre- and post-Fall
creation, and see the NH/NE as an entirely separate
state. In this view, there is no true “restoration” of
creation to a prior state, but rather an entirely “new”
state without direct comparison to the old (Garvey
2019, 48–50; Irons 2000; Snoke 2006, 52–59).

If a future restoration of creation is in fact spoken of
in Scripture, then the descriptions of this restoration
would be relevant to our study as an analog to the
Edenic world prior to the Fall.

Acts 3:20–21

And that He may send Jesus Christ, who was
preached to you before, whom heaven must receive
until the times of restoration of all things, which God
has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets
since the world began.

Peter’s sermon in Acts 3 is a key reference to a
future “restoration” in the New Testament, and in
fact is the only biblical text where the Greek word
apokatastasis (typically translated as “restoration”)
is used. Several commentators have understood
this passage to refer to a reversion of creation to
the Edenic/pre-Fall state. For example, L.L. Morris
in the New Bible Dictionary pointed out that the
“restoration of all things” can legitimately be inferred
to point to the pre-Fall creation (Morris 1996, entry on
Restoration). Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown agree:
“‘restitution of all things’—comprehending, probably,
the rectification of all the disorders of the fall” (Brown
1871, notes on Acts 3:21). Thayer’s lexicon also
interprets this term as referring to a restoration “of
the perfect state before the fall” (Thayer 1892, 63).

It is also crucial to note that Peter is not relaying a
recent revelation which he has received, but rather an
idea that was put forth by the “holy prophets” (surely
referring to the prophets of the Old Testament).
This statement strengthens the case that the future
“restoration of all things” is both linked to the
future return of Christ as well as to Old Testament
prophecies. Therefore, it is very reasonable to expect
to find prophetic statements that speak of a future
“restoration”—and as we will see, there is indeed
strong evidence that the prophets did look forward
to such an event.

The understanding of “restoration” as a kind of
reversion to an Edenic state also melds comfortably
with Paul’s discussion in Romans 8 of the “bondage
of corruption,” a fallen state from which creation will
eventually be delivered (MacDonald 1995, 1593–
1594, 1711–1712).

Romans 8:21

Because the creation itself also will be delivered from
the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of
the children of God.

Another reference to this restoration is found in
the epistle to the Colossians, where Paul famously
establishes Jesus Christ as the Creator of all things.
In the same context, the apostle uses the same
terminology to assert that the“ things in earth, [and] things in heaven” will be “reconcile[d]” as a result of
the redemptive work of the cross (Kulikovsky 2009,
270; MacDonald 1995, 1995–1996; Smith 2007, 81).

Colossians 1:15–20

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
over all creation. For by Him all things were created
that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible
and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or
principalities or powers. All things were created
through Him and for Him. And He is before all
things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the
head of the body, the church, who is the beginning,
the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may
have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that
in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him
to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether
things on earth or things in heaven, having made
peace through the blood of His cross.

Finally, the restoration view is most consistent
with the description of the NH/NE in Revelation
22:3, which implies the removal of the Curse upon
the ground and the animals, spoken of in Genesis
3:14-17 (Beale and Carson 2007; Constable 2011,
notes on Revelation 22:3; Johnson 1996).

Revelation 22:3

And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of
God and of the Lamb shall be in it.

Based on the passages discussed above, it seems
reasonable to conclude that the Bible does in fact
speak of a restoration of the creation, to a state
similar (but not necessarily identical) to that before
the Curse. With this established, we can now consider
the descriptions of this future restored creation (NH/
NE) and make immediate inferences to the effects of
the Fall which are to be revoked.

Restoration in the Old Testament

The prophet Isaiah is the primary witness to
the idea of a restoration of creation in the Old
Testament. His writings include many of the best-known Messianic prophecies, and some of these are
connected with the promise of a restored creation.
For example, Isaiah 11 (which begins with the
famous messianic prophecy of the “rod from the stem
of Jesse”) describes the character of the Messiah’s
future kingdom with powerfully visual language.

Isaiah 11:6–9

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, The leopard
shall lie down with the young goat, The calf and the
young lion and the fatling together; And a little child
shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together; And the
lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child
shall play by the cobra’s hole, And the weaned child
shall put his hand in the viper’s den. They shall not
hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the
earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD As
the waters cover the sea.

This passage is famous for its depiction of a peaceful
relationship between predatory animals and prey,
as well as between animals and mankind. There is
a strong case to be made that, at the fulfillment of
this prophecy, all animals will be herbivorous (“the
cow and the bear shall graze; their young ones shall
lie down together”), in which case there would be a
clear connection to the vegetarian diet prescribed in
Genesis 1:29–30.

This Edenic comparison is made even more powerful
by the description of a child playing—without any
danger, apparently—near the habitat of at least two
types of venomous snakes (translated as “cobra” and
“viper” in the NKJV). Whereas in the fallen creation
there is a divinely decreed enmity between man and
the serpent, in this future state, the “seed of man” can
interact freely and comfortably with the very creature
that was the instrument of his downfall.

Not only is there a drastic change in the
relationship between creatures, but additionally
there is an eradication of destructive behaviors as a
whole—animals and man alike will no longer cause
harm to themselves or (by implication) to their
environment. It is important to note the global nature
of this passage—not only the “holy mountain”, but
the entire earth will be transformed by the Messiah’s
redeeming presence “as the waters cover the sea”.
Isaiah prophesies explicitly of a future “new
heavens and earth” in chapter 65, with clear allusions
to his previous descriptions in Isaiah 11.

Isaiah 65:17

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth:
and the former shall not be remembered, nor come
into mind . . .

Isaiah 65:25

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock:
and dust shall be the serpent’s meat.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy
mountain, saith the LORD.

The visual language of chapter 11 is used once
again, depicting predatory and prey animals feeding
together. In this passage, herbivorous diets for
carnivores are explicitly described (“the lion shall
eat straw like the bullock”), and again, the serpent
is painted as no longer a threat to man or animals.

The usage of the phrase “new heavens and a
new earth” leads to a seeming inconsistency with
the similar terminology used in Revelation 21; the
latter passage links the NH/NE with the complete
abolishment of death, whereas both Isaiah 65
and 11 indicate that death and other destructive
phenomena, while severely limited, are still present.
For example:

Isaiah 11:14

But they shall fly down up the shoulder of the
Philistines toward the west;
Together they shall plunder the people of the East;
They shall lay their hand on Edom and Moab;
And the people of Ammon shall obey them.

Isaiah 65:20

No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be
accursed.

This discordance between the “new heavens and
new earth” of Revelation and that of Isaiah indicates
that these passages are referring to two separate
(future) states of creation. Isaiah’s NH/NE refers
to an earth ruled by her righteous King and that
is rejuvenated and refreshed, but not yet entirely
redeemed. Sin (and therefore death) are still possible,
but the creation itself is no longer subjected to their
effects (and is instead subjected to the Messianic
King, with the ensuing blessings described). This
“Intermediate State” is sometimes referred to as
the Millennial Reign (Revelation 20:4), and in
Premillennial eschatology it precedes the “Eternal
State” of Revelation 21, at which point the redemption
of creation is complete, death and sin are abolished
entirely, and God’s immanent presence with His
creation and mankind are restored (Faussett 1871,
notes on Isaiah 65:20; MacArthur 1997; Vlach 2017,
173).

Eschatological concerns aside, the common thread
between these passages is that of a restoration of
creation to something that is more like its original
“very good” state. The restoration does not take
place all at once, yet the Bible’s descriptions of
the restored state(s) of creation give us valuable
insight as to God’s original intent and design for His
creatures, especially through the abolishment of
predation and reconciliation between animals and
man.

A consideration in our interpretation of Isaiah’s
prophecy is the genre of the texts in question, which
are widely understood to be symbolic and poetic in
portions. This has been used to argue that the texts
do not speak at all to changes in animal behavior/
physiology (e.g. Snoke 2006, 52), and that the
scenarios described are simply allegorical to restored
international or interpersonal relationships. It is
certainly possible to argue that phrases such as
“the wolf and the lamb shall feed together” or “the
lion shall eat straw” have a metaphorical meaning
(e.g, Henry 1706, notes on Isaiah 11:6), as opposed
to teaching that animals will literally change their
dietary preferences at some point in the future.
However, even accepting such an interpretation for
the sake of argument, it remains apparent that God
regards those “allegorical” scenarios to be ideal, in
contrast to the predatory and carnivorous behaviors
that are extant today. Otherwise, we are left with
the absurdity of God holding up as His ideal the very
opposite of what He had created and called “very
good” in the beginning. For the Isaiah prophecy
to carry any force, we must understand both the
harmony in the animal kingdom and the lack of
carnivory as something “good” in the sight of God,
and therefore surely consistent with the “very good”
creation of Genesis 1–2.

Restoration in the New Testament

The NH/NE are most clearly described in the final
chapters of Revelation, as John concludes his vision
and foresees the final vindication of Christ and His
people over their foes. Following the judgment scene
of Revelation 20:11–15 and the banishment of “Death
and Hades,” the prophet’s attention turns to the new
creation:

Revelation 21:1–5

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the
first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw
the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of
heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for
her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven
saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men,
and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His
people. God Himself will be with them and be their
God. And God will wipe away every tear from their
eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor
crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former
things have passed away.” Then He who sat on the
throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And
He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and
faithful.”

A number of elements in this breathtaking
description are worthy of attention. Whereas the Fall
was marked by a stark separation of God and His
creation, now God promises to dwell once again in
harmony with man. The results of this reunification
are profound: “there shall be no more death, nor
sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for
the former things have passed away.” The text is plain
in its assertion of a complete eradication of sorrow,
pain, and of death itself.

Of course, it is also clear that there are distinct
differences between the new creation and the old,
specifically the absence of a “sea” (v.1b), which
was certainly present in the original creation.
Nevertheless, the depiction of the “goodness” of this
new creation is clearly Edenic, with no trace of the
death, sorrow, and pain that was decreed upon the
original creation after the Fall. The continuity of the
Edenic state with this new creation is underscored
by the intimate presence of God with man, which
hearkens back to the (now broken) closeness of God
and Adam in the Garden (Genesis 3:8).

Revelation 22:3

And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of
God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants
shall serve Him.

The context of this verse is strongly Edenic,
preceded with reference to the Tree of Life and
followed by the immanence of God with his people(e.g., v.4: “They shall see His face, and His name
shall be on their foreheads”). This is the final biblical
reference to the “curse”, and it is notable as the
Greek noun katathema is only used once in the New
Testament. The allusions to Eden serve to link the
meaning to the Curse of Genesis 3, enacted as the
result of Adam’s sin, and now entirely revoked as sin
is finally dealt with at the end of history. This verse
and its surrounding context argue strongly against
the proposal of Garvey (2019, 28–30) that the Curse
of Genesis 3 had already been lifted in Genesis 8:21,
leaving no singular “Curse” to be lifted in Revelation
22:3. To the contrary, this verse affirms that the
Curse continues in its effects until the problem
of sin is entirely eradicated, at which time all the
consequences of that Curse are lifted (Revelation
21:4).

2 Peter 3:10–13

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the
night, in which the heavens will pass away with a
great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent
heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will
be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be
dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in
holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening
the coming of the day of God, because of which the
heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the
elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless
we, according to His promise, look for new heavens
and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Peter’s eschatological sayings are primarily
concerned with the temporality of the present
creation and the works of man, in light of the coming
“day of the Lord.” Without going into the various
interpretations of Peter’s prophecy, we can observe
that he concurs with John’s Revelation in expecting
a “new heavens and a new earth” to follow, in which
righteousness dwells (perhaps an allusion to God’s
presence in the new creation).

Romans 8:18–23

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time
are not worthy to be compared with the glory which
shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation
of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the
sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility,
not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in
hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered
from the bondage of corruption into the glorious
liberty of the children of God. For we know that the
whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs
together until now. Not only that, but we also who
have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves
groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the
adoption, the redemption of our body.

In this passage Paul links the present condition—
and ultimately the fate—of creation itself with
that of the “children of God.” The analogy is a
very striking one, especially in light of 1 John 3:2
(“Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not
yet been revealed what we shall be . . .”). As believers,
the “children of God” still suffer under the effects of
sin and the curse (Romans 7:21–25), yet with the
hope that in the future all of these effects will be
eradicated (John 3:2—“we shall be like Him”). In the
same vein, Paul describes creation itself as looking
forward to a future “deliver[ance] from the bondage
of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children
of God.” Paul’s inclusion of creation in the “glorious
liberty” is consistent with the Bible’s portrayal of
creation, 1) as the dominion of man (Genesis 1:28),
2) having been subjugated to the curse by man’s sin
(“cursed is the ground for your sake,” Genesis 3:17),
and 3) finally sharing in the future redemption of
man with the revocation of the curse (Revelation
21:1; 22:3).

Conclusion

The central question in our analysis can be stated
simply: What does the Bible say about the Fall’s
effects on the physical creation?

As discussed in our opening paragraphs,
understanding the biblical data—and recognizing
the constraints and limits of that data—is critical to
the development of a biblical model of earth history.
It is neither biblical nor logical to categorically label a
particular behavior or phenomenon as representing
either the original created state or a post-Fall
corruption, without first examining the Bible’s own
claims about the effects of the Fall.

It should be apparent in the course of our study that
Scripture nowhere lays out a detailed description of
exactly how the Fall changed the natural world. This
is not an unusual phenomenon in creationist biblical
research—most creationists readily admit that the
Bible does not lay out many of the specifics that
interest a scientific mind. Of course this should not be
considered a “deficiency” in the biblical account. We
understand that Scripture contains exactly enough
detail for the purpose it was given, and no human-readable book could ever contain exhaustive details
about God’s works (c.f. John 21:25).

Nonetheless, we have found that there are some
very clear statements throughout Scripture that can
provide guidance in determining whether a given
characteristic of today’s world should be considered
an aspect of God’s original “very good” design, or an
aberration from that design and thus a consequence
of sin and the Curse. As we conclude our study, we
submit the following statements as summarizations
of the biblical data herein considered.

A.The Creation Before the Fall

Creation was characterized by fruitfulness and
harmony between animals, man, and God Himself
(Genesis 1:28–31, inferred: Genesis 3:8–9; 13:10;
Isaiah 51:3; Ezekiel 36:34–35; Joel 2:3).
The dietary needs of man and animal were met by
the giving of plants for food (Genesis 1:29–30).
Death (at least of humans) and destructive
behaviors were non-existent (inferred: Genesis
1:31; 6:11–12; Isaiah 11:6–9; 65:25).
Pain was possible, but to a greatly lesser degree
than today (inferred: Genesis 3:16).
The work of mankind was to tend and rule over
the creation and to enjoy God’s intimate presence
(Genesis 1:28; 2:8–15; inferred: 3:8–9).
Animals and man were to reproduce, with the end
goal of filling the earth (Genesis 1:22, 28).
Physical laws as we know them were in effect, at
least to some extent (Genesis 1:14–15, 29–30).
God emphatically pronounced this initial state of
creation as “very good” (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 16–18,
21, 25, 31).

B. The Creation After the Fall

The Fall of man precipitated the cursing of the
ground (Genesis 3:17), and disruption to the
original harmony between man, animal, and God
(Genesis 3:14–16, 22–24).
Pain in childbirth was dramatically increased
(Genesis 3:16).
. Man’s needs were now met only by his own
onerously hard labor (Genesis 3:17–19).
Humans will experience physical death (Genesis
3:19; Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22).
In contrast to the “very good” initial state, the
creation now operates in a state of “futility”
(Romans 8:20).
By God’s decree, physiological and ecological
changes began to occur in the creation, including
humans, (at least) some animals, and (at least)
some plants (Genesis 3:14, 16, 18).
Predatory relationships arose among animals, and
humans eventually adopted a carnivorous diet
(Genesis 6:11–12; 9:2–3).
Creation and mankind were alike corrupted by
separation from God’s presence (Genesis 6:12;
Romans 8:21–22)

C. The Creation Restored

The creation’s pre-fallen state will be restored
upon the return of the Creator, Jesus Christ, to the
creation, to restore both mankind and the earth
itself (Acts 3:20–21; Colossians 1:15–20; Romans
8:18–23; Revelation 21:4; 22:3).
Death of (at least) humans will be abolished
entirely (1 Corinthians 15:26; Revelation 21:4).
Predatory behavior will be abolished, and harmony
will be restored between animals, man, and God
Himself (Isaiah 11:6–9; 65:25).
The new earth will again be characterized by God’s
intimate presence with mankind, and within His
creation, which will persist into eternity (2 Peter
3:10–13; Revelation 21:1–5).

The goal of this study has been to highlight biblical
data relevant to the question of the Fall’s effects on the
physical creation, and to produce a sound and rigorous
description of those effects that is based not on subjective
reasoning but on firm, biblical premises. There are
innumerable questions and hypotheticals that are not
directly answered here, and there is abundant room
for additional scientific research to better understand
the characteristics of animals and their environments
before and after the Fall. We hope this compilation will
be useful for future creation research, as we develop
a robust and biblically based understanding of our
world, and grow in our appreciation of our shared hope
in the redeeming work of Christ.

References

Anderson Jr. Lee. 2013. “Thoughts on the Goodness of Creation: In What Sense was Creation “Perfect”?” Answers
Research Journal 6 (November 13): 391–397

Baldwin, J.T. 2007. “Toward a Pre-Lapsarian and Post-Lapsarian Biblical Philosophy of Nature.” All Creation
Groans: The Problem of Natural Evil. In Proceedings of the
Sixth BSG Conference. Edited by Roger W. Sanders, 7.

Beale, G.K, and D.A. Carson. 2007. Commentary on the
New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Publishing Group.

Beall, Todd. 2018. “Death, the Last Enemy.” Carl F.H. Henry
Center for Theological Understanding. May 29. https://
henrycenter.tiu.edu/2018/05/death-the-last-enemy/.

Berndt, Chard. 2003. “The Pre-Fall Mortality of Aquatic
Autotrophs and Other Designed Nephesh Kinds.” Creation
Research Society Quarterly 40, no.2 (September): 85–89.

Brown, David. 1871. In Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible. Edited by David Brown, Andrew Robert
Fausset, and Robert Jamieson. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House.

Burgess, Stuart. 2002. He Made the Stars Also: What the
Bible Says About the Stars. Leominster, United Kingdom:
DayOne Publications.

Busenitz, Irvin A. 1986. “Woman’s Desire For Man: Genesis
3:16 Reconsidered.” Grace Theological Journal 7, no. 2
(Fall): 203–212.

Calvin, John. 1554. Commentaries on the First Book of Moses
Called Genesis. Vol.1. Reprint, Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Eerdmans.

Constable, Thomas. 2011. Constable’s Expository Notes on the
Bible. Olive Tree Bible Software Edition.

Coulson, Ken P. 2018. “Global Deposits of in situ Upper
Cambrian Microbialites—Implications for a Cohesive
Model of Origins.” In Proceedings of the Eighth International
Conference on Creationism. Edited by J.H. Whitmore,
373–388. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science
Fellowship.

Easton, M.G. 1897. Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville,
Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Faulkner, Danny R. 2013. “The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Curse.” Answers Research Journal 6 (November
13): 399–407.

Faulkner, Danny R. 2014. “Interpreting Craters in Terms of the Day Four Cratering Hypothesis.” Answers Research
Journal 7 (January 22): 11–25.

Faulkner, Danny R. 2016. The Created Cosmos: What the
Bible Reveals About Astronomy. Green Forest, Arkansas:
Master Books.

Faulkner, Danny R. 2017. The Expanse of Heaven: Where
Creation and Astronomy Intersect. Green Forest, Arkansas:
Master Books.

Faussett, Andrew Robert. 1871. In Commentary Critical and
Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Edited by David Brown,
Andrew Robert Fausset, and Robert Jamieson. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Foh, Susan T. 1975. “What Is The Woman’s Desire?” The
Westminster Theological Journal 37 no.3 (Spring) 376–383.

Garvey, Jon. 2019. God’s Good Earth: The Case for An Unfallen
Creation. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books.

Godet, Frédéric Louis. (1883) 1977. Commentary on Romans.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications.

Gray, James M. 1915. Christian Workers’ Commentary on
the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Fleming H. Revell Company.

Gurney, Robert J.M. 2004. “The Carnivorous Nature and
Suffering of Animals.” TJ 18, no.3 (December): 70–75

Henry, Matthew. (1706) 2014. Matthew Henry’s Commentary
on the Whole Bible. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson
Publishers.

Hill, Robert. 2001. “Did Entropy Change Before the Curse?”
Creation Matters 6, no.5 (September/October): 6–7.

Hodge, Bodie. 2010a. “Did The Serpent Originally Have Legs?”
(January 26). https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/gardenof-eden/did-the-serpent-originally-have-legs.

Hodge, Bodie. 2010b. “Was There Pain Before the Fall?” (June
22). https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/was-there-pain-before-the-fall.

Ingle, Matthew E. 2015. “Parasitology and Creation.” Answers
Research Journal 8 (February 4): 65–75.

Irons, Lee. 2000. “Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does
the Bible Say?” Reasons to Believe (December 30). https://
reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2000/12/30/animal-death-before-the-fall-whatdoes-the-bible-say.

Isaacs, Darek. 2013. “Is There a Dominion Mandate? Discussion: The Dominion Mandate: Yesterday, Today, and Forever” Answers
Research Journal 6 (January 9): 1–16.

Jamieson, Robert. 1871. In Commentary Critical and
Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Edited by David Brown,
Andrew Robert Fausset, and Robert Jamieson. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Johnson, Alan F. 1996. “Revelation.” The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Jones, Taylor B. 2016. “Thermodynamics and the Fall—How
the Curse Changed Our World.” In What Happened in the
Garden: The Reality and Ramifications of the Creation
and Fall of Man. Edited by Abner Chou, 187–206. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications.

Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Delitzsch, Franz. (1857) 1971. Biblical
Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol.1. Edinburgh,
United Kingdom: T. & T. Clark.

Keller, Timothy. 2008. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age
of Skepticism. New York, New York: Penguin Publishing
Group.

Kennard, Doug. 2008. “Hebrew Metaphysic.” Answers Research Journal
(December 31): 169–195.

Kidner, Derek. 1967. “Genesis.” In Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries. Edited by D.J. Wiseman, 52. Leicester,
United Kingdom: IVP.

Kohler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew
and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden, The
Netherlands: Brill.

Kulikovsky, Andrew. 2009. Creation, Fall, Restoration:
A Biblical Theology of Creation. Ross-shire, Scotland:
Christian Focus Publications.

Ladd, George Eldon. 1974. A Theology of the New Testament.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.

Lightner, Jean. 2016. “Pain Receptors Prior to Curse?”
Creation Matters 21, no.6 (November/December): 5.

Lisle, Jason. “The Search for a Cursed Cosmos.” Answers,
July–September, 66–68

MacArthur, John. 1997. MacArthur Study Bible. “Notes on
Isaiah 65:17, 20.” New York, New York: HarperCollins.

MacDonald, William. 1995. Believer’s Bible Commentary.
Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Matthews, Kenneth A. 1996. The New American Commentary:
Genesis 1–11:26. Vol.1A. Holman Reference.

Miller, Russel Benjamin. 1996. “Restoration.” In International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Edited by Geoffrey
Bromiley. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson.

Morris, Henry M. 1963. The Twilight of Evolution. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Morris, L.L. 1996. “Restoration.” In New Bible Dictionary.
Edited by Howard I. Marshall, A.R. Millard, J.I. Packer,
and Donald J. Wiseman. New Bible Dictionary. Leicester,
England: Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship.

Mortenson, Terry. 2012. “The Fall and the Problem of Millions
of Years of Natural Evil.” The Journal of Ministry and
Theology 16 (Spring): 122–158.

New English Translation of the Bible. 1996. Notes on Genesis
1:28. Dallas, Texas: Biblical Studies Press LLC.

Oden, Thomas C. 1987. The Living God: Systematic Theology.
Vol.1. San Francisco, California: Harper and Row.

Smith, Claire. 2012. “A Sidebar Named Desire.” The Gospel
Coalition. September 17. https://www.thegospelcoalition.
org/article/a-sidebar-named-desire.

Smith, Henry B. Jr. 2007. “Cosmic and Universal Death From
Adam’s Fall: An Exegesis of Romans 8:19–23a.” Journal of
Creation 21, no.1 (April): 75–85.

Snelling, Andrew A. 2009. Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology,
Creation and the Flood. 2 vols. Green River, Arkansas:
Master Books.

Snoke, David. 2006. A Biblical Case for an Old Earth. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Publishing Group.

Stambaugh, James. 1991. “Creation’s Original Diet and the
Changes at the Fall.” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal
5, no.2 (August): 130–138.

Stambaugh, James. 1992. “‘Life’ According to the Bible, and
the Scientific Evidence.” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical
Journal 6, no.2 (August): 98–121.

Stambaugh, James. 2008. “Whence Cometh Death? A Biblical
Theology of Physical Death and Natural Evil.” In Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the
Earth. Edited by Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury, 373–
397. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Thayer, Joseph Henry. 1892. A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi
Testamenti. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: T & T Clark:
Edinburgh.

Turpin, Simon. 2013. “Did Death of Any Kind Exist Before the Fall?” Answers Research Journal 6 (April 3): 99–116.

Vlach, Michael J. n.d. “Platonism’s Influence on Christian
Eschatology.” https://mymission.lamission.edu/
userdata%5Cschustm%5Cdocs%5CPlatonism_and_
EarlyChristEschatology.pdf.

Vlach, Michael J. 2017. He Will Reign Forever: A Biblcial
Theology of the Kingdom of God. Silverton, Oregon:
Lampion Press.

Wieland, Carl. 1988. “Snakes do eat dust!” Creation Ex Nihilo
10, no.4 (September): 38.

Williams, Emmett L. 1966. “Entropy and the Solid State.”
Creation Research Society Quarterly 3, no.3 (October):
18–24.

Williams, Emmett L. Jr. 1969. “A Simplified Explanation
of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics: Their
Relationship to Scripture and the Theory of Evolution.”
Creation Research Society Quarterly 5, no. 4 (March): 138–
147.

Wilson, Glenn V., and Jessica L. Locke. 2018. “Is Dry Land
Really Dry?” Creation Matters 23, no.6 (November/
December): 1, 5–7

Wilson, Gordon. 2004. “The Origins of Natural Evil.” In
Discovering the Creator. Proceedings of the Third BSG
Conference. Edited by Roger W. Sanders, 8.

Wise, Kurt P. 2002. Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible
Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the
Age of the Universe. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman &
Holman Publishers.

Wise, Kurt P. 2013. “Paleoevil, Theodicy, and Models of Earth
History.” Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 2,
no.2: 299–320.

Wise, K.P. 2014. “Spectra of Perfection: A Case for Biological
Imperfection before the Fall.” Journal of Creation Theology
and Science, Series B, Life Sciences, Vol. 4. CBS Annual
Conference.

Wood, Todd. 2013. “A Review of the Last Decade of Creation
Biology Research on Natural History, 2003–2012.” In
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on
Creationism. Edited by Mark H. Horstemeyer. Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.

Young, Edward J. 1964. Studies in Genesis One. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House.

Zuiddam, Benno A. 2014. “Early Church Fathers on Creation,
Death, and Eschatology.” Journal of Creation 28, no.1
(April): 77–83

SourceThis article originally appeared on answersingenesis.org

Discover more from Emmanuel Baptist Church

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Effects of the Fall on the Physical Creation: A Biblical Analysis

Introduction

Definitions

Methods

Limitations

The Pre-Fall World

The Creation Week

The World at Creation

The Garden in Eden

Immanence of God to the Creation

The Instatement of the Curse

To the serpent

To the woman

To the Man

Expulsion from Garden

Effects of the Fall

The Antediluvian Era

The Curse in the New Testament

Future Restoration Is There a Restoration

Restoration in the Old Testament

Restoration in the New Testament

Conclusion

A.The Creation Before the Fall

B. The Creation After the Fall

C. The Creation Restored

References

Share!

Related

Discover more from Emmanuel Baptist Church

Discover more from Emmanuel Baptist Church

Future Restoration
Is There a Restoration