‘Have dominion’ – God said to humankind. Humankind which God had just created in his image. ‘Have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth’.
Dominion. It is a very interesting word. Or rather – interesting words. Because alone in the story of creation two words which means dominion is used.
The first word – the Hebrew word ‘mashal’ – is used in the creation of the lights in the dome. This word – and the dominion to follow – is etymologically telling us how the lights of the dome have the responsibility to maintain cosmos in God’s creation.
This way of having dominion is somehow supernatural and not within the reach of humankind.
The second word – the Hebrew word ‘radah’ – is used in today’s biblical reading. This word – and the dominion to follow – is etymologically telling us how humankind has responsibility towards every living thing on earth.
This way of having dominion has been discussed throughout the history of – not only Christianity, but Judaism as well.
Etymologically the word never has God as a subject – it never is used in a context of something supernatural. It is earthly dominion. Earthly responsibility. It has to do with the relationship between living things created by God.
The most common use of the word is to describe how a king has dominion over his people. And often the word is used to describe how a king did not fulfill his duty as a king because he misused or forgot his dominion.
Because of this, I will argue – and I wrote my master thesis about this – the word ‘radah’ probably is better translated with the word ‘responsibility’. At least there is no doubt that responsibility is implied in the etymological use of the word. Something that sadly is lost in translation.
Last Sunday we read a text about how a ruler should always remember that one’s primary function as a ruler is to act as a servant towards those you rule. And because of this, today’s text – even though it might not seem all that obvious – takes up the same theme.
This is why I this Sunday want to reflect upon how we rule as humankind. Are we as good as our newly appointed king? Or is the responsibility not only lost in translation, but lost in reality as well?
Now this could easily turn into a sermon where I told you all about what I think is wrong with the world of today. Rest assured; this will not happen.
First, because I personally hate such sermons.
Second, because I really do not have to. Jesus has already stated that humankind is not able to fulfill its duty – its responsibility. There is no need for me to do it as well.
‘You faithless generation’ – he says in the Gospel reading for today. A Gospel reading that in the end states that the role of humankind is fulfilled ‘only through prayer’. Only through divine intervention.
Now, a lot of maybe not all to obvious interpretational thoughts make me analyze today’s Gospel reading in this way. I hope you will allow me to get past those though, because what I really want to talk about in my sermon today is how all this can give us an idea of what it means that humankind is created in the image of God.
The reason I want to do this is that something connected in me when I prepared today’s service. Two things that I had never put together before.
Strangely – I would say – the two things have never connected, because now the connection seems straight forward. What connected for me was an understanding of what it means that humankind is created in the image of God and my favorite ethical philosopher, Emmanuel Levinas.
It is not that I have never connected what it means that humankind is created in the image of God with ethics, because given what I said earlier – that the word ‘dominion’ almost is better translated in today’s reading with the word ‘responsibility’ – such a connection is given.
But when it comes to the ethics of Levinas, the connection is not just thematical. Because his exact ethics almost has to do with our image. Something that I better explain.
Levinas was a Jew who survived the Second World War. During the war he was a prisoner in a concentration camp. And following the war he wrote several philosophical books about what he experienced.
In one of his books, he describes how he during the war wondered how ordinary German fathers could treat fellow humans as they did in the camps. All of them could not simply be bad. Were they forced to do it? Could they sleep at the end of the day?
Then he describes how he one day walks by the fence of the camp and a dog approaches him from the other side. It looks at him and starts to stare. Stares at him as if the dog could expect something from him.
This encounter made him realize the thing that he builds his entire ethical philosophy upon: The ordinary German fathers did not look him in the eyes anymore as the dog did.
Even though he was a human being – something that the dog acknowledged – the ordinary German fathers, by not looking him in the eyes, did not treat him as a human being anymore. And this, he argues, was the reason they could do what they did.
His ethical philosophy is often referred to as the ethics of visuality. And his main point in his ethical philosophy is that we as human beings must look each other in the eyes. Because that is the most fundamental way to acknowledge other beings.
And not only that, he argues: By looking in the eyes of another one are also exposed to that person in a way that makes you feel responsible for that person.
If you look anywhere else at a person, you might get associations depending on their clothing and colour – sadly. But somehow the eyes go beyond all that and purely tell you that this is a person who you must respect and take care of. At least, so he argues.
Levinas is a phenomenologist meaning that his thoughts are proven right or wrong depending on whether you agree with him or not. I agree with him. And not only because it – at least at first sight – is quite a simple ethical philosophy. But also, because, I have found what he argues to be oh so true.
And I became to like it even more as I prepared for today’s service, because I think one can use his thoughts to determine what it means that humankind is created in the image of God. That was what connected for me.
Can one not argue that the image of God that humankind is created in can be understood as a type of chiasm with the role as one who have dominion (or responsibility) meaning that it is various ways to express the exact same thing?
The dog looked Levinas in his eyes. The dog could have done this for many reasons, but foremost one could argue, it did so because it saw the image of God in Levinas.
Levinas looks back at the dog. In the eyes of the dog, Levinas does not see the image of God, but the image of God within Levinas makes him receive the dog as one he has dominion over – one towards whom he has a special responsibility.
I am not sure whether you are convinced by this connection that I discovered as I prepared for today’s service. I have become more and more convinced by it day by day since I prepared the service. But I have also had some days to digest it all.
Now, I will give you some time to digest. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Amen.