The Genesis Creation Stories and the Environment

Let me join others who are focusing on the environment for this blog action day. It was the pressure of an unanticipated exam question that forced me to relate the implication of academic (especially source critical) study of the creation stories in Genesis to the issues of environmentalism.

The question asked whether the creation stories justified human exploitation of the environment. I had prepared to talk about a lot of aspects of the creation stories, but that was not one of them. So I started thinking. Here’s the gist of what I came up with:

The earlier of the two creation stories in Genesis, the “J” story which begins in Genesis 2:4. This earlier story focuses on humanity’s close relationship to the earth. The theme of stewardship is also present, since the human is depicted as in some sense a gardener, tending God’s garden.

It is in the later creation story, the “P” story which begins in Genesis 1:1, that we meet the language that has sometimes been used to justify exploiting nature: the language of “dominion”.

Let us not forget, however, that the “P” story is added almost like a prologue to an already-existing and already-known story. It qualifies that story, rather than completely dismissing or rewriting it. The historical context helps explain why its author may have felt it appropriate to emphasize this theme of dominion.

The “P” source is usually dated to the early post-exilic period. At this time, many Jews returned to lands from which their parents or grandparents had been carried off a generation or two before. It would have been overgrown and neglected. The author, in that context, presents readers with a divinely-appointed mission: subdue the earth. In other words, reclaim the land, bring order to the chaos, just as this story depicts God bringing order to chaos in God’s own creation. In context, the language of dominion is a call to reclaim order from chaos, not to exploit.

Bloggers Unite - Blog Action Day

"The point of the demand for unconditional surrender was to pre-empt a second "stab in ..."

Conflict among Fallible Humans
"I have never seen an adequate justification of the so-called "Principle of Sufficient Reason". Why ..."

Conflict among Fallible Humans
"For those who hold to the longstanding philosophical view that God denotes that which exists ..."

Conflict among Fallible Humans
"The obvious response is: "Why is there a Ground?"."

Conflict among Fallible Humans

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I have always thought the word that was translated as “dominion” carries with more of a service and stewardship aspect than obviously our English word of “dominion” conveys. I think this idea of dominance was something we may have read into the text as scripture was translated into English during a time when the world view was one that thought mankind should conquer, rule, and control. I question if this really was the intent of the story.Peace,James



    • AMY


  • Gary

    This is old, and probably not worth commenting on, but…I wonder why people get so upset by J and P, and not one Moses story, which would be rather inconsistent if coming  from one author? “The author, in that context, presents readers with a divinely-appointed mission: subdue the earth”…P, being priests – how else could they justify 24 hour a day, 7 days a week, animal slaughter in the temple? God supposedly provided the animals to Adam to keep him company (even giving them names), not slaughtering them. Solution to the inconsistency, multiple authors. Common sense, if you ask me. (Of course, no one asked me).