Hi Chris
Doing degree work + a full time job is no picnic, as I know to my cost. Respect.
I spend around 8 pages on this passage in the book, so any treatment in this context is bound to be inadequately argued.
Briefly, if you look closely at the vocabulary, and the context of the passage, it’s not about the restoration of the damaged creation after the fall, but the transformation of creation from the perishable “physical” (psuchikos) to the imperishable "spiritual (pneumatikos) that was held back by the Fall, since Adam had been its intended agent. That role now falls to the new Adam, Christ, of course. In other words the contrast is [old creation/new creation], not [corrupted creation/restored creation].
Some eminent theologians down the millennia have treated “the creation” in Rom 8 in terms of the human creation, with good reasons. But on balance I favour the idea that Paul is personifying the non-human creation for didactic purposes.
The context is the unjust suffering of the Christian for Christ, as he/she yearns for the consummation of the kingdom when Christ returns, in the new heavens and the new earth, with eternal life. You’re not alone, says Paul, because that frustration is shared by God’s whole creation, as if it were conscious of the change from perishable to imperishable that was intended through Adam, but delayed for what seems interminable years (but is actually only a blip in cosmic time). Even the Holy Spirit within us resonates to that longing.
You’ll note that the Genesis 1 creation was never meant to be imperishable: the new creation is just that, a new kind of creation where heaven joins earth. In my other book I argue (along with others like Richard Middleton and Greg Beale - and I think N T Wright) that the Bible indicates Adam was the “first intended” means for that transition, had he not failed. And against that foundational problem unfolds the whole drama of salvation history in the Bible, and in the world.
But be of good cheer, concludes Paul, because [8:28ff].
There are a couple of spin-offs from this understanding of Rom 8. For a start, if the “frustration” of nature arises from a human historical event, we can view the whole of pre-history as a well-functioning, “happy” creation, “good” as far as God is concerned. Palaeontology is the study of the good creation of Genesis 1, not a failure or a botch, but destined to pass away.
Secondly we don’t need a cosmic redesign as a result of the Fall: the frustration is about delayed hope (in Paul’s personified language) of something new and even better. That means Old Earthers are not trying to find another explanation for the Young Earthers’ “evil” nature - both have just defined the issues wrongly, and see nature through jaundiced eyes.
Thirdly, it draws attention to a much-neglected theme of the New Testament - the old v new creations. This is often collapsed into a single creation in terms of creation/redemption, but in fact redemption is the means by which God’s original plan for transformation, long-delayed, is enabled. That’s why it is still in the future. The best place to get a handle on this distinction is in 1 Corinthians 15 - all the stuff about different bodies is about the two “phases” of creation, not about the restoration of Genesis 1.
Next up, the “New Eden” passages in Isaiah - only 2 pages on them! 