What does ‘subdue’ the earth mean?

Genesis 1:28

Thanks Di

Hi Di,
this Social Issues Executive — ”The Christian and the Environment” goes through all that in quite some detail, and is a good summary position.

To subdue the earth is to rule it as God’s vice-regal representatives.

In Genesis 2 mankind subdues the earth by cooperating with God (man works the soil, God provides the water) in the task of extending the Garden of Eden over the earth.

The task is to transform the field/plain (uncultivated land – used as pasture - wilderness) into ground/land (agricultural land that is tilled and irrigated). [c.f. see Wenham’s Genesis commentary]

Thus to subdue the earth is to rule it as vice-regals and partnering with God in the extension of Eden. Genesis 2 is missional from the beginning - extending the place of God’s presence (Eden=holy of holies) over all the earth! [The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology)] Audio talks here http://www.desertspringschurch.org/beale/

Ultimately this is realised in the new creation described in Revelation 21-22 as a new Eden.

Adam

Hmmm, OK, interesting, but where would conservation and biodiversity fit into that version of “Eden = Agriculture”?

I’m not sure I would want to argue that this viewpoint means that environmentally every square meter of land had to become agricultural (I agree with you about biodiversity).

But I think “the theological picture” is of wild uncultivated earth coming under man’s control as he ‘subdues’ the wilderness through cultivation. Both the sea and wilderness convey untamed spheres in the Biblical worldview. (In Genesis 1 land comes from the sea and in Genesis 2 land comes from the wilderness).

Regardless there are links between man “subduing the earth” and “working the ground” (the ground being uncultivated earth outside Eden). Eden, as the place of harmony between God, man and creation is to be extended over all the earth. Certainly there is no issue between the biodiversity and the Garden of Eden. Cultivation in this instance may allow for something more than just growing wheat!!

But again I think the theological perspective is more in play here.

Dave, I would say Eden = holy of holies (place of God’s presence with people) rather than Eden = agriculture. It is the place of harmony between God, man and creation which is to be expanded. The language of cultivated and uncultivated earth portrays this rather than defines it.

Beale’s book, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God , goes into this much better than my scribbles here. :)

Interestingly, when man sins it is the ground (cultivated) that is cursed causing it to become more plain (uncultivated - thorns, thistles, field).

This reverses the purpose of Eden. Instead of man cultivating sucessfully to make uncultivated plain into cultivated ground - now uncultivated plain seems to have the upper hand in taking over cultivated ground (and the flower garden at the front of my house knows it!!!)

Cool… makes sense from a big picture sense. Excellent.

Hi

Thanks for the comments.

With the fall of man are we to subdue the earth? How? What implications does the death/ resurrection of Christ have in all this?

Di

The Fall frustrates our ability as people to subdue the earth.

To subdue the earth (i.e. to rule it lovingly and carefully in God’s presence) is replaced by sinful man with a form of subduing that is exploitive. (Similar to how husband-headship as designed by God can be distorted into male-dominance).

Nevertheless in Christ the task of subduing the earth is restored.

In Genesis 2 subduing the earth involved multiplying humanity and filling the earth in order to expand the place of God’s presence (Eden) over the earth. In Christ this task is restored as we obey the commission to make disciples of all nations - again God’s presence and rule is being spread in the earth.

I think that it is this theological perspective that links the subdue-commission with the Abraham-all-nations-promise (also related to fruitful multiplying and filling the land) and the great-commission. (It’s all about mission!!)

I think subduing the physical earth in the sense of acting in caring ways toward God’s creation as people under God’s rule is very applicable to Christians as well. Just as Paul says that what we do with our bodies is important in part because these are the bodies that will be raised (1 Cor 6:13-14) so too how we treat this earth is important because this is the earth that will be ‘resurrected’ (Romans 8:19-21) even if one day all the elements are destroyed by fire before new creation but the same happens with our bodies.

And on that day Eden will be over the entire new heaven and earth that God creates so ultimately it is Jesus who is the man who sucessfully subdues creation!!!

Hebrews 2:7-8 You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet? In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.

But we will !!!!!

Adam

Hi Adam

From what I understand you are saying, ‘subdue’ equals ‘to rule’, equals ‘extend the garden of Eden’ and ‘extend God’s presence’. How is this expressed in scripture? How do you think we extend God’s presence?

I am concerned about this issue because, before you know it, the church has its mission defined in terms of ‘caring lovingly for the environment’, as mankind seeks to recreate Eden. This can lead to a failure to urgently proclaim Christ and to recognise that the decaying environment is a reminder that God will judge all one day soon and create a new heaven and new earth.

regards Di

I know a guy who thinks it about having 5 kids because somehow that is the optimum number of kids to subdue the earth. He did his thesis on it.

I want to tell him that is a load of crap but I haven’t got the heart.

Archbishop Peter Jensen

God had created us to rule the world under him. We could have learned to live with the world instead of against it. All sorts of things such as overpopulation and building housing where it is unwise and the exploitation of non-renewable resources would have been avoided by a morally good creature. When we criticise God’s creation we must remember that we do so from a perspective thoroughly warped by human sin.

Dave Lankshear - 30 December 2007 09:59 PM

Archbishop Peter Jensen

A bland, theologically inoffensive statement that makes us feel relevant without committing us to anything much except for the opinion we had already adopted.

One can only agree.

Really? Overpopulation and town planning are now moral issues? I though we could maintain “militant agnosticism” with these issues.

When thinking about the meaning of Genesis 1:28 don’t forget Genesis 2:15 with the twin ideas of guarding and working God’s creation.

I think the cultural mandate which in reformed theology is what you are talking about, is using the basic raw materials of God’s creation and developing, tending, shaping, working with it to realise its potential, as an a beautiful offering to our God.

Within the reformed tradition, we find Rev 21:24-26 highly suggestive that whatever has been of value in this present life (ie of intrinsic worth demonstrating creativity in harmony with creation, and of course beautiful and uplifting) will be retained and of course added to in the New Earth. So whilst I am in no doubt of discontinuity between the cultures of the world today and that of the New Earth to come, I believe we can dare to hope for continuity as well. Also intriguing in these verses is the suggestion that the life of the world to come will be enriched by the contributions of the nations of this present world.