A Biblical Theology of Self

The emphasis of self is dominating the imagination of the secular world. Referring to the rise of the modern self, theologian and historian, Carl Trueman has come to the conclusion that “the intuitive moral structure of our modern social imaginary prioritizes victimhood, sees selfhood in psychological terms, regards traditional sexual codes as oppressive and life denying, and places a premium on the individual’s right to define his or her own existence.”1 The emphasis on the individual defining their own existence begs the question of what does it mean to be human? And why do we exist? These two questions are certainly not new, however as the individual seeks to define their own existence these questions are rising to the surface at unprecedented rates. ‘Who am I?’ or ‘What does it mean to be human?’ are both questions that center around the concept of identity. While ‘Why do I exist’ or ‘Why do I matter?’ is centered around the concept of destiny. While many are searching for answers to these questions the biblical worldview stands out among the secular and nihilistic worldviews that permeate the modern mind.

To discover a biblical theology of what it means to be human, it is important to consider that humanity is not the main focus of the Bible. God is the main character of the Bible. The Bible is not written as a science book defining the metaphysical aspects of the human body or psyche. The Bible’s main character is God. God is the first character mentioned in Genesis 1:1 and remains the main character throughout the Bible’s story. The Bible's primary emphasis is on the character and nature of God, not mankind. The revelation of God reaches a climatic point in the person of Jesus who is God in the flesh. The Bible tells us that Jesus, “interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Although the revelation of God is the dominant theme in the Biblical storyline, humanity is introduced in direct relationship to the person of God. Genesis 1:26-28 introduces mankind as the image and reflection of God.

The profound mystery of what it means to be made in the image of God, the imago Dei, is the subject of this paper. This paper seeks to explore the biblical theology of the imago Dei to discover a biblical worldview of identity and destiny, and answer the questions: ‘Who am I?’ and ‘Why do I exist?’ Section 1: “Image of God” discovers a biblical theology of identity by exploring different views of the term ‘imago Dei’ theologically, and how the term ‘imago Dei’ relates to the rest of Genesis 1 contextually. Section 2: “Creation Mandate” focuses on the commission given to mankind in Genesis 1:28-30 and how this commission is carried throughout the biblical storyline and relates to a biblical theology of imago Dei. Finally this paper will end with a brief conclusion and response to the contemporary questions above.

Section 1: Image of God

The Bible’s record of creation is framed within a seven day period. Days 1-6 God creates by the word of His mouth, and day seven God rests from creating to enjoy His creation. Mankind is the final act of creation on day six. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Genesis 1:26). Instantly the creation of mankind is framed within two phrases “in our image” (imago Dei) and “after our likeness”. This view of human identity has profound implications practically, but what does it mean theologically? How does the context of Genesis 1 bring meaning to these phrases? The meaning of these phrases has been debated by theologians for centuries. Below is a brief overview of the differing views of the phrase Imago Dei, followed by a further study on how the context gives us clues to the author’s intent of the phrase Imago Dei.

Differing Views of the Imago Dei

For centuries the imago Dei has impacted the imagination of how Judeo-Christian thinkers relate to the rest of humanity. The concept of humanity being made in the image of God has impacted the civil rights movement, abolitionism and the following legislation. But what does it mean to be made in the image of God? How does the Bible define humanity? For centuries theologians have debated the meaning of the imago Dei and come to differing perspectives. These perspectives can be summarized in the following theological views: structural, functional, and relational.

The Structural View of the Imago Dei

The structural view of the Imago Dei focuses on the metaphysical attributes of a human being. Many early theologians referenced the imago Dei in relation to the separation of the body, soul, and mind. According to this view: intellect, emotion, and will separate the human from the rest of creation and define what it means to be made in the image of God. We find this view in the 13th century theologian, Thomas Aquinas, who expounded on the imago Dei in Summa Theologica by focusing on the intellectual capacity of mankind. Aquinas claims “it is clear, therefore, that intellectual creatures alone, properly speaking, are made [according] to God's image.” The key word here is intellect. The intellectual capacity and ability of the human to know wisdom and knowledge is what it means to be made in the image of an intellectual God. It seems that Aquinas was influenced by Augustine’s theology from the 4th century. Augustine also holds to a similar view and relates humanities reflection of God to imaging the tripartite nature of the Trinity. This view of the imago Dei dominated early church history and continued to influence the mind of theologians like John Skinner. In the 20th century, Skinner argued that the meaning of the image of God is found in the physical appearance of mankind. Skinner says, “It might be truer to say that [the image of God] denotes primarily the bodily form, but includes those spiritual attributes of which the former is the natural and self-evident symbol.” From Augustine in the 4th century to Skinner in the 20th century, the meaning of the imago Dei was primarily defined by these structural and metaphysical attributes.

The difficulty with this view is that if intellect or physical attributes are the primary means in which humans reflect God’s image, then a person with mental handicaps or physical deformities are restricted in their ability to reflect God’s image. This critique has risen to the surface in debates centered around the human characteristics of the unborn. If what it means to be human is linked to being made in the image of God and reflecting the image of God is defined by physical or mental capacities, then the unborn and handicapped are unable to reflect God’s image and are subhuman.

In addition, this entire viewpoint regarding the structural view of the imago Dei seems to be more influenced by Greek philosophy than scriptural context. Greek philosophy promoted the idea of a separation between body, mind, and soul that both Augstine and Aquinas held. Aristotle taught on the separation of body, soul, and mind.5 According to Aristotle, the body is the material form of a living being, the soul is what gives the being life or movement, and the mind is what gives the being the ability to think rationally. This greek approach to human nature viewed the mind as the key characteristic of what it means to be human, the ability to rationalize and think. Aristotle’s division of body, soul, and mind is evident in his theory of epigenesis. Epigenesis is Aristotle’s theory of the embryonic development of the unborn. That at a certain point of movement within the embryonic development, the unborn body was quickened by the soul. This view was carried by both Augustine and Aquinas, and promoted the structural view of the imago Dei.

As we will see later, this structural view of the imago Dei does not have any scriptural context according to Genesis 1 where the phrase “image of God’ is introduced. New Testament scholar Richard Lint's argues that Genesis 1 “is not exhaustive of what it means to be human [and] certainly does not provide a list of human characteristics that are intended to fill out the account of the imago Dei.” As mentioned above, God is the main character and focus of the author in Genesis 1. The biblical author is not commenting on or making metaphysical claims of what it means to be human. Therefore, the structural view of the imago Dei that was held by theologians for centuries does not have clear scriptural support within Genesis 1.

The Functional View of the Imago Dei

The functional view of the imago Dei defines the image of God in terms of human activity rather than human nature. According to this view, what it means to reflect God’s image is all about what we do. Biblical scholar David Clines holds to this view and argues that imaging God “is to represent God's lordship to the lower orders of creation. The dominion of man over creation can hardly be excluded from the content of the image itself.” Many scholars who hold to this view root their viewpoint in the scriptural context of Genesis 1 that follows the phrase introduced in Genesis 1:26, and support their view by appealing to the ancient near eastern use of the phrase.

Immediately following the introduction of the imago Dei term, God commands Adam and Eve to, “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28). This command is referenced as the Creation Mandate and focuses on mankind’s commission to rule, subdue, and fruitfully multiply the earth. This command is the focus of the functional viewpoint of the imago Dei, and is strongly rooted in the scriptural context of Genesis 1. In addition, it is consistent with the ancient near eastern use of the term “image”. Scholar and theologian, Andreas Kostenberger claims:

“The erecting of a sovereign’s image in a given location was tantamount to establishing that person’s claim to authority & rule. By placing his image on the man and the woman and by setting them in a particular environment, therefore, God assigns to them the mandate of representative rule.”

As we will see below, the idea of representative rule is carried throughout scripture and fits the use of image and idol throughout both the old and new testaments. The scriptural support of the functional view is persuasive, but seems to miss some of the key elements that the relational viewpoint fills in.

The Relational View of the Imago Dei

The relational view does not dismiss the functional elements given to mankind, yet it does not define the imago Dei in functional terms. Rather it defines the imago Dei in relationship to God and man: to who we are in these relationships. Lints argues, “the language of ‘image’ draws attention to this reflection of and relationship to God as the defining aspect of humankind in creation.” Theologian Karl Barth emphasized the relational aspect by focusing on the imago Dei by finding its fulfillment in male and female. Barth says, “man can and will always be man before God and among his fellows only as he is man in relationship to woman and woman in relationship to man.” The relational viewpoint of the imago Dei is strengthened as the scriptural context is considered.

Determining the Meaning of Imago Dei Within Scriptural Context

As we zoom out from Genesis 1:26-27 from the phrase “in the image of God” and focus our attention to the overall theme and focus of Genesis 1, we are given clues to determining the meaning of imago Dei within Scriptural context. The temptation with viewing different elements of Genesis 1 is to look at terms and ideas in isolation from the remainder of the text. Many scholars have attempted to read Genesis 1 to discover metaphysical and scientific truths regarding the heavens and the earth in this way. For centuries some of Chrisaintianity’s greatest minds like Augustine and Aquinas viewed the term imago Dei in this way, leading them to a structural and metaphysical view of the term with little to no scriptural context to support it. As we look at the scriptural context we find overwhelming support that the “Sabbath is the telos or goal of creation, accurately captures the emphasis of Genesis 1:1-2:3.” The seven day creation account in Genesis 1 sets the seventh day apart from the rest of creation. Days 1-6 God is creating and it is good, but on day seven we read:

And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation (Genesis 2:2-3).

Day seven stands out as both blessed and holy by God. It is set apart for the purpose of God dwelling with and enjoying His creation. The entire creation account is leading to this moment. The blessing and holiness of day seven concludes the first structural element within the entire Bible. John Salhamer's work on the structural importance of the Scriptures shows us that “Genesis 1:1-2:4a is clearly recognizable as a unit of historical narrative. It has an introduction (1:1), a body (1:2-2:3), and a conclusion (2:4a).” The focus of this structural unit is the seventh day. In light of these structural elements Michael Morales draws the conclusion that., “the seventh day should be understood as paired with the first six days taken together, an inclusio serving to explain their goal.”

As the structural elements and scriptural context is considered, the relational viewpoint of the imago Dei is placed front and center. Lints reminds us that:

“The language of selem elohim (language of God) must neither be extended beyond its contextual limits nor must those contextual boundaries be ignored in discerning the meaning of the construct. The immediate context at least signals a reflection of the Creator in human creatures. And that reflection must be considered relational in part.”

The context of the unit of Genesis 1:1-2:4 leaves us with this conclusion that, “humanity's dwelling in the divine Presence is the purpose of creation.” Therefore, the primary focus of the text seems to be the relationship of creation to Creator, not necessarily the function of creation. Or the argument could be made that the function of creation is to be in relationship with the Creator. However, God dwelling with and resting in His creation is the climatic point of Genesis 1:1-2:4 when the structural elements are considered. Morales argues that, “the extensive description of humanity’s creation on the sixth day is primarily for the sake of understanding the prospect of communion with God on the seventh, actually serving to underscore its significance.”

As we survey the differing viewpoints of the imago Dei to answer the contemporary questions “Who am I?” or “What makes me human?” The overwhelming evidence of scriptural context within Genesis 1 provides an answer that: mankind is created to be in relationship with God and one another. This relational view and aspect is central to what it means to be made in the image of God. Morales concludes, “the primary blessing of being created in God’s image is in order to have fellowship with the Creator in a way other creatures are not.” Simultaneously the functional aspect of being made in God’s image is not neglected, but viewed in light of this relationship with God. As we zoom out of Genesis 1 the relational viewpoint of being made in God’s image seems to be the primary emphasis, but as we zoom in to Genesis 1:26-28 the functional aspects of the imago Dei are discovered. As we consider the Creation Mandate in Genesis 1:27-28 the text gives insight into the imago Dei and provides details on what it means to be in relationship with God.

Section 2: Creation Mandate

The Creation Mandate is directly linked to imaging and reflecting God. This commission given by God is an invitation to partner with Him to extend His rule and reign over the earth. The Creation Mandate supports both the relational and functional viewpoints of the imago Dei. This commission is followed by the imago Dei language. To Adam and Eve God says:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth (Genesis 1:27-28).

In order to rule and reign in partnership with God as His reflection, relationship is necessary. Without a relationship with God, reflection is not possible. Simultaneously, the mandate itself is a call to action, a function for mankind to act out. Rule, subdue, and multiply are commands given to mankind that speak to the overall purpose of what it means to be human, and continues to answer the contemporary question of “Why does my life matter?” In this section, we will look at the characteristics of the Creation Mandate and the continuity of the Creation Mandate throughout Scripture.

The Characteristics of the Creation Mandate

The Creation Mandate can be summarized by royal representation, fruitful multiplication, and exercising dominion and authority over the rest of the earth. As image bearers, mankind is to represent God to the remainder of creation. Adam and Eve are placed in the Garden to represent and extend God’s rulership to the rest of the world. To be made in God’s likeness separates mankind from the rest of creation and places this representation upon them. Furthermore, the command to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” extends God’s representative rule as more image bearers are produced and fill the earth. It’s important to note that this fruitful multiplication is accomplished within the most intimate of relationships, the marital relationship in which sexual intercourse is necessary to accomplish. Therefore, immediately the function and mission of mankind cannot be separated from the relational aspects of what it means to be human. To dismiss or to minimize the relational importance of what it means to be human perverts the Creation Mandate. The Creation Mandate is accomplished in intimate fellowship and partnership with God and spouse. In addition, the mandate is to exercise God's rulership by having dominion and subduing creation. Adam and Eve were assigned the task to protect the garden, cultivate the land, and name the animals. This rulership and exercise of power cannot be separated by reality that they are made in God’s image.

To be made in the image of God and the following mandate cannot be separated or ignored. Richard Lints claims that, “The mandate given to humans to multiply and fill creation in Genesis 1:28 is grounded in the prior claim that humans image their creator.” As the story of God unfolds throughout Scripture, we see that the Creation Mandate does not go away. God’s intent for the function or activity of humans to fulfill this mandate is carried throughout the Biblical story.

The Continuity of the Creation Mandate

As the biblical storyline continues the commission of the Creation Mandate also continues. Rather than ruling and subduing the Garden in partnership with God, Adam fails to cultivate and protect Eden. Instead of extending God’s blessing through obedience, mankind rebels and brings a curse rather than a blessing to the rest of creation. The Creation Mandate was to spread the rule and reign of God through blessing, but instead the curse of sin spreads and introduces an upside down kingdom, a kingdom of man rather than a kingdom of God.

The Creation Mandate Given to Noah in Genesis 9

The kingdom of man becomes so perverse that “the LORD regretted that he made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart” (Genesis 6:6). Both the relational and functional elements of the imago Dei had been abandoned. This period of time is marked by the breakdown of the relationship between man and God, and mankind to one another. The rebellion of mankind brings God’s judgment through a flood. Yet even in this judgment God keeps a remnant in the family of Noah who finds “favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8). As the flood subsides, the blessing of God continues with an echo of the Creation Mandate from Genesis 1:27-28. The storyline continues in Genesis 9:1-2 when:

God blessed Noah and his son and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.

The continuation of the blessing emphasizes the relational element of the imago Dei. The blessing of God to Noah and his descendants is deeply personal. This blessing is given in the context of a relationship. In addition, the first command given that is to “be fruitful and multiply”. This fruitful multiplication is done in the relationship between man and woman. The relational aspects of the Creation Mandate continue to take priority within the commission.

In addition to the continuation of the blessing and command of fruitful multiplication, God introduces human government by issuing “a reckoning for the life of man. ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed for God made man in his own image’” (Genesis 9:5-6). This life for life policy is a continuation of God’s partnership to rule and reign over the earth. Noah and his descendants are to exercise rulership and dominion through obedience to the law of God. Although mankind had abandoned their partnership with God, God continues to partner with mankind. The reasoning behind this law is that “God made man in his own image”. In other words, in spite of the wickedness of mankind, it seems that humanity has not lost their ability to reflect God’s image.

Noah and descendents are faithful to fulfill this command temporarily. Fruitful multiplication occurs and they spread the divine image of God throughout the earth. However, a few generations later, mankind abandons this mandate to fill the earth and begin to gather to “make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth” (Genesis 11:4). This was in direct rebellion of God’s command to fill the earth, and sparks another judgment by God that leads to the renewal of the Creation Mandate given to Abraham.

The Creation Mandate Given to Abraham in Genesis 22

The context of Genesis 22 is placed within decades of relational equity between Abraham and God. Abraham’s trust in God, His character, and His promises is tested. It is in response to this test that the Creation Mandate is passed on to Abraham and his descendants. The angel of the LORD says to Abraham:

I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice. (Genesis 22:17-18).

Once again, the blessing of God is passed down to Abrham and his descendents. This blessing, which is relational in nature, always precedes the commission to multiply and rule. Therefore, the relational elements of the Creation Mandate are always front and center. The subtle differences of the Creation Mandate given to Abraham in contrast to Adam and Noah is that the Creation Mandate comes in the form of a promise rather than a command. Rather than Abraham commissioned to be “fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” it is God who will “surely multiply [his] offspring”.

Furthermore, the rulership aspect of the Creation Mandate given to Abraham is that the descendents of Abraham will “possess the gate of his enemies” and “all the nations of the earth will be blessed”. In other words, the blessing of the nations comes through the authority and rulership of Abraham’s descendents. However this rulership is done in relationship to the nation that brings blessing rather than harsh rulership. The descendents of Abraham were not intended to be isolated from other people. Therefore, both the relational and functional elements of the imago Dei are emphasized to Abraham. The promise given in Genesis 22 carries throughout the remainder of the Old Testament. The nation of Israel was designed to be a blessing and example to the nations of God’s justice and forgiveness .

Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Creation Mandate

The language and concepts of the Creation Mandate continue into the New Testament Scriptures. The apostle Paul refers to Jesus as “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15). Paul’s writings make it clear that Jesus is the new and last Adam. While Adam failed to represent the rulership of God in the image of God, Jesus came to represent God as the very image of God. Lints argues, “The imago Dei finds its fullest theological significance in Jesus, in whom the ironic reversal of sin has begun and will be consummate.” The Gospels record the life and ministry of Jesus, where Jesus filled every region He went with blessing as He “healed many people of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many who were blind he bestowed sight” (Luke 7:21). Jesus extended the blessing of God and did so relationally as He touched, spoke, and spent time in relationship with people.

Paul continues in the book of Romans that “death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come” (Romans 5:14). The idea of death reigning from Adam is an echo of Adam’s mandate to rule and reign from Genesis 1:27-18. As mentioned previously, due to Adam’s failure to fulfill the Creation Mandate, the curse of sin and death filled the earth rather than blessing. This reign of sin and death ends with Christ as the new and last Adam. Paul says, “death reigned through that one man [Adam], much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ '' (Romans 5:17). In other words, Jesus introduces a new rulership, one of life and blessing, a fulfillment of the Creation Mandate. The idea of life reigning through Jesus echoes the authority, dominion, and rulership mentioned in Genesis 1:27-28. In Jesus' prayer recorded in John 17 Jesus says to the Father, “glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him” (John 17:1-2). The authority given to Jesus over all flesh echoes the authority given to Adam over “all the earth”. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was essential in the plan of God to fill His earth with blessing as foreshadowed in Genesis 1. The first Adam was blessed by God but filled creation with the curse of sin. The last Adam was cursed by God yet fills creation with the blessing of new life.

The command of procreation to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” is central to the commission given in Genesis 1:27-28. How does Jesus fulfill this aspect of the Creation Mandate? In John’s gospel account Jesus tells a religious leader, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:5-6). In Genesis 1 the command of fruitful multiplication was accomplished through procreation, in Jesus the command of fruitful multiplication is accomplished through regeneration. Regeneration happens in relationship with Jesus. As someone pledges their allegiance to Jesus, they are regenerated by the Spirit of God. In other words, regeneration is impossible without a personal relationship with the person of Jesus. But how does this happen?

The Great Commission as the New Creation Mandate

As seen above Jesus fulfills the Creation Mandate given to Adam that includes: extending the blessing of God, exercising the rulership of God, and filling the earth with fruitful multiplication. Prior to His ascension to heaven, Jesus gathers His disciples and leaves them what is known as the Great Commission. This commission given to the disciples parallels the Creation Mandate given in Genesis 1. Jesus tells them:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:18-20).

The blessing, rulership and fruitful multiplication of the Creation Mandate exists within the Great Commission. Below is a chart that highlights the similarities:

In Genesis 1 Adam and Eve were commanded to fill the earth with other image bearers. They were not called to stay in the garden of Eden but to Edenize the rest of the world by exercising dominion and subduing creation. This was a part of their royal representation. Similarly, the Great Commision is a command to go to the nations. The followers of Jesus were not called to stay in Jerusalem and isolate themselves from the rest of the world. The book of Acts is the record of this expansion from Jerusalem to Judea to Samaria and the ends of the world. Rather than reaching the world through dominion and subduing, the followers of Jesus are commanded to teach and baptize. Both of these “functional” terms involve exercising authority to influence humanity. Adam and Eve were given authority directly by God, while followers of Jesus are given authority by God in the flesh. Both the Creation Mandate and the Great Commission end with blessing to the whole earth. This has always been the heart of God. The correlations between the Creation Mandate and Great Commision give an answer to the contemporary question of “Why does my life matter?”

Conclusion

“Who am I?” “What does it mean to be human?” the contemporary person asks. The first page of the Bible answers: you are made in the image of God. “What does that mean?” they say in response. To which the research of this study points us to respond in such as to say: “You are designed to be in the relationship with God.” Morales answers well, “This engagement with the divine is what-and what alone-can fulfill the purpose and potential of the image of God.” To be human is to be known by God and to know Him, this is the Bible’s overwhelming answer to the conversation of identity. Identity is not discovered within self, identity is discovered within the context of knowing God. To know God is to find self. Lints comments on this contemporary question by stating, “Late modernity has produced a heightened interest in the ‘self’ but it has been an interest without due regard for the ultimate purpose of self - honoring or delighting in the living God.“ Delighting and knowing God is where true identity is found. Who we are is defined and lost in who He is.

But what we do with our lives, our destiny and our activity is inseparable from this identity. The correlation between both the Creation Mandate and Great Commission provides meaning and purpose for the individual’s life. From the Creation Mandate to the Great Commission mankind has been given a purpose that is to live for the glory of God and the good of mankind. In a moment of history that provides a narrative that man exists for oneself, for one’s own desires and benefits, the story of the Bible provides a polemic to live outside of one’s self. The Biblical worldview centers identity, purpose, and destiny within a relationship with God. The idea of individuality is relatively foreign to the Biblical narrative. Man’s purpose on earth is to do everything in partnership with God to bless the rest of the world. Not only is humanity to be in partnership with God, but in relationship to one another for the blessing of the nations. From Genesis to the Pauline writings, the activity of humanity and the follower of Jesus is to be done in community with other people. However, even this activity ends with a goal of bringing others into a relationship with God. Commenting on the Creation Mandate Morales argues, “the ‘rule and subdue’ command, along with the ‘be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ blessing, should be directed to this chief end and highest goal- to gather all creation into the life-giving Presence and praise of God.” This is the same goal of the Great Commission, and the end goal of humanity, to glory God by enjoying Him and gathering as many people into the Presence of God for eternal communion.