Ge 1:27-2:3
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
NASU
As I was not at the study group meeting for Study 3, I’ll just go through the study…
Once I’ve got the ‘official’ answers for the study, I’ll comment on them too, as the occasion takes me.
1. What does the Bible tell us about…
- our world (Gen 1:31, and see Gen 3:17-19, Roms 8:21-22):
In brief: was very good, was marred and awaits its redemption. These three way posts on the route to interpretation tells not only about the spiritual or moral world, or the human ‘world picture’, which is what must, I think, be the result of a de-reification of the creation account; and what Paul caps off opposition to in the Romans reference; but about the world that we’re standing in. We are separated from the ‘very good’ of God’s pristine creation by the ‘very bad’ of a world cursed as its vicegerent rejected relationship with the creator and wanted to know good and evil (know I take it here includes ‘have direct experience of’ the antithesis of God, the author of the ‘very good’).
- the abundance of our world (Gen 1:29, 9:1-3, Ps 145:15-17):
Plants were given for food (and therefore, not animals, in at least the pre-fall state); after the flood, the food range was increased to animals, which were now resistant to man’s care; nevertheless, in its fallen condition, marred and reflective of what God is not like, God provides for us.
- Humanity’s relationship to and responsibility for the creation (Gen 1:27, 28):
At base, to ‘subdue’ it. Detractors claim that this gives licence for exploitation, and wonton waste of the earth’s bounty; but not so. In a pre-fall condition, it would have man doing for the creation consistently with God’s very-good declaration; that this is a precious thing, to be maintained in harmony and for the sustenance of the interlocking system of benefits that the ‘very-good’ would produce. It would be like a king ruling his kingdom not to destroy and lay waste, but to build up and improve as his home giving to his heirs something that they will thank him for.
2. What does it mean to ‘subdue’ and ‘rule over’ the earth?
See above, but lets look at the references given:
Gen 2:15
Look after the garden
Gen 2:19-20
Husband the animals. This is the passage where Adam names the animals; as the first act of ‘ruling’ them he must understand them. Incidentally, against what idealist theologians say, that Genesis is ‘not a scientific’ text book, this is the ideal counter. It shows Adam doing something that is precisely scientific (referring to the study of the real world to seek knowledge of the creation. Pagans would call it ‘natural’ science), examining the animals, perhaps classifying and describing them (required for ‘naming’ in ANE cultures) and identifying them, to create knowledge about them.
QED, Genesis 1 is a ‘science textbook’.
Ex 23:29-30
The Promised Land is conquered carefully so it does not fall to waste and ruin.
Le 25:3-4
Even rules are given to allow the land to lie fallow and rest, with a system of fallow years being described: the people of Israel’s slogan could be ‘Still managing the land, still caring’.
De 20:19
Caring for the land extends to protecting productive trees for those who would come after!
Pr 12:10
Caring includes caring for animals: there we have it, modern ecological concern and animal liberation predated by just a few thousand years and in the Bible too!
Of course, the ‘kicker’ comes with the spoiling effect of sin: alienation from the source of life and love.
4. What are the effects of human sin [is there any other kind?] on our environment?
Luke 12:15
Greed is to be guarded against. In the end it adds nothing to our lives.
James 4:1-3
And, of course, greed arises from self-obsession, which ends, ultimately, as well as morally, in murder, as we put self before others.
The end of the study consisted with ‘getting practical’ [I can’t think of much more practical than the foregoing, myself]
Q: As Christians, how should we respond to global warning?
A: Start off by not ‘shoulding’ on each other with Pharisaic casuistry! [Often one has to correct the question in Bible studies]. A better question would be: “what considerations arise from the scriptures when we consider the state of our planet?”
As to ‘global warming’ of course, there is no response, unless we can somehow change the sun’s output. But what would we bring to questions such as pollution and land degradation: why, opposition, of course, but seeking a staged correction of careless ways to avoid destroying people’s livelihoods (workers, that is). We might also be modest in our demands on the environment; the benefit is release of funds for mission and other service. Imagine how much money would be so released if all Christian families avoided private schools, operated one car (structuring their lives to use public transport), avoided ‘prestige’ cars, and took modest holidays: lots, is my answer.
Q: What would you say to the Christian who says “The Earth is going to be destroyed one day, so what does it matter if we make a mess of it first?”
A: a) not an attitude consistent with seeking to care for things, b) ‘one day’ but let’s act as if we might leave things better for our children, and theirs; otherwise, we may be leaving a mess for generations while the Lord tarries, c) our basic demeanour is to seek the benefit of others, so depredation would be avoided as we seek positives for our fellows and heirs, d) we are called to create and care, not destroy and despoil.
Q: Are Christians supposed to ‘save the planet”?
A: To the extent that this would be an outcome from living to care, seeking the betterment of others, soberly and with delight in the shards of ‘very good’ that persist against the fall, yes, but not as an object in itself. This needs to be balanced with providing food, homes, and enjoyment for all.
In some ways, not a lot of controversy in this study; but, my refrain for any series of studies in the early chapters of Genesis is this: if the idealists are right, and Genesis provides some sort of picture, but something other ‘really’ happened, then it’s a house of cards that collapses, as the ‘other’ would provide the basis for informing our take on the ‘real’; any action that would be motivated by understanding Genesis would be essentially predicated on its relating events and facts that are consistent with and stand in train, indeed are commensurate with our experience of the world, against the shared framework of time, space and causal delimiters.
