The Relationship Between Man and Creation in the Bible

7/27/2019 The Relationship Between Man and Creation in the Bible

1/9

ESSAY 9The Relationship Between Man

and Creation in the BibleJacques Ellul

I shall begin by briefly reviewing traditional interpretations of theplace of man in creation, or more exactly his relationship to thiscreation. Everyone agrees in recognizing his pre-eminence. He is thelast to be created, the top of the ascending march of the successivecreations. Man is the one whom God claims to have made in hisimage. Furthermore, it is on account of ma n that God declares thateverything he has made is very good. MOll has the power to order, toguard, to command, to cultivate. He names the animals who pass infront of him. It is surely unnecessary to recall the importance ofnames in Scripture; the name designates the spiritual being or thesecret of a person. To give a name is to attribute a certain truth, aspecific reality, to the one to whom this name is given. It assures, aswell, one's power over that person, since to know someone' s name isto have a radical power over him. The fact of giving names is theproof, the witness, that man has power over the animals. Could wenot then ask why there has to be this culminating being and thisauthority within creation? Why is there man?While I will not enter into the immense theological debate on thissubject, it seems to me that, taking the Bible as a whole, one cannote two very simple comses for reflection. Firs t of all, if God is theGod of love or, more precisely, is Love (which is true of the God ofthe Old as well as of the New Testament, and which always appearsin the fact that he is God of the Word, the Word which implies aprivileged rela.tionship with one who can hear this word), then Iwould say that within creation there must be not only an object forthis love, bu t also someone who responds to it. God loves creation,but it is inevitable that within creation there must be that whichresponds directly and explicitly to such love-something which.is notan object, bu t which, acting as a subject, is capable of lovingexplicitly, that is to say, knowing he is loved.


2/9

140 141HEOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY

Therefore, there must be this element of creation, belonging tocreation, entirely part of its a k e ~ u p , which is, however, capable ofthe autonomy necessary to love God, to respond to the love of God, toestablish this fleeting and wonderful relationship with God. TheGod of Love could no t be cont.ent with an object that allowed itself tobe loved as an object. Let us say then that man is the consciousnesscapable of loving in and for creation.The second element we must consider is that God, as creator, isfree. The two things go together. Because he is free, God cannot besatisfied with a creation that would be a kind of machine, a playthi ngset on rails, that would simply function correctly. The clockmakerGod cannot be the creator. Free himself, he could only desire acreation which equally included freedom. There must be a freedomwithin creation. It is most unsatisfactory to have a free God outsidecreation and a mechanical creation. Yet, freedom implies precisely agame, a risk, a latitUde that is not part of the "material world"where everything is played out according to '(chance and necessity. ' ,Consequently, God pu t into his creation the free agent who can

disturb the order of creation, who can establish bad or unforeseenrelationships with him, bu t who is alone cap able of love because he isfree.It seems that we have thus recalled the two' motivations" in thecreation of man-taking into account, of course, the fact that thesemotivations are not imperatives, that it is not. a question of eithercauses or determinations for the will of God.Under such conditions man is not at all the master of creation. Wearrive then at the w e l l ~ k n o w n formulations: On the one hand, manrepresents creation before God (bringing the love, the praise, theadoration of creation). On the other hand, he represents God withincreation-he belongs to this creation, bu t he carries to it a presenceof God. It is often said, therefore, that he is the steward or manager 1

of creatio n for God. He is God's Lieu-tenant ( p l a c e ~ t a k e r ) in creation.V i c e ~ D o m i n u 6 , as it were. He represents God. He cannot managethis creation on behalf of himself, in his own interests, according tohis own perspectives.

From the idea (debatable) of the Omnipotence of God, it hassometimes been concluded that man on earth is also omnipotent. I tseems to me that here we must accept two limitations. First, there isthe fact that the power of man is clearly checked by that of God. As aresult, he is not really master. Secondly, i f man represents God, itmeans that he exercises his dominion over creation exactly as Godexercises his. If creation is rooted in love and freedom, then it is notjust a delegation ofpower that he receives, but it is also a delegationof means. In other words, if God guides his creation in love, by love,

f Jacques Ellultoward love, then man must do the same (and it is this which isserious in the taking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and notsome disobedience to an arbitrary orderl). Man should not managethis creation for power and domination, bu t as the representative ofthe love of God. This truth is also indicated in the episode of thegiving of names to the animals; we are not told that he rules them byputting collars or chains on them and reducing them to his servitude,bu t by baptising them. In effect, then, they are objects of a love.

Having looked at these banal and elementary givens, we mustmove on. For some time now, many theologians actually haveinvoked the first chapter of Genesis, where God says, "Behold, rhave given you every plant . .. " (Genesis 1: 2a), and especiallyPsalm 8 (which amazingly has become one of the theologicalcornerstones of this age) to affirm that man is called to thedomination of everything. "[T]hou ... dost crown him with gloryand honor . . . . Thou hast put all things under his feet . . . !I (Psalm 8:5 ~ 6 ) . On these two verses has been established a whole theology ofTechnique and 9. justification for the absolute domination of manover creation. It is interesting to note that this method, adopted inthis instance by advanced spirits, by the theologians of the left, isnothing bu t the worst literalism and fundamentalism! From what wehave already noted, undoubtedly ma n is placed by God in the p o s i ~ tion ofhaving the power to do everything. Everything, yes - butjus tanything? The two are quite different. It is clear that the Psalm, apsalm of praise to God, does not imply tha.t man can turn creationagainst God, for example, that he can attempt to sever creation fromGod, or that he can (as in the parable of the vine dressers) throw Godout and se t himself tip as master. The very point of the Psalm clearlysubordinates this marvelous man to th e Lord, an d hi s role is tobe only a servant of th e Lord ill the domination of creation. Is itpossible then to draw from these two verses a whole theology inwhich creation would not have been finished, bu t would only havebeen a creation of potentialities and possibilities? A theology inwhich man would. have been charged with drawing out thesepossibilities and unfolding these potentialities? God's creation wouldhave been in limbo, with man being the one who brings it out.Creation was only potential, and it is man who uses thosepotentialities contained in it. Creation was only o u g h ~ c a s t , and it isman who brings it to fulfillment. In other words, in such variousformulas (which are spun out in all the contemporary essays on therole of man in the world) we always come back to the idea that man isinvested with a demiurgic function- that he is a. s e m i ~ c r e a t o r ,


3/9

142 THEOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY Jacques Ellul 143

partidpating in exeation- pursuing and carrying creation to itsperfection. And the image of God is one of creative capacity.This belief can also rest on the theological idea that God, beingvery good, has shared his function with man and that he madecreation so that man could have a specific work to do. Unfortunately,this theology is not corroborated by any text. The general idea is veryclear. There is a certain function give to ma n (Genesis 2), to till andguard Eden. Yet, to cultivate in the agricultural sense is no t to createbu t to conserve creation in its own fertility. We must no t forget, aswell, that at the six stages of creation, God saw what he had made,and five times we are told that he saw that it was good. It is God whohas made-it is not some collection of potentialities which werecreated. This is no t a chrysalis, bu t a fulfilled or realized work.Creation is perfectly finished when ma n appears there is no need totransform it, to remodel it, to extend it according to its own power.In reality, such a theology, which has no textual support, does notstrictly explain the extent to which it is an ideological system whicharrives at a justification for the technological enterprise of modemman. Once more there is Ii theology of self-justification, solelycircumstantial, solely bound to the fact that ma n has becometechnical in this century and upsets creation thanks to Technique.Assuredly, he does draw from creation the powers that were hiddenthere, as he comes to know the mysteries which to him were obscure.(And yet, do we know for whom in creation they were obscure?)Nevertheless, is it his role to us e all that is usable? Is it his role toenslave creation (where there is, as al l knowledge confirms, animmense, perhaps the greatest, generosity) to efficiency, to power,and to utiUty? This is the question that theologians of this persuasiontotally ignore, wanting only to exalt what man has seen, discovered,an d effected thanks to creation. Yet he ha s no t discovered anddiscerned fot pleasure, for joy, for admiration (the very thingindicated in Psalm 8, when one does not dissociate two verses fromthe rest), and for the glory of God; bu t instead for utility, forenslavement, for subjugation, for building up an illusion of power.This is the whole problem, and it indicates the radical worthlessness of these theologies.This does not mean that only the intention is bad while the workingout is good! We see clearly the i.nJ:mense difference between theknowledge of the world in light of the glorification of God whichappears in the Old Testament, and the knowledge of the world in lightof its utilization and exploitation as this ha s taken place since the16th century. The modem project has been different; therefore, thevery reality of its working ou t in methods and forms of knowledgehas been different. We cannot glorify God through the splitting ofthe atom, nor through the manufacture of new chemjcal products,

etc. Our experience could not have been other than what we made it .The exploration of the world in the 15th century, for example,directed by the will to power an d exploitation, could not haveproduced any result other than the one that has been lived(colonialism). That is to say, it could no t have been directed towardthe peaceful admiration of creation and the adoration of the creator.This was not a live option.It is necessary for there to have been a disruption between thesituation in which ma n was in creation, the very love an d freedom ofGod, and the situation in which ma n acts as master and lord withoutlimit over his creation. There has been a break between God and

man. I know full well that some will object that I am falling back intothe most traditional of theologies (creation/fall etc.), bu t I must saythat before we abandon it, first of all we must find a valid critiqueand a better explanation. For fifteen years now I have been readingthe "New Theologies," and I have not found lilly decisive critiquenor, in exegesis, any new explanation of the first chapters of Genesisthat is able to exhibit the economy of the traditional schema. This isnot obstinancy or cultural conditioning but, shall we say, a certaindemand for clarity an d quality. Besides, it seems that the idea of abreak is inevitable. I f God is Love (and the God of Jesus Christ isLove and, starling from there, we learn that the God of Abraham,Isaac, and Jacob is himself also Love), it is evident that the world aswe see it and man as we know him are no t what God willed andcreated. This is the insoluble problem that so many theologians, no taccepting the "fall," have claimed to resolve, for example, byimagining two Gods, the one who is th e creator of an imperfect andevil world, the other, who is Jesus Christ. Others explain that Goddid no t foresee the developments of his own creation, or that Godcreated evil at the same time as everything else (which then was notgood). Or, finally, they reduce the problem to a simplistic formula;either God is all-powerful (and could do away with evil) and then isnot good, or he is good bu t then he is no t a l l ~ p o w e r f u l . On e can go onlisting the welter of responses, all of which originate in the salewish to prove that ma n is not responsible for the situation, that he isnot bad, that there is no "original" sin.For my part, I do no t return to the theory of original sin, which isnot indispensable, bu t rather to the disruption which has beenestablished between mlill and God. Now, in the presence of thisdisruption, willed by man, the attitude of God described in Genesis isalways the same; God simultaneously accepts the situation willed byman and takes steps so that it will remain livable and lead to the leastevil. 2 Henceforth there will be not so much the stated consequences


4/9


5/9

147146 THEOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY

man seems to become the sum of what he possesses. Property hasbecome a part of man himself. He does not know how to exist withoutit. He demands to be recognized in it and by it because in fact hedoes not exist at all without the environment and without mastery ofthis environment.From that time on, taking the situation as it is, God i n t r o d u c e ~ theproblematic of love-that is to say, since man takes possession ofthings, since he cannot live without property, to love the neighbor isto respect his property. This is not a sanctification of property, anymore than there is a legitimation of adultery by Jesus when heprevents the stoning of the adulterous woman. Jesus does not denythe necessary order of this social group which reproves adultery, bu the recalls once again that the Sabbath was made for man, not manfor the Sabbath. Faced with a woman in danger of death, life is moreimportant than the social order, and from that. without negating thelaw, he shows that it should be interpreted in man's favor and notagainst him. And so with property: it has become necessary for man,so that it must be respected by love for man. One must not steal, notbecause stealing is.in itself bad or an act against God, bu t because itis an act contrary to the love of one's neighbor.

Perhaps there is more. A social group gives itself a certain order,and God seems to love man also in his will to organize himself (whichis necessary for surviv.al) , so that he accepts this property as themeans by which the group maintains itself. Nevertheless, there isnot in this any heavenly ordained institution. Evidently, property willnot exist in the heavenly Jerusalem, the NewCreation. The Sannonon the Mount implies the abandonment of property and its juridicalorganization. But this teaching is true only for those who enter intothe full and entire faith of Jesus. This is the limit of property, and itis impossible to draw out from the Bible any absolute rule concerningits establishment by God. Thus, the exploitation of the world and thedisorder inflicted on the natural equilibrium cannot strictly be basedon a s o ~ c a l l e d absolute property given to ma n by God.

I f the only consideration that can legitimize the human institutionof property is the love established by God, then at the same time,this love marks its limit. This love canno t be only directed toward theowner whom one ought to respect. It is also the love of the owneftoward the non-owner and toward the things themselves. I f propertyis indispensable for man to survive, then the greatest love should goto the person for whom, having no property, survival is doubtful.Thus, the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" basically implies asits ex act counterpaxt "Thou shall give to the poor" or better ' Thoushall share with the poor." It is not a question of good workS, Ii kind

Jacques Ellul

heart, etc., because i f what has been given to you has come fromGod with love then it is obvious that through love, and sO that theother ma y live, you owe it to him.This, however, is not the point I wish to insist on here. The otheraspect is less often emphasized. This love that God shows inaccepting the f\ppropriation of things is itself the limit on the use ofthose things. Man cannot ac t strictly as the absolute owner, bu t mustshow the same love to the world created by God. We have numerouswitnesses to this truth in the Old Testament. The two most importantconcern the animals. The Sabbath is instituted also fOf the animals(Exodus 23:12)-an animal cannot be exploited to the extreme limitof its power, it cannot be exhausted or forced to produce until it dies.The Sabbath is the sign that it enters into the same rest as its Lord,that it is loved by it s Lord. The animal can be of service to man. Thusit is handed over to man for human survival, bu t just the same, to killan animal remains, at the extreme, murder. From this belief comesall the Mosaic legislation about blood . . ., which is not a foolishcustom or cultural belief; bu t again it is the limit (which could takeanother form) that God. sets on the excess of man. The legislationabout the blood of animals is not primarily the belief that the soul orthe life of the animal is in its blood and that one should not ea t thesaul, etc. All that is the superficial aspect. The heart of the problemis that God sets a limit on what man can do with respect to theanimals. Man has .become a butcher-so be it; he has introducedterror-so be it; but all the same, he cannot do anything andeverything. At some point, he must reach an absolute, radicallinritwhich forces him to accept that the animal and its life are God's, thatGod loves it, that God is also its Father. Man, then, should simplyobey this rule set by God as a way of recognizing that his right toproperty is not absolute and unlimited, and also that its use is only apermission from God.What has been said on the subject of life holds true as well forwork. Man does not have the right to exploit al l the forces of ananimal. They are due a fundamental respect, which we should applyin a contemporary manner, not to work (because we hardly makeanimals work anymore) but, for example. to the new methods offorce-feeding and fattening which are ignoble ways of treatinganimals. It is already difficult enough to accept the slaughter, bu tduring the life of calves, pigs, chickens, to raise them in a tortuousfashion, to create "economic" bu t unnatural conditions for them, isas criminal as the concentration camp. This Sabbath was made forma n and also for animals, and God recalls at the end of the book ofJonah that, if he spares Nineveh, it is because of his love for man andfor the animals that live there. This is not sentimentality, this is not

i


6/9

148 THEOLOGY AND TECH;NOLOGY

poetry; it is the order of God. The limit se t is always a limit 80 thatthe di sorder will be at least viable. It is not the fact that man can killanimals which is the order of God, so much as it is the limit God setson this human undertaking which is the expression of the love ofGod, a love which, at the same time, allows the whole structure tosurvive. To transgress this limit is death. Besides, we have no rightto say that' animals have no souls. "We have no right to think that animals are nothing other than meator an economic utility; this is the Bame reasoning that authorized theconcentration camp-a Je w is not a man. On the contrary, what wehave to understand is that animals are loved by God (whether or notthey have souls is of no importan ce/I, and we deny this love when weclaim an absolute mastery over animals. We are in the presence of anabusive use of property. I say very strongly that the new systems ofbreeding, with the use of synthetic chemicals to accelerate growth,are clear sins, aggravating the disorder of the world beyond thelimits acceptable to God.

The same holds true for the rest of the natural order. There aswell we find a very clear decision by God to se t a limit regardingtrees: "When you besiege a city, for a long time, ... you shall notdestroy its trees .. . ; for you may eat of them, bu t you shall not cu tthem down . . . Only the trees which you know are not trees for foodyou may . . . cu t down to build siegeworks against the city that makeswar with you, until it falls" (Deuteronomy 20:19-20). Here again weare in the presence of this limit to utility. To use nature precisely andexactly for what is indispensable is allowed, bu t there is no rightto exceed. the absolutely necessary. The tree must be left. Of course,it is possible to say here again that this is purely a cultural measure;that is to say, in a country where trees are rare, people should takecare of them. We should note, however, that if man had acceptedthis limit, we would not now find ourselves in an ecological crisis andfacing a fundamental threat. Once more we have the limit and therefusal to abuse, and that is why I do not construe this text as simply

utilitarian and confined to the wars of Israel. Rather, it is globaUysignificant, and it is effectively the Word of God for his cre ation.This teaching' is confirmed in a decisive way by the sabbatical year(Leviticus 25).5 The passage begins with, "When you come into theland which I give you, the land shall keep a Sabbath to the Lord"(Leviticus 25:2). The first thing to be determined is this: I give theland, bu t now that you are the owner, I affirm that his land has aright to its rest. In other words, your ownership is completelylimited. The land enters first into the rest of the Eternal before beingat the service of man I What follows rigorously confir ms this supremacy of God, to the profit of his creation. In effect, the order says

\

JacquesEllul 149

\11 that man can use the land for six years, and the seventh year willbe dedicated to a period of rest for the land. Ma n will have no right toanything except what the land produces naturally Without working itor making it work. To make this a simple agricultural law is foolishpositivism. It is a mistake to believe that this is the best technicalpractice which the ,Tews subsequently consecrated by putting it inthe mouth of God. This is absolu tely not the meaning. In reality thereis much more to it. This is a declaration of a kind of border beyondwhich man is not the master. God accepts and tolerates man'sexploitation of a destroyed and broken creation, which is no longerwhat it was when it left the hands of the creator, bu t there must be alimit, a limit OF FREEDOM. The Sabbatical year is not anagricultural tradition, bu t the affirmation of a freedom for God inwhich nature should be freed from the bondage of man, so thatnature may also know the freedom of God- so that at last naturemight exist for the glory of God. This glory is not .expressed at allwhen nature is tortured, exhausted, squeezed dry, and ravaged byman. The peace of creation, the limits given to man so that naturecan be itself, the limits imposed on man, are essential if there is toremain anything alive. In fact, the same text goes on to say veryclearly that i f you respect these laws (the sabbatical year and thejubilee year), then you will dwell in the land and be secure. Humansecurity is here linked very closely with respect for the world inwhich man finds himself.At this time it did not appear that such security was in the order ofa "natural" mechanism; it was not evident that giving rest to naturewas a condition for man's security. In order for such rest to occur,God had to take upon himself the protection of his creation againstthe perennial possibility of devastat ion, and he also ha d to take uponhimself the relationship between a rest for Nature and humansecurity. Protection was possible only by being situated within thecovenant, within a relationship of faith and hope-the covenantwhich the same text contains in its conclusion: "I f you are worriedabout what you will ea t in the seventh year, I will grant you myblessing in the sixth year and the earth will bring forth fruit for threeyears" (Leviticus 25:20-21). We come almost to the Sermon on theMount. All this goes to show us that over and above the relationshipof property and the possibility of the human exploitation of the eart h,there is this demand for love and protection that God grants tocreation. However, once more, when man goes beyond the domaingranted to him by God, when he goes beyond these limits, there is nobrutal intervention by a God who sanctions, condemns, and damns.Rather, God lets the logic of things run its course. Man placeshimself outside the protection of God, and then by a sort of


7/9

150 151THEOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY

mechanical conditioning (necessity becomes destiny or fatality),human insecurity and the placing of ma n into question result directlyfrom llliJ transgression and from llliJ abuse.Such is OUt present situation in the "ecological drama." We haveunleashed our power, we have exploited the earth to death bydestroying its species, riches, possibilities, natural equilibriums,cycles, and products. We have squandered at an incredible speed,and still all those who deny the possibility of an exhaustion of theriches argue in the same way. They claim, for instance, that there areso many billions of tons of all types of chemical elements in theoceans, that we can go ahead and exploit the oceans (that is, actuallydestroy the waters of the sea), and humanity can continue in thesame pattern for centuries. Thus, the monstrosity is precisely thatwe accept the fact that, for the sake of things of debatable utility, wedo not hesitate to envisage the total destruction of the fundamentalelements. In effect, therefore, human security is no longer assured atall, and it is roan's attitude toward creation that is destroying hisown security. This is precisely the pOUlt to which we have arrived.

Nevertheless, when God steps aside and lets the nature of thingshava its way, there is not just the play of the now mechanical forces.On a totally diffe rent level, ma n is a rational being before God and,therefore, he must act as a respon-sible creature. We must add thisnotion of responsibility to that of "steward." I t is still necessary toagree about what it means to be "responsible." One thing and onething only: to be called and to respond-this is the only possible andintelligible meaning of the word . 'responsible." Someone asks aquestion, and one must respond to the question posed. 6 To actresponsibly is only to act as someone who has to answer for what hedoes. It makes little sense to believe you can be responsible to yourpeers, because in that case nobody can force you to respond.The only responsibility concerns exactly the question a personcannot avoid, the question one is obliged to answer.As for the general problem of creation, it is evident that ma n isresponsible only with regard to the creator himself. There is noresponsibility to "humanity." But surely it is the creator who is ableto ask for an accounting (and we see this theme taken up constantlyin the parables of Jesus- the parable of the vineyard workers, theparable of the talents). In fact, in the Old Testament, God isconstantly described as the one who puts the question. Adam,where are you? What have you done? Cain, what have you done toyour brother? Etc. I f the creator is not the one who puts the questionto the subject of creation, then man is not responsible toward this

Jacques Ellul

creation. And if he is not responsible, it means that he can act in anyway he wants toward this creation. The absence of responsibilityjustifies the "i n any way he wants." He can abuse, destroy, etc.Why should he not do so? I do not want to speak here at all aboutpenalties or the threat of penalties. This is not the issue. I f he doesnot have to respond to the creator, it means that man, rightly, is fullymaster and possessor of creation, that he can do what he wants,that he is totally independent in this matter. What marks the limitedcharacter of his power is, uniquely, the requirement of responding.This argument destroys totally the theories according to which man,'must" act as steward, as the good father of a family, as host towardthe world and not as devastator.7 In the name of what or whom"must" he adopt this attitude? Even further, how and why would heknow that he is just a steward and that such is his true situation? Hewill not come up with this all on his own, when it runs totally counterto what he believes and to his spirit of power. In everything, he isconvinced that he is master without limit. We cannot escape thisdilemma. Either a person recognizes (for it is necessary to know thatone will have to respond) that another can demand an accounting ofone's stewardship, or else that person is given over to the spirit ofpower.I am completely clear in this regard-the devastation of the world,the ecological disaster that awaits us, is not only a result of belief inthe technological system, bu t it follows, above all, from the fact thatma n no longer believes in the creator God, who is the God of JesusChrist. There has been no long delay between the proclamation andexaltation by theologians that man has finally become adult, masterof his destiny, gone out from the divine tutelage, come of age, etc.,and the discovery of the ecological disaster. The fact is that thesecond follows on the heels of the first. This ma n who has freedhimself for himself, who no longer has a "Father," he nO longer hasa Lord to whom to respond and bear responsibility. The man who hascome of age and is adult is above all irresponsible, and therefore hebehaves toward creation in just such a manner. This should notastonish anyone.We said that, respecting the independence that ma n has acquiredand the situation he has instituted, God accepts the work of man,accepts that he acts as master and tolerates the "makeshift' ,represented by man's organization of property under the situation ofhis domination over creation. Nevertheless, we also have seen thisdoes not at all mean that God gives up or retires. On the one hand, hefix.es the limits. On the other hand, he poses questions about thisbehavior. But there is much more. He also carefully gives us hiscounsel- which today, of course, is never taken as 8JJ.ything more


8/9

152 THEOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY

than a counsel. Here we move to a third stage. Ambng theBeatitudes, Jesus tells us, "Blessed are the meek, for they shallinherit the earth" (Ma.tthew 5:5). The meek-those who do not havethe spirit of power and violence, those who do not seek to rule, thosewho obey the Sermonon the Mount and give their shirt to the one whotakes their coat, those who have a. humble heart and do not defendtheir "right." Very clearly, it is they and they alone to whom theearth will finally be given. Precisely because they will not destroy it,but will respect it.

In the Beatitudes there is not only the one who listens to them, butthere ar e as well the others with whom we have a relation ship lin themidst of whom we have to make peace, for example). There is thesociety in which we live (where we have to bring about justice), andthere is also the Earth on which we live. The only ones who will"deserve" to receive this earth, to be its host and stewards, are themeek. This beatitude exactly inverts what we are in the habit ofthinking-that the earth belongs to whomever occupies andconquers it. Th


9/9

154 Jacques Ellul 155THEOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY

anything. Of course I Thirty years later we are threatened withextermination, more or less shortly, through the development ofnuclear plants.r recall that in 1948 when two Church assemblies heard me presentthe problem that I treat anew here, th e problem of the limits Godimposes on the exploitation of the world, there was onlyincomprehension and quick judgment-regressive, pessimistic,medieval, and reactionary. I t was so much more fascinating at thattime to know what good relations to establish with the communists!Afterwards, it was so much more important to be fascinated by thewar in Algeria. I do not say that we should not do these little things,but th most important question by far was the question of ends (trulyfundamental as we see today!), and this is the limits on theexploitation of creation. To the extent that Israel and the Churchhave said and done nothing in this area for a century and a halfindicates to the world that there is, in fact, no limit. This means that,once more, they have missed their chance for holiness. It means thatthey, an d they alone, are responsible before God, for the disaster inwhich we are beginning to live.

- translated by W. Deller and Katharine Temple

NotesJacques Ellul's "The Relationship between Man and Creation in theBible" is translated from "Le Rapport de l'homme a In creation selonla Bible," Poi et Vie 73, nos. 5-6 {December 1974}: 137..155.Bracketed material is not part of Ellul's own text.1. [Ellul uses only gerant here. But while "steward" would be thenonnal EngliBh equivalen t, there is nO verb' to steward," hence thedouble translation to indicate subsequent connections. For othertranslation conventions see the general note to "Technique and theOpening Chapters of Genesis. "12. I have developed this theme in The Politics of God and the Politicsof Man (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972).3. To Will and To Do (New York: United Church Press, 1969),Introduction.

4. The Ethics of Freedom (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976).5. It has often been said that the system of the sabbatical year andthe jubilee year was not effectively applied. It is very difficult toknow this. But I would say that, as far as it concerns us , this is of noimportance. I t is not the observance or non-observance by the Jewsof this part of the law that makes it a commandment of God! It isrecognized by Israel as the Word of God, and that is al l that mattersto us-taking into account that, with the Israelite rigorousness, itwas hard enough to leave such an important text in brackets. Inreality, i f the application of the text has been placed ill doubt, it isbecause it bothered the positivist historians at the end of the 19thcentury and at the beginning of the 20thl6. [The double meaning of "responsibility" - to answer a questionand to be held accountable-is somewhat clearer in French than inEnglish; nevertheless, the parallel is close enough to hold.]7. I am aiming in particular here at a recent study on this subject,that of Lutsenburg Mass in a report for a session of the EcumenicalInstitute [part of the World Council on Churches] on "The Role ofPower and Property in the Management of World Resources." Thisauthor, who puts into cun-eney the idea of the behavior of the"Host," man being only a host on earth, seeks to avoid th e problemof God. "A m I going to be thinking of a superhuman god?" No, andhe follows a t rain of thought that seems impossible to me. Man mustaccept this condition of host, act toward nature with humility, liverespecting everything and, then, the "divine Spirit" will beexpressed in him. The quality of being a host is a preliminary step,preparatory for the " divine Spirit to manifest itself." Once more wefall into absolute idealism! In the name of what, would he pass fromaggressiveness to humility? In the name of what, would he cease tobe inhabited by the spirit of power? What motivation does he give?Any motivation is really to believe in social magic! In fact, thishumility, this acting as bast, can be nothing other than an ethicalconsequence of the recognition of the Wholly Otherl Nothing moreand nothing less I

The Relationship Between Man and Creation in the Bible

Documents

Transcript of The Relationship Between Man and Creation in the Bible