Day Six (1:24–31)
Animals. Rather than differentiate animals by phyla and species as we are inclined to do, the categories are divided into domesticated animals (behema), wild herd animals that often serve as prey (remeś), and wild, predatory animals (ḥayya). These inhabit the region of the dry land, and the earth “brings them forth” in the same way that the earth “brought forth” vegetation in verse 12. In keeping with the functional emphasis, this does not describe a biological process but a functional relationship.
Use of plurals. The use of the plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) in verse 26 has occasioned constant discussion among the commentators. The early church fathers considered them a reference to the Trinity, while the rabbis offered various grammatical explanations. In the last century, two other theories have arisen, which explain the plural as a vestige of polytheistic mythology or as a reference to a heavenly court. Thus, there are now three categories of explanation:
1.Theological: The plurals are explained as an expression of plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (ʾelohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
2.Grammatical: The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical or rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatical agreement with the plural ʾelohim.
3.Cultural: The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
We do not have the space to consider each of these in the detail they deserve, but in the end, it is methodology and presupposition that lead the interpreter into one category or another. The grammatical is the easiest to dismiss since none of the cited conventions are attested with any consistency in Hebrew. The rare instances in which they can be claimed generally have either other possible explanations or characteristics that differentiate them from the usage here.
The theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles, but it suffers when subjected to hermeneutical cross-examination. That is, if we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If the divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed? Certainly if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that as God’s intention. But it is not enough for the New Testament simply to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without a specific New Testament treatment, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.
Further commending the human author is the belief that the Old Testament audience also had an authoritative text being communicated to them. We cannot afford to approach the text with the question, “Which interpretation fits best with my beliefs?” We must ask what the plurals would have meant to the original audience. That leads us to the cultural category.
One of the cultural options taken by interpreters is that the plurals are a vestige of polytheism. Unfortunately, they can only accommodate their view by means of many presuppositions concerning the derived nature of the text and the incompetence of a series of editors. Since most readers, like myself, are not persuaded in the least by those presuppositions, we will simply set that option aside.
The other position informed by cultural background, the heavenly court option, is much more defensible in that the concept of a heavenly court can be shown to be current not only in the ancient worldview, but also in the biblical text. Thus, the belief in such a heavenly court does not need to be imported from the general culture (though the evidence for it is extensive and clear); one needs only read the Bible. In the ancient Near East the heavenly court was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon. It was this group that made decisions and decreed destinies. In the Old Testament, the heavenly court is made up of angels, or more specifically, the “sons of God.” All that remains is to consider whether the details of the context are in accord with what we know of God and his heavenly court.
Some have objected that it denigrates God to suggest that he consults with angels about such matters (Isa. 40:14). They point out, in addition, that it is contrary to biblical teaching to think of the angels being involved in creation or of people being in the image of angels. Careful reading, however, demonstrates that these objections cannot be sustained. (1) We must distinguish between consulting and discussing. God has no need to either consult or discuss with anyone (as Isa. 40:14 affirms). (2) It is his prerogative, however, to discuss anything he wants with whomever he chooses (Gen. 18:17–19). Such inclusion of the heavenly court in discussion does not in any sense necessitate that angels must then have been used as agents of creation. In Isaiah 6:8 the council’s decision is carried out by Yahweh alone. (3) Finally, the idea that the image should be referred to as “our” image does not imply that humans are created in the image of angels; it is possible, though not necessary, that angels also share the divine image in their nature. The image of God differentiates people from animals, not from angels.
If, then, we are going to link our interpretation to the sense that the Israelite audience would have understood (and methodologically I believe that is essential for maintaining the authority of the text), the heavenly court is the most defensible interpretation and poses no insuperable theological obstacles.
Image of God. The image of God is an important theological concept both in Old and New Testaments, with roots that extend back into ancient Near Eastern thought. In the ancient world an image was believed in some ways to carry the essence of that which it represented. An idol image of deity, designated by the same terminology used here, was used in worship because it contained the deity’s essence. This does not suggest that the image could do what the deity did or that it looked the same as the deity (even though the idol was a physical object). Rather, the deity’s work was thought to be accomplished through the idol. The Hebrew word ṣelem (“image”) is a representative in physical form, not a representation of the physical appearance.
In Mesopotamia a significance of the image can be seen in the practice of kings setting up images of themselves in places where they want to establish their authority. Other than that, it is only other gods who are made in the image of gods. Thus, their traditions speak of sons being in the image of their fathers but not of human beings created in the image of God. In Egyptian literature, the Instruction of Merikare identifies humankind as the god’s images who came from his body.
Well tended is mankind—god’s cattle
He made sky and earth for their sake …
He made breath for their noses to live.
They are his images, who came from his body …
He made for them plants and cattle,
Fowl and fish to feed them …
When they weep he hears …
For god knows every name.
Generally Egyptian usage refers to the king as being in the image of deity, not as a physical likeness but related to power and prerogative.
In ways similar to the above information, the governing work of God is seen in Genesis to be accomplished by people (1:28). But that is not all there is to the image of God. Information from other contexts that can be gleaned about the image includes that (1) the image of God is not lost at the Fall (9:6), though it must be somehow hampered or reduced, else it would not need to be restored; and (2) it does differentiate people from animals (9:6), though that does not mean that anything that differentiates is part of the image.
Perhaps most significant, 5:1–3 likens the image of God in Adam to the image of Adam in Seth. This goes beyond the comment about plants and animals reproducing after their kind, though certainly children share physical characteristics and basic nature (genetically) with their parents. What draws the idol imagery and the child imagery together is the concept that the image of God in people provides them the capacity not only to serve as God’s vice-regents (his representatives containing his essence), but also the capacity to be and act like him. Thus, 5:1–3 is perhaps the most significant for determining how we ought to interpret the image of God.
While a baby may be affirmed to be in the image of its father, few can recognize that image. Based on the inherent image and the relationship with the father, the image grows more recognizable as the child matures. This does not essentially take place in a physical way, but rather in the way the child mirrors the attitudes, expressions, and character traits of his or her father. The biblical text, by offering us this explanation, gives us the key that while we are all in the image of God, we likewise have the capacity to become more and more in the image of God; that is, we were created with the potential to mirror divine attributes.
We might deduce that reason, conscience, self-awareness, and spiritual discernment are the tools he has provided so that we may accomplish that goal rather than actually defining the image. It is only because God has given us these that we have the capacity to develop the image from its germ form. This is certainly in line with the New Testament perspective, as redemption, sanctification, and eventually glorification all serve as additional factors to refine the image of God in us (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).
In conclusion, the following definition takes account of all of the ancient Near Eastern and biblical evidence concerning the role of the image of God: The image is a physical manifestation of divine (or royal) essence that bears the function of that which it represents; this gives the image-bearer the capacity to reflect the attributes of the one represented and act on his behalf. Note the similarity of this idea with New Testament statement concerning Christ being “the image [eikon] of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). He is a physical representative of God rather than a physical representation of what God looks like. As such he bears the essence of God, reflects his attributes, and acts on his behalf. In the context of Genesis 1, people act on God’s behalf by ruling and subduing.
The blessing. While the image of God defines a role for humanity (vice-regents for God), the blessing indicates the functions that people will have as a result of the role to which they were created. The first function is to “subdue” (kbš) the earth, the second to “rule” it (rdh, the same as used in v. 26, but different from the verb used in vv. 16–18, mšl). In its biblical usage the first word is usually employed in political contexts but is also found sociologically (with objects such as women and slaves). Genesis 1 is the only occurrence with “the earth” as an object. The profile is pretty clear, however, and is applicable to this context. The term kbš means to bring something or someone under control.
Is the second verb (rdh, rule) the end result of that process, or is it only one part of it? If it is the end result, then “subdue” refers only to the animal kingdom and implies something like domestication. If it is only one part, then “subdue” includes utilization of natural resources (e.g., in the ancient world, mining), harnessing of the earth’s energy (e.g., irrigation), and so on. The occurrence of the feminine singular pronominal suffix on the verb kbš suggests that all of the earth is the object of subduing, not just the animal kingdom. Thus, we can conclude that the animal domestication suggested in rdh is only one part of the process of subduing. The twenty-five occurrences of rdh show that it concerns exercising authority that has been granted or acknowledged. It can be used of priests or administrators serving their roles, of kings or tribes dominating others, and even of shepherds exercising authority over their sheep.
Our conclusion, then, is that “subduing” is associated (grammatically, not semantically) with the prior verb, “filling,” and has the earth as its focus. “Ruling” is directed toward the animals and implies domestication or some other level of use or control. Of course this does not legitimize slaughter, abuse, or neglect.