And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion 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
“Subdue it and have dominion.” I have been pondering this question frequently since my first article "Just Another Animal?” was posted and received requests for a follow up on the use of the word “subdue” in Genesis 1:28. I found myself pondering about it particularly while I was out in God’s good creation - dominating my backyard into submission with a lawn mower.
The Hebrew word for subdue is “kabash” meaning “bring into subjection, make subservient”. The definition of subdue as “make subservient” may be somewhat helpful for us. If you think about it, our world, our living space serves us. It gives us the air we need to breathe, the food we need to eat, and provides the materials we need to create clothing and shelter and community. In that sense, creation is our servant - “subservient” to us. “Subdue” or “subdued” is used elsewhere in the Old Testament and New Testament 31 times. And every other time it is used outside of Genesis chapter 1, it is used in a military or political context. So, not much help there. The use of subdue with regard to God’s command of humans versus the earth is never again addressed in Scripture beyond Genesis 1.
But I think it is important to remember: all the other times this word is used in the narrative of Scripture is after man had sinned. And as the sinful children of Adam, both then and now, the full understanding of God’s command to “subdue it and have dominion” is difficult for us to wrap our minds around. Martin Luther has some insight into the problem in his Lectures on Genesis as he addressed Genesis 1:28:
But Adam would not have used the creatures as we do today, except for food, which he would have derived from other, far more excellent fruits. For he under whose power everything had been placed did not lack clothing or money. Nor would there have been any greed among his descendants; but, apart from food, they would have made use of the creatures only for the admiration of God and for a holy joy which is unknown to us in this corrupt state of nature. By contrast, today and always the whole creation is hardly sufficient to feed and support the human race. Therefore what this dominion consisted of we cannot even imagine. (Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 1: Luther's works, vol. 1 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (Ge 1:29). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.)
Adam and Eve were created in the image of God and had a perfect relationship with Him. Yet that perfect harmony with God on the good earth fell apart with their fall into sin. I tend to fall in line behind Luther here in saying that we cannot have a crystal clear understanding of how Adam and Eve went about having dominion over the earth. Because of who we are as sinners, we have never enjoyed that perfect relationship. The earth is cursed and we eat our food by the sweat of our brow (Genesis 3:17-19). The earth seems to fight back at us yet God’s command to subdue the earth was never revoked. And that command is still ours today. So where do we take it from here? How are we to understand and live out our role as humans subduing creation? I began to address that question in “Just Another Animal?” And how do we understand that role in light of Jesus Christ? Another follow up? How about your thoughts?
a huge presupposition
After last Thursday's article and the follow up on presuppositions, it only seems fair that Jon would give us a huge one to consider today ... that the world, including us, as we know it, is unnatural. This prompts two thoughts.
First it reminds me of a comment I heard not too long ago, "Jesus is your best chance to be human."
Second, how does this not sound like an attempt to just bypass the whole evolution argument on a philosophical / theological / presuppositional loophole?
Good Question
I think your second question is a really difficult one. Maybe some articles on it? What, I think, makes the second question so tough to deal with is in something I've experienced in the last month. It was 3 different views on evolution that range from theistic evolution to naturalistic and materialistic evolution. It's not as simple as saying there is one common and shared view on evolution to discuss.
Maybe a place to start is to discuss the presuppositions and assumptions that lead into all of these different world views (including creationism)? It could give everyone a more well rounded understanding of where others come from.
starting point
I think starting with the presuppositions is helpful ... if nothing else, it let's you know where everybody is coming from and allows you to move forward from there and discussion the positives and negatives of each worldview.
What do you have in mind on the article front? Have some suggested topics?
Starting and Ending
I think the presupposition that God exists is a big one. One side presupposes God exists and they see proof of his existence in nature, so you need to prove he does not exist. The other side presupposes God does not exist and they see no proof of his existence in nature, so you need prove he does exist. Neither side has the proof needed for the other side because the presupposition of God existing or not colors their view. I have been in some discussions where I feel we were just talking past each other. We really were not connecting with each other. The discussion ends with both sides being dissatisfied. How do we reach and connect with that person whose presupposition is that God does not exist?
(Even focusing on Jesus and the reliability of the Gospels fails because they can find "scholars" to support their view. Frustrating!)
starting point
I think realize that is the starting point is huge! If nothing else, you can realize where both of you begin and then start exploring how you see things playing out from that starting point. Maybe that conversation of discovering why you believe that and how that belief plays out in daily life creates some opportunities for mutual learning.
Presuppositions
If you look at both articles as a whole, I attempted to convey my worldview. In other words, I tried to be honest about my presuppositions - presuppositions shaped by faith in Christ. I saw "Expelled" on Friday and I am still processing what I saw. But I think what I heard from the evolutionists was that they were not being totally honest about their presuppositions. Those presuppositions were not necessarily scientific in nature, rather their presuppositions were just as philosophical and theological as the Christian worldview - but in opposing directions. (And you can ask the same question about the proponents of Intelligent Design) So to have an honest debate on evolution / creation, we must all be honest about our presuppositions. Are we going to debate science or the metaphysical?
Not All Scientists Fault
I think something to remember is that it's not all about the scientists. As Expelled and other sources have pointed out, there are a number of other people in different areas who are providing misguided information.
In the US, where I live, this has become a huge political issue and for many their understanding has not come from scientists and what they have to say about the science or their assumptions and presuppositions.
For example, go take Ellen's Energy Adventure at Epcot. In that ride Bill Nye The Science Guy is there to explain the science and specifically the 'Big Bang'. This feels to give it legitimacy. But, Bill Nye is formally trained as a mechanical engineer and from what I've read he isn't a cosmology expert. From what I've read from astrophysicists and cosmologists he explains it wrong. But, people walk about thinking what he says is what scientists are saying.
It's things like that which influence the views of many people. Add that to their beliefs and political agendas and we have a volatile mixture.
Maybe what we need is some articles (or reference to) which explain some of the science to get us in line scientifically apart from much of the hearsay that's going around. It would be nice to talk about the metaphysical, too.
Jesus as the true gardener
From JPetering's articles, I didn't really see a thread into the evolution debate as prominent. The question that JPetering is asking is "what is man's responsibility towards creation, as God intended?"
If one holds to a theistic evolutionist standpoint, regardless of how God decided to create 'humanity,' JPetering's 'responsibility question' is still the same. I'm all for the 'evolution' discussion, I just think that it might divert rapidly from the original intent of the article? maybe I'm wrong about that. I'm game either way.
I love the idea of viewing 'Jesus' as the perfect human in light of new creation. If you recall Magdalene looking for Jesus after seeing the empty tomb, and mistaking him as the gardener. N.T. Wright states that this is the right mistake to make. Jesus as the first post-death human is the true gardener.
second Adam
I'm digging that bit on Jesus as the gardener as, across the board, Jesus did what the first Adam failed to do.
Responsibility in Christ
Jpetering's article has been very insightful for me. Thanks for the thought provoking stuff! But I think pdelsignore is right, this is less about creation vs. evolution and more about what our role in the creation is to be.
It is interesting that you bring up NT Wright here. I saw him speak a few months ago and this very topic was touched in his speech. He seems to suggest (and if you have read him more than I have, you can correct me) that, since Christ in his resurrection takes the role of the new Adam and is given full dominion over creation (Eph. 1:19-23), we who are his body, the church, are given the job of restoring the creation. Certainly we can't do this on our own, but Christ fills his church and works through it to restore this world. As the church, then, we are called NOW to work towards the NOT YET of the new heavens and the new earth. This means that Christ calls his church to transform the world. The church is God's agent of change in the world ecologically, politically, and theologically.
So, Wright would say (I think!), in terms of our discussion here, it is incumbant upon the church to be environmentally friendly, and to make a point of it. After all, it is Christ working through us to restore the creation.
Personally, I am overwhelmed by Wright's reading of the Scripture. He reads it in ways that are quite amazing and helpful. But he seems to find a specifically "Christian" responsibility towards creation that I am not sure the Scriptures actually speak towards. I am not sure the church is called to discuss environmental issues on a grand scale. If we think of it in terms of the Apostles Creed, it seems to confuse the first article where we confess God's power over creation with the third article where we confess God's work in restoration at the resurrection of the dead. But as I type this, it makes me wonder if Wright doesn't actually properly tie them in together.
I'll stop before I make less sense but there was helpful aritcle I found on this topic by a professor of mine named Charles Arand at Concordia Seminay in St. Louis. Here is the link:
http://www.concordiatheology.org/
Click on the article "Observe Earth Day."
undoing sin
Rather than identifying specific projects, like the environment, the way I've been talking about this lately is, "undoing the effects of sin". Basically it's rooted in what happened with the ministry of Jesus? What did he do? In healing, he undid the effects of sin in our world. The same is true when he's in the dessert living with wild animals that would destroy a normal person.
So, with this in mind, what is it that we as Christians should seek to do? We should find opportunities that we have to undo the effects of sin. Maybe this means buying fair trade products, maybe it means helping in ares of disease or poverty, or maybe it means being more environmentally friendly.
Thoughts?
Our work?
I guess my question would be, is that the calling of the church? To undo the effects of sin? Or, did Jesus do that and we are to proclaim it to a broken world? Or, is it an either/or situation, or a both/and? (I am not suggesting any position, just looking for conversation on issues I wrestle with!)
continuation
I'd say that, essentially, Jesus invites us to participate in a continuation of the work he did, at the level we're capable of. Obviously we won't be able to end all effects of sin in the world, but in the little things we do, we can then point to them as a sampling of what is to come. Sort of a, "Here it is now," and then pointing to what isn't yet.
Thoughts?
Love Your Neighbor
I'm reminded of the two greatest commandments. First, to love the Lord your God. Just after that, to love your neighbor as yourself. How can we love people? I look at helping undo the effects of sin as a way to love them. We can never undo everything and all we do is make a dent. But, it is a way to love them and do it in a way similar to how Jesus did it.
Now and Not Yet
I agree with you, pastor joe, that all of creation is suffering from the effects of sin. And, when I first read this thread yesterday, my first inclination was to go to Romans 8, which I think (correct me if I'm wrong) suggests that all of creation - not just the sons of Adam - is in a "now and not yet" expectation for Christ's return. It clearly points out that there's a passive suffering as the result of sin - not to exclude what we suffer as a result of our own sin. I think maybe this does extend to the environment - we all suffer when people consume excessively or pollute and destroy. And, true, I don't think the church is called particularly to save the environment - we're called to follow Christ and to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth - but perhaps the fruits of our own rebirth and regeneration in Christ look (in some small way) like being responsible stewards for this planet.
a second
I'll second your comment at the end. My point was more that grabbing any one agenda item and pushing it, will really limit us in our calling. We should all be engaged in doing whatever we can in the places God has us.
Wright on
Rev Bob,
I would recommend anything by N.T.Wright, in my opinion, he is a first rate scholar and theologian and since he is also an Anglican bishop, he has a different perspective than many from the American protestant position. It's good to listen/read from different perspectives.
His latest book "surprised by hope" does delve into the new creation concept, and I think you are correct to say he is very pro-environmentalist, at least from the church being "God's agent of change in the world ecologically, politically, and theologically" as you mentioned.
Subduing Grace
To subdue and be in subjection to can only happen when we come into Christ's subjection in our lives first. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all shall be added unto you. That is no different with and in His subduing grace. Not many people live this or even know what His subduing grace is. Yet there are those that write by faith but still have not experienced His amazing works that He subdues us first. We can only share, what we first receive, what He gives to us and brings us into subjection to.
Dominion without Grace is domination, Dominion with Grace is sovereignty.
At present I am going through His subduing grace and what He subdues His creation by. His banner over me is love, and love conquers all. His subduing grace, is His eternal love...that melts the hearts of even the most unrepented sinners. No one can stand in the presence of the one that flows forth the Love that melts even the heavens away, and that is the Love of Christ and His eternal love that He has for us and to save and rescue His creation by. In the works of His subduing love and creation comes His softening agent, to soften heats, that they may receive the majesty of His might and splendour and bow down at the knee and name of Jesus in total adoration and love and grateful thankfulness, because we can only love because He first loved us.
He brought me to His banqueting table, His banner over me is love.
His Sovereign love, wow...
He chose us first...
When people give up their selfishness to Lord Jesus Christ and truly give up their lives and come in adoring Love and Christ's tender mercies and Sovereign Grace, then they come to the author and finisher of their faith, then they come into the refining and finishing fire of Lord Jesus Christ that takes our living stones that we will shine and reflect the image of Him forever more, to the glory of God the father, that we be the praise of His Glory, as Lord Jesus Christ is the praise of our glory, Glorius Grace.
May His peace be with you to continue to guide you forever upward in the Sovereignty of His Splendour. How Great is Our God. amen
Mother Serenity Grace Abraham
Homeheart Ministeries
His eternal loving heart is in our home and our home is in His eternal loving heart and resting place ministeration...John 14:20-1