Dawn, Day Eight

Jan Brueghel the Elder, The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (1613)

Jan Brueghel the Elder, The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man (1613)

It is a commonly held assumption that when God created a beautiful and bountiful world for Adam and Eve to inhabit, it was perfection and lacked nothing; there was fruit falling out of the sky and every imaginable blessing was at hand. This conception of the prelapsarian paradise stirs a longing within many to return to that primeval state.

 

The problem is, consummation is not what we find in the creation account.

 

Instead, the Biblical narrative tells that after God spoke the cosmos into existence, determining it “very good,” day eight dawns with a startling sense of incompletion. Somehow, in Yahweh’s master plan, there was still work to be done. 

 

The God of the universe decided to enlist his creatures:

 

“When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground… then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and… put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” (Genesis 2:5,7,15)

 

David tells us in psalm 8 that humanity was appointed to have dominion over the creation, the work of God’s hands. But notice how in Genesis 2 the flourishing of earth is connected with the work of man’s hands. So which is it? Is a bountiful earth the work of God’s hands or man’s? The answer is: both. “At the beginning God didn’t deliver a finished product; rather, God provided a setting in which human beings, working with and enabled by God, could cause the created order to flourish.” (Van Duzer, 37)

 

This idea of subduing and ruling found in 1:28 is best understood in the context of Adam and Eve’s commission to “work/serve/cultivate” and “keep/guard” the garden. Although it is a paradise of goodness and peace, there is so much more God intends his creation to be – it is to be an unfolding, a developing project that gets better and better over time. “God’s good world is not a static place… he intends, by his grace, to include his human image bearers in his work.” (Moo 77)

 

Eden is described as a garden of defined boundaries within the created world, but Adam and Eve are told to “multiply and fill the earth” (1:28). This means that the creation mandate is an expansive mission, moving the borders of the good garden outward to cover the face of the earth. This is a reality that is later foreshadowed in Abraham’s promised land, which is ultimately understood to encompass the entire world (Gen 15:18-21, Gen 17:4-8, Romans 4:13, Gal 3:15-29, Mt 5:5, Rev 21:1-22:5).

 

“Stewardship?”

 

The call to care for the earth is often understood today in terms of “stewardship.” A steward is a person hired to oversee the care of another’s property. It’s not an uncommon motif in Scripture. Christians are described as stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1), their own spiritual gifts (1 Pet 4:10), and their personal finances (Lk 16:11). Additionally, elders are called to be stewards of the church (Tit 1:7).

 

The idea of “stewardship” can be helpful here because it reminds us that we will be held accountable for this “keeping” commission. Further, all creation is owned by God (Psalm 24:1), not us; We are called to manage another’s property.

 

One of the earliest writings to explicitly connect the stewardship motif to creation care was Matthew Hale’s 1676 Contemplations Moral and Divine. In the chapter titled “Touching Thy Creatures,” Hale describes our relationship to the animals as “a trust, and as a steward and accomptant to them,” and says, “therefore, I was always careful to use [animals] according to those limits, and in order for those ends, for which thou didst commit them to me.” He explains that we owe animals “justice” and must use them in moderation and “with mercy and compassion.” He condemns the use of them for excessive agricultural labor, blood sport, and recreational hunting, and deprecates the killing of animals for the purpose of luxurious “feasting and excess.” He says we should remember that God has given us dominion over his creatures “under a law of justice, prudence, and moderation, otherwise we should become tyrants, not lords, over thy creatures.” The idea of creation care as stewardship is deeply rooted in modern environmental discussions.

 

Though Hale’s applications are helpful and worthy of serious consideration, there are a couple reasons I think we should use the word “dominion” instead “stewardship” to describe our call to care for God’s creation. First, and most importantly, it is the Scriptural term. Unlike some doctrines (the trinity, among others), we aren’t left in the dark when it comes to descriptors. God himself gives us the words to use: subdue and rule, work and keep. The second reason for rejecting this use of “stewardship” is that we must remember that we are not separate from creation as this concept implies; we are creatures within it and dependent on it. In practice, it makes a huge difference if we view creation as separate from us and merely as resources to be managed. This kind of thinking was described by Martin Heidegger as “enframing,” and many forms of exploitation throughout history have been attributed to it. (Consider the problem of the hired hand in John 10:12-13.)

 

So that leaves us wondering, “What does a godly king rule like? How is humanity to rule well?” 

 

This will be the subject of our next post.

 

 

 

Resources Cited:

 

Jonathan Moo and Douglas Moo, Creation Care: A Biblical Theology of the Natural World

Jeff Van Duzer, Why Business Matters to God (And What Still Needs to Be Fixed)

Matthew Hale, Contemplations Moral and Divine

Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology

 

Previous
Previous

Called to Craftsmanship

Next
Next

The Image of the Creative God