Creation and Graced Freedom
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be . . .’” (Gen. 1:3a). With these words we are introduced to the first act of God in creation of the heavens and the earth, which is also and at the same time the first disclosure of graced freedom conferred as an act of God; God had no need to create that which would be external (though eternally related) to God-self. This singular act of grace is a manifestation of the ground for the covenantal nature of the relationship between God and creation (we are not yet speaking of Adam/Eve); it is also a manifestation of the gift of freedom in the establishment of creation as separate from and yet eternally related to the triune God. Only a creation imbued with freedom, as an event of grace, could be actualized in the splendor God intended; a creation without such imbued freedom would remain confined in a manner associated with sin and its consequences (i.e., sin as the distortion, or better said, the contradiction, and thereby the abolition, of graced freedom). To speak of the earth as formless and empty is to imply the absence of freedom prior to the Word of God bringing all things into an ordered existence; the Word of God brings freedom as event and, whenever issued, is always fruitful in giving graced freedom new birth. Chaos itself is prior to and implies the absence of graced freedom; in bringing order in the singular event of creation, God demonstrates that aspect of his will that intends harmony, wholeness, and the integrity of the creation as disclosive of graced freedom as essential to the welfare and further enrichment of the created order.
When the author of Genesis testifies to the consecutive affirmation of God (i.e., And God saw that it was good), the reference to good implies that the intention of God, for any one aspect of the created order, was clearly manifest in the function of that specific order; there was no gap (if you will) between the purpose for which any one aspect of creation was spoken into existence and its function in fulfilling the purpose for which God intended its existence. There was an evident manifestation of the freedom with which God had graced the created order in the fact that each feature was said to be good. The Word of God is also that creative Word which alone confers graced freedom. The conferral of freedom was, therefore, endemic by virtue of the creative and spoken Word of God; the Word of God (understood here as the second person of the Trinity) granted as grace that freedom by which the creation would remain obedient and faithful to its divinely intended purpose; one of the more severe consequences of Adam’s fall would be the forfeiture of this graced freedom, together with the concomitant distortion of the created order at the material level of existence and the incapacity for obedience at the level of human response to God’s will.
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen. 1:26–28)
The creation of anthropos as male and female affirms the imago Dei as a relational category; male and female share a common bond of communal identification in that all nature of personal fulfillment is dependent upon the employment, acknowledgement, and faithful engagement of graced freedom in the establishment and continual nurturing of what it means to be “human” created imago Dei. Without this graced freedom the “male” and “female” would have been incapable of engaging in that form of relational existence that alone provides the environment for the fulfillment of self in, with, and through the welfare of the other; it would not be possible to “love”—as the basis of both covenantal and communal existence—if such “love” did not arise from that graced freedom conferred by God as an ontological reality. The desire to find completion in nurturing the fulfillment of the other would only be possible as the externalization of that graced freedom, which also and at the same time enables communal welfare; the “male” and “female” are not so much corresponding persons, as they are communal partners in the complementary enactment of graced freedom. In the enactment of graced freedom “male” and “female” discover the enrichment of life as affirmed by their Creator (i.e., be fruitful and multiply); it is only with such graced freedom that “male” and “female” can subdue and rule within the whole of created order without imposition of selfish or self-serving will-to-power. The graced freedom they have been given is the sole basis upon which they can oversee the welfare of the created order—as good stewards—caring for a multiplicity of creatures, animate subjects and inanimate objects, with a love, freedom, and devotion that can be said to impersonate that of their Creator.
What is being affirmed here is that anthropos—created “male” and “female”—was not given to subdue and rule the created order in such a fashion as to contradict the presence of graced freedom, as if they were given a divine mandate to rule the created order with a heavy hand and solely to the benefit of their own appetites! The office of obedience they received was a fundamental responsibility for maintenance of the welfare of the semblance of graced freedom within the created order, a genuine respect for the manner in which the Creator’s intent was to enlarge the shared beauty of the relational bond between all living things that would assure the enlargement and enrichment of graced freedom throughout the created order.
Regardless of the authorial intent of the divine command to anthropos that they—and all other creatures—restrict themselves to that form of food that was from seed-bearing plants and from every tree whose fruit contains seed, this divine command implies that the taking of any form of animate life would be the misuse of graced freedom. One cannot comprehend this word from the Lord as anything less than a direct command, and therefore calling for an expression of graced freedom in obedience to God’s command. To take the life of another animate being, for purposes of self-sustenance, would be a violation of the command, and therefore demonstrate the relinquishment of graced freedom in the desire to impose one’s own will on another being, since one cannot (in the context of the narrative as it stands) speak meaningfully of any sentient creature willingly offering its life for the well-being of another. As we will soon see, one of the first casualties of Adam’s fall from graced freedom is the Lord’s sacrifice of one of his beloved creatures to “cover” the shame of Adam and Eve; in this singular act of divine compassion, one can overhear the sorrowful voice of graced freedom’s demise! It can be stated that as broadly as graced freedom animated the whole of creation and every creature, so extensively did the effect of Adam’s fall from graced freedom adversely affect that same graced freedom, and at every level of existence.
Yet before taking up discussion of Adam’s fall from graced freedom, we must turn briefly to exposition of the second narrative of creation as found in the Book of Genesis (2:15–25):
The Lord God took the man and