Ship of Fools: Genesis 1:26... Let them have dominion

Thread: Genesis 1:26... Let them have dominion Board: Chapter & Worse / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=76;t=000012

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

Verse nominated by Alison Adcock

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26, in context)

Alison comments: Because misunderstanding it has caused perhaps more trouble than any other verse. (PS: This is sent on behalf of Ms Adcock, my mother, as she has no computer!)

How much of a problem is this verse? Click "Vote Now" to cast your vote!

[ 31. July 2009, 10:57: Message edited by: Simon ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

I'm happy with this verse.

After all its sort of true. We (collectively) are sort of in charge of the other animals on the planet.

And when the Lord comes again and sees how we messed them up he's going to be very cross with us.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

And when the Lord comes again and sees how we messed them up he's going to be very cross with us.

You got it, ken.

Posted by basso (# 4228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And when the Lord comes again and sees how we messed them up he's going to be very cross with us.

Yeah. I think the parable of the talents is a commentary on just this -- will we hear at the end, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant"?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I actually find this verse, properly understand, has much to say about the ecological state of our planet.

The tragic thing is that we humans seem to have the power of life and death over other creatures. We were given tremendous gifts of reason, skill and innovation. We can use our gifts to gently care for creation, preserving it for the future, and respecting it for its beauty. Or we can run roughshod over creation, spoiling and using it for our selfish wants.

The environmentalists may see Genesis 1:26 as giving humans license to stomp over the planet. I see it as assigning responsibility to our human race to properly care for our planet earth. And I do think that we will be held account for our actions, whether it be on judgment day, or in the near future when we bear the consequences of our pollution and waste.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The environmentalists may see Genesis 1:26 as giving humans license to stomp over the planet. I see it as assigning responsibility to our human race to properly care for our planet earth.

But your interpretation strikes me as being distinctly revisionist. I doubt if it is representative of Christianity for 95% of its existence. I also wonder if it is even representative of the majority of Christians alive today. A quick look at some conservative evangelical websites and web forums would bring home that the "licence to stomp" is widely accepted and vigorously defended.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

This might be a thread for another place, but to what extent are we criticizing the verse and to what extent are we criticizing misunderstandings and abuses of the verse?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
But your interpretation strikes me as being distinctly revisionist. I doubt if it is representative of Christianity for 95% of its existence. I also wonder if it is even representative of the majority of Christians alive today. A quick look at some conservative evangelical websites and web forums would bring home that the "licence to stomp" is widely accepted and vigorously defended.

Well we've got the Book of Job on our side, and Genesis (when read properly) and lots of the Psalms. And Hosea and Isaiah (and Genesis again) on God's covenant with all the animals - not just humans.

And a whole load of Desert Fathers and the like - St Anthony & St. Macarius of Egypt, St Pachomius the Great. And St Basil of course.

And Columban and Kevin and maybe Columba himself (who could not bear to see oak trees felled and who nursed a sick crane)

And St Cuthbert, and his less-well-known mates like St Godric.

And Hildegard of Bingen and Francis of Assisi (& indeed Franciscans in generaL) and Julian of Norwich.

And the great John Ray and all the early modern Christian naturalists. Linnaeus himself counts as well. And Gregor Mendel.

And people you won't have heard of like Folliott Sandford Pierpoint (but you might have sung his hymns) and Mrs Alexander (you will have sung her hymns) and loads of others.

So these web forums are?

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The environmentalists may see Genesis 1:26 as giving humans license to stomp over the planet. I see it as assigning responsibility to our human race to properly care for our planet earth.
But your interpretation strikes me as being distinctly revisionist. I doubt if it is representative of Christianity for 95% of its existence. I also wonder if it is even representative of the majority of Christians alive today. A quick look at some conservative evangelical websites and web forums would bring home that the "licence to stomp" is widely accepted and vigorously defended.

Vigorously, perhaps, but certainly not rigorously.

What ken said.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I don't think the "ecological" take is revisionist at all; I think we simply have a new word to apply to an old concept. Think about it: right after God gives humans dominion, what happens next in the story? Humans go the one freaking place they are told not to go in the entire garden.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'm around for a couple of days only before another break. This forum is new and seems likely to run and run!

On this thread, and not presented as in any way definitive, here's an online comment on the meaning of dominion ("radah") - a couple of paras down in this commentary - which suggests to me at least that the subjugation usage may indeed have been traditional, but never really captured the sense of the text.

The Creation matters to God

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

...And Hildegard of Bingen and Francis of Assisi (& indeed Franciscans in generaL) and Julian of Norwich.

Don't stop there. What about Martin Luther? (Who hoped that if Christ returned before he died he would be found planting a tree.)

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Misunderstanding of what "dominion" means has led not only to abuse of the planet but also to bad atonement theology (in which Anselm's vision of God the feudal Lord as responsible for the well-being of the cosmos, so that human sin is a sin against the beauty and order of the cosmos, not just a personal affront to God, becomes an angry tyrant God out for blood when offended).

If we think of "dominion" more in the terms Anselm viewed God's lordship, it becomes ludicrous to think responsible dominion could possibly involve the destruction and degradation of who/whatever one rules over. Can you imagine QE2 exercising her dominion by abusing and killing her subjects, treating them like we humans have treated the earth? Monarchs who have done that have not been favorably judged by history.

Interestingly, this may be what our being made in the "image" of God is about. In antiquity, a king's "image" would be placed in areas over which he had dominion but didn't live (e.g., captured territories), and idols were understood as the gods' images - a sacramental localization of that god's power and presence. People even used images (small statuettes) of themselves as votives, placing them in the temple because they could not sit in the temple all day praying/worshipping. In these cases (with the exception perhaps of kings) the statue/ette didn't even have to look like the god or person it represented - e.g., a god depicted as a winged ox wasn't necessarily thought to be a winged ox; the iconography was a grammar that communicated information about that god or person. (My sources for this are the IVP Bible Background Commentary and an article I once read in Biblical Archeology Review [the bit about personal votives].) This could also mean that the commandment against making images may at least in part be about people shirking their own role/responsibility to be God's image in the world - to be stewards and have dominion on behalf of God.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
This might be a thread for another place, but to what extent are we criticizing the verse and to what extent are we criticizing misunderstandings and abuses of the verse?

Indeed. As with 'The way, the truth and the life' my issue is not with the verse but with the way it has been abused. So as I voted that not a problem at all, I'll do the same with this one.

Carys

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

Agreed.

If a verse can be read in two ways, one of them obiously responsible and right, and one of them obviously selfish and abusive, and there is nothing to favour the abusive reading and much against it, it seems to me that any misinterpretation is, if not wilful, at least culpable. Certainly not the writer's (or inspirer's) fault.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Some people interpret the "dominion" section as meaning that we're meant to be park rangers.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

IMO the verse just reflects reality. We have dominion over the earth and bar a tiny minority of ultra-enviromentalists we aren't going to give it up any time soon. The choice for us is how we exercise that dominion.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

I've tried telling those pesky wasps I have dominion over them, but they don't accept my authority. Heretics!

Posted by DagonSlaveII (# 15162) on :

If the story is to be believed on this one verse, might as well believe the whole thing. Like man is given this commandment to have dominion, but is commanded to only eat plants. (Rescinded post-flood. Debatable whether they ate flesh after the fall until then, although they did sacrifice them. Plus, what did Cain eat when the ground was more cursed for him than the rest of humanity?) They were also naked, so they didn't need clothing to have dominion.

Hebrew word. Greek word

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

Any "environmentalist" reading of this verse is highly anachronistic.

Everyone in the original audience knew that nature was largely in control of mankind. There was no hint that eventually man's technology would give us the ability to inflict serious damage.

This verse is an assurance that it is not God's will for "man to be subservient to nature" (which had overtones for contemporary nature-worship as well).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0