And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
26. Let us make ] LXX , Lat. faciamus. The use of the 1st pers. plur. is a well-known crux of interpretation. How are we to explain its occurrence in the utterance of the Almighty? The only other passages in which it is found are (1) Gen 3:22, “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us ”; (2) Gen 11:7, “Go to, and let us go down, and there confound their language”; (3) Isa 6:8, “And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Very different explanations have been given.
i. Until recently, the traditional Christian interpretation has seen in the 1st pers. plur. a reference to the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. The requirements of a sound historical exegesis render this view untenable: for it would read into the Book of Genesis the religious teaching which is based upon the Revelation of the New Testament.
ii. It has been regarded as a survival of polytheism, and has been compared with “Elohim,” a plural word for “God” which some regard as a relic of polytheism. But “Elohim, in the present context, is always combined with a verb in the singular. Why should “said” be in the singular, if “let us ” indicates the plurality of Gods? Again, any departure from the strictest monotheism is unthinkable in the writing of the Priestly Code. The explanation may safely be dismissed as improbable in the extreme.
iii. It has been explained as the plural of Majesty. It is pointed out that the commands and rescripts of royal personages are conveyed in the 1st pers. plur.; and reference is made, in support of this view, to Ezr 4:18, 1Ma 10:19 ; 1Ma 11:31 . It may be allowed that the view is tenable; but the examples adduced are drawn from a very late period of Biblical literature, and, as an explanation, it appears to be little in harmony with the directness and simplicity of the passage.
iv. It has been explained as the “plural of the fulness of attributes and powers.” It is pointed out that not only is the word for God ( Elohim) plural in form, but also the words for “Lord” ( Adon) and “Master” ( Ba‘al) are often used in the plural of a single person. “It might well be that, on a solemn occasion like this, when God is represented as about to create a being in His own image, and to impart to him a share in that fulness of sovereign prerogatives possessed by Himself, He should adopt this unusual and significant mode of expression” (Driver, in loc.). It may, however, be questioned whether the passage in Gen 11:7 satisfies the exacting requirements of this finely described test. Again, while “the plural of plenitude” in a substantive or adjective is unquestioned, it may be doubted, whether we should be right to explain the 1st pers. plur. of a verb on the ground that the speaker is one to whom the plural of the fulness of power can justly be attributed.
v. It has been explained as the plural of Deliberation. It has been truly remarked that there is more solemnity and dignity in the words, “Let us make man in our own image,” than would have been conveyed in the words, “Let me (or, I will) make man in my own image.” The entire simplicity of this explanation tends to recommend it.
vi. It was the old Jewish explanation that God is here addressing the inhabitants of heaven. In the thought of the devout Israelite, God was One, but not isolated. He was surrounded by the heavenly host (1Ki 22:19); attended by the Seraphim (Isa 6:1-6); holding His court with “the sons of God” (Job 1:6; Job 2:1). We are told in a poetical account of the Creation, that when the foundations of the earth were laid, “all the sons of God shouted for joy,” Job 38:7 (cf. Psa 29:1; Psa 89:7; Psa 103:19-22). It is claimed that, at the climax of the work of Creation, when man is about to be formed, the Almighty admits into the confidence of his Divine Purpose the angelic beings whose nature, in part, man will be privileged to share (Psa 8:4-5, cf. Heb 2:7). At the risk of appearing fanciful, we may remind the reader that the birth of the Second Adam was announced by “the angel,” and “there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God” (Luk 2:13)
It has been objected against this view (1) that the Priestly Narrator nowhere mentions angels, and (2) that the explanation tends to detract from the dignity of man’s creation. But (1) angels are not here mentioned; and if the plur. indicates their presence in attendance upon the Almighty, the picture which it suggests is in harmony with the religious thought of the Israelites; and (2) the work of creating man is neither delegated to, nor shared with, others. God “created man in his own image” ( Gen 1:27); but, before creating him, He had associated with Himself all those who, through participation in image and likeness with Himself, would henceforth be allied to man.
The two last explanations appear to be the most probable.
man ] Heb. dm. This, the first mention of “man” in Holy Scripture, is spoken by God. It denotes “mankind” generally. Note the plural “they” in the next sentence. On “Adam” as a personal name, see note on Gen 2:7.
in our image, after our likeness ] LXX reads “and after our likeness.” Some distinction must clearly be drawn between “image” (Heb. elem; LXX ; Lat. imago) and “likeness” (Heb. d’mth; LXX ; Lat. similitudo). The former is more permanent, the latter more fleeting. But the distinction cannot be pressed. In Gen 1:1 we read “in the likeness ( d’mth) of God made he him,” and Gen 5:3, “And he (Adam) begat a son in his own likeness, after his own image.” The most we can say is that “image” suggests reproduction in form and substance, physical or spiritual: and “likeness” gives the idea of resemblance and outward similarity. The words contain a truth which was wont to be exaggerated by Jewish and Patristic commentators. Man’s nature is made “in the image of God”; he possesses divine qualities indestructible and inalienable, which no animal possessed. He is made “after the likeness of God”; his character is potentially divine. He is capable of approaching, or receding from, the “likeness” of God. The resemblance can never be perfect: but it can increase, and it can diminish.
The view that there is any reference to the conception of an outward resemblance, in shape or form, to the Hebrew idea of the Personal Deity is wholly improbable, and is contrary to the spirit and teaching of the religion of Israel.
and let them have dominion, &c.] As this dominion is promised to man in virtue of his creation in God’s image, this sentence will helpfully shew that man’s superiority arises, not from physical strength, but through the equipment of his higher nature.
and over all the earth ] It seems strange that mention of “the earth” should be interposed between two of the four classes of animals, “the cattle” and “every creeping thing,” over which man should rule. There can hardly be any doubt that the text, which is that also of the LXX and the Latin, has suffered from an early omission. We should read, with the Syriac Peshitto, “over all the beasts of the earth.” The addition of the words “beasts of,” in the sense of “the wild beasts of,” will complete the classification of living creatures, as (1) fish, (2) birds, (3) domestic animals, (4) wild beasts, (5) creeping things. This enumeration reproduces the animals previously mentioned ( Gen 1:20-25).
SPECIAL NOTE A, ON Gen 1:26
Professor Davidson, On the plural form of the word Elohim.
“The plural form of the word Elohim might be supposed to have some bearing on the question of unity. And, indeed, by many it has been supposed to bear testimony to the plurality of gods originally worshipped among the Semitic peoples; and by others, who seem to consider the name Elohim part of God’s revelation of Himself, to the plurality of persons in the Godhead. The real force of the plural termination is not easy, indeed, to discover. But a few facts may lead us near it. In Ethiopic the name of God is Amlk, a plural form also of a root allied to melek a king. All Shemitic languages use the plural as a means of heightening the idea of the singular; the precise kind of heightening has to be inferred from the word. Thus water is plural, from the fluidity and multiplicity of its parts; the heavens from their extension. Of a different kind is the plural of adon lord, in Hebrew, which takes plural suffixes except in the first person singular. Of this kind, too, is the plural of Baal, even in the sense of owner, as when Isaiah uses the phrase (Gen 1:3). Of the same kind, also, is the plural teraphim, penates, consisting of a single image. And of this kind probably is the plural Elohim a plural not numerical, but simply enhancive of the idea of might. Thus among the Israelites the might who was God was not an ordinary might, but one peculiar, lofty, unique. Though the word be plural, in the earliest written Hebrew its predicate is almost universally singular. Only when used of the gods of the nations is it construed with a plural verb; or, sometimes, when the reference is to the general idea of the Godhead. This use with a singular predicate or epithet seems to show that the plural form is not a reminiscence of a former Polytheism. The plural expressed a plenitude of might. And as there seems no trace of a Polytheism in the name, neither can it with any probability be supposed to express a plurality of persons in the Godhead. For it cannot be shown that the word is itself part of God’s revelation; it is a word of natural growth adopted into revelation, like other words of the Hebrew language. And the usage in the words baal, adon, rab, and such like, similar to it in meaning, leads us to suppose that the plural is not numerical, as if mights, but merely intensifying the idea of might. Nor can it be shown to be probable that the doctrine of a plurality of persons should have been taught early in the history of revelation. What the proneness of mankind to idolatry rendered imperative above all and first of all, was strenuous teaching of the Divine Unity.” Davidson’s Theology of the O.T. pp. 99, 100 (T. and T. Clark).
SPECIAL NOTE B
Note on the Jewish Interpretation of Gen 1:26
( a) Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, “And the Lord said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness.”
( b) Pesita 34 a (ed. Buber), “God took counsel with the ministering angels, and said unto them, Let us make, &c.”
( c) Philo (i. 556, ed. Mangey), “The Father of the Universe discourses to His own Hosts” ( ).
( d) Rashi, Commentary.
Humilitatem Sancti illius Benedicti hinc discimus, quoniam homo ad similitudinem angelorum creatus fuit et illi erga eum invidia incitati fuerunt, idcirco Deus cum illis consultavit. Etiamsi angeli non opem tulerint ei Deo in illius creatione non omittit tamen Scriptura, quominus doceat morem hominum modumque humilitatis, ut nimirum is, qui major est, consultet et facultatem impetret a minore, quod si scripsisset Moses faciam hominem, non docuisset nos, quod Deus locutus sit cum domo judicii sui; sed cum seipso; responsionem vero Epicuraeis opponendam scripsit Moses in latere ejus, “et creavit,” inquiens, hominem; non vero scripsit; “et creaverunt.”
Ed. Breithaupt, i. pp. 15, 17.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
26 30. Let us make, &c.] The creation of man, although taking place on the same day with that of the land animals, is a completely separate creative act. It constitutes the climax and the crown of Creation. It is, therefore, described with especial fulness and solemnity. There is no formula, “let there be man,” or “let the earth bring forth man,” as in the case of the previous creative acts. We observe, (1) firstly, that God prefaces the creation of man with a declaration concerning ( a) the Divine purpose; ( b) man’s future nature; ( c) his sphere of authority and influence ( Gen 1:26); (2) secondly, that in a direct and special manner God creates man, in His own image, both male and female ( Gen 1:27); (3) thirdly, that He both blesses them, and intrusts them with duties and powers upon the earth ( Gen 1:28); (4) fourthly, that He makes provision for their food and sustenance ( Gen 1:29), as well as for that of the lower animals.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Gen 1:26-27
Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness
The creation of man
I.
THAT THE CREATION OF MAN WAS PRECEDED BY A DIVINE CONSULTATION.
1. This consultation was Divine. Held by the Three Persons of the Ever-Blessed Trinity, who were one in the creative work.
2. This consultation was solemn Man, unlike the rest of creation, is a being endowed with mind and volition, capable even of rebellion against his Creator. There must be a pause before such a being is made. The project must be considered. The probable issue must be calculated. His relation to heaven and earth must be contemplated.
3. This consultation was happy. The Divine Being had not yet given out, in the creative work, the highest thought of His mind; He had not yet found outlet for the larger sympathies of His heart in the universe He had just made and welcomed into being. The light could not utter all His beneficence. The waters could not articulate all His power. The stars did but whisper His name. The being of man is vocal with God, as is no other created object. He is a revelation of his Maker in a very high degree. In him the Divine thought and sympathy found welcome outlet. The creation of man was also happy in its bearing toward the external universe. The world is finished. It is almost silent. There is only the voice of the animal creation to break its stillness. But man steps forth into the desolate home. He can sing a hymn–he can offer a prayer–he can commune with God–he can occupy the tenantless house. Hence the council that contemplated his creation would be happy.
II. THAT MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. Man was originally God-like, with certain limitations. In what respect was man created after the image of God?
1. In respect to his intelligence. God is the Supreme Mind. He is the Infinite Intelligence. Man is like Him in that he also is gifted with mind and intelligence; he is capable of thought.
2. In respect to his moral nature. Man is made after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness. He was made with a benevolent disposition, with happy and prayerful spirit, and with a longing desire to promote the general good of the universe; in these respects he was like God, who is infinitely pure, Divinely happy in His life, and in deep sympathy with all who are within the circle of His Being.
3. In respect to his dominion. God is the Supreme Ruler of all things in heaven and in earth. Both angels and men are His subjects. Material Nature is part of His realm, and is under His authority. In this respect, man is made in the image of God. He is the king of this world. The brute creation is subject to his sway. Material forces are largely under his command.
4. In respect to his immortality. God is eternal. Man partakes of the Divine immortality. Man, having commenced the race of being, will run toward a goal he can never reach. God, angels, and men are the only immortalities of which we are cognizant. What an awful thing is life.
5. In respect to the power of creatorship. Man has, within certain limits, the power of creatorship. He can design new patterns of work.
III. THAT THE CREATION OF MAN IN THE DIVINE IMAGE IS A FACT WELL ATTESTED. So God created man in His own image (Gen 1:27). This perfection of primeval manhood is not the fanciful creation of artistic genius–it is not the dream of poetic imagination–it is not the figment of a speculative philosophy; but it is the calm statement of Scripture.
1. It is attested by the intention and statement of the Creator. It was the intention of God to make man after His own image, and the workman generally follows out the motive with which he commences his toil. And we have the statement of Scripture that He did so in this instance. True, the image was soon marred and broken, which could not have been the case had it not previously existed. How glorious must man have been in his original condition.
2. It is attested by the very fall of man. How wonderful are the capabilities of even our fallen manhood. The splendid ruins are proof that once they were a magnificent edifice. What achievements are made by the intellect of man–what loving sympathies are given out from his heart–what prayers arise from his soul–of what noble activities is he capable; these are tokens of fallen greatness, for the being of the most splendid manhood is but the rubbish of an Adam. Man must have been made in the image of God, or the grandeur of his moral ruin is inexplicable. Learn:
1. The dignity of mans nature.
2. The greatness of mans fall.
3. The glory of mans recovery by Christ. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
What is the image of God in which man was created?
I. NEGATIVELY. Let us see wherein the image of God in man does not consist. Some, for instance, the Socinians, maintain that it consists in that power and dominion that God gave Adam over the creatures. True, man was vouched Gods immediate deputy upon earth, the viceroy of the creation. But that this power and dominion is not adequately and completely the image of God is clear from two considerations.
1. Then he that had most power and dominion would have most of Gods image, and consequently Nimrod had more of it than Noah, Saul than Samuel, Caesar than Christ–which is a blasphemous paradox.
2. Self-denial and humility will make us unlike.
II. POSITIVELY. Let us see wherein the image of God in man does consist. It is that universal rectitude of all the faculties of the soul–by which they stand, act, and dispose their respective offices and operations, which will be more fully set forth by taking a distinct survey of it in the several faculties belonging to the soul; in the understanding, in the will, in the passions or affections.
1. In the understanding. At its first creation it was sublime, clear, and inspiring. It was the leading faculty. There is as much difference between the clear representations of the understanding then, and the obscure discoveries that it makes now, as there is between the prospect of landscape from a casement, and from a keyhole. This image was apparent–
(1) In the understanding speculative.
(2) In the practical understanding.
2. In the will. The will of man in the state of innocence had an entire freedom to accept or not the temptation. The will then was ductile and pliant to all the motions of right reason. It is in the nature of the will to follow a superior guide–to be drawn by the intellect. But then it was subordinate, not enslaved; not as a servant to a master, but as a queen to her king, who both acknowledges her subjection and yet retains her majesty.
3. In the passion. Love. Now this affection, in the state of innocence, was happily pitched upon its right object; it flamed up in direct fervours of devotion to God, and in collateral emissions of charity to its neighbour. Hatred. It was then like aloes–bitter, but wholesome. Anger. Joy. Sorrow. Hope. Fear. The use of this point–that man was created in the image of God–might be various; but it shall be two fold.
(1) To remind us of the irreparable loss we have sustained by sin.
(2) To teach us the excellency of the Christian religion. (R. South, D. D.)
The Divine image in man
It is not too much to say that redemption, with all its graces and all its glories, finds its explanation and its reason in creation. He who thought it worth while to create, foreseeing consequences, can be believed, if He says so, to have thought it worth while to rescue and to renew. Nay, there is in this redemption a sort of antecedent fitness, inasmuch as it exculpates the act of creation from the charge of short-sightedness or of mistake. Let us make man in our image, created anew in Jesus Christ, after the image of Him that created him. Notice three respects in which the Divine image has been traced in the human.
I. God is Spirit, was our Lords saying to the Samaritan. Man is spirit also. This it is which makes him capable of intercourse and communion with God Himself. SPIRITUALITY thus becomes the very differentia of humanity. The man who declares that the spiritual is not, or is not for him, may well fancy himself developed out of lower organisms by a process which leaves him still generically one of them; for he has parted altogether from the great strength and life of his race.
II. Spirituality is the first Divine likeness. We will make SYMPATHY the second. Fellow suffering is not necessarily sympathy. On the other hand, sympathy may be where fellow suffering is not. Love is sympathy, and God is love. Sympathy is an attribute of Deity. When God made man in His own likeness, He made him thereby capable of sympathy. Spirituality without sympathy might conceivably be a cold and spiritless grace; it might lift us above earth, but it would not brighten earth itself.
III. The third feature is that which we call INFLUENCE; the other two are conditions of it. Influence is by name and essence the gentle flowing in of one nature and one personality into another, which touches the spring of will and makes the volition of one the volition of the other. It is indeed a worse than heathenish negation of the power and activity of God, the source of all, if we debar Him alone from the exercise of that spiritual influence upon the understanding, the conscience, and the heart of mankind, which we find to be all but resistless in the hands of those who possess it by His leave. (Dean Vaughan.)
Man in Gods image
The small can represent the great. Is not the sun reflected in the hues of the smallest flower, and in the greenness of the finest blade of grass? Yet that sun is distant from our earth ninety-five millions of miles, and is larger than our earth one hundred thousand times.
I. IN WHAT THE IMAGE OF GOD UPON MAN CONSISTS.
1. In the possession of moral powers and susceptibilities.
2. In the pure and righteous state of his whole nature.
3. In his relative position toward other terrestrial creatures.
II. GREAT BLESSEDNESS WAS INVOLVED IN THE POSSESSION OF GODS IMAGE.
1. In the possession of the Divine image human nature had within itself a mirror of God.
2. It led to fellowship with, God.
3. It was a mirror of God to other creatures.
4. It was a mirror in which God saw Himself.
In this was involved–
(1) Supreme good to man himself.
(2) High satisfaction and glory to God.
Reflections:
1. How sadly changed is human nature.
2. How elevated is the Christian.
3. How blessed is God. (S. Martin.)
The image of God in man
In man two widely different elements are blended, of which only the one could be moulded in the image of God. God is a Spirit: but man is material as well as spiritual. God breathed into (mans) nostrils the breath of life: but He had previously formed (him) of the dust of the ground. Man therefore is like a coin which bears the image of the monarch: when we would describe the features of that royal likeness, we take no thought of the earthly material of the metal on which it is impressed.
1. In the first place, then, man bears Gods image, because God gave him a freewill, by the force of which gift he is entrusted with individual responsibility, and exercises a sort of delegated power. This freewill was made separate from that of God, or the gift would not have been complete. But it was never meant to be independent of that of God, or the gift to a creature would have been fatal; as indeed man made it, when he started aside into the rebellion of a self-seeking and isolated will. God is the great First Cause.
2. But what are the next features of Gods image, in addition to this gift of will? It might resemble mere force committed to some powerful but lawless body, which could move without the help of sense or sight. Thus the madman, for instance, retains will with its full originating power. But it impels him blindly and irrationally; it may impel him to do himself an injury, or to injure those whom he once loved most dearly. And this would be an instance of will without light. Or again, the thoroughly abandoned man, who is given over to a sort of moral madness, he too retains the power of will; but it has lost all moral guidance; it no longer obeys the laws of rectitude; it has become, by the loss of that guidance, more dangerous, because more mischievous, than even the mightiest of the powers of nature. And this would be an instance of will without law. To complete our notion of Gods image, therefore, we must add to the power of will the law of conscience. Whatsoever is right is our bounden duty, which the strict harmony of our nature enjoins; whatsoever is wrong must be firmly shunned, as a contradiction to that nature, as a new discord in the place of harmony, as a new dishonour to the image of God,
3. But in the third place; it is not sufficient to have added the law of conscience, unless we add the light of reason too. For we could imagine a creature, possessing something like both will and conscience, who might nevertheless be far less richly endowed than man. The will of such a being might be unenlightened: the conscience might be no more than a sort of stolid sensation of mindless and unreasoning fear. The gift of intellect, then, is a third essential feature in our nature; and a third trace of the image of God. Our first parents had dominion, for God endued them with strength by themselves, and made them according to His image, and put the fear of man upon all flesh, and gave him dominion over beasts and fowls. They had intelligence, for counsel, and a tongue, and eyes, ears, and a heart gave He them to understand. They had intercourse with God, for He made an everlasting covenant with them, and showed them His judgments. Now I need scarcely point out how precisely and accurately this threefold division corresponds with what we had reached through an altogether different process. It was as an image of Gods will that man possessed dominion: as an image of Gods mind that he was capable of knowledge: as an image of Gods moral nature, that he was admitted to intercourse with God. (Archdeacon Hannah.)
The creation of man in the Divine image
I. WHAT BELONGS TO THE IMAGE OF GOD, OR TO THE UPRIGHTNESS IN WHICH MAN IS HERE SAID TO BE CREATED? The principal question here to be considered is, whether the expressions in the text relate to the nature or to the character of man. Perfection of original constitution is one thing; perfection of action and of moral character is a different thing. Now we understand the expressions in our text to be employed with exclusive reference to the nature of man, to the essential being and constitution of his powers. We suppose the meaning to be, that God created man with certain spiritual faculties, which are an image or likeness of what exists in the Maker Himself.
1. We include here, first, reason, or the intellectual powers by which knowledge is acquired.
2. Intimately connected with these intellectual faculties, is the power of feeling moral obligation and of recognizing moral law; and we therefore name this as a second thing embraced in the Divine image, which belongs to man by creation. If the first is an image of the Divine knowledge, this is an image of the Divine holiness.
3. Still another part of the image of God in the soul is the power of free will, or the faculty of determining our actions, and so forming our character. This constitutes the executive power in man, or that by which he gives being and direction to his actions.
4. We may further include in the Divine image in man the power of exercising certain affections. There are decisive indications in nature, and most emphatic declarations in Scripture, that God is compassionate, and loves His creatures. We are, therefore, justified in regarding the feelings of which we are capable of love to God, and of love and piety towards other persons, as still another part of the image of God in the soul.
II. WE INQUIRE WHETHER THE LANGUAGE OF OUR TEXT OUGHT TO BE UNDERSTOOD OF OUR FIRST PARENTS MERELY, OR OF MANKIND IN GENERAL? We think it applies essentially (though possibly with some modification in respect to the original constitution in the descendants of Adam) to all human beings. Much which we have already said has, in fact, assumed this view; but we shall here state the reasons of it more fully.
1. The passage in Genesis is most naturally viewed as relating to the human nature generally, which then began its existence in Adam and Eve.
2. The Scriptures in several places speak of men generally as made in the image and likeness of God (See Gen 9:6; Jam 3:9).
3. We conclude with a few brief remarks.
1. The discussion through which we have passed enables us to see the ground on which Paul could say of the Gentile nations, who have no written revelation, that they are a law unto themselves. Endowed with spiritual faculties which enable them to determine for themselves the main substance of their duty. Made in image of God; so moral and accountable beings.
2. We see also that natural religion, or the religion which developes itself out of the conscience, must be the foundation of the religion of revelation.
3. All men need much and careful instruction. (D. N. Sheldon, D. D.)
Our ancestors
I. WHEN did God make man?
1. After He had created the world.
2. After He had enlightened the world.
3. After He had furnished and beautified the world.
II. How did God make man?
1. Consultation amongst the Persons of the Godhead.
2. Process.
3. Breath of life.
III. WHAT did God make man?
1. A creature comely and beautiful in his outward appearance.
2. Dignified in his soul.
3. Princely in his office.
4. Probationary in his circumstance.
Concluding reflections:
1. How happy must have been the state of man in Paradise!
2. How keenly would they feel the effects of the fall!
3. How visibly do we see the effects of the fall in our world!
4. How thankful ought we to be for the redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ! (Benson Bailey.)
The image of God
I. IN WHAT RESPECTS GOD CREATED MAN AFTER HIS IMAGE.
1. After His natural image.
(1) A spiritual being.
(2) Free.
(3) Immortal.
2. After His political image. Man is Gods representative on earth.
3. After His moral image. This consists in knowledge, holiness, righteousness, and happiness resulting therefrom (Col 3:10; Eph 4:24).
II. WHETHER MAN HAS LOST THIS IMAGE OF GOD, IN WHICH HE WAS CREATED; AND, IF SO, HOW FAR, AND BY WHAT MEANS HE HAS LOST IT.
III. WHETHER MAN MAY, AND MUST RECOVER THIS IMAGE OF GOD; HOW FAR, AND BY WHAT MEANS.
1. Man may certainly recover the moral image of God. His ignorance as to spiritual and Divine things, his unreasonableness and folly, may be removed, and he may be enlightened with knowledge and wisdom. As to the necessity of thus recovering the Divine image. Without this we do not learn Christ aright; the gospel and grace of God do not answer their end upon us, nor are we Christians (Eph 4:21); without this we do not, cannot glorify God, but dishonour Him (Rom 2:23-26); without this, we cannot be happy here, we cannot be admitted into heaven Heb 12:14; Mat 5:8; 1Jn 3:3; Rev 7:14, Mat 22:11.; 2Co 5:3). In order to recover this lovely image of God, we must look at it, as Eve looked at the fruit (2Co 3:18); we must long for it, must hunger and thirst after it Mat 5:6); we must exercise faith in Christ (Act 26:18), and in the promises (2Pe 1:4); and thus approach the tree of life, and pluck, and eat its fruit; we must pray for the Spirit (Tit 3:5; Eze 36:25; Eze 36:27; 2Co 3:18); we must read the word, hear, meditate, etc. (Joh 8:31-32; Joh 17:17; 1Pe 1:22-23; Jam 1:18); we must use self-denial, and mortification (Ro Gal 5:16), and watchfulness (1Pe 5:8; Rev 16:15). (J. Benson.)
Mans creation and empire
I. MAN CREATED; THE GODLIKE CREATURE. We are justified in emphasizing mans entrance into the world as a creation. In the first chapter of Genesis a distinct word is used to denote three separate beginnings: first, when matter was created; second, when animal life was created; third, when man was created. Man only approaches the animal when he is under the control of the spirit that tempted him at the fall. Man is, however, connected with the earth and the animal. The added mental and spiritual endowments consummated the likeness of God upon the earth. When Christ came into the world it was in the same image.
II. THE EMPIRE AND THE GRANARIES FOR MAN. That kingship which came to man from his likeness to God he has kept as he has retained the Divine image. Single-handed man was not equal to a contest with the monsters that filled the deep. The beasts that roamed the primeval forests could not be conquered, even by the giants who were on the earth in those days, by sheer strength of arm. The sea, the winds, the creeping, flying, browsing mammoths have always been mans master, save as he used mind and heart to secure his dominion. What, then, makes man the master? Mind, reason, judgment, like Gods.
III. THE UNFINISHED DAY. Of each preceding evening and morning God said: And there was evening and there was morning, one day, but no such record has come to us respecting the seventh day. This is the Scripture: And on the seventh day God finished the work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it. We are still in that day. (W. R. Campbell.)
The Divine in man
The heathen, recognizing in their own way the spiritual in man, tried to bridge over the chasm between it and the earthly by making God more human. The way of revelation on the contrary is to make man more godlike, to tell of the Divine idea yet to be realized in his nature. Nor have we far to go to find some of the traces of this Divine in human nature.
1. We are told that God is just and pure and holy. What is the meaning of these words? Speak to the deaf man of hearing, or the blind of light, he knows not what you mean. And so to talk of God as good and just and pure implies that there is goodness, justice, purity, within the mind of man.
2. We find in man the sense of the infinite: just as truly as God is boundless is the soul of man boundless; there is something boundless, infinite, in the sense of justice, in the sense of truth, in the power of self sacrifice.
3. In mans creative power there is a resemblance to God. He has filled the world with his creations. It is his special privilege to subdue the powers of nature to himself. He has turned the forces of nature against herself; commanding the winds to help him in braving the sea. And marvellous as is mans rule over external, dead nature, more marvellous still is his rule over animated nature. To see the trained falcon strike down the quarry at the feet of his master, and come back, when Gods free heaven is before him; to see the hound use his speed in the service of his master, to take a prey not to be given to himself; to see the camel of the desert carrying man through his own home: all these show the creative power of man, and his resemblance to God the Creator. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)
Wherein can the image of God, in a finite creature, consist? To this question some answer, that the image of God consisted in the superiority of mans physical faculties, in the admirable conformation of his body. This answer is unworthy of our text and God. Is God a material being? Has He a body, in the image of which lie could create man? Others, on hearing the question, answer, that the image of God in man consisted in the dominion which was given him over all created beings. But can this be the whole of Gods image? Others, again, reply to our question, that the image of God consisted in the faculty of the understanding with which man is endowed, and which so eminently distinguishes him from all other creatures. This answer is less remote from the truth, but it is incomplete. In the fifth chapter of Genesis we find the two words, image and likeness, employed in a manner calculated to make us understand their meaning in our text. There it is said, that Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth. Now is it not evident, that these words ascribe to Seth all the qualifies, physical, intellectual, and moral, which his father possessed? And, can we, without doing violence to the grammar itself, restrain the meaning of these expressions in our text to a certain superiority by which man is distinguished? We think, then, that we are authorized to extend these words to all that which constitutes the character of God, with all the restrictions which the finite nature of man requires. Man resembled his Creator with regard to his intellectual and moral qualities. Doubtless there are, in God, incommunicable perfections which belong to His eternal essence; and, indeed, it is for having arrogated to himself these august perfections, that man unhappily excavated an abyss of woe beneath his feet. But there are in God moral perfections which He communicates to His creatures, endowed with an understanding to know, and a heart to love. In this sense, man was a reflection, feeble, no doubt, and finite, of the Divinity Himself. He was, St. Paul tells us, created in righteousness and true holiness. But that we might be able still better to distinguish the traits of this image, God has not contented Himself with merely giving us an exact description of them in the words which we have just considered. Bead the Gospels; there is developed before our eyes the life of one whom the Bible calls the second Adam, one who is designated the image of God, the express image of the person of God, the image of the invisible God. What Divine traits does that image bear! What a reflection of the Divine perfections! What wisdom! What level What devotion! What holiness! There, my brethren, we clearly behold the being made after God in righteousness and true holiness, of which the apostle speaks. Now see how the image of God in man develops itself in the idea of the inspired apostle, and in the manifestation of the Son of God on earth. We too, place some traits of this image in the understanding. Not, indeed, in the understanding which requires to be renewed in knowledge, because it has forgotten the things which are above, and has lost the knowledge of the name of its heavenly Father; but in the clear and enlightened understanding of the first man, created after the image of God; a spiritual understanding, the reflection of the supreme intelligence, capable of rising to God, of seeking God, of adoring God in His works, and in all His moral perfections; an understanding without error and without darkness, possessing a full knowledge of the author of its being, and all the means of continually making new progress in that knowledge by experience. Now to know God is life eternal; it is the perfection of the understanding; it is the image of God. We do not, however, mean to represent man, created in the image of God, notwithstanding the superiority of his understanding, as a savant, in the ordinary meaning of that word, nor as a philosopher, or metaphysician: it was not by the way of reasoning that he arrived at the knowledge of things; he had no need of such a process. The superiority, even of his understanding, consisted, perhaps, chiefly in its simplicity, its ignorance of what is false, its inexperience of evil, in that practical ingenuousness, which constitutes the charm of the unsophisticated character of a child, a character which Jesus commands us to acquire anew. Always disposed to learn, never presuming upon itself, plying those around it with questions, listening to their answers with an entire confidence–such is the child in the arms of its father, such was Adam before his God, who condescended to instruct him, and whose word was never called in doubt. The Scripture confirms us in the idea, that this was indeed an admirable feature of Gods image, when it tells us, that God made man upright, but that (afterwards, alas!) they sought out many inventions (reasonings) (Ecc 7:29). The Apostle Paul also countenances this opinion, when, in his tender solicitude for the Christians at Corinth, who were exposed to the sophistry of a false philosophy, he writes to them, with an evident allusion to the seduction of our first parents, I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. Finally, Jesus Christ also establishes it, when, showing us, in this humble and noble simplicity, this child-like candour, full of openness and confidence, characteristic feature of the children of His kingdom, He addresses to His still presumptuous disciples this solemn declaration: Verily, I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. This feature of character leads us to another, which is inseparable from it. This simplicity in the mind supposes or produces simplicity in the heart. When an individual is straightforward in thought, he is straightforward in his actions. Hence, when the Bible tells us that God made man upright, it employs a word which, in the original language, means straightness, as, for example, of a way or a line; and to be upright, is to follow, without deviation, this way, or this line. Now, man created after the image of God, followed without effort, as by instinct, this way of uprightness. This feature, so beautiful and so noble, is reproduced in the new man, which, according to the apostle, is created after God in righteousness, that is, in uprightness of mind and of heart. Finally, let us not forget (and this consideration includes all that remains for us to say on the image of God in man), that this being, created after God in righteousness and true holiness, bore in him a heart capable of loving. And what is the feature of His glorious perfections, that God takes the greatest pleasure in engraving upon His creature, if it be not His love? Is not God love? And shall not he, who bears impressed upon his whole being the image of God, who places his glory in being loved, be capable of loving? Yes, lively, deep, powerful affections filled the heart of the first man, since, even to this day, these affections exercise so great an influence over us, and are often, without our knowing it, the real motives of our actions. But in Adam these affections were pure, as his whole being, they partook of that true holiness which constitutes the image of God. To man, still innocent, to love God was life. But love is an all-powerful principle of activity, devotedness, and energy. In the first man it must have been the motive of his devotion to God, the mysterious bond of his intimate communion with Him, the sure guarantee of his filial obedience, the ineffable charm which made him find in that obedience all his happiness. So sweet is devotedness to that which we love! Ah! that servile obedience which makes us tremble before the law, because the commandment came forth with thunderings from the smoking summits of Sinai, was unknown in Eden; that tardy, imperfect obedience, which costs our selfish, grovelling hearts so much, was unknown; it was unknown, because that same love reigned there, which makes the seraph find his happiness in flying at the will of Him who pours life and felicity over him in an unceasing stream. Thus, the understanding of man, always enlightened in the will of God, who spake to His creature as a man speaks to his friend; and the heart of man, which loving that sovereign will above all things, made him find liberty in perfect submission and happiness in ready obedience; so that, in him, thought, will, and affection, all united in one holy harmony, to the glory of Him that had created him in righteousness and true holiness. (L. Bonnet.)
Man created in the image of God
I. To inquire wherein this image of God consisted.
II. To suggest some useful inferences from the inquiry.
1. In the first place, then, we may venture to affirm that mans resemblance to his Maker did not, as some have strangely imagined, consist in the form or structure of his body, though fearfully and wonderfully made, and reflecting, as it does in an eminent degree the wisdom and goodness of the Creator. For with what propriety can body said to be the image of spirit?
(1) His understanding–the ruling faculty–was made capable of clearly discerning what is really good, of accurately discriminating between right and wrong, of ascertaining correctly, and as it were intuitively, the boundaries of good and evil; the former as consisting in conformity to the Divine will, the latter in deviation from that will. Doubtless Adam possessed, in his original state, a perfect knowledge of his Maker; that is, a knowledge morally perfect–perfect in kind, though in degree necessarily imperfect, as must ever be the knowledge which a finite being possesses of one that is infinite. His understanding was free from error, his judgment from corrupt bias.
(2) And as his intellect perceived, so his will approved and chose, that which was good. His will implicitly followed the dictates of his understanding; cleaving to, and taking complacency in, all that his judgment saw to be right; rejecting and shunning all which is pronounced to be wrong. The affections also, and appetites, and the subordinate movements and inclinations of the soul, were regulated and controlled according to this standard. There was no war between the decisions of the judgment and the inclinations of the will.
(3) That the image of God in the soul of man consisted, primarily at least, in the right state of the understanding and will, as it regards moral excellence, will appear further by what is said by St. Paul respecting the new man, or that new nature which in regeneration is imparted to the soul. The new man, he tells us, in one passage of his Epistles, is created after God–i.e., after the likeness of God–in righteousness and true holiness (Eph 4:24). In another passage he says that it is renewed in knowledge, after the image of Him that created him Col 3:10). Knowledge, then, and holiness–knowledge not speculative but practical, holiness not relative but real; the one illuminating the mind, the other governing the heart–constituted, in the apostles view, that image of God in which our text declares that He created man. From all these considerations we may infer that the image of God in which Adam was created consisted in an understanding prepared to imbibe true knowledge, a judgment free from corrupt bias, a will disposed to obedience, and affections regulated according to Divine reason and moral truth. From such a state of mind, godliness, in its internal exercises and outward expressions–righteousness, truth, benevolence, purity, and an exact regulation and government of every appetite and passion–must necessarily result, and every duty to God and man be constantly and delightfully performed. The same disposition would ensure belief of every truth which God should afterwards reveal, obedience to every precept which He should enjoin, a cordial acceptance of every proposal which He should make, and admiration of every discovery of the Divine glory at any time vouchsafed. Nor let this be deemed an uninteresting or unimportant subject of consideration. The contrary will, I trust, appear if we proceed–
2. To suggest some practical inferences from the inquiry which has been made.
(1) We may learn hence the worth of the soul. Of what other of the works of God is it said, that they were created after His own image? Has God put such honour upon our souls, and shall we cover them with dishonour? You employ a great deal of time and thought about your bodies, which were made of dust, and will quickly return to dust; but of your souls, your immortal souls, formed of heavenly materials, and moulded after the Divine likeness, you take scarcely any thought at all. Accidents and dangers, sicknesses and diseases that befall the body, are carefully guarded against and carefully remedied; whilst the moral disorders of the soul, the certain danger to which it is exposed from the wrath of God and the bitter pains of eternal death, are forgotten, made light of.
(2) But, further, we are led to consider, from the subject before us, the true end of our being, and the perfection of our nature. Why did God form us after His own image, in knowledge and holiness? Doubtless that we might be capable of knowing, loving, and serving Him; that we might adore His perfections, obey His will, glorify His holy name. This was Adams highest dignity before he fell in the earthly paradise. And this, we have reason to believe, will constitute the happiness of the redeemed in the paradise above. Suffer me then to ask, my brethren, are you mindful of the end for which you were created? Do you count the knowledge of God, and conformity to Him, your highest good, and seek your truest happiness in His favour?
(3) Again–let the subject we have been considering remind us how awful are the effects of sin; and how low we are fallen in consequence of sin. What marred the honour and dignity of our first estate? Sin. What defaced and obscured the lineaments of the Divine image in our souls? Sin. What cut us off from that blissful communion with the Father of spirits–the source of perfection and fountain of light–in which our highest happiness originally commenced? Sin. Sin is the separation of the soul from God, as death is that of the body from the soul.
(4) And this leads me to remark in the last place, the absolute necessity of an entire change of nature, if we wish to go to heaven when we die. The image of God, which sin has effaced, must be restored before we can be admitted into His presence above. (Archdeacon Hodson, M. A.)
The antiquity of man historically considered
I. The problem of the antiquity of man has to the historian two stages. In the first, it is a matter wholly within the sphere of historical investigation, and capable of being determined, if not with precision, at any rate within chronological limits that are not very wide, i.e., that do not exceed a space of two or three centuries. In the further or second stage, it is only partially a historical problem; it has to be decided by an appeal to considerations which lie outside the true domain of the historian, and are to a large extent speculative; nor can any attempt be made to determine it otherwise than with great vagueness, and within very wide limits–limits that are to be measured not so much by centuries as by millennia. The two stages which are here spoken of correspond to two phrases which are in ordinary use–Historic man and Prehistoric man. In pursuing the present inquiry, we shall, first of all, examine the question, to what length of time history proper goes back–for how many centuries or millennia do the contemporary written records of historic man indicate or prove his existence upon the earth? The result is, that for the Old Empire we must allow a term of about seven centuries or seven centuries and a half; whence it follows that we must assign for the commencement of Egyptian monarchy about the year B.C. 2500, or from that to B.C. 2650. This is the furthest date to which history proper can be said, even probably, to extend. It is capable of some curtailment, owing to the uncertainty which attaches to the real length of the earlier dynasties, but such curtailment could not be very considerable. The history of man may then be traced from authentic sources a little beyond the middle of the third millennium before our era. It is true and safe to say that man has existed in communities under settled government for about four thousand five hundred years; but it would not be safe to say that he had existed in the condition which makes history possible for any longer term.
II. What is the probable age of prehistoric man? for how long a time is it reasonable to suppose that mankind existed on the earth before states and governments grew up, before writing was invented, and such a condition of the arts arrived at as we find prevailing in the time when history begins, e.g., in Egypt at the Pyramid period, about B.C. 2600, and in Babylonia about two centuries later. Professor Owen is of opinion that the space of seven thousand years is but a brief period to be allotted to the earliest civilized and governed community–that of Egypt; nay, he holds that such a period of incubation, as he postulates, is so far from extravagant that it is more likely to prove inadequate for the production of the civilization in question. This is equivalent to saying that we must allow two thousand five hundred years for the gradual progress of man from his primitive condition to that whereto he has attained when the Pyramid kings bear sway in the Nile valley. Other writers have proposed a still longer term, as ten thousand, fifteen thousand, or even twenty thousand years. Now, here it must be observed, in the first place, that no estimate can be formed which deserves to be accounted anything but the merest conjecture, until it has been determined what the primitive condition of man was. To calculate the time occupied upon a journey, we must know the point from which the traveller set out. Was, then, the primitive condition of man, as seems to be supposed by Professor Owen, savagery, or was it a condition very far removed from that of the savage? The primeval savage is a familiar term in modern literature; but there is no evidence that the primeval savage ever existed. Rather, all the evidence looks the other way. The mythical traditions of almost all nations place at the beginnings of human history a time of happiness, perfection, a golden age, which has no features of savagery or barbarism, but many of civilization and refinement. The sacred records, venerated alike by Jews and Christians, depict antediluvian man as from the first tilling the ground, building cities, smelting metals, and making musical instruments. Babylonian documents of an early date tell, similarly, of art and literature having preceded the great Deluge, and having survived it. The explorers who have dug deep into the Mesopotamian mounds, and ransacked the tombs of Egypt, have come upon no certain traces of savage man in those regions, which a widespread tradition makes the cradle of the human race. So far from savagery being the primitive condition of man, it is rather to be viewed as a corruption and a degradation, the result of adverse circumstances during a long period of time, crushing man down, and effacing the Divine image wherein he was created. Had savagery been the primitive condition of man, it is scarcely conceivable that he could have ever emerged from it. Savages, left to themselves, continue savages, show no signs of progression, stagnate, or even deteriorate. There is no historical evidence of savages having ever civilized themselves, no instance on record of their having ever been raised out of their miserable condition by any other means than by contact with a civilized race. The torch of civilization is handed on from age to age, from race to race. If it were once to be extinguished, there is great doubt whether it could ever be re-lighted. Doubtless, there are degrees in civilization. Arts progress. No very high degree of perfection in any one art was ever reached per saltum. An advanced civilization–a high amount of excellence in several arts–implies an antecedent period during which these arts were cultivated, improvements made, perfection gradually attained. If we estimate very highly the civilization of the Pyramid period in Egypt, if we regard the statuary of the time as equalling that of Chantrey, if we view the great pyramid as an embodiment of profound cosmical and astronomical science, or even as an absolute marvel of perfect engineering construction, we shall be inclined to enlarge the antecedent period required by the art displayed, and to reckon it, not so much by centuries, as by millennia. But if we take a lower view, as do most of those familiar with the subject–if we see in the statuary much that is coarse and rude, in the general design of the pyramid a somewhat clumsy and inartistic attempt to impress by mere bulk, in the measurements of its various parts and the angles of its passages adaptations more or less skilful to convenience, and even in the discharging chambers and the ventilating shafts nothing very astonishing, we shall be content with a shorter term, and regard the supposed need of millennia as an absurdity. There is in truth but one thing which the Egyptians of the Pyramid period could really do surprisingly well; and that was to cut and polish hard stone. They must have had excellent saws, and have worked them with great skill, so as to produce perfectly flat surfaces of large dimensions. And they must have possessed the means of polishing extremely hard material, such as granite, syenite, and diorite. But in other respects their skill was not very great. Their quarrying, transport, and raising into place of enormous blocks of stone is paralleled by the Celtic builders of Stonehenge, who are not generally regarded as a very advanced people. Their alignment of their sloping galleries at the best angle for moving a sarcophagus along them may have been the result of rule of thumb. Their exact emplacement of their pyramids so as to face the cardinal points needed only a single determination of the suns place when the shadow which a gnomon cast was lowest. Primitive man, then, if we regard him as made in the image of God–clever, thoughtful, intelligent, from the first, quick to invent tools and to improve them, early acquainted with fire and not slow to discover its uses, and placed in a warm and fruitful region, where life was supported with ease–would, it appears to the present writer, not improbably have reached such a degree of civilization as that found to exist in Egypt about B.C. 2600, within five hundred or, at the utmost, a thousand years. There is no need, on account of the early civilization of Egypt, much less on account of any other, to extend the prehistoric period beyond this term. Mere rudeness of workmanship and low condition of life generally is sometimes adduced as an evidence of enormous antiquity; and the discoveries made in cairns, and caves, and lake beds, and kjokkenmoddings are brought forward to prove that man must have a past of enormous duration. But it seems to be forgotten that as great a rudeness and as low a savagism as any which the spade has ever turned up still exists upon the earth in various places, as among the Australian aborigines, the bushmen of South Africa, the Ostiaks and Samoyedes of Northern Asia, and the Weddas of Ceylon. The savagery of a race is thus no proof of its antiquity. As the Andaman and Wedda barbarisms are contemporary with the existing civilization of Western Europe, so the palaeolithic period of that region may have been contemporary with the highest Egyptian refinement. Another line of argument sometimes pursued in support of the theory of mans extreme antiquity, which is of a semi-historic character, bases itself upon the diversities of human speech. There are, it is said, four thousand languages upon the earth, all of them varieties, which have been produced from a single parent stock–must it not have taken ten, fifteen, twenty millennia to have developed them? Now here, in the first place, exception may be taken to the statement that all languages have been produced from a single parent stock, since, if the confusion of tongues at Babel be a fact, as allowed by the greatest of living comparative philologists, several distinct stocks may at that time have been created. Nor has inductive science done more as yet than indicate a possible unity of origin to all languages, leaving the fact in the highest degree doubtful. But, waiving these objections, and supposing a primitive language from which all others have been derived, and further accepting the unproved statement, that there are four thousand different forms of speech, there is, we conceive, no difficulty in supposing that they have all been developed within the space of five thousand years. The supposition does not require even so much as the development of one new language each year. Now, it is one of the best attested facts of linguistic science, that new languages are being formed continually. Nomadia races without a literature, especially those who have abundant leisure, make a plaything of their language, and are continually changing its vocabulary. If the work of agglutination has once commenced, says Professor Max Muller, and there is nothing like literature or science to keep it within limits, two villages, separated only for a few generations, will become mutually unintelligible. Brown, the American missionary, tells us of some tribes of Red Indians who left their native village to settle in another valley, that they became unintelligible to their forefathers in two or three generations. Moffatt says that in South Africa the bulk of the men and women of the desert tribes often quit their homes for long periods, leaving their children to the care of two or three infirm old people. The infant progeny, some of whom are beginning to lisp, while others can just master a whole sentence, and those still further advanced, romping together through the livelong day, become habituated to a language of their own. The more voluble condescend to the less precocious, and thus from this infant Babel proceeds a dialect of a host of mongrel words and phrases, joined together without rule, and in the course of one generation the entire character of the language is changed. Castren found the Mongolian dialects entering into a new phase of grammatical life, and declared that while the literary language of the race had no terminations for the persons of the verb, that characteristic feature of Turanian speech had lately broken out in the spoken dialects of the Buriatic and the Tungusic idioms near Njestschinsk in Siberia. Some of the recent missionaries in Central America, who compiled a dictionary of all the words they could lay hold of with great care, returning to the same tribe after the lapse of only ten years, found that their dictionary had become antiquated and useless. When men were chiefly nomadic, and were without a literature, living, moreover, in small separate communities, linguistic change must have proceeded with marvellous rapidity, and each year have seen, not one new language formed, but several. The linguistic argument sometimes takes a different shape. Experience, we are told, furnishes us with a measure of the growth of language, by which the great antiquity of the human race may be well nigh demonstrated. It took above a thousand years for the Romance languages–French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Wallachian, and Roumansch, or the language of the Grisons–to be developed out of Latin. Must it not have taken ten times as longto develop Latin and its sister tongues–Greek, German, Celtic, Lithuanian, Sclavonic, Zend, Sanskrit–out of their mother speech? Nor was that mother speech itself the first form of language. Side be side with it, when it was a spoken tongue, must have existed at least two other forms of early speech, one the parent of the dialects called Semitic–Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, Phoenician, Assyro-Babylonian, etc.
The other bearing the same relation to the dialects of the nomad races scattered over Central and Northern Asia–the Tungusic, Mongolic. Turkic, Samoyedic, and Finnic–which are all radii from a common centre, and form a well-established linguistic family. But these three mighty streams, which we may watch rolling on through centuries, if not millennia, distinct and separate one from another, are not wholly unconnected. If we trace them back as far as the records of the past allow, we shall find that before they disappear from our sight in the far distance, they clearly show a convergence towards one common source. Widely different, therefore, as they are, both in grammar and vocabulary, they too must have had a common parent, have been developed out of a still earlier language, which stood to them in the relation that Latin bears to Italian, Spanish, and French. But in what a length of time? If the daughter languages of the Latin were only developed in the space of a thousand years, and Latin, with its sister tongues, required ten or twenty times as long to be developed out of the primitive Aryan speech, how much longer a time must have been needed for the formation from one common stock of the primitive Aryan, the primitive Semitic, and the primitive Turanian types! When from reasoning of this kind–regarded as valid–the conclusion is deduced, that twenty-one thousand years is a very probable term for the development of human language in the shortest line, we can only feel surprise at the moderation of the reasoner. But the reasoning is invalid on several grounds.
(a) The supposed induction is made from a single instance–the case of Latin and its daughter tongues. To prove the point, several cases parallel to that of Latin should have been adduced.
(b) The time which it took for Latin to develop into Italian, Spanish, Wallachian, etc., assumed to be known, is not known. No one can say when Italian was first spoken. All that we know is, when it came to be a literary language. The fact seems to be that the Gauls and Spaniards, even the provincial Italians, learnt Latin imperfectly from the first, clipped it of its grammatical forms, corrupted its vocabulary, introduced phonetic changes consonant with their own habits and organs of speech. Languages nearer to Spanish and Italian than to classical Latin were probably spoken generally in Spain and Italy, while Latin was still the language of the capital and of polite society.
(c) Linguistic development is not, in fact, equal in equal times. On the contrary, there are periods when changes are slow and gradual, while there are others when they take place with extraordinary rapidity. English altered between Chaucer and Shakespeare very greatly more than it has changed between Shakespeare and the present day. Changes are greatest and most rapid before there is a literature; consequently, in the early stages of a languages life. And they are facilitated by the absence of intercourse and isolation of tribe from tribe, which is the natural condition of mankind before states have been formed and governments set up. In the infancy of man linguistic change must almost certainly have progressed at a rate very much beyond that at which it has moved within the period to which history reaches back. It is as impossible, therefore, to measure the age of language by the period–supposing it known–which a given change occupied, as it would be to determine the age of a tree by the rate of growth noted at a particular time in a particular branch. The diversities of physical type have also been viewed as indicating a vast antiquity for man, more especially when taken in connection with supposed proof that the diversities were as great four thousand years ago as they are now. The main argument here is one with which history has nothing to do. It is for physiologists, not for historians, to determine how long it would take to develop the various types of humanity from a single stock. But the other point is an historical one, and requires to be considered here. Now, it is decidedly not true to say that all, or anything like all, the existing diversities of physical type can be traced back for four thousand years, or shown to have existed at the date of B.C. 2100. The early Egyptian remains indicate, at the most, five physical types–those of the Egyptians themselves, the Cushites or Ethiopians, the Nashi or negroes, the Tahennu or Lybians, and the Amu or Asiatics. The Egyptians are represented as of a red-brown colour, but their women as nearly white. They have Caucasian features, except that their lips are unduly thick. The Ethiopians have features not dissimilar, but are prognathous and much darker than the Egyptians, sometimes absolutely black. The negroes are always black, with crisp, curly hair, snub noses, and out-turned lips; but they are not represented until about B.C. 1500. The Tahennu or Lybians of the North African coast have features not unlike the Egyptians themselves, but are fair-skinned, with blue eyes and lightish hair. The Ainu have features like those of the Assyrians and Jews: they vary in colour, being sometimes reddish, sometimes yellow, and having hair which is sometimes light, sometimes dark. The diversities are thus considerable, but they are far from equalling those which now exist. And it may be suspected that each type is exaggerated. As there cannot have been the difference of colour between the Egyptian men and the Egyptian women which the monuments represent, so it is to be supposed that in the other cases the artists intensified the actual differences. The Ethiopian was represented darker than he was, the Lybian lighter; the negro was given crisper and bushier hair, a snubber nose, and thicker lips. Art, in its infancy, marks differences by caricaturing them. We must not argue from caricatures, as if they had been photographs. We are not obliged, then, to relegate the entire development of existing physical types to the prehistoric period, and on that account to give it, as has been proposed, a vast enlargement. History shows us five types only as belonging to its first period. The rest may have been developed subsequently.
III. Further, there are a certain number of positive arguments which may be adduced in favour of the juvenility of man, or, in other words, of his not having existed upon the earth for a much longer period than that of which we have historical evidence. As, first, the population of the earth. Considering the tendency of mankind to increase and multiply, so that, according to Mr. Malthus, population would, excepting for artificial hindrances, double itself every twenty-five years, it is sufficiently astonishing that the human race has not, in the space of five thousand years, exceeded greatly the actual number, which is estimated commonly at a thousand millions of souls. The doubling process would produce a thousand millions from a single pair in less than eight centuries. No doubt, hindrances of one kind or another would early make themselves felt. Is it conceivable that, if man had occupied the earth for the one hundred or two hundred thousand years of some writers, or even for the twenty-one thousand of others, he would not by this time have multiplied far beyond the actual numbers of the present day? Secondly, does not the fact that there are no architectural remains dating back further than the third millennium before Christ indicate, if not prove the (comparatively) recent origin of man? Man is as naturally a building animal as the beaver. He needs protection from sun and rain, from heat and cold, from storm and tempest. How is it that Egypt and Babylonia do not show us pyramids and temple towers in all the various stages of decay, reaching back further and further into the night of ages, but start, as it were, with works that we can date, such as the pyramids of Ghizeh and the ziggurat of Urukh at Mugheir? Why has Greece no building more ancient than the treasury of Atreus, Italy nothing that can be dated further back than the flourishing period of Etruria (B.C. 700-500)? Surely, if the earth has been peopled for a hundred thousand, or even twenty thousand years, man should have set his mark upon it more than five thousand years ago. Again, if man is of the antiquity supposed, how is it that there are still so many waste places upon the earth? What vast tracts are there, both in North and South America, which continue to this day untouched primeval forests?
IV. The results arrived at seem to be that, while history carries back the existence of the human race for a space of four thousand five hundred years, or to about B.C. 2600, a prehistoric period is needed for the production of the state of things found to be then existing, which cannot be fairly estimated at much less than a millennium. If the Flood is placed about
B.C. 3600, there will be ample time for the production of such a state ofsociety and such a condition of the arts as we find to have existed in Egypt a thousand years later, as well as for the changes of physical type and language which are noted by the ethnologist. The geologist may add on two thousand years more for the interval between the Deluge and the Creation, and may perhaps find room therein for his palaeolithic and his neolithic periods. (G. Rawlinson, M. A.)
The Jewish and the Christian thought of man
I. THE JEWISH CONCEPTION OF MAN. It involved–
1. A similarity of nature to that of God Himself.
2. Likeness of character to the Divine.
3. A share in Divine authority.
4. Divine interest and attention.
5. Privilege of approach to the Most High.
6. A sense of mans degradation and misery through sin. The same heart that swelled with loftiest hope and noblest aspiration, as it felt that God was its Father and its King, was the heart that filled with tremor and shame, as it saw the heinousness of its guilt and the depth of its declension.
II. THE DISTINCTIVELY CHRISTIAN VIEW. What has Christ added to our thought about ourselves?
1. He has led us to take the highest view of our spiritual nature. A treasure of absolutely inestimable worth.
2. He has drawn aside the veil from the future, and made that long life and that large world our own.
3. He has taught us to think of ourselves as sinners who may have a full restoration to their high estate. (W. Clarkson, B. A.)
The creation of man
I. SOME GENERAL CIRCUMSTANCES CONNECTED WITH THE CREATION OF MAN. There is something striking–
1. In the manner of his creation.
2. In the period of his creation.
3. The exalted scale in the rank of beings in which he was placed.
4. The perfect happiness he possessed.
II. THE EXPRESS IMAGE IN WHICH MAN WAS CREATED. The image of God.
1. The image of His spirituality.
2. The image of His perfections.
3. The image of His holiness.
4. The image of His dominion.
5. The image of His immortality. A living soul.
Application:
1. Let us remember with gratitude to God the dignity He conferred upon us in creation. What is man, etc. (Psa 8:4).
2. Let us shed tears of sorrow over the fallen, ruined state of man.
3. Man is still a precious creature, amid all the ruin sin has produced.
4. In redemption, we are exalted to dignity, happiness, and salvation.
5. Let us seek the restoration of the Divine image on our souls; for without this, without holiness, no man can see the Lord. (J. Burns, D. D.)
The Divine image in man
I. LET US INQUIRE, IN WHAT DID THE DIVINE IMAGE CONSIST?
1. In immortality.
2. Intelligence.
3. Righteousness.
4. Blessedness.
II. NOTICE THE PAINFUL TRUTH THAT THE DIVINE IMAGE HAS BEEN DEFACED IS MAN.
1. This is seen in the body of man. Disease; death.
2. It is seen more painfully in his soul. God will not dwell in the heart which cherishes sin.
III. THE PROVISION MADE FOR RESTORING THE DIVINE IMAGE TO MAN. Christ, the second Adam. (The Evangelical Preacher.)
Man created in the Divine image
I. THE MORAL CONSTITUTION OF MAN. Man has sometimes been called a microcosm, a little world, a sort of epitome of the universe. The expression is not without meaning; for in man unite and meet the two great elements of creation, mind and matter; the visible and the invisible; the body, which clothes the brute, and the spirit, which belongs to angels. Now, it is a law and property of this outward purl that it should perish and decay; whilst it is the privilege and designation of this inward part, that it should be renewed and strengthened day by day. And this we shall see, as we examine this immaterial part of mans nature more closely. Take, for example, the operation of the thinking principle. Although we often think to a very bad purpose, yet in our hours of waking and consciousness we always do think. The mind is an ocean of thought, and, like the ocean, is never still. It may have its calm thoughts, and its tumultuous thoughts, and its overwhelming thoughts; but it never knows a state of perfect rest and inaction. Of no material or visible thing could this be affirmed. No one expects to find amongst the undiscovered properties of matter the power of thought. Again: we see this with regard to the freedom of moral agency which we possess; the power we have to follow out our own moral choice and determination. Man was formed first for duty, and then for happiness; but without this liberty of action he could not have fulfilled the designation of his being in either of these respects. I must be capable of choosing my own actions, and must be capable of determining the objects towards which they shall be directed, or I could never become the subject either of praise or of blame. I should be serving not God, but necessity.
II. IN SO CREATING MAN, GOD HAD RESPECT TO CERTAIN MORAL RESEMBLANCES OF HIMSELF.
1. Mans created bias was towards purity and holiness.
2. Man was created in a condition of perfect happiness. He had a mind to know God, and affections prompting to communion with Him.
3. And then, once more, we cannot doubt that man is declared to be made in the image of God, because he was endowed by his Maker with perpetuity of being, clothed with the attribute of endless life, placed under circumstances wherein, if he had continued upright, ample provision was made for his spiritual sustentation, until, having completed the cycle of his earthly progressions, he should be conveyed, like Enoch, in invisible silence, or like Elijah, on his chariot of fire, or like the ascending Saviour, in His beautiful garments of light and cloud, to the mansions of glory and immortality. For there was the tree of life in the midst of the garden. He was permitted to partake of that; it was to be his sacrament, his sacramental food, the pledge of immortal being, the nourishment of that spiritual nature which he had with the breath of God. Thus mans chief resemblance to his Maker consisted in the fact, that he was endued with a living soul–something which was incapable of death or annihilation. He had an eternity of future given to him, coeval with the being of God Himself. (D. Moore, M. A.)
Genesis of man
I. THE CREATION ARCHIVE TWO FOLD (Gen 1:26-31; if. 5-22).
II. PANORAMA OF EMERGENT MAN.
III. MAN, GODS IMAGE.
1. Jesus Christ the image of God. He becomes this in and by the fact of His Incarnation. In Ecce Homo is Ecce Deus.
2. Man the image of Jesus Christ. In the order of time, the Son of God made Himself like to man; in the order of purpose, the Son of God made man like to Himself. It was an august illustration of His own saying when incarnate: The first shall be last, and the last first (Mat 20:16). Do you ask in what respect man was made in the image of Christ? Evidently, I answer, in substantially the same respects in which Christ became the image of God. Thus: in respect to a spiritual nature: When
Jehovah God had formed the man of dust of the ground, He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The language, of course, is figurative. Nevertheless it must mean something. What, then, does this inbreathing by the Creator mean, if not the mysterious communication of Himself–the eternal Air or Spirit–into man? As Christ, surveyed man-wise, was born of the Spirit in Nazareth, so man, made in His image, after His likeness, was born of the Spirit in Eden. Again: a spiritual nature necessarily involves personality; and personality, at least finite, as necessarily involves what I have called secular attributes, e.g., attributes of sensation, cognition, passion, action, etc. All these belonged to Christ; and through these He declared and interpreted the Father, being in very truth the Word of God, or Deity in articulation. And the Word has existed from the beginning, being the God-Said of the creative week. In mans potencies of whatever kind–moral, intellectual, emotional, aesthetic–whatever power or virtue or grace there may be–in all this we behold an image of the Lord from heaven. Once more: personality cannot, at least in this world, exist apart from embodiment, or some kind of incarnation, which shall be to it for sphere and vehicle and instrument. Some kind of body is needed which, by its avenues and organs, shall awaken, disclose, and perfect character. And as Christs body vehicled and organed His Personality, and so enabled Him to manifest the fullness of the Godhead which dwelt in Him body-wise, so mans body was made in the image of Christs, even that body which in His eternal foreknowledge was eternally His. This, then, was the image in which man was created, the image of Christs human Personality, or Christs spirit and soul and body. Man is the image of Christ and Christ is the image of God; that is to say: Man is the image of the image of God, or Gods image as seen in secondary reflection.
IV. MAN GODS INSPIRATION (Gen 2:7). On his body side he sprang from dust: on his soul side he sprang up with the animals: on his spirit side he sprang from God. Thus, in his very beginning, in the original makeup of him, man was a religious being. Coming into existence as Gods inbreathing, man was, in the very fact of being Divinely inbreathed, Gods Son and image. Well, then, might mans first home be an Eden–type of heaven, and his first day Gods seventh day–even the Creators Sabbath.
V. THE PRIMAL COMMISSION.
1. Mans authority over nature. It was mans original commission, humanitys primal charter. And history is the story of the execution of the commission, civilization the unfolding of the privileges of the charter.
Wherever civilized man has gone, there he has been gaining dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and every living thing that moveth on the earth, ay, subduing earth itself. See, e.g., how he makes the fish feed him, and the sheep clothe him, and the horse draw him, and the ox plough for him, and the fowl of the air furnish him with quills to write his philosophies and his epics. Again: see mans supremacy over the face of Nature; see, e.g., how he dikes out the ocean, as in Holland; and opens up harbours, as at Port Said; and digs canals, as at Suez; and explodes submarine reefs, as in East River; and builds roads, as over St. Gothard; and spans rivers, as the St. Lawrence; and stretches railways, as from Atlantic to Pacific; see how he reclaims mountain slopes and heaths and jungles and deserts and pestilential swamps, bringing about interchanges of vegetable and animal life, and even mitigating climates, so that here, at least, man may be said to be the creator of circumstances rather than their creature. Again: see mans supremacy over the forces and resources of Nature; see how he subsidizes its mineral substances, turning its sands into lenses, its clay into endless blocks of brick, its granite into stalwart abutments, its iron into countless shapes for countless purposes, its gems into diadems; see how he subsidizes its vegetable products, making its grains feed him, its cottons clothe him, its forests house him, its coals warm him. See how he subsidizes the mechanical powers of nature, making its levers lift his loads, its wheels and axles weigh his anchors, its pulleys raise his weights, its inclined planes move his blocks, its wedges split his ledges, its screws propel his ships. See how he subsidizes the natural forces, making the air waft his crafts, the water run his mills, the heat move his engines, the electricity bear his messages, turning the very gravitation into a force of buoyancy.
2. But in whose name shall man administer the mighty domain? In his own name, or in anothers? In anothers most surely, even in the name of Him in whose image he is made. The Son of God alone is King, and man is but His viceroy; viceroy because His inspiration and image. Man holds the estate of earth in fief; his only right the right of usufruct.
VI. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS.
1. Jesus Christ the archetypal Man. Jesus the form, mankind the figure. See Rom 8:29; Col 1:15; Rev 3:14.
2. Mans incomparable dignity. His starting point is the Eternal, Infinite One. A genuine coin, stamped in effigy of Kaiser or President, is worth what it represents. Man, stamped in the effigy of the King of kings and
Lord of lords, is worth, let me dare to say it, what he represents, even Deity. Little lower than the angels, little lower than Elohim, did Elohim make him (Psa 8:5). All this explains why this earth, cosmically so tiny, morally is so vast. Jesus Christ came not to save the worthless. He came to save Divine imageship: that is to say, all Godlike potentialities. He came to save Divine imageship itself.
3. Imageship the die of race unity. May it ever be ours to recognize lovingly every human being, whether Caucasian or Mongolian, as a member of mankind, and so our kinsman! When all men do this, mankind will not only be the same as humanity; mankind will also have humanity.
4. We see the secret of mans coming triumph: it is imageship. Jesus Christ is the image of God; as such, He is the Lord of all. Mankind is Christs image lost. The Church is Christs image restored: as such, she, like her image, is lord of all. All things are hers; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come: all are hers; and she is Christs, and Christ is Gods (1Co 3:21-23).
5. Would you know how to be restored in the image of God? Then gaze on the character of Him who is the brightness from His Fathers glory, and the express image of His Person. Enter into the fellowship of that character. Be everlastingly closeted with Him in the kinships and intimacies of a perfect friendship. Lovingly study every feature of that beaming Image (2Co 3:18). Thus gazing, and thus changed, it matters little what our earthly fate be, whether renown or obscurity, wealth or poverty, long life or early death. Enough that on the resurrection morn we shall perceive that as we had borne the image of the earthly, even of the first man Adam, so henceforth we shall bear the image of the heavenly, even of the Second Man, the Lord from heaven (1Co 15:47-49). (G. D.Boardman.)
The image of God
I. GODS DECREE. God consults with Himself. Complex nature of Deity.
II. MANS DIGNITY. Nearer to Gods own nature than other animals. A moral being.
III. MANS DOMINION. Lessons:
1. Our position of dignity should strengthen our sense of duty.
2. Our relationship to God should encourage us to noble aims.
3. In Jesus Christ man is restored to the image of God and to the hope of a high and blessed destiny. (W. S. Smith, B. D.)
The vastness of man
Let Us make man in Our image. Such is mans height, and depth, and breadth, and mystery. He has not come from one principle or distinction of the Divine nature, but out of all principles. Man is the image of the whole Deity. There is in him a sanctuary for the Father, for the Son, and for the Holy Ghost. (J. Pulsford.)
The making of man
There is surely no bolder sentence in all human speech. It takes an infinite liberty with God! It is blasphemy if it is not truth. We have been accustomed to look at the statement so much from the human point that we have forgotten how deeply the Divine character itself is implicated. To tell us that all the signboards in Italy were painted by Raphael is simply to dishonour and bitterly humiliate the great artist. We should resent the suggestion that Beethoven or Handel is the author of all the noise that passes under the name of music. Yet we say, God made man. Here is the distinct assurance that God created man in His own image and likeness; in the image of God created He him. This is enough to ruin any Bible. This is enough to dethrone God. Within narrow limits any man would be justified in saying, If man is made in the image of God, I will not worship God who bears such an image. There would be some logic in this curt reasoning, supposing the whole case to be on the surface and to be within measurable points. So God exists to our imagination under the inexpressible disadvantage of being represented by ourselves. When we wonder about Him we revert to our own constitution. When we pray to Him we feel as if engaged in some mysterious process of self-consultation. When we reason about Him the foot of the ladder of our reasoning stands squarely on the base of our own nature. Yet, so to say, how otherwise could we get at God? Without some sort of incarnation we could have no starting point. We should be hopelessly aiming to seize the horizon or to hear messages from worlds where our language is not known. So we are driven back upon ourselves–not ourselves as outwardly seen and publicly interpreted, but our inner selves, the very secret and mystery of our souls reality. Ay; we are now nearing the point. We have not been talking about the right man at all. The man is within the man; the man is not any one man; the man is Humanity. God is no more the man we know than the man himself is the body we see. Now we come where words are of little use, and where the literal mind will stumble as in the dark. Truly we are now passing the gates of a sanctuary, and the silence is most eloquent. We have never seen man; he has been seen only by his Maker! As to spirit and temper and action, we are bankrupts and criminals. But the sinner is greater than the sin. We cannot see him; but God sees him; yes, and God loves him in all the shame and ruin. This is the mystery of grace. This is the pity out of which came blood, redemption, forgiveness, and all the power and glory of the gospel. We cannot think of God having made man without also thinking of the responsibility which is created by that solemn act. God accepts the responsibility of His own administration. Righteousness at the heart of things, and righteousness which will yet vindicate itself, is a conviction which we cannot surrender. It is indeed a solemn fact that we were no parties to our own creation. We are not responsible for our own existence. Let us carefully and steadily fasten the mind upon this astounding fact. God made us, yet we disobey Him; God made us, yet we grieve Him; God made us, yet we are not godly. How is that? There is no answer to the question in mere argument. For my part I simply wait, I begin to feel that, without the power of sinning, I could not be a man. As for the rest, I hide myself in Christ. Strange, too, as it may appear, I enjoy the weird charm of lifes great mystery, as a traveller might enjoy a road full of sudden turnings and possible surprises, preferring such a road to the weary, straight line, miles long, and white with hot dust. I have room enough to pray in. I have room enough to suffer in. By-and-by I shall have large space, and day without night to work in. We have yet to die; that we have never done. We have to cross the river–the cold, black, sullen river. Wait for that, and let us talk on the other side. Keep many a question standing over for heavens eternal sunshine. If we would see Gods conception of man, we must look upon the face of His Son–Him of whom He said, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. That is man; that is the ideal humanity. It is useless to look in any other direction for Gods purpose and thought. (J. Parker, D. D.)
God makes man near to Himself
Earthly sovereigns perpetuate and multiply distinctions between themselves and their subjects. In Great Britain the monarch is removed from the rank of the people by princes of the blood royal, dukes, marquises, earls, barons, viscounts, baronets, knights, esquires; and outward appearances, especially on public occasions, are so regulated, as to impress the people with their own distance; while an audience with the sovereign, or any correspondence or intercourse is, except to the favoured few, a thing impossible. All this may be necessary and even useful, where the ruling power is but earthly and human. In bold contrast with this political policy is the conduct of the supreme Sovereign–God. The King of kings formed His first earthly subjects with affinitiesbetween them and Himself most near and intimate. (S. Martin.)
Fellowship with God
The possession of the image of God led to fellowship with God. It was a means of knowing God, and a power to love God. Looking into themselves they saw God, and looking out of and beyond themselves they saw God. They were drawn to God by cords of love, and enjoyed with God the communion of mind and heart. God was in all their thoughts. God sat enthroned over all their feelings. He was to them the first, and He the last. God spake, they listened, understood, and believed. God wrought, they saw and rejoiced in His works. They spake to God, and knew that God heard and understood. They laboured and knew that God had pleasure in their doings. They walked with God–yea, dwelt in God, and God in them. Separation from their Creator they knew not. Clouds and darkness were never about Him. The light of love was always in His countenance. A filial character was given by likeness to God to the entire religion of our first parents. Their notion of Deity was the idea of a father–their feelings toward God were those of children–and their service to God was that of a son and of a daughter. The inward moulded the outward. Without doubt the very body sympathized with the spirit, Remorse did not turn their moisture into the drought of summer. Jealousy did not mock and feed upon their flesh. Sorrow did not cause their bones to wax old. Grief did not furrow the cheek, or blanch the hair. Shame brought not confusion on the face. There was no inward fire to consume–no worm to gnaw and devour. A glowing conscience, a joyful heart,and a peaceful mind, were marrow to the bones, health to the flesh, and beauty to the countenance. (S. Martin.)
God manifests Himself through man
By reason of His complacency in His own nature, God desires to manifest Himself–to express and to make known His own being–to develope His own character of life. God is also disposed to hold fellowship with His spiritual universe. Had He preferred solitude, He could have dwelt alone in His own eternity, or have created merely these material forms which, like a sea of glass, should have reflected His nature in the cold distance of an unconscious and inanimate likeness. But willing to hold fellowship with His creatures, determining to make Himself visible, and delighting in His own nature with infinite complacency–He made man in His own image. This reflection of Himself was pleasant to God. He rejoiced in this work. He looked upon what He had made, and to Him it seemed good. He ceased to create when He bad made man, and entered on His sabbath satisfied with this masterwork of His hand. His own blessedness was increased because livingly reflected. As the artist rejoices when his metal, or marble, or canvas expresses his ideal–as the poet leaps with pleasure when his metaphor and rhythm breathethe inspiration of his heart–as the father glows with gladness to behold in his firstborn boy his own features–so God delighted in the image of Himself in man. Distance from God! Distance! Where was distance then? As the shadow to the form–as the fruit to the tree bough–as the recent born to the mother–man in Gods image was to God. (S. Martin.)
The Divine image a thought experimentally useful
And of what special importance is this subject to you–Christians? It is profitable for doctrine, and it is profitable for reproof–it rebukes that self-conceit, that vanity, that pride, that self-importance which not a few Christians exhibit. How can men think of themselves more highly than they ought to think, when they remember that their characteristic should be the image of God! It is profitable for correction–it may correct the grovelling of the willingly ignorant, and of the worldly, and of the fleshly, and of the low-minded; it may correct the false ambition of such as make money, and earths honour their goal–it may correct the self-complacency of the self-righteous, and the error of those who hold that man has not fallen. And it is profitable for instruction in righteousness; it saith, Make not orthodoxy your goal, neither benevolent activity, but make a nature renewed by the Holy Ghost the mark of the prize of your high calling of God in Christ Jesus. (S. Martin.)
Man a creation, not an evolution
The theory holds that, in the struggle for existence, the varieties best adapted to their surroundings succeed in maintaining and reproducing themselves, while the rest die out. Thus, by gradual change and improvement of lower into higher forms of life, man has been evolved. We grant that Darwin has disclosed one of the important features of Gods method. We deny that natural selection furnishes a sufficient explanation of the history of life, and that for the following reasons:
1. It gives no account of the origin of substance, nor of the origin of variations. Darwinism simply says that round stones will roll down hill further than flat ones (Gray, Natural Science and Religion). It accounts for the selection, not for the creation, of forms.
2. Some of the most important forms appear suddenly in the geological record, without connecting links to unite them with the past. The first fishes are the Ganoid, large in size and advanced in type. There are no intermediate gradations between the ape and man.
3. There are certain facts which mere heredity cannot explain, such for example as the origin of the working bee from the queen and the drone, neither of which produces honey. The working bee, moreover, does not transmit the honey making instinct to its posterity; for it is sterile and childless. If man had descended from the conscienceless brute, we should expect him, when degraded, to revert to his primitive type. On the contrary, he does not revert to the brute, but dies out instead.
4. The theory can give no explanation of beauty in the lowest forms of life, such as molluscs and diatoms. Darwin grants that this beauty must be of use to its possessor, in order to be consistent with its origination through natural selection. But no such use has yet been shown; for the creatures which possess the beauty often live in the dark, or have no eyes to see. So, too, the large brain of the savage is beyond his needs, and is inconsistent with the principle of natural selection which teaches that no organ can permanently attain a size as required by its needs and its environment. See Wallace, Natural Selection, 838-360.
5. No species is yet known to bare been produced either by artificial or by natural selection. In other words, selection implies intelligence and will, and therefore cannot be exclusively natural.
I. UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE.
1. The Scriptures teach that the whole human race is descended from a single pair.
2. This truth lies at the foundation of Pauls doctrine of the organic unity of mankind in the first transgression, and of the provision of salvation for the race in Christ.
3. This descent of humanity from a single pair also constitutes the ground of mans obligation of natural brotherhood to every member of the race. The Scripture statements are corroborated by considerations drawn from history and science.
Three arguments may be briefly mentioned:
1. The argument from history. So far as the history of nations and tribes in both hemispheres can be traced, the evidence points to a common origin and ancestry in central Asia.
2. The argument from language. Comparative philology points to a common origin of all the more important languages, and furnishes no evidence that the less important are not also so derived.
3. The argument from psychology. The existence, among all families of mankind, of common mental and moral characteristics, as evinced in common maxims, tendencies, and capacities, in the prevalence of similar traditions, and in the universal applicability of one philosophy and religion, is most easily explained upon the theory of a common origin.
4. The argument from physiology.
(1) It is the common judgment of comparative physiologists that man constitutes but a single species. The differences which exist between the various families of mankind are to be regarded as varieties of this species. In proof of these statements we urge–
(a) The numberless intermediate gradations which connect the so-called races with each other.
(b) The essential identity of all races in cranial, osteological, and dental characteristics.
(c) The fertility of unions between individuals of the most diverse types, and the continuous fertility of the offspring of such unions.
(2) Unity of species is presumptive evidence of unity of origin. Oneness of origin furnishes the simplest explanation of specific uniformity, if indeed the very conception of species does not imply the repetition and reproduction of a primordial type-idea expressed at its creation upon an individual empowered to transmit this type-idea to its successors. (A. H. Strong, D. D.)
The creation of man
I. MAN WAS THE LAST OF GODS WORKS.
1. He was not made to be in anywise a helper to God in creation. There is nothing that we see around us, or behold above us, or that we trample on with our feet, that was created by us. The most insignificant insect that crawls, the meanest among herbs, had their first origin from the Almighty.
2. But, again, as the order of the universe shows clearly to us that we had no share either in the formation or design of anything that we see, so does it lead us to grateful reflections upon Gods goodness and wisdom in our creation. He did not place our first parents in a void, empty, and unfurnished dwelling, but He garnished the heavens with light, and clothed the earth with beauty, ere He introduced into it that creature who should dress and keep it, and be allowed to have dominion over every living thing.
II. THE PECULIAR DELIBERATION WITH WHICH GOD APPLIED HIMSELF TO THIS HIS NOBLER WORK. Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. Whence this altered form of expression? What other view can we take of it, than that it is a token of mans greater dignity and higher worth? Should it not excite us to soar above our fallen state–to rise superior to the ruin in which we find ourselves involved–to recollect the glory of our first creation, and the honour which was put upon us in this deliberate purpose and counsel of the several persons of the blessed Trinity in our creation.
III. MAN WAS CHEATED IN GODS IMAGE, AFTER HIS LIKENESS. Let us, in concluding the subject, consider what practical improvement may be derived from it. Is God our Maker, and shall we not worship and adore Him? Again, ought not the image of God in man to be prized above all beside? The body decays and moulders into dust: the spirit is indestructible. Whence is it that this dying body exercises our chief care and thought, while the immortal spirit is neglected and forgotten? Shall the tongue be allowed to utter lies, seeing that it is given us by the God of truth? Shall we curse man, that is made after the image and likeness of God? Again, are we distinguished from the beasts that perish by the noble gift of reason, and understanding, and conscience, and shall we allow the members of the body to usurp a wretched dominion over us? (H. J. Hastings, M. A.)
Man created in Gods image
1. Whatever may be the difficulties this text of ours presents to expositors and divines, the main fact it embodies and sets forth is so clearly expressed as to exclude the possibility of a difference of opinion respecting it. And this fact is none other than that our first parents were created by God, and this in His image and likeness. This plain statement of Holy Writ, that man has been created, is nevertheless considered by many scientists of our days as being utterly erroneous and untenable.
2. It must have been a most solemn moment in the history of creation when, at the close of it, God undertook to create man, who was to complete and crown His marvellous six days work. What this world would have been without man we can easily picture to ourselves when we read the descriptions by explorers and travellers of those parts of our globe never inhabited or cultivated by man. We know that without mans care and attention many things in nature would have gradually disappeared, others again would not have developed to such a state of perfection as they have attained to. Besides this, nature without man, who combines in himself the material and spiritual, the natural and supernatural, and thus forms a reasonable and necessary link between nature and its Creator, would have lacked a high and noble aim worthy of the great Creator.
3. God created man in His image, after His likeness. (A. Furst, D. D.)
Love in the creation of man
In man animal organization is carried to its highest. That which in the quadruped is a comparatively insignificant member becomes in man the hand, so wonderful in its powers, so infinitely versatile in its applications. That tongue, which the rest of animal creation possess, but which the highest among them use only for inarticulate signals, becomes in him the organ of articulate speech, so marvellous in its construction, and its uses. And of the same rich bestowal of the best of Gods gifts of life and lifes benefits on man, many other examples might be, and have been given. But it is not in man as the highest form of organized animal life that we are to seek for exemplification of the declaration in my text. His erect form, his expressive eye, his much-working hand–his majesty in the one sex, and beauty in the other–these may excite our admiration, and lead us to praise Him who made us; but in none of these do we find the image of God. God is without body, parts, or passions. He is above and independent of all organized matter: it sprung from the counsel of His will, it is an instrument to show forth His love and praise, but it is not, and cannot be, in His image. But let us advance higher. God bestowed on man, as on the tribes beneath him, a conscious animal soul. And here let me remind you that I follow, as I always wish to do, that Scriptural account and division of man, according to which the soul, the of the New Testament, is that thinking and feeling and prompting part of him, which he possesses in common with the brutes that perish; and which I will call for clearness, his animal soul. Now here again, though he possesses it in common with them, God has given it, in him, a wonderfully higher degree of capability and power. The merely sentient capacities of the animal soul in the most degraded of men are immeasurably above those of the animal soul in the most exalted of brutes,–however he may be surpassed by them in the acuteness Of the bodilysenses. And again, in speaking of man, we cannot stop with these animal faculties. To the brute, they are all. It is obvious, then, that we must not look for Gods image in man in this his animal soul, because this is confessedly not his highest part; because it is informed and ennobled by something above it: moreover, because it is naturally bound to the organization of his material body. And this point is an important one to be borne in remembrance. It is not in our mental capacities, nor in any part of our sentient being, that we can trace our likeness to God; whenever we speak of any or of all of these in the treatment of this subject, we must look beyond them, and beyond the aggregate of them, for that of which we are in search. What, then, is that part of man at which we have been pointing in these last sentences? that soul of his soul, that ennobler of his faculties, that whose acknowledged dignity raises him far above the animal tribes, with whom he shares the other parts of his being? Let us examine his position, as matter of fact. By what is he distinguished from all other animals, in our common speech and everyday thought? Shall we not all say that it is by this–that whereas we regard each animal as merely a portion of animatedmatter, ready to drop back again into inanimate matter, the moment its organization is broken down–we do not thus regard ourselves or our fellow men, but designate every one of them as a person, a term which cannot be used of any mere animal? And is it not also true, that to this personality we attach the idea of continuous responsibility–of abiding praise or blame? To what is this personality owing? Not to the body, however perfect its organization; not to the animal soul, however wonderful its faculties; but to the highest part of man–his spirit. And here it is that we must look for mans relation to God. God is a Spirit; and He has breathed into man a spirit, in nature and attributes related to Himself: which spirit rules and informs, and takes up into itself, and ennobles, as we have seen, his animal soul. This spirit is wonderfully bound up with the soul and the body. The three make up the man in his present corporeal state–but the spirit alone carries the personality and responsibility of the man. The body, with its organization and sentient faculties, is only a tent wherein the spirit dwells; itself is independent of its habitation, and capable of existing without it. The spirit of man makes the essential distinction between him and the lower animals. His spirit, his divine part, that Whereby he can rise to and lay hold of God, was made in the image of God. And this leads us to the second division of our inquiry, How was mans spirit created in the image of God? What ideas must we attach to these words, the image of God? To this question but one answer can be given, and that in simple and well-known words. God is love: this is all we know of His essential character. He Who is Love, made man, mans spirit, after His own image. That is, He made mans spirit, love–even as He is love. In this consisted the perfection of man as he camefrom the hands of His Creator–that his whole spirit was filled with love. Now what did this imply? clearly, a conscious spirit; for love is the state of a knowing, feeling, conscious being. What more? as clearly a spirit conscious of God; knowing Him who loved it, and loving Him in return. Faith is the organ by which the spirit reaches forth to God. We never can repeat or remember too often, that faith is appropriating belief; not belief in the existence of God as a bare fact, distant and inoperative, but belief in Him as our God–the God who loves us–the God who seeks our good–the God to whom we owe ourselves–the God who is our portion andour exceeding great reward. And it is essential to faith, that we should not, speaking strictly, know all this–not have hold of every particular detail of it–not master the subject, as men say; this would not be faith, but knowledge. We are masters of that which we know; but we are servants of that which we believe. And therefore man, created in the image of God, loving God, dependent on God, tending upwards to God, is created in a state of faith. By this faith his love was generated–by believing God as his God–by unlimited trust of His love, and uninterrupted return of that love. And O what does not this description imply, that is holy, and tending to elevate and bless man? Love, says the apostle, is the bond of perfectness; and the same command of our Lord, which we read in one place of the Gospel, Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect; in another runs, Be ye merciful, i.e. loving, even as your Father is merciful. One remark more. On this image of God depends the immortality of mans spirit; not on its own nature, as some have dreamed. As it had a beginning, so it might have an end. It can only be immortal by being united to Him who liveth forever. Gods love called into being those who were in its own image, kindred to itself, bound to itself by love; how can we conceive that love annihilating again such kindred objects of its own good pleasure? And this immortality is not removed by sin: for it lies at the root of the race–is its essential attribute, not an accident of its being. (Dean Alford.)
The state of innocence
The name of Adam suggests to us at once the estate from which the human race has fallen, the cause of that fall, the vast forfeit that one man made to God; and naturally awakens in our own minds questions as to our lost inheritance. Would Adam have died if he had never fallen? If he had lived, would he have continued in paradise, or been translated into heaven? What was his condition in paradise? Was it one of probation and of interior sufferings dependent on such a state, or was it one of entire freedom from all such trial? And lastly (and this is most important in such probation), was Adam indued with a supernatural power, or did he simply depend on the gifts of his original creation? To these four questions I will append one brief inquiry in addition. Had our first parents a claim to eternal happiness by the right of their original creation, or in virtue of some covenant made with them by God?
1. With regard then to the first of the above questions, a very slight examination of Holy Scripture will assure us that Adam would not have died in an unfallen state. As is always the case in the direct intercourse of God with His creature, a covenant was made between the two, the terms of which were clearly defined. Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; and the woman, in stating the terms of the covenant, says, God hath saith, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Now these propositions clearly involve the power of inversion, and imply that, in the event of their not eating the forbidden fruit, they shall live and not die; that is, their death was simply and only dependent on breach of the covenant. The same point is clearly ascertained by a comparison of 1Co 15:1-58 and Rom 5:1-21, both with the separate parts of each and one with another.
2. I will now approach the second branch of the subject, namely, the question, whether Adam would have remained, had he not fallen, an inhabitant of paradise; or been translated into the immediate presence of God in heaven. There seem to be four especial reasons, amongst many others, for concluding that the latter would have been the case; for, in the first place, it is apparent that in the case of all covenants, such as those which God made with man, there is a punishment annexed to the breach of the terms of such covenant, and a reward annexed to their fulfilment; and inasmuch as this punishment would involve a worse condition for the fallen party than the one which he occupied at the period of the ratification of the covenant; so, on the other hand, a superior condition is the reward of the fulfilment of those terms. Now the fall of Adam at once brought upon him the loss of paradise, that is, the inferior condition; and, by parity of reasoning, had he not fallen but endured his probation, it would have secured to him translation to heaven itself, or a superior condition. But I pass on to the second reason on which I base my belief that Adam would have been eventually translated to heaven. He was clearly possessed of the perfect power of self-will; he had vast and manifold opportunities of exercising it; he was placed in the immediate presence of a piercing temptation; be daily passed the tree of knowledge on his visit to the tree of life. So acute was that temptation, that in spite of the continual presence of
Jehovah, of the purity of the nature hitherto innocent, of the innate image of God, be exercised that power of free will, and he fell. For what could all of the powers have been given him? and why should he have been placed in such a position, unless some great attainment beyond what he at that moment enjoyed was to be placed within his grasp? To imagine otherwise would be inconsistent with the whole analogy of Gods providence. But, thirdly, I spoke above of the external support which was continually necessary from the Divine Being for the preservation of Adams natural life; a state of continued exertion is unnatural to the Deity; a state of repose is His true condition; consequently we cannot imagine but that the first Adam was eventually to have been placed in a position in which continued life was natural to him. Even the daily visit of the Almighty to the garden of Eden implied a transitory, and not a permanent condition. But, fourthly, though the fact of sinning involved death to the natural body, it by no means follows that the absence of sin leaves that natural body in the same condition, but rather we should expect it would tend to elevate it, as much as the fall into sin depressed it.
3. I will now pass on to the third head, the moral condition of our first parents in Eden. There is a popular impression, not unfrequently given children and ignorant persons, that our first parents were in a state of entire freedom from any kind of suffering. Now the presence of an object highly desirable to the eye and the mind, while the moral agent is fully possessed of the power of free will and yet under a strong bias towards a different direction from that desire, in itself implies a condition of very considerable mental suffering, and in this condition clearly our first parents were placed, for we are distinctly told that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in the first place highly desirable to the eye; and secondly, to the mind, inasmuch as it imparted the keenest knowledge of right and wrong; consequently no misapprehension could be greater than that our first parents were without probation, and all its attending trials; nay more, we are bound to consider how intense must have been the desire after knowledge, a thing in itself so innocent and elevated, in so sublime a creature as Adam was, fresh from the hands of the Creator, and having as yet no bias in favour of wickedness; besides which, some exquisite external beauty seems to have arrayed the tree of knowledge, which made it the more fascinating to Adam and Eve, as we gather from the terms that it was desirable to the eye. From all this it is clear Adam was in a state of very keen probation.
4. With what power did Adam approach the scene of his temptation? Was it with the original power of his creation or some supernatural gift of the Spirit? Surely with the latter. (E. Monro, M. A.)
Proofs of the Divine in man
To this day no fact in natural history remains more conspicuous than the strong contrast betwixt man and every other animal, in their relations to nature–particularly in their power to master and utilize the forces of nature. Once man appears upon the globe, no matter how he came there, he reacts upon his environment in a way that is possible to no other organism. In popular language, he is not the mere creature of circumstances in the same sense in which that may be affirmed of other creatures. To a large and growing degree, he makes his own world–modifying, conquering, counteracting, utilizing the forces of nature, with its living productions, to his own ends. This process, which the venerable book before us calls subduing the earth, and which it regards as a special task assigned to our human family, is due to two faculties peculiar to man. The first is the power to store up his observations upon nature and compare them, until by degrees the laws according to which her forces operate come to be understood: the result of this power is science. Next, is the power to recombine matter in fresh combinations so as to utilize the forces of nature for new ends of his own: the results of this we term the Mechanical Arts. Neither of these two faculties exists in any other animal, save in the most rudimentary form. These two in combination have given birth to human civilization. Man enlarges his power from day to day, while the very ball on which he is a pigmy resident seems to contract itself in his grasp. Space and time are nearly annihilated: seas almost cease to divide; the engineer alters even the face of the land; matter becomes less and less our enemy, more and more our minister. By science and by art, we are entering upon a veritable dominion over this globe which God has given us to possess, and a crown is set upon mans head of glory and honour. I do not pause to insist upon the strange foresight exhibited in these ancient words, or how strangely the destiny of our race which was thus foreshadowed in the dim dawn of history has come to be fulfilled in our time. Let me rather ask you to notice how revelation at its outset is not content to recognize this mastery of man over the rest of nature as his preeminent function–it undertakes already to explain it. It assigns a reason for it. It finds that reason in the constitution of human nature itself, viz., in mans dual nature, and especially in his resemblance on one side of his two-fold being to his Creator. God made man in His own likeness. Now, to do justice to this theory, accounting for mans supremacy and power over nature, we must bear in mind that when it assigns to man a dual origin it is in order to correspond with the dual constitution which he possesses. In the picturesque and poetic style of primitive thinkers, man came in part from the dust of the ground, and in part from the breath of God. In other words, he is on one side of his being a mundane product, fashioned, or, more probably evolved, out of material nature, under the operation of the same biological laws which account for the origin of other species on the globe; but on another side he is something more than that, a spiritual being possessed of a different order of life from that which we find in other species, a life which natural evolution fails to account for. The truth of that statement depends on facts which lie outside the sphere of biology as one of the physical sciences–lie in the region of metaphysics and of religion. They must justify themselves to other observation than that of the five senses. Nay, we may go further and say: So long as there remains a class of facts in human consciousness, of whose origin biology can give no account–facts, for example, like the sense of duty, the instinct of worship, the feeling of responsibility, the desire to pray, or the yearning after immortality–so long is it only scientific to postulate like Scripture a second origin for mans nature. The dual constitution of this exceptional creature, so long as it cannot be resolved into unity, calls for a dual cause to account for it. If the breath of the beast, and of the animal life in man too, goeth downward, returning to the earth as it was, shall not the spirit of man go upward, returning to God who gave it? So much as man possesses in common with the brutes, comes from the dust of the ground–that physical science will explain to us. So much as separates man from the brutes and makes him a scientific, inventive, responsible, and religious animal–this demands another explanation. Can we find a better than the old one–God breathed into man the breath of life, or God created man in His own image? I do not claim this scriptural theory of mans spiritual origin as a result of the modern science of anthropology. On the contrary, I believe it to be a revelation. At the same time, the facts seem to call for some such extra-physical cause; and so far, nothing equally good even as a working hypothesis has been discovered. The spiritual nature of man is a fact, as I have said, both of metaphysics and of religion: and neither metaphysics nor religion has yet been swallowed up (like the magicians rods) by physical science. It was not along the road of metaphysical speculation, however, that the Hebrews reached the great fact that man is a spiritual being akin to his Creator. That road was travelled by the Greek mind. St. Paul found in Greek poetry traces of the same truth; and Greek poetry had learned it from Greek philosophy. That we are the offspring of Zeus was the result of observing human nature on its intellectual and ethical side rather than on its religious. But the Hebrews were not a speculative, they were preeminently a religious, people: and when they said, man is akin to Jehovah and wears His likeness, they meant that they were profoundly conscious through their own religious experience of having much in common with a personal God. It was by their devotional instincts, first and chiefly, and by the spiritual fellowship they were conscious of enjoying with the Living Object of their worship, that the great Hebrews, like Moses, David, Isaiah, or Paul, realized mans kinship with the Eternal, in spite of those obvious ties which link him as an organism to brute life upon the globe. Unquestionably this is, if one can attain it, the surest demonstration of all. The religious man who, in his worship and in the inward crises of his experience, finds that he can fling himself forth upon the unseen, and, in the darkness, where sense avails no longer, can touch One who is a real person like himself–can exchange with that awful invisible One personal confidences and affections, can ask and receive, can love and be loved, can lean and be upheld; he knows with certainty that he is born of God and akin to God. To be conscious from day to day of an interior life, utterly apart from that of sensation, to which life God forms the ever-present conditioning environment, just as nature surrounds and conditions my animal life–this is to be as sure that God is, and that my spirit is kindred with His, as I am sure that nature is, and that my organism corresponds to it. No one who actually leads this super sensuous life of personal intercourse with God will ask or care for any lower proof that mans spirit wears Gods likeness. But although the religious experience of mankind be the leading proof that we are made in a Divine likeness, it is far from being the only one. From man religious I fall back on man scientific, and inquire if even his achievements do not imply that he is akin to his Maker. Could man be the student and master of nature that he is, were he not in some real sense intellectually akin to natures Maker? Does not the dominion which he is come to wield through science over physical forces argue in favour of that anthropology of Genesis which says, Gods own breath is in him. The great masters of science tell us that they experience a very keen intellectual delight in tracing out the hidden unity of forces and of the laws of force by which this vast complex world is reduced to simplicity. It is not from the observation of isolated facts that this intellectual pleasure springs. It arises when the observer becomes aware of something more than a crowd of isolated facts. Of what more? Of some relationship binding facts together–binding together whole classes of facts; as, for example, of an identical force at work in widely sundered departments of being, or of correlated forces; of a type-form running through large families of organisms, underlying their diversities; of universal laws creating cosmical order amid such a multiplicity of details. The studious mind becomes aware of an ordering, designing Mind. The thought with which God began to work leaps up anew for the first time after all these intervening cycles of dead material change, leaps up in a kindred mind. The dead world knew not what its Maker meant, as change succeeded change, and race was evolved out of race, and cycle followed cycle; but I know. Across it all, we two understand each other–He, and I His child. Is not science a witness to the likeness of God in the mind of man? But I cannot dwell on this, for I should like to suggest in a word how the Divine image in man further reveals itself when, from being a student of nature, he goes on to be its imitator. The arts are, one and all of them, so many imitations of nature, that is, of the Divine working upon matter. For example, we discover the dynamical laws of matter, and at once set about imitating their natural applications in our mechanics. We discover the laws of chemical affinity and combination; and we set about bringing into existence such combinations as we require, or resolving compounds into their elements, at our pleasure. We discover the laws of electrical force, and straightway we proceed to utilize it as a motor or a light. In short, we have no sooner learnt His method from the Author of nature (which is the task of science) than we try to copy it and become ourselves workers, makers, builders, designers, modellers, just like Himself, only on our own reduced and petty scale. Thus our artificial products, like our science, bears witness to the ancient word: There is a Spirit in man; and the breath of the Almighty giveth him understanding. Here, therefore, I return to the point item which I set out. Along this two-fold road, of science, which traces out the thoughts of God; and of art, which imitates His working in obedience to known laws, man fulfils his destined function according to the ancient oracle of Genesis. He subdues the earth and wins dominion over it. He is the solitary creature on earth who even attempts such a function. He is fitted for it by his exceptional nearness to, and likeness to, the Creator. He can be the student and the copyist of Gods works, because he was made in the image of God. Just in proportion as he realizes this godlike lordship over the globe, with its dead and living contents–a lordship based on his deciphering and sharing the Creators thoughts–in that proportion does he approach the lofty position which Scripture assigns to him, and in which Scripture recognizes his crown of glory and honour. But we see not yet all things put under him. During the long ages past it has been merely a faint shadow of royalty man has enjoyed. In the main, natural forces have mastered him. So they do still over a great portion of the earth. Science and art in this late age of man certainly seem to sweep rapidly to their goal, winning and recording year by year victories such as were never seen before. Notwithstanding, men are still far from satisfied, and complain that the physical ills of life and of society are far from overcome–all things far from being put under mans feet. What is to be the future condition of humanity, its final condition, in relation to nature? Is its lordship to grow much more perfect than we see it? Shall nature ever yield up all her secrets, or stoop to serve our welfare with all her forces? I know nothing that pretends to answer such inquiries save Christianity. And her answer is: We see Jesus, sole and perfect type of mans likeness to God, Representative and Forerunner of humanity redeemed; and Him we see already exalted to an ideal height of mastery over nature, crowned with the ancient royalty promised to our race, Head over all, with the world beneath His feet. (J. O.Dykes, D. D.)
Care for the body
If one should send me from abroad a richly carved and precious statue, and the careless drayman who tipped it upon the sidewalk before my door should give it such a blow that one of the boards of the box should be wrenched off, I should be frightened lest the hurt had penetrated further, and wounded it within. But if, taking off the remaining hoards and the swathing-bands of straw or cotton, the statue should come out fair and unharmed, I should not mind the box, but should cast it carelessly into the street. Now, every man has committed to him a statue, moulded by the oldest Master, of the image of God; and he who is only solicitous for outward things, who is striving to protect merely the body from injuries and reverses, is letting the statue go rolling away into the gutter, while he is picking up the fragments, and lamenting the ruin of the box. (H. W. Beecher.)
Man made in the image of God
1. It is the only basis of revelation.
2. It is a rational basis of the Incarnation.
3. A rational basis for the doctrine of regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
4. The foundation of those glorious hopes that are set before us in the New Testament. (M. Gibson, D. D.)
The defaced image
But as the image of a sovereign is effaced from old coins; or as the original expression is lost from the old figure-head on the exposed building; or as decays effacing fingers soon destroy all beauty from the dead body; so sin speedily and effectually spoiled, or obliterated, the moral image of God from the soul of man. At Bournemouth I lately noticed some stunted, misshapen shrubs, which were neither useful nor ornamental, and which were a degenerate growth of the fine trees abounding in that neighbourhood, or of the yet finer forests of fir in Norway. So what a contrast there is between the lowest and the highest trees of men around us; and between the highest types now and what man was at first. (H. R. Burton.)
Man in Gods kingdom
The king of Prussia, while visiting a village in his land, was welcomed by the school children of the place. After their speaker had made a speech for them he thanked them. Then taking an orange from a plate, he asked: To what kingdom does this belong? The vegetable kingdom, sire, replied a little girl. The king took a gold coin from his pocket and, holding it up, asked: And to what kingdom does this belong? To the mineral kingdom, said the girl. And to what kingdom do I belong, then? asked the king. The little girl coloured deeply, for she did not like to say, the animal kingdom, as she thought she would, lest his majesty should be offended. Just then it flashed into her mind that God made man in His own image, and looking up with a brightening eye, she said, To Gods kingdom, sire. The king was deeply moved. A tear stood in his eye. He placed his hand on the childs head and said, most devoutly, God grant that I may be accounted worthy of that kingdom!
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 26. And God said, Let us make man] It is evident that God intends to impress the mind of man with a sense of something extraordinary in the formation of his body and soul, when he introduces the account of his creation thus; Let US make man. The word Adam, which we translate man, is intended to designate the species of animal, as chaitho, marks the wild beasts that live in general a solitary life; behemah, domestic or gregarious animals; and remes, all kinds of reptiles, from the largest snake to the microscopic eel. Though the same kind of organization may be found in man as appears in the lower animals, yet there is a variety and complication in the parts, a delicacy of structure, a nice arrangement, a judicious adaptation of the different members to their great offices and functions, a dignity of mien, and a perfection of the whole, which are sought for in vain in all other creatures. See Ge 3:22.
In our image, after our likeness] What is said above refers only to the body of man, what is here said refers to his soul. This was made in the image and likeness of God. Now, as the Divine Being is infinite, he is neither limited by parts, nor definable by passions; therefore he can have no corporeal image after which he made the body of man. The image and likeness must necessarily be intellectual; his mind, his soul, must have been formed after the nature and perfections of his God. The human mind is still endowed with most extraordinary capacities; it was more so when issuing out of the hands of its Creator. God was now producing a spirit, and a spirit, too, formed after the perfections of his own nature. God is the fountain whence this spirit issued, hence the stream must resemble the spring which produced it. God is holy, just, wise, good, and perfect; so must the soul be that sprang from him: there could be in it nothing impure, unjust, ignorant, evil, low, base, mean, or vile. It was created after the image of God; and that image, St. Paul tells us, consisted in righteousness, true holiness, and knowledge, Eph 4:24; Col 3:10. Hence man was wise in his mind, holy in his heart, and righteous in his actions. Were even the word of God silent on this subject, we could not infer less from the lights held out to us by reason and common sense. The text tells us he was the work of ELOHIM, the Divine Plurality, marked here more distinctly by the plural pronouns US and OUR; and to show that he was the masterpiece of God’s creation, all the persons in the Godhead are represented as united in counsel and effort to produce this astonishing creature.
Gregory Nyssen has very properly observed that the superiority of man to all other parts of creation is seen in this, that all other creatures are represented as the effect of God’s word, but man is represented as the work of God, according to plan and consideration: Let US make MAN in our IMAGE, after our LIKENESS. See his Works, vol. i., p. 52, c. 3.
And let them have dominion] Hence we see that the dominion was not the image. God created man capable of governing the world, and when fitted for the office, he fixed him in it. We see God’s tender care and parental solicitude for the comfort and well-being of this masterpiece of his workmanship, in creating the world previously to the creation of man. He prepared every thing for his subsistence, convenience, and pleasure, before he brought him into being; so that, comparing little with great things, the house was built, furnished, and amply stored, by the time the destined tenant was ready to occupy it.
It has been supposed by some that God speaks here to the angels, when he says, Let us make man; but to make this a likely interpretation these persons must prove, 1. That angels were then created. 2. That angels could assist in a work of creation. 3. That angels were themselves made in the image and likeness of God. If they were not, it could not be said, in OUR image, and it does not appear from any part in the sacred writings that any creature but man was made in the image of God. See Clarke on Ps 8:5.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
God had now prepared all things necessary for mans use and comfort. The plurals us and our afford an evident proof of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. It is plain from many other texts, as well as from the nature and reason of the thing, that God alone is mans Creator: the angels rejoiced at the work of creation, but only God wrought it, Job 38:4-7. And it is no less plain from this text, and from divers other places, that man had more Creators than one person: see Job 35:10; Joh 1:2-3, &c.; Heb 1:3. And as other texts assure us that there is but one God, so this shows that there are more persons in the Godhead; nor can that seeming contradiction of one and more being in the Godhead be otherwise reconciled, than by acknowledging a plurality of persons in the unity of essence. It is pretended that God here speaks after the manner of princes, in the plural number, who use to say: We will
and require, or, It is our pleasure. But this is only the invention and practice of latter times, and no way agreeable to the simplicity, either of the first ages of the world, or of the Hebrew style. The kings of Israel used to speak of themselves in the singular number, 2Sa 3:28; 1Ch 21:17; 29:14; 2Ch 2:6. And so did the eastern monarchs too, yea, even in their decrees and orders, which now run in the plural number, as Ezr 6:8, I (Darius) make a decree; Ezr 7:21, I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree. Nor do I remember one example in Scripture to the contrary. It is therefore a rash and presumptuous attempt, without any warrant, to thrust the usages of modern style into the sacred Scripture. Besides, the Lord doth generally speak of himself in the singular number, some few places excepted, wherein the plural number is used for the signification of this mystery. Moreover, this device is utterly overthrown by comparing this text with Gen 3:22
The Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us. Therefore there are more persons than one in the Godhead. How many they are other texts plainly inform us, as we shall see in their proper places. And whereas he saith not now as he did before: Let the earth or waters
bring forth, but, Let us make; this change of the phrase and manner of expression shows that man was, as the last, so the most perfect and the chief of the ways and works of God in this lower world.
After our likeness. Image and likeness are two words noting the same thing, even exact likeness. For both of them are used of Adam, Gen 5:3
He begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and they are separately and indifferently used in the same sense, man being said to be made in the likeness of God, Gen 5:1, and in the image of God, Gen 9:6.
Quest. Wherein doth the image of God in man consist?
Answ. 1. It is in the whole man, both in the blessedness of his estate, and in his dominion over the rest of the creatures.
2. It shines forth even in the body, in the majesty of mans countenance, and height of his stature, which is set towards heaven, when other creatures by their down-looks show the lowness and meanness of their nature, as even heathens have observed.
3. It principally consists and most eminently appears in mans soul.
1. In its nature and substance, as it is, like God, spiritual, invisible, immortal, &c.
2. In its powers and faculties, reason or understanding, and freedom in its choice and actions.
3. In the singular endowments wherewith God hath adorned it, as knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, in which St. Paul chiefly placeth this image, Eph 4:24; Col 3:10.
The male and female are both comprehended in the word man, as is expressed, Gen 1:27, together with their posterity.
Over the cattle; by which he understands either,
1. Both tame and wild beasts, the same word being used here in a differing sense from what it hath Gen 1:25, as is frequent in Scripture. Or,
2. Tame beasts, which are particularly mentioned, because they are more under mans dominion than the wild beasts, and more fitted for mans use and benefit, though the other be not excluded, but comprehended under the former, as the more famous kind, as is usual in Scriptures and other authors.
Over all the earth; over all other creatures and productions of the earth, and over the earth itself, to manage it as they see fit for their own comfort and advantage.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
26. The last stage in theprogress of creation being now reachedGod said, Let us makemanwords which show the peculiar importance of the work to bedone, the formation of a creature, who was to be God’srepresentative, clothed with authority and rule as visible head andmonarch of the world.
In our image, after ourlikenessThis was a peculiar distinction, the value attached towhich appears in the words being twice mentioned. And in what didthis image of God consist? Not in the erect form or features of man,not in his intellect, for the devil and his angels are, in thisrespect, far superior; not in his immortality, for he has not, likeGod, a past as well as a future eternity of being; but in the moraldispositions of his soul, commonly called original righteousness(Ec 7:29). As the new creationis only a restoration of this image, the history of the one throwslight on the other; and we are informed that it is renewed after theimage of God in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness (Col 3:10;Eph 4:24).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness,…. These words are directed not to the earth, out of which man was made, as consulting with it, and to be assisting in the formation of man, as Moses Gerundensis, and other Jewish writers f, which is wretchedly stupid; nor to the angels, as the Targum of Jonathan, Jarchi, and others, who are not of God’s privy council, nor were concerned in any part of the creation, and much less in the more noble part of it: nor are the words spoken after the manner of kings, as Saadiah, using the plural number as expressive of honour and majesty; since such a way of speaking did not obtain very early, not even till the close of the Old Testament: but they are spoken by God the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost, who were each of them concerned in the creation of all things, and particularly of man: hence we read of divine Creators and Makers in the plural number, Job 35:10 and Philo the Jew acknowledges that these words declare a plurality, and are expressive of others, being co-workers with God in creation g: and man being the principal part of the creation, and for the sake of whom the world, and all things in it were made, and which being finished, he is introduced into it as into an house ready prepared and furnished for him; a consultation is held among the divine Persons about the formation of him; not because of any difficulty attending it, but as expressive of his honour and dignity; it being proposed he should be made not in the likeness of any of the creatures already made, but as near as could be in the likeness and image of God. The Jews sometimes say, that Adam and Eve were created in the likeness of the holy blessed God, and his Shechinah h; and they also speak i of Adam Kadmon the ancient Adam, as the cause of causes, of whom it is said, “I was as one brought up with him (or an artificer with him), Pr 8:30 and to this ancient Adam he said, “let us make man in our image, after our likeness”: and again, “let us make man”; to whom did he say this? the cause of causes said to “`jod’, he, `vau’, he”; that is, to Jehovah, which is in the midst of the ten numerations. What are the ten numerations? “`aleph’, he, `jod’, he”, that is, , “I am that I am, Ex 3:14 and he that says let us make, is Jehovah; I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God: and three jods testify concerning him, that there is none above him, nor any below him, but he is in the middle:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air; that is, to catch them, and eat them; though in the after grant of food to man, no mention as yet is made of any other meat than the herbs and fruits of the earth; yet what can this dominion over fish and fowl signify, unless it be a power to feed upon them? It may be observed, that the plural number is used, “let them”, which shows that the name “man” is general in the preceding clause, and includes male and female, as we find by the following verse man was created:
and over the cattle, and over all the earth; over the tame creatures, either for food, or clothing, or carriage, or for all of them, some of them for one thing, and some for another; and over all the wild beasts of the earth, which seem to be meant by the phrase, “over all the earth”; that is, over all the beasts of the earth, as appears by comparing it with Ge 1:24 so as to keep them in awe, and keep them off from doing them any damage:
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; to make use of it as should seem convenient for them.
f Vet. Nizzachon, p. 5. Lipman. Carmen Memorial. p. 108. apud Wagenseil. Tela ignea, vol. 1. g De confusione Ling. p. 344. De Profugis, p. 460. De Opificio, p. 16. h Tikkune Zohar, correct. 64. fol. 98. 2. i Ibid. correct. 70. fol. 119. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Creation. | B. C. 4004. |
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
We have here the second part of the sixth day’s work, the creation of man, which we are, in a special manner, concerned to take notice of, that we may know ourselves. Observe,
I. That man was made last of all the creatures, that it might not be suspected that he had been, any way, a helper to God in the creation of the world: that question must be for ever humbling and mortifying to him, Where wast thou, or any of thy kind, when I laid the foundations of the earth? Job xxxviii. 4. Yet it was both an honour and a favour to him that he was made last: an honour, for the method of the creation was to advance from that which was less perfect to that which was more so; and a favour, for it was not fit he should be lodged in the palace designed for him till it was completely fitted up and furnished for his reception. Man, as soon as he was made, had the whole visible creation before him, both to contemplate and to take the comfort of. Man was made the same day that the beasts were, because his body was made of the same earth with theirs; and, while he is in the body, he inhabits the same earth with them. God forbid that by indulging the body and the desires of it we should make ourselves like the beasts that perish!
II. That man’s creation was a more signal and immediate act of divine wisdom and power than that of the other creatures. The narrative of it is introduced with something of solemnity, and a manifest distinction from the rest. Hitherto, it had been said, “Let there be light,” and “Let there be a firmament,” and “Let the earth, or waters, bring forth” such a thing; but now the word of command is turned into a word of consultation, “Let us make man, for whose sake the rest of the creatures were made: this is a work we must take into our own hands.” In the former he speaks as one having authority, in this as one having affection; for his delights were with the sons of men, Prov. viii. 31. It should seem as if this were the work which he longed to be at; as if he had said, “Having at last settled the preliminaries, let us now apply ourselves to the business, Let us make man.” Man was to be a creature different from all that had been hitherto made. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth, must be put together in him, and he must be allied to both worlds. And therefore God himself not only undertakes to make him, but is pleased so to express himself as if he called a council to consider of the making of him: Let us make man. The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it and concur in it, because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Into that great name we are, with good reason, baptized, for to that great name we owe our being. Let him rule man who said, Let us make man.
III. That man was made in God’s image and after his likeness, two words to express the same thing and making each other the more expressive; image and likeness denote the likest image, the nearest resemblance of any of the visible creatures. Man was not made in the likeness of any creature that went before him, but in the likeness of his Creator; yet still between God and man there is an infinite distance. Christ only is the express image of God’s person, as the Son of his Father, having the same nature. It is only some of God’s honour that is put upon man, who is God’s image only as the shadow in the glass, or the king’s impress upon the coin. God’s image upon man consists in these three things:– 1. In his nature and constitution, not those of his body (for God has not a body), but those of his soul. This honour indeed God has put upon the body of man, that the Word was made flesh, the Son of God was clothed with a body like ours and will shortly clothe ours with a glory like that of his. And this we may safely say, That he by whom God made the worlds, not only the great world, but man the little world, formed the human body, at the first, according to the platform he designed for himself in the fulness of time. But it is the soul, the great soul, of man, that does especially bear God’s image. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent immortal spirit, an influencing active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of Spirits, and the soul of the world. The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord. The soul of man, considered in its three noble faculties, understanding, will, and active power, is perhaps the brightest clearest looking-glass in nature, wherein to see God. 2. In his place and authority: Let us make man in our image, and let him have dominion. As he has the government of the inferior creatures, he is, as it were, God’s representative, or viceroy, upon earth; they are not capable of fearing and serving God, therefore God has appointed them to fear and serve man. Yet his government of himself by the freedom of his will has in it more of God’s image than his government of the creatures. 3. In his purity and rectitude. God’s image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Eph 4:24; Col 3:10. He was upright, Eccl. vii. 29. He had an habitual conformity of all his natural powers to the whole will of God. His understanding saw divine things clearly and truly, and there were no errors nor mistakes in his knowledge. His will complied readily and universally with the will of God, without reluctancy or resistance. His affections were all regular, and he had no inordinate appetites or passions. His thoughts were easily brought and fixed to the best subjects, and there was no vanity nor ungovernableness in them. All the inferior powers were subject to the dictates and directions of the superior, without any mutiny or rebellion. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents, in having the image of God upon them. And this honour, put upon man at first, is a good reason why we should not speak ill one of another (Jam. iii. 9), nor do ill one to another (Gen. ix. 6), and a good reason why we should not debase ourselves to the service of sin, and why we should devote ourselves to God’s service. But how art thou fallen, O son of the morning! How is this image of God upon man defaced! How small are the remains of it, and how great the ruins of it! The Lord renew it upon our souls by his sanctifying grace!
IV. That man was made male and female, and blessed with the blessing of fruitfulness and increase. God said, Let us make man, and immediately it follows, So God created man; he performed what he resolved. With us saying and doing are two things; but they are not so with God. He created him male and female, Adam and Eve–Adam first, out of earth, and Eve out of his side, ch. ii. It should seem that of the rest of the creatures God made many couples, but of man did not he make one? (Mal. ii. 15), though he had the residue of the Spirit, whence Christ gathers an argument against divorce, Mat 19:4; Mat 19:5. Our first father, Adam, was confined to one wife; and, if he had put her away, there was no other for him to marry, which plainly intimated that the bond of marriage was not to be dissolved at pleasure. Angels were not made male and female, for they were not to propagate their kind (Luke xx. 34-36); but man was made so, that the nature might be propagated and the race continued. Fires and candles, the luminaries of this lower world, because they waste, and go out, have a power to light more; but it is not so with the lights of heaven: stars do not kindle stars. God made but one male and one female, that all the nations of men might know themselves to be made of one blood, descendants from one common stock, and might thereby be induced to love one another. God, having made them capable of transmitting the nature they had received, said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Here he gave them, 1. A large inheritance: Replenish the earth; it is this that is bestowed upon the children of men. They were made to dwell upon the face of all the earth, Acts xvii. 26. This is the place in which God has set man to be the servant of his providence in the government of the inferior creatures, and, as it were, the intelligence of this orb; to be the receiver of God’s bounty, which other creatures live upon, but do not know it; to be likewise the collector of his praises in this lower world, and to pay them into the exchequer above (Ps. cxlv. 10); and, lastly, to be a probationer for a better state. 2. A numerous lasting family, to enjoy this inheritance, pronouncing a blessing upon them, in virtue of which their posterity should extend to the utmost corners of the earth and continue to the utmost period of time. Fruitfulness and increase depend upon the blessing of God: Obed-edom had eight sons, for God blessed him, 1 Chron. xxvi. 5. It is owing to this blessing, which God commanded at first, that the race of mankind is still in being, and that as one generation passeth away another cometh.
V. That God gave to man, when he had made him, a dominion over the inferior creatures, over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air. Though man provides for neither, he has power over both, much more over every living thing that moveth upon the earth, which are more under his care and within his reach. God designed hereby to put an honour upon man, that he might find himself the more strongly obliged to bring honour to his Maker. This dominion is very much diminished and lost by the fall; yet God’s providence continues so much of it to the children of men as is necessary to the safety and support of their lives, and God’s grace has given to the saints a new and better title to the creature than that which was forfeited by sin; for all is ours if we are Christ’s, 1 Cor. iii. 22.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 26-31:
God created man as a separate act, a creature different from any He had ever made. This refutes the theory of the evolution of man from some other form of animal life. Man came into being as the only creation of God made in His own image, and after His own likeness. “Image” includes the idea of likeness, but adds to it the concept of outward manifestation and representation. “Likeness” denotes similarity, conformity to its object. The two terms are not identical, but they are related in meaning. They picture man as having both the outward appearance and the inward characteristics of his Creator. No other creature has this distinction. God is a triune (threefold) Being; man, made in His image (outward appearance) and likeness (inner characteristics) is a triune (threefold) being.
Figure A illustrates the nature and being of animal life. Figure B illustrates the Triune God. Figure C shows man’s image and likeness of God. FIGURES A-C IN HARDBOUND COMMENTARY.
God’s immediate purpose for man was two-fold: (1) to have dominion over Planet Earth and all creatures in it; and (2) to multiply and replenish” or to multiply and fill Earth with his offspring. The English word “replenish” or to multiply and fill Earth with his offspring. The English word “replenish” may be, misleading. It could be interpreted to imply a race of human beings before Adam. This misleading interpretation is cleared up with proper understanding of the literal meaning of the original term, which is “fill.” There was no human being prior to Adam’s creation, either on Earth or anywhere else in all God’s creation, 1Co 15:45. God’s instructions to the first human pair were limited by specific bounds. First, man is to have authority over Earth and everything in it, see Psalm 8. This does not give him license to exploit Earth and it’s resources for his own selfish ends. It entails certain responsibilities and requires accountability. Inherent this commission is protection. Man is Earth’s caretaker, to see after its welfare and to account to God for this. God has never repealed this directive. Men today are still responsible and accountable for their dominion over Earth.
By direct creation, God made the first human pair. He is perfect, and can only produce perfection. Thus, Adam and Eve were flawless, in every aspect of life: physical, mental, and spiritual. This refutes the theories of origins that pictures primitive man as some coarse, jut-jawed, ignorant creature incapable of rational thought and behavior. After their creation, God set in motion the laws of human reproduction, by which other human beings would come into the world.
Verse 29 implies that the first human beings were vegetarians. God provided their “meat,” or food, from the herbs and plants and trees which grew on Earth. This provision contained every nutrient necessary for man’s physical well-being. This indicates that as man cared for the earth, so would the earth provide for his needs. God set in order the delicate balance of nature, which evidences His wisdom and the perfection of His design. When God completed His creative work with the crowning achievement of His power, man, He surveyed all He had done. He pronounced it (literally), “Lo, good very!” Not merely good, but exceedingly good. This benediction applies to the entire scope of God’s creative work, and not to mankind alone. It is God’s own expression of admiration toward the work of His hands – the entire scope of creation, and not of man alone. This benediction refutes the idea of evolution. If the universe and all in it came into being as the result of development from chaos to order, then God could not have said it was “very good!” For chaos and disorder are bad. If the universe developed from chaos to order, then God would have found it necessary to say, “It is improving,” but never, “It is very good!”
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
26. Let us make man (83) Although the tense here used is the future, all must acknowledge that this is the language of one apparently deliberating. Hitherto God has been introduced simply as commanding; now, when he approaches the most excellent of all his works, he enters into consultation. God certainly might here command by his bare word what he wished to be done: but he chose to give this tribute to the excellency of man, that he would, in a manner, enter into consultation concerning his creation. This is the highest honor with which he has dignified us; to a due regard for which, Moses, by this mode of speaking would excite our minds. For God is not now first beginning to consider what form he will give to man, and with what endowments it would be fitting to adorn him, nor is he pausing as over a work of difficulty: but, just as we have before observed, that the creation of the world was distributed over six days, for our sake, to the end that our minds might the more easily be retained in the meditation of God’s works: so now, for the purpose of commending to our attention the dignity of our nature, he, in taking counsel concerning the creation of man, testifies that he is about to undertake something great and wonderful. Truly there are many things in this corrupted nature which may induce contempt; but if you rightly weigh all circumstances, man is, among other creatures a certain preeminent specimen of Divine wisdom, justice, and goodness, so that he is deservedly called by the ancients μικρίκοσμος , “a world in miniature.” But since the Lord needs no other counsellor, there can be no doubt that he consulted with himself. The Jews make themselves altogether ridiculous, in pretending that God held communication with the earth or with angels. (84) The earth, forsooth, was a most excellent adviser! And to ascribe the least portion of a work so exquisite to angels, is a sacrilege to be held in abhorrence. Where, indeed, will they find that we were created after the image of the earth, or of angels? Does not Moses directly exclude all creatures in express terms, when he declares that Adam was created after the image of God? Others who deem themselves more acute, but are doubly infatuated, say that God spoke of himself in the plural number, according to the custom of princes. As if, in truth, that barbarous style of speaking, which has grown into use within a few past centuries, had, even then, prevailed in the world. But it is well that their canine wickedness has been joined with a stupidity so great, that they betray their folly to children. Christians, therefore, properly contend, from this testimony, that there exists a plurality of Persons in the Godhead. God summons no foreign counsellor; hence we infer that he finds within himself something distinct; as, in truth, his eternal wisdom and power reside within him. (85)
In our image, etc Interpreters do not agree concerning the meaning of these words. The greater part, and nearly all, conceive that the word image is to be distinguished from likeness. And the common distinction is, that image exists in the substance, likeness in the accidents of anything. They who would define the subject briefly, say that in the image are contained those endowments which God has conferred on human nature at large, while they expound likeness to mean gratuitous gifts. (86) But Augustine, beyond all others, speculates with excessive refinement, for the purpose of fabricating a Trinity in man. For in laying hold of the three faculties of the soul enumerated by Aristotle, the intellect, the memory, and the will, he afterwards out of one Trinity derives many. If any reader, having leisure, wishes to enjoy such speculations, let him read the tenth and fourteenth books on the Trinity, also the eleventh book of the “City of God.” I acknowledge, indeed, that there is something in man which refers to the Fathers and the Son, and the Spirit: and I have no difficulty in admitting the above distinction of the faculties of the soul: although the simpler division into two parts, which is more used in Scripture, is better adapted to the sound doctrine of piety; but a definition of the image of God ought to rest on a firmer basis than such subtleties. As for myself, before I define the image of God, I would deny that it differs from his likeness. For when Moses afterwards repeats the same things he passes over the likeness, and contents himself with mentioning the image. Should any one take the exception, that he was merely studying brevity; I answer, (87) that where he twice uses the word image, he makes no mention of the likeness. We also know that it was customary with the Hebrews to repeat the same thing in different words. besides, the phrase itself shows that the second term was added for the sake of explanation, ‘Let us make,’ he says, ‘man in our image, according to our likeness,’ that is, that he may be like God, or may represent the image of God. Lastly, in the fifth chapter, without making any mention of image, he puts likeness in its place, (Gen 5:1.) Although we have set aside all difference between the two words we have not yet ascertained what this image or likeness is. The Anthropomorphites were too gross in seeking this resemblance in the human body; let that reverie therefore remain entombed. Others proceed with a little more subtlety, who, though they do not imagine God to be corporeal, yet maintain that the image of God is in the body of man, because his admirable workmanship there shines brightly; but this opinion, as we shall see, is by no means consonant with Scripture. The exposition of Chrysostom is not more correct, who refers to the dominion which was given to man in order that he might, in a certain sense, act as God’s vicegerent in the government of the world. This truly is some portion, though very small, of the image of God. Since the image of God had been destroyed in us by the fall, we may judge from its restoration what it originally had been. Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. (Col 3:10, and Eph 4:23.) That he made this image to consist in righteousness and true holiness, is by the figure synecdochee; (88) for though this is the chief part, it is not the whole of God’s image. Therefore by this word the perfection of our whole nature is designated, as it appeared when Adam was endued with a right judgment, had affections in harmony with reason, had all his senses sound and well-regulated, and truly excelled in everything good. Thus the chief seat of the Divine image was in his mind and heart, where it was eminent: yet was there no part of him in which some scintillations of it did not shine forth. For there was an attempering in the several parts of the soul, which corresponded with their various offices. (89) In the mind perfect intelligence flourished and reigned, uprightness attended as its companion, and all the senses were prepared and moulded for due obedience to reason; and in the body there was a suitable correspondence with this internal order. But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us; yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed. For besides the deformity which everywhere appears unsightly, this evil also is added, that no part is free from the infection of sin.
In our image, after our likeness I do not scrupulously insist upon the particles ב, ( beth,) and כ, ( caph (90)) I know not whether there is anything solid in the opinion of some who hold that this is said, because the image of God was only shadowed forth in man till he should arrive at his perfection. The thing indeed is true; but I do not think that anything of the kind entered the mind of Moses. (91) It is also truly said that Christ is the only image of the Fathers but yet the words of Moses do not bear the interpretation that “in the image” means “in Christ.” It may also be added, that even man, though in a different respects is called the image of God. In which thing some of the Fathers are deceived who thought that they could defeat the Asians with this weapon that Christ alone is God’s, image. This further difficulty is also to be encountered, namely, why Paul should deny the woman to be the image of God, when Moses honors both, indiscriminately, with this title. The solution is short; Paul there alludes only to the domestic relation. He therefore restricts the image of God to government, in which the man has superiority over the wife and certainly he meant nothing more than that man is superior in the degree of honor. But here the question is respecting that glory of God which peculiarly shines forth in human nature, where the mind, the will, and all the senses, represent the Divine order.
And let them have dominion (92) Here he commemorates that part of dignity with which he decreed to honor 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, because they having an inclination or instinct of their own, (93) 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. In the very order of the creation the paternal solicitude of God for man is conspicuous, because he furnished the world with all things needful, and even with an immense profusion of wealth, before he formed man. Thus man was rich before he was born. But if God had such care for us before we existed, he will by no means leave us destitute of food and of other necessaries of life, now that we are placed in the world. Yet, that he often keeps his hand as if closed is to be imputed to our sins.
(83) “ Faciamus hominem.”
(84) For the various opinions of Jewish writers on this subject, see Poole’s Synopsis in loco. See also Bishop Patrick’s Commentary on this verse. — Ed.
(85) “ Ut certe aeterna ejus sapientia et virtus in ipso resident.” The expression is ambiguous; but the French translation renders it, “ Comme a la verite, sa Sapience eternelle, et Vertu reside en luy;” which translation is here followed. By beginning the words rendered Wisdom and Power with capitals, it would appear that the second and third Persons of the Trinity were in the mind of the writer when the passage was written. And perhaps this is the only view of it which renders the reasoning of Calvin intelligible. See Notes 2 and 5, at page 75. — Ed.
(86) Some here distinguish, and say the image is in what is natural, the likeness in what is gratuitous. — Lyra. Others blend them together, and say there is an Hendiadys, that is, according to the image most like us. — Tirinus. — See Poole’s Synopsis. — Ed.
(87) “I answer,” is not in the original, but is taken from the French translation. — Ed.
(88) Synecdoche is the figure which puts a part for the whole, or the whole for a part. — Ed.
(89) “ Erat erim in singulis animae partibus temperatura quae suis numeris constabat.”
(90) The two prefixes to the Hebrew words signifying image and likeness; the former of which is translated in, the latter after, or still more correctly, according to. This sentence is not translated either in the French or Old English version. — Ed.
(91) “ Innuit in homine esse imaginem Dei, sed imperfectam et qualem umbrae.” — Oleaster in Poli Synopsi.
(92) “ Dominetur.”
(93) “ Quae quum habeant proprium nutum.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE GREATEST THING IN THE WORLD
Gen 1:26; Gen 2:7; Mat 16:26
HENRY Drummonds address on The Greatest Thing in the World has been almost universally read. You will recall that in that he proposes the question, What is the supreme good; what is the supreme object of desire, the supreme gift to covet? and imagines that he finds his answer in the word, Love. If one is to discuss the graces only, Drummond is right, and Paul the Apostle, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, 13th chapter, puts the grace of love above all other graces. He places it above eloquence, saying,
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal.
He puts it above knowledge and faith, saying,
Though I have all knowledge, and though I have all faith and have not love, I am nothing;
and above charity and the martyrs crown, for he adds,
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned and have not love, I am nothing.
But this only argues that love is the chief of the Christian graces, but greater than his graces is the man himself; greater than love is the lover. If one contended that the greatest thing in our solar system was light, he could present as good an argument in defense of the proposition as Drummond did in claiming love to be the greatest thing in the world. He could say, as Horace Bushnell has said, Let the light of the morning cease and return no more; let the hour of morning come and bring with it no dawn; the outcries of a horror-stricken world would fill the air and make as it were the darkness audible; the beasts would grow wild and frantic at the loss, the vegetable growths turn pale and die. A chill creeps on, and frosty winds begin to howl against the freezing earth; colder and yet colder is the night; the vital blood, at length, of all creatures stops, congealed; and the very globe itself becomes a ball of ice hanging silent in the darkness.
And yet, greater than the light that reaches us, is yonder sun swinging its way through space, illumining a thousand worlds; and greater than the love that fills the human heart, and makes human life worth the living is the throbbing, sentient soul that loves because it lives.
These texts ought to impress us with three features of this greatness which attaches to man. First of all we ought to see his greatness in the fact of
THE DIVINE IMAGE.
And God said, Let Us make man in our image after our likeness.
They tell us now that we will never see God; that He is without form or locality; but I insist that we have already seen God in the person of Jesus Christ, and in that same person we shall see Him again, and the longer we look upon Him, the more we shall appreciate the truth of this text that man was made in His image.
This truth obtains as to physical form. Of Jesus Christ it is written, that He being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. It is quite popular now to deny both body and personality to God. Read Dan 10:5-6. The physical frame of man has its splendid proportion, its natural graces, and its unexcelled powers in consequence of the fact that God created us in His own image.
Dr. Hillis, in A Mans Value to Society, reminds us of the veneration in which the ancients held the body, and how they sought by every possible invention to preserve it even after the soul had taken its flight. I think you will find that conception of its worth more in keeping with the teachings of Scripture than is the modern notion of regarding it mere dust fit only to be resolved again into Mother Earth. The Psalmist speaking of his body said,
I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Thy works and that my soul knoweth right well; my substance was not hid from Thee; when I was made in secret and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth, Thine eyes did see my substance yet being unperfect; and in Thy book all my members were written which in continuance were fashioned when as yet there was none of them (Psa 139:14-16).
Paul calls the body the temple of the Holy Ghost. And in all Jewish thought there was no institution so much venerated as the Temple in which was located the Holy of Holies, and none in defense of which they would so willingly have laid down their lives. When a man through asceticism afflicts his body, or though sin abuses or degrades it, he at once depreciates the dignity of his own life and insults the God after whose likeness and in whose image he is made.
Again, this Divine image appears in mans mental ability. Monkeys may have minds, but if so the most marked thing about them is their easy limitations. In the light of modern accomplishments, who will undertake to give us the measure of mans mind? We have sometimes thought that Christs greatest miracle was raising the dead, but do we so consider? When He dispossessed the Gadarene, and brought that man whose brain had been in deranged estate, back to a right mind, He wrought a miracle greater than raising the body and second only to the salvation of the soul. For no matter how perfect the physical proportions of a man, he will never remind us of God, nor seem to be after the Divine likeness except he exhibit mental balance and intellectual ability. Paul writing to Timothy, seeking to stir up the gifts of God which were in him, said, For God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love and of a sound mind.
In his moral character, also, man is the greatest thing in the world. It is conceded of all that here the Divine Image is most marked. Animals have no moral character. Through the fear of punishment or the hope of reward, they may come to do certain things that are right, and let severely alone others that their masters regard wrong; but that is not because they have any sense of ought or ought not. Darwin, in The Descent of Man, says, A moral being is one who is capable of comparing his past and future actions and motivesof approving of some and disapproving of others, and the fact that man is the one being who with certainty can be thus designated, makes the greatest of all distinctions between him and the lower animals. Aye, and to believers this moral character is also the best evidence that man is made in the Divine Image.
A colleague of Mr. Gladstone, just before the death of that great statesman remarked, If I were asked what was the distinguishing characteristic of Mr. Gladstones power, I should say that he never for a moment forgets, or allows his hearers to forget hat he regards man as a moral being. How could he forget it, when he was so familiar with the Word of God, in which it is distinctly declared of man that he was made in the image of God and after Gods likeness? The greatest thing about you, the greatest thing about me, the greatest thing about any man is that moral resemblance to our Maker, which enables us to see the right and distinguish it from the wrong.
In the second place, mans greatness is argued by
THE DIVINE ESTIMATE.
There are three respects in which that estimate is expressed in the early chapters of Genesis. First, in Gods grief over mans sin.
One of the saddest sentences that God ever uttered was written into Gen 3:9,
And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him, Where art thou?
God knew where he was! God knew what he had done! God knew what he had become!
I have been with a father when, in the long hours of a summer afternoon he sought in vain for his lost child. I listened to his cries ringing out upon the darkness, from the dusk till the midnight hour was on. I sat beside him and heard the sobbings coming in consequence of having lost, for a little time only, his little son. But who can imagine the grief of God when Adam went away from Him into sin?
The story of Absalom is familiar to each of you, and you can never forget Davids affection for him, nor yet Davids lament when word reached him that Absalom was dead. For
the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept! and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!
But Gods grief over the sin of His son Adam was greater still. Gods grief over your sin and over mine, who can tell? Listen to Ezekiels report of Gods language,
As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways, for why will you die?
And, in the question, learn again the Divine estimate of mans life.
That estimate also appears in the gift of Gods Son. Dr. Griffith, once secretary of the American Baptist Publication Society, in a sermon on The Value of the Soul, said, We should estimate it by the price paid for its redemption. What must have been the valuation of the soul in Heaven when God, before whom all nations are as the dust in the balance, became an infant in the manger of Bethlehem, agonized in Gethsemane, was beaten and spit upon in the Judgment Hall, and expired on the ragged irons; every groan of Calvary pronounced the worth of the soul to be greater than ten thousand material worlds. The Son of God would not have given His life to redeem the whole material earth from ruin. He would not have shed a drop of His blood to save the world from the flames; He will, of choice, give it to the flames when its use to the soul of man shall be ended; and yet He shed all His blood to save the soul.
It is related that in Africa a bloodthirsty chief passed sentence upon an innocent slave, that he should be shot. An Englishman pled for his pardon but in vain. The chief only answered, I want blood. When the executioner drew his bow, the thrum of the string was heard and the arrow darted on its way. The Englishman threw himself before the intended victim, received the poisoned point in his own quivering flesh. Drawing it forth adrip, the white man said to the Chief, Here is the blood you demand. I shed my own to save the life of this man. And it is reported that the action so impressed the heathen blacks that ever after that day human life seemed to them a larger thing.
When we read that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life, Gods estimate of mans greatness ought to make at once a lasting and profitable impression. That estimate was voiced in Genesis, for no sooner had man sinned, than God was saying to the serpent, I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel. That is commonly accepted now as Gods first promise of salvation through His Son.
This Divine estimate also appears in the ministry of the Spirit. This is the age of the Spirit, the era in which the third person of the Godhead is completing the work which Christ commenced. It was to be His to take of the things of Christ and show them unto us. It was to be His to convict the world of sin, and of righteousness and of a judgment to come. But let no man think that that ministry of the Spirit which has been marked since Christs ascension was unknown to the world before Christs sacrifice. No sooner had God promised salvation through His Son than He sent His Spirit to strive with men that they might receive this proffered substitute for sin, In the sixth chapter of Genesis the Lord is saying to the scarlet sinners of earth, My Spirit shall not always strive with man. And yet, after millenniums, His ministry of love is making more and more evident Gods estimate of human life, I do not know whether it has ever occurred to you, but you must admit the truth of it, every Gospel preacher, every personal worker, every praying saint is simply performing a part of that ministry over which the Holy Spirit presides.
When Munson went down under the knives of cannibals, it was the Spirit ministering through him to wicked men. When Bunyan went to Bedford Jail because he preached the Gospel, it was the Holy Ghost who encouraged him in the dungeon. When Judson was suffering the agonies of Oung Pen La, it was the Holy Spirit pleading with the people of East India; and when David Livingstone died on his knees in Africa, it was the Spirits appeal to the hundreds and thousands of that benighted land that they turn to God and be saved. David said, No man cared for my soul. That was the dyspeptics sentiment of a dark hour. Even had it been so, where is the man who, in the face of that ministry of the Spirit which has blessed centuries and resulted in the salvation of millions, can say, God does not esteem me, and seek to save me! Mans greatness is also argued by
HIS INHERENT IMMORTALITY.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul!
This Divine life is endless existence. There are not a few among us who are teaching now the conditional immortality theory, and who appeal to Ecc 9:5, The dead know not anything, and similar Scriptures. But when Longfellow wrote,
Life is real, life is earnest
And the grave is not its goal;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest
Was not spoken of the soul,
he put himself in perfect line with sacred Scripture.
In the parable of Dives and Lazarus, both the righteous man and the unrighteous are represented as living on beyond what we call deathLazarus in blessed estate and Dives in the direst distress and suffering. To me it is unthinkable that Jesus Christ would speak a parable, which, by the plainest and most necessary interpretation, would teach a falsehood, or that He would employ the language used in the 25th of Matthew in assigning the wicked to everlasting punishment and calling the righteous to life eternal, unless He meant what He said. If we are going to live on, if eternity alone is to measure mans history, it is little wonder that Jesus Christ put the question,
What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul; or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
This question also emphasizes the fact that man is the arbiter of his own destiny. From time immemorial, God has treated with man upon that basis. Before the fall it was so, and not less so since sin came and all our woe. Over in the Book of Deuteronomy we will find Moses marking a plea with a rebellious people, and after having called their attention to the commandments of God, the covenants of God, the judgments of God, he said, I call heaven and earth to record this day against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose. It is the very same appeal that another of Gods prophets made to the people. Joshua had assembled the tribes at Shechem. He had reviewed before them Gods blessing and reminded them how they had gone after strange gods, and concluded by saying, Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. **** But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
There comes a time in every mans life when he is making the choice that will determine his destiny. Doubtless there are those here tonight who are doing that now. Oh, may I not plead with you, as Moses did with his people, Choose life, that the greatness of your immortality may become the ground of your endless joy, for What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
In concluding, may I remind you that your treatment of Jesus will determine your immortal estate.
It is plainly written
that God hath given to us eternal life and this life is in His Son, He that hath the Son hath life and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
You know tonight whether you have received Jesus or not. If so, you are safe. If not, you have no security. Your purpose to accept Him at a later time is only a part of Satans plan by which to destroy the soul for all time.
It was my lot, said a shipmaster, to fall in with the ill-fated steamer The Central America. The night was closing in, the sea rolling high; but I hailed the crippled steamer and asked if they needed help. I am in a sinking condition, cried Captain Herndon. Had you not better send your passengers on board now? Lay by me till morning, again cried Captain Herndon. I tried to lay by him, but at night such was the heavy roll of the sea, I could not keep my position, and I never saw the steamer any more. In an hour and a half after the captain said, Lay by me till morning, the vessel with its living freight went down; and the captain and the crew, and a great majority of his passengers found a grave in the great deep. But for this delay all might have been saved.
By the death of all those who have perished through procrastination, let me plead with you to face this question honestly, and give to it an intelligent answer tonight,
What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
(26) Let us make man.Comp. Gen. 11:7. The making of man is so ushered in as to show that at length the work of creation had reached its perfection and ultimate goal. As regards the use of the plural here, Maimonides thinks that God took counsel with the earth, the latter supplying the body and Elohim the soul. But it is denied in Isa. 40:13 that God ever took counsel with any one but Himself. The Jewish interpreters generally think that the angels are meant. More truly and more reverently we may say that this first chapter of Genesis is the chapter of mysteries, and just as the wind of God in Gen. 1:2 was the pregnant germ which grew into the revelation of the Holy Ghost, so in Elohim, the many powers concentrated in one being, lies the germ of the doctrine of a plurality of persons in the Divine Unity. It is not a formal proof of the Trinity, nor do believers in the inspiration of Holy Scripture so use it. What they affirm is, that from the very beginning the Bible is full of such germs, and that no one of them remains barren, but all develop, and become Christian truths. There is in this first book a vast array of figures, types, indications, yearnings, hopes, fears, promises, and express predictions, which advance onwards like an ever-deepening river, and when they all find a logical fulfilment in one way, the conclusion is that that fulfilment is not only true, but was intended.
Man.Hebrew, Adam. In Assyrian the name for man is also adamu, or admu. In that literature, so marvellously preserved to our days, Sir H. Rawlinson thinks that he has traced the first man up to the black or Accadian race. It is hopeless to attempt any derivation of the name, as it must have existed before any of the verbs and nouns from which commentators attempt to give it a meaning; and the admh, or tilled ground, of which we shall soon hear so much, evidently had its name from Adam.
In our image, after our likeness.The human body is after Gods image only as being the means whereby man attains to dominion: for dominion is Gods attribute, inasmuch as He is sole Lord. Mans body, therefore, as that of one who rules, is erect, and endowed with speech, that he may give the word of command. The soul is first, in Gods image. This, as suggesting an external likeness, may refer to mans reason, free-will, self-consciousness, and so on. But it is, secondly, in Gods likeness, which implies something closer and more inward. It refers to mans moral powers, and especially to his capacity of attaining unto holiness. Now man has lost neither of these two. (Comp. Gen. 9:6; 1Co. 11:7; Jas. 3:9.) Both were weakened and defiled by the fall, but were still retained in a greater or less degree. In the man Christ Jesus both were perfect; and fallen man, when new-created in Christ, attains actually to that perfection which was his only potentially at his first creation, and to which Adam never did attain.
Let them have dominion.The plural here shows that we have to do not with Adam and Eve, but with the human race generally. This, too, agrees with the whole bearing of the first chapter, which deals in a large general way with genera and species, and not with individuals. This is important as an additional proof that Gods likeness and image belong to the whole species man, and could not therefore have been lost by the fall, as St. Augustine supposed.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
26. Let us make man in our image This form of speaking in the first person plural is explained by some as conformity to the usage of human dignitaries, who are accustomed to speak of themselves in this way; while others suppose that God here addresses the angels of his presence . Others, again, find in these words a reference to the plurality of persons in the divine nature, but the ancient readers of the record would not be likely to comprehend this meaning . Nevertheless, here may be the germ which, by successive revelations, was at last developed into the Christian doctrine of the Trinity . All things conceptual or phenomenal originate in the great, uncreated, self-existent Essence, the fountain of Deity, the Father . These things become thought and form by and through the Divine Word, by whom all things exist . These existences are objects of approval to the Spirit, the Sensibility, so to speak, of God . As God looks over the objects of creation, it is the divine feeling that pronounces them “very good . ” Accordingly, man bears the triune image of his God in having will, thought, and feeling, which correspond with our highest conceptions of Father, Word, and Spirit. Will, by which we mean the whole self-acting, conscious Ego; Thought, the only begotten and always begotten offspring of the self-acting, conscious Ego; and Feeling, or Sensibility, by which we appreciate and love; these are the personalities of man’s immortal nature. God is a spirit, and man’s immortal nature is a spirit also, bearing the divine triune impress of the Godhead. We should accordingly understand the “righteousness,” “true holiness,” and “knowledge” of Eph 4:24; Col 3:10, as qualities or attributes of the divine image in which man was created, but not as constituting the image itself . The likeness was rather in the spiritual personality which made him Godlike as distinguished from all the rest of the animate creation . Likeness is not to be understood as something different from image, but rather as explanatory of it .
And let them have dominion This dominion is the natural superiority and headship which man holds over all the inferior orders of creation . Compare Psa 8:5-8. Gen 1:29-30, taken in connexion with chapter 9:3, have been supposed to show that previous to the flood man’s food was restricted to substances in the vegetable kingdom. This was probably the case; but, after all, these passages do not prove that animal food was prohibited before the flood; and possibly the skins mentioned Gen 3:21, were those of animals slain, not for sacrifices only, but for food .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth”.’
“Let us make man.” The thought is intimate and personal, and carefully considered. Here will be one who has connections with the infinite, and Heaven is called on to consider this special act of creation, and indeed to participate in it to some extent, for it will affect them too. But as Gen 1:27 makes clear, ultimately it was the act of God Himself.
So the next question that this verse raises is, who is the ‘us’? The answer is not difficult. We can compare its use in Isa 6:8 when God is surrounded by seraphim. The writer could only have in mind the spiritual beings, called in the Old Testament ‘the sons of God’ (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7 – see also 1Ki 22:19 etc; Isa 6:2 etc), from whom came His messengers (‘angels’) that He would send to earth, and one of whom was Satan himself (Job 1:6). In Hebrew the term ‘sons of –’ indicates not those who have been born from, but ‘those who are connected with’ or sometimes ‘those who behave like’. Thus these ‘sons of God’ are those connected with the sphere in which God operates rather than in the sphere in which man operates. They are not literally His sons.
This brings out the meaning of the remainder of the verse. Man was to have the ‘image and likeness of the heavenly beings, of the elohim’. While the word ‘elohim’ usually means God it can, as we have seen, also refer to ‘out of this world beings’ e.g. 1Sa 28:13. Man was thus to have heavenly status and a spiritual and moral nature capable of communion with God, of active choice and of moral behaviour. While in one sense an earthly creature, bound to earth, he would also have a spiritual nature which could reach into the heaven of heavens.
Note that God said ‘OUR image’. Thus He associated Himself in this with the heavenly beings. The image in which man is made is not the unique image of God but that which He shares with the elohim. This justifies the above interpretation. Man is made a spiritual being.
But the idea of ‘in our image’ possibly also includes the idea that man is placed in a position of dominion. He is to stand in the place of God and His court. In a later period ancient kings would erect their images in subservient countries as a reminder of their authority. In Zec 12:8 ‘the house of David (the royal house) shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them’. In the same way man is here seen as present to represent God’s court on earth. This was what warranted his being placed over all that God had made.
We might differentiate by saying that as the image of God he stands in God’s place and has dominion, while as the likeness of the elohim he can communicate with God in spiritual terms, but the separation must not be pressed. The two ideas are inter-linked and merge into one. ‘Likeness’ is intended to limit ‘image’. Later ‘like God’ signifies ‘knowing good and evil’ stressing the moral aspect of the likeness (Gen 3:5) .
(As mentioned the phrase ‘sons of God’ does not suggest direct relationship, but that such beings are closely connected with God. The Old Testament can, for example, also speak of ‘sons of Belial’ ( Jdg 19:22 ; 1Sa 2:12; 2Sa 23:6) as describing those who behave like Belial. They are not literally seen as being born from Belial).
“Let us make man (adam).” The word ‘adam’ always appears in the singular. It is a collective noun signifying mankind as a whole. But the verse goes on to say ‘and let them have dominion’. Man’s procreation is immediately in view. Sovereignty is not given to one man but to all mankind.
“Over all the earth.” Man’s dominion is not limited to the living creatures. He is to dominate the earth for its good.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Creation and Blessing of Man
v. 26. And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. v. 27. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created He them. v. 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. v. 29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. v. 30. And to every beast of the earth and to every fowl of the air and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat. And it was so. v. 31. And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gen 1:26. Let us make man in our image Behold the finishing stroke of the Divine Creator, Man, the last and greatest work of God. Animal life was produced: but now at last the crown of creation is brought forth in a rational soul. The earth, like a stately palace furnished for his reception, seems to call for the great inhabitant; one who can be the tongue of this lower world, and render to the great Author of all, the praise of his glorious works.
The plurals us and our, afford an evident proof of a plurality of Persons in the Godhead: nor can the seeming contradiction of one and more being in the Godhead, be otherwise reconciled, than by acknowledging a plurality of Persons in the Unity of Essence. It is pretended, that God here speaks in the plural number after the manner of princes, who are used to say, We will and require; or, It is our pleasure. But this is only the invention and practice of latter times, and no way agreeable to the simplicity, either of the first ages of the world, or of the Hebrew style. The Kings of Israel used to speak of themselves in the singular number; and so did the Eastern Monarchs: I (Darius) makes decree. Ezr 7:21. I, even I Artaxerxes the King, do make a decree. Nor is there one example in scripture to the contrary. It is, therefore, a rash and presumptuous attempt, without any warrant, to thrust the usages of modern style into the sacred scripture. Besides, the Lord doth generally speak of himself in the singular number, some few places excepted, wherein the plural number is used for the signification of this mystery.
Man In Hebrew Adam, so called from adamah, i.e.. red mould or earth. It was the name of the woman also. See chap. Gen 5:2. Male and female created he them, and called their name Adam. Calmet observes, that the same word signifies beautiful in the AEthiopian language; and Michaelis renders it, pulcherrimam creaturam, a most beautiful creature.
In our image, after our likeness Behold the pattern after which he was formed: no less than God himself. This likeness to God chiefly appeared, (1.) In his possessing a rational and immortal soul. His body, however beautiful and glorious, was of the earth, earthy; his spirit from the Father of spirits, a ray from the uncreated Sun of light and life. (2.) In the rectitude and purity of his nature. His understanding capacious, distinct, and clear; his will turning to God’s will, as clay to the seal; self-inclined, and ever ready to hear and to obey: his affections, without wandering or distraction, supremely fixed on one great object, and finding all their enjoyment in his love and service. To live for God was as natural as to breathe; and all his conversation was holy, as God is holy. Ah happy state! But how fallen now is man! How defaced this image! How is the gold become dim! How is the most fine gold changed! O Lord, raise up these desolations of many generations! (3.) He represented God on earth. All things were put under his feet; they paid their homage to man, as he to God. But sin hath broken the tie: and since man played the rebel first, no wonder the creatures have revolted from him, and scarce can now be reduced to serve him. The whole creation groaneth. Lord, hasten the day of restitution, when this disordered world once more shall rise from the furnace, and righteousness again shall dwell in it!
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
DISCOURSE: 1
CREATION OF MAN
Gen 1:26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
THOUGH men constantly trace their origin to their immediate parents, and frequently to their remoter ancestors, yet they rarely consider When, or How they first came into existence, or Whether any change has taken place in their nature since they came out of their Creators hands. That there was a period when no such creature as man existed, even reason itself would teach us; for every effect must proceed from some cause: and therefore the formation of man, however remotely we trace his origin, must, in the first instance, have been the product of some intelligent Being, who was eternally selfexistent. But we are not left to the uncertain deductions of reason: God has been pleased to reveal unto us (what could not otherwise have been known [Note: Heb 11:3.] ) the time and manner of our creation, together with the state in which we were created. And these are the subjects which we would now propose for your consideration:
I.
The circumstances of our creation
We may not unprofitably notice somewhat respecting the time
[Five days had been occupied in reducing to order the confused chaos, and in furnishing the world with whatever could enrich or adorn it. On the sixth, God formed man, whom he reserved to the last, as being the most excellent of his works; and whose formation he delayed, till every thing in this habitable globe was fitted for his accommodation. It is not for us to inquire why God chose this space of time for the completion of his work, when he could as easily have formed it all in an instant: but one instructive lesson at least we may learn from the survey which he took of every days work; it teaches his creatures to review their works from day to day, in order that, if they find them to have been good, they may be excited to gratitude; or, if they perceive them to have been evil, they may be led to repentance. At the close of every day, God pronounced his work to be good: but when man was formed, and the harmony of all the parts, together with the conduciveness of each to its proper end, and the subserviency of every part to the good of the whole, were fully manifest, then he pronounced the whole to be very good. From this also we learn, that it is not one work or two, however good in themselves, that should fully satisfy our minds; but a comprehensive view of all our works, as harmonizing with each other, and corresponding with all the ends of our creation.]
In the manner of our creation there is something worthy of very peculiar attention
[In the formation of all other things God merely exercised his own sovereign will, saying, Let there be light, Let such and such things take place. But in the creation of man we behold the language of consultation; Let us make man. There is not the least reason to suppose that this was a mere form of speech. like that which obtains among monarchs at this day; for this is quite a modern refinement: nor can it be an address to angels; for they had nothing to do in the formation of man: it is an address to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, both of whom co-operated in the formation of Him who was to be the master-piece of divine wisdom and power [Note: The work of Creation is ascribed to Jesus Christ, Joh 1:1-3 and to the Holy Ghost, Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; Job 33:4.]. This appears from a still more striking expression, which occurs afterwards; where God says, Now man is become like one of us, to know good and evil [Note: Gen 3:22.]. And it is confirmed in a variety of other passages, where God, under the character of our Creator, or Maker, is spoken of in the plural number [Note: See Job 35:10; Isa 54:5; Ecc 12:1. These are all plural in the original.].
We must not however suppose that there are three Gods: there certainly is but One God; and His unity is as clear as his existence: and this is intentionally marked in the very verse following our text; where the expressions, us and our are turned into he and his:God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him.
Here, then, we may see an early intimation of the Trinity in Unity; a doctrine which pervades the whole Bible, and is the very corner-stone of our holy religion. And it is deserving of particular notice, that, in our dedication to our Creator at our baptism, we are expressly required to acknowledge this mysterious doctrine, being baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [Note: Mat 28:19.].]
The text informs us further respecting,
II.
The state in which we were created
There was some likeness to God even in the nature of man. God is a spirit, who thinks, and wills, and acts. Man also has a spirit, distinct from his body, or from the mere animal life: he has a thinking, willing substance, which acts upon matter by the mere exercise of its own volitions, except when the material substance on which it operates is bereft of its proper faculties, or impeded in the use of them. But the image of God in which man was formed, is, properly, two-fold:
1.
Intellectual
[God is a God of knowledge. He has a perfect discernment of every thing in the whole creation. Such. too, was Adam in his first formation. Before he had had any opportunity to make observations on the beasts of the field and the birds of the air, he gave names to every one of them, suited to their several natures, and distinctive of their proper characters. But it was not merely in things natural that Adam was so well instructed: he doubtless had just views of God, his nature and perfections: he had also a thorough knowledge of himself, of his duties, his interests, his happiness. There was no one thing which could conduce either to his felicity or usefulness, which was not made known to him, as far as he needed to be instructed in it. As God is light without any mixture or shade of darkness [Note: 1Jn 1:5.], so was Adam, in reference to all those things at least which he was at all concerned to know.]
2.
Moral
[Holiness is no less characteristic of the Deity than wisdom. He loves every thing that is good, and infinitely abhors every thing that is evil. Every one of His perfections is holy. In this respect, also, did man bear a resemblance to his Maker. God made him upright [Note: Ecc 7:29.]. As he had a view of the commandment in all its breadth, so had he a conformity to it in all his dispositions and actions. He felt no reluctance in obeying it: his will was in perfect unison with the will of his Maker. All the inferior appetites were in habitual subjection to his reason, which also was in subjection to the commands of God. We are told respecting the Lord Jesus Christ, that he was the image of God [Note: 2Co 4:4.], the image of the invisible God [Note: Col 1:15.], the express image of his person [Note: Heb 1:3.]. What the Lord Jesus Christ, therefore, was upon earth, that was man in Paradiseholy, harmless, undefiled [Note: Heb 7:26.].
That mans resemblance to his Maker did indeed consist in these two things, is manifest; because our renewal after the divine image is expressly said to be in knowledge [Note: Col 3:10.], and in true holiness [Note: Eph 4:24.]. Well, therefore, does the Apostle say of man, that he is the image and glory of God [Note: l Cor. 11:7.].]
Infer
1.
What an awful change has sin brought into the world!
[Survey the character before drawn: and compare it with men in the present state: How is the gold become dim, and the fine gold changed! Men are now enveloped in darkness, and immersed in sin. They know nothing as they ought to know, and do nothing as they ought to do it. No words can adequately express the blindness of their minds, or the depravity of their hearts.Yet all this has resulted from that one sin which Adam committed in Paradise. He lost the divine image from his own soul; and begat a son in his own fallen likeness: and the streams that have been flowing for nearly six thousand years from that polluted fountain, are still as corrupt as ever. O that we habitually considered sin in this light, and regarded it as the one source of all our miseries!]
2.
What a glorious change will the Holy Spirit effect in the hearts of all who seek Him!
[In numberless passages, as well as in those before cited [Note: See notes m and n], the Holy Spirit is spoken of, as renewing our souls, and making us new creatures [Note: 2Co 5:17.]. What Adam was in Paradise, that shall we be, according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir-tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtletree [Note: Isa 55:13.]. He will open the eyes of our understanding, and cause us to know all things that are needful for our salvation [Note: 1Jn 2:20; 1Jn 2:27.]: and at the same time that he turns us from darkness unto light, he will turn us also from the power of Satan unto God: He will put his laws in our minds, and write them in our hearts [Note: Heb 8:10.]. Let not any imagine that their case is desperate; for He who created all things out of nothing, can easily create us anew in Christ Jesus: and he will do it, if we only direct our eyes to Christ: We all beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord [Note: 2Co 3:18.].]
3.
What obligations do we owe to the ever-blessed Trinity!
[If we looked no further than to our first creation, we are infinitely indebted to the sacred Three, for making us the subject of their consultation, and for co-operating to form us in the most perfect manner. But what shall we say to that other consultation, respecting the restoration of our souls? Hear, and be astonished at that gracious proposal, Let us restore man to our image. I, says the Father, will pardon and accept them, if an adequate atonement can be found to satisfy the demands of justice. Then on me be. their guilt, says his only dear Son: I will offer myself a sacrifice for them, if any one can be found to apply the virtue of it effectually to their souls, and to secure to me the purchase of my blood. That shall be my charge, says the blessed Spirit: I gladly undertake the office of enlightening, renewing, sanctifying their souls; and I will preserve every one of them blameless unto thy heavenly kingdom. Thus, by their united efforts, is the work accomplished; and a way of access is opened for every one of us through Christ, by that one Spirit, unto the Father [Note: Eph 2:18.]. O let every soul rejoice in this Tri-une God! and may the Fathers love, the grace of Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore! Amen.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
The Making of Man
Gen 1:26-31
There is surely no bolder sentence in all human speech. It takes an infinite liberty with God! It is blasphemy If it is not truth. We have been accustomed to look at the statement so much from the human point that we have forgotten how deeply the Divine character itself is implicated. To tell us that all the signboards in Italy were painted by Raphael is simply to dishonour and bitterly humiliate the great artist. We should resent the suggestion that Beethoven or Handel is the author of all the noise that passes under the name of music. Yet we say, God made man! Look at man, and repeat the audacity if you dare! Lying, drunken, selfish man; plotting, scheming, cruel man; foolish, vain, babbling man; prodigal man, wandering in wildernesses in search of the impossible, sneaking in forbidden places with the crouch of a criminal, putting his finger in human blood and musing as to its probable price per gallon did God make man? Not merely make him in some rough outline way, but make him in the Divine image and likeness as an other-self, a limited and shadowed divinity? Verily, then, a strange image is God’s! Leering, gibing, mocking image; a painted mask; a vizor meant to deceive. See where cunning lurks in its own well-managed wrinkle see how cold selfishness puts out the genial warmth of eyes that should have beamed with kindness; hear how mean motives have taken the music out of voices that should have expressed most trustful frankness: then look at the body, misshapen, defiled, degraded, rheum in every joint, specks of corruption in the warm currents of the blood, leprosy making the skin loathsome, the whole body tottering under the burden of the invisible but inseparable companionship of death! Is this the image, is this the likeness of God? Or, take man at his best estate, what is he but a temporary success in art clothier’s art, schoolmaster’s art, fashion’s art? He cannot see into tomorrow; he imperfectly remembers what happened yesterday; he is crammed for the occasion, made great for the little battle, careful about the night air, dainty as to his digestion, sensitive to praise or blame, preaching gospels and living blasphemies, praying with forced words, whilst his truant mind is away in the thick of markets or the complexity of contending interests. Is this the image of God? Is this incarnate deity? Is this Heaven’s lame success in self-reproduction? Oh, how we burn under the sharp questioning! How we retire into our proper nothingness, and beg that no more words may fall upon us like whetted spears! Yet there are the facts. There are the men themselves. Write on the low brow “the image and likeness of God”; write on the idiot’s leering face “the image and likeness of God”; write on the sensualist’s porcine face “the image and likeness of God”; write on the puppet’s powdered and painted countenance “the image and likeness of God” do this, and then say how infinite is the mockery, how infinite the lie!
Yet here is the text. Here is the distinct assurance that God created man in his own image and likeness; in the image of God created he him. This is enough to ruin any Bible. This is enough to dethrone God. Within narrow limits any man would be justified in saying, If man is made in the image of God, I will not worship a God who bears such an image. There would be some logic in this curt reasoning, supposing the whole case to be on the surface and to be within measurable points. So God exists to our imagination under the inexpressible disadvantage of being represented by ourselves. When we wonder about him we revert to our own constitution. When we pray to him we feel as if engaged in some mysterious process of self-consultation. When we reason about him the foot of the ladder of our reasoning stands squarely on the base of our own nature. Yet, so to say, how otherwise could we get at God? Without some sort of incarnation we could have no starting point. We should be hopelessly aiming to seize the horizon or to hear messages from worlds where our language is not known. So we are driven back upon ourselves not ourselves as outwardly seen and publicly interpreted, but our inner selves, the very secret and mystery of our soul’s reality
Ay; we are now nearing the point. We have not been talking about the right “man” at all. The ‘man” is within the man; the “man” is not any one man; the “man” is Humanity. God is no more the man we know than the man himself is the body we see. Now we come where words are of little use, and where the literal mind will stumble as in the dark. Truly we are now passing the gates of a sanctuary, and the silence is most eloquent. We have never seen man; he has been seen only by his Maker! As to spirit and temper and action, we are bankrupts and criminals. But the sinner is greater than the sin. We cannot see him; but God sees him; yes, and God loves him in all the shame and ruin. This is the mystery of grace. This is the pity out of which came blood, redemption, forgiveness, and all the power and glory of the Gospel. Arguing from the outside, that is, from appearance and action, and from such motive as admits of outward expression, it is easy to ridicule the notion that God made man in his own image. But arguing from other facts, it is impossible, with any intellectual or moral satisfaction, to account for man on any other theory than that he is the direct creation of God. If I think of sin only, I exclude God from the responsibility of having made man; but when I think of repentance, prayer, love, sacrifice, I say, Surely this is God! this is Eternity! When I see the sinner run into sin, I feel as if he might have been made by the devil; but when he stands still and bethinks himself; when the hot tears fill his eyes; when he sighs towards heaven a sigh of bitterness and true penitence; when, looking round to assure himself of absolute solitude, he falls down to pray without words; then I see a dim outline of the image and likeness in which he was created. In that solemn hour I begin to see man the man that accounts for the Cross, the man who grieved God, the man who brought down the Christ You have often seen that man in yourselves. Sometimes you have felt such stirrings of soul, such heavenly and heavenward impulses, such pureness of love, such outleaping of holy passion towards God and all godliness, that you have thought yourselves to be worth saving, even at the cost of blood! There was no vanity in such thought, no self-exaggeration; there was a claim of eternal kinship, a cry as of a child who felt that the Father cared for its sin and its sorrow.
Thus everything depends as usual on the point of view, and as usual we are in the first instance always tempted to take the narrow and unworthy standing ground. We have to be actually driven to high conceptions and to the true rendering of things. We are so dull of sight, so nearly deaf, so almost soulless, by reason of some great calamity which has unmade and uncrowned us, that we miss the genius and poetry of things. In everything surely there is a touch of God, could we but see the finger-print. There is some connection between the differently coloured juices of things between the milk of the wheat stalk and the blood which has given Calvary its fame could we but see it. O those blind eyes of ours! they make one mistake after another; they let God go past without seeing any outline of a presence; they turn day into a spoiled night. Yet sometimes we get glimpses that beasts can never get. Sometimes at a bound we leave the wisest brutes down in the clay to which they belong, and listen at doors concealed by light. The first man in the Bible saw little enough, but how much the last man saw! What a difference between the Adam of Genesis and the John of the Apocalypse! It is easy to believe that John was made in the image and likeness of God. What eyes the man had, and ears, and power of dreaming great dreams, and in how sublime contempt he held all things called great on earth! He saw doors opened in heaven; he was summoned as by a trumpet to see things which must be hereafter; he saw the throned One like a jasper and a sardine stone, and a rainbow about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald: wondrous visions rewarded the gaze of wondrous eyes lightnings and thunderings and seven lamps of fire burning before the throne books of mysteries, harps, and golden vials full of odours, a rider with a bow and a crown, who went forth conquering and to conquer, white robes, golden censers, an angel with a face like the sun and his feet as pillars of fire, and a lamb as it had been slain! Look at that seer, if you would know in whose image and likeness man was created and made. Is there no similar apocalypse even in our narrowed experience? Are we not as truly one in the book of Revelation as we are one in the book of Genesis? When the poet dreams, the ploughman dreams. When the poet creates for his soul’s highest utterance a new speech, the dumb man has a claim by right of descent to the new wealth of eloquence. When, therefore, I want to know who I am and what I was meant to be, I will not only read the book of Genesis, but peruse with the enchantment of kindred and sympathy the marvels of the infinite Apocalypse.
We cannot think of God having made man without also thinking of the responsibility which is created by that solemn act. God accepts the responsibility of his own administration. Righteousness at the heart of things, and righteousness which will yet vindicate itself, is a conviction which we cannot surrender. It is indeed a solemn fact that we were no parties to our own creation. We are not responsible for our own existence. Let us carefully and steadily fasten the mind upon this astounding fact. God made us, yet we disobey him; God made us, yet we grieve him; God made us, yet we are not godly. How is that? There is no answer to the question in mere argument. For my part I simply wait. I begin to feel that, without the power of sinning, I could not be a man. As for the rest, I hide myself in Christ. I go where he goes. He has told me more than any other teacher has ever done, and he says he has more to tell me. I acknowledge the mystery; I feel the darkness; I tremble in the tumult; but I look to Christ to bring all things into light, and crown all things with peace. This is what we call the Christian standpoint, and I deliberately and gratefully occupy it. God will answer for himself. He will not be hard upon me, for he knoweth my frame, he remembereth that I am but dust; he will not despise me because he made me in his image and likeness. Strange, too, as it may appear, I enjoy the weird charm of life’s great mystery, as a traveller might enjoy a road full of sudden turnings and possible surprises, preferring such a road to the weary, straight line, miles long, and white with hot dust. I have room enough to pray in. I have room enough to suffer in. By-and-by I shall have large space, and day without night to work in. We have yet to die; that we have never done. We have to cross the river the cold, black, sullen river. Wait for that, and let us talk on the other side. Keep many a question standing over for heaven’s eternal sunshine.
If we would see God’s conception of man, we must look upon the face of his Son him of whom he said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” That is man; that is the ideal humanity. It is useless to look in any other direction for God’s purpose and thought. God does not ask us to imitate even our most perfect fellow-creature, except in so far as that fellow-creature imitates and exemplifies Christ. Do not let us mock one another, and tauntingly ask if we are made in the image and likeness of God; but let us steadfastly gaze on Christ, marking the perfectness of his lineaments, the harmony of his attributes, the sublimity of his purpose, and then, pointing to him in his solitude of beauty and holiness, we may exclaim, “Behold the image of God!” We must not judge Christ by what we know of man; we must judge man by what we know of Christ. Very wide indeed and very beneficent is the application of this thought; its right and fearless application would regenerate social judgment and fellowship; its acceptance would destroy all social contempt, and elevate all social thinking. We should find out the greatest man in every social grade, and judge every man and honour every man in that grade on that greatest man’s account. We have unfortunately reversed this process of judgment, and have even begrudged the renown of the one on account of the obscurity of the many Here, by analogy, whose remoteness is apparent rather than real. we touch the mystery of human greatness as represented by the majesty of Christ. The poorest man should say, ” Christ was a man!” The slave should say, “Frederick Douglass was a slave!” The blacksmith should say, “Elihu Burritt was a blacksmith!” The tentmaker should say, “Paul was a tentmaker!” Thus, the lowest should dwell under the shadow of the highest, not the highest be reminded of the lowliness of his origin or the obscurity of his class. He carries up his class along with him. He shows that class what its members may be and do. He is their typical man, their crowned and glorified brother. It is the same on an infinite scale with the Man Christ Jesus. Look to him if you would see the image and likeness of God. Look to him if you would estimate the value of man. We have to bear his image; we have to be what he is. Look at him, and say, each of you, That is what I have to be like!
Wonderful in pathos is the appeal which results from all these considerations. That appeal is to be felt rather than expressed in words. Man is God’s child; man bears a signature Divine. Great things are expected of man: reasoning which approaches the quality of a revelation; service which requires Almightiness alone to exceed it; love that courts the agony of sacrifice; purity hard to distinguish from the holiness of God.
Notes for Preachers
Man naturally asks for some account of the world in which he lives. Wag the world always in existence? If not always in existence, how did it begin to be? Did the sun make itself? These are not presumptuous questions. We have a right to ask them the right which arises from our intelligence, and justifies our progress in knowledge. The steam engine did not make itself; did the sun? Dwelling houses did not make themselves; did the stars? The child’s coat did not make itself; did the child’s soul? If it is legitimate to reason from the known to the unknown, and to establish an fortiori argument in relation to common phenomena, why not also legitimate in reference to the higher subjects which are within the province of reason? At present we wish to know how the heavens and the earth came into existence, and we find in the text an answer which is simple, sublime, and sufficient, and is therefore likely to be right.
I. The answer is Simple. There is no attempt at learned analysis or elaborate exposition. A child may understand the answer. It is direct, positive, complete. Could it have been more simple? Try any other form of words, and see if a purer simplicity be possible. Observe the value of simplicity when regarded as bearing upon the grandest events. The question is not who made a house, but who made a world, and not who made one world, but who made all worlds; and to this question the answer is, God made them. There is great risk in returning a simple answer to a profound inquiry, because when simplicity is not the last result of knowledge, it is mere imbecility.
II. The answer is Sublime. God! God created! (1) Sublime because far-reaching in point of time : in the beginning! Science would have attempted a fact; religion has given a truth. If any inquirer can fix a date, he is not forbidden to do so. Dates are for children. (2) Sublime because connecting the material with the spiritual. There is, then, something more than dust in the universe. Behind all shapes there is a living image. Every atom bears a superscription. It is something surely to have the name of God associated with all things great and small that are around us. Nature thus becomes a materialised thought. The wind is the breath of God. The thunder is a note from the music of his speech. (3) Sublime because evidently revealing, as nothing else could have done, the power and wisdom of the Most High. All these things were created; they were called into existence, and therefore must be less than God, who so called them; and if less, how great must their Creator be! We justly infer the greatness of the artist from the greatness of his pictures. Judge God by the same standard.
III. The answer is Sufficient. It might have been both simple and sublime, and yet not have reached the point of adequacy. Draw a straight line, and you may describe it as simple, yet who would think of calling it sublime? Look at the rising sun pouring floods of light upon the dewy landscape: it is undoubtedly sublime, but is it credible that the landscape was created by the sun? We must have simplicity which reaches the point of sublimity, and sublimity which sufficiently covers every demand of the case. The sufficiency of the answer is manifest: Time is a drop of Eternity; Nature is the handiwork of God; Matter is the creation of Mind; God is over all blessed for evermore! This is enough. In proportion as we exclude God from the operation, we increase difficulty. Atheism never simplifies. Negation works in darkness.
The answer of the text to the problem of creation is simple, sublime, and sufficient, in relation (1) To the inductions of geology. Assume that the heavens and the earth have existed for ages which arithmetic cannot number, what then? It was in the beginning that God’s work was done! (2) To the theory of evolution. Assume that in some time incalculably past there was but the minutest germ, what then? Who created the germ? If man cannot create an oak, can he create an acorn?
There are some practical inferences suggested by these reflections.
First: If God created all things, then all things are under his government. This assurance should give rest and hope to the religious inquirer. Be right with the Creator, and thou hast nothing to fear from creation.
Second: If God created the heavens and the earth, then the heavens and the earth may be studied religiously. Science need not be atheistic Scientific inquiry will be most successful when most religious. This is reasonable. Know the writer if you would really know his works. Know the Creator if you would profoundly and accurately know creation. The highest study is spiritual. We may know nature, and yet know nothing of God. The tailor knows my figure; does he therefore know my soul?
Third: If God created all things, then it is reasonable that he should take an interest in the things which he created. Analogy suggests this. Scripture confirms it. “He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man.” “He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry.” “He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth; he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.”
What has been said of creation may be said in a still loftier sense of redemption. The answer of God to the sin of the world is simple, sublime, sufficient. “God so loved the world,” etc. This shows the unity of the works of God. All created things are made to be the ministers of man. For man the sun shines, the rain falls, the seasons revolve. “If God so clothe the grass of the field,” etc.
We may see the meaning of this more clearly by taking other ground. Take the idea of the political state. At the head of affairs set the prime minister; now it is obviously possible that in the cabinet over which he presides there may be men very much better qualified than himself for the various departmental services. He may not be half so good a financier as the chancellor of the exchequer; he may be ill-qualified to administer the affairs of the admiralty, or of the poor law board; he may be ignorant of many of the details of the postal service; he may be utterly incapable of giving a sound opinion upon any legal question, yet his is the supreme mind in the cabinet! The cabinet would be disorganised were his influence to be withdrawn. In an emphatic sense he is a states man: he carries in his mind the state as a whole: with an intellectual energy and rapidity known only to the highest genius, he collects the sense of all his counsellors, he settles their advices into their proper proportions, and by the peculiar inspiration which makes him their master, he takes care that the part is never mistaken for the whole. Observe, each man may actually be abler in some point than his chief, yet not one of all the brilliant staff would dispute the supremacy of that chief’s mind It is one thing to be a politician, another to be a statesman.
Apply the illustration to the case in hand. The theologian does not, in his proper character, deal with mere departments. One man is superior to him in chemistry; another may actually laugh at his astronomy or geology; a third may despise him when he talks about animal or botanical physiology, yet he may know more of the wholeness of creation than any of them, and may give the ablest of them the password which opens the central secret of the universe The aurist studies the ear, and the oculist the eye, others devote themselves to special studies of the human frame, but there is another and completer man to whom we hasten when the mystery of life itself becomes a pain which may end in death. That other and completer man would himself send sufferers of special maladies to men who had made those maladies the subject of exclusive study, yet in his knowledge of the mystery of life he might excel them all.
In some such way would we hint at the proper position of the theologian. He may or may not be a chemist; he may or may not know some particular science; but if he be a Divinely inspired theologian not a mere sciolist in Divinity, a pedant in letters he will see farther than any other man, he will hear voices which others do not hear, and will be able to shape the politics of class students into the sublime and inclusive statesmanship of a sacred philosophy.
What, then, so far as we can gather from the words before us, has Biblical theology to say about creation, material and human?
I. That creation is an expression of God’s mind. It is the embodiment of an idea. It is the form of a thought. Theology says that creation has a beginning, and that it began at the bidding of God. Theology says, You see the heavens? They are the work of God’s fingers. You see the moon and the stars? God ordained them: all things are set in their places by the hand of God. He laid the foundations of the earth, and covered it with the deep as with a garment. When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures. You see the cedars of Lebanon? God planted them. You see the moon? God set her for seasons. You behold the sun? Though he be the king of day, yet he knoweth his going down. You see the high hills? God hath made in them a refuge for the wild goats. You see the fir-trees? God hath found in them a house for the stork. “O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.” Now this is very unscientific in its form of expression, yet it is the declaration of theology. Theology could not speak otherwise. Theology would dwarf itself if it went into formal statement of so-called scientific truth. But what does theology do? She sends the chemist on her errands, she calls the astronomer to consider the heavens, and sends the geologist to read the story of the rocks. They are not rebels; they are friends and allies and chosen servants. Yet not one of them could by any possibility do the whole work. The geologist and the astronomer talk different languages. The chemist and the botanist but dimly comprehend each other. It is the theologian that must call them to a common council, and proclaim their conclusions in a universal tongue.
Granted that there is mystery in the doctrine that all things were created by the word of God. This is not denied. It is felt, indeed, to be a necessity of the case. On the other hand, whatever mystery may be on the side of theology, there is nothing but mystery on the side of atheism.
II. That creation, being an expression of God’s mind, may form the basis For the consideration of God’s personality and character. If we see something of the artist in his work, we may see something of the Creator in creation. The works of God proclaim his eternal and incommunicable sovereignty. “Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor, hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?” Thus men are put back: they are ordered off beyond the burning line which lies around the dread sovereignty of God. If a man would trespass that line, he would encounter the thunder of questions which would make him quail: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” “Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days, and caused the dayspring to know his place?” “Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?” “Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?” “Where is the way where, light dwelleth?” “Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow?” “Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus, with his sons?” And still the questions would come like the shocks of a rising storm, until the proudest speculator might quake with fear, and totter into darkness that he might hide the shame of his pride. As a mere matter of fact, man cannot approach the dignity of having himself created anything. He is an inquirer, a speculator, a calculator, a talker, but not a creator. He can talk about creation. He can reckon the velocity of light, and the speed of a few stars. He can go out for a day to geologise and botanise; but all the while a secret has mocked him, and an inscrutable power has defied the strength of his arm. The theologian says, that secret is God, that power is Omnipotence.
There is more than sovereignty; there is beneficence. “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” “He sendeth springs into the valleys, which run among the hills. They give drink to every beast of the field; the wild asses quench their thirst. By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches.” “He hath not left himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.’ “Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.” “Thou openest thine hand; they are filled with good.” “He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry.” This is a step downwards, yet a step upwards. Over all is the dread sovereignty of God that sovereignty stoops to us in love to save our life, to spread our table, and to dry our tears; it comes down, yet in the very condescension of its majesty it adds a new ray to its lustre. The theologian says, This is God’s care, this is the love of the Father; this bounty is an expression of the heart of God. It is not a freak of what is called nature ; it is not a sunny chance; it is a purpose, a sign of love, a direct gift from God’s own heart.
III. That God’s word is its own security for fulfilment. God said, Let there be, and there was. “He spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” This is the word which alone can ultimately prevail. “As the rain cometh down from heaven, and returneth not thither,” etc. We see what it is in the natural world; we shall see what it is in the spiritual. “I am the Lord; I will speak, and the word that I will speak shall come to pass.” “The word of God liveth and abideth for ever.” “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.” “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.” “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” “What his soul desireth, even that he doeth.”
This is of infinite importance (1) As the hope of righteousness; (2) as the inevitable doom of wickedness.
IV. That the word which accounts for the existence of Nature accounts also for the existence of Man. “Know ye not that the Lord, he is God? it is he that made us, and not we ourselves.” “O Lord, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our Potter; and we are the work of thy hand.” “Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?” “We are the offspring of God.” “In him we live, and move, and have our being.”
See what a great system of unity is hereby established. He who made the sun made me!
How to begin to write the Bible must have been a question of great difficulty. The beginning which is given here commends itself as peculiarly sublime. Regard it as you please, as literal, historical, parabolical, it is unquestionably marked by adequate energy and magnificence of style. Judging from the method of the writer, I should at once say, the aim of this man is not to tell with scientific precision the natural history of creation; he has some other undeclared purpose in view. He finds that he must say something about the house before he says anything about the tenant, but he feels that that something must be the least possible. Hence we have this rugged but majestic account. In reading this wonderful chapter we must receive several memorable impressions:
First: This account of creation is deeply religious, and from this fact I infer that the whole book of which it is the opening chapter is intended to be a religious and not a scientific revelation. If a natural philosopher had undertaken to write an account of the earth, he would have begun in a totally different tone, and he would have been justified in so doing. A work on geography that began with the analysis of a psalm or prayer would be justly considered as going out of its proper sphere, and in all probability we should regard its unseasonable piety as a subtraction from its scientific value. The object of Moses is simply and absolutely religious. We do not say that a man is an atheist because he writes upon geology without announcing a religious creed. So we ought not to say that a man is an ignoramus because he writes a religious book without any pretence to scientific learning. This man is resolved on reading all things from the God-side; he will read them downwards, not upwards; he will begin at the fountain, not at the stream; and in claiming to do this he is evidently exercising a legitimate discretion, and he must justify its exercise by the results which he secures. Our life may be read from an outside standpoint, and therefore we are glad to hear the testimony of the anatomist, the physiologist, and the physician; they have a right to speak, and they have a right to be heard: our life may also be read from an internal standpoint, and therefore we are glad to hear the psychologist, the metaphysician, the theologian. Let us listen to them all. We may need all the help they can severally and jointly give us. Now Moses says, I am going to write the history of the world as a theologian; I deliberately and distinctly assume a theological standpoint, and my meaning you may catch from my first tone “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” How he will conduct the discussion we cannot at this moment tell. He may have made a mistake in supposing that it can be conducted from this point at all. But in common fairness give him time. The disgrace and the shame will be his, not ours, if he fail, so the least we can do is to let him have all the scope he asks for. It does not follow because another writer proposes to give the history of creation without any reference to God that therefore he will inevitably and completely succeed. Even an atheist may be sometimes wrong! I ask fair play for both godly and godless writers; let each write his Bible, and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God!
Instead, therefore, of boggling at this first chapter of Genesis, I read it as its writer meant it to be read, and I reserve the right of critical revision after I have fully mastered what he has really written. From the intensity of his religious tone, I am bound to infer that this man is going to tell me in the simplest and directest manner all he can tell about creation, or all he thinks it needful to tell in order to get a sufficient background for the story which it is his main purpose to relate. He does not lay claim to any consideration which I need hesitate to yield. He does not say, “I am inspired, what I say is said with Divine and final authority, and you must accept it or be lost in outer darkness for ever.” He says nothing about inspiration. He does not lay claim to one tittle of authority. In a plain, abrupt, urgent manner he begins his stupendous task. I am charmed with his directness. I feel that if the story had to be told at all, it is begun in the best possible manner. If the writer had beaten around the bush in laborious literary circumlocution, I should have suspected him; he would have been a mere book-maker, a clever artiste in the use of words; but he begins at once, as with a creative fiat, the tone being worthy of the brilliant occasion. I bespeak for him, then, a fair hearing.
Second: This account of creation evidently admits of much elucidation and expansion. This it has unquestionably received. Moses does not say, “I have told you everything, and if any man shall ever arise to make a note or comment upon my words, he is to be regarded as a liar and a thief.” Certainly not He gives rather a rough outline which is to be filled up as life advances. He says in effect, “This is the text; now let the commentators come with their notes.” The geologist has come, and he says, “Read this word beginning as if it referred to incalculable time”; and there is no reason why his suggestion should not be adopted. In the next place he says, “Read this word day as if it meant a great number of ages”; very good, we read it exactly so, and it does us no harm. Then other men of science arise to say, “Don’t suppose that the heavens and the earth were made exactly as you see them; they came out of a germ, an atom, a molecule,” and I answer, So be it: God did not make a tottering old man exactly as we see him; he did not make the trees and flowers exactly as we see them; and if it is the same with the heavens and the earth, so be it. “They came partly by friction,” says the scientist. Very good, I reply; what is friction and who made it? “Rotation had something to do with it.” Possibly so, I answer; what is rotation and who started it? “Origin of species,” whispers another. Very good, I answer; what is origin and when did it originate? Instead of resenting these suggestions, I am thankful for them. I put them all together, and I find the difference between Moses and his scientific commentators to be that Moses worked synthetically and they worked analytically, that is, Moses put all things together, and the sum total was God; his opposing commentators take things all to pieces, and the sum total is a circumference without a centre. It is uncertain whether geologists contradict Moses, but it is positively certain beyond all doubt that geologists contradict one another. Still this contradiction may be the very friction out of which the light and warmth of truth will come. So that the commentators be but honest and sober-minded men, I welcome all they have to say and if they be otherwise, they will have to eat their own words, and other pain no man need wish them. This first chapter of Genesis is like an acorn, for out of it have come great forests of literature; it must have some pith in it, and sap, and force, for verily its fertility is nothing less than a miracle.
Third: This account of creation, though leaving so much to be elucidated, is in harmony with fact in a sufficient degree to give us confidence in the things which remain to be illustrated. In almost every verse there is something which we know to be true as a mere matter of fact, and therefore we are prepared to believe that what is hazy may yet be shown to be full of stars as bright and large as the nearer planets which we call facts. Undoubtedly we have day and night, sea and dry land, grass and herbs and fruit-trees, and undoubtedly there is a light that rules the day, and another light that rules the night; the waters, too, are full of moving creatures, and fowls have the liberty of the open firmament. So it was no poet’s creation that Moses looked at, but the plain grand universe just as we see it and touch it It was bold of him to think that it had a “beginning”; that was an original idea, very startling and most graphic. He does not say that God had a beginning! Observe that, if you please! How easy to have suggested that God and the universe are both eternal! Instead of doing this (a comparatively easy thing, escaping endless questioning), he says the heavens and the earth had a beginning, and therefore have a history more or less traceable. If he had said, “God, man, and matter are all eternal, but I will take up the history of man at a given point and follow it down to recent times,” he would have made easy work for himself. But he makes difficulty! He opens the way for a thousand objections! This is satisfactory to my mind. It is a boldness that corresponds to the valour of truth as we know it. It may be, then, that we have got hold of the right guide after all! All I ask is that he be not interrupted until he has come to the very last word of his story.
Fourth: There is a special grandeur in the account which is here given of the origin of man. In the twenty-sixth verse, the tone quite changes. Even the imperative mood softens somewhat, as if in an infinitely subtle way (far out of the reach of words) man’s own consent had been sought to his own creation. “Let us make man” “make,” as if little by little, a long process in the course of which man becomes a party to his own making! Nor is this suggestion so wide of the mark as might at first appear. Is man not even now in process of being “made”? Must not all the members of the “US” work upon him in order to complete him and give him the last touch of imperishable beauty? The Father has shaped him; the Son has redeemed him; the Spirit is now regenerating and sanctifying him; manifold ministries are now working upon him, to the end that he may “come to a PERFECT MAN, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” As it were, arbitrarily and sovereignly, the dust was shaped into human form, an upright thing that had wonderful powers and still more wonderful latent possibilities. But is not all Biblical history an appeal to this upright thing to be a man? Is not the Gospel of Christ the good news that he may have life, yea eternal life, and enter upon a destiny of immeasurable progress and ineffable felicity? What, I ask again, if man is still in process of being made? What if our present selves have to be shed as blossoms to make way for the fruit? In this sense the building of manhood may well take as long as the building of the rocks. It is a fearful thought, most solemn, yet most humbling, that we may be but a stratum on which other strata have to lie until the last line is laid down, and God’s ideal of humanity is realised. Or take it the other and pleasanter way, which all Scripture would seem to sanction, namely, man was made a living soul, that is, every man was intended to live, and has capacities which will enable him to receive life in its largest and Divinest sense; this is, indeed, his unique and glorious characteristic, his point of infinite departure from the beasts that perish. But he can destroy himself! He can choose death rather than life. Now it is in this very choice that man is really “made.” The appeal is, Will you be a man? Will you have life? Jesus Christ says, “I am come that ye might have life.” Thus, as I said with apparent self-contradiction, man is asked to be a party to his own creation to consent to be himself! “Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life.” “This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Glorious to me is this idea (so like all we know of the Divine goodness) of asking man whether he will accept life and be like God, or whether he will choose death and darkness for ever, God does not say to man, “I will make you immortal and indestructible whether you will or not; live for ever you shall.” No; he makes him capable of living; he constitutes him with a view to immortality; he urges, beseeches, implores him to work out this grand purpose, assuring him, with infinite pathos, that he has no pleasure in the death of the sinner, but would rather that he should LIVE. A doctrine this which in my view simplifies and glorifies human history as related in the Bible. Life and death are not set before any beast; but life and death are distinctly set before man he can live, he was meant to live, he is besought to live; the whole scheme of Providence and redemption is arranged to help him to live why, then, will ye die?
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Making, Destroying, and Saving Man
Gen 1:26
If you could bring together into one view all the words of God expressive of his purposes concerning man, you would be struck with the changefulness which seems to hold his mind in continual uncertainty. He will destroy, yet the blow never falls; he will listen to man no more, yet he speeds to him in the day of trouble and fear; he will make an utter end, yet he saves Noah from the flood, and plucks Lot as a brand from the fire; his arm is stretched out, yet it is withdrawn in tender pity. So changeful is he who changeth not, and so fickle he in whom there is no shadow of turning! We cannot but be interested in the study of so remarkable a fact, for surely there must be some explanation of changefulness in Omniscience and variation of feeling in the Inhabitant of eternity. You never read of God being disappointed with the sun, or grieved by the irregularity of the stars. He never darkens the morning light with a frown, nor does he ever complain of any other of the work of his hands than man, made in his own image and likeness! he does indeed say that he will destroy “both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air,” but it is wholly on account of man’s sin; for, as everything was made for man, so when man falls all that was made for him and centred in him goes down in the great collapse. Why should there be blithe bird-music in the house of death? Why should the earth grow flowers when the chief beauty has lost its bloom? So all must die in man. When he falls he shakes down the house that was built for him. So we come again to the solemn but tender mystery of God’s changefulness, and ask in wonder, yet in hope, whether there can be found any point at which are reconciled the Changeable and the Everlasting?
But let us be sure that we are not mistaken in the terms of the case. Is it true that there is any change in God? is not the apparent change in him the reflection of the real change that is in ourselves? I not only undertake to affirm that such is the case, but I go farther, and affirm that the very everlastingness of the Divine nature compels exactly such changes as are recorded in the Bible. If you say that man ought not to have been created as a changeable being, then you say in other words that man ought not to have been created at all. If you find fault with man’s constitution, you find fault with God, and if you find fault with God I have no argument with you. I take man as he is, and I want to show that Divine love must manifest itself, either in complacency or anger, according to the conduct of mankind.
I must remind you that this principle is already in operation in those institutions which we value most, and that it is a principle on which we rely for the good order, the permanent security, and the progress of society.
This principle is in constant operation in family life. By the gracious necessities of nature the child is tenderly beloved. The whole household is made to give way to the child’s weakness. The parents live their lives over again in the life of the child. For his sake hardship is undergone and difficulty is overcome. The tenderest care is not too dainty, the most persistent patience is not accounted a weariness. But sin comes: ingratitude, rebellion, defiance; family order is trampled on, family peace is violated; and in proportion as the parent is just, honourable, true, and loving, will he be grieved with great grief; he will not be petulant, irritable, or spiteful, but a solemn and bitter grief will weigh down his desolated heart. Then he may mourn the child’s birth, and say, with breaking and most tearful voice, “It had been better that the child had not been born.” Then still higher aggravation comes. Something is done which must be visited with anger, or the parent must lose all regard for truth and for the child himself. Now, all punishment for wrong-doing is a point on the line which terminates in death. Consider that well, if you please. It may, indeed, be so accepted as to lead to reformation and better life; but that does not alter the nature of punishment itself. Punishment simply and strictly as punishment is the beginning of death. Have you, then, changed in your parental love because you have punished your child? Certainly not. The change is not in you; it is in the child. If you had forborne to punish, then you would have lost your own moral vitality, and would have become a partaker in the very sin which you affected to deplore. If you are right-minded, you will feel that destruction is better than sinfulness; that sinfulness, as such, demands destruction; and if you knew the full scope of your own act you would know that the very first stripe given for sin is the beginning of death. But I remember the time when you caressed that child and fondled it as if it was your better life, you petted the child, you laid it on the softest down, you sang it your sweetest lullabies, you lived in its smiles; and now I see you, rod in hand, standing over the child in anger! Have you changed? Are you fickle, pitiless, tyrannical? You know you are not. It is love that expostulates; it is love that strikes. If that child were to blame you for your changefulness you would know what reply to make. Your answer would be strong in self-defence, because strong in justice and honour.
We have exactly the same thing in the larger family called Society. When a man is punished by society, it is not a proof that society is fickle in temper; it is rather a proof that society is so far conservative, and even everlasting in its substance, as to demand the punishment of every offender. Society is formed to protect and consolidate all that is good and useful in its own multitudinous elements, yet society will not hesitate to slay a man with the public sword, if marks of human blood are upon his hands. Is, then, society vengeful, malignant, or uneven in temper? On the contrary, it is the underlying Everlasting which necessitates all those outward and temporary changes which are so often mistaken as signs of fickleness and uncertainty. What the Everlasting cannot tolerate is dishonour, tyranny, wrong, or impureness in any degree. Society offers rewards today and deals out punishments tomorrow. At noon, society may crown you as a benefactor; at midnight, society may drag you forth as a felon: the same society not fickle or coy, but self-protecting and eternal in righteousness.
These side-lights may at least mitigate the gloom of the mystery with which we started. I want to make you feel that God’s changefulness, so called, is not arbitrary, but moral; that is to say, he does not change merely for the sake of changing, but for reasons which arise out of that very Everlastingness which seems to be impaired! Not to be angry with sin is to connive at it; to connive at sin is sinful; to be sinful is to be no longer Divine. When God is angry it is a moral fire that is burning in him; it is love in a glow of justice; it is his protest on behalf of those who may yet be saved from sin.
See how it is God himself that saves man! We trembled when he said he would destroy man, for we knew he had the power; and now that he says he will save man we know that his power of offering terms of salvation is none the less. If man can be saved, God will save him; but it is for the man himself to say whether he will be saved. “If any man open the door, I will come in to him.” “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” This is the voice that said, “I will destroy,” and the two tones are morally harmonious. Looking at the sin, God must destroy; looking at any possibility of recovery, God must save. “A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench.” Christ lives to save. He would no longer be Christ if human salvation were not his uppermost thought. His soul is in travail; he yearns over us with pity more than all human pitifulness; he draws near unto our cities and weeps over them. But he can slay! He can smite with his strong arm! His hand can lay hold on justice, and then solemn is the bitter end! O, my soul, make thy peace with God through Christ. It is his love that burns into wrath. He does not want to slay thee; he pities thee; he loves thee; his soul goes out after thee in great desires of love; but if thou wilt not come to his Cross, his arm will be heavy upon thee!
How true, then, is it that there is an important sense in which God is to us exactly what we are to him! “If any man love me, I will manifest myself to him.” That is the great law of manifestation. Have I a clear vision of God? Then am I looking steadily at him with a heart that longs to be pure. Can I not see him? Then some secret sin may be holding a veil before my eyes. I have changed, not God. When I seek him he will be found of me; but if I desire him not he will be a God afar off!
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
V
CREATION PART TWO
Origin of Man
Gen 1:26-2:3
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen 1:26 ). The creation of man is the last and highest stage in the production of organic life. Every step in creation so far is a prophecy of his coming and a preparation fee it. This wonderful world is purposed for a higher being than fish or fowl or beast. Not for them were accumulated the inexhaustible treasures of mineral and vegetable stores. What use have they for lignite, stone, coal, peat, iron, copper, oil, gas, gold, silver, pearls, and diamonds? They have no capacity to enjoy the beauty of the landscape, the glorious colorings of sea and sky. They cannot measure the distances to the stars nor read the signs of the sky. They cannot perceive the wisdom nor adore the goodness of the Creator. The earth as constituted and stored prophesied man, demanded man, and God said, “Let us make man.” When he wanted vegetable life, he said, “Let the earth put forth shoots.” When he wanted sea animals, he said, “Let the sea swarm.” When he wanted land animals, he said, “Let the earth bring forth.” But when the earth was prepared for its true lord and master, he said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” “Thou hast made him but little lower than God” (Psa 8:5 ). (The Hebrew word here is Elohim, the same as in Gen 1:1 .)
When we contrast the language which introduces the being of man with that which introduces the beast, and consider the import of “image and likeness,” and the dominion conferred on man, we are forced to the conviction than between man and the highest order of the beast there is an infinite and impassable chasm. And this view in confirmed by the divine demonstration that no beast could be man’s consort (Gen 2:18-20 ) ; and the divine law (Exo 22:19 ).
THE IMAGE OF GOD “God is a spirit.” (Joh 4:24 ). “The father of spirits” (Heb 12:9 ). “The Lord formeth the spirit of man within him” (Zec 12:1 ). “The spirit of a man is the candle of the Lord” (Pro 20:7 ). “And Jehovah God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living soul” (Gen 1:27 ). “The spirit retumeth to God who gave it” (Ecc 12:7 ). We may say, then, in one word that the spirituality of man’s nature is the image of God. Man is a rational, moral, spiritual being.
But this image of God involves and implies much more:
(a) Intuitive knowledge and reason. Col 3:10 ; Gen 2:19-20 .
(b) Uprightness and holiness. Ecc 7:29 ; Eph 4:24 .
(c) Conscience. Rom 2:15 .
(d) Will, or determinate choice, free moral agency.
(e) Worship of and communion with God.
(f) Dignity of presence. 1Co 11:7 ; Gen 9:2 .
(g) Immortality of soul, and provision for immortality of body by access to the tree of life. Gen 3:22 .
(h) Capacity for marriage, not like the consorting of beasts.
(i) Capacity for labor apart from the necessary struggle for existence.
(j) Speech, itself an infinite chasm between man and beast.
The dual nature of man will be considered in the next chapter on the second chapter of Genesis, which supplies details of man’s creation not given in this general statement.
UNITY OF THE RACE “Male and female made he them.” Multiply and fill the earth. There is one, and only one human race. The earth’s population came from one pair. There was no pre-Adamite man. There has been no post-Adamite man, unless we except Jesus of Nazareth. The unity of the race is a vital and fundamental Bible doctrine. Its witness on this point is manifold, explicit, and unambiguous. (Gen 9:19 ; Gen 10:32 ; Act 17:26 .) The whole scheme of redemption is based on the unity of the race (Rom 5:12-21 ). When we speak of the Caucasian, Mongolian, Malay, African, and North American Indian as different races, we employ both unscientific and unbiblical terms if we mean to imply different origins. There was no need for another race. This one pair could fill the earth by multiplication. There was no room for another race, for all authority of rule was vested in this one.
MAN’S COMMISSION Multiply. Fill the earth. Subdue it. Man was to range over all zones and inhabit all zones. The sea was to be his home as well as the land. The habitat of each beast or bird or fish was of narrow limit.
Man was endowed with wisdom to adapt himself to all climates, protect himself from all dangers and surpass all barriers. There was given to him the spirit of intervention and exploration. He would climb mountains, descend into caves, navigate oceans, bridge rivers, cut canals through isthmuses. To subdue the earth was a vast commission which called out all of his reserve powers. Upon this point we cannot do better than quote the great Baptist scholar, Dr. Conant:
“If we look at the earth, as prepared for the occupancy of man, we find little that is made ready for use but boundless material which his own labour and skill can fit for it.
“The spontaneous fruits of the earth furnish a scanty and precarious subsistence, even to a few; but with skilful labour it is made to yield an abundant supply for the wants of every living thing.”
On its surface, many natural obstacles are to be overcome. Forests must be leveled, rivers bridged over, roads and canals constructed, mountains graded and tunneled and seas and oceans navigated.
Its treasures of mineral wealth lie hidden beneath its surface; when discovered and brought to light they are valueless to man till his own labor subdues and fits them for his service. The various useful metals lie in the crude ore and must be passed through difficult and laborious processes before they can be applied to any valuable purpose. Iron, for example, the most necessary of all, how many protracted and delicate processes are required to separate it from impurities in the ore, to refine its texture, to convert it into steel before it can be wrought into the useful ax or knife, with the well-tempered edge!
What an education for the race has been this labor of subduing the earth! How it has developed reflection, stimulated invention and quickened the powers of combination, which would otherwise have lain dormant!
Nor are the collateral and remote less important than the direct and immediate results. He who takes a piece of timber from the common forest and forms it into a useful implement thereby makes it his own and it cannot rightfully be taken from him, since no one can justly appropriate to himself the product of another’s skill and labor. So he who originally takes possession of an unappropriated field and by his labor prepares it for use thereby makes it his own and it cannot rightfully be taken from him. Hence arises the right of property, the origin and bond of civil society; and thus all the blessings of society, and of civilization and government, are due to the divinely implanted impulse, “fill the earth, and subdue it.” Every institution of learning is but a means to this one great end.
THE DOMINION OF MAN The dominion of man is as broad as his commission: “Have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Gen 1:28 ). For thou hast made him but little lower than God, And crownest him with glory and honour. Thou makest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet; All sheep and oxen, Yea, and the beasts of the field, The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, Whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. 0, Jehovah, Our Lord, How excellent is thy name in all the earth. Psa 8:5-9
The exceeding great sweep of our dominion cannot be estimated until in the New Testament we study its exercise by the Second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 2:5-11 ). The fullness of it is even yet future.
TITLE TO THE EARTH And herein is man’s title to the earth:
(a) He must populate it.
(b) He must develop its resources to support that population.
In God’s law neither man nor nation can hold title to land or sea and let them remain undeveloped. This explains God’s dealings with nations. The ignorant savage cannot hold large territories of fertile land merely for a hunting ground. When the developer comes he must retire. Spain’s title to Cuba perished by 400 years of non-development. Mere priority of occupancy on a given territory cannot be a barrier to the progress of civilization. Wealth has no right to buy a county, or state, or continent and turn it into a deer park. The earth is man’s. Wealth has no right to add house to house and land to land until there is no room for the people. “Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no room, and ye be made to dwell in the midst of the land” (Isa 5:8 ).
THE PERIODS OF CREATION The discussion of the days of creation has been designedly reserved until now, on account of their relation to the last creative institution. When the text says: “There was evening and there was morning, one day,” or a second day, the language is that of the natural day as we now have it. But this does not necessarily mean that the earth was only 144 hours older than man. But it does imply:
That God chose to conduct his processes of earth formation by alternatings of activity and rest.
That he intended these periods of alternative activity and rest to constitute a prototype of time division for man not suggested by the revolution of the earth or any heavenly body. And that this division of time into a week should punctuate the institution of the sabbath, which was made for man, not for God, and that through it man’s allegiance to God might be perpetuated.
We thus come to the crowning act of creation:
THE INSTITUTION OF THE SABBATH
“And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made” (Gen 2:1-3 ). It has already been observed that the seven periods of creation called days, whatever their duration, were designed to be a prototype of a division of time not suggested by nature. Our natural day results from one revolution of the earth on its own axis; our month from the moon’s revolution around the earth; our year from the earth’s revolution around the sun. But the week is of divine appointment. A New Testament scripture goes to the root of the matter: “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath; so that the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath” (Mar 2:27-28 ).
God condescends to represent himself as man’s archetype and exemplar. The sabbath was not made for God: “The Almighty fainteth not, neither is weary.”
Among the reasons for the institution of the sabbath we may safely emphasize these:
Man’s Mind Is Finite and His Memory Imperfect. Some means must be provided to stir up the finite mind of man to remember the significance of the mighty acts of creation. And what is the significance of creation? It is a declaration of these great truths: (1) That the material universe and all it contains had an origin. (2) That it was brought into being by the creative act of an intelligent, almighty, beneficent being. (3) That this being is God. (4) That he is the only rightful proprietor and sovereign of the universe. (5) That his will is the supreme law of its occupants. (6) That the knowledge of his will is by his revelation.
It is a negation of these great untruths: (1) It denies atheism by assuming the being of God. (2) It denies polytheism by the assertion of his unity. (3) It denies deism by making a revelation. (4) It denies materialism in distinguishing between matter and spirit, and in showing that matter is neither self-existent nor eternal. (5) It denies pantheism by placing God before matter and unconditioned by it. (6) It denies chance by showing that the universe in its present order is not, in whole or in part, the result of “a fortuitous concourse of atoms,” or of the action of elementary principles of matter, but of an extraneous intelligent purpose. (7) It denies fatalism by asserting God’s freedom to create when he would and to control how he would. (8) It denies blind force by its revelation of beneficence intelligently directing and adapting all things to good ends. (9) As a revelation it denies that man by searching can find out God, and denies that all the myths of the heathen, or the speculations of philosophy, or the observations of naturalists, can dissipate the profound darkness concerning the origin and nature and end of the world and of man.
Man’s Body Is Mortal. Some means must be provided to guard its health and preserve its powers. His powers of endurance and of persistent application are limited. He cannot work unceasingly. He will need regular periods of rest for his body and mind. He must also have stated periods of enjoyment and worshiping God, that his soul may be fed and nourished. Man has a marvelous commission of labor, progress and development in subduing the earth. But five things must never be forgotten:
(1) Labor that is continuous will destroy both mind and body. Hence the necessity of regular periods of rest.
(2) The higher nature must not be subordinate to the lower. The soul must not wander too far from God. Communion with him is its nourishment and health. Man must not live by bread alone. God must be loved and adored.
(3) God is earth’s proprietor and man’s sovereign. His supreme jurisdiction must ever be acknowledged and accepted with complete submission.
(4) Man is social by the very constitution of his being. The unit of the family must not be broken. But there can be no permanent circle unless God is its center. And no tie will permanently bind unless it is sacred.
In subduing the earth, man has authority not only to lay under tribute the forces of nature which are without feeling, but to use the strength of the lower animals. These get weary. They cannot labor continuously. For their faithful service they need not only good food and shelter, but regular periods of rest.
(5) Not only animals need certain regular off-days, when they are to do no work, but all mechanical and scientific implements need it in order to reach maximum usefulness. It has been demonstrated that a steam engine, an ax, a hand-saw, will do more and better work in the long run with regular days of absolute rest.
Man’s Spirit Finds Its Health in Communion with God. Some means must be provided that will keep up this communion regularly and thereby prevent alienation from God. All man’s springs of joy are in God. Moreover, the creative week is a type of the earth’s history and presupposes the fall and redemption of man. Therefore as one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, we may say:
The Sabbath Foreshadows the Millennium; of the thousand years of gospel triumph on the earth before the final judgment, and the final rest and glory of a completed redemption of both earth and man, greater than the original creation. The question then becomes momentous: What provision can a Heavenly Father make that will effectually secure these great ends? That will secure adequate rest for mind and body and soul? That will nourish and heal the spirit? That will tend to recognition of and submission to the divine sovereignty and proprietorship? That will make communities and nations cohere? That will provide mercy and rest for overtaxed machinery and beasts and children and women and slaves? That will prevent total departure from God? That will be a barrier against greed and avarice and tyranny?
O Lord God, our Redeemer, Maker, our Preserver, Thou hast answered in the text: “The sabbath was made for man.” In the beginning thou didst ordain it, thou didst bless it and hallow it. It is one of the three holy things that man, though fallen and accursed, was permitted in mercy to bring with him from the lost bowers of Eden; majestic labor, the holy institution of marriage and the blessed and hallowed sabbath. Inestimable jewels! Time has never dimmed your luster, nor change nor circumstance depreciated your value. The experience of six thousand years bears witness to your divine origin. As types you have illumined time; as antitypes you will glorify eternity.
And throughout the world, wherever the sabbath in its purity has been disregarded, there marriage, in its true and holy sense) has been disregarded, and there idleness and cheating and fraud and gambling have taken the place of honest toil. There avarice and greed and tyranny have oppressed the poor, and there immorality and vice and polytheism and pantheism and deism and chance and fatalism and materialism and atheism have erected their standards. Yes, it is true in its ultimate and logical outcome: no sabbath, no God.
The sabbath or atheism, which? Why try to narrow this question to Jewish boundaries? The sabbath was made for man; for man, as man; for all men. Was Adam a Jew? Was he a son of Judah, or of Heber, or of Abraham, or of Shem? The sabbath was made for the first man, the progenitor of all the nations, and for him even in paradise as a primal law of man’s primal, normal nature.
Why talk of Mount Sinai and the tables of stone? The sabbath marked the fall of the manna, that type of Jesus, the bread from heaven, before Sinai ever smoked or trembled or thundered. Why talk of Moses? The sabbath was twenty-five centuries old when Moses was born. It is older than any record or monument of man. Before the flood it was more than an institution. It was a promise of redemption from the curse pronounced in Eden. Pious hearts looked daily for the coming of the rest that remaineth for the people of God. Hence Lamech named his son “Noah,” which means rest, saying: “This same shall comforet us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.”
The sabbath was here before sin ever mantled man’s face with the flush of shame. The sabbath antedates all arts and sciences. It was here before Enoch built a city, or Jabal stretched a tent, or Jubal invented instruments of music, or Tubal-Cain became an artificer in brass and iron. It is older than murder. Cain walked away from its altars of worship to murder his brother Abel. Its sunlight flashed into the face of the first baby that ever cooed in its mother’s arms. It was a companion in Eden of that tree of life whose fruit gave immortality to the body. And its glory enswathes the antitypical tree of life in the Paradise of God, as seen in the apocalyptic visions of John the revelator. Yes, it will survive the deluge of fire as it survived the deluge of water. When the heavens are rolled together as a scroll, and the material world shall be dissolved, the sabbath will remain. The thunders of the final judgment shall not shake its everlasting pillars. It came before death, and when death is dead it will be alive. The devil found it on his first visit to earth, and its sweet and everlasting rest will be shoreless and bottomless after he is cast, with other sabbath-breakers, into the lake of fire. Yea, as it commenced before man needed a mediator between himself and God, so it will be an eternal heritage of God’s people when the mediatorial kingdom of Jesus Christ is surrendered to the Father, and God shall be all in all. Thou venerable and luminous institution of God! Time writes no wrinkle on thy sunlit brow, Such as creation’s dawn beheld, thou shinest now.
It was made for man; man on earth, and man in heaven. And mark you: The sabbath was made for man, so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath. Mark the force of that “so.” It is equivalent to therefore or wherefore. That is, since it was made for man, the Son of man, not of Abraham, the Son of man is its Lord. Because Jesus was more than a Jew, because of his touch with all humanity, Luke, writing not for Jews but for Greeks, never stops, like Matthew, at Abraham, but traces his descent from Adam, the first man.
And as, in his humanity, he was the ideal man who should be the ensign of rallying for all nations, Paul applies to him the glorious, prophetic psalm: “But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownest him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” As the God-man he is the Lord of the sabbath. To his cross may be nailed a seventh day. But from his resurrection may come a first day. One in seven is essential which one is as the Lord of the sabbath may direct.
GENERAL REFLECTIONS The reader will observe the formula expressing the divine fiat which introduces each successive step in the progress of the earth’s formation:
“And God said” Gen 1:3 .
“And God said” Gen 1:6 .
“And God said” Gen 1:9 .
“And God said’ Gen 1:11 .
“And God said” Gen 1:14 .
“And God said” Gen 1:20 .
“And God said” Gen 1:24 .
“And God said” Gen 1:26 .
“And God said” Gen 1:28 .
“And God said” Gen 1:29 .
In simple and sublime language his will or decree is expressed and the result follows like an echo. He created the world by the word of his power. He spake and it stood fast. To the first word, light responds; to the second, atmosphere; to the third, dry land; to the fourth, vegetable life; to the fifth, light holders; to the sixth, animal life in sea and air; to the seventh, animal life on earth; to the eighth, human life; to the ninth, provision for life. Though the formula does not recur, the sabbath decree (Gen 2:1-3 ) completes the ten words.
Primal institutions, (a) Marriage. “And he answered and said, Have ye no? read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say unto him, why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and be that marrieth her when she is put away, committeth adultery” (Mat 19:4-9 ).
(b) Labor. “Subdue the earth.”
(c) Sabbath for rest and worship.
(d) Dominion.
(e) Man’s title to the earth on condition that he populate and subdue it.
There is no evidence that matter has received addition or loss since its original creation. Nor that any additions have been made to the species of life organisms, vegetable or animal.
There is no necessary discord between the Mosaic order of creation and the best settled teachings of natural science. In his Manual of Geology, Dana thus summarizes his understanding of the Mosaic account:
I. Inorganic era:
First Day Light cosmical.
Second Day The earth divided from the fluid around, or individualized.
Third Day (1) Outlining of the land and water. (2) Creation of vegetation.
II. Organic era:
Fourth Day Light from the sun.
Fifth Day Creation of the lower order of animals.
Sixth Day (1) Creation of mammals. (2) Creation of man.
Yet the Bible was given to teach religion, and not science.
Trinity in creation, (a) The Father. Gen 1:1 ; Act 17:24 . (b) Holy Spirit. Quickening matter with the several results of light, order, life. Job 26:13 ; Psalm 10-30; Gen 2:7 ; Zec 12:1 ; Heb 12:9 ; Pro 20:27 ; Ecc 12:7 .
(c) The Son. Pro 8:22-31 ; Joh 1:1-3 ; 1Co 8:6 ; Eph 3:9 ; Col 1:16 ; Heb 1:8 .
Theological definition of creation: “By creation we mean that free act of the Triune God by which in the beginning for his own glory he made, without the use of pre-existing materials, the whole visible and invisible universe.” A. H. Strong.
For whom was creation? Col 1:16 .
For what? The divine glory.
Creation reveals what? Order, correlation, benevolent design: Gen 1:14 ; Gen 8:22 ; Job 38:1-33 ; Psa 19:1-14 ; Mat 5:45 ; Act 14:17 ; Rom 1:19-20 .
Addison’s paraphrase of Psa 19 .
QUESTIONS 1. Eighth product of Spirit energy?
2. How did the creation prophesy man’s coming?
3. In what does the image of God consist?
4. What does it involve and imply?
5. State the Bible teaching on the unity of the race.
6. Importance of the doctrine?
7. Into what five races did our old geographies divide men?
8. State man’s commission.
9. State some details of the magnitude of this commission.
10. How did this lead to the rights of property?
11. How does it necessitate schools and promote arts, sciences, etc.?
12. What conditions man’s title to the earth?
13. How does this explain God’s dealings with the nations?
14. Apply the principle to the Indian tribes of America, and Spain’s title to Cuba.
15. How does it limit the purchasing power of the wealthy?
16. What name was given to the periods of creation?
17. Does this language necessarily imply that the earth was only 144 hours older than man?
18. What three things does it imply?
19. The crowning institution of the creative week?
20. First reason for the sabbath?
21. Creation an affirmation of what truths?
22. Negation of what untruths?
23. Second reason?
24. Third reason?
25. Relation of sabbath to marriage, society, worship?
26. What formula introduces each degree of creation?
27. What were the great primal institutions?
28. Has there been any addition to matter since creation?
29. To the species of the life organisms?
30. Is there substantial accord between the Bible account of the order of creation and the teaching of science?
31. Cite Scripture proof of the Trinity in creation.
32. Cite Dr. Strong’s theological definition of creation.
33. For whom was creation?
34. For what?
35. It reveals what?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Ver. 26. And God said, Let us make man. ] Man is the masterpiece of God’s handiwork. Sun, moon, and stars are but “the work of his fingers,” Psa 8:3 but man the work of his hands. He is made of divine nature, cura divini ingenii made by counsel at first, “Let us make,” &c.; and his body, which is but the soul’s sheath a Dan 7:15 is still “curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth,” that is, in the womb; comp. Psa 139:15 Eph 4:9 as curious workmen, when they have some choice piece in hand, they perfect it in private, and then bring it forth to light for men to gaze at. “Thine hands have made me” (or took special pains about me), “and fashioned me,” saith Job. Job 19:8 “Thou hast formed me by the book,” saith David, Psa 139:16 yea, embroidered me with nerves, veins, and variety of limbs, Psa 139:15 miracles enough, saith one, beteen head and foot, to fill a volume. There are six hundred muscles, saith another out of Galen, in the body of man; and every one fitted for ten uses: so for bones, nerves, arteries, and veins, whosoever observeth their use, situation, and correspondency of them, cannot but fall into admiration of the wisdom of the Maker; who hath thus exactly framed all things at first out of nothing; and still out of the froth of the blood. Man, saith a heathen, is the bold attempt of daring nature; b the fair workmanship of a wise artificer,’ c d saith another; the greatest of all miracles, e saith a third. And surely should a man be born into the world but once in a hundred years, all the world would run to see the wonder. Sed miracula assiduitate vilescunt. Galen, f that profane man, was forced, upon the description of man and the parts of his body only, to sing a hymn to the Creator, whom yet he knew not. I make here, saith he, a true hymn in the honour of our Maker; whose service, I believe verily, consisteth not in the sacrificing of hecatombs, or in burning great heaps of frankincense before him, but in acknowledging the greatness of his wisdom, power, and goodness; and in making the same known to others, &c. And, in another place, Who is he, saith Galen, which, looking but only upon the skin of a thing, wondereth not at the cunning of the Creator? Yet, notwithstanding, he dissembleth not that he had tried by all means to find some reason of the composing of living creatures; and that he would rather have fathered the doing thereof upon nature, than upon the very Author of nature. And in the end, g concludeth thus: I confess that I know not what the soul is, though I have sought very narrowly for it. Favorinus the philosopher was wont to say, The greatest thing in this world is man, and the greatest thing in man is his soul. h It is an abridgment of the invisible world, as the body is of the visible. Hence, man is called by the Hebrews, Gnolam hakkaton , and by the Greeks, microcosmus, a little world. And it was a witty essay of him, i who styled woman the second edition of the epitome of the whole world. The soul is set in the body of them both, as a little god in this little world, as Jehovah is a great God in the great world. Whence Proclus the philosopher could say, that the mind that is in us is an image of the first mind, that is, of God.
In our image, after our likeness,
Why “present we not our bodies” also to God, “a living sacrifice,” since Rom 12:1 it is so curiously wrought, so neatly made up? Luther, upon the Fourth Commandment, tells of two cardinals, in the time of the Council of Constance, who, riding thither, saw a shepherd weeping bitterly; they pressed him to tell the cause. He said, “I, looking upon this toad, considered that I never praised God as I ought, for making me a comely and reasonable creature, and not a toad.” See Trapp on “ Gen 1:28 “
a Animae vaginae.
b – Trismegls.
c S – Eurip.
d T – Xenoph.
e Miraculorum omnium maximum. – Stoici.
f Gal. l. iii. De usu partium. l. xi. and xvii.
g l. xv.
h Nihil in terra magnum praeter hominem, nihil in homine praeter mentem.
i Favorinus Gell.
j Molinaeus. De Cogn. Dei.
k Funcius. Chro. in Commentar.
l Heylin’s Geog. [Cosmography] , p. 533.
m Aeute obtusi.
n Omnis nominis Jehovae literae sunt spirituales, ut denotetur Deum esse spiritum. – Insted .
o Solam mentem dignam esse quae homo appelletur, Stoici statuunt. Sic Plato scripsit O
p Corpus sire corpor quasi cordispor, i.e. puer sire famulus. – Camerarius .
q quasi . D , i.e. vinculum, sc. animae. Maerob. Som. Scip., l. i., c. 11.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Genesis
THE VISION OF CREATION
Gen 1:26 – Gen 2:3
We are not to look to Genesis for a scientific cosmogony, and are not to be disturbed by physicists’ criticisms on it as such. Its purpose is quite another, and far more important; namely, to imprint deep and ineffaceable the conviction that the one God created all things. Nor must it be forgotten that this vision of creation was given to people ignorant of natural science, and prone to fall back into surrounding idolatry. The comparison of the creation narratives in Genesis with the cuneiform tablets, with which they evidently are most closely connected, has for its most important result the demonstration of the infinite elevation above their monstrosities and puerilities, of this solemn, steadfast attribution of the creative act to the one God. Here we can only draw out in brief the main points which the narrative brings into prominence.
1. The revelation which it gives is the truth, obscured to all other men when it was given, that one God ‘in the beginning created the heaven and the earth.’ That solemn utterance is the keynote of the whole. The rest but expands it. It was a challenge and a denial for all the beliefs of the nations, the truth of which Israel was the champion and missionary. It swept the heavens and earth clear of the crowd of gods, and showed the One enthroned above, and operative in, all things. We can scarcely estimate the grandeur, the emancipating power, the all-uniting force, of that utterance. It is a worn commonplace to us. It was a strange, thrilling novelty when it was written at the head of this narrative. Then it was in sharp opposition to beliefs that have long been dead to us; but it is still a protest against some living errors. Physical science has not spoken the final word when it has shown us how things came to be as they are. There remains the deeper question, What, or who, originated and guided the processes? And the only answer is the ancient declaration, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’
2. The record is as emphatic and as unique in its teaching as to the mode of creation: ‘God said . . . and it was so.’ That lifts us above all the poor childish myths of the nations, some of them disgusting, many of them absurd, all of them unworthy. There was no other agency than the putting forth of the divine will. The speech of God is but a symbol of the flashing forth of His will. To us Christians the antique phrase suggests a fulness of meaning not inherent in it, for we have learned to believe that ‘all things were made by Him’ whose name is ‘The Word of God’; but, apart from that, the representation here is sublime. ‘He spake, and it was done’; that is the sign-manual of Deity.
3. The completeness of creation is emphasised. We note, not only the recurrent ‘and it was so,’ which declares the perfect correspondence of the result with the divine intention, but also the recurring ‘God saw that it was good.’ His ideals are always realised. The divine artist never finds that the embodiment of His thought falls short of His thought.
‘What act is all its thought had been?
What will but felt the fleshly screen?
4. The progressiveness of the creative process is brought into strong relief. The work of the first four days is the preparation of the dwelling-place for the living creatures who are afterwards created to inhabit it. How far the details of these days’ work coincide with the order as science has made it out, we are not careful to ask here. The primeval chaos, the separation of the waters above from the waters beneath, the emergence of the land, the beginning of vegetation there, the shining out of the sun as the dense mists cleared, all find confirmation even in modern theories of evolution. But the intention of the whole is much rather to teach that, though the simple utterance of the divine will was the agent of creation, the manner of it was not a sudden calling of the world, as men know it, into being, but majestic, slow advance by stages, each of which rested on the preceding. To apply the old distinction between justification and sanctification, creation was a work, not an act. The Divine Workman, who is always patient, worked slowly then as He does now. Not at a leap, but by deliberate steps, the divine ideal attains realisation.
5. The creation of living creatures on the fourth and fifth days is so arranged as to lead up to the creation of man as the climax. On the fifth day sea and air are peopled, and their denizens ‘blessed,’ for the equal divine love holds every living thing to its heart. On the sixth day the earth is replenished with living creatures. Then, last of all, comes man, the apex of creation. Obviously the purpose of the whole is to concentrate the light on man; and it is a matter of no importance whether the narrative is correct according to zoology, or not. What it says is that God made all the universe, that He prepared the earth for the delight of living creatures, that the happy birds that soar and sing, and the dumb creatures that move through the paths of the seas, and the beasts of the earth, are all His creating, and that man is linked to them, being made on the same day as the latter, and by the same word, but that between man and them all there is a gulf, since he is made in the divine image. That image implies personality, the consciousness of self, the power to say ‘I,’ as well as purity. The transition from the work of the first four days to that of creating living things must have had a break. No theory has been able to bridge the chasm without admitting a divine act introducing the new element of life, and none has been able to bridge the gulf between the animal and human consciousness without admitting a divine act introducing ‘the image of God’ into the nature common to animal and man. Three facts as to humanity are thrown up into prominence: its possession of the image of God, the equality and eternal interdependence of the sexes, and the lordship over all creatures. Mark especially the remarkable wording of Gen 1:27 : ‘created He him male and female created He them .’ So ‘neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman.’ Each is maimed apart from the other. Both stand side by side, on one level before God. The germ of the most ‘advanced’ doctrines of the relations of the sexes is hidden here.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 1:26-31
26Then 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. 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth. 29Then God said, Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food; and it was so. 31God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Gen 1:26 Let Us make The form (BDB 793, KB 889) is Qal IMPERFECT, but is used in a COHORTATIVE sense. There has been much discussion over the PLURAL us (cf. Gen 3:22; Gen 11:7). Philo and Eben Ezra say it is the plural of majesty, but this grammatical form does not occur until much later in Jewish literary history (NET Bible says it does not occur with VERBS, p. 5); Rashi says that it refers to the heavenly court (cf. 1Ki 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Job 2:1-6; Isa 6:8), but this cannot imply that angels had a part in creation, nor that they have the divine image. Others assume that it is an incipient form of the concept of a Triune God. See Special Topic: Trinity .
Interesting is the fact that in the Mesopotamian accounts of creation the gods (usually linked to individual cities) are always contending with one another but here not only is monotheism evident but even in the few PLURAL expressions there is harmony and not capricious discontent.
man This is the Hebrew word Adam (BDB 9), which is an obvious play on the Hebrew term for ground, adamah (cf. Gen 1:9). The term may also imply redness. Many scholars believe that this refers to humanity being formed out of the red clods or clay of the Tigris/Euphrates River valley (cf. Gen 2:7). Only in these opening chapters of Genesis is the Hebrew term Adam used as a proper name. The Septuagint uses the word anthropos to translate this term which is a generic term referring to men and/or women (cf. Gen 5:2; Gen 6:1; Gen 6:5-7; Gen 9:5-6). The more common Hebrew term for man or husband is ish (BDB 35, cf. Gen 2:23 the etymology is unknown) and ishah (BDB 61) for woman or wife.
At this point in my theological understanding it is very difficult to relate the Bible’s account of the creation of the original pair with the fossil remains of several types of bi-pedal Homo erectus. Some of these ancient grave sites include the burial of items apparently connected to a belief in an after life. I am not offended by evolution within species. If this is true, then Adam and Eve are primitive humans and the historical time-frame of Genesis 1-11 must be radically expanded.
Possibly God created Adam and Eve at a much later period of time (i.e. progressive creationism), making them modern humans (Homo sapiens). If so, then their relationship to Mesopotamian civilization demands a special creation sometime close to when culture begins. I want to emphasize that this is just speculation at this point in time. There is so much moderns do not know about the ancient past. Again, theologically, the who and why, not the how or when are crucial!
in Our image, according to Our likeness The term image can also be found in Gen 5:1; Gen 5:3; Gen 9:6. It is often used in the OT to denote idols (KB 1028 II). Its basic etymology is to hew into a certain shape. There has been much discussion in the history of interpretation to identify the exact meaning of image (BDB 853, KB 1028 #5) and likeness (BDB 198). Comparable Greek terms are found in the NT to describe humanity (cf. 1Co 11:7; Col 3:10; Eph 4:24; Jas 3:9). In my opinion, they are synonymous and describe that part of humanity that is uniquely capable of relating to God. The Incarnation of Jesus shows the potential of what humanity could have been in Adam and will be one day will be through Jesus Christ. See Who was Adam? By Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, p. 79.
let them rule This is literally trample down (BDB 853, KB 1190, Qal IMPERFECT used in a JUSSIVE sense). This is a strong term that speaks of mankind’s dominion over nature (cf. Psa 8:5-8). This same concept is found in Gen 1:28. The two terms, rule in Gen 1:26; Gen 1:28, and subdue in Gen 1:28 have the same basic etymology which means to tread upon or trample. Although these VERBS seem hard they reflect the image of God’s reign. Mankind has dominion over the created earth because of his/her relationship to God. They were to reign/dominate as His representatives, in His character. Power is not the theological issue, but the way it is exercised (for self or for the good of others)!
Notice the PLURAL, which implies mutual dominion of male and female (cf. Gen 5:2). Also notice the PLURAL IMPERATIVES of Gen 1:28. The submission of the woman only comes after the Fall of Genesis 3. The real question is, Does this submission remain after the inauguration of the new age in Christ?
Gen 1:27 God created There is a threefold use (Qal IMPERFECT followed by two Qal PERFECTS) of the term bara (BDB 127) in this verse, which functions as a summary statement as well as an emphasis on God’s creation of humanity as male and female. This is printed as poetry in NRSV, NJB and acknowledged so in NIV footnote. The term bara is only used in the OT for God’s creating.
in His own image It is extremely interesting that the PLURAL of Gen 1:26 in now a SINGULAR. This encompasses the mystery of the plurality, yet the unity, of God. God’s image (BDB 853) is equal in men and women! See Special Topic: Women in the Bible .
male and female He created them Our sexual aspect relates to the needs and environment of this planet. God continues to separate (see note at Gen 1:4). Notice the mutuality here, in Gen 2:18; Gen 5:2. Our divine image allows us to uniquely relate to God.
Gen 1:28 God blessed them . . . Be fruitful and multiply Part of God’s blessing (BDB 138, KB 159, Piel IMPERFECT) was procreation (cf. Deu 7:13). This blessing was both on the animals (cf. Gen 1:22) and on man (cf. v.28;Gen 9:1; Gen 9:7). In the Mesopotamian creation accounts the noise of the overpopulation of humans is the reason for the gods’ destruction of humanity. The Genesis account urges population growth. It is surprising that one of the first acts of rebellion (cf. Genesis 10-11) was mankind’s reluctance to separate and fill the earth.
subdue it; and rule There are two commands in the Hebrew text which are parallel to Be fruitful and multiply (series of three Qal IMPERATIVES). This makes both human sexuality and human control God’s will.
Both the Hebrew verbs, subdue (BDB 461, KB 460) and rule (BDB 921, KB 1190), can have a negative (i.e. cruel domination) connotation. The specific context must determine whether the meaning is benign or aggressive.
Gen 1:29 The plant kingdom is divided into three different groups. The food chain begins with photosynthesis in plants. All earthly animal life depends on the miracle of plant life. In this verse, mankind is given the grains and the fruits for his food (cf. Gen 2:16; Gen 6:21), while the third group, the grasses, is given to the animals. It was not until after the flood that humans were allowed to eat flesh (cf. Gen 9:3). This may be connected with the fact that there was no harvest possible that year. It is theologically inappropriate to draw universal dietary food laws from Genesis 1.
It is also possible that this description is only related to the Garden of Eden. Death and carnivores go back to the earliest fossils relating to the Cambrian layer 500,000 years ago where the fossilized record of life begins with profusion.
Gen 1:30 I have given every green plant for food The thrust of this statement is that all life is based on the process of photosynthesis (i.e. the food chain).
Gen 1:31 it was very good This is an extremely important conclusion to creation because in later gnostic Greek thought, matter is evil and spirit is good. In this Greek system (as well as some Mesopotamian texts) both matter and spirit are co-eternal which serves as their explanation of the problems on earth. But the Hebrew account is very different. Only God is eternal and matter is created for His purpose. There was no evil in God’s original creation, only freedom!
there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day It is important to note that, like the third day, the sixth day has two creative acts, so there are eight creative acts in six days. The rabbis begin the new day at twilight which is based on this phrase, evening and morning.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Let us. The Divine purpose is here stated. The Divine act not described till Gen 2:7, Gen 2:21-24.
man. Hebrew. ‘adam (no Art.) = mankind.
image . . . likeness. Figure of speech Hendiadys. App-6. One thing, not two = “In the likeness of our image”, viz. of Elohim (not Jehovah), the 2nd person, who had taken creature form in order to create (Col 1:15. Heb 1:3. Rev 3:14; compare Pro 8:22-31, and 1Co 11:3-11). Refers only to outward form, not to attributes. So He afterward took human form in order to redeem (Joh 1:14). Compare Rev 4:11 with Rev 5:9. In any case the “image and likeness” is physical, not moral. Man fell and is a moral ruin, but some physical likeness to ‘elohim still remains. Compare Gen 9:6. 1Co 11:7. Jam 3:9. No indication that that similitude was ever lost. Gen 5:3. See note on Gen 3:7.
and. Note Figure of speech Polysyndeton (App-6) here, and throughout the Introduction (see Gen 1:2), emphasizing the Divine purpose.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
make man in our image
Man. Gen 1:26; Gen 1:27 gives the general, Gen 2:7; Gen 2:21-23 the particular account of the creation of man. The revealed facts are:
(1) Man was created not evolved. This is
(a) expressly declared, and the declaration is confirmed by Christ Mat 19:14; Mar 10:6,
(b) “an enormous gulf, a divergence practically infinite” (Huxley) between the lowest man and the highest beast, confirms it;
(c) the highest beast has no trace of God-consciousness–the religious nature;
(d) science and discovery have done nothing to bridge that “gulf.”
(2) That man was made in the “image and likeness” of God. This image is found chiefly in man’s tri-unity, and in his moral nature. Man is “spirit and soul and body” 1Th 5:23.
“Spirit” is that part of man which “knows” 1Co 2:11 and which allies him to the spiritual creation and gives him God-consciousness. “Soul” in itself implies self-consciousness life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In that sense animals also have “soul” Gen 1:24. But the “soul” of man has a vaster content than “soul” as applied to beast life. It is the seat of emotions, desires, affections Psa 42:1-6. The “heart” is, in Scripture usage, nearly synonymous with “soul.” Because the natural man is, characteristically, the soulual or physical man, “soul” is often used as synonymous with the individual, e.g. Gen 12:5. The body, separable from spirit and soul, and susceptible to death, is nevertheless an integral part of man, as the resurrection shows; Joh 5:28; Joh 5:29; 1Co 15:47-50; Rev 20:11-13. It is the seat of the senses (the means by which the spirit and soul have world-consciousness) and of the fallen Adamic nature. Rom 7:23; Rom 7:24.
us Gen 11:7
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
In the Image of God
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.Gen 1:26-27.
God made the light and the sun, and they were very good. He made the seas and the mountains, and they were very good. He made the fishes of the water, and the birds of the air, and the beasts of the fieldall that wonderful creation of life, which, dull and unbelieving as we are, daily more and more excites our endless wonder and awe and praiseand He saw that it was all very good. He made the herb of the field, everything that grows, everything that lives on the face of this beautiful and glorious world, and all was very good. But of all this good the end was not yet reached. There was still something better to be made. Great lights in the firmament, and stars beyond the reach of the thought of man in the depth of space, sea and mountain, green tree and gay flower, tribes of living creatures in the deep below and the deep above of the sky, four-footed beasts of the earth in their strength and beauty, and worms that live out of the sight and knowledge of all other creaturesthese were all as great and marvellous as we know them to be; these were all said to be very good by that Voice which had called them into being. Heaven and earth were filled with the majesty of His glory. But they were counted up, one by one, because they were not enough for Him to make, not enough for Him to satisfy Him by their goodness. He reckoned them all up; He pronounced on their excellence. But yet there was something which they had not reached to. There was something still to be made, which should be yet greater, yet more wonderful, yet more good than they. There was a beauty which, with all their beauty, they could not reach; a perfection which, with all their excellence, they were not meant, or made, to share. They declared the glory of God, but not His likeness. They displayed the handiwork of His wisdom, but they shared not in His spirit, His thoughts, His holiness. So, after their great glory, came a yet greater glory. The living soul, like unto God, had not yet been made. Then said God, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. There was made the great step from the wonder and beauty of the world, to the creation of man, with a soul and spirit more wonderful, more excellent, than all the excellence and wonders of the world, because it was made in the likeness of that great and holy and good God who made the world.
1. The foundations of the Biblical doctrine of man are firmly laid, at the very commencement of his history, in the accounts given of his creation. In this narrative of creation in the opening chapter of Genesis we have the noblest of possible utterances regarding man: God created man in his own image. The manner in which that declaration is led up to is hardly less remarkable than the utterance itself.
2. The last stage in the work of creation has been reached, and the Creator is about to produce His masterpiece. But, as if to emphasize the importance of this event, and to prepare us for something new and exceptional, the form of representation changes. Hitherto the simple fiat of omnipotence has sufficedGod said. Now the CreatorElohimis represented as taking counsel with Himself (for no other is mentioned): Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and in the next verse, with the employment of the stronger word created (bara), the execution of this purpose is narrated: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
We are told that the language in which that creation is spoken of, i.e. Let us make man, implies the doctrine of a plurality of persons in the Deity; in other words, the author, whose avowed object it was to teach the unity of God, so far forgot himself as to teach the contrary. We are told again that we are to found on this account the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no reason, only ignorance, in such a view. The Hebrew when he wanted to speak of anything majestic, spoke in the plural, not in the singular. He spoke of heavens, not of heaven. In the same way he spoke of Gods, yet meaning only One. Exactly in the same way the courtesy of modern ages has substituted you for thou; and here the very form of the writers language required that he should put us instead of me in speaking of the majesty of God. Further, to look for the Trinity here would be utterly to reverse the whole method of Gods revelation. We know from our own lives that God does things gradually, and we conclude that He did the same with His chosen people. He had to teach them first the unity of the Godhead; the nature of that unity was to be taught afterwards. Conceive what would have been the result in an age of polytheism of teaching the Trinity. The doctrine would have inevitably degenerated into tritheism.1 [Note: F. W. Robertson.]
The subject is the creation of man in the image of God. There are two ways of looking at it: (1) in its entirety, as we look at the white light; and (2) in its component parts, as we see the light in a rainbow. Then we have
I.The Image of God in itself.
1.Image and Likeness are not distinct.
2.The Image is not Dominion.
3.The Image is of the whole Personality.
4.The Image was not wholly lost.
II.The Parts of the Image.
1.Reason.
2.Self-consciousness.
3.Recognition of Right and Wrong.
4.Communion with God.
5.Capacity for Redemption.
Then will follow two practical conclusions, and the text will be set in its place beside two other texts.
I
The Image of God
1. No distinction is to be made between the words image and likeness. In patristic and medival theology much is made of the circumstance that two words are used, the former being taken to mean mans natural endowments, the latter a superadded gift of righteousness. But the words are synonymous. Likeness is added to image for emphasis. The repetition imparts a rhythmic movement to the language, which may be a faint echo of an old hymn on the glory of man, like Psalms 8.
2. The view that the Divine image consists in dominion over the creatures cannot be held without an almost inconceivable weakening of the figure, and is inconsistent with the sequel, where the rule over the creatures is, by a separate benediction, conferred on man, already made in the image of God. The truth is that the image marks the distinction between man and the animals, and so qualifies him for dominion: the latter is the consequence, not the essence, of the Divine image.
With respect to man himself we are told on the one side that he is dust, formed of the dust of the earth. The phrase marks our affinity to the lower animals. It is a humbling thing to see how little different the form of mans skeleton is from that of the lower animals; more humbling still when we compare their inward physiological constitution with our own. Herein man is united to the beasts. But God breathed into mans nostrils the breath of life: herein he is united to the Deity. The heathen, recognizing in their own way the spiritual in man, tried to bridge over the chasm between it and the earthly by making God more human. The way of revelation, on the contrary, is to make man more godlike, to tell of the Divine idea yet to be realized in his nature. Nor have we far to go to find some of the traces of this Divine in human nature. (1) We are told that God is just and pure and holy. What is the meaning of these words? Speak to the deaf man of hearing, or the blind of light, he knows not what you mean. And so to talk of God as good and just and pure implies that there is goodness, justice, purity, within the mind of man. (2) We find in man the sense of the infinite: just as truly as God is boundless is the soul of man boundless; there is something boundless, infinite, in the sense of justice, in the sense of truth, in the power of self-sacrifice. (3) In mans creative power there is a resemblance to God. He has filled the world with his creations. It is his special privilege to subdue the power of nature to himself. He has forced the lightning to be his messenger, has put a girdle round the earth, has climbed up to the clouds and penetrated down to the depths of the sea. He has turned the forces of Nature against herself; commanding the winds to help him in braving the sea. And marvellous as is mans rule over external, dead nature, more marvellous still is his rule over animated nature. To see the trained falcon strike down the quarry at the feet of his master, and come back, when Gods free heaven is before him; to see the hound use his speed in the service of his master, to take a prey not to be given to himself; to see the camel of the desert carrying man through his own home: all these show the creative power of man and his resemblance to God the Creator. Once more, God is a God of order. The universe in which God reigns is a domain in which order reigns from first to last, in which everything has its place, its appointed position; and the law of mans life, as we have seen, is also order.1 [Note: F. W. Robertson.]
There is no progress in the world of bees,
However wise and wonderful they are. Lies the bar,
To wider goals, in that tense strife to please
A Sovereign Ruler? Forth from flowers to trees
Their little quest is; not from star to star.
This is not growth; the mighty avatar
Comes not to do his work with such as these.2 [Note: E. W. Wilcox, Poems of Experience, 72.]
3. The image or likeness is not that of the body only, or of the spirit only, but of the whole personality.
(1) It is perfectly certain that the Hebrews did not suppose this likeness to God to consist in any physical likeness. It is the doctrine of the Old Testament as well as of the New that God is a Spirit; and, although He may have manifested Himself to men in human or angelic shape, He has no visible form, and cannot and must not be represented by any. Thou sawest no form or similitude (Deu 4:12). The image does not, directly at least, denote external appearance; we must look for the resemblance to God chiefly in mans spiritual nature and spiritual endowments, in his freedom of will, in his self-consciousness, in his reasoning power, in his sense of that which is above nature, the good, the true, the eternal; in his conscience, which is the voice of God within him; in his capacity for knowing God and holding communion with Him; in a word, in all that allies him to God, al that raises him above sense and time and merely material considerations, all that distinguishes him from, and elevates him above, the brutes. So the writer of the apocryphal Book of Wisdom says: God created man to be immortal, and made him an image of his own eternity (Gen 2:23).
(2) On the other hand, that this Divine image expresses itself and is seen in mans outward form cannot be denied. In looks, in bearing, in the conscious dignity of rule and dominion, there is a reflection of this Divine image. St. Augustine tries to make out a trinity in the human body, as before in the human mind, which shall correspond in its measure to the Divine Trinity. Nevertheless, he says modestly: Let us endeavour to trace in mans outward form some kind of footstep of the Trinity, not because it is of itself in the same way (as the inward being) the image of God. For the apostle says expressly that it is the inner man that is renewed after the image of Him that created him; and again, Though the outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. Let us then look as far as it is possible in that which perisheth for a kind of likeness to the Trinity; and if not one more express, at least one that may be more easily discerned. The very term outward man denotes a certain similitude to the inward man.
(3) But the truth is that we cannot cut man in two. The inward being and the outward have their correspondences and their affinities, and it is of the compound being man, fashioned of the dust of the earth and yet filled with the breath of God, that it is declared that he was created after the image of God. The ground and source of this his prerogative in creation must be sought in the Incarnation. It is this great mystery that lies at the root of mans being. He is like God, he is created in the image of God, he is, in St. Pauls words, the image and glory of God (1Co 11:7), because the Son of God took mans nature in the womb of His virgin mother, thereby uniting for ever the manhood and the Godhead in one adorable Person. This was the Divine purpose before the world was, and hence this creation of man was the natural consummation of all Gods work.
4. And it is important to remember that the image of God, according to Hebrew thought, was not completely lost, however seriously it may have been impaired, by what is described as the Fall. In Gen 5:1-3, we read, In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Sethmeaning that, as Adam was created in the image of God, Seth inherited that image. After the flood, God is represented as saying to Noah, Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. Murder is a kind of sacrilege; to kill a man is to destroy the life of a creature created in the Divine image; the crime is to be punished with death. James, too, in his epistle, insists that the desperate wickedness of the tongue is shown in its reckless disregard of the Divine image in man, Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made in the image of God; in cursing men we therefore show a want of reverence for God Himself, in whose image they were made, and are guilty of a certain measure of profanity. The image of God, therefore, according to these ancient Scriptures, does not necessarily include moral and spiritual perfection; it must include the possibility of achieving it; it reveals the Divine purpose that man should achieve it; but man, even after he has sinned, still retains the image of God in the sense in which it is attributed to him in the Hebrew Scriptures. It belongs to his nature, not to his character. Man was made in the image of God because he is a free, intelligent, self-conscious, and moral Personality.
I have been told that there is in existence, amongst the curiosities of a Continental museum, a brick from the walls of ancient Babylon which bears the imprint of one of Babylons mighty kings. Right over the centre of the royal cypher is deeply impressed the footprint of one of the pariah dogs which wandered about that ancient city. It was the invariable custom in ancient Babylon to stamp the bricks used for public works with the cypher of the reigning monarch, and while this particular brick was lying in its soft and plastic state, some wandering dog had, apparently accidentally, trodden upon it. Long ages have passed. The kings image and superscription is visible, but defacedwell-nigh illegible, almost obliterated. The name of that mighty ruler cannot be deciphered; the footprint of the dog is clear, sharply defined, deeply impressed, as on the day on which it was made. So far as any analogy will hold (which is not very far), it is an instructive type of the origin and the dual construction of the human race. Suffer the imagination to wander backfar, far backinto the unthinkable past, and conceive the All-creating Spirit obeying the paramount necessity of His nature, which is Love, and bringing into existence the race called man. As the outbirth of Godas Divine Spirit differentiated into separate entitiesman could not be other than deeply impressed, stamped with the cypher of his Fathers image and likeness; the mark of the King is upon him. Obviously, however, he is not yet ready to be built into that great temple of imperishable beauty, fit to be the habitation of the Eternal, which is the ultimate design of God for man. A responsible being, perfected and purified, tested and found faithful, cannot be made; he must grow; and to grow he must be resisted. He must emerge pure from deep contrasts; contradiction being a law of moral life, contradiction must be provided. And therefore, while still in his plastic State, while still in the unhardened, inchoate condition indicated in the sweet pastoral idyll of the Garden of Eden, there comes by the wandering dogthe allegorical impersonation of the animal nature, the embodiment of the lower appetite, the partial will, the Ahriman of the Zoroastrian, the Satan of post-captivity Judaismand he, metaphorically, puts his foot upon him. Right over the Kings impress goes the mark of the beast, apparently defacing the cypher of the King; in other words, humanity gave heed to the lower psychical suggestion, in opposition to the higher dictate of the Divine Spirit. The partial will severed itself from the universal will, and, as it is expressed in theological language, though not in scriptural language, man fell.1 [Note: B. Wilberforce.]
Why do I dare love all mankind?
Tis not because each face, each form
Is comely, for it is not so;
Nor is it that each soul is warm
With any Godlike glow.
Yet theres no one to whoms not given
Some little lineament of heaven,
Some partial symbol, at the least, in sign
Of what should be, if it is not, within,
Reminding of the death of sin
And life of the Divine.
There was a time, full well I know,
When I had not yet seen you so;
Time was, when few seemed fair;
But now, as through the streets I go,
There seems no face so shapeless, so
Forlorn, but that theres something there
That, like the heavens, doth declare
The glory of the great All-Fair;
And so mine own each one I call;
And so I dare to love you all.1 [Note: H. S. Sutton.]
II
The Parts of the Image
i. Reason
1. In speaking of man as being created in the image of God, one must speak first of the intellectual powers with which man has been endowed. Nothing can surprise us more than the marvellous results of human science, the power which mankind have exhibited in scanning the works of God, reducing them to law, detecting the hidden harmony in the apparent confusion of creation, demonstrating the fine adjustment and delicate construction of the material universe: and if the wisdom and power of God occupy the first place in the mind of one who contemplates the heavens and the earth, certainly the second place must be reserved for admiration of the wonderful mind with which man has been endowed, the powers of which enable him thus to study the works of God.
2. As regards his intellectual powers, consider that man is, like God, a creator. Works of Art, whether useful or ornamental, are, and are often called, creations. How manifold are the new discoveries, the new inventions, which man draws forth, year after year, from his creative geniusthe timepiece, the microscope, the steamship, the steam-carriage, the sun-picture, the electric telegraph! All these things originally lay wrapped up in the human brain, and are its offspring. Look at the whole fabric of civilization, which is built up by the several arts. What a creation it is, how curious, how varied, how wonderful in all its districts! Just as God has His universe, in which are mirrored the eternal, archetypal Ideas of the Divine Mind, so this civilization is Mans universe, the aggregate product of his intelligence and activity. It may possibly suggest itself here that some of the lower animals are producers no less than man. And so they are, in virtue of the instinct with which the Almighty has endowed them. The bird is the artisan of her nest, the bee of his cell, the beaver of his hut. But they are artisans only, working by a rule furnished to them, not architects, designing out of their own mental resources. They are producers only, not creators; they never make a variation, in the way of improvement, on foregone productions; and we argue conclusively that because they do not make it, they can never make it. Instinct dictates to them, as they work, line upon line, precept upon precept; but there is no single instance of their rising above this levelof their speculating upon an original design, and contriving the means whereby it may be carried into effect. But the creative faculty of man is still more evident in the ornamental arts, because here, more obviously than in the useful, man works according to no preconceived method or imposed condition, but throws out of his brain that which is new and original. A new melody, a new drama, a new picture, a new poem, are they not all (some more, some less, in proportion to the originality of the conception which is in them) creations? Is not this the very meaning of the word poem, in the language from which it is drawna thing made, a piece of workmanship? So that, in respect of the rich and varied developments of the human mind in the different forms of Art, we need not hesitate to call man a creator. And this is the first aspect under which God is presented to us in Holy Scripture; In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
A thing should be denominated from its noblest attribute, as man from reason, not from sense or from anything else less noble. So when we say, Man lives, it ought to be interpreted, Man makes use of his reason, which is the special life of man, and the actualization of his noblest part. Consequently he who abandons the use of his reason, and lives by his senses only, leads the life not of a man, but of an animal; as the most excellent Bothius puts it, he lives the life of an ass. And this I hold to be quite right, because thought is the peculiar act of reason, and animals do not think, because they are not endued with reason. And when I speak of animals, I do not refer to the lower animals only, but I mean to include also those who in outward appearance are men, but spiritually are no better than sheep, or any other equally contemptible brute.1 [Note: Dante. Conv. ii. 8 (trans. by Paget Toynbee).]
ii. Self-consciousness
Man is not only conscious, but also self-conscious. He can turn his mind back in reflection on himself; can apprehend himself; can speak of himself as I. This consciousness of self is an attribute of personality which constitutes a difference, not in degree, but in kind, between the human and the merely animal. No brute has this power. None, however elevated in the scale of power, can properly be spoken of as a person. The sanctity that surrounds personality does not attach to it.
Mans greatest possibility lies in the knowledge of himself. Most people know more of minerals than of men; more about training horses than children. The day is coming when the education of a child will begin at birth; when mothers, who, because of their opportunities, ought to be better psychologists than any university professor, will become not only trained scientific observers of mental phenomena, but directors of it. Even puppies have been so trained that they could surpass many artists in their discrimination between colours, and by this training the brain has been observed to grow enormously. It looks as if man might not only develop the brain he has, but add to it and build up a new brainand thus practically create a new human race. I hope this may prove true. Man is a spirit, child of the Infinite Spirit, capable of using the best physical machinery with ease; better machinery than he now has.1 [Note: C. M. Cobern.]
iii. Recognition of Right and Wrong
The great distinction between right and wrong belongs to man alone. An animal may be taught that it is not to do certain things, but it is because these things are contrary to its masters wish, not because they are wrong. Some persons have endeavoured to make out that the distinction between right and wrong on the part of ourselves is quite arbitrary, that we call that right which we find on the whole to be advantageous, and that wrong which on the whole tends to mischief; but the conscience of mankind is against this scheme of philosophy. That the wickedness of mankind has made fearful confusion between right and wrong, and that men very often by their conduct appear to approve of that which they ought not to approve, is very true; and that men may fall, by a course of vice, into such a condition that their moral sense is fearfully blunted, is also true: but this does not prove the absence of a sense of right and wrong from a healthy mind, any more than the case of ever so many blind men would prove that there is no such thing as sight. Nothe general conscience of mankind admits the truth which is assumed in Scripture, namely, that man, however far gone from original righteousness, does nevertheless recognize the excellence of what is good, that he delights in the law of God after the inward man, even though he may find another law in his members bringing him into captivity. This sense of what is right and good, which existed in man in his state of purity, and which has survived the fall and forms the very foundation upon which we can build hopes of his restoration to the favour of God, is a considerable portion of that which is described as Gods image in which man was created.
Darwin opens his chapter on the moral sense with this acknowledgment: I fully subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that, of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important. This sense is summed up in that short but imperious word, ought, so full of high significance. It is the most noble of all the attributes of man.1 [Note: G. E. Weeks.]
What! will I ca a man my superior, because hes cleverer than mysel? Will I boo down to a bit o brains, ony mair than to a stock or a stane? Let a man prove himsel better than mehonester, humbler, kinder, wi mair sense o the duty o man, an the weakness o manan that man III acknowledgethat mans my king, my leader, though he war as stupid as Eppe Dalgleish, that couldna count five on her fingers, and yet keepit her drucken father by her ain hands labour for twenty-three yeers.2 [Note: Charles Kingsley, Alton Locke.]
Devoid of the very taint of ambition, Dean Church obtained a singular authority, which was accepted without cavil or debate. Such an authority was a witness to the force and beauty of high moral character. It testified to the supremacy which belongs, of right and of necessity, to conscience. His special gifts would, under all conditions, have played a marked part; but they do not account for the impressive sway exercised over such multitudes by his personality.3 [Note: Life and Letters of Dean Church, 233.]
God hath no shape, nor can the artists hands
His figure frame in shining gold or wood,
Gods holy imageGod-sentonly stands
Within the bosoms of the wise and good.1 [Note: Statius, translated by W. E. A. Axon.]
iv. Communion with God
The sense of right and wrong may be regarded as part of that nature originally imparted to man, by which he was fitted to hold communion with God. God called other creatures into existence by His word, and so made them live; but man He inspired with His own breath, and so gave him a portion of His own Divine life. And corresponding to this difference of beginning was the after history. God blessed the living creatures which He had made, pronounced them very good, and bade them increase and multiply; but with man He held communion. They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen 3:8).
To me, the verse has, and can have, no other signification than thisthat the soul of man is a mirror of the mind of God. A mirror, dark, distorted, brokenuse what blameful names you please of its Stateyet in the main, a true mirror, out of which alone, and by which alone, we can know anything of God at all.
How? the reader, perhaps, answers indignantly. I know the nature of God by revelation, not by looking into myself.
Revelation to what? To a nature incapable of receiving truth? That cannot be; for only to a nature capable of truth, desirous of it, distinguishing it, feeding upon it, revelation is possible. To a being undesirous of it, and hating it, revelation is impossible. There can be none to a brute, or fiend. In so far, therefore, as you love truth, and live therein, in so far revelation can exist for you;and in so far, your mind is the image of Gods.
But consider, further, not only to what, but by what, is the revelation. By sight? or word? If by sight, then to eyes which see justly. Otherwise, no sight would be revelation. So far, then, as your sight is just, it is the image of Gods sight.
If by wordshow do you know their meanings? Here is a short piece of precious word revelation, for instanceGod is love.
Love! yes. But what is that? The revelation does not tell you that, I think. Look into the mirror and you will see. Out of your own heart, you may know what love is. In no other possible wayby no other help or sign. All the words and sounds ever uttered, all the revelations of cloud, or flame, or crystal, are utterly powerless. They cannot tell you, in the smallest point, what love means. Only the broken mirror can.
Here is more revelation. God is just! Just! What is that? The revelation cannot help you to discover. You say it is dealing equitably or equally. But how do you discern the equality? Not by inequality of mind; not by a mind incapable of weighing, judging, or distributing. If the lengths seem unequal in the broken mirror, for you they are unequal; but if they seem equal, then the mirror is true. So far as you recognize equality, and your conscience tells you what is just, so far your mind is the image of Gods; and so far as you do not discern this nature of justice or equality, the words, God is just, bring no revelation to you.1 [Note: Ruskin, Modern Painters, vol. v. pt. ix. ch. i. 1113.]
I have often imagined to myself the large joy which must have filled the mind of Aristarchus of Samos when the true conception of the solar system first dawned upon him, unsupported though it was by any of the mathematical demonstrations which have since convinced all educated men of its truth, and constraining belief solely on the ground of its own simple and beautiful order. I could suppose such a belief very strong, and almost taking such a form as this:It is so harmonious, so self-consistent, that it ought to be so, therefore it must be so. And surely this is nothing more than might be looked for in regard to spiritual realities. If man is created for fellowship with God there must exist within him, notwithstanding all the ravages of sin, capacities which will recognize the light and life of eternal truth when it is brought close to him. Without such capacities revelation would in fact be impossible.2 [Note: Thomas Erskine of Linlathen.]
A fire-mist and a planet,
A crystal and a cell,
A jelly-fish and a saurian,
And caves where the cave-men dwell.
Then a sense of law and beauty,
And a face turned from the clod,
Some call it evolution,
And others call it God.
Like tides on a crescent seabeach,
When the moon is new and thin,
Into our hearts high yearnings
Come welling and surging in;
Come from the mystic ocean,
Whose rim no foot has trod.
Some of us call it longing,
And others call it God.
v. Capacity for Redemption
The possibility of redemption after man had sinned is as great a mark as any of the image of God impressed upon him. When man has fallen he is not left to himself, as one whose fall is a trifling matter in the great economy of Gods creation. It was because His own image had been impressed on man that God undertook to redeem him; it was because that image, though defaced, had not been wholly destroyed, that such redemption was possible. Yesthanks to Godwe are in some sense in His image still; much as we incline to sin, yet we feel in our hearts and consciences that sin is death and that holiness is life. Much as we swerve from the ways of God, yet our consciences still tell us that those ways are ways of pleasantness and paths of peace; foolishly as we have behaved by seeking happiness in breaking Gods commands, yet our hearts testify to our folly and our better judgment condemns us. Here then are the traces of Gods image still, and because these traces remain, therefore there is hope for us in our fallen condition. God will yet return and build up His Tabernacle which has been thrown down; and it may be that the glory of the latter house will through His infinite mercy be even greater than that of the first.
There is a story in English history of a child of one of our noble houses who, in the last century, was stolen from his house by a sweep. The parents spared no expense or trouble in their search for him, but in vain. A few years later the lad happened to be sent by the master into whose hands he had then passed to sweep the chimneys in the very house from which he had been stolen while too young to remember it. The little fellow had been sweeping the chimney of one of the bedrooms, and fatigued with the exhausting labour to which so many lads, by the cruel custom of those times, were bound, he quite forgot where he was, and flinging himself upon the clean bed dropped off to sleep. The lady of the house happened to enter the room. At first she looked in disgust and anger at the filthy black object that was soiling her counterpane. But all at once something in the expression of the little dirty face, or some familiar pose of the languid limbs, drew her nearer with a sudden inspiration, and in a moment she had clasped once more in her motherly arms her long-lost boy.1 [Note: H. W. Horwill.]
Travellers to the islands of the South Seas reportedthat is, such of them as came backthat the natives were fierce and cannibal, bearing the brand of savagery even upon their faces. But Calvert and Paton went there, and proved that this savage countenance was only a palimpsest scrawled by the Devil over a manuscript of the Divine finger. To us the face of a Chinaman is dull and impassive. It awakens no interest; it stirs no affection. Then why have our friends Pollard and Dymond gone out to Yunnan? Because the Spirit of God has opened their eyes, so that behind all that stolid exterior they can see a soul capable of infinite possibilities of godlike nobility, just as the genius of the great sculptor could see an angel in the shapeless block of marble. And even already their inspired insight has been verified: they have seen that sluggish nature move; they have watched that hard, emotionless Chinese face as it has glowed with the joy that illumines him who knows that Christ is his Saviour. It is as when in the restoration of an old English church the workmen begin to take down the bare whitewashed wall, and the lath and plaster, as they are stripped off, reveal the hidden beauty of some ancient fresco or reredos. Let a new race of men be discovered to-day, and the true missionary will not hesitate to start for them to-morrow. Before he has heard anything of their history or their customs, before he has learnt a word of their language, there is one thing that he knows about themthat, however deeply they may be sunk in barbarism, they are not so low that the arm of Christ cannot reach them.1 [Note: H. W. Horwill.]
Count not thyself a starveling soul,
Baulked of the wealth and glow of life,
Destined to grasp, of this rich whole,
Some meagre measure through thy strife.
Ask not of flower or sky or sea
Some gift that in their giving lies;
Their light and wonder are of thee,
Made of thy spirit through thine eyes.
All meaningless the primrose wood,
All messageless the chanting shore,
Hadst thou not in thee gleams of good
And whispers of Gods evermore.1 [Note: P. C. Ainsworth, Poems and Sonnets, 57.]
III
Two Practical Conclusions
There are two facts of immense practical importance for us which follow from the one momentous fact of creation.
1. We owe to God our being and therefore we owe to God ourselves.What God makes, He has an absolute right to. There is a corresponding fundamental principle in social ethics among men; and in the case of Gods relation to His creatures the principle is yet more fundamental and absolute, even as the case itself is altogether unique. The obedience of nature to the Creator is unvarying, but it is only the blind obedience of necessity. Of the spiritual creation, on the other hand, the obedience must be free, but it is nevertheless as rightfully and absolutely claimed. Indeed, if it were possible, Gods claims on those whom He has made in His own likeness are of even superior Obligation. For the existence which they have received is existence at its highest worth, and to them is given the capacity to recognize and appreciate the paramount sovereignty of creative power as inspired and transfigured by creative love.
The disinclination to be under an obligation is always more or less natural to us, and it is particularly natural to those who are in rude health and high spirits, who have never yet known anything of real sorrow or of acute disease. It grows with that jealous sentiment of personal independence which belongs to an advanced civilization; and if it is distantly allied to one or two of the better elements of human character, it is more closely connected with others that are base and unworthy. The Eastern emperor executed the courtier who, by saving his life, had done him a service which could never be forgotten, perhaps never repaid; but this is only an extreme illustration of what may be found in the feelings of everyday life. A darker example of the same tendency is seen in the case of men who have wished a father in his grave, not on account of any misunderstanding, not from any coarse desire of succeeding to the family property, but because in the father the son saw a person to whom he owed not education merely, but his birth into the world, and felt that so vast a debt made him morally insolvent as long as his creditor lived. If men are capable of such feelings towards each other, we can understand much that characterizes their thought about and action towards God. By His very Existence He seems to inflict upon them a perpetual humiliation. To feel day by day, hour by hour, that there is at any rate One Being before whom they are as nothing; to whom they owe originally, and moment by moment, all that they are and have; who so holds them in His hand that no human parallel can convey a sense of the completeness of their dependence upon His good pleasure; and against whose decisions they have neither plea nor remedy:this they cannot bear. Yet if God exists, this, and nothing less, is strictly true.1 [Note: H. P. Liddon.]
2. We can co-operate with God in His creating, preserving, and redeeming activity.Though now subject to vanity and (not as to locality, but as to apprehension) far from his heavenly home, the assurance of mans ultimate perfection rests upon the impregnable foundation that there is within him a Divine potency. With this Divine potency it is his duty and privilege to co-operate. Man is begotten, but he is being made
Where is one that, born of woman, altogether can escape
From the lower world within him, moods of tiger, or of ape?
Man as yet is being made, and ere the crowning Age of ages,
Shall not on after on pass and touch him into shape?
All about him shadow still, but, while the races flower and fade,
Prophet-eyes may catch a glory slowly gaining on the shade,
Till the peoples all are one, and all their voices blend in choric
Hallelujah to the Maker, It is finished. Man is made.2 [Note: Tennyson, The Making of Man.]
IV
Three Texts
Take these three texts together
Gen 1:27.God created man in his own image.
Rom 3:23.For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
Heb 2:9.But we see Jesus.
The first text describes man as he was when he first came from the hand of his Creator; the second describes man as he is, as we know him, in the condition to which sin has reduced him; the third text describes man as he will be when his redemption is complete. He has not yet attained to the supremacy, the character and glory, which God preordained for him, but Christ has attained all these. We see Jesus crowned, and all things put under Him, and we shall be crowned also when our full redemption is reached.
1. In His own Image.The first great truth of the Bible in regard to man is this, that he was made in the image of God. He is the Creators noblest earthly work. Out of the dust of the earth God fashioned mans body, and then breathed into it the breath of life. Science tells us that mans body is the culmination and recapitulation of all prior forms of life. But some of its highest and most authoritative teachers acknowledge that man as man is a distinct creation. Wallace, for instance, maintains that mans bodily structure is identical with the animal world, and is derived from it of which it is the culmination; but he declares emphatically that mans entire nature and all his faculties, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, are not derived from the lower animals, but have an origin wholly distinct; that the working of material laws does not account for the exaltation of humanity. These are from the spiritual universe, and are the result of fresh and extra manifestations of its power. Let us try to realize this great truth. The body, the meanest part of man, is the culmination of all created forms of life. But between man and the highest animal there is an infinite difference. How great then is man: A little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honour! He stands midway between the material and the spiritual, the manifestation of both. Dust and deity. Below, he is related to the earth; above, he is related to the heavens. He claims kinship with seraphs; nay, he is Gods own offspring. In man God objectified Himself, made Himself visible. God intended man to be the incarnation of Himself, for He made man in His own image. What a stupendous truth! Herder once exclaimed, Give me a great truth that I may feed upon it. Here it is. Man is the incarnation of God.
I am staring, said MacIan at last, at that which shall judge us both.
Oh yes, said Turnbull, in a tired way; I suppose you mean God.
No, I dont, said MacIan, shaking his head; I mean him.
And he pointed to the half-tipsy yokel who was ploughing, down the road.
I mean him. He goes out in the early dawn; he digs or he ploughs a field. Then he comes back and drinks ale, and then he sings a song. All your philosophies and political systems are young compared to him. All your hoary cathedralsyes, even the Eternal Church on earth is new compared to him. The most mouldering gods in the British Museum are new facts beside him. It is he who in the end shall judge us all I am going to ask him which of us is right.
Ask that intoxicated turnip-eater
Yeswhich of us is right. Oh, you have long words and I have long words; and I talk of every man being the image of God; and you talk of every man being a citizen and enlightened enough to govern. But, if every man typifies God, there is God. If every man is an enlightened citizen, there is your enlightened citizen. The first man one meets is always man. Let us catch him up.1 [Note: G. K. Chesterton, The Ball and the Cross.]
2. All have sinned.Man has fallen by disobedience. It was not merely the eating of the fruit; it was the principle involved in the act that proved fatal. What was thatwhat but rebellion? The conflict of the human will with the Divine. That involved death. By that act the soul of man passed from spiritual health and felt below the fulness of life, and in that sense died. And Adams sin was diffusive. He was the first of the race. His sin entered into human nature, and the poison passed from generation to generation with ever deeper taint, so that every life repeats the sin of Adam. There is in it the refusal of the human will to submit to Gods will. Thus it is absolutely and universally true that all have sinned and come short of that life which is the glory of God. We sometimes boast of our ancestors, but if we went far enough back we should have little to boast of. Think of the filth, the falseness, the lust, the cruelty, the drunkenness, the ferocity of the races out of which we have sprung. Look around you! Is not the text true? In many, reason is prostituted to evil. The free choice of man becomes the fixed choice of evil; myriads are the abject slaves of sin. Conscience has been so often disobeyed that its writs no longer run in the life, or it is so seared that men can commit the foulest crimes without blushing. The spirit has been so neglected that no prayer to God ever rises to the lip and no thought of God enters the mind. Think of the crimes which stain the pages of our newspapers, and the numberless crimes known only to God. Even among the most intellectual there are sins of the darkest hue. We have been rudely reminded within the last few years that our boasted stheticism and culture may be but thin veils which hide vices we fain hoped were dead two thousand years ago. How bitter and ceaseless has been the conflict between the conscience and the will in all of us! How powerful, almost invincible, is the habit of sin! We never realize our bondage until we seek to break away. When the younger son of the parable stood on his fathers doorstep with his patrimony in his pocket and his face toward the far country, at that moment he was a prodigal. We are all prodigals. Though we may never have reached the swine-troughs we have turned our backs on God.
In one of his books, Salted with Fire, George MacDonald tells of a young woman who had been led astray. A warm-hearted minister found her one night on his doorstep, and guessing her story, brought her into his home. His little daughter upstairs with her mother, asked, Mamma, who is it papa has in the library? And the wise mother quietly replied, It is an angel, dear, who has lost her way, and papa is telling her the way back.1 [Note: S. D. Gordon, Quiet Talks on Home Ideals, 18.]
3. But we see Jesus.Made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honour, all things put in subjection under him. We see not yet all things put under Him. But we see Jesus. He was crowned. He put all things under Him; and humanity in Him shall yet attain this glorious supremacy. When Jesus trod the pathways of this world, limited as He was by His incarnation, how like a conqueror He worked! He was master of all the forces of Nature. The sea became to Him an unyielding pavement of adamant. When the storm arose He had but to say, Peace! and the huge, green, yeasty billows lay down at His feet like sleeping babes. Disease fled at His touch. The dead came forth at His call. And though He yielded to the yoke of death He did it like a conqueror. I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again. He died of His own free choice. And on the third morning He broke through the barriers of the tomb and came forth the Victor of the dark realm of Hades. He was crowned also in the moral and spiritual world. He lived a life of perfect victory over sin. All the assaults of sin beat unavailingly against the rock of His pure manhood. He mingled with men of the lowest order, but He remained without spot, and went back to God as pure as when He came from God. Christ was the first crowned of a new race. He made a new beginning, and humanity in Him will reach His level at the last. We see not yet all things put under man, but we see Jesus.
Dr. Barnardo used to illustrate the benefits of his redemptive work by taking a group of specimens to the platform with him. Look at that boy there on the right. Poor lad, he has not yet all things put under him; no, indeed, he was picked up only an hour ago off the streets. Dirt is not put under him, and ignorance is not put under him, and vice is not put under him. He is the slave of all three. But look at that lad on the extreme left. Sixteen years of age, clean, well dressed, intelligent, and virtuous. He has been three years in the Home. What a contrast! He has put all things under him. Even so it is with humanity. It is being transformed by Christ. Some are at the base of the ladder of progress and redemption, others are ascending, and others have again entered into the glory of God. Like Christ, humanity shall have all things put under it.
Oh, fairest legend of the years,
With folded wings, go silently!
Oh, flower of knighthood, yield your place
To One who comes from Galilee.
To wounded feet that shrink and bleed,
But press and climb the narrow way,
The same old way our own must step,
For ever, yesterday, to-day.
For soul can be what soul hath been,
And feet can tread where feet have trod,
Enough to know that once the clay
Hath worn the features of the God.1 [Note: Daily Song, p. 151.]
One of the most precious memories of my life is that of my own fathers victorious death. After thirty years in the ministry he passed away while yet in the prime of manhood. He died of consumption, and at the last was very feeble; so feeble, indeed, that he could scarcely make his voice audible. The last night came. He whispered to my mother again and again, It is well with me, it is well with me. Then he said, When the last moment comes, if I feel I have the victory I will tell you but if I cannot speak I will raise my hand. As the grey morning light stole into the death-chamber my mother saw that the end had come. His lips moved. She stooped to catch the words, but there was no sound; his power of articulation had gone. The next moment he seemed to realize it, and, with a smile on his dying face, he lifted his thin, worn hand for a few seconds, and then it fell on the pillow, and he was not, for God had taken him.1 [Note: J. T. Parr.]
O, may I triumph so,
When all my warfares past,
And, dying, find my latest foe
Under my feet at last.
Literature
Alford (H.), Quebec Chapel Sermons, iv. 35.
Banks (L. A.), The Worlds Childhood, 186.
Baring-Gould (S.), Village Preaching, ii. 9.
Bernard (J. H.), Via Domini, 41.
Brown (J. B.), The Home Life, 1.
Campbell (R. J.), Thursday Mornings at the City Temple, 1.
Church (R. W.), Village Sermons, iii. 64.
Clifford (J.), Typical Christian Leaders, 215.
Cobern (C. M.), The Stars and the Book, 78.
Coyle (R. F.), The Church and the Times, 175.
Dale (R. W.), Christian Doctrine, 170.
Gibbon (J. M.), The Image of God, 1.
Goodwin (H.), Parish Sermons, 5th Ser., 1.
Horwill (H. W.), The Old Gospel in the New Era, 53.
Hughes (D.), The Making of Man 1:9.
Kingsley (C.), The Gospel of the Pentateuch, 19.
Lefroy (W.), The Immortality of Memory, 229.
Lewis (E. W.), Some Views of Modern Theology, 169.
Maclaren (A.), Expositions: Genesis.
Matheson (G.), Leaves for Quiet Hours, 37.
Matheson (G.), Searchings in the Silence, 215.
Murray (A.), With Christ, 137.
Orr (J.), Gods Image in Man, 34.
Robinson (F.), College and Ordination Addresses, 47, 53.
Selby (T. G.), The Lesson of a Dilemma, 264.
Weeks (G. E.), Fettered Lives, 49.
Woodford (J. R.), Sermons in Various Churches, 33.
Christian Age, xxv. 212 (Vaughan).
Christian World Pulpit, xvi. 218 (Williams); xviii. 17 (Brooke); xix. 369 (Vaughan); l. 419 (Bliss); lvi. 4 (Parr).
Churchmans Pulpit (Trinity Sunday), ix. 272 (Goodwin).
Expositor, 4th Ser., iii. 125 (Perowne).
Expository Times, iii. 410 (Pinches); x. 72.
Preachers Magazine for 1891, 145, 193 (Selby).
Treasury (New York), xiii. 196.
Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible
Let us: Gen 3:22, Gen 11:7, Job 35:10, Psa 100:3, Psa 149:2, Isa 64:8, Joh 5:17, Joh 14:23, 1Jo 5:7
man: In Hebrew, Adam; probably so called either from the red earth of which he was formed, or from the blush or flesh-tint of the human countenance. the name is intended to designate the species.
in our: Gen 5:1, Gen 9:6, Ecc 7:29, Act 17:26, Act 17:28, Act 17:29, 1Co 11:7, 2Co 3:18, 2Co 4:4, Eph 4:24, Col 1:15, Col 3:10, Jam 3:9
have dominion: Gen 9:2, Gen 9:3, Gen 9:4, Job 5:23, Psa 8:4-8, Psa 104:20-24, Ecc 7:29, Jer 27:6, Act 17:20, Act 17:28, Act 17:29, 1Co 11:7, 2Co 3:18, Eph 4:24, Col 3:10, Heb 2:6-9, Jam 3:7, Jam 3:9
Reciprocal: Gen 1:27 – General Gen 2:19 – brought Job 35:11 – General Job 39:11 – leave Psa 8:5 – thou Psa 8:6 – madest Psa 17:15 – with Psa 139:14 – for I am fearfully Pro 8:23 – General Son 1:11 – General Isa 6:8 – us Isa 45:12 – made the earth Eze 28:15 – till iniquity Mat 28:19 – the name Luk 3:38 – of God Luk 11:40 – did Joh 1:3 – General Joh 5:19 – for
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE DIVINE IMAGE IN MAN
And God said, Let us make man in our image.
Gen 1:26
It is not too much to say that redemption itself, with all its graces and all its glories, finds its explanation and its reason in creation. Mystery, indeed, besets us on every side. There is one insoluble mysterythe entrance, the existence of evil. It might have been fatal, whencesoever derived, whithersoever traceable, to the regard of God for the work of His own hands. He might have turned away with disgust and abhorrence from the creature which had broken loose from Him, under whatsoever influence, shortand it must have been shortof absolute compulsion. No injustice and no hardship would have been involved, to our conception, in the rebel being taken at his word, and left to reap as he had sown. Nevertheless, we say thisthat if we have knowledge of an opposite manner and feeling on the part of God; if we receive from Him a message of mercy and reconciliation, if we hear such a voice as this from the excellent glory, I have laid help upon One that is mighty, I have found a ransom, there is in the original relationship of the Creator to the creature a fact upon which the other fact can steady and ground itself. He who thought it worth while to create, foreseeing consequences, can be believed, if He says so, to have thought it worth while to rescue and renew. Nay, there is in this redemption a sort of antecedent fitness, inasmuch as it exculpates the act of creation from the charge of short-sightedness or of mistake, and turns what this book calls the repentance of God Himself that He had made man, into an illustration unique and magnificent of the depths of the riches of His wisdom, revealing, St. Paul says, to higher intelligences new riches of the universe, of His attributes, and making angels desire to look into the secrets of His dealing with a race bought back with blood. In this sense and to this extent creation had redemption in it, redemption in both its parts, atonement by the work of Christ, sanctification by the work of the Spirit. Let us make man in our imagecreated anew in Jesus Christafter the image of Him that created him.
I. First Divine Likeness: Spirituality. God is a spirit, and I would make it our first thought now. If it had been God is intelligence, or God is reason, or God is light, in that sense of light in which it stands for knowledge, whether in possession or communication, we should have been carried off the track of profiting, and we should have been called, besides, to enter into many subtle distinctions between the intelligence of the animal nature and the intelligence of the rational. But it is otherwise when we make this the first feature of the divine image in man. He too, like God, is spirit! he has other characteristics which he shares not with God; he is in one part matter; he is in one part of the earth, earthy; he is in one part material and perishing; but he is spirit, too. There is that in us which is independent of space and time. We all count it a reproach to call one another carnal or to call one another animal. There is a world altogether incorporeal in which human nature, such as God has made it, finds its most real, most congenial and most characteristic being. It is in the converse of mind with mind and spirit with spirit that we are conscious of our keenest interests and our most satisfying enjoyments. Man is spirit. This it is which makes him capable of intercourse and communion with God Himself. This it is which makes prayer possible, and thanksgiving possible, and worship possible, in more than a form and a name.
II. Second Divine Likeness: Sympathy. Love is sympathy, and God is love. We may feel that there is a risk of irreverence in so stating the condescension of the Son of God to our condition of liability to and experience of suffering as to make it indispensable to His feeling with us under it. Sympathy is an attribute of Deity. When God made man in His own likeness, He made him thereby capable of sympathy. The heart of God is the well-spring of sympathy; the Incarnate Son needed not to learn sympathy by taking upon Him our flesh. When we look upwards in our hour of pain and anguish for comfort and help, for support and strength, we separate not between the Father and the Son in our appeal. We invoke the sympathy of the Father who has not Himself suffered, as well as a Saviour who hungered and thirsted, wept and bled below. It was not to learn sympathy as a new attainment that God in the fulness of time sent forth His Son; but that which is His very trinity is light, omnipotence, omniscience, and holiness; He came forth to manifest in the sight of the creature, in the sight of the sinful and sorrow-laden, that they might not only know in the abstract that there is compassion in heaven, but witness its exercise in human dealing, and be drawn to it by a realising sense of its accessibility and of its tenderness. The image of God is, in the second place, sympathyspirituality without sympathy might conceivably be a cold and spiritless grace: it might lift us above earth in the sense of the higher nature and the everlasting home: it would not brighten earth itself in its myriad clouds and shadows of suffering by bringing down into it the love of God and the tender mercies, which are the very sunshine of His smile.
III. Third Divine Likeness: Influence. A third feature of the divine likeness is needed to complete the trinity of graces which were the endowment of the unfallen, and shall be the higher heritage of the restored man. The third feature is that which we call influence; the other two are conditions of it. Without spirituality there can be no action at all of mind upon mind; without sympathy there can be no such actions as we speak of, for threatening is not influence, and command is not influence. These things stand without to speak, and never enter into the being which they would deter or compel. Influence is by name and essence that gentle flowing in of one nature and one personality into another which touches the spring of will and makes the volition of one the volition of the other. As the divine attribute of sympathy wrought in the Incarnation, the Passion, and the intercession of the Eternal Son, so the divine attribute of influence works in the mission of the Eternal Spirit to be the ever-present Teacher and Comforter of all who will yield themselves to His sway. It needs, surely, but a small amount of humility to allow to the Divine Creator the same kind, or, at least, the same degree, of access to the spirits and souls of His creatures, which we see to be possessed by those His creatures, one over another. It is, indeed, a worse than heathenish negation of the power and activity of God, the source of all, if we debar Him alone from the exercise of that spiritual influence which we find to be universal, which we find to be all but resistless in the hands of those who possess it but by His leave. God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.
Dean Vaughan.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
The Beginning and the Beginning Again
Gen 1:26-31; Gen 2:1-10
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
The word Genesis means the “beginning.” It is the first Book of the Bible, and in its opening chapters we have the story of the beginning of the original creation, of the earth renewed and blessed, of the creation of man and of woman, of the vision of the Garden of Eden, of the entrance of sin and Satan, of the pronunciation of the curse, etc.
The Book of Revelation is the Book of the “new beginning.” We find in its last few chapters the great consummation of everything which began in Genesis. The curse passes out, and the new life enters in.
A key to all of these things is found in the statement: “Behold, I make all things new.”
In Genesis we have a flower in the bud; in Revelation we have the same flower in the bloom, with all of its radiant glory and aroma filling the new heavens and the new earth.
1. The original earth. Perhaps, we should have said the original Heaven and earth. The first verse of Genesis says: “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.” Rev 21:1 says: “I saw a new Heaven and a new earth: for the first Heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.”
Between the statement of Gen 1:1, and that of Rev 21:1, we have the whole story of the physical earth.
(1) There is the earth as God created it. It was not created waste and void.
(2) We have the earth without form and void, with darkness upon the face of the deep.
(3) We have the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters, and God saying, “Let there be light.”
(4) There follows the story of the earth renewed and blessed as described in Gen 1:1-31. The dry land appears, the earth brings forth grass, the herb, and the fruit tree. The sun and the moon are placed in the heaven to rule the day and the night. The waters are made to bring forth, the moving creature that has life. In the firmament above, the fowl and birds are made to fly.
2. The earth’s great cataclysmic judgment. In Gen 6:1-22 there begins the story of man’s wickedness and of God’s determination to destroy man from off the face of the earth. There follows the history of the ark and of the preservation of Noah and his family. Then the earth is destroyed by water. Every living thing is swept away before the wrath of God. The waters in the heavens above fall upon the earth beneath. Finally, the ark rests upon Mount Ararat; the earth is once more renewed and blest, and God places His bow in the cloud for a token of a covenant between Him and the peoples of the earth.
3. The earth’s next cataclysmic judgment. This judgment will fall upon the earth during the time of the great tribulation. As we see it, we are now hastening toward that very hour. During that day of judgment, God will not forget the pledge of His rainbow; and the waters will not destroy man from off the earth. The judgments will be of a different order. The earth will tremble and will be moved exceedingly. The peoples of the earth will cry unto the rocks and mountains to fall upon them. There will be a great earthquake, and thunders, and lightnings, and voices.
4. After this cataclysmic judgment has abated God will once more renew and bless the earth. Every mountain shall be brought low and every valley exalted. Unprecedented fertility will be given to the soil. Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree. The wilderness will bloom and blossom as a rose.
5. The earth’s final cataclysmic judgment. At the end of the thousand years of millennial blessings, we read of the great white throne from which the heavens and the earth fled away. Peter speaking of this hour says in the Spirit “The heavens and the earth, which are now, * * are kept in store, reserved unto fire.” He also said: “The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
In the Book of Hebrews there is this statement, “Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also Heaven.”
6. The new Heaven and the new earth. We now come to the close of the Bible message concerning the Heaven and the earth. The former things have passed away, the new Heaven and the new earth appear upon the scene, and God’s City, the New Jerusalem, is seen descending, and resting upon, the new earth.
Thus we have scoped the history of the earth.
I. A CONTRAST BETWEEN PHYSICAL CONDITIONS IN THE ORIGINAL AND THE NEW HEAVEN AND EARTH (Gen 1:3-4; Gen 1:14-16)
1. The period when God said, “Let there be light.” At this time there was not yet any sun or moon to lighten the earth, but God was the light thereof. In Revelation there is described, in chapter 21, a similar period. We read: “And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.” The nations of the new earth will walk in the light of that wonderful City, which will radiate its glory to the uttermost ends of the earth.
The period when God divided the day from the night. From that day until this we have had the rising of the sun and the setting thereof. We have had light by day and darkness by night. In the new heavens and the new earth, we find this expression, “There shall be no night there.” Night and darkness passes with the passing of the first heaven and earth, and with the passing of the light of the sun and the moon.
2. The contrast between the seas of the first and second earth. In Gen 1:1-31, we read that God gathered the waters unto heaven unto one place and He said, “Let the dry land appear.” The dry land He called earth and the waters called He seas. In the new Heaven and the new earth of Rev 21:1-27 we read: “And there was no more sea.”
3. The contrast between the fruit tree of the original and final earth. The story is written of the Garden of Eden, “Out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that Is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
In the New Jerusalem, we read: There “was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month.”
In Genesis we read of man being shut out lest they should eat of the tree of life and live. In Revelation we read, “Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”
4. The contrast in the rivers of the original and final earth. In Gen 2:10, it is written, “And a river went out of Eden to water the Garden.” In Rev 22:1 we read: “And He shewed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal proceeding out of the Throne of God and of the Lamb.”
II. A CONTRAST BETWEEN MAN AND HIS DOMINION IN THE ORIGINAL AND THE NEW HEAVEN AND EARTH (Gen 1:26)
1. Man given dominion. Our text tells us of how God said: “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the air,” etc.
When man was driven out of the Garden of Eden that dominion was lost in park
2. The prophecy of a restored dominion. In Psa 8:4-6 we read these words: “What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? and the Son of Man, that Thou visitest Him? for Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned Him with glory and honour. Thou madest Him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under His feet.”
3. The prophecy of a restored dominion is to be fulfilled in Christ. It is in the Book of Hebrews we read: “But now we see not yet all thing’s put under Him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour.”
Our Lord Jesus Christ shall subdue all things. He must reign until He has put all things under His feet.
In all of this conquest, the Lord Jesus Christ is the Captain of our salvation. Where the Captain goes, the soldiers follow. His victory is theirs. They share every conquest with Him. He leads them in the train of His triumph.
4. The prophecy of the new Heavens and the new earth. In that Heavenly made City, and upon that earth will be established the Throne of God and of the Lamb. All dominion and authority will be invested in the One who conquered death and hell, and we in Him shall reign forevermore.
III. A CONTRAST IN SATAN’S POWER AND DOMINION (Gen 3:1)
1. Satan enters in. Into the Garden of Eden Satan came seeking, if possible, to frustrate the plan of God, and to cast man down from his high estate. We are aware of the results. Eve and Adam both fell under Satan’s strategies and deceptions. The result was that the curse was pronounced upon the woman, then upon the man. In the curse upon the man, the physical earth was involved and made subject to vanity for man’s sake.
2. Satan proclaimed god of this world. With the authority of God broken, Satan himself assumed headship. The result was that the enemy became known as “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience,” Christ said of Satan, “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me.” In the Epistle of John we read of the world lying in the lap of the wicked one. In Corinthians we read, “The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.”
In the wilderness temptation Satan offered unto Christ the kingdoms of the world and the glories of them, if He would accept Satan’s sovereignty and headship.
3. Satan’s last stand. In the Book of Revelation we find where Satan, the old dragon and serpent, is cast out of Heaven, onto the earth. The devilish trinity consisting of the devil, the antichrist, and the false prophet, will at that time fill the earth with violence-a violence equaled only by that which swayed man in the days of Noah. Satan will realize his time is short, and with one great final effort he will seek to rule God out of the earth, and to expel Christ from the thoughts of the hearts of men.
4. Satan cast into the pit of the abyss, and then into the lake of fire. In Rev 20:1-15 we read of Satan being chained and cast into the pit. He will not be allowed, during the Millennial Kingdom of Christ, to tempt the world and to rule it.
Finally, he who entered into the world scene, in Gen 3:1-24, will find his last abode in the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet are.
IV. A CONTRAST BETWEEN MAN’S SIN AND HIS FINAL SALVATION (Gen 3:9-12)
1. How sin entered in. It was in the Garden of Eden that Satan cast his vile snare. He entered the Garden with one thought, the dethronement of God in the lives of the first man and woman. Not only that, but he entered with the express purpose of tempting man to enthrone himself as God. Incidentally, of course, Satan sought to take the place of authority over man.
Until this day sin may be summed up in one word, even this; “We have turned every one to his own way.”
2. How sin is passed from man to man. There is a Scripture which says: “In sin did my mother conceive me.” This heart of sin, therefore, which everyone of us possess in birth is passed down from father to son, throughout all generations. It passes after the Law which God Himself established in the creation, when He said, “Kind * * after his kind.” The evolutionary theory would deny this eternal Law, and seek to establish the transmutation of species.
All flesh is sinful. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
3. How God met the issue of man’s redemption from sin. The 5th chapter of Romans tells the story of how grace superabounded over sin and its sway.
By one man sin entered into the world; by Another, life entered. By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin; by Another salvation came, and death passed out, as life reigned.
This change was not wrought by any transmutation of species. It was wrought as follows:
(1) Christ in His death satisfied the offended Law, sustained its majesty, bore its penalty, and suffered the Just for the unjust.
(2) Christ by His life and by virtue of His death, through His Spirit, begat within the believing soul a new life. We were born not of the will of the flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God.
4. How sin and its results will pass into salvation and its glory. In Revelation we find the following wonderful statements:
“And there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”
Because of sin came death. Because of salvation came life forevermore. Sin separated from God, salvation brings us back to God.
V. THE CURSE ENTERING AND THE CURSE PASSING AWAY (Gen 3:16-19)
1. The curse upon the woman. Unto the woman, God said: “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception.” We believe that as God spoke the words of this curse that there came back, as it were, an echo from the Cross of Calvary saying, “A Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” To the woman God also said, “In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” Back from the Cross again, we catch an echo: “He shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied.”
The sorrow of the woman in childbirth, anticipated the sorrow of the Son of God as upon the Cross He saw the travail of His soul, and was satisfied.
Every time a child is born by physical birth through the travail of his mother, we cannot but anticipate the fact that he is born the second time, through the travail of the Saviour. The Prophet asked: “Who shall declare His generation?” the answer given by the Spirit was: “He shall see His seed, * * and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.”
2. The curse upon the physical earth. Unto Adam, God said: “Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.”
The physical earth and every tiling related thereto-the fruit of the ground, the beasts, the fishes, the fowls, all are brought under the effect of sin. All are made subject to vanity for men’s sake. Therefore in Romans we read: “[The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”
Let us catch, if we can, from Calvary God’s echo to this curse. We read: “They had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon His head.” Thus, when Jesus Christ died for. men that they might be saved, He included in. that redemptive work the deliverance of the creation, which was made subject to vanity. We say this because the creation itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
When man sinned the creation came under the curse. When Christ comes and the world accepts His reign, the creation shall also be delivered from its bondage of corruption. “Instead of the thorns shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree.”
3. The curse upon the man. Unto Adam God also said: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”
Once more we catch an. echo from the Garden of Eden, as Christ approached the Cross. We read of Christ and He sweat “as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”
As we look further on into the glories of eternity, we read, “And there shall be no more curse.” We also read: “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”
How wonderful is the far sweeping vision of the Cross of Christ, in its answer to the curse pronounced in Eden.
VI. THE COATS OF SKINS (Gen 3:21)
1. Adam and Eve and their fig leaf aprons. In Gen 3:7 it is written: “They sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” To us this passage of Scripture stands for everything that sinful man has done, or attempted to do, in order to cover his sin. From the time that Adam and Eve first sinned until this very hour the unregenerate world has sought in vain to cover their own sinful hearts.
We think of Cain and Abel, and of how Cain offered up the fruits of his field. In this, Cain made no confession of sin, and accepted no sacrificial deliverance from his sins. There was no blood and no suggestion of blood in the products of the ground. They may have appeared beautiful, and, ethically, they may have seemed more to be desired than the blood sacrifice of Abel. However, Cain’s offering stank in the nostrils of God.
Unto this hour men are seeking to climb up some other way, than by the way of the Cross. They vainly imagine that they can be saved without the Blood of the Lamb.
2. God and the coats of skins. In Gen 3:21 we read: “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”
(1) What we cover, God uncovers. Have we not read of how it is written, “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper”? Have you not also read: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”?
(2) What we uncover, God covers. By this statement we mean, that if we are ready to acknowledge the sinfulness of our heart; and, if we are willing to give up hope of hiding our sins from God; God stands ready, through the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, to clothe us in His righteousness.
How wonderful is the phrase: “These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb.”
AN ILLUSTRATION
HEAVEN ENGAGED AHEAD
“We have * * an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (2Co 5:1). Some friends lately in traveling arrived at an English hotel, but found that it had been full for days. They were turning away to seek accommodation elsewhere, when a lady of the party bade the others adieu, and expressed her intention of remaining. “How can that be,” they asked, “when you hear the hotel is full?” “Oh!” she replied, “I telegraphed on ahead a number of days ago, and my room is secured,” My friend, send on your name ahead, and the door of Heaven can never be shut against you. Be sure it is a wise precaution. Then everything will be ready for you. And when the journey of life is over, you will mount up as with angel wings, and inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.-Moody’s Addresses.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
Man Is Different Until man’s creation, everything was spoken into existence. Man was different ( Gen 1:26 ; Gen 2:7 ). God took of the dust of the earth and made man in his own image. Man’s likeness to God cannot be physical since God is a spirit ( Joh 4:24 ). Instead, man is a being comprised of body and spirit ( Jas 2:26 ; 2Co 4:16 ).
God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. He also instructed him to subdue the earth and have dominion over all the other living things ( Gen 1:27-28 ). Man was placed in the garden to dress and keep it, or care for the things it contained (2:15). He could eat of every tree except the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (2:16-17). Here we find man’s first job and restriction.
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Gen 1:26. God said, Let us make man We have here another and still more important part of the sixth days work, the creation of man. Having prepared a fit habitation for man, and furnished it with all things necessary for his use and comfort, God now proceeds to create him. But this he does, as it were, with deliberation, nay, and consultation, using a phraseology which he had not used with regard to any other creatures, thereby showing the excellence of man above every other being which he had made. And it appears from hence, that all the three hypostases, which still bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, were peculiarly concerned in the creation of man. For God did not speak thus to angels, who, although they were present, and rejoiced at the creation of the universe, (Job 37:4; Job 37:7,) yet had no hand therein, sundry passages of Scripture testifying that it was the work of God alone. In our image, after our likeness Two words signifying the same thing. Here again we see the excellence of man above all other creatures of this world, none of which are said to be made after the image or likeness of God. Indeed, his pre-eminence above the brute creatures, and his high destination, are apparent in the very form of his body, the erect figure of which, set toward the heavens, points him to his origin and end. It is, however, in the soul of man, that we must look for the divine image. And here we easily discern it. Like God, mans soul is a spirit, immaterial, invisible, active, intelligent, free, immortal, and, when first created, endowed with a high degree of divine knowledge, and with holiness and righteousness; in which particulars, according to St. Paul, Eph 4:24, Col 3:10, the image of God in man chiefly consists. He was also invested with an image of Gods authority and dominion, and was constituted the ruler, under him, of all the inferior creatures. For God said, And let them Male and female, (here comprehended in the word man,) with their posterity; have dominion over the fish of the sea, &c. All the creatures, both wild and tame, are here included, over which our first parents, while innocent, had entire and perfect power and dominion, as they had also over the productions of the earth, and over the earth itself, to cultivate and manage it, as they should see fit, for their comfort and advantage.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1:26 And God said, {s} Let us make man in our {t} image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(s) God commanded the water and the earth to bring forth other creatures: but of man he says, “Let us make…” signifying that God takes counsel with his wisdom and virtue purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.
(t) This image and likeness of God in man is expounded in Eph 4:24 where it is written that man was created after God in righteousness and true holiness meaning by these two words, all perfection, as wisdom, truth, innocency, power, etc.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
"Us" is probably a plural of intensification (see my comment on Gen 1:1 above), though some regard it as a plural of self-deliberation (cf. Gen 11:7; Psa 2:3). [Note: E.g., Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11 : A Commentary, p. 145.] Others believe that God was addressing His heavenly court (cf. Isa 6:8). [Note: The NET Bible note on 1:26.] This word involves "in germ" the doctrine of the Trinity. However, we should not use it as a formal proof of the Trinity since this reference by itself does not prove that one God exists in three persons. [Note: See Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 112; Wenham, pp. 27-27; Oswald Allis, God Spake by Moses, p. 13.]
"Although the Christian Trinity cannot be derived solely from the use of the plural, a plurality within the unity of the Godhead may be derived from the passage." [Note: Mathews, p. 163.]
The theological controversy in Moses’ day was not between trinitarianism and unitarianism but between one self-existent, sovereign, good God and many limited, capricious, often wicked gods. [Note: Hamilton, p. 133.]
"First, God’s deliberation shows that he has decided to create man differently from any of the other creatures-in his image and likeness. God and man share a likeness that is not shared by other creatures. This apparently means that a relationship of close fellowship can exist between God and man that is unlike the relationship of God with the rest of his creation. What more important fact about God and man would be necessary if the covenant at Sinai were, in fact, to be a real relationship? Remove this and the covenant is unthinkable.
"Secondly, in Genesis 1, man, the image bearer, is the object of God’s blessing. According to the account of creation in Genesis 1, the chief purpose of God in creating man is to bless him. The impact of this point on the remainder of the Pentateuch and the author’s view of Sinai is clear: through Abraham, Israel and the covenant this blessing is to be restored to all mankind." [Note: Sailhamer, "Exegetical Notes . . .," p. 80.]
"Man" refers to mankind, not Adam individually (Gen 1:27). "Them" indicates this generic significance. God created (cf. Gen 1:1-2) mankind male and female; they did not evolve from a lower form of life (cf. Mat 19:4; Mar 10:6). Adam was not androgynous (i.e., two individuals joined physically like Siamese twins) or bisexual (i.e., one individual possessing both male and female sexual organs). There is no basis for these bizarre ideas in the text. God formed Eve from Adam’s rib, not from half of his body or from his genitals.
"The image is found in the type of relationship that was designed to exist between male and female human beings, a relationship where the characteristics of each sex are valued and used to form a oneness in their identity and purpose. When God created human beings as male and female he formed them to exhibit a oneness in their relationship that would resemble the relationship of God and his heavenly court.
"By ruling as one, male and female fulfill the purpose of God for which they were created. United as one humanity, male and female are one with God and his heavenly court. And it is this unity between male and female, and between humanity and God, that is destroyed in the Fall described in Genesis 3." [Note: Henry F. Lazenby, "The Image of God: Masculine, Feminine, or Neuter?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:1 (March 1987):67, 66.]
As a husband and wife demonstrate oneness in their marriage they reflect the unity of the Godhead. Oneness involves being in agreement with God’s will and purposes. Oneness is essential for an orchestra, an athletic team, and a construction crew, as well as a family, to achieve a common purpose. Oneness in marriage is essential if husband and wife are to fulfill God’s purposes for humankind. (Generally speaking, women feel a marriage is working if they talk about it, but men feel it is working if they do not talk about it.)
God created man male and female as an expression of His own plurality: "Let us make man . . ." God’s plurality anticipated man’s plurality. The human relationship between man and woman thus reflects God’s own relationship with Himself. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 38.]
"Image" and "likeness" are essentially synonymous terms. Both indicate personality, moral, and spiritual qualities that God and man share (i.e., self-consciousness, God-consciousness, freedom, responsibility, speech, moral discernment, etc.) These distinguish humans from the animals, which have no God-consciousness even though they have conscious life (cf. Gen 1:24). Some writers have called the image of God man’s "spiritual personality." [Note: E.g., Keil and Delitzsch, 1:63. See Wenham, pp. 27-28; Charles Feinberg, "The Image of God," Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):235-246, esp. p. 237; Boice, 1:77-79; Mathews, pp. 164-72.] In another sense man is the image of God (e.g., he rules and creates [procreates] as God does, thus reflecting God). [Note: See James Jordan, "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis," Christianity and Civilization 3 (Summer 1983):38-80. See also Merrill, pp. 14-16.] The Fall obscured but did not obliterate the image of God in man. [Note: See John F. Kilner, "Humanity in God’s Image: Is the Image Really Damaged?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53:3 (September 2010):601-17.]
Does the image of God in man include his body?
"Most theologians have recognized that that [sic] we cannot interpret it [i.e., the phrase ’the image of God’] literally-that is, that man’s physical being is in the image of God. Such an interpretation should be rejected for at least four reasons. In the first place, we are told elsewhere that God is a spirit (Joh 4:24; Isa 31:3) and that he is ubiquitous (1Ki 8:27). In the second place, a literal interpretation would leave us with all sorts of bizarre questions. If man’s physical being is in the image of God we would immediately wonder what, if any organs, God possesses. Does he have sexual organs, and if so, which? Does he have the form of a man, or of a woman, or both? The very absurdity that God is a sexual being renders this interpretation highly unlikely. Thirdly, it seems unlikely that man’s dignity above the rest of the animals (Gen 9:5 f.; Jas 3:7-9) is due to his slight physiological differences from them. Is it credible that animals may be killed but that man may not be killed because his stature is slightly different? Finally, a literal interpretation seems not only contradictory to the rest of Scripture, and unlikely, but also inappropriate, Gardener aptly observed: ’But our anatomy and physiology is demanded by our terrestrial habitat, and quite inappropriate to the one who inhabits eternity.’ For these reasons, theologians have concluded that the statement in Gen 1:26-28 must be metaphorical of man’s spiritual or immaterial nature." [Note: Bruce K. Waltke, "Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19:1 (Winter 1976):8. His quotation is from R. F. R. Gardener, Abortion: The Personal Dilemma. See also Waltke’s helpful discussion of image and likeness in Genesis, p. 65-66. For the view that the image of God includes the body, see Jonathan F. Henry, "Man in God’s Image: What Does it Mean?" Journal of Dispensational Theology 12:37 (December 2008):5-24.]
Gen 1:27 may be the first poem in the Bible. If so, the shift to poetry may emphasize human beings as God’s image bearers. There is some disagreement among Old Testament scholars regarding what distinguishes biblical poetry from biblical prose. [Note: See Tremper Longman III, Song of Songs, pp. 9-54, for a discussion of the subject.]