Watson: Thorns and Thistles Exist before the Fall

[Afterthought]

Probably (?) not the most important of topics out there, but I found this interesting, since I had never considered the possibility of thorns existing before the Fall.

"Did the earth in innocence bear thorns, though they were afterwards threatened as a punishment? It is likely it did bear thorns; for, when God had done creating, he made no new species or kinds of things; but the meaning is, Now, after sin, the earth should bring forth more plentifully of thorns, and now those thorns should be hurtful, and choke the corn, which hurtful quality was not in them before."--Thomas Watson, Body of Divinity, The Creation


Agree or disagree? Why?

 

[psycheives]

GREAT question and post. I first came across this idea of thistles before the fall in Meredith Kline's Kingdom Prologue. He teaches animal death before the fall and teaches that God actively keeps the animals from eating man and the thistles from hurting man.

I dismissed the idea of animal death & suffering before the fall and also thistles because I understood both to be a product of the curse that resulted from the fall.

However, when Watson says that no new species or kinds were created after the initial creation, I must re-think about this. It sounds correct that God did not do a second act of creation. However, he did change existing things via the curse: physical death, suffering, natural disasters, pain in childbearing, difficulty in farming, changed the serpent, and caused thorns to grow. So perhaps they existed before in seed form and they hadn't yet sprouted from the earth. Or perhaps it was a plant that didn't have thorns and God caused thorns to grow on a plant. Some rose bushes do not have thorns. But it might be in its DNA somewhere. And so some rose plants have thorns. God could have just make more thorns grow out of the rose plant.

 

[Afterthought]

That does seem to be the usual explanation people give, although I wonder how much of a change is required before something (like having thorns grow out of the rose plant) can be classified as "creation"? Adaptation of species to new environments is not usually considered "creation" of something new by God, even though those sorts of changes can seem quite large and are under God's government. Neither is reproducing after each kind, even though we are considered as "knit" in the womb by God. I suppose if these sorts of changes are not considered as "creation" of something new, then thorns growing out of rose plants might not be considered that. Nevertheless, it seems Thomas Watson disagrees.

 

[Eoghan]

There are vegetarian spiders, bats and woodpeckers. Man before the fall was a vegetarian but not afterwards.

Nettles on the outside of a clump have the most stings to deter grazing.

It would seem that there was a re-purposing of existing plants and animals. I am sure there is a thornless rose (yup - google it)where the gene for thorns has been switched off. My question for you is when was the gene switched on? It is also interesting that the definition of a weed is a wild flower which grows where you don't want it!

The berry-bug I believe is an obligate parasite(?) which must complete a part of it's life cycle with blood , because it has lost the ability to make certain chemicals?

We have a gene to make vitamin C - sadly it is damaged - hence the need for fruit!

Hope this kinda gives you an answer or at least suggests possibilities.

 

[clark thompson]

I think He made them because of the fall.

 

[whirlingmerc]

It's possible thorns could have been less severe or had another purpose pre fall.

Some things that appeared to probably exist before the fall as well would include the laws of entropy, since we need entropy and thermodynamic laws for basic things like food digestion. It would have been like the clothes and shoes of the Israelites not wearing out for forty years not because there was no entropy but because of some restraining maintaining power of God being exercised

 

[MW]

This looks like a prickly subject.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks for the opinions all, on this most thorny of topics!

 

[psycheives]

It would seem that there was a re-purposing of existing plants and animals. I am sure there is a thornless rose (yup - google it)where the gene for thorns has been switched off. My question for you is when was the gene switched on? It is also interesting that the definition of a weed is a wild flower which grows where you don't want it!

I like that. "A re-purposing of plants and animals." This seems to fit what we know biblically.

We know that creation is under a curse because of the fall and is in bondage to corruption. Ro 8:19–22: 19*For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20*For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21*that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22*For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

We know the serpent was cursed ABOVE all livestock, which means the livestock were cursed too. The apocrypha claims the serpent used to walk on two legs and was changed to crawl, but who knows. Ge 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.

We know Eve/women were cursed and now in great pain bear children. Ge 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

We know BECAUSE of the fall, God cursed the ground and made it bring forth thorns and thistles for Adam. This implies that previously, the land didn't cause Adam pain IF it previously brought forth thorns and thistles. ‎‎Ge 3:17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; ‎‎18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.

It does not make sense that God made a second creation but that he altered/cursed the current creation because of man. It seems this is what Watson is advocating, as well. So I would agree with Watson that whatever the plants were, they existed before the fall (in seed form or full form, we don't know) but God could certainly have altered/cursed them and caused them to genetically bring forth thorns, where they had not before had thorns. Example might be roses - some have thorns, some don't. IF thorns did exist before the fall, it seems they existed in some way that did not cause man pain in farming. So I would learn toward the idea of there being NO thorns/thistles before the fall, but of God altering plants because of the curse (like he altered all of creation). Roses that didn't have thorns, now have thorns.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Someone would enter death wear a crown of thorns someday.

I like how God sometimes brings a blessing that in some ways eclipse a curse, even in the midst of a curse. For example, the lifetime of man would be shortened after the flood of Noah, but in the first account of a couple aging and being too old to have children or family a promise of a child who will bless all families was given, a spectacular blessing in the face of a curse.

Where did thorns come from? It's speculation, but Wiki makes it sound like thorns can come out of practically any part of a plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorns,_spines,_and_prickles
So maybe any part of a good creation can degenerate into something not so good