Scholars' Gateway beta

I.               Introduction and context

Recent scholarship[1] in the areas of biblical environmental ethics and theology has seen an increased amount of effort re-imaging a supposed public-relations fiasco surrounding the use of רדה in Genesis 1:28 to describe the relationship between ‘adam and living creatures.  Popular media and peer-reviewed scholars alike have come to an agreement that biblical notions of dominion have caused western society’s willingness to treat the environment with only selfish concern.[2]  Prolific writer and American environmentalist, Bill McKibben has summarized the belief best in one of his books about global climate change:

… to the degree that our dominant Judeo-Christian tradition is seen as saying anything about nature, it is usually seen as antienvironmentalist, as elevating man [sic] above all others.  The Genesis story, with its emphasis upon domination … appears the perfect rationale for cutting down forests, running roads through every wild place, killing of snail darters…[3]

As such, in an attempt to salvage the Judeo-Christian tradition, many have accepted the premise that interpretations of dominion have in fact influenced western thought regarding the environment and started producing critical examinations and reinterpretations of the theology of dominion.

These works fall into two general categories regarding their treatment of רדה (dominion). The first category of interpretation is best described as apologetics of recovery.  The author here attempts to soften the meaning of the word dominion by claiming that the modern understanding of dominion does not match the biblical understanding of רדה and then recovers the meaning for the reader.  Works such as Norbert Lohfink’s “The Priestly Document and the Limits of Growth”[4] have taken great care in recovering a fuller understanding of the roots and usage of the meaning of רדה.  The second category could be described as apologetics of exclusion, wherein negative interpretations about dominion are not challenged but assumed to be the true viewpoint of the priestly authors.  Thus, the general consensus of this second category is that other aspects of the biblical witness overshadow this negative dominion theology.  As such, one is justified in excluding this problematic text from modern theological and ethical discourse.  The denial of negative dominion theology texts ranges Lynn White’s essay[5] decrying the biblical ideal to Bruno Snell implication that the Genesis cosmology is totally irrelevant because Western thought is completely influenced by the Greeks and their culture.[6] Of course there are overlaps and outliers to these two categories but the bulk of scholarship falls directly into the aforementioned areas.

This essay aims to add another facet to this fecund subject of dominion theology by examining the history of interpretation and textual elements found in the Genesis text.  One might categorize this work as apologetics of recovery. It will attempt to recover an aspect of dominion theology that has yet to be fully pieced together.  James Limburg has begun the work of uncovering the use of the biblical notion of dominion by describing it as an aspect of royalty[7]—or as an aspect of a royal priesthood as Theodore Hiebert claims of the P source in “Rethinking Dominion Theology.”[8] This essay will follow these works in regards to dominion being described by royal rule.

II.             A (brief) survey of historical interpretations[9]

Jeremy Cohen notes in his seminal work Be Fertile and Increase, Fill the Earth and Master it: “… for all the time and energy expended … no one has systematically studied Jewish and Christian interpretation of Gen 1:28 to determine the meaning … in the history of Western religions.”[10] Indeed the number of studies into the Traditionsgeschichte of dominion theology spanning the time period of ancient Israel up to the enlightenment period are quite small in comparison to the number of works focusing on the biblical text itself.

In his discussion of “inner-biblical exegesis” Cohen, presents a case for “conscious invocation and reinterpretation of earlier biblical texts by later biblical authors.” [11]  This theory that the bible itself is a conduit of interpretation began in the mid 19^th century with ground-breaking works such as Abraham Geiger’s Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inner Entwicklung des Judenthums.[12]  Geiger convincingly presents the case that before the biblical cannon was set down, earlier schools and traditions of thought used biblical “textual manipulation”[13] to accomplish the same outcomes that modern exegesis produces.  Though the methods of determining such inner-biblical exegesis—as varied and sometimes confused as they were—were slow to be adopted by scholarship at large, recent scholarship has been able to focus on a tradition-history (Traditionsgeschichte) method that has produced incredible findings.[14] Still others have taken up the tools of “intratextual”[15] criticism of the biblical texts that follow this same motif of a living and evolving pre-cannon literature.

Because of this, the first place to look for an interpretive source would be within the bible itself.  There is a clear example of this inner-biblical interpretation found in the postdiluvian narrative.  The Genesis 1:28 text is seemingly repeated in another P text concerning the blessings and commandments to Noah after the flood.  The unseen narrator of the text states, “God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, ‘Be fertile (peru) and increase (u-revu), and fill (u-mil’u) the earth. The fear and dread of you shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the birds of the sky—everything with which the earth is astir—and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.’” (Gen. 9:1-2).  The direct quoting and re-use of the verbal structure of the Genesis 9 text had led authors to conclude that the opening verses answer the question,[16] ‘Did God’s blessing and gifts of creation continue for humanity in this postlapsarian age?’ The answer of the author is a clear affirmative with its reference to Genesis 1:28 though the blessing is somewhat altered.  Michael Fishbane has claimed that the dominion granted to humans was increased by the expansion of what was permissible to eat to include the flesh of animals, which is clearly absent from the Genesis 1 list of permissible foods.[17]  The other change to the blessing was the removal of women from the blessing to be fruitful and increase.  That is to say God directs the blessing only to Noah and his sons. 

The priestly author is clearly not interested in how the act of dominion should be enacted in the environment but rather whether being in God’s image and the blessings[18] that come along with that manifest creation have been extended into the postdiluvian era.  As time moves forward to the intertestamental time period a limited number of works such as Jubilees[19] and Ben Sira[20] recount the themes of the Genesis story granting the same word usage and limiting the interpretation of the texts to be concerned with covenantal paradigms.  It isn’t until Philo writes in Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim that an interpretation of how dominion should be enacted is extant.   In this quote from Philo we see that he has taken the meaning of dominion and what that dominion is applied to from a purely environmental context to that of a spiritual or mental battlefield:

As for the deeper meaning, it is to be interpreted as follows. [God] desires that the souls of intelligent men increase in greatness and multitude (and) in the form of virtues, and fill the mind with its form, as though it were the earth, leaving no part empty and void for follies; and that they should dominate and rule over the earthy body and its senses, and strike terror and fear into beasts, which is the exercise of the will against evil, for evil is untamed and savage.  And (he wishes that they should rule) over the birds, (that is) those who are lightly lifted up in thought, those who are (filled) with vain and empty arrogance, (and) having been previously armed, cause great harm, not being restrained by fear.  Moreover, (he wishes that they should rule over) the reptiles, which are a symbol of poisonous passions; for through every soul sense-pleasures and desire and grief and fear creep, stabbing and piercing and wounding. And by the fish I understand those who eagerly welcome a moist and fluid life but not one that is continent, healthy and lasting.[21]

The emphasis here was not on an “earthy” interaction between humanity and nature, but rather upon the struggles of the will.  This  “Philonic allegory became the paradigm for the figurative reading of Gen. 1:28 advanced by numerous Christian scholars,”[22] in the early part of the common era and before to synthesize Platonic philosophy and Judaic (-Christian) thought.  As this Hellenistic philosophy took root within the Jewish and early Christian traditions, dominion in the Genesis text itself was for the most part ignored.  Much of the reasoning behind this is the emphasis in Greek philosophy towards an ascetic lifestyle and a secession of sexual activity.  More of an emphasis was placed on the divine image theology and attempts to lift humanity out of the baseness of animal instincts and tie human sexuality to an incorporation of the divine image.  The few references to dominion directly stay within this concern of human uniqueness.  The Midrash Rabbah speaks of dominion only being granted to humans if they uphold the divine image in which they were created.  Should anyone fall short of this position and merit, they would forfeit dominion and be at the mercy of the beasts.

And have dominion (redu) over the fish of the sea (I, 28). R. Hanina said: If he merits it, [God says,] ‘uredu’ (have dominion); while if he does not merit, [God says,] ‘yerdu’ (let them descend). R. Jacob of Kefar Hanan said: Of him who is in our image and likeness [I say] ‘uredu’ (and have dominion); but of him who is not in our image and likeness [I say] ‘yerdu’ (let them descend).[23]

The other reference that follows interprets the imperative to ‘subdue it’ (כבשׁ) to that mean a man should subdue his wife as opposed to the earth. It wasn’t until around the 3^rd century C.E. that texts begin to appear formalizing the aggadic interpretations in Halakhic literature.[24] From this point on, most of the literature is focused on this prescription of procreation and patriarchy in a covenantal understanding.

Conversely,[25] just slightly before Halakah formalized this mitzvah, a few Christian thinkers began to depart from the allegorical tradition and focus on earthly human dominion as a sign of God’s salvation.  The dialog evolved into discussions of how far that dominion extended[26] as well as comparisons between the allegorical and physical interpretations.[27]

“And master it” signifies an extensive power, since one cannot say of him who has a limited power that he has dominion.  God has made this gift to the human being … in order that land for growing and land for mining, rich and numerous, diverse materials, be under the rule of the human being. … So great is the dominion the human being has received over the land that he transforms it technologically—when he changes it into glass, pottery, and other similar things.  That is in effect what it means for the human being to rule “the whole earth.”[28]

Overall, the fact that humans had dominion was not a controversial idea.  The focus was more on ways in which this peculiarity of the human being manifested itself as showing the true nature of the image of God—the imago Dei.

Not much else was developed in the medieval period and many during this time only quoted or retold the ideas of the church fathers.  It wasn’t until the scientific revolution began to take place that the aspect of human dominion began to be lifted up again. Eschewing biblical references in most cases, the imagery of science and nature uses brutal language to describe the superiority of science by ripping apart nature to discover its secrets.  The example of this par excellence is from Francis Bacon who states, "My only earthly wish is... to stretch the deplorably narrow limits of man's dominion over the universe to their promised bounds... [nature will be] bound into service, hounded in her wanderings and put on the rack and tortured for her secrets."[29]  Bacon provides a clear indication that concern for the allegorical meaning of dominion had ended.

As this short survey has shown, dominion has never played a central role in the life of the Genesis 1:28 text.  The interpreted purpose of this text has always—even in modern times—been to indicate that humanity is somehow distinct in its relationship to the rest of the world due to its significant and unique relationship with the creator of that world.  Being created in the image and likeness of God had imparted upon humanity a special place within the world—and soon the universe as science grew.  Slowly, this text has had to transform as humanity’s place in the world was demoted by scientific inquiry.  However, one can still see echoes of this special relationship with God within that inquiry.

III.           Textual (and interpretive) analysis

 ^{Gen 1:28}

[30]וַיְבָרֶךְ   אֹתָם  אֱלֹהִים  וַיֹּאמֶר  לָהֶם  אֱלֹהִים  פְּרוּ  וּרְבוּ  וּמִלְאוּ  אֶת־הָאָרֶץ  וְכִבְשֻׁהָ   וּרְדוּ  בִּדְגַת  הַיָּם  וּבְעֹוף  הַשּׁמַיִם  וּבְכָל־חַיָּה  הָֽרֹמֶשֶׂת  עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Raw Translation:

And [he]{God} blessed them and [he]{God} said to them, ‘[you all] be fruitful and increase and fill the earth and bring-[her]-under-foot (כבשׁ) and rule (רדה) over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens and over every living thing that [is] creeping upon the earth.[31]

The two words for which much of the modern interpretations of this text rely are רדה and כבשׁ if it is not solely based on the imago Dei aspect of the surrounding text.  These two words offer complex nuance to their translation and are found in clearly difficult textual contexts.[32] Because of this, an intricate study of the words is needed before an inclusive and nuanced translation can be offered.  This section presents a review of current scholarship concerning the context and translation of these two words in an effort to illumine the fuller meaning of the passage.

The verb כבשׁ appears as a Qal imperative feminine plural form with a vav conjunctive. God tells humans to increase in number so that they might כבשׁ the earth (ha’aretz).  The word כבשׁ is often translated as “to subdue.”[33]  This translation leaves much of the nuance of the word wanting and is often interpreted to give a sense of violent dominance.  Scholars have criticized this violent meaning of כבשׁ.[34]  If one looks at the word itself in other contexts outside of Genesis 1:28, it seems כבשׁ has a sense of ‘bringing something into bondage,’ (Jer. 34:11,16; 2 Chron. 28:10; Neh. 5:5), ‘rape’ (Esther 7:8)[35], ‘treading down,’ (Micah 7:19; Zech. 9:15), or as it evolved into Aramaic meaning ‘beating or making a path’[36] within the bible.  It is interesting to note that in most cases where the word is used to describe an aspect of the land, it has a sense of being inhabitable or being able to set foot on the land as a passive activity[37] (Num. 32:22, 29; Joshua 18:1; 1 Chr. 22:18; 2 Sam. 8:11). The noun form of the root is kevesh and is translated as ‘footstool.’  This helps in selecting a proper nuanced translation for the term as having something to do with making a path or ‘treading down’ a path.  Other evidence from outside the biblical witness and from other Semitic languages suggests a connection with ‘treading upon’ or merely ‘setting foot upon’ to complete the action of the root.[38]  Overall, convincing evidence and scholarly thought comes to the conclusion that a better word or phrase needs to be chosen to express the full meaning behind the priestly author’s intent.

With רדה, it appears in the Genesis 1:28 text in the Qal imperative masculine plural form with a vav conjunctive prefix and apocopated III-×”: u-r^edu.  The verb רדה is often translated as ‘to have dominion.’[39]  This verb definitely connotes a sense of “ruling” “over” something.  In all but two cases (Gen 1:26, 28) is the verb used to denote rule over people.  Investigating its usage, רדה is used twenty-three times within the biblical text with one homonym usage in Judges 14:9 indicating a meaning of ‘scraping out.’ Limburg lists most of these occurrences and concludes that רדה is used in “political contexts, having to do with the rule of a king or the rule of one nation over another…”[40] and for the king to have special concern for being just (as opposed to being harsh).  Just as in the case with כבשׁ, further examination of the root reveals a perplexing association with ‘treading’ or ‘trampling’ upon an object as in the close Arabic root زذى.[41] Again it is clear that the reading of this verb is not as simple as the grammar would suggest.  The verb would suggest a close association with the rule of a king and in particular the paradigm of rule of king exhibiting and enacting God’s will.  A new interpretive translation needs to be presented to draw out the full meaning.  Such a translation is offered in a forthcoming section.

IV.            Source analysis and Ritual context

While the debate over the dating of the P source still rages on, convincing recent scholarship[42] combined with archeological evidence[43] has placed at least the beginnings of authorship of P to around the time of Hezekiah, King of Judah (715-687 BCE) and continuing on well into the exilic period.[44] This extended date range further supports the intratextual and inner-biblical exegesis that was described above.  In this date range the priestly school has the time needed to develop and interpret previous works within the tradition.  While the exact dating of the P source in general and P’s Genesis account in particular will have to remain formless and void, some things can be gleaned from scholarship in this field.  Among the many things that have been discovered are the connections[45] between the D source and P that shed more light on a possible interpretive meaning of the Genesis 1 text.

            The rule (רדה) for which the P source was most concerned was that of one directed by God and God’s will for the Israelites.  This type of rule, especially in the context of human/natural relationships was a stark contrast to the surrounding beliefs during this time.  So it was “contrary to the common beliefs of the ancient world that the forces of nature are divinities that may hold the human race in thralldom, our text declares man [sic] to be a free agent who has the God-given power to control nature.”[46]  For Israel, the rule of the king was to be beneficial and a source of knowledge.  In Deuteronomy 17:14-20 the king has a singular role to copy[47] the law.  In fact, the role of the king is the most diminished role outlined within Deuteronomy’s legal structure.[48]

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 is a complete literary unit in that it is a self-contained look at the restrictions and purpose of a king, should there be one, of the people of Israel.  The unit itself is part of a larger selection of the laws found in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 12-26).[49]  Still further, Deut. 16:18-18:22 is a unit of “Laws of Public Officials”[50] in Israel, which included the king.  The placement of the 17:14-20 unit does not seem by accident.[51]  Going along with the tone of the selection, the placement of the unit diminishes the importance of the king.  The Judges (Shofetim) are described first (Deut. 16:18-17:13), and given the commission to do the actual ruling over the people of Israel.  The king’s attributes are pale in comparison with those of the Judges.  It seems as if the only positive purpose Deuteronomy assigns to the king is that of being the ideal Israeli[52] by keeping the law and proclaiming or reading it daily (v.18). Further evidence of the king’s diminished position, as we see in verse 18, is that the establishment of the Levitical priests must precede the king’s existence.  That is to say, the text prescribes that the priests be in existence before the law.

As can be seen, the specific restrictions placed on the king in Deuteronomy are specifically broken by quite a few of the kings of Israel—in particular Solomon.[53]  This helps bring focus to the interpretation as to why the restrictions were in place.  The king’s purpose is to be obedient to the law and read it every day.  In other words, the king was to contemplate and be reliant on God for every purpose.[54]  Tigay articulates this by saying, “the aim of this law is to limit the king’s power and to characterize him as essentially an optional figurehead who is as much subject to God’s law as are the people as a whole.”[55]

This highly structured understanding of the rule of the king is just one aspect of ritualized understanding of the covenant and what it means to rule (רדה) with Israel.  As noted above, the inner-biblical exegesis of the Genesis 1:28-30 by Genesis 9:1-7 was more concerned with the beginnings of ritual purity laws than any isogetical purpose modern readers might place upon the text.  The context of the Gen. 1:28 text is that of the highly ritualized and structured Hebrew religion that had been developed by this time. Indeed as Hiebert postulates in his essay on dominance in the priestly source, “dominion theology in Gen. 1:28 has roots in the powerful social role its priestly authors held in their own society. And its conception of human authority over the world of nature reflects the priestly authority in the cult and society of biblical Israel.”[56]  It is in this context that humans are given the blessing of dominance (רדה) over the creatures of the earth.

V.              Conclusion and interpretation

Until this point, this discussion has spoken abstractly about the concern for the environment in regards to the Genesis 1:28 text.  Appropriately, no mention has been made of the concern that the P source had for the environment around him as his religious tradition was making its way to codification in texts of scripture.  The reason for this is that the contexts for the P source and our modern context hold little in the way of resemblance.  In no way could the P source have contemplated the vast and industrialized ways in which our modern world harvests crops or grows—no longer herding—livestock.  While agriculture and domestication was not unknown to the priestly source, the scale of comparison could not have been guessed.  It is in this knowledge that any interpretation of this text for the modern world must be placed.

Truly, the call to the limited application of this text for modern environmental issues goes both ways in regards to a positive reading and a negative reading of dominion.  As has been noted in section II of this essay, much of the concern throughout the interpretive history of this text has not been that of obviating or aggravating environmental crises.  However, a fuller examination of the prescription to have children in light of global over-population might have a more direct—and aggravating—context and concern associated with it. 

Nevertheless, Genesis 1:28 dominion theology has become the flashpoint for many debates and theological reflections on the environment in our modern era and how human beings relate to their natural surroundings.  Section II has gone through the interpretive history of the text and placing an interpretation that is concerned with the how humanity is related to the environment in light of its relationship with God would not be an irregular path to take.  The interpretive journey this text has taken has had a central focus on humanity in creation.  In section II, quoting the Midrash Rabbah, it was stated that the dominion of humanity is based on its merit.  Philo, speaking allegorically, also limits dominion to a purpose that produces something of benefit for humanity.  In none of the texts examined was the dominion of humanity limitless or without the purpose of bringing God’s will and order into creation.

In the textual analysis, section III, it was noted that the fuller meaning of כבשׁ could indicate a sense of making a place inhabitable in relation to the land.  This is not to take away from the other readings filled with power-dynamics between individuals.  Rather, a translation that brings up imagery of domestication and readiness towards creative ordering would be a better fit.  The Genesis story gives this command on the 6^th day of creation.  The land has not been tilled or made inhabitable.  No human being had yet ‘tread on’ the land to bring order to all of the plants and growing things.  A fuller and very progressive translation of כבשׁ would be ‘make inhabitable.’

In regards to רדה, section III detailed the royal context attached to this word.  In the eyes of D and P, dominion or rule had limits and those limits were to follow the law of God.  Dominion was within the strict confines of legal code and was to be carried out with compassion toward one’s own people.  While the context for some of the רדה readings speaks of ruling over an enemy that may be harsh in its execution, the overall picture of kingly rule over his own nation was one of benevolence.  This reading that places dominion within the bounds of the law is further supported by the way in which the priestly author interprets the text itself in the post-flood Noahide covenant.  Dominion carries a lot of negative connotations in our society and so a better reading of רדה could be ‘to be beneficent.’

  Obviously, these translations are particularly liberal in regards to their adherence to centuries of translation history but the evidence presented here would allow for at least a middle ground between the new translation and the accepted historical translations.  However the words themselves are translated, it is clear that the Genesis 1:28 text is a text that should be embraced when scholars debate the benefit of humanity over the environment.  A reading that emphasizes the close ties to the Priestly understanding of royal rule and dominion over the earth benefits scholarly discourse as well as relations between biblical scholarship and scientific scholarship.