Anthropology: Part 3

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s Note: This issue of Bibliotheca Sacra continues the studies in Anthropology. It is the third in this series and will be continued for at least five succeeding issues. This entire division of Systematic Theology includes: the creation of man, his estate, his fall, and the doctrine of sin.]

III. Man’s Estate at Creation

2. The Immaterial Part of Man.

a. The Origin of the Immaterial Part of the First Man.

Having given some consideration to the doctrine of the material part of man and recognizing that the most important revelation concerning man as created is declared in the words which state that man is made in the image and likeness of God and that this resemblance is featured in the immaterial and not the material part of man, it is now in order to investigate the truth God has disclosed regarding the immaterial part of man. On his material side, man is said to be the direct and immediate creation of God and to have been made from existing matter. It is written: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground” (Gen 2:7); but of the immaterial part of man it is not said that it is divinely created or made of any existing material, but that man became a living soul as a result of the divine in-breathing into the earthen vessel of the breath of lives (plural). “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” (Gen 2:7); “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. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he them” (Gen 1:26, 27). These statements introduce facts and forces quite beyond the range of human understanding. It is clear, however, that the immaterial part of man originates not as a creation, but as a transmission. Some element of creation may have been present and active, but it is evident that the “living soul” which man became by the divine in-breathing is more uncreated than created. It is an impartation from the Eternal One. Angels are created beings (Col 1:16), and, since they are immaterial, it follows that their beings, in all their features, are a direct creation quite apart from preëxisting matter. Nor is any record given that they were constituted what they are by the breath of God. Man seems to be exalted to a place of surpassing dignity and honor. Being by divine appointment the Lord of the little part of the universe in which he lives and being the means of instruction to angelic beings, it is reasonable that man should be highly ennobled. In whatever spheres the angels may excel, it is essential that among the creatures of earth there shall be one who, being rational, may stand preeminently above all that is mundane.

Immeasurable, indeed, are the implications in the fact of a divine in-breathing as to prominence and permanence and as to lofty and solemn grandeur of the beings thus engendered. The human soul and spirit thus are originated and that, as before indicated, by Elohim, which title implies that all three Persons of the Godhead have shared—and each as sufficient in Himself—in securing this crowning work of Elohim’s productive powers.

b. The Divine Image.

Having thus noted the incomparable origin of the immaterial part of the first man, it is now pertinent to inquire as to what is declared when the Scriptures state that man was made in the ”image” and ”likeness” of God. These words are not only accurate representations of facts, but they convey all that language may impart as to that which is paramount and supreme in the range of human understanding.

No divine creation or production could be inaugurated on a higher plane than that the thing thus formed should be conformed to the image and likeness of God These two words reappear in subsequent Scriptures and confirm the truth that the entire Bible is in harmony with the Genesis account of creation. Much has been written with a view to demonstrating some vital difference between the meaning of these two words. Such efforts have failed to establish any clear distinctions, though distinctions may exist. It is not the way of Bible writers to multiply words where no distinction exists. In what, then, does this image and likeness consist? Little space need be assigned at this point to refute unworthy notions. One of these is the effort some have made to connect the image and likeness with Ecclesiastes 7:29 where it is said that “God hath made man upright,” and from this it is argued that the upright posture of the body of man reflects the posture of God and that image and likeness refer to that posture. But God, being incorporeal, is neither perpendicular nor horizontal in His posture. With the same attending inefficiency, it is claimed by others that the idea of image and likeness is exhausted in the fact that man, like God, has a sphere of dominion. To this it may be replied that man must exist before dominion can be invested in him and that man has authority because of the truth that he is made in the image and likeness of God. The authority is not the cause of the image or likeness, but the image and likeness is the ground of the authority. It is probable that it is equally unavailing to attempt to restrict the idea of image and likeness to any one feature in God. The Apostle declared on the broadest of conceptions: “For as much then as we are the offspring of God” (Acts 17:29), which conception would hardly consist in but one bond of similarity. That the resemblance reaches beyond material things and beyond specific things and involves realities in God which man may not comprehend is well stated by Howe when he says that, “We are to understand that our resemblance to him, as we are his offspring, lies in some higher, more noble, and more excellent thing, of which there can be no figure, as who can tell how to give the figure or image of a thought, or of the mind or thinking power?”

Of His creation God has said, it was very good. It fulfilled not only His purpose completely, but was a supreme satisfaction to Him. Wherein moral issues were involved—as in the case of man—, there could be no exception. Perfect holiness found no fault with that which He had wrought. This may not imply a dominant righteousness on the part of the first man, but it does signify a true and satisfying innocence of evil. Two New Testament passages serve to bring into view three features which belong to those who have “put on” Christ and these may have been lost in the fall. They are certainly gained under saving grace. It is written: “And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph 4:24); “And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Col 3:10). The new creation of regeneration, with all that accompanies it, secures ”righteousness,” ”true holiness,” and ”knowledge.” While these passages assert directly only that which is wrought in salvation, the language fairly implies that man was originally constituted in the divine image. No more than such implication is to be drawn from these notable texts. That which is best in the creature is evidently no more than a miniature of that which the Creator is to an infinite degree. The two ideas—that which is true of God and that which is true of redeemed men—may be the same in nature though these could never be the same in extent. In any case that which is unlike to God could never have been a part of a being who is made in the likeness of God.

With reference to the original knowledge which Adam possessed, Dr. Richard Watson writes: “The ‘knowledge’ in which the Apostle Paul, in the passage quoted above from Colossians iii,10, places ‘the image of God’ after which man was created, does not merely imply the faculty of the understanding, which is a part of the natural image of God; but that which might be lost, because it is that in which the new man is ‘renewed.’ It is, therefore, to be understood of the faculty of knowledge in the right exercise of its original power; and of that willing reception, and firm retaining, and hearty approval of religious truth, in which knowledge, when spoken of morally, is always understood in the Scriptures. We may not be disposed to allow, with some, that he understood the deep philosophy of nature, and could comprehend and explain the sublime mysteries of religion. The circumstance of his giving names to the animals is certainly no sufficient proof of his having attained to a philosophical acquaintance with their qualities and distinguishing habits, though we should allow the names to be still retained in the Hebrew, and to be as expressive of their peculiarities as some expositors have stated. No sufficient time appears to have been afforded him for the study of their properties, as this event took place previous to the formation of Eve; and as for the notion of his acquiring knowledge by intuition, it is contradicted by the revealed fact, that angels themselves acquire their knowledge by observation and study, though, no doubt, with greater rapidity and certainty than we. The whole of the transaction was supernatural; the beasts were ‘brought’ to Adam, and it is probable that he named them under a Divine impulse. He has been supposed to be the inventor of language, but the history shows that he was never without language. He was from the first able to converse with God; and we may, therefore, infer that language was in him a supernatural and miraculous endowment. That his understanding was, as to its capacity, deep and large beyond any of his posterity, must follow from the perfection in which he was created, and his acquisitions of knowledge would, therefore, be rapid and easy. It was, however, in moral and religious truth, as being of the first concern to him, that we are to suppose the excellency of his knowledge to have consisted. ‘His reason would be clear, his judgment uncorrupted, and his conscience upright and sensible’ (Watts). The best knowledge would, in him, be placed first, and that of every other kind be made subservient to it, according to its relation to that. The apostle adds to knowledge, ‘righteousness and true holiness,’ terms which express not merely freedom from sin, but positive and active virtues.”[1]

Concerning Adam’s moral qualities, Dr. Watts has stated: “A rational creature thus made, must not only be innocent and free, but must be formed holy. His will must have an inward bias to virtue: he must have an inclination to please that God who made him; a supreme love to his creator, a zeal to serve him, and a tender fear of offending him. For either the new created man loved God supremely or not. If he did not he was not innocent, since the law of nature requires a supreme love to God. If he did he stood ready for every act of obedience: and this is true holiness of heart. And, indeed, without this, how could a God of holiness love the work of his own hands? There must be also in this creature a regular subjection of the inferior powers to the superior sense, and appetite and passion must be subject to reason. The mind must have a power to govern these lower faculties, that he might not offend against the law of his creation. He must also have his heart inlaid with love to the creatures, especially those of his own species, if he should be placed among them: and with a principle of honesty and truth in dealing with them. And if many of those creatures were made at once, there would be no pride, malice, or envy, no falsehood, no brawls or contentions among them, but all harmony and love.”

Here the Socinians and their successors have imposed the opinion that holiness can exist only as a result of the individual’s concurrence and cooperation. In other words, it is claimed, holiness is a product of living, an experience of life; but this confounds two different things, namely, the habit of holiness and the principle of holiness. The habit of holiness will not be formed until there is that principle within which may exercise itself to that end. Jonathan Edwards has written in his work on Original Sin: “I think it a contradiction to the nature of things as judged of by the common sense of mankind. It is agreeable to the sense of men, in all nations and ages, not only that the fruit or effect of a good choice is virtuous, but that the good choice itself, from whence that effect proceeds, is so; yea, also the antecedent food, disposition, temper, or affection of mind, from whence proceeds that good choice is virtuous. This is the general notion—not that principles derive their goodness from actions, but—that actions derive their goodness from the principles whence they proceed; so that the act of choosing what is good, is no farther virtuous than it proceeds from a good principle or virtuous disposition of mind. Which supposes that a virtuous disposition of mind may be before a virtuous act of choice; and that, therefore, it is not necessary there should first be thought, reflection, and choice, before there can be any virtuous disposition. If the choice be first, before the existence of a good disposition of heart, what is the character of that choice? There can, according to our natural notions, be no virtue in a choice which proceeds from no virtuous principle, but from mere self love, ambition, or some animal appetites; therefore, a virtuous temper of mind may be before a good act of choice, as a tree may be before the fruit, and the fountain before the stream which proceeds from it.”

A clear understanding relative to the early estate of man, engendered by observation and meditation, is manifest in the following quotation from Dr. Watson: “The final cause of man’s creation was the display of the glory of God, and principally of his moral perfections. Among these, benevolence shone with eminent lustre. The creation of rational and holy creatures was the only means, as it appears to us, of accomplishing that most paternal and benevolent design, to impart to other beings a portion of the Divine felicity. The happiness of God is the result of his moral perfection, and it is complete and perfect. It is also specific; it is the felicity of knowledge, of conscious rectitude, of sufficiency, and independence. Of the two former, creatures were capable; but only rational creatures. Matter, however formed, is unconscious, and is, and must forever remain, incapable of happiness. However disposed and adorned, it was made for another, and not at all with reference to itself. If it be curiously wrought, it is for some other’s wonder; if it has use, it is for another’s convenience; if it has beauty, it is for another’s eye; if harmony, it is for another’s ear. Irrational animate creatures may derive advantage from mere matter; but it does not appear that they are conscious of it. They have the enjoyment of sense, but not the powers of reflection, comparison, and taste. They see without admiration, they combine nothing into relations. So to know, as to be conscious of knowing, and to feel the pleasures of knowledge; so to know, as to impart knowledge to others; so to know, as to lay the basis of future and enlarging, knowledge, as to discover the efficient and the final causes of things; and to enjoy the pleasures of discovery and certainty of imagination and taste,-this is peculiar to rational beings. Above all, to know the great Creator and Lord of all; to see the distinctions of right and wrong, of good and evil in his law; to have, therefore, the consciousness of integrity and of well ordered and perfectly balanced passions; to feel the felicity of universal and unbounded benevolence; to be conscious of the favour of God himself; to have perfect confidence in his care and constant benediction; to adore him; to be grateful; to exert hope without limit on future and unceasing blessings; all these sources of felicity were added to the pleasures of intellect and imagination in the creation of rational beings. In whatever part of the universe they were created and placed, we have sufficient reason to believe that this was the primitive condition of all; and we know, assuredly, from God’s own revelation, that it was the condition of man. In his creation and primeval condition, the ‘kindness and love of God’ eminently appeared. He was made a rational and immortal spirit, with no limits to the constant enlargement of his powers; for, from all the evidence that our own consciousness, even in our fallen state, affords us, it appears possible to the human soul to be eternally approaching the infinite in intellectual strength and attainment. He was made holy and happy; he was admitted to intercourse with GOD. He was not left alone, but had the pleasure of society. He was placed in a world of grandeur, harmony, beauty, and utility; it was canopied with other distant worlds to exhibit to his very sense a manifestation of the extent of space and the vastness of the varied universe; and to call both his reason, his fancy, and his devotion, into their most vigorous and salutary exercises. He was placed in a paradise, where, probably, all that was sublime and gentle in the scenery of the whole earth was exhibited in pattern; and all that could delight the innocent sense, and excite the curious inquiries of the mind, was spread before him. He had labour to employ his attention, without wearying him; and time for his highest pursuits of knowing God, his will, and his works. All was a manifestation of universal love, of which he was the chief visible object; and the felicity and glory of his condition must, by his and their obedience in succession, have descended to his posterity for ever. Such was our world, and its rational inhabitants, the first pair; and thus did its creation manifest not only the power and wisdom, but the benevolence of Deity, He made them like himself, and he made them capable of a happiness like his own.”[2]

It is possible, as many contend, that the term likeness, as used in Genesis 1:26 (cf. 5:1), refers to that in the original, unfallen man which was lost by the fall, which held vast potentialities for the original man, and which is more than realized through redemption. The supposition that Adam unfallen was God’s supreme work and purpose and that redemption is an attempt to salvage upon a lower plane something from the wreckage it has wrought, is far removed from the truth. In his Christian Doctrine of Sin, Müller states: “It cannot be proved that the new creation in Christ is nothing more than the restoration of the state wherein Adam was at first created. There is, indeed, a relationship between the two; the divine image wrought by Christ’s redemption is the only true realization of the image wherein man was at first created. Man was originally given the one, in order that he might attain the other, if not directly, by continuing faithful in obedience and fellowship with God, yet indirectly after his fall by means of redemption. But it is evident that from the very nature of this relationship the two are not identical.” Present salvation is not into the estate of unfallen Adam, but is rather a conformity to the glorified Last Adam. To this end it is written: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom 8:29); “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” (Phil 3:21); “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:3). Whether this contemplation of man’s original likeness to God be according to all that is true or not, the Scriptures declare with great emphasis that by sin man has “come short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23); that unregenerate men are now “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:2); “under sin” (Rom 3:9), “without God and without hope in the world” (Eph 2:12), and living “in the wicked one” (1 John 5:19). Whatever of man’s original estate is preserved under these conditions remains to be identified with exceptional care. To this end attention may be given more specifically to that which is indicated by the word image.

Whatever may be the force of the word likeness-whether it speaks of features in the original man which were lost or injured in the fall, or whether it be only an emphasis by way of repetition, that, as Oehler contends, which is the original pattern and is ever reproduced in man—, the,word image is that term which the Scriptures employ freely. In Genesis 1:26, 27, both words, image and likeness, appear; but the word image occurs four times while the word likeness occurs but once. The latter reappears in Genesis 5:1–3, along with the word image and with great force of meaning. This passage declares: “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.” Here, again, it is to be observed that there is no apparent effort made to assign specific and varied meanings to these important terms. The passage serves to establish a vital truth, namely, that Adam, made in the image of God, generates Seth in that image. What became of the line of Cain the Bible does not fully reveal. It is not traced in subsequent sacred history. Three New Testament, passages serve to record what may be known of Cain outside the historical account given in Genesis—Hebrews 11:4; 1 John 3:12; Jude 11; cf. Luke 3:38. This so important passage (Gen 5:1–3) is to be recognized primarily by the truth there asserted which is that the image of God, whatever may be true relative to the term likeness, is transmitted by physical generation and describes that which is true of all in the human family. Due consideration will be given later to the injury which the fall imposed; but the fact abides, as everywhere witnessed in the Word of God, that unregenerate, fallen man bears the image of his Creator. The importance of this disclosure could hardly be overestimated. There is no implication that man is not fallen or that he is not lost apart from redemption. It is rather that redemption is provided because of what man is. The truth that man bears the image of God enhances the reality both of his lost estate and of his final doom if unsaved. The sublime and majestic record is that God created man, not a mere unidentified order of beings. His individuality is paramount and he is supreme among all creatures of the earth. He is made in the similitude of God. There could hardly be a doubt but that Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 contemplate man in his present estate. The passages declare: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man.” “Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” To sin against man either by murder or by slander is reprovable on the ground of the divine image being resident in man. A sacredness appertains to human life. Man must respect his fellowman, not on the ground of kinship, but on the ground of the exalted truth that human life belongs to God. To injure man is to injure one who bears the image of God.

Man’s exalted character is especially indicated in Psalm 8 wherein his greatness is seen in his littleness; for it is “out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.” In this Psalm man is said to be made, or placed, a little lower than the angels. The Hebrew is Elohim, and the reference is specifically to Christ (cf. Heb 2:9) who was for a little time made lower in estate than Elohim that He might suffer death. The more general application (cf. Heb 2:6–8). refers to man who is thus said to be crowned with rightful authority to rule over the whole earth. With this same exalted position of man in view the Apostle says, “forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God” (1 Cor 11:7). It is unimportant at this point as to what calls forth this great statement-great, indeed, for nothing more laudable could be said of man outside those new positions into which the redeemed are brought who are in Christ.

Of the passages cited above, it may be observed that all, save Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:7, refer to man in his present estate. Though much is said throughout the Bible of man’s sinfulness and of the depths to which he has descended, it is not said that he has lost the image of God. In fact, as has been declared, the Bible directly teaches that fallen man retains that image and that it is this reality which determines the extent of his degradation.

The following passages advance a strong suggestion as to what the original manifestation of the divine image was: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt 5:48); “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful” (Luke 6:36); “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet 1:15, 16). With reference to these passages it may be observed that here, to some degree of completeness, is described that original man in whom the Creator found satisfaction.

Two exceedingly important truths emerge from the vast array of theological writings regarding that image in which man was created, namely, (a) that fallen man bears the inalienable image of God, and (b) that man is injured by the fall to the extent that only redeeming grace can rescue him. Both of these truths are deeply embedded in the Scriptures regardless of any seeming contradictions they may present. Neither truth may be modified or surrendered. It would be easy for uninstructed minds to declare this whole discussion concerning the image as a mere battle of words and quite void of practical value; but it is here that the true ground is discovered for Anthropology, Soteriology, and Eschatology. The vital part which the doctrine of man as made in the image of God takes in each of these major divisions of theology is too patent to need elucidation. The basis between various systems is to a large degree determined at this point. Both Lutherans and Calvinists subscribe to the highest view of man in his unfallen estate, and to the darkest picture of man in his fallen estate. Romanists, Socinians or Remonstrants, and modern Liberals take the lower view of unfallen man and the more flattering view of fallen man, This does not mean that Augustinians—both Lutherans and Calvinists—vilify human life and that the Liberals exalt that life. There could be no higher conception of man than that which is held by Lutherans and Calvinists. The whole field of truth is characterized far too much by dogmatic presuppositions. This, no doubt, is due to the exceedingly brief statement which the Scriptures present. There is much room where God has not spoken for theologians to fill in large portions wholly agreeable to their way of thinking, then, in later developments of their system, they draw out of their own creation precisely what they have prepared and need. In the light of this analysis, it is interesting to read the material men have prepared on this theme. The student will do well to pursue these writings with attention.

In concluding the consideration of the divine image in man, it is essential to arrive at some definite convictions. A constructive doctrine should be formed which conforms to the Word of God. A full agreement may be accorded Dr. Laidlaw when he writes: “The Scripture never speaks of the divine image in man, but always of man as formed after the divine image. And this indicates a profound principle of biblical thought. It presupposes God, to account for man. It never sets us the ‘Sisyphus task’ of proving God and the supernatural from man and nature. Thus, by ‘the divine image,’ the Bible does not mean those elements in man from which an idea of God may be framed, but conversely those features in the Divine Being of which man is a copy. If we read what the Bible says of God in relation to the world, and what of God in Himself, we shall get leading lines for its delineation of man; always premising that of the Divine Idea man is a created copy, not, like the Logos, an essential image.”[3] Thus, also, Oehler declares man bears the divine image in view of the facts that (a) human nature is distinguished from that of the beast. There was no mate for man among lower forms of creation, and that man may kill the beast but not the being who is made in the image of God. (b) Man is set over nature as a free personality, he is designed for communion with God, and is appointed to exercise divine authority in the affairs of earth.”[4] Jonathan Edwards summarizes thus: “The natural image of God consists very much in that by which God in His creation distinguished man from the beasts, viz. in those faculties and principles of nature whereby he is capable of moral agency; whereas the spiritual and moral image, wherein man was made at the first, consisted in that moral excellency with which he was endowed.”[5]

Though somewhat extended, no more illuminating statement has been found than the following from Dr. Laidlaw: “Advancing from the Scripture view of God’s relation to the world to its view of what He is in Himself, we find those grandly simple definitions of the Divine Being: God is ‘Spirit,’ ‘Light,’ ‘Love.’ Let us see how these may find a parallel in man, the created copy.

“It corresponds with all we have traced of the biblical psychology, that it is on the side of Spirit man should primarily exhibit an analogy with the divine nature. It is the only element in man’s constitution which is properly ascribed to God. He is Spirit. Absolutely and supremely, spiritual existence is affirmed of God. He is said, moreover, to be the Father of spirits, and the God of the spirits of all flesh; indicating that the spiritual world, including man in so far as he is spiritual, stands in a closer relation to God than the corporeal. We have already sufficiently guarded against the Platonizing form of this idea—a form given to it by some of the Greek fathers, who made pneuma something physical connecting man with God. This form of statement easily leads to the conclusion, that through the fall human nature has been constitutionally altered by the loss of a part or element; whereas the Bible doctrine is that man’s nature is morally lowered by the loss of its purity. The standpoint of the Bible psychology is always that of the divine origination of man. His life—animal, intellectual, moral—is spiritual, because specially in-breathed of God. The ‘spirit of man’ is the ‘inspiration of the Almighty,’ and man is spiritual in so far as he lives and acts according to his divine origin and basis of life. Thus does Scripture teach that the spiritual nature which man has, the spirit of man which is in him, affords a parallel or analogy to the absolute and supreme Spirit which God is.

“We find, accordingly, that the Bible makes Intellect or Rationality in man—not only a function of ‘spirit’ in him, but a function flowing from and corresponding to something in God. It is the breath of the Almighty that giveth man instruction and understanding. The scene in the garden, when the Lord God brought the animals to Adam to be named, presents this idea in a pictorial form. That ‘admirable philosophy lecture,’ as Bishop Bull has it, which Adam, appointed by God Himself, read on all the other animals, denotes the correspondence of divine and human intelligence: ‘Whatsoever Adam called any living creature, that was the name thereof’ (Gen 2:19). ‘I think, O Socrates, that the truest account of these matters is, that some power more than human gave the first names to things, so as to make them necessarily correct.’ Similar is the ascription to the artificers of the tabernacle, of wisdom, understanding, cunning workmanship, together with the Spirit of God. Thus all scientific knowledge and artistic skill, all the results of reason, Scripture ascribes to divine assistance; not from a vague sentiment of piety, but in right of its consistent theory that the spirit in man corresponds to the Spirit of his Maker, and is sustained by it. Teaching like this is a foundation for the loftiest philosophy of man. It is at once an assertion of the preciousness of the individual and a prediction of the progress of the race. The true idea of human greatness we owe not to modern thought, but to the primary axioms of revelation.

“Another point of analogy between the divine and the human spirit the Bible finds in Self-consciousness. ‘A candle of the Lord is the spirit of man searching through all the chambers of the heart.’ The phrase ‘candle of the Lord’ may assert divine origination—the light in man which the Lord has kindled—or divine possession—the light which is His, the true light which lighteth every man—or both; but the characteristic of the human spirit to which it affixes the description is its self-penetrating power, that it searches the innermost regions of the human being. With a very similar figure, moral consciousness or conscience is denoted in the New Testament as ‘the eye,’ ‘the light of the body,’ ‘the light within.’ Still more explicitly is it asserted that the spirit of the man which is in him alone knows the things of the man, and is therefore analogous to the Divine Spirit, which alone knoweth the things of God. This analogy is, in yet another text, strengthened by the idea of correspondence or communication. ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God’ (Rom 8:16). It may be fairly inferred from these passages that the Bible regards self-consciousness in man as an essential feature of the divine similitude.

“From self-consciousness it is a short step to Personality. it is a truism that self-conscious free personality is the Bible representation of God. Pervading every line of Scripture, from the first to the last, runs the assumption that God is personal. It is easy enough to call this anthropomorphism. But the Bible, as a revelation from God to man, begins with God. And its own account of its doctrine is not that it gives a God fashioned like unto man, but that God can reveal Himself to man, because man is made in the likeness of God. No wonder on this showing that man should be taught to think of God as Person, Will, Holiness, Love,—ideas of which he finds some copies in his own constitution, since that constitution is framed upon the divine model. It is not in any metaphysical formula that the Bible claims personality in man as the image of something in God, but in its profound principle of the relation between God and man, i.e. between God and the individual human being, as well as between God and the human race. This principle is asserted, for example, in Numbers 16:22, where the relation of God to the spirits of all flesh is pleaded as a reason for His dealing with one man who has sinned, rather than that He should punish a whole people. It is repeated in Numbers 27:16 as a reason why God should choose a particular leader for the congregation. The same argument of divine property in man is made the foundation of a splendid declaration by the prophet Ezekiel of God’s moral dealing with individuals, as contrasted with the unbroken federalism on which Israel presumed to reckon. The right of God in each soul (where nephesh denotes the human being, ‘all souls are mine’) is made the ground of the divine prerogative to exercise in each individual case both punishment and pardon. The other side of this relation is presented in those passages which speak of man as existing for God, even the Father, as sought for his worship, as redeemed to an eternal life which consists in the knowledge of the Father and the Son. Even in his present fallen condition, and under the most unfavourable forms of that condition, St. Paul represents man as being the offspring of God, to this effect, ‘If haply we may feel after Him, and find Him.’ In this passage the entire inwardness of the resemblance between the offspring and the great Parent is made a reason against the artistic efforts of the Greek paganism to humanize the divine. Since man is the offspring of God, he ought not to think that he can frame an outward image of God,—a far better one lies deep within. The relationship of man with God ought to be thought of not as physical, but as moral. The sentiment that we are the divine offspring is quoted to illustrate the fact that mankind has been destined to seek God, who was not far from them, i.e. who has made Himself cognisable and conceivable by them. Only personal beings can feel after and find a personal God, and in so doing their likeness to Him is affirmed and confirmed.”[6]

Any worthy contemplation of the doctrine of the divine image as displayed in man must give some attention to the relationship of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to this great theme. He, along with the Father and the Spirit, is said to be Creator of all things, and man is thus the product of His creative power; but He Himself is declared to be the first-born of all creation and, therefore, Lord of all. In this there appears a parallel with man who is divinely appointed as lord over earthly creatures. Of the Son it is said that He is the “express image” of God. His incarnation into His unfallen humanity detracted nothing from this sublime reality. The image which He is may be likened to a steel engraving which reproduces every feature to the finest detail. On the other hand, the image which man is may be likened to a shadow-profile; but it is all of that; which truth is in no way to be slighted. The first creation finds its archetype in Elohim, for man was made in the image of Elohim. The new creation finds its archetype in the Son of God. It is into the image of Christ that saving grace brings those who are redeemed (Rom 8:29; 1 John 3:3).

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. Theological Institutes, Vol. II, pp. 14, 15.
2. Theological Institutes, Vol. II, pp. 17-19.
3. The Bible Doctrine of Man, p. 118.
4. Old Testament Theology, Vol. I, pp. 211, 212.
5. On the Freedom of the Will, pt. i. sec. 5.
6. The Bible Doctrine of Man, pp. 120-126.