I was just listening to Dr Packer’s excellent talk on Sovereignty and Evil. He spoke briefly about natural disasters, and his comments got me thinking.

The common perception seems to be that natural disasters (tornados, earthquakes etc) are a result of the fall. In a perfect world, presumably, such things would not exist.

But I question that now. Are these things really inherently bad? Certainly they can do us harm, but does that mean they are somehow wrong or evil? A cliff can do us harm if we fall off it. Does that mean there will be no cliffs in the new creation? I don’t think that is likely!

There is a certain beauty and awesomeness in a volcanic eruption, in a twister, in a mighty storm. Creation would be the poorer without them. We are hurt by them due to our ignorance and also due to our sin. But the “natural disasters” themselves are not inherently bad...they are just a part of the material creation.

Indeed, bushfires are the way nature regenerates itself.

On a side note, I’ve always thought that bushfires offer us an analogy with which we can grasp how judgment day can be both a point of continuity and discontinuity between the current world and the next. Yes there is a final destruction, but within the razed landscape are the seeds which sprout after the fire has gone through. In fact, my understanding is that there are seeds which only sprout after the fire has passed by.

Martin
You should post that comment on the Sola Panel thread regarding the new creation.
Bob

There are indeed seeds which sprout only after a fire, but it’s fair to ask whether it’s always been that way. Could they have lost the ability to reproduce in other ways by the reductions in biodiversity that have been occurring ever since the fall? Could God have changed them specifically, like the plants he introduce thorns to? We probably can’t know.

But… I think that because of the many cycles there must surely have been some big natural events prior to the fall (and would have continued on if they hadn’t sinned). Jesus speaks of earthquakes increasing as we get closer to the end of time, so could it have always been like this? Maybe the fires and storms and tectonic activities were active before the fall, but not to the extent we would call disastrous? Maybe there was a balance between having effects large enough to keep the cycles going, and not having loss of life (human or even animal too?)

Mark 13:8
Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

Earthquakes are likened to the pains of child birth.  From Genesis 3 pain in child birth is part of the curse.  Also the thing about labour pains is that after the arrival of the baby the pains are no longer present.

I think therfore that Earthquakes are a direct result of sin, and the suffering they cause are part of the curse.  They will not be in the new creation as they are the sign that the end is coming not a fore taste of more to come in paradise.  Luke 23:43.

I also don’t think Earthqukes were present between day 5 of creation (when animals of the sea and air appeared) and the fall, as they are a sign of suffering that looks forward to relief and Biblically this is not part of the prefallen world.  However I think they may have been present before day 5 of creation as it may have been part of the creation process, especially Day 3 where dry land first appears.  Also Day 3 may have been a big day for Tsunami’s with such large movement of water.  But earthquakes and Tsunami’s are not bad when they happen in the absence of life.  As the whole point of the curse is that the people will ‘surely die’ and this can’t happen pre their creation.

Craig
You may be correct in your views, but I’d venture that basing them on the analogy contained in Mark 13:8 is somewhat of a long exegetical bow.
Regards,
Bob