Thanks Andrew: I remember this post, and I see that we had a brief discussion about it at the time. I’m not sure how important the renewal of the natural world in your understanding of Christianity; still, after reading that post again I have a few more questions.

You cite Yahweh’s command to humanity in Genesis 1:28: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." Then you say this:

Humanity has failed to carry out the original mandate on a global
scale, so a people is brought into existence to be that creation in
microcosm, in the midst of the nations of the earth.

It seems that the earth is pretty well filled up with humans by now, that the mandate has been more than carried out. Perhaps most of the humans aren’t up to God’s standards, as was the case before the Flood. Then, the story goes, God wiped nearly everyone out and started over with Noah and family. But in Genesis 9 God blesses Noah, tells him to be fruitful and multipy, and says that He won’t destroy humanity again. So God’s promise to Abraham — that his descendants will be as plentiful as the stars, that he will be the father of many nations — doesn’t rescind or override His promise to Noah. It’s a separate promise, operating in parallel with the creational mandate.

On the other hand, if you interpret the creation narratives as metaphors for the creation of Israel, then the renewal of creation idea makes more sense. In a comment on your "Cracks in the Pavement" post you said this about the intent of Genesis 1-11:

I would have thought it makes more sense to suppose that these stories
were told to account for Israel’s distinctive experience of being
amongst and at odds with the nations of the world.

In that case, the early Genesis narratives would be interpreted as stories not about the creation of the universe but rather about the establishment of the nation of Israel. So, for example, the creation of Adam and Eve would be interpreted as God’s act of setting certain humans apart as his chosen ones; and both the Garden of Eden and the Flood would refer to God’s promises to His people, from which they are periodically barred through disobedience and to which they are restored through reconciliation with God. Is that roughly your thoughts about these texts?

You contend that the earth is cursed due to man’s disobedience, and contrast this curse with "the call to be an authentic creation in microcosm, humanity in prosperous harmony with its environment." I haven’t looked, but I don’t recall God issuing any "green" commandments to His people. Subdue the earth and rule over it, take possession of the land — that seems more the kind of thing God is recorded in the Bible as saying. Do you contend that pollution, global warming, loss of topsoil through overfarming, etc. constitute a curse from God on the land resulting from disobedience to God’s explicit moral commands, rather than a natural consequence of human excesses in multiplying, filling and subduing the land? Or do you equate the two; i.e., would you say that the world naturally operates in such a way that the consequences of irresponsible behavior naturally result in the corruption of the earth, which is functionally the same as if God specifically issued a curse?

Or maybe ecological inferences aren’t really justified in your idea of a renewed creation. Just as the creation of the earth could be read as a metaphor for the setting apart of the people of Israel, so too wouldn’t the curse on the earth be metaphorical for God’s rejection of his people? Or, alternatively, might you regard Israel itself as metaphorical, representing humankind in proper relationship with God, one another, and the earth?

Finally, what relationship do you see between the renewed earth and the new earth of Revelation 21? Are they the same thing, with the current earth being progressively transformed by people acting righteously and living lightly on the land? Or do you envision a wholly new and different earth eventually replacing the current one?