Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc.

, © 2010

Genesis 1–11

God blessed them and said to them,

‘Be fruitful and increase in number;
fill the earth and subdue it.
Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky
and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’
The LORD God took the man
and put him in the Garden of Eden
to work it and care for it.
(Genesis 1:28; 2:15 TNIV)

Some Background on the Book of Beginnings

Because Genesis 1–3 forms the “headstream” for a theology of work, the majority of our study
will focus on these foundational chapters.

The First Exposition:

The Doxology of Creation (Gen 1:1–2:3)

Genesis 1:1-2:3 depicts God’s creative acts through majestic separations (vv. 3-13), with
humankind as the climactic creative work of God. Repeated refrains include: announcement
(“and God said”), divine command (“let there be”), report (“and so God made”), evaluation
(“and it was good”), and temporal frame (“there was evening and morning”). The cumulative

 that only through the agency of God’s “word” does anything take form (cf. Jn 1:1-18);
effect of these refrains reveals:

 the world is created according to divine will or “moral imagination” of the Creator1—
creation is literally worded-forth—nothing is made if the Creator does not speak,

unlike the ancient Near Eastern creation stories, there was no divine combat, sacred wife,
caprice or collective “will of the gods,”
 Elohim is transcendent over his creation, not co-extensive with what he makes2—Elohim

 God’s creation was “good,”3 fulfilling the divine intention—humankind need not fear the
is the wholly-other, the universal ruler (cf. Psa 95:3-7),

 God created the world in a logical and orderly manner—from distant (1:2) to the dearest
Cosmic King,

(1:26), inanimate to the animate, chaos to rest, the very form of the first exposition
communicates function and foundational meaning.

1
For discussion of “moral imagination,” see W. P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral
Imagination in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), esp. pp. 46-52.
2
See, for example, A. Linzey, Animal Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998); H. Harrod, The
Animals Came Dancing (Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 2000).
3
On the philosophical notion of a “perfect creation,” see W. J. Dumbrell, The Search for Order: Biblical
Eschatology in Focus (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001), 20-22.
1
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

The first exposition is theo-centric doxology, disclosing what and why, not how and
when. In fact, Genesis 1 is potent doxology and liturgy, as biblical theologians like Walter
Brueggemann are eager to point out:

The world is not autonomous, going its own way, but must live and function according to
the ordered intention of the creator. These texts clearly are not and do not intend to be
scientific descriptions of how the world came into being. Rather they are doxological,
theological assertions of who the creator is and what creation is in response to the creator
God….The evident wonder and inexplicable gift of blessing evokes in Israel awed
doxology, which is the appropriate response to the miracle of creation that enacts
Yahweh’s will for life.4

While the modern reader may be perplexed (even scandalized!) by the poetic cadence of the first
exposition, the Israelite reader viewed this as theologized history—history but more than history.
In other words, historical testimony clearly lay at the foundation of this doxological portrait, one
capable of spawning numerous creation psalms (see Psalms 8, 19, 65, 104, 148). If the
contemporary church is going to use the early chapters of Genesis for more than “proof texts”
and apologetics, we must regain some of the awed doxology the Psalmists have long recognized
in the first exposition. This requires a spirit humble enough to exchange our penchant for
pragmatic explanations for a theological understanding. The first exposition highlights several
significant themes pertaining to speech and agency.

The Act of Speech

In the first exposition, the speech of God (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, etc.) is the work of God.5 Uncontested,
whatever Elohim commands, is enacted; to speak is to manifest. The Creator’s mighty acts are
recounted as: God’s declaration of “good” (vv. 10, 12, 18, 25, 31)—more than a declaration of
aesthetic quality. Everything the Creator worded-forth was efficiently done. “Good” and the
culminating “very good” (v. 31), after human creation, is the divine evaluation that the divine
intention has been achieved.
At a canonical level, God’s speech “awakens” human worship. Walter Brueggemann
observes that, “The first of these passages, 1:1-2:4a, is a majestic liturgical poem, a vigorous
doxology as an act of worship at the beginning of Israel’s canonical text…The text is likely a
world-making liturgy that invites the congregation to respond in regular litany, ‘It is good…very
good.’”6 Hardly a breath away calls the great doxology: “praise him in his mighty heavens.
Praise him for his acts of power” (Psa 150:1b-2a).
In the 1st triad of days, God’s speech-work separates formless chaos into static spheres as
“space is arranged into vertical layers.”7 The 2nd triad populates the 1st, the entire week of which

4
Walter Brueggemann, “Creation,” in Reverberations of Faith: A Theological handbook of Old Testament
Themes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 40-41, idem Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony,
Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 529.
5
This is why in judgment, God goes silent (Genesis 7-8)—chaos reasserts itself in un-creation.
6
Walter Brueggemann, “Creation,” 40.
7
S. D. McBride, Jr., “Divine Protocol: Genesis 1:1-2:3 as Prologue to the Pentateuch,” in God Who
Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner (ed. W. P. Brown and S. D. McBride, Jr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000), 12.
2
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

establishes the theological and cosmological basis for Israel’s religious calendar: “lights in the
expanse of the sky” to “serve as signs and mark seasons” (1:14; cf. Exod 16:22-30; 20:8-11). The
seven days of God’s creative work represent the liturgical week of Israel, the day beginning in
the evening and the week crowned by the Sabbath. The seven-day format models the core sacral
structures of both time and space, well reflecting that of the temple, with the final day
representing a temporal “holy of holies.”8

The importance of time is not its speed in reaching a goal, but its rhythm in relationship
with objects in creation. Thus time highlights interrelationships in creation….the ideal
rhythm of time is woven into the pattern of creation, including day and night (Gen 1:3-5),
Sabbath (Gen 2:1-3), and months and years (Gen 1:14-19). These rhythms are not
obstacles to be overcome by humans. On the contrary, human life is enriched when it
corresponds to the temporal patterns of creation. Achieving holiness involves conforming
to the rhythm of creation….At each of these moments ‘work is replaced by worship.’9

AGENCY IN THE CREATIVE PROCESS

The Initiating and Sustaining Work of God

Though creatio ex nihilo is important to Christian doctrine, Genesis itself does not contain this
fully developed doctrine. We must realize that “darkness” and “the deep” are present when the
first exposition comes “on line” (1:1). Thus far, we’ve seen that God’s creation was essentially a
series of separations—only performed through divine speech.10 God’s work is always toward that
which fosters life. For this reason, neither “darkness” nor “water” is called “good” until those
respective domains are ready to nurture life (vv. 4, 10). As James McKeown reminds us:

[T]he main issues facing the writer and his earliest readers were about the control of
chaos and about God’s sovereignty over chaos. Genesis 1 was written to expunge any

8
Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York:
Doubleday, 1992), 61-62. The most comprehensive biblical theology of the temple includes: G. K. Beale, The
Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (ed. D. A. Carson; NSBT;
Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 2004) and T. D. Alexander and S. Gathercole (eds.), Heaven on Earth: The Temple in
Biblical Theology (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004). More recent and readable overviews include: T. D. Alexander, From
Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), esp. “From sacred
garden to holy city: experiencing the presence of God” (pp. 13-73) and J. J. Niehaus, Ancient Near Eastern Themes
in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), esp. “City, Temple, Image” (pp. 83-115), “City and Temple:
Abandoned and Restored” (116-137).
9
John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Life (vol 3; Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009),
3:640-41; also quoting T. B. Dozeman, “The Book of Numbers,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1998), 2:234-35.
10
Biblical theology allows the text to raise its own themes. So we can observe that 1:2 of the first
exposition contains background information soon to be developed using two negative clauses: (“earth was formless
and empty,” “darkness was over the surface of the deep”). The same back-grounding technique begins the second
exposition (2:5) with two negative clauses: (“no shrub of the field had yet appeared,” “no plant of the field had yet
sprung up”). Comparing these two disjunctive units (1:1-3; 2:4-7) reveals overlapping themes of inhospitable
environment, hydration, and the Creator’s distinctive concern for promoting life.
3
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

suggestion that creation was a struggle between God and the gods and demons of chaos
that featured so prominently in the creation myths that were current at that time.11

Important to understanding the Creation Mandate of humankind is observing the parallel

theology of creatio continua. This is the on-going creative governance that is also a foundational
theological reality. The report of God’s performative speech includes: “divided” (1:6, 7, 14, 18),
“made” (1:7, 16, 25), “fixed” (1:17), “created” (1:21, 27), and also his attentive “seeing” (1:4,
10, 18, 31),12 “forming” (2:7), “planting” (2:8), and “installing” (2:15). However, neither
creation nor its development flows in one direction. Necessary for on-going creative governance
is a mutuality of vocation; human vocation also includes the non-human.13 Days Three and Six
are unique: the land, a secondary agent, “produces vegetation” (Day Three, 1:11) and then
“produces living creatures” (Day Six, 1:24).14 Calling this an interdependent mutuality of
vocation, Terence Fretheim explains:

In these cases, God speaks with that which has already been created and involves them in
further creative activity. This is mediate rather than immediate creation; it is creation
from within rather than creation from without; God’s creating is not unilateral, it is
multilateral. The nonhuman creatures have a genuine vocational role…the waters and
earth do actually participate with God in acts of creation.15

This raises a significant implication for a contemporary theology of work, agency, and
restoration: the Creator’s immanence is not co-extensive with nature (i.e., pantheism), nor is his
transcendence detached from his creation (i.e., deism). Because of various pagan theologies,
Christian tradition has over-emphasized an immutable, ineffable, and impassible16 deity which
has in turn, dichotomized nature from theology, work from worship, temporal from eternal, and
so creation from salvation.17 A predisposition for creational hierarchies, temporal pessimism,
dualisms of various kinds, utilitarian view of matter, and historic developmentalism has, for
example, demoted nature to a secondary role and subordinated non-human life to the creature of

11
James McKeown, “Creatio ex Ninilo,” in Genesis: The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 268-69. The reader should keep in mind that texts such as 2 Macc 7:28; Rom
4:17; and Heb 11:3 were not only written much later, but all except Heb 11:3 only lend indirect support for the
doctrine.
12
Throughout the Pentateuch, God’s “seeing” connotes oversight and judicious discernment (cf. Gen 6:5,
12, 11:5; 16:13-14; Exod 2:25; 32:9; Deut 32:19-20, etc.).
13
T. E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville:
Abingdon, 2005), 273.
14
Not surprisingly, the final days of each triad (i.e., Days Three and Six) are the longest, in fact they have
double the amount of words as the other days (69 and 149, respectively; cf. Day 1 [31 words], Day 2 [38 words];
Day 4 [69 words], Day 5 [57 words], Day 6 [149 words]).
15
Ibid., 275, 278-79; emphasis original.
16
The descriptive formulation of terms in theology via negitiva (in-, im, a-, etc.) attests to a “flat-footed”
tradition, defined as much by abstract reaction-become-entrenchment as it does proactive thought, willing to
acknowledge mystery and ambiguity.
17
For further discussion, see H. Cook and J. R. Wood, “Looking at Nature through Other Eyes: God’s
Governance of Nature in the Religion-Science Debate,” CSR 39 (2010): 275-90. They conclude: “Theological
reflection about God’s governance of creation has been abundant and varied…We would describe the laws of nature
as a sign of God’s faithfulness in upholding His creation” (290).
4
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

reason.18 The result is a fragmented universe and a muted doxology (cf. Psalms 145-150; Phil
2:10-11).

Humankind as Creation’s Royal Custodian

Human agency is clearly seen in the Creation Mandate (1:28; cf. 1:26-28).19 Observe the
following semantic layout (AT):

Announcement: Let us make humankind (’adam) in our image

Purpose: So that THEY may rule over (radah):
fish, birds, creepers (1:26a,b)

Blessing1 (= endowment): Be fruitful…multiply…fill…subdue it (1:28a)

Blessing2 (= commission): Rule over (radah):
fish, birds, creepers (1:28b)

As Cosmic King,20 God’s direct speech to his heavenly court (1:26) discloses his divine
intention.21 Humankind is the terrestrial counterpart to God’s heavenly entourage.22 Those who
are modeled on the divine are, in turn, to serve their king by modeling the divine to the world
(Psa 115:16). In the biblical theology of Genesis, being an image bearer is primarily functional,
to fulfill the Creation Mandate (Psa 8:5), and necessarily relational (see Excursus 1 below).23
Image is tied to “ruling” (1:26b, radah), as humankind serves as God’s under-king.
Syntactically, “so/that they may rule” expresses purpose following: “let us make” (v. 26a [cf.
TNIV]).24 The contribution of 1:28 to the Mandate mission is a theological hendiadys of two
interrelated parts: endowment (for reproduction) and commission (for governance). While
endowment addresses reproduction, it is not separated from the commission of ruling, a
stewardship of governance. Rhetorically, “ruling” envelopes this entire passage as the divine

18
T. Hiebert, “Creation,” NIDB 1:780.
19
For a fuller discussion, see A. J. Schmutzer, “A Theology of Sexual Abuse: A Reflection on Creation and
Devastation,” JETS 51 (2008), 789-93.
20
For such imagery, see: Deut 4:32; Psa 148:5; Isa 57:16; Mal 2:10; Mark 13:19; Eph 3:9; Col 1:16; Heb
12:27; Rev 4:11.
21
Cf. Gen 3:22; 11:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psa 89:6-8 [5-7]; Isa 6:8; Dan 7:9-10; also Joüon,
§§113e, 136d; F. J. Stendebach, “‫צ ֶלם‬,”
ֶ TDOT 12:394; J. H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 93-97; E. T. Mullen Jr., The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early
Hebrew Literature (HSM 24; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980).
22
S. D. McBride, Jr., “Divine Protocol,” 16.
23
Aside from the standard commentaries, the best and most recent literature on the image of God includes:
S. L. Herring, “A ‘Transubstantiated’ Humanity: The Relationship Between the Divine Image and the Presence of
God in Genesis 1:26f,” VT 58 (2008): 480-94; P. Niskanen, “The Poetics of Adam: the Creation of Adam in the
Image of Elohim,” JBL 128 (2009): 417-36; J. R. Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005); P. Sands, “The imago Dei as Vocation,” EQ 82 (2010): 28-41; A. J. Schmutzer, Be
Fruitful and Multiply: A Crux of Thematic Repetition in Genesis 1-11 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2009), 89-204;
W. S. Towner, “Clones of God: Genesis 1:26-28 and the Image of God in the Hebrew Bible,” Interpretation 59
(2005): 341-56; R. C. Van Leeuwen, “Form, Image,” in NIDOTTE 4:643-48.
24
The Hebrew prefixed verbal form with waw conjunctive (“so that they may rule”) following the
cohortative (“let us make”) is a purpose construction (so NET, TNIV, NEB; cf. R. Van Leeuwen, “Form, Image,”
NIDOTTE 4:645; H. Wildberger, “‫צ ֶלם‬,” ֶ TDOT 3:1083).
5
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

intention for rule (v. 26b) resounds in God’s audible blessing to rule (v. 28b). In this context,
“subduing” (kavash, v. 28a) is the task of earthly development (“earth” is the antecedent
[“subdue it”]), whereas “ruling” (v. 28b) grants humankind the necessary position to achieve this
harnessing of earthly life:25 task follows royal instillation as humankind is called to imitate their
Creator through production and care—“You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you
put everything under his feet” (Psa 8:6). In the context of the Creation Mandate, “subdue”
(kavash) pertains to cultivation, domestication, and even mining;26 “mak[ing] use of all the
economic and cultural potential associated with the concept of ‘land.’”27 Food is addressed 1:29,
but kavash is the authorization for accomplishment of the Creator’s design for earthly
stewardship.
The divine image funds a unique relationship between the Creator and his agents; for
humankind, it is intermediacy through divine investiture. It is their image as under-kings that
gives humankind both moral vision and functional capacity to achieve an order worthy of their
Creator. They co-create with God (4:1; 5:3). Theirs is not a dominion of power, but power for
dominion. Terence Fretheim explains this relational uniqueness:

[T]he ‘let us’ rhetoric in Gen 1:26 is testimony to mutuality within the divine realm. God
shares the creative process with that which is not God. Human beings are created in the
image of a God who shares power, who has a dialogical relationship with those who are
not God….inviting the ’adam to participate in the creative process.28
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excursus 1
The Creation Mandate of Gen 1:28:
The Outworking of the Imago Dei and Mission
The Creation Mandate is an appropriate expression to capture the biblical theological force of
God’s blessing and humankind’s ethical mission rooted in Gen 1:28. In fact, the Mandate pulls
together a multivalent view of creation that spans Gen 1:26-28. In this passage, we find far more
than a “command” to procreate29 or an apologia for the Cultural Mandate of civilizing-dominion
in Dutch Reformed expression.30 Contextually, the theological significance of Gen 1:28 moves
25
T. E. Fretheim, “The Book of Genesis,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve
Volumes (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) 1:346.
26
R. Chisholm, From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1998), 46; also H.-J. Zobel, “‫ר ָדה‬,”
ָ TDOT 13:335.
27
M. Wagner, “ׁ‫כ ַב‬,”
ָ TDOT 7:54.
28
T. E. Fretheim, “God and World,” 276-77; emphasis added.
29
Reading Gen 1:28a as a command to bear children is a very common misreading that confuses the form
(grammatical imperative) with the function (genre of blessing) of the text. With God cast in a priestly role, Genesis
1:28 is a blessing to accomplish, not a command to perform. For example, see, A. J. Köstenberger with D. W. Jones,
God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 133, 174, 203.
30
A. F. Glasser distinguishes the Cultural Mandate from the redemptive work of God: the former is the
work of civilization and the later unfolds only after the fall (Announcing the Kingdom: The Story of God’s Mission
in the Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 38-39). S. W. Chung makes the key observation that Reformed covenant
theology has overemphasized the soteriological dimension of Genesis 1 and 2, and he concludes: “by overly
focusing on the covenant of works in Genesis 2:15-17, Reformed covenant theology has not correctly understood the
significance of Genesis 1:26-28” (“Toward the Reformed and Covenantal Theology of Premillennialism,” in A Case
for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to ‘Left Behind’ Eschatology [ed. C. L. Blomberg and S. W. Chung;
6
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

through the entire unit of Gen 1:26-28, making foundational connections to “ruling,” exercising
“dominion,” and the image of God.31 Evident in Gen 1:26-28 is a highly relational God, a royal
humanity, a moral vision, and a vibrant taxonomy of earthly life that is placed in human care—
all in an interconnected bond that is acknowledged throughout Scripture.32

The Semantic Portrait of the Mandate in 1:28

Analysis of the Creation Mandate within the five text plots of Genesis 1-11 moves in semantic,
thematic, and theological directions (cf. 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7). These texts overlap and
distinguish themselves. Here, repeated expressions function in highly stylized components.
These expressions can be isolated to highlight the literary logic and semantic profile of these
texts. As direct discourse these texts generate theological movement rather than merely reflect it.
The following elements can be observed.

Formal Stem: “Then God blessed them” 1:22a, 28a; 9:1a

Formal Complex Stem:
Core Charge:
Secondary Charge
Elements:
Domain Identification:
“blessed … and God said to them” 1:28a
“Be fruitful and multiply” 1:22b, 28a; 8:17b; 9:1b, 7a
“fill,” “subdue,” “rule,” “swarm” 1:22b, 28a,b; 8:17b; 9:1a, 7b
“sky,” “sea,” “land” 1:22b, 28a,b; 8:17a,b; 9:1a, 7b

The progression evident in 1:28 is paradigmatic. Its significance becomes apparent at

many levels, incorporating all these stylized components, and more. Throughout the Creation
Mandate, God’s blessing is “worded forth” in performative utterances, initiated by the Formal
Stem: ‫“( ויברך אתם אלהים‬Then God blessed them,”1:28a). What follows is the substance or
declaration of that blessing: ‫“( לאמר‬saying,” 1:22a; 9:1b; cf. ‫ויאמר‬, 1:28a). The ensuing Core
Charge specifies abundance as the manner of productiveness: ‫“( פרו ורבו‬Be fruitful and
multiply,” 1:22b, 28a; 8:17b; 9:1b, 7a). The Secondary Charge Elements explicate the result of
increase relative to a particular: sphere (‫מלא‬, “fill,” 1:22b, 28a; 9:1b), manner (ׁ‫כב‬, ‫רדה‬,
“subdue, rule,” 1:28a,b), and extent (‫רבה‬, ‫ׁרץ‬, “increase, swarm,” 1:22b; 8:17b; 9:7b) of that
fertility. Finally, the Domain Identification stipulates the spatial theatre of proliferation (‫הׁמים‬,
‫הים‬, ‫הארץ‬, 1:22b, 28a,b, etc.), whether “sky,” “sea,” or “land” (cf. Exod 20:4, 11; Psalm 148).
Significantly, ׁ‫“( כב‬subdue”) has harsh and even militaristic connotations, essentially
subduing a people group and, by extension their land, especially the Canaanites (Num 32:22, 28;
Josh 18:1; cf. 2 Chr 28:10; Neh 5:5; Jer 34:11, 16). In fact, very occasion of force exercised by

Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009], 134-35). For a more biblical theological use of the cultural mandate expressing, see B.
K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2007), 220-21.
31
For a recent biblical theological discussion of the Creation Mandate in Gen 1:26-28, see Andrew J.
Schmutzer, Be Fruitful and Multiply: A Crux of Thematic Repetition in Genesis 1-11 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
2009), esp. 89-158.
32
For a relational framing of Genesis, we will lean on the thoughtful work of T. E. Fretheim, God and
World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005).
7
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

ׁ‫ כב‬is ultimately commissioned or permitted by God.33 “Subdue” (ׁ‫ )כב‬functions on dual

horizons, universal and national. On the one hand is God’s authorization for accomplishing
earthly stewardship through a harnessing of its various resources. On the other is the anticipation
of Israel’s “subduing” of the nations in their Conquest (Josh 18:1). This is pre-Sinaitic language
written retrospectively with Israel’s national Conquest in view. Thus, the missional design of
historical creation is completed in the national occupation of the land, a removal of chaos and
extension of order.34
In the Creation Mandate, the power of blessing is heard in the direct discourse of God’s
first words to humankind. Here is felt the obligation of task, the privilege of royal assignment in
the sanctity of work, and all this is a gift reflective of the Giver. Aside from the progression of
domains culminating with the “earth” on Day Six (1:24-31), Gen 1:28 is framed by reference to
the “earth/ground” (‫)ארץ‬. For humankind, the realm of God’s Mandate remains distinctly earth-
bound. Genesis 1 represents a tri-partite cosmology (cf. Psa 8:7-8) with a distinct literary
contour:

Domain #3: Sky (Day 1 [vv. 1-3], Day 4 [vv. 14-19])

Domain #2: Water (Day 2 [vv. 6-8], Day 5 [vv. 20-23])
Domain #1: Earth (Day 3 [vv. 9-13], Day 6 [vv. 24-31])

To produce and care is to mimic the Creator. Significantly, we not only find all three domains in
Gen 1:28 (“sea, sky, earth”), but their very order is reversed relative to the creative process in
Genesis 1 (i.e., “sky, sea, earth”), emphasizing the solidarity of humankind with the earthly
domain and its creatures of Day Six.35

Celebration, Disruption, Restoration

Ultimately, the Creation Mandate is cosmic mission that requires a return of royal responsibility
from God’s vice-regents (cf. Psa 8:3-8).36 Here, divine law (i.e., instruction) sets boundaries for
community under obligation (cf. Gen 2:15-17; 9:3-4). Renewed law assures that moral order
reflects created order, thereby sustaining and extending God’s creative work. God was the
Master-Workman from the beginning (Exod 20:11; Psa 8:4). Likewise, humans truly participate
in God’s rule over creation in their creative-workmanship (cf. Exod 31:1-11).37
In the progressive movement of Scripture, work is expanded to include our wider
participation in the redemptive activities of the Kingdom of God.38 Key texts in the NT develop
this theology of the Mandate. The expanding Church in Acts draws on the language of
population explosion from Exodus: “And the word of God continued to increase, and the number

33
M. Wagner, “ׁ‫כ ַב‬,”
ָ TDOT 7:56.
34
A. Schmutzer, Be Fruitful, 156.
35
Judgment is evident when these three Mandate-domains of Gen 1:28 are reversed, as in Gen 7:23 (=
flood) and Hab 1:14 (= Babylonian destruction).
36
For language of the Mandate used elsewhere in the OT, cf. Gen 12:2; 17:2, 6, 8; 22:17-18; 26:3, 4, 24;
28:3-4; 35:11-12; 47:27; Exod 1:7; Lev 26:9; Psa 8:5-9; 107:38; Isa 51:2; Jer 3:16; 23:3; Ezek 36:10-11, 29-30.
37
A. Richardson, “Work,” in A Theological Word Book of the Bible (ed. A. Richardson; New York:
Macmillian Publishing, 1962), 287.
38
W. J. Dumbrell, “Creation, Covenant and Work,” in With Heart, Mind and Strength: The Best of Crux
1979-1989 (ed. D. M. Lewis; Langley: Credo, 1990), 167.
8
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

of disciples in Jerusalem multiplied greatly, and a large multitude of priests became obedient to
the faith” (6:7; cf. 12:24; 19:20). Luke’s theology harnessed the great multiplication in Egypt
(Exod 1:7) to articulate a new community in eschatological increase. Colossians 1:13 speaks of
the Colossians having been “delivered from the domain of darkness.” Emerging from the
theology of Genesis 1, Colossians in particular, develops themes of: the expansion of God’s
glory, a new creation inaugurated, ruling and subduing, sonship, image, and a royal dominion
(cf. Rom 8:17).39
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Seventh Day: “God rested from all his work” (2:2)
On the Seventh Day (2:1-3), “the heavens and the earth were completed” (2:1; cf. 1:1). While the
creation of humankind is the climactic work of God (1:26-29), the Sabbath rest is the climax of
God’s creative week (note “seventh,” 3x). For several reasons, this day is special: first because it
is called “holy” (2:3), sacred time, not the standard “good.” This day is also unique, because the
usual temporal frame is absent—there is no “evening and morning.” This sets up some crucial
implications for a theology of work. As William Dumbrell explains:

The rest on the seventh day into which God enters is given implicitly to humankind
(since the end of the day is not noted). Such rest cannot be achieved by toil or by trial;
indeed, humankind’s rest in Genesis 2 simply cannot be rest from work already
done…The Sabbath day provides the ongoing context in which the ideal life of the garden
takes place and is to be perpetuated. God’s own rest is the divine endorsement of
creation, and God’s willingness to enter into fellowship with humanity.40

God’s rest is more than one of completion, and certainly not exhaustion. This rest also
establishes ordering and worship as a cosmic ethic, a partnership with humankind that leans into
the eschatological future. Creation may be “finished” (2:1), “but that does not mean that God’s
work has come to an end.”41 In fact, so dynamic is this Sabbath movement, it culminates in the
Tabernacle construction (Exod 31:3-17), connecting “world-building” and “sanctuary-building.”
The literary parallels are many. For example, the Tabernacle is also announced on the Sabbath
by Moses and “filled” in six days, all under the active agency of the Spirit of God.42 Their
Sabbath functioned as a temporal shrine, a weekly place of rest with their God.43 Additionally,
Israel’s national Sabbath of cessation from work (Exod 20:8-11) “is grounded in the very
structure of creation as ordered and blessed by YHWH” (cf. Exod 16:27-30; 31:12-17).44 The
Sabbath rest restated in Deut 5:12-15 stands on a different warrant, namely, the exodus
emancipation from Pharaoh’s production quotas.45

39
For language of the Mandate used elsewhere in the NT, cf. Rom 8:22-23; 1 Cor 15:24-28; 2 Cor 5:17;
Phil 2:5-8; Col 1:15-20; Heb 2:5-9; Rev 21:1-5.
40
W. J. Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament (2nd edn; Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2002), 18; idem, The Search for Order, 22; emphasis added.
41
T. Fretheim, God and World, 64.
42
For this discussion, see M. Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New
York: Schocken, 1979), 11-13.
43
B. K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 68.
44
W. Brueggemann, “Sabbath,” in Reverberations, 180.
45
Ibid.
9
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

There are significant truths to be noted here, practically, theologically, and culturally:


The Seduction of Productivity
Acknowledging the Sabbath means the refusal to define one’s life by productivity.
“Sabbath provides a visible testimony that God is at the center of life—that human
production and consumption take place in a world ordered, blessed, and restrained by the
God of all creation.”46 Inclusive of all life, Sabbath rest also extends to the animals from


the very outset (Exod 20:8-11).
Acknowledging the Sabbath requires one to renounce autonomy and self-sufficiency. A
consumer economy that is committed to endless growth thrives on the delusion of
competence; people imagine that they are self-made and self-actualized, with no
reference point beyond themselves.47
 Acknowledging the Sabbath is to embrace the fragile dependence of human life on the
Creator, confessing his lordship. The modern lust for more technology and insurance is
not only dehumanizing, but fuels the illusion that life is increasingly under human
control. Biblically, humankind is exhorted to participate in Sabbath ordinance (Exod


31:17), anticipating the eternal, redemptive Sabbath rest (Heb 4:3-11).
“The best of human culture may be purified and incorporated in the new heavens and
new earth…Imagine how motivating it would be for creative artists to envision their own
works of art, architecture, literature, or music surviving in the eschaton.”48 Conversely
“those who find their security and significance in Mammon or professionalism find
community worship on the first day of the week a burden.”49
 Sabbath rest for believers “reflects our larger hope in the Lord for the sustenance of
creation and for the completion of redemption.”50 Through the work of the Holy Spirit,
the sanctification of the believing community leans into the eschaton of redemption. As
Clark H. Pinnock states:

The goal is world transformation. ‘See, I am making all things new’ (Rev 21:5).
Filled with the Spirit, the church is the agent of God’s coming kingdom and
sacrament for the world. God touches the world when the church speaks the truth,
proclaims good news, performs Jesus-actions, identifies with pain, builds
community, shares and forgives.51

 The impact of various socio-political ideologies (i.e., Marxism, capitalism) means that
work in society—and so much of the church—has been stripped from its theological
moorings. Contemporary culture has divorced faith from utilitarian work; rest time is
considered unproductive time. As Donald W. Griesinger explains this significance:
46
Ibid., 181.
47
Ibid.
48
D. W. Griesinger, “The Theology of Work and the Work of Christian Scholars,” CSR 39 (2010), 297;
emphasis original.
49
B. K. Waltke, Genesis, 72.
50
R. Wilson, Gospel Virtues: Practicing Faith, Hope and Love in Uncertain Times (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1998), 129.
51
C. H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996),
146.
10
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

Clinging to an inadequate theology of work, the church in the nineteenth century

was slow to adopt a theological perspective on social change that would relate to
the plight of [those] who became increasingly estranged and turned in rising
numbers to socialist philosophies that spoke more directly to their predicament
and pain.52

The Second Exposition:

Mandate Mission and Moral Responsibility (Gen 2:4-4:26)
In the second exposition the scene narrows to the garden-sanctuary. Here the theme of sacred
space complements sacred time (2:1-2). In this location, core bonds are established between
humankind and ground, human and animal, human and God, and man and woman. Through
topographical description (2:10-14) and divine instruction (2:15-17), the Mandate becomes
cosmic mission and mission is responsibility. The second exposition weds divine instruction
with human responsibility.53

The Relational Ecosystem

God’s vice-regents work within a relational ecosystem of dynamic proportion. With “no man to
work the ground” (2:5b), cultivation awaits the cultivator (see Excursus 2). In the theology of
Genesis, one’s place of origin determines character and purpose.54 So the “human” (Heb. ’adam)
is extracted from the “humus” (Heb. ’adamah, 2:7). With the earth as his point of reference, the
earthling is installed in a particular place “to work it and take care of it” (2:15). Adam cultivates
the fertility of the soil. Similarly, the woman is “taken out of the man” (2:22); hers will be a
fertility of the body—“for she was taken out of man” (2:23). The animals are also “formed out of
the ground” (2:19), they are “creatures that move along the ground” (1:25, 30). Humankind and
animals are created on the same day, from the same source, and share the same sweeping
blessing tied to the earthly domain of Day Six (animals themselves are not blessed), the realm of
humankind’s work.
The second exposition is a “close up” of the relational, covenant making “LORD God,”
who “forms” the man from the dust (2:7). God did not rest from creating by withdrawing from
creation or dominating it. Rather he genuinely “feels” a need in the man’s life (2:18). “He allows
himself to be affected, to be touched by each of his creatures. He adopts the community of
creation as his own milieu.”55 Given the image of God that defines the royal status of
humankind, the relational ecosystem clearly binds together God, humankind, animals, and the
very ground itself.56
Relationship precedes work. The relational ecosystem describes creation in force that
received an orienting vision: our partnership with God in the Creation Mandate works because

52
D. W. Griesinger, “The Theology of Work,” 293-94.
53
R. Hess, “Adam,” DOTP, 19.
54
J. D. Levenson, “Genesis: Introduction,” in The Jewish Study Bible: Torah, Nevi’im, Kethuvim (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 8.
55
J. Moltman, God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation (London: SCM Press, 1985), 279.
56
The rebellion of Gen 3:1-7 in some reality reverses core creational order: an animal (3:1) comes to the
woman (2:2-5) who, in turn, gives to the man (2:6). Following the divine interrogation (3:8-13)—and three
questions put to the man—the parties are finally judged in the order of their transgression (serpent [3:14-15], woman
[3:16], and man [3:17-19]).
11
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

God has interjected coherence, reliability, and graciousness into his world.57 God works
intimately within creation, and will do so all the more, at great cost to himself—working within
his creation—to restore it (cf. Phil 2:7-8).

The Nobility of Serving-Work

There is a universality and timeless nobility to the work inaugurated in Eden’s garden-sanctuary
that begins to flesh-out central aspects of the Creation Mandate prior to human rebellion (Gen
3:1-7). Human labor was to be an exercise of human dominion, assumed in the context of
creation’s development and renewal (cf. 8:22; 9:1-7).58 Work is not utilitarian; it is stunningly, a
serving of the ground. John Goldingay captures these important nuances:

God’s making the world was like a king’s planting a farm or park or orchard, into which
God put humanity to ‘serve’ the ground and to ‘serve’ and ‘look after’ the estate…Serve,
service/ servitude, servant are thus relational or social terms, pointing to the worker’s
relationship to the boss rather than to the activity of the work or the end result…By
implication all human beings are servants of God, and there is no suggestion that they are
designed to be under each other’s mastery. Explicit ‘service’ starts in the second story,
where humanity is created to ‘serve’ the ground (2:5, 15).59

The Creator is a partnering-God, “who involves the creatures themselves in further creational
developments (e.g., Gen 1:11-13, 20, 24).”60 God names nothing in Days 4-6, instead, turns this
enterprise over to the man to assess the animals’ nature and name them—“and whatever the man
called each living creature, that was its name” (2:19, 23).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excursus 2
Gen 2:15, “to develop it and guard it [AT]” (ּ‫ּל ָׁ ְמ ָר‬ ְ ּ‫)ל ָע ְב ָד‬
ְ
There is some interpretive difficulty surrounding this key phrase which has enormous
significance for a theology of work. Is worship in view (i.e., “to worship and obey”) or work (i.e.,
“to work it and take care of it”) or some combination.61 Interpreting the MT of 2:15 involves
both lexical issues as well as vocalization of the consonantal text. Lexically speaking, the
preterite of 2:15a (ּ‫וַ יַ נִ ֵחה‬, “and he placed”) is a semantic variant of the earlier ‫“( ִשים‬to put,” 2:8b),
but the former carries finer nuances in 2:15. The causative root of ‫ נוח‬in 2:15a means to “place

57
T. Fretheim, God and World, 282.
58
M. G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue (Hamilton: Meridith Kline, 1993), 69.
59
G. Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 3:642, 461.
60
T. Fretheim, God and World, 63.
61
Some of the primary proponents of reading this phrase as “worship/serve and obey” are U. Cassuto, A
Commentary on the Book of Genesis (vol 1; translated by I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1972), 1:22, followed by
J. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (abridged edition; K. L. Barker and J. R.
Kohlenberger III; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 7-8; similarly, J. H. Walton, “Eden, Garden of,” DOTP, 202-
207.
12
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

[somewhere], set, lay” (Hiphil B)62 and not, as some commentators claim, for “rest, safety,”
which is a different Hebrew form (Hiphil A).63
That Eden is viewed as a prototypical temple or garden-sanctuary is also a significant
theological theme in play here, since “keeping and guarding” are also used for the priests who
“serve” God in the temple and “guard” it from all unclean things.64 Grammatically, the two
infinitives construct (“to till it and keep it” [ּ‫ּל ָׁ ְמ ָר‬
ְ ּ‫)]ל ָע ְב ָד‬
ְ express purpose.65 While the verbs
for “serve” and “keep” do incorporate cultic activity—practically a template for tabernacle
service—the immediate context of this phrase in Genesis fleshes out humankind’s directive to
cultivate, irrigate, and develop the land (2:5, with ‫ת־ה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ָ ‫ל ֲעבֹד ֶא‬,ַ “to work the ground”) in the
precincts of the garden-sanctuary.
Even Mesopotamian kings bore the epithet nukaribbu (“gardener”), and ikkaru
(“farmer”).66 A relief from the palace of Ashurbanipal portrays a garden built atop a mountain
with irrigation channels crisscrossing its slopes.67 The parallels to the garden God “plants” (Gen
2:8) are illuminating. Thus, Gen 2:15 is a localized illustration of royal service (Gen 1:28) of
image-bearers (Gen 1:26) in the sacred space of the garden-sanctuary. These texts resonate
together theologically, for good reason (cf. 1:26-28; 2:5, 15).
The difficulty in Gen 2:15 comes with the apparent 3fs suffixes (ּ), since “garden” is
masculine. Dropping the Hebrew mappiq is not helpful here,68 nor is the reading of alternative
infinitives construct appropriate for active verbs that we have here.69 It is best to take “garden” as
the antecedent of the feminine suffixes, a case here of constructio ad sensum (= “according to
sense”), appropriate in this text since gender is fluid in place names.70 It is also possible that the

62
H. D. Preuss, “‫נּח‬,”
ַ TDOT 9:282, who renders Hiphil B as “lay, set down, leave” (cf. Gen 19:16; Josh
4:3, 8; 6:23; 1 Sam 6:18; 10:25; 1 Kgs 7:47; 8:9; 13:29, 31; 2 Kgs 23:18; 2 Chr 1:14; 9:25).
63
HALOT 2:279.B; H. D. Preuss, “‫נּח‬,”ַ TDOT 9:282.
64
G. K. Beale, “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation,” JETS 48 (2005), 7-8;
cf. Num 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1 Chr 23:32; Ezek 44:14. The LXX similarly reads: “to till it and keep guard,”
omitting the second pronoun. For further discussion of the LXX rendering, see T. A. van der Louw, Transformations
in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies (Biblical Exegesis and
Theology 47; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 124-27. For ANE background of the temple-garden, see J. H. Walton, “Eden,
Garden of,” DOTP, 202-207.
65
B. Arnold, Genesis (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 59. Two infinitives
construct introduced by a telic preposition (‫)ל‬
ְ is standard construction (B. Arnold and J. Choi, A Guide to Biblical
Hebrew Syntax [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003], §4.1.10d).
66
D. Callender, Jr., Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human (HSS
49; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 65, 207.
67
G. A. Anderson, “Eden,” NIDB 2:187.
68
Cf. GKC, §91e
69
That is, making ‫ ה‬an ending for an alternative form of infinitive construct rather than a 3fs suffix. The
problem is that the alternative construction essentially occurs with stative verbs (GKC, §45d; Joüon, §49d).
70
IBHS, §6.6.b
13
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

entire bound form, “Garden of Eden” (‫ן־ע ֶדן‬ ֵ ַ‫ )ג‬is in view,71 connecting the 3fs suffixes to “Eden”
(f.) rather than the head noun, “Garden” (m.).72
In sum, several points of evidence show that a caring and cultivating work of the
sanctuary-garden is indeed in view in 2:15. First, Hiphil B ‫“( נוח‬to bring, lay down, leave”) has
people as the object, actively deployed in 2:15 (cf. 19:16).73 Working humankind in 2:15
functions as the solution to the problem posed at the outset of 2:5, namely, “there was no human
being to work the ground.”74 These texts, Gen 2:5 and 2:15 are mutually informing. Second, the
infinitive ּ‫“( לעבד‬to work it”) with the “ground” as the inanimate object (cf. 1:26, 28; 2:5; 3:23)
is a construction that means to “work on, develop,” and “cultivate” the ground (typically with
‫ =[ אדמה‬cultivatable land] as the object).75 Third, the Hebrew infinitives form a transitive
construction: humankind is not merely placed in the garden-sanctuary to “worship” (i.e.,
intransitive) but to develop and guard it—the ground of the garden precincts (i.e. transitive). The
effects of human rebellion functionally fracture this sacred combination of developing and
guarding—as “God placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim…to guard (‫)ל ְׁמֹר‬ ִ
the way to the tree of life” (Gen 3:24). Fourthly, the history of scholarship reflected in the
76

modern English Bible translations never renders the phrase: “to worship and obey.”77 Genesis
2:15 describes a priestly service, using language that is sharpened in later Pentateuchal
instillation of the priests. Ultimately, 2:15 must be read alongside the Creation Mandate (1:28),
where endowment for reproduction is combined with a commission for governance (see Excursus
1).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Service, Instillation, and Divine Self-Limitation

As Claus Westermann observes well, “It can be said that every human occupation shares in some
way in this ‘tilling and keeping.’ The narrator, in using these two verbs, has given a basic

71
New philological data found in a bilingual Aramaic-Akkadian inscription from Tel Fekherye supports the
Hebrew root of “Eden” (‘edhen) to mean “making luxuriant [through water],” thus a “garden of fertile luxuriance”
(so LXX, Vulgate [“garden of fertile luxuriance”]; G. A. Anderson, “Eden,” NIDB 2:186).
72
IBHS, §6.4.1d, with other egs: 2 Kgs 2:16; Isa 27:2; Ezek 21:21; Hos 10:1; so K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-
11:26 (NAC; vol 1; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 1:209, n.96.
73
F. Stolz, “‫נוח‬,” TLOT 2:723.
74
The Hebrew phrase of 2:5, “there was no human [‫ ]אדם‬to work [‫ ]לעבד‬the ground [‫ ”]אדמה‬clearly
resonates with the terms in 2:15, “the human [‫]האדם‬, and placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it [ּ‫ ]לעבד‬and
guard it.” In other words, among key lexical repetitions in 2:5 is another example of the telic infinitive, “to work.”
75
H. Ringgren, “‫ע ַבד‬,”
ָ TDOT 10:382-83. Even a text as late as Sirach (ca. BC 180) does not view work
(within creation theology) negatively: “Do not hate hard labor or farm work, which was created by the Most High”
(Sir 7:15).
76
G. Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 70. A recent essay by Daniel I. Block also supports our
translation and theological-ethical discussion (“To Serve and To Keep: Toward a Biblical Understanding of
Humanity’s Responsibility in the Face of the Biodiversity Crisis,” in Keeping God’s Earth: The Global Environment
in Biblical Perspective, ed. N.J. Toly and D.I. Block; Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010), 116-140; esp. 129-132
77
In fact, no translation even supplies an alternative translation in a text note.
14
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

definition of human activity.”78 Drawing on the relational ecosystem of human stewardship, and

 Partnership in Agency: God included humankind in service that he could have done
the responsibility represented in Gen 2:15, several truths should be noted in summary.

himself, but chose instead to incorporate other agents for creation’s development. Clearly,
Gen 2:5, 15, and 3:23 “assume that the earth needs work; the earth was never designed to
be on “auto-pilot.”79
 Divine Self-Limitation: The theology of Genesis 2 is that of a Creator in intentional self-
limitation, sharing creative influence and responsibility with humankind as his vice-
regents—God does not create a static universe and our theology and ethics of work need
to reflect both the tension and honor of this reality.80
 Instillation and Positional Dignity: Humankind’s installation in Eden points to a
positional significance, combining location with work. This sacred site draws on the
function of image-bearing. So pivotal is the garden-sanctuary to the duty of humankind
that both the instillation and banishment of Adam are recorded twice (cf. 2:7, 15; 3:22-
24). Further, when Adam names the animals, he’s already “keeping and caring.” In rich
didactic theology, Adam’s work is construed around priestly description for a nation
summoned to be “a kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:6a). Canonically, it is significant to
observe that both Saul (1 Sam 15:5) and Elisha (1 Kgs 19:19) are plowing when they are
summoned to a new charge, tying royalty and labor to the offices of king and prophet (cf.

 Stewardship Requires Relational Equity: “Through marriage and family God enables
Acts 18:3; 2 Thess 3:10).

human beings to participate in his creative activity and redemptive purposes.”81 The
combination of Gen 1:28 with 2:15 highlight the family unit externally, and assume the
family unit, internally. It is no small matter that the need for a one-of-a-kind “helper” is
divinely observed (2:18) in the same context as the instillation of man to “work and care”
for the garden. “The man’s strength alone is insufficient for this task.”82 Similarly,
Stassen and Gushee comment:

The dominion/stewardship mandate (Gen 1:28) requires human beings to exercise

responsibility over the creation. This involves various forms of work, which, after
the fall became arduous and difficult (3:19)—yet work itself remains rooted in
God’s design for human life. Work reflects and advances human dignity as our
vocations become an outlet for creativity, self-development and even joy, an
avenue to contribute to the common good and as a means of providing for
ourselves, our families and those we can bless with our generosity.83

78
C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary (tran. by J. J. Scullion; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg,
1984), 221.
79
T. Fretheim, God and World, 316, n.112.
80
Ibid., 276.
81
G. H. Stassen and D. P. Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 275, following V. Guroian.
82
B. Arnold, Genesis, 60.
83
Ibid., 420-21.
15
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

Unresponsiveness and Toilsome Labor: The Broken Relational Ecosystem

The weight of Gen 1:26-28 with 2:15 is a programmatic connection and therefore, not abandoned
in “the fall.” In truth, “sin” is not even mentioned until Cain’s exile (4:13-14). Instead, it is
rebellion that shatters the relational ecosystem, shattering the harmony in the web of
relationships (e.g., God to human, man and woman, humankind with ground, humankind and
animals).
The compensatory judgments of 3:14-19 follow the order of transgression. Both
functional and relational,84 each judgment: (1) affects a personal concern of life, and (2)
regulates an external relationship. Thus a correspondence exists between the offense and
judgment, source of origin, and future orientation. These elements are closely paralleled in
Cain’s judgment (cf. 4:11-13). The woman (isha) was extracted from the man (ish) and will
pursue the function of fertility amid relational antagonism (3:16b). Similarly, extracted from the
ground (’adamah), the man (’adam) now pursues the soil’s fertility amid its antagonism.
Foundational relationships are fractured, but the Creation Mandate still stands. Fashioned from
the “ground,” the curse is an end-around on the “groundling” who must work the soil beyond
Eden with diminished productivity (cf. Deut 28:15f; Lev 26:14f). The narrator’s play on terms
(again) solidifies the human connection to the earth: he was created from it, his job is to cultivate
it, and at death he returns to it (3:19).85 His “painful toil” (3:17) working the ground repeats her
“pain” enduring birth (3:16a). Human rebellion has ecological effects—the entire relational
ecosystem now feels the consequences (Gen 4:12; 6:7; Deut 11:13-17; Rom 8:22). Not many
farm against “thorns and thistles”—the opposite of order and bounty—but all people know the
unresponsive work environment in the struggle and sweat to make a living.
God’s arrival “in the garden” (3:8), now concludes with their exile “from the garden”
(3:23). But as Terence Fretheim reminds us, “Gen 3:22-24 exhibits no change in the divine
commission of 2:15.”86 Walter Kaiser also speaks of the Mandate being “intact.”87 That said,
caring-work (2:15) has degenerated to “painful toil” (3:17; 5:29); horticulture has diminished to
exertion.

Anger is Cultivated and Disorder Grows (4:1-26)

Genesis 4:1-7:24 sketches the “undoing” of creation that started in Eden (3:23-24). What Adam
forfeits, Cain utterly rejects. Successive deaths (4:8, 23) culminate in the simultaneous death of
humankind (7:22). In defiance Cain builds an anti-city (4:17), highlighted by an anti-genealogy
whose beginning and end feature a brother-killer (= Cain, 4:8) and a child-killer (= Lamech,
4:18-24). What memorializes both Cain and Lamech is anger and vindictiveness, emotions that
tear creation apart. Sadly, the crown of creation is being slain, and the blood now “cries out” as
witness to its Creator from “the ground” (4:10). For such reasons, the very distinctions of
creation are slated for annihilation in the flood (6:1-22), following the sequence of creation itself
(7:21).

84
B. Arnold, Genesis, 71.
85
G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC; Waco: Word Books, 1987), 59.
86
Terence Fretheim, “Which Blessing Does Isaac Give Jacob?” in Jews, Christian, and the Theology of the
Hebrew Scriptures (ed. A. O. Belllis and J. S. Kaminsky; SBLSS 8; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 284.
87
Walter C. Kaiser et al, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 90.
16
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

Division of Labor, the “New Normal”

The principal commission to “work” and “develop” the earth (1:28) continues beyond Eden.
Cultivation consistently has “ground” in view: before (2:5), transitionally (3:17-19), and after
Eden’s residence (3:23). While Abel’s occupation is with sheep, Cain “cultivates the ground”
like his father (4:2, 4:12; cf. 3:23). Post-Eden, life’s realities clearly require a division of labor
and cooperation.88 In the ancient world, it was inconceivable that either form of labor—shepherd
or farmer—would harvest without thanking God. Utter dependence on God is necessary just to
survive, and survival requires collaboration with honesty. So to highlight Cain’s fratricide in the
face of familial responsibility, “brother” is used 7x in this story (4:2-11). However, the brother’s
“guardian” refused responsibility for the “keeper of sheep” (4:2b; cf. Lev 25:25, 47-49). Abel’s
blood spilt on “the ground” (4:10) and Cain’s farming “produce from the ground” (4:3) created a
moral breach with deep ecological ramifications. From “cursed is” (Adam, 3:17) to “cursed
from” (Cain, 4:11), the same ground will now be impervious to Cain’s work—the land can suffer
(Lev 18:28).89 So it is striking that Cain’s profession, crime, and punishment are all tied to the
“ground” (4:2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, etc.).
In Genesis 4:17-26, Cain’s Genealogy spans seven generations, concluding with the
children of Lamech who bring metallurgy, music, and sciences to manage a ruthless environment.
Similar to the genealogy through Seth (Genesis 5), the narrator deliberately compares two lines
that culminate with the 7th member—Lamech (4:18b-24) and Enoch (5:18b-24). Whereas the
murderous Lamech flaunts death (4:19-24), the virtuous Enoch avoids death (5:24). With the
former line, human culture advances devoid of God. With the latter, people begin “to worship the
LORD” (4:26).

 First, technological advancement can mask increasing self-assertion, what modern culture
In summary, several practical points should be observed.

has long known, especially since the industrial revolution. Humanity can get squeezed
out of “advancement.” A chief characteristic of rebellion is the tendency to idolize
humanity, a soul-less humanity. One way this can happen—whether in music or
metallurgy—is by making creativity an end in itself. Any gift must ultimately

 Second, the post-modern “shift to I” can mask its own relational toxin—the worship of
acknowledge the Giver.

individual freedom and autonomy. Apart from social ethics and “community for the
world,” work becomes merely self-referential.90 It can simply cost too much to be caring.
“Humans have created a world in which they gain by taking from others.”91 Cooperation

 Third, amid hubris, the believer must work “under the inspiration of the Sprit and in the
requires charisma-honesty.

light of the coming new creation,”92 this is our working-vision “till he comes.” Healthy
work is: (1) instrumental (i.e., cognizant of economic structures), (2) relational (i.e., with
the capacity to build community), and (3) eschatological (i.e., defined by social
reconciliation, prophetic vision, and servant-leadership).

88
B. Arnold, Genesis, 78.
89
For further discussion, see W. Brueggemann, The Land (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).
90
K. Barth, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation (vol. 4; ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F.
Torrance; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 762.
91
Ibid., 79.
92
M. Volf, Work in the Spirit (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 79.
17
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

Precisely what deteriorated so quickly after the fall is what marks the virtuous, healing, and
peace-making community of God’s people. This is our on-going kingdom work. With stunning
insight, Jesus claimed: “My Father is still working, and I also am working” (Jn 5:17).

Noah as a Second Adam:

The Earth is “Renewed” (5:1-11:31)
Genesis 8:1-10:32 is re-creation. Separations of sea and land are renewed (8:3, 7, 13). Blessing
renewed divine order (8:17) as God guarantees the march of seasons (8:22; cf. 1:14) and reissues
the Creation Mandate to a “second” Adam (9:1-7; cf. 1:28). Humankind multiplies under new
blessing (10:1-32) but is scattered again attempting to reproduce Eden’s cosmic mountain (11:1-
9).

The Grief of All: People, God, and Land

In contrast the murderous chant of Lamech (4:23-24), Lamech, the father of Noah speaks needed
shalom: “He [Noah] will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the
ground the LORD has cursed” (5:29). “Painful toil/labor” is a rare word for pain and occurred
with Eve (3:16), Adam (3:17), and now Noah (5:29). Pain has become the common experience
of all humans in this world and it is now matched by the anguish of a grieving God.93 Lamech’s
desired comfort must await God’s destruction of life from the “face of the ground” (7:4). Only
after the flood cleanses the “ground” (8:13) does God promise he “will never again curse the
ground” (8:21).
God remains relationally active in world-renewal, too. Far from being aloof, God is
caught up with his creatures, moving toward his purposes of renewal. Consider the following:94
 God involves humankind in caring responsibilities for creation (1:28; 2:15),
 God walks in the garden-sanctuary and dialogues with humankind (3:8-13),
 God gives counsel to help humans avoid their own destructive behavior (4:6-7),
 God regularly ameliorates judgment (3:21; 4:15, etc.),
 God suffers a broken heart (6:6),95
 God chooses Noah, instructs the building process, brings animals, and even closes
the ark’s door (6:8, 13, 14-16; 7:9, 16),
 God hangs his bow upside-down in the sky—that he “will see” (8:16)—in
covenant disarmament for “all living creatures of every kind” (8:15),
 God limits his divine options for addressing sin and violence (8:21-22).96

93
B. Arnold, Genesis, 91.
94
B. C. Birch, W. Brueggemann, T. E. Fretheim, and D. L. Petersen, A Theological Introduction to the Old
Testament (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999), 42.
95
“Sorry” (nahem, cf. 6:7b) continues the wordplay with “comfort” (naham) in 5:29. For God, “sorry” is
not for some moral transgression, but shows his redemptive solidarity with his creation. This is God’s “regret” and
“emotional pain over a past action”—human creation (6:7; cf. Exod 13:17; Judg 21:6, 15; 1 Sam 15:11, 35; Job
42:6; Jer 31:19). The same three words are repeated in two key texts (5:29; 6:6): “sorry,” “made,” “grieved,” uniting
these units. God’s “pained-heart” (‘asseb) counters humankind’s “wicked-heart” (‘asseb, cf. 6:5).
96
According to Wenhem, God is saying “I shall not curse the soil any further” (Genesis 1-15, 190). The
notion that the curse on the ground is somehow lifted after the flood is a popular misconception. Rather, God’s
statements show that he “is not lifting the curse on the ground pronounced in 3:17 for man’s disobedience, but
promising not to add to it” (ibid; emphasis added).
18
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

The Recalibration of the Creation Mandate

It is the Creation Mandate itself (Gen 9:1, 7) that in turn lays the foundation for the Cosmic
Covenant through Noah (9:8-17). Work will be hard indeed, but it is headed for a redemptive end
for all of creation. The biblical theology of God’s blessing reissued to Noah (9:1-7) portrays the
Creator in some degree of accommodation, recalibrating the original Mandate for a new era.
Key to the renewal of Mandate mission is the image of God that remains intact (Gen 9:6; Jam
3:9). Bernard Anderson explains:

Thus human beings are reminded in the strongest terms, precisely at the time when their
dominion over the nonhuman creation is extended, that their power is not absolute but is
subject to the judgment of God. Indeed, the Noachic covenant demands a reverence for
life, for every nepesh, animal or human, has value by virtue its relation to God.97

The moral tenor of life, with its fragile and contagious nature, now moves front and
center. The recalibrated Mandate to Noah must not only develop a reordered world, it must
sustain it. Not surprisingly then, Noah first speech post-flood is a work of moral re-ordering. By
cursing “Canaan” (9:25), the refurbished Mandate shows the vital stewardship of criminalizing
“violence” (6:13) that so easily pollutes the relational ecosystem.

Work is Always Prone to Grandiosity

All enterprise must have a redemptive orientation. The story of the “unfinished tower” continues
the themes of language and solidarity from the Table of Nations (Genesis 10). The builders’
desire for autonomy recalls Eden’s debacle (Genesis 3), and established the redemptive need for
Abram amid international disorder. The “name-builders” (11:4) will be upstaged by the “great
name” God gives to Abram (12:2). Their fear of being “scattered” (11:4) reveals the titanic
ambition of the flood survivors who devise a tower as a rallying point. But not since Cain, who
was condemned as a “fugitive” (4:12, 14), wandered “eastward” (4:16), “built” and “named a
city” after his son (4:17), and flaunted technology (4:19-24), has such reckless ego been
illustrated.

 The Church’s mission is exhausting and costly, exceeding her strength and insight. But
Several practical points can be observed:

the Spirit enables God’s people to “build” in unearthly and vision for “God’s mission of
mending creation and making all things new.”98
 Claiming that this world will only “burn up in apocalyptic destruction” needs to be laid
aside for a less compartmentalized and materialist theology. A deeper understanding of
life’s “relational bindings” and continuity sees a world in eschatological transformation.
“Walking humbly with [our] God” (Mic 6:8) should be of greater concern, regardless of

 Redemptive work is both preservative and preventative. Every sin is an injustice, a

our vocation.

refusal to seek the good of our neighbor, the good of community: working for justice
remains crucial for social existence (Lev 25:35-36). “We cannot be fully ourselves except

97
B. W. Anderson, From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives (OBT; Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 1994), 163.
98
C. Pinnock, Flame of Love, 142.
19
Andrew J. Schmutzer ~ Theology of Work Project, Inc., © 2010

through just relations with others—all others.”99 In an era of increased sex-trafficking

and oil spills, human and non-human violence, where does the latest technology really


put us? For all our resources to help, we may be guilty as never before.
Nothing in our society is taught more effectively than the “doctrine of the market,” from
which God is excluded, but God is actually an economist! When the Creator built rest,
Sabbath, and the Jubilee-principle into life, he rescues us from our dangerous dispositions
and intervenes into earthly economies to save life, yet again.100
 Every servant of God is called to faithfulness, wherever God has “planted” them,
enamored by his heart, pursuing what the Father is doing—“to do the will of him who
sent me and to complete his work” (Jn 4:34).

99
R. C. Wood, The Gospel According to Tolkien: Visions of the Kingdom in Middle Earth (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 2003), 88-89.
100
J. Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 3:438.
20