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and not rescinded.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,
and rules over all, is he not able to be lord also of
these commandments? For," says he, "the man who has the
Lord in his heart can also be lord: of all, and of every
one of these commandments. But to those who have the
Lord only on their lips . . . the commandments are hard
and difficult."3
1 This translation is from the Syriac, cf. ANF, 10:263.
The Greek version omits this citation, reading only: "The
self-same being, then, who first established and now controls
the universe--him do I affirm to be God . . ." (ibid.).
2 Ibid., 1:189. In light of the context of this quo-
tation Justin claims that pleasing God (giving of instruction
in the divine doctrines as a faithful witness) is how we
achieve God's purpose in making creation for the sake of the
human race. This dominionizing of creation would therefore
be achieved only by the righteous as they pursue the practice
of instructing in divine doctrines.
3 Ibid., 2:29. This expresses the view that man's rule
over created things is conditioned by the nature of his re-
sponse toward God. Those who are righteous may expect to
rule as God promised they would.
32
Clement of
Some men, in truth, live that they may eat, as the irra-
tional creatures, "whose life is their belly, and nothing
else." But the Instructor enjoins us to eat that we may
live. For neither is food our business, nor is pleasure
our aim; but both are on account of our life here, which
the Word is training up to immortality. . . . For God,
when He created man, said, "All things shall be to you
for meat."1
Clement of
And what, I ask, is it in which man differs from beasts,
and the angels of God, on the other hand, are wiser than
he? "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels."
For some do not interpret this Scripture of the Lord, al-
though He also bore flesh, but of the perfect man and the
gnostic, inferior in comparison with the angels in time,
and by reason of the vesture [of the body]. . . . For if
there is one function belonging to the peculiar nature of
each creature, . . . what shall we say is the peculiar
function of man? . . . the body tills the ground, and
hastes to it; but the soul is raised to God: trained in
the true philosophy, it speeds to its kindred above, turn-
ing away from the lusts of the body, and besides these,
from toil and fear . . . The severance, therefore, of the
soul from the body, made a life-long study, produces in
the philosopher gnostic alacrity, so that he is easily
able to bear natural death which is the dissolution of
the chains which bind the soul to the body.2
The Clementine Homilies (ca. A.D. 230-250), X, 25:
“. . . it is not right to call the elements gods, by which
good things are supplied; but only Him who ordereth them,
to accomplish all things for our use, and who commandeth
them to be serviceable to man,--Him alone we call God in
1 Ibid., 2:237-41. While the ellipsis represents a
considerable omission, the conjoining of material in this
citation appears to give a correct sense to Clement's thought.
In this section of The Instructor he uses a dominion passage,
Gen 9:lff., to develop ethical conclusions against gluttony.
2 Ibid., 2:410-11. Clement's thinking understands the
work of the righteous to be the divesting of the body (IV, 4
goes on to praise martyrdom). This divestiture he explains
in light of the dominion passage in Ps 8, which passage some,
he says, interpret as referring to the perfect man.
33
propriety of speech, whose beneficence you do not per-
ceive, but permit those elements to rule over you which
have been assigned to you as your servants.1
Lactantius (A.D. 260-330), On the Workmanship of God, VIII:
When, therefore, God had determined of all the animals
to make man alone heavenly, and all the rest earthly, He
raised him erect to the contemplation of the heaven, . . .
but He depressed the others to the earth, that . . . they
might be subservient to their appetite and food. And
thus the right reason and elevated position of man alone,
and his countenance, shared with and closely resembling
God his Father, bespeak his origin and Maker. His mind,
nearly divine, because it has obtained the rule not only
over the animals which are on the earth, but over his own
body, . . . looks out upon and observes all things.2
Commentary
What is especially striking about these sources is
their uniform judgment that the promise of the dominion mate-
rials finds fulfillment in the righteous, not in all persons.
Undoubtedly these authors could not "read these texts without
a sense of their being unfulfilled; we may call it a sense of
loss."3 But they saw at least partial fulfillment in the life
of the righteous. However, the obvious question still is:
How does dominion express itself in the life of the righteous?
1 Ibid., 8:284. Here is explained the belief that the
dominion granted man is brought to ruination by one's fall
into idolatry. The result of idolatry is to turn the ruler
into the ruled.
2 This passage, found in ibid., 7:288-89, indicates
that dominion is exercised by the righteous through self-
control. For comparison of a similar expression see Basil,
The Hexaemeron, IX, 6 in NPNF, 8:105-7.
3 IOTT, p. 130. Jobling notes that "in Sir 17:1-4 the
reference to man's rule seems to be there to counteract a
sense of loss which has turned to cynicism, in 16:17" (ibid.).
34
The solutions to this question are varied.
Solutions to the debate
One resolution to the promise-fulfillment debate was
to apply the dominion promise to ethical matters. Clement of
person to have dominion when he kept himself from gluttony.
In so doing he had ruled over foods, put them to the proper
use of sustaining life, not become ruled by them. Aristides,
The Apoloqy of Aristides the Philosopher, I, understood that
the dominion promise was at least partially fulfilled in free-
dom from the oppression of rulers. Justin Martyr, The Second
Apology, IV, believed dominion was exercised by the righteous
as they had freedom to give instruction in divine doctrines.1
A second solution, which flows naturally out of the
first, is to understand the promised dominion as being ful-
filled in the righteous person's mastery of self. Such domin-
ion extends not only over the animals but over one's very own
body (Lactantius, On the Workmanship of God, VIII). Basil in
The Hexaemeron, IX, 6, argued the same point.
A third solution to the debate was to explain the
dominion in negative terms, indicating why the promise was not
fulfilled. Primarily the lack of fulfillment may be blamed
on man's fall into sin. The Clementine Homilies, X, 25, ex-
plain this fall as a turning to idolatry. The practice of
idolatry results not only in loss of rule but in being ruled
1 Cf. p. 31, n. 2.
35
by those very elements over which the Creator assigned man
as ruler.
Tradition influences
Here, as earlier, there are a number of tradition in-
fluences at work which might be understood as antecedents of
this solution to the debate. The Stoics, in keeping with
rather common Greek thought, understood the sage, "the man of
reason who is also the good man," as a ruler.1 This is remi-
niscent of Plato's philosopher-kings. Plato's notion reminds
one of the rabbinic tradition which had grown up around Sol-
omon. Genesis Rabba 34:12 "thinks of the dominion lost by
Adam as returning in the person of Solomon."2 This tradition
is understandable in light of the vastness of Solomon's
domain referred to by the following:
I have eaten no food and drunk no water, in order to fly
about in the whole world and see whether there is a
domain anywhere which is not subject to my lord the
king.3
These influences show that the assigning of rulership to one
or several persons, possessed of goodly moral qualities, was
1 See IOTT, p. 140 and his discussion which follows.
2 Ibid., p. 145.
3 Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols.
(
1968), 4:143; cf. also 1:177-78. These Jewish legends about
the dominion of Solomon bothered the ancient church: "The
Church Fathers are at pains to contradict this assertion of
the Jewish legend, not out of dislike for Solomon, but for
polemical reasons, maintaining that the scriptural passages
speaking of man's dominion over the entire creation can only
refer to Jesus. See Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 34; Tertullian,
Adversus Judaeos, 7" (ibid., 6:289).
36
a part of the tradition influence existing prior to the inter-
pretive work of the church fathers.
There is also some evidence that there existed a tra-
dition connecting the loss of dominion with the fall. This
correlation is reflected in a negative way by the following
Jewish legend about the creation of man:
. . .God said to Gabriel: "Go and fetch Me dust from
the four corners of the earth, and I will create man
therewith." Gabriel went forth to do the bidding of the
Lord, but the earth drove him away, and refused to let
him gather up dust from it. Gabriel remonstrated: "Why,
O Earth, dost thou not hearken unto the voice of the Lord
. . . ?" The earth replied, and said: "I am destined to
become a curse, and to be cursed through man . . ."1
Rule as Lost or Diminished
The sources mentioned just above already opened the
possibility that dominion materials might have been inter-
preted as a rule lost or diminished. Thus the sources here
will indicate an extension of thought already introduced. If
the rule promised has a fulfillment which is open to debate,
interpretation of the dominion material would sooner or later
suggest that the rule might have been lost or diminished.
The following select sources suggest this.
Selected sources
These sources have in common the idea that the rule
assigned was in some sense altered.2 The exact nature of this
1 Ginzberg, Legends, 1:54.
2 For extended discussion of this idea see IOTT, p.
164ff.
37
alteration is variously understood, but its fact is under-
scored.1
Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202), Irenaeus Against Heresies, XXIII, 2-3:
But inasmuch as man is saved, it is fitting that he who
was created the original man should be saved. . . . imme-
diately after Adam had transgressed, as the Scripture re-
lates, He pronounced no curse against Adam personally,
but against the ground, in reference to his works, as a
certain person among the ancients has observed: "God did
indeed transfer the curse to the earth, that it might not
remain in man." But man received, as the punishment of
his transgression, the toilsome task of tilling the earth,
and to eat bread in the sweat of his face, and to return
to the dust from whence he was taken.2
Tertullian (A.D. 145-220), Tertullian Against Marcion, II,
VIII:
As, therefore, God designed for man a condition of life,
so man brought on himself a state of death . . . No doubt
it was an angel who was the seducer; but then the victim
of that seduction was free, and master of himself and as
being the image and likeness of God, was stronger than
any angel . . . He would not have made all things subject
to man, if he had been too weak for the dominion, and in-
ferior to the angels, to whom He assigned no such subjects.
. . . And thus it comes to pass, that even now also, the
same human being, the same substance of his soul, the
same condition as Adam's, is made conqueror over the same
1 This understanding of alteration stands in contrast
to the view that even at his creation man served as a slave.
The rule as lost or diminished emphasizes that man was ini-
tially a ruler. Cf. the statement of the gnostic The Apoca-
lypse of Adam (V, 5): "Then we recognized the God who had
created us. For we were not strangers to his powers. And we
served him in fear and slavery. And after these (events) we
became darkened in our heart(s)." The reference of these
words is evidently to Adam's and Eve's loss of glory and knowl-
edge and their coming under the enslaving power of the lowly
creator. See James M. Robinson, director, The Nag Hammadi
Library, trans. members of the Coptic Gnostic Library Project
of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity (San Fran-
cisco: Harper & Row, 1977), p. 257.
2 Cf. ANF, 1:456.
38
devil by the self-same liberty and power of his will,
when it moves in obedience to the laws of God.1
Tertullian, On Repentance, II:
For God--after so many and so great sins of human temer-
ity, begun by the first of the race, Adam, after the con-
demnation of man, together with the dowry of the world,
after his ejection from paradise and subjection to death
--when He had hasted back to His own mercy, did from that
time onward inaugurate repentance in His own self, by
rescinding the sentence of His first wrath, engaging to
great pardon to His own work and image.2
Tertullian, On Prayer, V:
. . . if the manifestation of the Lord's kingdom pertains
unto the will of God and unto our anxious expectation,
how do some pray for some protraction of the age, when
the
the consummation of the age? Our wish is, that our reign
be hastened, not our servitude protracted.3
Recognitions of Clement (ca. A.D. 230-250), V, II:
At first, therefore, while he was still righteous, he was
superior to all disorders and all frailty; but when he
sinned, as we taught you yesterday, and became the ser-
vants of sin, he became at the same time liable to frail-
ty. This therefore is written, that men may know that,
as by impiety they have been made liable to suffer, so by
piety they may be made free from suffering; and not only
free from suffering, but by even a little faith in God be
able to cure the sufferings of others.4
The Clementine Homilies (ca. A.D. 230-250), I, IV:
While, therefore, he was righteous, he was also superior
to all sufferings, as being unable by his immortal body
to have any experience of pain; but when he sinned, as I
showed you yesterday and the day before, becoming as it
1 Ibid., 3:303-4.
2 Ibid., 3:657. The expression "the dowry of the
world" must include the dominion granted to man by God.
3 Ibid., 3:683. This citation is in the context of an
explanation of the expression, "Thy kingdom come."
4 Cf. ibid., 8:143. This citation is preceded by a
reference to the dominion material in Gen 1:26-28.
39
were the servant of sin, he became subject to all suffer-
ings, being by a righteous judgment deprived of all
excellent things.1
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (ca. A.D. 325-360), VIII,
12:
But when he neglected that command, and tasted of the
forbidden fruit, by the seduction of the serpent and
the counsel of his wife, Thou didst justly cast him
out of paradise. Yet of Thy goodness Thou didst not
overlook him, nor suffer him to perish utterly, for he
was Thy creature; but Thou didst subject the whole cre-
ation to him, and didst grant him liberty to procure
himself food by his own sweat and labours, whilst Thou
didst cause all the fruits of the earth to spring up,
to grow, and to ripen.2
Commentary
Clearly these sources indicate that whatever was in-
cluded in the original dominion (Gen 1:26-28) has been at
least altered, perhaps lost. This view is, therefore con-
siderably more pessimistic than previous views. Though this
pessimism is present, it does not contract the concurrent
assertion that the dominion may be at least partially realized.
Realization of dominion
The dominion that was lost has cast man in the role of
servant. How long will this servitude last? The question may
be answered along two lines. The first concerns what initi-
1 The context of this citation, cf. ibid., 8:280, is
a discussion of man's dominion as given by the creator, The
Clementine Homilies, X, 3.
2 ANF, 7:487-88. The context prior to this citation
concerns a discussion of the dominion God gave man. There-
fore, the word "he" in the opening line has the first man as
its antecedent.
40
ated the loss of dominion. Predominantly, the view expressed
by the sources is that the fall, especially as described by
the words of Genesis 3:17-19, is the event which initiates
this loss of dominion.1 But what this loss means is not clear.
The second line of analysis concerns the time when the
dominion is restored, at least partially. One answer is, of
course, that the dominion's restoration awaits the coming of
the Lord's kingdom (Tertullian, On Prayer, V). Another an-
swer is that dominion partially returns when piety is prac-
ticed. Such obedience brings about dominion over present
sufferings (Recognitions of Clement, V, 2). Moreover, domin-
ion is also explained as being partially man's because man is
able to procure food from the earth for himself (Constitutions
of the Holy Apostles, VIII, 12). Or, the partial return of
dominion may be explained as the power over the devil as one
moves in obedience to God's laws (Tertullian Against Marcion,
II, 8).2 These sources indicate that though dominion was
lost, there is a partial realization of it.
1 Cf. the discussion of IOTT, p. 184, and the article
he cites on history of the exegesis of the fall, H.-G. Leder,
"Sundenfallerzahlung and Versuchsgeschichte," ZNW 54 (1963):
188-216.
2 Power regained over the devil introduces the some-
what common theme of a struggle between two worlds, a notion
so much a part of gnostic literature. The fighting of the
worlds of good and evil here finds implementation in the do-
minion materials. Cf. the Jewish legend in which God spoke to
the serpent: "I created thee to be king over all animals,
cattle: and the beasts of the field alike; but thou wast not
satisfied. Therefore thou shalt be cursed above all cattle
and above every beast of the field" (Ginzberg, Legends, 1:78).
41
Tradition influences
There are several potential sources of influence that
may have helped shape this view of the dominion materials.
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha contain several helpful sour-
ces. The Apocalypse Mosis, XXIV, 4 associates the loss of
dominion with the fall: "The beasts over whom thou didst
rule, shall rise up in rebellion against thee, for thou hast
not kept my commandment."1 In this same piece of literature
(XI, 1 and 2) the fall is understood to produce changes in the
nature of the beasts which were in subjection prior to the
fall:
It is not our concern, Eve, thy greed and thy wailing,
but thine own; for (it is) from thee that the rule of
the beasts hath arisen. How was thy mouth opened to eat
of the tree concerning which God enjoined thee not to
eat of it? On this account, our nature also hath been
transformed.2
The audacity of the animals is the more startling since the
first man, Adam, had such remarkable glory that he was able to
name them all (Jub. 3:1-2).2 Enoch 58:1-3 recounts this same
past glory.3 But the glory, that noble rule, was lost. The
Wisdom of Solomon offers a more complete understanding by
1 Charles, Apocrypha, 2:147.
2 Ibid., 2:143. This quotation recounts the words spo-
ken by a wild beast in response to a reprimand by Eve. This
reprimand occurred as Eve and Seth went toward paradise, and
the wild beast assails Seth. In Eve's reprimand are these
words: "Thou wicked beast, fearest thou not to fight with the
image of God? . . . How didst thou not call to mind thy subjec-
tion? For long ago wast thou made subject to the image of
God" (X, 3).
3 Ibid., 2:464.
42
recounting not only that original dominion of man (9:2) but
connecting that to moral uprightness (9:3).1 Being so re-
lated, the loss of moral uprightness through Adam's trans-
gression altered his dominion, but wisdom "gave him strength
to get dominion over all things" again (10:1-2).2
Philo in several of his writings expresses similar
notions (Legum allegoriae, II, 9ff. and Quaestiones et sol
tiones in Genesim, I, 22).3 But Philo in a remarkable passage
acknowledges that the past glory of Adam has diminished (De
opificio mundi, 148):
. . . seeing that God had fashioned him with the utmost
care and deemed him worthy of the second place, making him
His own viceroy and Lord of all others. For men born many
generations later, when, owing to the lapse of ages, the
race had lost its vigour, are none the less still masters
of the creatures that are without reason, keeping safe a
torch (as it were) of sovereignty and dominion passed
down from the first man.4
1 Ibid., 1:549.
2 Ibid., 1:550-1.
3 Cf. the brief discussion in IOTT, pp. 182-83.
4 As quoted by ibid., p. 178. In another portion of
this same work Philo (De opificio mundi, 140-41) describes a
similar evaluation of a loss of past glory. David Winston, ed.
and trans., Philo of
ituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), pp. 103-4 (here-
after cited as PA) gives this translation: "Such, I think,
was the first man created in body and soul, excelling all the
men that now are, and all who have preceded us. For our ori-
gin is from men, whereas God created him, and the more excel-
lent the maker, that much better the work. For as that which
is in its prime is always better than that whose prime is past,
whether animal or plant or fruit or anything else in nature,
so the man first fashioned was likely the flower of our entire
race, while those who came after no longer attained a like
prime, inasmuch as subsequent generations have taken on forms
and faculties ever fainter. . . . Generation by generation the
powers and qualities both of body and of soul that men receive
are feebler."
43
Last for consideration are two Jewish traditions.
One concerns a restoration or dominion to Noah as had been
enjoyed by Adam, based upon 'Aseret ha-Dibrot 63, MHG
(tywxrb rps . . . ldgh wrdm) I, 26 and Raziel 27d.1 Another
concerns the refusal of animals to propagate unless rewarded
for their work, indicating a radical alteration in man-
animal existence.2 Together these two legends underscore
the loss of an original dominion and in one case its restora-
tion (the Noah legend).
Rule in an Eschatological Figure
This view of the dominion material is supported by
fewer sources, perhaps because the fathers had before them an
abundance of other passages of Scripture which functioned as
eschatological texts.3 These few sources, however, do indi-
cate a clear interest in eschatological interpretation of the
dominion materials.
Selected sources
These few sources have various methods of attributing
the idea of dominion to Christ or through Christ to his com-
munity. There are several indirect applications of assumed
dominion material to Christ, as in Irenaeus (Irenaeus Against
1 Ginzberg, Legends, 5:18, n. 53.
2 Ibid., 5:54, n. 174.
3 Cf. IOTT, p. 200.
44
Heresies, IV, 34, ii).1 However, the following represent
sources of a more explicit nature.
The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 100), VI:
Since, therefore, having renewed us by the remission of
our sins, He hath made us after another pattern, [it is
His purpose] that we should possess the soul of children,
inasmuch as He has created us anew by His Spirit. For
the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the
Son, "Let us make man after our image, and after Our like-
ness; and let them have dominion over the beasts of the
earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the
sea." . . . These things [were spoken] to the Son. . . .
But He said above, "Let them increase, and rule over the
fishes." Who then is able to govern the beasts, or the
fishes, or the fowls of heaven? For we ought to perceive
that to govern implies authority, so that one should com-
mand and rule. If, therefore, this does not exist at
present, yet still He has promised it to us. When? When
we ourselves also have been made perfect [so as] to be-
come heirs of the covenant of the Lord.2
Tertullian (A.D. 145-220), An Answer to the Jews, XIV:
We affirm two characters of the Christ demonstrated by
the prophets, and as many advents of His forenoted: . . .
"made a little lower" by Him "than angels" . . . Which
evidences of ignobility suit the First Advent, just as
those of sublimity do the Second . . . the Father withal
afterwards, after making Him somewhat lower than angels,
"crowned Him with glory and honour and subjected all
things beneath His feet.3
Tertullian Aqainst Marcion, II, 27:
. . . making Him [i.e., Christ] a little lower than the
angels, as it is written in David.4
1 Cf. ANF, 1:511.
2 Ibid., 1:140-41. The words within brackets are
supplied by the translator of this passage.
3 Ibid., 3:172. Words underlined in this citation
indicate italicized words within the quotation.
4 Ibid., 3:318. Words within brackets are supplied
by this writer from the context.
45
Against Praxeas, IX:
For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a
derivation and portion of the whole, as He himself ac-
knowledges: "My Father is greater than I." In the Psalm
His inferiority is described as being "a little lower
than the angels."1
Against Praxeas, XXIII:
This heaven the Father willed to be His own throne; while
He made the Son to be "a little lower than the angels,"
by sending Him down to the earth, but meaning at the same
time to "crown Him with glory and honour," even by taking
Him back to heaven.2
Commentary
The ideas which these sources evidence are rather
clear. The dominion materials, especially the Psalm 8-Hebrews
complex, are consistently applied to Christ. Christ's
rulership means his followers shall become perfect as He is
perfect (cf. The Epistle of Barnabas). In this way the
Genesis 1:26-28 account can be understood as speaking "con-
cerning us, while" speaking "to the Son" (cf. The Epistle
of Barnabas).
But there is equally clear evidence in these sources
that even when applied to Christ, the dominion materials
raised the promise-fulfillment debate. This problem was re-
solved by appeal to the two advents (cf. Tertullian, An
Answer to the Jews). In this way the two advents became a
map for charting the historical movement of the promise-
fulfillment complex of the dominion materials.
1 Ibid., 3:603-4.
2 Ibid., 3:619.
46
Restoration of rule
By following this map the restoration of rulership
is clearly implied, first in the person of Christ and then,
in the community of his followers. For this restoration to
happen to his followers they must have supplied to them their
deficiency of what their Lord possessed in full measure, per-
fection. Such restoration of Christ's community was there-
fore eschatological, since this perfection was not expected
by the community until the end.1
Tradition influences
By the very nature of this view one would most expect
to find its development in the context of the Judeo-Christian
tradition, not elsewhere.2 One source that ought to be cited
1 This interest in seeing the dominion materials as
applying both to Christ and, through Him, to His community
may have been occasioned by the exegetical questions raised
by the Heb 2 citation of Ps 8. For discussion in an intro-
ductory way see IOTT, pp. 207-9; Simon Kistemaker, The Psalm
Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (
van Soest N.V., 1961), especially pp. 102ff. [cf. the brief
synopsis of this dissertation in "News About the University:
Dissertations," Free University Quarterly 8 (April 1962):
133-341; and numerous articles such as Kenneth J. Thomas,
"The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews," NTS 11 (1964):
303-25.
2 Though mention has not been made of the point, there
is some evidence in the fathers of an Adam-Christ typology,
the notion that the dominion lost in Adam is regained in
Christ; cf. Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies Iv, 34. For
more full discussion of this point see IOTT, pp. 209-11.
Added to these remarks should be those of Robert L. Wilkin,
Judaism and the Early Christian Mind (
sity Press, 1971), pp. 108ff., where is discussed Cyril of
Adam-Christ typology Cyril says: "We became diseased through
the disobedience of the first Adam and his curse, but we have
become rich through the obedience of the second and his bless-
47
is 4 Ezra 6:59.1 The context of this remark argues "that for
our sakes thou hast created this world" (6:55). The antece-
dent of "our" is the elect nation. Therefore, the question
is raised, "if the world has indeed been created for our
sakes, why do we not enter into possession of our world (59)?"
This lack of entering into possession is in stark contrast to
the lordship first granted Adam (54). Other apocalyptic
influences will be discussed later in chapter three.
Rule as Cultural Expression
This interpretation of the dominion materials under-
stands them as referring to cultural activity, defining such
activity as one's relationship to the multiple aspects of
creation. The more important question is: Over what aspects
does man rule? Various answers are given. Each answer,
though, locates the original man in a state of cosmic har-
mony, as some call chronological primitivism.2 The question
is whether, and if so, to what degree, man has moved from
that original state of harmony.
Selected sources
The question raised above is answered in various ways
as the following few sources indicate. In some cases man is
ing" (p. 109); cf. also ibid., p. 113. And these same points
are made by Cyril when he says that in Christ there is an
a]nakefalai<wsij (recapitulation) of the things in heaven and
earth (p. 115).
1 Charles, Apocrypha, 2:579.
2 PA, pp. 339-40, n. 103.
48
depicted as ruling over the domesticated animals, in others
over a more world-wide domain.1
Tertullian (A.D. 145-200), A Treatise on the Soul, XXXIII:
Now all creatures are the servants of man; all are his
subjects, all his dependents.2
The Clementine Homilies (ca. A.D. 230-250), III, 36:
And, moreover, who is lord over the creatures, so far as
is possible? Is it not man, who has received wisdom to
till the earth, to sail the sea; to make fishes, birds,
and beasts his prey; to investigate the course of the
stars, to mine the earth, to sail the sea; to build
cities, to define kingdoms, to ordain laws, to execute
justice, to know the invisible God, to be cognizant of
the names of angels, to drive away demons, to endeavour
to cure diseases by medicines, to find charms against
poison-darting serpents, to understand antipathies?3
Lactantius (A.D. 260-330), A Treatise on the Anger of God,
XIII:
For all the things of which the world is composed, and
which it produces from itself, are adapted to the use of
man. Man, accordingly, uses fire for the purpose of
warmth and light, and of softening his food, and for the
working of iron; he uses springs for drinking, and for
baths; he uses rivers for irrigating the fields, and
assigning boundaries to countries; he uses the earth for
receiving a variety of fruits, the hills for planting
vineyards, the mountains for the use of trees and fire-
wood, the plains for crops of grain; he uses the sea not
only for commerce, and for receiving supplies from distant
countries, but also for abundance of every kind of fish.
But if he makes use of these elements to which he is
nearest, there is no doubt that he uses the heaven also,
since the offices even of heavenly things are regulated
for the fertility of the earth from which we live. The
1 For further discussion on these points see the anal-
ysis of IOTT, pp. 227ff. The discussion is a very fine treat-
ment of a host of complex problems.
2 ANF, 3:214.
3 Ibid., 8:245.
49
sun. . . . The moon. . . . . The other heavenly bodies
also.1
Commentary
These few sources associate the dominion material
with cultural activity but not always in the same way. Fur-
ther, the sources underscore these cultural activities as man's
relationship to the immediacies of his environment, those
very relationships which man utilizes for his sustenance.
Cultural activities
Tertullian seems to assign the cultural activity to
animal management (cf. A Treatise on the Soul). But his ref-
erence is not fully clear and certainly contrasts with the
more complete understanding of cultural activity as described
by The Clementine Homilies and Lactantius, A Treatise on the
Anger of God. In these two documents man's dominion is under-
stood as far-reaching. He hunts for sustenance, builds
cities, codifies laws, applies medical skills, and puts to
new and creative uses the elements of his environment. These
passages were selected because they clearly show a very
Tradition influences
Such cultural activity was known in the tradition in-
fluences surrounding the fathers. An appropriate place to
begin is with opposing attitudes on the development of man
1 Ibid., 7:269-70.
50
in Greek literature.1 One perspective understands man as be-
ginning in a state of bliss and harmony and degenerating. The
other (the antipodal view) "holds that man once lived like a
wild beast, and only by a gradual ascent with the aid of the
arts achieved a more humane and abundant life."2 Given these
two options Philo seems to follow the former,3 whereas Plato
follows the latter (by assigning "the Golden Age to another
cosmic era").4 The Stoics seem to have followed the per-
spective assumed by Philo, for Sextus, Against the Physicists,
I (Adversus Mathematicos IX), 28:
And some of the later Stoics declare that the first men,
the sons of Earth, greatly surpassed the men of to-day in
intelligence (as one may, learn from a comparison of our-
selves with men of the past), and that those ancient
heroes possessed, as it were, in the keenness of their
intellect, an extra organ of sense and apprehended the
divine nature and discerned certain powers of the Gods.5
Given the perspective as outlined above, Philo, none-
theless, sought to balance the loss of the original state of
bliss with the yet evident superiorities of man. Man seems
still to bear within himself "endowments of nature that corre-
1 For discussion of these points see PA, pp. 339-40;
IOTT, pp. 248ff.; and the more complete collection of texts
in A. O. Lovejoy and G. Boas, Primitivism and Related Ideas
in Antiquity as cited by both of the above sources.
2 PA, p. 339.
3 See p. 42, n. 4 above for elucidation of this
assertion.
4 Cf. PA, pp. 339-40.
5 As translated by R. G. Bury, trans., Sextus Empiri-
cus, 4 vols., The Loeb Classical Library (
Heinemann Ltd., 1934), 3:17.
51
spond to the constellations. He has capacities for science
and art, for knowledge, and for the noble lore of the several
virtues" (cf. De opificio mundi, 82).1
Philo's understanding is that man still possesses a
remnant of resources to serve him in the arts and sciences,
i.e., his cultural pursuits. These sentiments about man's
cultural activity may be those intended by Sirach 17:1ff.
God created man out of dust, and turned him back there-
unto. He granted them a [fixed] number of days, and gave
them authority over all things on the earth. He clothed
them with strength like unto Himself, and made them ac-
cording to His own image. He put the fear of them upon
all flesh, and caused them to have power over beasts and
birds. With insight and understanding He filled their
heart, and taught them good and evil. He created for them
tongue, and eyes and ears, and he gave them a heart to
understand . . .2
Summary
What this survey of dominion material opinion in the
ancient period indicates is that many major interpretive op-
tions were entertained early in the church's history. Later
eras build on these perspectives as these were communicated
to later church generations through written traditions. The
1 As translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker,
Philo, 10 vols. and 2 supplementary volumes, The Loeb Classi-
cal Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962),
1:67.
2 Charles, Apocrypha, 1:375. For further study on the
matter of tradition influences see Donald E. Gowan, When Man
Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris in the Old Testament, Pitts-
burgh Theological Monograph Series, no. 6 (
Pickwick Press, 1975), pp. 12ff.; Jean Danielou, A History of
Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea, 3 vols.,
trans. and ed. John A. Baker (
1964-77), 1:107ff., 2:107ff.
52
following analyses of dominion material interpretation will
not attempt to be as broad as the above summaries. Rather,
those major figures of church thought will be discussed, es-
pecially where these individuals forward in a new way the
perception of the dominion materials and their attendant ap-
plication. Further, increasing attention will be paid to the
perception of the human agent as he operates in culture. This
transition will enable a clearer understanding of the place
occupied by the dominion materials within the context of the
debate over the cultural mandate.
Medieval Interpretations
The purpose here is not to trace each opinion regis-
tered during the medieval period; rather, it is to focus at-
tention on two primary individuals, Augustine and Aquinas,
whose ideas permeated the medieval period. In particular
these two made seismological analyses about cultural activi-
ties for the community of the church and within the context
of these analyses interpreted the dominion materials.1
1 Some might question the appropriateness of Augustine's
inclusion in the medieval period. To be sure there is debate
about the inclusion, cf. M. C. D'Arcy et al.,
(reprinted;
"
own age--as the inaugurator of a new world and the first medi-
aeval man, while others, on the contrary, have seen in him
rather the heir of the old classical culture and one of the
last representatives of antiquity. There is an element of
truth in both these views, but for all that he belongs neither
to the mediaeval nor to the classical world. He is essential-
ly a man of his own age . . ." But, while cautioned by this
remark, the discussion will include Augustine in the medieval
period because his views on culture are forward-looking,
pointing toward the medieval configurations of culture.
53
Augustine
Evaluation of Augustine1 must begin with the momentous
events surrounding the fall of
his remarks on the dominion material can be understood.
Context of interpretation
The fall of
state culture."2 This calamity was the historical setting
for Augustine's The City of
predicted the demise of the existing city-state culture in
his To Demetrian 3:
. . . the world has grown old, does not enjoy that
strength which it had formerly enjoyed, and does not
flourish with the same vigor and strength with which it
formerly prevailed. . . . In the winter the supply of rain
is not so plentiful for the nourishment of seeds; there is
not the accustomed heat in the summer for ripening the
harvest. . . . To a less extent are slabs of marble dug
out of the disembowelled and wearied mountains. . . . The
farmer is vanishing and disappearing in the fields . . .
Do you think that there can be as much substance in an
aging thing, as there would have flourished formerly, when
it was still young and vigorous with youth? . . . This
sentence has been passed upon the world; this is the law
of God; that all things which have come into existence
die; and that those which have increased grow old; and
that the strong be weakened; and that the large be dimin-
ished; and that when they have been weakened and diminished
they come to an end.3
1 For an excellent biographical treatment see Peter
Brown, Augustine of Hippo (reprinted;
of
2 John C. Raines, The Cosmic Kingdom in the Rise of the
Christian Interpretation of the State: A Study of the Inter-
action of Religious and Political Mythology from Hebraic
Prophetism through John Calvin (Th.D. dissertation,
ological Seminary in the City of
MI: University Microfilms International, 67-12, 176, 1981),
p. 127 (hereafter cited as CKRS).
3 Schopp, Fathers, 36:169-70.
54
Cyprian, writing one and one-half centuries in advance of
Augustine, clearly anticipated the reality of the latter's
day, the changing cultural configuration. But how could one
account for this change?
The accounting of
based itself upon a polarity, a dramatic contrast so well-
liked by one interested in rhetoric.1 This polarity in his
understanding led him to construct pairs. In his analysis of
culture he saw a pair, culture's end and order.2 The fall of
surely this end was but part of a larger order.
This same polarity is evidenced in Augustine's two
cities, civitas dei and civitas terrena. Mankind itself (De
vera reliqione, XXVII, 50) was of two genera corresponding to
"'the crowd of the impious who bear the image of the earthly
man,' and 'the succession of men dedicated to the one God.'"3
These two groups of people form two societies, and each of
these societies "loves a common end which all its members are
associated together to obtain."4 This point is illustrated
1 Cf. the discussion on this point by R. A. Markus,
Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augus-
tine (Cambridge: The University Press, 1970), pp. 45ff.
2 Cf. the discussion of CKRS, p. 128.
3 For this citation see Markus, Saeculum, p. 45.
4 Etienne Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of Saint
Augustine, trans. L. E. M. Lynch (
1960), p. 173. Augustine's own words are (The City of God,
XIV, 28): ". . two societies have issued from two kinds of
love. Worldly society has flowered from a selfish love which
dared to despise even God, whereas the communion of saints is
55
by Augustine (The City of
Let us imagine two individuals--for each man, like a
letter in a word, is an integral part of a city or of a
kingdom, however, extensive. Of these two men, let us
suppose that one is poor, or, better, in moderate cir-
cumstances; the other extremely wealthy. But, our
wealthy man is haunted by fear, heavy with cares, fever-
ish with greed, never secure, always restless, breathless
from endless quarrels with his enemies. By these miser-
ies, he adds to his possessions beyond measure, but he
also piles up for himself a mountain of distressing wor-
ries. The man of modest means is content with a small
and compact patrimony. He is loved by his own, enjoys
the sweetness of peace in his relations with kindred,
neighbors, and friends, is religious and pious, of kindly
disposition, healthy in body, self-restrained, chaste in
morals, and at peace with his conscience. I wonder if
there is anyone so senseless as to hesitate over which
of the two to prefer. What is true of these two indi-
viduals is likewise true of two families, two nations,
two kingdoms; the analogy holds in both cases.1
What bonds society together for Augustine is love.
Therefore, "if we give the name 'city' to any group of men
united by a common love for some object, we say that there
are as many cities as there are collective loves."2 Thus
man's love unites him with others whose love is of the same
object. These all pursue common societal goals. And for
Augustine there are but two loves. In the case of the civitas
dei one is uncertain whether the Church is this city.3 With
rooted in a love of God that is ready to trample on self. In
a word, this latter relies on the Lord, whereas the other boasts
that it can get along by itself" (cf. Schopp, Fathers, 14:410).
1 For this translation see ibid., 8:193-94.
2 Gilson, Augustine, p. 172.
3 For discussion of this problem see CKRS, pp. 151ff.
On balance the better view seems to be that the visible insti-
tutional church is not co-extensive with the civitas dei. And
this is not surprising since "society" and "church" are not
co-extensive.
56
respect to the civitas terrena it seems best not to define
it as the State.1 Therefore, the two loves bond together
two societies,
But if these two societies through their two loves
are so distinct, do they in fact share anything in common?
At first glance it might appear that there is no common
level. But as Gilson points out, these two societies find
their common ground at the level of earthly life:
Here below, inhabitants of the city of
identified with those who dwell only in the earthly city.
How, indeed, could they help this? They are men like the
others: their bodies need their share of the material
goods for which the earthly city has been organized. They
share, then, in its order and peace and, along with other
men, benefit from the advantages that city provides and
bear the burdens it imposes. And yet, in spite of an ap-
parently common life, the two peoples dwelling together in
the same earthly city never really mix. Citizens of the
heavenly city live with the others but not like them.
Even though they perform actions which are outwardly the
same, they do them in a different spirit. Those who live
only the life of the old man look upon the goods of the
earthly city as ends to be enjoyed; for those in the same
city who lead the life of the new man born of grace, these
same goods are merely means which they use and refer to
their true end.3
1 Ibid., pp. 150ff. For further extended discussion
of the civitas terrena see Markus, Saeculum, pp. 45-71.
2 Thus with respect to the civitas dei "Augustine had
sketched the outline of the ideal form of human society, con-
sisting in the concord and peace of righteous men living in union
among themselves under God and in God's presence. What need
was there to expound the precise status of the many imperfect
forms of human association which, in all their variety, in-
evitably failed to measure up to this ideal?" (ibid., p. 65).
3 Gilson, Augustine, p. 176. Gilson's expanded illus-
trative statement reflects Augustine's succinct remark in The
City of God, I, 35: "On earth, these two cities are linked
and fused together, only to be separated at the Last Judgment"
(Schopp, Fathers, 8:72).
57
The final question to be raised about the interpretive
context of Augustine's analysis of dominion materials is this:
If these two societies co-exist on earth in this way, what
achievements may the civitas dei expect? Answers to this
question vary.1 Generally speaking, Augustine's answer is
after the sentiments expressed in The City of God, XIX, 17:
The heavenly city, meanwhile--or, rather, that part that
is on pilgrimage in mortal life and lives by faith--must
use this earthly peace until such time as our mortality
which needs such peace has passed away. As a conse-
quence, so long as her life in the earthly city is that
of a captive and an alien (although she has the promise
of ultimate delivery and the gift of the Spirit as a
pledge), she has no hesitation about keeping in step with
the civil law which governs matters pertaining to our
existence here below.2
Equally clear is the intent of The City of God, XV, 1:
For, the true City of the saints is in heaven, though here
on earth it produces citizens in whom it wanders as on a
pilgrimage through time looking for the kingdom of eter-
nity. When that day comes it will gather together all
those who, rising in their bodies, shall have that king-
dom given to them in which, along with their Prince, the
King of Eternity, they shall reign for ever and ever.3
The interpretation flowing out of these citations
operates against the conversionist or transformation motif
usually associated with Augustine.4 Augustine here again
1 For discussion cf. CKRS, pp. 157-60. J. N. Figgis,
The Political Aspects of
don: Longmans & Green, 1921), p. 80, stresses the view that
Augustine entertained development of a Christian Empire, thus
correlating the civitas dei with a christianized Church-State.
2 Schopp, Fathers, 24:226-27.
3 Ibid., 14:415.
4 For discussion on the transformational interpretation
of Augustine see Niebuhr, Christ, pp. 207ff.: "Nevertheless,
the interpretation of Augustine as the theologian of cultural
58
posits his polarity, now and then, the present community of
believers waits for the future appearance of its kingdom.
Augustine thus maintains a consistent antithesis. For him
the individual believer exerts cultural influence through
law-abiding. But the corporate redeemed community finds its
home in the coming kingdom. Van Til's assessment, therefore,
is judicious: "In Augustine we never find an antagonism to
culture as such, but he takes the offensive when confronted
by an antagonistic culture whose triumph would imply the
liquidation of Christianity."1
Interpretation of dominion materials
The following selected sources are to be interpreted
in light of this evident polarity of Autustine's thought. Al-
though the above analysis is certainly not the only contrib-
uting influence in his evaluation of dominion materials
(others would be his allegorical hermeneutic and his monas-
tical perspective), the polarity of his thought is a
significant influence.
Selected sources
Augustine's writings are voluminous. Only these few
transformation by Christ is in accord with his foundational
theory of creation, fall, and regeneration, with his own career
as pagan and Christian, and with the kind of influence he has
exercised on Christianity" (p. 208). Niebuhr's interpretation
may be overly optimistic! And Webber, Saint, pp. 138-44 has
seemingly followed Niebuhr's lead. Note in this connection
the more mediating position of Van Til, Culture, pp. 87-88.
And last, note the alternate view expressed by CKRS, pp. 160ff.
1 Van Til, Culture, pp. 87-88.
59
citations are offered as a somewhat normative expression of
his handling of dominion materials.
The City of God XII, 24:
When God made man according to His own image, He gave him
a soul so endowed with reason and intelligence that it
ranks man higher than all the other creatures of the
earth, the sea, the air, because they lack intelligence.1
Confessions, XIII, 23:
Now, that "he judges all things,"--that means that he has
dominion over the fish of the sea and the fowl that fly
in the heavens, and all domestic and wild animals, and
every part of the earth, and all creeping creatures that
move upon the earth. This he exercises by virtue of the
understanding of his mind, through which he "perceives
the things that are of the Spirit of God." Otherwise,
"man when he was in honor did not understand; he has been
compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them." . . .
Thus, man, though now spiritual and "renewed unto the
knowledge of God, according to the image of his Creator,"
should be a "doer of the law" not a judge. Nor does he
judge concerning that differentiation, namely, of spiri-
tual and carnal men, who are known to Thine eyes, our God,
and have not yet appeared to us in any works, that we
might know them from their fruits. . . . Therefore, man,
whom thou hast made in Thy image, has not received domin-
ion over the lights of the heavens, or over that hidden
heaven, or over day and night, . . . or over the gathering
of the water which is in the sea; but he has received do-
minion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl that fly in
the heavens, and all beasts, and every part of the earth,
and all creeping things which creep over the earth . . .
The spiritual man judges, then, by approving what he finds
wrong, in the works and behavior of the faithful, in their
almsgiving, which is like the earth yielding its fruit;
and he judges the living soul when its affections have
been made meek in chastity, in fastings, and in holy cog-
nitations upon those things which are perceived through
the bodily senses. He is now said to judge concerning
those things over which he holds the power of correction.2
1 Schopp, Fathers, 14:290. Though the citation does
not explicitly mention "dominion" wording, it certainly calls
to mind the Gen 1:26-28 complex.
2 The reason for this extensive quotation is that it
so nicely joins together major elements in Augustine's inter-
pretations of dominion materials: his allegorical hermeneu-
60
Discourse On Psalm 8, 12:1
Thou has subjected all things under his feet. In saying
all things the Psalmist excepts nothing. And for fear
there might be room for understanding him otherwise, the
Apostle commands us to believe it in this sense, saying:
He is excepted who put all things under Him. To the He-
brews also he adduces the testimony of this very Psalm,
wishing it to be understood that all things are so sub-
jected to our Lord Jesus Christ that nothing is excluded.2
Commentary
Much contained within these citations is self-evident.
Very self-evident is Augustine's implementation of the alle-
gorical hermeneutic. This leads him to make imaginative, if
not profound, remarks about dominion passages. But especially,
this hermeneutic allows him to understand dominion terminology
in keeping with the polarity of his thought. For Augustine
(Confessions) dominion is exercised by the spiritual man as he
approves the right and disapproves the wrong. This rule is
understood to be a power wielded over those things of which
man has the power of correction. This procedure for ruling is
in keeping with the social-religious practices of the members
tic, his interpretation of "image" as man's rational capaci-
ties, and his application of seemingly divergent materials to
the polarity of his thought. For this translation see ibid.,
21:437-49. For a more expansive treatment of "image" see
Augustine's The Trinity, XIV 1-19 in ibid., 45:411-49.
1 Although no inclusions are given from Augustine's dis-
courses on Genesis (this remark on Ps 8 and Heb 2 is suffi-
cient), for further elucidation see Augustine, De Genesi ad lit-
teram libri duodecim, trans. into French with notes by Paul
Agahesse and A. Solignac, 2 vols. (
1972).
2 For this translation see Quasten, Burghardt, and
Lawler, Writers, 29:105. The underlined words indicate ital-
icized words within this quotation. What follows in Augus-
tine's commentary on Ps 8 gives further indication of his
allegorical hermeneutic.
61
of civitas dei as they co-exist on earth with members of the
other city. Albrecht Dihle sees in Origen a similar assess-
ment; "the church has to bear witness to the existence of
perfect and divine justice in the night, that is to say, when
injustice and struggle still dominate the earth."1 The church
possesses not the power to establish a universal rule of God's
justice. The task of the members of civitas dei is to live in
keeping with God's norms, showing the results of those norms
in society on earth, but always living with the realization
that no christianized State-Church on earth is possible.2
A further point of commentary concerns Augustine's
interpretation of the Psalm 8-Hebrews 2 dominion complex.
Clearly (cf. his Discourse on Psalm 8) he interprets the ma-
terial christologically, not anthropologically.3 But by use
of an allegorical hermeneutic no particular interpretive
problems are created, because, in assembling the Genesis 1-
Psalm 8-Hebrews 2 materials, the shift from man to Christ is
entirely legitimate.
Aquinas
The movement from Augustine to Aquinas must be ac-
counted for, covering as it does so many centuries. Custom-
1 Wilhelm Wuellner, ed., The Center for Hermeneutical
Studies (
Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1974), Colloquy X: Greek and
Christian Concepts of Justice, by Albrecht Dihle, p. 25.
2 Cf. the excellent discussion of ibid., pp. 25-28.
3 Cf. the discussion of IOTT, pp. 207-9.
62
arily, Aquinas' view of culture is interpreted in a way oppo-
site that of Augustine. So Niebuhr says that "Aquinas, who
is probably the greatest of all the synthesists in Christian
history, represents a Christianity that has achieved or ac-
cepted full social responsibility for all the great institu-
tions."1 This contrast between these two thinkers may be
explained by a brief outline of transitional figures whose
thought represents the movement from Augustine to Aquinas.
The first of these, Pope Gelasius I toward the end
of the fifth century "in a letter to the Eastern Emperor
speaks of the 'potestas duplex'—the one power with two as-
pects--which rules the unum corpus of society."2 This effec-
tively placed within one body two jurisdictions. His opinion
is in some respects like the sanction issued in 554 by Jus-
tinian in which restoration of civil order was obtained
through the church hierarchy:
§ 12. The bishops and chief men shall elect officials
for each province who shall be qualified and able to
administer its government, etc.3
The second of these transitional individuals is Stephen of
Tournai who applies the meaning of Augustine's "two cities"
in a new way. Stephen says the two cities or
. . . peoples are the two orders in the church, the clergy
and laity. The two ways of life are the spiritual and the
1 Niebuhr, Christ, p. 128.
2 CKRS, pp. 169-70.
3 Cf. Oliver J. Thatcher and Edgar H. McNeal, A Source
Book for Medieval History (
63
secular, the two authorities are the priesthood and the
kingship, the two jurisdictions are the divine and human
laws (canon and civil law). Give each its due and all
things will agree.1
And the third of these transitional individuals is Otto of
Freisingen who frankly admits that he has
composed the history no longer of two cities, but almost
entirely of one—which I call the Church (Ecclesia). For
I should not, as before (i.e., in Augustine), speak of
these two cities as two (since the elect and reprobate
are now in one home), but strictly as one. . . 2
In these three persons one is able to trace the conceptual
movement from Augustine to Aquinas.
Context of interpretation
To understand the immediate context within which
Aquinas interpreted dominion material several general analy-
ses are necessary. Initially it is important to see that
society and State are neutral institutions, since they are
founded in the very nature of man. Man "is by nature a so-
cial or political being, born to live in community with his
fellows."3 Thus, because society is founded in man's nature
1 As quoted by CKRS, p. 171.
2 As quoted by ibid., p. 172.
3 The assessment about Aquinas by Copleston, History,
2:413. This opinion is in keeping with De regimine principum,
I, 1: "It is natural for man to be a political and social
animal, to live in a group. . . . For all other animals na-
ture has prepared food, hair as covering, teeth, claws. . . .
Man, on the other hand, was created without any natural pro-
vision for these things . . . one man alone is not able to
procure them for himself for one man could not sufficiently
provide life, unassisted. It is, therefore, natural that
man should live in company with his fellows" (as quoted by
CKRS, p. 200).
64
as God created him, society must be willed by God. This is,
of course, also true of government. Therefore, society and
government are not the result of sin's entrance so much as
they are the result of the very nature God gave man in
creation.
Further, the State has a God-given common good at
which it aims: peace, unified direction of citizens' activi-
ties, and provisions for the sustenance of its citizenry.1
In De reqimine principum the common good is summarized as a
virtuous life.2 But this is not the final end of man. That
"end is entrusted to Christ and His Church, so that under the
new Covenant of Christ kings, must be subject to priests."3
The final end of man is to attain unto divine enjoyment. The
State cannot achieve this final end, but through its provi-
sions for virtuous living the State does not impede, rather
enhances, achievement of the final end. Therefore, the State
facilitates the final end, which end is the Church's work.
In this way the Church has indirect power over the State.4
Finally a word must be said about oriqinalis justitia
in Aquinas. In
this original justice: "For this rightness was a matter of
the reason being submissive to God, the lower powers to the
1 Copleston, History, 2:415.
2 Ibid., 2:416.
3 Ibid.
4 Cf. the entire discussion of ibid., 2:412-22.
65
reason, the body to the soul."1 This original justice was
altered by the fall (Summa Theologica, Ia2ae. 85, 3):
Through the gift of original justice the spiritual part,
in man had perfect hold over the inferior powers of soul,
while it itself was perfected by God as being subjected
to him. As has been said, original justice was taken
away by the sin of the first parents. As a result all
the powers of the soul are in a sense lacking the order
proper to them, their natural order to virtue, and the
deprivation is called the "wounding of nature."2
Divine grace is understood to address and correct this
“wounding.”
Interpretation of dominion materials
As will be seen, the citations taken from Summa Theo-
logica are interpreted by Aquinas in ways consistent with his
beliefs: (1) that man by nature is born to be in community,
an organized community of persons; (2) that the Church, with
a supportive, subservient role played by the State, serves
man's final end; and (3) that the entrance of sin produces a
lacking in the original justice whereby things naturally sub-
ject to man began to withstand him.
Selected sources
The one work of Aquinas dealing with the concept of
dominion in some detail is
following selections from this source are given in the order
of their appearance in articles 1-4.
1 As translated in Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theoloqica,
60 vols. (
Hill Book Company, 1963), 13:109 (hereafter cited as STH).
2 Ibid., 26:89-91.
66
Article 1: Did man hold sway1 over the animals in the
state of innocence?
. . . there is what Genesis says of man: "Let him rule
the fishes of the sea, and the birds of the sky and the
beasts of the earth," . . . As we have seen, things that
ought to be subject to man started disobeying him as a
punishment on him for his own disobedience to God. And
so in the state of innocence before this first disobedi-
ence nothing that should naturally be subject to him with-
stood him. Now all the animals are naturally subject to
man . . . since man is above the other animals, as one
made to God's image, other animals are properly subjected
to his government. , . . All animals have a certain share
of shrewdness and reason in proportion to their connatural
power of assessing things; it is in virtue of this that
cranes and wild geese follow their leader, and bees obey
their queen. And thus all animals would of their own
accord have obeyed man then in the same way that some
domestic animals do now.2
Article 2: Did he hold sway over every creature?
In some way or another all things are in man, and there-
fore in the measure that he holds sway over what is in
himself, in the same measure it falls to him to hold sway
over other things. . . . Now it is reason in man that
holds the sway, and is not subject to it. So man did not
hold sway over the angels in the original state, and by
"every creature"' we must understand everything not made
in God's image.3
Article 3: Would all men have been equal in the state of
innocence?
. . . in the original state, which would have been su-
premely well ordered, you would have found disparity.
. . . , disparity of sex . . . disparity of age . . . men-
tal and moral differences . . . disparity in physical qualities . . .4
Article 4: Would men have held sway over men in that state?
. . . it is not derogatory to the state of innocence that
man should lord over man. . . . lording it can be taken as
relative to any sort of subjection in general, and in this
1 The term "sway" translates the Latin dominium, mean-
ing "control" or perhaps "ownership" (cf. ibid., 13:221).
2 Ibid., 13:123-27.
3 Ibid., 13:127-29.
4 Ibid., 13:129-33.
67
sense even the man who has the office of governing and
directing free men can be called a lord. . . . man is
naturally a social animal, and so men in the state of
innocence would have lived in social groups. But many
people cannot live a social life together unless some-
one is in charge to look after the common good.l
Commentary
In these citations a predictable pattern of interpre-
tation of the dominion ideas emerges. Aquinas understood
creation to have order. This exact ordering develops from
the very nature God gave his objects of creation. Man by his
nature holds dominion over animals by reason of rational capa-
city. And God made animals with a nature in concord with
man's.
But there is equally impressive evidence that dominion
in the state of innocence includes dominion of man over man.
This dominion is a part of the very nature of what God has
given. Hence, the state of innocence and any restorative
work of grace following the fall is consistent with dominion
of certain men over other men. Therefore, Aquinas interprets
these dominion materials consistently with his understanding
of the divine ordering of State and Church to achieve the
final end. Thus, after the fall, the work of grace through
the Church is able to restore both the lack of "original jus-
tice" and the establishment of dominion by some over others
to achieve the final end God intends. These facts being so,
Aquinas views the dominion materials as allowing for a soci-
etal, cultural structuring to achieve divine ends. To be
1 Ibid., 13:133-35.
68
sure, he does not argue that the dominion account in Genesis
1:26-28 exegetically demands this view.
Summary
The medieval interpretations of dominion materials
yield two contrasting patterns. The one (Augustine) empha-
sizes a witness of redemptive light against the darkness of
human culture. The other (Aquinas) asserts the dominion over
culture to achieve the final end which God intends. These
two interpretations are not entirely new; in fact their ante-
cedents are found in the ancient period of interpretation.
What is new is the heightened sense of disparity between two
potential views of the dominion materials as they relate to
culture. What does not seem so divergent in the ancient
period is very disparate in the medieval.
Modern Interpretations
The previous analyses have spent considerable time in
analyzing the interpretive context out of which dominion mate-
rials were studied. The purpose of this section is to survey
what appear to be three interpretive streams concerning domin-
ion materials. These streams are associated with elements
working concurrently in the Reformation era in the persons of
Martin Luther, John Calvin, and leaders of the Anabaptist
movement.1 These three streams of interpretation represent
1 Webber, Saint, pp. 75-165, refers to these three
streams as three models for correlating Christ and culture:
separational, identificational, and transformational. These
three models correspond roughly to the Anabaptists, Luther,
and Calvin respectively.
69
general movements finding expression in the twentieth century.
Again, the method employed here will be to treat primary
sources but in a more cursory way. As well, less space will
be given to the interpretive context, although in each case
that will be accounted for in a summary way.
Martin Luther
Luther's works are so expansive as to make one fear
saying anything definitive about him. Added to this is the
problem of the occasional and explosive nature of his writ-
ings wherein he wrote as the occasion demanded.1 Undoubtedly
this reality has been the occasion of finding either seemingly
contrary material in Luther2 or at least differing schools of
interpretation on a given idea within Luther's thought.3 The
following summary analysis of Luther's thought is fully aware
of these implicit dangers in reading Luther.
Context of Interpretation
Central to understanding Luther's interpretive context
is his idea of the "two kingdoms."4 Luther himself says:
1 Cf. the discussion of CKRS, pp. 235-37.
2 Cf. such a view as expressed by Niebuhr, Christ,
p. 170.
3 Cf. the listing of interpreters who take opposing
views of Luther's view of social ethics in CKRS, p. 237.
4 For more extensive treatment of Luther's thought see
the following rather divergent treatments: Paul Althaus, The
Ethics of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press, 1972); Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther and
the Old Testament, trans. Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch (Phil-
adelphia: Fortress Press, 1969); Gerhard Ebeling, Luther:
70
. . . we must divide the children of Adam and all mankind
into two classes, the first belonging to the kingdom of
God, the second to the kingdom of the world. Those who
belong to the
are in Christ and under Christ . . . All who are not
Christians belong to the kingdom of the world and are
under the law. For this reason God has provided for them
a different government beyond the Christian estate and
that, even though they would like to, they are unable to
practice their wickedness, and if they do practice it
they cannot do so without fear or with success and
impunity.1
Luther understood these two kingdoms as two God-ordained
governments. "Both," argued Luther, "must be permitted to
remain; the one to produce righteousness, the other to bring
about external peace and prevent evil deeds."2
If, then, there are two kingdoms, how are these
joined? Or more precisely, what is the Christian's rela-
tionship to the State? Luther's answer is that one submits
to government for the sake of his neighbor. Therefore,
An Introduction to His Thought, trans. R. A. Wilson (
William Collins Sons & Co., 1970;
& Philosophy, 1972); Kenneth Hagen, A Theology of Testament
in the Young Luther: The Lectures on Hebrews, Studies in
Medieval and Reformation Thought, vol. 12 (
Brill, 1974); William A. Mueller, Church and State in Luther
and Calvin (
chor Books, 1965). Two further sources on Luther's thought
as it more directly applies to the present discussion are
CKRS, pp. 235-322 and Webber, Saint, pp. 113-27.
1 From Luther's Temporal Authority: To What Extent it
Should be Obeyed,, 1523, as translated in Jaroslav Pelikan and
Helmut T. Lehmann, gen. eds., Luther's Works, 55 vols. (Phila-
delphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959-67), 45:88-90 (hereafter
cited as LW). In An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against
the Peasants Luther even marvels that some do not understand
the concept of his two kingdoms: "I have written this so
often that I am surprised that there is anyone who does not
know it or remember it" (cf. ibid., 46:69).
2 Ibid., 45:92.
71
. . . the Christian submits most willingly to the rule
of the sword, pays his taxes, honors those in authority,
serves, helps, and does all he can to assist the govern-
ing authority; that it may continue to function and be
held in honor and fear.1
The result is for the benefit of one's neighbor. Thus
. . . he performs all other works of love which he him-
self does not need . . . he serves the governing author-
ity not because he needs it but for the sake of others,
that they may be protected and that the wicked may not
be worse.2
Therefore, the Christian's role is this. "In society the
believer functions under the rule of God immediately by obey-
ing the laws of creation and mediately by living in submis-
sion to God's appointed rulers in the land."3 The two
kingdoms are in reality two aspects of the same existence.
To conclude, when Luther emphasizes the two kingdoms,
he means that, while there are two spheres with respective
domains of influence, the Christian "must affirm both in a
single act of obedience to the one God. . . .”4
Interpretation of dominion materials
Predictably Luther interprets the dominion materials
in light of his "two kingdoms" concept. This point is es-
pecially clear in the first of the selected sources.
1 Ibid., 45:94. In An Open Letter on the Harsh Book
Against the Peasants Luther describes this kingdom of the
world as "a kingdom of wrath and severity. In it there is
only punishment, repression, judgment, and condemnation to
restrain the wicked and protect the good" (cf. LW, 46:69-70).
2 Ibid.
3 The appropriate summary of Webber, Saint, p. 117.
4 Niebuhr, Christ, p. 172.
72
Selected sources
Luther's interpretation of the dominion materials is
far less allegorical than his predecessors, especially Augus-
tine. "Luther's greatest achievement in the history of bib-
lical interpretation is his mistrust of the allegorical
method.1 However, Luther was not above employment of alle-
gory in explaining Scripture.2 Both the allegorical and non-
allegorical are evidenced in these sources. Both types of
hermeneutic are employed within the context of the "two
kingdoms."
Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed:
. . . over what is on earth and belongs to the temporal,
earthly kingdom, man has authority from God; but whatever
belongs to heaven and to the eternal kingdom is exclusive-
ly under the Lord of heaven. Neither did Moses forget
this when he said in Genesis 1 [:26], "God said, 'Let us
make man to have dominion over the beasts of the earth,
the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air."' There
only external dominion is ascribed to man. In short,
this is the meaning as St. Peter says in Acts 4 [5:29],
"We must obey God rather than men."3
Lectures on Genesis (1:26):
Here the rule is assigned to the most beautiful creature,
who knows God and is the image of God, in whom the simil-
itude of the divine nature shines forth through his en-
lightened reason, through his justice and his wisdom.
Adam and Eve become rulers of the earth, the sea, and the
air. But this dominion is given to them not only by way
of advice but also by express command. . . . Therefore the
naked human being . . . was given the rule over all birds,
wild beasts, and fish. Even this small part of the divine
image we have lost. . . . Among the saints there is evident
in this life some knowledge of God. Its source is the
1 Bornkamm, Luther, p. 249.
2 Cf. ibid., pp. 247-60.
3 LW, 45:111.
73
Word and the Holy Spirit. But the knowledge of nature--
that we should know all the qualities of trees and herbs,
and the dispositions of all the beasts--is utterly beyond
repair in this life. . . . What we achieve in life, how-
ever, is brought about, not by the dominion which Adam
had but through industry and skill. Thus we see the
birds and the fish caught by cunning and deceit; and by
skill the beasts are tamed. . . . even now, by the kind-
ness of God, this leprous body has some appearance of the
dominion over the other creatures. But it is extremely
small and far inferior to that first dominion. . . .
Therefore we retain the name and word "dominion" as a
bare title, but the substance itself has been almost en-
tirely lost. Yet it is a good thing to know these facts
and to ponder them, so that we may have a longing for
that coming Day when that which we lost in
through sin will be restored to us.1
Lectures on Hebrews, 2:7:
A great number of teachers, especially Jerome and, at
different times, Augustine, Ambrose, and Chrysostom, seem
to understand it as referring to mankind alone. But we
state briefly that though it is possible to understand
this verse in an improper sense as referring to man, .. .
yet in the proper sense this verse can be understood only
as referring to Christ.. . . Therefore the meaning is
this: Thou madest Him to be forsaken and deserted by God
or the angels, and not for a long time but for a little
while, yes, less than a little while, that is, for a very
short time, namely, for three days, because Thou didst
deliver Him over into the hands of sinners.2
Commentary
What these sources yield about Luther's understanding
of the dominion materials may be conveniently grouped about
three ideas: his interpretive matrix, his definition of "do-
minion," and his diachronic treatment of dominion materials.
1 Ibid., 1:66-67. A bit more allegorical treatment
of Psalm 8 is given by Luther in First Psalm Lectures, cf.
LW, 10:89-90.
2 Ibid., 29:125-27. For further discussion on this
subject of Luther's interpretation of Heb 2:7 see
Lectures on Hebrews, pp. 93-96.
74
The first of these concerns the "two kingdoms" concept which
allows Luther to assign "dominion" to the work of the tem-
poral, earthly kingdom. Within this kingdom the fall affected
man's dominion; in this case, therefore, the restorative grace
of God finds future application.
The second of these ideas, his definition of "domin-
ion," is best summarized by the word "rule." This rule was
granted by divine fiat, and therefore, as a consequence of
the fall, the dominion is removed by divine fiat. Further,
this "rule" springs from man's being made in God's image, and
a part of that image is man's rational capacity. This being
so, if man loses dominion, Luther must be understood to say
that the fall had noetic effects. More precisely this rule
of man, by virtue of his rational capacity, Luther understood
to be man's ability to know the nature of animals. He lost
this capacity along with ability to control them.
A third idea about Luther's view is his diachronic
treatment of the dominion materials themselves. The origin
of dominion is divine fiat; the loss of dominion is a conse-
quence of the fall. Therefore, dominion presently is more a
title than a substance. The rule is almost entirely lost,
only in a faint way resembling the original dominion. If at
the present man appears to have dominion, it must be attri-
buted more to man's industry and skill than to his dominion.
In the future, however, dominion will be restored to man be-
cause Christ will. restore all things lost in
In light of this summary Luther's contribution to the
75
interpretive history of the dominion materials is twofold:
his emphasis on the noetic implications of the fall for under-
standing dominion and his diachronic treatment of the dominion
materials themselves. This latter point is a most important
contribution.
John Calvin
The biographical details of Calvin's life are well
known. However, the nature of his thought is not as well
known, due, no doubt, to its complexity.1 For purposes of
this study the general nature of Calvin's thought may be
developed along three lines.2
Context of interpretation
The first formative element of his thought is his
attention to order. He developed sensitivity to the collapse
of corpus Christianum. In his mind confusion and reformation
were mutually exclusive.3 Calvin in his commentary on John
12:31 alludes to this conception:
Now we know that out of Christ there is nothing but con-
fusion in the world. And though Christ had already begun
to erect the
1 A similar sentiment is expressed by Webber, Saint,
p. 145.
2 I am indebted here to the very helpful analysis of
CKRS, pp. 323-94. Note an alternate appraisal which none-
theless draws similar conclusions in Webber, Saint, pp. 144-
48. Cf. also the discussion, though not as helpful, of
Niebuhr, Christ, pp. 217-18.
3 CKRS, pp. 323-28.
76
mencement of a well-regulated condition and the full
restoration of the world.1
At
tis was implemented in a re-forming of life's totality. John
Knox in a letter to his wife, dated Dec. 9, 1556, shows that
the Scottish reformer was duly impressed by this ordering of
society in Geneva.2 Calvin understood that all of life (reli-
gion and culture) stood subject to the ordinance of salvation.
The second element is Calvin's understanding of "in-
different things," to use an expression employed by Duns
Scotus and taken from the Stoics.3 These a]dia<foroi are to be
used to God's glory as his revealed will indicates. This use
of the cosmos is in keeping with the utilitarian purpose of
creation.4 All of creation is to be used for the purpose of
God's glory.5 Thus, the world is open for investigation, and
1 John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, 22 vols., trans.
John King et al. (
reprint ed.,
The underlined words indicate italicized words within the
quotation.
2 In the letter Knox wrote to his wife that
a "place, whair I nether feir nor eschame to say is the most
perfect schoole of Chryst that ever was in the earth since the
dayis of the Apostillis. In uther places, I confess Chryst to
be trewlie preachit; but manneris and religioun so sinceirlie
reformat, I have not yit sene in any uther place . . ." For
this account see the letter in David Laing, ed., The Works of
John Knox, 6 vols. (
Images Enterprises, n.d.), 4:240.
3 CKRS, p. 363.
4 For discussion of Calvin's understanding of this point
see T. F.Torrance, Calvin's Doctrine of Man, new ed.(Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), pp. 24-25.
5 So Calvin argues in Institutes of the Christian Re-
ligion I.V.6: "Let us therefore remember, whenever each of us
77
it must be shaped by the order of ultimate priority, God's
glory.1
A third line of Calvin's thought concerns the congru-
ity he finds between Lex Dei and Lex naturae. These two laws
form Calvin's "two swords" doctrine in which the laws of God
and nature conjoin.2 What forges this conjoining is common
responsibility to the Word of God.3 Calvin, therefore, says:
. . . civil government has as its appointed end, so long
as we live among men, to cherish and protect the outward
worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the
position of the church, to adjust our life to the society
of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteous-
ness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote
general peace and tranquility.4
contemplates his own nature, that there is one God who so
governs all natures that he would have us look unto him, di-
rect our faith to him, and worship and call upon him." Cf.
this translation in John Baillie, John T. McNeill, and Henry
P. Van Dusen, gen. eds., The Library of Christian Classics,
26 vols. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), vols.
20 and 21: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion,
by John Calvin, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 20:58 (hereafter
cited as INST),
1 CKRS, p. 365. So Calvin says in Institutes of the
Christian Religion III.X.l: ". . . but inasmuch as Scripture
gives general rules for lawful use, we ought surely to limit
our use in accordance with them" (INST, 20:720).
2 CKRS, p. 377.
3 So August Lang, "The Reformation and Natural Law,"
Calvin and the Reformation, ed. William P. Armstrong (Prince-
ton: The Princeton Theological Review Association, 1909; re-
print ed.,
if. . . for the state and for law as well as for other things,
despite all accidental differences, still the eternal norm is
to be found in the rightly understood revelation of the divine
will in Scripture."
4 See Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated
in INST, 21:1487.
78
And, of course, the church is directed by the normative pre-
cepts of Scripture.1
Interpretation of dominion materials
The context within which Calvin interprets the domin-
ion materials is that of the order established by ordo salu-
tis, the doctrine of "indifferent things," and the doctrine
of "two swords."
Selected sources
Numerous passages on dominion material interpretation
could be cited from Calvin's works. Those that follow are
selected to indicate something of the breadth of his under-
standing of dominion. These selections on their very surface
indicate Calvin's grammatical exegesis.
Psychopannychia:
I hear that some triflers say that the image of God refers
to the dominion which was given to man over the brutes,
and that in this respect man has some resemblance to God
whose dominion is over all. . . . But Scripture does not
allow its meaning to be thus evaded.2
Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.XIV.22:
. . . from Moses we hear that, through His liberality, all
things on earth are subject to us [Gen. 1:28; 9:2]. It
is certain that He did not do this to mock us with the
1 Cf. John Calvin, "The Word Our Only Rule," The Mys-
tery of Godliness and Other Selected Sermons (
D. A. Forbes, 1830; reprint ed.,
mans Publishing Company, 1950), pp. 67-80.
2 John Calvin, Calvin's Tracts and Treatises, 3 vols.,
trans. Henry Beverridge (
ety, 1851; reprint ed.,
lishing Company, 1958), 3:423.
79
empty title to a gift. Therefore nothing that is needful
for our welfare will ever be lacking to us.1
Commentaries Upon the First Book of Moses (1:26):
And let them have dominion. Here he commemorates that
part of dignity with which he decreed to honour man,
namely, that he should have authority over all living
creatures. He appointed man, it is true, lord of the
world; but he expressly subjects the animals to him, be-
cause they, having an inclination or instinct of their
own, seem to be less under authority from without. The
use of the plural number intimates that this authority
was not given to Adam only, but to all his posterity as
well as to him. And hence we infer what was the end for
which all things were created; namely, that none of the
conveniences and necessaries of life might be wanting to
men. . . . Yet, that he often keeps his hand as if closed
is to be imputed to our sins.2
Commentary upon the Book of Psalms (8:6):
The only thing which now remains to be considered is, how
far this declaration extends--that all things are sub-
jected to men. Now, there is no doubt, that if there is
any thing in heaven or on earth which is opposed to men,
the beautiful order which God had established in the
world at the beginning is now thrown into confusion. The
consequence of this is, that mankind, after they were
ruined by the fall of Adam, were not only deprived of so
distinguished and honourable an estate, and dispossessed
of their former dominion, but are also held captive under
a degrading and ignominious bondage. Christ, it is true,
is the lawful heir of heaven and earth, by whom the faith-
ful recover what they had lost in Adam; but he has not as
yet actually entered upon the full possession of his em-
pire and dominion. Whence the apostle concludes, that
what is here said by David will not be perfectly accom-
plished until death be abolished.3
1 INST, 20:182.
2 Calvin Calvin's Commentaries, 1:96.
3 Ibid., 4:106. For a helpful discussion of Calvin's
messianic interpretation of the Psalms (though not directly
Ps 8) see S. H.. Russell, "Calvin and the Messianic Interpre-
tation of the Psalms," SJT. 21 (1968): 37-47.
80
Commentary
A synthesis of Calvin's view must include these few
points. Calvin defines dominion not as mere control over an-
imals but as an appointment to a position of royalty, a lord-
ship, a distinguished and honorable estate. This appointment
was for a purpose, to do service to one's Creator. In this
sense, there is a teleological orientation to man's in this appoint-
ment. Adam was not the sole recipient of this purpose, rather,
mankind was. Moreover, mankind's purpose must be seen in the
context of God's liberality. God furnished mankind with all
conveniences necessary for the fulfillment of this purpose.
Further, Calvin gives, as did Luther, a diachronic
treatment to the dominion materials. These are interpreted
within Calvin's restoration model, the "Creation-Fall-
Redemptive Restoration" motif. The redemptive restoration
aspect may be further analyzed as being composed of two chro-
nological elements: now, a partial exercise of dominion
(death is still present), and then, a complete exercise of
dominion (death is abolished).
Calvin, then, forcefully presents the restorative
theme. For him the dominion materials are to be interpreted
as but another evidence of the restored order springing from
the ordo salutis. There is a transformation of creation
wrought by redemption, a redemption one day to be fulfilled
in Christ's complete exercise of dominion.
81
The Anabaptists1
Analysis of the Anabaptist approach to dominion mate-
rial must of necessity differ a bit from the preceding analy-
ses. The reasons for this necessity will become clear momen-
tarily. Much of our attention must be given to the general
Anabaptist interpretive context. Then brief evaluation of
dominion material allusions will prove helpful.
Context of interpretation
To understand Anabaptism in general terms one must
pay attention to four of its interpretive orientations: the
"two kingdoms" orientation, the New Testament orientation,
the ecclesiastical orientation, and a pessimistic cultural
orientation. The first of these is alluded to in The Schleit-
helm Confession (1527), article 4:
For truly all creatures are in but two classes, good and
bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the
world and those who [have come] out of the world, God's
temple and idols, Christ and Belial; and none can have
part with the other.2
The hymn (Sattler, 1535-40), "When Christ with His Teaching
True," indicates this same sentiment.3 More precisely is
1 The Anabaptists have been grouped together because
their theological formulations are not to be found in great,
sweeping systematic statements; rather the statements are
scattered and personal. Thus, greater benefit comes from
synthecizing a "theology" from a host of sources. This same
conclusion is reached by Cornelius Krahn, "Prolegomena to an
Anabaptist Theology," MQR 24 (January 1950): 5ff.
2 W. R. Estep, ed., The Reformation: Luther, the Ana-
baptists, Christian Classics series (
Press, 1979),.P. 326.
3 For the German words (and their English translation)
of this song see John H. Yoder, ed. and trans., The Legacy of
82
this formulation stated in A Waterlander Mennonite Confession
of Faith (1580), article XXXVII:
Government or the civil Magistrate is a necessary ordi-
nance of God (a), instituted for the government of common
human society and the preservation of natural life and
civil good, for the defense of the good and the punish-
ment of the evil. We acknowledge, the word of God ob-
liging us, that it is our duty to reverence magistracy
(b) and to show to it honor and obedience in all things
which are not contrary to the word of God (c). It is our
duty to pray the omnipotent God for them (d), and to give
thanks to him for good and just magistrates and without
murmuring to pay just tribute and customs (e). This civil
government the Lord Jesus did not institute in his spir-
itual kingdom, the church of the New Testament, nor did
he join it to the offices of his church (f): nor did he
call his disciples or followers to royal, ducal or other
power . . . but everywhere they are called away from
it . . .1
The second orientation that provides helpful understanding is
the Anabaptists' orientation toward the New Testament. Where-
as "Calvinism approaches the Bible as a whole, a revealed
unit, . . Anabaptism views the whole from the New Testament.
The Old Testament is preparatory to the New Testament."2 This
concentration on the New Testament is because there the mes-
sage of Christ is found, and He alone is able to place one
Michael Sattler, Classics of the Radical Reformation, no. 1
(Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1973), pp. 140-45.
1 This translation is found in Estep, The Reformation,
p. 409. For further discussion of the "two kingdoms" see Guy
F. Hershberger, ed., The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision
(Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1957); James M. Stayer, Ana-
baptists and the Sword (Lawrence, KS: Coronado Press, 1972);
and the article by Clarence Bauman, "The Theology of 'the Two
Kingdoms': A Comparison of Luther and the Anabaptists," MQR
38 (January 1964): 37-49 and 60. Cf. also The Schleitheim
Confession, article 6 concerning the sword, Estep, The
Reformation, pp. 327-29.
2 Krahn, "Prolegomena to an Anabaptist Theology," 9.
83
into the
From this a third orientation naturally follows, a
special concentration on the church.2 Inclusion in the
church required imitation of Christ through discipleship.3
These disciples, collected into the church, represented the
important nucleus of what God was doing.4 This church rep-
resented those who were reclaimed from the loss initiated
by Adam. And these church members followed Christ.
A fourth orientation was their pessimistic cultural
perspective. Within the circle of Anabaptism was at least
some interest in "the relation of man to the universe, and of
both to God."5 For some these questions over relationship
1 Cf. the letter of Michael Sattler written to Capito
and Bucer in 1526-27 as translated in Yoder, Legacy, pp. 21-
24 for confirmation of this point.
2 This correlation is clearly made in a remark in 1531
by Hans Pfistermeyer, an Anabaptist minister: "The New Testa-
ment is more perfect than the Old, and the Old was fulfilled
and interpreted by Christ. Christ has taught a higher and
more perfect doctrine and made with His people a New Covenant.
Therefore, whatever is found in Christ's doctrine and life, I
shall recognize as binding for the Christian, and whatever is
found otherwise, I shall not so recognize," as quoted by Gor-
don D. Kaufman, "Some Theological Emphases of the Early Swiss
Anabaptists," MQR 25 (April 1951): 84.
3 Cf. J. Denny Weaver, "Discipleship Redefined: Four
Sixteenth Century Anabaptists," MQR 54 (October 1980): 255-79.
4 Therefore Menno Simons could say on his deathbed
"that nothing on earth was as precious to him as the church";
from N. Van der Zijpp, "The Conception of our Fathers Regard-
ing the Church," MQR 27 (April 1953): 91. For further discus-
sion on the church see Franklin H. Littell, "The Anabaptist
Doctrine of the Restitution of the
(January 1950): 33-52.
5 E. Gordon Rupp, "Thomas Muntzer, Hans Huth and the
'Gospel of All Creatures,'" BJRL 43 (March 1961): 494.
84
issued in a "gospel of All Creatures" which understood that
"the whole world with all the creatures is a book in which
a man may see in the work, all those things which are read
in the written book."1 But perhaps the predominant view of
culture is that it is "man's autonomous creation and setting
of values."2 Culture is a Classical-Renaissance construc-
tion, not a Christian.3 Therefore, culture is not a part of
kingdom theology, since the former misses "the essentials of
Christ's message and world outlook."4 None of this implies
that Anabaptists are disinterested in cultural activities.
To the contrary they were interested in activities such as
education, but they emphasized the gap between Christ and
culture.5
Interpretation of dominion materials
Because of the scarcity of primary source material,
one must understand these interpretations as allusions to do-
minion materials. Hubmaier in his Christliche Lehrtafel (1526)
said: "The image of God is not altogether erased in us."6
1 As quoted by ibid., 515.
2 Hershberger, The Recovery of Anabaptist Vision, p. 113.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Cf. the discussion in ibid., pp. 219-36. For a
brief synopsis of Anabaptism's view of the Christ-culture
question see Webber, Saint, 86-96. Anabaptism's cultural
views still find interesting expression in the contemporary
world, ibid., pp. 96-103.
6 The German runs: "Die Bildung [Bild] Gottes ist je
noch nicht gar in uns ausgewischt." For this see Robert
85
Two selections from Menno Simons are a bit more helpful. In
his Foundation of Christian Doctrine (1539), II. A, he refers
briefly to a dominion passage:
God in the beginning made man after His image, incorrup-
tible, placed him in
tures to him. Then when he had been beguiled by the
serpent, he was gladdened and comforted at the thought
of the coming Conqueror and Saviour Christ.1
Later in this same work (II. G) he writes of things appropri-
ate for man's use: ". . . to which end these things are
created by God and given to the use of men."2
There is nothing within these interpretations that
would be other than one would expect. They emphasize a focus
on a New Testament, Christocentric interpretation, utilizing
these passages for the church, whose members realize the
existence of a gap between the
Summary
In these three (Luther, Calvin, and the Anabaptists)
are representatives of three distinct views of culture. Luther
identified religion and culture by claiming the two are but
aspects of one existence. The Christian man satisfies both
Friedmann, The Theology of Anabaptism, Studies in Anabaptist
and Mennonite History, no. 15 (
1973), pp. 59 and 75.
1 Menno Simons, The Complete Writings of Menno Simons,
trans. Leonard Verduin and ed. John C. Wenger (
Herald Press, 1956), p. 144.
2 Ibid., p. 183. For further study on Menno Simons'
theology see J. A.Oosterbaan, "The Theology of Menno Simons,"
MQR 35 (July 1961):187-96 and 237 and Henry Poettcker, "Menno
Simons' Encounter with the Bible," MQR 40 (April 1966):112-26.
trans. Leonard Verduin and ed. John
86
religion and culture in a single act of obedience. Calvin
understood culture to be the object religion should transform
as the latter obeyed Scripture. The Anabaptists emphasized
the separateness of religion and culture, the former being
the Christian man's true object of concern. Each of these
three indicates that cultural perception provides the context
for interpreting the dominion materials.
Recent Interpretations
This survey would not be complete without special
mention of a host of recent materials on culture and domin-
ion. The list of individuals below whose views are summa-
rized is not exhaustive; it is merely suggestive for further
research, research beyond the bounds of this work. The pro-
cedure will be simply to suggest a skeletal outline of the
individual's cultural and dominion material views.
Karl Barth
The general outlines of Barth's thought are well
known.1 His starting point is the otherness of God, which
asserts itself in the very relationship God sustains with his
creation; the Creator is "over against the world."2 This
"over-againstness" provides freedom for man to make use of
nature without fearing he tampers with the divine. "We are
1 His general views with respect to the Creator-
creation-fall-redemption complex are nicely summarized in
Norman Young, Creator, Creation and Faith (
The
2 Ibid., p. 86.
87
set free to prove, test and inquire, to gain knowledge and to
develop the science and technology that makes use of the world
and its resources.”1
One ought never to equate any human activity with the
work of God.2 Salvation fits this schema by being defined as
"God's gracious election of all humankind to participation
his kingdom."3 This salvation rids the world of the chaos
and nothingness that resulted from man's rebellion. Man's
rebellion, namely his attempt to bridge the chasm between God
and man, produced chaos and nothingness in the creation be-
cause the rebellion tried to obliterate the Creator-creation
distinction, a distinction to which the creation itself had
testified.
Therefore, bearing in mind the Creator-creation dis-
tinction, one cannot Christianize culture. That would be to
make it divine, which it is not. The most that can be done
is to humanize it.4 In this light Barth interprets dominion
material, an example of which is from his discussion of Gen-
esis 1:26-28.
More than this must not be read into man's dominion over
the beasts. Man is not their Creator; hence he cannot be
their absolute Lord, a second God. In his dignity and
position he can only be God's creaturely witness and
1 Ibid., p. 95.
2 However, when Barth faced the likes of Hitler this
point about his theology certainly was of least pragmatic
importance (cf. ibid., p. 97).
3 Donald-G. Bloesch, "Soteriology in Contemporary
Christian Thought," Int 35 (April 1981):133.
4 Cf. the discussion of ibid., 134-35.
88
representative to them. . . . He can carry out a commis-
sion. But he does not possess the power of life and
death; the right of capital punishment. Man's lordship
over the animals is a lordship with internal and external
limitations. . . . Nor does the sage wish to say anything
about an expansion of human lordship beyond the animal
kingdom. . . . It is thus foreign to the passage when
Gunkel discerns here "the whole programme of the cul-
tural history of the human race" . . .1
Here is clear evidence that Barth's interpretation stresses
both the Creator-creation distinction and the non-Christian-
izing of culture.2
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Students of Bonhoeffer are in disagreement over the
exact interpretation to be given to his works.3 Therefore,
the following summary is offered with a bit of caution.4 For
1 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 3: The Doctrine
of Creation, Part 1, eds. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance,
trans. J. W. Edwards et al. (
69), pp. 187 and 205.
2 For a helpful discussion of philosophical background
material valuable in the interpretation of Barth see S. U.
Zuidema, "Man in Philosophy," Free University Quarterly 5
(March 1958):77-96.
3 For a discussion of the interpretive problems related
to Bonhoeffer studies see Clifford J. Green, The Sociality of
Christ and Humanity: Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Early Theology,
1927-1933,
no. 6 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972), pp. 1-42.
4 For an excellent, brief synopsis of the details of
Bonhoeffer's biography which so profoundly influenced his the-
ology see William W. Butler, A Comparison of the Ethics of
Emil Brunner and Dietrich Bonhoeffer With Special Attention
to the Orders of Creation and the Mandates (Ph.D. dissertation,
International, 71-15, 591, 1970), pp. 234-48. A much more
complete account is that of Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bon-
hoeffer, trans. Eric Mosbacher et al., ed. Edwin Robertson
(New York: Harper & Row, 1970).
89
purposes of this summary attention should be given to Bon-
hoeffer's notion of freedom, a fundamental relationship be-
tween God and man. This freedom is a relationship whereby
the Creator sees His image mirrored in man who is created
free.1 This freedom is given man for the Creator's benefit.
“In the language of the Bible, freedom is not something man
has for himself but something he has for others."2 This is
the meaning of "being free for the other." God, on the other
hand, "in Christ is free for man."3 The freedom of man, as
expressed in relationship to the rest of creation, is a free-
dom from it.4
That means that he is its master, he has command over it,
he rules it. And here is the other side of man's created
likeness to God. Man is to rule--of course as over God's
creation, as one who receives the commission and power of
his dominion from God. . . . But my freedom from it con-
sists in the fact that this world, to which I am bound as
a lord to his servant, as the peasant to his soil, is sub-
jected to me, that I am to rule over the earth which is
and remains my earth, and the more strongly I rule it the
more it is my earth . . . Technology is the power with
which the earth grips man and subdues him. And because
we rule no more, we lose the ground, and then the earth
is no longer our earth, and then we become strangers on
earth. We do not rule because we do not know the world
as God's creation, and because we do not receive our
dominion as God-given but grasp it for ourselves. . .
Man's being-free-for God and the other person and his
dominion over it is the image of God in the first man.5
1 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall; Temptation,
trans. John C. Fletcher and Kathleen Downham (
Macmillan Company, 1959), p. 37.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid., p. 39.
5 Ibid., pp. 39-40. The underlined words indicate
italicized words within the quotation.
90
For Bonhoeffer the fall of man, then, includes the fall of
nature. Nature is without her lord and therefore rebellious.1
These few points summarize Bonhoeffer's thought on
the dominion materials. Dominion is the concurrent being-
free-for and being-free-from. The moment one grasps his do-
minion for himself, he loses it. Man's dominion is exercised
by using creation, though not in harshness, since creation is
man's brother.2
Emil Brunner
There is hardly justice in so briefly summarizing
Brunner's conception of culture since it is a subject in much
of his writing.3 Being duly cautioned against over-general-
ization, one may sketch Brunner's understanding of culture as
follows. Man's nature impels him to create culture.4 This
impulse to create culture is a spiritual impulse to create
implanted within man at his creation. "Hence culture is both
God's gift and man's appointed duty."5 Through use of his
rational capacity man fulfills the purpose of his being by
1 Ibid., p. 85.
2 Ibid., p. 40.
3 Cf. the following works of Brunner: Christianity
and Civilisation, Part 2 (
1949); The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption,
Dogmatics, Vol. 2, trans. Olive Wyon (
Wyon (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1947); and Man in
Revolt: A Christian Anthropology, trans. Olive Wyon (Phila-
delphia: The Westminster Press, 1947).
4 Brunner, The Divine Imperative, p. 484.
5 Ibid.
91
creating culture. "Reason can only realize itself in freedom
--that is, in the fact that man seizes the opportunity pro-
vided by his own powers."1 In every rational act this free-
dom lives. However, this reason when divorced from faith
makes idols out of culture.2 "The more splendid the system
of culture which man erects the more it tends to beget the
pride which claims equality with God."3 For this reason faith
is always critical towards culture. Then, what is the Chris-
tian's relationship to culture? Brunner summarizes an answer:
It is not the business of the believer as such to create
culture. That is rather the task of man, apart from
faith; or rather, it is not so much a task as it is the
result of a sense of compulsion. But since the believer,
the Christian, must express his faith not outside, but
inside the natural orders and in things as they are, to
him too it becomes a positive duty to help to create
culture in accordance with its own laws.4
In this way "faith" serves a regulative function within cul-
ture.5 Thus, in a restricted sense one is able to speak of
"Christian" cultural activity.
In keeping with this analysis of cultural activity
Brunner interprets the dominion materials. An example from
Brunner's The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption
sufficiently shows this sort of interpretive correlation.
1 Ibid., 485.
2 Cf. the discussion of
3 Brunner, The Divine Imperative, p. 488.
4 Ibid., p. 489. The underlined word indicates an
italicized word within the quotation.
5 Ibid., p. 490.
92
Because man . . . has been created in the image of God,
and for communion with the Creator, therefore he may and
should make the earth subject to himself, and should have
dominion over all other creatures. The call to create
civilization which this involves is not indeed the es-
sence of real humanity, but it is its necessary presup-
position. Man is only capable of realizing his divine
destiny when he rises above Nature and looks at it from
a distance . . . man also loses his true human quality
when he believes that this consists in his mastery of
Nature, in his civilization, or even in his technics.
. . . When . . . man seeks his supreme end in culture
and civilization, and puts this in place of God, and
turns it into an absolute, the germ of inhumanity has
been introduced into his life. . . . True civilization
and true culture can only develop where the cultural
creation and activity is directed and ordered from a
centre which transcends culture.1
Therefore Brunner sees dominion partially expressed in human
cultural activity and fully expressed when man seeks his true
end which is to transcend this cultural activity. In this
way reason and faith are coordinated.
Paul Tillich
The method of Tillich is that of correlation, empha-
sizing in the case of this discussion the correlation of reli-
gion and culture.2 Religion for Tillich "is being ultimately
concerned about that which is and should be our ultimate con-
cern."3 Being grasped by this ultimate concern is faith.
This existential concept of religion causes the gap between
the sacred and secular to disappear.
1 Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Re-
demption, pp. 67-68.
2 Young, Creator, Creation and Faith, p. 103.
3 Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture, ed. Robert C.
Kimball (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 40.
93
If religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate
concern, this state cannot be restricted to a special
realm. The unconditional character of this concern im-
plies that it refers to every moment of our life, to
every space and every realm. The universe is God's sanc-
tuary. Every work day is a day of the Lord, every supper
a Lord's supper, every work the fulfillment of a divine
task, every joy a joy in God. In all preliminary con-
cerns, ultimate concern is present, consecrating them.
Essentially the religious and the secular are not sepa-
rated realms. Rather they are within each other. But
this is not the way things actually are. In actuality,
the secular element tends to make itself independent and
to establish a realm of its own. And in opposition to
this, the religious element tends to establish itself al-
so as a special realm. . . . One could rightly say that
the existence of religion as a special realm is the most
conspicuous proof of man's fallen state.1
Then how are religion and culture to be correlated in
this life? Tillich concludes that "religion is the substance
of culture, culture is the form of religion."2 Because of
Tillich's interest in an existential definition of religion
and culture, his attention in a direct way to dominion mate-
rials per se is virtually non-existent.3 However, he does
assign somewhat of a dominion status to man, more exactly a
pre-eminent position in ontology.4 This means man's preemi-
nence is so because he is able to ask the ontological question
and find its answer. All of this is, of course, a consider-
able distance from the dominion materials within Scripture!
1 Ibid., pp. 41-42.
2 Ibid., p. 42. For further study on Tillich's view of
culture, see Richard Quinney, "The Theology of Culture: Marx,
Tillich, and the Prophetic Tradition in the Reconstruction of
Social and Moral Order," USQR 34 (Summer 1979) : 203-14.
3 Cf. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. in 1
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967), 1:168-89
as a confirmation of this assessment.
4 Young, Creator, Creation and Faith, p. 105.
94
Summary
There are certainly others whose views could be sum-
marized.1 But these few demonstrate a recent interest in the
whole question of culture and in giving some innovative twists
to views on culture that are ancient. What is clearly evident
in this recent literature is an existential understanding of
religion, culture, and dominion materials. Again there is
clear indication that perception of culture is very influen-
tial in one's selection of a given view of the dominion
materials.
Concluding Assessment
There are but two factors to note in this survey. The
first concerns the general categories of interpretation given
to the dominion materials. Most of the views are very an-
cient. These are viewing (1) dominion as a present possession,
(2) dominion as subordinate in man and preeminent in God, (3)
dominion as a promise fulfilled in various persons and ways,
(4) dominion as lost or diminished, (5) dominion as material-
ized in an eschatological figure, and (6) dominion as a cul-
tural expression.
1 See for example Jurgen Moltmann as his views are ex-
pressed in his Man, trans. John Sturdy (
Press, 1974). For a recent assessment of cultural matters in
theological discussion see also Stephen Mayor, "Jesus Christ
and the Christian Understanding of Society," SJT 32 (February
1979):45-60. For a brief analysis of the cultural views of
Process and Liberation Theology, see Bloesch, "Soteriology in
Contemporary Christian Thought," 137-40. For other analyses
of Liberation Theology see Gary Parker, "Evangelicals Blossom
Brightly amid
ity Today 25 (8 May 1981):34-35 and Alistair Kee, A Reader in
Political Theology (
1974), pp. 92-112.
95
Augustine introduced into the discussion of the do-
minion materials the idea of polarity (in his case the polar-
ity of the two "cities"). This notion of (7) polarity is so
pervasive an element that from the days of Augustine onward
it influenced dominion interpretation. Aquinas built upon
this polarity but introduced into dominion interpretation the
notion of man ruling man, or (8) a religious institution rul-
ing over other earthly institutions in order to achieve divine
ends. Luther, still operating under the shadow of Augustinian
polarity, stressed more clearly the importance of (9) treating
the dominion materials diachronically (a notion incipient in
the ancient eschatological interpretation of dominion).
vin stressed the importance of understanding (10) dominion as
being a restoration, an expression of obedience to the divine.
precepts of Scripture. In an alternate way the Anabaptists
stressed (11) a Christocentric (i.e., New Testament) inter-
pretation of dominion, while viewing culture as merely a
Classical-Renaissance construction. Finally, several recent
interpreters have stressed the importance of (12) understand-
ing dominion existentially because religion and culture were
so understood. These twelve interpretive elements should not
be understood as expressions found only in these individuals.
Rather, these individuals have tended to highlight the re-
spective interpretive points.
A second factor to be noted in this historical survey
of dominion interpretation is the impact made upon dominion
interpretation by seemingly tangential concerns. The various
96
interpretations give indication of having been influenced by
the cultural milieu of the interpreter, by perceptions of
culture in general, by ecclesiastical concerns current in a
given period of history, by philosophical perspectives. That
is, the history of dominion interpretation indicates in a
rather profound way the scope and degree to which one's in-
terpretation of Scripture is impacted by one's milieu, cul-
tural, ecclesiastical, philosophical, and otherwise.
Therefore, it is fitting that one's own milieu be
clearly focused upon before studying closely the dominion
materials. Chapter two of this work attempts to do just
this. The word "philosophic" is an attempt to give a broad
designation to a host of concerns that form the milieu of
this study of dominion materials. What will be indicated
more clearly in the following chapter is already somewhat
evident: The interpreter is never objective in the sense
that he stands apart from this milieu. Rather he constantly
interacts between the milieu and the Biblical text.
CHAPTER II
A PHILOSOPHIC PERSPECTIVE
The intention of this chapter is to engage in both
analytic and speculative matters. The analytic matters
concern matters of definition and distinction. Speculative
matters concern summary of a working model of a world-and
life-view (Weltanschauunq).1 This Kuyper referred to as a
"life-system.”2 It involves a coherent ordering of the to-
tality of the known. Within this life-system one does his
interpretive work. The issues raised here are so broad and
pervasive that all the interpreter is and does finds habita-
tion within these issues. This life-system as the ordering
milieu is where the following discussion begins.
1 James Orr, Christian View of God and the World (New
implication of Weltanschauung, meaning "view of the world."
He says: ". . . whereas the phrase in English is limited by
nature, in German the word is not thus'limited, but has al-
most the force of a technical term, denoting the widest view
which the mind can take of things in the effort to grasp them
together as a whole from the standpoint of some particular
Philosophy or theology." Therefore it is in this sense a
world-wide (Weltganz). For a brief history of the term
Weltanschauung see ibid., pp. 365-67.
2 This reference was made by Kuyper during his 1898
Stone Lectures at
Lectures on Calvinism (
lishing Company, 1931), pp. 9-40.
97
98
Man's Life in an Order
Man as Contextualized
The Genesis 1 and 2 creation account assures man that
he is contextualized.l This appears true on the surface of
things. Being created by his Creator, man sees that he is
brought into this creation order as an integral part of what
is. Both the creation and the fall accounts assure man that
he is not divine. He is good (pre-fall, Gen 1:31) but not
divine. Man's habitation is not his in the sense of origin,
for man's world (in the sense of habitation) is God's world
in the sense of origin, sustenance, and consummation.2 To be
sure, this Creator has graciously provided for man's fashion-
ing activity, but man is still within God's world. Even
Psalm 19 assures that this creation is God's in a most unique
revelatory sense. Thus the very being of man is conditioned
to exist within an environment which may be described as cre-
ated by God, mediately sustained by Him, and to be consummated
by Him.
1 The appeal is made here to Scripture because this
Word of God, as Van Til (Culture, p. 157) says, is "the final
reference point for man's thinking, willing, acting, loving
and hating, for his culture as well as his cultus." However,
there is the prevailing pessimism of modern man that he lives
in chaos and that his relationship is with chaos. Heidegger's
authentic man reflects this pessimism as Angst brings upon him
the realization of his fatedness, death. Camus underscored
the idea that the cosmos is a chaotic absurdity. Sartre spoke
of nausea over life's mere trifling facticity. For a brief
discussion on meaninglessness in recent literature see E. W.
Kemp, ed., Man: Fallen and Free (
ton, 1969), pp. 59-77.
2 This conception is succinctly summarized by the tril-
ogy of prepositions in Rom 11:36: o!ti e]c au]tou? kai> di ] au]tou?
kai> ei]j au]to>n ta> pa<nta: au]t&? h[ do<ca ei]j tou>j ai]w?naj: a]mh<n.
99
Man is dependent
What relationship this contextualization of man sug-
gests is a dependent relationship, after the model described
in Colossians 1.1 Man within this context is dependent in
terms of his whole history (origin, existence, and goal).
Kalsbeek, therefore, says that "since creaturely being, in
origin, existence and goal, is essentially dependent being,
we can say that 'being is meaning.'"2 To say that "being is
meaning" means nothing more than to say that being is depen-
dent; that is, being is created as dependent in order that
it might point beyond itself to its Creator, Sustainer, and
Finisher. This dependency stands in sharp contrast to the
Thomistic conception that being has meaning, that is that
being has independent meaning as a within-itself.
Within a whole
This notion of dependency may be taken a step further.
As man lives out this dependent existence in this cosmos he is
confronted with a state of affairs, the very notion implicit
1 This point is corroborated by H. Wheeler Robinson in
his discussion on "The Hebrew Conception of Nature" in his work,
Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (
Clarendon Press, 1946;
brew vocabulary includes no word equivalent to our term 'Na-
ture.' This is not surprising, if by 'Nature' we mean 'The cre-
ative and regulative physical power which is conceived of as
operating in the physical world and as the immediate cause of
all its phenomena.' The only way to render this idea into He-
brew would be to say simply 'God.'. . . In fact, we may say that
such unity as 'Nature' possessed in Hebrew eyes came to it
through its absolute dependence on God, its Creator and Up-
holder."
2 L. Kalsbeek, Contours of a Christian Philosophy
(Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1975), p. 81.
100
in Psalm 19: "Every item that man meets in his temporal hori-
zon is already interpreted by God."1 There in the very face
of his habitation man is confronted by the owner of the estate
and this owner has interpreted his estate. Though the details
of ownership by God are there, what strikes man in his "theo-
retical analysis, through which reality appears to split up
into various modal aspects . . . is the original indissoluble
interrelation among these aspects."2 That is, the reality of
man's context has an inter-relatedness; there is a wholeness,
an order. Thus, as Kuyper says, the world of phenomena is
organic.3 Even in man's naive experience he discerns the
modes4 of the cosmos as a whole.5
1 From Cornelius Van Til's response to Herman Dooye-
weerd, "Cornelius Van Til and the Transcendental Critique of
Theoretical Thought," in
han (
1974), p. 109.
2 Herman Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical
Thought, 4 vols., trans. David H. Freeman and William S. Young
(
pany, 1969), 1:3.
3 Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, trans.
J. Hendrik de Vries, with an introduction by Benjamin B. War-
field (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Company, 1954), p. 28.
4 The word "modes" is used here in the general sense of
modus quo, "manner in which." By this is meant the "manner or
way in which a thing exists or functions, and not a thing it-
self" (Kalsbeek, Contours, p. 350). Of these manners or ways
Dooyeweerd identified fifteen: Arithmetic, spatial, kinematic,
physical, biotic, sensitive, analytic, historical, lingual,
social, economic, aesthetic, juridical, ethical, and pistic.
For discussion of these see Dooyeweerd, New Critique, 2:3-426;
Kalsbeek, Contours, pp. 35-43; and J. M. Spier, An introduc-
tion to Christian Philosophy (
1966), pp. 30-130.
5 Cf. the discussion of ibid., pp. 14-15.
101
Within an "ordered" whole
Now one cannot merely say that man, as dependent, is
contextualized in a whole. One must go on to say that the
whole which confronts him is nonetheless an ordered whole.
This is clear in the creation account itself in Genesis 1 and
2. Man sustains a relationship to animals, an ordered rela-
tionship. And animals are in an ordered relationship with
vegetation. And between Adam and Eve there is this same or-
dered relationship as well. In this latter case there is even
a microcosmic societal ordering. And man, male and female,
stands in a given ordered relationship to the Creator. So in
each case the order is there and is determined by the Creator.
The context, therefore, in which man lives is an or-
dered context. In this way the fall may be partially under-
stood as a radical re-ordering of relationship with a penal
consequence. Genesis 3 (especially vss. 8ff.) describes the
consequences of the fall in terms of an alteration by divine
fiat of the original ordered relationships. Redemption then
may be partially understood by re-arrangement of the fallen
ordering. Thus in creation, fall, and redemption there is an
ordered relationship, a divinely ordered one.1 In this light
Van Til argues:
If the creation doctrine is thus taken seriously, it fol-
lows that the various aspects of created reality must
sustain such relationships to one another as have been
ordained between them by the Creator, as superiors, infe-
1 Of course, viewed from the perspective of divine de-
cree these various ordered relationships are but one homoge-
nous divine whole, not manifestations of contingency plans.
102
riors or equals. All aspects being equally created, no
one aspect of reality may be regarded as more ultimate
than another.1
No, not as more ultimate than another, but certainly ordered.
Thus it is true, as Schnackenburg says, that "the Bible views
man precisely as a creature and as the crown of God's crea-
tive act in the midst of the world."2
Within a law-structured whole
Thus the creation account assures man that he lives in
an ordered whole and that this order is designed by the Crea-
tor. And man's dependence is to be viewed from within this
whole. Now the question is: Is one able to say any more
about this ordered whole? Obviously there is a long history
to man's analysis of this ordered whole. Each historical pe-
riod of philosophic thought has entertained the analysis, some
with more seriousness than others. As is well known, Plato
argued for the existence of Forms in which objects within
1 Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phila-
delphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company,
1955), p. .27.
2 Rudolf Schnackenburg, "Man Before God: Toward a Bib-
lical View of Man," in Man Before God: Toward a Theology of
Man, Readings in Theology, compiled at the Canisianum (New
cate italicized words within the quotation). However, the
naming of the animals may be understood as man's ordering
(ibid., p. 11), yet even the naming can only be in keeping
with the order that the Creator established for these beasts.
Therefore, the remark of Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, The Old
Testament Library, revised edition based on the 9th German
edition (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), pp. 82-
83 that the naming refers to a re-creation of order out of
chaos misses the point, it seems to this writer. The creation
account, rather, emphasizes an order into which man is placed.
103
nature participated as copies. This perception of the ordered
whole is the foundation of Plato's famous "cave allegory" as
recounted in his Republic, VII.1 Lucretius in his De Rerum
Natura, III, wrote that the ordered whole should be under-
stood as an atomistic materialism:
And since I have shown of what kind are the beginnings
of things, and in how varying and different shapes they
fly of their own accord driven in everlasting motion,
and how all things can be produced from these . . .2
That man is, therefore, means that he is submerged into this
atomistically conceived materialism.
In a contrasting way the answer of idealism as ex-
pressed by George Berkeley has been offered. Idealism has
generally argued that nature should be conceived as reduced
to the experiences of individuals. As such the material world
does not possess real existence. Toward the end of the first
of his Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous Berkeley
has this exchange:
Phil. Ideas then are sensible, and their archetypes or
originals insensible.
Hyl. Right.
Phil. But how can that which is sensible be like that
which is insensible? Can a real thing in itself invisible
be like a colour; or a real thing which is not audible,
be like a sound? In a word, can any thing be like a sen-
sation or idea, but another sensation or idea?
Hyl. I must own, I think not.
Phil. Is it possible there should be any doubt in the
1 For translation of this book of the Republic see
Francis MacDonald Cornford, trans., The
1st American ed., 2nd printing (
Press, 1946), pp. 227-35.
2 For this translation see Lucretius, De Rerum Natura,
trans. W. H. D. Rouse, The Loeb Classical Library (
William Heinemann, 1924), p. 173.
104
point? Do you not perfectly know your own ideas?
Hyl. I know them perfectly; since what I do not perceive
or know, can be no part of my idea.
Phil. Consider therefore, and examine them, and then
tell me if there be anything in them which can exist
without the mind: or if you can conceive anything like
them existing without the mind.
Hyl. Upon inquiry, I find it is impossible for me to
conceive or understand how anything but an idea can be
like an idea. And it is most evident, that no idea can
exist without the mind.
Phil. You are therefore by your principles forced to
deny the reality of sensible things, since you made it
to consist in an absolute existence exterior to the mind.
That is to say, you are a downright sceptic. So I have
gained my point, which was to show your principles led
to scepticism.
Hyl. For the present I am, if not entirely convinced,
at least silenced.1
Clearly materialism and idealism give answers that
are in sharp contrast. Typically, however, dualism has been
offered as the way of perceiving the nature of things. Gen-
erally, dualism divides what is here into two categories: the
physical (spatial) and the non-physical (mind or conscious-
ness). This is the understanding Rene Descartes developed in
his Meditations on First Philosophy, meditations five and six,
and his The Passions of the Soul, especially articles XXX-
XXXII.2
Others, however, emphasized that nature should not be
conceived as static, but rather dynamic (laying claim to
1 George Berkeley, The Principles of Human Knowledge
and Three Dialoques Between Hylas and Philonous, introduction
by G. J. Warnock, Meridian Books (
lishing Company, 1967), p. 191.
2 For translation of these passages see Elizabeth S.
Haldane and G. R. T. Ross, trans., The Philosophical Works
of DesCartes, 2 vols., unabridged republication of the last
corrected edition of 1931 (
Inc., 1955), 1:179-99 and 345-46.
105
philosophical schema consistent with biological evolution).
As man's existence changes within a world that changes, adap-
tation is required. Pragmatism, of course, emphasized the
importance of this adaptation. The following words of John
Dewey in his Experience and Nature appropriately illustrate
the dynamic nature of the world to which adaptation is
required.
Anthropologists have shown incontrovertibly the part
played by the precarious aspect of the world in generat-
ing religion with its ceremonies, rites, cults, myths,
magic; and it has shown the pervasive penetration of these
affairs into morals, law, art, and industry. Beliefs and
dispositions connected with them are the background out
of which philosophy and secular morals slowly developed,
as well as more slowly those late inventions, art for
art's sake, and business is business. Interesting and in-
structive as is this fact, it is not the ramifications
which here concern us. We must not be diverted to consi-
der the consequences for philosophy, even for doctrines
reigning today, of facts concerning the origin of philoso-
phies. We confine ourselves to one outstanding fact: the
evidence that the world of empirical things includes the
uncertain, unpredictable, uncontrollable, and hazardous.1
Each of these several views on the orderliness of na-
ture falls short in terms of the Biblical perspective. Each
one (acknowledging DesCartes' interest in the divine) does
not fully grasp the dependent nature of creation, especially
as it is dependent on the Creator.2
1 John Dewey, Experience and Nature (
Publications, Inc., 1958), pp. 41-42.
2 While not agreeing with the general sentiments of
the context of the quotation that follows, this writer does
agree with the remark on Gen 1 made by Henricus Renckens, Is-
rael's Concept of the Beginning (
1964), p. 83: "The point of it is to convey the conviction
that God is in principle the ultimate source of the intelligi-
bility of everything that exists, whether it is mentioned or
not, and indeed whether its existence is even known or not."
106
In rejecting these models offered to explain the or-
derliness of the whole in which man lives, one must ask
whether the Bible at all offers any more detailed analysis
of this order. In a word the answer is a cautious "Yes."
But the Biblical perspective does not treat its answer in
terms of a rigidly scientific philosophical mechanization.
Rather, the focus is on a constantly reiterated norm: Crea-
tion in its totality moves at the beck and call of its Crea-
tor. This control may happen mediately through the normative
divine law-structures continually sustained by the Creator
(providence, i.e., preservation, concurrence, and government)
or immediately through His miraculous activity (providence
extraordinary).1 Thus, the reader of Scripture is assured
that God, the Creator, orders and configures stars (Isa 40:26).
Planetary movement and therefore change of seasons are as-
cribed to Him (Ps 74:16 and Jer 31:36). He controls water
forms (Job 37:6-16). In fact, Job 38:4-41 serves as something
of a catalog of divine law structuring, a function similar to
that of Psalm 104.2 This understanding of a law-structured
1 Lester J. Kuyper, "The Biblical View of Nature," Re-
formed Review 22 (1969): 12-17 argues that there is both the
normative (providence) and the dynamic (providence extraor-
dinary). However, he sees these as the two perspectives of
the priestly (static, normative) and the prophetic (dynamic
extraordinary). This dichotomy will hardly do since it seems
there exists in the Old Testament a continuum (not dichotomy)
of both the static and dynamic. However, Thomas Wieser, "The
Biblical View of the World," Encounter 20 (1959): 484-93 under-
stands the orderliness of the world to consist in the order
given by the Christ-event.
2 Indeed as Marvin H. Pope, Job, AB (
Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1965), p. 250 says, "God assails
Job with questions he cannot answer about the wonders of
107
arrangement to the orderly whole seems to permeate the entire
Old Testament. The argument here is not that the Biblical
material presents a philosophically analytic evaluation of
the intricacies of scientific law-structuring. To the con-
trary, the material calls attention to a divine regimen by
which one is assured that through divine operation the ori-
gin, maintenance, and destination1 of creation are secured
and this with a divine regularity.2
nature and the control of the world." For further discussion
on divine control over the constituent parts of creation see
E. C. Rust, Nature and Man in Biblical Thought (
lerworth Press, 1953), pp. 64ff. However, some will argue, as
K. V. Mathew, "The Concept of God and Nature in the Psalms,"
Indian Journal of Theology 20, (1971): 142-49, that the Psalmic
material describing nature is a cultic expression of faith,
not an historical statement. Langdon Gilkey, Maker of Heaven
and Earth, Christian Faith Series (
& Company, 1959), pp. 24ff. forces this same dichotomy. But
this distinction between cultic and historical cannot be too
sharply drawn since cultic faith did not develop out of a
vacuum. It seems to have had a root other than the worship-
er's experience of merely coping with the vissicitudes of
nature. For further discussion on the concept of nature in
the Old Testament see H. W. Huppenbauer, "God and Nature in
the Psalms,"
1 For reasons other than this writer's, Eugene H. Maly,
"Man and Nature in the Old Testament," Studia Missionalia 20
(1970): 313 concludes "that we are justified in speaking of a
true community of man and nature, a community that is not
sacralized or mythicized by the covenant relationship with
Yahweh but that is eschatologized. It is in the eschatologi-
cal perspective, as presented especially in the prophetic
descriptions of the messianic age, that we can argue for a
perfect harmony between man and nature as being the intent
and goal of God's creative activity. It is sin that accounts
for the present distortion of that harmony."
2 James Robinson, "The Biblical View of the World,"
Encounter 20 (1959): 470-83 argues that this is an uncritical-
ly religious stance expressing a merging of the scientific and
religious viewpoints. However, one must envision here a col-
lision of the scientific and uncritically religious perspec-
tives. Further discussion on the nature of Hebrew thought
108
Man is in a continuum
This might be called the naive experience-scientific
inquiry continuum. At the level of naive experience1
witnessed this structured orderliness of divine law. Her
perception was not at the theoretical, scientific level at
which she made critically, analytically theoretical abstrac-
tions of sets or complexes of scientific laws. For example,
her observations of what constitutes disease and health.
Though these observations were at the level of naive experi-
ence, that does not necessarily make them unsophisticated.
What
and faith are reflected in Scripture, is to abstract from
creation those theoretical, scientific laws which comprise
the biotic function of being.
A contemporary appraisal
Just here is where contemporary thought flounders.
The scientism of this century views the naive experience re-
flected in the Biblical material as unscientific and there-
fore unsophisticated. In this sort of naivety
can be found in Ludwig Kohler, Hebrew Man, trans. Peter R.
Ackroyd (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1956), pp. 115ff.
1 "Naive experience" should be defined as does Kals-
beek, Contours, p. 351: It is "human experience insofar as it
is not 'theoretical"' or scientific. This, however, does not
mean "unsophisticated" knowledge. Naive experience is what
confronts man in his everyday life. For those who argue that
modern culture's heavy orientation in scientific inquiry has
made it impossible to have naive experience see Dooyeweerd,
New Critique, 3:30-32.
109
viewed as giving cultic expression to her unsophisticated
perspective. Thus, what is preserved in the Biblical record
is a sacred "history." Using this model of scientism, one
must understand that a great chasm exists between
naive experience and true scientific understanding. There-
fore, the argument runs, the Biblical world's view of order-
ing is more mythical than scientific.
However, does this chasm in fact exist? Can it be
that scientific knowledge has so little correlation with naive
experience? Do science and naive experience live in separate
worlds? Was Plato right after all when he concluded that only
philosopher-kings had sufficient insight into the nature of
reality, thereby being able to rule the world? Was Kant's
dichotomizing between the theoretical and practical correct?
A rebuttal
The answer is "No," and for this reason. The world
of naive experience (concrete reality) is the very world in
which scientific inquiry is and must be done. There is no
other world. Whatever naive experience and scientific inquiry
are, they must be a part of the same continuum. One is not
other-worldly. There is no autonomous standing place from
which scientific investigation is done. The context of this
ordered world is the context of both the skilled scientist
and the man-on-the-street. The expression which describes
scientific inquiry and naive experience is not rigid dicho-
tomy; it is contextualized continuum. Thus the world of sci-
entific work and naive experience is the same.
110
But the question is asked, are there no differences
between science and naive experience? There are differences
these may be summarized as follows:
The scientific view of the created cosmos is not superior
to the naive view of everyday experience. In fact philos-
ophy cannot do without naive experience, as it is based
upon it. And naive experience remains always a touchstone
of the philosophical truth. . . . The distinction between
naive experience and scientific analysis is that the for-
mer places itself concretely within reality, whereas the
latter abstracts a distinct aspect of reality and views
it in an antithetical relation in which a particular as-
pect is exposed to scientific analysis.1
Using this understanding of a continuum between sci-
entific inquiry and naive experience, one may address the mat-
ter of order within the creation more fully.2 The argument
here is not saying that this order was at all perceived in a
scientific way in the Biblical world; but the order was per-
ceived. This perceived order from the perspective of naive
experience, as this perspective has been divinely interpreted
within the context of Scripture, is that context by which
contemporary scientific inquiry proceeds. The opposite way
1 Spier, Introduction, pp. 14-15. In Spier's termi-
nology (the
when one theoretically abstracts the analytic modality from
the cosmos and interfaces that modality with some other modal-
ity within the cosmos, such as the juridical or aesthetical.
Underlining indicates an italicized word within the quotation.
2 A contemporary evidence of the breakdown in the na-
ive experience-scientific inquiry continuum is found within
the Christian community when a supposed dichotomy is stressed
between so-called practical Christianity (naive experience)
and theological study (scientific inquiry). The Scripture un-
derstands these as a continuum (cf. the placement and use of
ou#n in Eph 4:1 as an example). This dichotomy which suppos-
edly frees some to concentrate on the "practical" issues of
the spiritual life betrays a Kantian dichotomy between the
scientific and moral.
111
of doing things is not to be. To proceed in an opposite way
is to claim autonomy from the authenticated interpretation of
naive experience within Scripture. This opposite way is
equivalent to using the very law structured creation of the
sovereign God as a place to stand in order to challenge and
"re-make" His world according to the contemporary perspective
of scientism. This is acknowledging Him by our continued
existence and denying Him by thought.
A suggestion
There remains one last question concerning this order,
a law-structured order, of creation. Is there any model of
law ordering which correlates better with the Biblical per-
spective? This is not to argue that any contemporary analy-
sis is the same law-structured order as that in Scripture.
No interpretation can make such a claim.l On the other hand
any contemporary scientific analysis which interprets cosmic
reality with reference to God, and not intra-cosmically,
surely must be closer to the naive experience reflected in
Scripture and more willing to admit its (scientific analysis)
fallibility and lack of autonomy.2
1 On this very point Van Til has given a most important
reminder in his Defense, p. 44: "The things of this universe
must be interpreted in relation to God. The object of knowl-
edge is not interpreted truly if though brought into relation
with the human mind, it is not also brought into relation with
the divine mind. God is the ultimate category of interpreta-
tion. Now we cannot fully understand God's plan for created
things and so we cannot fully understand things."
2 And certainly, though seeming antinomies exist in
our thinking about the creation, the Christian is called upon
112
Therefore, as a working model of this order Dooye-
weerd's modality structures may be considered.1 Before look-
ing directly at this suggestion several matters should pref-
ace the analysis. The first is that Dooyeweerd realized his
analysis was certainly subject to correction and elaboration.2
A second is that Dooyeweerd himself argued that his analysis
was not entirely new.3 Third, there have been a number of
questions raised about Dooyeweerd's thought. One certainly
has been his concept of Scripture, especially as that concept
has been articulated by the
Christian Studies and its sponsor, the Association for the Ad-
vancement of Christian Scholarship. The issue at stake is the
understanding of Scripture as "a third mode of being."4 A
leading critic of this view of Scripture has been John Frame.5
to interpret God's world as consistently as possible with the
Biblical data.
1 For his own extensive explication of the modality
structures see his New Critique, vols. 2 and 3.
2 Cf. Kalsbeek, Contours, p. 38.
3 Cf. the remark of Spier, Introduction, pp. 43-44.
4 Cf. Robert A. Morey, The Dooyeweerdian Concept of
the Word of God (
lishing
critiques this Dooyeweerdian conception.
5 For a brief historical survey of this debate see
John M. Frame, "The Quiet Crisis," The Presbyterian Guardian
41 (April 1972): 52-57; John W. Van Dyk, "Why I Support the
A.A.C.S.," The Presbyterian Guardian 41 (August-September
1972): 102-3. James H. Olthuis and Bernard Zylstra, "Confess-
ing Christ in Education," The Presbyterian Guardian 41
(August-September 1972): 104-6; John J. Mitchell, "Educa-
tional creeds' for
Guardian 41 (August-September 1972): 107; James H. Olthuis
113
Another critique against Dooyeweerd is that of Van Til, that
concerning transcendental method, the idea of "states of af-
fairs," and the distinction between the realm of man's con-
ceptual activity and man's religious activity.1 Other crit-
icisms leveled against the Dooyeweerdian circle concern the
particulars of their view of the kingdom and the church, cre-
ation and redemption, creeds and confessions, and world-and
life view, philosophy and theology.2
The modality structure of Dooyeweerd is a scientific
analysis of the creational law structure.3 The Dooyeweerdian
model of the cosmic law order indicates that there exists
within creation a multiplicity of divine laws by which the
and Bernard Zylstra, "Confessing Christ in Education," The
Presbyterian Guardian 41 (October 1972): 120-22; John J.
Mitchell, "Editor's Comment," The Presbyterian Guardian 41
(October 1972): 122; John M. Frame, "The Word of God in the
Cosmonomic Philosophy," The Presbyterian Guardian 41 (October
1972): 123-25; etc. There is a long history of articles! Note
also the appendix by John M. Frame, "What is God's Word," in
Morey, Concept, pp. 32-37. For a view of at least a signifi-
cant point in the debate see Bernard Zylstra, "The Word of
God, the Bible, and the AACS: In defense of a reformational
movement," The Presbyterian Guardian 42 (March 1973): 40-43.
Other discussion on these same general subjects may be found
in issues of The Christian Patriot, The Banner, The Outlook,
The Reformed Journal, The Canadian Reformed Magazine, and
Calvinist-Contact.
1 Cf. Geehan,
2 Zylstra, "The Word of God, the Bible, and the AACS," 40.
3 The following analysis of the modality structure, for
sake of brevity will employ the excellent summary of Spier,
Introduction, pp. 30-130. Along the way this writer has at-
tempted to explicate and harmonize points within Dooyeweerd's
system which seem inconsistent. For analysis of Dooyeweerd's
own analysis of the modality structure see his New Critique,
especially volume 3.
114
Creator has sovereignly chosen to order his creation. Not
all of these laws are of the same type. Logical laws and
biotic laws differ. A social law is not an aesthetical law.
"Now all laws of one specific sort, taken together, form a
law-sphere" or aspect.1 These law-spheres--fifteen have been
identified by Dooyeweerd--work together harmoniously and are
those law-spheres by which the Creator subjects His creation.
These are not, therefore, scientific laws, in the sense that
science develops these laws. These law-spheres are creational
law-spheres which the various sciences only partially dis-
cover, never completely, exhaustively. Any assurance that
the scientist has discovered a law-sphere may be held only in
proportion to the degree of correspondence between the dis-
covered law-sphere and the normative divine interpretation
of naive experience recorded in Scripture. To the degree no
human interpretation is infallible, to that same degree no
scientific analysis of law can claim infallibility.
The law-spheres Dooyeweerd isolated may be summarized
as follows:
15. Pistic (faith)
14. Ethical (love)
13. Juridical (judgment)
12. Aesthetic (harmony)
11. Economic (saving)
10. Social (social intercourse)
9. Lingual (symbolical meaning)
8. Historical (cultural development)
7. Analytic (thought)
6. Sensitive (feeling)
5. Biotic (life)
4. Physical (energy)
3. Kinematic (motion)
1 Spier, Introduction, p. 35.
115
2. Spatial (space)
1. Arithmetic (number)
The understanding of this list is as-follows.1 The
movement from one through fifteen is one from the more foun-
dational to the less foundational, that is number ten assumes
number eight, number thirteen assumes number twelve, etc.
Each individual sphere is not self-sufficient and operates
harmoniously with the others, a fact to which naive experi-
ence readily attests. Scientific inquiry is the theoretical
extrapolation of the analytic law-sphere and another of the
law-spheres and the interfacing of these. Thus, the scientific
investigation of linguistics is in fact the theoretical inter-
facing of the analytic law-sphere and the lingual law-sphere.
In any case, one must remember that the interfacing is
theoretical. The Creator designed them to work in harmony,
not in isolation. Therefore, one law-sphere cannot be made
more important than another law-sphere. That is idolatry. One
who seeks to interpret all of creation only through the biotic
law-sphere has distorted what is here. And finally, one must
understand that these law-spheres have validity only as they
find correlation with the normative, divine interpretation of
naive experience as found in self-attesting Scripture.2 For
1 For similar treatments see Kalsbeek, Contours, pp.
40-42, and Spier, Introduction, p. 43.
2 The obvious question at this point is: But how does
one determine what is Scripture's interpretation of naive ex-
perience? Though the answer to this question is itself a dis-
sertation, these, few remarks seem pertinent. To begin with,
man's knowledge must be analogical to God's knowledge, since
His is the original. Because His knowledge is original, it is
116
the Dooyeweerdian law-structure to be used beyond these param-
eters herein surveyed would be inappropriate, since this would
be to press the claims and finds of scientific inquiry beyond
their creational limitation, namely operating within the con-
text of Scripture's normative interpretation of naive experi-
ence.
With these cursory remarks on the nature of man's
contextualization within an ordered whole in hand, this phil-
osophical analysis can proceed to an inquiry into man's rela-
tional orientation within this ordered context.
Man as Relational
By this is meant that man finds himself sustained
within the context of three concurrent relationships. Kuyper
in his Stone Lectures had argued that any life-system of ne-
cessity possesses three fundamental relations: "(1) our rela-
tion to God, (2) our relation to man, and (3) our relation to
the world."1 A cursory review of the creation-fall-redemption
authoritative; man's is not. This authority man cannot estab-
lish; he can only acknowledge. How, then, does he acknowledge
this authority? The summary to this answer may be outlined as
follows: 1) Man must acknowledge that the one who speaks is a
truth-teller. 2) Man must acknowledge that he is studying a
faithful record of that truth-teller. 3) Both the truth-teller
and his interpreter must be cognizant of a communicative, law-
structured tool, language. 4) The interpreter must acknowledge
the rightful claim of the authority to order his life and
thought. 5) The interpreter must acknowledge that as inter-
preter he lives in the authority's continuum which has condi-
tioned him. 6) The interpreter thereby acknowledges his de-
pendence, and in this condition of dependence he reciprocates
between his law-structured creational order and his interpre-
tation of the authoritative truth-teller's claims.
1 Kuyper, Lectures, p. 19. Underlined words indicate
italics within the quotation.
117
account suggests that man finds himself in these very relations.
In relation to God
The assurance of Genesis 1:26-28 is that man is God's
creature. This Creator-creature relationship is explicated in
terms of the creature's work assignment (2:15; cf. 2:5 and 8)1
and proscriptive commandment (2:16-17; cf. 3:13).2 Even in
the naming of animals Adam's cognitive skills gave titles ap-
propriate to the natures to which the Creator had already dis-
posed them (cf. 2:19-20). The circumstances of Eve's appear-
ance (2:21) remind Adam of his creaturely vulnerability before
his Creator. Man has no existence apart from his self-existent
God. There is no other place for man to live and work and be
than within the habitation prepared for him by God. His crea-
tion is a reminder that his relationship to his maker is crea-
turely; he is from the dust of the ground (2:7).3
1 The notion of divine assignment is indicated by the
verbals hhy.Iva and UhHen.iya.va which are used to describe the place-
ment. A part of that relationship was functioning within the
context of divine placement. The work is described as h.dAb;fAl;
h.rAm;wAl;Ui. The latter of these terms (rmw) suggests more than
tillage; it implies the idea that to Adam was given a domain
to keep; he was in charge of it. There may well be an intend-
ed correlation between the first two usages of rmw in Gen,
here and in 3:24; cf. Gerhard Lisowsky, Konkordanz zum he-
braischen Alten Testament (
anstalt, 1958), pp. 1473-77. As man was given the charge to
take care of the garden, so, following the fall, God placed
cherubim and a flaming sword to take care of the way to the
tree of life (3:24) .
2 The command is appropriately termed Ocay;va. The grace
( lkexTo lkoxA ) and limitation ( lkaxto xlo ) of the prohibition are both
emphasized. And, as expected, the penal aspect accompanies
the prohibition (tOmutA tOm). The grace of the prohibition is
even indicated in the earlier account in Gen 1:29.
3 Maly, "Man and Nature in the Old Testament," 303,
118
Obviously, if man initially stands in such a depen-
dent relation to his God, whatever else may occur in his his-
tory does not alter this relation. At his fall man's relation
to his God changes, this being graphically portrayed in Gene-
sis 3:7-24. But that he still stands in relation to God is
not obliterated. This truth is reiterated by Paul in so dis-
tant a passage as Acts 17:24-28.1 The change in relation re-
sulting from the fall undergoes modification upon the coming
of redemption (Eph 1:11-12).2
As these materials indicate, man is always in rela-
tion to God, whether the relation undergoes change. And this
relation is one which is determinative for all others:
it is the interpretation of our relation to God which domi-
nates every general life system."3 The centrality of this
following the lead of A. Diez Macho, offers an intriguing
analysis of the use of "dust" (rpAfA) in this passage: ". . .
min-ha'adama is not to be referred to ‘apar, as though the
latter were the material from the earth out of which man is
formed, but directly to wayyiser, and the word 'dust' or ‘apar
is to be considered the 'second direct complement or object
of the verb "he formed." The translation then would be some-
thing like this: And the Lord God formed man (as) dust from
the ground." In keeping with this interpretation we would
have emphasized by this remark two points: man's being from
the earth and man's being dust, i.e., frail, perishable.
1 In this remarkable statement Paul declares that God
is creator of all (17:24), that he gives all things to them
(25), that he has determined law structures (26). The summary
of this is: ]En au]t&? ga>r zw?men kai> kinou<meqa kai> e]sme<n . . . (28).
2 The passage assures that in redemption we still have
to do with him: tou? ta< pa<nta e]nergou?ntoj kata> th>n boulh>n tou?
qelh<matoj au]tou? . . . (1:11).
3 Kuyper, Lectures, p. 19.
119
relation is shown in the fall (Gen 3). There the changed re-
lation to God brought changes in relation to the world, as
toward hostility (Gen 4:1-9).1 Thus, early in the Genesis
account the relation of man to God is pivotal.
This relation to God springs from a man's heart.2
1 The hostility is most graphically presented in Cain's
response, after killing his brother, to God's inquiry: xlo
ykinoxA yHixA rmewhE yTif;dayA. Of this response two points are worthy
of note. (1) As von Rad has pointed out (Genesis, pp. 105-6)
the question which elicited this response was a social ques-
tion: "Where is your brother?" (2) The nature of the response
is striking because it is an emphatic rebellion. Cain dis-
claims a social responsibility, and therefore, conscience.
Thus the remark of Calvin (Calvin's Commentaries, 1:2-6) is
apropos: "Cain, in denying that he was the keeper of his
brother's life, although, with ferocious rebellion, he at-
tempts violently to repel the judgment of God, yet thinks to
escape by this cavil, that he was not required to give an ac-
count of his murdered brother, because he had received no
express command to take care of him."
2 The literature on a general anthropological perspec-
tive on man and on his "heart" in particular is considerable.
Among these works the following are noteworthy: G. C. Ber-
kouwer, Man: The Image of God (
Publishing Company, 1962), especially pp. 194-233; Franz Del-
itzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, trans. Robert Ernest
Wallis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966), especially 292-
313; Walther Eichrodt, Man in the Old Testament, Studies in
Biblical Theology (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1956); Joseph
Fichtner, Man, the Image of God (New York: Alba House, 1978),
especially pp. 61-77; Andrew Bowling, “bbalA“ Theological Word-
book of the Old Testament, 2 vols., edited by R. Laird Harris,
Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (
Press, 1980), 1:466-67; Ernest Jenni and Claus Westermann,
eds., Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament, 2
Bande (Munchen: Chr. Kaiser, 1971), 1, cols. 861-67; Aubrey
R. Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of
Ancient
especially pp. 75ff.; Wolfhart Pannenberg, What Is Man?,
trans. Duane A. Priebe, paperback edition (
tress Press, 1972), especially 82-95; H. Wheeler Robinson,
The Christian Doctrine of Man, 3rd edition (
120
There the issues of life are decided. Kuyper has correctly
observed that
. . . a life system shall find its starting-point in a
special interpretation of our relation to God. This is
not accidental, but imperative. If such an action is to
put its stamp upon our entire life, it must start from
that point in our consciousness in which our life is still
undivided and lies comprehended in its unity--not in the
spreading vines but in the root from which the vines
spring. This point, of course, lies in the antithesis
between all that is finite in our human life and the in-
finite that lies beyond it. Here alone we find the com-
mon source from which the different streams of our human
life spring and separate themselves. Personally it is
our repeated experience that in the depths of our hearts,
at the point where we disclose ourselves to the Eternal
One, all the rays of our life converge as in one focus,
and there alone regain that harmony which we so often
and so painfully lose in the stress of daily duty.1
What Kuyper observes from more the viewpoint of sci-
entific inquiry is borne out by the interpretation given naive
experience in Scripture.2 Within the context of this Biblical
interpretation of man it is clear that, though he is a unit,3
"by far the most important organ, however, is the heart (ble,
bbAle)."4 The preponderance of occurrences of "heart"--accord-
ing to Wolff 814 instances where the reference is to the human
Pauline View of Man (London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1956), es-
pecially pp. 194-97; and Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of
the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), es-
pecially pp. 40-58.
1 Kuyper, Lectures, p. 20.
2 So Berkouwer, Man, p. 194, aptly remarks: "Bavinck's
remark that Scripture 'never intentionally concerns itself
With the scientific as such' surely applies also when man is
the subject of consideration." The Bible here employs the
language of daily life.
3 Ibid., pp. 194ff.
4 Johnson, Vitality, 75.
121
heart--outnumbers that of even wp,n, (755 times).1 For this
reason the usage of "heart" in the Old Testament must be
only summarily stated.
While bl and bbl are used in several ways, clearly
the general use envisions "far more than the anatomical posi-
tion and the physiological functions of the heart."2 The
heart, in fact, finds its reference in the innermost center
of man.3 Thus, "dem menschlichen leb werden Funktionen fur
das leibliche, seelische and geistige Wesen des Menschen zu-
geschrieben. leb bedeutet die 'Lebenskraft."'4 In summary,
the purpose of localization through use of the word "heart"
is to employ it as a reference to the whole man as he stands
exposed to God.5 In this way the term "heart" (among other
terms) is used to describe man's entirety (not certain com-
positional parts) as that which is exposed to God. This
"wholistic" point of reference for "heart" is underscored in
the final words of Psalm 22:27: dfalA Mk,b;bal; yHy;. This usage of
bl, bbl is not unlike the semantic field of the Akkadian
1 Cf. Wolff, Anthropology, p. 40.
2 Ibid., p. 44.
3 Delitzsch, Psychology, p. 292.
4 Jenni and Westermann, Handworterbuch, 1, col. 862.
5 Berkouwer, Man, p. 202.' Of course, wp,n, is also em-
ployed as a term to describe man as a whole.
122
libbu.1 Within this field is the following usage of libbu
which is similar to the notion being suggested here for bbl:
beli lu idi ki lib-ba-su ul itti belija su ("my lord should
know that his loyalty is not with my lord").2
The New Testament carries on this same general tradi-
tion of meaning from the Old Testament. The word kardi<a is
used, along with other possibilities, in reference to both
mental processes (though more commonly nou?j is used for bbl
in this case) and the whole personality.3 A rather clear in-
dication of this latter use is found in two passages in 2 Cor-
inthians which offer parallel expressions except for the
interchange of "us" for "our hearts."
1:22 . . . dou>j to>n a]rrabw?na tou? pneu<matoj e]n tai?j
5:5 . . . o[ dou>j h[mi?n to>n a]rrabw?na tou? pneu<matoj.
The conclusion to this brief summary on the Biblical
use of the word "heart" is that at the innermost center of
man's being (appropriately his "heart") is where man's rela-
tion to God converges. Here man is laid bare and open before
Him.
In relation to others
In the creation narrative there is indication that
1 Cf. Miguel Civil et al., editorial board, The Assyr-
ian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
(hereafter cited as CAD). Seven general divisions of semantic
range are indicated.
2 A Neo-Babylonian example cited in ibid., 9:170.
3 Stacey, Man, p. 195. Note also the summary conclu-
sions on New Testament usage given by Robinson, Man, p. 106.
123
man as he lived in God's continuum was also placed by his
Creator in yet another relation. Man stood in relation to
others. This relation of one to another is a fundamental con-
dition of any life-system. Attention to this relation is
necessary since "there is no uniformity among men, but end-
less multiformity."1 This multiformity is expressed in the
very passage (Gen 2:20-23) which stresses man's individuation
from animals. On the human level, in spite of commonality
(yriWAB;mi rWAbAU ymacAfEme Mc,f, MfaPaha txzo),2 there is multiformity, man
and woman. This multiformity necessitates social ordering.
The distinction between man and woman implies further
social orderings. The first of these is found in the words
of Genesis 1:28: Cr,xAHA-tx, Uxl;miU Ubr;U UrP;. Bearing of off-
spring would at once place the man and woman in a new social
ordering, the family. At first this family would be the only
nuclear family (parents and children). In the earliest his-
tory of man the nuclear family and the human community were
1 Kuyper, Lectures, p. 26.
2 Cf. Walter Bruggemann, "Of the Same Flesh and Bone
(Gen 2:23a)," CBQ 32 (1970) 534-35: "The two terms in Gn. 2,
23 which we have rendered 'flesh-weakness' and 'bone-power'
are not to be regarded as referring to two simple states. . . .
Because they are antithetical, it is most likely that they
mean to state two extreme possibilities and include everything
between them, thus all physical-psychological dimensions of
interaction from A to Z. . . In our verse (Gn. 2, 23), the
poles of 'flesh-frailty' and 'bone-power' mean to express the
entire range of possibilities from the extreme of frailty to
power. Thus the relationship affirmed is one which is af-
firmed for every possible contingency in the relationship
. . . It is a formula of constancy, of abiding loyalty which
in the first place has nothing to do with biological deriva-
tion, as it is often interpreted." Cf. for example 2 Sam 5:1.
124
identical since there existed only the first family.
But surely the multiplication process envisioned in
Genesis 1:28 would eventuate in several nuclear families.
This second implication of social ordering is found in Gene-
sis 2:24 dHAx, rWAbAl; UyhAv; OTw;xiB; qbadAv; Om.xi-tx,v; vybixA-tx, wyxi-bzAfEya
Unless these families remained in total isolation, they would
have lived according to agreed-upon laws of association. As
there was multiformity among individuals, so there was among
nuclear families. Eventually, certain of these nuclear fami-
lies came to have more in common with other families (perhaps
commonality of geographic location, vocational pursuit, etc.).
This commonality joined nuclear families together to form
communities. In this way the individual family was distin-
guishable from the community. Again, as there was multifor-
mity in individuals and nuclear families, so also in
communities.
To summarize then, one may say that Genesis 1:28 and
2:24 imply ever-increasing levels of social complexity: in-
dividuals, nuclear families, and communities. The existence
of these three, however, introduces a host of societal law-
structures of even greater complexity. For each individual
finds himself sustaining intra- and inter-relationships at the
level of the nuclear family and community. Thus man, by vir-
tue of the very multiplication commanded by the Creator, finds
himself to be a social being.1
These societal relationships are not to be anarchic.
1 For evidence of this claim see p. 119, n. 1.
125
The implication of Genesis 4:9 eliminates anarchy as a means
of management for society.1 If not anarchy, then what struc-
turing? In light of all the foregoing material in this chap-
ter this social structuring finds its context in the domain
of man's relationship to his Creator. This relationship is
normative for social ordering. But does the Bible give a
technical scientific accounting of social theory?2 No, of
course it does not. But it does provide a normative inter-
pretation of naive experience within the societal sphere.
This interpretation becomes the context within which norma-
tive scientific societal theory is to be developed.
There is no scientific theory developed in Genesis,
as for example, concerning marriage. But there is in the pre-
fall account a normative expression about marriage from the
viewpoint of naive experience. Genesis 2:24 describes a "leav-
ing" and "uniting" (bzAfEya and qbadAv;). In Matthew 19:5 these
concepts are repeated with katalei<fei and kollhqh<setai. Of
1 For a brief descriptive analysis of the philosophic
options that have been entertained in social philosophy see
Robert N. Beck, Handbook in Social Philosophy (
millan Publishing Co., Inc., 1979). Beck surveys the philo-
sophic perspectives of classical realism, positivism, philo-
sophic liberalism, utilitarianism, idealism, communism, prag-
matism, existentialism, and linguistic philosophy. The
general notions about social ordering suggested in this dis-
sertation are understood to be those consistently resulting
from the interfacing of scientific inquiry with the normative
Biblical interpretation of naive experience.
2 Social theory should not be restricted only to the
domain of sociology. The expression is related to the ideas
of political theory, theory of right, theory of ethics. While
some philosophers might want to make distinctions between
these expressions, they may generally be taken as all part
of social theory or as Thomas Hobbes understood, a general
theory of human societal structuring.
126
these terms the following may be said. The first of these He-
brew words, bzf (I), especially in the social context, is
suggestive of more than mere departure. There surely is the
idea of a departure in the sense of reorientation in commu-
nity.1 The Greek word katalei<pw, translating the Hebrew bzf,
means generally "to leave," though it may carry with it sev-
eral emphases.2 The Greek term, though used only a few times
in Matthew, suggests much the same idea as does its counter-
part in Hebrew.3 The study of the other pair of terms, qbd4
and kalla<w,5 indicates their use as describing closeness
1 According to Lisowsky, Konkordanz, p. 1040, the word
bzf (I) is used in these locations within Gen: 2:24; 24:27;
28:15; 39:6, 12, 13, 15, 18; 44:22 (twice); and 50:8. Of these
uses all may be construed as marking out the idea of community
of man and man (2:24; 44:22, twice) or man and God (24:27;
28:15) or as indicating the disruption of community of man
and man by the leaving of goods or persons (39:6, 12, 13, 15,
18; 50:8).
2 Cf. Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, p. 898.
3 Cf. W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, eds., A Concor-
dance to the Greek Testament, 5th edition, revised by H. K.
Moulton, with supplement according to the text of the United
Bible Society's 3rd edition (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978),
p. 535. The passages in Matt are 4:13; 16:4; 19:5; and 21:17.
For use of the exact word form as in 19:5 see Mk 10:7; cf. J.
Arthur Baird, A Critical Concordance to the Synoptic Gospels,
The Computer Bible, vol. 1, revised edition, eds. idem. and
David Noel Freedman (n. 1: Biblical Research Associates, Inc.,
1971), p. 231. Each of the four Matt occurrences indicates
change in the idea of community (social relationship) by
moving.
4 Cf. Lisowsky, Konkordanz, p. 336, who cites Gen 2:24;
19:19; and 34:3. For the semantic field of the term see Lud-
wig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, eds., Lexicon in Veteris
Testamenti Libros, 2 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1951), 1:199.
5 Cf. Moulton and Geden, Concordance, p. 553, listing
only the 19:5 passage in Matt and Liddell and Scott, Lexicon,
p. 972.
127
within a community, a strong attachment so that one is given
over to another; they become one (Gen 2:24). This brief
study indicates the Biblical interpretation of naive experi-
ence with respect to marriage. Within this example and many
more within the Biblical material a normative interpretation
of marriage is established.
What has been said about man in relation to others is
that from the outset his Creator cast him in the role of soc-
ial being. He is in community with others. Distortion here
is produced when there is distortion in one's relation to God
(Gen 4:1-9). There exists yet another relation in which man
finds himself.
In relation to the world
Already in this chapter the view has been argued that
man is within the context of a law-structured world and that
his very life is dependent upon the functioning of this law-
structure. This all implies that a relation to the world ex-
ists. When the reader confronts the creation narrative he is
struck with two ideas about the world (Cr,xAhAv; Myimaw.Aha). One no-
tion is that because man is placed within the context of the
world, he is distinguished from his Creator who is above and
beyond the world. In a word this Creator is transcendent.1
But at the same time the Genesis account indicates the close-
1 This distancing is indicated at the close of Gen 1,
a Creator-creation distinction: hWAfA rw,xE-lKA-tx, Myhilox< xr;y.ava
128
ness of the divine presence.1 From within this transcendence-
immanence perspective man is viewed in relation to the world;
man is within the world and his Creator is within and without.
The transcendence of the Creator assures man that his Creator
is really the true God and his immanence assures man that his
Creator may be contacted within this world. Therefore, one
begins to understand man's relation to the world when he sees
that the world is the habitat of God's contact with man. Here
man meets and interacts with his God.
There is no surprise then when one learns that this
Creator tells man what he is to do in this habitat. Nor is
one surprised to find God structuring this habitat in which
he moves in his contact with man. This structuring or order-
ing by the sovereign, transcendent-immanent Creator is in fact
a part of the creation narrative.2 One might better charac-
terize this ordering as a structuring-restructuring continuum.
The details of this continuum find their watershed in the fall
of man. The pre-fall structuring of man's relation to the
world is denoted by the nouns "habitation," "commandment," and
"guardianship."
The words of the Genesis 2:8 narrative say clearly:
rcAyA rw,xE MdAxAhA-tx, MwA MW,y.Ava Md,q,.mi Nd,feB;-NGa Myhilox< hvhy fFa.y.iva. For
1 Cf. Henricus Renckens,
ning: The Theology of Genesis 1-3 (
der, 1964), p. 8. Renckens' point is certainly borne out by
the remark of Gen 3:8: NGaBa j`l.ehat;mi Myhilox< hvhy lOq-tx, Ufm;w;y.iva.
2 Cf. Kuyper, Lectures, pp. 28ff., where he discusses
the relation of man to the world.
129
present purposes these few points are worth noting. The words
certainly underscore the belief that man was placed here by
the conditioning work of God.1 "The garden was planned only
for man and is to be understood as a gift of God's gracious
care for the man he created."2 The words of verse 8 (and v
15) also indicate that God's purpose could be realized within
the garden habitat.3 For this reason the emphasis of the
continuing narrative falls on the beneficence of the Creator:
lkAxamal; bOFv; hx,r;mal; (Gen 2:9). But that beneficence contains
within it a commandment.
This commandment marks the second feature of man's
relation to the world.4 The man's relation to the world is
conditioned by divine commandment: lkaxto xlo ... lkexTo kloxA. The
infinitive-finite verbal complex certainly emphasizes the
freedom with which the eating could be done. But clearly the
prohibition is there. Thus the commandment includes both af-
firmation and negation. There is a call to use and not to
use. Both are descriptive of man's relation to the world of
1 A point emphasized by Rust, Nature and Man in Bib-
lical Thought, p. 275.
2 Rad, Genesis,, p. 78.
3 For a discussion on the interpretation of Nd,fe see
W. H. Gispen, Genesis, 2 vols., Commentaar op het Oude Testa-
ment, eds. W. H. Gispen and N. H. Ridderbos (Kampen: Uilge-
versmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1974), 1:105-6.
4 Thus Rad, Genesis, p. 81 is certainly correct in
saying that "man in his original state was completely sub-
ect to God's command, and the question, 'Who will say to
him, What doest thou?' (Job 9:12; Dan 4:35b) was equally out
of place in
130
his habitation. Added to this commandment aspect of the re-
lation is a third feature.
This feature is understood best as a guardianship.
Whatever else may be said of Genesis 1:28-29 man is clearly
placed over the animal kingdom (Udr;U hAwub;kav;) and over the veg-
etable kingdom in that it is to be used for food (hy.,h;yi Mk,lA
hlAk;xAl;). But this lordship over creation was not cast along
the lines of a tyrannical rule. Rather it was a caretaker-
ship, ship, a trust to be kept, a beneficence to be given (h.dAb;fAl;
h.rAm;wAl;U). Man originally was a servant but a servant in terms
of the dominionizing responsibilities he bore (Gen 1:28).
Additionally, however, the realities about the origi-
nal man's guardianship must be considered in the light of the
curse material of 3:17-19. In this passage the ground is
cursed because of Adam's knowing act of rebellion: He ate
what the Creator had forbidden (rmoxle j~ytiyUici rw,xE CfehA-Nmi lkaxTova
Un.m,.mi lkaxto xlo). The curse is upon the ground that it might
reach man through whose tillage the ground yielded sustenance.
Therefore, "man stands as it were upon enemy soil."1 Produce
will come, but only through painful toil (hnAl,kExTo NObc.AfiB;). The
use of b here as in 3:19 suggests the means through which pro-
ductivity will occur, through painful toil and sweat of the
brow (tfazeB; ... NObcAfiB;).2 The nature of this struggle to gain
1 Edward J. Young, Genesis 3: A Devotional and Exposi-
tional Study (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1966), p. 132.
2 Cf. Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline,
2nd ed. reprint (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980),
pp. 44-46.
131
productivity is further emphasized by the thorn-thistle motif
(3:18) .1
Furthermore, the portion of the curse narrative in
Genesis 3:23 indicates a change of residence for man, but the
banishment does not negate the condition of man's original
servanthood, work (hmAdAxEhA-tx, dbofEla Nd,fe-NGami Myhilox< hvhy UhHal.;way;va).
The terms Hlw and dbf are both general,2 and too much should
not be read into them. But even the expulsion carried with
it a task; man was to work (cf. Ps 104:14).
The general nature of man's relation to the world may
thus be summarized as a structuring-restructuring. One would
be amiss to view the fall as total negation; the work ordi-
nance, though restructured in terms of the curse, is still in
effect. Though man's habitation has changed, he still lives
within the habitation of God's world, deriving from it his
sustenance. And as the remainder of Scripture indicates, the
man who sinned in the garden is still under obligation to his
Creator. Therefore, the fall of man is the watershed. The
curse has now taken its effect. Its reality is so then as
now. But the Biblical material clearly indicates that man
1 On the interpretation that this twofold misery, the
sweat of the peasant and bedouin's skimpy livelihood, should
be understood as two originally independent passages, see
Joachim Begrich, "Die Paradieserzahlung: Eine literargesch-
ichtliche Studie," ZAW 50 (1932): 93-116 and Rad, Genesis, pp-
94-95. Such a view is entirely dependent on the supposedly
assured results of source criticism.
2 Young, Genesis 3, pp. 157-59. Even the Pi'el form
of Hlw must not be taken to indicate necessarily a supposed
"intensification."
132
still lives in a contextualization given by God, the one to
whom man owes obedience and work.1
Cultus and Culture
Man is in an ordered context which operates by divine
law. Placed in this ordered context by virtue of his very
creation, man finds himself necessarily sustaining three re-
lationships, those summarized just above. But these few de-
scriptive analyses would be incomplete without considering
further man's living out these relationships. Ultimately,
every man by his very nature practices this threefold rela-
tionship in the environs of his divinely ordered habitation.
There are two terms which summarize what may be called arenas
of human activity, cultus and culture. These should be thought
of as correlatives. To them one must not apply the Kantian
scalpel in order to divide and isolate them. They are nec-
essary, continuing functions of man within the world. Cultus
and culture of whatever sort are practiced by all humans.
There is a word of caution, though, before these terms
are analyzed individually. By assigning two terms to describe
the full range of man's activity there is no attempt to hint
at a non-reciprocating relation between cultus and culture.
These two terms must be viewed as the continuum of a given
1 Therefore, one must be cautious in accepting fully
the judgment of Renckens, Israel's Concept of the Beginning,
P. 160, that: "the point of Chapter 2, therefore, considered
in itself, is not (as in Genesis 1) to describe the origin of
our world. It depicts, quite deliberately, a world that is
to a certain degree unreal, for it is a world which is en-
tirely devoid of any kind of evil."
133
individual's full range of activity. The necessities in the
case are these. Man does practice cultus and culture; these
are not options. Cultus and culture reciprocate; the one
affects the other and vice-versa.
Cultus
There is no particular advantage for this discussion
to dwell at length on cultus. Adequate understanding of it
for our purposes can be gathered by consideration of these few
remarks. The term "cultus" may initially be defined as that
series of acts by which man symbolizes his relationship to
God. But clearly these activities are culturally conditioned.
One knows that to a given group of worshipers there is a form,
a habit of prayer, praise, catechism, liturgy, and music which
distinguishes this group from another. These adherents ear-
nestly believe this to be the only true way of acting out
one's religious relationship to his Creator. The Bible itself
spends a good deal of time on cultus stipulations. Witness in
this case the Old Testament law as ceremony and the New Tes-
tament passages such as the cultus description of Acts 2:42-
47, or the passages which contain what amounts to the wording
of early church hymns (1 Tim 3:16; Rom 11:33-36).
And what is true here of the redeemed community is
true of the unredeemed. Man worships either in truth or idol-
atry. And he visibly practices this worship. So Paul argues
that worship and service are given either to the Creator or
some aspect of creation (Rom 1:25): kai> e]seba<sqhsan kai>
e]la<treusan t^? kti<sei para> to>n kti<santa.
134
One may say, then, that "cultus" refers to the outward
religious expression of the human heart, that deep-seated in-
ner being of man, where relation to God converges.
In the context of the church as the body of Christ the
New Testament gives minimal regulatory materials for the prac-
tice of the cultus. But these few regulatory matters are man-
dated. This seems to be the orientation and intention of
materials such as those in 1 Timothy 2:lff. For the redeemed
community the cultus is a normative outward expression of
one's relation to the Creator within the context of the church-
institution as mandated by Scripture. In this way the commu-
nity of
to practice its cultus. To summarize then, the definition of
cultus for the contemporary redeemed community: Cultus is
that symbolic and actual series of activities regulated by
Scripture for the practice of the worship of God within the
organization of the redeemed community.
Culture
The definition of "culture" was summarily dealt with
in the introduction to this work.1 Discussion here will build
on those concepts initially established.2 An initial word of
1 Cf. supra, pp. 6-7.
2 Typically "culture" is defined as "civilization." The
Germans have understood "culture" as standing for intellectual
and spiritual spheres and "civilization" as standing for tech-
nical and economic spheres. The English "civilization" is
typically understood as a broader term than "culture." Cf.
Kroner, Culture and Faith, p. 22ff. However, the distinctions
that are typically understood in German and English are re-
jected in this work.
135
caution is appropriate. Culture is no less an expression of
man's religious being, his relation to his God, than is cul-
tus.1 Both arenas of human activity are permeated by relation
to God. Therefore, whatever detailed definition is given to
culture must include an adequate accounting of this relation.
From the foregoing a further point is obvious. The
nature of the relation to God, not the cultus (a religious
faith), will be determinative for one's cultural activity.
Dooyeweerd has identified this determinative relationship as
the religieuze grondmotieven, religious ground motives.2
These are those deep, driving forces which energize culture.
These forces are of two sorts, redeemed or non-redeemed.3 The
non-redeemed group may have a variety of idols but there ex-
ists a commonality, idolatry. The redeemed group is energized
by the work of God's special grace. Thus both groups are
1 So Van Til, Culture, p. 197, says that "the tone of
a culture is determined by the spirit that animates the users.
As was pointed out before, we have the urge to cultural
achievement in common and also the materials and the terrain,
but a different spirit animates the children of light than
those who are of this world."
2 Herman Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western Culture, trans.
John Kraay (Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1979), pp.
8-9.
3 Therefore, "religion" may be defined as follows:
"Religion is not an area or sphere of life, but the whole of
it. It is service of God (or an idol) in every domain of
human endeavor. As such it is to be sharply distinguished
from religious faith, which is but one of the many acts and
attitudes of human existence. Religion is an affair of the
heart, and so directs all man's functions" (Kalsbeek, Culture,
p. 352).
136
energized as servants, not rulers.1 And this servant nature
is what makes this ground motive of culture communal.2 Thus,
culture is not done in isolation but in community. Groups of,
servants are energized by ground motives. The communal nature
of culture simply emphasizes that servanthood is not personal
but corporate. Therefore, culture is energized by either of
two types of relation to God, and because man is so energized,
he is servant together with others.3
A second descriptive analysis of culture concerns its
historical expression. Certainly there are various cultural
manifestations in the various historical eras. But something
other than this is intended here. To begin with, a distinc-
tion must be maintained between the historical aspect of real-
ity and history in the concrete sense of what has happened.4
1 Thus Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western Culture, p. 9 ar-
gues: "A spirit is directly operative in the religious ground
motive. It is either the spirit of God or that of an idol.
Man looks to it for the origin and unshakable ground of his
existence, and he places himself in its service. He does not
control the spirit, but the spirit controls him. Therefore
specifically religion reveals to us our complete dependence
upon a higher power. We confront this power as servants, not
as rulers."
2 Ibid.
3 When the reference is made to the communal nature of
culture, the implication is not that all redeemed people work
out a redeemed culture and all non-redeemed work out a non-
redeemed culture. All that is meant is that culture is not
individual per se but corporate. This is, of course, also true
of cultus. Both cultus and culture are done in community.
The relation to God is individual but the moment that is ex-
pressed in human activity the expression is corporate.
4 Ibid., p. 62. Cf. with the earlier analysis of the
Dooyeweerdian modality analysis, above, pp. 113-16.
137
The latter of these should not be understood to mean that
those things that happen, are only historical. Such things
also have relationship to aspects of created reality other
than the historical. The moment events are absolutized as
being the only aspect of reality, one has turned to histori-
cism. When this occurs the historical aspect has been ab-
stracted by scientific historiography and made to be the
whole of reality (excluding other aspects).1 Rather, it is
the case that events of the past function in other aspects
than history. Then what is the nucleus (center) of the his-
torical aspect? It is culturally formative activity guided
by the norms of divine law. In this way one can begin to
see the relationship between culture and history.
Cultural activity is thus a human activity of unfold-
ing and shaping the development of concrete things. This ac-
tivity is guided by ground motives which indicate to the
shaper what is correct and worthwhile. But it has already
been argued that the very law-structure of the historical as-
pect was placed by God in creation. Some, of course, engage
in conflict with the law-structure because of either apostate
ground motives or inconsistencies between their ground motives
and cultural activity. Since the law-structure (expressed in
Scripture in terms of naive experience) is decreed, this means
1 So ibid., p. 64, reminds that one "needs a criterion
for distinguishing the historical aspect of reality from the
other aspects. Historicism lacks such a criterion, since in
its view the historical aspect and the whole of reality are
one and the same."
138
that the shaping and forming of concrete things is eschato-
logical.
Thus, a third descriptive analysis of culture is that
it is eschatological.1 What is meant is that the law-struc-
tured historical aspect of reality will end in the very way
the Creator decreed. The historical aspect is not on a trip
without destination. It is not in a monotonous cycle. Man is
not lord over its end. The Creator is. The only question for
man is one of kind of cultural activity. What the Scripture
assures from its interpretation of naive experience is that
the Creator is the sovereign over the movement of the his-
torical aspect.2
A fourth descriptive analysis of culture is by now
obvious. Culture is thus done in terms of a value system. By
normative values one determines appropriate or inappropriate
activities. These values are, of course, energized by the
ground motive. Values are in this sense servants to ground
motives and are therefore derived. This also explains why
groups of servants appeal to differing value systems. And
these differing value systems underlie differing formative
activities in the historical aspect. Therefore, culture has
multiformity; that is, the formative activities differ in
1 A point emphasized though not for the same reason as
here, by Klaas Schilder, Christ and Culture, trans. G. Van
Rangen and W. Helder (Winnipeg: Premier Press, 1977).
2 This means that in every era of history there are
those whose ground motive energizes them to perform cultural
activity which conflicts with the divine law-structure, the
end of which is as God designs.
139
terms of value systems which differ in terms of ground mo-
tives. These formative activities cover the range of rela-
tions to others and the world. Then culture is very broad,
including that range of formative activities practiced with
respect to others and the world.
A fifth descriptive analysis to be made here follows
from the above. Culture is both the activity and the context
of the human shapers and formers. Man stands within a given
set of formative activities to do his formative activities.
Thus, there is reciprocation. The series of formative activ-
ities impacts the forming and shaping a man does. Therefore
Mouw is correct when he says:
The fact is, of course, that we do not relate as Chris-
tians to culture as such. We stand in a relationship to
one or another historically-embodied culture: to North
American culture, South African culture, Scottish culture,
Chilean culture. In an important sense, Christians do not
relate to "business," they relate to the Canadian economic
system; they aren't involved in "art," they participate
in the art-world of
manifestations are contained within the one good creation.
We must avoid a norm-less situationism. But the creation
is presently characterized by cultural pluriformity. More
specifically, sin manifests itself in diverse ways, in-
dividually and culturally. Thus our responses to the
presence of sin will differ from one cultural context
to another.1
This reality about man's place within culture to do culture
means that what he does he does not do in isolation; he is
part of a community.
Lastly, a descriptive analysis of culture must surely
1 Richard Mouw, "Reforming Cultural Calvinism," The
Reformed Journal 31 (3 March 1981): 15-16. The underlined
word indicates an italicized word within the quotation.
140
include the matter of responsibility. Culture is normative,
formative activity for which we are responsible. This work is
carried out in the presence of the Creator to whom man bears
responsibility. One's loyalty is to Him, not the cultural
formation in which one stands.
A Proposal
The argument is that the relations which man sustains
in the ordered whole in which he is contextualized are ex-
pressed in two arenas of activity, cultus and culture. These
should not be dichotomized as Kant has done. Scripture gives
a normative interpretation of naive experience in both of
these arenas. In the case of the Old Testament the arenas are
supremely illustrated in the context of corporate theocracy.
In the New Testament the arenas are illustrated individually
in the context of the
indicated by those activities of naive experience described
as appropriate for individual members of the ekklesia. The
nature of this individual address is to apprise the individual
of his duties (cf. Matt 28:18-20; Rom 6:1-14; 12:9ff.; 13:14;
1 Cor 10:23-33; 2 Cor 5:6-21; 1 Pet 2:11-3:17; etc.), those
duties in the cultus and culture arenas.1 Therefore, one of
1 There are those who challenge with the reason that
the address of the New Testament is not only individual but
also non-cultural, though this is hardly conceivable in light
of the definition of culture offered here. As an example of
this non-cultural viewpoint, see the resolution on the cul-
tural mandate adopted by the Bible Presbyterian Synod, re-
corded in the Christian Beacon 35 (29 October 1970): 2, which
in part reads: ". . . to express our opposition to the false
doctrine, sometimes called the 'cultural mandate.' The mandate
141
the distinguishing features between the Old and New Testaments
is the corporate and individual address in terms of the cul-
tus and culture.
Now that the history of dominion materials and the
establishment of the philosophic perspective are cared for,
the actual dominion materials of the Old and New Testaments
must be analyzed to see if in fact the materials themselves
are to be understood in terms of a cultural mandate. The
history of interpretation indicates that the dominion mate-
rials have been interpreted in this way, though certainly
not uniformly so. And the philosophic perspective has es-
tablished that culture must be done, given the definition
suggested. But the question is: Do the dominion materials
themselves have cultural implications? Answering this ques-
tion is the task of chapters three and four.
under which Christians obey their Lord is the Great Commis-
sion of Matthew 28:19, 20, which requires that we teach and
honor all things 'whatsoever I have commanded you.' This so-
called 'cultural mandate' erroneously builds its case on
Genesis 1:28 before the Fall and the promise of redemption in
the seed of the woman. . . . The cultural mandate declares that
it is the Christian's duty to pursue these pre-Fall reali-
ties, just as it is their duty to preach the Gospel. . . . But
the high duty of Christians between the Fall and the return
of Christ is to witness to God's righteousness in all things,
to live godly lives, and to use every effort to bring indi-
viduals to the knowledge of the Saviour, that they may be
redeemed through His precious blood and may grow in grace and
in the knowledge of His Word." Cf. also Mare, "The Cultural
Mandate and the New Testament Gospel Imperative," 139-47.
CHAPTER III
EXAMINATION OF OLD TESTAMENT DOMINION MATERIALS
In order to make this examination more intelligible,
several matters must be considered in advance of a look at
the Biblical passages. These matters include establishing
exactly what the relevant Biblical passages are and develop-
ing several hermeneutical realities that will aid as back-
ground material.
Already in the introduction of this work a definition
of dominion materials has been given.1 Three passages (Gen
1:26-28; 9:1, 7; Ps 8:6-10) were identified as containing
explicit dominion materials. These contain actual dominion
terminology, not merely allusions to this terminology. The
terminology for which one looks is that identified by the
initial passage, Genesis 1:26-28, which is readily acknowl-
edged as a dominion passage. Later passages must be identi-
fied within the perimeters established by the first explicit
one. Further, not only must there be a match-up of the ter-
minological inventory but also a match-up of what might be
called literary intention, in this case an evidently con-
scious linking of one passage to the other. In the case of
1 See above, pp. 9-10.
142
143
these three there is a match-up of both the inventory and in-
tention. These are the foundational passages.1 If others are
to be added, they must be identified by asking whether they
meet the tests of inventory and intention.
Undoubtedly, there are dominion allusions in other
passages. But identification of these can be suggested only
when an examination of the explicit passages has made clear
what elements constitute a dominion allusion. The shape of
the object must be known before its own particular shadow can
be identified. Therefore, any suggestions about implicit do-
minion materials must follow examination of the explicit ones.
Hermeneutical Realities
In advance of a direct examination of explicit pas-
sages several realities about the ancient Near East must be
taken into account. These form a part of the hermeneutical
background to the idea of dominion. This fact will become
clear as the study of the passages progresses. The reali-
ties which in one way or another contribute to this study are
royal ideology, apocalyptic imagery, and societal hierarchical
structuring.
Royal Ideology
The study begins with royal ideology because the gen-
eral notion of dominion or exercise of rule is most readily
1 The Gen 9:1, 7 passage is included because the Sep-
tuagint includes kai> katakurieu<sate au]th?j. On the basis of
this tradition the passage may be understood to meet the tests
of inventory and intention.
144
associated with the idea of kingship. Because of the com-
plexities of royal ideology, only a survey can be entertained
here. And for purposes of this study this will be quite suf-
ficient. As the following surveys indicate, considerable
discussion on the subject of kingship has developed in recent
years.l There is, of course, danger in placing side by side
surveys of ancient peoples and then drawing unwarranted con-
clusions about similarities.
this very danger is well taken.2
Contemporary notions about kingship confuse the gen-
eral picture of kingship coming from the ancient Near East.
The reason is that "the ancient Near East considered kingship
the very basis of civilization."3 This century is more in-
clined to view kingship as merely a political institution, to
be isolated by itself. To the ancients there was no such
abstraction, for they
1 For a survey of the origins of kingship discussion
with respect to
As Mediator of the Cosmic Order (Ph.D. dissertation, Emory
University, 1967;
national, 68-11963, 1968), pp. 2-16 (hereafter cited as KMCO).
2 Henri
cient Near Eastern Religions (
1951), pp. 3-4: "The point at issue is Frazer's comparative
method and the validity of the concepts which he coined and
used. They have become so familiar that terms like 'dying
god,' 'divine king,' and the like are used nowadays as if
they designated well-defined but ubiquitous phenomena--much
as we recognize rats and mice all over the world and leave it
to zoologists to discuss the finer points of colour and size.
This procedure has led to regrettable results, as I shall
show in a moment."
3 Henri
The
145
. . . experienced human life as part of a widely spread-
ing network of connections which reached beyond the local
and the national communities into the hidden depths of
nature and the powers that rule nature: The purely secu-
lar--in so far as it could be granted to exist at all--
was the purely trivial. Whatever was significant was im-
bedded in the life of the cosmos, and it was precisely
the king's function to maintain the harmony of that
integration.1
This is certainly not to argue that a detailed uniformity
persisted over the whole of the ancient Near East. Rather,
the above is but a generalization whose detailing varied from
place to place and age to age.
Egyptian royal ideology
In
self out in the following manner. An appropriate place at
which to begin understanding the king's role within the cos-
mos is "The Instruction of the Vizier Ptah-hotep." The docu-
ment is a compilation of wisdom sayings intended to lay be-
fore a younger man those qualities leading to success as a
state official. Among these sayings is the following:
If thou art a leader commanding the affairs of the multi-
tude, seek out for thyself every beneficial deed, until
it may be that thy (own) affairs are without wrong. Jus-
tice is great, and its appropriateness is lasting; it has
not been disturbed since the time of him who made it,
(whereas) there is punishment for him who passes over its
laws. It is the (right) path before him who knows nothing.
Wrongdoing has never brought its undertaking into port.
(It may be that) it is fraud that gains riches (but) the
strength of justice is that it lasts, and a man may say:
"It is the property of my father."2
1 Ibid.
2 James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relatinq to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. with supplement
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), p. 412 (here-
after cited as ANET). Words within parentheses are those
given by the translator of this passage.
146
Points to be noted are these. The official ought to be a
practitioner of justice because, he is warned, wrongdoing
operates so much at cross-purposes with nature that “wrong-
doing has never brought its undertaking into port." From
this it appears that wrongdoing might be defined as that
which is opposite natural justice.1
Further, one should note the use of the word “jus-
tice," maat.2 Essentially "the goddess Maat was the personi-
fication of the basic laws of all existence; she embodied the
concepts of law, truth and world order."3 The tomb of Seti I
contains a picture of Maat, wearing the symbolic plume, plac-
ing the ankh to Seti's nostrils to give him the breath of
1 Cf. Raymond O. Faulkner, The Ancient Eqyptian Pyra-
mid Texts (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1969), p. 238, who
translates utterance 587 in which the king is urged to be
like Re: "May you shine as Re'; repressing wrongdoing, cause
Ma'et to stand behind Re', shine every day for him who is in
the horizon of the sky. Open the gates which are in the
Abyss."
2 Of this term
277-78 says: "In
society should follow different courses, for both alike were
ruled by maat--'right, truth, justice, cosmic order.' The
gods existed by maat, and Pharaoh's speech was 'the shrine of
maat'; what was right came to pass, in nature as well as in
society."
3 Manfred Lurker, The Gods and Symbols of Ancient
Gotter und Symbole der Alten Agypter (
sible for she was Re's food and drink. The seated image of
this goddess, who wore an ostrich feather on her head, was
held in Pharaoh's hand like a doll and was presented as an
offering to the gods. This meant that the king was the repre-
sentative of divine order. Judges were regarded as priests
of Maat."
147
life.1 Additionally there is a scene in which Thoth,2 the
god of wisdom, offers Seti I a statuette of Maat who is hold-
ing the ankh.3 The term maat (m3't) itself, meaning according
to Faulkner "right-doing, righteousness, orderly management,"4
certainly is suggestive of the responsibility which fell to
the king. An encounter of the king and the deity Maat im-
plies the king's accountability for orderly management. This
accountability is graphically illustrated in a scene in which
Anubis, the god of the dead, leads the deceased toward a bal-
ance.5 On this balance his heart is weighed against Maat,
the latter being represented on the scale by the statuette
with the prominent, characteristic plume.
There is further dimension added to the word maat by
1 For a photographic reproduction of this scene see
ibid. While there exists some debate over the original mean-
ing of the ankh, it is best understood as "vital force," in
keeping with the hieroglyphic sign (‘nh), "life" (ibid., p.
27). As a symbol it probably points to divine or eternal
existence.
2 Even the deity Thoth might be understood in cosmic
terms, especially in light of his connections with the moon.
This connection makes him "lord of time" and "reckoner of
years" (ibid., p. 121).
3 A photographic reproduction of this scene can be
found in James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East in
Pictures Relating to the old Testament, 2nd ed. with supple-
ment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), p. 191,
no. 572 (hereafter cited as ANEP).
4 Raymond O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle
Egyptian (Oxford: The Griffith Institute, 1962), pp. 101-2.
5 For a photographic reproduction of this scene see
p. 210, no. 639, and its attendant explanation on p.
For a bit better detailing of certain features of the
note C. J. Bleeker, Hathor and Thoth, Studies in the
History of Religions, vol. 26 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973),
insert facing p. 145.
148
the fact that the deity Maat seems to have something to do
with the determination of orderliness and destiny. This fact
is shown by the paralleling of the titles "the Lord of Maat"
and "the Lord of the year."1 Maat is lord of the year be-
cause, says Ringgren,
the sun rises and sets according to maat. Maat protects
the sun-god, she destroys his enemies, she embraces him
day and night. Thoth and Maat write down his course for
every day. Very often she stands in the ship of Re, lead-
ing his journey across the sky and through the nether-
world. Thus, the regularity of the sun's rising and
setting is guaranteed by Maat, and at the same time it
is a manifestation of the cosmic order, of m3't.2
Clearly if Ringgren is correct, maat is both cosmic order and
a personification of cosmic order, the deity Maat.
This cosmic orderliness (including the destiny at
which the orderliness aims) of which Ringgren speaks is at-
tested by the following passages in The Book of the Dead in
O come and acclaim ye RE, the lord of heaven, the Prince
(Life, Health, Strength!), the Creator of the gods, and
adore ye him in his beautiful form at his rising in the
Atet boat. They who dwell in the heights and they who
dwell in the depths worship thee. The god Thoth and the
goddess Maat have written down [thy course] for thee
daily and every day.3
These words are followed later by this wish:
1 Cf. the discussion of Helmer Ringgren, Word and Wis-
dom: Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities and
Functions in the Ancient Near East (
Boktryckeri, 1947), p. 45.
2 Ibid., p. 46.
3 This translation is by E. A. Wallis Budge, The Book
of the Dead, Books on
cago: The Open Court Publishing Co. Ltd., 1901), p. 5.
149
May I see Horus acting as steerman, with the god Thoth
and the goddess Maat, one on each side of him; may I
grasp the bows of the Sektet boat, and the stern of the
Atet boat.1
Therefore, it is not surprising that Re's course is described
as resting on Maat:
Homage to thee, 0 Amen-Ra, who dost rest upon Maat, and
who passest over the heavens, every face seeth thee. Thou
dost wax great as thy Majesty doth advance, and thy rays
are upon all faces.2
And later in this same passage the author announces that "RE
liveth by Maat the beautiful."3
But perhaps overshadowing all of these is the remark-
able passage in Ritual of the Divine Cult, ceremony thirty.
Only a portion need be cited to demonstrate the supremacy of
Maat's orderliness. These words were part of the liturgy to
be performed in the house of Re, the king of the gods.
Maat hath come that she may be with thee. Maat is in
every place of thine so that thou mayest rest upon her.
The beings of the Circle of the heavens have their hands
[stretched] out to praise thee every day. Thou hast given
breath to every nostril to vivify that which thou didst
make with thy two hands. . . Thou art provided with
Maat, Creator of things which are, Maker of things which
shall be. . . . Maat uniteth herself to thy Disk, 0 thou
who art great, 0 thou who art mighty, the Lord of the
gods. Maat is among the Company of the gods [when] they
are gathered together. Maat cometh to thee and repulseth
thy evils, and she maketh the Urertu Crown to be on thy
head. The Majesty of Ra Heru-Khuti riseth, and he maketh
Maat to be for thee in thy Two Great Lands. . . . Thou
1 Ibid., p. 6.
2 Ibid., p. 14. Budge here defines Maat as "thou whose
existence and whose risings and settings are ordered and de-
fined by fixed, unchanging, and unalterable laws."
3 Ibid., p. 17. The underlined word indicates an
italicized word within the quotation.
150
existeth, for Maat existeth; Maat existeth and thou
existet.1
In analyzing these passages Lowe rightly concludes that the
existence of the personification of maat indicates the Egyp-
tians' interest in the regularity and orderliness of nature.2
Consequently, the Egyptian view of the world is rather static.
The regularity, maat, precludes radical, lasting changes.3
The relationship of the king to maat is most interest-
ing. In recent years there has been considerable debate over
the actual divinity of the pharaoh. Earlier assessments had
concluded that "from the earliest historic times, therefore,
the dominant element in the Egyptian conception of kingship
was that the king was a god--not merely godlike, but very
god."4 In more recent years this view has been questioned,
not because it is entirely wrong but because it must be tem-
1 E. A. Wallis Budge, The Book of Opening the Mouth, 2
vols. in 1 (
Press, 1980), pp. 221-23.
2 KMCO, p. 29.
3 Bleeker, Hathor and Thoth, pp. 12-13. Bleeker also
observes (p. 13) that the Egyptian "was convinced that the
same order, Ma-a-t, which was established in primeval days
would prevail to the end of time. Periods of chaos and social
disruption did not count. Once they had passed by, the old or-
der was established again. As ruler it was part of the pha-
raoh's duty to maintain Ma-a-t and to restore it where neces-
sary. It was said of Amenophis III that his task was 'to make
Ma-a-t. "'
4 H. W. Fairman, "The Kingship Rituals of
Myth Ritual and Kingship Essays on the Theory and Practice
of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in
Hooke (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1960), p. 75. The natu-
ral consequence of this understanding "was that theoretically
everything in religious and secular life was linked with the
king, and every religious ceremony and ritual was in a sense
a royal ritual" (ibid., p. 76).
151
pered. Such tempering is necessary because earlier concep-
tions of Egyptian kingship were founded on selective text
types, those of official theology.1 A more balanced judgment
must be
that divine kingship was limited to a king after he
had died, or to a king while he was alive only during the
time of his official performances. The rest of the time
he was considered to be a human being, surely not an or-
dinary one, but never a god. Naturally, the kings real-
ized this all too clearly themselves, as is indicated by
the endeavors of many of them to persuade the Egyptian
citizen to transfer the specific divine character of the
institution to the person of the king. The pharaoh tried
to convince his subjects of his superhuman nature, to in-
vite his people to venerate him as an intermediary, a
saint, and to present himself as something he was not; a
personal god.2
This king realized that he was responsible to the or-
der of the cosmos. Therefore, it was appropriate that at a
king's accession the expectation of order and harmony (maat)
that would result from his reign be underscored. This fact
is evident in the accession hymn of Merneptah:
The Chief Archivist of the Treasury of Pharaoh--life,
prosperity, health:--Amen-em-Onet, addressing the Scribe
Pen-ta-Uret, thus: This writing is brought to thee (to)
say: Another matter: Be glad of heart, the entire land!
The goodly times are come! A lord--life, prosperity,
health:--is given in all lands, and normality has come
down (again) into its place: the King of Upper and Lower
like Horus: Ba-en-Re Meri-Amon--life, prosperity, health!
--he who crushes
(most) serviceable of any king: Mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-
Maat--life, prosperity, health! All ye righteous, come
that ye may see! Right (maat) has banished wrong. Evil-
doers have fallen (upon) their faces. All the rapacious
1 Dietrich Wildung, Egyptian Saints: Deification in
Pharaonic
and Civilization (New York: New York University Press, 1977)
Pp. 1-3.
2 Ibid., p. 3.
152
are ignored. The water stands and is not dried up; the
the moon comes nounally. The gods are satisfied and con-
tent of heart. [One] lives in laughter and wonder. May-
est thou know it.l
The accession of Merneptah (ca. 1234 B.C.) is joyous because
the goodly times have come. Such times are those during which
maat banishes falsehood. The context indicates what are the
tangible evidences of maat. These are nothing other than the
harmonious operations of nature's regularity and order. The
presence of maat means normalcy of the operations of the cosmos.
The success of Merneptah's rule depends upon whether
the orderliness of his state matches the orderliness of the
cosmos.2 There is no surprise in learning that the deceased
is evaluated in terms of maat.3 Morenz correctly summarizes
that maat, therefore, is "not only right order but also the
object of human activity. Maat is both the task . . . and
1 For this translation see ANET, p. 378. The only no-
tation supplied in the translation is the inclusion of the
word maat in parentheses. For an alternate translation of
this passage see Adolf Erman, The Ancient Eqyptians, trans.
Aylward M. Blackman, with introduction by William Kelly Simp-
son, Harper Torchbooks ed. (
reprinted ed.,
other Egyptian literary piece, "The Instruction for King Meri-
Ka-Re," contains this corresponding exhortation: "Do justice
(maat) whilst thou endurest upon earth. Quiet the weeper; do
not oppress the widow; supplant no man in the property of his
father . . ." (ANET, p. 415).
2 KMCO, p. 29. Cf. also the discussion of Ivan Engnell,
Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (
Basil Blackwell, 1967), pp. 12-15.
3 On this point note the helpful discussion of Ring-
gren, Word and Wisdom, pp. 49-50. Consistent with this under-
standing is the fact that "as a guardian of moral life, the
highest judge calls himself the priest of Maat and wears an
image of her on his breast" (ibid., p. 50).
153
. . . the promise . . .”1
The essential points which have been raised about
Egyptian royal ideology are these. The king himself sought
to be treated as god-like and undoubtedly was so treated by
many. His primary function was the upholding of maat and he
himself was evaluated in terms of maat.2 From these points
several others may be deduced. The world was understood in
sented by the king who himself was accountable for order in
his affairs of state and land, those areas of life over which
he had formative control.
1 Siegfried Morenz, Egyptian Religion, trans. Ann E.
Keep (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1973), p. 113.
2 As KMCO, pp. 36ff., points out, maat and kingship are
closely related in royal ideology in
the god-king was the preservation of the divinely ordained or-
der of society, that there might be harmony between heaven and
earth. As such he was pictured as the pastor, or herdsman, of
his people. Just as the Pharaoh was responsible for control-
ling, defending, and disciplining the people of the land, he
was also responsible for nourishing, sheltering, and enlarging
the people. As he was the herdsman and his people were cattle,
he must insure that his herd had green pasturage, even if it
meant fighting to gain fresh pastures, and especially must he
fight to drive away dangerous wild beasts (foreign invaders)
who sought to prey on his herds" (ibid., p. 41). This image
is reflected in "The Admonitions of Ipu-Wer," the content of
which makes the transition from describing the traits of the
ideal king to describing a contemporary situation in which
there is an absence of such traits: "Remember how (ritual)
regulations are adhered to, how (religious) dates are distrib-
uted, how one who has been inducted into priestly service may
be removed for personal weakness--that is, it was carried out
wrongfully. . . . It shall come that he brings coolness upon
the heart. Men shall say: 'He is the herdsman of all evil.
Evil is not in his heart. Though his herds may be small, still
he has spent the day caring for them! . . . Would that he might
perceive their character from the (very) first generation!
Then he would smite down evil; he would stretch forth the arm
against it; he would destroy the seed thereof and their in-
heritance. . . . (But) there is no pilot in their hour. Where
154
Mesopotamian royal ideology
The differences between the royal ideologies of
and
mass of primary source material that helps develop a concep-
tion of Mesopotamian kingship.2 Some years ago Mowinckel
outlined the general features of this kingship:
The king is thus the representative of the gods on earth,
the steward of the god or the gods. Through him they ex-
ercise their power and sovereignty, and he is the channel
through which blessing and happiness and fertility flow
from the gods to men. "He rises like the sun over human-
ity." With the right king, in whom the gods have pleasure,
all material and spiritual welfare is secured. Speaking
poetically and devotionally, he may be said to create all
this for his people. But he is also man's representative
before the gods. In him the people is one. According to
the corporate view of those times the people was somehow
incorporated in him, and the strength and blessing which
he receives from the gods were partaken of by the whole
country and people. This double position of the king as
the link between gods and men is expressed and made effec-
tive through the cult.3
Mowinckel's definition highlights an important element in un-
derstanding the nature of Mesopotamian kingship: The kingship
represents a continuum in which the gods and people move.
is he today? Is he then sleeping? Behold, the glory thereof
cannot be seen . . ." (ANET, p. 443). The underlining within
this quotation indicates italicized words, and the words in
parentheses are so given in the material quoted.
1 For a summary of several of these differences see
Religions, pp. 3-23.
2 The following assessment of history could also, how-
ever, be applied to the primary source material on kingship.
Samuel N. Kramer, The Sumerians (
Chicago Press, 1963), p. 33, says that the pertinent source
material is "tenuous, elusive, meager, and partial."
3 Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in
trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas, 2 vols. in 1 (
Press, 1967), p. 51.
155
This understanding highlights the difference between Mesopo-
tamia and
mediatorial, a linking of god and man, a semi-divine office.1
Divine representation
Kingship, as described in "The Sumerian King List,"
"was lowered from heaven."2 In the piece, "Dispute Between
the Tamarisk and the Date Palm," the reader is reminded that
“once there was given no kingship in the lands and the rule
was given to the gods.”3 This rule which existed at first
1 This more tentative understanding of the king as di-
vine is reflected in the history of the use of the dingir and
ilu prefixes. For use of these prefixes see M. J. Seux, Epi-
thets Royales Akkadiennes et Sumeriennes (
Ane, 1967) and William W. Hallo, Early Mesopotamian Royal Ti-
tles, American Oriental Series, vol. 43 (
Oriental Society, 1957). The general assessment of the use
of these prefixes is that they flourish in the Ur III period
(2113-2004 B.C.) and then pass out of general use. The very
view these ancients had of kingship made it most difficult
to maintain use of the prefixes.
2 See ANET, p. 265, and the entire work of Thorkild
Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List, Assyriological Studies, no.
11 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939). Of course
the king list is understood to be an attempt to legitimate a
dynastic establishment by means of historiography. For a tan-
gential note see Sidney Smith, "The Practice of Kingship in
Early Semitic Kingdoms," in Myth, Ritual and Kingship: Essays
on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near
East and in
Press, 1960), p. 46, who remarks, "The expression 'raised to
kingship' might seem a simple metaphor. If it were so, then
a goddess bestowed some form of kingship. That is contrary to
all that is known. The city god in
ship, his consort may be mentioned with him, but not without
him; or 'the great gods,' including certain goddesses, may
assent to the appointment of a king, but the goddesses are
never mentioned alone. The phrase clearly indicates some
recognition of kingship, just as the phrase in the record of
NIN.LIL's festivals does. There is evidence that 'raising'
was a technical term."
3 For this translation see ANET, p. 593; note also W.G.
Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (
156
among the gods was posited in the pantheon of gods. A glimpse
at the operation of this divine assembly is given in a lamen-
tation occasioned by the destruction of
After they had pronounced the utter destruction of
After they had directed that its people be killed--
On that day verily I abandoned not my city;
My land verily I forsook not.
To Anu the water of my eye verily I poured;
To Enlil I in person verily made supplication.
'Let not my city be destroyed,' verily I said unto them;
'Let not
'Let not its people perish,' verily I said unto them.
Verily Anu changed not this word;
Verily Enlil with its 'It is good; so be it' soothed not
my heart.
For the second time, when the council . . .1
This lamentation shows clearly that the fate of a given city
was determined by the deliberations of the divine assembly,
especially by the will of Anu and Enlil.2
These two deities were supreme in the pantheon in
terms of authority and executive power respectively. The
"Myth of the Elevation of Inanna" says of Anu:
What thou hast ordered (comes) true!
The utterance of prince and Lord is (but) what thou hast
ordered, (that with which) thou art in agreement.
0 Anu: thy great command takes precedence, who could say
no (to it)?3
Press, 1960), p. 163. Cf. the discussion of W. G. Lambert,
"The Seed of Kingship," in Le Palais et la Royaute, ed. Paul
Garelli, Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, 19 (
Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1974), pp. 427-40.
1 ANET, p. 458.
2 Cf. ibid., pp. 646-51, where "The Curse of Agade"
Yields the same picture.
3 As quoted by Henri Frankfort, et al., Before Philos-
ophy: The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (
Penguin Books, 1946), p. 153. The parentheses are given by
157
And Enlil's executive function is shown in the words of "Hymn
to Enlil, the All-Beneficent":
Enlil whose command is far-reaching, lofty his word (and)
holy,
Whose pronouncement is unchangeable, who decrees destinies
unto the distant future,
Whose lifted eye scans the land,
Whose lifted beam searches the heart of all the land.1
Anu and Enlil along with Ninhursaga and Enki and three
others comprised "the seven law-making gods."2 These seven
presided over the pantheon and the pantheon as a whole served
as the prototype of the national state.3 Within the assembly
of gods there was a vote to determine who should be king for a
given period of time.4 In turn the deity chosen as king in
the pantheon selected a human figure as his king on earth.
However, the deity king could exist without and independently
of his human counterpart on earth.5
There is no surprise, then, in discovering that earth-
ly kings commonly refer to their kingship as a divine deposit
1 ANET, p. 573.
2 Thorkild Jacobsen, "Early Political Development in
3 Cf. Kramer, The Sumerians, pp. 114-16.
4 However, the elected cosmic king in the pantheon and
his earthly counterpart both functioned under Enlil; Cf.
5 Cf. H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness That Was
(New York: The New American Library, 1962), p. 342. A good
example of this understanding of the cosmic and national king-
ship is seen in "The Laws of Ur-Nammu": "After Anu and Enlil
had turned over the kingship of
goddess) Ninsun, for his beloved mother who bore him, in ac-
cordance with his (i.e., of the god Nanna) principles of eq-
uity and truth . . ." (the translation exactly as given in
ANET, p. 523).
158
made to them.1 In this sense the earthly king is the deity's
representative. To argue only from the above analysis would be
one-sided since Mesopotamian history is long and the nature of
kingship varied. As an example, the understanding of kingship
is much more modest in the Old Assyrian period but even then
the kings do not resist stating their correlation with deity.2
The artwork coming from the Mesopotamian world corrob-
orates the above evaluation. Only a few of the images are
cited to show the divine nature of Mesopotamian kingship. The
first is the rather stereotyped "presentation to a god-king."3
Another example emphasizing at least divine assistance for
1 As an illustration of this see George A. Barton, The
Royal Inscriptions of
mitic Inscriptions, vol. 1 (
1929), pp. 271-99, where there is clear indication that all
five kings of Ur III understood their kingship in this way.
2 Cf. the discussion of Mogens Trolle Larsen, The Old
Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies, Mesopotamia:
Studies in Assyriology, vol. 4 (
1976) pp. 109ff. "In his capacity as issil'ak Assur the king
obviously functioned as intermediary between the god and the
community; this appears to be directly expressed in some of
the inscriptions, the most striking example being Salim-ahum's
remark that the god asked him to build a temple. . . . Build-
ing the temples for the gods is a basic duty for all Mesopo-
tamian kings. Another example of this close relationship to
the god is found in Ilusuma's long text where he says that
Assur opened up two new springs for him, making it possible
to mold the bricks on the spot . . ." (ibid., p. 119).
3 For a discussion of this imaging see E. Douglas Van
Buren, "Homage to a Deified King," ZA 50 (November 1952): 92-
120. "The identification of the seated figure has often been
discussed; the consensus of opinion, based mainly on seals
bearing dedicatory inscriptions, and on certain peculiarities
in the seated figure who is always male, is that he was not
one of the gods of the pantheon, but was undoubtedly intended
to portray a god-king, that is to say, a deified king or the
ruler of a city" (ibid., p. 92).
159
those projects undertaken by the king is found on the stele
of Ur-Nammu.1 There in successive scenes the deity is de-
picted as “more involved than ever in the affairs of men, and
ready to assist them in all sorts of circumstances. First in
religious ceremonies; afterwards, in a scene where we see the
king with a mason's tool [sic] on his shoulder. . . “2 A fur-
ther pictorial illustration of kingship concerns the investi-
ture scene from Zimri-Lim's (1779-1761 B.C.) palace at Mari.3
In the scene prominence is given to the rod and ring symbols,4
indicative of the bestowal of divine power and authority.
Here is shown undoubtedly a king's interest in giving divine
legitimation to his reign.5
1 For a pictorial reproduction of this stele see Andre
Arts of Mankind (London: Thames and Hudson, 1960), pp. 227-29.
2 Ibid., p. 228.
3 For a clear pictorial reproduction of the investi-
ture scene see ibid., pp. 279-80.
4 For a discussion of the use and meaning of the sym-
bolic rod and ring see E. Douglas Van Buren, Symbols of the
Gods in Mesopotamian Art, AnOr, no. 23 (Roma: Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum, 1945), pp. 155ff.
5 In "A Letter to a God" there is evidence that Zimri-
Lim realized his continuing need for divine favor: "Speak to
Ida (the river-god) my lord: Thus Zimri-Lim your servant. I
herewith send a gold cup to my lord. At an earlier date I
wrote my report to my lord; my lord reveal[ed] a sign. May my
lord make the sign which he revealed come true for me. More-
over, may my lord not neglect to protect my li[fe], may my
lord not turn [his face elsewhere, besides me may my lord
have need of no one el[se]" (ANET, p. 627).
160
Human representation
The king as human representative carries the responsi-
bility for the nation's successful operation.' An appropriate_
example of both aspects of the continuum (divine and human
representative), and a transition to a more direct considera-
tion of the human representative aspect, is the content of
"Petition to a King":
To my king with varicolored eyes who wears a lapis lazuli
beard,
Speak;
To the golden statue fashioned on a good day,
The . . . raised in a pure sheepfold, called to the pure
womb of Inanna,
The lord, hero of Inanna, say:
"Thou (in) thy judgment thou art the son of Anu,
Thy commands, like the word of a god, cannot be turned
back,
Thy words like rain pouring down from heaven, are without
number,"
Thus says Urshagga, thy servant:
"My king has cared for me, who am a 'son' of
If now my king is (truly) of Anu,
Let not my father's house be carried off,
Let not the foundations of my father's house be torn away.
Let my king know."2
Though the king is unidentified (perhaps he is even a dead,
deified king3), the force of the petition is at once clear.
The divine aspect of kingship is underscored in such words as
"thy commands, like the word of a god." But the human repre-
sentative aspect is also emphasized by Urshagga's laudatory
1 This responsibility of man before God is apparently
partially reflected in the correlation of the king with the
tree of life, cf. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the
Ancient Near East, pp. 24ff.
2 ANET, p. 382. The ellipsis and underlining to indi-
italicized words are part of the quotation itself.
3 Ibid., p. 382, n. 4.
161
words, "my king has cared for me," and petitionary ones, "let
not the foundations of my father's house be torn away."
What were the responsibilities of the king as human
representative before the gods? Only selective treatment can
or need be given here.1 A royal funeral account (Late Assyr-
ian) indicates partially the responsibility of the king. It
does so by relating the mourning of the land upon the passing
of the king. Evidently, the king's presence insures the
smooth, uninterrupted functioning and fertility of nature:
(In the) tomb, place of mystery,
on the Royal Esplanade,
I made him goodly rest. . . .
I put all this in the tomb,
with my father who begot me.
I offered sacrifice
to the divine rulers, the Anunnaki,
and to the gods who inhabit the earth.
The channels complain
and the watercourses respond.
Of trees and fruit
the face is darkened.
The orchards weep . . .2
While not wishing to violate the highly symbolic nature of
this language, it appears to this writer that the author of
the document makes a conscious correlation between the func-
tioning of creation's laws and the presence or absence of the
king.
But more directly the king is responsible for the
economic and social well-being of the people. By exercise of
his state function he set about the business of making the
1 For a more complete treatment see KMCO, pp. 87ff.
2 As quoted by
244. The ellipses are supplied by this writer; the paren-
theses are not.
162
people happy, prosperous, and secure.1 In this way the fol-
lowing words appropriately describe the expectation-function
of kingship:
. . at the throne of the kingship
strengthen the fundament,
to seize the reins of the land,
with a righteous sceptre thoroughly
the people,
to build houses, make people settle
to subjugate the enemies' country . . .2
More complete development is given the expectation of
kingship in an Akkadian prophecy. There exists enough uncer-
tainty about this prophecy to say only that it records expec-
tation of a future king whose presence will bring economic and
social well-being.
A prince will arise and [exercise sovereignty
eighteen years.
The country will live safely, the heart of the
country will be glad, men will [enjoy abundance,
The gods will make beneficial decision for the
country, good rainfalls [will come]. . . .
The deity of cattle and the deity of grain will
produce abundance in the land.
Rainfalls and high water will prevail, the
people of the land will observe, a festival.
But the ruler will be slain with a weapon
during an uprising.
A prince will arise, thirteen years will he
exercise sovereignty.
There will be a rebellion of
(
gods, the downfall of
1 Samuel N. Kramer, "Kingship in.Sumer and
Ideal King," in Le Palais et la Royaute, ed. Paul Garelli,
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, 19 (
orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1974), p. 175-
2 This translation is from Engnell, Studies in Divine
Kingship in the Ancient Near East, pp. 39-40.
163
Revolution, chaos, and calamity will occur
in the country.1
What this citation shows is that kingship is responsible, both
positively and negatively, for the well-being of land and peo-
ple. In short, the king was responsible for "justice," misaru.
The Akkadian word, as Ringgren notes, "is a wider con-
ception than our ‘righteousness.'”2 Misaru has a fairly wide
usage, “redress (as a legislative act to remedy certain eco-
nomic malfunctions)," "justice (in general)," and even a month
name (Old Babylonian Alalakh).3 The use of misaru as economic
redress is attested in a number of cuneiform sources.4 As
Finkelstein argues, the misarum-acts must not be thought of
as permanent reform measures but rather as adjustments to a
1 This translation together with its brackets, ellip-
sis, and parentheses is that found in ANET, p. 451.
2 Ringgren, Word and Wisdom, p. 58.
3 Ignace J. Gelb et al., eds., The Assyrian Dictionary
of the Oriental Institute of the
cago: The Oriental Institute, 1964ff.), M, part II, p. 116
(hereafter cited as CAD).
4 For brief discussions of these see F. R. Kraus, Ein
Edikt des Konigs Ammi-$aduga von
ad Jura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia, vol. 5 (
Brill, 1958), pp. 183-86 and 243-47; N. P. Lemche, "The Manu-
mission of Slaves--the Fallow Year--the Sabbatical Year--the
Jobel Year," VT 26 (January 1976): 38-59; and J. J. Finkelstein,
"Ammi-saduga's Edict and the Babylonian 'Law Codes,'" JCS 15
(1961): 91-104, who says, "the misarum-act, in the strict
sense then, consisted of a series of measures designed to re-
store 'equilibrium' in the economic life of the society,
which, once presumed to have created the necessary effect of
a tabula rasa for certain types of financial or economic ob-
ligations, ceases to have any force. Under this aspect,
therefore, it would be misleading to think of misarum-acts as
'reforms,' which,' strictly speaking, imply corrections of what
are deemed to be unjust or improper practices, and which pre-
sumably are intended to have permanent effect" (100).
164
sluggish economy.1 At any rate, the term misaru even in these
cases is an act intended for the people's well-being.
The broader understanding of misaru as "justice" is
important for understanding the function and intention of
Mesopotamian kingship. There were throughout Mesopotamian
history variations, of course, on the administrative means
whereby this justice was enacted.2 Generally, however, the
judgment of Ringgren, following Widengren, seems acceptable.
The term misaru "is in fact the right order in the cosmos.
When it prevails, the rain falls at the right time and the
harvests become abundant. Then the right order reigns in the
community .. ."3 With this right order comes equitable treat-
ment of the oppressed. A sense of harmony exists. As an ex-
ample, the Code of Hammurabi may be cited to show the corre-
lation of Mesopotamian kingship with this sense of harmony.
Only the following excerpts, one from the Prologue and one
from the Epilogue, are necessary to illustrate the point.
The Prologue reads:
.. . at that time Anum and Enlil named me to promote
the welfare of the people,
me, Hammurabi, the devout, god-fearing prince,
to cause justice (misaram) to prevail in the land,
1 Ibid.
2 J. N. Postgate, "Royal Exercise of Justice Under the
Assyrian Empire," in Le Palais et la Royaute, ed. Paul Garelli,
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, 19 (
Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1974), pp. 417-26, has pointed out
variations within the administrative means employed to enact
"justice, seeing the Assyrian kings as an administrative
watershed.
3 Ringgren, Word and Wisdom, p. 58.
165
to destroy the wicked and the evil,
that the strong might not oppress the weak. . .1
And the Epilogue reads correspondingly. Of the stele erected
on behalf of the king the Epilogue says,
. . I set (it) up in order to administer the law of
the land,
to prescribe the ordinances of the land,
to give justice (misarim) to the oppressed.
I am the king who is preeminent among kings;
my words are choice; my ability has no equal.
By the order of Shamash, the great judge of
heaven and earth,
may my justice (misari) prevail in the land;
by the word of Marduk, my lord,
may my statutes have no one to rescind them . . .
If that man heeded my words which I wrote on my stela,
and did not rescind my law,
has not distorted my words,
did not alter my statutes,
may Shamash make that man reign
as long as I, the king of justice (misarim);
may he shepherd his people in justice (misarim)!2
The context of these usages indicates a very broad
understanding of justice (misaru). Certainly, the material
indicates that Mesopotamian kingship was understood as promul-
gating order and harmony of all types.
Summary
Mesopotamian kingship, being best understood as a
1 This translation of the Codex is from ANET, p. 164.
The word in parentheses is supplied from the transliteration
of G. R. Driver and John C. Miles, eds., The Babylonian Laws,
2 vols., Ancient Codes and Laws of the Near East (
Clarendon Press, 1960), 2:6. For the cuneiform text see E.
Bergmann, ed., Codex Hammurabi, Scripta Pontificii Instituti
Biblici (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1953), p. 1.
2 This translation is that in ANET, p. 178. The forms
of misaru are supplied by this writer from the transliteration
of Riekele Borger, Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesentucke, 3 Hefte
(Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1963), 2:42-43. For
the cuneiform script see Bergmann, Codex Hammurabi, pp. 33, 35.
166
continuum of the semi-divine, is that position responsible for
order and abundance, the general well-being of the land. While
there is not an exact parallel here with Egyptian royal ide-
ology, the Mesopotamian ideology does bear one striking simi-
larity with its western counterpart. Both in
potamia the kingship bears a responsibility for order and
management within the cosmos. Appointment to kingship, by
whatever means it may have come about, is an appointment to
the cosmic responsibility of management, order, and harmony.1
The king must carefully attend to the cosmic laws and seek
more harmonious operation with them.
Israelite royal ideology2
Already the reason for surveying the various royal
1
light appropriately cautions: "The Mesopotamian kings inter-
preted the welfare of their country as proof that they had
not disappointed the gods who elected them. Only in this
very indirect manner can the king be said to have 'produced
a plenteous abundance' or to have created 'the well-being of
mankind.' Hence we find him asking for benefactions of which
Pharaoh disposed in full sovereignty. Sargon of
prayed: '0 Ea, lord of wisdom, creator of all things, to
Sargon, king of the universe, king of
thy fountains; let his springs send forth the waters of plenty
and abundance; give water in abundance to his fields. Quick
understanding and an open mind decree for him; prosper his
work; let him attain unto his desire."'
2 One can rightly question why this survey does not
also give brief analyses of Hittite and Ugaritic kingship.
There are several reasons. (1) The scope of this work could
not address all Ancient Near Eastern sacral materials; there-
fore, those most appropriate for this study were included.
There is evidence, at least to this author's mind, that indi-
cates consideration of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Israelite
royal ideologies calls attention to the three fundamental pat-
terns of kingship in the Ancient Near East. This is not to
argue that Hittite and Ugaritic do not contribute. They do,
167
ideologies has become more clear. The present interest has
been to entertain those relationships that existed among
deity, kingship, and creation. That same interest will be
pursued here. What relationships existed among God, the king,
and creation, especially as this reflection on
ideology is presented in the Old Testament?
Those who seek an answer to this question are im-
pressed by the immensity of the task on at least two fronts:
the vast body of literature (both primary and secondary)
awaiting analysis and the tendency to "find" in the Old Tes-
tament those exact situations discovered in either
but apparently not by suggesting an entirely different under-
standing of kingship. (2) A further reason for not including
Hittite and Ugaritic is that neither has enjoyed the benefit
of repeated and prolonged studies on kingship. Hopefully that
day will come, but undoubtedly by that time Eblaite studies
will have called for need of further modification in a number
of areas. (3) In keeping with the above reasons a third is
understood. The inclusion of Hittite and Ugaritic kingship
studies would not perceptibly alter the findings of this work.
However, the reader is referred to the following few works as
a means of gaining entrance into the study of Hittite and
Ugaritic kingship: Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in
the Ancient Near East, pp. 52-177; Ringgren, Word and Wisdom,
pp. 74-88; Victor Korosec, "Les Rois Hittites et la Formation
du Droit," in Le Palais et la Royaute, ed. Paul Garelli, Ren-
contre Assyriologique Internationale, 19 (
Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1974), pp. 315-21; O. R. Gurney,
The Hittites, 2nd ed. revised (
1962), pp. 63-79; J. G. Macqueen, The Hittites and Their Con-
temporaries in Asia Minor (
1975), pp. 112-38; O. R. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Reli-
gion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977); John Gray, The
Krt Text in the Literature of Ras Shamra, 2nd ed., Documenta
et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui, no. 5 (
1964); and Anson F. Rainey, The Social Stratification of
Arbor,
5836, 1963), especially pp. 9ff. (hereafter cited as SSU).
Added to these works should be appropriate sources on Hittite
and Ugaritic grammar and literature.
168
the following general picture of Israelite royal ideology is
drawn. Though the scope of this survey prohibits extensive
treatment, analysis of selected Old Testament sources, it is
believed, indicates a description of these relationships con-
sistent with the entirety of the Old Testament corpus.
Historiographic literature
One begins to discover something of these relation-
ships among God, the king, and creation through reflection on
certain historical texts which treat all three of these to-
gether. This study begins with the account of 2 Samuel 21.
Here the reader is quickly introduced to famine (the contem-
porary manifestation of creation),1 the king (David), and Yah-
weh. Verse 1 reads:
During the reign of David, there was a famine (bfArA) for
three successive years (hnAwA yreHExa hnAwA MyniwA wlow;) ; so David
sought (wqe.bay;va) the face of the LORD. The LORD said, "It
is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is
because he put the Gibeonites to death."2
The verse as it stands emphasizes several points.
One certainly is the duration and severity of the
famine. Another is the guilt which is placed upon Saul for
his misdeed (cf. Josh 9). But as well, the verse raises
1 There is a remarkable over-statement in saying the
famine represents chaos, the enemies of Yahweh. John Gray,
"The Hebrew Conception of the Kingship of God: Its Origin
and Development," VT 6 (1956): 268-85, seems to overdraw a
cosmos-chaos distinction. Rather, there is evidence that
God uses the law-structure of the cosmos to bring famine.
He manages famine; he does not do battle with it.
2 The Hebrew words are supplied from BHS.
169
several interesting questions for our purposes. Why does the
natural order (famine) affect the political order (kingship)?
Why is David the one "responsible" for resolving the famine
crisis? In what sense is David now held "responsible" for a
misdeed of his predecessor? Why did not the punishment for
sin fall only upon those who actually committed the misdeed
against the Gibeonites?
These questions point to an evident reality about the
text.1 The passage evidences a sense of corporateness between
the king and his subjects, those subjects on whom the famine's
effect had fallen. Therefore, David takes the lead as repre-
sentative of these subjects, in seeking a resolution to the
disaster (famine). One deduces that sins committed in the
political sphere do have natural, creational, implications.
This is entirely in keeping with the conclusion enunciated by
the leaders in Joshua 9:20: "This is what we will do to them.
We will let them live, so that wrath (Jc,q,) will not fall on us
for breaking the oath we swore to them." The term Jcq does
not specify the particular form the wrath would take.2 But
that famine could be a demonstration of such wrath is beyond
question.3 And clearly in the 2 Samuel 21:1 passage the
1 Cf. the discussion of this passage in KMCO, pp. 108-9.
2 For occurrences of the various forms of Jcq see
Lisowsky, Konkordanz, p. 1268.
3 This point seems evident from the use of Jcq in 1 Chr
27:24, especially when this passage is compared with its con-
text in 1 Chr 21. The term is certainly employed to describe
a divine visitation of judgment, 2 Chr 19:10.
170
famine is a visitation of wrath. After appropriate action has
been taken (21:2-14a), the report is given in 21:14b that they
“did everything the king commanded. After that, God answered
prayer in behalf of the land." Clearly God takes action with
respect to the land (Crxl . . . rtfyv).1 The famine is removed
and "the natural order returns to normal."2 This passage,
while not at all arguing in any sense that David is divine
(
score that kingship is responsible before God on behalf of
the land and its people.3 As Saul's evil brings disaster, so
David's obedience or righteous act brings relief.4
1 With respect to this passage Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg,
I & II Samuel, trans. J. S. Bowden from the German Die Samuel-
bucher, 2nd revised ed., The Old Testament Library (Philadel-
phia: The Westminster Press, 1976), p. 384, appropriately re-
marks: "Indeed, it is emphatically said that now the grace of
the Lord again shines over the people and the land."
2 KMCO, p. 109.
3 While this writer cannot agree with the application
of sacral principles that Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship
in Ancient
makes, the general sense of his following evaluation is cor-
rect: "In the same way the royal family finds its temporary
focus in the reigning king, who, like Ahaz, may be referred to
or addressed quite simply as 'House of David'; so that it is
altogether in keeping that the nation as a psychical whole
should also be seen to have its focus in the royal house and,
at any given time, in the reigning monarch. Thus it is that
any violent disturbance of the national life, such as that
caused by a prolonged drought or an outburst of plague, may
be attributed to the fact that the king himself has violated
the sanctions of the group and the whole royal-house or the
very nation itself may be involved with him in the condemna-
tion which follows upon any such trespass" (pp. 3-4).
4 For a discussion of explanations of the convergence
of God-king-land in the 2 Sam 21 passage see H. Cazelles,
"David's Monarchy in the Gibeonite Claim," PEQ (1955): 165-75;
A. Malamat, "Doctrines of Causality in Hittite and Biblical
Historiography: A Parallel," VT 5 (1955): 1-12. Note also
171
Given this reality, one must avoid two pitfalls. One
should not extrapolate the imagery from its context in 2 Sam-
uel 21 and hastily apply it to many supposed Old Testament
parallels and from this application draw unwarranted conclu-
sions.1 Moreover, one must avoid so secularizing Israelite
royal ideology in order to make it fit the post-2000 B.C. an-
cient Near Eastern “tendency in the direction of seculariza-
tion," that any seemingly religious aspect to Israelite king-
ship must be identified as a mythological carry-over from an
earlier period.2 The 2 Samuel 21 passage has religious as-
pects indeed. Obedience to Yahweh is not a mythological
carry-over from an earlier age. It is a consistent expec-
tation in each age.
the general discussion on Davidic kingship in Karl-Heinz Bern-
hardt, Das Problem der altorientalischen Konigsideologie im
Alten Testament, VTSup, no. 8 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961),
especially pp. 85-90.
1 This is the apparent methodological error of Walter
Brueggemann, "Kingship and Chaos," CBQ 33 (1971): 317-32, who,
using the Davidic model of kingship, attempts to explain the
orderliness and regularity referred to in Gen 8:22 as an au-
thorial indicator of this text's background. Rather, the regu-
larity of law operation within creation as described in Gen
8:22 should be understood as testimony concerning the normative
operation of God's law structure. There is, of course, the
question of whether Gen 8:22 implies uniformity of nature from
the beginning, cf. John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The
Genesis Flood (
Publishing Company, 1962), p. 216. However, unless one is
willing to concede a new creation of laws by God in Gen 8:22,
the passage must be emphasizing a law-structure whose operation
is entirely dependent on the living word of the Creator. This
all being so, Gen 8:22 could easily be understood as testimony,
antecedent to Davidic kingship, of a law-structured cosmos in
which all mankind lives.
2 This is the very problem into which the explanation
of C. R. North, "The Religious Aspects of Hebrew Kingship,
ZAW 50 (1932): 8-38, falls.
172
Hymnic literature
Taking 2 Samuel 21 as an informative lead, one may
further construct his understanding of Israelite royal ideol-
ogy from other passages.1 Among these must surely be the
royal psalms such as 2, 18, 45, 72, 89, 110, etc.2 Of these
Psalm 72 is especially helpful for present purposes. John-
son's remark that "the whole psalm admirably depicts the lit-
erally vital role which it was hoped" that the king "might
play in the life of the nation" is well taken.3 This par-
ticular psalm was thought royal enough that it was even in-
cluded in Gunkel's select few royal psalms.4 The date of
Psalm 72 falls within the Monarchic Syncretism period (10th
century and later), the view of Freedman and O'Connor.5
As an initial generalization one may say that the
psalm clearly expresses the king-ideal.6 In this respect
1 Though space prohibits further treatment of the kind
of imagery of kingship given in 2 Sam 21, one finds further
articulation in such passages as 2 Sam 24:10-25 (noting espe-
cially the remark of 24:25) and 1 Kgs 18:1-45 (noting espe-
cially the evaluation of Elijah in 18:18).
2 For a very helpful, though strained, evaluation of
these royal psalms in this context see KMCO, pp. 112ff.
3 Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient
4 Cf. the discussion of J. H. Eaton, Kingship and the
Psalms, Studies in Biblical Theology, 2nd series, no. 32 (Na-
perville, IL: Alec Allenson, Inc., n.d.), pp. 2-5. Gunkel's
category of royal psalms included 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 72, 101-
110, and 132. With these nine he also reckoned 144:1-11 and
89 (in a more remote sense).
5 M. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), pp. 164-65.
6 Mowinckel, The Psalms in
173
the Psalm becomes a formula of blessing which reminds one
strongly of the promises of the prophets as it oscillates
between blessing and prediction. The officiating priest
who recites the psalm, to begin with speaks on behalf of
the congregation and in the form of a petition. But he
is also the representative of Yahweh and pronounces strong
and effective words with a ring of certainty. Through
these he, so to speak, conducts Yahweh's own blessing to
the king . . .1
While one cannot be entirely certain as to the psalm's cultic
employment, there is considerable certainty that the oscilla-
tion between blessing and prediction is present.2 The general
picture offered of this king is that, enabled by God, he “is
to rule with compassion, bringing prosperity to society and
nature and enjoying lasting, world-wide dominion."3 In simple
terms the psalm places responsibility for the proper operation
of the nation on the kingship. Through him goodness blesses
or badness blights the kingdom. The kingship is thus respon-
sible for productivity (3, 6-7, 15-16) and right treatment of
the afflicted (2, 4, 12-14). Such a king is a dominionizer
(8-11) and hopefully one who has longevity (5, 15, 17).4
1 Ibid., 1:69.
2 As Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms, p. 120 remarks,
after the opening prayer in 72:1, "in the remainder there
seems to be oscillation of mood between prayer that the king
may then rule successfully and declaration that he will then
do so" (underlining indicates words Eaton italicizes).
3 Ibid. However, as Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient
line makes it clear that we are here concerned with no simple
portrayal of some future eschatological figure (although this
is not to say that the psalm is in no way eschatological), but
with a prayer for the ruling member of an hereditary line of
kings . . . and the whole psalm admirably depicts the liter-
ally vital role which it was hoped that he might play in the
life of the nation."
4 As Shalom M. Paul, "A Traditional Blessing for the
174
With these few general remarks in hand a closer look
at the psalm indicates several intriguing structural features.
The psalm divides into five strophes (1-4, 5-8, 9-11, 12-15,
and 16-17).1 Further, the syllabic symmetry is nearly uniform
throughout the strophic divisions.2 Especially helpful, how-
ever, is what has been called "stichochiasm." Kselman has
represented this feature in verses 1-4 as follows:3
qdcb jmf Nydy jlm Nbl jtqdcv A
Fpwmb jyynfv B
Mfl Mvlw Myrh vxwy C
hqdcb tvfbgv C'
Mf yynf Fpwy B'
Nvybx ynbl fywvy A'
What is of particular interest here is the parallelism of
lines C and C'. As Kselman notes4 there are in these lines
two common word pairs, Myrh / tvfbg and Mvlw / hqdc, the latter
pair being of special interest here. These two terms in a
Long Life of the King," JNES 31 (October 1972): 351-55 has
pointed out, the prepositions Mf and ynpl of v. 5 should both
be taken to mean "like, in the manner of." Therefore, reading
j~UxrAyyi as j`yrixEyav; (with the Septuagint, cf. NIV), "the king is
bestowed a blessing of long life which is expressed in terms
of the permanence of the sun and the moon" (ibid., 352). Anal-
ogous to this is a blessing for long life in a building in-
scription of Samsuiluna. The Akkadian reads: sulmam u balatam
sa kima Sin u Samas darium ana qistim liqisusum ana siriktim
lisrukusum, "May (the gods Zababa and Ishtar) grant him as a
gift, bestow upon him as a present, good health and life which
are as eternal as the moon and the sun" (ibid., 354).
1 Following the lead of Skehan's analysis, so John S.
Kselman, "Psalm 72: Some observations on Structure," BASOR
220 (December 1975) : 77.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., 78.
4 Cf. ibid.
175
slightly different form are found in verse 7 also (cf. Isa
32:17, 48:18, etc.).
The term qdc is rather broad in meaning, as is quite
clearly attested in Ugaritic.1 Swetman has adduced several
helpful citations from Ugaritic literature to demonstrate the
rather wide range of meaning sdq possesses.2 One of those he
cites is in the Krt text, lines 12-13 in col. is 'att sdqh
lypq, mtrht ysrh which Gray translates: "His legitimate wife
did he find, yea, his rightful spouse."3 At any rate the
Ugaritic cognate means more than "right, uprightness." Gordon
has suggested "legitimate" might here even be understood in
the sense of "destined."4 Concerning qdc the most obvious
question is "right" or even "destined" in terms of what? Ap-
parently this what (norm) is "a relationship, either between
God and man, or man and man. . . This norm, therefore, is
determined by what the relationship demands."5 In the case
of Psalm 72:3 the meaning of qdc appears to be that a kingship
properly endowed by God will result in that productivity which
God has destined for his people. Kingship surfaces as pivotal
1 Cyrus Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, AnOr, no. 38 (
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1965), pp. 472-73, no. 2147.
2 James Swetman, "Some Observations on the Background
of qydc in Jeremias 23, 5a," Bib 46 (1965): 29-40.
3 Gray, Krt Text, p. 11. See also his commentary on
4 Gordon, Textbook, p. 473.
5 Lester J. Kuyper, "Righteousness and Salvation," SJT
30 (1977): 233.
176
in this account.1
This analysis of qdc is very much in keeping with the
other member of the word pair, Mvlw. Both the Ugaritic2 and
Akkadian3 cognates indicate much the same meaning as does the
Hebrew, "well-being" in the sense of "wholeness."4 The par-
allel of this word with qdc in 72:3 is instructive. The king,
divinely enabled, will cause to come about the wholeness which
God desires for his creation. What this psalm has shown more
clearly is the correlation of God-king-creation. The king is
not divine. But when he is empowered by God, there is said
to be a return in creation to a state of wholeness, a divinely
ordered and beneficent regularity.
Prophetical literature
This leads naturally to still another type of litera-
ture which helps develop more fully this picture of Israelite
1 Kselman, "Psalm 72: Some observations on Structure,"
78 has correctly observed that in the chiastic structure of
Ps 72 "the psalmist makes the point that behind royal rule,
the world of nature and the human community stands the same
divine, creative power." Therefore, king and creation both
ultimately have to do with the Creator-God.
2 Gordon, Textbook, p. 490-91, no. 2424.
3 Wolfram Von Soden, Akkadisches Handworterbuch, 3
Bande (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972), pp. 1013-14.
4 For a more complete discussion of Mvlw and its cog-
nates see Walter Eisenbeis, Die Wurzel Mlw im Alten Testament,
BZAW, no. 113 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and Company, 1969).
He remarks that even with respect to apocalyptic literature
that "wird das Nomen Mlw nur als religioses Wort in Aussagen
uber die Endzeit verwendet. Ihm liegt dabei die Vorstellung
zugrunde, dass eine begonnene Entwicklung zum Abschluss kommt
and dadurch ein entgultiger Zustand erreicht wird. Es be-
deutet Kraft, Wohlbestelltsein oder Frieden" (p. 221).
177
royal ideology. Some years ago DeGuglielmo wrote a study on
messianic prophecies that have to do with the fertility of
the land.1 Passages which he cited include Isaiah 32:15; 35:
1-7; 41:18-20; Amos 9:13-15; and Zechariah 8:12.2 While most
acknowledge in these passages a general picture of the land's
fertility there is some debate over what direction an exact
interpretation should take.3 Among the various interpreta-
tions offered there is the consistent view that
. . . the material benefits, specifically the fertility
of the land, are considered solely on the basis of their
relation to the citizens of the future kingdom. Little
thought, for example, is given to the possibility that
the sacred writers intended to predict the fertility of
the land propter se, hence only incidentally or perhaps
concurrently in relation to man. On this one score, I am
convinced, we have failed to obtain the complete picture
of the messianic doctrine of the OT. In the light of the
insistence of the OT on the fertility of the land in the
messianic age, it must follow that it is an essential
feature of the messianic program and as such must be
placed in its proper soteriological perspective.4
There is much in these judgments with which one can
agree. However, the messianic prophecies do not separate the
1 Antonine DeGuglielmo, "The Fertility of the Land in
the Messianic Prophecies," CBQ 19 (1957): 306-11.
2 Ibid., pp. 306-7.
3 A number of years ago Angelo Meli, "I beni temporali
nelle profezie messianiche," Bib 16 (1935): 314-28, had sum-
marized all interpretations of such passages as fitting into
one of three categories:
1. I beni temporali nelle profezie messianiche erano un
elemento secondario e di sua natura caduco.
2. I beni temporali nelle profezie messianiche erano un
elemento secondario e condizionato.
3. I beni temporali nelle profezie messianiche non erano
the figure di beni spirituali.
4 DeGuglielmo, "The Fertility of the Land in the Mes-
sianic Prophecies," 308.
178
fertility of the land from the righteous (qdc) and just
(FPWm) king whose land it is.1 Thus it is in relation to
the king, messiah, not the subjects of the kingdom, that the
fertility of the land must be seen. As an example Isaiah 32
may be examined briefly.
There is doubt in the minds of some about whether
Isaiah 32:lff. is prophecy, more particularly a messianic
prophecy. But even for those who doubt, there is consensus
that this passage in Isaiah "came to be interpreted as a spe-
cific promise of the upright king of the future for whom they
were then hoping."2 In this light it is better to translate
the opening of 32:1 as, "See a king will reign . . (NIV),3
instead of, "When a king reigns . . .” as does Kaiser.4 The
force of this wording would then imply that the disposition
of this king's reign, righteousness and justice, will issue
in a new arrangement for creation. Isaiah 32:15 argues that
1 These (qdc, Fpw) are the two primary characteristics
that true kingship ought to possess; cf. Kselman "Psalm 72:
Some Observations on Structure," 78.
2 This is the conclusion of Sigmund Mowinckel, He That
Cometh, trans. G. W. Anderson (
n.d.), p. 17. However, just prior to this quoted conclusion
he says of Isa 32:1-8 that it "is not primarily a prophecy,
still less a Messianic prophecy, but a wisdom poem which de-
scribes in general terms the blessing enjoyed in the reign of
an upright, of any upright king."
3 Though not giving the same interpretive force, Edward
J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 3 vols. (
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969) 2: 384 appropriately
translates, "Behold! for righteousness a king will reign .. ."
4 Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39, trans. R. A. Wilson from
the German Der Prophet Jesaja / Kap. 13-39, The Old Testament
Library (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974), p. 320.
179
a part of this new arrangement is fertility of the land, a
"teeming fertility," says Mowinckel.1
But now the question is: Does Isaiah 32 speak of a
messianic prophecy? In all honesty, one must say not directly
so. But "it speaks of a government, however, that can belong
only to the Messiah and be ruled by Him, and in that sense
may be labelled a Messianic prophecy."2 This king will rule
in qdc;3 thus his government personnel will rule in Fpw.4 He
is God's true ruler.5
Summary
Again in this messianic material as in the historical
(2 Sam 21) and hymnic (Psa 72) literature there is a conjoin-
ing of God, kingship, and creation. From these three literary
types one gathers a general impression about Israelite king-
1 Mowinckel, He That Cometh, p. 270.
2 Young, The Book of Isaiah, 2: 386.
3 For additional discussion of qdc as it is used in
Isa 40-66 see John J. Scullion, "Sedeq-Sedaqah in Isaiah cc.
40-66," UF 3 (1971): 335-48, especially his conclusion, 348.
4 The l prefixed to each of these two terms is inter-
preted as a normative l, expressing mode or manner. There-
fore, both l's might be translated "according to"; cf.
Williams, Hebrew Syntax, p. 49, no. 274.
5 Cf. the extensive remarks of Martin S. Rozenberg, The
Stem spt: An Investigation of Biblical and Extra-Biblical
Sources (Ph.D. dissertation,
1980) on the Old Testament use of Fpw. Note especially pp.
149-52 and his conclusion, pp. 253-57. In his judgment "it
should be emphasized that mispat in itself has no preference
for either the 'sacral' or the 'secular.' It merely expresses
the idea of that which is 'normative' and 'right' as determined
by society. . . . In summary, this study has shown that the
stem spt in all of its forms in the Bible is to be traced back
to the concept of authority and not of judgment" (pp. 256-57).
180
ship. The historical kings are never treated as divine or
semi-divine. But they are understood to be responsible for
the land's welfare. This welfare is related directly to obe-
dience to divine will.1 If there is obedience, the land pros-
pers; if there is disobedience, the land suffers. At last
will appear the king, messiah. When he comes, he will bring
the destined wholeness to creation. His rule is one of just-
tice, righteousness, and well-being. This insures a benedic-
tion upon creation. From all this it is clear that messiah's
rule and dominion over creation will be of a character and
with a result unmatched by any of
Apocalyptic Imagery
The subject of this discussion is problematic. The
journey of one who defines the term "apocalyptic" has been
described by Glasson as beginning "in a kind of twilight. From
this uncertain beginning one moves forward with leaden feet,
clogged by qualifications and reservations; . . . the fog
thickens."2 While defining the term precisely is difficult,
1 This principle had been made abundantly clear already
in the passages of Lev 26 and Deut 27-30. For detailed discus-
sion of Lev 26 see William D. Barrick, "Leviticus 26: Its Re-
lationship to Covenant Contexts and Concepts," unpublished doc-
tor of theology dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1981.
2 T. Francis Glasson, "What is Apocalyptic?" NTS 25
(October 1980): 99. Glasson concludes (105) that "in view of
the ambiguities connected with the term, I would advocate the
abandonment of the word Apocalyptic. I know what an apocalypse
is, and I see there is a place for the adjective 'apocalyptic'
to denote matters relating to this type of literature. But,
as we have seen, Apocalyptic has no agreed and recognizable
meaning." This author fails to see that the distinction be-
tween noun and adjective helps Glasson. If adjectival usage
refers to something, thus not nothing, then it would seem
181
one must conclude that something is there to which the term
refers. The term apocalyptic is used herein to refer to that
certain feature of cosmic transformation which is but one of
the several characteristics1 of Jewish apocalypses.2 Analysis
of this single characteristic of apocalyptic builds upon this
definition of "apocalypse":
"Apocalypse" may be defined as a genre of revelatory lit-
erature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation
is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient,
disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal,
insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spa-
tial, insofar as it involves another supernatural world.
In the Jewish literature which can be dated with some
plausibility to the period 250 BCE-150 CE, it is possible
to identify fifteen apocalypses by this definition.3
there is something there. The question is still "what is that
something?"
1 G.
5 (1978): 28, has offered an appropriate word of caution: "Jew-
ish apocalyptic was not totally oriented towards the future,
although of course its authors did expect radically new events
which they sometimes described at great length. Eschatology
was not its only concern . . . we need in thinking of it to
make a conscious effort to remember the breadth of its con-
cerns."
2 For identification of these cf. the master chart in
John J. Collins, "The Jewish Apocalypses," Semeia 14 (1979):
28. Daniel is excluded from this list for reasons cited in
the footnote just below. Mention must be made of course of
the correlations between the
apocalyptic literature. For a brief synopsis of these corre-
lations see D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish
Apocalyptic, The Old Testament Library (
terns of Eschatology at
tion, eds. Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson (
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 351-75.
3 Collins, "The Jewish Apocalypses," 22. Given Collins'
perimeters, the understanding of this work makes two excep-
tions. By "revelation" is not understood divine revelation as
it is used in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Further, the
earlier date of Daniel and its divine revelatory character
must exclude it from Collins' list of apocalypses.
182
The feature of cosmic transformation is found in sev-
eral sources. Two are cited as illustrative of this charac-
teristic of the Jewish apocalypses. In 2 Enoch (A) 65:6-9
the reader is told:
When all creation visible and invisible, as the Lord created it, shall end,
then every man goes to the great judgment, and then all time shall perish,
and the years, and thence-forward there will be neither months nor days nor
hours, they will be stuck together and will not be counted. There will be
one aeon, and all the righteous who shall escape the Lord's great judgment,
shall be collected in the great aeon, for the righteous the great aeon will
begin, and they will live eternally, and then too there will be amongst them
neither labour, nor sickness, nor humiliation, nor anxiety, nor need, nor
violence, nor night, nor darkness, but great light.1
Cosmic transformation may be witnessed even more clearly in
2 Baruch 29:3-8:
And it shall come to pass when all is accomplished that
was to come to pass in those parts, that the Messiah shall
then begin to be revealed. And Behemoth shall be revealed
from his place and Leviathan shall ascend from the sea,
those two great monsters which I created on the fifth day
of creation, and shall have kept until that time; and then
they shall be for food for all that are left. The earth
also shall yield its fruit ten thousandfold and on each
vine there shall be a thousand branches, and each branch.
shall produce a thousand clusters, and each cluster pro-
duce a thousand grapes, and each grape produce a cor of
wine. And those who have hungered shall rejoice: more-
over, also, they shall behold marvels every day. For
winds shall go forth from before me to bring every morning
the fragrance of aromatic fruits, and at the close of the
day clouds distilling the dew of health. And it shall
come to pass at that self-same time that the treasury of
manna shall again descend from on high, and they will eat
of it in those years, because these are they who have
come to the consummation of time.2
1 Charles, Apocrypha, 2:467-68. This passage should
be compared with 2 Enoch 9:lff. (ibid., 2:434-35) which seems
to be an initial glimpse of the future. If this is so, the
beginning and the end correlate by having one and the same
view of cosmic abundance.
2 Ibid., 2:497-98.
183
If these examples may be accepted as normative expres-
sions, then cosmic transformation is clearly a characteristic
of the apocalypses. A number of people have attempted to cor-
relate this feature with New Testament literature.1 But what
is of interest here is to look at the origin of this apoca-
lyptic idea. In recent times a good deal of work has been
done on apocalyptic origins, especially its relationship to
prophecy.2 Rowley acknowledged that "the roots of apocalyptic
lie far behind the composition of the books which belong to
this class."3 What Rowley suggested was that whatever may
1 Stephen H. Travis, "The Value of Apocalyptic," Tyn-
dale Bulletin 30 (1979): 76 concludes: "Finally and paradoxi-
cally, apocalyptic brings a new sense of responsibility to-
wards the world, because it feeds hope for the transformation
of the world. Social action, according to Norman Young, 'be-
comes pointless without this apocalyptic vision because there
are no grounds in past history for expecting a lasting change
for the better in human affairs. Only belief in God as one
who breaks in against the possibilities resident within his-
tory can provide the hope that makes any present reforming
action worth the effort.' At the heart of the apocalyptic
faith is its movement towards the future. But in Christian
apocalyptic that future is dominated by the Son of Man who has
already set in motion the process of fulfillment on which the
apocalyptist's hope is set." For other discussions on corre-
lations of apocalyptic and the New Testament see: Wayne G.
Rollins, "The New Testament and Apocalyptic," NTS 17 (1970-
71): 454-76, especially his conclusion (476); the excellent
article of George Eldon Ladd, "The Place of Apocalyptic in
Biblical Religion," The Evangelical Quarterly 30 (April-June
1958): 75-85; Leon Morris, Apocalyptic (
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), especially pp. 72-87;
and Paul S. Minear, "Some Archetypal Origins of Apocalyptic
Predictions," Horizons in Biblical Theology 1 (1979): 105-35.
2 Especially noteworthy in this respect is Paul Hanson,
The Dawn of Apocalyptic, rev. ed. (
Press, 1979).
3 H. H. Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic, rev. ed.
(London: Lutterworth Press, 1963), p. 15.
184
have been said in apocalyptic literature in the period from
250 B.C. to A.D. 150 certainly has its origins in much earlier
history. Some have attempted to find apocalyptic developing
along the lines of Persian influence,1 but to "resort to Per-
sian influence is not necessary to account for the main de-
velopment in Jewish apocalyptic, for its basic elements belong
to Old Testament prophetic religion."2 Minear sees an ante-
cedent deposit of apocalyptic terminology coming from the
creation account itself.3 A judicious assessment would seem
to suggest that while prophetic material undoubtedly does not
account for every apocalyptic motif, there surely are correla-
tions between certain characteristics of apocalyptic litera-
ture and the content of Old Testament prophecy.
In order to explain the nature of the relationship of
apocalyptic to prophecy Hanson has offered an allegory.4 In
1 As an example of this cf. William R. Murdock, "His-
tory and Revelation in Jewish Apocalypticism," Int 21 (April
1967): 174 who says "that the religion of
recently attained the status of a truly monotheistic faith
should suddenly shift to dualism is an anomaly in the history
of ideas and cannot be understood apart from the simultaneous
shift to eschatology. Dualism and eschatology belong together,
for they constitute the two foci of a single theological sys-
tem. Together they formed the core of Zoroastrianism, and
they were taken up together by apocalypticism under Iranian
influence."
2 George Eldon Ladd, "The Origin of Apocalyptic in Bib-
lical Religion," The Evanqelical Quarterly 30 (July-September
1958): 140.
3 Minear, "Some Archetypal Origins of Apocalyptic Pre-
dictions," 117-29.
4 Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, pp. 402-13. While
there is much to agree with in Hanson's allegory, one would
question his chronological perspective on prophetic literature.
185
summary the allegory is this:
In this allegory apocalyptic was born of native Jewish
parents in the late sixth century and by the close of the
fifth century was near to maturity. The child's mother
was prophecy but the identity of the father is less clear.
Hanson thinks he may have been of royal birth or a man in-
fluenced by the royal courts of the ancient Near East.
The circumstances of the birth are veiled in ambiguity but
the collapse of the royal dynasty may have allowed proph-
ecy and royalty to mate and so produce apocalyptic escha-
tology. Mother taught the growing child that their na-
tion's god Yahweh acted on behalf of the oppressed within
the events of history, father believed that history be-
longed to a fallen order which would be supplanted on the
day when Yahweh acted to save his people. The child never
abandoned mother's belief but tended to favour father's
mythic modes of thought when expressing her beliefs.1
The present discussion is definitely interested in the mother
of apocalyptic. What is of special interest in the mother is
this: Is there evidence on the mother's side of the family
that such an idea as cosmic restoration was present?
As a matter of fact, cosmic restoration does seem to
be present. Isaiah 65:1-25 may be taken as an example. About
this passage Hanson has argued that the essential elements of
apocalyptic eschatology are present: a present evil era,
great judgment separating evil and good (corresponding respec-
tively to the present world and the world to come), and a new
world of peace and blessing.2 The third of these is of special
interest. This new world of peace and blessing is described
in verses 17-25, which stand in contrast to the troubles
1 This excellent summary is that of Robert P. Carroll,
"Twilight of Prophecy or Dawn of Apocalyptic," JSOT 14 (Octo-
ber 1979) : 5.
2 Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, p. 160. This author
cannot agree with Hanson's sharp dichotomizing between the two
worlds. Rather they are but outworkings of the one divine
plan.
186
referred to in 16b.1 The words of verse 17 direct special
attention to God as the one about to perform his startling
work (hwAdAHE Cr,xAvA MywidAHE MyimawA xrEOb).
The radical nature of the work of God is indicated in
17b. Such work stands in contrast to the known. A part of
what is not known through means of empirical evidence is the
peace and blessing as is described in verses 18b-25. Included
for change are
ductivity, divine audience, and peace. The use of "new" to
describe this restorative work could easily be misunderstood.
The imagery and vocabulary have similarity to the account of
Genesis 1-4.2 This may indicate that the "new" is in fact a
return to Edenic qualities.3 There are expansions of the
1 Cf. the remarks on this matter by Claus Westermann,
Isaiah 40-66, trans. David M. G. Stalker from the German Das
Buch Jesaia 40-66, The Old Testament Library (
The
tation of 73 in verse 16 is not necessary since as Young, The
Book of Isaiah, 3:512 says: "That He is the God of truth ap-
pears in that the former distresses the people suffered have
been forgotten (a strong expression for stating their complete
removal). Furthermore, they have been hidden from before God's
eyes, so that He no longer sees them. The distresses are more
than misfortunes; they are the result of the nation's sins.
As there is a removal of the reason for punishing sin, the
distresses that sin causes will be removed also."
2 E.g. note the imagery of 65:17 (creation of heaven
and earth), 20 (longevity), 21-22a (permanency of dwelling),
22b-23a (work perspective and productivity), 23b (disposition
of offspring), 24 (immediacy of divine audience). For illus-
trations of similar vocabulary note: xrb, Mymw, Crx, etc.
3 Cf. the remarks of Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, p. 408
on the use of the word "new" (a similar conclusion for a dif-
ferent set of reasons). The remarks here offered on the term
"new" as meaning "restoration" negate the question of whether
Isa 65:17-25 speaks of the millennium or the eternal state.
By conjoining within the same passage
heaven and earth it is clear that Isa 65:17-25 is a very gen-
187
Edenic theme (
does appear to have an Edenic background.1
In summary, in terms of the cosmic restoration one
cannot say conclusively that the apocalyptic material came
from the prophetic. All that has been demonstrated here is
that apocalyptic might have drawn its imagery from a future
cosmic restoration promised by the prophetic literature. This
restoration in prophetic literature was attached to a hope of
deliverance.2 Were there space and the need, one could demon-
strate that apocalyptic literature, consistent with its view
of cosmic restoration, understood the cosmos to be moving to-
ward its targeted destination; therefore, the cosmos is in
linear movement. And this movement is associated with divine
will. God himself will bring the cosmos to its destination.
eral description, intending to refer neither to either one or
the other. Cf. Isa 66:22 and Rev 21:1-4. F. F. Bruce, "The
Bible and the Environment," unpublished paper, 1981 (soon to
be published in a S. J. Schultz Festschrift by Eisenbrauns,
Winona Lake, IN) argues for much the same conclusion on the
use of the word "new."
1 There has been considerable debate in recent times
about the nature of Isaiah's use of creation material. For
examples of the various views see: Ph. B. Harner, "Creation
Faith in Deutero-Isaiah," VT 17 (July 1967): 298-306; Carroll
Stuhlmueller, "The Theology of Creation in Second Isaias,"
CBQ 21 (October 1959): 429-67; idem., "'First and Last' and
'Yahweh- -Creator' in Deutero-Isaiah," CBQ 29 (July 1967): 189-
205 (495-511); idem., "Yahweh--King and Deutero-Isaiah," BR
15 (1970): 32-45; and Theodore M. Ludwig, "The Traditions of
the Establishing of the Earth in Deutero-Isaiah," JBL 92
(September 1973) : 345-57.
2 Were there more space, correspondences could be
shown between this hope and a mediator of this hope in both
the prophetic and apocalyptic literature. However, this ad-
ditional evidence would not advance the argument given here.
188
This destination is inextricably tied to the great end-time
figure. God, the end-time figure, and the cosmos all con-
verge in this destination.
Societal Hierarchical Structuring
A last evaluation of background ideas relevant to the
dominion materials concerns the ancient Near Eastern societal
structure. The purpose here is simply to survey several
sources and to attempt a synthesis of the picture developed
by these sources. Harriet Havice, in her helpful sociological-
ethical study of the ancient Near East, concludes
. . . that the cultures of the ancient
hierarchical world view which is determinative of their
ethical systems. In these societies virtually everyone
stands in a hierarchical relationship with everyone else.
Ethical duties are primarily owed up and down the hier-
archical scale and are only rarely owed to one's social
equals. In this system the two primary duties are loyalty
and obedience owed to one's superior and beneficence owed
to one's inferior. These two duties are reciprocal so
that being loyal and obedient to one's superior entitles
one to beneficence from him, and doing beneficence to
one's inferior entitles one to loyalty and obedience from
him in return.1
What is of present interest about Havice's conclusion is her
analysis of the social hierarchy with its attendant duties of
beneficence and loyalty.2 The literature of the ancient Near
East does appear to reflect this hierarchical structuring.
1 Harriet Katherine Havice, The Concern for the Widow
and the Fatherless in the Ancient Near East: A Case Study in
Old Testament Ethics (Ph.D. dissertation,
1978;
15, 827, 1979), p. 275.
2 This writer is not as convinced by her analysis of
ethical duty rarely being described as owed to one's equals,
especially in the Old Testament. Her analysis warrants fur-
ther study.
189
There is no particular value in retracing all of the literary
evidences of this analysis, since Havice's study suffices in
this respect. What will prove adequate here is a brief survey
of selected examples (especially those dealing with kingship)
to demonstrate the point at issue and a summary conclusion of
the implications of this type of societal structuring.
The order of selected citations begins with Egyptian,
then moves to Mesopotamian and Ugaritic literature. The Egyp-
tian sources are three in number. The first is a song of the
commoner sung while doing work in the field. This particular
song is found "in an agricultural scene in an Eighteenth Dy-
nasty (16th-14th centuries B.C.) tomb at el Kab."1
A good day--it is cool.
The cattle are pulling,
And the sky does according to our desire-
Let us work for the noble!
The words indicate a degree of loyalty owed to the noble in
the form of work. The cosmic forces (sky) have beneficently
yielded a day for such loyalty to be exercised.
In "The Protestation of Guiltlessness," one of the few
Egyptian sources for social law, the "negative confession"
demonstrates through a plea of guiltlessness that the expected
mode of living was beneficence toward those on the social
scale that are below and loyalty to those that are above.
Behold me--I have come to you without sin,
without guilt, without evil, without a witness
(against me), without one against whom I have taken
action. I live on truth, and I eat on truth.
I have done that which men said and that with which
gods are content. I have satisfied a god with that
1 ANET, p. 469.
190
which he desires. I have given bread to the hungry,
water to the thirsty, clothing to the naked, and
a ferry-boat to him who was marooned. I have
provided divine offerings for the gods and mortuary
offerings for the dead. (So) rescue me, you;
protect me, you.1
Here beneficence and loyalty have direct ethical ties. Benef-
icence to the hungry, thirsty, naked, and marooned is claimed
as the very hope of safe and blessed passage through the next
world. A part of this same claim and hope is the loyalty
practiced toward the gods.
A third Egyptian piece, which focuses attention on
both beneficence and loyalty, is "The Instruction of the
Vizier Ptah-Hotep," the chief manuscript being from the Mid-
If thou art a leader commanding the affairs of the multi-
tude, seek out for thyself every beneficial deed, until
it may be that thy (own) affairs are without wrong. Jus-
tice is great, and its appropriateness is lasting; it has
not been disturbed since the time of him who made it,
(whereas) there is punishment for him who passes over its
laws. . . If thou art one of those sitting at the table
of one greater than thyself, take what he may give, when
it is set before thy nose. Thou shouldst gaze at what is
before thee. Do not pierce him with many stares, (for
such) an aggression against him is an abomination to the
ka. Let thy face be cast down until he addresses thee,
and thou shouldst speak (only) when he addresses thee.
Laugh after he laughs . . . Bow thy back to thy superior,
thy overseer from the palace. (Then) thy household will
be established in its property, and thy recompense will
be as it should be. Opposition to a superior is a pain-
ful thing, (for) one lives as long as he is mild.2
1 The words within parentheses are those furnished in
this translation from ibid., p. 36.
2 This translation including parentheses and underlin-
ing is that of ibid., pp. 412-14. The ka, symbolized by two
upraised arms, "was a term for the creative and preserving
power of life. . . . The ka accompanied a person like a kind
of double, but when the person died, the ka lived on. 'To go
to one's ka' meant 'to die,' since the ka then left its mortal
191
Again the same pattern of social structuring emerges. Benefi-
cence and loyalty are both obligatory.
A similar pattern is observable in Mesopotamian liter-
ature. "A Pessimistic Dialogue Between Master and Servant,"
though overtly emphasizing abject servitude toward the master,
calls attention to the servant's obligation to practice loy-
alty to a superior through use of the recurring expression,
“'Servant obey me.' Yes, my lord, yes.”1 There are also
statements in both the prologues and epilogues of law codes
which indicate the king's interest in acts of beneficence to-
ward his subjects. Hammurabi in his code had recorded for
himself his interest in establishing justice so "that the
strong might not oppress the weak."2 This remark indicates
both the king's beneficence to his subjects (the strong and
the weak) by the establishment of justice and the strong's
beneficence to the weak by not oppressing them.
A third Mesopotamian evidence of societal hierarchy is
the curious proverb: "Man is the shadow of a god, a slave is
the shadow of a man; but the king is like the (very) image of
a god."3 However, Oppenheim has given this sense to the prov-
house and returned to its divine origin. The ka needed sus-
tenance above all for its continued existence which was pro-
vided in concrete form as offerings or symbolically in the
tomb paintings which the Egyptians regarded as no less effec-
tive," Lurker, The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt, p. 73.
1 ANET, pp. 437-38.
2 Ibid., p. 164. Cf. also the prologue of the "Lipit-
Ishtar Lawcode," ibid., p. 159.
3 This is the translation of ibid., p. 426. For the
cuneiform text see Robert Francis Harper, Assyrian and Babylo-
192
erb: "'The amelu (lives in) the shadow of god, and mankind
(in the) shadow of the amelu' (and) amelu means 'king' (in
this context) because he (i.e. the king) is (for us human be-
ings) just like a god."1 The term "shadow" translates sillu
which can mean "shadow," "covering," "likeness," or "protec-
tion."2 An example of this latter usage is found in ABL 920.
rev. 2:
Among the captives whom we took from the Sealand there
are old men of the house of my father who served my father
during the regency of the kings of your fathers.3
But there is also evidence that sillu in the proverb
can be thought of as an "umbrella," a part of the parapher-
nalia of kingship.4 In light of this evidence sillu can be
understood to mean
. . , that the shadow of the king, or more exactly the
shadow cast by the royal parasol, endowed these officials
upon whom it fell with a special status (privileges, etc.),
and that the phrase "to be in the shadow of the king" was
applied to officials on special missions. Eventually this
phrase assumed the connotation "under the auspices of the
king, during the rule of the king . . ."5
Without pursuing other interesting features of this evidence,
nian Letters, 5 vols., reprint ed. (
of
(hereafter cited as ABL).
1 A. Leo Oppenheim, "Assyriological Gleanings IV,"
BASOR 107 (October 1947): 9, n. 6.
2 Cf. the citations listed in CAD ,S, 189ff.
3 The translation given by A. Leo Oppenheim, "Idiomatic
Accadian," JAOS 61 (1941): 264. The term for "regency" is
sillu.
4 Cf. CAD, S, 192-93 and especially the discussion of
Oppenheim, "Assyriological Gleanings IV," 7-11.
5 Ibid. , 10.
193
one can easily see that the proverb implies a structuring of
society (god-amelu-servant) and that through the use of sillu
evidence of a beneficence-loyalty reciprocation is implied in
the king's shadow of protection and the subject's responsi-
bility to the king as he (the subject) stands in that shadow.
Brief mention must also be made of Ugaritic sources.
According to UT 127:29-34 and 45-50 the work of the government
administrator is described as follows:
Repeat to K[rt of T]:
"Liste[n]
And be alert [of ear]!
For dost thou administer like the strongest of the
strong and govern (like) the [moun]tains?
Thou hast let thy hands fall into negligence
Thou dost not judge the case of the widow
(almnt) nor adjudicate the cause of the broken
in spirit (qsr nps). . . .
Thou dost not judge the case of the widow (almnt)
nor adjudicate the cause of the broken in spirit
(qsr nps) nor drive away those who prey upon
the poor (dl)
Before thee thou dost not feed the fatherless
(ytm) nor behind thy back the widow (almnt).1
While these are not the only underprivileged persons attested
in Ugaritic literature,2 UT 127 indicates clearly the benefi-
cence the government official was expected to practice toward
his subjects.
In these few documents representing a general picture
of the ancient Near Eastern world, there is evidence of both
1 The translation of this portion of UT 127 is that of
Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature (Roma: Pontificium In-
stitutum Biblicum, 1949), p. 82. The Ugaritic terms are sup-
plied from the transliteration of UT 127 in Gordon, Textbook,
P. 194. Other underlined words indicate italics in original.
2 Cf. SSU, pp. 233ff. who mentions also awilu muskenu-
tu(m) ("plebian men"), awilu nayyalu ("disgraced person"), bel
arni ("convict"), etc.
194
a structuring of society and an ethic of beneficence and loy-
alty based upon one's exact location within that structuring.
Ethical accountability demanded loyalty to superiors and be-
neficence to those under one's jurisdiction and care. This
pattern emerges most clearly in the god-king-subject complex
in the ancient Near East. The king (especially in his vice-
regent role) owed loyalty to the god and beneficence toward
his subjects. His loyalty would be consciously practiced as
he sought divine will in a given matter (especially appropri-
ate to the Mesopotamian understanding of kingship). And his
beneficence was consciously practiced as he sought justice and
well-being for his subjects, especially defenseless persons.
Disloyalty to his god would initiate divine visitations of
wrath upon the king's subjects in the form of a disruption of
well-being and justice.
Summary Evaluation
From this survey of royal ideology, apocalyptic ideas,
and societal hierarchical structuring there emerge three pieces
of ancient Near Eastern evidence that will have hermeneutical
implications for the study of these Old Testament dominion
materials. The first of these is the fact that kingship in
the ancient Near East was understood to include a cosmic stew-
ardship. This does not imply that the stewardship was always
envisioned in the same way by
boring country possessed its own variation of the theme of
stewardship. But the theme was present nonetheless. Egyptians
saw the stewardship in terms of maat, for the Mesopotamians
195
there was misaru, and for the Israelites Fpwm and qdc. The
kings stood before the god or as the god (
practiced their stewardship. If, in fact, the dominion mate-
rials evidence royal imagery, perhaps man, as the apex of God's
creative work, should be understood as the one between his
Creator and the rest of the cosmos. Standing in this position,
his dominion would be seen as a stewardship, a stewardship
given by the Creator. Man stands within the cosmic law struc-
ture to practice his stewardship. Thus he is under God and
over the cosmos.
This suggestion fits nicely with a second piece of
ancient Near Eastern evidence, that suggested by the analysis
of the societal hierarchical structuring. From the observa-
tions on kingship the king must be understood to bear a rela-
tionship to his deity. The practice of this relationship was
his activities to insure beneficence upon the subjects of the
kingdom. As he pleased the deity by loyal service and obedi-
ence, he assured benefits for the subjects of his kingdom.
But if the king was disloyal to his deity, the cosmic results
were that his subjects were required to live in a world that
languished.
What this indicates is that the king ethically was re-
quired to practice loyalty toward his deity and beneficence to
those over whom he was appointed. Obviously, this loyalty-
beneficence complex had a history, i.e., the history of the
king's reign would reveal periods of both loyalty (benefi-
cence) and disloyalty (distress). Once the king fell into
196
disloyalty, and should he not be immediately removed from of-
fice, he must do as his deity demanded in order that the cos-
mic distress might be removed. If in fact the dominion mate-
rials suggest this type of structuring, then man's loyalty and
cosmic beneficence are correlated by man's creator. As man
was faithfully loyal to his creator he practiced beneficence
toward the cosmos. In terms of the Biblical material, this
beneficence was characteristic of the pre-fall world of har-
mony. But when man became disloyal to his Creator, distress
became the lot of creation. Man himself experienced this dis-
tress. Man's relationship to his Creator and the world over
which he was given dominion has a history. The history is one
of disloyalty and distress.
A third piece of evidence addresses this history of
disloyalty and distress. Apocalyptic literature emphasized
the distress, and over against this distress a future deliver-
ance, a time when the distress will be disrupted by a cosmic
restoration. Then beneficence in the world will return.
Briefly put, man's history is one of repeated distress but
there is a coming deliverance. If this imagery from apoca-
lyptic literature is applicable to Old Testament dominion
material (New Testament as well), then the end of man's his-
tory will be the coming of a world of beneficence. Could it
also be the case that beneficence will come because one truly
loyal to God, who in fact is God himself, will reign as king?
Explicit Dominion Materials
If the passages which explicitly refer to dominion are
197
to be evaluated properly, careful study of the language of
each passage is required. The purpose of this language study
is to determine what interpretive possibilities the language.
encourages and prohibits. Thereby an interpretive field can
be established. Within this field an interpretation of each
passage must be constructed.
The procedure for doing this work will be to establish
what the reading of the text is, to survey the literary con-
text, to study relevant linguistic and terminological features,
and to suggest an interpretive field.
Genesis 1:26-28
According to the Hebrew1 this passage reads:
UnteUmd;Ki Unmel;caB; MdAxA hW,fEna Myhilox< rm,xyo.va 26
hmAheB;baU Myimaw.Ah JOfb;U My.Aha tgad;bi UDr;yiv;
Cr,xAhA-lfa WmerohA Wm,r,hA-lkAb;U Cr,xAhA-klAb;U
Myhilox< Ml,c,B; Oml;caB; MdAxAhA-tx, Myhilox< xrAb;y.iva 27
MtAxo xrABA hBAqen;U rkAzA Otxo xrABaA
Ubr;U UrP; Myhilox< Mh,lA rm,xyo.va Myhilox< MtAxo j`r,bAy;va 28
JOfb;U My.Ah tgad;Bi Udr;U hAwub;kiv; Cr,xAhA-tx, Uxl;miU
Cr,xAhA-lfa tW,m,rohA hy.AHa-lkAb;U MyimawAha
For sake of convenience when discussing textual matters, cap-
ital letters have been inserted in appropriate places of the
Hebrew text to indicate the location of variants. Because of
the foundational nature of this passage and its introduction
lengthier
1 This citation is from K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, eds.,
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (
tung, 1967/77), hereafter cited as BHS.
198
Textual variants
As indicated by the capital letters above, there are
five variants noteworthy for consideration. These textual
notes may be listed as follows.
A. While the Hebrew text reads UnteUmd;Ki Unmel;caB; with-
out the conjunction ( v ), two versions (Septuagint and Vulgate)
and the Samaritan Pentateuch do include the intervening con-
junction. The Septuagint (LXX) in 1:26 reads: Poih<swmen
a@nqrwpon kat ] ei]ko<na h[mete<ran kai> kaq ] o[moi<wsin.1 And the
Vulgate follows suit: Faciamus hominen ad imaginem et simili-
tudinem nostram.2 The Samaritan Pentateuch reads: Mdx hWfn
vntvmdkv vnmlcb.3 While this evidence is fairly weighty, it
is counterbalanced by the agreement of Targum Onkelos,4 the
Palestinian Targum,5 and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan6 in omitting
the conjunction.
1 This and subsequent citations from the Septuagint are
taken from Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, 2 vols., editio nona
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1935), hereafter cited as
LXX throughout the remainder of this work.
2 Cf. Brian Walton, ed., Biblia Sacra Polyqlotta, 6
vols. (reprint of 1657 edition;
Verlagsanstalt, 1963), 1:4 (hereafter cited as BSP).
3 Cf. August Freiherrn von Gall, ed., Der hebraische
Pentateuch der samaritaner (
mann, 1918), p. 2 (hereafter cited as HPS).
4 Cf. Alexander Sperber, ed., The Bible in Aramaic
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959); vol. 1: The Pentateuch accord-
ing to Targum Onkelos, by idem., p. 2.
5 Cf. the English translation of the Palestinian Targum
in Etheridge, The Tarqums, p. 160.
6 Cf. the English translation of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
in ibid., p. 160.
199
In several ways this is the most important variant,
not because it directly touches on the dominion vocabulary but
because it concerns the correlation and interpretation of
“image” ( Mlc) and “likeness” ( tvmd ) to which the dominion
bears relationship. Without dwelling on this variant, the
suggestion is offered here that the variant may be understood
as a harmonizing of coordinates (Mlc and tvmd), whose prefixed
prepositions (b and k) and different shades of meaning might
otherwise be difficult to understand. Attention will be given
this variant in the later discussion on the interpretation of
UnteUmd;Ka Unmel;caB.
B. At this location the Syriac inserts between lkAb;U
and Cr,xAhA the word XXXXX (hywt'), in Hebrew ty.aHa.l The
place of this inclusion, along with the lack of any consequent
substantive change in meaning and the lateness and singularity
of the testimony, all join to make the variant of little con-
sequence for this study.
C. By far the longest variant and also one of the
least problematic is the inclusion of the LXX, kai> pa<ntwn tw?n
kthnw?n kai> pa<shj th?j gh?j, between the words MyimawAha and lkAb;U in
1:28. Comparison of this inclusion with the similar phrase-
ology of 1:26 (kai> tw?n kthnw?n kai> pa<shj th?j gh?j) indicates
that the expansion in 1:28 is undoubtedly an attempt to har-
monize with the earlier phraseology in 1:26. By this means
the listings in 1:26 and 28 were made the same.
D. Also included in 1:28 between Myimaw.Aha and lkAb;U is
1 Cf. the Syriac Version in BSP, p. 4.
200
the insertion offered by the Syriac, XXXXX (wbb'yr'),
in Hebrew hmhbbv.1 Comparison of this insertion with the word
hmAheBubaU1 in 1:26 indicates that the insertion of the Syriac is
an attempted harmonization between the phraseology of 1:26
and 28.
E. The last variant is so minor in nature that it
only merits mention. It in no way addresses an evaluation of
the dominion expressed in 1:26-28. The Samaritan Pentateuch
reads hyHh for hy.AHa in verse 28.2 This reading should also be
compared with the Targum Onkelos reading in 1:28, xtyH.3
Of these variants only "A above has significance for
the study of dominion language and imagery in Genesis 1:26-28.
The variant, it appears, is not adequate to force a change in
the Hebrew reading of BHS. Rather the variant reading attests
an interpretive problem in the phraseology UnteUmd;Ki Unmel;caB;.
Interpretation of these words and the construction has sig-
nificance for understanding the dominion ideas. Thus, in the
following discussion only this variant will enter into the
interpretation of Genesis 1:26-28.
Literary context
Willis has recently noted a current emphasis in the
literary-historical approach to Genesis, namely "the feeling
that the student of a piece of literature is bound first to
1 Cf. ibid., p. 6.
2 Cf. HPS, p. 2.
3 Cf. Sperber, Targum Onkelos, p. 2.
201
analyze that material in its present final form, irrespective
of any prehistory that its various elements may have under-
gone."1 This is not to say that all recent study on Genesis,
is of this sort2 but it is to say that contemporary analyses
must concern themselves eventually with what is in the text's
final form.
Reflection on the text of the book of Genesis cannot
help but show how large a place is occupied by the covenanted
people (Gen 12-50). Further, when surveying the opening elev-
en chapters one is struck with the editor's rapid movement
through the creation account (Gen 1-2). If one weighed the
theological watershed of Genesis 1-11 in terms of subsequent
Biblical history, he would conclude that the text divides
quite evidently into pre- and post-fall periods. The fall is
so important because it attests a radical reorientation in
man's relation to his sovereign Creator.
Within this pre-fall world there is a literary move-
ment from the beginning of creation (the sequential "day" enu-
merations)3 to the appearance of man (Gen 1) and a subsequent
1 John T. Willis, "Some recent Studies on Genesis and
the Literary-Historical Approach," Restoration Quarterly 23
(1980): 199.
2 Cf. as examples David J. A. Clines, "Theme in Genesis
1-11," CBQ 38 (October 1976): 483-507, especially 504ff. (though
he admits that "we do better, I think, to rest the weight of
our study largely upon what we do have--the work itself--how-
ever subjective our understanding of it has to be, than upon
hypotheses, however much they deal with 'objective' data like
dates and sources," 505) and David L. Petersen, "The Yahwist
on the Flood," VT 26 (October 1976): 438-46.
3 Cf. the conclusion of Edward J. Young, Studies in
Genesis One, International Library of Philosophy and Theology:
202
ontological-anthropological dwelling on man as he stands in
relation to his Creator (Gen 2).1
The obvious question to raise about this point is:
For what purpose and intention has the text come down to us
in this form? To answer this question is most difficult and
requires attention to both the remainder of the Biblical rec-
ord (to witness the analogy of faith)2 and the literature of
the ancient Near East (to assess something of its imagery and
Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. J. Marcellus Kik (Phila-
delphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1973), p.
103.
1 Though for other reasons to which this writer does
not hold, George W. Coats, "Strife and Reconciliation: Themes
of a Biblical Theology in the Book of Genesis," Horizons in
Biblical Theology 2 (1980): 18, rightly concludes concerning
Gen 2:4bff. that "the intention of the pericope is not so much
to describe the creation itself, but rather to paint the cre-
ation of the man in terms of his relationships with other
parts of the world. Thus, vv 8-15 contain an account of the
construction of the Garden, with all its magnificent vegeta-
tion. And in v 15, God places the man in that paradise."
2 For a lengthy treatment of this type cf. David L.
Uhl, "A Comparative Study of the Concepts of Creation in Isa-
iah 40-55 and Genesis 1-2," unpublished doctor of theology
dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1966.
Cf. also the shorter treatment of Walter R. Roehrs, "The Cre-
ation Account of Genesis: Guidelines for an Interpretation,"
CTM 36 (May 1965): 301-21, especially 303ff. For an entirely
different perspective but, nonetheless, a comparative study
within Scripture see the summary of Gerhard von Rad's article,
"Das theologische Problem des alttestamentlichen Schopfungs-
glaubens" in B. D. Napier, "On Creation-Faith in the Old Tes-
tament," Int 16 (January 1962): 21-42. His study leads him to
conclude: "Does not the Genesis account rather mean to say
that something is now here which in essence was not previously
here. And Ploger here declared himself unable to escape the
conviction that
count of world creation.
tohu wa bohu, she was negation, she was nothing. As she was
created by a mighty act of God, so Genesis I understands the
creation of the world" (ibid., 42).
203
thought for background). Though answering the question is
beyond what is both possible and necessary here, several cur-
sory observations are helpful.
The reason for the creation account as it stands in
the text has been variously assigned. In some quarters the
answer has been simply that the account itself reflects the
record of both divine revelation and human misunderstandings,
the latter based upon an "effort to represent God as supreme,
just, and holy."1 As already alluded to above, others have
explained the sources behind the present form as though that
perspective answers the question of purpose and intention of
the early chapters of Genesis.2 Still others have understood
the intention of the creation account as a re-dressing of
Babylonian cosmogony, the intention being to develop a cos-
mogony re-touched by Yahwistic faith. Speiser without reser-
vation concludes
1 A. E. Whatham, "Anthropomorphisms of Genesis Chapter
I," Biblical World 37 (1911): 127.
2 Cf. an example of this sort in J. A. Soggin, Old Tes-
tament and Oriental Studies, Biblica et Orientalia, 29 (
Biblical Institute Press, 1975), pp. 88-111, who informs his
readers: "The text of Genesis 3 belongs, as is well-known to
the collection of ancient traditions known to biblical criti-
cism as the 'Yahwist source'--Yahweh being the name it uses
for God right from the very beginning. With certain extreme
Positions discarded which literary criticism held in the past,
. . . the theory of Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen on the sources
Of the Pentateuch can be said to be generally accepted today
in its major points as a working hypothesis. This is true
even in quarters . . . which were at first rather suspicious
of, if not actually opposed to, this position, more or less
openly preferring the traditional attribution to Moses of the
Pentateuch" (p. 89). Additionally note the methodology of
Eduard Nielsen, "Creation and the Fall of Man," HUCA 43 (1972):
1-22.
204
. . . that the biblical approach to creation as reflected
in P is closely related to traditional Mesopotamian be-
liefs. It may be safely posited, moreover, that the Baby-
lonians did not take over these views from the Hebrews,
since the cuneiform accounts . . . antedate in substance
the biblical statements on the subject. . . . Derivation
from
less than that on the subject of creation biblical tradi-
tion aligned itself with the traditional tenets of Baby-
lonian "science". . . . And since the religion of the He-
brews diverged sharply from Mesopotamian norms, we should
expect a corresponding departure in regard to beliefs
about creation. This expectation is fully borne out.
While we have before us incontestable similarities in
detail, the difference in over-all approach is no less
prominent.1
Speiser lays stress on the assured commonality result-
ing from
pointed out that importance attaches to emphasizing the ulti-
mate setting into which the used material was incorporated.2
But both Speiser and Kapelrud express views which do
not fully account for both similarities and differences. Al-
bertson has pointed out that these similarities and differ-
ences are not to be thought of as a re-touching by Yahwistic
faith but a polemical radicalizing.3 Hasel has noted that the
1 Speiser, Genesis, pp. 10-11.
2 Arvid S. Kapelrud, "The Mythological Features in Gen-
esis Chapter I and the Author's Intentions," VT 24 (April
1974): 178.
3 James Albertson, "Genesis 1 and the Babylonian Crea-
tion Myth," Thought 145 (1962): 226-44. Kapelrud, "The Mytho-
logical Features in Genesis Chapter I and the Author's Inten-
tions," 186, does conclude that the creation account was
written for the "Judaean community in
give them a clear, systematic and right picture of their own
traditions, which also gave him an opportunity to emphasize
the features he wanted and to strengthen the defence where he
found it necessary."
205
supposed similarities in the Enuma elish1 and the biblical
creation accounts (tehom-Tiamat, separation of heaven and
earth, creation by Word, function of luminaries and man, or-
der of creation) upon closer analysis indicate “that the
author of Gn 1 exhibits in a number of critical instances a
sharply antimythical polemic."2
That to which Hasel refers is the antimythical polemic
of the Hebrew text as it stands.
It proclaims, loudly and unambiguously, the absolute sub-
ordination of all creation to the supreme Creator who thus
can make use of the forces of nature to fulfill His mighty
deeds in history. It asserts unequivocally that the basic
truth of all history is that the world is under the un-
divided and inescapable sovereignty of God.3
But more than this, Genesis 1 is a parting of the spiritual
ways with the ancient Near Eastern literature. This "meant an
undermining of the prevailing mythological cosmologies."4 The
danger is in reading the Genesis 1 account apart from the
1 There is no legitimacy in referring to the Enuma
elish as a creation account since the document is to offer
praise to Marduk. In fact the supposed statement on creation
is shorter than the material which comprises the fifty names
of Marduk (cf. ANET, pp. 60-72).
2 Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Significance of the Cosmology
in Genesis I in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,"
3 Nahum M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (
Jewish Theological Seminary of
Studies in Genesis One, p. 105 concludes: "The purpose of the
first section of Genesis (1:1-2:3) is to exalt the eternal God
as the alone Creator of heaven and earth, who in infinite
dom and by the word of his power brought the earth into exis-
tence and adorned and prepared it for man's habitancy."
4 Hasel, "The Significance of the Cosmology in Genesis
I in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Parallels," 20.
206
literary corpus in which it functions.l To commit this error
is to commit the Biblical creation account to little more than
a re-touched mythology. This the Genesis 1 account is not.
One indication of this radical polemicizing is in the
Genesis treatment of man. Man was perceived among the Meso-
potamians as one who served the deities that they might be
liberated from work to pursue the desires of their hearts.
From the Enuma elish, VI, 5ff. there is recorded this percep-
tion of the purpose of man's creation:
Blood I will mass and cause bones to be.
I will establish a savage, "man" shall be his name.
Verily, savage-man I will create.
He shall be charged with the service of the gods
that they might be at ease!2
And from VII, 28-29 there is this report: "Who removed the
yoke imposed on the gods, his enemies, (and) who, to redeem
them, created mankind."3 The record is essentially the same
in Atra-hasis, I, 1ff.
When the gods like men
Bore the work and suffered the toil--
The toil of the gods was great,
The work was heavy, the distress was much--
The Seven great Anunnaki
Were making the Igigi suffer the work.4
1 Note the warning against this methodological error in
Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmol-
ogy," EvQ 46 (April-June 1974): 81-82.
2 ANET, p. 68. For the cuneiform text see W. G. Lam-
bert and Simon B. Parker, Enuma Elis, The Babylonian Epic of
Creation: The Cuneiform Text (
1966), p. 34.
3 ANET, p. 70. For the cuneiform text see Lambert and
Parker, Enuma Elis, The Babylonian Epic of Creation: The
Cuneiform Text, p. 42.
4 W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-hasis: The
207
This sad state of affairs was eventually remedied after a
complaint was registered. The decision was to effect a rem-
edy (G, II, 9ff.)
Let her create Lullu-[man].
Let him bear the yoke [. .
Let him bear the yoke [. . .
[Let man carry the] toil of the gods.l
One must not suppose that these are isolated rarities.
Rather, this view of man is common in Mesopotamian literature.2
How opposite of this is the Biblical view of man's exalted
position (Gen 1:26-28 and Ps 8). How fully opposed and as a
result polemical the Biblical view is to the Mesopotamian un-
derstanding of man is shown by a closer examination of the
actual dominion material in Genesis 1:26-28.
Examination of dominion material
In order to effect a clearer understanding of the
dominion material in Genesis 1:26-28 several brief studies
are necessary.
The expression vntvmdk vnmlcb
With the rise of phenomenology in the twentieth cen-
tury the prolonged study of man was assured, so much so that
Babylonian Story of the Flood, with The Sumerian Flood Story
by M. Civil (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1969), p. 43. For
discussion on who these Igigi were see Wolfram von Soden, "Die
Igigu-gotter-in altbabylonischer Zeit,"
140-45.
1 Ibid., pp. 55-57.
2 Cf. the additional examples in Alexander Heidel, The
Babylonian Genesis, 2nd ed. (
cago Press, 1951), pp. 62-63, 66, and 69-70.
208
other important themes were passed over in silence.1 Such
being the case, there is seemingly endless writing on the sub-
ject.2 These Hebrew expressions furnish a number of ques-
tions. Only those important for consideration of the
imagery will be surveyed here.3
Jobling has correctly estimated that "any light shed
on the meaning of dominion depends on how we understand the
imaqo Dei."4 To come to any certain understanding of imago
Dei requires study of the two terms "image" (Mlc)and "like-
ness" (tvmd). These terms have been variously interpreted.5
In fact the use of these terms in Genesis 1:26 has "already
been explored so thoroughly by biblical scholars that one may
1 Cf. the remarks of Charles Lee Feinberg, "The Image
of God," BSac 129 (July-September 1972) : 235.
2 Two examples of studies on the imago Dei are Jervell,
Imago Dei, and the outstanding collection of articles in Leo
Scheffczyk, ed., Der Mensch als Bild Gottes, Wege der Forsch-
ung, Band 124 (
1969). These only serve to indicate something of the much
larger body of literature written on the subject.
3 For studies on the history of imago Dei interpreta-
tion see James M. Childs, Jr., The Imago Dei and Eschatology:
The Ethical Implications of a Reconsideration of the Image of
God in Man Within the Framework of an Eschatoloqical Theology
(S.T.D. dissertation, Lutheran School of Theology at
1974;
18, 208, 1975), pp. 9-167 and G. D. Peterson, "The Imago Dei:
An Historical and Critical Examination," unpublished doctor of
philosophy dissertation,
4 IOTT, p. 26.
5 For a brief summary of ways these terms have been un-
derstood see R. G. Crawford, "The Image of God," ExpTim 77
(May 1966): 233-36. For a brief survey of the interpretations
of the imago Dei see D. J. A. Clines, "The Image of God in
Man," Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968): 54-61.
209
question whether any further significant observations can pos-
sibly be made."1 But the necessities of this study demand at
least a brief analysis.2
The term Mlc occurs seventeen times in the old Testa-
ment.3 The preponderance of these usages indicates a physical
representation [Num 33:52; 1 Sam 6:5 (twice), 11; 2 Kgs 11:18;
Ezek 7:20; 16:17; Amos 5:26; 2 Chr 23:171. And on another
occasion the term refers to a figure on which is a represen-
tation of what is physical (Ezek 23:14). In all these cases
referring to the physical, the term is found in construct
form, followed either by the object to which it has reference
or by a pronominal suffix. In light of these usages it ap-
pears that Mlc may be used without hesitation to refer to the
physical representation of a thing or person.
However, the term is used in the psalms to refer to
"fantasies" or "phantoms" (Ps 39:7; 73:20). But even in the
first passage the term is used in reference to the physical
(wyxi-j`l.,hat;yi Ml,c,B;-j`xa). Here the man walks about "as a dream-
image" (in light of lbh being paralleled with Mlc).4 Thus
1 J. Maxwell Miller, "In the 'Image' and 'Likeness' of
God," JBL 91 (September 1972): 289.
2 In fact, Ludwig Kohler, "Die Grundstelle der Imago-
Dei-Lehre, Genesis 1, 26," TZ 4 (1948): 17, wrote that "all
previous, further interpretation and application of the view
of the divine image of man (is) best-forwarded above all with
all exactness and inflexible rigor, whatever is asserted (as)
actual and original and exclusive . . . to the basic passage
of the Imago-Dei teaching." This translation is by the author.
3 Lisowsky, Konkordanz, p. 1219.
4 Taking the 1 as beth essentiae with Clines, "The
Image of God in Man," 74, note 103.
210
the passage might be taken to mean that as man goes about he
is essentially "an insubstantial will-o'-the wisp, which has
appearance and form, but not much else."1 The second of these
passages, 73:20, might legitimately be interpreted along these
lines: Those to be judged will be treated by the Lord as
images, as those of little account, as "dream-images."2
In light of these indications that Mlc may be used in
reference to the physical, one is struck that Mlc is used when
referring to one person representing another [Gen 1:26, 27
(twice); 5:3; 9:6]. Does the term have physical implications
here? In each of these five uses there is a preposition at-
tached (b in all but 5:3, then k). If one should omit the
Genesis 1:26-27 passage, there would be no hesitation in as-
signing to Mlc the idea of physical shape and form. Thus
Clines is quite correct in saying that "No example remotely
matches the meaning Ml,c, would have in Genesis 1:26 if it re-
ferred there to God's spiritual qualities or character, ac-
cording to the pattern of which man has been made.”3 Thus,
1 Ibid., 75. This is the same general conclusion of
Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2 Teilbande, 4., durchgesehene
and mit Literaturnachtragen erganzte Auflage, Biblischer Kom-
mentar, Altes Testament (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,
1972), p. 302, who says: "Der Mensch ist 71i1 ("Hauch," "Nich-
tigkeit"; vgl. Ps 62:10; 94:11; 144:4; Koh 1:2). Auch der
feststehende, aufrechte Mann is wie ein Nichts, wie ein Traum-
bild geht er dahin." Man is a "dream-image." For another
view see I. H. Eybers, "The Root S-L in Hebrew Words," JNSL 2
(1972): 30, who believes that in the case of Ps 39:7 "the He-
brew stem slm may conceivably be associated with the root , sl
('shadow, darkness')."
2 Cf. the similar remarks of Miller, "In the 'Image'
and 'Likeness' of God," 291, n. 5.
3 Clines, "The Image of God in Man," 75.
211
unless the use of Mlc with reference to God be the exception,
the term is rather concrete.
The cognates of Mlc lead one in the same direction.
As examples materials from Aramaic and Akkadian may be consi-
dered. Typically the root Mlc is understood in lexicons “to
be derived from a Semitic root Mlc, attested in Arabic salama
'to cut off.'"1 This view Eybers challenges.2 One of the
major arguments against the common view is that Arabic salamu
does not mean "image."3 Years ago (1886) Delitzsch in his
Prolegomena eines neuen Hebraisch-Armaischen (S. 140) had
proposed the Arabic: z alima (z alam, meaning "become
dark, to be dim" as a suitable root.4 But the probability of
such Arabic correlations has been challenged by Clines.5
Aramaic has a root Mlc meaning "image" or "statue."6
1 D. J. A. Clines, "The Etymology of Hebrew SELEM,"
JNSL 3 (1974): 19.
2 Eybers, "The Root S-L in Hebrew Words," 23ff. Cf.
also the helpful discussion on this point in Hans Wildberger,
"Das Abbild Gottes," TZ 21 (1965): 257-58.
3 Eybers, "The Root S-L in Hebrew Words," 31.
4 Cf. the remarks of Wildberger, "Das Abbild Gottes,"
251. Other interesting Arabic terms in this light are zalma
( ) "obscurity, dark," zulmat ( ) "darkness, obscurity,"
zalil ( ) "shady," and zill ( ) "a shadow" ; cf. Joseph
Catafago, An English and Arabic Dictionary (
Quaritch, 1858), pp. 154-55 for these brief definitions.
5 Clines, "The Etymology of Hebrew SELEM," 21-25.
6 See Gustaf H. Dalman, Aramaisch-Neuhebraisches Hand-
worterbuch zu Tar um Talmud and Midrasch (
Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1967), p. 364. Cf. also Jacob Levy,
Worterbuch uber die Talmudim and Midraschim, 3 Bande (Darm-
stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963), 3: 193-94
and the interesting occurrence of Mlc in 29B:16 in Joseph A.
Fitzmyer and Daniel J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian
212
The word is found
. . . on the stela for Sin-zer-ibni and for Agbar from
Herab. Here it does not mean statue, but image, and the
representation of the priest is suggested in the flat-
relief on the stela itself. However, it means statue in
two inscriptions from Hatra, and this same meaning has
the feminine salma in four additional inscriptions there
in the same place of discovery, the feminine form of the
substantive being utilized regularly where female persons
are depicted. It attracts notice that the Aramaic selem
(in certain respects salma) is utilized only in these in-
scriptions from Herab and Hatra. Otherwise (it) is called
stela, statue, monument in Aramaic nsb or even swt. Clear-
ly the Aramaic selem means statue in the Aramaic part of
the book of Daniel and likewise in Nabataean, Palmyrene,
and Old South Arabic.1
Of course, in Akkadian there is a wide usage of salmu.
Meanings for the term are "statue, relief, drawing, constel-
lation, figurine, bodily shape, stature, likeness."2 Here
only a few citations of pertinent sources are necessary. In a
letter sent to Iasmah-Addu3 (ARM 1:74:4) the term is used in
reference to the king: 20 MA.NA kaspam <ana> salmika uh-
huz[im] ("twenty minas of silver to plate your statue" 4). An-
other use of the term in reference to kings is found in ABL
257, reverse 5:5 salamani sa sarri . . . ina mubbi kigalli
Aramaic Texts, Biblica et Orientalia, no. 34 (
Institute Press, 1978), pp. 104-5.
1 Wildberger, "Das Abbild Gottes," 252. The translation
is by the author.
2 CAD, s, pp. 78-85.
3 For the cuneiform text of the entire letter see G.
Dossin, Textes Cuneiformes, Archives Royales de Mari, vol. 1
(Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1946), plates
94-96.
4 For this translation see CAD, S, p. 80.
5 For the cuneiform text see ABL, 1:259. Salamani, here
written XXXXX, is used in a way similar to the "royal
213
imittu sumeli usaza-azi ("I set up the statues of the king
right and left on a pedestal"1). A different application of
the term is found in ABL 6:17f.:2 abusu sa sarri belija salam
dEN su u sarru beli salam dEN-ma su (“the father of the king,
my lord, was the very image of Bel, and the king, my lord, is
likewise the very image of Bel"3). Clearly, these usages in-
dicate something in the direction of the physical and, as
well, a use of salmu that is attached to royal signification.
Wildberger, following F. M. Th. de Liagre Bohl, frankly admits
that in Sargon's age there is a clearly prominent presenta-
tion, "that of the king as the image (salmu) or even as the
outline (sillu) of the deity, to be especially precise, as of
the Sun-god Samas."4 In this light Wildberger explains the
problematic proverb of ABL 652, sil ili amelu usil ameli ameli
amelu sarru su ki mussuli sa ili.5 These few examples suffice
statues" (salam sarrani), written XXXXX
[text broken], in ABL 36, reverse 3; cf. ABL, 1:36.
1 For this translation see CAD, S, p. 81.
2 For the cuneiform text see ABL, 1:7, salam dEN read-
ing XXXXX
3 For this translation see CAD, S, p. 85.
4 Wildberger, "Das Abbild Gottes," 253. This transla-
tion is by the author.
5 For the cuneiform text see ABL, 3:702. The tran-
scription is that of Wildberger, "Das Abbild Gottes," 253. His
explanation (254) of this proverb is that "the writer first of
all quotes a proverb: 'The shadow of God is the sovereign (so
is amelu here rendered), and the shadow of the sovereign are
the remaining men.' And now the author acts moreover as a com-
mentator: 'Sovereign means (in this context) the king, which
is equal to the image (mussulu) of God.' The remainder would
read that the common men are images of the sovereigns. The
Akkadian mussulu corresponds to the sense quite in accord
214
to indicate the use to which salmu is put.1 Two remarks sum-
marize the direction which Mlc with its cognates takes. The
term is very concrete (physical) and is associated with royal
material and imagery.
A second term, attached to Mlc in Genesis 1:26, is
tvmd, meaning "pattern, shape" and being used twenty-five
times throughout the Old Testament.2 Of these times, on three
occasions it is used with the preposition k (Gen 1:26; Ps
58:5; Dan 10:16) and twice with the preposition b (Gen 5:1;
5:3). Of these usages there are two impressions. The first is
that because of the numerous usages in Ezekiel's visions the
term appears to be less concrete than Mlc. But closer analy-
sis indicates that even in those passages one is struck that
tvmd is used to correlate vision images with the likeness of
physical objects with which the reader would have been famil-
iar (cf. Ezek 1:22; 8:2; 10:21). And in one passage (23:14-
15) tvmd is used with Mlc to indicate the correspondence be-
tween image on a wall and actual Babylonian officers. (How-
ever, Ezek 1:28 may indicate a less concrete use in the words
with the Hebrew demut. The word will modify the conception
sillu which is undecided and not sufficiently apparent to the
writer. The passage is an excellent proof for the mediating
position which the king in Assur occupies between God and man.
If we have interpreted correctly the latter passage, then only
the sovereign (as may be the case the king), not the man after
all, can be called image of the deity." This translation is
by the author.
1 Cf. the remarks also of Kohler, "Die Grundstelle der
Imago-Dei-Lehre, Genesis 1, 26," 18. However, Kohler also in-
sists that the usage of selem indicates upright stance.
2 Lisowsky, Konkordanz, p. 367.
215
hvhy-dObk; tUmD;. Isa 13:4 is also a non-visual reference.)
A second impression about the Old Testament usage of
tvmd is that it, like Mlc, is also used in very concrete ways.
In 2 Kings 16:10 tvmd is used in the sense of "sketch" to de-
scribe what could be sent (Hlaw;y.iva) as a plan or pattern for
construction. A sketch sent for the construction of an ob-
ject is physical! 2 Chronicles 4:3 shows no hesitation in
using nine in reference to actual figures of bulls.
A general impression of tvmd in the Old Testament is
that it, though perhaps a broader term than Mlc, is used in a
rather concrete way.2 Cognate usage also bears out this gen-
eral impression. The Aramaic tvmd is used in the Talmud
(Y'bamoth) tvmdh Ffmm vlyxk, meaning "as though he diminished
the divine image (by neglecting the propagation of man)."3 A
more interesting usage is found in Targum Onkelos in Exodus
1 However, see the helpful remarks on this passage in
Miller, "In the 'Image' and 'Likeness' of God," 291-92.
2 Cf. the remark of ibid.: "Demut is a more abstract
term with a broader range of usage, but it too is normally
used in connection with visual similarities." To the same
effect John Piper, "The Image of God: An Approach from Bib-
lical and Systematic Theology," Studia Biblica et Theologica
1 (March 1971): 16-17 remarks: "The second important word,
demut, apart from the Genesis texts, has a greater flexibility
than selem. It is used in a concrete sense almost synony-
mously with selem, and in an abstract sense of resemblance.
Although the abstract quality is there, demut is used uniformly
in connection with a tangible or visual reproduction of some-
thing else. So again, as with selem, the usage of demut urges
us very strongly in the direction of a physical likeness."
3 Cited by Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Tar-
gumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic
Literature, 2 vols. in 1 (New York: The Judaica Press, 1975),
p. 312.
216
20:4: vmdlkv Mlc jl dybft xl.1 Here the prohibition is un-
derstood not to fashion an idol (Mlc) in the form or represen-
tation (vmd) of anything in the heavens, earth, or waters.
Clearly tvmd is used here in a concrete way along with Mlc.
The usage of tvmd in Deuteronomy 4:15 in Targum Onkelos should
also be compared with the usage in Exodus 20:4.2 The Syriac
dmwt' ( ) is also used in the sense of "form, figure,
pattern, image, reflection, likeness."3
In accord with these brief surveys of Mlc and tvmd one
may say that the terms themselves are rather concrete, the
latter term being a bit broader in scope. The usage of these
terms in Genesis 1:26-28 would seem to have reference to man
being in physical likeness to God.4 But before going further
1 Sperber, The-Pentateuch according to Tarqum Onkelos,
2 Cf. ibid., p. 297.
3 J. Payne Smith, ed., A Compendious Syriac Dictionary
(reprint;
4 For further discussion of the concept of imago Dei
and the use of n'y and nine see the following: James Barr,
"The Image of God in Genesis--Some Linguistic and Historical
Considerations," Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-
Afrika 10 (1967): 5-13; G. C. Berkouwer, Man the Image of God
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962); David
and Philosophy Series (
Exegetical Interaction," unpublished paper for Anthropology
and Hamartiology Seminar, Grace Theological Seminary, 1980;
Scheffczyk, ed., Der Mensch als Bild Gottes, pp. 77-87; Wil-
liam R. Eichhorst, "Man in the Image of God: Created and Re-
newed," unpublished doctor of theology dissertation, Grace
Theological Seminary, 1973; Joseph Fichtner, Man the Image of
God (New York: Alba House, 1978); W. Hess, "Imago Dei (Gen
1:26): Der Mensch als Bild Gottes," Erbe and Auftrag 29
(1953): 371-400; Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit,
Baker Biblical Monograph (
217
in this direction a brief word must be said about the use of
the prepositions in UnteUmd;Ki Unmel;caBa. Considerable discussion
has taken place over the use of b and k in this instance.1
The questions are numerous. Is the phrase to be understood
epexegetically? Is this a hendiadys? Are the two terms re-
ferring to completely different ideas? Are the prepositions
merely redundant or do they in fact indicate differing shades
of meaning? That there is some difficulty in answering these
questions is undoubtedly indicated by the insertion of a con-
junction by the LXX, Vulgate, and Samaritan Pentateuch.2 This
insertion may be understood simply as an epexegetical "even"
and need not necessarily reflect an effort to indicate a dis-
tinction between Mlc and tvmd.
Apparently, no essential distinction is intended in
the use of b and k for at least these few reasons. (1) The
terms to which these prepositions are attached have been shown
1980); A. R. C. Leaney, "Conformed to the Image of His Son
(Rom 8:29)," NTS 10 (-July 1964): 470-79; Oswald Loretz, "Der
Mensch als Ebenbil.d Gottes," Anima 19 (1964): 109-20; idem.,
Die Gotteben bildlichkeit des Menschen (
1967); S. V. McCasland, "'The Image of God' According to St.
Paul," JBL 69 (June 1950): 85-100; T. N. D. Mettinger, "Abbild
oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei' in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht,"
ZAW 86 (1974): 403-24; K. L. Schmidt, "Homo Imago Dei im Alten
and Neuen Testament," Eranos Jahrbuch 15 (1947): 149-95; Mor-
ton Smith, "The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of
Judaism," BJRL 40 (1958): 473-512; and Claus Westermann,
Creation, trans. John J. Scullion (
Press, 1974).
1 Cf. John F. A. Sawyer, "The Meaning of Myhilox< Ml,c,B;
('In the Image of God') in Genesis I-XI," JTS 25 (October
1974); 418-26 and T. N. D. Mettinger, "Abbild oder Urbild?
'Imago Dei' in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht," 406-8.
2 See above, pp. 198-200.
218
to admit of no appreciable distinction. (2) The prepositions
b and k, because of their broad usage (as standard grammars
attest), must be interpreted in light of context in an espe-
cially sensitive way.1 (3) The traditional reading of the He-
brew text with no conjunction included does not indicate in
an obvious manner any major distinctions between b and k. (4)
As Sperber has pointed out, 1 and 3 demonstrate some inter-
changeability as is evidenced in the Kethib and Qere readings
in Joshua 6:5; Judges 19:25; 1 Samuel 11:9; Jeremiah 36:23;
44:23; and Esther 3:4.2 (5) The possibility of major distinc-
tions in the prepositions as used in Genesis 1:26 (Unmel;caB;
UnteUmd;Ki) is argued against by the opposite arrangement in Gen-
esis 5:3 (Oml;caK; OtuUmdBi ).3 (6) While Mlc and tvmd are both
used in 1:26, the Biblical author has no hesitation in using
either only Mlcb (1:27 and 9:6) or tvmdb (5:1) to express the
notion of correspondence. (7) The LXX uses ei]kw<n to translate
both Mlc (Gen 1:26, 27) and tvmd (Gen 5:1).4
From these reasons and the cognate and Old Testament
usages of Ml,c, and tvmd a general picture emerges. The expres-
sion UnteUmd;Ki Unmel;caB; is in reality an emphatic assertion of a
1 Cf. the discussion of Craigen, "Mlc and tvmd: An
Exegetical Interaction," 16-19.
2 Alexander Sperber, A Historical Grammar of Biblical
Hebrew (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), p. 28-3.
3 However, there are some manuscripts that have vtvmdk
vmlcb at 5:3; cf. the critical apparatus.
4 Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to
the Septuagint, 2 vols. (
anstalt, 1954), 1:377.
219
physical correspondence.1 But how is this to be understood?
Does this mean, then, that God is corporeal? Such a view
would, of course, be inconsistent with the Old Testament.2
God. The imaging is not simply a reference to spiritual qual-
ities or decision-making abilities.3 Certainly these are in-
cluded. But the reference is more inclusive; it refers to
man in his totality. This conception fits very nicely with
the Hebrew understanding of man. Von Rad in summarizing the
imago Dei has well said:
The interpretations, therefore, are to be rejected which
proceed from an anthropology strange to the Old Testament
and one-sidedly limit God's image to man's spiritual na-
ture, relating it to man's "dignity," his "personality"
or "ability for moral decision," etc. The marvel of man's
bodily appearance is not at all to be expected from the
realm of God's image. This was the original notion, and
we have no reason to suppose that it completely gave way
. . . to a spiritualizing and intellectualizing tendency.
Therefore, one will do well to split the physical from the
spiritual as little as possible: the whole man is created
in God's image. . . . Man is like God in the way in which
he is called into existence, in the totality of his being.4
1 Cf. the remarks of H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Gen-
esis (Columbus, OH: The Wartburg Press, 1942), pp. 88-89.
However, the physical correspondence should not be understood
to mean "upright stature," a view suggested by Kohler, "Die
Grundstelle der Imago-Dei-Lehre, Genesis 1:26," 16-22.
2 The prohibition of Exod 20:4 suffices to demonstrate
this point.
3 As examples of this general perception see Philip F.
theology dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1974, pp.
85-88; Feinberg, "The Image of God," 235-46; John J. Davis,
4 Von Rad, Genesis, pp. 58-59.
220
This summary will suffice for purposes of analyzing
the dominion materials in Genesis 1:26-28.1 That task now
follows. After an evaluation of the dominion vocabulary, an
evaulation will be made of the relation of dominion to image.
hdr and wbk.
One is struck by the bold force of these words as they
are used in the Old Testament. The term (I) hdr,2 meaning
generally "to rule" [except in Joel 4:13 (ET 3:13) where it
means "to trample"], is used 23 times in the Old Testament.3
1 Certainly the plural pronominal suffixes attached to
Mlc and tvmd are important, but will be excluded for purposes
of this study, since their interpretation only incidentally
relates to the present investigation. On this matter compare
the helpful discussion of Kline, Images of the Spirit, pp. 27-
34 and the summary of views in
Dominion," pp. 66-68. However,
missed the notion of divine council. For further discussion
cf. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Genesis 1-11, Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, no. 8 (Shef-
field: Department of Biblical Studies, The University of
Chumash, Soncino Books of the Bible (
Press, 1947), pp. 6-7. Perhaps the most helpful summary is
that of Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Meaning of 'Let Us' in Gn 1:26,"
Andrews University Seminary Studies 13 (Spring 1975): 65 who
concludes (a conclusion this writer shares): "The inadequa-
cies of the suggestions already discussed lead us to suggest
that the plural in the phrase 'let us' (Gn 1:26) is a plural
of fullness. This plural supposes that there is within the
divine Being the distinction of personalities, a plurality
within the deity, a 'unanimity of intention and plan.' In
other words, a distinction in the divine Being with regard to
a plurality of persons is here represented as a germinal idea.
Thus the phrase 'let us' expresses through its plural of full-
ness an intra-divine deliberation among 'persons' within the
divine Being." This also avoids the error of finding an ex-
plicit reference to the Trinity in the words "let us" (ibid.,
66).
2 Also (II) hdr, meaning "to scrape," is used three
times [Judg 14:9 (twice); Jer 5:31].
3 Lisowsky, Konkordanz, p. 1318.
221
However, of these uses two [Ps 68:28 (ET 68:27) and Lam 1:13]
are open to question because of variants. There is some in-
dication that Mdero in Psalm 68:28 should be read as coming in-
stead from hdr. The variants in Lamentations 1:13 are more
weighty and indicate that instead of hdr, the root dry should
be read.1 Apart from these two passages there remain 21 Old
Testament uses of hdr. In 20 of these it means "to rule"
(excepting Joel 4:13).
Analysis of these uses indicates the following. While
the term itself certainly does include the idea of decisive
rule, the term does not necessarily picture harshness (cf. the
added jrpb in Lev 25:43, 46,.53 and Jxb in Isa 14:6). Atti-
tudinal connotations are supplied by the context (cf. Ezek
34:4 as an example). Therefore hdr can just as easily be used
to describe appropriate supervisory work initiated by the cen-
tral government [cf. 1 Kgs 5:30 (ET 5:16); 9:23; 2 Chron 8:10].
A second conclusion about the use of the term is that its use
is widely scattered (occurring in Gen, Lev, Num, 1 Kgs, Isa,
Ezek, Joel, Ps, Neh, and 2 Chron).
Furthermore, the context in which the term finds em-
ployment is noteworthy. The term is very much at home in re-
gal contexts in which some degree of the absence or presence
of restorative justice (cosmic blessing) is emphasized. Espe-
cially striking in this case is Psalm 72:8. Verse 1 announces:
"Endow the king with your justice (Fpwm), 0 God, the royal son
1 Cf. the brief discussion of Delbert R. Hillers, Lam-
entations, AB (
1972), p. 11.
222
with your righteousness (hqdc)." Thereafter follows a charac-
terization of what this sort of rule entails (vv 2ff.). The
domain of such rule (hdr) is from sea to sea (v 8). In vary-
ing degrees the term's use is found in passages emphasizing
more the regal aspect [Lev 26:17; Num 24:19; 1 Kgs 5:4 (ET
4:24), 30 (ET 5:16); 9:23; Isa 14:2, 6; 41:2; Ezek 29:15, 34:4;
Ps 110:2; Neh 9:28; 2 Chron 8:10].1 Other times the absence
or presence of restorative justice is more prominent in the
general context [Lev 25:43, 46, 53; Ps 49:15 (ET 49:14) in
light of an attempt to answer a question of injustice].2 But
1 Cf. the similar conclusions of Claus Westermann, Gen-
esis 1-11, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, Band 1/1
(Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), p. 218, and James
Dialogue 10 (1972): 222.
2 Several remarks are noteworthy about Ps 49:15. The
first is the analysis of the riddle (v 5); cf. the discussion
of Leo G. Perdue, "The Riddles of Psalm 49," JBL 93 (December
1974): 533-42. However, his conclusion that the psalmist's
hope for escaping death is because he possesses "secret wisdom
concerning the mysteries of life and death" is unwarranted in
light of the Old Testament's resoluteness on the importance of
piety. That the Psalm in general is alluding to injustice
seems evident. As
12, 20)," VT 28 (July 1978): 361 remarks: "The psalmist is
here protesting against man's lack of articulateness in the
face of apparent injustices and follows up the thought he ex-
presses at the beginning of the psalm: 'Hear all you people
. . . I will speak wisdom and express intelligent thoughts
. . . Why should I be afraid?', and he concludes: 'Man is too
inarticulate (or too timid) to speak his mind. He has no un-
derstanding. He is like the dumb animals."' With respect to
Ps 49:15 even the regal imagery may be present if one follows
Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, 5:249: "It may be asked, what
that dominion is which the upright shall eventually obtain?
I would reply, that as the wicked must all be prostrated be-
fore the Lord Jesus Christ, and made his footstool, His mem-
bers will share in the victory of their Head. It is indeed
said, that he 'will deliver up the kingdom to God, even the
Father,' but he will not do this that he may put an end to his
Church, but 'that God may be all in all' (1 Cor XV. 24)."
223
in keeping with the above findings on Israelite royal ideology
one would not expect the one of these emphases (regal and re-
storative justice) to be far removed from a context in which
the other is emphasized.1
Therefore, in the use of hdr in Genesis 1:26-28 there
is a term that is readily employed in the Old Testament record
in contexts of rule associated with kingship and of justice
issuing from that kingship. In general terms, the cognates do
not alter this usage. The Aramaic hdr is used in the sense of
"to rebel, to chastise (a teacher who punishes his pupil, Mac-
coth, II, 2), to subjugate, rule, govern."2 On several occa-
sions, when employed in this latter sense, the term is used to
comment on the Genesis 1:26-28 passage.3 If there is any un-
expected tendency present in the use of the Aramaic hdr, it is
that the term is a bit more forceful in usage than its Hebrew
counterpart. The Arabic root , though having a rather
wide range of meanings, can mean "to beat, pound (the ground),"
even "to dash against."4 (There is also the Arabic root ,
meaning "repell, turn back, prevail," corresponding to the
1 Cf. supra, pp. 168-82.
2 Cf. Jastrow, A Dictionary, p. 1451.
3 Ibid. Cf. this use in M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silber-
mann, trans., Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and
Rashi's Commentary: Genesis (
Company, n.d.), p. 7.
4 Cf. the illustrations cited by
Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 parts, book 1 (
and Norgate, 1867;
1956), 3:1071-73.
224
Hebrew hdr).1 The Syriac root while meaning "to travel,
proceed, continue, derive," can also mean "to instruct, chas-
tise," obviously a less forceful term. 2
The other major dominion vocabulary word in Genesis
1:26-28 is wbk. The term is used 14 times,3 and in each in-
stance the idea of force is very much present. Usage of the
term in Esther 7:8 ("to molest") indicates the violence which
can be implied in the term. But this is a unique usage.
Other uses, however, certainly indicate force in subjugating
others to slavery [Jer 34:11 (read with Qere as Qal), 16; Neh
5:5 (twice); 2 Chron 28:10], in subduing foreign peoples (Num
32:22, 29; Josh 18:1; 2 Sam 8:11; 1 Chron 22:18), and in God
causing his host to overcome (Zech 9:15) or causing sins to be
trodden underfoot (Mic 7:19, here paralleled by "hurl," jlw).
In light of these uses several observations are per-
tinent. The very term itself may indicate violent force (Est
7:8) but this usage is uncommon. In nearly every case the un-
derstanding of the nature and degree of the force is supplied
by the context. For example, the force required to subjugate
foreign peoples is still "force" but the nature and degree of
that force is determined by the attendant military-political-
economic actualities of a given situation. Furthermore, in a
number of cases, as is indicated by the context, the term is
employed in a setting of restorative justice, the presence or
1 Ibid., 3:1061-64.
2 Payne, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, pp. 529-30.
3 Lisowsky, Konkordanz, pp. 664.
225
absence of cosmic blessing (cf. Jer 34:11, 16; Mic 7:19; Neh
5:5; 2 Chron 28:10). In three instances (2 Sam 8:11; Zech
9:15; 1 Chron 22:18) the context connotes a royal imagery.
Therefore, the term may be summarized as one indicating force-
ful willing of one over another. But to argue that the term
itself implies violence is not necessarily so. The context
must determine this.
The cognates of wbk generally indicate a similar us-
age. Aramaic wbk, while meaning simply "to press, squeeze,"
may also mean "to suppress, restrain, conquer," this latter
usage being found in the Y'rushalmi Succah, V, 55: "Instead
of conquering (wbkm) the barbarians, come and subdue (wvbkv)
the Jews."1 The Arabic root at times meaning "to
cover with earth, to squeeze, press," may also be used in
reference "to putting one's head into a garment, to throwing
oneself upon a thing without consideration," or even "to mak-
ing a sudden attack with the purpose of surrounding."2 How-
ever, more forcefulness is demonstrated in the usage of the
Syriac root , meaning "to tread down, subdue, bring into
subjection, conquer, pilfer, crush, break up."3
From analysis of these cognates one is given the gen-
eral impression that the Hebrew (and certainly the Syriac)
represent that narrower spectrum of the, semantic field of the
root kbs, while Aramaic and Arabic demonstrate the spectrum
1 Cf. Jastrow, A Dictionary, p. 610.
3 Cf. Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, p. 204.
226
in its fullness. This fact, along with the conclusions reached
about Old Testament usage should caution against any view that
the mere appearance of wbk) in Genesis 1:26-28 requires one to
understand a violent subjugation. Such a connotation would
need to be present in the context. In Genesis 1:26-28 the
connotation is lacking. But certainly the idea of forceful
(not wanton) willing of one over another is implied.1
To complete this survey of the dominion material in
Genesis 1:26-28 several important questions need to be an-
swered. The first question concerns what relation the domin-
ion has to the imago Dei. Some, as Asselin, have argued that
Genesis 1:26 teaches that dominion is the explanation of image:
The verse contains two statements. First, Adham is some-
how a special reflection of Elohim. Second, man is given
dominion over the rest of creation. In brief, it is our
contention that the second is an explanation of the first.
. . . man is God's image because he shares God's power and
dominion over creation.2
But there is suspicion that this view does not adequately ex-
plain the two ideas. Image refers to being, an existence as
or in something (appropriately, this spherical indication is
1 Cf. the conclusion of George W. Coats, "The God of
Death," Journal of Bible and Theology 29 (July 1975): 229, who
argues that the primary focus of dominion terminology is not
rule but productivity: "The focus falls on fruitful produc-
tivity, not destructive over-production or exploitation; on
use of power for particular ends, not unlimited power, on life,
not death." For further discussion on hdr and wbk see Norbert
Lohfink, "Macht euch die Erde untertan?" Orientierung 38 (1974):
138-39. For a general discussion of the dominion imagery of
Gen 1:26-28 see Helen Schungel-Straumann, "Macht euch die Erde
untertan?" Katechetische Blatter 101 (1976): 319-32.
2 David Tobin Asselin, "The Notion of Dominion in Gen-
esis 1-3," CBQ 16 (July 1954): 282.
227
given in the use of the prepositions k and b). But dominion
refers to action (hdr and wbk could hardly be construed other-
wise), doing, not being. Certainly there is a correlation be-
tween being and doing but the correlation cannot be that of
identification. Apple trees and apples are not identical,
though a correlation exists between them.
If image refers to the totality of man's being and
dominion refers to man's doing, then the correlation of the
two would be that one is the consequence of the other. Domin-
ion is a consequence of the imago Dei. So Von Rad concludes
that "this commission to rule is not considered as belonging
to the definition of God's image; but it is its consequence,
i.e. that for which man is capable because of it."1 Years ago
Delitzsch had offered the same conclusion.2
Answering a second question is also necessary in con-
cluding this survey of the dominion material in Genesis 1:26-
28. Are there any indications about the manner in which the
subduing is to occur? It has already been argued above that
hdr and wbk are terms of activity, not of state or being. This
fact appears to indicate that subduing is precisely a human
activity done with respect to that over which man was given
rule. Such activity, therefore, would be continuing. As Wes-
termann has correctly noted, the very use of jrb indicates
1 Von Rad, Genesis, p. 59. Cf. the similar conclusion
of IOTT, p. 26.
2 Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, trans.
Sophia Taylor (Edinburgh T. & T.
100.
228
that God is not merely establishing a status quo.1 Rather,
the blessing is a force, an energizing activity. A similar
focus on dominion as continuing activity is implied in the ex-
pression in 1:28: Cr,xAhA-tx, Uxl;miU Ubr;U UrP;. "Although you are
only two, yet, through your fruitfulness and increase, your
descendants will fill the land and subdue it."2 Clear impli-
cation is given here of "an ongoing historical process," per-
haps even a "looking toward the future."3 The context does
not allow violence to be the disposition of the rule (hdr and
wbk) .
A third question now is obvious: Over what is this
dominionizing activity done? Without including any variants,4
the Hebrew text cites two lists:
wmerohA Wm,r,hA lkAb;U Cr,xAhA-lkAb;U hmAheB;baU MyimawA.ha JOfb;U MyA.ha tgd;bi 1:26
:Cr,xAhA-lfa
:Cr,xAhA-lfa tw,m,rohA hyAHa-lkAb;U Myimaw.Aha JOfb;U My.Aha tgad;Bi 1:28
From these two lists there is no doubt that man is to engage
in subduing the animal kingdom. But to say as much does not
exhaust the two lists. Omitting the Syriac insertion for which
there is no other supporting testimony,5 the inclusive nature
of that over which man rules is indicated by Cr,xAhA-lkAb;U (1:26).
The dominion is cosmos wide. This is further suggested by the
1 Westermann, Genesis 1-11, p. 222.
2 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, part
1, 1st English ed., trans.
Magnes Press, The
3 IOTT, p. 26.
4 Cf. above, pp. 198-201.
5 Cf. above, p. 200.
229
trilogy of 1:28 (sea, air, ground).1
Interpretive field
In light of the above study an interpretive field
within which the dominion material of Genesis 1:26-28 must be
viewed begins to emerge. In 1:28 there is clear indication of
a summary of the three relations in which man stands.2 The
declaration that man is made in the "image and likeness" of
God addresses the subject of man's relation to God. In his
totality (physical, spiritual, etc.) man possesses correspon-
dence to his Creator.3 Further, Genesis 1:28 addresses (at
least in an indirect way) man's relation to others in the
words "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." Man's
multiplication requires societal structuring.4 Moreover, Gen-
esis 1:28 clearly entertains man's relationship to the cosmos,
he is to "subdue" it and to "rule" it.5 This subduing has a
forward look since it is man's ongoing activity.6
Man is thus suspended in relationships. Macrocosmi-
cally he is under his Creator and over the cosmos. Microcos-
mically he is under some person and over others as he multi-
1 Cf. Loren R. Fisher, eds., Ras Shamra Parallels, 2
vols., AnOr, no. 49 (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum,
1972), 1:356-57 for discussion of the word pair My and Mymw.
2 Cf. above, pp. 116-32.
3 Cf. above, pp. 207-21
4 Cf. above, pp. 122-27.
5 Cf. above, pp. 227-28.
6 Cf. ibid.
230
plies and engages in the ongoing historical activity of subdu-
ing. Just here the interaction of royal ideology, apocalyptic
imagery, and societal hierarchical structuring emerge. Ear-
lier, the royal usage of hdr and wbk was indicated.1 These
terms clearly show that man was appointed to rule over the
cosmos. Thus, as
provides the model for understanding the man/earth-and-its-
creatures relationship as portrayed in Gen. 1:26-28."2 But as
ruler over the earth man is to do it good not harm.3 He force-
fully directs it, however, so that he pleases his Creator. In
a word, he is to practice beneficence to what is under him and
loyalty to the one over him.4 The activity of man when done
in loyalty to his Creator means continued well-being for crea-
tion. When man moves in disobedience to his Creator, there is
an absence of well-being in creation (Gen 3:7-24).
The activity of man within creation is restricted only
by his relationship to his Creator. Thus Genesis 1:26-28 in-
dicates man's rule is over "all the earth." Exactly what is
this activity? Since Genesis 1 does not restrict it, appar-
ently all of man's activity with respect to the cosmos is in-
cluded, the very activity defined earlier as culture.5 Man is
1 Cf. above, pp. 223ff.
2
the Earth'?," 222.
3 Cf. above, pp. 188-94.
4 Cf. above, pp. 193-94.
5 Cf. above, pp. 134-40.
231
bound to do culture because he is placed by the Creator in re-
lation to the cosmos and his Creator. Given all of these
analyses and definitions Genesis 1:26-28 does deal explicitly
with cultural activity. It does so, however, only in the most
general way, a way very much in keeping with Scripture's gen-
eral disposition to give an authoritative interpretation of
naive experience.1
With this appraisal of Genesis 1:26-28 in hand, there
remains the task of surveying the remaining explicit Old Tes-
tament dominion passages, Genesis 9:1, 7 and Psalm 8:6-10.
Genesis 9:1, 7
Upon first reading, these verses do not appear to be
an explicit reference to dominion ideas. Rather, they appear
to avoid purposely any reference to dominion language. How-
ever, two textual matters warrant discussion of these passages.
But the nature of these variants is such that only a brief
treatment of these two verses is required. The Hebrew text
of these two verses reads:
Uxl;miU Ubr;U UrP; Mh,lA rm,xyo.va vynABA-tx,v; Hano-tx, Myhilox< j`r,bAy;va l
B A :Cr,xAhA-tx,
:h.bA-Ubr;U Cr,xAbA Ucr;wi Ubr;U UrP; MT,xav; 7
Textual Variants
As already indicated, the variants that concern this
discussion are two, marked out above by the inclusion of capi-
tal letters "A" and "B" in the Hebrew text.
A. At the end of 9:1 the LXX inserts kai> katakurieu<-
1 Cf. above, pp. 108-11.
232
sate au]th?j ("and subdue it"). This is a lone reading since
the Targum Onkelos (reading xgs, "to increase," instead of
hbr),1 Samaritan Pentateuch,2 Arabic,3 Syriac,4 and Vulgate5
do not include the insertion. The LXX no doubt included the
insertion in order to follow more fully the phraseology of the
Hebrew in 1:28: Cr,xAhA-tx, Uxl;miU Ubir;U UrP;. But the strength of
the testimony of the LXX is weakened by the silence of other
corroborating testimony. Perhaps one can say of the LXX read-
ing only that it offers the possibility that the intended im-
plication of the Hebrew was not to deny purposely Noah and
his sons any such dominion.
B. A slight question has been raised about the read-
ing of Ub;rU in 9:7. As Westermann acknowledges, many commen-
tators read vdrv instead of vbrv,6 although certainly not all.
The LXX reads vdrv, thus translating kai> katakurieu<sate au]th?j.
This is the reading followed by several translations, The New
English Bible, The New American Bible, and The
Bible. However, against this reading stand the same witnesses
as stood against the insertion of 9:1, namely Targum Onkelos,7
1 Cf. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 1:12.
2 Cf. HPS, p. 13.
3 Cf. BSP, p. 35.
4 Cf. ibid., p. 34.
5 Cf. Ibid.
6 Westermann, Genesis 1-11, pp. 616-17. His transla-
tion of 9:7 reads as vdrv (herrscht). Cf. also the critical
apparatus of BHS.
7 Cf. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 1:13.
233
Samaritan Pentateuch,1 Arabic,2 Syriac,3 and Vulgate.4 Against
such witnesses it is difficult to accept the reading vdrv. Un-
doubtedly,
hand, it is difficult to argue that dominion is totally absent
from Genesis 9.5
These realities make extensive treatment of the pas-
sage unnecessary except to raise one question: Does the si-
lence of Genesis 9:1, 7 in mentioning directly the dominion
vocabulary demonstrate that the dominion granted man origi-
nally was lost following the fall?
Literary context
The most obvious contextual reality about Genesis 9:1,
7 is that the material is post-fall. That event brought a
change in man's relation to his Creator, others, and the cos-
mos (Gen 3-4). As von Rad says, "What God's address takes
simply for granted is a severe disruption and degeneration of
very good.'"6
A second reality in the context concerns God's cove-
nant with Noah.7 This agreement reassures man that he must
1 Cf. HPS, p. 13.
2 Cf. BSP, p. 35.
3 Cf. ibid., p. 34.
4 Cf. ibid.
5 Cf. the remarks of IOTT, pp. 28-29 and von Rad, Gene-
sis, pp. 130-33.
6 Ibid., pp. 130-31.
7 Ibid., pp. 130ff., argues that Gen 9 is a series of
doubtedly, textual emendation is not necessary.
234
persist in being fruitful and multiplying (9:1). First, dras-
tic changes did not rescind the blessing of 1:28. Even through
agony (3:16) the propagation still must be carried out by the
race. Even though man's degradation was extreme and subse-
quently judged (6:5-7), the command of 1:28 was still to be
practiced. Second, 9:2-4 indicates that "man's vocation of
power over the animals is renewed."1 This is stated most
graphically by the use of the objective pronominal suffixes
attached to "fear" and "dread" (Mk,T;Hiv; Mk,xEraOmU).2 Third, 9:5-6
stresses the strong legal tone of the covenant by the citation
of the cause which prohibits the taking of life (Myhilox< Mk,c,B; yKi
MdAxAhA-tx, hWAfA).
However, there is a third contextual reality about the
passage, namely what Wenham calls "an extended palistrophe,
that is a structure that turns back on itself."3 The pali-
answers to theological questions raised by violence and kill-
ing in the communal life of the creatures. But to argue that
this is purely priestly theological reflection does not do
justice to the historical nature of the God-Noah encounter.
1 Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, p. 282.
2 Cf. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, p. 23.
3 Gordon J. Wenham, "The Coherence of the Flood Narra-
tive," VT 28 (July 1978): 337. Wenham follows the reminder of
Francis I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (The
Hague: Mouton & Co., 1974), p. 40, who says; "But if the text
is left as it is, and its grammatical structure is taken seri-
ously as serving artistic purposes, more positive conclusions
about the integrity of a passage and the solemnity of its style
are possible. Sentences from the Flood Epic used in the pres-
ent chapter cut across passages generally assigned to the 'J'
and 'P' documents. . . . This means that if the documentary
hypothesis is valid, some editor has put together scraps of
parallel versions of the same story with scissors and paste,
and yet has achieved a result which, from the point of view of
discourse grammar, looks as if it has been made out of whole
cloth."
235
strophe which shows Genesis 6:10-9:19 to be a highly struc-
tured and artistic piece is as follows:
A Noah (6:10a)
B Shem, Ham and Japheth (10b)
C
D Flood announced (17)
E Covenant with Noah (18-20)
F Food in the ark (21)
G Command to enter ark (7:1-3)
H 7 days waiting for flood (4-5)
I 7 days waiting for flood (7-10)
J Entry to ark (11-15)
K Yahweh shuts Noah in (16)
L 40 days flood (17a)
M Waters increase (17b-18)
N Mountains covered (19-20)
O 150 days waters prevail [(21)-24]
P GOD REMEMBERS NOAH (8:1)
0' 150 days waters abate (3)
N' Mountain tops visible (4-5)
M' Waters abate (5)
L' 40 days (end of) (6a)
K' Noah opens window of ark (6b)
J' Raven and dove leave ark (7-9)
I' 7 days waiting for waters to subside (10-11)
H' 7 days waiting for waters to subside (12-13)
G' Command to leave ark [15-17(22)]
F' Food outside ark (9:1-4)
E' Covenant with all flesh (8-10)
D' No flood in future (11-17)
C'
B' Shem, Ham and Japheth (18b)
A' Noah (19)1
This is a most interesting, if not totally symmetrical, analy-
sis of the text. Two points are cogent for present purposes.
The first is that the palistrophe shows the general organizing
thought of the structure to be "God remembers Noah." The sec-
ond, noted by Anderson, who developed a shorter palistrophe
than the more elaborate one above, is that the first part of
the account "represents a movement toward chaos," whereas "the
1 Wenham, "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative," 338.
236
second part represents a movement toward the new creation."1
If this general literary structuring of the passage
(6:10-9:19) be accepted, then the intention of the Biblical
material in 9:1, 7 is other than merely to repeat each element
of Genesis 1. Rather, it is to show that in God's remembrance
provision was made by the sovereign God for the ongoing of his
creation after its judgment. Those relations of Genesis 1:26-
28 are repeated in Genesis 9:lff. Man still stands in rela-
tion to God ("image," 9:6), to others (9:5-6), and to the cos-
mos (only animals, 9:2-4, are selected since this inclusion
fits the purpose of the overall literary structure of the pas-
sage, the animals being preserved with Noah in the ark).
Examination of dominion material and interpretive field
These two may be briefly summarized together since the
variant readings have been excluded. Now the question raised
1 Bernhard W.
The Interpretation of Genesis 1-11," JBL 97 (March 1978): 38.
While
too heavily freighted, his general point is well taken. His
shortened palistrophe is as follows (38):
Transitional introduction (6:9-10)
1. Violence in God's creation (6:11-12)
2. First divine address: resolution to destroy (6:13-22)
3. Second divine address: command to enter the ark
(7:1-10)
4. Beginning of the flood (7:11-16)
5. The rising flood waters (7:17-24)
GOD'S REMEMBRANCE OF NOAH
6. The receding flood waters (8:1-5)
7. The drying of the earth (8:6-14)
8. Third divine address: command to leave the ark
(8:15-19)
9. God's resolution to preserve order (8:20-22)
10. Fourth divine address: covenant blessing and peace
(9:1-17)
Transitional conclusion (9:18-19)
237
earlier1 can be entertained: Does the silence of Genesis 9:1,
7 in mentioning directly the dominion vocabulary demonstrate
that the dominion granted man originally was lost at the fall?
In a word, the answer is "no" and for these reasons. There is
some doubt when any given argument is based upon silence. Once
Scripture has said man is given the task of dominionizing ac-
tivity, one assumes its continued existence unless explicitly
told otherwise. Additionally, in keeping with the structural
purpose of 6:10-9:19, a full development of dominion language
and imagery is not necessary. But that portion of the domin-
ion that is necessary for the writer's purpose (9:2-4) is in-
cluded. And this inclusion assures man that the dominion is
intact. Thus, there is a continuity between pre- and post-fall
periods. Hence, there is no surprise in discovering that the
central structural theme in 6:10-9:19 is that "God remembered."
Moreover, the post-fall material contains a repetition
of the idea of image (5:1, 3 and 9:6). The passage in 1:26-28
seems to tie together inextricably image and dominion, the lat-
ter being the consequence of the former. If there were alter-
ation in the image, one would expect corresponding alteration
in the other. But would he in this case expect obliteration
of the dominion? A further consideration makes such oblitera-
tion most unlikely. If dominion in 1:26-28 was correctly de -
fined'as describing man's essential relationship to creation
(formative activity within God's world with respect to con-
crete things), then surely one could account for alteration
1 Cf. above, p. 233.
238
in that relationship following the fall. Indeed, such is the
case (3:7ff.). But to speak of the dominion as totally lost
is to say man is without relationship to creation. Such a
notion is inconceivable.1
Psalm 8:6-102
Here there is an explicit reference to man's dominion,
as the following Hebrew text indicates.
:UhreF;faT; rdAhAv; dObkAv; Myhilox<me Ffam; Uhres;HaT;va 6
:vylAg;ra-tHata hTAw; lko j~yd,yA yWefEmaB; Uhleywim;TA 7
:ydAWA tOmhEBa Mgav; Ml.AKu MypilAxEva hn,co 8
:Mym.iya tOHr;xA rbefo MyAy.ha yged;U MyimawA rOpcoi 9
:Cr,xAhA-lkAB; j~m;wi ryDixa-hmA UnynedoxE hvhy 10
This remarkable psalm3 with lofty praise has been beset by a
number of suggested textual emendations and vying interpretive
opinions. Considerable exegetical and theological literature
has therefore grown up around the psalm.
Textual Variants
The hope here is not to entertain all the emendations
1 Thus Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, 1:290 correctly
says of Gen 9:2: "He now also promises that the same domin-
ion shall continue."
2 As examples of articles on Ps 8 see Vinzenz Hamp, "Ps
8, 2b.3," BZ 16 (1972): 115-20; J. du Preeze, "Bible Study on
Psalm 8: A Prayer of Praise on the Glory and Greatness of God,"
NGTT 14 (1973): 206-13; Henning Graf Reventlow, "Der psalm 8,"
Poet 1 (1967) : 304-32; Helmer Ringgren, "Psalm 8 och kristo
login," SEA 36 (1972) : 16-20; J. A. Soggin, "Textkritische
Untersuchung von Ps. VIII vv. 2-3 and 6," VT 21 (1971): 565-
71; and Mary Tanner, "Psalm 8:1-2," Th 69 (1966): 492-96.
Other treatments of Ps 8 will be noted as the discussion
develops.
3 For a discussion of the stichometry of Ps 8 see Oswald
Loretz, "Die Psalmen 8 and 67," UF 8 (1976) : 117-21.
239
and readings that have been suggested.1 The principal concern
is to note any variants which might alter the meaning of espe-
cially 8:7-9. Happily the text of 8:7-9 is quite stable. The
variants are so minor in nature as to exclude any lengthy men-
tion of them. Only two are noteworthy. These are indicated
above by the letters "A" and "B" inserted in the Hebrew text.
A. The LXX (kai>), Vulgate (et), Syriac (o), and Ara-
bic ( ) all insert the conjunction at the beginning of 8:7.2
Accordingly BHS recommends the reading in the critical appa-
ratus. However, the Targum does not include the conjunction.3
Even if the reading were accepted (it is not at all clear that
it should be), the meaning of the dominion material in Psalm 8
would be unaltered.
B. Dahood suggests that the initial hn,co ("flock") of
verse 8 should be read as coming from Nxc ("small cattle")
plus the archaic accusative ending.4 In this way all domestic
cattle, both small (hnxc) and great (Myplx), would be included
in the general category of animals to which the psalmist re-
fers.5 Certainly such a reading is not foreign to the passage
1 For a survey of a number of those suggested see
Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 2 vols., ICC
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1914), 1:61-67 and
Mitchell Dahood, Psalms, 3 vols., AB (
day & Company, Inc., 1966), 1:49-52.
2 Cf. BSP, 3:94-95.
3 Cf. ibid., 3:94.
4 Dahood, Psalms, 1:51.
5 Ibid. According to Dahood this usage would be a par-
allel expression to UT 51:VI 40-43. For an English translation
240
(cf. 8:7). However, acceptance or rejection of the reading
does not alter the essential interpretation of the passage.
Literary context
The correlation of verses 7-9 to Genesis 1:26-28 is
evident.1 As might be expected, verses 7-9 and their setting
within the psalm do not celebrate the glory of nature as such.
Rather, the focus falls on "the glory and majesty of
God who is the Lord of all that is created."2 God's glorifi-
cation is immediately secured in the psalm (8:2: UnynedoxE hvhy
j~m;wi ryDixa-hmA).3 What occasions this praise is most instruc-
tive. It is not "the effortless control by which God ruled his
of UT 5:VI see Gordon, Ugaritic Literature, p. 35. The trans-
lation reads: "He slaughters great [and] small cattle, he
fells oxen [and] ram-fatlings." The Ugaritic words translated
"great [and] small cattle" are alpm sin, an indication of the
totality by reference to two contrasting parts (merism). For
the transliterated text see Gordon, Textbook, p. 172, and his
definition of alpm and sin, pp. 359 (no. 200) and 472 (no.
2137).
1 Briggs and Briggs, Psalms, 1:61. Cf. also the re-
marks of Bernhard W. Anderson, "Human Dominion Over Nature,"
in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought, ed. Miriam Ward
(Burlington, VT: Trinity College Biblical Institute, 1975),
p. 36; however, he sees at least one major dissimilarity be-
tween the Gen 1 and Ps 8 passages: "The clearest evidence of
the independence of Psalm 8 is the motif of the coronation of
Man: 'with glory and honor you have crowned him.' Here there
is no suggestion that Man's dominion is based upon a divine
blessing that empowers him to multiply and subdue the earth
as in the priestly story (Gen 1:28). Rather, Man's dominion
over the earth is the consequence of Yahweh's elevating him to
royal position." One wonders, however, if
tion between Yahweh's elevation to royalty and Yahweh's bles-
sing is possible or even necessary.
2 Huppenbauer, "God and Nature in the Psalms," 20; cf.
Kraus, Psalmen, 1:67.
3 Cf. the remark of Julian Morgenstern, "Psalms 8 and
19A," HUCA 19 (1945-1946): 499-500, that "this glory and dig-
nity of man but emphasize all the more the supremacy and al-
241
world," nor "the magnitude of the accomplishment of creation,"
nor "even to describe the harmony of the product."1 Rather,
it is man's position within creation (cf. 8:4ff.) that elicits
this praise.2
But how does consideration of man's exalted role yield
in praise toward God? The psalmist develops his answer in this
way. As man considers the magnitude and splendor of God's
creation, man is gripped by his insignificance, his frailty
(cf. 8:4-5). The heavens, moon, and stars dwarf man (wOnx< )
yet the psalmist recognizes they are all products of God's cre-
ative act. What is remarkable to the mind of the psalmist is
the vastness of the creation and the amazing role God has given
seemingly frail man as lord over this creation. Here is the
clash in the psalmist's mind: "that man is lord of the crea-
tion and his recognition of the vastness of the creation."3
Such a clash, however, does not result in an expression of
skepticism in Psalm 8. Instead, the clash issues in praise
because the psalmist's thoughts are encapsulated by the cove-
nant faith (cf. 8:2, the vocative expression UnynedoxE hvhy).4
most incomprehensible transcendence of God. This is the major
theme of this magnificent psalm. The relatively exalted posi-
tion of man in the universe according to the divine plan, is
only a secondary theme."
1 Brevard S. Childs, "Psalm 8 in the Context of the
Christian Canon," Int 23 (1969): 21.
2 Cf. ibid.
3 Ibid., 22.
4 However, cf. the remarks of Morgenstern, "Psalms 8
and 19A," 495-96, n. 6, concerning vnyndx hvhy that "in this
composite term, hvhy is used no longer as the proper name of
242
personal faith wrought by divine grace causes the clash to
issue in praise not skepticism.1 The Old Testament itself ad-
dresses this problem of man as lord over creation and man as
sensitized to his frailties by the vicissitudes of life.2
Without recognition of these ideas about the literary
context, the dominion material as treated by this psalm can-
not be fully appreciated. Nor can the larger canonical con-
text (Heb 2) be accounted for fully. This larger literary
context will be treated initially in the following chapter.
Examination of dominion material
Analysis certainly must begin with an evaluation of
Uhleywim;Ta (8:7). The term lwm ("to rule") is used a number
times in the Old Testament, mostly in the standard form + lwm
+ b. More than forty times it is used in this manner. But it
may also be used in the forms + l + lwm (cf. Exod 2:18; Isa
the national God of Israel, Yahweh, but rather with the con-
notation, 'God,' i.e. the one, universal Deity." His asser-
tion is most debatable, however,
1 Cf. the similar remarks of Huppenbauer, "God and Na-
ture in the Psalms," 22, and Kraus, Psalmen, 1:71f.
2 Childs, "Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian Ca-
non," 28-29, says: "What is the relationship between man as
the lord of creation and man as a human being, limited in time
and space, formed in communities, striving to maintain his
life? The Old Testament is filled with reflections on this
problem. The issue is not soo much that man is constantly seek-
ing to wrench himself free from God and to become divine him-
self, but rather that Hebrew man finds himself so overwhelmed
by the powers of the world as to threaten any special role in
God's creation. The psalms are filled with human struggle to
maintain a life of faith among the dangers of everyday exis-
tence. The complaint psalms particularly oscillate between
the confession that all things are in God's control and a pro-
test against the actual state of affairs in which the psalmist
243
40:10), + m + lwm (cf. Josh 12:2), + lf + lwm (cf. Zech 6:13;
Neh 9:3, where the preposition comes first), simply + lwm (cf.
2 Sam 23:3; Dan 11:3), or lwm + (cf. Ezek 19:14).1
Usages employing the standard form (+ b + lwm) vary.
One is struck by the fact that the Biblical writers readily
employ the term with a more mild force [cf. Gen 1:18; 3:16;
24:2; perhaps also the usages in Ps 19:14 (ET 19:13); Prov
16:32; 22:7; Lam 5:81. But just as clearly there is no hesi-
tation to employ the term in ways suggesting great force [cf.
as examples Isa 19:4; Ps 89:10 (ET 89:9); 106:41]. A further
observation about the word is its frequent usage in royal con-
texts [cf. as examples Josh 12:5; Judg 8:22, 23; 9:2; 2 Sam
23:3; 1 Kgs 5:1 (ET 4:21); Isa 3:4, 12; 19:4; Jer 22:30; Ps
22:29 (ET 22:28); 106:41; Dan 11:39, 43]. So although the
psalmist did not select a word employed in the Genesis 1:26-28
passage, he certainly chose a term very much in keeping with
the Old Testament usages of hdr and wbk. These two along with
lwm all have a relatively wide range of meaning. The exact
force of each term must be supplied from the context. All
three are very much at home in royal settings. And each of
the three focuses attention on the rule granted man as an
activity, i.e., a thing to be practiced.2
is slowly being ground to pieces." To illustrate his point
Childs appeals to passages such as Job 7 and Eccl 3:11.
1 Cf. Lisowsky, Konkordanz, p. 874.
2 Commentators have, frequently pointed out that a dis-
similarity exists between lwm and the word pair in Gen 1:26-
28. This difference is the context of royal imagery (man's
being crowned with "glory and honor") which more clearly
244
The cognates of lwm point in the same direction. The
Aramaic lwm has a relatively broad range of meaning, such as
"to handle, touch, govern, make a ruler (hifil)."1 Phoenician
(msl), meaning "to rule, manage," is also attested.2
The form of lwm in Psalm 8:7 is unusual though. The
hifil is employed only here and in Job 25:2 and Daniel 11:39.
What Psalm 8:7 calls attention to by the use of the hifil is
that through divine causation this role came to man (the point
reiterated by the parallel verb htw). The standard form + b
+ lwm is employed to emphasize that over which man has been
positioned as ruler (reiterated by the parallel expression
tHt). Daniel 11:39 is the grammatical parallel to this hifil
usage with the standard form.
This verb form in Psalm 8:7 does call to mind an ap-
parent distinction between the imagery of Genesis 1:26-28 and
Psalm 8:7. Whereas the Genesis passage refers to dominion as
something to achieve, Psalm 8 refers to dominion as a stated
position. In the latter passage man is viewed as put into
this relationship of being under God and over creation. How-
attaches itself to the understanding of lwm in Ps 8; cf. Ander-
son, "Human Dominion Over Nature," pp. 36-37; Hans Wildberger,
"Das Abbild Gottes," TZ 21 (November-Dezember 1967): 481ff.;
IOTT, pp. 34-35. Certainly the language of the psalm reminds
one of the phraseology of Ps 110:1 (cf. 8:7). The only coun-
terpoint to this opinion is that the royal imagery of Gen
1:26-28 is not all that unclear.
1 Jastrow, A Dictionary, p. 855.
2 Richard S. Tomback, A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of
the Phoenician and Punic Lanquages (Ph.D. dissertation, New
International, 76-10, 247, 1976), pp. 267-68.
245
ever, the nature of the context of Psalm 8 would account for
this distinction since the clash in the psalmist's mind is
between this awesome function (position) to which he has been
appointed and his frailty.
The only other remarks about the dominion material in
Psalm 8, prerequisite to a discussion of its interpretive
field, concern that over which man has been place. The list-
ing of 8:7-9 is not identical to Genesis 1:26-28, nor must it
be. In both cases (Ps 8:7 and Gen 1:26-28) the activity of
ruling is stressed as being cosmos-wide.
Interpretive field
Only two matters briefly concern the interpretation of
the dominion material in Psalm 8.1 The first of these is
whether Psalm 8:7-9 is simply a pre-fall reminiscence. One
might read the passage to mean that the psalmist is merely re-
calling what once (pre-fall) was so (man's dominion). But such
a view does not at all fit with the tenets which clash in the
psalmist's mind. He is struck by the seeming disparity of his
present frailty and his present God-given position, ruler of
those very elements that produce his sense of frailty! Concur-
rent experience of these realities (rulership and frailty) cre-
ates the clash. He lives in a world where the dominionizing
1 The much-discussed question about how to interpret
Myhilox<me will be left untouched here since its interpretation
does not alter the essential interpretation of Ps 8:7-9 in any
appreciable way. For discussion of the interpretation see
Gerald Cooke, "The Sons of (the) God(s)," ZAW 76 (1964): 22ff.;
Childs, "Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian Canon," 24-
25, etc. The Old Testament usage of Myhlx is broad enough to
make dogmatic assertion untenable.
246
activity is not rescinded but where his frailty shows his
dismal failure to act as the dominionizer.
Thus the paradigm of Genesis 1:26-28 may be applied
here. When man moved in loyalty toward God and beneficence
toward creation, Mlw existed. Disobedience toward God brought
lack of Mlw (Gen 3:7ff.). Man's kingdom began to struggle
against him, it seemed. The struggle intensified man's feel-
ing of frailty. And that is just the problem faced by the
psalmist. What man ought to be doing as dominionizer, the
world (which is his subject) testifies he is not doing. Only
divine grace keeps such a man from skepticism. He is thus
able to live with the present realities that dominion activity
is still his to do and he is incredibly frail.
A second matter which concerns the interpretation of
Psalm 8:7-9 is the question of whether the psalm speaks of
mankind in general or of a particular individual (an eschato-
logical figure). At least two factors have raised this ques-
tion. One is the reference to the "son of man” surely a
freighted phrase in the New Testament. The other is the very
use to which Psalm 8 is put in passages such as Matthew 21:16
and Hebrews 2:5-9. These New Testament employments of the
psalm suggest an individualization. But the question is wheth-
er this individualization is actually a part of Psalm 8. Ana-
lyzing only this psalm within the context of the Old Testament
would lead to the conclusion that the psalm is a general ref-
erence to mankind, not to a particular man. But when the New
Testament is considered there appears to be a move in another
247
direction. Accounting for this movement is taken up in the
discussion of Hebrews 2:5-9 in the following chapter.
Summary
The explicit dominion material within the Old Testa-
ment indicates that the dominionizing activity (formative
activity with respect to concrete things) has not been re-
scinded. But this activity may be done in loyalty or dis-
loyalty toward man's sovereign Creator. When done in loyalty
Mlw exists in man's beneficence toward creation and creation's
loyal submission to man's formative activities. But when done
in disloyalty, the formative activity struggles with the world
over which the dominionizer rules. This struggle produces a
feeling of frailty within man. But divine grace allows man to
cope with his frailty and go on about his ongoing formative
activity, hopefully to the glory of the Creator.
In order to complete this examination of Old Testament
dominion material a summary word must be said about possible
implicit dominion materials.
Implicit Dominion Materials
Only suggestions for further study along two lines can
be made here. If the foregoing analysis of Old Testament do-
minion material be accepted as reasonably accurate, one won-
ders if there are other dominion materials within the same cor-
pus of literature. This seems an especially appropriate
inquiry in light of the seeming disparity between the auspi-
cious announcement of dominion in the first command to man
248
(Gen 1:26-28) and the scant subsequent reference to explicit
dominion materials in the remainder of the Old Testament
corpus.
One proposal for further study of implicit dominion
material is what has commonly been designated as the theoc-
racy.l There can be little doubt that
spoken of as only "sacred" or as only "profane" for the reason
that "the union of the religious lordship and the national
kingship in the one Person of Jehovah involved that among Is-
rael civil and religious life were inextricably interwoven."2
cultural). These laws pronounced a whole way of living and
doing. The Israelite is assured that at life's center is one's
relationship to his God.3 Israel's law covenant placed the
whole of her existence (individually and therefore collectively)
at Yahweh's service.4
1 To conclude that theocracy (following Josephus) was
unique to
name witnesses against such a view; cf. the remarks of Gerhar-
dus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1948), p. 125.
2 Ibid., p. 125.
3 So even "the king is very pointedly made subject to
the demands of obedience to the written torah (Deut 17:18-20),"
Ronald E. Clements, Old Testament Theology (
Press, 1978), p. 111. Even prophets (cf. Deut 13 and 18) are
subject to its noim.
4 Thus the general direction of Walther Eichrodt, Theol-
ogy of the Old Testament, 2 vols., trans. J. A. Baker (Ph4.la-
delphia: The Westminster Press, 1967), 2:243-44, is appropri-
ate: "The hypertrophied cultus of the later monarchy might
suppress the sense of personal vocation in popular piety; the
monarchy itself might tend to subordinate the moral demands of
God to nationalistic egomania, and so substitute the command-
249
What is evident about the covenant relationship is
an entire divine ordering of life.1 Here was God's
expectation for the earthly life of
blessing; to disobey cursing. The blessing and cursing were
respectively the presence or absence of Mlw. Covenant instruc-
tion (from the perspective of naive experience) taught how to
engage in the formative activity of life (how to treat others,
the land, etc.).
As
position toward disloyalty to her sovereign and as a result
her confrontation with effects of cursings on her environment
became more obvious. Her hopes were cast into the future.2
These hopes centered in a person, a king, one whose presence
assured a world in which Mlw predominated. But hope in this
coming deliverer
ment of national solidarity for the personal sense of respon-
sibility; but again and again the hold of the collective was
restrained by the spiritual leaders, who stood unrelentingly
for the control of the nation by Yahweh's decree, and so sum-
moned the individual to selfless commitment to the cause of
the sovereignty of God."
1 Vos, Biblical Theology, p. 126, correctly says, "The
fusion between the two spheres of secular and religious life
is strikingly expressed by the divine promise that
be made 'a kingdom of priests and an holy nation' (Ex 19:6)."
2 Cf. the remarks of Edmond Jacob, Theology of the Old
Testament, trans. Arthur W. Heathcote and Philip J. Allcock
(New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), pp. 326-27: "The hope
of the return of Davidic times added to the paradise theme
and the Exodus theme an element which, in view of the circum-
stances surrounding the composition of the biblical books,
was destined to enjoy great prominence: a large number of
the hopes centre round
does not simply lead to the promised land, but to
250
. . . has deep roots which go further back than the insti-
tution of kingship, though the latter gave it its dominant
orientation. Since the return of the golden age formed
part of the most ancient religious patrimony of
is quite natural to suppose that it also included the hope
of the return of man as he existed in the beginning. Man
had been created to exercise the function of dominator
and king within the creation (Gen 1:26; Ps 8:5).1
A second suggested source of possible implicit domin-
ion material is, therefore, the royal psalms (Konigspsalmen).
Transition from hope in a king to hope in the king is natural
and easy. The royal lament, Psalm 89,2 may be cited as an
example of this transition (cf. Ps 89:2-5, 28ff. and the New
Testament usage of this psalm).3 By the very construction of
the covenant with David one sees that kingship has an apoca-
lyptic orientation. The hope for Mlw to return is not in
David; it is in the coming king who follows in David's line,
the Messiah. He will have dominion over the cosmos and there-
by demonstrate visibly the rule of one loyal to his God. In
a word the loyalty is unique. Messiah is God.
There now remains only a brief analysis of dominion
material in the New Testament in order to see the implementa-
tion given the dominion materials in the entire canonical
corpus.
1 Ibid., p. 327.
2 The conclusion on type reached by D. Wayne Knife,
"Psalm 89 and the Ancient Near East," unpublished doctor of
theology dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1973, p. 64.
3 Ibid., pp. 217-20.
CHAPTER IV
EXAMINATION OF NEW TESTAMENT DOMINION MATERIALS
There is considerable debate over the extent of domin-
ion materials in the New Testament.1 Here two passages are
understood in varying degrees to meet the tests of vocabulary
and intention.2 Of these two Hebrews 2:5-9 will be given more
attention than the other because of the nature of its correla-
tion of Psalm 8 with Christ. Following examination of these
explicit references suggestions will be made about other pas-
sages within the New Testament that might contain dominion
ideology and thus warrant further study. Procedure for anal-
ysis here will be much the same as that employed in the
previous chapter.
Explicit Dominion Materials
The analysis begins with Hebrews 2:5-9 for a twofold
reason. First, this passage is an important connecting link
in tying together the entire canon's interpretation of the
dominion materials. Second, the passage itself appears to
move the dominion toward an individualization, namely Christ.
1 Cf. above, pp. 9-10.
2 Cf. above, pp. 142-43.
251
252
Hebrews 2:5-9
The Greek text of this passage according to the United
Bible Societies' edition1 is as follows:
5 Ou] ga>r a]gge<loij u[pe<tacen th>n oi]koume<nhn th>n
me<llousan, peri> h$j lalou?men.
6 diemartu<rato de< pou< tij le<gwn,
Ti< e]stin a@nqrwpoj o!ti mimn^<sk^ au]tou?
h@ ui[o>j a]nqrw<<pou o!ti e]piske<pt^ au]to<n,
7 h]la<ttwsaj au]to>n braxu< ti par ] a][gge<louj,
do<c^ kai> tim^? e]stefa<nwsaj au]to<n,
8 pa<nta u[pe<tacaj u[poka<tw tw?n podw?n au]tou?.
e]n t&? ga>r u[pota<cai [au]t&?] ta> pa<nta ou]de>n
a]fh?ken au]t&? ta> pa<nta u[potetagme<na:
9 to>n de> braxu< ti par ] a]gge<louj h]lattwme<non
ble<pomen ]Ihsou?n dia> to> pa<qhma tou? qana<tou
do<c^ kai> tim^? e]stefanwme<non, o!pwj xa<riti qeou?
u[pe>r panto>j geu<shtai qana<tou.
These particular verses are most important. Inclusion of
Psalm 8 in this passage is strategic, says Reid, indeed these
verses are the key to the whole epistle.2 Such a potentially
important function deserves careful attention.
Textual variants
The study of this passage faces a twofold problem,
namely consideration of the variants within the New Testament
manuscripts and the nature of the Old Testament passage which
1 Kurt Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament
(London: United Bible Societies, 1966), hereafter cited as
AGNT.
2 Richard Reid, The Use of the Old Testament in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (Th.D. dissertation, Union Theological
Seminary;
films International, 64-10, 527, 1964), p. 127 (hereafter
cited as UOTH). And in general terms H. J. B. Combrink, "Some
Thoughts on the Old Testament Citations in the Epistle to the
Hebrews," Neo 5 (1971): 22 maintains that in order "to under-
stand the message of Hebrews it is necessary to have a good
idea of the manner in which (and to what purpose) the writer
of Hebrews uses explicit and implicit citations from the OT."
253
is cited in this text. Happily neither presents any great
difficulty for evaluation.
Because of this study's concentration on the dominion
materials per se, it is necessary to mention but one variant
reading in the New Testament text.1 This concerns the inclu-
sion in 2:7 of kai> kate<sthsaj au]to>n e]pi> ta> e@rga tw?n xeirw?n
sou following the word au]to<n. The variant, following the lead
of the LXX rendering of Psalm 8:7, has rather strong attesta-
tion. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and the
original hand of Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D*), plus P, Y, uncial
0121b, a number of minuscules [33, 81 (except reading
e]kate<sthsaj for kate<sthsaj), 88, 104, 181, 330, 436, 451, 629,
1739, 1877, 1881, 1962, 1985, 2127, 24921, part of the Byzan-
tine manuscript tradition, lectionary 597, several manuscripts
of the Itala (Old Latin), the Vulgate, the Syriac, Coptic,
Armenian, and Ethiopic versions, and several Church Fathers
(Euthalius, Theodoret, and Sedulius-Scotus) attest this vari-
ant.2 On the other hand the variant is omitted in the
1 In addition to the one considered here, alternate
readings include ti<j (P46, C*) for ti< (supported by x, A, B,
D2, etc.) in v 6 and xwri>j qeou? (little support) for xa<riti
qeou? (P46, x, A, B, C, D, etc.) in v 9. For evaluation of
this latter variant see Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to
the Hebrews, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan and Co., 1892), pp.
60-62 and the more recent work of Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), pp. 94-97. Hughes (p.
97), following the judgment of C. Spicq, L'Epitre aux Hebreux,
2 vols. (Paris: J. Gabalda et C1e, Editeurs, 1952-53), 1:419,
concludes "that the reading xwri>j qeou? must be 'resolutely re-
jected,' taking into account both the weight of the textual
evidence and also the demands of the context." However, note
the contrary remarks of J. C. O'Neill, "Hebrews 11.9," JTS 17
(April 1966): 79-82.
2 See the critical apparatus of Heb 2:7 in AGNT.
254
Beatty Papyrus, the Vaticanus, the corrector of Bezae Canta-
brigiensis, K, several minuscules (326, 614, 630, 1241, 1984,
and 2495), part of the Byzantine manuscript tradition, the
majority of lectionaries in the Synaxarion ("movable year"
beginning with Easter) and the Menologion ("fixed year" be-
ginning with 1 September), the Syriac Harclean version, and
several of the Church Fathers (Chrysostom, John-Damascus, Ps-
Oecumenius, and Theophylact).1
As is evident, the testimony is rather evenly divided,
enough so that the United Bible Society's edition (Aland et
al.) gives the text with the omission but assigning a "C" rat-
ing, indicating a considerable degree of doubt.2 Modern ver-
sions indicate a similarly divided opinion over the omission
of the reading.3 Among commentators there is also difference
of opinion. As examples, Kent4 and Lenski5 favor the inclu-
1 Ibid.
2 Ibid.
3 Those that omit the reading are the New International
Version, Revised Standard Version (with a note that other manu-
scripts include the variant), The Berkeley Version, The Jeru-
Vulgate), The New American Bible, and The New English Bible.
Those that include the variant are the American Standard Ver-
sion (with a marginal note that some authorities omit the
variant), King James Version, New American Standard Bible
(with a note that some ancient manuscripts omit the variant),
and The Bible: An American Translation.
4 Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews
(Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1972), p. 52.
5 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle
to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James (
Lutheran Book Concern, 1938), p. 74.
255
sion while Bruce,1 Buchanan,2 Delitzsch,3 Moll,4 and Robinson5
omit it.
The nature of the variant is quite clear. It actu-
ally comprises the first line of the parallelism of Psalm
8:7.6 Even if the line should be omitted, the thought is
nonetheless sufficiently indicated by the inclusion of the
second line in Hebrews 2:8. This fact itself indicates that
inclusion or exclusion of the first line of Psalm 8:7 will
not alter the interpretation of Hebrews 2:5-9.7
1 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), pp. 31-32,
n. 13.
2 George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews AB (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972), p. 12.
3 Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the He-
brews, 2 vols., trans. Thomas L. Kingsbury (reprint; Minneapo-
lis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978), 1:104.
4 Carl Bernhard Moll, The Epistle to the Hebrews, trans.
A. C. Kendrick, Lange's Commentaries (
Scribner's Sons, 1896), pp. 47-48.
5 Theodore H. Robinson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The
Moffatt New Testament Commentary (
ton, 1933), p. 15.
6 As Dahood has pointed out (Psalms, 1:51), even the
imperfect and perfect are used in quite typical fashion in
Ps 8:7 to create a sense of balance.
7 Cf. the remarks of Pauline Giles, "The Son of Man in
the Epistle to the Hebrews," ExpTim 86 (August 1975): 329: "The
sentence here omitted from Ps 8:6 is present in a number of
manuscripts. Zuntz considers that our author omitted it be-
cause it conflicted with his argument. J. H. Davies concludes
that it was omitted because it emphasized man's rule over the
material world whereas the intention was to apply the Psalm to
Jesus' rule over the world to come. This, says Davies, is the
reason for the emphasis on the inclusiveness of the phrase ta>
pa<nta (everything), even angels. Both reasons for the omission
are debatable for the words 'thou hast set him over the works
of thy hands' seem to be paralleled by 'thou hast put all
things under his feet."'
256
And if the writer of Hebrews should be charged with
failing to give an exact quotation that should be no surprise.1
According to Reid, with whom this writer is in essential agree-
ment on this point, only on five occasions does the author of
Hebrews intend to give an exact, unaltered quotation (1:5; 1:5;
1:13; 5:6; 11:19).2 Certainly the author is able to render
exact quotations if this fits his purpose, but should it not,
he has no hesitation in making legitimate adaptations to suit
his literary goals (cf. the remainder of the Old Testament
citations in Heb).3
1 That rigorous, detailed exactitude may not be his in-
tention is perhaps evident in the very way the author intro-
duces the citations. Typically the introductory formulae are
short (forms of le<gw or lale<w) and do not identify any indi-
vidual from the Old Testament with whom the citation is asso-
ciated; cf. UOTH, pp. 44ff. for a discussion of these points.
The nature of the introductory formula in Heb 2:6 is especially
indicative of the author's intention in using the Old Testa-
ment citation. The formula is most indefinite: diemartu<rato
de< pou< tij le<gwn. Of this formula Hughes, Hebrews, p. 83, ap-
propriately remarks: "The RSV, It has been testified some-
where, fails to reproduce fully the apparent casualness, in-
deed vagueness, of the formula which introduces this quotation
from Psalm 8 (vv 4 to 6). Literally rendered, it reads:
'Somewhere someone has testified, saying.' It is characteris-
tic of our author, however, that he is not concerned to pro-
vide a precise identification of the sources from which he
quotes. It is sufficient for him that he is quoting from Holy
Scripture, whose inspiration and authority he accepts without
question. God being its primary author, the identity of the
human author is relatively unimportant." Cf. similar remarks
by Kent, Hebrews, 52.
2 UOTH, p. 53. However, cf. the recent update on the
use of Old Testament citations in Hebrews based upon more com-
plete Septuagintal research in J. C. McCullough, "The Old Tes-
tament Quotations in Hebrews," NTS 26 (April 1980): 363-79.
3 This conclusion raises the whole question of the at-
titude with which the author of Hebrews approached the Old
Testament. McCullough appropriately summarizes on this point
in ibid., 378-79: "Firstly he considered that the Old Testa-
ment was a divine oracle which was relevant to the readers of
257
The text of the Old Testament which the author of He-
brews employed is doubtless the LXX.1 However, as Howard
points out,
since the discovery of the Qumran Literature and the im-
petus given by it to the study of the pre-Masoretic text,
it is now probable that the text used by the author of
Hebrews is, on occasion, closer to a Hebrew recension
more ancient than the Masoretic text.2
But these realities in no way alter the case of the use of
Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2„ since here the relation is closer to the
LXX or a Hebrew text very close to the LXX, a case unique
among the psalm quotations in Hebrews.3
his day and which, therefore, had to be interpreted and made
understandable to them. In performing this task he was ready
to make alterations to the text to avoid ambiguity and for the
sake of emphasis. On the other hand he showed a reverent and
cautious attitude to his text which contrasts starkly with
that found among many of his contemporaries. He avoided the
pneumatic rewriting of passages which the sectaries of
considered to be part of the work of an interpreter of Scrip-
ture. Thirdly the Old Testament which he quoted was that
local version which he had to hand when writing. There are
at least two possible explanations for this. Either he was
unaware of any other version (including the Hebrew), or he may
have deliberately used the version known to and used by the
local church to which he was writing to avoid confusion, and
perhaps even, if congregations then were similar to those of
today, opposition." If these were the only two options, cer-
tainly the latter (to avoid confusion) is preferable.
1 UOTH, p. 51. Cf. also the cautious remarks of Ken-
neth J. Thomas, "The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews," NTS
11 (July 1965) : 303: "However, in spite of the inconclusive
results of past studies, comparison with the LXX text does
seem to provide the key to the textual origin of the O.T.
citations in Hebrews. These citations are closely related
textually to the primary LXX texts LXXA and LXXB."
2 George Howard, "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quota-
tions, " NT 10 (April-July 1968) : 208.
3 Cf. the conclusion in ibid., 211. The closest excep-
tions would be those uses of psalms where all texts are alike
[Ps 2:7-Heb 1:5a; Ps 110:1-Heb 1:13; Ps 110:4a (and 6)-Heb
7:21; Ps 135:14-Heb 10:30b].
258
Literary context
There can be little doubt that the author is espe-
cially concerned in the opening chapters to show the superi-
ority of Christ to angels (cf. 1:5ff.).1 To serve this pur-
pose he employs a series of Old Testament quotations ending
with one from Psalm 110:1 (cf. Heb 1:13). This catena is es-
pecially striking for present purposes for two reasons. First,
the use of the series in Hebrews 1 is characterized by little
exegetical matter being added in order to explicate the au-
thor's interpretation of the Old Testament passages.2 This
stands in rather sharp contrast to the more extended exeget-
ical remarks he makes when citing Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2.3 One
would think that the series of Hebrews 1 is presented as
leading up to the citation from Psalm 8.
Second, it is striking that the catena of Hebrews 1 is
prefaced by an allusion to Psalm 110 (cf. Heb 1:3) and ends
with a citation from the same psalm. Joined to this is the
fact that Psalm 8 and 110 are commonly joined together for
1 There are, of course, a host of interpretive matters
relating to Hebrews that are important but which would also
take this discussion on the dominion materials far afield.
Besides the standard commentaries on Hebrews see also William
G. Johnson, "Issues in the Interpretation of Hebrews," Andrews
University Seminary Studies 15 (Autumn 1977): 169-87.
2 Cf. James W. Thompson, "The Structure and Purpose of
the Catena in Heb 1:5-13," CBQ 38 (July 1967): 352. However,
one cannot agree with Thompson's conclusion that the author
of Heb handles "his texts with metaphysical assumptions which
were very much at home in the Platonic tradition" (363).
3 Cf. the similar remarks of UOTH, pp. 103-4.
259
use in the New Testament1 (cf. use of this combination of
psalms in 1 Cor 15:24-28 and Eph 1:20-22). So here in Hebrews
1 and 2 they are joined, but this time extended attention is
given particularly to Psalm 8.
These factors about the extensive treatment given
Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2 indicate the reason for which Hebrews
2:5-9 is included here as containing explicit dominion mate-
rial and other supposed New Testament usages of dominion mate-
rial are not included. In other instances in the New Testa-
ment Psalm 8:6-10 (or Gen 1:26-28 and 9:1, 7) may be used in
a catena with other passages (cf. 1 Cor 15:24-28 and Eph 1:20-
22) where one passage in the catena has undoubtedly influenced
another and no distinctive, lengthy treatment is given any of
them.2 Or it may be the case that the Old Testament dominion
material is used in such a way that one is simply unable to
isolate which Old Testament passage it is to which the New
Testament makes reference (examples of this usage are Matt
21:23-27; Rom 1:23; 5:17; 8:37-39; 1 Cor 6:2; Phil 3:21; etc.).
But in the case of Hebrews 2:5-9 there is an unusual situation.
While here Psalm 8 is associated with Psalm 110 as elsewhere,
on this occasion the author of Hebrews purposely gives an ex-
tended treatment to Old Testament material that is clearly
1 Ibid., p. 103.
2 For appropriate remarks on 1 Cor 15:24-28 see F. W.
Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
NICNT (
1953), pp. 364-70 and R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of
bus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1937), pp. 671-87.
260
identifiable. As Reid says, "Instead of just quoting the pas-
sage briefly and then moving on, the author actually dwells
on it."1 In fact, the citation of Psalm 8 appears to be a
major element in the argument of the book of Hebrews.
But before leaving the matter of the literary context
of Hebrews 2:5-9, a broader perspective than has just been en-
tertained is necessary. The usage of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2
brings one to a most difficult question: What is the canoni-
cal context of Hebrews 2:5-9?2 As Childs says, "The acknowl-
edgement of the role of the canon in interpretation serves in
staking out the area of my theological reflection.”3 What
this means is that the Christian canon (both Old and New Tes-
taments) is a different context than either the Old or the
New by itself.
In order for one to understand the literary context
within the Christian canon, he must understand what is the
context within each of the testaments first. The Old Testa-
ment context of Psalm 8 has already been established.4 And
1 UOTH, p. 103.
2 This question, of course, raises one of the most im-
portant and difficult questions for any Biblical scholar: What
is the relationship of the New Testament to the Old? For dis-
cussion of recent proposals see Gerhard F. Hasel, Old Testa-
ment Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, rev. ed.
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975),
pp. 105-27 and idem., New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in
the Current Debate (
lishing Company, 1.978), pp. 171-203.
3 Childs, "Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian
Canon," 28.
4 Cf. above, pp. 241ff.
261
the New Testament context has been briefly addressed, but not
fully. The striking differences in the use to which the mate-
rial has been put in Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2 has not been ad-
dressed. There are three differences, and these can be placed
within two categories. The first category concerns differ-
ences between the text of the BHS and the LXX. These differ-
ences (two of them) are carried over into Hebrews 2:5-9. The
first is that Myhlx (Ps 8:6) has become a]gge<louj in the LXX.
As has been often pointed out, Myhlx, while meaning "God,"
can also be used in a broader sense (cf. Ps 82:6). But the
LXX chooses to isolate more exactly the meaning of Myhlx by
the term a]gge<louj. This is, of course, carried over into He-
brews 2:7 because the use of a]gge<louj so nicely fits the argu-
ment of Hebrews 1 and 2 (that Christ is superior to angels).
The second difference in this first category is that
the LXX translates Ffm of Psalm 8:6 by braxu< in the LXX. The
Greek term in the LXX almost always translates Ffm (note the
exception in Exod 18:22 where it translates NFq in reference
to simpler cases).1 In these passages braxu<j is used in ref-
erence to what is less in number (cf. Deut 26:5; 28:62), dis-
tance (cf. 2 Kgs 16:1; 19:36), and amount (cf. 1 Kgs 14:29, 43)
or in reference to that which is "almost" or "nearly" so [cf.
Ps 93 (94):17; 118 (119):87]. (The use of braxu< in Isa 57:17
to indicate "a little while" is misleading since the LXX dif-
fers from the Hebrew.) In the New Testament (braxu<j is used
1 Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to
the Septuagint, 2 vols. (
sanstalt, 1954), 1:230.
262
less often (only in Luke 22:58; John 6:7; Acts 5:34; 27:28;
Heb 2:7, 9; 13:22).1 With the exception of the use in John
6:7 and Hebrews 13:22 (perhaps even here the point is dura-
tion) braxu<j is used with reference to time. This is a most
interesting turn of events. The Hebrew Ffm and LXX braxu<j
are more general but the New Testament usage inclines to a
shortness of time. Thus Childs appropriately concludes:
The important exegetical move is evident when one sees
what the writer of the Hebrews has done with the Septua-
gint translation of Psalm 8. The translation made possi-
ble a new direction of interpretation which had not been
available to the reader of the Hebrew text. The Hebrew
had stated that man in his exalted position lacked only a
little of being a god himself. The Greek now opened the
possibility of understanding this lack as a temporal dis-
tinction, "to lack for a little time." The writer of He-
brews seizes upon this new avenue as a means of elabora-
ting his understanding of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
The second category of difference in the implementa-
tion of dominion material in Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2 does not
concern a difference between the Hebrew text and the LXX but a
difference between the Old Testament and the New. The movement
from the Old to the New in this case is apparently a movement
toward individualization. At the center of this movement has
been the interpretation of Hebrews 2:6-8. Should these remarks
be interpreted Christologically or anthropologically? More
specifically, how is au]t&? employed in verse 8? Opinion is
1 W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, eds., A Concordance
to the Greek Testament, 2nd ed. (
1899), p. 152.
2 Childs, "Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian
Canon," 25.
263
divided. Calvin treats the verse Christologically.1 Spicq
essentially agrees.2 However, Delitzsch,3
Moll,6 and Westcott7 understand that the au]t&? refers to man.
Bruce, on the other hand, takes something of a mediating view:
“So, while man is primarily
cannot be totally excluded from its scope.”8
In light of the text in Hebrews 2:5-9, the natural
reading, giving due prominence to the heightened sense of a
new expectancy (2:9) and to the obvious reference to man him-
self in the psalm, would understand man as the one to whom
1 Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, 22:59-60.
2 See the remarks of Bruce, Hebrews, p 37, n. 35 to
this effect.
3 Delitzsch, Hebrews, 1:106-9.
4 Kent, Hebrews, pp. 53-54.
5 Lenski, Hebrews, pp. 74-75.
6 Moll, Hebrews, pp. 49-50.
7 Westcott, Hebrews, pp. 44-45.
8 Bruce, Hebrews, p. 37, n. 35. Bruce appeals to the
words of A. E. Garvie, "Shadow and Substance," ExpTim 28 (Octo-
ber 1916-September 1917): 461, as suggestive of the view he
(Bruce) is offering. However, the larger context of Garvie's
words indicates that he finds the remarks of Heb 2:8 to refer
to man: "He finds that man has not secured the dominion over
the creature that befits his dignity as but a little inferior
to the Creator. 'Now we see not yet all things subjected to
him' (2:8). Man's unfulfilled promise, however, he sees ful-
filled in Christ, and for mankind fulfilled through Christ.
"But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the
angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned
with glory and honour, that by the grace of God he should
taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are
all things and through whom are all things, in bringing many
sons unto glory, to make the author of their salvation per-
fect through sufferings' (2:9-10)."
264
au]t&? refers. "The burden of proof," says Jobling, "is
on those who take the opposite view."1 However, the inter-
pretation given Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2:9 suggests that the words
“son of man” (Ps 8:5, MdAxA-Nb,U; Heb 2:6, u[io>j a]nqrw<pou) might
be understood as "Son of Man." Obviously, in Psalm 8:5 "son
of man" should be understood as nothing more than in parallel
with "man" ( wOnx<) and thus the expression cannot be a messi-
anic title, at least not directly. The LXX and the New Tes-
tament scrupulously follow the parallelism. But, as Childs
points out, the expression "son of man" takes on particular
significance when read in the light of Jesus.2
What is of present concern is that the words ui[o>j a]n-
qrw<pou furnished opportunity to the author of Hebrews to par-
ticularize, individualize the Psalm (Heb 2:9). There is no
direct indication that the Greek words are used as a title in
Hebrews 2:5-9. But, on the other hand, neither do they argue
against a movement toward individualization.
The Targum of Psalm 8 may indicate something of this
same movement toward particularization. Admittedly, “the Ara-
maic of the Targum is late, but this does not exclude the pos-
sibility that the reinterpretation of the Psalm evidenced by
1 IOTT, p. 208.
2 Childs, "Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian
Canon " 25. Giles, "The Son of Man in the Epistle to the He-
brews," 331, after tracing a multitude of varying opinions,
concludes: "Nevertheless, in our opinion, there is sufficient
evidence to warrant the belief that, in quoting from Ps 8, our
author gave the title 'Son of Man' to Jesus."
265
the Targum is from the first century."1 Evidences of what
might be construed as an attempt to particularize the psalm
indicated in the Targum by four changes.2 These are:
(1) An attempt to individualize God's enemies (v 3):
MT: "to silence the foe and the avenger"
Targum: "to silence the author (lyfeb;) of enmity
and vengeance" (perhaps an Aramaic circumlocu-
tion for "for")
(2) An attempt to individualize the "man" (v 5a):
MT: "what is man"
Targum: "what is the son of man (xwAnA rBa)"3
(3) An attempt to individualize what is remembered
(v 5b)
MT: "you are mindful of him"
Targum: "you are mindful of his works (yOdbAOf)"
(4) An attempt to individualize by expansion of the
animal list (v 9):
MT: "the birds of the air, and the fish of the
sea, all that swim the paths of the sea"
Targum: "The birds of the air, and the fish of
the sea, and Leviathan (NtAyAv;liv;) who passes
through the paths of the sea"
These changes are most significant, but in drawing
conclusions about them one must be cautious.4 Gathering all
1 Francis J. Moloney, "The Targum on Ps 8 and the New
Testament," Sal 37 (1976): 330. However, the warning (as
Moloney acknowledges) of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Book Reviews:
Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts,"
CBQ 30 (July 1968): 420 should be heeded.
2 For isolation and discussion of these and other mat-
ters see the excellent discussion of Moloney, "The Targum on
Ps 8 and the New Testament," pp. 331-36. Though the stability
of the targumic text on Ps 8 is open to question, "it is gen-
erally accepted that Walton's text is superior" (ibid., 330).
Cf. BSP, 3:94.
3 However, the expression xwn rb may be nothing more
than an Aramaic idiom, rather than an overt exegetical move;
cf. Jastrow, A Dictionary, p. 937 and the discussion of
Moloney, "Targum on Ps 8 and the New Testament," 332.
4 There is exact certainty concerning neither the tar-
gumic manuscript tradition nor the intention of the targumic
exegesis of Ps 8.
266
four changes together one is impressed that the Targum appar-
ently particularizes what the Hebrew text generalizes. Two
of these changes are most striking (1 and 4). There is the
possibility that the enemies of God are particularized into
one (lyfb) and Leviathan is introduced, perhaps as a symbol of
evil force over which rule has been granted. What is to be
made of these changes in light of the Psalm 8-Hebrews 2 con-
tinuum? Only this: In the Aramaic translation of Psalm 8
there is evidence for supposing
. . . an individual, messianic interpretation which pre-
sents "the Son of Man" as some sort of messianic figure.
It would be more than imprecise to claim that the Targum
gives us a complete picture of the figure sometimes viv-
idly described by the apocalyptists . . . , but perhaps
in this reinterpretation we do have traces of the expected
king.1
What is to be made of this apparent move from general
to particular (from Old to New Testament) will be taken up in
the following discussion on the interpretation of the passage
in Hebrews 2.
Examination of dominion material
Quite obviously the principal dominion term in Hebrews
2:5-9 is u[pota<ssw, meaning generally "to submit," a term used
nearly forty times in the New Testament.2 A form of it occurs
once in 2:5 and three times in 2:8. A survey of its usage
l Ibid., 336 who also says: "Although the content of
this messianic interpretation is new and wholly determined by
the event of Christ, perhaps it is a little hasty to dismiss
the Targums when looking for some of the traditions which may
stand behind some of the New Testament uses of the term 'the
Son of
2 Cf. Moulton and Geden, Concordance, pp. 981-82.
267
throughout the New Testament is interesting and yields the
following analyses. The term itself may be used of both vol-
untary (cf. as examples Luke 2:51; Rom 10:3; 1 Cor 16:16; Eph
5:21, 22,1 24;
untary activity, i.e., force (cf. Luke 10:17, 20; Rom 8:7,
20;2 perhaps 1 Cor 15:27, 28). More often than not the term
ranking under another (cf. especially 1 Pet 2:13, 18; 3:1, 5).
This varied usage yields a rather broad spectrum of meaning
for the word, witnessed by meaning either "submitting" to
governmental authority (Tit 3:1) or "obeying" parents (Luke
2:51). The term may indicate a recognition of authority
passed in silence (cf. 1 Cor 14:34) or a public forcing of
subjugation (cf. Luke 10:17; Phil 3:21). And while the term
certainly is suitable for use in describing submission to God
(cf. Heb 12:9; Jas 4:7), just as clearly it may refer to soci-
ological ordering (cf. Tit 2:5, 9; 1 Pet 2:18; 5:5).
As suggested by this latter idea of ordering, u[pota<ssw
is decidedly employed in passages which emphasize an ordering
of relationships. Such ordering implies both acquiescence on
is used of voluntary submission, what may be called
a willing
1 There are, of course, several manuscript variants in
Eph 5:22. Although there is some measure of doubt about the
exact reading, evidently a form of u[pota<ssw should be included
in the text since it is omitted in only P46, B, and several
fathers.
2 This is a legitimate analysis of Rom 8:7 since ou]de>
ga>r du<natai is added. Cf. the remarks of Gerhard Delling,
lap “u[pota<ssw,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
vol. 8, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, ed. and trans. Geoffrey W.
Bromiley (
1972), p. 42, n. 17.
268
the one hand and assertion on the other. 1 Corinthians 15:24-
28 clearly pictures this ordering of relationships; as Delling
remarks,
The most significant statement in the middle occurs in the
play on the active in 1 C. 15:28. The supreme power of
the Son is not an end in itself; it is merely granted to
Him in order that He may render it back to God after com-
pleting His task, v. 24. For with His own visible sub-
jection to God He also subjects to God all the things that
have been subjected to him by God. This statement is de-
manded by Paul's view of God (v. 28c) and especially by
his concept of God's absolute power. It is hardly by
chance that Paul here uses for the one and only time the
absolute "the Son." The Son in the absolute is the One
who to the very limit gives God the precedence which is
His due.1
The term is also at home among ordered human relationships
(masters-slaves, Tit 2:9; husbands-wives, Col 3:18; Christ-
church, Eph 5:24; government-citizen, Tit 3:1).
These ordered relationships are God-ordered relation-
ships. Thus, submission to governmental authority is the ex-
pectation for the believers, ou] ga>r e@stin e]cousi<a ei] mh> u[po>
qeou?, ai[ de> ou#sai u[po> qeou? tetagme<nai ei]si<n (Rom 13:1). The
submission of one to another is done e]n fo<b& Xristou? (Eph 5:21)
So it is in the case of women in the assembly; they should do
kaqw>j kai> o[ no<moj le<gei (1 Cor 14:34). The submission of
younger men to older must be seen within the larger sphere of
the injunction, Tapeinw<qhte ou#n u[po> th>n krataia>n xei?ra tou?
qeou? (1 Pet 5:5-6). Wives submitting to husbands is a means
whereby ai[ a!giai gunai?kej ai[ e]lpi<zousai ei]j qeo>n e]ko<smoun
e[auta<j (1 Pet 3:5). Such an act of submission is an adorning
only because it corresponds to God's ordered expectation
l Ibid., p. 43.
269
within marriage.
These usages demonstrate that u[pota<ssw is very much
at home in expressing placement or positioning within a di-
vinely ordered arrangement. There is little wonder then that
the term is so usefully employed in the general argument de-
veloped in Hebrews 1 and 2. The Son's appointment is to a
position of superiority over angels. Thus the world was not
subjected to angels (2:5). It was instead subjected to man
(2:8). Yet one does not see man's subjugation of the world
(2:8). But happily one sees the man, Christ, who though "made
a little lower than the angels" (2:9) is in fact superior to
them (crowned with glory) and is the man who will truly exer-
cise dominion over his world (cf. the Christological remarks
to this effect in passages such as Eph 1:19-23 and in the
catena in 1 Cor 15:24-28). These factors are but further rea-
sons why the LXX of Psalm 8, which uses u[pota<ssw, was so use-
ful to the argument in Hebrews 1 and 2. Thus it is entirely
appropriate that the LXX of Psalm 8:7 parallels u[pe<tacaj with
kate<sthsaj, the latter (kaqi<sthmi) meaning generally "to bring
(someone somewhere), appoint, put in charge, ordain."1
The only other dominion term in Hebrews 2:5-9 that
needs comment is a]nupo<takton (2:8). The term is used only a
few times in the New Testament (here and in 1 Tim 1:9 and Tit
1 Cf. the lexical meanings suggested in Walter Bauer,
William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the Ne Testament and Other Earl Christian Liter-
ature, 2nd ed., revised and augmented by idem. and
W. Danker (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979),
P. 390 (hereafter cited as BAGD).
270
1:6, 10).1 As the passages indicate, the term can denote ac-
tivity of considerable force (especially seen in the listing
of hostiles in 1 Tim 1:9), or of at least sufficient force to
cause one to be termed disobedient (Tit 1:6) and rebellious
(Tit 1:10).2 The exact degree of force the word conveys in
Hebrews 2:8 is not entirely clear, but undoubtedly the word
recalls at least a portion of the force indicated in wbk and
hdr in Genesis 1:26-28.
Interpretive field
In order to understand more fully the interpretation
of Hebrews 2:5-9 an analysis of the New Testament setting fol-
lowed by an examination of the canonical setting (both Old and
New Testaments) will be helpful. As one begins reading in
verse 5, he is struck with the casualness of the author's ap-
proach. There is the indefinite introductory formula to the
psalm citation: diemartu<rato de< pou< tij le<gwn. The repeated
uses of the aorist (v 5, u[pe<tacen; v 6, diemartu<rato; v 8,
u[pota<cai, inf., a]fh?ken) point in the same direction, since the
aorist is simply undetermined or undefined.3 What is instruc-
tive about this apparent casualness, as indicated by the pre-
ponderance of the aorist verbal, is the notice of where
1 Cf. Moulton and Geden, Concordance, p. 81.
2 Cf. the lexical meanings cited in BAGD, p. 76.
3 Cf. the remarks to this effect by Ernest DeWitt Bur-
ton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek,
reprint of 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976),
pp. 16ff. So one may say with Frank Stagg, "The Abused Aor-
ist," JBL 91 (June 1972): 231: "The aorist 'presents' an
action, of whatever nature, without respect to its nature.
It does notes such reflect the nature of the action itself."
271
another tense is employed by the author.1 This is first in-
dicated in peri> h$j lalou?men (v 5) which assures that the cate-
na of Old Testament quotations, especially the Psalm 110 and 8
complex, has current application and use in the author's pur-
pose. The presents in Hebrews 2:6, mimn^<sk^ and e]piske<pt^,
are simply the repeating of the LXX as it reflects the Hebrew
imperfects. ( ]Estin is, of course, repeating the LXX's trac-
ing of the Hebrew verbal implication of Ps 8:5.)
But especially in Hebrews 2:8 is the movement away
from the aorist interesting. For here the author indicates a
shift in the narrative through the employment of nu?n de>.2 The
temporal aspect of this narrative shift is indicated by o[rw?men,
emphasizing that it is not now apparent that man rules over
his entire domain. By this means the author provides the en-
tirely contrastive setting for the perfect participle u[pote-
tagme<na. The contrast is that dominion has been given but it
is not now apparent.
The author has placed this sharp contrast at a most
interesting place in his argument. In Hebrews 2:7-8a the
author draws from Psalm 8:6-7 a trilogy of statements which
form a paradigm to be employed in his consideration of Christ
1 So Stagg, ibid., concludes that "departure from the
aorist is exegetically more significant than the presence of
the aorist."
2 This literary device may be understood as a non-
temporal usage of nu?n de> which follows "a sentence expressing
an unfulfilled condition," Margaret E. Thrall, Greek Particles
in the New Testament, New Testament Tools and Studies, vol. 3,
ed. Bruce M. Metzger (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1962),
p. 31. Similar usage is found in Heb 9:26. Thus nu?n de> might
appropriately be translated "but as the case now stands."
272
(Heb 2:9).1 The trilogy is:
A h]la<ttwsaj au]to>n braxu< ti par ] a]gge<louj
B do<c^ kai> tim^ e]stefa<nwsaj au]to<n
C pa<nta u[pe<tacaj u[poka<tw tw?n podw?n au]tou?
With respect to mankind the apparent quandary is not over
lines A and B, but C. All things have been placed under man,
but evidence of such appears lacking. That is man's pre-
dicament.
The application of this trilogy to Jesus is now ap-
parent (Heb 2:9). Jesus in his incarnation has fulfilled
lines A and B, but what of C? The problem may well have been
that the readers of Hebrews were uncertain over the actuali-
zation of Christ's dominionizing.2 The problem may well have
been the delay of the Parousia, a delay which might appear to
some to heighten suspicion that Jesus was not superior to an-
gels (where was the evidence of line C to counterbalance the
evidence of line A?).
However, the catena employed by the author in Hebrews
1 has already guaranteed the reality of line C. This is made
clear by the appeal in 1:13 to Psalm 110. Therefore, what was
true of mankind (no evidence of rule) is true of Jesus (ene-
mies will become a footstool for his feet). The purpose of
1 For this writer this is a literary reason why the
author of Heb chose to employ only one line from Ps 8:7. The
context of Heb 2:5-9 may indicate why the second line of the
parallelism in Ps 8:7 was included in Heb 2:8, since that line
more readily emphasizes the totality of the dominion.
2 Cf. the discussion of UOTH, pp. 104-6, who calls at-
tention to the trilogy. However, his understanding that au]t&?
in v 8 refers to Christ leads his interpretation in another
direction.
273
Hebrews 2:9 is to call attention to the first two lines of the
trilogy. For in lines A and B is found the solution to the
apparent contradiction caused by line C when applied to man.
In Christ's incarnation and the evidence (crowning) of his
satisfactory atoning work sons will be brought to glory (Heb
2:10). Thus "Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers"
(2:11; Rom 8:29). These now joined to Christ participate in
his dominion, even over the last enemy, death (2:14-15; cf.
1 Cor 15:24-28). Mankind's dominion is possible only through
the humiliation, exaltation and dominion of Christ (lines A,
B, and C). He restores loyalty to God in these sons so that
their formative activity is one of beneficence toward, not of
struggle with, that over which God made them ruler.1 By this
means the trilogy of Psalm 8 is employed fully in Hebrews 2 to
resolve the question raised in Psalm 8 and to show that Christ
who so resolves man's predicament is superior to angels (cf.
Heb 1:14; 2:14-18). Little wonder, then, that the readers of
Hebrews are called upon to fix their thoughts on Jesus (3:1)
since he is man's hope in the coming world (2:5).
With these summary exegetical remarks in mind one
still needs to summarize an answer to the question about the
place of Hebrews 2:5-9 in the context of the Christian canon.
This question must be addressed while listening intently to
both testaments.2 The New Testament contribution to the
1 Cf. above, pp. 229-32.
2 So Childs, "Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian
Canon," p. 27 says: "My own hermeneutical suggestion is that
the Christian interpreter, first of all, commit himself only
274
canonical picture of dominion material is that in Jesus Christ
is found the resolution to the tenets which clashed in the
mind of the psalmist: Man's incomparable position (ruler) and
incredible frailty. Psalm 8:2 had already indicated a redemp-
tive context in which to view the clash. (This very context
had provided a basis for the psalmist to turn to praise rather
than skepticism.) But it remained for the New Testament to
point out with full force that in Christ, who is the domin-
ionizer, the clashing tenets find resolution. And Hebrews
2:5-9 taught this by using the very trilogy of Psalm 8:6-7.
So complete is his dominion that even death is subjugated (cf.
Heb 2:14-15). The New Testament offers assurance that the
dominion (formative, beneficent activity) is not mere wishful
thinking.
The Old Testament also contributes to the use of domin-
ion material in the New. The Old Testament reminds that domin-
ionizing is not to be spiritualized away. The dominion is
achieved in the real world (cf. Heb 2:5, th>n oi]koume<nhn th>n
me<llousan). As well, it reminds that the dominion is not
simply vicariously experienced by another but is to be the
actual experience of men (cf. Heb 2:11: di ] h!n ai]ti<an ou]k
e]paisxu<netai a]delfou>j au]tou>j kalei?n). And certainly the royal
ideology of the Old Testament world with its societal hier-
to hearing both witnesses as clearly as possible, and then in
conjunction with one another. To seek a relation between the
Old and the New Testaments is to take seriously the church's
confession of a canon of Scripture, and to reject an appeal to
a 'canon within the canon.' The acknowledgment of the role of
the canon in interpretation serves in staking out the area of
my theological reflection."
275
archical structuring indicates that the king represents the
fortunes of men. And certainly Hebrews 2 has centered all the
good fortunes of men in Christ. He is the believer's hope.
His reign guarantees the Christians' Mlw. He is man's repre-
sentative. Thus, the particularizing of Psalm 8, in keeping
with an apocalyptic hope, is not inconsistent with the world
of the Old Testament. Hence, the Targum of Psalm 8 is not
such an oddity in the light of the Christian canon's continuum.
James 3:7
This passage by its nature requires only brief mention
since there is no direct quotation here of an Old Testament
dominion passage.1 However, verse 7 does indicate undoubtedly
a reference to the distinct claims of Genesis 1 and 9 and
Psalm 8, this being especially the case in the citation in
James 3:9. But as Laws points out, the reference in James 3:7
is assuming more than citing an Old Testament background.2 For
these reasons, the usual procedure employed in this study will
be dispensed with in order that a few summary remarks may be
made about James' appeal to this Old Testament background
material.3
1 Cf. a similar view expressed by Robert G. Bratcher,
ed., Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, rev. ed.
(London: The United Bible Societies, 1967), pp. 68-69.
2 Sophie Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James,
Harper's New Testament Commentaries (
Row, Publishers, 1980), p. 153.
3 The text which concerns this present consideration in
Jas 3 is fairly stable and includes no variants of particular
concern to this study; cf. Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St.
276
The context of 3:7 is not at all difficult to deter-
mine in spite of the persistent difficulties encountered in
outlining the book.1 A survey of commentators indicates gen-
eral agreement that James 3:1-12 concerns "the tongue,"2 "the
danger of a poisoned tongue,"3 "bridling the tongue,"4 "the
power of the tongue,"5 "use and abuse of speech."6 Examples
of exceptions to this understanding are Hiebert, who believes
that "chapter 3 constitutes a self-contained section, dealing
with the power of the tongue and its control"7 and Tasker who
believes that the unit that deals with "the havoc wrought by
James, Classic Commentary Library (
Publishing House, 1954), pp. 12-16.
1 Cf. the remarks by D. Edmond Hiebert, "The Unifying
Theme of the Epistle to James," BSac 135 (July-September 1978):
221: "The Epistle of James is notoriously difficult to out-
line. This is confirmed by the great diversity of the out-
lines which have been proposed. They range all the way from
two to twenty-five major divisions. The epistle itself does
not herald any clear structural plan concerning the organiza-
tion of its contents. Hendriksen well remarks, 'A superficial
glance at this epistle may easily leave the impression that
every attempt to outline it must fail!"'
2 Richard Wolff, General Epistles of James and Jude,
Contemporary Commentaries (
lishers, 1969), pp. 56ff.
3 Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter,
(Garden City, NY; Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964), pp. 36ff.
4 Alexander Ross, The Epistles of James and John, NICNT
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954),
pp. 57ff.
5 Laws, James, pp. 139ff.
6 Mayor, James, pp. 219ff.
7 D.
Press, 1979), p. 203.
277
the tongue" is found only in 3:5b-12.1
This section on the use of the tongue is not isolated,
however, from the rest of the epistle. The material in the
book shows great interest in speech generally (cf. 1:19, 22-
24, 26; 2:12; 5:12).2 But the material in 3:3-8 is, as Laws
points out, a highly rhetorical attack on the use of the
tongue.3 Obviously, this material is but one part of the
larger argument the author develops on the faith-works com-
plex in the Christian's life.4
As a brief survey of the Old Testament citations in
James indicates, the employment in 3:7 of the Old Testament
dominion background material is not part of a catena.5 How-
ever, by the very method of indirect appeal to the dominion
background material the author indicates his assumption that
his readers were familiar with the Old Testament statements
1 R. V. G. Tasker, The General Epistle of James, TNTC
(London: The Tyndale Press, 1956), pp. 72-79.
2 Cf. the remarks of Laws, James, pp. 26-27.
3 Ibid., p. 26.
4 For discussion of this complex see
and Works in the Letter of James," Neo 9 (1975): 7-24. Hie-
bert, "The Unifying Theme of the Epistle of James," 224 argues,
in fact, that "the contents of the epistle, further, make it
clear that James is not content simply to establish the ab-
stract truth that a saving faith is a dynamic, productive
faith. His purpose is practical, to present a series of tests
whereby his readers can determine the genuineness of their
own faith. 'The testing of your faith' (1:3) seems to be the
key which James left hanging at the front door, intended to
unlock the contents of the book. This writer proposes that
tests of a living faith is indeed the unifying theme of the
epistle and that it provides ready access to its contents."
5 Cf. Bratcher, Old Testament Quotations in the New
Testament, pp. 68-69.
278
on dominion. These factors are indicative of the service to
which the material is put. They are momentarily employed to
provide for the development of a contrast. This employment of
material is very much opposite that of the usage in Hebrews 2.
There the dominion was used to make a major exegetical state-
ment. In James 3 the usage is brief and passing, illustrative
in nature.
Indication of this contrast is shown by the de> of 3:8.
On either side of this de> are the members of the contrast,
tamed animals and the untamed tongue (cf. the illustrative
material in 3:3-5). The term translated "to tame," dama<zw,
is used only here and in Mark 5:4.1 In the latter place the
term describes a demon-possessed man whom no one was strong
enough to subdue. Outside the New Testament the great force
implied by the word is clearly attested. While the term can
be used to describe the taming or breaking in of a horse or
the clearing of land, it can also mean "to force, seduce,
conquer, overpower.”2
That James believed the dominion over animals is so
is indicated through use of the present and perfect form of
dama<zw in 3:7. This strengthening of an assertion by combin-
ing a present and a perfect3 is used to mean "that man's do-
minion over the creatures is no new fact, though fresh
1 Cf. Moulton and Geden, Concordance, p. 183.
2 Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, p. 368.
3 Cf. the remark of Mayor, James, p. ccxxx to this
effect.
279
illustrations of it come to light every day."1
While the subjugation of animals certainly implies
that the rule of man was not completely lost, the very con-
trast which James presents in 3:7-8 shows how pitifully weak
that rule is: Man cannot tame the tongue (th>n de> glw?ssan
ou]dei>j dama<sai du<natai a]nqrw<pwn). In this way James reechoes
the general Biblical perspective on the dominion. The domin-
ionizing activity is still viable but its accomplishments are
pitifully weak.
But if all James argues be accepted, how then can man
control the "untamable" tongue? Is all hope lost? "The an-
swer must be that man alone and unaided cannot control his
tongue, but that with Christ's help it is possible."2 By this
contrast James points again to the faith-works complex. Such
a deed as control of the tongue, if ever to be accomplished,
must spring from faith. Here, as in Hebrews (and even in the
catena in 1 Cor 15:24-28), effective dominionizing is seen in
relationship to the redeemer of men.
Summary
The New Testament implementation of explicit dominion
material elaborates two essential points. One is that man's
history reveals his failure to rule as God intended. The other
is that such failure finds resolution in the redemptive appli-
cation of the Christ event to man's life. Only then is
1 Ross, James and John, p. 63.
2 Reicke, James, Peter, Jude, p. 39.
280
control of the tongue or the overcoming of death possible.
The redeemer is Mlw for man and the cosmos. He, who in his
incarnation gave strict obedience to the Father, even to the
point of death, is the one who treats those under him (man
and cosmos) with beneficence.
Implicit Dominion Materials
As was the case in considering implicit Old Testament
dominion materials, so it is also the case here. Only sugges-
tions for further study can be made. Along with these sugges-
tions one example of implicit dominion material in the New
Testament will be briefly considered.
A Suggestion
From the foregoing analysis there is every probability
that implicit dominion materials are likely to be found in New
Testament passages which discuss the incarnate Lord and his
kingdom rule. From the treatment given the dominion materials
in Hebrews 2:5-9 and James 3:7 those passages which describe
believers as imaging their Lord must also be entertained. A
number of individual passages have already been indicated as
having been thought by some to contain dominion ideology.1
As is shown in the catena employed in 1 Corinthians
15:24-28, there is no hesitation in applying the dominion
ideas to the Lord who will reign until all enemies, even
death, are put under his feet (even Heb 2:5 speaks of the
1 Cf. above, pp. 9-10, for a list of New Testament
passages.
281
world to come). Thus, the passages are forward-looking.
Christ, as true man, is the true dominionizer now (he has
already been crowned with glory and honor, Heb 2:9) and one
day will give a visible, empirical demonstration of such. No
wonder, then, that 2 Peter 3:13 casts the attention of be-
lievers forward: kainou>j de> ou]ranou>j kai> gh?n kainh>n kata> to>
e]pa<ggelma au]tou? prosdokw?men, e]n ou$j dikaiosu<nh katoikei?. Of
this remark two points are worth noting. One is the appeal
to Isaiah 65:17.1 The second is the typical dominion notice
that in that place dikaiosu<nh katoikei?. In light of the Isa-
iah context "righteousness" must include something of a re-
stored well-being for the cosmos. This decisive renovation
will include the gh? kai> ta> e]n au]t&? e@rga (2 Pet 3:10). These
works are no doubt "the products of nature and, above all, of
human culture, civilization, art and technology."2 This gen-
eral notion is undoubtedly echoed in the expression of He-
brews 13:14: th>n me<llousan e]pizhtou?men. In that coming resi-
dence the believer will find the well-being and benevolence
that has eluded him in his world because of disloyalty to his
God. But this in no way implies that one whose look is pro-
jected forward should not here and now practice benevolence
(Heb 13:16).
1 Cf. Bratcher, Old Testament Quotations in the New
Testament, p. 73. In order to see the significance of this
citation see above, pp. 186-87.
2 J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter
and of Jude, Harper's New Testament Commentaries (
Harper & Row, 1969), p. 365. For discussion on the difficult
reading eu[reqh<setai, in 3:10 see ibid.
282
Dominionizing activity done in loyalty toward God and
beneficence toward creation may be done only in tandem with
Christ. Here and now the Christian seeks to mirror Christ.
So the church as cultus pursues the didactic purpose of seeing
its adherents brought ei]j a@ndra te<leion, ei]j me<tron h[liki<aj
tou? plhrw<matoj tou? Xristou? (Eph 4:13). Though now believers
are indeed children of God, yet when he is manifested they
shall be like him (1 John 3:2). There is little surprise then
that such children will yet be privileged to reign with him
(Rev 5:9-10).
There appears then a paradigm in Christ for the chil-
dren of God. They are to image him. By his total loyalty to
his Father (he glorified the Father through completion of the
work given him to do, John 17:4), he may rightfully be en-
throned as the ruler crowned with glory (17:5; cf. Heb 2:9).
The visual imagery of this great dominionizer is graphically
given in Revelation 5:5-14. Remarkably, he is the ruling
lamb. There is no surprise in discovering that two dominion
allusions from the Old Testament are employed in Revelation
5:5-7 (cf. Isa 11:1 and Dan 7:13-14). The lamb owns the title
deed to the world; it is his totally. He alone is worthy of
opening the scroll (Rev 5:2 and 5).
Believers also reign but only in association with him.
Their reigning comes only through application of the atoning
death of Christ (Rev 5:9). By perseverance the saints live
out their loyalty to their Maker. These reign as man was in-
tended to reign. Corresponding to this loyalty, is the promise
283
of a world to come which is characterized by Mlw. Those who
refuse to submit in loyalty to their Maker are promised an
eternal residence where Mlw is absent, hell. There is little
wonder, then, that the cultus (Matt 28:18-20) is commissioned
to speak the redemptive word. Only through reception of that
word is it possible for man to be divinely empowered to prac-
tice loyalty toward his God and thereby engage microcosmically
in a formative activity (dominion) of beneficence which in the
coming world the Lord will demonstrate macrocosmically. Those
who believe not the redemptive word of the gospel will see the
cremation of their formative activity and will find eternal
lodging in a place where the cosmic benefits of loyalty are
altogether absent.
There remains only the task of briefly analyzing an
example of a proposed implicit dominion passage.
An Example
An appropriate terminus for consideration of implicit
New Testament dominion materials is Romans 8:18-25, both be-
cause the "passage as an entity has remained at the periphery
of Christian thought" and because it, is one of the more "com-
pelling declarations of Scripture" on sins' consequences on
creation and their removal.1 Furthermore, as Eareckson re-
1 Joseph Lee Nelson, Jr., The Groaning of Creation: An
Exegetical Study of Romans 8:18-27 (Th.D. dissertation,
Theological Seminary in
versity Microfilms International, 75-15, 171, 1975), p. 1
(hereafter cited as GCES). At the close of the 1800s George
Philip, "Creation Waiting for Redemption: An Expository Study
on Romans 8:19-22," ExpTim 5 (October 1893-September 1894): 315,
284
marks, "ours is an age that has heard the demand for a new
theological understanding of nature as God's creation."1 His-
torically, the church has not often heard that demand in con-
nection with Romans 8:18-25.2
While the text itself is quite stable,3 the meaning of
the passage has been debated. Of particular interest is the
meaning of the word kti<sewj in verse 19. Lexically kti<sij may
have several meanings.4 Colossians 1:23 makes use of the term
in reference to human beings. Romans 1:20 uses the term in
reference to the act of creation, whereas 2 Peter 3:4 in ref-
erence to the sum total of created things. And the term may
even be used in reference to governmental authority itself
(1 Pet 2:13). This breadth of meaning is an occasion for dif-
ficulty in interpreting Romans 8:18-25.5 Though varying
wrote that Rom 8:19-22 "has long been regarded as one of the
obscure passages of the Bible."
1 Vincent Offley Eareckson, III, The Glory to be Re-
vealed Hereafter: The Interpretation of Romans 8:18-25 and
its Place in Pauline Theology (Ph.D. dissertation,
Theological Seminary, 1977;
films International, 77-21, 191, 1977), p. 6 (hereafter cited
as GRHI). The underlining is according to Eareckson.
2 A fact testified to by an analysis of the history of
interpretation on the passage. Cf. GCES, pp. 8-102 and GRHI,
pp. 12-26.
3 On a very few occasions of minor importance pi<stewj
replaces kti<sewj in v 19 and the present passive e]leuqe<poutai
replaces the future passive e]leuqerwqh<setai in v 21. In v 23
uioqesi<an is omitted in several manuscripts (interestingly
enough even in P46). For more detailed discussion of these
matters see GCES, pp. 115-138.
4 Cf. BAGD, pp. 455-56.
5 To resolve this interpretive problem GCES, p. 140,
rightly concludes: "In order adequately to grasp Paul's in-
285
interpretations have been given the use of kti<sij in this pas-
sage, the following points would argue that the term is used
in reference to creation per se. Verse 19 distinguishes be-
tween th?j kti<sewj and tw?n ui[w?n tou? qeou?. Further, the crea-
tion of which the apostle speaks is described as being sub-
jected ou]x e[kou?sa (v 20), a statement hardly true of mankind's
active disobedience. Verse 21 distinguishes kti<sij and tw?n
te<knwn tou? qeou? (cf. v 19). And in verses 22-23 distinction
is made between pa?sa h[ kti<sij and au]toi>. These factors ex-
clude mankind (saved and unsaved) but undoubtedly include all
else.1
However, having so defined kti<sij, one must avoid di-
chotomizing sharply creation and man,2 since in Romans 8 the
redemption of man and the rest of creation are brought to-
tention and thus suitably to render his meaning, as evidenced
by his use of kti<sij in Romans 8, attention must be given to
the classical usage of this word, to its employment in the
LXX, to the Jewish eschatological tradition, and to the con-
text in Romans 8." Obviously such a study is beyond the lim-
its of this survey. Summary of such a study (especially con-
cerning the correlation of ko<smoj and kti<sij) may be found in
ibid., pp. 140-173. Cf. also the treatment of Eugene H. Maly,
"Creation in the New Testament," in Biblical Studies in Con-
temporary Thought, ed. Miriam Ward (
College Biblical Institute, 1975), pp. 104-12.
1 For further discussion on these points see George
Mackenzie, "The Earnest Expectation of the Creature," ExpTim
5 (October 1893-September 1894): 333-34; G. W. H. Lampe, "The
New Testament Doctrine of Ktisis," SJT 17 (1964): 449-62; and
especially the summary remarks of GCES, p. 192. Cf. also the
conclusion of John Hartog, II, "Sin, Redemption and the Animal
Kingdom," unpublished doctor of theology dissertation, Grace
Theological Seminary, 1978, pp. 187-88.
2 Cf. the similar remarks of GCES, p. 192, and Lampe,
"The New Testament Doctrine of Ktisis," pp. 453-56.
286
gether.1 Taken together, Romans 8:18-39 indicate that re-
demption has cosmic implications. In the words of verse 19
creation with intensity expectantly awaits (a]pokaradoki<a
a]pekde<xetai) the a]poka<lufin tw?n ui[w?n tou? qeou?. This event,
whenever it may occur, signals the creation's transformation.
But the obvious question is: Why is creation so vitally
linked to the appearance of God's sons? The clarifying ga>r
(v 20) follows. The creation itself was subjected to frus-
tration (mataio<thti), as it were, the opposite of te<leioj.2
But the apostle is quick to add that such a state of frus-
tration was not aimless. Rather, there was a forward look
(e]f ] e[lpi<di).3 The frustration took on, as it were, the es-
chatological hope that (o!ti, v 21)4 au]th> h[ kti<sij e]leuqerw-
qh<setai a]po> th?j doulei<aj th?j fqora?j. The liberation seems
1 See the appropriate remarks to this effect in Edwin
Lewis, "A Christian Theodicy: An Exposition of Romans 8:18-
39," Int 11 (October 1957): 405-20.
2 A helpful insight furnished by GCES, p. 194. Thus
Thomas Fahy, "Exegesis of Romans 8:16-25," ITQ 23 (April 1956):
179 offers the translation "a slavery that works havoc"
(doulei<aj th?j fqora?j).
3 Here e]f ] e[lpi<di is taken as joined to u[peta<gh, rather
than u[pota<canta. This seems to give a clearer answer concern-
ing the reason for the creation's expectation. Thus, even the
frustration does not prohibit a looking forward. For discus-
sion of this point of grammar see especially Heinrich A. W.
Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the
Romans, trans. John C. Moore and Edwin Johnson, rev. and ed.
William P. Dickson, with preface and supplementary notes to
the American ed. by Timothy Dwight (
nalls, 1889) pp. 323-24.
4 If one were to take here the variant dio<ti (supported
by x, D*, and others), the words that follow would furnish a
reason for the subjection of creation; cf. the discussion of
John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., NICNT (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959), 1:304.
287
total.1 The movement of creation at its momentous renewal is
ei]j th>n e]leuqeri<an th?j do<chj tw?n te<knwn tou? qeou? (v 21). What
is clear in these verses is that change for redeemed man
brings change for creation.
standing of this correlation:
The creation is to share, therefore, in the glory that
will be bestowed upon the children of God. It can only
participate in that glory, however, in a way that is
compatible with its nature as non-rational. Yet the
glory of the children of God is one that comprises the
creation also and must not be conceived of apart from
the cosmic regeneration--the glory of the people of God
will be in the context of the restitution of all things
(cf. Acts 3:21).2
What Romans 8:18ff. evidences is a solidarity between
man and the cosmos. He fell and creation suffered; man is
delivered and so is creation (cf. this emphasis in 8:22-23).
This solidarity is perfectly explainable in light of the
treatment given man's relationship to the rest of creation in
the dominion materials, especially as these are understood in
light of their ancient Near Eastern setting. Much earlier in
this study,3 attention was drawn to the fact that those who
rule (ancient Near Eastern royal ideology) owe obedience to
their god and a beneficence practiced toward the subjects of
their kingdom. When the ruler practiced loyalty toward his
deity, there was a reciprocating well-being and wholeness that
characterized his kingdom.
When this paradigm is applied to the rulership granted
1 GCES, pp. 206-7.
2
3 See above, pp. 188ff.
288
man, both man's harmonious relationship with the creation
(pre-fall) and lack thereof (post-fall) are explainable.
viously, any restoration of creation implies a loyalty toward
the Creator. Man's disposition of disloyalty toward God has
left him awe-struck that he should rule such objects as cause
him to sense his frailty (cf. Ps 8). Then, however, appears
Christ, the true man, who lives in utter loyalty to the heav-
enly Father, even to the point of the substitutionary, atoning
death. This loyal Christ is the appointed dominionizer whose
kingdom is one of well-being. He will cause his children to
reign with him. In that day, creation will be delivered from
its frustration and returned to the wholeness God intends.
The hope of creation and redeemed man is to see the estab-
lishment of the kingdom over which Christ, who is truly God,
rules.
Such a proposal appears to this writer to set Romans
8:18-25 into the proper perspective of the redemptive work of
Christ which has cosmic consequences. If this be accepted,
there is found in Romans 8:18ff. a framework for developing a
theology of creation. Such development demands much further
study and certainly a closer analysis of verses 18-25.
These analyses naturally culminate in drawing to-
gether the major conclusions of this study and suggesting in
a speculative way several concepts for further exploration.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
This study proposed an interfacing of the so-called
cultural mandate and the dominion materials of the Christian
canon. More precisely, the analysis has asked whether the
dominion materials do in fact explicitly mandate cultural
activity for man. Consideration of this inquiry has led to
the following major conclusions.
Any dogmatic assertion that the dominion materials
explicitly demand of man cultural activity must be forth-
rightly cautioned by the fact that from ancient times the
church has given a variety of interpretations to the passages.
These differing interpretations were conditioned by the par-
ticular cultural setting of the interpreter. That is, the
interpreter was informed by his cultural environment. And in
turn the conclusions drawn by the interpreter were transmitted
to the cultural community of which he was a part. The reality
of this reciprocation between culture and interpretation
serves as a caution against all dogmatic assertions, because
the culture-interpretation continuum is not static but dy-
namic. Culture is moving and changing and is informed and,
to that extent, is altered by each interpretation. Therefore,
each age of interpretive work must give its own careful
289
290
accounting of that milieu from which its interpretive work is
done. This eliminates as being legitimate all exegetical
work which operates a-historically (as though the cultural
milieu of the interpretation did not matter).
A further conclusion offered by this study is that
man is placed by God within the context of three relations,
to God, to others, and to the cosmos. He acts out these re-
lations in two arenas of human activity, in public acts of
liturgy and worship (cultus) and in formative acts toward
others and the cosmos (culture). Both arenas find their
ground motive in the inner being (heart) of man. Man's heart
is directed either toward God or away from Him. Accordingly,
the formative activity of culture is directed by the ground
motive. So defined, culture is not optional for man. It
must be done by virtue of the very way God has made man. Be-
cause man finds himself within these God-established relations
and because God has made man a doer and a former, he of neces-
sity does culture, individually and collectively. The ques-
tion is only whether man does his formative, shaping work to
the glory of his Creator.
Moreover, this study has concluded that if the domin-
ion materials address the subject of culture at all, they will
address this formative type of activity of man. Analysis of
both the ancient Near Eastern background, and in this light
the Old and New Testament dominion materials, points in the
direction of formative activity.
But there are at least two important realities about
291
this pointing. One is that whatever the dominion materials
say about cultural activity, they say from the viewpoint of
naive experience.1 It is not the intention of the Bible to
address cultural activity scientifically. But the Biblical
address does call all scientifically conceived cultural ac-
tivity to measure itself by the Bible's normative interpre-
of naive experience.
The second is that the dominion materials themselves
make a most interesting journey within the Christian canon.
The dominion given man in Genesis 1:26-28 refers to shaping
activity, a duty to be practiced with respect to the cosmos
in which man lives. Genesis 9:1, 7 being post-fall, pay at-
tention to the alteration in man's relation to the cosmos,
but in no sense is that formative activity which should be
done to the glory of the Creator negated. Focus on this as-
pect of the dominion idea appropriately suits the literary
purpose of Genesis 9. However, Psalm 8 building upon the
assumption of the existence of dominion, casts light on an
evident reality. Though man possesses the authority to engage
in dominionizing activity to the glory of his Creator, man
nonetheless senses his frailty as he stands viewing the sub-
jects (the concrete things of the cosmos) of his rule. These
subjects seem to operate at cross-purposes with man. As man
has operated in disloyalty toward his God, man struggles with
that over which he was made ruler. Well-being simply does
not exist between mankind and the cosmos.
1 Cf. above, pp. 108-9.
292
From the context of this problematic situation (Ps 8)
Hebrews 2 moves to a solution. By using the psalm itself He-
brews 2 shows that Christ as true man is the solution. He
moved about in his incarnate form in strict obedience to the
Father and thus brought about the possibility of well-being
for the cosmos. One day this well-being will be visibly dem-
onstrated in His kingdom, but for now mankind is assured that
Christ's dominion is so complete that he has even conquered
the last enemy, death. The man is the solution for mankind.
Thus, if man would ever engage in dominionizing ac-
tivity to the glory of the Father, he must accept that su-
preme act of Christ's loyalty, his atoning death and resurrec-
tion. By this means did He demonstrate his complete dominion;
He conquered death. There is little wonder, then, that the
New Testament lays great emphasis on the proclamation of the
gospel's atoning message (Matt 28:18-20). Christlikeness is
the goal of the believer. To become progressively like the
Son is man's only hope for doing formative activity to the
glory of God. Otherwise man's activity is done in disobedi-
ence to his Creator and the result is an absence of well-being
in the cosmos.
The above conclusions are very much on the surface of
the analysis of this dissertation. What is of special inter-
est here is the question concerning what are the contemporary
implications of these conclusions. These implications and
their applications are, of course, speculative. The implica-
tions may be divided as follows.
293
The Christian and Culture
Questions about the Christian and culture are multi-
tudinous. What is the Christian's cultural obligation? Ought
not the Christian work for social change? Should not the
Christian avoid social and cultural work and simply proclaim
the good news? Ought not the Christian concentrate on the
spiritual needs of man? Does not one show his liberal ten-
dencies by participating in cultural and social work and
thereby claiming this to be spiritual work? On and on the
questions go.
These questions do not admit to any simplistic an-
swers, but this study does provide a general direction. From
the foregoing study one matter is clear. The question of
whether a Christian has a cultural obligation is inappropri-
ate. If cultural activity be defined as formative, shaping
activity done with respect to concrete things in the cosmos,
and if it be further acknowledged that God gave this function
to man within the context of the very relations in which He
sustains man, then it follows that cultural activity cannot
be avoided. It must of necessity be done by virtue of being
human. To cease cultural activity is to declare that one has
ceased both to be human and to have a relation to the cosmos.
These are hardly possibilities!
One might better formulate the question this way:
What cultural activity ought the Christian to be doing? On
the surface of things one must say that the Christian is under
obligation to measure all of his cultural doing by the nor-
294
mative interpretation of naive experience given in the Bible.
This normative, divine interpretation is to guide his scien-
tific work. But exactly what does this all mean? Well, it
must be admitted that while the Bible (the dominion passages
in particular) says mankind does formative activity, never
can one claim that the Bible says Christians must join with
this or that particular, scientifically conceived way of doing
a cultural activity. For example no group can claim that the
Bible mandates their particular cultural activity. At best
they can only say that they believe their scientifically con-
ceived way of doing things approximates the normative inter-
pretation of naive experience given in the Bible. Nor can
one ever vindicate a given set of cultural activities (North
American culture for example) as being the divine way. And
no one group can claim that its cultural habits, conceived
through analytical reflection (scientific inquiry) are the
divine way. Such claims fly in the very face of the type of
interpretation Scripture gives. At best such groups only
approximate the Bible's normative interpretation.
These realities are especially sobering since Chris-
tian orthodoxy traditionally has conceived its commission to
be the world-wide dissemination of the gospel. But as one
goes from one culture to another, he is not fully able to
divest himself of the cultural accoutrements through which
he has scientifically perceived the Biblical message of the
gospel. This spokesman fully runs the risk of believing his
culturally influenced perceptions are in fact Biblical demands
295
for the message he speaks. The history of Christian missions
attests such ill-informed conceptions of cultural influence.
And modern-day mission enterprises are susceptible to the
same mistaken identification of their culturally influenced
perception of the gospel with the gospel itself. Just here,
then, is a call for the whole of mission enterprises to re-
think what they send across the sea. If such rethinking is
avoided, the mission enterprise has failed to consider fully
the implications of the reciprocation between culture and the
interpretation of the gospel message. And to a certain extent
such failure indicates an ignorance of the formative activity
God gave man originally.
There is another reason for cautioning against any
given formative activity as being divine. No person or group
of persons is able to claim full, unfailing loyalty to God.
Only the Son can make such a legitimate claim. All others
must struggle with degrees of disloyalty. Disloyalty of what-
ever degree will keep one from fully performing his cultural
activity to God's glory. And to this extent each person or
group struggles with his environment, this struggle being
supremely manifested in the event of one's death.
What these several applications of this study suggest
is that the Christian person lives within a very difficult
situation. By his very nature he must do formative activity.
This is to be done to God's glory. But disloyalty (man's
sinful rebellion) has rendered such a complete glorification
impossible. This fact is attested by a continuing struggle
296
with the cosmos. The counterpart of disloyalty is a lack of
beneficence (well-being). Man's only hope, therefore, is the
true dominionizer, Christ. But even His followers possess
varying degrees of disloyalty and thus a lack of well-being.
Apparently man is to be what he cannot fully become.
This predicament has led some to claim that here is
one of the very reasons why the Christian should avoid cul-
tural activity. Why be burdened with seeking the impossible?
Rather, ought not one to invest his time in helping with the
spiritual needs of man? However, even here one is faced with
a similar predicament. The saints are to live holy lives,
but those who claim sinlessness are at best liars! But no
one who stands in the line of historic Christian orthodoxy
takes this to mean that Christians should give up the goal of
living without sin. Happily, the resolution for both predica-
ments is Christ. One day Christians will reign with Him (true
dominionizing) and be like Him (holiness).
Furthermore, what one does culturally (because it is
formative) is added to his own cultural setting. His per-
spectives and activities, whether individual or corporate are
absorbed by his culture. This will produce modifications of
one type or another and he is accountable for these modifica-
tions. Are they to God's glory? Only an analysis of Scrip-
ture's divine interpretation can provide an answer. Thus,
even a supposed avoidance of cultural activity by the Chris-
tian will produce formative modifications in his culture. Such
an avoidance can hardly lead to a good accounting before God.
297
Failure to grasp the reality of this continuing modi-
fication of culture by the Christian is unfortunate. The
failure leads to something of a Christian monasticism, a
failure to intersect consciously the Christian faith with its
cultural environment. Certainly the Christian person is faced
with the ever present possibility of supposedly fleeing from
his culture. He may join a group whose stance is anti-
cultural. He may inform his children not to participate in
worldly activities, by his definition of culture. But even
in this person's flight from culture he cannot but do culture,
albeit negatively so.
If the findings of this study point in any direction,
they indicate that the truly Christian person is one who con-
sciously practices the full range of his shaping, formative
activity to the glory of his God. This man must live in the
ambiguity of always needing to compare his activity with the
Bible's normative interpretation of naive experience. This
person will find no verses that identify the expected cul-
tural activity cast in the language of his century. But out
of loyalty to his Lord he must not fail to interface con-
stantly the Bible's message with the full range of formative
activity open to a citizen of this century.
Then does the Bible give us a cultural mandate? The
answer is twofold. The answer is "yes" if one means that
through divine determination man is given formative work to
do with respect to concrete things within the cosmos. But
the answer is "no" if one means that God has told the Chris-
298
tian man to practice this exact activity or participate in
that precise social program or join with a particular politi-
cal group. Man is a modifier, a former (in keeping with the
limitations of the divine law-structures) of what is here but
the exact means for modification is undetermined. That exact
means will vary from age to age and will itself be the prod-
uct of man's formative work.
The Christian and Education
The findings of this study also have several implica-
tions for the Christian educational enterprise. If the re-
deemed man is to do formative activity to God's glory, it
would seem the Christian educational enterprise must lead in
this direction. The enterprise must expose the student to the
breadth of the cosmos wherein the formative work is done. And
it must help the student develop interpretive, scientific
skills for analyzing the Biblical text so the student may in-
telligently determine what direction his formative activity
should take. Any other enterprise could not, it seems, do
justice to the cultural-activity marked out by the dominion
materials.
To answer what direct application can be made of these
implications, the example of Christian undergraduate education
may be cited. Any undergraduate Christian program which con-
sciously or unconsciously avoids exposure to the spectrum of
created reality can hardly be said to be doing Christian edu-
cation. Nor can any enterprise be Christian which neglects a
conscious attempt to help develop in students skills of
299
scientific Biblical interpretation. On the surface of things
the Christian liberal arts educational enterprise would seem
best to match these realities.
Admittedly, many liberal arts colleges do little to
educate their students in Biblical studies. And many such
colleges which do are sometimes weak in the area of Biblical
studies education. Apparently in certain cases Bible educa-
tion is added in order to Christianize what is being done
elsewhere in the college. The study of Scripture is not in
such cases an integral part of the total scientific endeavor
of the educational community. Such study must be more than
that which increases the numbers of Christian donors and en-
dowments or that which adds a touch of campus morality to an
otherwise touchy issue for the college's public image. In-
deed, if the Christian liberal arts college is to have educa-
tional integrity, then there will need to be overt adminis-
trative and monetary commitments to an integrated exposure to
the full spectrum of created reality. Only an integrative
commitment will do. For only this will encourage Christian,
integrative skills in the student.
Just here an educational approach such as the Bible
college program falters. Admittedly, such a program seeks to
give the student an overview of a host of liberal arts sub-
jects. But these are often viewed as service subjects, not
as part of the integrative whole of which Biblical study is
also a part. Concentration on Biblical studies as the only
major tends to monasticize the Bible from its integrative
300
function within the total spectrum of created reality.
Certainly a Bible college program can stress this in-
tegrative function and ought to do so. To the degree this
stress is emphasized, to that extent the educational program
of the Bible college is not distorting the integration neces-
sary to appropriate formative activity with respect to
concrete things.
What has been said of undergraduate programs can also
be applied to graduate programs. If graduate studies are to
be integrative in function, then the curricular emphases must
reflect this fact. Tendencies in American graduate studies
are toward non-integration, a movement against the integration
with which the Creator fashioned created reality. Too often
graduate study specializes, atomistically studying creation.
To a degree trained specialists, whose disciplines are seldom
interfaced with each other, are developed. Too often these
disciplines are overtly protected from integration. This is
the inherent danger of seminary studies; they tend toward a
non-integrative awareness of created reality. Such a program
could easily train specialists in Biblical studies and the
ministry but in the process blind them to the integration of
all scientific work. And they might view their specialization
as having no cosmos-wide function. Such stilted specializa-
tion has little integration with the formative activity God
gave man at the beginning.
All of the above is not to imply that all graduate
schools that specialize in a given discipline are inappro-
301
priate. For example, seminaries are legitimate educational
forms. But the caution for such a program is that it must
consciously seek to integrate itself with the totality of
creation, with the full range of formative activity that has
been man's since the beginning. Administrative and monetary
means must secure this end. There must be overt movement in
this direction by the faculty members who formulate and im-
plement the curriculum. If these things are not so, some
graduate programs of study are in great need of immediate re-
evaluation.
But is this enough for Christian undergraduate and
graduate study? Hardly. Such study must encourage the stu-
dent to work freely as a Christian within the totality of the
cosmos. Prohibitions such as avoiding merely secular pursuits
will not do. Dichotomy is out and integration is in. For the
Christian his work is cosmos wide. He must understand that in
Christ is found the mediator of the true life of loyalty
toward God. In Him is the starting point of doing formative
work. In this way the Christian man finds integration with
the environment. All he does, he is to do in loyalty to God
in the entire habitation God has given. The Christian man
does not flee from God's world; he works within it. His only
fear is that his formative work might dishonor God, the one
who gave him the work to do. And as the believer works, he
looks forward in hope to reigning with Christ, the true
dominionizer.
Thus, Christian education must set free, liberate.
302
It must make the student conscious that all in God's world is
there to be shaped, and all is to be shaped to God's glory.
Monasteries and Christian education do not mix. The Chris-
tian man does not flee from this world to another. Because
redemption is his, he is able through loyalty to God to em-
brace the environment in which he lives. Along with his Maker
he seeks the well-being of his environment. In a word, only
the redeemed man can be truly worldly interested. Without re-
demption man's formative work leads to chaotic effects in the
cosmos, so much so that creation groans. Well-being really
is God's design for creation. And above all others the re-
deemed man must know this supremely. Christian education must
consciously be permeated with this spirit of liberation in or-
der to raise in the student the possibility, the interest in
doing the shaping work in the cosmos to God's glory.
By virtue of the way God created man and the world,
this shaping work makes its impact, its modification on one's
own culture and moves that culture in some direction or other.
As each fresh impact is made, the culture is changed and moved.
Because this is so, each generation of Christian thinkers must
make a fresh appraisal of that culture which affects him. And
more than this, each cultural impact alters, though perhaps
almost imperceptibly, the cultural milieu which permeates the
interpreter of the Biblical record. The reciprocation between
one's cultural setting and his Biblical scientific interpreta-
tion, therefore, implies that both culture and Biblical inter-
pretation have a dynamic movement, either toward God or away
303
from God. The Christian educational enterprise must constantly
hold before its students the reality of this reciprocation and
this dynamic. The redeemed student must know that as past in-
terpretations were affected by the cultural milieu, so are
present interpretations affected. And past and present inter-
pretations are in a dynamic continuum. Christian tradition
itself therefore, has a dynamic. Thus every formative activ-
ity impacts the culture which in turn affects one's Biblical
interpretation. And each fresh Biblical perception will in
some way alter one's perception of what his shaping activity
should be which in turn will impact the interpreter's cul-
tural setting. The reciprocation and the dynamic exist, and
the redeemed person must work in light of this knowledge.
The Christian and Theology
By now it is clear that the conclusions of this study
have several implications for the doing of the discipline of
theology. Only a few will be suggested here.
The first is that theological constructions must
clearly, humbly, and steadfastly refuse to declare that they
are equal to the divine, normative interpretation of naive
experience. Such theological constructions can only be viewed
as attempts to approximate that divine interpretation. In
this respect the theologian's work is very much like the biol-
ogist's or the behavioral scientist's work. In all three cases
the scientific work is to more and more closely approximate
the Bible's interpretation of naive experience. In some ec-
clesiastical circles theologians have been unwilling to
304
acknowledge this. They have insisted that theology is the
monarch over other sciences. Certainly, theology informs
biology and behavioral science but the opposite is also true.
This is only bothersome to the theologians who understand
that the informing of theology by biology and behavioral sci-
ence means that science is informing the Bible. Those who so
understand declare their own error. They have equated their
theological construction with the Bible, no doubt an equation
born out of arrogance. Theology, biology, and behavioral sci-
ence are in reality only human sciences. Each of them must
acknowledge submission to the divine, normative interpretation
of naive experience in Scripture. Scientific work, therefore,
is always a step removed from the Biblical norm.
A second implication which closely follows the first
is that the discipline of theology must acknowledge that its
various formulations are developed within a given cultural
environment. Often theological perspectives claim to have
accounted for the cultural setting of a given passage of
Scripture or even the cultural background of a given ancient
interpretation of Scripture. But just as often, they are
negligent in asserting that their given theological formula-
tion has been impacted by culture. All human scientific en-
deavor (even theology) must readily acknowledge this reality
and whatever subsequent limitations it may produce.
In reality any theological formulation is not only
one step removed from the normative interpretation of naive
experience in Scripture but is also a formulation that has
305
been impacted by its cultural context. In this respect a
given theology partly expresses this cultural environment.
The argument has already been made throughout this disserta-
tion that culture is dynamic, not static. It is continually
impacted by man in his formative activity. All this implies
that man, the interpreter of Scripture, makes his interpre-
tation from within a cultural context that is changing and
moving. As this context influences the interpreter, the for-
mulations of the interpreter will be altered, even if the al-
teration is very subtle. Therefore, the discipline of the-
ology is a developing and changing endeavor.
Does all this imply that the discipline of theology
is on an evolutionary journey that leads nowhere? Not neces-
sarily. But the reality of this dynamic nature of theological
formulation means that any given theology that imagines it
operates a-culturally is arrogantly mistaken. What, then,
furnishes the discipline of theology with its moorings? There
is, of course, the continuing record of the Christian Canon
which each theology studies. But additionally, the discipline
ought to make use of the guidance furnished by historical the-
ology. By this means a modern day interpreter can know par-
tially at least what past generations of Christian theologians
have thought was essential to an orthodox perspective in their
era. The modern day interpreter should see a line of orthodox
theological formulations developing. He must know that he is
part of this tradition and is contributing to it. He joins
with those of like faith in the enterprise of formative ac-
306
tivity done with respect to the discipline of theology.
In too many circles of theology the interpreter errs.
He may imagine that his theology is supra-cultural, i.e., it
is not influenced by the culture contemporary with the formu-
lation. Therefore, he lords his theology over others as the
theology. He readily employs his formulation to detect her-
esy. He isolates himself and with him, that small circle of
adherents who hold views like his. Given this situation, he
further errs because he isolates himself from the helpful,
guiding, staying influence of historical theology. In fact,
he may reject the value of such study outrightly. To help
avoid such arrogance, the one who formulates theology must
forthrightly acknowledge what has influenced his theology and
acknowledge the importance and value of historical theology.
The discipline of theology can prosper best in circumstances
such as these.
A third implication for the discipline of theology is
that as a science it must pay more attention to the specific
scientific concern about a theology of creation. Much atten-
tion has been paid to a theology of man or a theology of last
things. But unfortunately little scientific attention within
the discipline of theology has been given to the cosmos. As
a result theologians have either ignored or resisted giving
attention to the environment or ecology. They have proved
lame and halting when others have taken strides to address
creation. They have spoken slowly and with impediment while
others have announced crusades about this or that aspect of
307
creation. Surely those who study God must say something in-
telligible about His creation and His intentions and designs
for it.
A fourth implication is that the discipline of theol-
ogy must speak to the issue of culture. Culture cannot be
ignored or denounced only as a secular concern. It cannot be
assigned as being the task of only the unredeemed man. One
cannot denounce a given cultural manifestation as evil and
thereupon extrapolate by arguing that all culture is evil.
One must be more perceptive, thinking, and Biblical than this.
Theologians cannot be content to practice what they sing,
"This world is not my home, I'm just a-passin' through." The
theologian must recognize that heavenly citizenship requires
attention to the formative, shaping work within the cosmos to
the glory of God. The conclusions of this study are offered
as a prolegomena to a theology of culture. The science of
theology still has work to do and explorations to make.
Each generation of Christians must study anew the
matters raised in this dissertation. Several far-reaching
implications demand further intensive study. Redeemed men
must be quick to respond to these challenges in order to
fulfill more faithfully their redemptive obligations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Christianity and Culture 1 (1964):7-26.
Albertson, James. "Genesis 1 and the Babylonian Creation
Myth." Thought 145 (1962):226-44.
Albrektson, Bertil. History and the Gods: An Essay on the
Idea of Historical Events As Divine Manifestations
in the Ancient Near East and in
C. W. K. Gleerup, 1967.
Allen, Leslie C. "The Old Testament in Romans I-VIII.” Vox
Evanqelica 3 (1964):6-41.
Alster, Bendt. Dumuzi's Dream.
Forlag, 1972.
Althaus, Paul. The Ethics of Martin Luther. Translated by
Robert C. Schultz.
1972.
Andersen, Francis I. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. The
Hague: Mouton & Co., 1974.
Anderson, Bernhard W. "Human Dominion Over Nature." In
Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought. Edited by
Miriam Ward.
Biblical Institute, 1975. Pp. 27-45.
________. "The Earth Is the Lord's." Interpretation 9
(January 1955):3-20.
Anderson, Bernhard and Harrelson, Walter, eds.
Prophetic Heritage.
Arbuthnot, C. C. "Did Jesus Teach Christian Socialism?"
Biblical World 41 (1913):147-61.
Arndt, William and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek-English Lexi-
con of the New Testament.
Asselin, David Tobin. "The Notion of Dominion in Genesis
1-3." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 16 (July 1954):
277-94.
308
309
Augustine. De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim. Translated
into French with notes by Paul Agahesse and A. Solig-
nac. 2 vols.
Auld, A. G. "
92 (February 1981):146-47.
Baab, O. J. The Theology of the Old Testament.
Abingdon Press, 1949.
Baillie, John, McNeill, John T. and Van Dusen, Henry P., gen.
eds. The Library of Christian Classics. 26 vols.
and 21: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion,
by John Calvin. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles.
Baird, J. Arthur. A Critical Concordance to the Synoptic
Gospels. The Computer Bible, vol. 1. Revised edi-
tion. Edited by idem and David Noel Freedman. N.l.:
Biblical Research Associates, Inc., 1971.
Barbour, Ian G., ed. Earth Might Be Fair: Reflection on
Ethics, Religion and Ecology.
Prentice-Hall, 1972.
Barnette, Henlee H. The Church and the Ecological Crisis.
Barr, James. "The Image of God in Genesis--Some Linguistic
and Historical Considerations." Die Ou Testamentiese
Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika 10 (1967):5-13.
________. "Tradition and Expectation in Ancient
Scottish Journal of Theology 10 (March 1957):24-34.
Barrick, William D. "Leviticus 26: Its Relationship to
Covenant Contexts and Concepts." Unpublished doctor
of theology dissertation. Grace Theological Seminary,
1981.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. 3: The Doctrine of
Creation, Part 1. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F.
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958-69.
Barth, M. "Speaking of Sin: Some Interpretative Notes on
Romans 1:18-3:20." Scottish Journal of Theology 8
(September 1955):288-96.
310
Barton, George A. The Royal Inscriptions of
Library of Ancient Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 1. New
Haven:
Baruch, J. Z. "The Relation Between Sin and Disease in the
OT." Janus 51 (1964):295-302.
Bauer, Walter, Arndt, William F., and Gingrich, F. Wilbur.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd edition. Re-
vised and augmented by idem and Frederick W. Danker.
Bauman, Clarence. "The Theology of 'the Two Kingdoms': A
Comparison of Luther and the Anabaptists." The Men-
nonite Quarterly Review 38 (January 1965):37-49 and
60.
Beauchamp, Evode. The Bible and the Universe:
the Theology of History. Translated by David Bol-
hatchet.
Begrich, Joachim. "Die Paradieserzahlung: Eine literar-
geschichtliche Studie." Zeitschrift fur die Alt-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 50 (1932):93-116.
Bentzen, Aage. King and Messiah. Lutterworth Studies in
Church and State.
Bergmann, Ed., ed. Codex Hammurabi. Scripta Pontificii
Instituti Biblici. Roma: Pontificium Institutum,
1953.
Berkeley, George. The Principles of Human Knowledge and
Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. Intro-
duction by G. J. Warnock. Meridian Books.
The World Publishing Company, 1967.
Berkhof, Hendrickus. Christ the Meaning of History. Trans-
lated by Lambertus Buuiuuan. Twin Brook Series. Re-
printed.
Berkouwer, G. C. Man: The Image of God.
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962.
Berkovits, Eliezer. Man and God: Studies in Biblical The-
ology.
Bernhardt, Karl-Heinz. Das Problem der altorientalischen
Konigsideologie im Alten Testament. Supplements to
Vetus Testamentum, no. 8.
311
Bethge, Eberhard. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Translated by Eric
Mosbacher et al. Edited by Edwin Robertson. New
Birch, L. C. “Creation and Creator.” Journal of Religion 37
(April 1957): 85-98.
Black, Matthew. "The Development of Judaism in the Greek and
Roman Periods," pp. 693-98. In Peake's Commentary on
the Bible. Edited by idem and H. H. Rowley. New
Bleeker, C. J. Hathor and Thoth. Studies in the History of
Religions, vol. XXVI.
Bloch, Joshua. On the Apocalyptic in Judaism. The Jewish
Quarterly Review Monograph Series, no. II. Edited by
Abraham A. Neuman and Solomon Zeitlin.
The
1952;
Bloesch, Donald G. "Soteriology in Contemporary Christian
Thought." Interpretation 35 (April 1981):132-44.
Bokser, Ben Zion. The Wisdom of the Talmud.
Philosophical Library, 1951.
Boman, Thorlief. Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek. Trans-
lated by J. L. Moreau. The Library of History and
Doctrine.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Creation and Fall; Temptation. Trans-
lated by John C. Fletcher and Kathleen Downham. New
Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1963.
Bornkamm, Heinrich. Luther and the Old Testament. Trans-
lated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch.
Fortress Press, 1969.
Bottero, Jean, Cassin, Elena, and Vercoutter, Jean, eds. The
Delacorte Press, 1967.
Bowen, C. R. "Jesus and Social Revolution." Biblical World
42 (1913):26-29.
Bowker, J. W. "Psalm CX." Vetus Testamentum 17 (1967):31-41.
312
Bratcher, Robert G., ed. Old Testament Quotations in the New
Testament. Revised edition.
Bible Societies, 1967.
Brehier, Emile. The History of Philosophy. Vol. 2: The
Hellenistic and Roman Age. Translated by Wade
Baskin.
1965.
Briggs, Charles Augustus and Briggs, Emilie Grace. A Criti-
cal and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms.
2 vols. The International Critical Commentary. New
Brown, Francis, Driver, S. R., and Briggs, Charles. A Hebrew
and English Lexicon. Reprinted.
Clarendon Press, 1968.
Brownlee, William H. "Psalms 1-2 as a Coronation Liturgy."
Biblica 52 (1971):321-36.
Bruce, F. F. "The Bible and the Environment." Unpublished
paper, n. 1., 1981.
________. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The New International
Commentary on the New Testament.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.
Brueggemann, Walter. "Kingship and Chaos." Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 33 (1971):317-32.
_________. "Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gen 2:23a)." Catho-
lic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970):532-42.
Brunner, Emil. Christianity and Civilization. Part 2. New
________. Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropology. Trans-
lated by Olive Wyon.
Press, 1947.
________. The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption.
Dogmatics, vol. 2. Translated by Olive Wyon. Phila-
delphia: The Westminster Press, 1952.
________. The Divine Imperative. Translated by Olive Wyon.
Buber, Martin. "Prophecy, Apocalyptic, and the Historical
Hour." Union Seminary Quarterly Review 12 (March
1957):9-21.
313
Buccellati, Giorgio. Cities and Nations of Ancient
Studi Semitici, vol. 26. Roma: Istituto Di Studi
Del Vicino Oriente, 1967.
_________. The Amorites of the
Istituto Orientale, 1966.
Buchanan, Briggs. "An Extraordinary Seal Impression of the
Third Dynasty of
Studies 31 (April 1972):96-101.
Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews. The Anchor Bible.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972.
Budge, E. A. Wallis. The Book of Opening the Mouth. 2 vols.
in 1.
________. The Book of the Dead. Books on
series, vol. VI.
Co., Ltd., 1901.
Burney, C. F. "Christ as the APXH of Creation." Journal of
Theological Studies 27 (1926):160-77.
Burrows, Eric. "Some Cosmological Patterns in Babylonian
Religion." In The Labyrinth. Edited by S. H. Hooke.
Bury, R. G., trans. Sextus Empiricus. 4 vols. The Loeb
Classical Library.
1934.
Butler, William W. A Comparison of the Ethics of Emil Brunner
and Dietrich Bonhoeffer With Special Attention to the
Orders of Creation and the Mandates. Ph.D. disserta-
tion,
Microfilms International, 71-15, 591, 1971.
Cairns, David. The Image of God in
Theology and Philosophy Series.
1953; revised ed.,
Caldwell, Thomas A., Oswalt, John N. and Sheehan, John F.,
trans. An Akkadian Grammar: Parts I and II. A
translation of Riemschneider's Lehrbuch des Akka-
dischen. Second edition.
University Press, 1976.
Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries. 22 vols. Translated by
John King et al.
ety, 1843; reprint ed.,
1979.
314
________. Calvin's Tracts and Treatises. 3 vols. Transla-
ted by Henry Beveridge.
tion Society, 1851; reprint ed.,
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958.
________. "The Word Our Only Rule." In The Mystery of God-
liness and Other Selected Sermons.
D. A. Forbes, 1830; reprint ed.,
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950. Pp. 67-80.
Carrington, Richard. Ancient
Series, no. 4.
Carroll, Robert P. "Twilight of Prophecy or Dawn of Apoca-
lyptic." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
14 (October 1979):3-35.
Cassidy, Richard J. The Social and Political Stance of Jesus
in Luke's Gospel., Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate The-
ological Union, 1976;
Microfilms International, 77-2581, 1977.
Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part 1, 1st
English edition. Translated by
Castellino, G. "Urnammu, three Religious Texts." Zeitschrift
fur Assyrioloqie, Neue Folge 52 (August 1957):1-57.
Catafago, Joseph. An English and Arabic Dictionary.
Bernard Quaritch, 1858.
Cazelles, H. "David's Monarchy and the Gibeonite Claim."
Charles, R. H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the
Old Testament. 2 vols.
Press, 1913.
________. "The Rise and Development in
in a Future Life." The Expositor, ser. 6, 7 (1903):
49-64.
Childs, Brevard S. Myth and Reality in the Old Testament.
Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 27.
Press, 1960.
________. "Psalm 8 in the Context of the Christian Canon."
Interpretation 23 (1969):20-31.
Childs, James M., Jr. The Imago Dei and Eschatology: The
Ethical Implications of a Reconsideration of the
Image of God in Man Within the Framework of an
315
Eschatological Theology. S.T.D. dissertation,
Lutheran
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 75-
18, 208, 1975.
Clark, Gordon H. "The Image of God in
Evangelical Theological Society 12 (1969):215-22.
Clines, D. J. A. "Psalm Research Since 1955: 1. The Psalms
and the Cult." Tyndale Bulletin 18 (1967):103-26.
________. "The Etymology of Hebrew SELEM." Journal of
Northwest Semitic Languages 3 (1974):19-25.
________. "The Image of God in
(1968) :53-103.
________. "Theme in Genesis 1-11." Catholic Biblical Quar-
terly 38 (October 1976):483-507.
Coats, G. W., ed. Canon and Authority: Old Testament Essays.
________. "Strife and Reconciliation: Themes of a Biblical
Theology in the Book of Genesis." Horizons in
Biblical Theology 2 (1980):15-37.
________. "The God of Death." Journal of Bible and Theology
29 (July 1975):227-39.
Cohen, A., ed. The Soncino Chumash. Soncino Books of the
Bible.
Collins, John J. "Patterns of Eschatology at
Traditions in Transformation. Edited by Baruch Hal-
pern and Jon D. Levenson.
brauns, 1981. Pp. 351-75.
________. "Rabbinic Exegesis and Pauline Exegesis." Pt. 2:
"A Pauline Exegesis." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 3
(April 1941):145-58.
________. "The Jewish Apocalypses." Semeia 14 (1979):21-59.
Combrink, H. J. B. "Some Thoughts on the Old Testament Cita-
tions in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Neotestamentica
5 (1971):22-36.
Cooke, Gerald. "The Sons of (the) God(s)." Zeitschrift fur
die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 76 (1964):22-47.
316
Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. Vol. I:
Cornford, Francis MacDonald, trans. The
1st American edition.
Press, 1946.
Costello, C. J. "The Old Testament in
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 4 (1942):141-45.
Countryman, L. W. The Rich Christian in the Church of the
Early Empire: Contradictions and Accommodations.
Craigen, Trevor. "Mlc and tvmd: An Exegetical Inter-
action." Unpublished paper for Anthropology and
Hamartiology Seminar. Grace Theological Seminary,
1980.
Crawford, R. G. "The Image of God." The Expository Times
77 (May 1966):233-36.
Crim, Keith R. The Royal Psalms.
Press, 1962.
Cross, Frank M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in
the History of the Religion of
Cullmann, Oscar. Salvation in History.
and Row, 1967.
Curtis, John R. and Hallo, William W. "Money and Merchants
in
103-39.
Dahi, George. "The Messianic Expectation in the Psalter."
Journal of Biblical Literature 57 (March 1938):1-12.
Dahl, Nils, "Eschatology and History in the Light of the
Past. Edited by James M. Robinson.
Harper and Row, 1971. Pp. 9-28.
Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms. 3 vols. The Anchor Bible. Gar-
den City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966.
317
Dalman, Gustaf H. Aramaisch-Neuhebraisches Handworterbuch zu
Targum, Talmud, and Midrasch.
Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1967.
Danielou, Jean. A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before
the Council of
edited by John A. Baker.
& Todd, 1964-77.
________. In the Beginning: Genesis I-III.
Helicon Press, Inc., 1965.
D'Arcy, M. C. et al. Saint Augustine. Reprinted.
Meridian Books, Inc., 1958.
Davies, G. I. "Apocalyptic and Historiography." Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament 5 (1978):15-28.
De Catanzaro, Carmino J. "Man in Revolt: A Study in the
Primaeval History of the Book of Genesis." Canadian
Journal of Theology 4 (1958):285-92.
DeGuglielmo, Antonine. "The Fertility of the Land in the
Messianic Prophecies." Catholic Biblical Quarterly
19 (1957):306-11.
Delitzsch, Franz. A System of Biblical Psychology. Trans-
lated by Robert Ernest Wallis.
Book House, 1966.
________. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols.
Translated by Thomas L. Kingsbury. Reprint. Minne-
apolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978.
Delling, Gerhard. "u[pota<ssw." In Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament, vol. 8. Edited by Gerhard Fried-
rich, edited and translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.
1972. Pp. 39-46.
De Vos, Peter et al. Earth-Keeping: Christian Stewardship
of Natural Resources. Edited by Loren Wilkinson.
1980.
Dewey, John. Experience and Nature.
lications, Inc., 1958.
Diepenhorst,
University Quarterly 1 (December 1951):204-13.
318
________. "Science, Its Nature, Its Possibilities, and Its
Limitations." Free University Quarterly 4 (November
1955):11-37.
________. "The Problem of War." Free University Quarterly 2
(December 1952):69-105.
Ditmanson, Harold H. "The Call for a Theology of Creation."
Dialog 3 (Autumn 1964):264-73.
Dockx, S. "Man's Eschatological Condition." Scottish Jour-
nal of Theology 27 (February 1974):20-34.
Dooyeweerd, Herman. A New Critique of Theoretical Thought.
4 vols. Translated by David H. Freeman and William
S. Young.
formed Publishing Company, 1969.
________. . "Cornelius Van Til and the Transcendental Critique
of Theoretical Thought." In
Edited by E. R. Geehan.
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.
________. Roots of Western Culture. Translated by John
Kraay.
Dossin, G. Textes Cuneiformes, Archives Royales de Mari.
Vol. 1.
1946.
Doukhan, Jacques B. "The Literary Structure of the Genesis
Creation Story." Doctor of theology dissertation,
Seminary, 1978.
Driver, G. R. and Miles, John C., eds. The Babylonian Laws.
2 vols.
Dubarle, Andre Marie. The Doctrine of Original Sin. Trans-
lated by E. M. Stewart.
1964.
Duddington, John W. "First Fruits of a Cosmic Redemption."
Christianity Today 3 (September 29, 1959):6-8.
Eareckson, Vincent Offley, III. The Glory to be Revealed
Hereafter: The Interpretation of Romans 8:18-25
and its Place in Pauline Theology. Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1977; Ann
319
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International,
77-21, 191, 1977.
Eaton, J. H. Kingship and the Psalms. Studies in Biblical
Theology, 2nd series, no. 32.
R. Allenson, Inc., n.d.
Ebeling, Gerhard. Luther: An Introduction to His Thought.
Translated by R. A. Wilson.
Sons & Co., 1970;
Philosophy Series, 1972.
Edwards, G. R. Jesus and the Politics of Violence. New
Edwards,
3rd edition. Vols. I and II.
University Press, 1970-75.
Eichhorst, William R. "Man in the Image of God: Created and
Renewed." Unpublished doctor of theology disserta-
tion. Grace Theological Seminary, 1973.
Eichrodt, Walther. Man in the Old Testament. Studies in
Biblical Theology.
________. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Trans-
lated by J. A. Baker.
Press, 1967.
Eisenbeis, Walter. Die Wurzel Mlc im Alten Testament.
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft, no. 113.
and Company, 1969.
Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Trans-
lated by Peter R. Ackroyd.
1965.
Eliade, Mircea. Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal
Return.
Elliger, K. and Rudolph, W., eds. Biblia Hebraica Stutt-
gartensia.
1967/77.
Ellis, Maria DeJ. Agriculture and the State in Ancient Meso-
potamia.
the Babylonian Fund, 1, 1976.
320
Emmet, C. W. "The Fourth Book of Esdras and
Expository Times 27 (1916):551-56.
Engnell, Ivan. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient
Erivwo, Sam U. "Traditional Culture and Christianity:
Rivals or Partners." African Ecclesial Review 21
(August 1979):216-22.
Erman, Adolf. The Ancient Egyptians. Translated by Aylward
M. Blackman. With introduction by William Kelly
Simpson. Harper Torchbooks edition.
Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1927; reprint ed.,
Harper & Row, 1966.
Estep, W. R. The Reformation: Luther, the Anabaptists.
Christian Classics series.
Press, 1979.
Etheridge, J. W. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben
Uzziel on the Pentateuch.
House, Inc., 1968.
Evans, Geoffrey. "Ancient, Mesopotamian Assemblies." Journal
of the American Oriental Society 78 (January-March
1958):1-11.
________. "Ancient Mesopotamian Assemblies--An Addendum."
Journal of the American Oriental Society 78 (April-
June 1958):114-15.
Eybers,
Northwest Semitic Languages 2 (1972):23-36.
Fahy, Thomas. "Exegesis of Romans 8:16-25." Irish Theo-
logical Quarterly 23 (April 1956):178-81.
Fairman, H. W. "The Kingship Rituals of
Ritual, and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and
Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in
endon Press, 1960. Pp. 74-104.
Farmer, W. R. "The Revolutionary Character of Jesus and the
Christian Revolutionary Role in American Society."
Faulkner, Raymond O. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian.
321
________. The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts.
Clarendon Press, 1969.
Feinberg, Charles Lee. "The Image of God." Bibliotheca Sac-
ra 129 (July-September 1972):235-46.
Fichtner, Joseph. Man, the Image of God.
House, 1978.
Filson, Floyd V. "The
McCormick Quarterly 21 (March 1968):307-17.
Finkelstein, J. J. "Ammisaduqa's Edict and the Babylonian
'Law Codes."' Journal of Cuneiform Studies 15
(1961) :91-104.
________. "The Laws of Ur-Nammu. " Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 22 (1968-69):66-82.
Finkelstein, Louis. "The Book of Jubilees and the Rabbinic
Halaka." Harvard Theological Review 16 (January
1923):29-61.
Finley, F. I., gen. ed. Ancient Culture and Society. 11
vols.
Vol. 11: The Stoics, by F. H. Sandbach.
Fisher, Loren, ed. Ras Shamra Parallels. 2 vols. Analecta
Orientalia, no. 49. Roma: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum, 1972.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "Book Reviews: Matthew Black, An Aramaic
Approach to the Gospels and Acts." Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 30 (July 1968):417-28.
________. Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testa-
ment.
________. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I. Biblica
et Orientalia, vol. XVIII.
Institute, 1966.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and Harrington, Daniel J. A Manual of
Palestinian Aramaic Texts. Biblica et Orientalia, no.
34.
Flack, E. E. "The Apostle Paul and the Old Testament."
Lutheran Quarterly 53 (1923):330-56.
Fohrer, Georg, ed. Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the Old
Testament.
322
Foster, Benjamin R. "Wisdom and the Gods in Ancient Mesopo-
tamia." Orientalia 43 (1974):344-54.
Foster, M. "Greek and Christian Ideas of Nature." Free
University Quarterly 6 (May 1959):122-27.
Frame, John M. "The Quiet Crisis." The Presbyterian Guardian
41 (April 1972):56-57.
_________. "The Word of God in the Cosmonomic Philosophy."
The Presbyterian Guardian 41 (October 1972):123-25.
Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods.
sity of Chicago Press, 1948.
_________. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient.
2nd revised impression.
_________. The Birth of Civilization in the
_________. The Problem of Similarity in Ancient Near Eastern
Religions.
Frankfort, Henri et al. Before Philosophy: The Intellectual
Adventure of Ancient
timore: Penguin Books.
Freedman, D. N. "The Biblical Idea of History." Interpreta-
tion 22 (1967):32-49.
Gall, August Freiherrn von, ed. Der hebraische Pentateuch
der Samaritaner.
Topelmann, 1918.
Garvis, A. E. "Shadow and Substance." The Expository Times
28 (October 1916-September 1917):461-64.
Gaster, Theodore H. Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old
Testament.
_________. Thespis.
Gelb, Ignace J. et al., eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the
Oriental Institute of the
Gerber, Uwe. "Mm. VIII 18ff als exegetisches Problem der
Dogmatik." Novum Testamentum 8 (January 1966):58-81.
323
Gibbs, John. Creation and Redemption: A Study in Pauline
Theology. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 26.
_________. "Pauline Cosmic Christology and the Ecological
Crisis." Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (December
1971):466-79.
Giblin, C. H. "'The Things of God' in the Question Concern-
ing Tribute to Caesar (Lk 20:25, Mk 12:17, Mt 22:21)"
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971):510-27.
Gibson, John C. L. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions.
2 vols.
Giles, Pauline. "The Son of Man in the Epistle to the He-
brews." The Expository Times 86 (August 1975):328-32.
Gilkey, Langdon. Maker of Heaven and Earth. Christian Faith
Series. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1959.
Ginzberg, Louis. "Some Observations on the Attitude of the
Synagogue Toward the Apocalyptic Eschatological Writ-
ings." Journal of Biblical Literature 41 (1922):
115-36.
_________. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols.
The Jewish Publication Society of
Glasson, T. Francis. Greek Influences in Jewish Eschatoloqy
With Special Reference to the Apocalypses and Pseude-
pigraphas.
_________. "What is Apocalyptic?" New Testament Studies 27
(October 1980):98-105.
Goetz, Albrecht. "Mesopotamian Laws and the Historian."
Journal of the American Oriental Society 69 (1949):
115-20.
_________. "Sakkanakkus of the
Cuneiform Studies 17 (1963):1-31.
_________. "Two Ur-Dynasty Tablets Dealing With Labor."
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 16 (1962):13-16.
Goodenough, Erwin R. "Kingship in Early
Biblical Literature 48 (1929):169-205.
324
_________. "The Ethical Teaching of Jesus." In The Jewish
Quarterly Review, 75th Anniversary Volume. Edited by
A. A. Neuman and S. Zeitlin.
Quarterly Review, 1967. Pp. 243-66.
Gordon, Cyrus H. Ugaritic Literature. Roma: Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum, 1949.
_________. Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia, no. 38.
Gowan, Donald E. When Man Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris
in the Old Testament.
graph Series, no. 6.
Press, 1975.
Gray, John. "Kingship of God in Prophets and in Psalms."
Vetus Testamentum 11 (January 1961):1-29.
_________. "The Hebrew Conception of the Kingship of God:
Its Origin and Development." Vetus Testamentum 6
(1956) :268-85.
_________. The Krt Text in the Literature of Ras Shamra. 2nd
ed. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui, no. 5.
Grayson, A. Kirk. "Assyria and
(1980):140-94.
Green, Clifford J. The Sociality of Christ and Humanity:
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Early Theology, 1927-1933.
6.
tory Times 16 (1945):153-55.
Grogan, G. W. "The Experience of Salvation in the Old and
New Testament." Vox Evangelica 5 (1967):4-26.
Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the
New Testament.
lishing Company, 1953.
Gurney, 0. R. Some Aspects of Hittite Religion.
_________. The Hittites. 2nd ed. revised.
Penguin Books, 1962.
325
Guthrie, W. K. C. A History of Greek Philosophy. 5 vols.
Hagen, Kenneth. A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther:
The Lectures on Hebrews. Studies in Medieval and Ref-
ormation Thought, vol. XII.
Haldane, Elizabeth S. and Ross, G. R. T., trans. The Philo-
sophical Works of DesCartes. 2 vols. Unabridged
republication of the last corrected edition of 1931.
Hallo, William W. "A Sumerian Amphictyony." Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 14 (1960):88-114.
_________. Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles. American Orien-
tal Series, vol. 43.
Society, 1957.
_________."Royal Hymns and Mesopotamian Unity." Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 17 (1963):112-18.
_________. "The Coronation of Ur-Nammu." Journal of Cunei-
form Studies 20 (1966):133-41.
_________. "The Royal Inscriptions of
Halper, Benzion. Post-Biblical Hebrew Literature, An An-
thology.
Society of
Hamp, Vinzenz. "Ps 8:2b-3 [Pi hnt = 'besingen']." Biblische
Zeitschrift 16 (1972):115-20.
Hanson, P. D. "Jewish Apocalyptic Against Its Near Eastern
Environment." Revue Biblique 78 (January 1971):31-58.
_________. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Revised edition. Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
Harmon, Allan M. "Aspects of Paul's Use of the Psalms." West-
minster Theological Journal 32 (November 1969):1-21.
Harner, Ph. B. "Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah." Vetus
Testamentum 17 (July 1967):298-306.
Harper, Robert Francis. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters. 5
vols. Reprinted edition.
of
Harrelson, Walter. From Fertility Cult to Worship: A Re-
326
assessment of the worship of Ancient
City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1970.
Harris, R. Laird. Man--God's Eternal Creation.
Moody Press, 1971.
Harris, R. Laird, Archer, Gleason L., Jr., and Waltke, Bruce
K., eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.
2 vols.
Harrison, Roland K. Introduction to the Old Testament.
Hartog, John, II. "Sin, Redemption and the Animal Kingdom."
Unpublished doctor of theology dissertation. Grace
Theological Seminary, 1978.
Hasel, Gerhard F. New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in
the Current Debate.
mans Publishing Company, 1978.
_________. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Cur-
rent Debate. Revised edition.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.
_________. "The Meaning of 'Let Us' in Gn 1:26." Andrews
University Seminary Studies 13 (Spring 1975):58-66.
_________. "The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology."
The Evangelical Quarterly 46 (April-June 1974):81-102.
_________. "The Problem of History in OT Theology." Andrews
University Seminary Studies 8 (1970):23-50.
_________."The Significance of the Cosmology in Genesis I in
Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Parallels." Andrews
University Seminary Studies 10 (1972):1-20.
Hatch, Edwin and Redpath, Henry A. A Concordance to the
Septuagint. 2 vols.
Verlagsanstalt, 1954.
Havice, Harriet Katherine. The Concern for the Widow and the
Fatherless in the Ancient Near East: A Case Study in
Old Testament Ethics. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale Uni-
versity, 1978;
International, 79-15, 827, 1979.
Hazard, Paul. The European Mind. Reprinted.
World Publishing Co., 1963.
Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis. 2nd edition.
327
_________. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels.
Heinisch, Paul. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated
by William G. Heidt.
Press, 1950.
Hengel, M. Property and Riches in the Early Church. Trans-
lated by J. Bowden.
1974.
_________."Was ist der Mensch?" Theologisches Jahrbuch 18
(1975) :105-21.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics. Reprinted. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.
Herrmann, Siegfried. A History of
Times.
Hershberger, Guy F., ed. The Rediscovery of the Anabaptist
Vision.
Hershon, Paul. I. Genesis: With a Talmudic Commentary.
Translated by M. Walkenberg.
and Sons, 1883.
Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. I & II Samuel. Translated by J. S.
Bowden from the German Die Samuelbucher, 2nd revised
edition. The Old Testament Library.
The
Hess, W. "Imago Dei (Gen. 1:26): Der Mensch als Bild Gottes."
Erbe and Auftrag 27 (1953):371-400.
Hester, James. Paul's Concept of Inheritance. Scottish
Journal of Theology Occasional Papers, no. 14.
Hiebert, D.
Press, 1979.
_________. "The Unifying Theme of the Epistle to James."
Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (July-September 1978):221-31.
Hillers, Delbert R. Lamentations. The Anchor Bible. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1972.
Hoffman A., "Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen (Gen. 1,
26) in der neueren Exegese and bei Thomas von Aquin."
In Urbild and Abglanz. Regenburg: Habbel, 1972.
Pp. 345-58.
328
con of the Old Testament.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.
Honigmann, John J. Understanding Culture.
& Row, 1963.
Hooke, S. H. The Siege Perilous.
1956.
Hooykaas, R. "Science, Materialism and Christianity." Free
University Quarterly 1 (November 1950):49-62.
Houghton, Thomas. "The Testimony of the Epistle to the
Romans to the Old Testament." Evangelical Quarterly
7 (1935) :419-26.
Howard, George. "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations.
Novum Testamentum 10 (April-July 1968):208-216.
Hughes, Philip E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
1977.
_________. "The Doctrine of Creation in Hebrews 11:3."
Biblical Theology Bulletin 2 (1972):64-77.
Hunken, J. W. "The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs."
Journal of Theological Studies 16 (October 1914):
80-97.
Huppenbauer, H. W. "God and Nature in the Psalms"
Bulletin of Theology 3 (1969):19-32.
Imschoot, Paul van. Theology of the Old Testament. Trans-
lated by Kathryn Sullivan and Fidelis Buck.
Desclee Co., 1965.
Jacob,
Arthur W. Heathcote and Philip J. Allcock.
Harper and Brothers, 1958.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. "Early Political Developments in Meso-
potamia." Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 52 (August
1957):91-140.
_________. "Primitive Democracy In Ancient
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2 (July 1943):159-72.
329
_________. The Sumerian King List. Assyriological Studies,
no. 11.
Jaeger, Werner. The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers.
1967.
Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud
Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature.
2 vols. in 1.
Jenni, Ernst and Westermann, Claus, eds. Theologisches
Handw,rterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 Bande.
Munchen: Chr. Kaiser, 1971.
Jervell, J. Imago Dei.
1960.
Jobling, David. "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. Th.D.
dissertation, Union Theological Seminary in the City
of
films International, 72-22, 911, 1972.
Johnson, Aubrey R. Sacral Kingship in Ancient
_________. "The Role of the King in the
In The Labyrinth. Edited by S. H. Hooke.
S.P.C.K., 1935. Pp. 71-111.
_________. The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of
Ancient
1964.
Johnson, J. S., Jr. "Jesus: The Liberator."
Quarterly 10 (1970):85-96.
Johnsson, William G. "Issues in the Interpretation of He-
brews."
(Autumn 1977) :169-87.
Jones, G. H. "The Decree of Yahweh (Ps. II, 7)." Vetus Tes-
tamentum 15 (1965):336-44.
Jong, G. de. "The Nature of Human Geography in the Light of
the Ordinances of Creation." Free University Quar-
terly 5 (March 1958):97-119.
330
Judson, H. P. "The Political Effects of the Teaching of
Jesus." Biblical World 11 (1898):229-38.
Kahlefeld, Heinrich. "Community Life in the New Testament."
Translated by Robert Kress. Man before God. Com-
piled at the Canisianum.
Sons, 1966.
Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 13-39. Translated by R. A. Wilson from
the Ge. Lwan Der Prophet Jesaja/Kap. 13-39. The Old
Testament Library.
Press, 1974.
Kalsbeek, L. Contours of a Christian Philosophy.
Wedge Publishing Foundations, 1975.
Kapelrud, Arvid S. "The Mythological Features in Genesis
Chapter I and the Author's Intentions." Vetus Testa-
mentum 24 (April 1974):178-86.
Katz, Steve. "Christology--A Jewish View." Scottish Journal
of Theology 24 (May 1971):184-200.
Kaufman, Gordon D. "Some Theological Emphases of the Early
Swiss Anabaptists." The Mennonite Quarterly Review
25 (April 1951):75-99.
Kee, Alistair. A Reader in Political Theology.
The
Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of
Jude. Harper's New Testament Commentaries.
Harper & Row, 1969.
Kemp, E. W., ed. Man: Fallen and Free.
Kent, Homer, A., Jr. The Epistle to the Hebrews.
Kingsbury, Edwin. "The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh."
Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (September 1964):
279-86.
Kistemaker, Simon. The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the
Hebrews.
Kline, Meredith G. Images of the Spirit. Baker Biblical
Monograph.
331
Knife, D.
published doctor of theology dissertation. Grace
Theological Seminary, 1973.
Knight, George A. F. A Christian Theology of the Old Testa-
ment.
_________. "Eschatology in the Old Testament." Scottish
Journal of Theology 4 (December 1951):355-62.
Kofahl, Robert. "Entropy Prior to the Fall." Creation Re-
search Society Quarterly 10 (December 1973):154-56.
_________. "Reply Concerning Entropy Prior to the Fall."
Creation Research Society Quarterly 11 (December
1974):175-77.
Kohler, Ludwig. "Die Grundstelle der Imago-Dei-Lehre."
Theologische Zeitschrift 4 (1948):16-22.
_________.
_________. Old Testament Theology. Translated by A. S. Todd.
Kohler, Ludwig and Baumgartner, Walter, eds. Lexicon in
Veteris Testamenti Libros. 2 vols.
Brill, 1951.
Korosec, Victor, "Les Rois Hittites et la Formation du
Droit." In Le Palais et la Royaute. Edited by Paul
Garelli. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,
19.
1974. Pp. 315-21.
Krahn, Cornelius. "Prolegomena to an Anabaptist Theology."
The Mennonite Quarterly Review 24 (January 1954):5-11.
Kramer, Samuel N. From the Tablets of
CO: The Falcon's Wing Press, 1956.
_________. "Inanna and Sulgi: A Sumerian Fertility Song."
_________. "Kingship in
Le Palais et la Royaute. Edited by Paul Garelli.
Rencontre Assyriologique International, 19.
Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1974. Pp.
163-76.
332
_________. The Sumerians.
Press, 1963.
_________. "Ur-Nammu Law Code." Orientalia 23 (1954):40-51.
Kraus, F. R. Ein Edikt des Konigs Ammi-Saduqa von
Studia et Documenta ad Jura Orientis Antiqui Per-
tinentia, vol. 5.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalmen. 2 Tielbande. 4., durch-
gesehene and mit Literaturnachtragen erganzte Auflage.
Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Neukirchen:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1972.
_________. Worship in
1965.
Kroner, Richard. Culture and Faith.
sity of Chicago Press, 1951.
Kruse, H. "Two Hidden Comparatives: Observations on Hebrew
Style." Journal of Semitic Studies 5 (October 1960):
333-47.
Kselman, John S. "Psalm 72: Some Observations on Structure."
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
220 (December 1975):77-81.
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1931.
_________. Principles of Sacred Theology. Translated by J.
Hendrik de Vries. With an introduction by Benjamin
B. Warfield.
lishing Company, 1954.
Kuyper, Lester J. "Righteousness and Salvation." Scottish
Journal of Theology 30 (1977):233-52.
_________. "The Biblical View of Nature." Reformed Review 22
(1969) :12-17.
Ladd, George Eldon. "The Origin of Apocalyptic in Biblical
Religion." The Evangelical Quarterly 30 (July-
September 1958):140-46.
_________. "The Place of Apocalyptic in Biblical Religion."
The Evangelical Quarterly 10 (April-June 1958):75-85.
Laing, David, ed. The Works of John Knox. 6 vols. Edin-
burgh: James Thin, 1895;
Enterprises, n.d.
333
Lambert, F. David. "On Understanding the Philosophy of Sphere-
Sovereignty As Related to Civil Government and Social
Order in Dutch-Calvinistic Thought." Master of
theology thesis.
1972.
Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature.
Clarendon Press, 1960.
_________. "The Seed of Kingship." In Le Palais et la
aute. Edited by Paul Garelli. Rencontre Assyriolo-
gique Internationale, 19.
taliste Paul Geuthner, 1974. Pp. 427-40.
Lambert, W. G. and Millard, A. R. Atra-hasis: The Babylonian
Story of the Flood. With The Sumerian Flood Story by
M. Civil.
Lampe, G. W. H. "The New Testament Doctrine of Ktisis."
Scottish Journal of Theology 17 (1964):449-62.
Lane, Edward William. Arabic-English Lexicon. 8 parts, book
1.
Lang, August. "The Reformation and Natural Law." Calvin and
the Reformation. Edited by William P. Armstrong.
Princeton: The
ation, 1909; reprint ed.,
House, 1980.
Langdon, Stephen. Sumerian Liturgical Texts. The University
Museum Publications of the Babylonian Section, Vol. X.
sity Museum, 1917.
Larsen, Mogens Trolle. The Old Assyrian City-State and Its
Colonies. Mesopotamia:
ology, vol. 4.
Laws, Sophie. A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Harper's
New Testament Commentaries.
Row Publishers, 1980.
Leaney, A. R. C. "Conformed to the Image of His Son (Rom 8:
29)." New Testament Studies 10 (July 1964):470-79.
Lee, Francis Nigel. The Central Significance of Culture.
Coronation Series.
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1976.
334
Lemche, N. P. "The 'Hebrew Slave.'" Vetus Testamentum 25
(April 1975):129-44.
_________. "The Manumission of Slaves--the Fallow Year--the
Sabbatical Year--the Jobel Year." Vetus Testamentum
26 (January 1976):38-59.
Lenski, G. and Lenski, J. Human Societies: An Introduction
to Macrosociology. 2nd edition.
Hill, 1974.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of
Second Epistles to the Corinthians.
Wartburg Press, 1937.
_________. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews
and of the Epistle of James.
Book Concern, 1938.
Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Genesis.
Wartburg Press, 1942.
Levy, Jacob. Worterbuch uber die Talmudim and Midraschim. 3
B'1nde.
schaft, 1963.
Lewis, Edwin. "A Christian Theodicy: An Exposition of
Romans 8:18-39." Interpretation 11 (July 1957):405-20.
Liddell, Henry G. and Scott, Robert, compilers. A Greek-
English Lexicon. Revised and augmented throughout by
Henry S. Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKen-
zie et al., with a supplement.
Press, 1968.
Limburg, James. "What Does It Mean to Have Dominion Over the
Earth?" Dialogue 10 (1971):221-23.
Lindeskog, Gosta. Studien Zum Neutestamentlichen Schopfungs-
gedanken. In the series Uppsala Universitets Ars-
skrift, no. 11.
handeln, 1952.
_________. "The Theology of Creation in the Old and New Testa-
ments." The Root of the Vine. Edited by Anton Frid-
ricksen et al.
Lisowsky, Gerhard. Konkordanz zum hebraischen Alten Testa-
ment.
335
Littell, Franklin H. "The Anabaptist Doctrine of the Restitu-
tion of the
Review 24 (January 1950):33-52.
Loane, Marcus L. The Hope of Glory: An Exposition of the
Eighth Chapter in the Epistle to the Romans.
TX: Word Books, 1969.
Lohfink, N. "Macht euch die Erde untertan?" Orientierung
38 (1974):137-42.
Long, Charles H. Alpha: The Myths of Creation.
G. Braziller, 1963.
Loretz, Oswald. "Der Mensch als Ebenbild Got s " Anima 19
(1964) :109-20.
_________. Die Gotteben bildlichkeit des Menschen.
K8sel-Verlag, 1967.
_________. "Die Psalmen 8 and 67." Ugarit-Forschungen 8
(1976):117-21.
Lowe, Benjamin Franklin. The King As Mediator of the Cosmic
Order. Ph.D. dissertation,
68-11963, 1968.
Lucretius. De Rerum Natura. Translated by W. H. D. Rouse.
The Loeb Classical Library.
mann, 1924.
Ludwig, Theodore M. "The Traditions of the Establishing of
the Earth in Deutero-Isaiah." Journal of Biblical
Literature 92 (September 1973):345-57.
Lurker, Manfred. The Gods and Symbols of Ancient
English edition. Translated by Barbara Cummings from
the German Gotter und Symbole der Alten Agypter.
Lyonnet, Stanislas. "The Redemption of the Universe." In
Contemporary New Testament Studies. Edited by M. R.
Ryan.
Pp. 423-36.
MacGregor, G. H. C. "Principalities and Powers: The Cosmic
Background of Paul's Thought." New Testament Studies
1 (September 1954):17-28.
Mackenzie, George. "The Earnest Expectation of the Creature."
The Expository Times 5 (October 1893-September 1894):
333-34.
336
Macqueen, J. G. The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in
MacRae, George W. "The Coptic Gnostic Apocalypse of Adam."
Heythrop Journal 6 (1965):27-35.
Malamat, Abraham. "Doctrines of Causality in Hittite and
Biblical Historiography: A Parallel." Vetus Testa-
mentum 5 (1955):1-12.
Maly, Eugene H. "Creation in the New Testament." In Bibli-
cal Studies in Contemporary Thought. Edited by
Miriam Ward.
lical Institute, 1975. Pp. 104-12.
_________. "Man and Nature in the Old Testament." Studia
Missionalia 20 (1970):301-14.
Mandelkern, Solomon. Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae.
Akademische Druck-U. Verlagsanstalt, 1955.
Marcus, David. "Civil Liberties under Israelite and Mesopo-
tamian Kings." The Journal of the Ancient Near
Eastern Society of
53-60.
Mare, Harold W. "The Cultural Mandate and the New Testament
Gospel Imperative." Journal of the Evangelical Theo-
logical Society 16 (Summer 1973) :139-47.
Markus, R. A. Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology
of
1970.
Marzal, A. "The Provincial Governor At Mari: His Title and
Appointment." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 30
(July 1971):186-217.
Mathew, K. V. "The Concept of God and Nature in the Psalms."
Indian Journal of Theology 20 (1971):142-49.
May, H. G. "The King in the Garden of Eden: A Study of
Ezekiel 28." In
by B. Anderson and
Row, 1962.
Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. James. Classic Commentary
Library.
1954.
337
Mayor, Stephen. "Jesus Christ and the Christian Understand-
ing of Society." Scottish Journal of Theology 32
(February 1979):45-60.
McCasland, S. V. “'The Image of God' According to
Journal of Biblical Literature 69 (June 1950):85-100.
McConville, Gordon. "A Genesis Reading-List." Biblical
Creation 3 (February 1981):16-20.
McFadden, Thomas M., ed. Theology Confronts a Changing
World. The Annual Publication of the College The-
ology Society. West Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third
Publications, 1977.
McKenzie, John L. "Royal Messianism." Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 19 (January 1957):25-52.
McRay, John. "Atonement and Apocalyptic in the Book of
Hebrews." Restoration Quarterly 23 (1980):1-9.
Meli, Angelo. "I beni temporali nelle profezie messianiche."
Biblica 16 (1935):307-29.
Mercer, Samuel A. B. "Divine Service in
Society of Oriental Research 5 (March 1921):1-17.
Mettinger, T. N. D. "Abbild oder Urbild? 'Imago Dei' in
traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht." Zeitschrift fur
die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86 (1974): 403-
24.
Meyer, Heinrich A. W. Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to
the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by John C.
Moore and Edwin Johnson. Revised and edited by
William P. Dickson. With preface and supplementary
notes to the American edition by Timothy Dwight.
Mielziner, Moses. Introduction to the Talmud. 4th edition.
Mihaly, Eugene. A Song to Creation: A Dialogue With a Text.
Miller, Frank J. Ovid: Metamorphoses. 2 vols. The Loeb
Classical Library.
338
Miller, J. Maxwell. "In the 'Image' and 'Likeness' of God."
Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (September 1972):
289-304.
Miller, Patrick D., Jr. Genesis 1-11. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, no. 8.
versity of
Mitchell, John J. "Editor's Comment." The Presbyterian
Guardian 41 (October 1972):122.
_________. "'Educational Creeds' for
The Presbyterian Guardian 41 (August-September 1972):
107.
Moll, Carl Bernhard. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated
by A. C. Kendrick. Lange's Commentaries.
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1896.
Moloney, Francis J. "The Targum on Ps 8 and the NT."
Salesianum 37 (1975):326-36.
Moltmann, Jurgen.
delphia: Fortress Press, 1974.
_________. Theology of Hope. Translated by James W. Leitch
from the German Theologie der Hoffnung, 5th edition,
1965.
Montet, Pierre.
Press, 1968.
Morenz, Siegfried. Egyptian Religion. Translated by Ann E.
Keep.
Morgenstern, Julian. "Psalms 8 and 19A."
Annual 19 (1945-1946):491-523.
_________. "The Cultic Setting of the Enthronement Psalms."
Morris, Henry M. "Another Reply to Robert Kofahl." Creation
Research Society Quarterly 10 (December 1973):157.
mans Publishing Co., 1972.
_________. "The Religion That Stands Above Culture." Chris-
tianity Today 24 (6 June 1980):55-56.
Moulton, James H. and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the
Greek Testament. Reprinted.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.
339
Moulton, W. F. and Geden, A. S., eds. A Concordance to the
Greek Testament. 5th edition. Revised by H. K.
Moulton. With supplement according to the text of
the United Bible Societies' 3rd edition.
T. & T. Clark, 1978.
Mouw, Richard. "Reforming Cultural Calvinism. The Reformed
Journal 31 (3 March 1981):12-17.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh. Translated by G. W.
_________. The Old Testament As Word of God. Translated by
Reidar Bjornard.
_________. The Psalms in
D. R. Ap-Thomas. 2 vols. in 1.
Press, 1967.
Muckenhirn, M. Charles Borromeo. The Image of God in Creation.
Foundations of Catholic Theology Series.
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.
Mueller, William A. Church and State in Luther and Calvin.
Books, 1965.
Murdock, William R. "History and Revelation in Jewish Apoca-
lypticism." Interpretation 21 (April 1967):167-87.
Murray, John. Principles of Conduct. Reprinted. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968.
Nakagawa, Hideyasu. Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Ph.D. dissertation,
MI: University Microfilms, Inc., 69-6681, 1969.
Napier, B. Davie. "On Creation-Faith in the Old Testament."
Interpretation 16 (January 1962):21-42.
Nelson, Joseph Lee, Jr. The Groaning of Creation: An Exege-
tical Study of Romans 8:18-27. Th.D. dissertation,
Union Theological Seminary in
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International,
75-15, 171, 1975.
Neusner, Jacob. Invitation to the Talmud.
& Row, 1973.
_________. "Scriptural, Essenic, and Mishnaic Approaches to
Civil Law and Government: Some Comparative Remarks."
340
Harvard Theological Review 73 (July-October 1980):
419-34.
Newman, William M. The Social Meanings of Religion.
Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1974.
_________. "News About the University: Dissertations." Free University
Quarterly 8 (April 1962):133-34.
Nicol, W. "Faith and Works in the Letter of James."
Neotestamentica 9 (1975):7-24.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture.
& Row, 1956.
Nielsen, Eduard. "Creation and the Fall of
North, C. R. "The Old Testament Estimate of the Monarchy."
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature
47 (October 1931):1-19.
_________. “The Religious Aspects of Hebrew Kingship." Zeit-
schrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 50
(1932):8-38.
North, Gary. "Basic Implications of the Six Day Creation."
The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, 1:1 (Summer,
1974):1-27.
North, Robert. "Bibliography of Works in Theology and His-
tory." History and Theory, 12 (1973):55-140.
Noth, Martin. "The Understanding of History in Old Testament
Apocalyptic." In Laws in the Pentateuch and Other
Studies.
194-214.
Oberholzer, J. P. "What Is Man . . .?" De Fructo Oris Sui:
Essays in Honour of Adrianus Van Selms. Edited by
I. H. Eybers et al.
O'Connor, M. Hebrew Verse Structure.
Eisenbrauns, 1980.
Oehler, Gustav F. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated
by George E. Day.
Oke, C. Clare. "A Suggestion with Regard to Romans 8:23."
Interpretation 11 (October 1957):455-60.
Olbricht, Thomas H. "The Theology of Genesis." Restoration
Quarterly 23 (1980):201-17.
341
Olthuis, James H. and Zylstra, Bernard. "Confessing Christ
in Education." The Presbyterian Guardian 41 (August-
September 1972):104-6.
________. "Confessing Christ in Education." The Presbyterian
Guardian 41 (October 1972):120-22.
O'Neill, J. C. "Hebrews II. 9." The Journal of Theological
Studies 17 (August 1966):79-82.
Onvlee, L. "We Humans." Free University Quarterly 2 (Novem-
ber 1958):295-315.
Oosterbaan, J. A. "The Theology of Menno Simons." The Men-
nonite Quarterly Review 35 (July 1961):187-96 and 237.
Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient
sity of Chicago Press, 1964.
________. "Assyriological Gleanings IV." Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 107 (October
1947):7-11.
________. "Idiomatic Accadian." Journal of the American
Oriental Society 61 (1941):251-71.
________. Letters From
Orens, John Richard. "Politics and the Kingdom: The Legacy
of the Anglican Left." Anglican Theological Review
63 (January 1981):21-41.
Orr, James. Christian View of God and the World.
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897.
Pallis, Svend Aage. The Antiquity of
Ejnar Munksgaard, Ltd., 1956.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus--God and
Lewis Wilkins and Duane Priebe.
________, ed. Revelation As History.
1968.
________. What Is Man? Translated by Duane A. Priebe.
Paperback edition.
1972.
Parker, Gary. "Evangelicals Blossom Brightly Amid El Salva-
dor's Wasteland of Violence. Christianity Today 25
(8 May 1981):34-35.
342
Parr, P. A. "A Letter of Ur-Lisi, Governor of Umma." Jour-
nal of Cuneiform Studies 24 (1972):135-36.
Parrot, Andre.
James Emmons. In The Arts of Mankind.
Thames and
Patte, Daniel. Early Jewish Hermeneutic in
ety of Biblical Literature Series.
Scholars Press, 1975.
Paul, Shalom M. "A Traditional Blessing for the Long Life of
the King." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31 (Octo-
ber 1972):351-55.
Payne, J. Barton. The Theology of the Older Testament. Grand
Rapids: The Zondervan Publishing Co., 1962.
Pedersen, Johs.
printed.
Pendergast, R. J. "The Shattered Mirror: Sin in the Cosmos."
Science Espirt 22 (1970):203-39.
Perdue, Leo G. "The Riddles of Psalm 49." Journal of Bib-
lical Literature 93 (December 1974):533-42.
Perry, John W. Lord of the Four Quarters.
Braziller, 1966.
Persson, Erik. Sacra Doctrina. Translated by Ross Mackenzie.
Petersen, David L. "The Yahwist on the Flood." Vetus Testa-
mentum 26 (October 1976):438-46.
Peterson, G. D. "'The Imago Dei: An Historical and Critical
Examination." Unpublished doctor of philosophy dis-
sertation.
Philip, George. "'Creation Waiting for Redemption: An Ex-
pository Study of Romans 8:19-22." The Expository
Times 5 (October 1893-September 1894):315-19.
Piper, John. "The Image of God: An Approach from Biblical
and Systematic Theology." Studia Biblica et The-
ologica 1 (March 1971):15-32.
Ploger, Otto. Theocracy and Eschatology. Translated by S.
Rudman.
343
Poettcker, Henry. "Menno Simons' Encounter with the Bible."
The Mennonite Quarterly Review 40 (April 1966):112-26.
Pope, Marvin H. Job. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1965.
Porter, Frank C. "Judaism in New Testament Times." Journal
of Religion 8 (January 1938):41-44.
Porter, J. R. "The Legal Aspects of the Concept of 'Cor-
porate Personality' in the OT." Vetus Testamentum
15 (1965):361-80.
Postgate, N. J. "Royal Exercise of Justice Under the Assyrian
Empire." In Le Palais et la Royaute. Edited by Paul
Garelli. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,
19.
1974. Pp. 417-26.
Preez, J. du. "Bible Study on Ps. 8: A Prayer of Praise on
the Glory and Greatness of God." Nederduitse Gerefor-
meerde Teoloqiese Tydskrif 14 (1973):206-13.
Prenter, Regin. Creation and Redemption. Translated by
Theodor I. Jensen.
1967.
Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament. 3rd edition with supplement.
Princeton:
________. ed. The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to
the Old Testament. 2nd edition with supplement.
Princeton:
Procksch, Otto. Theologie des Alten Testament.
C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1950.
Quasten, Johannes, Burghardt, Walter J., and Lawler, Thomas
C., eds. Ancient Christian Writers. 40 vols. New
Quinney, Richard. "The Theology of Culture: Marx, Tillich,
and the Prophetic Tradition in the Reconstruction of
Social and Moral Order." Union Seminary Quarterly
Review 34 (Summer 1979):203-14.
Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis. The Old Testament Library. Re-
vised edition based on the 9th German edition. Phila-
delphia: The Westminster Press, 1972.
344
________. Old Testament Theology. 2 Vols. Translated by
D. M. G. Stalker.
1962-65.
________. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays.
Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. 2 vols. Editio nona. Stutt-
gart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1935.
Raines, John C. 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. Th.D. dissertation, Union Theological
Seminary in the City of
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International,
67-12, 176, 1981.
Rainey, Anson F. The Social Stratification of
dissertation,
MI: University Microfilms International, 63-5836,
1963.
Rapaport, Samuel. A Treasury of the Midrash.
KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1968.
Redding, David A. What Is the Man?
1970.
Redlich, E. Basil. The Early Traditions of Genesis. The
Colet Library of Modern Christian Thought and Learn-
ing.
Reicke, Bo. The Epistles of James, Peter, Jude. The Anchor
Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1964.
Reid, Richard. The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle
to the Hebrews. Th.D. dissertation,
ological Seminary in the City of
64-10, 527, 1964.
Renckens, Henricus.
345
Reventlow, Henning Graf. "Der Psalm 8." Poetica 1 (1967):
304-32.
Rice, G. "Cosmological Ideas and Religious Truth in Gen.
1." Journal of Religious Thought 23 (1966):15-30.
Richardson, William J. Social Action vs. Evangelism: An
Essay on the Contemporary Crisis.
CA: William Carey Library, 1977.
Ricketts, M. L. "Christians and the State: The New Testa-
ment View." Religion in Life 33 (1963):74-79.
Ridderbos, Heiman. The Coming of the Kingdom. Translated
by H. De Jongste. Edited by Raymond O. Zorn.
lishing Company, 1962.
Ringgren, Helmer. "Psalm 8 och kristologin." Svensk Exege-
tisk Arsbok 36 (1972) :16-20.
________. The Messiah in the Old Testament.
Press, 1956.
________. Word and Wisdom: Studies in the Hypostatiza-
tion of Divine Qualities and Functions in the
Ancient Near East.
tryckeri, 1947.
Rist, M. "Caesar or God (Mark 12, 13-17)? A Study in Form-
Geschichte." Journal of Religion 16 (1936):317-32.
Robinson, H. Wheeler. Inspiration and Revelation in the
Old Testament.
1946;
________. The Christian Doctrine of
Robinson, James M. "The Biblical View of the World." En-
counter 20 (1959) :470-83.
________. director. The Nag Hammadi Library. Translated
by members of the Coptic Gnostic Library Project
of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity.
Robinson, Theodore H. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The
Moffatt New Testament Commentary.
and
346
Rodd, Cyril S. "On Applying a Sociological Theory to Bibli-
cal Studies." Journal for the Study of the Old Testa-
ment 19 (February 1981):95-106.
Roehrs, Walter R. "The Creation Account of Genesis: Guide-
lines for an Interpretation." Concordia Theologcal
Monthly 36 (May 1965):301-21.
Rollins, Wayne. "The New Testament and Apocalyptic." New
Testament Studies 17 (1970-71):454-76.
Rosenbaum, M. and Silbermann, A. M., trans. Pentateuch with
Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi's Commentary:
Genesis.
Ross, Alexander. The Epistles of James and John. The New
International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954.
Rowe, Margaret. "Genesis and the Natural Order." Cross and
Crown 23 (:1971):272-82.
Rowley, H. H., ed. The Old Testament and Modern Study. Re-
printed.
________. The Relevance of Apocalyptic. Revised edition.
Rozenberg, Martin S. The Stem spt: An Investigation of Bib-
lical and Extra-Biblical Sources. Ph.D. dissertation,
versity Microfilms International, 63-7081, 1980.
Rupp, E. Gordon. "Thomas Mantzer, Hans Huth and the 'Gospel
of All Creatures.'" Bulletin of the John Rylands Uni-
versity Library of
Russell, D. S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic.
The Old Testament Library.
minster Press, 1964.
Russell, S. H. "Calvin and the Messianic Interpretation of
the Psalms." Scottish Journal of Theology 21 (1968):
37-47.
Rust, Eric C. Nature and Man in Biblical Thought.
Lutterworth Press, 1953.
________. Science and Faith.
Press, 1967.
347
Ryder, W. H. "Jesus' Attitude Toward Church and State."
Biblical World 33 (1909):296-304.
Saggs, H. W. F. Everyday Life in Babylonia and
Reprinted.
________. The Greatness That Was
New American Library, 1962.
Santmire, H. P. Brother Earth: Nature, God and Ecology in
Time of Crisis.
1970.
Sasson, J. M. "Some Comments on Archive Keeping at Mari."
Sauer, Erich. The Kingof the Earth: The Nobility of Man
According to the Bible and Science.
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.
Sawyer, J. F. A. "The Meaning of Myhlx Mlcb (‘in the
image of God') in Genesis I-XI." Journal of
Theological Studies 25 (October 1974):418-26.
Scheffczyk, Leo, ed. Der Mensch als Bild Gottes. Wege der
Forschung,. Band 124.
Buchgesellschaft, 1969.
Schilder, Klaas. Christ and Culture. Translated by G. Van
Rangen and W. Helder.
Schmidt, K. L. "Homo Imago Dei im Alten and Neuen Testament."
Eranos Jahrbuch 15 (1947):149-95.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. "Man Before God: Toward a Biblical
View of
of Man,
Canisianum.
Schoene, J. "The Gospel and Political Structures." Concor-
dia Theological Monthly 40 (1969):501-11.
Schopp, Ludwig, ed. dir. The Fathers of the Church. 68
vols.
Press of
Schungel-Straumann., Helen. "Macht euch die Erde untertan?"
Katechetische Blatter 101 (1976):319-32.
Schwantes, Heinz. Schopfung der Endzeit. Aufsatze and
Vortrage zur Theologie and Religionswissenschaft.
348
Scroggs, Robin. The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthro-
pology.
Scullion, John J. "Sedeq-Sedaqah in Isaiah cc. 40-66."
Ugarit-Forschungen 3 (1971):335-48.
Seux, M. J. Epithets Royales Akkadiennes et Sumeriennes.
Sider, Ronald J. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger.
________. ed. The
Creation House, 1974.
Simpson, D. P. Cassell's New Latin Dictionary.
Funk & Wagnalls, 1968.
Sjaberg, Ake W. "Miscellaneous Sumerian Hymns." Zeitschrift
fur Assyrioloqie 63 (Dezember 1973):1-55.
Skillen, James. "God's Ordinances: Calvin in Revival."
Pro Rege 8 (June 1980):24-33.
Skilto J. H., ed. The Law and the Prophets: Studies Pre-
pared in Honor of O. T. Allis.
byterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.
Testamentum 28 (July 1978):361-62.
Smith, A. Wilder. Man's Origin, Man's Destiny.
IL: Harold Show Publishers, 1968.
Smith, Donald Eugene. Religion, Politics, and Social Change
in the
Smith, J. Payne, ed. A Compendious Syrian Dictionary. Re-
print.
Smith L. Jerome. "The Influence of Certain Intertestamental
Literature Upon Paul's Concept of Cosmic Soteriology:
A Key to Interpreting Romans 8:19-23." Doctor of
theology dissertation, Southwestern Baptist The-
ological Seminary, 1975.
Smith, Morton. "The Image of God: Notes on the Helleniza-
tion of Judaism.” Bulletin of the John Rylands
Library 40 (1958):473-512.
Smith, Sidney. "The Practice of Kingship in Early Semitic
Kingdoms." In Myth, Ritual, and Kingship: Essays on
the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient
349
Near East and in
Soden, Wolfram von. Akkadisches Handworterbuch.
Otto Harrassowitz, 1971.
________. "Die Igigu-g8tter in altbabylonischer Zeit."
28 (Autumn 1966):140-45.
Soggin, J. Alberto. Old Testament and Oriental Studies. Bib-
lica et Orientalia, 29.
Press, 1975..
________. "Textkritische Untersuchung von Ps. VIII vv. 2-3
and 6." Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971):565-71.
________. "Zum zweiten Psalm." Abhandlungen zur Theologie
des Alten and Neuen Testaments 59 (1970):191-207.
Soloveitchik, Joseph B. "Confrontation." Studies in Judaica
in Honor of Dr. Samuel Belkin. Edited by Leon D.
Stitskin.
1974.
________. "The Lonely Man of Faith." Studies in Judaica in
Honor of Dr.. Samuel Belkin. Edited by Leon D. Stit-
skin.
Speiser, E. A. Genesis. The Anchor Bible. Edited by William
F. Albright and David N. Freedman. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday and Co., 1964.
________. "The Biblical Idea of History in its Common Near
Eastern Setting."
201-16.
Sperber, Alexander, ed. The Bible in Aramaic.
Brill, 1959. Vol. 1: The Pentateuch according to
Tarqum Onkelos, by idem.
Spicq, C. L'Epitre aux Hebreux. 2 vols.
et Cie, Editeurs, 1952-53.
Spier, J. M. An Introduction to Christian Philosophy. Nut-
ley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1966.
Stacey, W. David. The Pauline View of
millan & Co., Ltd., 1956.
Stagg, Frank. "The Abused Aorist." Journal of Biblical
Literature 91 (June 1972):222-31.
350
Stauffer, E. Christ and the Caesars. Translated by K. and
R. G. Smith.
Stayer, James M. Anabaptists and the Sword.
Stewart, J. S. "On a Neglected Emphasis in New Testament
Theology." Scottish Journal of Theology 4 (September
1951) :292-301.
Stewart, Roy A. "Creation and Matter in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. New Testament Studies 12 (1965):284-93.
Stigers, H. G. A Commentary on Genesis.
Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
Stoebe, Hans Joachim. "Sundenbewusstsein and Glaubensuniver-
salismus: Gedanken zu Genesis Kapitel 3. Theolo-
qische Ze.itschrift 36 (Juli/August 1980):197-207.
Strack, Hermann L. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash.
1931.
Stuhlmueller, Carroll. "'First and Last,' and 'Yahweh-Crea-
tor' in Deutero-Isaiah." Catholic Biblical Quarterly
29 (July .1967):189-205 (495-511).
________. "The Theology of Creation in Second Isaias." Catho-
lic Biblical Quarterly 21 (October 1959):429-67.
________. "Yahweh-King and Deutero-Isaiah." Biblical Research
15 (1970) :32-45.
Sudbrack, J. "Der Hymnus auf die Hoffnung. Eine Einfuhrung
in das Verstandnis von Rom 8, 19-39. Geist and Leben
41 (1968):224-28.
Surlis, P. "Transforming the World (in NT Ethics)." Furrow
21 (1970):227-41.
Swasso, H. "The
Orientasi 2 (1970):89-108.
Swetman, James. "On Romans 8, 23 and the 'Expectation of
Sonship."' Biblica 48 (1967):102-8.
________. "Some Observations on the Background of qydc in
Jeremias 23, 5a." Biblica 46 (1965):29-40.
Tanner, Mary. "Psalm 8:1-2." Theology 69 (1966):492-96.
Tasker, R. V. G. The General Epistle of James. The Tyndale
351
New Testament Commentaries.
Press, 1956.
Taylor, Philip F. "Man: His Image and Dominion." Unpub-
lished doctor of theology dissertation. Grace Theo-
logical Seminary, 1974.
Thatcher, Oliver J. and McNeal, Edgar M. A Source Book for
Medieval History.
ed.,
The Mishnah. Translated and introduced by H. Danby.
Thomas, Kenneth J.. "The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews.
New Testament Studies 11 (July 1965):303-25.
Thompson, James W. "The Structure and Purpose of the Catena
in Heb 1:5-13." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38
(July 1976):352-63.
Thompson, Laura. The Secret of Culture. Consulting editor
Anthony F.. C.
Thrall, Margaret E. Greek Particles in the New Testament.
New Testament Tools and Studies, vol. 3. Edited by
Bruce M. Metzger.
1962.
Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. in 1.
The
________. Theology of Culture. Edited by Robert C. Kimball.
1957.
Toy, Crawford H. Quotations in the New Testament.
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1884.
Travis, Stephen H. "The Value of Apocalyptic." Tyndale Bul-
letin 30 (1979):53-76.
Treves, Marco. "Two Acrostic Psalms." Vetus Testamentum 15
(1965):81-90.
Tsevat, Matitiahu., "God and the Gods In Assembly: An Inter-
pretation of Ps. 82."
(1969):123-37.
352
Uhl, David L. "A Comparative Study of the Concepts of Crea-
tion in Isaiah 40-55 and Genesis 1-2." Unpublished
doctor of theology dissertation,
tist Theological Seminary, 1966.
Van Buren, E. Douglas. "Homage To a Deified King." Zeit-
schrift fur Assyriologie 50 (November 1952) :92-120.
________. Symbols of the Gods in Mesopotamian Art. Analecta
Orientalia., no. 23. Roma: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum, 1945.
________. The Cylinder Seals of the Pontifical Biblical
Institute. Analecta Orientalia, no. 21. Roma:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1940.
________. "The Sun-God Rising." Revue d'Assyriologie 49
(1955) :1-14.
Van der Zijpp, N. "The Conception of our Fathers Regarding
the Church." The Mennonite Quarterly Review 27
(April 1953):91-99.
Van Dyk, John W. "Why I Support the A.A.C.S." The Presby-
terian Guardian 41 (August-September 1972):102-3.
Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith.
The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1955.
Van Til, Henry R. The Calvinistic Concept of Culture. Phila-
delphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Company, 1972.
Verdam, P. J. "Mosaic Law in Practice and Study Throughout
the Ages." Free University Quarterly 6 (February
1959):31-81.
Via, D. "Structuralist Approach to Paul's Old Testament
Hermeneutic." Interpretation 28 (April 1970):
201-20.
Voget, Fred W. "History of Cultural Anthropology." In
Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology.
Edited by John J. Honigmann.
McNally College Publishing Company, 1973. Pp.
1-88.
Vos, Gerhardus. Biblical Theology.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948.
353
Vries, G. J. de. "'Christianity and Classical Culture." Free
University Quarterly 2 (October 1953):251-60.
Vriezen, Th. C. An Outline of Old Testament Theology. Trans-
lated by S,. Neuijen.
ford
Wainwright, Geoffrey. Doxology.
Press, 1980.
Walter, J. A. Sacred Cows. Zondervan edition.
Zondervan Publishing House, 1980.
Walton, Brian, ed. Biblia Sacra Polygiotta. 6 vols. Reprint
of 1657 edition.
lagsanstalt, 1963.
Waxman, Meyer. A History of Jewish Literature. 5 vols. New
Way, Arthur S. Euripedes. 4 vols. The Loeb Classical Lib-
rary.
Weaver, J. Denny. "Discipleship Redefined: Four Sixteenth
Century Anabaptists." The Mennonite Quarterly Review
54 (October 1980) :255-79.
Wegner, Walter. "Creation and Salvation." Concordia Theo-
logical Monthly 37 (September 1966):520-42.
Wenham, Gordon J. "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative."
Vetus Testamentum 28. (July 1978):336-48.
Wensinck, A. J. "The Semitic New Year and the Origin of
Eschatology." Acta Orientalis 1 (1922):158-99.
Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews. 2nd edi-
tion.
Westermann, Claus. Creation. Translated by John J. Scullion.
________. ed. Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics. Rich-
mond, VA: John Knox Press, 1963.
________. Genesis 1-11. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testa-
ment, Band 1/1. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974.
________. "God and His Creation." Union Seminary Quarterly
Review 18 (March 1963):197-209.
________. Isaiah 40-66. Translated by David M. G. Stalker
354
from the German Das Buch Jesaia 40-66. The Old Testa-
ment Library.
1969.
Whatham, A. E. "Anthropomorphisms of Genesis Chapter I."
Biblical World 37 (1911):120-27.
Whitaker, Richard. A Concordance of Ugaritic Literature.
Whitcomb, John C. and Morris, Henry M. The Genesis Flood.
ing Company, 1962.
White, Lynn, Jr. "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic
Crisis." Science 155 (10 March 1967):1203-7.
Widengren, Geo. The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient
Near Eastern Religion.
vol. 4.
1951.
Wieser, Thomas. "The Biblical View of the World." Encounter
20 (1959) :484-93.
Wifall, Walter. "
Biblical Theology Bulletin 10 (October 1980):169-75.
Wildberger, Hans. "Das Abbild Gottes." Theologische Zeit-
schrift 21 (Juli-August 1965):245-59.
________. "Das Abbbild Gottes." Theologische Zeitschrift 21
(November-:Dezember, 1965):481-501.
Wilder, A. Otherworldliness and the New Testament.
Harper and Row, 1954.
Wildung, Dietrich. Egyptian Saints: Deification in Pharaonic
and Civilization.
Press, 1977.
Wilken, Robert L. Judaism and the Early Christian Mind. New
Haven:
Willis, John T. "Some Recent Studies on Genesis and the Liter-
ary-Historical Approach." Restoration Quarterly 23
(1980):193-200.
Wilson, Geoffrey B. Romans: A Digest of Reformed Comment.
355
Wilson, J. V. K. "A Return to the Problems of Behemoth and
Leviathan." Vetus Testamentum 25 (January 1975):1-14.
Winston, David, ed. and trans. Philo of
Classics of Western Spirituality.
Press, 1981.
Wiseman, J. New Discoveries in
don: Marshall, Morgan and Scott Ltd., n.d.
Wolff, Hans Walter. Anthropology of the Old Testament.
Wolff, Richard. General Epistles of James and Jude. Contem-
porary Commentaries.
Publishers, 1969.
Woolsey, G. Arthur. "Perspective." Baptist Bulletin 46
(February 1981):4 and 15.
Worgul, George S. "Anthropological Consciousness and Bib-
lical Theology." Biblical Theology Bulletin 9 (Janu-
ary 1979):3-12.
Wright, G. Ernest. God Who Acts: Biblical Theology As Reci-
tal. Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 8.
SCM Press, 1960.
Wuellner, Wilhelm, ed. The Center for Hermeneutical Studies.
Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1974. Colloquy X:
Greek and Christian Concepts of Justice, by Albrecht
Dihle.
Wurthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament. Translated
by Erroll F. Rhodes.
Yegerlehner, David A. "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,
1974;
tional, 75-12, 270, 1981.
Yoder, J. H. The Christian Witness to the State.
Faith and Life Press, 1964.
________. ed. and trans. The Legacy of Michael Sattler. Clas-
sics of the Radical Reformation, no. 1.
Herald Press, 1973.
356
________. The Politics of Jesus.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.
Young, Edward J. Genesis 3: A Devotional and Expository
Study.
________. Studies in Genesis One. International Library of
Philosophy and Theology: Biblical and Theological
Studies. Edited by J. Marcellus Kik.,
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1973.
________. The Book of Isaiah. 3 vols.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969.
Young, N. Creator, Creation, and Faith.
Zijlstra, J. "Christian Economic Policy." Free University
Quarterly 1 (April 1951):112-32.
Zuidema, S. U. "Man in Philosophy." Free University
Quarterly 5 (March 1958):77-96.
Zylstra, Bernard. "The Word of God, the Bible, and the AACS."
The Presbyterian Guardian 42 (March 1973):40-43.