Thorns and Thistles

[standingfirminChrist]

Were they present before the fall of man? or not?

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; (Genesis 3:17-18)

Dr. Henry Morris states:

It seems unlikely that God actually created thorns and thistles at this time. More probably, He allowed the beneficent processes and structures He had made previously, all of which were “very good” initially, to deteriorate in varying degrees, some even becoming harmful to man and to each other. There exists now a host of systems in nature (disease, bacteria, viruses, parasites, fangs and claws, weeds and poisons, etc.) which reflect a state of conflict, predation, and struggle for existence in the plant and animal kingdoms, as well as in human life, all of which seems, at first, to be inconsistent with the concept of an ideal creation. In the physical world there are storms and earthquakes, extremes of heat and cold, weathering and disintegration, and many other unpleasant phenomena. There is still need for research to understand the mechanisms by which this change of state from the perfect creation was brought about. In plants and animals, beneficent structures may either have mutated to malevolent structures or else have been replaced through natural selection by recessive characteristics, coded into the genetic system by God at the time of creation in anticipation of the future environmental changes that might be necessitated if Adam used his freedom wrongfully. These systems and processes now maintain a balance of nature and so are indirectly beneficial in maintaining life on a cursed earth, even though individual organisms all eventually die. Had the Fall and Curse not taken place, populations would probably have eventually been stabilized at optimum values by divine constraints on the reproductive process. With God’s personal presence withdrawn for a time, however, it is more salutary to maintain order by these indirect constraints associated with the Curse, adding still further to the testimony that the world is now travailing in pain, awaiting its coming Redeemer.

What say ye?

 

[Crabtownboy]

This seems to be kind of like asking, "Will there be dust in heaven?"

 

[standingfirminChrist]

It is a valid question. Bible-boy and I are trying to come to some kind of understanding of when the thorns appeared on the earth; before, or after the fall?

Scripture declares that God rested from His work on the seventh day. Were the thorns on the earth at that time? or were they a by-product, if you will, of the results of the fall of man?

Were they some kind of mutation of that which was already created and now is decaying? or were they on the earth before the forbidden fruit was eaten by man and wife?

 

[Crabtownboy]

It is a valid question. Bible-boy and I are trying to come to some kind of understanding of when the thorns appeared on the earth; before, or after the fall?

Scripture declares that God rested from His work on the seventh day. Were the thorns on the earth at that time? or were they a by-product, if you will, of the results of the fall of man?

Were they some kind of mutation of that which was already created and now is decaying? or were they on the earth before the forbidden fruit was eaten by man and wife?

I agree it is a valid question, but not one of much importance to me. But it is academically interesting to some I am sure.

 

[blackbird]

I do know that certain weed seed CAN remain dormaint in the ground----and then a farmer comes along and runs a plow in the ground---exposing the weed seed to sunlite and air-----and then "BINGO!!!" he has a field full of Cockleburr

The answer I see is this---perhaps two possibilities

1. The weed seed could have been part of creation-----remaining dormaint until after the fall----and obeying the word of God to "spring forth" upon Adam's plowing of the cursed ground

2. God could have merely spoken the word AFTER the fall-----"Weeds--thorns---thistles----GROW!!!"----and the weeds merely obeyed the spoken word

SFIC---Dude!!! You live over there in the Mississippi Delta----the heartland of American farming-----ask one of those farmers what would happen if he didn't apply a "Pre-merge" chemical before he plants his Cotton----then ask the same farmer what would happen if he didn't run his cultavator through that same field of Cotton when its about Knee high!!!!

 

[Deacon]

I guess what you’re asking is; was there a second period of creation where God created thorns and thistles, flesh-eating dinosaurs and saber-toothed tigers?

I don't think sooooooo.

One of the problems with Morris’ mutation theory is that it presumes evolutionary (mutational) change at a rate not even an evolutionist could imagine.

Rob

 

[Tom Bryant]

What say ye?

who cares? I certainly don't. Maybe the lost people you have contact with or the people you pastor spend alot of time thinking about this, but the ones I speak with, don't.

It's one of those issues that we used to argue about at 4 AM in seminary when we should have been sleeping.

 

[webdog]

I see the text as saying simply Adam and Eve would have to leave the perfect environment they were in and go into the rest of the world where thorns and bristles would be the norm. Any and all planting and cultivating would take hard work, unlike in the garden.

The theory of Morris has God deeming His creation neither good nor finished. That is heresy. God rested on the seventh day, and not so He could begin creating more later. His work was perfectly finished.

 

[Bible-boy]

Hello SFIC,

I’ve not had the chance to speak to any of the Hebrew Professors here at SEBTS today, but I did go to the library and do a bit of research. Here’s what I found.

According to H.C. Leupold in his Exposition of Genesis: Volume I Chapters 1-19, when speaking of God’s creation of the plant life on earth,

…the dry land just formed is at once to bring forth all forms of vegetation [emphasis mine] (Leupold, 66).

He goes on to explain the difference in the three basic categories of plants listed in Genesis 1:11 (grasses, herbs, and trees). With respect to “herbs” he states,

The second term, “herbs,” is a singular collective noun ‘esebh, also trasslated “herbage.” …This being a broad class name, it must include things such as vegetables, or at least, generally speaking, everything between grass and trees and, without a doubt, the various grains [emphasis mine] (Leupold, 67).

Likewise, John D. Currid, in his commentary entitled Genesis: Volume 1, Genesis 1:1-25:18, when speaking of the third day of creation states:

God’s command calls for the creation of dese, a term which literally means ‘grass,’ but in the present context serves as a generic name for ‘vegetation’. The vegetation is divided into two parts: ‘plants’ and the ‘fruit trees’. These two terms represent all agricultural and horticultural plant life [emphasis mine] (Currid, 71).

Finally, according to Henry M. Morris in his work entitled, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings,

Three main orders of plant “life” are mentioned: grasses, herbs, and trees. Whether this classification corresponds to modern taxonomic nomenclature or not is irrelevant. The latter is man-made and entirely arbitrary, whereas these Biblical divisions are obvious and natural. The three are intended to cover all types of plants and these are the most obvious comprehensive categories. The term “grass” is intended to include all spreading ground-covering vegetation; “herbs” includes all bushes and shrubs; “trees” includes all large woody plants, including even fruit-bearing trees (Morris, 62-63).

Based a literal reading and understanding of the Gen. 1:11-12 text and the witness of these published sources I think it is safe to say that God created all plant life that exists on the earth during the third day of creation.

 

[Bible-boy]

Moving on to the curse of Genesis 3 and the thorns and thistles mentioned there we find Leupold maintaining,

While man is eating and is destined to eat the “herb of the field” (‘esebh hassadheh—here for all the food of man which is still vegetable in character), the ground was of itself bringing forth thorns and thistles. This seems to us to be the connection of the two halves of this verse. So that not only is difficulty and toil experienced while man is winning his food (v.17), but also that which he does procure is gotten in meager quantities only (v. 18), because undesirable elements grow without receiving attention. This, too, is one of the effects of the curse of the ground (Leupold, 174-175).

Like Leupold above, Currid does not specifically address the issue of how or when thorns and thistles, as they relate to the curse, came into existence. He mainly focuses on the mechanics of the how the Fall occurred as the result of Adam and Eve’s eating the forbidden fruit and the poetic justice of the curse’s effect on their ability to obtain food to eat thereafter (Currid, 136).

However, Morris goes into great detail explaining his understanding of Gen. 3:17-19. According to Morris:

It seems unlikely that God actually either created or “made” thorns and thistles at this time. He did not “create” death in the direct sense, but rather withdrew that extension of His power which had maintained a “steady state” of life and order, thus allowing all things gradually to disintegrate toward disorder and death. In like manner, though there is a great deal of uncertainty in such matters, it seems more in character that God merely “allowed” certain plant structures which previously were beneficent to deteriorate into malevolent characteristics (Morris, 125).

Clearly all three commentators maintain that all plant life on earth was created during the third day of creation. Likewise, Morris clearly states here that it is unlikely that God performed some sort of secondary act of creation based on the text of Genesis 3. Why does he say it is unlikely? Because the text of Genesis 1 makes it clear that all plant life that exists was created on the third day of creation and the text of Genesis 3 does not specifically say or even imply a secondary order of creation took place. Therefore, going back to the original discussion that sparked this thread I’d say it is best to abide by a literal reading and understanding of the Genesis text, without reading into it based upon a presupposition against alcohol, that yeast did not exist before the Fall and came about only as a direct result of the curse in Genesis 3. It is not a principle of sound hermeneutics to read into the text that which is not there and to do so leads to error.

 

[Bible-boy]

I see the text as saying simply Adam and Eve would have to leave the perfect environment they were in and go into the rest of the world where thorns and bristles would be the norm. Any and all planting and cultivating would take hard work, unlike in the garden.

The theory of Morris has God deeming His creation neither good nor finished. That is heresy. God rested on the seventh day, and not so He could begin creating more later. His work was perfectly finished.

Hey Web,

I too have some problems with Morris' theory here. However, in all fairness he does say that there is a great deal of uncertainty and he admits that he is making assumptions based, not on the text under consideration, but rather on his understanding of the nature and character of God. It is a poor hermeneutical position to go outside of the text and develop a theory. As such it can (and will likely) lead to errors in interpretation. However, I would not be so quick as to label Morris a heretic.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Thanks Bible-boy,

From what I see from the quotes of Currid, Leupold, and Morris, a degradation of vegetation took place. That which now is known as a thistle or thorn was truly created as something else, but the curse brought about a deterioration to that plant that was originally good in God's eyes.

I believe the same would have to apply to yeast. If it were around before the curse, then the qualities of the yeast would not have even been to cause decay from the beginning.

 

[Bible-boy]

Thanks Bible-boy,

From what I see from the quotes of Currid, Leupold, and Morris, a degradation of vegetation took place. That which now is known as a thistle or thorn was truly created as something else, but the curse brought about a deterioration to that plant that was originally good in God's eyes.

I believe the same would have to apply to yeast. If it were around before the curse, then the qualities of the yeast would not have even been to cause decay from the beginning.

Hey SFIC,

I can accept that explanation. However, I would have a real problem with stating that yeast (or the genus of plants that bear torns and thistles) did not exist before the Fall/curse of Gen. 3, because such would require some sort of secondary act of creation.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Hey SFIC,

I can accept that explanation. However, I would have a real problem with stating that yeast (or the genus of plants that bear torns and thistles) did not exist before the Fall/curse of Gen. 3, because such would require some sort of secondary act of creation.

Thanks again.

 

[Bible-boy]

I also started to say that I liked Brother Blackbird's explanation about the seed being in the ground and Adam's cultivation causing it to grow. However, there is a problem with that now that I think about it. All of the commentators I referenced pointed out that during the third day of creation it was the plants that God commanded to grow and bear seed after their own kind. The text does not say that God commanded the seed to grow into a plant that would produce more seed. It speaks to the age old argument of what came first the plant or the seed? A literal reading and understanding of the text reveals that God commanded the plants to exist, grow, and bear seed in that order.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Right. Just as He created the fowls of the air before the egg came along. The fowls produced after his own kind.

Good observation, Bible-boy!

 

[webdog]

Hey Web,

I too have some problems with Morris' theory here. However, in all fairness he does say that there is a great deal of uncertainty and he admits that he is making assumptions based, not on the text under consideration, but rather on his understanding of the nature and character of God. It is a poor hermeneutical position to go outside of the text and develop a theory. As such it can (and will likely) lead to errors in interpretation. However, I would not be so quick as to label Morris a heretic.

Oh, I wasn't labeling him a heretic, but the view that after God "rested" He continued on with creation. Nothing was created after God deemed His creation "good" (and I'm not talking about macro-evolution, either.)

 

[Bible-boy]

Oh, I wasn't labeling him a heretic, but the view that after God "rested" He continued on with creation. Nothing was created after God deemed His creation "good" (and I'm not talking about macro-evolution, either.)

I fully agree.:thumbs: I assume that Morris' theory could be classified as micro-evolution. However, as someone pointed out it would have had to occur on a scale and in such a short time period so as to cause Darwinian Evolutionists a heart attack.

If we are going to speculate about the specifics of what took place as a result of the Fall/curse in Gen. 3, then I would favor a more strict literal reading and understanding of the actual texts involved. Meaning God created everything that exists during the one-time six day creation event. Then the Fall occurred. Then God pronounced the curses in Gen. 3. Thus, (here comes the speculation part) God removed His restraining power, which had kept the thorns and thistles from being a problem in the Garden of Eden, and now Adam had to contend with them as he tried to grow and harvest food.

Likewise, I don't think the existence of yeast, just as we know it today, would be a problem under the above model/theory. Yeast is symbolic of sin and death in many places in the Bible. However, it is not always symbolic of such (and it certainly is not actually sin or death) as demonstrated in the other thread on yeast. Likewise, as Morris rightly pointed out God did not create death at some point following the Fall. He simply removed His great restraining power and death went to work.

 

[DHK]

You are asking the same basic questions as:
Why did the trichinosis worm become a parasite, when before the fall it wasn't?

Why did the mosquito attack man after the fall, when before the fall it didn't?

Why did the lion attack the lamb after the fall, when before the fall it didn't?

All of sudden all of nature went askew? It was a result of the fall--the curse of God was put on the world itself--the very earth that we live on. It seems quite evident that the Lord changed some of the genetic make up of some of the plants and animals to cause them to be parasites, carniverous, etc.

Genesis 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

[Bible-boy]

You are asking the same basic questions as:
Why did the trichinosis worm become a parasite, when before the fall it wasn't?

Why did the mosquito attack man after the fall, when before the fall it didn't?

Why did the lion attack the lamb after the fall, when before the fall it didn't?

All of sudden all of nature went askew? It was a result of the fall--the curse of God was put on the world itself--the very earth that we live on. It seems quite evident that the Lord changed some of the genetic make up of some of the plants and animals to cause them to be parasites, carniverous, etc.

Genesis 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Here again, we (Morris, you and me) are all speculating about the specifics of what took place during creation and what (and how) happened as a result of the Fall/curse in Gen 3. The text does inform us that God pronounced the curse and that as a result things dramatically changed on the earth. However, the text does not say that that change occurred because God caused a change in the genetic make-up of any plants or animals.

Like I said, if I am going to speculate about the specifics where the Bible is silent I'd rather go as far as the text will take me and then speculate. So I'd rather say that God created everything that exists during the one-time six-day creation event of Gen 1. Then the Fall occurred. Then God pronounced the curses of Gen. 3. Then, (this is the speculation part) as part of the curses God removed His great restraining power and death went to work, and the undesirable species (both animal and plant) were loosed to do their undesirable things as well. I think this model/theory is just as, if not more, faithful to what the text actually says. However, since it is speculation I'm open to suggestions for improvement.