TOPIC ONE: THE CREATION OF MAN
I. THE FACT
The Scriptures clearly and distinctly teach that man was created by God:
Genesis 1:27; 2:7.
NOTE: Attention has
been called to the occurrence of the Hebrew verb for create (bara) in Genesis
1:27, showing the absolute separation of mankind from the animal kingdom.
II. THE METHOD
The Scriptures also clearly and distinctly teach that man is the result
of an act of immediate divine creation: Genesis 2:7; Job 32:8; Ecclesiastes
12:7; Zechariah 12:1.
NOTE: There is no
foundation in Scripture or science for the belief that the body of man, much
less his moral and mental nature, is the result of evolution from lower forms
of life. Strong says: “No single
instance has yet been adduced of the transformation of one animal species into
another, either by natural or artificial selection; much less has it been
demonstrated that the body of the brute has ever been developed into that of
man. All evolution implies progress and reinforcement of life, and is
intelligible only as the immanent God gives new impulses to the process. Apart
from the direct agency of God, the view that man’s physical system is descended
by natural generation from some ancestral simian form can be regarded only as
an irrational hypothesis. Since the soul, then, is an immediate creation of God,
and the creation of man’s body is mentioned by the Scripture writer in direct
connection with this creation of the spirit, man’s body was in this sense an
immediate creation also”.
III. THE UNITY OF THE RACE
The Scriptures teach that the whole human race is descended from a
single pair—the first pair, Adam and Eve: Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:7, 22; 3:20; 5:2,
3; 9:19.
This Scriptural revelation finds a fourfold corroboration:
1. 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. 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
so derived”.
3. From Psychology.
“The existence, among all families of mankind, of common mental and
moral characteristics, as evidenced in common maxims, tendencies, and
capacities, in the prevalence of similar traditions and in the universal
applicability of our philosophy and religion, is most easily explained upon the
theory of a common origin. It is probable that certain myths common to many
nations were handed down from a time when the families of earth had not yet
separated. Among these are the accounts of the making of the world and man, a
primitive garden, innocence, a serpent, a tree of knowledge, a temptation and
fall, a flood, sacrifice, etc”.
4. From Physiology.
“All races are fruitful one with another. The normal temperature of the
body is the same. The mean frequency of the pulse is the same. There is
liability to the same diseases. These facts are not true of other animals; and
again, human blood can be distinguished by the microscope from that of any
other animal”.
IV. THE TWIN TRUTHS
The origination of the race of mankind from one pair involves what we
may call the twin truths:
1. The organic unity of mankind
in the first transgression, and of the provision of salvation for the race in
Christ: Romans 5:12; I Corinthians 15:21, 22; Hebrews 3:16.
2. The natural brotherhood of
mankind and, in consequence thereof, our obligation as believers to bring the
knowledge of Christ and the blessings of His salvation to every member of the
race of Adam: Acts 17:26; Hebrews 2:11; Luke 10:25-37; Matthew 28:18-20;
Mark 16:15, *6; Luke 24:46-48; Acts 1:8; Romans 1:14-16.
NOTE: Conservative Christianity
and Hebrew chronology estimate the time of man’s appearance upon the earth at 4,000
years BC. Scripturally, there is nothing against this view, inasmuch as in the
opinion of many “there is no fixed chronology before the time of Abraham”.
TOPIC TWO: THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF MAN
I. GENERAL STATEMENT
The Scriptures clearly and distinctly teach that man as constituted by
creation has a material nature and an immaterial nature. The material nature is
his body. The immaterial nature consists of his soul and spirit. This is proved
by:
1. The record of man’s creation:
Genesis 2:7.
2. Passages in which the human
soul or spirit is distinguished, on the one hand, from the divine spirit, and
on the other hand, from the body, which it inhabits: Numbers 16:22; I
Corinthians 2:11; Hebrews 12:9; Genesis 35:18; I Kings 17:21; Ecclesiastes
12:7; James 2:26.
3. The mention of the body, soul and
spirit as together constituting the whole man: Matthew 10:28; I Corinthians
5:3; I Thessalonians 5:23; III John 2.
NOTE: The Hebrew word
commonly rendered soul is nephesh, and
the word commonly rendered spirit is ruach.
The Greek word commonly rendered soul is psuche;
and the word commonly rendered spirit is pneuma.
The primary signification of these four words is practically identical, namely,
wind, breath, the animating principle of a physical organism.
II. TRICHOTOMY vs. DICHOTOMY
The question arises: Does the Bible teach that the soul and spirit of
man are two separate entities, or two aspects of one and the same entity? (The
term entity means thing). Two views are held, namely: Trichotomy and Dichotomy.
NOTE: The root of these
two words is Greek, namely: temno,
cut; dika, in two; and trika, in three. Hence, trichotomy means
the three-part nature of man; and dichotomy, the two-part nature of man.
III. THE TRICHOTOMOUS VIEW
This view maintains that there are three essential elements of humanity;
namely, body, soul, and spirit.
- The body is the material part;
- The soul, the principle of animal life;
- The spirit, the principle of rational and immortal life.
At death the body, it is held, disintegrates into dust; the soul ceases
to exist; while the spirit alone abides, and at the resurrection is reunited to
the glorified body. The spirit is peculiar to man and possesses reason, will,
and conscience. The soul, which is possessed also by the brute creation, is
endowed with understanding, feeling, and sense—perception.
The body, alike of man and of brute, is, of course, pure materiality.
The above is the common view of trichotomists. Some, however, hold that the
soul is not a distinct entity, but a kind of resultant of the union of body and
spirit. This is drawn from the language of Genesis 2:7. Others hold to a
“dualism of being, but a trichotomy of substance”. The “living soul” of Genesis 2:7 is described as a tertium quid (that is, a third something) attaching itself not to
the body but to the spirit, from which it springs. “The soul is the effulgence
of the spirit and its bond of union with the body”.
Trichotomists adduce the following points in support of their position:
1. The record of man’s creation: Genesis
2:7. Here there seem to be three things: the body formed from the dust of the
ground, the breath of life (Hebrew, lives) breathed into the nostrils, and the
living soul.
2. The song of the virgin: Luke 1:46, 47.
Here Mary seems to distinguish between her soul and spirit.
3. Paul’s prayer for the Thessalonians. Here the apostle prays that their “whole body and
soul and spirit” may be “preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ”: I Thessalonians 5:23.
4. Description of the Word of God by the writer to the
Hebrews: Hebrews 4:12. It is characterized us “piercing even
to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit”.
NOTE: Consult also
these references: I Corinthians 2:14: “The natural (Greek, soulish) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit”. I Corinthians
15:44: a natural (soulish) body is
contrasted with a spiritual body. Ephesians 4:23: “That ye may be renewed in the spirit of your mind”. And Jude 19: “Sensual (soulish) not having the
Spirit”.
IV. THE DICHOTOMOUS VIEW
This view maintains that the soul and spirit are not two substances or
parts, but that they designate the same immaterial principle from different
standpoints. Strong thus states the dichotomous position: “The immaterial part
of man, viewed as an individual and conscious life, capable of possessing and
animating a physical organism, is called psuche;
viewed as a rational and moral agent, susceptible of divine influence and
indwelling, this same immaterial part is called pneuma. The pneuma, then,
is man’s nature looking Godward, and capable of receiving and manifesting the
Holy Spirit; the psuche is man’s
nature looking earthward, and touching the world of sense. The pneuma is man’s higher part, as related
to spiritual realities and as capable of such relation. Man’s being is,
therefore, not trichotomous but dichotomous, and his immaterial part, while
possessing a duality of powers, has unity of substance”.
Dichotomists adduce the following points in support of their position:
1. The record of man’s creation: Genesis 2:7. Here, it is held, there are only two
parts, viz: the material body formed of the dust of the ground and the
immaterial principle of life derived by the inbreathing of God.
2. The interchangeable use of the terms soul and
spirit: Genesis 41:8; Psalm 42:6; Matthew 20:28 (psuche); 27:50; John 12:27; 13:21 J
Hebrews 12:23; Rev- 6:9; 20:4.
NOTE: This is true both
of the living and the dead.
3. Spirit as well as soul is used of the brute
creation: Ecclesiastes 3:21; Revelation 16:3. (In this latter
passage “soul” refers to fish).
NOTE: The living
principle in beasts (soul or spirit) is believed to be irrational and mortal;
in man, rational and immortal.
4. Soul is ascribed to the Lord: Amos 6:8
(lit., by His soul); Jeremiah 9:9; Isaiah 53:10-12.
5. The highest exercises of religion are ascribed to
the soul: Mark 12:30; Luke 1:46; Hebrews 6:18, 19; James 1:21.
6. To lose the soul is to lose all: Mark
8:36, 37.
NOTE: The witness of
consciousness corroborates the dichotomous position; when we look within
ourselves, we can distinguish the material part (the body) from the immaterial
part—but the consciousness of no one can discriminate between soul and spirit.
CONCLUSION
Both Paul (I Thessalonians 5:23) and the writer to the Hebrews (Hebrews
4:12) use the words “soul and spirit”, and they use them unambiguously. How is
this to be explained? Both writers were logicians. They were able to draw sharp
distinctions. They wanted, or regarded it important, to distinguish between these
two words, and that is exactly what thye did. If the distinction among these words
is negligible, accuracy of statement would be quite unnecessary. We conclude,
therefore, that the language of the New Testament proves the distinction
insisted on by trichotomists.
NOTE: As to the origin
of the soul there are three theories, viz: preexistence,
creationism, and traducianism. The first theory, which
explains itself, is wholly without Scriptural foundation. In support of the
second theory, which also explains itself, the following passages are adduced:
Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 57:16; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9.
The traducian theory is that “the human race was immediately created in
Adam, and, as respects both body and soul, was propagated from him by natural
generation—all souls since Adam being only mediately (that is, indirectly)
created by God, as the upholder of the laws of propagation which were
originally established by Him”.
This view accords best with Scripture, which “represents God as creating
the species in Adam, Genesis 1:27, and as increasing and perpetuating it
through secondary agencies, Genesis 1:22, 28. Only once is the breath of life
breathed into man’s nostrils, Genesis 2:7, 22; 4:1; 5:3; 46:26; Acts 17:21-26;
I Corinthians 11:8; Hebrews 7:10, and after man’s formation God rested from His
work of creation, Genesis 2:2”.
Again, this view is favored by “the analogy of vegetable and animal
life, in which increase of numbers is secured, not by a multiplicity of
immediate creations, but by the natural derivation of new individuals from the
parent stock. A derivation of the human soul from its parents no more implies a
materialistic view of the soul and its endless division and subdivision, than
the similar derivation of the brute proves the principle of intelligence in the
lower animals to be wholly material”. Again, this view finds support in the
“observed transmission not merely of physical, but of mental and spiritual
characteristics in families and races, and especially the uniform evil moral tendencies
and dispositions which all men possess from their birth”.
TOPIC THREE: THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN
I. DEFINITION
By the moral nature of man is meant those powers which fit him for right
or wrong action. These powers are intellect, sensibility, and will, together
with conscience and free agency.
Says Strong: “In order to moral action, man has intellect, or reason, to
discern the difference between right and wrong; sensibility, to be moved by
each of these; free will (or free agency), to do the one or the other.
Intellect, sensibility, and will are man’s three faculties. But in connection
with these faculties there is a sort of activity which involves them all, and
without which there can be no moral action, namely, the activity of conscience.
Conscience applies the moral law to particular cases in our personal
experience, and proclaims that law as binding upon us. Only a rational and
sentient being can be truly moral”.
II. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
Assuming the threefold powers of intellect, sensibility and will, as
belonging to man’s personality, the essential elements of his moral nature are
two, viz: conscience and free agency.
A. Conscience.
1. Definition.
Conscience comes from the Latin conscientia,
which is compounded of con, with, or
together, and scientia, knowing
skill, or science. The Greek word for conscience is suneideesis, signifying a co-perception or co-knowledge. Sun in suneideesis is the equivalent of con in conscientia, and is commonly expressed
in English by the prefix co, meaning
with, or together.
2. Nature.
Some regard conscience as a separate faculty—the faculty of moral
obligation, which gives us the feeling of “I ought”, or “I ought not”.
It has been called the voice of God in the soul of man. Others regard
conscience as rather the response, so to speak, of the entire personality to an
accepted and authoritative standard of duty. This latter view we take to be the
correct one.
3. Contents.
A mental analysis of conscience discloses the following constituent
elements:
a. Self-consciousness.
Primarily conscience is a knowledge of self—together with intellectual
and emotional states and volitional acts. This is the meaning of Hebrews 10:2.
b. Knowledge of a standard of
duty, or the moral law.
At this point conscience touches the moral reason. The working of
conscience calls for some known objective standard of moral conduct, with
reference to which the quality of states and actions may be discriminated and
judged accordingly as right or wrong.
This standard of moral conduct may be imperfect; but such as it is the
conscience will respond to it in approval or disapproval. This we take to be
the meaning of Romans 2:13-15. Again, the standard of moral conduct may be
erroneous; but if accepted as authoritative the conscience will respond to it in
approval or disapproval.
Illustration: The Indian mother who from religious belief throws her babe into the
river Ganges. For this reason the conscience, we say, needs enlightening; but
what we mean is that the moral reason (that is, the reason controlled by the
moral nature) needs enlightenment.
The true standard of conduct, of course, is the moral law of God, in
part engraved upon our hearts but revealed fully in the sacred Scriptures. Very
many of the Lord’s people lack full Scriptural enlightenment upon the question
of Christian duty and privilege, and as a consequence their consciences are
“weak” and easily become “defiled”: I Corinthians 8:7-13; Titus 1:15.
c. Knowledge of conformity or
non-conformity to a standard of duty, or the moral law.
This is the exercise of self-examination. It is the correlation of the
first two elements of conscience— the knowing of self in relation to a testing
law of duty. Applying this accepted and authoritative law of duty to concrete
cases in our own experience, we discern and pronounce our states and acts—past,
present, and future—as right or wrong.
d. Remorse or complacency in view
of conformity or non-conformity to a standard of duty, or the moral law.
This is the exercise of self-judgment. Having by self-examination
discerned and pronounced our states and acts to be right or wrong with
reference to the standard of the moral law, we commend or condemn ourselves
accordingly. In the former case there is an instinctive sense of God’s favor
with a corresponding expectation of blessing; while in the latter case there is
an instinctive sense of God’s disfavor with a corresponding realization of
being deserving of punishment.
This is what is meant by having, on the one hand, a “good” or “pure”
conscience, or a conscience “void of
offense toward God and toward men”: Acts 24:16; I Timothy 1:5; 3:9; and, on
the other hand, an “evil” conscience or a conscience “seared with a hot iron”: Hebrews 10:22; I Timothy 4:2.
B. Free Agency.
1. Definition.
By free agency, or the freedom of the will, is meant the power of
rational and responsible personal choice with respect to character and conduct.
2. Contents.
In free agency there are four constituent elements, viz: a purposive
end, a motive state, a rational judgment, and an elective decision.
a. A purposive end.
All intelligent and responsible action is taken with reference to some
end in view—the attainment of a purpose through the use of appropriate means.
b. A motive state.
All action looking to a rational end or responsible purpose is
influenced by motives, and motives produce states of mind and heart
corresponding to them. Such are called motive states.
c. A rational judgment.
We have power over our motives and their corresponding motive states.
Herein is the fundamental and essential fact of free agency. We can choose our
course of action in accordance with the strongest motive or the weakest motive present
to the mind at any given time; or we can suspend choice altogether, while by
reflection and deliberation we bring into mental view other facts and
considerations, having the force of new motives and producing corresponding new
motive states, out of which in turn may spring personal choice and consequent
action wholly different from what was at first contemplated. A denial of this
power over or contrary to motives is a denial of free agency, or the freedom of
the will.
d. An elective decision.
This is the actual exercise of the power of choice with respect to
motives. Miley says: “The rational judgment does not include the elective
decision… In the judgment we estimate the value and character of the end, while
in the elective decision we determine our action respecting its attainment. The
act of judgment is complete before the elective decision is made. The judgment,
however, is necessary to the rational character of the choice and, therefore,
the choice itself, which in the very nature of it must have a reason for itself”.
Strong thus states the question of free agency: “Free agency is the
power of self-determination in view of motives, or man’s power (1) to choose
between motives, and (2) to direct his subsequent activity according to the
motive thus chosen. Motives are never a cause, but only an occasion; they
influence, but never compel; the man is the cause, and herein is his freedom.
But it is also true that man is never in a state of indeterminateness; never
acts without motive, or contrary to all motives; there is always a reason why
he acts and herein is his rationality”.
NOTE: Opposed to free
agency, or the freedom of the will, are two theories which are forms of
necessitarianism, or the doctrine of necessity. These are fatalism and
determinism.
Fatalism admits the
certainty, but denies the freedom of human self-determination—thus substituting
fate for providence. “Under the sway of fate”, says Miley, “all things are absolutely determined;
so that they could not but be, nor be other than they are. Fate binds in equal
chains of necessity all things and events, all intelligences, thoughts,
feelings, volitions, and even God Himself—if there be a God. Materialism and
pantheism are fatalistic in character”.
Determinism holds that choice is always in accordance with the stronger or
strongest motive present before the mind at any given time. Just as the heavier
pan of the scales descends, so the weightier motive controls personal action.
Determinism denies the power to suspend choice in the presence of motives, or
to choose contrary to motives present at any time before the mind.
TOPIC FOUR: THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN
I. GENERAL STATEMENT
The Scriptures clearly and distinctly teach that man was created in the
image and likeness of God: Genesis 1:26, 27; 5:1; 9:6; I Corinthians 11:7;
Colossians 3:10. See also II Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.
NOTE: The Hebrew word
rendered “image” signifies shadow and the Hebrew word rendered “likeness” signifies resemblance. The Greek word rendered “image” means an outline resemblance, i.
e., a profile. In Hebrews 1:3 a different Greek word is used, meaning an exact
copy or an engraving. Attempts to find an essential distinction in meaning
between “image” and “likeness” must fail; they are
substantially identical. Thus Strong stays: “Both (i. e. words) together
signify ‘the very image’”. And commenting on the force of both terms, Campbell
Morgan writes: “Perhaps the simplest exposition of the thought would be gained
by the contemplation of the shadow of a man cast upon some white background, by
the shining of a great light. What the shadow would be to the man, the man
would be to God. Like and unlike, suggesting an idea, but by no means
explaining the mystery, impossible apart from the substance, yet infinitely
less in essence than the substance. Man no more perfectly expresses all the
facts concerning God than does the shadow those concerning man. Nevertheless,
the shadow is the image of the man, and indicates the truth concerning him” (“The Crises of the Christ”, pp. 25, 26).
II. CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS
The image of God in man is twofold, namely: Natural likeness, or
Personality; and Moral likeness, or Holiness.
1. Natural Likeness, or Personality.
Personality, as we have seen, consists of intellect, or the power of
thinking; sensibility, or the power of feeling; and volition, or the power of
willing. To complete the idea we must, however, add three other elements:
self-consciousness, conscience, and free moral agency.
Strong says: “By virtue of this personality, man could at his creation
choose which of the objects of his knowledge—self, the world, or God—would be
the norm and center of his development. This likeness to God is inalienable
(that is, it cannot be lost), and as constituting a capacity for redemption
gives value to the life even of the unregenerate”: Genesis 9:6; I Corinthians
11:7; James 3:9.
NOTE: Farr says: “Man cannot lose this likeness
(that is, the natural likeness or personality), or element of the divine image,
without ceasing to be man. Insanity can only obscure it. Bernard said that it
could not be burned out even in hell. The lost piece of money, Luke 15:8, still
bore the image and superscription of the king, although it did not know it and
did not know that it was lost. Human nature is, therefore, to be reverenced. He
who destroyed human life was put to death: Genesis 9:6. Even men whom we curse
are made after the likeness of God: Psalm 8:5; James 3:9”.
2. Moral Likeness, or Holiness.
The Scriptures clearly and distinctly teach that by creation man was
pure, upright, and holy: Ecclesiastes 7:29; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10.
This holiness, or righteousness, which constituted man’s moral likeness to God,
was forfeitable (that is, it could be lost) and it was forfeited or lost by the
original sin: Ephesians 4:23, 24; Colossians 3:10.
a. Its Nature.
The nature of the original righteousness, or holiness, is to be viewed:
(1). Not as constituting the essence, or substance, of human nature; for
in that case, as Strong says, “human nature would have ceased to exist as soon
as man sinned”. “Nature” comes from the Latin natura (nascor, to be
born). Sin can properly be called a nature only in the sense of its being
inborn, i. e., in the race of Adam. “Disposition” would be a synonymous
expression.
(2). Not as a gift from without, foreign to human nature and added to it
after man’s creation; for man possessed the divine image by creation and not by
subsequent bestowal. Farr says: “Adam
was created with a holy nature, i. e., tendencies toward God, as all men since
are born with a sinful nature, i. e., tendencies away from God”.
(3). In distinction from these negative theories, the original
righteousness, or holiness, consisted, in the language of Strong, in a
“direction or tendency of man’s affections and will, still accompanied by the
power of evil choice, and so, differing from the perfect holiness of the saints
as instinctive affection and childlike innocence differ from the holiness that
has been developed and confirmed by experience of temptation”. The same author
continues: “It was a moral disposition, moreover, which was propagable to
Adam’s descendants, if it were retained, and which, though lost to him and to
them, if Adam sinned, would still leave man possessed of a natural likeness to
God which made him susceptible to God’s redeeming grace”.
NOTE: Another way of
putting it would be that by creation man had a holy nature in distinction from
a holy character. What is meant is that through birth (in the original instance
through creation) a nature, or disposition, may be received, while character is
the outgrowth and development only of moral probation, i. e., by the exercise
of the power of free moral choice in the presence of good and evil.
Two facts should be added: the first is that this holy nature was more
than innocence; it was a positive likeness to God in rectitude and purity. The
other fact is that righteousness, or holiness, both of nature and of character
has two sides: it is a knowledge and perception as well as an inclination and
feeling: Colossians 3:10.
b. Two Erroneous Views.
Of man’s original state two erroneous views are held:
(1). The image of God included only personality.
“This theory”, says Strong,
“denies that any positive determination to virtue inhered originally in man’s
nature, and regards man at the beginning as simply possessed of spiritual
powers, perfectly adjusted to each other”.
There are three objections:
(a) It really makes Adam the author of his own holiness. But this is
contrary to analogy; for our sinful condition is not the product of our
individual wills but rather the result of the first transgression; and our
subsequent condition of holiness is not the product of our individual wills but
rather the result of God’s regenerating and sanctifying power.
(b) Knowledge, which was an element of man’s holy nature, logically
presupposes “a direction toward God of man’s affections and will; since only
the heart can have any proper understanding of the God of holiness” (Strong).
(c) A likeness to God in personality alone does not satisfy the demands
of Scripture, in which “the ethical conception of the divine nature so
overshadow* the merely natural” (Strong).
(2). The image of God consists simply of man’s natural capacity for
religion.
This is the view of the Roman Catholic Church. A distinction in meaning
is made between image and likeness. The former alone was man’s by creation; the
latter was the product of his own acts of obedience. Strong thus elaborates the
idea: “In order that this obedience might be made easier and the consequent
likeness to God more sure, a third element was added—an element not belonging
to man’s nature —namely, a supernatural gift of special grace, which acted as a
curb upon the sensuous impulses, and brought them under the control of reason.
Original righteousness was therefore not a natural endowment, but a joint
product of man’s obedience and of God’s supernatural grace”.
There are three objections:
(a) There is no real distinction in meaning between “image” and
“likeness”.
(b) Whatever may be denoted by “image” and “likeness”, either singly or
together, was conferred upon man in and by his creation. “Man is said to have
been created in the image and likeness of God, not to have been afterwards
endowed with either of them”.
(c) The theory is in direct contradiction to the Scriptures, in that it
makes the first sin to have been a weakening but not a perversion of human
nature, and the work of regeneration to be not a renewal of the affections but
merely a strengthening of the natural powers.
“The theory”, says Strong, “regards the first sin as simply despoiling
man of a special gift of grace and as putting him where he was when first
created—still able to obey God and cooperate with God for his salvation,
whereas Scripture represents man since the fall as ‘dead through trespasses and sins’, Ephesians 2:1; as incapable of
true obedience, Romans 8:7, ‘not subject
to the law of God, neither indeed can be’; and as needing to be ‘created in Christ Jesus for good works’,
Ephesians 2:10”.
III. RESULTS
Man’s possession of the divine image and likeness resulted in four
things:
1. His physical form was a reflection of an original
and heavenly type.
It is true that by His incarnation Christ took our nature: John 1:14;
Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 2:14. But it is also true that by his creation man was
molded after a divine pattern even as to his body: Ezekiel 1:26. In like manner
the tabernacle was modeled after a heavenly pattern: Exodus 25:40; Numbers 8:4;
Hebrews 8:1-5. Strong says: “Even in man’s body were typified those higher
attributes which chiefly constituted his likeness to God. A gross perversion of
this truth, however, is the view which holds, upon the ground of Genesis 2:7
and 3:8, that the image of God consists in bodily resemblance to the Creator.
In the first of these passages, it is not the divine image, but the body, that
is formed of dust, and into this body the soul that possesses the divine image
is breathed. The second of these passages is to be interpreted by those other
portions of the Pentateuch in which God is represented as free from all
limitations of matter: Genesis 11:5; 18:1-5”.
2. His sensuous impulses were in subjection to the
spirit.
Strong says: “Here we are to hold a middle ground between two extremes.
On the one hand, the first man possessed a body and a spirit so fitted to each
other that no conflict was felt between their several claims. On the other
hand, this physical perfection was not final and absolute, but relative and
provisional. There was still room for progress to a higher state of being:
Genesis 3:22”.
3. He had dominion over the lower creation: Genesis 1:26, 28; Psalm 8:5-8.
Adam was the crown of creation. Having a perfect mind, he was not
dependent upon the laborious processes of inductive and deductive reasoning in
the acquisition of knowledge, but had immediate and intuitive insight into
truth. Of this there are two proofs: first, his naming of the animals: Genesis
2:19, 20.
Evidently, Adam had insight into the nature and habits of each animal
and gave it a name corresponding to these. Second, his naming of his helpmeet:
Genesis 2:23, 24; 3:20. Adam first called her woman because she was taken out of
him.
In English there is no connection between the words man and woman, but
in Hebrew the connection is very close. In that language “man” is ish, and
“woman” is isha. That is, literally, woman is the manness, or female man. Woman
is not, as has been suggested, man’s woe, but rather his woo.
Next, Adam called his helpmeet Eve, because she was the mother of all
living. “Eve” signifies living. Thus on the one hand, the name “woman”
reflected her origin, and on the other hand, the name “Eve” reflected her
destiny.
Of the woman’s creation Matthew Henry says: “Not out of his head to top
him, nor out of his feet to be trampled on by him; but out of his side to be
equal with him, under his arm to be protected by him, and near his heart to be
beloved”.
NOTE: Man’s dominion
over the lower creation involves his absolute separation from the animal
kingdom—in origin, association, and destiny. A beast cannot ascend to the level
of a man, but a man can easily descend to the level of a beast: Psalm 49:10;
Proverbs 30:2; Jeremiah 10:21; II Peter 2:12. By the Law of Moses defilement
with beasts was punishable by death: Leviticus 20:15, 16.
4. He had communion with God: Genesis 3:8, 9.
Strong says: “Our first parents enjoyed the divine presence and
teaching: Genesis 2:16. It would seem that God manifested Himself to them in
visible form: Genesis 3:8. Companionship was both in kind and degree suited to
their spiritual capacity, and by no means necessarily involved that perfected
vision of God which is possible to beings of confirmed and unchanging holiness:
Matthew 5:8; I John 3:2; Revelation 22:4”.
TOPIC FIVE: THE PROBATION OF MAN
I. GENERAL STATEMENT
The Scriptures teach that after his creation God placed man in a garden
in Eden and subjected him to a state of probation: Genesis 2:8-17.
NOTE: Eden signifies
pleasure, delight. Its exact site cannot be determined. Speaking generally, its
location must have been in the Mesopotamian valley, near the headwaters of the
Tigris and Euphrates. The wildest theories have been advanced as to where the
Garden of Eden was. There is a serious book written by a serious scholar,
called “Paradise Found”, claiming
that the Garden of Eden was at the North Pole. However, unless revolutionary
topological and climatic changes have occurred, Peary’s discovery exploded this
theory.
II. DEFINITION OF PROBATION
Probation, from a Latin word signifying to prove or test, is a period of
trial under a law of duty, which is the test of obedience and is enforced by
the sanctions of reward for a right choice and good conduct, and punishment for
a wrong choice and evil conduct.
Miley says: “Probation is a temporary economy. Its central reality is
responsibility for conduct under a law of duty”.
III. NECESSITY OF PROBATION
While our first parents were created with holy natures, whose
fluctuating emotions and spontaneous tendencies were wholly toward the good,
yet they were susceptible to temptation from without.
Consequently, a period of probation was essential in order to test their
loyalty to God by obedience or disobedience to His command. Thus our divine
Lord was likewise susceptible to temptation from without, from the reality and
power of which He keenly suffered: Hebrews 2:18; 9:14.
NOTE: Miley says: “With a holy nature, there were
yet susceptibilities to temptation. In temptation there is an impulse in the
susceptibilities adverse to the law of duty. This is true even where it finds
no response in the personal consciousness. Yet, in the measure of it, such impulse
is a trial to obedience. The proof of it is in a primitive constitution with
susceptibilities which might be the means of temptation. These facts are
entirely consistent with the primitive holiness which we have maintained. In
such a state primitive man began his moral life. The only way to confirmed
blessedness was through temporary obedience. But obedience requires a law of
duty and, with the natural incidence of trial and the possibility of failure,
such a law must be a testing law. It thus appears that a probationary economy
was the only one at all suited to the state of primitive man”.
IV. PURPOSE OF PROBATION
The purpose of the probation of our first parents was, so to speak, to
test their virtue—to transform their holy natures into holy characters. As has
been pointed out, a moral nature is the result of creation, or birth; but moral
character is produced only by probation, by the free personal choice of good in
the presence of evil and with full power to choose evil. Now Adam and Eve were
created with holy moral natures. A right choice—that is, obedience to God’s
command —would have transformed these holy moral natures into holy moral
characters. As it was, however, their wrong choice—that is, disobedience to the
command—transformed their holy moral natures into sinful moral characters, and
involved both themselves and their posterity in the guilt of sin and the
defilement of depravity.
V. THE PROBATIONARY LAW
The probationary or testing law is recorded in Genesis 21:6b, 17: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest
freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not
eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”.
In character this probationary or testing law was positive, not moral.
The difference is that while “the obligation of a moral law is intrinsic and
absolute; the obligation of a positive law arises from a divine commandment”.
In other words, a moral command carries its own reason for obedience, but a
positive command does not.
Thus, the Ten Commandments are moral in character, because we are so
constituted as to understand their reasonableness and realize their necessity.
For, the Ten Commandments are not right because they were given of God; they
were given of God because they were right.
On the other hand, God’s call to Abraham to offer up Isaac (Genesis 22)
was a positive command, because Abraham did not understand its reasonableness
or realize its necessity.
Another name for positive command is personal command. Now, it is of the
very essence of moral probation that the testing law should be a positive or
personal command, the reasonableness and necessity of which are not made known
to the one who is subjected to the probation. In the case of our first parents,
as we have seen, the probationary law was a positive or personal command. It
was God’s right to command: it was the duty of Adam and Eve to obey.
NOTE: Strong says:
“Since man was not yet in a state of confirmed holiness, but rather of simple
childlike innocence, he could be made perfect only through temptation. Hence
the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and
evil’: Genesis 2:9. The one slight command best tested the spirit of
obedience. Temptation did not necessitate a fall. If resisted, it would
strengthen virtue. In that case, the posse non pecarre would have become the
non posse pecarre. (That is, the ability not to sin would have become the
inability to sin). The tree was mainly a tree of probation. It is right for a
father make his son’s title to his estate depend upon the performance of some
filial duty, as Thaddeus Stevens made his son’s possession of property
conditional upon his keeping the temperance-pledge. Whether, besides this, the
tree of knowledge was naturally hurtful or poisonous, we do not know”.
VI. REASONABLENESS OF PROBATION
The reasonableness of the primitive probation is seen from the following
facts:
1. In the love and wisdom of God, who could not and would not have subjected our first
parents to any state of trial or probationary test which was not for their
highest development and eternal welfare and consequently absolutely necessary.
Therefore the prohibition of Genesis 2:17 must have been just, wise, and good.
2. In the manifold source of delight and satisfaction
which were provided for Adam and Eve by their Maker: Genesis 2:9. They had everything.
TOPIC SIX: THE TEMPTATION OF MAN
I. GENERAL STATEMENT
The Scriptures clearly and distinctly teach that our first parents were
tempted to sin by disobeying God’s positive command: Genesis 3:1-6; II
Corinthians 11:3; I Timothy 2:14.
II. THE INSTRUMENT
The instrument in the temptation of our first parents was the serpent:
Genesis 3:1, 4, 5; II Corinthians 11:3.
NOTE: The serpent is
included among the beasts. He is described as being more subtile than them all.
The Hebrew word translated subtile signifies crafty or cunning. It is not
unlikely that originally the serpent was a very beautiful creature; and he
seems to have possessed the power of upright locomotion: Genesis 3:14.
III. THE HIGHER AGENT
The higher agent in the temptation of our first parents was Satan:
Revelation 12:9.
NOTE: The devil used
the serpent as an instrument in tempting Adam and Eve. Thus back of this “beast of the field” was a higher, even
a supernatural intelligence. God’s curse upon the serpent makes this fact
unmistakable: Genesis 3:14, 15—particularly the latter verse.
IV. THE THREEFOLD FORM
Notice that the serpent approached the woman in two ways: first, by an
affirmation followed by an interrogation, “Yea,
hath God said”, etc.: Genesis 3:1. So he approached Jesus with an
insinuation, “If thou be the Son of God”,
etc.: Matthew 4:3. The writhing shape of the serpent is not unsuggestive of a
question mark. Second, he made a flat contradiction of God’s Word, “Ye shall not surely die”: Genesis 3:4.
But in particular notice that in form the temptation of our first
parents was threefold:
1. The Physical Nature.
Satan first attacked Eve through her body. He showed her that the tree
was “good for food”: Genesis 3:6a.
2. The Psychical Nature.
Satan next attacked Eve through her mind. He showed her that the tree
was “pleasant (Hebrews a desire) to the eyes”: Genesis 3:6b.
3. Satan finally attacked her soul, or spirit. He
showed her that the tree was “to be desired to make one wise”: Genesis 3:6c.
NOTE: In the wilderness
Satan patterned his temptation of Jesus after his temptation of our first
parents. See Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13.
We follow the order of Luke, whose Gospel is chronologically arranged.
There we notice—as also in Matthew’s account:
- That Christ’s body was first
attacked: in His intense hunger He was bidden to make bread of the stones at
His feet.
- Next Christ’s mind was
attacked: the vision of all the kingdoms of the world was an appeal to His
ambition to make Himself a universal ruler, as Alexander the Great, Caesar, and
Hannibal had aspired to be.
- Finally, Christ’s spirit was
attacked: from the pinnacle of the temple He was bidden, as the favorite of
heaven, to hurl Himself into the abyss in presumptuous defiance alike of
gravitation and Providence. But again, Satan tempts the children of God today,
as he tempted Eve and Jesus. In I John 2:16 we find the same threefold attack:
(1) “The lust of the flesh”;
(2) “the lust of the eyes”;
(3) “the pride, or vain
glory, of life”.
We may call this the trinity of evil.
TOPIC SEVEN: THE FALL OF MAN
GENERAL STATEMENT
The Scriptures clearly and distinctly teach that Adam and Eve fell from
their first estate, in sinning against God by disobeying His positive and
personal command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
Genesis 3:6b; Romans 5:12, 19; I Timothy 2:14.
This was the first or “original sin”.
NOTE: Torrey points out five steps leading to the
first sin;
1. Listening to slanders against God.
2. Doubting His Word and love.
3. Looking at what God had forbidden.
4. Lusting for what God had prohibited.
5. Disobeying God’s command.
As Strong says: “The first sin, was in Eve’s isolating herself and
choosing to seek her own pleasure, without regard to God’s will. This initial
selfishness it was which led her to listen to the tempter instead of rebuking
him or flying from him, and to exaggerate the divine command in her response:
Genesis 3:3… This was followed by positive unbelief, and by a conscious and
presumptuous cherishing of desire for the forbidden fruit as a means of independence
and knowledge. Thus, unbelief, pride, and lust all sprang from the
self-isolating, self-seeking spirit, and fastened upon the means of gratifying
it: Genesis 3:6”.
In this connection we may notice the Apostle James’ account of the
origin, development, and fruition of sin: James 1:13-15.
The consequences of sin were manifold and varied; we may notice them
under four topics as follows: The Immediate Effects of Sin; The Fourfold Divine
Judgment; The Threefold Separation; and The Threefold Death.
I. THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF SIN
The immediate effects of sin (Genesis 3:7-13) were six in number, viz:
1. A sense of shame. This was due to the awakening of conscience.
2. The covering of fig leaves. This was a bloodless covering. See Genesis 3:21;
Philippians 3:9.
3. A feeling of fear. This arose from their guilty conscience.
4. An attempt at concealment. Foolishly Adam and Eve supposed that they could hide
from the presence of God.
5. An effort at self-vindication. Though guilty, yet Adam and Eve tried to justify
themselves.
6. The shifting of blame. Adam laid the blame for his sin upon Eve, and Eve laid the blame for
her sin upon the serpent, i. e., Satan.
II. THE FOURFOLD DIVINE JUDGMENT
After this painful scene the Lord God pronounced a fourfold judgment:
Genesis 3:14-19. This was:—
1. Upon the serpent. This was the curse of
degradation: Micah 7:17.
NOTE: During the
Millennium the curse upon the serpent will not be removed, for the serpent is
the type of Satan: Isaiah 65:25.
2. Upon the woman. This was the judgment of sorrow and subjection: John 16:21.
NOTE: The blessing of
the Gospel mitigates the rigor of the law: I Timothy 2:15.
3. Upon the man. This was the judgment of sorrow and toil: Job 5:7; Ecclesiastes 2:22,
23.
NOTE: Work is a
blessing and not a curse: Genesis 2:9, 15. It is only the curse resting upon
the ground which makes man’s labor vexatious and unremunerative.
4. Upon the ground. This was the curse of thorns and thistles.
NOTE: Like the serpent,
the thorn is the natural enemy of man: Matthew 7:16. It is used in Scripture as
a symbol of evil: Numbers 33:55; II Corinthians 12:7. Our Lord’s mock crown was
composed of thorns: John 19:2, 5. During the Millennium the curse upon the
ground will be removed: Isaiah 55:13.
III. THE THREEFOLD SEPARATION
The fourfold divine judgment resulted in a threefold separation: Genesis
3:22-24. Thus Adam and Eve were separated:—
1. From the tree of life.
NOTE: The tree of life
represents wisdom: Proverbs 3:18. Wisdom personified is Christ: I Corinthians
1:24. So the tree of life was an emblem of Christ: Revelation 2:7; 22:14.
Adam’s body was mortal: Genesis 2:7; I Corinthians 15:44, 45, 47. Science
teaches us that physical life involves decay and loss.
There was, however, a divine provision for checking this decay and loss,
and preserving the body’s youth. This was by means of the tree of life. It
accomplished this through its sacramental value; that is, eating of this tree
was symbolical of the communion of Adam and Eve with God and of their
dependence upon Him, but this only because it had a physical efficacy. Physical
immortality without holiness would have been unending misery.
Accordingly, our first parents were shut out from the tree of life,
until by redemption and resurrection such of their descendants as accept Christ
can be prepared to partake thereof. Thus, our glorified bodies will be
preserved throughout eternity by eating of the tree of life which is typical of
our blessed Lord Himself: Revelation 2:7; 22:14.
Physical decay and loss, which ended in the death of their bodies, began
the instant Adam and Eve were denied access to the tree of life. The nine
hundred and thirty years Adam lived, as also the extraordinary longevity of the
antediluvians, is evidence of their wonderful natural vitality.
“If Adam had maintained his integrity, the body might have been
developed and transfigured without the intervention of death. In other words,
the posse non mori (that is, able not
to die) might have become a non posse
mori (that is, not able to die)” (Strong). In his “Crises of the Christ” Campbell Morgan treats the transfiguration of
Christ as the flowering of humanity; he regards it as God’s demonstration of
the fruition of the body—if there had been no sin.
2. From the Garden of Eden.
The only way to make the exclusion of Adam and Eve from the tree of life
effective was to drive them from the Garden of Eden. And this the LORD God did,
sending man forth “to till the ground
from whence he was taken”.
3. From the personal and visible presence of God.
Sin separates man from God,—and it is the only thing that can separate
man from God. When Adam and Eve hid themselves from the presence of the LORD
God, it was because their sin with its resulting guilt and shame had morally
unfitted them for personal and face-to-face communion and fellowship with their
Maker. Separation from the Garden of Eden, therefore, simply sealed the
spiritual separation of man from God which sin had already brought about.
Henceforth, our first parents and their posterity had only a symbolical
representation of Deity: the cherubim and the flaming sword placed at the east
of the Garden of Eden were the visible manifestation of the LORD God. Thither
the godly antediluvians came to worship and sacrifice: for there is no evidence
that these primitive types of the presence and power, the mercy and redeeming
grace of God, did not remain until swept away by the flood.
NOTE: The flaming sword
(3:24) was the first appearance of that self-luminous flame which, as the
Shekinah glory, rested over the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies in the
tabernacle and the temple.
IV. THE THREFOLD DEATH
In connection with the prohibition to eat of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil the LORD God said, “In
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (lit. dying thou
shalt die): Genesis 2:17.
This death, which was the result of sin, was threefold, viz: physical,
spiritual, and eternal.
1. Physical death.
Physical death is the separation of the soul from the
body.
It includes, according to Strong, “all those temporal evils and
sufferings which result from disturbance of the original harmony between soul
and body, and which are the working of death in us”: Numbers 16:29; 27-3; Psalm
907-9, 11; Isaiah 38:17, 18; Romans 4:24, 25; 6:9, 10; 8:3, 10, 11; I
Corinthians 15:21, 22; Galatians 3:13; I Peter 4:6.
NOTE: Some regard
physical death as a part of the penalty of sin while others regard it as rather
the natural consequence of sin. In either view, it seems to be clear that
weakness and disease followed by death resulted primarily from the exclusion of
Adam and Eve from the tree of life.
2. Spiritual death.
Spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from
God.
It includes, according to Strong, “all that pain of conscience, loss of
peace, and sorrow of spirit, which result from the disturbance of the normal
relation between the soul and God”: Matthew 8:22; Luke 15:32; John 5:24; 8:51;
Romans 8:13; Ephesians 2:1; 5:14; I Timothy 5:6; James 5:20; I John 3:14.
NOTE: Strong says: “It
cannot be doubted that the penalty pronounced in the Garden and fallen upon the
race is primarily and mainly that death of the soul which consists in its
separation from God. In this sense only, death was fully visited upon Adam in
the day on which he ate the forbidden fruit: Genesis 2:17. In this sense only,
death is escaped by the Christian: John 11:26. For this reason, in the parallel
between Adam and Christ, Romans 5:12- 21, the apostle passes from the thought
of mere physical death in the early part of the passage to that of both
physical and spiritual death at its close, verse 21: ‘as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness
unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’—where ‘eternal life’ is
more than endless physical existence, and ‘death’ is more than death of the
body”.
3. Eternal death.
Eternal death is the result of spiritual death.
It is, according to Strong, “the culmination and completion of spiritual
death, and essentially consists of the correspondence of the outward with the
inward state of the evil soul: Acts 1:25. It would seem to be inaugurated by
some peculiar repellent energy of the divine holiness, Matthew 25:41; II
Thessalonians 1:9, and to involve positive retribution visited by a personal
God upon both body and soul of the evildoer: Matthew 10:28; Hebrews 10:31;
Revelation 14:11”. Eternal death is the same as hell, or gehenna, or the second
death: Matthew 10:28; see II Kings 23:10; Revelation 20:14.
NOTE: Both spiritual
and eternal death were arrested by grace through the institution of sacrifice:
Genesis 3:21; 44; Hebrews 9:22. Thus, the Coming One who was to “taste death
for every man” saved those in the Old Testament age who through obedience and
sacrifice believed in Him: Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:9.
QUESTIONS FOR STUDY
1. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the creation of man?
2. What do they teach concerning the method of his creation?
3. What do they teach concerning the unity of the race?
4. What fourfold corroboration have we of the unity of the race?
5. What twin truths are involved in the unity of the race?
6. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the constitution of man by
creation?
7. What is the primary signification of the Hebrew words for soul and
spirit, and of the Greek words for soul and spirit?
8. What is the meaning of the terms trichotomy and dichotomy?
9. Give a general statement of the trichotomous view of man’s nature.
10. Mention the Scriptural points which are believed to support the
trichotomous view.
11. Give a general statement of the dichotomous view of man’s nature.
12. Mention the Scriptural points which are believed to support the
dichotomous view.
13. On which side of the question does the witness of consciousness
stand?
14. In your judgment is the teaching of Scripture conclusive or
inconclusive as to the matter? Is the subject vital to salvation?
15. State the three views as to the origin of the soul.
16. What is meant by the moral nature of man?
17. What are the essential elements of the moral nature?
18. Discuss the signification of the word conscience.
19. What is the nature of conscience? State the two views.
20. What are the constituent elements of conscience as given by mental
analysis?
21. What is meant by free agency?
22. What are the constituent elements of free agency?
23. What is meant by Fatalism? by Determinism?
24. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the image of God in man?
25. What is the signification of the Hebrew words for image and
likeness?
26. What were the constituent elements of the image of God in man?
27. In what does natural likeness consist? Why is it inalienable?
28. In what did moral likeness consist?
29. How is the original righteousness, or holiness, to be viewed?
30. Distinguish clearly between nature and character.
31. What two erroneous views are held as to man’s original state?
32. What four things resulted from man’s possession of the divine image
and likeness?
33. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the probation of man?
34. What does the word Eden signify? Where was the Garden of Eden
probably located?
35. Define probation.
36. Show wherein a period of moral probation for Adam and Eve was
necessary.
37. What was the purpose of the primitive probation?
38. What was the probationary law?
39. Distinguish clearly between a moral law and a positive command.
40. Show wherein the primitive probation was reasonable.
41. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the temptation of man?
42. What was the instrument in the temptation?
43. Who was the higher agent?
44. In what two ways did the serpent approach the woman?
45. What was the threefold form of the temptation?
46. Trace the parallel between the temptation of our first parents and
that of Jesus.
47. What Scripture passage
teaches that Satan tempts Christians after the pattern of the Edenic and the
wilderness temptations?
48. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the fall of man?
49. Point out five steps leading to the first sin.
50. Mention six immediate effects of sin.
51. What was the fourfold divine judgment in consequence of sin?
52. What was the threefold separation which resulted from sin?
53. What did the tree of life represent and what was its use?
54. What was the threefold death which sin caused?
55. How may the physical death of Adam and Eve be explained?
56. How do spiritual and eternal death stand related? What are some
other Scriptural expressions for eternal death?
~
end of chapter 4 ~
