What do you think?
Rate this book
Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering
ECPA Top Shelf Book Cover Award Did animals have predatory natures before the fall? Did God punish innocent animals with a curse because of human sin? Is it possible for theistic evolution to be compatible with the Bible, even though animal death before the fall would contradict the teaching that death began after the first sin? In this eloquent and provocative "open letter" to evangelicals, Ronald Osborn wrestles with these pointed questions and with the problem of biblical literalism and animal suffering within an evolutionary understanding of the world. Considering the topic of animal suffering and predation as a theodicy dilemma, Osborn offers an open-minded exploration of the subject, specifically coming against the fundamentalist and literalist view of the book of Genesis and the creation account. He challenges one-dimensional reading of Scripture and shines a sobering light on the evangelical dogma responsible for advancing viewpoints long ago dismantled by science. Always acknowledging the traditionalist viewpoint, Osborn demonstrates with a wealth of exegetical and theological insight how orthodox Christianity can embrace evolutionary concepts without contradiction. Osborn forces us to ask hard questions, not only of the Bible and church tradition, but also and especially of ourselves.
197 pages, Paperback
First published February 6, 2014
16 people are currently reading
209 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
November 28, 2014
The problem of predation, animal suffering and death has always posed a theological challenge to those believing in a good God. Those who believe in a literal six day creation and young earth believe the problem is solved by attributing it to the curse following human sin. But this poses the question of why should animals be cursed for what humans did, and may not be supportable in the Genesis text. Likewise, for those who believe in some form of old earth creation or theistic evolution, the problem is that this assumes animal predation, suffering, and death prior to human sin and the question is how can it be argued that God and his creation are "good" if these things occur even before sin entered the picture?
This latter problem is the focus of Osburn's book, or at least part of the focus. The surprise is that most of his treatment of this question is in the last third of the book. The prior two thirds are devoted to the problem of biblical literalism and our attempts to reconcile biblical accounts of beginnings with what scientific research has uncovered.
He begins by showing that a plain reading of Genesis in its ancient near east context does not require the young earth, scientific creationist reading. The next four chapters are devoted to why this reading is so problematic in terms of hermeneutics, science and reason. He basically contends that the "scientific creationism" movement unwittingly cedes too much to modernism and foundationalist assumptions in its attempt to prove Genesis with science.
He then looks at the sub-culture behind these readings describing them in the next two chapters as a gnostic enclave. He observes the "circle the wagons" and "purge ourselves of those who disagree" tendencies along with a tendency to assume a "knowledge for the pure few" stance that regards others as inferior--a kind of gnosticism. While I've observed some examples of this, I felt this section "over the top" and not helpful to his argument. He concludes the first section by citing Barth, Calvin, Augustine, and Maimonides as non-literalist interpreters and argued for a post-foundationalist reading of Genesis with the rest of scripture seeing a "web" of truth.
The second part of the book first critiques the position of animal suffering only being post-fall under the categories of "stasis", "curse", and "deception." He then considers the cosmic conflict position of C.S. Lewis but thinks this gives Satan too much credit. He argues for a position based on Job 38-42 that somehow in a way that is unanswered, this suffering is part of God's good creation. He cites Kathryn Schifferdecker in concluding this chapter: "But submission to God...means learning to "learning to live in the untamed, dangerous, but stunningly beautiful world that is God's creation'" (p. 156).
He also argues that it is Christ's kenotic suffering that closes the circle of the six days of creation as he suffers and dies on sabbath eve bringing true sabbath rest to creation. As an Adventist, Osburn argues for the continuing relevance of sabbath in the church's practice and that this includes concern for needless animal suffering.
This interesting proposal was marred, in my view, by raising at points the question of whether there was a literal Adam, and calling into question the idea of substitutionary atonement, something that seems a trend among "progressive evangelicals." He also launches at the end of the penultimate chapter on the evils of "late capitalism" and the question of whether our existence as a species is justified in light of our destructiveness.
Osburn writes with eloquence and elegance about all these matters, but I believe also with some abiding pain from his own fundamentalist roots. I felt he distracted at points from good argument with tendentious statements. In the hotly contended area of origins, if one is to write irenically, it seems necessary to choose battles very carefully. My sense is that this book took on too many battles that rendered it less helpful than it could be. I wish the author would have focused more on the title theme and gone into greater depth on these issues.
This latter problem is the focus of Osburn's book, or at least part of the focus. The surprise is that most of his treatment of this question is in the last third of the book. The prior two thirds are devoted to the problem of biblical literalism and our attempts to reconcile biblical accounts of beginnings with what scientific research has uncovered.
He begins by showing that a plain reading of Genesis in its ancient near east context does not require the young earth, scientific creationist reading. The next four chapters are devoted to why this reading is so problematic in terms of hermeneutics, science and reason. He basically contends that the "scientific creationism" movement unwittingly cedes too much to modernism and foundationalist assumptions in its attempt to prove Genesis with science.
He then looks at the sub-culture behind these readings describing them in the next two chapters as a gnostic enclave. He observes the "circle the wagons" and "purge ourselves of those who disagree" tendencies along with a tendency to assume a "knowledge for the pure few" stance that regards others as inferior--a kind of gnosticism. While I've observed some examples of this, I felt this section "over the top" and not helpful to his argument. He concludes the first section by citing Barth, Calvin, Augustine, and Maimonides as non-literalist interpreters and argued for a post-foundationalist reading of Genesis with the rest of scripture seeing a "web" of truth.
The second part of the book first critiques the position of animal suffering only being post-fall under the categories of "stasis", "curse", and "deception." He then considers the cosmic conflict position of C.S. Lewis but thinks this gives Satan too much credit. He argues for a position based on Job 38-42 that somehow in a way that is unanswered, this suffering is part of God's good creation. He cites Kathryn Schifferdecker in concluding this chapter: "But submission to God...means learning to "learning to live in the untamed, dangerous, but stunningly beautiful world that is God's creation'" (p. 156).
He also argues that it is Christ's kenotic suffering that closes the circle of the six days of creation as he suffers and dies on sabbath eve bringing true sabbath rest to creation. As an Adventist, Osburn argues for the continuing relevance of sabbath in the church's practice and that this includes concern for needless animal suffering.
This interesting proposal was marred, in my view, by raising at points the question of whether there was a literal Adam, and calling into question the idea of substitutionary atonement, something that seems a trend among "progressive evangelicals." He also launches at the end of the penultimate chapter on the evils of "late capitalism" and the question of whether our existence as a species is justified in light of our destructiveness.
Osburn writes with eloquence and elegance about all these matters, but I believe also with some abiding pain from his own fundamentalist roots. I felt he distracted at points from good argument with tendentious statements. In the hotly contended area of origins, if one is to write irenically, it seems necessary to choose battles very carefully. My sense is that this book took on too many battles that rendered it less helpful than it could be. I wish the author would have focused more on the title theme and gone into greater depth on these issues.
May 7, 2014
What a disappointment. First of all, full disclosure, I am not a fundy literalist when it comes to biblical exegesis in general or to the creation accounts in particular, so I have no axe to grind in the first section of the book, and I agree with Osborn in recognizing Gen 1-2 as compatible with some forms of evolutionary theory. I'm more or less with him for the first five chapters in which he pleads for a less restrictive understanding of the type of genre we encounter in these chapters.
But after that it's downhill. Chapter six is an unnecessary attack on fundamentalism per se, claiming its anti-science attitudes are why their churches are losing their youth. (This would be more meaningful if there were some other type of church out there that was doing a better job of holding their youth. Catholics? Orthodox? Liberal Protestants? I don't know of any.) Two more marginally useful chapters follow in which fundamentalist literalism is compared to Gnosticism and heroic exegetes of the past are examined to see if they read Genesis in a literalistic way (Barth, Calvin, Augustine, Maimonides). Guess what Osborn discovers? Hey, good guess.
The second part of the book deals with the problem of animal pain and starts off with a good survey of the main theodicies in circulation, with special attention to the C. S. Lewis/Gregory Boyd notion of a limited dualism involving a cosmic conflict between God and Satanic forces that was going on long before humans arrived on the scene, explaining why the world is infested with cruelty and death right from the Adamic get-go. (This is my choice of explanation, by the way, so I was pleased to see Osborn give it some decent space.) Ultimately, however, Osborn rejects this view because he sees evidence in scripture that God is the author of the dark side of nature as well as the bright side. For proof, he turns to the book of Job.
There follows a simply dreadful exegesis of Job 38-42, in which Osborn manages to misread both the text and the meaning. Astoundingly, he claims that Job curses all of creation in Job 3! It's plain that Job does no such thing. He curses the day of his birth; i.e. he wishes he had never been born. In Job 38-42 Osborn finds God delighting in his creation, including both its predatory, "cruel" aspects as well as its life-affirming aspects. (He also gloms onto the stupid New English Bible translation of "Behemoth" as "crocodile" so he can use those passages too.) In fact, God does not delight in his creation per se in these chapters; he delights in his total mastery over it, both the benign and sinister aspects of it, while reminding Job that he is in no position to do so. Usually I can find something worthwhile even in biblical exegesis I strongly disagree with, but this is a complete waste.
Meanwhile, if we want to find a biblical witness to the ultimately unacceptable predatory violence seen in nature, Isaiah 11:1-9 would seem to be the place to go. To his credit, Osborn brings the passage up at the end of his Job chapter, but then, unbelievably, he immediately brushes it aside as irrelevant to the discussion (p. 154)!
The gloves come off in the final chapters of the book, where the discussion devolves into a dire, apocalyptic, environmentalist sermon centered around an animal-rights screed that could have been written by PETA. The language is nothing short of hysterical. After a brief mention of the Shoah, he avers that "we now face an ecological holocaust in which manic human greed and unchecked exploitation of the earth threaten to destroy entire species and render God's creation a wasteland." Shall Christians share in "the military-industrial conspiracy to murder creation"? Can we forgive "Christian complicity in the destruction of the planet"? Osborn demands an answer! "Shall we devour the earth that was left in our care without restraint until it is an utterly scorched desert?" Questions like this "grow in urgency every day." When, oh when will we bring "sabbath peace to our brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom"? (pp. 173-75). The choice is clear. There is Osborn's sensitive and reasonable approach on the one side and ABSOLUTE APOCALYPTIC CATASTROPHE!!! on the other. You're with us or you're with the planet murderers. You know, he sounds just like the extremist fundamentalists he's been moaning about throughout the book. They say you become what you hate.
I could smell it coming, and sure enough, strains of Marxism can be seen floating around under all this screeching and lapel-grabbing. Osborn speaks of "breaking the cycle of disequalizing wealth concentration," "justice to the poor," "wealth redistribution" blah blah blah (pp. 169-172). Why animal-rights activists trend hard left and think capitalism (in Osborn it's "late capitalism") is intrinsically harder on the environment than other economic systems actually in use in the world is a mystery to me. Anyway, all the masks are off by this point. In Osborn's view, even "avowed atheists" who "have taken the lead in actually protecting God's kingdom" may "find themselves being commended by the Almighty" on judgment day over against Christians "who loudly claimed to be God's chief spokespersons" but "viewed the task of actually caring for the creation with reluctance, nonchalance or outright disdain" (p. 174). In other words, screw the gospel of Jesus Christ; we've all got more important things to do, like saving the planet.
What hypocrisy! Osborn goes to great lengths to protest and prove his own fidelity to the Bible as God's Word in the first part of the book, but by the end he abandons such niceties and can barely contain his disgust with "fundamentalist Christians" who think "the world is bound for a fiery conflagration in the near future in which all animals will be destroyed by God anyway" (p. 173). Um, Ron? I'll bet those crazy fundys think that because that's a pretty straightforward, plain-sense reading of 2 Peter 3:7-13. This passage would pretty much ruin Osborn's whole sermon if it were taken seriously, so naturally, he ignores it.
It's too bad, because Osborn knows how to write, and we need a good critique of impossibly literal readings of Genesis that take it as something other than what it is, and we also need a good work of theodicy with regard to animal predation and suffering, but this isn't it.
But after that it's downhill. Chapter six is an unnecessary attack on fundamentalism per se, claiming its anti-science attitudes are why their churches are losing their youth. (This would be more meaningful if there were some other type of church out there that was doing a better job of holding their youth. Catholics? Orthodox? Liberal Protestants? I don't know of any.) Two more marginally useful chapters follow in which fundamentalist literalism is compared to Gnosticism and heroic exegetes of the past are examined to see if they read Genesis in a literalistic way (Barth, Calvin, Augustine, Maimonides). Guess what Osborn discovers? Hey, good guess.
The second part of the book deals with the problem of animal pain and starts off with a good survey of the main theodicies in circulation, with special attention to the C. S. Lewis/Gregory Boyd notion of a limited dualism involving a cosmic conflict between God and Satanic forces that was going on long before humans arrived on the scene, explaining why the world is infested with cruelty and death right from the Adamic get-go. (This is my choice of explanation, by the way, so I was pleased to see Osborn give it some decent space.) Ultimately, however, Osborn rejects this view because he sees evidence in scripture that God is the author of the dark side of nature as well as the bright side. For proof, he turns to the book of Job.
There follows a simply dreadful exegesis of Job 38-42, in which Osborn manages to misread both the text and the meaning. Astoundingly, he claims that Job curses all of creation in Job 3! It's plain that Job does no such thing. He curses the day of his birth; i.e. he wishes he had never been born. In Job 38-42 Osborn finds God delighting in his creation, including both its predatory, "cruel" aspects as well as its life-affirming aspects. (He also gloms onto the stupid New English Bible translation of "Behemoth" as "crocodile" so he can use those passages too.) In fact, God does not delight in his creation per se in these chapters; he delights in his total mastery over it, both the benign and sinister aspects of it, while reminding Job that he is in no position to do so. Usually I can find something worthwhile even in biblical exegesis I strongly disagree with, but this is a complete waste.
Meanwhile, if we want to find a biblical witness to the ultimately unacceptable predatory violence seen in nature, Isaiah 11:1-9 would seem to be the place to go. To his credit, Osborn brings the passage up at the end of his Job chapter, but then, unbelievably, he immediately brushes it aside as irrelevant to the discussion (p. 154)!
The gloves come off in the final chapters of the book, where the discussion devolves into a dire, apocalyptic, environmentalist sermon centered around an animal-rights screed that could have been written by PETA. The language is nothing short of hysterical. After a brief mention of the Shoah, he avers that "we now face an ecological holocaust in which manic human greed and unchecked exploitation of the earth threaten to destroy entire species and render God's creation a wasteland." Shall Christians share in "the military-industrial conspiracy to murder creation"? Can we forgive "Christian complicity in the destruction of the planet"? Osborn demands an answer! "Shall we devour the earth that was left in our care without restraint until it is an utterly scorched desert?" Questions like this "grow in urgency every day." When, oh when will we bring "sabbath peace to our brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom"? (pp. 173-75). The choice is clear. There is Osborn's sensitive and reasonable approach on the one side and ABSOLUTE APOCALYPTIC CATASTROPHE!!! on the other. You're with us or you're with the planet murderers. You know, he sounds just like the extremist fundamentalists he's been moaning about throughout the book. They say you become what you hate.
I could smell it coming, and sure enough, strains of Marxism can be seen floating around under all this screeching and lapel-grabbing. Osborn speaks of "breaking the cycle of disequalizing wealth concentration," "justice to the poor," "wealth redistribution" blah blah blah (pp. 169-172). Why animal-rights activists trend hard left and think capitalism (in Osborn it's "late capitalism") is intrinsically harder on the environment than other economic systems actually in use in the world is a mystery to me. Anyway, all the masks are off by this point. In Osborn's view, even "avowed atheists" who "have taken the lead in actually protecting God's kingdom" may "find themselves being commended by the Almighty" on judgment day over against Christians "who loudly claimed to be God's chief spokespersons" but "viewed the task of actually caring for the creation with reluctance, nonchalance or outright disdain" (p. 174). In other words, screw the gospel of Jesus Christ; we've all got more important things to do, like saving the planet.
What hypocrisy! Osborn goes to great lengths to protest and prove his own fidelity to the Bible as God's Word in the first part of the book, but by the end he abandons such niceties and can barely contain his disgust with "fundamentalist Christians" who think "the world is bound for a fiery conflagration in the near future in which all animals will be destroyed by God anyway" (p. 173). Um, Ron? I'll bet those crazy fundys think that because that's a pretty straightforward, plain-sense reading of 2 Peter 3:7-13. This passage would pretty much ruin Osborn's whole sermon if it were taken seriously, so naturally, he ignores it.
It's too bad, because Osborn knows how to write, and we need a good critique of impossibly literal readings of Genesis that take it as something other than what it is, and we also need a good work of theodicy with regard to animal predation and suffering, but this isn't it.
December 1, 2021
Amazing book. A must read for all christians. The average stars here do not reflect the value to be found inside this book.
June 19, 2024
This book is written in two parts with somewhat different, but interconnected goals. The first half of the book is a critique of young earth creationism in light of the problem of death and animal suffering, and the second is Osborne’s own response to animal suffering and death before the fall.
On the first part, I think Osborne’s critique is very well articulated and argued. He does a great job showing that animal death and suffering is just as much a problem for YEC who tend to blame it on the fall as it is for anyone else. Actually, he argues convincingly that it is even more of a problem for YEC, because blaming the fall for animal predation, suffering, and death reflects a God who seems patently unjust and cruel.
“But it is left to creationists who attribute all of the dysteleological and troubling realities of animal existence to God’s “curse” upon the animal kingdom to explain why a fully just, fully loving and omnipotent Creator would not simply permit but positively demand such suffering among uncomprehending and morally innocent creatures who were previously unexposed to pain or death of any kind.”
“But why, we must ask, should Adam’s disobedience have required placid, plant-eating sea creatures to be rapidly transformed into great white sharks and killer whales plying the oceans in search of seals to be devoured in dark places where no human eye ever falls (not to mention velociraptors and tyrannosauruses)? What kind of just and loving God would not merely permit but positively require this to happen?”
These are not his only critiques, obviously, but that’s part of the idea. And I think his critiques are very well spoken.
I think there’s a few chapters at the end of part one that are unnecessary philosophical musings.
The second half of the book is Osborne’s own answer to the problem of animal suffering and death in light of a good and just God. Why would a good God seem to build predation, suffering, and death into creation? Honestly, his answer isn’t super clear. I believe his answer has to do with the freedom that God not only gives to humans, but to creation itself. And to be truly other than God, freedom is necessary. I think this is a vital part of the answer to natural evil. But Osborne doesn’t elaborate very much, rather he mostly dwells on his critiques of YEC.
I do wish he was more clear and he fleshed out his answer more. There were definitely some good insights, but they were a bit scattered. And honestly, it’s a little hard for me to see his answer standing fully: if predation, suffering and death are a result of the freedom that God gives to creation, in that it is not God’s will for these things, but they are contingent realities based on creations free will (so to speak), then how can any of that be seen as beautiful in any sense? And are we not to regard predation and death as true evil? One of the last chapters seems to indicate this, but his opening and other ideas throughout the book seem to speak contrarily to that notion. And there’s no clear line for what is okay (such as eating meat?) and not okay (such as ‘hunting for sport’, what ever that means to Osborne). And there’s a chapter that rails against the meat industry (or at least the abuses of the meat industry), but it’s not clear why eating meat is okay as long as there is not suffering of the animals. I guess the line that is unclear is what is “unnecessary” suffering (or even death) and who decides what that is?
All told, however, Osborn has a lot of good stuff in this book, and it’s definitely worth the read.
On the first part, I think Osborne’s critique is very well articulated and argued. He does a great job showing that animal death and suffering is just as much a problem for YEC who tend to blame it on the fall as it is for anyone else. Actually, he argues convincingly that it is even more of a problem for YEC, because blaming the fall for animal predation, suffering, and death reflects a God who seems patently unjust and cruel.
“But it is left to creationists who attribute all of the dysteleological and troubling realities of animal existence to God’s “curse” upon the animal kingdom to explain why a fully just, fully loving and omnipotent Creator would not simply permit but positively demand such suffering among uncomprehending and morally innocent creatures who were previously unexposed to pain or death of any kind.”
“But why, we must ask, should Adam’s disobedience have required placid, plant-eating sea creatures to be rapidly transformed into great white sharks and killer whales plying the oceans in search of seals to be devoured in dark places where no human eye ever falls (not to mention velociraptors and tyrannosauruses)? What kind of just and loving God would not merely permit but positively require this to happen?”
These are not his only critiques, obviously, but that’s part of the idea. And I think his critiques are very well spoken.
I think there’s a few chapters at the end of part one that are unnecessary philosophical musings.
The second half of the book is Osborne’s own answer to the problem of animal suffering and death in light of a good and just God. Why would a good God seem to build predation, suffering, and death into creation? Honestly, his answer isn’t super clear. I believe his answer has to do with the freedom that God not only gives to humans, but to creation itself. And to be truly other than God, freedom is necessary. I think this is a vital part of the answer to natural evil. But Osborne doesn’t elaborate very much, rather he mostly dwells on his critiques of YEC.
I do wish he was more clear and he fleshed out his answer more. There were definitely some good insights, but they were a bit scattered. And honestly, it’s a little hard for me to see his answer standing fully: if predation, suffering and death are a result of the freedom that God gives to creation, in that it is not God’s will for these things, but they are contingent realities based on creations free will (so to speak), then how can any of that be seen as beautiful in any sense? And are we not to regard predation and death as true evil? One of the last chapters seems to indicate this, but his opening and other ideas throughout the book seem to speak contrarily to that notion. And there’s no clear line for what is okay (such as eating meat?) and not okay (such as ‘hunting for sport’, what ever that means to Osborne). And there’s a chapter that rails against the meat industry (or at least the abuses of the meat industry), but it’s not clear why eating meat is okay as long as there is not suffering of the animals. I guess the line that is unclear is what is “unnecessary” suffering (or even death) and who decides what that is?
All told, however, Osborn has a lot of good stuff in this book, and it’s definitely worth the read.
September 17, 2015
I was soooo excited to see a theology book about animal suffering and soooo disappointed by the end of this book! The book is divided into two parts: the first on "literalism" and the second on animal suffering. The first part, which was nearly twice as long as the second, had very little to say about animal suffering. And the second, which was supposed to be about animal suffering, was more a continuation of the author's rant against "literalism". I put "literalism" in quotes, because frankly, I'm getting a little sick and tired of literalism getting slammed. The problem isn't so much literalism as an excess of literalism, what I call hyperliteralism. To slam literalism is to imply that the Bible should be taken entirely metaphorically, which is as silly as saying it should all be taken literally. Plus, haven't enough books been written already on the dangers of fundamentalism? Nevertheless, the author is a polished and original writer, and if you're a Christian looking for killer theological arguments against young earth creationists to add to your arsenal, there is plenty of them here. Hence two stars instead of just one.
June 6, 2014
This book's focus was less about animal suffering and more about the problems of interpreting the whole of the Bible literally. There are some interesting points, but overall was not what I expected. Didn't enjoy this one at all.
August 30, 2016
Definitely not the authoritative volume on the issue...
Osborn's treatment of animal ferocity in the book of Job is very light, and he does not address Psalm 104, one of the most debated passage.
Osborn's treatment of animal ferocity in the book of Job is very light, and he does not address Psalm 104, one of the most debated passage.
July 29, 2024
A well-argued, nearly fatal blow to literalistic interpretations of Gen 1&2 (imo). The first half of the book rips the high grounded rug out from under the feet of a “plain reading of the Bible” (whatever that even means…) and begs questions of that perspective which it is resolutely unable to answer. A staggering critique of literalistic, modern, individualistic assumptions.
… and then it kept going.
Ultimately, this book felt like it bit off more than it could chew (a metaphor of potentially poor taste on my part) by winding in a few different directions. Critique, hypotheses concerning animal death before the fall, ecotheology, and general theodicy. Granted, all of these topics are in some way related, but I felt like this particular book didn’t finalize any of them. Also, given the scope of this project, this title was poorly chosen (a mark against IVP rather than Osborn himself, more than likely). I was expecting the whole book to be making a case for the title, rather than the brief treatment it ultimately got.
That said, the book is very good. Its various threads can be disorienting, but at least they are very well crafted. A definite must-read in any of the fields it addresses.
… and then it kept going.
Ultimately, this book felt like it bit off more than it could chew (a metaphor of potentially poor taste on my part) by winding in a few different directions. Critique, hypotheses concerning animal death before the fall, ecotheology, and general theodicy. Granted, all of these topics are in some way related, but I felt like this particular book didn’t finalize any of them. Also, given the scope of this project, this title was poorly chosen (a mark against IVP rather than Osborn himself, more than likely). I was expecting the whole book to be making a case for the title, rather than the brief treatment it ultimately got.
That said, the book is very good. Its various threads can be disorienting, but at least they are very well crafted. A definite must-read in any of the fields it addresses.
June 24, 2014
This book took me a while to read because it gave me a lot to chew on. This book's topic is something that is pretty foreign to me concerning where I usually stand on this issue.
The book is about the problem of animal suffering. If animals are violent towards man and each other, and sometimes overly violent for no real reason, because of the Fall of mankind. As Osborne points out though, that actually leads to a lot more questions about God, his character, and his relation to his creation. I didn't even know this was an issue, but apparently it is.
There are a few issues I had with the book though. The majority of the book doesn't address "Death Before the Fall," but rather the issue of evolution vs. creationism, primarily through the question of whether we should read the creation account through the eyes of literalism (which Osborn differentiates from a literal reading). Osborne asks a lot of good questions, that should make anyone on the side of literalism for the Creation stop and think about, and really ask themselves if they are considering the full impact of their beliefs, as one should do with any way they read the scriptures.
Osborne seemed to have a lot of beef with creationists though, which I suppose might be understandable, but I don't think a book written to challenge that group should be used to so harshly confront them as he often does. I can see many people rejecting his book simply because of the tone he sometimes slips in talking to and about fundamentalists. Along with that, he, at least in my opinion, often portrayed his camp as the more knowledgeable, better understanding group, while calling all sides to come together and get along. Sometimes it seemed more divisive than anything.
He has some moments where he lumped all creationists or fundamentalists together with beliefs such as predestination, suggesting that if fundamentalists believe in this means of predestination then...even though that belief is not believed by all fundamentalists. I do also believe he misused Job 3 in chapter 12 to make a point.
Complaints out of the way, I really enjoyed this book, and it was a challenge to me. Regardless of where you stand though, I believe the last 2-3 chapters are where the book really shines. Osborne shows that the creation account, regardless of how you approach it, is an event that calls those who are God's image to work alongside him in creation. He addresses the Sabbath as a Seventh Day Adventist in a way I had never thought of it, and really called into question how we allow our view of creation to affect how much we truly care about God's creation, and if we are working alongside him.
I would suggest this for anyone who is pretty well grounded in their faith. It is not a quick or easy read, and it will most likely challenge you one way or the other.
The book is about the problem of animal suffering. If animals are violent towards man and each other, and sometimes overly violent for no real reason, because of the Fall of mankind. As Osborne points out though, that actually leads to a lot more questions about God, his character, and his relation to his creation. I didn't even know this was an issue, but apparently it is.
There are a few issues I had with the book though. The majority of the book doesn't address "Death Before the Fall," but rather the issue of evolution vs. creationism, primarily through the question of whether we should read the creation account through the eyes of literalism (which Osborn differentiates from a literal reading). Osborne asks a lot of good questions, that should make anyone on the side of literalism for the Creation stop and think about, and really ask themselves if they are considering the full impact of their beliefs, as one should do with any way they read the scriptures.
Osborne seemed to have a lot of beef with creationists though, which I suppose might be understandable, but I don't think a book written to challenge that group should be used to so harshly confront them as he often does. I can see many people rejecting his book simply because of the tone he sometimes slips in talking to and about fundamentalists. Along with that, he, at least in my opinion, often portrayed his camp as the more knowledgeable, better understanding group, while calling all sides to come together and get along. Sometimes it seemed more divisive than anything.
He has some moments where he lumped all creationists or fundamentalists together with beliefs such as predestination, suggesting that if fundamentalists believe in this means of predestination then...even though that belief is not believed by all fundamentalists. I do also believe he misused Job 3 in chapter 12 to make a point.
Complaints out of the way, I really enjoyed this book, and it was a challenge to me. Regardless of where you stand though, I believe the last 2-3 chapters are where the book really shines. Osborne shows that the creation account, regardless of how you approach it, is an event that calls those who are God's image to work alongside him in creation. He addresses the Sabbath as a Seventh Day Adventist in a way I had never thought of it, and really called into question how we allow our view of creation to affect how much we truly care about God's creation, and if we are working alongside him.
I would suggest this for anyone who is pretty well grounded in their faith. It is not a quick or easy read, and it will most likely challenge you one way or the other.
March 6, 2014
This book is a scholarly yet personal discussion of the problems resulting from biblical literalism, with a focus on animal suffering. A key question throughout the book is: “Could God have ever looked at a world that included death or pain of any kind and pronounced it ‘very good’?”
It should be noted that the author was raised in and continues to find Christian fellowship in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which shows up in his positive comments on the Sabbath, the amount of space in the book that he devotes to discussing biblical literalism (two-thirds), and in the very gentle way in which he disagrees with biblical literalists.
“It is strict literalists themselves . . . who have most clearly subjected the theological authority of Scripture to the authority of modern scientific rationalism with their insistence that Genesis be “scientific” in order to be divinely inspired. . . . Believers ought not to be so in awe of modern science as to assume that Genesis is only authoritative so long as it is scientific or historical.”
The author makes no attempt to survey all of the available positions on animal suffering and animal death before the fall, as, for instance, Christopher Southgate did in his book “The Groaning of Creation.” He wishes to “demonstrate to biblical literalists that one can be a thoroughly orthodox Christian and embrace evolutionary concepts without contradiction.”
He offers no tidy answers to the theodicy dilemma of animal suffering, but suggests that the problem is less severe for those who accept biological evolution than for those who accept “scientific” creationism. He suggests that there is an analogy between speaking of moral evil as resulting from human free will and speaking of natural evil and animal suffering as “emerging from free or indeterminate processes, which God does not override and which are inherent possibilities in a creation in which the Creator allows the other to be truly other.”
The author disagrees with those who insist that without a historical Adam the life, death, and resurrection of the historical Jesus would be devoid of meaning, because this claim amounts to a denial of the centrality of Christ, since it gives the fallen Adam of Genesis an interpretative primacy over the Jesus of history.
I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in biblical literalism and/or the problem of animal suffering.
Unfortunately, not only are there endnotes instead of footnotes, but the text is identified at the top of each odd-numbered page by chapter names, and the endnotes are identified only by chapter numbers, deliberately making the endnotes even more difficult to find.
It should be noted that the author was raised in and continues to find Christian fellowship in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which shows up in his positive comments on the Sabbath, the amount of space in the book that he devotes to discussing biblical literalism (two-thirds), and in the very gentle way in which he disagrees with biblical literalists.
“It is strict literalists themselves . . . who have most clearly subjected the theological authority of Scripture to the authority of modern scientific rationalism with their insistence that Genesis be “scientific” in order to be divinely inspired. . . . Believers ought not to be so in awe of modern science as to assume that Genesis is only authoritative so long as it is scientific or historical.”
The author makes no attempt to survey all of the available positions on animal suffering and animal death before the fall, as, for instance, Christopher Southgate did in his book “The Groaning of Creation.” He wishes to “demonstrate to biblical literalists that one can be a thoroughly orthodox Christian and embrace evolutionary concepts without contradiction.”
He offers no tidy answers to the theodicy dilemma of animal suffering, but suggests that the problem is less severe for those who accept biological evolution than for those who accept “scientific” creationism. He suggests that there is an analogy between speaking of moral evil as resulting from human free will and speaking of natural evil and animal suffering as “emerging from free or indeterminate processes, which God does not override and which are inherent possibilities in a creation in which the Creator allows the other to be truly other.”
The author disagrees with those who insist that without a historical Adam the life, death, and resurrection of the historical Jesus would be devoid of meaning, because this claim amounts to a denial of the centrality of Christ, since it gives the fallen Adam of Genesis an interpretative primacy over the Jesus of history.
I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in biblical literalism and/or the problem of animal suffering.
Unfortunately, not only are there endnotes instead of footnotes, but the text is identified at the top of each odd-numbered page by chapter names, and the endnotes are identified only by chapter numbers, deliberately making the endnotes even more difficult to find.
December 8, 2025
Ronald Osborn’s Death Before the Fall stands out as a distinctive work that thoughtfully challenges prevailing assumptions without adopting an aggressive approach. The book is introspective, contemplative, and subtly daring. Osborn seeks to tackle a persistent issue in Christian theology: reconciling the existence of death, violence, and predation within nature with a literal interpretation of Genesis, which posits that death entered the universe solely after the transgression of Adam and Eve. Instead of attempting to confront or dismantle biblical literalism, he encourages readers to embrace a broader perspective—one that respects Scripture while also engaging candidly with our understanding of the creation.
The book opens by addressing the internal conflict many Christians experience. On one hand, there is a profound respect for Scripture paired with a commitment to honor God’s word; on the other hand, there is substantial scientific evidence indicating that death and natural selection played crucial roles in life’s development long before humans emerged. Osborn points out that proponents of young-earth creationism try to reconcile these opposing views by suggesting that all forms of death—including those among animals—are repercussions of Adam's sin. However, as he delves deeper into this assertion, it begins to unravel.
Osborn’s method is refreshingly interdisciplinary. He moves from biblical studies to philosophy to science without ever sounding like he is trying to show off. His writing feels more like someone walking with the reader on a trail, pointing out features in the landscape, occasionally stopping to reflect on how each piece of the terrain fits together. When he explains why Genesis 1–3 cannot be flattened into a modern scientific or historical account, he does so by examining the literary and theological purposes of the text. When he addresses the problem of animal suffering, he does not merely turn to biology; he reaches for the Psalms, Job, and the wisdom tradition to show that Scripture itself contains a much more complex picture of creation than many Christians assume.
One of the most compelling elements of the book is Osborn’s treatment of the violence inherent in nature. He does not shy away from it or sanitize it. Instead, he asks what it means to speak of a good creation in which death is woven into the very fabric of biological existence. His discussion of predation, parasitism, and natural selection is not cynical or fatalistic. It is honest. And this honesty serves as an entry point for deeper theological contemplation. Instead of depicting death solely as a complete evil that arose solely due to human disobedience, Osborn illustrates how the biblical story frequently portrays creation as wild, unrestrained, and not entirely secure—even prior to Genesis 3. The sea monsters in Job, the chaotic waters of Genesis 1, and the creatures that “roar for their prey” in the Psalms all suggest a world that is good and yet not devoid of danger.
Osborn’s engagement with the book of Job is especially strong. Job never receives a tidy explanation for suffering, and God’s speeches from the whirlwind highlight a creation much stranger and more ferocious than a simple “fall-only” theology can accommodate. The Leviathan and Behemoth are not gentle pets. They are part of the world God delights in. Osborn takes this text seriously and uses it to argue that Scripture itself resists simplistic claims that suffering and death must be the result of human sin. The Bible’s vision of creation is far more mysterious.
Another major thread in the book is Osborn’s critique of certain forms of fundamentalism. What makes his critique effective is that he does not mock or attack. Instead, he examines the philosophical assumptions that often lie hidden beneath literalist readings. He shows how modern scientific literalism—ironically—shares more with Enlightenment rationalism than with ancient Christian approaches to Scripture. Osborn is not anti-science or anti-Bible; he is anti-reductionism. His target is the impulse to force the complexity of Scripture into the mold of modern expectations. The book calls readers back to a more ancient, more flexible hermeneutic—one that trusts Scripture without demanding that it operate like a twenty-first century science textbook.
Osborn also wrestles with the theological implications of a world in which death precedes sin. Does this undermine the doctrine of the fall? Does this undermine the rationale of redemption? He contends that it does not. In fact, he posits that a comprehensive perspective on the extensive history of creation enriches Christian theology. If the universe has always been dynamic, perpetually evolving, and consistently progressing towards greater complexity, then the incarnation takes on even more significance. Christ enters not into a static world that has suddenly gone awry, but into a vibrant realm filled with life, beauty, struggle, and delicacy. From this standpoint, redemption is not simply about correcting a cosmic error; rather, it represents the culmination of a narrative that has been developing over billions of years.
Yet the book is not without tension. Osborn openly acknowledges that Christianity does not offer a neat explanation for natural suffering. He is comfortable with mystery in a way that some readers may find unsettling. Others will find it liberating. Throughout the book, he resists the temptation to construct a new airtight system. Instead, he argues that the presence of death before the fall does not break Christian theology; it simply invites Christians to reexamine long-standing assumptions.
Stylistically, the book is warm and accessible. Osborn communicates with precision while avoiding oversimplification. He skillfully presents complex topics in a manner that feels relatable rather than overly abstract. His style is pastoral, yet it never veers into sentimentality. Even when he critiques young-earth creationism or strict literal interpretations of scripture, he maintains a tone free from condescension. The intent is not to win debates but to foster a space for more profound contemplation.
As the book progresses to its concluding chapters, Death Before the Fall evolves beyond merely discussing origins. It transforms into a reflection on how Christians can approach the convergence of faith and contemporary knowledge without apprehension. Osborn’s methodology promotes humility, inquisitiveness, and confidence. He emphasizes that Christianity has flourished when it embraced questions instead of rejecting them.
Ultimately, the book triumphs because it does not require readers to forsake either Scripture or science. Instead, it encourages them to accept both as valuable gifts. For those grappling with issues such as animal suffering, the conflict between Genesis and evolution, or the greater challenge of linking ancient writings with modern findings, Osborn serves as a wise and generous mentor. Death Before the Fall does not provide simplistic solutions; rather, it poses faithful inquiries that have the potential to enhance readers’ comprehension of both God and creation.
The book opens by addressing the internal conflict many Christians experience. On one hand, there is a profound respect for Scripture paired with a commitment to honor God’s word; on the other hand, there is substantial scientific evidence indicating that death and natural selection played crucial roles in life’s development long before humans emerged. Osborn points out that proponents of young-earth creationism try to reconcile these opposing views by suggesting that all forms of death—including those among animals—are repercussions of Adam's sin. However, as he delves deeper into this assertion, it begins to unravel.
Osborn’s method is refreshingly interdisciplinary. He moves from biblical studies to philosophy to science without ever sounding like he is trying to show off. His writing feels more like someone walking with the reader on a trail, pointing out features in the landscape, occasionally stopping to reflect on how each piece of the terrain fits together. When he explains why Genesis 1–3 cannot be flattened into a modern scientific or historical account, he does so by examining the literary and theological purposes of the text. When he addresses the problem of animal suffering, he does not merely turn to biology; he reaches for the Psalms, Job, and the wisdom tradition to show that Scripture itself contains a much more complex picture of creation than many Christians assume.
One of the most compelling elements of the book is Osborn’s treatment of the violence inherent in nature. He does not shy away from it or sanitize it. Instead, he asks what it means to speak of a good creation in which death is woven into the very fabric of biological existence. His discussion of predation, parasitism, and natural selection is not cynical or fatalistic. It is honest. And this honesty serves as an entry point for deeper theological contemplation. Instead of depicting death solely as a complete evil that arose solely due to human disobedience, Osborn illustrates how the biblical story frequently portrays creation as wild, unrestrained, and not entirely secure—even prior to Genesis 3. The sea monsters in Job, the chaotic waters of Genesis 1, and the creatures that “roar for their prey” in the Psalms all suggest a world that is good and yet not devoid of danger.
Osborn’s engagement with the book of Job is especially strong. Job never receives a tidy explanation for suffering, and God’s speeches from the whirlwind highlight a creation much stranger and more ferocious than a simple “fall-only” theology can accommodate. The Leviathan and Behemoth are not gentle pets. They are part of the world God delights in. Osborn takes this text seriously and uses it to argue that Scripture itself resists simplistic claims that suffering and death must be the result of human sin. The Bible’s vision of creation is far more mysterious.
Another major thread in the book is Osborn’s critique of certain forms of fundamentalism. What makes his critique effective is that he does not mock or attack. Instead, he examines the philosophical assumptions that often lie hidden beneath literalist readings. He shows how modern scientific literalism—ironically—shares more with Enlightenment rationalism than with ancient Christian approaches to Scripture. Osborn is not anti-science or anti-Bible; he is anti-reductionism. His target is the impulse to force the complexity of Scripture into the mold of modern expectations. The book calls readers back to a more ancient, more flexible hermeneutic—one that trusts Scripture without demanding that it operate like a twenty-first century science textbook.
Osborn also wrestles with the theological implications of a world in which death precedes sin. Does this undermine the doctrine of the fall? Does this undermine the rationale of redemption? He contends that it does not. In fact, he posits that a comprehensive perspective on the extensive history of creation enriches Christian theology. If the universe has always been dynamic, perpetually evolving, and consistently progressing towards greater complexity, then the incarnation takes on even more significance. Christ enters not into a static world that has suddenly gone awry, but into a vibrant realm filled with life, beauty, struggle, and delicacy. From this standpoint, redemption is not simply about correcting a cosmic error; rather, it represents the culmination of a narrative that has been developing over billions of years.
Yet the book is not without tension. Osborn openly acknowledges that Christianity does not offer a neat explanation for natural suffering. He is comfortable with mystery in a way that some readers may find unsettling. Others will find it liberating. Throughout the book, he resists the temptation to construct a new airtight system. Instead, he argues that the presence of death before the fall does not break Christian theology; it simply invites Christians to reexamine long-standing assumptions.
Stylistically, the book is warm and accessible. Osborn communicates with precision while avoiding oversimplification. He skillfully presents complex topics in a manner that feels relatable rather than overly abstract. His style is pastoral, yet it never veers into sentimentality. Even when he critiques young-earth creationism or strict literal interpretations of scripture, he maintains a tone free from condescension. The intent is not to win debates but to foster a space for more profound contemplation.
As the book progresses to its concluding chapters, Death Before the Fall evolves beyond merely discussing origins. It transforms into a reflection on how Christians can approach the convergence of faith and contemporary knowledge without apprehension. Osborn’s methodology promotes humility, inquisitiveness, and confidence. He emphasizes that Christianity has flourished when it embraced questions instead of rejecting them.
Ultimately, the book triumphs because it does not require readers to forsake either Scripture or science. Instead, it encourages them to accept both as valuable gifts. For those grappling with issues such as animal suffering, the conflict between Genesis and evolution, or the greater challenge of linking ancient writings with modern findings, Osborn serves as a wise and generous mentor. Death Before the Fall does not provide simplistic solutions; rather, it poses faithful inquiries that have the potential to enhance readers’ comprehension of both God and creation.
March 30, 2014
Всъщност книгата вероятно заслужава по-висока оценка. причината да дам едва 3 "звезди" е понеже в основната линия на аргументация няма нищо, което да не съм срещал преди.
Това по-никакъв начин не означава, че книгата не струва (макар да имам съмнения в удачността на Baker Academic). Нито пък означава, че авторът просто "рециклира" чужди мисли - ако не друго ясно е поне, че това, което пише е лично преживяно и че сериозно и дълго се е борил с важни въпроси.
Като цяло бих препоръчал книгата на всеки, който желае да се запознае по-подробно със слабостите на буквалистичната интерпретация на началните глави на Битие. Аз напълно се солидаризирам с виждането на автора по въпроса, макар да намирам неговото чисто богословско и егзегетично въведение за доста слабо (Веднъж излязъл от чистата егзегетика качеството на аргументацията се повишава).
Лично за себе си намирам 3 забележки за много удачни попадения:
1. Представянето на "научният" креационизъм като скрита форма на фидеизъм.
2. Проблемът с "доказания" по научен път Бог, Който по този начин би престанал да бъде Бог с главна буква (Когато пиша това мисля конкретно за настояването на У. Дембски за ясен и недвусмислен отпечатък на Бога в природата развит на основата на текстове като Римл. 1).
3. Свежият поглед върху книгата Йов.
Намирам и трите за много точни и значими и това е нещо малко, но съществено, което определено обогатява моето осмисляне на въпроса.
Това по-никакъв начин не означава, че книгата не струва (макар да имам съмнения в удачността на Baker Academic). Нито пък означава, че авторът просто "рециклира" чужди мисли - ако не друго ясно е поне, че това, което пише е лично преживяно и че сериозно и дълго се е борил с важни въпроси.
Като цяло бих препоръчал книгата на всеки, който желае да се запознае по-подробно със слабостите на буквалистичната интерпретация на началните глави на Битие. Аз напълно се солидаризирам с виждането на автора по въпроса, макар да намирам неговото чисто богословско и егзегетично въведение за доста слабо (Веднъж излязъл от чистата егзегетика качеството на аргументацията се повишава).
Лично за себе си намирам 3 забележки за много удачни попадения:
1. Представянето на "научният" креационизъм като скрита форма на фидеизъм.
2. Проблемът с "доказания" по научен път Бог, Който по този начин би престанал да бъде Бог с главна буква (Когато пиша това мисля конкретно за настояването на У. Дембски за ясен и недвусмислен отпечатък на Бога в природата развит на основата на текстове като Римл. 1).
3. Свежият поглед върху книгата Йов.
Намирам и трите за много точни и значими и това е нещо малко, но съществено, което определено обогатява моето осмисляне на въпроса.
May 25, 2015
Excellent exposition of the problems of theodicy and animal suffering. Osborn's main theme is that "scientific" Creationism, with it's focus on a completely literal reading of Genesis, does not, in fact, answer the deep questions around animal suffering that is inherent in our current animal world. Although less literal readings, that allow more space for a longer history for life on earth and which accommodate some aspects of macroevolution (a la theistic evolution) do not completely relieve the tension of animal suffering, Osborn believes non-literal approaches at least make it easier to approach the issues.
Osborn also does a good job of showing that the Sabbath is by no means dependent on a literal, 7-day (24 hour days) creation week. The story, as told, is important as a reaching device, as I have always maintained myself, but even if it is not literal, it does not detract from the theological truths and richness of the Sabbath.
Osborn also does a good job of showing that the Sabbath is by no means dependent on a literal, 7-day (24 hour days) creation week. The story, as told, is important as a reaching device, as I have always maintained myself, but even if it is not literal, it does not detract from the theological truths and richness of the Sabbath.
October 19, 2020
The first half+ of this book is a rant against biblical literalism and fundamentalists that smells of bitterness and frustration (some of which I share, but the approach is not helpful and will not be convincing to many who don't already agree with him). The second half is a wrestling with the problem of animal suffering that has some merit but needed to go deeper. If he'd scrapped the first half of the book and expanded the second this could have been a decent book. But alas, he had an axe to grind that will keep his good points from being heard.
October 6, 2019
Disappointing. I am very much interested in the (theological) position of death as irreducible part of God's very good creation, but that ended up playing a small role in this book which spent most of its chapters refuting philosophical foundationalism and rigid literalism. I am also very much interested in refuting those things, but, was not expecting that to be the primary topic of this book.
August 15, 2015
So happy my friend Ron wrote this. So many challenges. But the way he puts Jesus Christ at the center of reading the Bible was a real blessing to me. As someone who loves animals, I'm still just not happy with the way the world works, but that's true for people who love humans as well.
August 1, 2014
Chapters 1-9 = 1 Star
Chapters 10-14 = 3 Stars
Therefore, Death Before the Fall = 2 Stars
Chapters 10-14 = 3 Stars
Therefore, Death Before the Fall = 2 Stars
February 8, 2016
While it was wonderful to see an Adventist able to admit he lives and learns outside the box, this book tries to be too many things.
December 30, 2019
I was excited to read this, but it turned out disappointing. It is only in the last third of the book that Osborn addresses animal suffering, and his argument misses major theological issues.
August 20, 2014
Author: Ronald Osborn
Publisher: IVP
Reading Level: Moderate
Pages: 195
Hardly any passage in the Christian Scriptures has stirred up more controversy than the first two chapters of Genesis. These opening chapters of the Bible have caused division on scientific and theological levels; spliting Christian views on science, Biblical genre and proper exegesis. It is within this debate that Death Before the Fall seeks to shed some light on the problem of animal suffering in creation and what it provides for interpretative keys to these chapters.
A new thought to some, the concept of animal death and suffering presents interesting thoughts and challenges for the modern tradition of literal interpretation. Death Before the Fall provides introductory reflections on the purpose of death in God’s creation and whether it occurred before the great fall described in Genesis 3.
The Communication
With respect to presentation, Ronald Osborn writes both clearly and fluidly. There is rarely a point that is clouded or confused, muddled or messy. His choice in language is modern and practical, making Death Before the Fall extremely easy to read. Those unfamiliar with the theological, philosophical and scientific issues presented in the book will not be overwhelmed by their descriptions and application.
Osborn makes the claim that he writes from and for an “Orthodox” perspective (20). Given his less conservative approaches to the book of Genesis and evolution, many will be left to summarize that Osborn’s “Orthodoxy” pertains not to modern traditionalism but to the nature of Jesus Christ and authenticity of the Scriptures. However, the exegetical and hermeneutical difference he displays puts him at dissonance with conservative creationists. A large portion of the books is Osborn pointing out the flaws in fundamental, “scientific” creationism. While often enlightening (chapters 4, 5 & 7), these sections do not come off humbly.
The Content
Death Before the Fall is split into two major sections: “On Literalism” and “On Animal Suffering.” The majority of the book is spent against the practice of literalism and the culture of fundamentalism (~120 pages). In opposition to some literalistic paradigms, the earliest chapters from Osborn present arguments for the shared foundation of animals and humans (27-28), a lack of Divine curse about animals (35), how “good” does not imply perfection (21-31), the conflict of accounts in Genesis 1 & 2 (52) and a mild challenge to a global flood (47-48). These arguments intend to show that a strict literalism that demands the Genesis account be scientific are in fact departing from a sound exegesis and any type of historical fideism. Instead Osborn proposes that literalistic scientific creationism is ardently clinging to the post-enlightenment paradigm of empiricism. This is used to explain why the “new atheists” and scientific creationist both demand an approach to Genesis 1 & 2 that undergirds the entirety of the Scriptures (46).
After a successful start, Death Before the Fall sets aside looking at the Genesis account and turns curiously critical of literalism and fundamentalism. Though thought provoking and often valuable, much of this section seems to serve no purpose other than to bury literalism. The presentation of progressive/degenerative science (chapter 4), “enclave mentality” (chapter 5) and “gnostic syndrome” (chapter 7) reveal many dangerous and accurate tendencies in the culture of literalism and fundamentalism. But these personal, sociological attacks seem ill spent. Little to no exegetical work is done in these sections and the Genesis account itself is set aside. It is unclear how these chapters are edifying for believers seeking to understand the creation account and participate in this debate.
Almost as if on cue, Death Before the Fall returns to the exegetical opinions of some of the church’s brightest theologian (and one Jewish authority). The presentations of Karl Barth, John Calvin, Augustine and Maimonides are all incredibly fair (chapter 8). The modern scientific creationism is shown to be a post-enlightenment response to the prevailing Darwinian theory of evolution and not a necessary tradition of the church. Though the historical thoughts of these men are valuable to show the validity of non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2, Osborn falls short of providing the actual reasons why these men’s opinion should be accepted as best reflecting the Scriptural account.
In the second section of Death Before the Fall, the question of animal suffering is introduced to demonstrate the failure of “scientific” creationism and the inherent value of a theistic evolution view. Chapter 10 attempts to do this by presenting three dilemmas for literal creation: stasis, deceiver and divine curse. Presented as a strong point, this section seems too rushed, as if the rebuttals of the literalist are self-evidently incorrect or foolish. The stasis argument is based upon the premise of “spatial finite” conditions (128). But Osborn presents no scientific reasons to confirm the premise of a spatial limited universe. Instead Osborn resorts to playfully proposing “teleportation” as the only means of which the traditional literalist could escape the argument (129).
In the deceiver argument, it is deemed unfitting for God to require a denial of reason and scientific knowledge (131-134). Far from being a palatable argument, the full brunt of this objection could be wielded against many Orthodox views in the church (e.g. the Virgin Birth). Ultimately, God is not a deceiver if His revealed word is thought of as His revealed word. Creationists are said to be foolish when they expose a creation with the appearance of age (133) but if the literalist exegesis is correct is not this the only God-fearing view to hold? This argument isn’t a dilemma for the literalist in Genesis 1-2 any more than it is throughout the rest of the Scriptures. The final argument is concerned with the divine curse that is placed upon animals in the traditional view. Essentially, if death did not exist before the fall then human sin brought down the most vicious wrath of God upon innocent creation. In effect this amounts to little more than a “what kind of Creator” argument (138). This same line of reasoning is upheld later in the book against the Reformed view of providence (161) and does not render a serious dilemma to the exegesis of literalism.
In summary theistic evolution is the only explanation of animal suffering for Osborn. The necessary nature of predatory animals and death in animal procreation undergird this assumption. This is never demonstrated scientifically but instead occasionally alluded to as a given fact (primarily because the “divine curse” option has been discarded). Apart from the lack of scientific presentation, the best Biblical case is presented in chapter 12 (150-156). Here in this penultimate chapter (!), a valuable argument for animal suffering is provided via the book of Job’s closing chapters. However the value, the placement so near the end of the book demonstrates how little interaction and influence it has on the rest of the presented material. While Death Before the Fall presents its case for a non-literal interpretation early, it seems egregious to wait so long for a chapter on animal suffering in the Bible. The result is a conflicting mix of excellent challenges and wasted time.
The Conclusion
Death Before the Fall is ultimately a flawed book. The greatest value comes when the topic of literalism and exegesis are at the forefront. However, too much time is spent pointing out the flaws of fundamentalism (much of which is not exegetical in nature but sociological). This may not be against the focus to the book but it does not help the debate and discussion over the Scriptures. The lack of any solid scientific presentation or in-depth exegetical work leaves the book toothless while relying primarily on others for its arguments.
As an entryway for new thinking on the Scriptures, many will find the book thought provoking and insightful. Osborn does faithfully show that certain theories of evolution need not be discarded while taking the Bible at its word (chapter 1). However Death Before the Fall does not deal sufficiently with the Bible to demonstrate to literalists that these theories need to be taken seriously.
Publisher: IVP
Reading Level: Moderate
Pages: 195
Hardly any passage in the Christian Scriptures has stirred up more controversy than the first two chapters of Genesis. These opening chapters of the Bible have caused division on scientific and theological levels; spliting Christian views on science, Biblical genre and proper exegesis. It is within this debate that Death Before the Fall seeks to shed some light on the problem of animal suffering in creation and what it provides for interpretative keys to these chapters.
A new thought to some, the concept of animal death and suffering presents interesting thoughts and challenges for the modern tradition of literal interpretation. Death Before the Fall provides introductory reflections on the purpose of death in God’s creation and whether it occurred before the great fall described in Genesis 3.
The Communication
With respect to presentation, Ronald Osborn writes both clearly and fluidly. There is rarely a point that is clouded or confused, muddled or messy. His choice in language is modern and practical, making Death Before the Fall extremely easy to read. Those unfamiliar with the theological, philosophical and scientific issues presented in the book will not be overwhelmed by their descriptions and application.
Osborn makes the claim that he writes from and for an “Orthodox” perspective (20). Given his less conservative approaches to the book of Genesis and evolution, many will be left to summarize that Osborn’s “Orthodoxy” pertains not to modern traditionalism but to the nature of Jesus Christ and authenticity of the Scriptures. However, the exegetical and hermeneutical difference he displays puts him at dissonance with conservative creationists. A large portion of the books is Osborn pointing out the flaws in fundamental, “scientific” creationism. While often enlightening (chapters 4, 5 & 7), these sections do not come off humbly.
The Content
Death Before the Fall is split into two major sections: “On Literalism” and “On Animal Suffering.” The majority of the book is spent against the practice of literalism and the culture of fundamentalism (~120 pages). In opposition to some literalistic paradigms, the earliest chapters from Osborn present arguments for the shared foundation of animals and humans (27-28), a lack of Divine curse about animals (35), how “good” does not imply perfection (21-31), the conflict of accounts in Genesis 1 & 2 (52) and a mild challenge to a global flood (47-48). These arguments intend to show that a strict literalism that demands the Genesis account be scientific are in fact departing from a sound exegesis and any type of historical fideism. Instead Osborn proposes that literalistic scientific creationism is ardently clinging to the post-enlightenment paradigm of empiricism. This is used to explain why the “new atheists” and scientific creationist both demand an approach to Genesis 1 & 2 that undergirds the entirety of the Scriptures (46).
After a successful start, Death Before the Fall sets aside looking at the Genesis account and turns curiously critical of literalism and fundamentalism. Though thought provoking and often valuable, much of this section seems to serve no purpose other than to bury literalism. The presentation of progressive/degenerative science (chapter 4), “enclave mentality” (chapter 5) and “gnostic syndrome” (chapter 7) reveal many dangerous and accurate tendencies in the culture of literalism and fundamentalism. But these personal, sociological attacks seem ill spent. Little to no exegetical work is done in these sections and the Genesis account itself is set aside. It is unclear how these chapters are edifying for believers seeking to understand the creation account and participate in this debate.
Almost as if on cue, Death Before the Fall returns to the exegetical opinions of some of the church’s brightest theologian (and one Jewish authority). The presentations of Karl Barth, John Calvin, Augustine and Maimonides are all incredibly fair (chapter 8). The modern scientific creationism is shown to be a post-enlightenment response to the prevailing Darwinian theory of evolution and not a necessary tradition of the church. Though the historical thoughts of these men are valuable to show the validity of non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2, Osborn falls short of providing the actual reasons why these men’s opinion should be accepted as best reflecting the Scriptural account.
In the second section of Death Before the Fall, the question of animal suffering is introduced to demonstrate the failure of “scientific” creationism and the inherent value of a theistic evolution view. Chapter 10 attempts to do this by presenting three dilemmas for literal creation: stasis, deceiver and divine curse. Presented as a strong point, this section seems too rushed, as if the rebuttals of the literalist are self-evidently incorrect or foolish. The stasis argument is based upon the premise of “spatial finite” conditions (128). But Osborn presents no scientific reasons to confirm the premise of a spatial limited universe. Instead Osborn resorts to playfully proposing “teleportation” as the only means of which the traditional literalist could escape the argument (129).
In the deceiver argument, it is deemed unfitting for God to require a denial of reason and scientific knowledge (131-134). Far from being a palatable argument, the full brunt of this objection could be wielded against many Orthodox views in the church (e.g. the Virgin Birth). Ultimately, God is not a deceiver if His revealed word is thought of as His revealed word. Creationists are said to be foolish when they expose a creation with the appearance of age (133) but if the literalist exegesis is correct is not this the only God-fearing view to hold? This argument isn’t a dilemma for the literalist in Genesis 1-2 any more than it is throughout the rest of the Scriptures. The final argument is concerned with the divine curse that is placed upon animals in the traditional view. Essentially, if death did not exist before the fall then human sin brought down the most vicious wrath of God upon innocent creation. In effect this amounts to little more than a “what kind of Creator” argument (138). This same line of reasoning is upheld later in the book against the Reformed view of providence (161) and does not render a serious dilemma to the exegesis of literalism.
In summary theistic evolution is the only explanation of animal suffering for Osborn. The necessary nature of predatory animals and death in animal procreation undergird this assumption. This is never demonstrated scientifically but instead occasionally alluded to as a given fact (primarily because the “divine curse” option has been discarded). Apart from the lack of scientific presentation, the best Biblical case is presented in chapter 12 (150-156). Here in this penultimate chapter (!), a valuable argument for animal suffering is provided via the book of Job’s closing chapters. However the value, the placement so near the end of the book demonstrates how little interaction and influence it has on the rest of the presented material. While Death Before the Fall presents its case for a non-literal interpretation early, it seems egregious to wait so long for a chapter on animal suffering in the Bible. The result is a conflicting mix of excellent challenges and wasted time.
The Conclusion
Death Before the Fall is ultimately a flawed book. The greatest value comes when the topic of literalism and exegesis are at the forefront. However, too much time is spent pointing out the flaws of fundamentalism (much of which is not exegetical in nature but sociological). This may not be against the focus to the book but it does not help the debate and discussion over the Scriptures. The lack of any solid scientific presentation or in-depth exegetical work leaves the book toothless while relying primarily on others for its arguments.
As an entryway for new thinking on the Scriptures, many will find the book thought provoking and insightful. Osborn does faithfully show that certain theories of evolution need not be discarded while taking the Bible at its word (chapter 1). However Death Before the Fall does not deal sufficiently with the Bible to demonstrate to literalists that these theories need to be taken seriously.
September 22, 2021
I was really looking forward to this book because I have found so little resources dealing with animal death before the fall, but upon reading, I was deeply disappointed. The most frustrating thing was that Osborn barely even deals with animal suffering and death at all. Instead, he spends most of the book on an elongated attack on the literalizing of the fundies (which I also find very problematic) and other marginally related issues.
His credibility is also marred by certain assertions he makes, like “the earth itself in a certain sense is the only ‘hell’ that has ever existed” (145), which is wildly inaccurate; and the book is peppered with problematic theological statements like that. Osborn denigrates penal substitution, Classical Theism, and insists on a sort of divine indeterminacy that denies God’s sovereignty.
Moving on from the problematic to the just frustrating, his critique on foundationalism was irrelevant and kind of annoying. I’d consider myself a sort of foundationalist but still do accept death before the fall and evolutionary science and reject overly literal readings of Scripture. I think the critique was simply irrelevant. He is also overly polemical, bordering on lumping all young earthers in as fundamentalist crazies at times (the comparison to Gnostics was not well done), though he tempers these harsher statements in parts of the book.
Though I did not benefit from reading most of this book, there were a few parts I liked, including the chapter dealing with Barth, Calvin, Augustine, and Maimonides. I thought this chapter was pretty interesting, though I disliked his seeming acceptance of Barth’s flawed view of revelation. A very helpful piece was his interaction with Calvin’s view of creation, that only all matter was created ex nihilo and other things were formed out of created matter later in 6 literal days, and Calvin’s view of the relationship of science and Scripture using the example of the greater and lesser lights of Genesis and the findings of astronomy in Calvin’s day. The conversation on Augustine was good, but I’ve found it treated often and more fully in other resources. I didn’t get too much out of the section on Maimonides. Additionally, I thought poignant the critiques of young earthers embracing the mind of scientism while claiming to be the antithesis.
Finally, the small kernel of the book that treats the titular issue was actually good. Osborn makes the following point: If animal death and suffering is morally evil, and God curses the animal kingdom with death and suffering as a result of human action, this curse seems to implicate God in moral evil. However, if animal death is not evil, then it does not matter if it occurred before the Fall.
His credibility is also marred by certain assertions he makes, like “the earth itself in a certain sense is the only ‘hell’ that has ever existed” (145), which is wildly inaccurate; and the book is peppered with problematic theological statements like that. Osborn denigrates penal substitution, Classical Theism, and insists on a sort of divine indeterminacy that denies God’s sovereignty.
Moving on from the problematic to the just frustrating, his critique on foundationalism was irrelevant and kind of annoying. I’d consider myself a sort of foundationalist but still do accept death before the fall and evolutionary science and reject overly literal readings of Scripture. I think the critique was simply irrelevant. He is also overly polemical, bordering on lumping all young earthers in as fundamentalist crazies at times (the comparison to Gnostics was not well done), though he tempers these harsher statements in parts of the book.
Though I did not benefit from reading most of this book, there were a few parts I liked, including the chapter dealing with Barth, Calvin, Augustine, and Maimonides. I thought this chapter was pretty interesting, though I disliked his seeming acceptance of Barth’s flawed view of revelation. A very helpful piece was his interaction with Calvin’s view of creation, that only all matter was created ex nihilo and other things were formed out of created matter later in 6 literal days, and Calvin’s view of the relationship of science and Scripture using the example of the greater and lesser lights of Genesis and the findings of astronomy in Calvin’s day. The conversation on Augustine was good, but I’ve found it treated often and more fully in other resources. I didn’t get too much out of the section on Maimonides. Additionally, I thought poignant the critiques of young earthers embracing the mind of scientism while claiming to be the antithesis.
Finally, the small kernel of the book that treats the titular issue was actually good. Osborn makes the following point: If animal death and suffering is morally evil, and God curses the animal kingdom with death and suffering as a result of human action, this curse seems to implicate God in moral evil. However, if animal death is not evil, then it does not matter if it occurred before the Fall.
November 26, 2021
5 Stars because he was my professor once :P
I found myself identifying with many of these questions and frustrations Osborn raises with literalists and fundamentalists, and I’m grateful for writing like this to equip me with the theological and philosophical language to even begin to properly explore these topics he expounds on.
I was especially moved by his discussion of animal suffering toward the end, and this idea that creation isn’t something that was in the past, but is an ever-present reality and practice in the believer’s life. Our responsibility to love and care for creation should inform every ethical decision we make. There was much to love in this. I left a very rigidly literalist and dogmatic church a couple years back (from my hometown) because of the very reason Osborn claims young adults are leaving churches- there was no room for growth. I felt intellectually and spiritually stifled. Although I still maintain a special place in my heart for these people and the difficult times they have helped me and my family through, I also know that it’s a faith community I could never return back to and feel at peace with (regardless of certain comforts it may offer).
My only qualm is that he comes across as a bit cheeky toward these people at times, which I absolutely resonate with. 🤣 But perhaps if they are the intended audience, it would put them more on guard and cause them to act more defensively, rather than help them to think critically and empathetically. However, I understand that it often doesn’t matter how gentle you are, because their entire world-view is formed around defending any threat to this esoteric knowledge, and as he mentions, they view even a nuanced or qualifying critique on their beliefs as an outright attack on their faith. So really, who knows. Whether the target audience is people like me, people like the author, or the fundamentalists, I suppose it’s something that is worth being read by anyone (especially the cheeky parts). :)
I found myself identifying with many of these questions and frustrations Osborn raises with literalists and fundamentalists, and I’m grateful for writing like this to equip me with the theological and philosophical language to even begin to properly explore these topics he expounds on.
I was especially moved by his discussion of animal suffering toward the end, and this idea that creation isn’t something that was in the past, but is an ever-present reality and practice in the believer’s life. Our responsibility to love and care for creation should inform every ethical decision we make. There was much to love in this. I left a very rigidly literalist and dogmatic church a couple years back (from my hometown) because of the very reason Osborn claims young adults are leaving churches- there was no room for growth. I felt intellectually and spiritually stifled. Although I still maintain a special place in my heart for these people and the difficult times they have helped me and my family through, I also know that it’s a faith community I could never return back to and feel at peace with (regardless of certain comforts it may offer).
My only qualm is that he comes across as a bit cheeky toward these people at times, which I absolutely resonate with. 🤣 But perhaps if they are the intended audience, it would put them more on guard and cause them to act more defensively, rather than help them to think critically and empathetically. However, I understand that it often doesn’t matter how gentle you are, because their entire world-view is formed around defending any threat to this esoteric knowledge, and as he mentions, they view even a nuanced or qualifying critique on their beliefs as an outright attack on their faith. So really, who knows. Whether the target audience is people like me, people like the author, or the fundamentalists, I suppose it’s something that is worth being read by anyone (especially the cheeky parts). :)
January 8, 2026
The first section of the book was dedicated to explaining the theological difficulties of believing in a literalistic six-day creation. This is a topic that I'm not ordinarily interested in because I think this debate has driven more people away from churches and caused more division than it ever had any right to do as a subject that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how to live as followers of Christ. Osborn did make a compelling argument for his views (essentially that God created the world through evolution, and that this is not inherently inconsistent with the early chapters of Genesis), and, I will admit, did challenge my belief that this topic isn't important to my life and faith. I'm not convinced, though, that he did so in a way that does anything to help the aforementioned division caused by the creation/evolution debate, which I still think is a big problem.
I am, however, VERY grateful for the second part of this book! I have been longing for some kind of answer to the question of "how could a just and loving God allow or even cause such a vast scale of animal suffering?" and if nothing else it was a relief to read about another Christian who is also deeply concerned with this question. Osborn himself admits there is no perfect answer to this question, but he draws from the book of Job, the concept of spiritual warfare, the practice of generosity to humans and nonhumans in Sabbath, and the self-sacrificing of Christ to provide a framework for the topic of animal suffering. There is more I want to learn here, but knowing that we have a God who didn't try to simply rationalize the problem of suffering but instead entered into it willingly for our sake and the sake of all His creation is an incredible comfort.
"Any credible answer to these questions, which grow in urgency every day, must take the form not of detached theologizing but of concrete and ethical action that brings sabbath peace to our brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom."
I am, however, VERY grateful for the second part of this book! I have been longing for some kind of answer to the question of "how could a just and loving God allow or even cause such a vast scale of animal suffering?" and if nothing else it was a relief to read about another Christian who is also deeply concerned with this question. Osborn himself admits there is no perfect answer to this question, but he draws from the book of Job, the concept of spiritual warfare, the practice of generosity to humans and nonhumans in Sabbath, and the self-sacrificing of Christ to provide a framework for the topic of animal suffering. There is more I want to learn here, but knowing that we have a God who didn't try to simply rationalize the problem of suffering but instead entered into it willingly for our sake and the sake of all His creation is an incredible comfort.
"Any credible answer to these questions, which grow in urgency every day, must take the form not of detached theologizing but of concrete and ethical action that brings sabbath peace to our brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom."
December 4, 2018
Osborn writes well, but the book lacks focus. More of the book focuses on fundamentalism and literalism than on the topic of animal suffering itself. The first part is spent evaluating fundamentalism and Biblical literalism, and it is here that the book shines. Osborn offers a well-thought out and engaging critique, and delivers a number of good insights on the topic, as well as a good defense of certain forms of theistic evolution over and against both pure materialism and strict literalism. His actual discussion of animal suffering, however, is brief and was unsatisfactory in both argument and conclusion. Several exegeses in the second part fail to engage with other interpreters, and his dismissal of perspectives like C.S. Lewis's is based on unsubstantiated speculation and virtually amounts to a "Well, what if he's wrong?" rather than a compelling argument. I was pleasantly surprised by the opening chapters, but I was ultimately left disappointed after completing his discussion of the problem posed in the title. 5/5 part one, 3/5 part 2.
October 30, 2019
Great but not enough attention to Romans 5
I’ve been a young earth creationist my whole life until a couple years ago. I found that this book did an excellent job of showing how overly literalist readings of Genesis 1-3 can be problematic. I haven’t fully embraced theistic evolution primarily due to exegetical reasons related to romans 5. I appreciated how Osborn pointed out that reading the passage in traditional literalist ways can create larger problems of theodicy, but I didn’t feel like he provided a solid exegetical alternative. So; I kind Of feel like the reader is left with a decision of whether they feel more comfortable with theological problems or exegetical problems. It would have been nice if he gave greater attention to showing the reader how they should read Romans 5. All in all this will be a book I recommend to others interested in Theistic evolution.
I’ve been a young earth creationist my whole life until a couple years ago. I found that this book did an excellent job of showing how overly literalist readings of Genesis 1-3 can be problematic. I haven’t fully embraced theistic evolution primarily due to exegetical reasons related to romans 5. I appreciated how Osborn pointed out that reading the passage in traditional literalist ways can create larger problems of theodicy, but I didn’t feel like he provided a solid exegetical alternative. So; I kind Of feel like the reader is left with a decision of whether they feel more comfortable with theological problems or exegetical problems. It would have been nice if he gave greater attention to showing the reader how they should read Romans 5. All in all this will be a book I recommend to others interested in Theistic evolution.
July 11, 2023
Never have I had to use the dictionary feature on my Kindle as much as I did with this book! That being said, it's still quite accessible and clear for anyone interested in questions about theodicy (a word I just learned that refers to the question of how a good God allows suffering).
I appreciated the honest, open approach that offers no easy answers. Instead, it explores the question through the lens of animal suffering, which is something I have thought of, but not really looked into much myself.
The author takes no authoritative stance, but does offer several ways to look at the issue within the contexts of Scripture and both Jewish and Christian tradition.
It's a good book, well written, and thoroughly researched with sources cited and extensive notes.
I appreciated the honest, open approach that offers no easy answers. Instead, it explores the question through the lens of animal suffering, which is something I have thought of, but not really looked into much myself.
The author takes no authoritative stance, but does offer several ways to look at the issue within the contexts of Scripture and both Jewish and Christian tradition.
It's a good book, well written, and thoroughly researched with sources cited and extensive notes.
April 16, 2020
Food For Thought
Animal suffering is something most Christians gloss over, but Ronald Osborne cuts us no corners as he forces the reader to contemplate that against the belief in a creator God. Worth reading, especially for those for whom a literalist reading of the Genesis creation account no longer holds water.
Animal suffering is something most Christians gloss over, but Ronald Osborne cuts us no corners as he forces the reader to contemplate that against the belief in a creator God. Worth reading, especially for those for whom a literalist reading of the Genesis creation account no longer holds water.
October 16, 2021
This is a strong and wide-ranging argument against a hyper-literalistic-historicist reading of Genesis 1 that is unfortunately branded as a book about animal suffering.
See full video review here: https://youtu.be/M1gysiwCgLs
See full video review here: https://youtu.be/M1gysiwCgLs
March 18, 2023
This was a thoughtful and deep reading experience. It certainly put my vocabulary to the test!. Nonetheless, it was great to finally see someone explain in theological terms what I have long thought as a person of faith and of science.
June 25, 2019
Good but kind of a slow read
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews