With Christ in the school of prayer, by Andrew Murray, Excerpt 122

 I know -- today is Easter. He is risen!

This post continues a series of excerpts from With Christ in the School of Prayer, by Andrew Murray. I thank the Christian Classics Ethereal Library for making this public domain work available. To see their post of the book, go here. The previous post in this series is here. As usual in this blog, long quotations are in this color. In this excerpt, Murray continues a discussion about prayer and the Trinity. His book is based on Mark 11:22-24.

Church of the living God! thy calling is higher and holier than thou knowest. Through thy members, as kings, and priests unto God, would God rule the world; their prayers bestow and withhold the blessing of heaven. In His elect who are not just content to be themselves saved, but yield themselves wholly, that through them, even as through the Son, the Father may fulfil all His glorious counsel, in these His elect, who cry day and night unto Him, God would prove how wonderful man’s original destiny was. As the image-bearer of God on earth, the earth was indeed given into his hand. When he fell, all fell with him: the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together. But now he is redeemed; the restoration of the original dignity has begun. It is in very deed God’s purpose that the fulfilment of His eternal purpose, and the coming of His kingdom, should depend on those of His people who, abiding in Christ, are ready to take up their position in Him their Head, the great Priest-King, and in their prayers are bold enough to say what they will that their God should do. As image-bearer and representative of God on earth, redeemed man has by his prayers to determine the history of this earth. Man was created, and has now again been redeemed, to pray, and by his prayer to have dominion.

With Christ in the school of prayer, by Andrew Murray, Excerpt 121

This post continues a series of excerpts from With Christ in the School of Prayer, by Andrew Murray. I thank the Christian Classics Ethereal Library for making this public domain work available. To see their post of the book, go here. The previous post in this series is here. As usual in this blog, long quotations are in this color. In this excerpt, Murray continues a discussion about prayer and the Trinity. His book is based on Mark 11:22-24.

This had been man’s destiny from the first. Scripture not only tells us this, but also teaches us how it was that God could entrust man with such a high calling. It was because He had created him in His own image and likeness. The external rule was not committed to him without the inner fitness: the bearing God’s image in having dominion, in being lord of all, had its root in the inner likeness, in his nature. There was an inner agreement and harmony between God and man, and incipient Godlikeness,  which gave man a real fitness for being the mediator between God and His world, for he was to be prophet, priest, and king, to interpret God’s will, to represent nature’s needs, to receive and dispense God’s bounty. It was in bearing God’s image that he could bear God’s rule; he was indeed so like  God, so capable of entering into God’s purposes, and carrying out His plans, that God could trust him with the wonderful privilege of asking and obtaining what the world might need.
And although sin has for a time frustrated God’s plans, prayer still remains what it would have been if man had never fallen: the proof of man’s Godlikeness, the vehicle of his intercourse with the Infinite Unseen One, the power that is allowed to hold the hand that holds the destinies of the universe. Prayer is not merely the cry of the suppliant for mercy; it is the highest forth-putting of his will by man, knowing himself to be of Divine origin, created for and capable of being, in king-like liberty, the executor of the counsels of the Eternal.
What sin destroyed, grace has restored. What the first Adam lost, the second has won back. In Christ man regains his original position, and the Church, abiding in Christ, inherits the promise: ‘Ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.’ Such a promise does by no means, in the first place, refer to the grace or blessing we need for ourselves. It has reference to our position as the fruit-bearing branches of the Heavenly Vine, who, like Him, only live for the work and glory of the Father. It is for those who abide in Him, who have forsaken self to take up their abode in Him with His life of obedience and self-sacrifice, who have lost their life and found it in Him, who are now entirely given up to the interests of the Father and His kingdom. These are they who understand how their new creation has brought them back to their original destiny, has restored God’s image and likeness, and with it the power to have dominion. Such have indeed the power, each in their own circle, to obtain and dispense the powers of heaven here on earth. With holy boldness they may make known what they will: they live as priests in God’s presence; as kings the powers of the world to come begin to be at their disposal.  They enter upon the fulfilment of the promise: ‘Ask whatsoever ye will, it shall be done unto you.’  

With Christ in the school of prayer, by Andrew Murray, excerpt 119

This post continues a series of excerpts from With Christ in the School of Prayer, by Andrew Murray. I thank the Christian Classics Ethereal Library for making this public domain work available. To see their post of the book, go here. The previous post in this series is here. As usual in this blog, long quotations are in this color. In this excerpt, Murray continues a discussion about prayer and the Trinity. His book is based on Mark 11:22-24. 

‘Whose is this image?’
Or, Prayer in Harmony with the Destiny of Man.
‘He saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?—Matt. xxi. 20.
‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’—Gen. i. 26.
‘WHOSE is this image?’ It was by this question that Jesus foiled His enemies, when they thought to take Him, and settled the matter of duty in regard to the tribute. The question and the principle it involves are of universal application. Nowhere more truly than in man himself. The image he bears decides his destiny. Bearing God’s image, he belongs to God: prayer to God is what he was created for. Prayer is part of the wondrous likeness he bears to His Divine original; of the deep mystery of the fellowship of love in which the Three-One has His blessedness, prayer is the earthly image and likeness.
The more we meditate on what prayer is, and the wonderful power with God which it has, the more we feel constrained to ask who and what man is, that such a place in God’s counsels should have been allotted to him. Sin has so degraded him, that from what he is now we can form no conception of what he was meant to be. We must turn back to God’s own record of man’s creation to discover there what God’s purpose was, and what the capacities with which man was endowed for the fulfilment of that purpose.
Man’s destiny appears clearly from God’s language at creation. It was to fill, to subdue, to have dominion over the earth and all in it. All the three expressions show us that man was meant, as God’s representative, to hold rule here on earth. As God’s viceroy he was to fill God’s place: himself subject to God, he was to keep all else in subjection to Him. It was the will of God that all that was to be done on earth should be done through him: the history of the earth was to be entirely in his hands.

Sunspots 762

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to

someone else:

Christianity: An article in BioLogos discusses the relationship between Down Syndrome and the image of God.

Education: Grammarphobia on the use of shrink, shrank and shrunk.

Health: The Scientist reports that smelling natural surroundings appears to relieve stress.

The Scientist also reports that the effects of natural surroundings may be due, at least in part, to exercise.

Politics: FiveThirtyEight says that the majority of poll respondents believe that there is sufficient evidence to remove President Trump from office. But that is unlikely to happen, at least until the election of this year.

FiveThirtyEight also discusses the divisions about President Trump's actions in the Middle East, within the two major parties. (Not between, within!)

President Trump says that the US will target some Iranian cultural sites. NPR reports on how striking them would be illegal.

Science: Gizmodo, and other outlets, report that puffins use a tool to scratch themselves.

NPR reports on why some knots hold better than others.

Listverse tells us some common interesting misconceptions about colors.

Thanks for looking!
The graphic used in these posts is from NASA, hence, it is free to use like this.

The Bible teaches that humans are special

The Bible indicates clearly that humans are special. Besides the evidence of common sense – humans write books, wear clothes, and concern themselves with fundamental questions. Chimpanzees, whales and dolphins don’t write books or wear clothes, and, so far as we know, don’t dispute about fundamental questions – the Bible indicates our special status in three important ways.

God appeared on earth in human form. This may have happened in Genesis 10, and in Daniel 3. If the Bible means anything, it happened when Mary became pregnant, and throughout the earthly life of Jesus. (John 1:14, Philippians 2:7-8)

Humans are the only beings created who are described as being in God’s image. Genesis 1 also describes us as being over all the other creatures, under God, and the first act that fulfills this is when Adam names the animals in Genesis 2. Psalm 8 repeats the idea that we are in God's image. (It also indicates that there are “heavenly beings” who are above us.)*

The arrangement of the first two chapters of Genesis indicates that humans are unique. Genesis 1 describes the creation of land animals as having been on the sixth day**. It also describes the creation of humans as having been on that day, but the description is set apart from the creation of the land animals. The phrase “it was good,” for each of the first five days of creation, except the second, occurs at the end of a category of creation. (It occurs twice in the description of the third day, each time at the end of the description of the category of creation.) In the description of the sixth day, the phrase occurs after the appearance of the land animals, and then there is a description of the creation of humans. Genesis 2 describes the creation of Eve as occurring after the creation of Adam. This is not done for any of the animals. Humans are the only creatures specially named in Genesis 1, and, of course, the male and the female are each given a distinct name. None of the rest of the living things created are even named by species or kinds, let alone individually. (The KJV uses “whales” in 1:21, but the NIV and other modern versions, including the NKJV, use a more generic term.) Genesis 1 and 2, then, seem to indicate clearly that humans are special.***

*It is possible that there are beings in God's image on other planets somewhere. I don't believe that the Bible completely rules out (or proposes) that possibility.

**As I see it, this paragraph makes sense whether or not the days of Genesis 1 were literal.

***This is true even if, as some allege, Genesis 1 and 2 were originally separate narratives.

You may wish to see this post for a more comprehensive picture of my view of origins.

Thanks for reading!

Charles Sherlock on the image of God

Charles Sherlock provides an example of current thinking on the meaning of the image of God, and he also considers what theologians of the past had to say on this topic. He wrote The Doctrine of Humanity. Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1996. His Chapter 3 is "The Image of God in Christian Thought." (pp. 73-91.)

He writes: The Scriptures speak of what it means to be human in terms of being made 'in the image of God'. What this means precisely is nowhere told us, but it involves relationships with God, one another, and the creation; each of these relations has been inverted and distorted through sin. The New Testament speaks of the image renewed in Christ, but this is more than a past reality restored. Its fullness is known in Jesus Christ, the 'image of God', and, as we await his return, so we look to the full revelation of what being human entails. In short, Christian perspectives on being human centre in Christ, on what we are made to be. They have a future, expectant dimension, as well as a past and present sense of realism about mortality and sin. (p. 73.)

Sherlock has several interesting and important things to say. He points out that "There is always the danger of making God in the image of humanity. This is perhaps the most subtle idolatry -- projecting our highest ideals on to God for our own purposes. . . ." (p. 75)

He also points out that the incarnation of Christ reveals not only God's nature, but ours, and in bodily form. He believes that the image of God, therefore, has something to do with our physical nature.

Sherlock writes that ancient theologians thought that the capacity for creative thought, imagination, was the essence of the image of God. Augustine, he says, comes to the "conclusion . . . that the image of God within us is the structure of the mind as memory, understanding and will." (p. 80.) He says that Irenaus believed that the image of God is present in all humans, and is both physical and spiritual.

John Calvin, says Sherlock, thought that there was a difference in the images of God present in the elect, as opposed to the non-elect. He says Calvin believed that the elect had part of the image lost in the Fall restored to them.

Sherlock thinks that the image of God is not a purely personal attribute, and not something I possess that belongs just to me, like my appendix, but is relational.

Here's what Sherlock says about Karl Barth on the image of God:

Barth made three key contributions. His first is negative, but clears away a great deal of unhelpful ground: we are nowhere told in the Scriptures what the image of God actually is. Moreover, given the commandment about not making images (Ex. 20:4), we are in danger of committing idolatry if we seek to find rather than live out our status as those already made in the image of God. Secondly, Barth (following Augustine) keeps in mind at all times the truth that God is triune; the image is thus relational, involving our living as covenant partners with God and each other. In particular, as God lives in self-relationship, so do we; an analogy is drawn between the mutual life of the distinct diving Persons, and the mutual life of humankind as male and female. Thirdly, all is to be seen in and through Jesus Christ, the true covenant partner with both us and God. It is thus the community of those 'in Christ' which reveals today what it means to be made in the divine image. In this way Barth brings the doctrine of the church into close relationship with the doctrines of both God and humanity. This perspective offers an impressive account of how individual and corporate sides of being human maybe integrated in a community of persons. (p. 89)

I hope to continue this series. (See here for the most recent post.) Thanks for reading.

Added Nov 16, 2006: I haven't continued the topic, and perhaps should. Kevin Wright (a theologian -- I'm not) has posted on the image of God as seen by John Calvin and John Wesley.

Michael Wittmer on the Image of God

In some earlier posts, I remarked on some thoughts of John Calvin, Matthew Henry and John Wesley, about the meaning of the image of God. I continue the series, using some current thinkers. Here's a recent post.

Michael Wittmer is the author of Heaven is a Place on Earth: Why Everything You Do Matters to God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004). The definition of the image of God is not the main theme of his book, but he has thought about it, and writes about it at some length.

He says the following:
The image of God is what separates us from other creatures. (p. 76)

Some of the image of God remains, in spite of the Fall. He cites Genesis 9:6, which says "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image" and James 3:9, which says, about the tongue: "With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God." (ESV)

Some of the image of God was lost in the Fall. He cites Colossians 3:10 and Ephesians 4:22-24, which say that we are to have ourselves renewed by conversion, which, he says, means that some of God's image was lost to us.

The image of God may be thought of as in two parts. One, the ontological part, includes "higher intellect, free will, conscience and ability for logic and language. These capacities remain active even in fallen people . . ." (p. 81) The other, the ethical part, must be restored.

"God has given us our godlike capacities for language and reflection so that we might enter into three distinct relationships." (p. 82) These relationships are with God, with other people, and with the rest of creation. A scriptural reason why he thinks this is because Genesis 1:27 ties humans being in the image of God with humans being both male and female. Wittmer says that the Fall damaged our relationships in all three of these areas, and that redemption makes it possible for all of them to be at least partly restored.

Thanks for reading. I hope to post on this again.

Answers in Genesis on the image of God

I continue a series of posts on the meaning of the image of God. The last post is here. I did a web search for substantive articles on the subject. I found a few, not many.

Answers in Genesis has published an article on the meaning of the image of God by John Rendle-Short. As would be expected from this source, the article spends some time (not a lot) arguing for young-earth creationism. I'll not touch on that, as I don't consider that it matters much, in reference to the question of what God's image in humans is.

The author says that the image cannot be bodily, since God is a spirit, with no body, but he writes that:

Language and creativity,—two important parts of the image, are impossible without a body. And God the Almighty agreed to share with man dominion and authority over the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:28), an activity in which the whole man, body as well as mind, is involved. Furthermore the Son of God honored the human body by becoming flesh and dwelling among men (John 1:14) (Hebrews 2:14).

He also says that "God endues man with some of his divine attributes, . . . I shall mention six: language, creativity, love, holiness, immortality and freedom. . . . All can be summed up by saying that man, like God, has an intelligence, a mind." Rendle-Short believes that animals possess little or none of any of these. I started my study for this series believing that Rendle-Short is correct about these attributes. However, he merely asserts this. He has no direct scriptural evidence. That doesn't, of course, mean that he is wrong. The Bible is not very explicit about what the image of God is.

He closes by asserting that retarded humans possess the image of God. He doesn't really explain how severely retarded humans possess, for example, language, or, if they don't, how they may be said to still be in God's image.

Thanks for reading. I expect to continue this series.

What is the "image of God?" Summary so far

As John Calvin put it, in describing the meaning of the term image of God, "Interpreters do not agree concerning the meaning of these words."

In this post, I shall attempt to summarize what Calvin, John Wesley, and Matthew Henry believed about this term. These three are the only commentators I have found in the public domain who wrote at some length on the meaning of this term in Genesis 1:27 and related verses. (See previous posts in this series -- there should be links to them, or at least to the most recent of them, which, in turn, will have links to earlier posts, under the heading Previous in the right column of this blog. Earlier posts quote extensively from Calvin, Wesley and Henry without comment. It is possible that, here, I am misinterpreting one or more of these authorities.)

Calvin:
Calvin wrote that image meant the substance. He did not believe that image meant physical likeness. He believed that God's image included righteousness and true holiness. He also believed that there was "perfect intelligence" in humans, originally, and that reason reigned in Adam and Eve. He believed that "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."

John Wesley:
Wesley believed that the image of God in humans consisted of the following:
The nature of our souls, which was ". . . a spirit, an intelligent, immortal spirit, an active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of spirits . . ."
Our Dominion over other organisms, and over ourselves.
"God's image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness . . ."

Wesley agrees with Calvin that much or all of that image was lost in the Fall. In his commentary on Genesis 3, he said, of Adam and Eve: "They saw God provoked, his favour forfeited, his image lost . . ."

Matthew Henry:
"God’s image upon man consists in these three things:-1. In his nature and constitution . . . 2. In his place and authority . . . 3. In his purity and rectitude."
Like Wesley and Calvin, Henry believed that much or all of God's image was lost in the Fall: ". . .his likeness and image lost, dominion over the creatures gone."

So, to combine, and summarize, these three believed that humans were like God in having an immortal soul, intelligence, righteousness, and authority over other creatures, and believed that much or all of that image was lost when we fell.

I hope to post later on what some current thinkers have to say.

Thanks for reading!

What is the "image of God?" Matthew Henry

The first post on this subject quoted what the Bible says about it. The second quoted from John Calvin's commentary on Genesis 1:27, and its context. The third did the same for John Wesley. In this post, I do the same for Matthew Henry. It is my understanding that this material is public domain, so I quote at length. I thank those who have placed this material on the Internet.

from Matthew Henry's An Exposition, With Practical Observations, of The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis

Chapter 1

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. 7:29. 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. 3:9), nor do ill one to another (Gen. 9:6), 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!

I am aware that these posts haven't really my musings, but those of three great scholars of the past, thoughts by a scholar from the present, and, most importantly, what the Bible says about the subject. These are more important than anything I could say, of course. If anyone is aware of any other public domain commentaries by recognized scholars on this passage, I'd appreciate knowing about it.

I expect to continue, in due course, by presenting thoughts of current thinkers, including my own.

Thanks for reading.

Note: The Christian Carnival won't appear until tomorrow. God willing, I'll post "Sunspots" then, not, as usual, on Wednesday.

What is the "image of God?" John Wesley

I am musing, or quoting what others have mused, about what the Bible means when it says that man was created in the image of God. In my first post on the subject, I gave one theologian's interpretation, and quoted all the scripture that seems even close to relevant. In the second, I quoted what John Calvin said in his commentary about what I take to be the most important passage on the subject, namely Genesis 1:27, and its context. In this post, I do the same for John Wesley. It is my understanding that this material is public domain, so I am quoting at length. I thank those who have placed this material on the Internet for public use.

from John Wesley's Notes on the Bible
Genesis 1
Verses 26, 27, 28. 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. Observe,

1. That man was made last of all the creatures, which was both an honour and a favour to him: an honour, for 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 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.

2. That man's creation was a mere signal act of divine wisdom and power, than that of the other creatures. The narrative of it is introduced with solemnity, and a manifest distinction from the rest. Hitherto it had been said, Let there be light, and Let there be a firmament: 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. 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, 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.

3. That man was made in God's image, and after his likeness; two words to express the same thing. God's image upon man, consists,

(1.) In his nature, not that of his body, for God has not a body, but that of his soul. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent, immortal spirit, an active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of spirits, and the soul of the world.

(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 on earth. 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.) And chiefly in his purity and rectitude. God's image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Eph. iv, 24; Colossians iii, 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 there were no errors in his knowledge: his will complied readily and universally with the will of God; without reluctancy: his affections were all regular, and he had no inordinate appetites or passions: his thoughts were easily fixed to the best subjects, and there was no vanity or ungovernableness in them. And all the inferior powers were subject to the dictates of the superior. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents, in having the image of God upon them. 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!

(4.) That man was made male and female, and blessed with fruitfulness. He created him male and female, Adam and Eve: Adam first out of earth, and Eve out of his side. 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, 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 likewise the collector of his praises in this lower world, 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 the virtue of which, their posterity should extend to the utmost corners of the earth, and continue to the utmost period of time.

(5.) That God gave to man a dominion over the inferior creatures, over 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 - God designed hereby to put an honour upon man, that he might find himself the more strongly obliged to bring honour to his Maker. See note at "ver. 26"

Thanks for reading!

What is the "image of God?" Calvin's Commentary

I am musing, or quoting what others have mused, about what the Bible means when it says that man was created in the image of God. In an earlier post, I gave one theologian's interpretation, and quoted all the scripture that seems even close to relevant. I also gave John Calvin unduly short shrift on the matter. In this post, I attempt to rectify that by quoting what John Calvin said in his commentary about what I take to be the most important passage on the subject, namely Genesis 1:27, and its context. It is my understanding that this material is public domain, so I am quoting at length. I thank those who have placed this material on the Internet for public use.

from John Calvin's Bible Commentary

Verse 26. Let us make man . ⁴⁹ 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 mikri>kosmov, "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. ⁵⁰ 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. ⁵¹

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. ⁵² 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, ⁵³ 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, (Genesis 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. (Colossians 3:10, and Ephesians 4:23.) That he made this image to consist in righteousness and true holiness, is by the figure synecdochee; ⁵⁴ 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. ⁵⁵ 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 b, (beth,) and k, (caph. ⁵⁶) 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. ⁵⁷ 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 . ⁵⁸ 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, ⁵⁹ 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.

Verse 27. So God created man . The reiterated mention of the image of God is not a vain repetition. For it is a remarkable instance of the Divine goodness which can never be sufficiently proclaimed. And, at the same time, he admonishes us from what excellence we have fallen, that he may excite in us the desire of its recovery. When he soon afterwards adds, that God created them male and female, he commends to us that conjugal bond by which the society of mankind is cherished. For this form of speaking, God created man, male and female created he them, is of the same force as if he had said, that the man himself was incomplete. ⁶⁰ Under these circumstances, the woman was added to him as a companion that they both might be one, as he more clearly expresses it in the second chapter. Malachi also means the same thing when he relates, (Genesis 2:15,) that one man was created by God, whilst, nevertheless, he possessed the fullness of the Spirit. ⁶¹ For he there treats of conjugal fidelity, which the Jews were violating by their polygamy. For the purpose of correcting this fault, he calls that pair, consisting of man and woman, which God in the beginning had joined together, one man, in order that every one might learn to be content with his own wife.

In my next two posts on this subject, I expect to do the same for John Wesley and Matthew Henry that I did for Calvin in this post, then, after that, follow up with the views of some 20th and 21st century theologians on this matter, and attempt to make some sense out of what all of them have said, and indicate my own view on the matter.

Thanks for reading.

* * * * *

Later posts quote John Wesley and Matthew Henry.

What is the "image of God?"

I wish to muse about the question of what being in the image of God means.

This post is in response to a comment to a previous post, wherein I indicated that I thought some animals might possess, in some measure, part of the image of God. I thank Jeremy Pierce, also known as Parableman, for the comment. He said (I edited a bit, without changing his meaning):

I've come to the conclusion that the image of God is not some aspect of us but something God declared true of us and then made us to fit it. What he declared true of humanity is that humans will be his representatives in the created world. It's our responsibility to make sure it's taken care of. It's our responsibility to act in a godly way in caring for what is ultimately God's. This is why Adam was given the responsibility and privilege of the authoritative task of naming the animals.
Ultimately the image of God, then, is God's declaration of who would do this, of who would image and represent him to all creation. He made us in a way fitting to such a responsibility, though that's partially corrupted due to the fall, but the primary thing is something God simply declared of us. If I'm right, then I don't think it's right to say that animals have part of the image of God.

Genesis 1:26 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 heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (ESV)

Genesis 9:5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image. (ESV)

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. (ESV)

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (ESV)

I did a word search of the ESV Bible, on the two words, image God, and the four passages above were the only relevant ones returned. (There are a number of passages about the idea of worshiping an image as a god. They're against it.)

Is Parableman correct? Do any animals have any part of God's image? Do angels? What does being in the image of God mean?

Let me begin to answer by setting forth my understanding of what some great theologians believed about the concept of the image of God.

If I understand an article about how Thomas Aquinas understood the image of God, for him it had two aspects. One of these was similitude, and the other was intellect.

Wesley held that the image of God in humans had three parts, moral, natural and political. The first of these was completely destroyed in the Fall. According to my source, Wesley was in agreement with Calvin on this matter. I have checked Calvin's commentaries on the passages above (Here is his commentary on Genesis 1. You can get to the rest of his commentaries from this link.) and he did not explain his concept of the image of God in them. Another source puts Wesley's concept thus, explaining, at least for me, the natural image:

The natural image was "a picture of His own immortality; a spiritual being, endued with understanding, freedom of the will, and various affections." The political image was man as governor of this world. Most important was the moral image; in Paul's words "righteousness and true holiness" (Eph. 4:24 . . .).

I hope to produce a second post, continuing my musings on this matter.

Thanks for reading.

* * * * *
Added on April 5:

I have checked John Calvin's commentary again, and I did not give him proper credit. I have now posted more fully on his views, and also those of John Wesley and Matthew Henry (these are three separate posts). I hope to add posts on current thinkers soon.