Fr Arnold Francis

This three-part presentation attempts to unpack the relationship between the human community and the earth in the two stories of creation (Genesis 1-2). This will involve an examination of Gen 1:26-31 and Gen 2:4b-25

GENESIS 1:26-31

Genesis 1 constitutes six literary units.  Each of the first six units (vv1-5; 6-8; 9-13; 14-19; 20-23; 24-31 is concluded with the phrase “Evening came, and morning followed. . .”  The concern of the sixth unit (vv 24-31) is the creation of living creatures (human beings and the other animals—excluding the birds) on the face of the earth. 

Based on the themes dealt with, I shall further divide this unit into two subunits--vv 24-25 that describe the creation of all land creatures (excepting humanity) and vv 21-31 that focus on the creation of the human community. 

There is a number of elements in Gen 1:26-31 that breaks the pattern of creating seen in Genesis 1.  Such elements include:

1. the large number of verses assigned to it;
2. the dialogue that precedes the creation of humanity, an echo of the language of the divine assembly;
3. the fact that God made the human community in his own likeness and image; 
4. the divine imperative that gave the human community dominion over the rest of creation;
5. the fact that the human community is personally addressed by God.

The above would seem to underline the creation of humanity as the climax of God’s creative activity.

The idea that adam (=man--used generically here) is made in the divine image and likeness is significant on two accounts.  First, it establishes the possibility of communication between God and humanity and, second, it underlines that humanity’s purpose (reason to be) is to mirror God to the world—“to be an extension of God’s own dominion.

The Ancient Near East (ANE) kingship ideology is the background against which one must understand the intent of the author.  Here the king, often understood as the image of the deity, was vested with divine authority—thus empowered to rule on behalf of the deity. The priestly writer here extends to all human beings what pertained to the king. 

The human person is portrayed as royalty and invested with divine authority to rule, as God’s surrogate, over all creation.  The movement of Psalm 8 (see especially vv 6-8) also affirms that humanity exercises the kingly function of “dominion” over “all things,” and suggests that he/she represents God in the world.

The Priestly writer(s) of Genesis 1 understood God as delegating humanity to participate in God’s creative power.  Thus “God chooses not to be the only one who has or exercises creative power.”(The Book of Psalms, J Clinton Mc Cann Jr)

The phrases “let us make,” “in our own image” and “after our likeness” in Gen 1:26 present God not in solitary living but in relationship--community.  The “divine image” and “divine likeness” are not solitary concepts but rather relational and communitarian.

Verse 27 takes up the previous statement, “Let us make man in our own image and after our likeness,“ and furthers it with the sexual differentiation of God’s image as male and female.  In this way the author demonstrates that neither man nor woman manifests fully the divine image and likeness. 

It is in complementary relationship between the sexes that the divine image and likeness shine forth fully.  Of course, this relationship between man and woman is prototypical of all relationships.  Gen 1:26-27 says that the image and likeness of God are to be found in relationship between people. 

The above suggests that man and woman are made for communion and are not created for solitary living.  The passage under discussion also suggests that the divine image and likeness are to be found in man and woman alike, and thus underlines the equality of the sexes.

The reason for sexual differentiation (v 27b) is given in v 28, ensuring the continuation of human existence and human participation in God’s creative activity. The imperatives of v 28 highlight inter-human relationship and and human’s relationship to the earth in terms of a list of functions: increase and multiply, fill the earth; subdue the earth; have dominion over the creatures of God.

A problem surfaces with the imperatives “have dominion” and “subdue,” given the fact that humanity has raped the earth and is “un-creating”/”chaotizing” (a return to chaos) the earth, as is well dramatised in the movie The Day After Tomorrow. This movie paints a sober vision of how human action can destroy God’s good creation.

We see this in human contribution to pollution, the destruction of tropical rain forests, and the high levels of carbon dioxide and carbofluorides, which lead to the current phenomenon of global warming or the hole in the ozone layer, ensuing in the devastation of the land and the disruption of the life of everything on it. Humanity, seemingly, has embraced a paradigm for life that places him/her over and against the natural environment. 

Some suggest removing those words (“dominion” and “subdue”) from Christian vocabulary.  But this is unnecessary.  The nuances of “subdue” include restrain, control, forcefully bring under control, tame, discipline and master; and the connotations of “dominion” embrace power, authority and dominance.

Fretheim (The Book of Genesis: Introduction, Commentary, an d Reflections) has shown that “a study of the verb ‘have dominion’ in Gen 1:28 reveals that it must be understood in terms of care-giving, even nurturing, not exploitation.”

The connotation “forcefully bring under control” in the word “subdue” can hardly be meant since no enemies are in view here. Shades of meaning like restrain, tame and discipline in “subdue” and power and authority in “dominion” in no way indicate that human beings can disrespect the environment as they please.

These shades of meaning clearly identify humanity as God’s surrogate in creatio continua; they set apart humanity from the other creatures as sharing in the exercise of God’s dominion. Thus man and woman, even though they are creatures in solidarity with the other creatures on the planet, are special creatures—created to be co-creators with God in actualising the fullest potential of the world. 

Gen 1:28 in no way gives man or woman the green light to abuse the environment. As expresses in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2415, “man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute.”     

The nature of the relationship between humanity and his/her environment lies in the very passage that some believe authorises human beings to do whatever they want with the environment. It is interesting to note that at the outset of human existence (Gen 1:29-30) God did not allow humanity to kill the animals for food (see Gen 9:2-5).

This command implies (i) that humanity carries out his/her function under divine ordinance and (ii) therefore cannot do whatever he/she wants with God’s good earth.

Gen 1:26-27 marks us out as the image of and surrogate for God, and Gen 1:28 as co-creator with God.  Co-creator or surrogate would seem to imply that we do not have the last say but have to give an account of our stewardship of God’s “very good” (Gen 1:31) earth to the one whom we represent. 

Understanding the language of dominion anew is essential if humanity is to engage his/her environment with respect and care. We need not remove the word “dominion” from the scripture or even ignore it. Rather one ought to understand this term within the context of our relationship with or connection to God.

One way is to understand our reason to be or vocation against the background of God’s creative energy unleashed in the universe, that is, God’s sovereign activity. In the words of McCann, “humanity’s royal status and dominion must be understood within the context of God’s reign”(The Book of Psalms). God, according to Genesis 1, looked at his creation and saw that it was “very good.”

God used his power and authority to do good –to give life, and so must we. I hold that our duty is to mimic God in whose image and likeness we are made. The action of God in Paradise is the paradigm for human engagement of his/her environment.

To adopt this divine paradigm “the community of believers must liberate themselves from the captivity of [any] paradigm which places them over and against the cosmic community.”(Towards a Christian Land Ethic. Rajula Annie Watson)

NEXT WEEK – Genesis 2:2-25