The Natural Environment in the New Testament (Part Two)
The second of three articles where I look at the natural environment from the perspective of three sacred texts.
Last time, in the first part of three articles, I examined what the Hebrew Bible has to say in regards to the natural environment. Now, in this second part, I will be examining what the New Testament has to say in regards to the natural environment.
The New Testament
Unlike the Hebrew Bible, which has a lot to say about the natural environment, it can be difficult to find any references towards the subject in the New Testament. Nevertheless, the writings of the New Testament are assumed to agree with the writings of the Hebrew Bible. As Ernest Lucas puts it:
“Sometimes we will be dealing with material that alludes to the Old Testament and seems to assume what it teaches. At other times, we will be dealing with ideas and principles which we can see are relevant to environmental issues, but which are not developed in this direction in the New Testament itself” (93).
Jesus accepted the teachings found in the Old Testament and continued to uphold them throughout his ministry. In regards to the environment, he taught that God continued to care for his creations, both human and animal, stating, “Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow and reap and store in barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them” (Mt. 6.26). Even if the New Testament doesn’t explicitly talk about the environment, the teachings that are present can be used as a basis for how to approach the environment.
As mentioned before, Jesus accepted the teachings found in the Hebrew Bible and upheld them not only to his disciples, but to the people that he came across. For example, Jesus was once asked what the greatest commandment was, to which he answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. That is the greatest, the first commandment. The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Mt. 22.37–39).
Going off these two commandments, it is possible to apply them towards the environment. With the first commandment, about loving God above all things, it should be remembered that God still cares for his creations. Therefore, loving God implies respecting his creations, including the environment.
The second commandment about loving your neighbor can be applied towards the environment by keeping in mind that humans should play their part in keeping their surrounding natural environment around them clean not just for their sake, but for the sake of their neighbors. Just as these two commandments can be interpreted from an environmental perspective, there are many other teachings present in the New Testament that can be applied towards nature.
While it’s true that the New Testament lacks many references to the environment, there are several verses that point to Jesus having control over nature. In an encyclical letter written by Pope Francis, called Laudato Si', he states that:
“[Jesus] was able to invite others to be attentive to the beauty that there is in the world because he himself was in constant touch with nature, lending it an attention full of fondness and wonder. As he made his way throughout the land, he often stopped to contemplate the beauty sown by his Father, and invited his disciples to perceive a divine message in things.”
His control over nature was so great that others took notice and were amazed by it, such as when Jesus saved a boat he was on from sinking in the middle of a lake during a storm. The men witnessing this miracle could only express amazement, stating “What sort of man is this? Even the wind and the sea obey him” (Mt. 8.22). Jesus used the control he had over nature not only to perform miracles, but in his teachings, as well.
In the book of Matthew (and Mark), Jesus further demonstrates his control over nature through the cursing of a fig tree. This came about after Jesus, who was hungry, cursed a fig tree that he came across for not having any fruit by exclaiming, “May you never bear fruit again!” (Mt. 21.19)
As soon as he said this, the leaves of the fig tree fell to the ground and it died out, leaving his disciples amazed and wondering how it could have withered so quickly. Jesus answered, “Truly I tell you: if only you have faith and have no doubts, you will do what was done to the fig tree. And more than that: you need only say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted from your place and hurled into the sea,’ and what you say will be done” (Mt. 21.21).
In cursing the fig tree, Jesus not only continued to display how in touch he was with nature, but used it to talk to his disciples about the importance of prayer, remarking that anything is possible, including control over nature, to those who are faithful and pray.
Next time, I will examine what the Qur'an has to say in regards to the natural environment.
Works Cited
1. Francis, Pope. Laudato Si’, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 May 2015, w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa- francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html.
2. Lucas, Ernest. “The New Testament Teaching on the Environment.” Transformation, vol. 16, no. 3, 1999, pp. 93–99. trn.sagepub.com/content/16/3/93.full.pdf.
3. Suggs, M. Jack. et al. The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha. New York, Oxford University Press, 1992.
About the Creator
Jesse Perez
Hello, my name is Jesse Perez and I am from Las Vegas, Nevada. I am an alumnus of CSN and UNLV with a Bachelor's degree in English. It is my hope that readers will enjoy my writing and maybe even learn something from them.
Keep reading
More stories from Jesse Perez and writers in Earth and other communities.
The Natural Environment in the Hebrew Bible (Part One)
While the writers of the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Qur’an might not have had ecology in mind when they were writing the texts, through interpretation, readers can gain insight into what each book says in regards to the natural environment. It is to be expected that the writers of each text didn’t have the benefits of modern science to understand the natural environment as it is known in the present.
By Jesse Perez9 months ago in Earth
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan4 days ago in Earth
Nitrogen is necessary for young tropical rain forests to combat climate change.
By absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in wood, tropical rainforests contribute to the slowing of climate change. Forests that develop quickly are even more important because they absorb carbon more quickly.
By Francis Dami3 days ago in Earth
Comments (1)
Excelente perspectiva primo, gracias por compartirlo.