Child and Caregiver; Humanity's Relationship to

The World & The Plural Pronouns in Genesis 1:26.

An ecological commentary on the bible.

By Raphael Rice, rafirice@hotmail

As the bible continues to be an influential document in our culture, an environmental mission sourced in Genesis could be useful to anyone, secular or religious, who seeks support for such a view of our role in the world.  I will posit here a straightforward interpretation of Genesis, particularly verse 1:26 - among other verses for context and support - that emphatically urges such a mission.  This interpretation will clarify humanity's appointed "dominion" over the natural world to reveal that it is laden with responsibilities, in the same way and for the same reason that a child is obliged to fulfill the role of a caregiver for vulnerable parents.   In this effort, I hope to satisfy readers of any faith with a meaningful description of biblical intent.   Our only necessary common ground is an acknowledgment that this ancient text intends to be an instructive guide, the intent of which is worth gleaning.  

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.  (other English translations)

Like many passages from the bible, the implications of these words can vary widely depending on a reader's perspective and motivations. Genesis 1:26 comfortably straddles two ends of an environmental debate; presenting on one hand that we are empowered to use the resources of this world as a means towards achieving our own spiritual and material health, or conversely, that our spiritual and material empowerment is a means towards ensuring the health of this world.  It is easy to see how our own convictions can influence our choice between these two views.  To come to a full understanding of this verse's implications, outside of our motivations, it is helpful to start with some context. 

Genesis 1:26 is the bible's first reference to the creation of humanity, yet it is commonly overshadowed in our culture by the verse that follows - Genesis 1:27 -  which states anew, "God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."  This verse is more direct than 1:26, which may be the reason that it has become the common reference to our creation in Judeo-Christian culture.  But there is another important difference between the verses that may have favored 1:27.   I am referring to the focus of this analysis; the puzzling use of plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness."  Because these pronouns appear to confound the notion of a singular God and creator, it may have been in an effort to comfort our vanity and avert confusion that we have focused on the singular lineage from God that is indicated by Genesis 1:27.  Such a choice between the two verses may have been promoted by esteemed 11th century Rabbi and Torah commentator Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi, more commonly known as Rashi, when he warned of a danger in the ambiguity of the plural pronouns by writing that these could be misapplied by "heretics" to suggest the potential of another God or co-creator. 

Though the plural pronouns may have been diminished in the popular recitation of man's creation, they have been continuously studied and dissected by scholars.  Discussions of them exist in Jewish Talmudic commentaries like Rashi's, as well as more contemporary Jewish and Christian analyses.  What can be agreed upon by these interested people is that this inclusive way of describing the creation of humanity is a dramatic departure from all preceding creations.  On previous days in Genesis, and even previously on the same day as man's appearance, creations come about through God's singular declarative statements; "Let there be light", "Let there be an expanse", "Let the water... be gathered", "Let the waters bring forth swarms" and so on.  It is only when the creation concerns man that God says, "Let us make man in our image."  This begs the questions that will be addressed here; Who is this "us"? Why does it appear only and suddenly in regard to man?  And if we know who the "us" is, what does it mean that we are also made in its image?

Other Interpretations of  Genesis 1:26

There are many theories that attempt to address the puzzle of the plural pronouns.   To provide context it may be helpful to look at a prevalent example.  One such interpretation, commonly supported by Jewish commentary, sees these pronouns as referencing a combination of God and angels.  In this tradition, angels are thought to have always existed along with God and are therefore present during the creation of the universe.  Hence, God turns to the angels and states, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness." It follows that this collaboration gives "man" unique qualities, not totally like God or angels, but having parts of both. 

This idea, which I will call "Angelic Collaboration", has a certain elegance, but also contains flaws.  In part, this is because angels have not been mentioned in Genesis yet.  Their presence during the creation is a presumption construed from later references.  As a result, Angelic Collaboration requires a complex defense to make it fit the text of Genesis.  But more importantly, we do not glean from Angelic Collaboration any practical application for us in our lives, which is something that Torah/Bible commentaries typically seek to do.  In other words: if it is Angelic Collaboration, what do we do with that knowledge?   Since descriptions of angels are ultimately the same mystery that the God of the bible can be, what clarity does a potential Angelic Collaboration contribute to us as we try to understand ourselves and our role in the world.  What bearing does it have on the way we should use the power appointed to us later in the same verse?  By adding mystery to the story of our creation, Angelic Collaboration does nothing to link itself to our empowerment in a practical way, rendering the close proximity of these two events incidental.  This is a significant weakness that begs the possibility of a more meaningful interpretation.

For further reading about Angelic Collaboration and other theories, I have come across a very detailed essay on the internet titled "Plural Pronouns Used for God" by Jason Dulle, Phd. Theology.  This essay gives a clear, strong and detailed defense of this interpretation, as well as brief descriptions of three other popular interpretations, including a Christian theory.  Mr. Dulle also offers analyses of translations from Hebrew of the words concerning us here, as well as comparisons to other plural references to God which may be useful.  

A New View of "our image"; Humanity as Child and Caregiver.

Environmental Jews and Christians alike have preferred to see in the second line of Genesis 1:26, which refers to humanity's appointment to power, that man is to rule as a caretaker.  However, this meaning is not implicit in that line alone.  For this, I am suggesting they go to the first part of Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image after our own likeness"; to the plural pronouns which will describe precisely why man must be such a caretaker. 

First it is necessary to answer the 'who' of the plural pronouns; "us" represents God and who?  It is a very straightforward and sequential reading of Genesis that shows us that at the moment of humanity's creation, nature is all that has come to exist because nature is all that has been created.  Therefore, this is the only possible 'other' in "let us make" and "in our image".  With this view, Genesis 1:26 takes on a density of meaning, practical and mystical, as we are led to imagine God turning to the heavens and the earth, the light and dark, the land and the sea, the sun, moon, stars, plants and all things that creep upon the earth, saying, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness".   

A Practical Application

To address the purpose behind this description of nature's collaboration in the creation of man, it is useful to start by looking at an interpretation provided by a 19th century Torah scholar, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.  It will be helpful to receive his support by way of a nearly identical interpretation, and so too will its differences help to elucidate the full meaning that I will suggest.    In an essay titled "The Stewardship Paradigm in the Torah Portion of Bereishis/Genesis", Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks references a commentary by Rabbi Hirsch in order to explain the departure in Genesis 1:26 from God's singular creative efforts.  Rabbi Sacks paraphrases Hirsch in the following way: "Who would God consult in the process of creating humans? The 'us,' says Hirsch, refers to the rest of creation. Before creating the human, a being destined to develop the capacity to alter and possibly endanger the natural world, God sought the approval of nature itself. This interpretation implies that we would use nature only in such a way that is faithful to the purposes of its Creator and acknowledges nature's consenting to humanity's existence."

Hirsch's description of nature consenting to the creation of humanity satisfies much of what I will say here regarding the environmental implication of Genesis 1:26.  But I offer that the intended message of this verse is even stronger than Hirsch conveys.  In addition to the quality of consent and agreement, a more intimate interaction is taking place between the Creator and nature.  The words, "Let us make", suggest an act of collaboration.  So too does,"in our image, after our own likeness", suggest that this collaboration yields a new hybrid result.  When the full value of these words are accepted, it is possible to see that a  joining together - even a marrying or mating, if we need to understand it this way - of God and nature is occurring in order to create humanity, the child.

There is further support for this intimacy, when such a mixing of divine and earthly substances is described in Genesis 2:7, "God formed man from the dust of the earth.  He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being."   This graphic expression of humanity's creation, where divinity enters the body of dust to create new life,  encourages us to fully relate to a collaborative view by resembling the union we understand is necessary in our own bodies for reproduction.

Creating the first man from the dust of the earth also bolsters the notion, already laid out by the sequence of creation, of nature as a predecessor to man.  In the context of modern theories of evolution we can take such a concept for granted, but in a biblical age, support for nature as a predecessor would have been helpful to a people trying to glean its origins and place in the natural world.  

There appears to be an instructive purpose in portraying a diverse environment of parents for man; where man is the child of both God and all things in the world.  Recognizing our familial relationship with nature only strengthens Hirsch's commentary that humanity remains beholden to nature even as God gives it dominion over the same.   Indeed, it seems that a clarification of our "dominion" may be the very purpose of closely pairing it with a description of this familial relationship.  Is power over a parent or elder ever purposefully assigned for a reason other than protection?   Interestingly, while Rashi's commentary would seem to reject the notion of nature as a co-creator or parent to humanity, he offers a surprising support for this view by pointing out that the Hebrew for "dominion over", can also be translated as "descending from". 

If it is an intent of the bible to instruct us in the great responsibilities we will have as children of the world, these responsibilities, relationships, and even their rewards are made explicit again with the 5th commandment given to Moses and the Israelites in Exodus 20:12 which states, "Honor your father and your mother that you shall live long upon the earth that God has given you."   In the context of this discussion, it now seems purposeful that our longevity on the earth is connected to the ways in which we honor our "parents".  Of course, this author does not wish to diminish the meaning of this verse as it regards good old mom and dad. 

The notion that our dominion is laden with the responsibilities of a caretaker is consistent with a biblical God that never gives power freely.  Genesis alone is filled with examples of God coupling privileges and responsibilities.   As early as Genesis 2:15, it is described that man is placed in Eden, "to till it and tend it".  Throughout the rest of Genesis there are covenants; promises that are made over and over with Abraham, his children and all of their descendants.  These promises are always paired with great responsibilities; undertakings and obstacles that are expected to be continuous and contain hardships.  That Genesis 1:26 would offer humanity dominion over all of God's good creations without pairing it with an imperative for responsible use would be shocking compared to the ways in which God metes out power in the rest of the bible.

It may have only been in our vanity that we have seen our appointed power as a gift to us; a birthright intended to identify us as supreme on this earth.   There is no need to add to humanity's special qualities with such a gift, as it is already unique in the bible for receiving both God and nature's legacies through their collaboration.  The power appointed after our creation can only be seen in such a view as the burden of a descendent; to be applied carefully lest we harm our own.    Such is the practical application for us, described and repeated in the ancient text with prose, metaphor and direct instruction.  It urges us to understand and see our family in the heavens and the earth, the light and the dark, the land and the sea, the sun, moon, stars and all living things that creep upon the earth.  It prevails upon us to use our power - our natural and unique skills - in such a way as would honor and protect these like doting children;  caregivers for our vulnerable parents.

*Special thanks to Leigh and Danny Bar-Yakov for their helpful comments and suggestions, some of which I have used in this essay.