by Justin Doyle
"And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion/rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” - Genesis 1:28
Certain words have a way of grabbing our attention – some are rich and full of meaning, others trigger memories, good or bad, and still others disorient you for one reason or another. For years, my attention has been drawn to the mandate given to humanity in Genesis 1:26-28, particularly the command to subdue and have dominion/rule. In a post-colonial world, those words, when applied to humanity, have a way of punching me in the gut and disorienting me.
Given the capacity of humanity to abuse power for selfish gain at the expense of the rest of creation, including other humans – a capacity we, unfortunately, know all too well – does the Bible really affirm that type of power? Are we as humans, for example, justified by the words in the Creation Mandate of Genesis 1 to exert our power and might over the resources of the Earth to meet our felt needs for profit, status, comfort, safety and the like? Or, as I’ve always hoped, is there something else going on here, something more lovely and beautiful befitting the nature of the creation narrative as a whole?
This is a complex and weighty conversation (both of the meaning/application of the Creation Mandate as well as of the of the entirety of this cluster of verses [vv. 26-28 particularly] within which the Creation Mandate is embedded), one that has been entertained by plenty of scholarly articles, books, commentaries etc... I’m just beginning to wade into these waters, so this post is by no means comprehensive or my final word on the issue.
While I do have plenty more to read and consider with regard to the meaning of the call to subdue and have dominion/rule within the context of Genesis 1, one resource that has proved helpful to me is Richard Middleton’s, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. From the title I’m sure you’ve surmised that Middleton’s focus in the book is the image of God, the imago Dei. He asks and attempts to answer, “what does it mean that humans are made in the image of God?” His conclusion is that, while many scholars over the centuries have attempted to define and describe the imago Dei in philosophical or relational terms, a growing consensus of Old Testament scholars over the past 100 years have argued that its meaning is bound up with ancient Near Eastern (ANE) practices. Middleton concludes,
When the clues within the Genesis text are taken together with comparative studies of the ancient Near East, they lead to what we could call a functional— or even missional— interpretation of the image of God in Genesis 1: 26– 27 (in contradistinction to substantialistic or relational interpretations). On this reading, the imago Dei designates the royal office or calling of human beings as God’s representatives and agents in the world, granted authorized power to share in God’s rule or administration of the earth’s resources and creatures.[1]So, humanity, as royal representatives of their Creator, are called to subdue and have dominion/rule the non-human creation (notice that the mandate doesn’t include subduing/ruling other humans), but the character of this subduing and ruling is not left to be determined by humans. Rather, Middleton argues, the character of the power granted to humans to subdue and rule is determined by the character of the Creator God, in whose image humanity has been created, as pictured within the creation narrative of Genesis 1:1 – 2:3. This is a God who brings order out of chaos, not by means of violence, as the gods of other ANE creation myths do, but simply by the power of his word. And this act of speaking the created world into existence has a particular character to it. As Walter Brueggemann points out, this act of creation, this relationship between God and his creation, isn’t “one of coercion. It is, rather, one of free, gracious commitment and invitation. The linkage is one of full trust rather than of requirement or obligation.”[2] And Middleton, brilliantly and helpfully I think, concludes, “God is pictured here (in the creation narrative) not as warrior, but as craftsman or artisan.”[3]
God as gracious Artisan, a Creator who lovingly summons a world out of chaos into spectacular beauty and complexity, a God so powerful, wise and loving that He has no need to resort to violence to create, but extends his love as an invitation to creation, most notably humanity, to participate in a generous artistry resulting in a creation that flourishes. If that’s the God in whose image and likeness we as humans were made, then our subduing and ruling looks a lot different than what immediately comes to my mind when I normally hear those words. I think the implications are numerous, but I’ll leave those discussions for "A Power With, Part 2".For now, what do you think? Do you see a link between the Creation Mandate, the imago Dei and the character of God as Creator depicted in Genesis 1? Can you see God as artisan or craftsman in the creation narrative? May the Spirit lead us as we continue to think and discuss.
[1] Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), 27.
[2] Watler Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1982), 27.
[3] Middleton, 266.
Justin Doyle is a Christian Union ministry fellow at Brown University. Justin hails from Akron, Ohio. He earned a BS in Secondary Education from Miami University of Ohio and an MDiv from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. For several years following his undergraduate studies, Justin served in various management roles, including four years as a Strategic Sourcing Manager with PartsSource LLC.
Justin loves everything about the outdoors, enjoying a fantastic cup of coffee with friends, listening to great music, and, above all else, making much of Jesus. Justin and his wife, Jill, stay busy trying to keep up with their three young boys, Graham, Hudson and Brooks.
