The Immutable Dominion Mandate

Why the dominion mandate cannot be rescinded

In this article, I demonstrate that the dominion mandate (Gen. 1:28), given key doctrines of Reformed orthodoxy, is a perpetual and immutable mandate for man, regardless of his spiritual state. God Himself could not even rescind the mandate, for it is natural to man as man. Thus, taking dominion—as a culture mandate under God—is an immutable duty of man. 

The Image of God 

The dominion mandate was not an adventitious duty, as if God’s verbal command to Adam and Eve itself constituted or instituted the duty to subdue and exercise dominion. Rather, the mandate is natural to man as man, flowing as a necessary consequence of being made in the image of God. It is, for this reason, a natural duty—i.e., a command of God inhering in man in his creation.  

Reformed theologians generally had a “broader conception of the image of God,” says Louis Berkhof,¹ meaning that the image, as explained by Calvin, “extends to everything in which the nature of man surpasses that of all other species of animals.”² More specifically, Reformed orthodox theologians, such as Herman Witsius, concluded that the image is 

made up of these three parts. 1^st. Antecedently, that it consists in the spiritual and immortal nature of the soul, and in the faculties of understanding and will. 2dly. Formally and principally, in these enduments [sic], or qualities of the soul, viz. righteousness, and holiness. 3rdly. Consequently, in the immortality of the whole man, and his dominion over the creatures.³ 

The important part for our purposes is the last one—exercising dominion is natural to man as a necessary consequence of the divine image. Dominion is not a divine positive command, and thus Gen. 1:28 verbally articulates a prior duty. Put differently, God’s will for human dominion inheres in the nature of man.  

The Duty and Power of Dominion 

As a natural duty, taking dominion remains a duty in all spiritual states—whether in the states of integrity, corruption, or grace. For, in the Reformed tradition, the duties of nature are immutable and binding on all.⁴ The dominion mandate, therefore, is not rescindable or even substantively modifiable, even by divine command, lest God were to command a contradiction—viz. by planting His will within man and an opposing will from without.  

Now, the power to exercise dominion—to fulfill the natural duty—is natural to man, since God could not create man with a duty without also supplying the power to fulfill it. This power is not lost at the fall but weakened. As Francis Turretin writes, even sinful man retains “certain natural remains of that image.” He continues: “Although by the fall that dominion was very much broken and diminished, yet it did not on that account wholly perish.”⁵ So, fallen man has some power to fulfill the mandate. But in a state of grace, man has (regarding capacity) all his native powers restored, for the image itself is restored.⁶ Hence, Christians are able, by restorative grace, to fulfill the mandate far better than non-Christians; and striving to fulfill it is part of their holy living on earth. To affirm otherwise requires either an extreme form of antinomianism (in which man is no longer under the natural duty or the natural law in any sense) or neo-nomianism (in which man is under a new law). Both are rejected by Reformed orthodoxy and the confessions. 

Of course, the completion of the dominion mandate is out of reach given the presence of sin in this world. But this limits dominion only in practice, not in principle, which is true for everything natural to man. Why then must we single out dominion? As with everything practical in this world, we strive according to the possibilities presented to or made possible by us.  

The Covenants of Works and Grace 

Though the duty of dominion was essential and fundamental to meeting the condition of the covenant of works, this duty is not rescinded for those who are under the covenant of grace. The perpetuation of this natural duty does not depend on the covenant of works. Why? Because no natural command is rescinded by the covenant of grace; natural duty remains the standard of righteousness.⁷ Thus, the fact that Jesus Christ fulfilled the covenant of works on behalf of his people in no way removes or rescinds or substantively modifies the dominion mandate from Christian life.  

As I argued in The Case for Christian Nationalism, the original task of Adam, regarding the direct effects of his efforts, was not transforming earth into heaven, nor immanentizing the eschaton. Rather, his task was to mature earthly life into its fullness, according to earthly principles, and thereby achieve the condition whereby God, by his grace, would elevate man and earth to glory. Adam could not, in his work, transform earth to glory; only God could. Hence, in the state of grace, the Christian labors for dominion not to transform earthy life into heavenly, nor the earth into glory; nor is he seeking to merit a title to eternal life, which he has by faith in Christ. Rather, he orders earthly life to heavenly life according to earthly principles in light of the Gospel as a consequence of his secured redemption and the subsequent restoration of his native gifts.  

To be clear, there is a difference between prelapsarian and postlapsarian man in relation to dominion, but it is not found in the principles, powers, or ends of dominion. It is in their concrete application and final realization—both of which sin hinders and limits in practice. 

To summarize: The dominion mandate, being natural, is a duty for man in general, because mankind in general is bound by natural duty; and that natural duty, which constitutes the standard of righteous, is immutable. The dominion mandate, therefore, cannot be rescinded, and grace only strengthens this duty, for grace restores nature.  

Noahic Covenant 

Reformed theologians who interpret the Noahic Covenant as rescinding or modifying the dominion mandate—stating, as David VanDrunen writes, that “the Noahic covenant lacks the original command to rule and subdue”⁸—are faced with a dilemma. Their tradition’s theological commitments, such as the immutability of natural law, the naturalness of the dominion mandate, and the doctrine of restorative grace directly contradict that exegetical conclusion. If they insist on this interpretation, their systematic theology must change. Otherwise, they find themselves in a contradiction. If the Noahic Covenant rescinds or “modifies” the original dominion mandate, then you must conclude at least one of the following: 

1. The powers to fulfill the original mandate were not natural to Adam but were superadded and subsequently lost at the fall; and grace does not restore these powers. Thus, taking dominion was not natural but supernatural, and grace is not fully restorative.  

2. Taking dominion is a natural duty but Christians are not to strive to obey natural duty or at least this part of natural duty. This is a form of antinomianism. It follows that the good and properly ordered desires, instincts, and faculty of natural reason—ordered by the τέλη of man’s natural powers and principles of being—must be suppressed, perhaps by grace. Thus, grace does not restore but suppresses nature.  

3. Grace destroys and replaces human nature, effectively creating a substantively new humanity—essentially making the Christian and non-Christian two distinct types of creatures. This is a form of neo-nomianism. 

4. The dominion mandate is essentially tied to the covenant of works such that it no longer applies to anyone under the covenant of grace. This must assume one of the above, for in some way man had the duty and powers to fulfill it and grace somehow removed or changed that duty and those powers. It also misunderstands, as outlined above, the difference between Adam’s earthly work and his heavenly reward upon meeting the condition.  

None of these should be desirable to a Reformed theologian.  

Conclusion 

Reformed theologians such as David VanDrunen would appear to be in trouble. He wants to say that “exercising dominion was not something tacked on to image-bearing: to exercise dominion is part of the very nature of bearing the image”⁹ and also to claim that “human beings are not bound by the creation mandate in its original Adamic form but in its modified Noahic form.”¹⁰ But it is not obvious how this follows, given standard Reformed theological commitments. Indeed, the immutability of the original dominion mandate follows necessarily from the Reformed theological tradition. Those who wish to rescind or substantively modify the mandate must bring their exegetical conclusions into their systematic theology and consider the consequences.  

___________________

Notes

1. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 207.

2. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, 1.15.

3. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants: Between God and Man, 1.2 (pg. 57).

4. As New England Puritan Samuel Willard writes, “The moral law took place as soon as man was made, and continues to the end, without any alteration. The same that it was, when given to Adam in integrity, the same it was when renewed on Mount Sinai, and is still the same in the days of the gospel.” See Willard, Complete Body of Divinity, ed. Mike Church, loc. 30685 (kindle edition).

5. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. James Dennison, 5.10.16, 22.

6. Herman Bavinck writes, “Hence, though these are new qualities that regeneration implants in a person, they are nevertheless no other than those that belong to human nature, just as health is the normal state of the body. They are ‘habits,’ dispositions, or inclinations that were originally included in the image of God and agreed with the law of God.” See Reformed Dogmatics, 4:94.

7. Ursinus writes, “The law alone, without the gospel, is the letter [that kills]. . . . But when it is joined with the gospel, which is the Spirit, it also commences to become the Spirit, which is effectual in the godly, inasmuch as those who are regenerated commence willingly and cheerfully to yield obedience to the law.” Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard, 617.

8. David VanDrunen, Politics after Christendom: Political Theology in a Fractured World, 65.

9. David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 39.

10. VanDrunen, Politics after Christendom, 65.