The myth of origin in Genesis 1 recounts the creation of humanity emphasizing human beings having dominion on Earth (Gen. 1:26-28). This text has been used down the centuries to consolidate human rulership and exploitation of natural goods. It has been suggested that the concept of the image of God was borrowed from the Babylonian myth of origin the Enuma elish around the sixth century BCE during the Jewish exile in Babylon (Westermann 1974). It is further suggested that the myth is a re-construction of Ancient Near Eastern royal ideology in which instead of the king being the image of the deity and placed over humans, the human is made in the image of God and placed over nonhuman creation (cf. Rogerson 1997:67, Wright 2004:119). It depicts an agricultural community where humans rule over the earth through practicing agriculture, a common feature of the ANE. This position is quite problematic given that it supports the marginalisation of nonhuman forms of life.
Genesis 1:2656 records God as having said,
“Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
Two words are worth examining in this text: “image” and “dominion”. In the ANE, the word
“image”57 was associated with the idea of a king being a representative of God on Earth (cf.
56 All the quotations from the bible in this study are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), unless specifically stated in the text.
57The word translated “image” is derived from the Hebrew word tselem. The word is normally used in the Old Testament to refer to a model or idol of something. It is used to refer to similarity in physical appearance (Miller
[153]
Rogerson 1997:67, Wright 2004:119). In the same way a statue of a king would be sent to represent the king in absentia. And so, by using the concept of the “image” of God to refer to human beings, the narrator reverses the notion of the image of God in the ANE. First, it is no longer the male king who is the representative of God but all human beings. The concept is now universalised to include all human beings regardless of their status in society. Second, the narrator applies the concept of the “image of God” to both man and woman: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them”
(Gen. 1:27). In this way, the concept is de-patriarchalised. It is no longer a male king who is the representative of God on earth but all human beings regardless of their gender or age. The text therefore becomes the foundation of an egalitarian community in which all human beings (male and female) are created to reflect the image of God equally.
A patriarchal biblical interpretation has wrongly suggested that human beings were created in the image of God to have dominion over other forms of life (Rogerson 1997:67, Conradie 2006).
However, a closer look at the text suggests the opposite. The narrator employs the dominion motif to show that the equality of man and woman as human beings is in relation to their cooperation to support life on earth their home (oikos). The notion that humans should dominate and exploit other forms of life is as a result of an inaccurate interpretation of the word dominion in Genesis 1:26-28.
As Middleton (2005:50-52) has observed, the text uses the Hebrew verbs rada and kabas (Genesis 1:26-28) in relation to God’s command to human beings. The verbs have inaccurately been interpreted to mean violent exploitation and domination. However, kabas represents the bringing of something under someone’s control through the exercise of power. The word rada represents royal dominion in which the king has the responsibility to take good care of the subjects. Further, the word dominion is derived from a Hebrew word v’yirdu which means
“descend” or “sink” as well as “rule”. This means that the concept of dominion in the ANE was 1972:291). The word translated “likeness” is derived from the Hebrew word demut. The word is used in connection with visual similarities and often carries the connotation of “has the appearance of” (Miller 1972:292). Drawing on the two Hebrew words, Miller (1972) concludes that male and female are not only made in the likeness of God, but specifically the corporeal form of God.
[154]
eco-democratised. Dominion is no longer given to human beings in form of power and hierarchy, but in form of responsibility to be partners with God and all creation to support life on earth. In this way, the myth invites humans to relate with other earth-beings at an equal level. This emphasis on service to the earth as a home for God’s creation is reiterated in Genesis 2:15. Thus, the notion of rulership to exploit the natural world comes from a patriarchal interpretation of the text.
Reed (2000:335) argues that humans have been given a mandate by God to dominate other forms of creation. In the same way, Middleton (2005:27) insists that rulership over other forms of creation is “the royal office or calling of human being as God’s representatives and agents in the world”. However, human beings were created to cooperate with other forms of God’s creation rather than to rule. African indigenous culture illustrates the importance of human beings cooperating with nature. In African cosmology, the Imago Dei manifests by humans cooperating with other forms of creation. God is not considered to be transcendent but one who dwells among creation (Kaunda 2011 Setiloane 1986). For this reason, human beings and the natural world are expected to have time to rest and recreate.
The first account of the creation of humanity concludes by introducing the principle of rest for re-creation58 (Gen. 2:1-3). The creator steps back to admire the beauty of God’s creation. The time of rest to recreate is premised on the principle that land and nonhuman forms of life were not human property (Fox 1995: 488, 626). Rather, they belonged to God (Lev 25:2-4). In this manner, the time of resting was set aside for re-creation for humans, land and other forms of life.
In other words the time of rest was guided by the ecological principle of bal tashhit (be not destructive). This principle was a prohibition to destroy a resource that might prove useful to humans and other forms of life. For example, the Israelites were forbidden to cut down the fruit trees surrounding the towns of their enemies (Deut. 20:19-20). The principle of recreation is also found among the Tonga people of Zambia. In precolonial times, people were not allowed to pick
58 Land was left to lie fallow during the year of resting (sabbatical year) which was observed every seven years to give it time for re-creation. See Fox (1995: 488, 626).
[155]
fruits from the trees at the shrine. Further, fishing and hunting was not allowed during breeding season to ensure that there was continuity of the species (Machila 1990). It can be noted that the principle of rest in the myth (Gen. 2:1-3) removes the notion of human being created to rule and exploit the earth and other forms of creation. Further, it can be noted that the myth was re-edited to sustain Israel during the time (of insecurity) when the marginalisation and exploitation of women and the natural world was common. The prevalence of embedded patriarchy can be seen from man’s exalted stature in the creation narrative.
4.5. MAN’S EXALTED STATURE AND MYSOGYNISTIC PORTRAYAL OF THE