A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE
CULTURAL MANDATE:
AN ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF
THE
DOMINION MATERIALS
by
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and not rescinded.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
Copyright
© 1982 by Ronald E. Manahan
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
iv
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
v
Prophetical literature . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 176
Summary
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . . .
. . . . 179
Apocalyptic Imagery . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. 180
Societal Hierarchical Structuring . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . . 188
Summary Evaluation . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 194
Explicit Dominion Materials . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 196
Genesis 1:26-28 . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 197
Textual variants . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 198
Literary context . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 200
Examination of dominion material . . .
. . . . .
. 207
The expression vntnmdk
vnmlcb . .
. . .
. . . 207
hdr and wbk. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 220
Interpretive field . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 229
Genesis 9:1, 7 . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 231
Textual variants . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 231
Literary context . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 233
Examination of dominion
material and
interpretive field . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 236
Psalm 8:6-10 . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 238
Textual variants . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 238
Literary context . . . .
. .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 240
Examination of dominion material . . .
. . . . .
. . 242
Interpretive field . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 245
Summary
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 247
Implicit Dominion Materials . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 247
IV.
EXAMINATION OF NEW TESTAMENT DOMINION MATERIAL . 251
Explicit Dominion Material . .
. . .
. . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . 251
Hebrews 2:5-9 . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . . 252
Textual variants . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 252
Literary context . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. 258
Examination of dominion material . . .
. . . . .
. . 266
Interpretive field . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 270
James 3:7
. . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 275
Summary . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 279
Implicit Dominion Materials . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 280
A Suggestion
. . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . . 280
An Example
. . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 283
V.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 289
The Christian and Culture . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . 293
The Christian and Education . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 298
The Christian and Theology . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 303
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . . 308
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB The
Anchor Bible
ABL Harper,
Assyrian and Babylonian Letters
AGNT Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament
ANEP Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East in Pictures
Relating to the Old Testament
ANET Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating
to the Old Testament
ANF The
Ante-Nicene Fathers
AnOr Analecta Orientalia
BAGD Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, 2nd edition
BASOR Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental
Research
BHK Kittel, eds., Biblica Hebraica
BHS Elliger and Rudolph, eds., Biblica Hebraica
Stuttgartensia
Bib Biblica
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
BJRL Bulletin of the
of
BR Biblical Research
BSP Walton, eds., Biblia Sacra Polyglotta
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
CAD Gelb et al., eds.,
The Assyrian Dictionary of the
Oriental Institute of the
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CKRS Raines, The Cosmic Kingdom in the Rise of the
Christian Interpretation of the State: A Study
of the
Interaction of Religious and Political
Mythology from Hebraic Prophetism
through John Calvin
CTM Concordia
Theological Monthly
EvQ The
Evangelical Quarterly
ExpTim The Expository Times
GCES Nelson, The Groaning of Creation: An Exegetical
Study of Romans 8:18-27
GRHI Eareckson, The Glory to be
Revealed Hereafter: The
Interpretation of Romans 8:18-25 and its Place in
Pauline Theology
HPS von Gall, Der hebraische
Pentateuch der Samaritaner
HTR Harvard
Theological Review
HUCA
vi
vii
ICC The
International Critical Commentary
INST Baillie,
McNeill, and Van Dusen, The
Library of Christian Classics,
vols. 20 and 21: Calvin:Institutes of the Christian
Religion
Int Interpretation
IOTT Jobling, "And Have Dominion . . ." The
Interpretation of Old
Testament Texts
Concerning Man's
Rule Over the Creation
(Genesis 1:26, 28, 9:1-2, Psalm 8:7-9) from
200 B.C. to the Time of the Council of Nicea
ITQ The Irish Theological Quarterly
JAOS Journal
of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal
of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal
of Cuneiform Studies
JETS Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society
JNES Journal
of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal
of Northwest Semitic Languages
JSOT Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament
JTS The Journal of Theological Studies
KMCO Lowe, The King As Mediator
of the Cosmic Order
LW Pelikan and Lehmann, Luther's Works
LXX Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta
MQR The Mennonite Quarterly Review
Neot Neotestamentica
NGTT Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif
NICNT The New International
Commentary on the New Testament
NIV New
International Version
NPNF The
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series
NovT Novum Testamentum
NTS New
Testament Studies
PA Winston, Philo of
PEQ Palestinian
Exploration Quarterly
Poet Poetica
Sal Salesianum
SEA Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok
SJT Scottish
Journal of Theology
SSU Rainey, The Social Stratification of
STH Aquinas, Summa Theologica
Th Theology
TNTC The Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
UOTH Reid, The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle to
the Hebrews
USQR Union
Seminary Quarterly Review
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Supplements
to Vetus Testamentum
ZA Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, Neue Folge
ZAW Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
ZNW Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
PREFACE
The work of this dissertation could not have
been
carried forward without the help of several
individuals.
In
particular these are the members of the dissertation com-
mittee, Professors Eisenbraun (chairman), Knife, and Turner
and Mr. Ibach and Mr. Votaw, librarians at Grace Theological
Seminary. All of these have contributed in
significant ways
to my thought and research work in preparation for
the writ-
ing of this dissertation.
Especially to be thanked, however, are the
members
of this writer's family, my wife, Barbara, and
children,
Kelly and Nathan. Each of these has
contributed to a home
in which such work as is reflected in this
dissertation is
thought to be a worthwhile and noble human
enterprise. For
this reason they, each in their own way, gave their encour-
aging support. To them I am most thankful. They with
me
believe that such work as this is part of our
stewardship
owed to the Lord who has redeemed the members of
this home
and because of whose grace such work is made
possible and
thought worthwhile. Ultimately our family's
thanks belongs
to Him who is the true dominionizer,
the King of Kings.
viii
INTRODUCTION
Through
an examination of the dominion passages of
Scripture this dissertation
seeks to re-think the concept of
the
cultural mandate. This general aim is attended by three
purposes. The
first is to determine what might be an appro-
priate correlation
between the dominion passages (materials)
and the
cultural mandate. This purpose brings with it sev-
eral
problems. Definition of terms and concepts is obvi-
ously one of
the initial difficulties. What is "dominion"?
What is "culture"?
Another problem is that of "appropriate
correlation."
The available options for interpretation must
be known
before the appropriate one is selected. To know
this
requires some familiarity with past interpretations
and, when
those interpretations differ, to account for the
variations.
Purposes
two and three are by-products of the first.
The second purpose is to
address indirectly the whole Christ-
culture
complex.1 Varied reasons have caused people to
1 In recent years there
has been increased interest in
this complex subject. Generally what is meant by the
Christ-
culture complex is that set of interpretive
problems encoun-
tered when one attempts a
correlation between the implica-
tions found in Christ and his
teachings for the totality of
the cosmos. The results of encountering this
complex are a
description of Christian man's legitimate activity
within the
cosmic
to define this complex see Robert E. Webber, The Secular
Saint (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1979),
pp.
14-19.
1
2
venture into this
difficult area of inquiry.1 A host of
books have
treated the problem of exactly what the Chris-
tian's place
in culture is (Christian in the broadest sense
of the
term).2 The third purpose is that through these
findings
something of a prolegomenon to a theology of cul-
ture can be
suggested. This suggestion certainly could not
hope to be
exhaustive. But it ought to be informative and
programmatic.
Reasons for This Study
Several
reasons have led to the formulation of this
1 What has motivated, this increased
interest is not
always the same. For Richard Kroner,
Culture and Faith
(Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1951), p. viii,
the catastrophe in 1933 in
the relation between thought and faith, between
reason and
revelation, between culture and religion." For
others it
may have been "The Chicago Declaration";
cf. Ronald J. Sider,
ed.,
The
House, 1974). However, by the
evidence not many were moved
to action by "The Chicago Declaration."
2 While certainly not exhaustive the
following works
indicate something of the more recent breadth of
interest:
L.
Wm. Countryman, The Rich Christian in the Church of the
Early Empire:
Contradictions and Accommodations (
The
Edwin Mellen Press, 1980); Thomas M. McFadden, ed.,
Theology Confronts A
Changing World, The Annual Publication
of the College Theology Society (West Mystic, CT:
Twenty-
Third
Publications, 1977); William M. Newman, The Social
Meanings of Religion (
lishing Company, 1974); William
J. Richardson, Social Action
vs. Evangelism: An Essay on the Contemporary Crisis (South
Rich Christians in an
Age of Hunger
(
Intervarsity
Press, 1977); Donald Eugene Smith, Religion,
Politics, and Social Change in the Third World (
The
Free Press, 1971); and Peter DeVos et al., Earth-Keeping:
Christian Stewardship of
Natural Resources,
ed. Loren Wilkin-
son (
3
research. Among
these is, first, the correlation that is
often made
between culture and the dominion materials. An
example of
this type of correlation is that of Lynn White,
who argued
that abuse of nature in our technological world
finds its
origin in the dominion materials.1 Another is that
suggested by
Woolsey in his somewhat humorous assessment:
Such a course [i.e., use of political action to
achieve
social ends] would be
consistent with a "cultural man-
date" view held by some
evangelicals. The cultural man-
date people assert that the
Christian today is obligated
to two
"commissions." The first of these is the Great
Commission . . . The second commission, as they
see it,
is what they call the
"cultural mandate," which they find
in Genesis 1:28. It
involves "subduing" and "having
dominion." Expressed in
terms of today's world, it means
the Christianization of
society. We fundamentalists have
rejected this idea. Because of
our dispensational ap-
proach to Biblical
interpretation, we understand that
society in the "last
days" will be unreformable.2
These
brief examples show that interpreters persist in
1 Lynn White, Jr., "The Historical
Roots of our Eco-
logical Crisis," Science 155 (10 March 1967): 1205 says:
"Finally,
God had created Adam and, as an afterthought, Eve
to keep man from being lonely. Man named all the
animals,
thus establishing his dominance over them. God
planned all
of this explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no
item in
the physical creation had any purpose save to serve
man's
purposes. . . . Christianity . . . insisted that
it is God's
will that man exploit nature for his proper
ends." One
should also compare the interesting article by
Margaret Rowe,
"Genesis
and the Natural Order," Cross and
Crown 23 (1971):
272-82
in which she argues: "God, says Genesis, gave man
dominion over all living things; and Western man
has found
therein a justification for wholesale spoliation
of earth's
natural resources. It is our reading of Genesis
that should
be challenged here, and a more helpful
interpretation could
lead us to solving the present environmental
crisis" (277).
2 G. Arthur Woolsey,
"Perspective," Baptist Bulletin
46
(February 1981): 15. The words within brackets are
supplied by this writer from the context.
4
correlating the
cultural mandate with the dominion mate-
rials.1 The
question clearly is: Do the dominion materials
teach a
cultural mandate, or any general cultural perspec-
tive? This
investigation seeks an answer.
Moreover,
another reason for this study is an appar-
ent lack
of a theology of culture upon which a broad spectrum
of
Christians can agree. This lack has been heightened by
the
concurrent existence of a supposedly catholic church and
a
multiplicity of cultural models. How does the one church
mesh with
this divergency of cultural models? The models
are
divergent because a given "culture which man builds is
experienced not as
a system but as an actual reality which
dominates his
life and in which he participates by his con-
duct and
attitude through active contribution and creativ-
ity."2
That is, there is reciprocation between the catholic
church and a
given culture. So Leon Morris agrees; church
and
culture reciprocate so that, while Christianity, it could
be
argued, stands above culture, this in no way means it
stands
outside of culture.3 But
still there is the question:
What program should a theology
of culture follow? This
1 For an example of a more positive
correlation of
the cultural mandate and the dominion material see
Webber,
Saint, pp. 35-41.
2 This is the assessment of Kroner, Culture and
Faith, p. 71.
3 Leon Morris, "The Religion That
Stands Above Cul-
ture," Christianity Today, 6 June 1980: 55-56.
Probably, one
is more correct in saying that Christianity is
trans-
cultural, rather than that it stands above
culture.
5
dissertation seeks
a solution, resulting from the inter-
facing of the
cultural mandate and the dominion materials.
A
further reason for encouraging this inquiry is
this
writer's personal interest, generated originally when
an
undergraduate student. This undergraduate influence
shifted from
an Anabaptistic approach to culture in the ear-
lier years
to a thoroughgoing Calvinistic approach in the
later years.
These two approaches were also entertained
during
graduate study; sometimes they raised more questions
than they
provided solutions. Therefore, there is in this
present work a
personal goal to be achieved, a goal to dis-
cover to
what degree the dominion materials do or do not
teach about
the relative validity of these approaches.1
Glossary
What
the evaluation of the purposes of and reasons
for this
study indicates is the need to define with some
exactness
particularly important terms, namely those made
important by the
title of this study. These are "culture,"
"cultural
mandate," "dominion materials," and "re-examina-
tion."
Here the goal is merely to supply a glossary of terms
to aid in
fixing the direction of this study. In the later
stages of
this study the complexity of these terms will
become
clearer.
1 The suggestion is not being made that
this study
proceeds in objectivity. To the contrary, no interpreter
can lay claim to this supposed utopia of research.
6
Culture
As
Laura Thompson remarks, "the concept of culture
is not a
simple one."1 The term "culture" stems from the
Latin term colere, meaning "to
cultivate, till, tend," thus
the
feminine cultura
meaning "tilling, culture, cultivation."2
From this the term
"culture" has come to refer generally to
what is
civilized or refined, perhaps even educated. This
meaning is
implied in the German kultur.
However,
the exact content to which culture refers
is
another matter. Culture has been interpreted to mean
anything from
an aggregate of discrete items associated by
historical chance
to a mechanical system whose worn parts
need either
revitalization or replacement.3 Exactly what is
culture? Thompson
defines it as "a human group's self-
selected and
self-tailored problem-solving tool."4 Her def-
inition
highlights two important elements, "self-selected"
and
"problem-solving." The first emphasizes that the members
of the
given culture actively participate in what is included
in that
culture. The second suggests that the incorporation
of items
into a culture is founded on problems needing and
capable of
solution. Of course, some cultures are broader
1 Laura Thompson, The Secret of Culture, consulting
ed. Anthony F. C. Wallace (New York: Random House,
1969),
p. 4.
2 D. P. Simpson, Cassell's New Latin Dictionary
3 Thompson, The Secret of Culture, pp. 4-5.
4 Ibid., p. 219.
7
than
others. That is, some are more elaborate.
What
governs the elaboration of a culture? Honigmann
concludes that
"the size of a culture's inventory depends on
the number
of windows on the world that a social system has
open."1
In other words the broader the contacts with the
world and
with the past, the more elaboration there will be.
Briefly put, culture is a human
group's elaboration, corre-
sponding to the
number of its contacts, of its problem-
solving
schema. This definition is overly simplified. For
instance, it does
not address the important matter of a
group's
perception of or perspective on its needs, its prob-
lems. But
this general definition allows one a starting
point for
beginning to elaborate on the cultural mandate as
analyzed
through the study of the dominion materials.2
Cultural
Mandate
To
speak of a cultural mandate is to
elicit several
implications from
the above definition of culture. The nega-
tive
implications are these. The definition offered for cul-
ture does
not imply that culture is necessarily
the antith-
esis of
Christianity. Indeed it is not. Nor does the
definition, on
the other hand, imply that culture is
1 John J. Honigmann,
Understanding Culture (
Harper
& Row, 1963), p. 309.
2 For a further elaboration on defining
culture, cf.
Fred
W. Voget, "History of Cultural
Anthropology," in Hand-
book of Social and Cultural Anthropology, ed. John J.
Honigmann (
1973),
pp. 2-3.
8
therefore
neutral. This could not be because man as moral
agent is the
one doing the selecting and eliminating. His
selecting and
eliminating is conditioned by his moral being.
Therefore cultural activity is a moral, not an amoral, mat-
ter. And
because it is, it cannot necessarily be the an-
tithesis of
Christianity. A second negative implication of
the
definition offered for culture is that culture is not
the achievement of this or that culture.
Culture has a
dynamic
because it is founded on doing, making, acting. And
this
activity goes on in both more primitive and more
civilized groups
of people.
Now
from these negative remarks several positive ones
are
implied. Cultural activity may be done morally or immor-
ally. Upon
initial analysis what is moral or immoral would
appear to be
conditioned by a given group's definition of
morality. But a
closer analysis is needful. The definition
of
morality given by a group is never without context. This
context is at
least twofold. Members of the group live in a
law-structured order,
a divine order. Further, they bear
some
relationship to this order and to this order's Creator.
One may speak of this
relationship as religious because it is
conditioned by
man's relationship to his Creator. In sum-
mary, the
group which defines morality is in fact comprised
of
individuals who sustain a religious relationship to their
Creator. Out of
this religious depth the definition of
morality comes.
Each member of the group makes his contribu-
tion, but
the contribution is not amoral. It springs from
9
his
religious relationship. Therefore, the cultural activity
is done
either in positive or negative relationship toward
God; it is either for or
against Him.
The
second positive implication about this definition
of
culture is that culture is activity. One does culture in
the
context of the relationships he sustains. This context
will be
more fully developed in chapter two of this work.
In general this relationship is
threefold, relationship to
the
Creator, others, and the cosmos.
At this
point the meaning of a cultural mandate is
more
obvious. Such a mandate would be from man's Creator.
He would mandate cultural
activity from the beginning.
Therefore, the cultural mandate
as used in this work is de-
fined as
that cultural activity given to man at his creation
whereby he is
to glorify his Creator.1 The second chapter
of this
work will cover these matters in considerably more
detail.
Dominion
Materials
Though
chapters three and four of this work will de-
fine in
detail what are the dominion materials, a brief defi-
nition here
at the beginning will prove helpful. A distinc-
tion should
be made between dominion materials and dominion
1
For further discussion of the definition of the cul-
tural mandate, cf. Webber, Saint, pp. 35-71; Henry R. Van Til,
The Calvinistic Concept
of Culture
(
byterian and Reformed Publishing
Company, 1971), pp. 15-36;
and the somewhat popularized treatment of W. Harold
Mare,
"The
Cultural Mandate and the New Testament Gospel Impera-
tive," JETS 16 (Summer 1973): 139-47.
10
allusions or
images. This study understands the word "mate-
rials"
to refer to those passages where a dominion or ruler-
ship is
actually stated. Passages of this sort are very
few. There
are what might be called explicit dominion pas-
sages. These
passages are Genesis 1:26-28; 9:1, 7 (included
because of the
Septuagint tradition); Psalm 8:6-10; Hebrews
2:5-9; and James 3:7. In these
passages there is direct
reference to
man's rule over the creation or at least refer-
ence to the
imagery of Genesis 1:26-28. Most of the effort
of this
study will be spent on these few materials. To be
sure, there
may be distant allusions to general rulership
ideology in
other passages, but the relationship of these
passages to the
fountainhead of Genesis 1:26-28 is so uncer-
tain as to
render them inappropriate for inclusion in this
work.1
Re-examination
By this
term is meant that the relationship between
the
dominion materials and the cultural mandate will be
1 Some individuals find an abundance of
dominion mate-
rials, though not for good
reason; cf. the general thought of
J.
Jervell, Imago
Dei (
1960), pp. 218ff. Among verses that some
think allude
(though there is great uncertainty) to dominion as it is
found in Gen 1:26-28 are: Lev 26:6; Ps 91:13; Isa 11:6-9 (a
more important one of this group); Dan 7:13; Matt
7:29;
9:6-8;
10:1; 21:23-27; 28:18; Luke 10:10; John 17:2; Rom 1:23;
5:17;
8:37-39; 1 Cor 3:21-23; 6:2; 15:24-28 (another impor-
tant one in this group); 2 Cor 10:5; Eph 1:22-23; Phil 2:6-11;
3:21;
However,
the judgment of this writer, after considering
these, is that the evidence is uncertain enough to
warrant
not including them in this work.
11
examined. In
order to re-examine this relationship several
other
factors will require scrutiny. The whole relationship
between
interpretation and the given cultural context within
which the
interpreter stands must be watched. One must be
sensitive to the
reciprocation between culture and interpre-
tation. Such
re-examination will require analysis of not
only the explicit
dominion materials. Those other passages,
upon which
the examination of the explicit dominion materials
may cast
light, must be surveyed (such as Rom 8:18-25).
Form of the Study
In
order to carry forward this project the work de-
velops along
the following lines. Chapter one gives a brief
survey of the
history of the interpretation of dominion mate-
rials.
Throughout this survey special attention is given to
that
complex of influences which were a part of the inter-
preter's world
(especially in the ancient historical period)
and to the
interpreter's general view of culture (especially
in the
medieval, modern, and recent historical periods).
Chapter
two establishes the general perspective for
this study.
There concentration falls on man's life as being
lived in an
order. Living in this order is seen to have
major
implications for the very way one distinguishes and
correlates cultus and culture. It is argued that culture is
not
optional for man; it is required in the very nature of
his creatureliness. With chapters one and two as background,
chapters three
and four provide a detailed study of the
12
Biblical dominion materials,
chapter three Old Testament and
chapter four
New Testament.
Finally,
in chapter five important findings of this,
study are
synthesized. Using these findings as a foundation,
this writer
makes a series of proposals for the contemporary
Christian understanding of
culture (something of a prolegom-
enon to a
theology of culture), the Christian educational
enterprise, and
the discipline of Biblical-theological
studies in
general.
Unless
otherwise indicated, citations from the
English Bible are taken from
the New International Version
(NIV).
CHAPTER I
HISTORICAL
SURVEY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF
DOMINION
MATERIALS
Discussion
here assumes the legitimacy of the pre-
record.1 These
materials have a long history of interpreta-
tion in the
church. Review of this varied hermeneutical
record serves
several purposes. It indicates that very early
there was
breadth of opinion on the explicit and implicit
meaning of the
material. Certainly it indicates multiple
exegetical
options for the modern interpreter. Just as
surely this
hermeneutical record will make clear that most
modern
exegetical opinions on these dominion materials have
ancient
antecedents. And these antecedents must be taken
into
account in modern interpretation.2 Legitimate contem-
porary
exegetical work does not operate in isolation from the
1 See pp. 9-10.
2 Cf. David Jobling,
"And Have Dominion . . ." The
Interpretation of Old
Testament Texts Concerninq Man's Rule
Over the Creation
(Genesis 1:26, 28, 9:1-2, Psalm 8:7-9) from
200 B.C. to the Time of
the Council of Nicea (Th.D.
disserta-
tion, Union Theological
Seminary in the City of
1972;
72:22,:911, 1972), pp. 3-6 and 325-31 (hereafter cited as
IOTT). Jobling's
analysis of ancient interpretation is
excellent.
13
14
canon's
history of interpretation.
This
survey will best serve present purposes if it is
divided into the
convenient categories of ancient, medieval,
modern, and
recent interpretations.
Ancient Interpretations
The discussion
here follows Jobling's analysis that
one finds
in this period five general opinions on the domin-
ion
materials.1 The first of Jobling's
categories might best
be
subdivided into two, thus furnishing the following six
general
categories of interpretation: (1) Rule over creation
as a
present position, (2) God's rule--man's rule, (3)
Promise-fulfillment debate, (4)
Rule as lost or diminished,
(5) Rule in an eschatological
figure, and (6) Rule as
cultural
expression.2
1 IOTT, pp. 54ff. For further discussion of a histor-
ical analysis of the
interpretation of Biblical material which
is tangent to the dominion idea (at least in the
Genesis mate-
rial) see David A. Yegerlehner "Be
Fruitful and Multiply, and
Fill the Earth . . .": A History of the Interpretation of
Genesis 1:28a and
Related Texts in Selected Periods (Ph.D.
dissertation,
Arbor,
MI: University Microfilms International, 75-12, 270,
1981).
This work also has value as a historical hermeneutical
survey for modern interpretive work. For a survey of
the
history of interpretation on another passage
attendant to the
dominion materials see James M. Childs, Jr., The Imago Dei
and Eschatology: The Ethical Implications of a Reconsidera-
tion of the Image of God in Man Within the Framework of an
Eschatological Theology (S.T.D. dissertation,
of Theology at
Microfilms
International, 75-18, 208, 1981), especially
pp.
9-167.
2 As a point of comparison note the
several categories
of opinion about the Christ-culture correlation
given by
H.
Richard Niebuhr, Christ
and Culture (
Row,
1956) and Webber, Saint, p. 204, who
analyzes his
15
Because
these ancient interpretations are founda-
tional for
purposes of this work, considerable attention will
be given
to this period. In keeping with this design, ex-
tensive
quotations will be made from the primary source
materials that
help elucidate ancient interpretation of the
dominion
materials.
Rule Over Creation as a Present Possession
Though
the ancient period furnishes no extensive tes-
timony for
understanding the dominion materials as implying a
present
possession, there are a number of brief references to
such an
idea. Though the following citations are not exhaus-
tive, they
are representative of those who understood the
dominion
materials as indicating a present possession.
Selected
sources
The
testimony of those who understood dominion to
refer to a
present possession is fairly broad in terms of
chronology and
literary type. The following list is arranged
categories with those of Niebuhr
as follows: "Niebuhr lists
five categories of Christ and culture--Christ
against culture;
Christ
of culture; Christ above culture; Christ and culture
in paradox; Christ the transformer of culture.
While these
are helpful categories, they are somewhat confusing
because
they do not allow for the vast differences that
exist under
each category. I have therefore delineated three general
categories, each of which has a large variety of
expression."
For
Webber these three categories are the separational
model,
the identificational
model, and the transformal model (pp. 75-
165).
Though Webber (and Niebuhr) speaks more of modern cate-
gories of opinion (and not directly about dominion passages),
the categories he suggests have great similarity
with those
of the ancient church period. This fact suggests
that modern
opinion has antecedents.
16
generally in
chronological order, beginning with the earli-
est.1 The
dates suggested are those that may be tentatively
accepted for
purposes of this study.
The
Epistle to Diognetius, x
(ca. A.D. 130):
If you also desire [to possess] this faith, you
likewise
shall receive first of all
the knowledge of the Father.
For God has loved mankind, on whose account He
made the
world, to whom He rendered
subject all the things that
are in it, to whom He gave
reason and understanding, to
whom alone He imparted the
privilege of looking upwards
to Himself, whom He formed
after His own image, to whom
He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has
promised
a kingdom in heaven, and
will give it to those who have
loved Him.2
Theophilus of
And first, they taught us with
one consent that God made
all things out of nothing;
for nothing was coeval with
1 As with any historical study built upon
manuscript
transmission, there are, of course,
some uncertainties about
chronology. For discussion of these uncertainties
the reader
is referred in a rudimentary way to the
introductory bio-
graphical remarks about individual authors and
titles scat-
tered throughout Alexander
Roberts and James Donaldson, eds.,
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vols. I-VIII, American
Reprint of
the
lishing Company, 1979),
hereafter cited as ANF, and Philip
Schaff and Henry Wace, eds.,
The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers,
Vols. I-XIV, Second Series Reprint (
Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), hereafter
cited
as NPNF.
2 This translation is taken from ANF,
1:29. Subsequent
translations within this section on
ancient interpretations
are taken from this same series on the fathers. The
transla-
tions are adequate and
readable and offer to the English
reader easy access to lengthy translations for
comparative
purposes. There are, of course, other
translations and edi-
tions such as J.-P. Migne, ed., Patroloqiae Cursus Completus,
series latina, 221 vols. (
Note
also Johannes Quasten, Walter J. Burghardt,
and Thomas
C.
Lawler, eds., Ancient Christian Writers,
40 vols. (New
The Fathers of the
Church,
68 vols. (
17
God: but He being His own place, and wanting
nothing,
and existing before the
ages, willed to make man by whom
He might be known; for him, therefore He
prepared the
world.1
II,
17:
For when man transgressed, they [i.e. the
animals] also
transgressed with him. For as, if
the master of the
house himself acts rightly,
the domestics also of neces-
sity conduct themselves
well; but if the master sins, the
servants also sin with him; so
in like manner it came to
pass, that in the case of
man's sin, he being master, all
that was subject to him
sinned with him. When, there-
fore, man again shall have
made his way back to his nat-
ural condition, and no
longer does evil, those also shall
be restored to their
original gentleness.2
II,
18:
And when He had made and blessed him, that he
might in-
crease and replenish the
earth, He put all things under
his dominion, and at his,
service; and He appointed from
the first that he should
find nutriment from the fruits
of the earth, and from
seeds, and herbs, and acorns,
having at the same time
appointed that the animals be of
habits similar to man's, that
they also might eat of all
the seeds of the earth.3
Athenagoras, The
Resurrection of the Dead (ca. A.D. 180), XII:
The argument from the cause will appear, if we
consider
whether man was made at random
and in vain, or for some
purpose; and if for some
purpose, whether simply that he
might live and continue in
the natural condition in which
he was created, or for the
use of another; and if with a
view to use, whether for
that of the Creator Himself, or
of some one of the beings
who belong to him, and are by
Him deemed worthy of greater care . . . and
irrational
beings are by nature in a
state of subjection, and per-
form those services for men
for which each of them was
intended, but are not intended
in their own turn to make
use of men: for it neither
was nor is right to lower
that which rules and takes
the lead to the use of the
1 Ibid., 2:97-98.
2 Ibid., 2:101.
The material within brackets is sup-
plied from the context of the quotation by this
writer.
3 Ibid., 2:101-2.
18
inferior, or to subject the
rational to the irrational,
which is not suited to rule.1
Tertullian (A.D. 145-220), On the Resurrection of the Flesh,
V:
For the creatures which were made were inferior
to him
for whom they were made;
and they were made for man, to
whom they were afterwards
made subject to God. Rightly,
therefore, had the creatures
which were thus intended for
subjection, come forth into being
at the bidding and com-
mand and sole power of the divine voice; whilst man, on
the contrary, destined to
be their Lord, was formed by
God himself, to the intent that he might be able
to
exercise his mastery, being created
by the Master the
Lord
Himself.2
Origen (A.D. 185-254), Origen Against Celsus,
IV, 23:
And in his [i.e., Celsus'] fictitious representation, he
compares us [i.e., Christians]
to "worms which assert
that there is a God, and
that immediately after him, we
who are made by him are
altogether like unto God, and
that all things have been
made subject to us,--earth, and
water, and air, and
stars,--and that all things exist for
our sake, and are ordained
to be subject to us."3
The Clementine Homilies (ca. A.D. 230-250), X,
3:
"God having fo wed the heaven and the earth, and having
made all things in them, as
the true Prophet has said to
us, man, being made after
the image and likeness of God,
was appointed to be ruler
and lord of things, I say, air
and earth and water, as may
be known from the very fact
that by his intelligence he
brings down the creatures that
are in the air, and brings
up those that are in the deep,
hunts those that are on the
earth, and that although they
are much greater in
strength than he . . ."4
1 Ibid.,
2:154-55.
2 Ibid., 3:549.
The underlining indicates italicized
words within the quotation.
3 Ibid., 4:506.
The words within brackets are sup-
plied by this writer from the context of this
quotation.
4 Ibid., 8:280.
19
XI,
23:
"For on thy account, 0 man,
God commanded the water to
retire upon the face of the
earth, that the earth might
be able to bring forth
fruits for thee . . . For is it
not for thee that the winds
blow, and rains fall, and
the seasons change for the
production of fruits? More-
over, it is for thee that
the sun and moon, with the
other heavenly bodies,
accomplish their risings and set-
tings; land rivers and pools,
with all fountains, serve
thee."1
Lactantius (A.D. 260-330), The Divine Institutes, VII, 4:
It is evident, therefore, that the world was
constructed
for the sake of living
beings, since living beings enjoy
those things of which it
consists . . . Again, that the
other living beings were made
for the sake of man, is
plain from this, that they
are subservient to man, and
were given for his
protection and service . . .2
VII,
5:
. . . therefore, God
did not make the world for His own
sake, because He does not
stand in need of its advan-
tages, but for the sake of
man . . 3
VII,
7:
The Stoics say that the world, and all things
which are
in it, were made for the
sake of men: the sacred writ-
ings teach us the same
things. Therefore Democritus was
in error, who thought that
they were poured forth from
the earth like worms,
without any author or plan.4
Lactantius, A Treatise on the Anger
of God, XIII:
If any one considers the whole government of the
world,
he will certainly
understand how true is the opinion of
the Stoics, who say that
the world was made on our ac-
count. For all the things of
which the world is composed,
1 Ibid., 8:289.
2 Ibid., 7:198.
3 Ibid., 7:199.
4 Ibid., 7:204.
20
and which it produces from
itself, are adapted to the use
of man.1
Constitutions
of the Holy Apostles, (ca. A.D. 325-360), VII,
2, xxxiv:
And at the conclusion of the creation Thou gavest direc-
tion to Thy Wisdom . . .
saying, "Let us make man after
our image, and after our
likeness"; and hast exhibited
him as the ornament of the
world . . .2
Gregory of Nyssa (A.D.
335-395), On the Making of Man, II,
2:
For this reason man was brought into the world
last after
the creation, not being
rejected to the last as worth-
less, but as one whom it behoved to be king over his
subjects at his very birth.3
Commentary
From
these several citations may be drawn a composite
assessment of the
dominion materials. Of course, the general
picture is
that these sources express the understanding that
dominion is a
present possession. However, in assessing the
selected
sources more carefully the following details are
evident.
Man's superiority
Jobling has
already noted that in this ancient period
ontological
superiority of man is linked with the understand-
ing of the
dominion as a present possession.4 That is,
1
Ibid., 7:269. In the discussion following this quo-
tation man is said to use
fire, springs, rivers, earth, and
sea for his purposes. For yet further discussion by
Lactan-
tius on the nature of man's
dominion see On the Workmanship
of God, II in Ibid., 7:282-83.
2 Ibid., 7:473.
3 NPNF, 5:390.
4 IOTT, p. 54.
21
through asserting man's ontological status the fathers were
able to maintain dominion as a present possession. The rea-
sons for this superiority are variously assigned in these
selected sources. Perhaps most prominent is the idea that
man's rational capacity makes him superior. By his intelli-
gence man is able to control those things made subject to him
by the Creator. Another reason for man's superiority is his
upward look, enabling him to give his loyalties to his Maker.
In addition the distinctive creative activity surrounding
man's creation helps distinguish him as superior to other
creatures. Thus man's superiority ontologically character-
izes him as an ornament in his environment.
Creation for man's sake
Again Jobling's analysis is correct.1 These ancient
church sources exhibit the notion of anthropocentric tele-
ology. The idea that creation was for man's sake is espe-
cially prominent as a means of explaining dominion as a pres-
ent possession. A recurring assertion is that all was made
for man's sake and that God ordained that all things should be
subject to man. Therefore, through divine appointment man is
stationed as king, as ruler and lord. In this way the things
of the world are at man's service. Even when man fell his
1 Ibid. Thus Jobling says that study of these ancient
church testimonies indicates that the idea of man's rule is
often--linked "with two other ideas. These are man's onto-
logical superiority, the idea that man is superior to the
rest of creation, and anthropocentric teleology, the idea
that the creation was made and exists for man's sake."
22
subjects fell with him. Thus, the general view is that the
rest of creation was in every sense prepared for man's ap-
pearance to fulfill his regal position.
Tradition influences
The assessments above are easily seen. What is not
so evident, however, is that complex of influences extant in
the ancient world which may have suggested to the church
fathers this particular view of the dominion materials. Lac-
tantius declares his familiarity with at least a part of that
complex of influences, namely Stoicism.1
Stoicism is most often associated with Zeno, though
without the work of Chrysippus Stoicism would not have been
fully developed.2 For Stoicism the goal of life is cast in
Panaetius' formula, "to live according to the starting-points
given us by nature."3 Nature is here for the purpose of man's
1 Cf. The Divine Institutes, VII, 7 in ANF, 7:204 and
A Treatise on the Anger of God, XIII in ibid., 7:269.
2 Cf. the succinct discussion on this point by F. I.
Finley, gen. ed., Ancient Culture and Society, 11 vols. (New
Stoics, by F. H. Sandbach, pp. 11-19. For further discussion
on Stoicism see Emile Brehier, The History of Philosophy,
vol. 2: The Hellenistic and Roman Age, trans. Wade Baskin
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 23-65;
W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, 5 vols.
(London: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 2:80-100; Werner
Jaeger, The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers (
The Clarendon Press, 1947;
erick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. I:
Limited, 1966), pp. 385-400, 421-437.
3 Finley, Stoics, p. 58. The point of the formula is
simply that man is to live consistently with nature's
manifest laws.
23
living. Jobling has pointed out that in two dialogues of
Socrates, as reported by Xenophon, the point is expressed
that man is superior to animals and that everything is here
"for man's sake."1 This Stoic influence left its impress on
the church fathers.2 They seem to have followed Stoic in-
terest in understanding creation as being here for man's
sake.3 Other influences from Stoicism and other Greek philo-
sophic thought may be traced. But undoubtedly the ancient
church view that dominion materials were to be understood as
a present possession was influenced by Stoicism.4
There were, of course, other influences besides
philosophy which conjoined to forge a complex that shaped to
1 Cf. Xenophon's Memorabilia, I, 4:14; IV, 3:llff. as
given in R. D. C. Robbins, Xenophon's Memorabilia of Socrates
(New York: D. Appleston and Company, 1856), pp. 28-29 and 145-
47. For Jobling's discussion on this point see IOTT, pp.
64-67.
2 Cf. ibid.
3 This influence on the fathers should not be surpris-
ing since the Middle and Later Stoa were active in the first
centuries of the church; cf. Finley, Stoics, p. 16: "In the
Greek world of the first two centuries of our era Stoicism
clearly remained a lively influence." Note also Copleston,
History, pp. 421-37, where the widespread influence is also
indicated.
4 For additional discussion on the influences of Greek
thought see Thorlief Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with
Greek, trans. J. L. Moreau, The Library of History and Doc-
trine (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), pp. 90-
97; G. J. deVries, "Christianity and Classical Culture," Free
University Quarterly 2 (October 1953): 251-60; M. Foster,
"Greek and Christian Ideas of Nature," Free University Quar-
terly 6 (May 1959): 122-27; Morton Smith, "The Image of God:
Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism," BJRL 40 (1958): 473-
512; M. Akita, "A Study on Greek and Hebrew Thinkings About
Man," Christianity and Culture 1 (1964): 7-26.
24
one degree or another the interpretive thought of the church
fathers. There is the intriguing remark by Ovid (43 B.C.-
A.D. 18) in Metamorphoses, I, 7.6ff.:
A living creature of finer stuff than these, more capable
of lofty thought was lacking yet. Then man was born:
whether the god who made all else, designing a more per-
fect world, made man of his own divine substance, or
whether the new earth, but lately drawn away from heaven-
ly ether, retained still some elements of its kindred sky
--that earth which the son of Iapetus mixed with fresh
running water and moulded into the form of the all-con-
trolling gods. And, though all other animals are prone,
and fix their gaze upon the earth, he gave to man an up-
lifted face and bade him stand erect and turn his eyes
to heaven. So, then, the earth, which had but lately
been a rough and formless thing, was changed and clothed
itself with forms of men before unknown.1
While one certainly would not want to argue that Ovid's
thought was directly passed on to the ancient church, the
above citation does indicate that viewing man's dominion as
a present possession was a rather common belief.
Further, in 2 Baruch 14:18 a similar view is ex-
pressed: "And thou didst say that Thou wouldst make for Thy
world man as the administrator of Thy works, that it might be
known that he was by no means made on account of the world,
but the world on account of him."2 And a corresponding view
1 The translation is that of Frank J. Miller, Ovid:
Metamorphoses, 2 vols., The Loeb Classical Library (
William Heinemann, 1928), 1:7-8.
2 Cf. R.. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepiq-
rapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (
Press, 1913), 2:491.
3 Ibid., 2:596. For further discussion on the way in
25
Last, there is the sketchy testimony of Jewish sour-
ces. Only brief citation is necessary to indicate that Jew-
ish commentary provided a part of the influence on the church.
The Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan Ben Uzziel, and
generally correlate with the tradition of wording found in
BHK.1 Talmudic sources understand man as ontologically supe-
rior by the very fact that "man, in God's image, has the
capacity to reflect and to criticize. All an animal can do
is act and respond."2 Genesis Rabba, 8 gives the midrashic
which Jewish nationalism assimilated the idea that God cre-
ated the world for man's sake see C. W. Emmet, "The Fourth
Book of Esdras and
especially 552.
1 Cf. J. W. Etheridge, The Tarqums of Onkelos and Jona-
than Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with Fraqments of the Jeru-
House, Inc., 1968), pp. 37, 160-61. As one would expect the
Targum of Onkelos "restricts itself more to the simple ren-
dering of the Hebrew Text" (ibid., p. 8). The Palestinian
Targum, however, being more inclined to Derush rabbinic inter-
pretation ("illustration, traditio-historical, anecdotal, or
allegorical"), is freer in its renderings (ibid., p. 9). For
an illustration of this note the interesting interpretation
by the Palestinian Targum of the account of man's creation:
"In the image of the Lord He created him, with two hundred
and forty and eight members, with three hundred and sixty
and five nerves, and over laid them with skin, and filled
it with flesh and blood" (ibid., p. 160).
2 Jacob Neusner, Invitation to the Talmud (
Harper & Row, 1973), p. 231. This difference between man and
animal can be accounted for at least partially because God
has placed an ethical drive within man, the Yetzer tob, the
good inclination, and the Yetzer ha-ra, the inclination to
evil (cf. Mishna Berachoth IX, 5: fr rcybv bvF rcyb jyrcy ynwb).
For discussion of this point see Moses Mielziner, Introduc-
tion to the Talmud, 4th ed. (
Company, 1968), pp. 269-70. On this same point see also
the brief discussion of Ben Zion Bokser, The Wisdom of the
Talmud (New York: Philosophical Library, 1951), pp. 92-93.
26
opinion that the creation of man indicates that, in addition
to man being a product of earth, he is also gifted with rea-
son, intellect, and understanding.1 A last brief citation
from the mishnaic source, Sanhedrin, 59, 2, indicates a
similar attempt to underscore man's dominion as a present
possession:
In the course of a discussion whether Adam was allowed
to slay animals for food or not, the question is raised:
Does not his dominion over the fish imply, that he was
allowed to eat them? No; it means only that he should
employ them in his service.2
In general even the Jewish influences, of whatever
degree, might have been in the direction of understanding Old
Testament dominion materials as indicating a present posses-
sion by man.3
God's Rule--Man's Rule
When the church fathers were faced with the interpre-
tation that man's rule is a present possession, they some-
times hastened to emphasize that distinctions were to be made
between the rule of God and the rule of man. Man's rule was
1 Samuel Rapaport, A Treasury of the Midrash (
KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1968), p. 62.
2 Paul
tary, trans. M. Wolkenberg (
1883), p. 67. There was even some discussion in Mishnaic
sources over the singularity or plurality of "subdue" (hwbk).
This debate is seen in the exchange between Rav Ilaa and Rav
Ytzchak (ibid.).
3 There is, however, a word of caution. Jacob Neusner,
"Scriptural, Essenic, and Mishnaic Approaches to Civil Law
and Government: Some Comparative Remarks," HTR 73 (July-
October 1980) : 419-34, especially 429, cautions (in another
context of discussion) that Jewish influences were more mar-
ginally felt by the Christian community.
27
a subordinate rule, a delegated position.1 The focus of this
understanding was on the dominion as a delegated rulership.
Such an interpretation is still positive, but casts man's
present rulership in the light of God's superior rulership.
The previous interpretation of the dominion materials empha-
sized man's superiority over the rest of creation. The pres-
ent interpretation calls attention to God's rulership over
man, while still allowing man delegated rulership.
Selected sources
The selections included here are few in number, but
may be taken as adequately implying the essence of this
interpretation of the dominion materials.2
Origen (A.D. 185-254), Origen Against Celsus, IV, 27:
"The Sun and Night are to mortals slaves." . . . Day and
night, then, are subject to mortals, being created for
the sake of rational beings. And if ants and flies,
which labour by day and rest by night, have, besides, the
benefit of those things which were created for the sake
of men, we must not say that day and night were brought
into being for the sake of ants and flies, nor must we
suppose that they were created for the sake of nothing,
but, agreeably to the design of
for the sake of man.3
1 Cf. Jobling's discussion in IOTT, pp. 97ff.
2 Generally speaking the sources to draw upon tend to
be sketchy. Only the more clear have been included. The
less clear are those such as Tertullian Against Marcion, IV,
24 where mention is made that man's power over the animals is
a delegated power: ". . . the Creator has promised . . . to
give this power even to little children, of putting their
hand in the cockatrice den and on the hole of the young asps
without at all receiving hurt" (cf. ANF, 3:388).
3 Ibid., 4:532. The opening line of this citation is
taken from Euripides (480-406 B.C.), The Phoenician Maidens,
546: ei@q ] h!lioj men nu<c te douleu<ei brotoi?j, cf. Arthur S.
Way, Euripides, 4 vols., The Loeb Classical Library (
William Heinemann, 1919), 3:386.
28
The Clementine Homilies (ca. A.D. 230-250), III, 26-27:
And, moreover, who is lord over the creatures, so far as
it is possible? Is it not man . . . Wherefore, before
all things, consider that no one shares His rule, no one
has a name in common with Him--that is, is called God.
For He alone is both called and is God.1
Lactantius (A.D. 260-330), The Divine Institutes, II, 9:
In short, when God revealed the truth to man, He wished
us only to know those things which it concerned man to
know for the attainment of life; but as to the things
which related to a profane and eager curiosity He was
silent, that they might be secret.2
Lactantius, A Treatise on the Anger of God, XIV:
It follows that I show for what purpose God made man
himself. As He contrived the world for the sake of man,
so He formed man himself on His own account, as it were
a priest of a divine temple, a spectator of His works
and of heavenly objects. For he is the only being who,
since he is intelligent and capable of reason, is able
to understand God, to admire His works, and perceive His
energy and power; for on this account he is furnished
with judgment, intelligence, and prudence. On this ac-
count he alone, beyond the other living creatures, has
been made with an upright body and attitude, so that he
seems to have been raised up for the contemplation of
his Parent. On this account he alone has received lan-
guage, and a tongue the interpreter of his thought, that
he may be able to declare the majesty of his Lord. Last-
ly, for this cause all things were placed under his con-
trol, that he himself might be under the control of God,
their Maker and Creator.3
Commentary
The central focus of these citations is that man's
1 ANF, 8:245.
2 Ibid., 7:56. This quotation follows Lactantius'
citation from Ovid, Metamorphoses, I, 76ff.: "A living crea-
ture of finer stuff than these, more capable of lofty
thought, one who could have dominion over all the rest, was
lacking yet. Then man was born . . ." (cf. Miller, Ovid, 2:7).
3 ANF, 7:271.
29
dominion is assigned to him. Whatever is his, he is assured
that it came to him according to the design of
Thus he is given control and in that place of authority is
to be under the dominion of his creator. Man's rulership is
vast, extending to the inclusion of planets as part of his
kingdom. But this man never shares God's rule; he is under
it. In two ways the rulership of God over man is seen.
God's dominion over man
Man clearly is in subjection to God because God has
told man only those things he wishes man to know. There re-
mains a series of things hidden from man, hidden in the mys-
teries of God's own knowledge. With equal clarity one under-
stands that man is made to worship, to serve his Creator. He
owes allegiance to the one whose authority and rulership is
superior. Thus God's superiority of rule becomes seen
through man's limited knowledge and his obligation to give
his allegiances to his Creator.
Tradition influences
Jobling has clearly pointed out that this particular
view of the dominion material may have been influenced by
traditions outside the church.1 Philo, De opificio mundi, 88
maintained that man's place within creation was that of a
pilot or a u!parxoj, a subordinate commander, a lieutenant.2
1 Cf. IOTT, pp. 97ff.
2 Cf. Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, compilers, A
Greek-English Lexicon, 2 vols., revised and augmented through-
30
Another earlier tradition is that of Sirach 17:2, ". . , and
gave them authority over all things on the earth."1 Clearly
this brief citation asserts at once man's dominion and its
having been delegated to him.
Thus, outside the church fathers there is a tradition
consistent with the view of the dominion materials which
focuses attention on the delegated nature of man's dominion.2
Promise-Fulfillment Debate
The previous two interpretations of the dominion
material emphasized that man's rule is a present possession,
though these interpretations focus on man's superiority and
man's subordination respectively. Consideration is now given
to that interpretation which estimates that, though the
dominion materials indicate a promised rule, the fulfillment
of that rule is only partial. That is, the fulfillment is
not the possession of every man. This perspective is
evidenced in the following citations.
Selected sources
Because the partial fulfillment of the dominion prom-
out by Henry S. Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKen-
zie et al., with a supplement (
1968), 2:1853. For discussion of this material in Philo see
IOTT, p. 101.
1 Charles, Apocrypha, 1:375.
2 Of interest is the fact that at
tive lack of interest in these dominion materials. Cf. IOTT,
pp. 114-15. Also of interest in passing is the possible con-
tribution of Stoic and neo-Platonist thought to the view of
man's rule being subordinate to God's rule, ibid., p. 117.
31
ise is variously assigned, the following sources will not
seem homogeneous upon first glance.
Aristides, The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, (ca.
A.D. 125), I:
I say, however, concerning this mover of the world, that
he is God of all, who made all things for the sake of
mankind. And it seems to me that this is reasonable,
that one should fear God and should not oppress man.1
Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165), The Second Apology, IV:
We have been taught that God did not make the world aim-
lessly, but for the sake of the human race; and we have
before stated that He takes pleasure in those who imitate
His properties, and is displeased with those that em-
brace what is worthless either in word or deed.2
The Pastor of Hermas (A.D. 160), IV:
". . . do you not perceive how great is the glory of
God, and how strong and marvelous, in that He created
the world for the sake of man, and subjected all creation
to him, and gave him power to rule over everything under
heaven? If, then, man is lord of the creatures of God,