CULTURAL MANDATE: Ron Manahan

A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE CULTURAL MANDATE:

AN ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF

THE DOMINION MATERIALS

Ronald E. Manahan

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Theology in

Grace Theological Seminary

May 1982

Title: A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE CULTURAL MANDATE: AN

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE DOMINION MATERIALS

Author: Ronald E. Manahan

Degree: Doctor of Theology

Date: May, 1982

Advisers: James Eisenbraun, D. Wayne Knife, and David Turner

Frequently correlation is made between the cultural mandate, that activity

of doing and making given to man at his creation whereby he is to glorify his

Creator, and the dominion materials (Gen 1:26-28; 9:1, 7; Ps 8:6-10; Heb 2:5-9;

Jas 3:7). Understanding the nature of this correlation and its subsequent

implications is best aided by working with a carefully defined field of terms, by

isolating what alternative views of the correlation have been expressed throughout

the church's history, and by engaging in a thorough examination of the background

and interpretive field of the dominion passages.

The conclusion resulting from the isolation of the several views on

dominion material is that each view gives indication of having been influenced by

the cultural milieu of the interpreter and by perceptions of culture in general. The

interpreter continually interacts between his constantly changing, dynamic cultural

milieu and the Biblical text.

The context within which this study is conducted includes the realization

that man is contextualized and is an integral part of the creation in which he was

placed by his Creator. Man stands in a dependent relationship with God, who has

placed him within an order. From this placement man sees that he is suspended in

a threefold, concurrent relationship: (1) to God, (2) to others, and (3) to the world.

The terms "cultus" and "culture" indicate the full range of human activities where

man acts out this threefold relationship. "Culture" refers to both the activity and

the context of human shapers and formers. So defined, culture must be done.

Through analysis of the Old Testament dominion material in the light of

royal ideology, apocalyptic ideas, and societal hierarchical structuring this study

concludes that the dominionizing activity (formative activity) has been given

and not rescinded. But this activity may be done in loyalty or disloyalty toward

man's sovereign Creator. When done in loyalty, Mlw exists. However, when done

in disloyalty, the formative activity struggles with the cosmos. This struggle

produces a feeling of frailty within man.

The New Testament dominion material by individualizing the use to which

it puts Psalm 8 points to Jesus Christ as the resolution to the clashing tenets of

man's frailty and incomparable position.

Major conclusions reached are that the dominion given man refers to

shaping activity. Shaping activity done with respect to concrete things is not

optional. Man is given a mandate. But only in Jesus Christ, who was fully loyal, is

there any hope of beneficent shaping activity, an activity which will glorify the

Creator.

Accepted by the Faculty of Grace Theological Seminary

in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree

Doctor of Theology

Adviser: James E. Eisenbraun

Adviser: D. Wayne Knife

Adviser: David L. Turner

Digitally prepared and posted on the web by Ted Hildebrandt (2004)

with permission.

Please report any errors to: thildebrandt@gordon.edu

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Reasons for This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Cultural Mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Dominion Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Re-examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Form of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

I. HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE INTERPRETATION

OF DOMINION MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Ancient Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Rule Over Creation as a Present Possession . . . . . . 15

Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

God's Rule--Man's Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Promise-Fulfillment Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Rule as Lost or Diminished . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Rule in an Eschatological Figure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Rule as Cultural Expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Selected sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Medieval Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Augustine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Context of interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Interpretation of dominion materials . . . . . . . . . . 58

Aquinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Context of interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Interpretation of dominion materials . . . . . . . . 65

iii

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Modern Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Martin Luther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Context of interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Interpretation of dominion materials . . . . . . . . . 71

John Calvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Context of interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Interpretation of dominion materials . . . . . . . . . . 78

The Anabaptists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Context of interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Interpretation of dominion materials . . . . . . . . . . 84

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Recent Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Karl Barth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Dietrich Bonhoeffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Emil Brunner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Paul Tillich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Concluding Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

II. A PHILOSOPHIC PERSPECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Man's Life in an Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Man as Contextualized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Man is dependent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Within a whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Within an "ordered" whole . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Within a law-structured whole . . . . . . . . . 102

Man is in a continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

A contemporary appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

A rebuttal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

A suggestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Man as Relational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

In relation to God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

In relation to others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

In relation to the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Cultus and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Cultus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

A Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

III. EXAMINATION OF OLD TESTAMENT DOMINION MATERIALS

The Extent of Dominion Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Hermeneutical Realities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Royal Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Egyptian royal ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Mesopotamian royal ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Israelite royal ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Historiographic literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Hymnic literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Prophetical literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Apocalyptic Imagery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Societal Hierarchical Structuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Summary Evaluation . . . . . . .