This post sets out to answer the question, “Had man not fallen, would there have been human government?”  Since we cannot simply answer our question citing chapter and verse, a world-view of man=s dominion, its nature and scope, and headship, must first be developed.  When this is accomplished, we may then, from that reference point, answer our question.

It is generally accepted that man experiences dominion over creation.  That he rightly possesses this authority is questioned or denied  in liberal settings, and faces scrutiny from some conservative circles as well.  We will begin by determining on what authority man has been given (or seems to have been given) dominion.  From there we will determine how far reaching that dominion was meant to be.

Basis of Dominion

Any study of dominion must begin at Genesis 1:26. In the NASB it reads, " Then God said, >Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth=.@  The most simplistic answer is that man rules because God said so.  However, this is not necessarily the most complete answer.  God seems to be making a connection between man as His image and his rule. 

Wenham cites image as the cause of man=s rule.  When comparing several possibilities they noted that the Astrongest case has been made for the view that the divine image makes man God=s vice-regent on earth@ (31-32).  Stressing relationship as the point of image McCartney says, AMan as image means man as son, and the son of God is a king.  Consequently, included as one function of this imageness was man=s dominion (ital his) (3).  It seems that God is not simply acting, but explaining his activity as he moves along.  He makes a very close connection between image and rule.  Much can be said about man being the image of God, but it must suffice to say that man is at least in God=s image (I accept that man is His image) and this is tied together with his dominion over the earth.   In the way God rules over all things, man (being his image) has been given rule over earthly things.  This does not remove man from God=s rule.  Rather, man is all the more responsible to God.

The Basis Marred

It seems clear from the Genesis account that man=s rule was perfectly harmonious with God=s will until the fall.  With the fall came severe ramifications.  Not only did man=s spirit die and death enter the race, all his relationships were marred.  His wife and he now had marital problems, the ground was going to be difficult to work with, and his relationship with God was dramatically changed. 

It seems logical in this to think that the image, the basis of man=s dominion, would also be damaged.  Man in his innocent state was more like God than after the fall.  Some are so extreme as to suggest that man lost the image completely.  If so, then his dominion would seem to be lost.  However, in 1 Cor 11:7 Paul says, AFor a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.@  This does not mean that women are not currently in the image of God.  This question is not addressed (see Charlie’s comments in Externalized Theology).  However, it is clear that even in his fallen state man still is the image of God.  This becomes more clear when we look back at the Genesis account.  In Gen 1:26-29, rule over the earth is equated with filling and subduing it, with special note made of acquiring food from it.  After the fall and the curse, this remains man=s goal, and after the flood, animals are added to the potential menu.

Psalm 8:3-8 is an amazing passage when studying man=s state, and helps answer the question of how God views man after the fall.  This psalm presents man as the height of God=s creation, being made a Alittle lower than God.@  Expositors Bible Commentary says, AMan=s significance is not to be limited to his existence before sin came into the world.  Man still is >crowned=Ywith gloryYMan is still (ital his) glorious and continues to govern the earth@ (112-113). 

It seems that while man certainly has fallen he remains (or retains) the image of God, and that this image continues to grant him the right to rule the earth.  Though man continues to rule the earth in God=s stead, the fall has affected that rule.  What does man rule and how has that rule been altered by the fall?  To the first of these questions we now turn.

Extent of Dominion

Over what does man rule?  Has man  been given only plants and animals to rule, or is man to rule man.  Gen 1:26 may be understood to include only animals, since it seems that they alone are mentioned.  However, in the verses to follow it seems certain that plants and the earth itself are included in this.  Expositors says, AOnly man has been given dominion in God=s creation.  This dominion is expressly stated to be over all other living creatures: sky, sea and land creatures@ (37).  Commenting on Psalm 8, Delitzsch says, AMan is a king, and not a king without territory; the world around, with the works of creative wisdom which fill it, is his kingdomYThe enumeration begins with the domestic animals and passes on from these to the wild beasts - together the creatures that dwell on terra firma (155).  WBC agrees saying, AGod=s role for mankind is that of master within the created universe; specifically, the mastery extends over living creatures within the universe@ (Craigie, 108). 

Biblical teaching is very clear that man was given rule over the earth, plants and animals.  It does not speak quite so succinctly to the matter of whether man ought rule over man.  In his anthropology manual, Sherlock (quoting Westermann) notes that the Agiving of dominion to humanity universally over the animals and earth has a further consequence, that >man is not created to exercise dominion over man=@ (37).  It seems contradictory that if all men are the image of God that that very image would give them rule over other men.  It seems that the one who bears the image is given rule (to use as he sees fit) over that which does not bear the image.  If this assumption is correct, then it follows that the dominion given by virtue of the image does not extend over mankind.  If man is not to have dominion over man, then we must account for government, even God-given government.  We will return to this momentarily.  Next we must determine the nature of man=s dominion.

Nature of Dominion

When determining what rights man has over nature, two extreme camps come to the fore.  The first view is that since man has been given rule over the earth he may do anything he wants.  Man is free, according to the extremists of this view, to rape and pillage the earth for his own comfort, taking no thought to any form of conservation or stewardship.  The opposite extreme would be those who believe that animal and plant life is just as important (if not more so) than human life.  This view would abhor any sort of animal testing, the yoking of beasts of burden and the like.  Some are so extreme as to suggest that the earth itself is alive and that no harm of any kind can be done to it.

      Both sides might claim scriptural support.  The latter group might look to passages that describe the earth as the Lord=s and suggest that we dare not damage the Lord=s property.  Honestly, I have never come across a convincing Bible-based defense of its most extreme form.  The former might seize upon an argument such as is made by William Dumbrell in Crux:    

      Kabas >subdue= (Gen 1:28) which is often taken to be a further predicate of >dominion= relates more narrowly to man=s relationship with the ground, and thus to the content of v. 28 and blessing.  The verb kabas occurs 14 times in the OT.  It is an assertive word which in Esther 7:8 means >violate=.  Each use of the word involves force of some sort.  It is used of the conquest of Canaan and the subduing of the Canaanites (Num 32:22, 29; Josh 18:1; 1 Chron 22:18) and four times of forced labour (2 Chron 28:10; Neh 5:5; Jer 34:11, 16).  The basic extra-biblical meaning of >tread down=Y appears in Mic 7:19. (sic) where God undertakes to tread our iniquities under food. (sic)  The word indicates the exertion of force against some resistant object which requires coercive effort to bring it under control.  The dictionaries supply the meaning of >subdue=, >bring into bondage=, >tread=, >tread down=, >press=.

            We may thus sum up our discussion of man=s role in Gen 1 by saying that as the image, man is installed as God=s vice-gerent over all creation with power to control and regulate it, to harness its clear potential, a tremendous concentration of power in the hands of puny man!  What authority he thus possesses to regulate the course of nature, to be a bane or a blessing to his world (18)!

The author does not go on to give a detailed explanation of how he believes man ought to act toward nature, he simply leaves us with the impression that it is ours to do with as we please.  To be fair with the author, he is not exceptionally clear, and he may be speaking about man in his unfallen condition. 

While it seems as though Dumbrell may be correct about his word study, careful thought moves us beyond the position which would clasp onto it for support.  As is frequently the case, neither extreme is suitable.  A middle course must be plotted.  Cultural liberals have done well in reminding us of our stewardship to the earth, but the extreme conservatives have also reminded us that earthly resources are ours to use. 

To get a clear picture of the nature of man=s dominion, let us return to Wenham=s statement that Athe divine image makes man God=s vice-regent on earth@ (27).  NICOT says more, AMan is created to rule.  But this rule is to be compassionate and not exploitative.  Even in the garden of Eden he who would be lord of all must be servant of all@ (Hamilton, 138).  When we consider that as God=s image we are his vice-regent it becomes clear that his vice-regents are not free to act contrary to his character.  Waste and abuse are foreign to God=s nature and would not be a part of man=s dominion. 

How then do we account for the apparent validity of Dumbrell=s word study.  It seems that some aspects of creation would have required subjection.  The powers intrinsic in (unfallen) nature like volcanoes, fire and rivers could easily be seen as being subdued without abuse or mistreatment.  There is no need to allow for ungodly treatment of creation due to his small study, nor should we make allowance to any treatment of creation that is not in accord with God=s character.

Dominion Damaged

It is evident that dominion was damaged with the fall and the marring of the image of God.  What did the fall do to man’s dominion?  Dumbrell suggests that creation has not been altered as much as man=s relationship to it:

            It seems...much preferable to suggest that what is impaired as a result of the Fall is man=s control (bold, his) of the ground...that man=s use of the ground has become impaired as a result of the Fall.  The problem then, after the Fall, and our problem, is man=s inability to use natural resources.  The Fall has left him >like God=, i.e. he has the power to make decisions by which the course of his own life and his world are controlled.  He has not the ability, however, to be sure that the decisions taken are right in themselves, nor the assurance that such decisions taken will promote the desired consequences.  That is to say, man lives in his world unable to exercise proper dominion over nature (24).

We cannot be completely sure what happened at that point of judgment in the garden, but it seems that in conjunction with man=s diminished control (perhaps due to intellectual loss at the fall), the ground itself suffers the curse.  God said in Gen 3:17b and 18, A...Cursed is the ground because of you...Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you...@  It seems sufficient to say that man has an impaired dominion over the earth and those things which live upon it.

So ThenYGovernment?          

We have seen that the dominion given to man does not include rule over men.  Does this answer our question?  Can we dismiss the notion of human government without the fall?  To answer in the affirmative is to miss the difference between headship and dominion.

Headship

Government, in its ideal form, is not something that dominates its subjects, but rather provides structure, efficiency and guidance.  The question then is, A Do we have anything like this >ideal government= before the fall?@  My answer is yes. 

I believe we have one structure that models this principle, the family.  Within the family are two sets of relationships, that of husband and wife, and that of parent and child.  The only relationship we see before the fall is the husband/wife relationship.  The woman was made to be a helper for the man, but was his equal.  She was not created with any difference in essence.  The creation account is clear, not only is she made of the same >stuff= as man, but she is also the image of God.  All mankind has dominion over all creation, but the man was given headship over the woman.  1 Timothy 2:13 makes this distinction.  When Paul was directing Timothy how to set up the authority structure in the church, women were not to teach men, partially based on the order of creation.  Man was made first, and woman was made for him.

We dare not indicate that women are inferior to men, and we must be careful how we state this delicate truth.  Donald Guthrie in his volume on 1 Timothy says, “Paul had already made use of the argument that the priority of man=s creation places him in a position of superiority over woman, the assumption being that the original creation, with the Creator=s own imprimatur upon it, must set a precedent for determining the true order of the sexes” (77).  This, I think, is very close to being a statement of male supremacy, and needs to be reworded.  William Hendriksen did better by saying God made Eve for Adam, Ato be his helper (Gen. 2:18-25), and his glory (1 Cor. 11:7-9).  Neither is complete without the other (1 Cor. 11:11).@  He goes on to say that in making humans God made them Ain such a manner that it is natural for him to lead, for her to follow...The tendency to follow was embedded in Eve=s very soul as she came forth from the hand of her Creator@ (ital his, 109).

The specific application of the text is not relevant to this discussion, but the fact that Paul found headship within the context of the perfect garden is quite relevant.  Other passages note the submission of wives to their husbands (1 Pet 3:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; Eph 5:22-25), but this one alone makes specific reference to the pre-fall condition.

So then, we see that headship was present within a perfect context.  I believe this headship was necessary for creation to run efficiently, and thus was perfectly natural for humans to govern humans.  This governing would not be dictatorial, but rather in love as vice-regent of God.  Even perfect humanity needed guidance and structure.  Obviously, headship was corrupted with the fall.  Men would seek to use it to domineer over women, and women would seek to usurp headship from men.  However, the apostle Paul commands and expects proper headship to be practiced.

A Defense of Godly Government

Earlier, when we determined that image-based dominion did not provide for man=s dominion over man, we were faced with the question of Awhat do we make of government, especially God-given  government?@  This is a bit more clear now, with headship in view. 

An unjust dictatorship is indefensible by the Bible as is even a benevolent government that does not represent God=s character.  However, God loves to use agency.  Angels and humans alike are used by him to accomplish what He desires.  He raised up Moses to lead the people out of bondage.  While Moses was revered and was (from the world=s view) the leader of the Israelites, he was simply God=s representative.  God gave him directions, and at times gave him specific commands or words to say, but for the most part it seems that Moses ruled as he saw fit according to his knowledge and interaction with God (N.B. Exodus 18:16). 

In like manner Samuel ruled Israel as God=s regent, recognizing Jehovah=s kingship over the people (1 Samuel 7:15-17).  We see his rule and Moses= as men who exercised headship over the people.  When the nation in its rebellion cried for a king, God said,  AListen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over themYyou shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them@ (1 Sam 8:7-9).  Samuel=s description of their lives under a king in 8:10-17 sounds more like dominion than headship.  It seems that there is a vast difference between man governing man with headship and governing him with dominion.  The former preserves the dignity of God’s image, the latter does not.

Future Dominion and Headship

Both dominion and headship have been marred by the fall.  Neither works as it ought.  However, a time is coming when it seems that both shall be restored.  As we complete (or attempt to complete) our world-view of dominion and headship we must look to chapters 20 and 22 of Revelation.

Headship Restored

In Revelation 20:6 I think we may see a restoration of correct headship.  The Martyrs reign with Christ during the Millennial Kingdom.  There is some disagreement over the nature of their reign.  Wilfrid Harrington notices only their priesthood saying, AThey partake, in a privileged manner, in the royal priesthood of Christians@ (197).  Robert Bratcher notices only their kingship saying, AThey ruled as kings with Christ@ (288).  Robert Thomas sees both but says, AThey will join Christ in ruling the earth, but in what way this will be is not known.  Priesthood and royalty are dual aspects of their future service to God@ (422).  It seems likely that these individuals govern over those who live during the millennial kingdom.  This would be a restoration of headship and ideal government, humans ruling humans.

Dominion Restored

Revelation 22:5 says that those who are brought into the eternal Heavenly state Ashall reign forever and ever.@  Leon Morris notes, AIt is not said that they will reign over anyone, and, indeed, it is difficult to see who their subjects could be.  The term indicates a blessed and exalted state.  They share in royalty@ (257).  The problem he is hitting on is that at this time, all humans are glorified, and it would seem odd that they would rule one another.  While I do not think that it is impossible to see government here, it seems more likely that we see man having perfect dominion of the earth restored to him.

Finally, Government Without Sin?

Before we answer the question of would there have been such a government, we must answer, ACould there have been government without the fall?@  In large part, I have already given my answer to this question.  Based upon the principle of headship, it seems that human government of humans was indeed possible. 

To answer the question of would there have been government in the unfallen world, let us consider a few thoughts.  The most prevalent objection to the notion of human government without the fall is that government=s primary function is to control sinful actions.  In our fallen context this is indeed correct.  The death penalty in Gen 9 seems to be the beginning of government functioning in this way.