Faith in Jesus or the Faithfulness of Jesus?

My summary of Douglas A. Campbell's The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans and Galatians (with special reference to Romans 1:17 & 3:22)

Preamble:

I offer here a summary of a very important article on certain passages in Paul.  The issues go to the heart of how we interpret Christianity as a whole.  I will offer a few bracketed comments but it is mostly just a summary.  Let the reader decide the issues for him or herself.

The Basic Issue:

This article was written as a contribution to a debate concerning a certain genitive that appears in Paul: namely, pistis christou, which depending on how the genitive is interpreted yields two very different and far-reaching readings:

1. Faith in Jesus Christ.  This is how most evangelicals interpret the phrase.
2. Faithfulness of Jesus Christ.  This is how Campbell interprets the phrase.

The first reading places emphasis on human reaction, namely faith, which usually is glossed as 'belief'.

The second reading places emphasis on what Jesus did and has nothing to do with human belief.  Campbell thinks that the pistis christou debate can be resolved in part by looking at Romans 1:17 where the key issues are introduced.

Summary of Campbell's article:

 Romans 1:17a and 3:22

Campbell's basic argument in this section is that "faith" in Romans 1:17 and 3:22 discloses or reveals God's righteousness in instrumental terms and this is something that "faith in Jesus" cannot do but "faithfulness of Jesus" can. In other words, our faith is not the means by which God's righteousness is revealed but Jesus' faithful death on the cross is the means by which it is revealed.  Campbell begins with Romans 1:17.  The crux of this verse is the meaning of the prepositional series: "from faith to faith" [the NIV bungles this by its "by faith from first to last].  He presents four points that must be kept in mind:

1. Habakkuk 2:4 is cited in 1:17b and uses the same phrase ("by faith") that appears in 1:17a which suggests that they have the same meaning in both places.  This eliminates construing 1:17a in terms of God because that could not be the meaning in 1:17b (the Habakkuk quote).
2. That Habakkuk 2:4 underlies 1:17a and elsewhere in Paul is suggested by the occurrence of "by faith" in Romans and Galatians (21 times) but nowhere else, and it is in Romans and Galatians where Habakkuk 2:4 is quoted.
3. Galatians 2:16 uses two prepositions "by faith" and "through faith" without really any change in meaning of the phrases.  Therefore, since "through" involves the meaning of "by means of" then "by" likewise means "by means of", which is consistent with the meaning in Habakkuk 2:4.
4. Other instrumental phrases can be seen functioning in further parallels to "by faith" in certain passages.  See Philippians 3:9 for example.

Similarities between Romans 1:16-17 and 3:21-22:

• Both deploy "righteousness of God" as subject.  
• It is "revealed" in 1:17 and "manifested" in 3:22.  
• It is revealed "by faith" in 1:17 and manifested "through faith" in 3:22.  
• "To everyone with faith" in 1:16 is matched by "to the ones with faith" in 3:22
• Scripture is mentioned in both texts: quoted in 1:17 (Habakkuk 2:4) and the "law and the prophets" are referred to in 3:21.

Therefore, Campbell concludes that these two passages are sister texts and their association of faith with the means by which the righteousness of God is revealed/manifested cannot be explained by interpreting "faith" as our belief in Jesus.  Our faith affirms something already known as true, it responds to the gospel message, it does not reveal or manifest the gospel.

Campbell gives further evidence that the "faith" in question pertains to Jesus, that is, it means the faithfulness of Jesus:

• Pistis ("faith") in Greek can mean "belief", "trust" and "faithfulness".  Both Josephus and the LXX attest to the notion that pistis can mean "fidelity".
• Paul often refers to the story of Jesus' passion metonymically, that is, mentioning one element of a whole but meaning to evoke the whole.  "Obedience", "blood", "death", "cross/crucifixion" can all refer to the whole of the passion narrative.  Therefore, he can refer to Jesus' obedient death on the cross by mentioning only the "pistis of Jesus" (the faithfulness or fidelity of Jesus).
• "Fidelity" fits the martyrological themes in the passion of Jesus.  Other martyrologies explicitly mention "fidelity" (Maccabees 15:24; 16:22; 17:2).  Obedience also figures in martyrologies and Paul uses "obedience" as a summary of Jesus' saving activity in Romans 5:19 (see also Philippians 2:5-11 where humility and submission are also martyrological themes).
• Paul uses pistis- and obedience- word groups together where they mean the same thing.  This makes sense in Paul's social world where obedient clients are faithful and trustworthy and submissive and vice versa.  See Philippians 2:12 & 17; 2 Thess. 1:8-10; Romans 1:5 and 16:26. In Romans 10, a sequence of calling, believing, hearing, preaching, sending or proclaiming is then enumerated from verse 14 onward, followed by "but not all obeyed the good news" in verse 16.  Paul immediately quotes Isaiah 53:1 as if to explain the preceding: "Lord, who believed the report of us."  Therefore, pistis and obedience language go hand-in-hand.

A Christological reading of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17b

Campbell marshals seven arguments that Habakkuk 2:4 is to be interpreted Christologically:

"The righteousness of God is being revealed through it [the gospel] by means of fidelity [Jesus'] for fidelity [our], as it is written, 'The righteous one [Jesus], by means of fidelity [obedient death on a cross], will live [resurrected].'"

1. the arthrous [using "the"] construction to denote Christ is consistent with Paul's use elsewhere: the Son, the Christ, the one, the one having died.
2. "The righteous one" is a Christological title elsewhere in the New Testament: Acts 7:52; 22:14; James 5:6 and Matthew 27:19
3. In Hebrews 10:37-39, which quotes Habakkuk 2:3-4 is reasonably interpreted messianically.  The LXX of Habakkuk 2:3-4 opens up the possibility of a messianic reading.  "The coming one" and "the righteous one" are in parallel and would easily be taken to refer to Jesus.
4. The Wisdom of Solomon, which perhaps is alluded to in the opening chapter of Romans, mentions a righteous man who suffers and is then granted life by God.
5. If Paul draws the key phrase "by faith" from Habakkuk 2:4 and uses it programmatically elsewhere this would explain why he drops the pronoun "my' because the pronoun would have no or the wrong antecedent.
6. Messianic reading of Habakkuk 2:4 fulfills what Paul sets in motion in Romans 1:2-4.  He says the Jesus event fulfills scripture and this is precisely what happens by citing Habakkuk 2:4.  This is all the more important when it is noted that Paul mentions "resurrection" in 1:4, and that the "will live" alludes to resurrection[!]
7. That Paul could interpret scripture messianically is not in dispute: see 2 Cor. 1:20 and 4:4-6

Campbell thinks this evidence is compelling in arguing for the messianic reading of Habakkuk 2:4 in which case "by faith" means "by the faithfulness of".

"To all the ones believing (or being of the faithfulness of Jesus)" in Romans 3:22

Campbell next discusses the end phrase of Romans 3:22: "to all the ones believing (or being faithful, trusting etc.)".  He discusses three aspects of this verse:

1. The meaning of "all" which refers the he Jew/gentile issue.
2. The participle "believing" or "being faithful" and its mode.  The word play that unfolds in these texts creates two important possibilities for interpreting faith's modality: a) the faith of the Christian echoes the fidelity of Christ himself in some sense.  They copy the faithful Christ, or b) they possess faith because they participate in Christ.  Paul's use of pistis-language is informed by scriptural intertexts: Isaiah 28:16b, Genesis 15:6
3. Implicit object of the believing or faithfulness is God not Jesus.  He presents three reasons: a) intertextual: it is God in the texts Paul quote.  It is rare in Paul where Jesus is the object of faith-terminology.  b) God occurs about 150 times in Romans, 44 before 3:22; he is the object of faith in 4:3, 17, 20, 10:9 largely because God is the object in the intertexts (Genesis 15:6, Isaiah 28:16b etc.). c) syntactical.  the object of Jesus's fidelity is God.  Therefore we have: "The righteousness of God has been disclosed through the fidelity of Christ [in God] for those who trust [in God]."

 

 

   

The importance of Romans 8:34

Preamble:

That the resurrection is a key for Paul can be proved by looking at one verse (among many!), namely, Romans 8:34.

Romans 8:34:

Who is the one condemning?  Christ Jesus the one having died, but rather having been raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who also intercedes on behalf of us.

The "but rather" in Greek is used to supplement or even correct what has preceded.  Paul is saying that Jesus resurrection is a more key factor in what he is going to say.  This is brought out even more clearly when we compare Romans 8:31-39, which contains our verse in question, and Romans 5:1-11, and especially 5:9-10.

Links between Romans 5:1-11 and 8:31-39:

There are common themes in these two sections, which probably should not surprise us since chapters 5-8 forms a rather distinct unit within Romans.  Here are some of the commonality:

• Just: 5:1,9  ----------- 8:33
• Suffering 5:3 -------------- 8:35-37
• God's love 5:5,8 ------------------ 8:35,39
• death 5:6,8,10 ----------------------- 8:34
• saved from wrath  5:9 ----------------- 8:34
• resurrection 5:10 --------------------- 8:34
• 'for us' 5:5-6 ----------------------------8:31,32,34

These common themes are instructive because in 5:9-10 Paul uses language very similar to 8:34.

Romans 5:9-10:

By much then rather having been justified now by the blood of him will we be saved through him from the wrath; for if enemies being we were reconciled to God through the death of the Son of him by much rather having been reconciled will we be saved by the life of him.

The present reality enjoyed by the death of Jesus is the lesser and the future enjoyed by the resurrection of Jesus is the greater.  This trades on the death/life theme.  If Jesus' death does things, then his resurrected life does better thing (or things made more sure).  The same Greek word used in 8:34 for "rather" is used here.

Theological upshot:

Jesus' resurrection is the key to Romans.  The small correction made in 8:34 is very telling.  Without the resurrection we have no enthronement and without the enthronement we do not have Jesus as our intercessor.

Refuting Attempts to discount Jesus' teaching part two

Preamble

To continue from my last blog, I want to argue that Paul seems to assume that the teachings of Jesus pertain to the New Covenant era.

The Law of Christ

In Galatians 6:2, Paul exhorts us to bear one another's burdens thereby fulfilling "the law of Christ".  This law of Christ probably is to be identified with Jesus' teaching to love one another (see also 1 Corinthians 9:21, where Paul speaks of himself as "not God's lawless one, but Christ's enlawed one").  Evidence if this comes from Galatians 5:14 which echoes Jesus' teaching in Matt 22:34-40/Mark 12:28-34.  The "loving one another" is explicitly cited by Jesus in John 13:34; 15:12, 17 as a command, which is of course related to the idea of a law.  As a side note, in John 13:34 this command is called "new" and Raymond Brown has argued that this is related to the New Covenant.  Furthermore, the new covenant passage in Jeremiah 33 speaks of a law being written on the heart.  This connection would bolster the hypothesis that "the law of Christ" in Paul is definitely a new covenant idea--an idea going back to the teachings of Jesus.  It is not an accident that much of Jesus' sermon on the mount has to do with one's heart and not merely outward appearance.  This provides a nice segue to my next topic.

The Word of Christ

In Colossians 3:16 Paul exhorts to "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly".  It's possible that the "word of Christ" concerns that message about Christ, but a case can be made it refers to the Message of Jesus, that is, the word spoken and taught by Jesus.  Earlier in Colossians we read (3:12-14):

As God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience.  Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord had forgiven you, so you must forgive.  Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

David Wenham has pointed out that this passage has similarities with Matthew 5:48/Luke 6:35, 36.  This is evidence that the "word of Christ" in 3:16 is related to Jesus' teachings.

Theological Upshot

The gambit to claim that Jesus' teachings are obsolete flies in the face of too much New Testament, that is, post-advent-of-New-Covenant material.  I find it interesting that what many find troublesome about Jesus' teachings in the Gospels are repeated by Paul in his letters!  This is a strong indication that evangelicals are getting Paul wrong.  

Refuting Christian attempts to discount Jesus' teachings using Matthew 28:16-20

Preamble
Christians employ two related strategies to discount Jesus' teaching.  I intend here to refute these attempts by looking at one particular verse in Matthew (28:20a).  That Christians discount Jesus' teachings sounds odd, but the reason for it has to do, in my opinion, with a misreading of Paul.  Since many evangelicals get Paul wrong and since this misreading of Paul conflicts with Jesus' teaching, then the teachings of Jesus must go.  It's as if Christians are given a choice between Jesus and Paul and they choose Paul.

Two Strategies to Discount Jesus' Teachings
Christians try to discount Jesus' teachings by either claiming (1) that Jesus' teaching were only for the Jews or (2) claiming that Jesus' teaching occurred before the New Covenant which commenced at his death, therefore Jesus' teachings are no longer operative.

(1) It is true that Jesus did teach mostly Jews (Matthew 10:5-6; 15:25; Romans 15:8).  However, this does not necessarily mean that his teaching does not apply to Gentiles.

(2) It is true that Jesus taught before he died, but this does not necessarily mean that his teaching is obsolete given the New Covenant.

Matthew 28:20a
This verse occurs in the passage where Jesus commissions the church (28:16-20):

Now the eleven went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus commanded them, and having seen him they worshiped him, but some doubted.  And Jesus approached and spoke to them saying: "All authority in heaven and on the earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of the all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Teaching them to obey all the things I have commanded you.  And behold I am with you always, to the end of the age." [italics mine]

This passage refutes in one fell swoop the two strategies to undermine Jesus' teachings.  The first thing to notice is that Jesus directs his words here to "the eleven" so when he says "all the things I have commanded you" he is meaning the disciples.  It is to his disciples that Jesus teaches in the five great discourses in Matthew (also, summaries of Jesus' mission mention teaching throughout the gospel [4:23; 9:35; 11:1]):

1. Sermon on the Mount (5-7) see 5:1.  Notice that the mount harks back to Moses and Mount Sinai.  Could it be that his mount is the the New Covenant mount, meant to put Jesus' teaching in a new period?  In this regard, see Matthew 13:52.  The transfiguration (compare Moses [Exodus 34:29] who also appeared here!) and this scene also occur on mounts.  This sounds like "New Covenant" to me.  Even the language "all that I commanded you" harks back to Moses/Old Covenant and Exodus (see for example Exodus 7:2) which again implies New Covenant!
2. Missionary Discourse (10) see 10:1, 5.
3. Parabolic Discourse (13) see 13:10, 36.
4. Church discourse (18) see 18:1
5. End Times Discourse (24-25) see 24:1, 3.

It seems likely then that Jesus in 28:16-20 is alluding to his teaching to the disciples in the body of the gospel.  This is also brought out by the past tense of commanded.  It is unlikely that he is referring to teaching after his resurrection because Matthew does not indicate there was any!

This argues against the New Covenant ploy because Jesus is assuming that his teaching is relevant to the time of the New Covenant, since he said 28:16-20 after his death.

The word "nations" in 20:19 clearly indicates that Jesus teachings are to be passed on to non-Jews as well (Jews are included too since he does not say "Gentiles").  Also, the language of having authority harks back to Daniel 7:14 where mention is made of "peoples, nations, and languages" which also refers to non-Jews.

Theological Upshot
There is simply no good reason to claim that Jesus' teachings before his death are not relevant teachings for Gentiles.  If the teachings of Jesus do not jibe with what a Christian ought to believe maybe we need to reconsider what a Christian ought to believe.  If we had to pick between Jesus and Paul would it perhaps be better to pick Jesus?

Belief and Resurrection in Romans 10:9

Preamble:

Romans 10:9 is an interesting verse with regard to "belief" and "resurrection".  We evangelical tend to encapsulate the gospel by saying that it primarily involves Jesus dying on the cross for our sins.  That is, salvation just is forgiveness of sins, and this salvation is appropriated simply by believing this fact.  However, in Romans 10:9 Paul does not encapsulate the gospel in this way.  That he does not, is a telling strike against how we evangelicals view such matters as the atonement and salvation.

Romans 10:9 in Context

Romans 10:9 (NRSV):

because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The "if" in this verse may simply correlate the confessing/believing with Jesus' Lordship and resurrection.  Nevertheless, what is interesting here is the Paul highlights two moments in the "Christ event", namely the exaltation and resurrection, that do not involve Jesus' death for the forgiveness of sins.  The two moments are chosen because they correlate nicely with Deuteronomy 30:12-14:

• Deuteronomy 30:12 Who will go up for us into heaven
• Romans 10:6 Who will ascend into heaven
• Deuteronomy 30:13 Who will go across to the other side of the sea for us
• Romans 10:7 Who will descend into the abyss

Of course, it could be argued that Paul quotes Deuteronomy precisely because it made reference to two moments in the Christ event.  But still, Paul highlights Jesus exaltation and resurrection and will relate them to righteousness and salvation (see 10:10).

In Romans 10:8, Paul talks of "the word":

This is the word of [Jesus'] faith[fulness] which we preach."

Note, I have translated the pisteos in this verse as Jesus' faithfulness and not our belief.  This is where the cross comes in because it was Jesus' faithful obedience to die on the cross that led to the reward of resurrected life.  [This is why I think Leviticus 18:5 is used by Paul in 10:5 in a positive, Christological, way.
The righteousness of the law, of which Jesus is the goal (10:4!), states that the one having done these things (Jesus) will live by them (be resurrected).]  But note that here the cross represents obedience and not animal-like sacrifice.

The Resurrection

When we come to Romans 10:9 we are told that those who believe in the resurrection (and confess Jesus' Lordship) are saved.  In verse 10 we have the following correlations:

• With the heart one believes resulting in righteousness
• With the mouth one confesses resulting in salvation

The "righteousness" here is no doubt equated with salvation.  God's righteousness leads to salvation (see Romans 1:16-17 where righteousness and salvation are paired).  Belief in the resurrection leads to salvation.  I think this is so because the resurrection is for Paul just what "salvation" means.  Resurrection means new life/creation and power over death.  That is salvation!  Sure, forgiveness of sins in included, but there is no overt mention of Jesus' death as an animal-like sacrifice which constitutes forgiveness of sins=salvation.  This is crucial for our self-understanding as Christians.  Paul uses "resurrection" language to refer to the renewed creation that Jesus' resurrection adumbrates.  This means actual transformation and not imputed righteousness.  For Paul, salvation is a victory "believers" share with Jesus because they are "in" Jesus.  They have died to sin's power to live for God, not in a fictitious sense but in a real sense.

Theological Upshot

We evangelicals need to broaden our concept of salvation and that by doing so we will not show our faith to be futile (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17)!

Phinehas, Violence and Jesus

Preamble

When is it kosher to kill in God's name?  That even a loving God can kill is perhaps best grounded in God's self-love, which perhaps lies behind the concept of holiness.  Room for God's anger and wrath is made when God is not given his due, that is, when God is not loved appropriately.  That God is justified in using violence does not mean that humans are justified using violence in God's name.   I have pondered this question when trying to come up with a gambit in arguing with Taliban, Al Qaeda and other jihadist-types who kill in God's name rather liberally.  No one likes to be guilty of logical fallacies and as a Christian I am aware of aspects of my own religious tradition that have similarities with Islamic terrorism.  I intend here to discuss the incident recorded in Numbers 25 involving the character Phinehas and how it relates to terrorism and violence.

The Problem Posed by Phinehas

Numbers 25:1-5 recounts how Israel, while staying at Shittim on the east bank of the Jordan, began having sexual relations with Moabite women.  This leads to idolatry and God's anger is kindled against Israel.  God orders Moses to impale all the chiefs of the people.  Moses orders the judges to kill any who yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor (note that Moses seems to change God's original command).  So far so good.  God is justified in ordering the killing not because he is not loving but because he loves himself.

Numbers 25:6-15 recounts the audacity of a certain Israelite male (Zimri) and a Midianite female (Cozbi).  This couple flaunts itself before Moses and the whole Israelite congregation and enters a tent presumably to engage in sexual activity.  This is when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest enters the picture.  He takes a spear, enters the couples' tent and kills both of them with one thrust of the spear.

The problem with this is that on the surface, Phinehas' act is best described as downright murder, a heinous act of terrorism.  However, God seems to approve of Phinehas' act.  God stops the plague which presumably resulted from the type of sin of which the Zimri/Cozbi act was a token.  He then tells Moses that Phinehas "has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites."  God then rewards Phinehas with a covenant of peace and a perpetual priesthood "because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the Israelites."

How can God approve of this act of vigilante justice?  Are we on the same footing with the 911 terrorists who thought they were serving God?

Some Reflections

Many of the story's incidentals do not seem to help much with our puzzle.  It's true that Moses seems to be passive and that perhaps is to be faulted in not taking "official" steps needed to bring Zimri and Cozbi to justice.  However, the text does not state this and there is little to recommend this.  It would not help much because we can still fault Phinehas for acting outside the official channels.  There is no indication in the text that Phinehas had any divine prompting.

I would argue, rather, that this story represents a rather singular moment in Israel's history and that Phinehas' so impressed God because Phinehas was acting as a representative for Israel.  It should be noted that both Zimri and Cozbi represented a larger group.  Zimri was the son of Salu, the head of an ancestral house of the Simeonites and Cozbi was the daughter of Zur, the head of an ancestral house in Midian.  Phinehas' act was singular and cannot be made a template for other nefarious acts.

My Solution

My "solution" is to argue that God did not approve of Phinehas' act, but approved of Phinehas' zeal (Compare what Paul says in Romans 10:2).  Perhaps God will hold Phinehas responsible for the act even if God approved of the zeal in which it was carried out.  There is no contradiction in holding this line.  In this regard, it is interesting to point out that in one of the main allusions to this story elsewhere in the Bible, namely, Psalms 106:28-31, we are not even told of the act Phinehas' committed.  Perhaps this is so because it was not the act but Phinehas' obedience that was atoning.

The Jesus' Connection

It was been pointed out by many that Phinehas has many similarities with Jesus.  Both atoned by obedience (or so I would argue).  Though it could be said that Zimri and Cozbi were sort of human sacrifices, that aspect is not highlighted one bit (no mention of blood for example).  Likewise, Jesus' death atoned more by obedience and not as an animal-like sacrifice.  Just as Phinehas used a spear, Jesus was himself speared (John 19:34).  There could be no better contrast than between the way of Jesus and the way of Phinehas.  Jesus was obedient to God by not retaliating against evil, whereas Phinehas was obedient despite retaliating against evil.

Upshot

I started this discussion by my worries about arguing with Islamic terrorists who kill in God's name at will.  My Christian faith is that the way of Jesus is the Way.  We honor God best by loving people.  Even the argument with Islamic terrorists is affected.  One of my philosophy professors, Hilary Putnam, said it well when he claimed that we will not really win in an argument with the likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  The best we can do is to change the conditions that breeds this fanaticism.  And wanting to change those conditions could very well require loving Muslims and wanting their lives to be as good as possible.  That is the Way of Jesus.
 

Dominion over Animals

Preamble

In Genesis 1:26-28, we are told that humankind is to have dominion over animals.  I intend to investigate the meaning of this dominion and what is might mean for how we are to treat animals.

Meaning of "Dominion"

The Hebrew verb radah (dominion) occurs twice in Genesis 1:26-28:

Then God said, "Let us make humankind [adam] in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion [irdu] over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."  So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.  God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion [rdu] over the fish of the sea and over the the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

The meaning of radah in the rest of the Old Testament for the most part has to do with one entity ruling another.  1 Kings 5:24 is typical:

For he [Solomon] had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates; and he had peace on all sides.

It is interesting to note here that the seeming result of Solomon's dominion was peace!  Psalm 72 is also about Solomon and his dominion.  It begins by asking God to give the king justice and righteousness so that he may defend the cause of the poor, deliver the needy and crush the oppressor.  Then it asks that the king be granted dominion (72:8).  It is noteworthy that even though Solomon's rule was over foreign peoples (72:9-11), the king himself was benevolent.  Psalm 110:1-2 is also interesting, especially from a Christian perspective:

The Lord says to my lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."  The Lord sends out from Zion your mighty scepter.  Rule [rde] in the midst of your foes.

For Christians, this passage has Jesus in mind (see Acts 2:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Heb 1:3, 13) and Jesus' dominion is perfectly benevolent.  In this connection, dominion is applied to the "shepherds of Israel" in Ezekiel 34:4.  Since dominion is said in connection with shepherding, and since Jesus is the Good Shepherd, it goes without saying that dominion can be applied to a benevolent shepherd.

Leviticus 25 thrice mentions dominion in connection with a master not ruling a hired servant with harshness (vs. 43, 46, 53).  Again, this rule is benevolent.

In God's Image

Some scholars think that the meaning of the "image of God" in Genesis 1:26-27 has to do with the mandate for humanity to be the representative of God on earth.  This accords with the concept of the king as the icon of his god found in Mesopotamia.  Compare this with Psalm 8 where the human is a little lower than elohim crowned with glory and honor.  The human is given dominion (different word than radah but same word for 'rule' used in Genesis 1:16) over the animals (!) in vs. 7-8.  Psalm 8 and Genesis 1:26-28 are very similar.  The upshot of this is that there does seem to be a connection between the "image of God' and dominion.  The proximity of the two ideas in Genesis screams that this is the case.

Upshot for Treatment of Animals

If humanity is to be God's representatives on earth, it goes without saying that their treatment of animals ought to be as God would treat them.  First of all, Genesis 1:29 proves that human dominion excludes killing animals for food.  It was not God's plan that animals be killed for food, that only come after the fall.  A certain symmetry is set up between animals and humans because God blesses both and tells both to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:22, 28).  There is no doubt that God loves animals.  He saved them from the flood and included them in his covenant thereafter.  In Jonah, God has regard for the animals too (4:11).  In this regard, humans ought to love animals with the same care.  Also, as Christians, we are told to make future realities present realities.  A big theme in Paul is to make the the future resurrection a present reality.  We Christian could also make the future reality where animals are in peace and where carnivores are vegetarians (Isaiah 11:6-7 and 65:25) a present reality by treating animals likewise.

Conclusion

Both in Hebrew (nephesh) and in Greek (psyche) animals are refered to as "living souls".  It's high time for us Christians to start treating them thus!