In the last article we focused upon our end. We looked at the vision of John that we are to live into. Another way of getting to the same place is to look at the beginning. “Eschatology [the study of last things] is like protology [the study of first things].”1 A thing’s end is “built in”, so to speak, from the beginning. A broom is made (its beginning) to sweep up debris (its end). A camera is made (its beginning) to take pictures (its end). One can ask “What is a thing made to do?” in order to get a vision of its end.2 When we ask, “What is Man made to do?” We answer “be the image of God.”
The image of God should be understood as more of a vocation than some quality that we possess. It is related more to what we do than who we are. (That’s why it is addressed under “Why am I here?” instead of “Who am I?”). Consider that the days of creation are more concerned with assigning role/function than they are with material existence.3 Whereas Genesis 1:1 is an introduction to the account, 1:2 describes the “stuff” of creation as without form and without function. Day one is about the ordering of periods of light and dark, not the existence of light per se. Notice, v.5 says, “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” Why not just call the light, “light”, and the darkness, “darkness”? Because he is not concerned with the material existence of light and dark (if dark can even be said to “exist”) but about what function they perform. The meaning of the verse is that God called the period of light “Day” and the period of darkness “Night.” This further helps make sense of the previous verse. “God separated the light from the darkness” (1:4). If we are speaking materially then it is nonsensical to speak of the separation of light and dark. There is nothing to separate because they cannot dwell together in any rational sense. They are mutually exclusive by nature. However, if it means that God established a particular and ordered period of light and an ordered period of darkness, then it makes sense. To be consistent we should understand “a period of light” throughout whenever the text says “light”. Therefore, 1:3 is not about the creation of light materially but about assigning a role/function within an ordered system. The meaning would then be, “Then God said, ‘Let there be a period of light’; and there was a period of light.” This sort of role assignment continues throughout Genesis 1. In 1:6 the dome is created with the emphasis falling on its function. “And God said, ‘Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.'” (1:6). When he created the “lights” of the sky he specifically mentions what function they are to perform. “God said, ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so” (1:14, 15). If that is the pattern of Genesis 1 then we should consider the “creation” of Man also to emphasize his role rather than his existence.4 That is exactly what we find.
When we arrive at our text the writer places the weight upon the function of Man (1:26). The “image of God” is defined in terms of what Man is supposed to do, not in terms of what he is. “Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” Man’s vocation, his role/function, is further explained by v. 28, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” Hence, in response to the question, “Why am I here?” we can answer, “To have dominion over the earth, to be fruitful, to multiply, and to fill the earth.” The rest of this article will be dedicated to unpacking these dense phrases to see what they mean for us.
We Reign Under God
Because of our twisted ideas of power it is dangerous to say simply, “I am here to have dominion.” It must be acknowledged up front that Man’s dominion is derivative. Authority is not inherent in us; it has been delegated to us. God has granted us authority. “[Y]ou have made [human beings] a little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honor. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet” (Ps. 8:5, 6). We are “crowned” but there is one higher than us who does the crowing. God is the one that has given us authority and he must be acknowledged as having more authority than we do. “But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him” (1 Cor. 15:27). This means that we are not to rule however we want. We rule under the authority of God and always in deference to him.
We Reign in Imitation of God
Our duty is described as “the image of God” because we are to represent God to the world (this is another reason why we must defer to his authority). If we are to represent God then there must be some analog between what we do and what God does. This is, in fact, exactly how the narrative describes it. We could describe God’s works in Genesis 1 as twofold: separating and filling.
First, separating. God separated the light from the darkness (1:4), the waters above from the waters below (1:6, 7), and water from dry land (1:9). Paired with the act of separating is the act of naming. They are intimately connected. To name something is a way of separating it from other things. To give a name to something is to say that it is this and not that. Our English word “denominate” literally means “to name” but it is also used to designated the number by which a whole is divided, hence the word “denominator.” As God separates he also names. He names the light “Day” and the darkness “Night” (1:5), the dome which separates the waters is named “Sky” (1:8), and the dry land is called “Earth” while the water is called “Sea” (1:10).
In imitation of God, the very first thing we find Adam doing is separating the animals by giving them names. “So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name” (1:19).
Second, filling. Genesis 1 is a symmetrically arranged account of creation. Those things which are separated on day 1 are filled in day 4, those separated on day 2 are filled in day 5, and those separated on day 3 are filled in day 6.5 The periods of light and dark are filled with their luminaries (1:14-19), the water and sky is filled with fish and birds (1:20-23), and the land is filled with land animals and human beings (1:24-26).
In imitation of God, Man is commanded to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (1:28).
In creation there is a sense in which God held back. He carried creation only so far and then placed Man upon the earth to carry that creation forward. God could have named all the animals on his own but he didn’t. He left that duty to Man. God expects us to carry on his work of separating/ordering and filling. “The heavens are the LORD’s heavens, but the earth he has given to human beings” (Ps. 115:16).
We Create Cultures
More and more scholars agree that a great part of Man’s duty upon the earth is to create cultures which glorify God.6 The biblical image of this is that of a gardener. Indeed, agriculture is the most basic form of culture-making.7 Gardening is an act in which Man takes the raw “stuff” of creation and, by wise nurturing, helps it to grow up and realize its full potential. This is the picture of what Man is to do with all of the “stuff” of creation.
Creating cultures is, I believe, part of Man’s responsibility inherent in the command to “fill the earth.”
“The command to ‘fill’ the earth here is not merely a divine request that Adam and Eve have a lot of babies. The earth was also to be ‘filled’ by the broader patterns of their interactions with nature and with each other. They were to bring order to the Garden. They would introduce schemes for managing affairs. To ‘subdue’ the Garden would be to transform untamed nature into a social environment. In these ways human beings would be ‘adding’ to that which God created. This is the kind of ‘filling’ that some Christians have had in mind when they have labeled this command in Genesis 1–helpfully, I think–‘the cultural mandate.’ God placed human beings in his creation in order to introduce a cultural ‘filling’ in ways that conform to his divine will.”8
This also is in imitation of God. So much of what is pictured in Genesis 1 is not God making more “stuff” but ordering that stuff in meaningful ways so as to make a habitable (and beautiful) environment for Man to inhabit. God makes the world liveable (by assigning function) but also loveable (by giving excellence of form). That is the very definition of culture-making.
We began our investigation into “Why am I here?” by looking at our end. In our discussion of John’s vision of the New Heaven and New Earth we saw the sort of kingdom we are working towards. In this article we answered that same question by looking at our beginning. Hopefully we can now see how those two are intimately connected, how the end is “built in” to the beginning. If Adam and Even would have faithfully fulfilled their commission the picture of Revelation 21, 22 would have become a reality. Their Garden would have become Revelation’s Garden-City. They failed, however, and God through Israel and eventually Jesus Christ worked to put it right again. Christians, through the Spirit of Christ, carry on this project. It is what we were created to do. Day by day the image of God is being renewed in us through God’s Spirit (2 Cor. 3:18) as we work towards bringing God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. This is who we are. This is what it means to be human. So join me in fulfilling our ancient calling. Because you were born to.
©M. Benfield 2016
1. J.D. Levenson, Journal of Religion 64 (1984), 298; quoted in T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology, (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 14.↩
2. David Foster Wallace illustrates this in his novel The Broom of the System, The Penguin Ink Series (New York: Penguins Books 2010), 149, 150. “What she did with me–I must have been eight, or twelve, who remembers–was to sit me down in the kitchen and take a straw broom and start furiously sweeping the floor, and she asked me which part of the broom was more elemental, more fundamental, in my opinion, the bristles or the handle. The bristles or the handle. And I hemmed and hawed, and she swept more and more violently, and I got nervous, and finally when I said I supposed the bristles, because you could after a fashion sweep without the handle, by just holding onto the bristles, but couldn’t sweep with just the handle, she tackled me, and knocked me out of my chair, and yelled into my ear something like, ‘Aha, that’s because you want to sweep with the broom, isn’t it? It’s because of what you want the broom for, isn’t it?’ Et cetera. And that if what we wanted a broom for was to break windows, then the handle was clearly the fundamental essence of the broom, and she illustrated with the kitchen window, and a crowd of domestics gathered; but that if we wanted the broom to sweep with, see for examples the broken glass, sweep sweep, the bristles were the thing’s essence … Meaning as fundamentalness. Fundamentalness as use. Meaning as use. Meaning as use.”↩
3. On this point I am indebted to John Walton’s work, especially The Lost World of Genesis One, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009).↩
4. J. Richard Middleton agrees with Walton here. “These two examples of creatures in 1:6 and 1:14-18 whose existence is explicitly defined by their function or purpose thus sets up the expectation, or leads to the presumption, that the royal function or purpose of humanity in 1:26 is not a mere add-on to their creation in God’s image, separable some way from their essence or nature.” The Liberating Image: the Imago Dei of Genesis 1, (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), 54).↩
5. This is widely recognized by scholars, Walton and Middleton included. See their respective works listed above (The Lost World of Genesis, 62; The Liberating Image, 75).↩
6. J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic 2014), 41-55; The Liberating Image, 31, 88, 89; Randy Alcorn, Heaven, (Carol Stream, IL; Tyndale, 2004), 375 and passim; James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2009), 163-164, 205-214; Richard J. Mouw, When the Kings Come Marching In, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), passim esp. 33-37.↩
7. “As anthropologists know, the basis for all culture is agriculture. We could not develop the sort of complex cultures that we have today–with cities, governments, technology, art, science, and academic institutions–if we did not first find a way to produce enough food for people to eat. Hunter-gatherers can develop only a rudimentary culture. In order to develop any form of complex social order, people must be able to settle down somewhere and have a dependable supply of food. This makes sense of the garden of Eden as the original human environment of Genesis 2. God’s encouragement to the first humans to eat freely from the trees of the garden (Gen. 2:16) clearly indicates that the garden is meant to provide food for human needs.” Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 41.↩
8. Richard J. Mouw, When the Kings Come Marching In, 35.↩