When God designed creation, He didn’t just aimlessly speak objects into existence. He didn’t spout out a string of creative language just to see what He could do. He didn’t babble gibberish and marvel at the result. In His six-day generative extravaganza, God crafted and chose with deep care the words He spoke, the objects He created, the infinitely detailed flora and fauna He promulgated across the expanses He made. He did not merely create, He designed.1 With all the intentionality and meticulousness of a supreme, perfect Being, God organized and oriented this universe so that it was exactly what He wanted it to be. He made it; how could it be any less? The Lord of all Creation, in His first (and only such to our understanding) act of cosmic generation, would not have gone about things half-heartedly. When He made it, it was “good” according to Him.
I once argued, in a philosophy paper written over six years ago, that there was something to be said for the fact that God called His creation “good” rather than “perfect”, indicating that it was not perfect because no one and nothing except God can be perfect, but that it was “good”, meaning as good as God could possibly make it. I now recant this position, realizing that when God Himself is speaking, there is no line between “goodness” and “perfection”. Would anything less than perfection satisfy a perfect God? Consider even the words of God’s own Son, when He says “No one is good except God alone.”2 Jesus – that is, God – says that no one is good except God. But God calls His own Creation “good.” Meaningful?
If God devoted Himself in all His perfection and wisdom and power to the work of creating this world, then I think it is safe to say that He invested Himself in His Creation. John, in the first chapter of his first epistle, talks about God as Light. The first thing God adds to the formless, void, lifeless, wasteland that was “the heavens and the earth” is light. God’s first brushstroke on this blank canvas is His very essence. He is not only the artist, but the paint itself.
Many more brushstrokes, words, and manipulations shaped the formless void into Creation. But at the end of each day’s work, God looks at what He has made, and in His perfect eyes it is “good.” It is good not (solely) because He made it. It is good because it mirrors Him, it reflects Him, it contains at least traces of His perfect goodness. The detail, the precision, the diversity, the life, the firm land, the refreshing air, the powerful fire, the nurturing water, the innumerable luminous stars, the unfathomable depth of space – these are all reflections whose characteristics show us something of God, because God designed them to reveal Him.
Even if it is a stretch to say that God intentionally invested Himself into His creation, and thus a part of Him is contained in it, we may still consider Moses, whose face came to glow simply because it had been exposed to God. God revealing Himself to a man transformed that man in a physical way, such that anyone who saw Moses’ face could see a lingering of God’s presence. How much more did all Creation glow as God Himself formed it! How much more did His glory linger in its mountains and oceans and forests and birds and beasts and stars!
At this point, you may want to call me a panentheist. I’m okay with that. Panentheism means a belief that God is in all things (do not confuse this with pantheism, the belief that God is all things). At least in terms of the natural world, at the very least in terms of the natural world before “the fall”, I believe God is/was in all of His creation. I do not advocate, then, that we worship creation as God or as part of God. I rather advocate that we worship the God who is revealed through and in His Creation, and that we revere and respect the Creation that reveals Him. (This is why I will continue to capitalize Creation in this discourse, in order to render proper respect to the divinity revealed in it.)
I have argued that God designed Creation as a reflection of Himself, imbued with His very essence. Perhaps another way to phrase this would be that Creation is made in His image, according to His likeness. As it turns out, He used those very words in describing the last piece of His Creation. It is humankind, according to God, that bears His image, that is made in His likeness. Male and female He created them.
Why does God say “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness”? Is it an early foreshadowing of what we will come to call the Trinity, indicating that God is somehow plural in character? Maybe.3 Here’s another possibility: “we” in this statement could refer to God and His thus-far-completed Creation. God could be identifying the world as He made it as part of Himself, an extension of Himself. We could explore this possibility in a more scientific or philosophical manner by considering ways in which humans are a microcosm of the whole of Creation, but I don’t want to do that. I really just wanted to throw that hat into the ring; feel free to reflect on it or reject it at your leisure.
In any case, God (plural) creates humankind, male and female, and then gives them a single command: “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.” Memorize this, because I will probably return to it regularly. Multiplying and filling the earth cannot be misconstrued; the command is clearly to procreate. What good is a whole world for two people to live in? With the perfect Designer as its architect, certainly this fresh planet’s carrying capacity was higher than single digits. Subduing the land, on the other hand, is up for discussion.
Here are some definitions of “subdue” according to dictionary.com: 1. “to conquer and bring into subjection”; 2. “to overpower by superior force; overcome”; 3. “to bring under mental or emotional control, as by persuasion or intimidation; render submissive”; 4. “to repress”; 6. “to reduce the intensity, force, or vividness of (sound, light, color, etc.); tone down; soften”. Yikes.4 If you are familiar with the commonly-used system of Arabic numerals, you might notice I skipped a number. It’s because finally, down at definition 5, I found something that I think actually remotely fits the context of this declaration. The fifth definition offered is “to bring (land) under cultivation”. Aha! Be fruitful, procreate, and farm! After all, as this small start-up group “multiplied”, they were going to need food. I think “being fruitful” covers this category as well; it should not be treated as synonymous with “and multiply” (why would a perfect God’s first statement to humanity be redundant?), but rather as the overarching theme of this command. Being fruitful entails both multiplication and cultivation (almost sounds like the roots of civilization…but we’ll get to that). It means “do something”!
Then God orders humans to rule over animals and eat fruit. Dominion over animals is not God’s way of condoning exploitation of them any more than a wise and good king should exploit his subjects. A wise and good king would watch over his subjects, show concern for them, commune with them, and act in their best interests. Exploiting subjects for personal profit and disregarding their well-being is not dominion, it is tyranny (suitable for some of the improper definitions of “subduing” the earth). The “dominion” humans are commanded to have over living creatures is certainly not a tyrannical one when you consider how powerless humans are to force their will on “the fish of the sea” and to make “the birds of the sky” their slaves. Humans are clearly not to impede on the freedom of these entities; how can they?5 Rather, their dominion over the living inhabitants of Creation is only because humans are, undeniably, the apex of God’s creativity. Extreme animal rights activists aside, it is difficult to argue that humans are not in some sense above the rest of the animals. However, being unable to lean on the crutch of civilized technology as demonstrable evidence that humans are superior, I will not attempt to back my argument that way.6 I will simply rely on the Biblical narrative, noting again that once God made humans, He ceased His creative endeavor; that He Himself indicates that humans are made in His (plural) image; and that He Himself speaks the words “rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”7
What we begin to see is that God created humankind to commune closely with Himself and His Creation. Humans were not designed to exploit and abuse Creation by razing its forests, breeding its animals, and polluting its oceans. Humans were charged instead with the care of Creation, in terms of its living animals and plants as well as its nonliving lands and waters. I would strongly argue that an even better contextual definition of “subdue” is “govern” or “watch over” or “care for”. Not only was the world made for humans, but humans were made for the world.
I want to revisit my earlier point about God’s immense care and consideration in the crafting of the world to note how perfectly God designed the world for humans. As the culmination of Creation, humans were not an afterthought; humans were in God’s mind as He was developing His masterpiece. It is no accident that the conditions on this planet, and no other to our knowledge, are suitable for life. It is no accident that trees bear fruit that is not only edible, but also nourishing. It is no accident that something so integral and fundamental to life as water is abundantly available. This is another aspect of God’s very essence appearing in nature: providence. God cares for His Creation, and that comes through because His Creation (when functioning as it ought) cares for itself.
For five and a half days, God works on space and celestial bodies, the earth, the oceans, fish, birds, and beasts. This is all “good” to Him, in the deep sense of that term. He likes Creation as it is, and we can safely assume He doesn’t want it all ruined. God is not a toddler building a tower of blocks for the joy of watching it fall.8 And yet, after the addition of humankind to this already “good” Creation, God takes one more look – the finishing touches are complete, the masterpiece is done – and He calls it “very good”! A perfect God is somehow even more satisfied with Creation now that humanity is in place.
Men and women are certainly very dear to God. They are special to Him, and as such they serve a special role in His Creation. Their bond with it is intimate. They are the subduers of the land, the rulers of the living creatures, the caretakers of the gardens and the consumers of the fruit. Ultimately, though, their role is to maintain and perpetuate the “goodness” that God saw in His Creation prior to their arrival. God does not say “Oh wow, humankind is very good! Never mind all that other stuff I just wasted time on.” He does not say “Humankind is very good, so whatever they do with the rest of my project is fine with Me.” He actually never says that humankind is very good. After His charge to humans, He surveys His whole Creation, now completed, and this He beholds as “very good”. All things together, in harmony, the way He designed it – earth sustaining man, man conserving earth – is what God calls “very good.” This is what pleases and satisfies our Lord.
I have been drawing thoughts so far from the first chapter of Genesis. In the second chapter, we are retold the story of Creation in a different light. In the first creation story, God creates an unknown number of humans, male and female. The second story gives us more detail about this aspect of Creation. God takes some dust and forms a man (singular), and breathes into him to give him life. Just as He has done with the rest of Creation, God invests a part of Himself – His breath or spirit – in this man. Skipping some more details and a geography lesson, God deems the current state of His work unsatisfactory. This is the first time we are told God is not entirely pleased with Creation. Somewhere in between “good” and “very good”, God decides that a lone man is “not good.” Man needs a helper, someone with whom he can share an intimate bond. Man, appropriately dubbed “Adam,” meets and names all the creatures of the field and sky (unfortunately, he wasn’t able to be introduced to all the fish), but none of these seem to fit the job description of “helper” for him.
So God goes back to the easel one last time. There is one more brushstroke to place before the masterpiece is complete. She is called woman. She is made out of man. She, the female, is the culmination of Creation. She is the last thing God makes.9 She is exactly what Adam needs. She is designed to complement him, to complete him, to unite with him, to become one with him.
What is this concept of “becoming one flesh”?10 She, who we will later find is called Eve, was taken out of Adam, and now they are to become one? They will never become one being; this is physically impossible, and is not God’s intent. But look at the process of Creation so far. God takes a part of Himself and transforms void waste into Creation – light and stars and earth and oceans and mountains and fish and birds and beasts. It is “good”; He enjoys it; He communes with it. Then God takes a part of Creation – dust – and makes man from it. Man becomes integrated with his Creator and with the rest of creation, the gardens and creatures also made by God. Then finally, God takes another part of Creation – man – and makes woman from it. Then, we are told, they are to “become one”. Woman and man are to become one, just as man and Creation are to be one, just as Creation and God are one.