Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Grimace]

If Christians are the stewards of the whole earth, why were they only located on one part of it? Was North America, Asia, etc.. supposed to just not have stewards? Also, if humans were supposed to take care of the earth, why is there nothing about not polluting it or not cutting down rainforests, etc.. in the bible?

[jimwalton]

Hm. You seem to want humanity to have been all over the earth all at the same time, as if God created tens of thousands of people to populate the earth instantly, rather than progressively.

First of all, scientific theory (if I am correct) is still uncertain about where humanity arose, though the oldest discoveries have been in Africa (again, if I am remembering right). And yet scientific theory also says there was not just one homo sapiens sapiens couple, but a gradual evolution of the species including perhaps thousands of hominids in a given era. So possibly there were many thousands, and God ordained (commissioned them, so to speak) to take care of the earth. Let me try to break this down a little bit.

The mandate to "subdue the earth" is a general one, expressing a principle that was to be one of the role of humans. It is our responsibility as humans, as differentiated from the animals, to care for the planet. Subduing the earth (Gn. 1.28), according to the text, is the primary way that "the image of God" is defined in Genesis. In other words, God was telling humans that one of the ways they would be most like Him is by having sovereignty over the earth, "co-regency" with God, so to speak. Subduing the earth implies a degree of sovereignty, control, and direction over nature—to advance civilization and regulate natural forces. It's mostly a scientific mandate: discover its potential, harness that, and use the resources responsibly for the benefit of all life. We are expected to research its characteristics (scientific inquiry), cultivate its fields (agriculture), and mine its mineral riches (industry).

We are stewards of the planet, not the owners of it. The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it (Ps. 24.1). It is our role to take care of it: don't pollute, show responsibility in how many trees we cut and take pains to restore those resources, etc. Our role is not to protect nature from all human intrusion or to tame all the wilderness. We have been given the skills to find the balance of managing the earth well. This would include North America (eventually), Asia (sooner than N.A.), Australia and Antarctica (in time)—the whole planet, as humankind spread to those places. Until those eras, the planet was created by God to be somewhat self-sustaining (the water cycle, seeds, earthquakes, fires, tornadoes, floods, volcanoes, the balance of nature, etc.) while always dynamic and changing.

Why does the Bible not specifically mention these things? It only does so indirectly. First of all, the Bible rejects pantheism, and therefore care of the planet is necessary. Secondly, humans were created in the image of God (and nature was not), showing that humans transcend nature, and can act with reason and not just instinct. Thirdly, in the Bible man's relation to nature is moral, not casual. The Bible's view of nature gives nature value in itself, because God made it to be a perpetual resource for humanity and an manifestation of God's glory. Fourth, the Bible teaches that as humans we are part of nature, and yet distinct from it. We have a bond with nature that motivates us to care responsibly for it, and yet are distinct from it so that we can both use and manage it without guilt. God treats his creation with integrity, and so should we, as co-regents. Fifth, while God's covenant was specifically with humanity (Gn. 9.8-17), it was also with "every created thing." God's care over creation should reflect itself in every human's treatment of that same creation. It is our job, as God's co-regents, to investigate our world to the depths of our capability, to bring order to the world, to control what we can and should, to work with nature for the good of the planet and its inhabitants, and to see in nature the power and glory of the God who made it.

[Grimace]

> "Hm. You seem to want humanity to have been all over the earth all at the same time, as if God created tens of thousands of people to populate the earth instantly, rather than progressively."

I thought the bible said god created adam and eve and they produced everyone else? If that's so, saying they had to take care of the earth (which implies the earth needs help being taken care of, when it clearly would be better off without humans) is impossible. The earth is too huge for two people to look after.

> "First of all, scientific theory (if I am correct) is still uncertain about where humanity arose, though the oldest discoveries have been in Africa (again, if I am remembering right). And yet scientific theory also says there was not just one homo sapiens sapiens couple, but a gradual evolution of the species including perhaps thousands of hominids in a given era. So possibly there were many thousands, and God ordained (commissioned them, so to speak) to take care of the earth. Let me try to break this down a little bit."

The bible says god created two people who populated the earth. Are we disregarding that part?

> "The mandate to "subdue the earth" is a general one, expressing a principle that was to be one of the role of humans. It is our responsibility as humans, as differentiated from the animals, to care for the planet. Subduing the earth (Gn. 1.28), according to the text, is the primary way that "the image of God" is defined in Genesis. In other words, God was telling humans that one of the ways they would be most like Him is by having sovereignty over the earth, "co-regency" with God, so to speak. Subduing the earth implies a degree of sovereignty, control, and direction over nature—to advance civilization and regulate natural forces. It's mostly a scientific mandate: discover its potential, harness that, and use the resources responsibly for the benefit of all life. We are expected to research its characteristics (scientific inquiry), cultivate its fields (agriculture), and mine its mineral riches (industry)."

Ok, so god said take care of the earth and left it up to us to figure out how? Why do that, when he gives so much more details with everything else?

> "We are stewards of the planet, not the owners of it. The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it (Ps. 24.1). It is our role to take care of it: don't pollute, show responsibility in how many trees we cut and take pains to restore those resources, etc. Our role is not to protect nature from all human intrusion or to tame all the wilderness. We have been given the skills to find the balance of managing the earth well. This would include North America (eventually), Asia (sooner than N.A.), Australia and Antarctica (in time)—the whole planet, as humankind spread to those places. Until those eras, the planet was created by God to be somewhat self-sustaining (the water cycle, seeds, earthquakes, fires, tornadoes, floods, volcanoes, the balance of nature, etc.) while always dynamic and changing."

That's completely fine and I could see that as interruption of the bible.

> "Why does the Bible not specifically mention these things? It only does so indirectly. First of all, the Bible rejects pantheism, and therefore care of the planet is necessary. Secondly, humans were created in the image of God (and nature was not), showing that humans transcend nature, and can act with reason and not just instinct. Thirdly, in the Bible man's relation to nature is moral, not casual. The Bible's view of nature gives nature value in itself, because God made it to be a perpetual resource for humanity and an manifestation of God's glory. Fourth, the Bible teaches that as humans we are part of nature, and yet distinct from it. We have a bond with nature that motivates us to care responsibly for it, and yet are distinct from it so that we can both use and manage it without guilt. God treats his creation with integrity, and so should we, as co-regents. Fifth, while God's covenant was specifically with humanity (Gn. 9.8-17), it was also with "every created thing." God's care over creation should reflect itself in every human's treatment of that same creation. It is our job, as God's co-regents, to investigate our world to the depths of our capability, to bring order to the world, to control what we can and should, to work with nature for the good of the planet and its inhabitants, and to see in nature the power and glory of the God who made it."

I still don't understand why god would make rules about what linens to wear and who can speak in church, but not say pollution is bad. Shouldn't that be one of the ten commandments?

Side question, what happens when humans go to mars? Are we supposed to take care of that too, or what?

[jimwalton]

The writings of Dr. John Walton ("The Lost World of Genesis 1" and "The Lost World of Adam and Eve") take a fascinating new perspective of the first two chapters of the Bible, and I think rightly so. His reading of the Bible shows that chapters 1 & 2 are not about material creation (though others texts are clear that God created the universe and world), but about how that creation is supposed to function, and the role the various elements play in that functionality. Day 1: Light and darkness function in sequence to give us day and night, therefore time. Day 2: The firmament functions to give us our weather systems. Day 3: The earth functions to give us plants and sustain life on the planet. Day 4: The sun moon and stars function to give us seasons. Day 5: The birds and fish function to give us a balance of nature and the cycles of life. Day 6: Animals function to give us a balance of nature, and humans function to rule the earth and subdue it. Day 7: God comes to "rest" in his creation, meaning that he comes to dwell there and engage with his people.

Genesis 2 is not a fuller explanation of the 6th day, but is the record of a subsequent time. God is showing us that humanity was mortal by nature ("made of dust"), but that God was holding out to us the possibility of immortality (Tree of Life). In Gn. 2.15, the words "to work the garden and care for it" are priestly terms, not agricultural ones. Humans were to function as God's priests and priestesses on the planet, living in relation to Him and caring for sacred space (the earth), just as later priests will serve in the temple as the mediators between God and man, and care for sacred space (the temple). The end of Gen. 2 shows how females are equal to males and share in this functionality as partners, not as subservient or as inferior beings. Part of the word "helpmeet" is used almost exclusively in the Bible for God, so we cannot responsibly assume God is making Eve an inferior being.

As such, the Bible is not telling us how humans were made, or the process used, or the duration. Science has to tell us that, and science tells us about hominid evolution. OK, we have to follow the truth wherever it leads. So science tells us about hominid evolution, and the Bible tells us that when the homo sapiens evolved to a certain point, God "took them and placed them in the Garden" (Gn. 2.15), invested them with a soul, and taught them how to be moral beings. The Bible doesn't insist (as the traditionalists would have us believe) that Adam and Eve were the first and only hominids on the planet by divine material creation.

> Ok, so god said take care of the earth and left it up to us to figure out how?

Genesis 2 certainly doesn't tell us every word that was said and every interaction there was between God and humans. Its point is to tell us about humans being ordained as God's priest and priestess. We are given clues, however, about plants (5, 8), weather (5), irrigation (6, 10-14), diet (16), morality (17), and relationships (19-25). It's enough to let us know that God is instructing them and providing for them, not just leaving them to their own ignorant and inadequate devices.

> I still don't understand why god would make rules about what linens to wear and who can speak in church, but not say pollution is bad. Shouldn't that be one of the ten commandments?

The rules about linens come later, and those directives are symbolic of the holiness code—how we are to relate to God. The priests and the people are being symbolically reminded to be holy in all they do, but especially in the presence of God.

The "who can speak in church" question was an issue of the impact they were having on the culture. They were not to engage in behaviors that would reflect negatively on the character of God. The command to women to be silent in the church was clearly a local teaching, and not a universal or general one, because in 1 Corinthians 11, the women were encouraged to speak.

> what happens when humans go to mars? Are we supposed to take care of that too, or what?

Yes, absolutely. The text of Genesis 1-2, along with many other Bible texts, is inclusive of all that God has created, not just the earth. Just as humanity expanded from Africa to Asia, and was now responsible to care for it as they lived in it, so also as we expand from earth to Mars we are responsible to care for it as we live in it. The whole cosmos is God's temple, and in that sense is sacred space.

[Grimace]

If the bible isn't literal, that's another issue. Although, that clears some things up if you go with that stance.

I do find it odd that god created trillions of planets for us to look after, but only put us on one of them.

[jimwalton]

I think "literal" is a problematic word that doesn't contribute to our understanding of the Bible. The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding. It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author. In that case we'll take the Bible *seriously*, but "literally" doesn't take us anywhere.

> I do find it odd that god created trillions of planets for us to look after, but only put us on one of them.

We don't need to worry about taking care of the planets we're not on. The Bible says that God is the one who upholds and sustains the universe. It's His temple, not made by human hands, and that's what makes it more suitable to honor Him and give Him the glory He deserves. He's the one who maintains most of it.