The Moral Value of Plants

The Federal Ethics Committee in Geneva has submitted a report on the dignity of plants. According to a press release, the report “condemned the decapitation of flowers without reason, among other sins.”

According to the members of the committee, plants deserve respect and killing them arbitrarily was morally wrong, except when it comes to saving human life.

A few members of the committee objected to genetic engineering of plants since such action infringes on the plant’s “moral value.”

I believe Christians should be good stewards of God’s creation, but the view proposed by this committee is going too far. Consider “the wild grass, which is here today and tomorrow is tossed into the fire to heat the oven” (Luke 12:28 NET), do they have the moral capacity to say to humans that to use them as fuel for the fire is a sin against them?

We kill trees to make paper, we kill corn to make fuel for cars, we kill soy to make soap for human consumption, and we decapitate roses to make our wives happy.

If allowing plants to die without reason is a sin, should we rescue plants when they are being scorched by the hot sun (Mark 4:6)? Should we try to save plants when they are being killed by other plants (Luke 8:7)? The grass will always wither and the flowers will always fade when the wind of the Lord blows upon them (Isaiah 40:7) and there is nothing we can do about that.

We recognize the dignity of human life and work hard to preserve it. We recognize the worth of animals and abhor animal cruelty. We also appreciate the value of plants because they are part of God’s beautiful creation. However, there is a difference between humans, animals, and plants. Enjoying the beauty of the lilies of the field is one of the joys God has given to his creatures. And picking one of them for their beauty and enjoyment is not a sin against the Creator, much less a sin against the plant.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Creation, Plants

The Bible and Pre-Adamic Man

Jay D. Homnick, in an article published in The Jewish Press discusses the biblical and Talmudic views of Creation. In his article Homnick deals with how the Talmud views and interprets God’s act of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. He also discusses the reluctance some people today have dealing with people such as Darwin and Dawkins and “their contention that the processes of natural development could have occurred without being set in motion and/or guided by a supreme Creator.”

In his article, Homnick also discusses how the Bible and the Talmud deals with the issue of prehistoric man. Interpreting passages such as Psalm 105:8 and 1 Chronicles 16:15, the Talmud says that there were 974 generations of prehistoric man that existed before Adam.

The following is an excerpt of Homnick’s article:

As startling as this approach must have been to the assumed orthodoxies in other religions and secular systems, nothing can compare in bombshell status to the biblically hinted, and Talmudically expounded, notion of prehistoric man.

The Talmud in Shabbos (88b) indicates there were 974 generations of prehistoric man. In Chagiga (13b) the Talmud sounds more like those generations were never actualized. The Midrash Rabba (Genesis 28) says they were wiped out.

While it remains somewhat unclear exactly what these 974 generations represent, this seems to be a matter of prime importance that is stressed in two verses (Psalms 105:8, Chronicles I 16:15). These verses point out that the Torah was given to the thousandth generation, which is explained by the Midrash to mean the 974 prehistoric generations plus the 26 from Adam until Moses.

Apparently, this highlights the high level of Torah – that it took a thousand stages in the creation of man, stages designated as “generations,” before man could receive such exalted wisdom.

The Jews traveled through history for millennia studying the Talmud and Midrash, comfortable with a unique concept of prehistoric man, a concept that gave that creature (or idea) a 974:26 edge in pre-biblical generations.

If geology and archaeology have indeed yielded specimens that are indisputably prehistoric men (I am not expert enough to be certain of this), they are substantiating one of the most mysterious parts of the Jewish intellectual tradition.

Personally, I do not believe that Psalm 105:8 is talking about prehistoric man. What amazes me is that many years before Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species and Richard Dawkins published his book The God Delusion, Jewish scholars were talking about prehistoric creatures that existed before Adam. What is also amazing is that they did not see the idea of the existence of pre-Adamic man as a threat to their faith.

Is there a lesson in the Talmud for twenty-first century Christians?

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Adam, Creation, Darwin, Dawkins, Evolution, Prehistoric Man, Talmud