Bible Talk | Hortensius Mandaru, SSL

The global environmental crisis has become one of the major issues facing humanity in this century. Global warming, deforestation, pollution, loss of biodiversity, and various forms of ecological damage raise fundamental questions about human relations with nature. In this context, religion and scripture have not escaped the spotlight. One of the most common criticisms is that the Christian tradition, particularly through its reading of Genesis 1:28, has given theological legitimacy to human domination and exploitation of nature. This criticism has become stronger since the publication of Lynn White Jr.'s The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis (1967), which alleges that the Christian worldview contributed to the birth of the modern ecological crisis.

The question is, is the command to "subdue the earth" and "rule over" other creations really a divine mandate to exploit nature? Or is there an error in interpretation that makes the Bible appear to endorse environmentally destructive practices?

 

Ecological Crisis and Challenges of the Anthropocene

The attention to environmental issues cannot be separated from the major changes that have occurred since the industrial revolution. Ecologists speak of a shift from the Holocene to the Anthropocene, a time when human activity has become the dominant factor affecting the Earth system. Humans are no longer seen as just one biological organism, but have become a geological force that determines the survival of other species and the balance of ecosystems. In this situation, ecology developed into an interdisciplinary field of study, influencing ethics, politics, philosophy, biblical studies, and even translation theory.

 

The growing realisation today is that the earth is a common home for all living beings. Therefore, the question of the role of the Bible becomes very important. If the Bible is indeed understood as a source of values and ethics for millions of believers, then the way its texts are interpreted will have a direct influence on the way humans treat nature.

 

Acts 1:28 and the Accusation against the Bible

The text most often at the centre of debate is Genesis 1:28, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill and subdue the earth, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” This verse is often read anthropocentrically. Since humans are created in the image and likeness of God (Imago Dei), humans are considered to have the absolute right to control, utilise, and even exploit nature for their own benefit. From the point of view of critics, this verse becomes the theological basis for the exploitation of natural resources, unrestricted industrialisation, and the instrumental use of other living beings for human needs.  

However, the main problem lies not in the text itself, but in the way the text is interpreted. Therefore, the debate on the relationship between the Bible and ecology is really a hermeneutical debate on how biblical texts are read and interpreted in the context of today's environmental crisis.

 

Three Hermeneutical Approaches to Ecological Texts

1. Apologetic Reading: Recovering the Original Meaning of the Text

The first approach stems from the belief that the Bible is inerrant. What is wrong is man's interpretation of it. Therefore, the task of the interpreter is to restore the original meaning of the text that has been distorted by an overly anthropocentric reading. This approach asserts that humans have dominion over nature as God does, by giving life, blessing, ordering and maintaining creation. As such, human power is representative, not absolute. Man acts as God's representative to bring about His reign on earth.

This approach also connects Genesis 1:28 with Genesis 2:15, which affirms that humans were placed in the garden of Eden to "work it and keep it." In addition, other texts such as Psalm 95, Psalm 104, Romans 8, and Colossians 1 show that all of creation has value before God and is involved in His work of salvation.  

2. Critical-Liberal Readings: Critiquing Texts with Eco-Ethical Principles

The second approach takes a more critical position. According to this group, the problem lies not only in interpretation, but also in the text itself, which is a product of ancient culture, composite, selective, and born from certain elite groups. Therefore, texts that are considered anti-ecological need to be criticised, even rejected if they contradict the principles of modern eco-ethics.

This approach utilises a number of eco-ethical principles, namely: (1) intrinsic value, that all of creation has value in itself; (2) interdependence, that all living things are interconnected in a community of life; (3) voice, that the earth also has the right to "speak out" and fight against injustice; (4) purpose, that every element of creation has a role to play in the cosmic order; (5) nurturing, that relationships between creatures should be one of partnership, not domination; and (6) resistance, that nature can respond to human actions that undermine its balance.

Based on these principles, texts that support ecological concerns are read positively, while texts that are considered anti-ecological are criticised or rejected. Generally, this approach is done through three steps: suspecting antiecological bias in the text, identifying with non-human creation, and exploring the ecological message that can still be found in the text. Even texts that have been considered environmentally friendly are still viewed critically because they are considered to potentially contain anthropocentric tendencies.

3. Reconstructing Meaning: The Hermeneutical Middle Way

The third approach attempts to take a middle ground between apologetics and modern-liberal criticism. It respects the authority of the Bible, but recognises the historical limitations of ancient texts. Therefore, texts are read contextually and dialogically with modern developments in science and environmental ethics. Problematic texts are not denied or discarded, but rather retained as "hermeneutical irritants" that continue to remind readers of the need for critical reflection and ecological repentance.

Creation Goodness as the Basis of Biblical Ecotheology

One of the most important insights of the creation story is the repetition of the phrase “Allah saw that it was good.” That judgement was given even before humans were created. Land, oceans, plants, and other living things have been declared good in themselves before they have any use value for humans. Thus, the Bible recognises the intrinsic value of the entire creation. Value precedes function. Creation is valuable not because it is useful to human beings, but because it was created and judged good by God.

Furthermore, the culmination of the creation story is not just when human beings are created, but when the whole of creation exists in such harmonious interconnectedness that God declares it all “very good.” The perfection of creation is found in relationship and balance, not in the domination of one being over another. Within this initial picture there is even a fair distribution of food for all living beings, so that social justice and ecological justice appear as two inseparable aspects.

Reinterpreting “Conquer the Earth”

In Hortensius' explanation, the word kabash (conquer) does not imply destruction. In the context of the Old Testament, the term often relates to the management of land in order to make it habitable and produce life. Since the command comes along with the mandate to "fill the earth", it does not make sense for God to command man to destroy his own dwelling place. Therefore, the word is more appropriately understood in an agrarian framework: humans cultivate the earth so that it is able to sustain life in a sustainable manner.

Similarly, the word radah (rule) should be understood through the model of God's power or the model of ideal kings in the ancient world. Power does not mean exploitation, but protection, nurturing, and devotion to the welfare of the led. In this framework, humans are called to be stewards of creation, not arbitrary rulers.  

Humanity as Part of a Community of Creation

The narrative of Genesis 2 provides a very important perspective on human identity. Adam came from adamah (earth). This etymological connection confirms that man is a creature of the earth. Man is not an entity that stands above creation, but part of it. He comes from the earth, lives from the earth, and will return to the earth. Therefore, destroying the earth means destroying the origin and basis of human existence itself.

Furthermore, humans and other living creatures both receive the breath of life from God. In Genesis 2:7, man became a living being because God breathed nismat khayyim (breath of life) into him. However, this element is not a feature that distinguishes man absolutely from the rest of creation. Genesis 7:22 shows that other living creatures also have the same breath of life. Therefore, the breath of life cannot be understood as a basis for man's superiority over other creatures, but rather as a sign that all life is dependent on God as the source of life.

In addition, the term nefesh khayyah (living creature) used for man in Genesis 2:7 is also used to refer to various other creatures in the Old Testament (e.g. Genesis 9:10, Leviticus 11:10). The use of the same term indicates that humans and other creatures share a similar status as fellow living beings before God. As such, Genesis 2 does not emphasise a sharp ontological distinction between humans and the rest of creation, but rather affirms that all came from the same soil and equally received life from God.

.

Biblical Insights Against Ecocide

From the whole reflection, Hortensius formulated five main biblical insights against ecocide. First, every creation has intrinsic value as God's creation. Second, the whole creation is interconnected and mutually sustaining in a community of life. Fourth, all creation is called to witness and praise the greatness of God. Fifth, God's redemptive and saving work through Christ, is not only for the salvation of human beings, but for the well-being of all God's creation. Thus, the Bible does not endorse ecocide, but rather provides a strong theological foundation to reject it.

Eco-Theological Implications for Today's Church

If all of creation is part of the community that God loves, then Christian ethics cannot be limited to human relations. The law of love needs to be extended to cosmic solidarity that includes the whole of creation. The church is called to develop ecological conversion, which is the courage to abandon consumptive, hedonistic and exploitative lifestyles in favour of a lifestyle that is sufficient, simple and sustainable.

In addition, the church needs to dialogue with science and other disciplines in finding concrete solutions to the environmental crisis. The Bible does not provide a technical blueprint to address global warming or environmental degradation, but it does provide theological insights that shape the moral and spiritual orientation of the people. Therefore, the Christian community is called to engage more in concrete actions for the well-being of creation rather than getting bogged down in doctrinaire-sectarian debates that do not result in social or ecological transformation.

 

Closing

The accusation that the Bible is often a source of legitimisation for ecological destruction ultimately leads to a different conclusion. A careful reading shows that the mandate in Genesis is not a licence to exploit the earth, but rather a call to manage, nurture and bring about the life-giving reign of God. Human beings are not placed as the absolute centre of creation, but rather as part of a cosmic community living in relationship with God, fellow human beings and the rest of the universe. In this light, the Bible is best read not as a book that legitimises ecocide, but as one that directs people to ecological responsibility, cosmic solidarity, and the care of creation as an integral part of the Christian faith.