12. Origin, Being, and Destiny of Mankind
times.
10 . How does the understanding of creation and providence enhance our worship and praise of God?
Reflect on Psalm 104 and other passages that celebrate God's creative power and providential care, and how this deepens our adoration and trust in Him.
12. Origin, Being, and Destiny of Mankind The narrative of the origin of heaven and earth reaches its culmination in the first chapter of Genesis with the creation of mankind. The creation of other creatures—heaven and earth, sun and moon and stars, plants and animals—is recorded briefly, and the creation of angels is not mentioned at all. But when Scripture comes to man, it lingers, detailing not only the fact but also the manner of his creation, and revisits this subject extensively in the second chapter of Genesis.
This special attention to the origin of man in itself signifies that man is the end and goal, the head and crown of the entire work of creation. Yet, there are several additional elements that underscore man's rank and value, which surpasses all other creatures.
Firstly, there is the special counsel of God preceding the creation of man. When other creatures were created, it is simply stated that God
spoke, calling them into existence. But when God creates man, He first consults within Himself, arousing Himself to create man according to His will.
This deliberation indicates that the creation of mankind rests particularly on Divine wisdom, goodness, and omnipotence. Nothing is created by chance, but in the creation of mankind, the counsel and decision of God are more clearly revealed than in other creatures.
Furthermore, in this divine counsel, special emphasis is placed on the fact that man is created in God's image and likeness, establishing a relationship with God that is completely different from that of all other creatures. No other creature, not even angels, are said in Scripture to be created in the image of God and to bear His image.
While they may reflect one or more of God's attributes, man alone is described as being created in God's image and likeness.
Scripture also highlights that God did not create merely one man, but He created humans in His image. At the conclusion of Genesis 1:27, these humans are identified as male and female. Not the man alone, nor the woman alone, but both together in relationship and covenant with each other are bearers of the image of God. Thus, they are not merely so for themselves, but, according to the blessing of multiplication pronounced upon them in verse 28, they are so also in and with all their offspring. The human race, in each of its members and as a whole, was originally created in the image and likeness of God.
Furthermore, it is explicitly mentioned that the creation of mankind in the image of God must chiefly be manifested in the dominion over all living beings and in the subjection of all creation to God. Because
man is the son of God, he is also king of the earth. The filial relationship with God and the inheritance of the world are already inseparably connected in creation.
The narrative of the creation of mankind in the first chapter of Genesis is expanded and completed in the second chapter (Gen. 2:425). It is erroneous to refer to this second chapter as a separate creation account. The creation of heaven and earth is presupposed, and in verse 4 is mentioned briefly, setting the stage for God's formation of man from the dust of the ground (verse 7). The emphasis in this second chapter is entirely on the creation of man and the manner of his formation. In these particulars, the distinction between the first and second chapters of Genesis is evident.
The first chapter recounts the creation of heaven and earth and culminates with man. Man is the final creature brought into existence by God's omnipotence; he is the culmination of the series of creatures, the ruler of nature, the king of the earth. The second chapter, beginning with man, places him at the center, detailing the events of his creation, how both man and woman were formed, the residence given to man, the vocation assigned to him, and the destiny bestowed upon him. The first chapter portrays mankind as the apex of creation; the second as the commencement of history.
The first chapter can be summarized as the work of creation, while the second chapter can aptly be titled Paradise.
Three specific details are conveyed in this second chapter regarding man's origin, supplementing the general account given in the first chapter.
First, there is an extensive discussion of man's initial dwelling place.
The first chapter only states generally that man was created in the image of God and given dominion over the world. It does not specify where on the vast earth man first beheld the light of day or where he initially resided. The second chapter fills in this detail. When God created the heavens and the earth, bringing forth the sun, moon, stars, plants, birds, and animals of water and land, no particular place had yet been prepared for man's habitation. Thus, before creating mankind, God prepares a garden, a paradise, in the region of Eden, to the east of Palestine. This garden is specially arranged;
God causes all kinds of trees to sprout from the ground, trees desirable for appearance and good for food. Among these trees, two are specifically named: the tree of life, planted in the center of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The garden is situated such that a river flows through it, originating in Eden and splitting into four branches: the Pison, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates.
Over the centuries, considerable effort and labor have been devoted to determining the precise location of Eden and the Garden of Eden.
Various hypotheses have been proposed regarding the singular river that flowed through the garden and out of Eden, the four rivers into which it divided, and the specific names of the Eden landscape and the garden, a distinct area within it. Yet, all these hypotheses remain speculative; none can be conclusively proven. Two views, however, are notably preferable. One posits Eden to the north, in Armenia; the other locates it further south, in Babylonia. The decision between these two views is challenging, for the data provided in Scripture no longer suffice to pinpoint the exact location with certainty. However, considering that mankind, originating from Adam and Eve, though banished from Eden, continued to dwell nearby (Gen. 4:16), that
Noah's ark rested on Mount Ararat in eastern Armenia after the flood (Gen. 8:4), and that humanity spread from Babel over the earth
(Gen. 11:8-9), we may conclude that the cradle of mankind lies in the region bordered by Armenia in the north and Shinar in the south.
Recent scientific findings have reinforced this Scriptural teaching.
Although past speculations varied about mankind's original habitation, pointing to different parts of the world, modern ethnology, the history of civilization, linguistics, and historical studies increasingly identify Asia as the continent where mankind first arose.
A second notable aspect in Genesis 2 is the commandment given to the first man, a test of obedience. This first man, simply called "man"
(ha-adam), was so named because for a time he was alone, without a companion; only in Genesis 4:25 does the name "Adam" appear without the article, thus becoming a proper name. This clearly indicates that the first man, who was initially the only man, was the origin and head of the human race. As such, he received a twofold task: first, to cultivate and guard the Garden of Eden, and second, to eat freely from all the trees in the garden, except from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The first task describes man's relationship to the earth; the second, his relationship to heaven. Adam must subdue and govern the earth in two senses: he must cultivate it, extracting from it all the treasures
God has placed within it for mankind, even to its very depths; and he must guard it, securing it, protecting it from all evil powers that threaten it, safeguarding it from the bondage of corruption under which all creation now groans.
However, man can only fulfill his earthly vocation if he maintains his bond with heaven, heeding God's word and, despite all temptations, continuing in obedience to His commandment. These two tasks are fundamentally one: Adam must rule over the earth, not through idleness, but by the diligent labor of his mind, heart, and hands.
But to rule effectively, man must serve God, his Creator and Lawgiver. Work and rest, dominion and service, earthly and heavenly calling, civilization and religion, culture and worship—these are intertwined from the beginning, belonging together and encompassing the great, holy, and glorious destiny of mankind. The entire culture, encompassing all human endeavors to subjugate the earth—agriculture, animal husbandry, industry, trade, science, and more—is the fulfillment of a divine calling. However, for this to remain true, these endeavors must be undertaken in dependence upon and obedience to God's Word. Religion must be the principle that inspires and sanctifies all life in service to God.
The third special feature is the gift of woman and the institution of marriage. Adam had received much. Although formed from the dust of the earth, he bore the image of God. He was placed in a garden of beauty, abundant with everything desirable to the eye and good for food. He was called to cultivate the garden and subdue the earth through pleasant labor, living in accordance with God's command to eat freely from all the trees except one. Yet, despite these rich endowments, the first man was grateful but not wholly satisfied. God
Himself identified the cause: Adam's loneliness. "It is not good that man should be alone." Man was not designed for solitude; he was created for companionship. His nature is inherently sociable; he must express, reveal, and share. He must pour out his heart,
communicate his affections, and share his experiences with a being who can understand, sympathize, and empathize with him. Solitude is poverty, desolation, slow languishing, and collapse. How lonely it is to be alone!
He who created mankind with such a need for communication and companionship is also the one who can satisfy this need. God alone can provide a companion suitable for man. Thus, it is described in verses 19-21 that the Lord formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to Adam to see if any might be a suitable companion for him. The purpose of these verses is not to indicate the chronological order of the creation of animals and man, but to demonstrate the factual order, the hierarchy, and the degree of kinship between these two kinds of creatures. This hierarchy is indicated by the first man when he gave names to the animals.
Adam, therefore, comprehended all these creatures; he understood their nature, could classify and assign to each its rightful place in the grand scheme of creation. Thus, when he did not find among them any creature akin to himself, it was not due to ignorance or prideful folly, but because there existed a fundamental difference between him and all other creatures—not merely a difference in degree but in essence. There are various similarities between animals and man; both are physical beings, sharing earthly needs and desires for sustenance, procreation, and growth. Both possess the senses of smell, taste, touch, sight, and hearing, and engage in lower cognitive activities such as perception, representation, and the association of ideas. Yet man is distinct from the animal; he possesses reason and will, and thereby language, religion, morality, law, science, and art.
Though formed from the dust of the earth, he received the breath of
life from above. He is a physical being, but also a spiritual one, endowed with reason and morality. Thus, Adam found none among all creatures that was akin to him and could serve as his helper. He named them all, but none merited the exalted, royal name of man.
When man could not find what he sought, God provided it for him without his knowledge or effort, through no fault of his own. The best gifts fall into our laps as blessings without toil or cost. We do not earn them; we receive them freely. The richest and most precious gift given to man on earth is woman; and she was given to him while he was in a deep sleep, unconscious, without exertion of will or labor of hand. Seeking, longing, recognizing the need, and praying precede it; then God bestows the gift freely, without our aid. He leads the man to the woman as if by His own hand.
The first sensation Adam feels upon awakening and beholding the woman before him is one of admiration and gratitude. He does not find her strange but immediately recognizes her as of the same nature as himself. His recognition is a re-acknowledgment of what he felt was missing and sought, but could not provide for himself. His admiration is expressed in the first wedding song to resonate on earth: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man" (Gen. 2:23).
Thus, Adam remains the principle and head of the human race; the woman is not created beside him, but from him (1 Cor. 11:8). Just as the material for Adam's body was taken from the earth, so Adam's side forms the basis for Eve's existence. Yet, as the first man was made from the dust of the earth by the breath of life from above, so the first woman was made from Adam's side by the creative omnipotence of God. She is of Adam and yet distinct from him; she is
related to him and yet different; she belongs to the same species and yet holds her own place within it; she is dependent yet free; she is from Adam but owes her existence to God alone. Thus, she serves as a helper for man, enabling him to fulfill his calling to rule over the earth—not as a mistress, much less as a slave, but as an independent and free being who received her existence not from man but from God. She is accountable to Him and was given to man as a free, unmerited gift.
Thus does Scripture recount the origin of man, both male and female, and thus does it conceive the institution of marriage and the commencement of the human race. However, in our present age, under the banner and authority of science, we are presented with an entirely different narrative.
This alternative perspective is increasingly permeating the minds of the populace and holds profound implications for the whole view of the world and life. It is therefore necessary to spend some time examining the foundations upon which this modern view is built.
Should one dismiss the Scriptural account of the origin of mankind, it becomes imperative to seek another explanation. Man exists; hence, we cannot avoid the inquiry into his origins. If his existence is not attributable to the creative omnipotence of God, then he must have come into being through some other means. Thus arises the notion that man gradually evolved from lower creatures, ascending to his current exalted state. Development, or evolution, is the key concept now employed to resolve all questions concerning the origin and nature of creatures. Rejecting the doctrine of creation necessitates the presumption that something existed from the beginning, for it is impossible to create something out of nothing.
Consequently, it is postulated, albeit arbitrarily and implausibly, that matter, power, and motion are eternal, and that our solar system was preceded by a chaotic, gaseous mass. From this primordial chaos, development began, eventually giving rise to our world and all its inhabitants.
Through development, the solar system and the earth came into being; development formed the earth's strata and minerals; development, over an immeasurable series of years, brought forth life from the lifeless; development gradually produced plants, animals, and humans. In the realm of mankind, it is development that has brought about the division of genders, the institution of marriage, the family, society, the state, language, religion, morality, law, science, art, and all other cultural goods in an orderly fashion.
Assuming this single premise—that matter, power, and motion are eternal—one concludes that God is entirely unnecessary. The world, it is believed, contains within itself all the explanations required; science, so it is claimed, has rendered God superfluous.
The theory of development further explicates the origin of mankind in this manner: When the earth cooled sufficiently to support living beings, life presumably emerged under the prevailing conditions.
Initially, lifeless protein compounds formed, acquiring diverse properties through various influences. These protein compounds, through connection and mixture, produced protoplasm, the first germ of life. Thus began biogenetic development, the development of living beings, which may have spanned a hundred million years.
This protoplasm forms the fundamental, protein-like independence of the cell, now generally considered the basic component of all living
beings—plants, animals, and mankind alike. Single-celled protozoa or moners, as the earliest living organisms are termed, represent the oldest forms of life. Through the gradual processes of becoming either motionless or mobile, these primitive cells developed into plants or animals, respectively. Among animals, the infusoria (the smallest worms) are the most rudimentary. From these, through various transitions and intermediate forms, higher types of animals gradually emerged, known as vertebrates, articulates, molluscs, and rays. Vertebrates are further classified into four classes: fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Mammals are subdivided into three orders: monotremes, marsupials, and placentals, which in turn are categorized into rodents, ungulates, carnivores, and predators.
The primates, another significant group, are divided into three classes: prosimians, monkeys, and apes.
When comparing mankind to these various animals in terms of body structure, it appears, according to the theory of evolution, that he is increasingly closely related to the vertebrates, mammals, placentals, and most closely to the great apes, represented by the orangutan and gibbon in Asia and the gorilla and chimpanzee in Africa. These great apes are considered man's nearest kin, differing from him in size, shape, and other features, yet similar in the fundamental aspects of their physique. Nevertheless, man does not descend from any living species of ape but from a long-extinct man-ape, posited as a common ancestor to both apes and humans. Thus, while apes and humans share a common lineage, they are related as distant cousins rather than siblings.
Such is the premise of the development theory. This is how it envisions the course of events. However, it also endeavors to explain
how this transformation occurred. It proposes an unbroken, ascending series from plants to animals to human beings, yet must demonstrate that such development is feasible—for instance, how an ape could gradually transform into a human. Charles Darwin attempted to provide such an explanation in 1859. He observed that plants and animals, such as roses and pigeons, can be significantly modified through artificial selection in cultivation, which led him to speculate whether a similar process might occur in nature—not an artificial selection guided by human hands, but an unconscious, involuntary, natural selection.
This idea sparked a revolution in his thinking. By embracing the concept of natural selection, he believed he could explain how plants and animals gradually change and transform, overcoming disadvantages and gaining advantages, thereby better equipping themselves for the struggle for existence and outlasting others. For, in the entire creation, life is perpetually a struggle for existence. On the surface, nature appears peaceful, but this is an illusion. In truth, everywhere there is a battle for life and the necessities of life, because the earth is too limited and too poor to provide sufficient sustenance for all living creatures. Millions perish from want; only the strongest survive. These strongest individuals, distinguished by certain advantageous traits, pass these beneficial characteristics to their offspring through heredity.
Thus, there is progress and ever higher development. According to Darwin, natural selection, the struggle for existence, and the inheritance of old and newly acquired traits explained the emergence of new species and the transition from animal to man.
In judging this theory of development, it is necessary, first of all, to sharply distinguish between the facts on which it relies and the philosophical interpretations it attaches to them. The facts consist primarily of the observation that man shares many characteristics with other living creatures, particularly the higher species, and among these, especially the apes. These facts were largely known before; the similarity in physique, in various bodily organs and their functions, in the senses, in sensations and perceptions, and in the representations and connections thereof, is immediately evident to all and cannot be denied. However, the dissecting sciences, the sciences of life, of life's phenomena, and of its functions, along with spiritual science, have in recent times investigated these features much more deeply and accurately, thereby increasing their number and significance. Various other sciences have also contributed to confirming and extending these similarities between man and animal. The study of the human body in the womb before birth showed that in its earliest stages, man resembled fish, amphibians, and lower mammals. Paleontology, studying ancient conditions, discovered human remains such as skeletons, bones, skulls, tools, decorations, dwellings, etc., indicating that centuries ago, man lived in a very simple manner in some regions of the earth. Ethnologists have learned about tribes and peoples who are spiritually and physically separated from civilized nations by a great distance.
When these facts, gathered from different sources, became known, philosophical thought hastened to relate them and merge them into one system—the system of the gradual development of all things, especially mankind. This idea of development did not arise solely from these facts; it had long been advocated by various philosophers and was now applied to the partly newly discovered facts. The old
system was believed to now rest on established facts; a cry of joy went up that all the riddles of the world, except one—the riddle of eternal matter and power—had been solved and all secrets uncovered. But scarcely had this proud edifice of developmental theory been completed when the attack and the demolition began.
Darwinism, said a famous philosopher, emerged in the sixties, held its triumphal march in the seventies, was at its height in the eighties, was doubted by a few in the nineties, and since the end of the last century, has been strongly opposed by many.
The first and sharpest attack was directed against the explanation Darwin had attempted to give of the origin of various species. The struggle for existence and natural selection failed to provide the service to which they had been called. While it is true that in the world of plants, animals, and mankind there is often a fearful struggle that significantly influences their nature and existence, it is by no means proven that this struggle can produce new species. It can help strengthen aptitudes and abilities, organs and powers through exercise and effort; it can develop what is, but it cannot produce what does not exist. It is also an exaggeration to claim, as everyone knows from personal experience, that there is always conflict everywhere and nothing but conflict.
There is not only hatred and enmity; there is also love, cooperation, and helpfulness in the world. The doctrine that proclaims a war of all against all as the sole principle is as one-sided as the idyllic view of the eighteenth century, which found peace and tranquility everywhere in nature. There is ample room at the great table of nature, and the earth, which God gave to mankind as a dwelling place, is inexhaustibly rich. Many facts and phenomena have nothing
at all to do with a struggle for existence. Who can say what the colors and shapes of snail shells, the black color of the ventral skin of many vertebrates, the graying of hair in old age, or the reddening of leaves in autumn have to do with the struggle for life? It is also not true that in this struggle the strongest specimens always and exclusively win while the weakest always perish. Often, so-called coincidence, a fortunate or unfortunate circumstance, mocks all our calculations. A strong man may be taken away in his prime, while a weak and infirm man or woman may extend life into old age.
A Dutch scientist has thus proposed an alternative to Darwin's natural selection: the theory of mutation, which suggests that changes in species do not occur gradually and regularly but sometimes suddenly and in leaps. Yet, the question remains whether such changes are merely variations within a species or whether they give rise to new species. The answer to this question hinges upon the definition of the concept of species.
Moreover, not only have the struggle for existence, natural selection, and survival of the fittest been called into question, but also the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which Darwin deemed essential for accelerating development, has lost credibility with many. The transmission of natural, innate qualities from parents to offspring, by its very nature, argues more against than for Darwinism because it underscores the constancy of species. For centuries, humans have begotten only humans. However, there is so much disagreement today regarding the inheritance of characteristics acquired later in life that nothing can be stated with certainty. What is certain is that acquired characteristics often are not passed on from parents to children. For example, circumcision has been
practiced by some peoples for centuries, yet it leaves no trace on their descendants; it must be performed on each child anew.
Inheritance occurs only within certain limits and does not alter the species. If a change is produced artificially, it must also be maintained artificially, or it will be lost. Neither heredity nor mutability is adequately explained by Darwinism; both are facts whose existence is undeniable, but their coherence and connection remain beyond our current understanding.
Increasingly, therefore, scientists have abandoned Darwinism in its strict sense, namely the attempt to explain species change through the struggle for existence, natural selection, and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The prophecy of one of the earliest and most significant opponents of Darwin's theory has been fulfilled, that this attempt to explain the mysteries of life would not endure beyond the nineteenth century. More importantly, criticism has not only challenged Darwin's method of explanation but also the theory of development itself. Of course, facts remain facts and cannot and should not be denied. But the theory built upon these facts by human reasoning has been found more and more to be inconsistent with them and even in conflict with them.
Geology, the study of the earth's strata, has revealed that lower and higher animal species did not appear sequentially but have existed side by side since the earliest times. Paleontology has failed to provide conclusive evidence for the existence of transitional forms between various species of organic beings, which, according to Darwin's theory of gradual evolution through minute changes, should be abundant. Furthermore, the eagerly sought and diligently pursued transitional form between monkey and man has not yet
been discovered. The study of the development of the human body in the womb does show some external resemblance to the development of other animal bodies before birth; however, this resemblance is merely superficial. From an animal embryo, a human being never develops, and conversely, from a human embryo, an animal never emerges. From the moment of conception, human beings and animals diverge, even if the inner difference is not perceptible to us.
Biology, the science of life and its phenomena, has thus far offered scant support for the assumption that life arose spontaneously. Many now accept the impossibility of such spontaneous generation and have revived the earlier notion of a special life force. As research continues, physics and chemistry have uncovered more mysteries and wonders in the realm of the infinitely small, leading many back to the view that the ultimate constituents of things are not substances but forces.
Moreover, all attempts to explain consciousness, free will, reason, conscience, language, religion, morality, and other such phenomena solely from the standpoint of development have met with no favorable outcome. The origins of these phenomena, as well as those of all things, remain shrouded in mystery to science.
It is crucial to observe that when man appears in history, he is already fully man in body and soul, possessing all the human qualities and activities that science seeks to investigate. Nowhere are people found devoid of mind and will, reason and conscience, thought and language, religion and morality, marriage and family, and so on. If all these characteristics and phenomena had developed gradually, such development must have taken place in prehistoric times—those times of which we have no direct knowledge and can only infer from scant pieces of information from later periods.
Science, in its endeavor to penetrate prehistoric times and uncover the origins of things, must necessarily resort to guesses, conjectures, and suppositions, which are not amenable to strict proof. The theory of development, particularly the theory of the descent of man from animals, lacks support from historical facts. It remains, in essence, a philosophical worldview that seeks to explain all things and phenomena without recourse to God, relying solely on itself. One of its proponents candidly admitted: there remains only the choice between the theory of descent and the miracle; since the latter is deemed scientifically impossible, we are compelled to embrace the former. This admission reveals that the theory of descent is not the product of rigorous science but a postulate of materialistic or pantheistic philosophy. It is not, as someone aptly put it years ago, a hypothesis to explain facts but a construct that seeks to confirm a pre-existing hypothesis.
The idea of man's origin is intimately linked to his essence. Many today speak differently, suggesting that, regardless of how the world and mankind were conceived or developed in the past, they are as they are today and remain the same for all humanity.
The latter is, of course, perfectly true; reality remains unchanged, whether we conceive of it correctly or incorrectly. The same applies, in the same sense, to the origin of things. Whether we imagine that the world and mankind came to be this way or that, whether we believe they gradually developed from themselves over centuries through minor changes, the origin of things is not altered in the slightest. The world has become what it is, not what we think or wish it to be. However, the idea of the origin of things is inseparable from the idea of their nature.
If the first is wrong, the second cannot be right. If we think that the earth and all the kingdoms of nature, all creatures, and particularly mankind, came into being without God, solely as a result of the development of forces within the world, it goes without saying that such a thought must profoundly influence our conception of the nature of the world and of mankind.
The world and man remain completely the same in themselves and are independent of our conception; but for us, their value and significance change, increase, or decrease as we think differently about their origin and creation.
This is so evident that it requires no further explanation or confirmation. However, since the opinion that we can think whatever we like about the origin of things because their essence remains the same for us recurs repeatedly—in the teaching of Scripture, the religion of Israel, the person of Christ, religion, morality, and so forth
—it may be useful to demonstrate the falsity of this opinion more fully, especially in the teaching concerning the nature of man. This is not difficult. For if man has gradually developed from the animal, without God, solely by blindly working natural forces, it follows that he cannot essentially differ from the animal and remains an animal even in his highest development. There is then no place for a soul distinct from the body, for moral freedom and personal immortality; and religion, truth, morality, and beauty lose their absolute character.
These conclusions are not imposed by us on the proponents of the theory of evolution but are derived by them from it. Darwin, for instance, asserts that our unmarried women, if mankind had been
raised under conditions identical to those of the honeybees, would consider it a sacred duty, like the worker bees, to kill their brothers, and mothers would try to kill their fertile daughters, without anyone thinking to intervene. Good and evil, like true and false, become relative concepts, whose sense and value, like fashion, are subject to change over time and place. Similarly, others suggest that religion has only been a temporary aid, used by mankind in its powerlessness in the struggle against nature, and which now serves as a sedative for the masses, but which will naturally die out and disappear when mankind attains full freedom. Sin and crime, fornication and murder, do not make man guilty but are residual effects of the uncivilized state in which mankind once lived, diminishing as mankind develops and society improves. Criminals are to be considered as children, animals, or the mentally ill, and must be treated accordingly; prisons should give way to institutions of improvement. In a word, if man is not of divine but of animal origin and has gradually elevated himself, he owes everything to himself, is his own legislator, master, and lord. All these conclusions of the materialistic or pantheistic theory of development are clearly manifested in contemporary science, as well as in literature, art, and the practice of life.
But reality instructs us quite differently. Man may well imagine that he has achieved everything by his own power and is bound by nothing. Yet, he remains a dependent creature in all respects; he cannot act according to his own desires without consequence. In his physical life, he is subject to the immutable laws governing respiration and circulation, digestion and reproduction. Should he contravene these laws and disregard them, he harms his health and undermines his very life. The same holds true for his soul and
spiritual life. Man cannot think as he pleases; he is bound by laws of thought which he neither devised nor bestowed upon himself, but which are embedded within him and manifest themselves naturally.
Should he fail to adhere to these laws, he entraps himself in error and falsehood. Likewise, man cannot will and act as he wishes; his will is subject to the discipline of reason and conscience. If he neglects this discipline and reduces his will and actions to mere arbitrariness, he will suffer self-accusation, self-reproach, regret, and the gnawing remorse of conscience.
Thus, the life of the soul is not founded on caprice any more than the physical life is. It is not a state of lawlessness and anarchy but is governed by laws from all sides and in all its activities. It is subject to the rules of truth, goodness, and beauty, thereby proving that it did not create itself. In sum, man carries within him his own nature, his own essence, which can never be violated with impunity. So powerful is nature in this respect that even adherents of the theory of evolution speak of human nature, unique human characteristics, prescribed laws of thought and conduct, and an innate religious disposition. Therefore, the idea of human nature stands in conflict with that of his origin as proposed by evolutionary theory.
In Scripture, however, there is perfect harmony between origin and nature. Man's being corresponds to his origin. Formed from the dust of the earth, yet receiving the breath of life from above, man was created by God Himself, thus possessing an individual nature. This essence is that he is made in the image of God and reflects His likeness.
Through this image, mankind is distinguished from both animals and angels. He shares traits with both, yet differs from them in his unique nature.
Animals, like all creatures, were also created by God; they did not come into existence on their own, but by a special act of God. They were created in various species, just as the plants were. All human beings descend from one pair of parents, forming one family. This is not the case with animals; they have, so to speak, different progenitors. It is noteworthy that zoology has not been able to reduce all animals to a single type; instead, it divides them into several major groups or basic forms.
Furthermore, most animals are not distributed worldwide but are confined to specific regions; fish inhabit the waters, birds the air, and land animals are mostly bound to certain countries: the polar bear is found only in the far north, and the platypus only in Australia.
Genesis, therefore, specifically states that God created the plants and animals according to their kinds, that is, in species. This does not imply that the species originally created by God are identical to those into which animals are now divided by science, such as by Linnaeus.
Our classification is fallible and open to revision, for our zoology remains imperfect and we do not fully comprehend how to classify the species.
The artificial, scientific concept of species is indeed difficult to establish and is entirely different from the natural concept of species, which we are still endeavoring to comprehend. Secondly, throughout the course of time, a vast number of animals have become extinct or extirpated. From the remains preserved intact or damaged within the
earth's strata, it becomes evident that various animal species, such as the mammoth, cave hyena, and ichthyosaur, once lived in abundance in earlier times but no longer exist today. Thirdly, it is certain that, due to various influences, the animal kingdom has undergone significant modifications and changes, often making it difficult or even impossible for us to restore it to its original form.
Moreover, it is notable in the creation of animals, as it is with plants, that although they come into being by a special act of divine power, nature indirectly plays a role. In Genesis 1:11, it is said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation, seed-yielding plants, and fruit trees," and the earth brought them forth, as stated in verse 12. Similarly, in Genesis
1:20, it is declared, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life," and so it came to pass, as noted in verse 21. Likewise, in verse 24, it is stated, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle, creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind," and it was so. Thus, with all plants and animals, nature itself is employed by God as an instrument; it is she who, though enabled and made fit for the task by God's Word, brings forth all these living creatures in a great variety of species.
This peculiar origin of animals sheds light on their being. It shows that animals are far more closely connected with the earth and nature than mankind. Animals are living beings, and as such, they are distinguished from inorganic, lifeless creatures; they are therefore often called living souls in Genesis 1:20, 21, 24. In the general sense of the principle of life, animals also have a soul, as noted in Genesis 2:19 and 9:4, 10, 12, 16. However, this vital principle of the soul in animals is so closely bound to nature and
metabolism that they cannot attain independence and autonomy and cannot continue to exist independently of metabolism.
Therefore, the soul of the animal perishes with death. From this, it follows that animals, at least the higher species, share the same senses as man and can perceive (hear, see, smell, taste, touch), form ideas, and connect these ideas with each other. Yet, animals lack reason; they cannot detach ideas from the particular, individual, and concrete, which clings to them. They cannot convert these ideas into concepts, raise them to abstractions, link these abstractions to judgments, draw conclusions from these judgments, and execute these conclusions by an act of will. Animals possess perceptions, representations, and connections of representations; they have instincts, desires, and drives. But they lack the higher faculty of knowledge and desire characteristic of man; they possess neither reason nor will. This distinction is reflected in the fact that animals have no language, no religion, no morality, and no sense of beauty; they have no conception of God, the unseen, the true, the good, and the beautiful.
In all these respects, man is vastly superior to the animal; there is no gradual transition between the two, but rather a chasm. What constitutes man's actual being—his reason and will, his thought and language, his religion and morality—is foreign to the animal. Thus, the animal cannot understand man, but man can understand the animal. Contemporary psychology seeks to explain the human soul from that of the animal, but in doing so, it takes the opposite approach. The soul of man is the key to explaining the soul of the animal; the animal lacks what man possesses, but man also shares characteristics typical of the animal.
This is not to imply that man already comprehends the animal through and through. The entire world presents itself as a problem to man, a mystery he seeks and is capable of seeking to unravel. Every animal is a living enigma. The significance of the animal does not consist merely in its utility to man, in providing him with food, shelter, clothing, and adornments. There is far more to the subjugation and dominion of the earth than mankind's selfish exploitation of everything for his benefit. The animal world holds profound importance for our science and art, our religion and morality. God communicates with us, profoundly and abundantly, through His creation. His thoughts and words speak to us from the entire world, from the realm of plants and animals. When botany and zoology trace these divine thoughts, they become wondrous sciences, deserving respect from all, especially Christians. Moreover, consider the ethical significance of the animal world for mankind!
Animals delineate the boundary below which man must not sink and above which he must rise. Man can debase himself to a level lower than that of animals if he numbs the light of reason, severs his connection with heaven, and seeks all his lust and pleasure in the earth. Animals symbolize our virtues and vices: the dog represents loyalty, the spider diligence, the lion courage, the sheep simplicity, the dove sincerity, the stag a soul that thirsts after God. Conversely, the fox symbolizes cunning, the worm misery, the tiger cruelty, the swine baseness, the serpent the devil's guile, and the monkey, which most closely resembles man in form, demonstrates what mere physical excellence without the spirit from above amounts to. In the monkey, man sees a caricature of himself.
As man is distinguished from animals by the image of God, so too is he set apart from angels by the same image. The existence of such
beings cannot be proven by scientific means apart from the Scriptures; science knows nothing of them, neither can it argue for nor demonstrate their non-existence. Yet, it is noteworthy that belief in beings superior to man is found among all peoples and religions.
Even after rejecting the Scriptures' testimony to the existence of angels, people revert to believing in supernatural beings in various superstitious forms. Our current generation provides ample evidence of this phenomenon. Angels and devils may no longer be believed in, but belief in silent forces, mysterious natural powers, ghosts, spirit apparitions, revelations of the dead, animated stars, inhabited planets, living atoms, and the like, has resurfaced in many circles.
Whether based on deception or reality, such beliefs are addressed in the Scriptures. They prohibit all forms of soothsaying (Lev. 19:31,
20:27, Deut. 18:10-14), sorcery (Deut. 18:10, Jer. 27:10, Rev. 21:8), star-worship (Lev. 19:26, Isa. 47:13, Mic. 5:11), consultation of the dead or demons (Deut. 18:11), and all practices of guile or consultation of oracles (Lev. 19:26, Deut. 18:10), conjuration with magic formulas (Deut. 18:11, Isa. 47:9), and thus put an end to all superstition as well as unbelief. Christianity and superstition are sworn enemies, and it is not science, enlightenment, or civilization, but faith in God's Word, that delivers us from them. The Scriptures fundamentally place man in dependence on God, and thereby liberate him from all creatures. They establish man in the right relation to nature and thus make possible the true science of nature.
Scripture affirms the existence of angels, not as mythical constructs of human imagination, nor as personifications of mysterious forces, nor as beings who have ascended to a higher rank, but as spiritual entities created by God, subject to His will, and called to His service.
These beings, therefore, can be clearly understood through the light
of Scripture and bear no resemblance to the mythological figures of pagan religions. They surpass men in knowledge (Matt. 18:10, 24:36) and power (Ps. 103:20, Col. 1:16), yet they are created by the same
God and through the same Word (John 1:3, Col. 1:16), and possess the same rational and moral nature. Thus, it is said of the good angels that they obey God's voice and do His will (Ps. 103:20, 21), and of the evil angels that they do not abide in the truth (John 8:44), are subject to temptation (Eph. 6:11), and sin (2 Pet. 2:4).
Despite this similarity, there is a significant distinction between angels and men. The primary difference is that angels are not composed of soul and body but are pure spirits (Heb. 1:14). The appearances of angels in human form, as in Gen. 18:3 and Rev. 19:14, indicate temporary forms of manifestation that varied according to the nature of their mission. Angels are never referred to as souls or living souls, as are animals and men. The soul and spirit are distinct in that the soul is inherently spiritual, incorporeal, unseen, and even in man forms a spiritual independence. However, the soul is always a spiritual force or entity designed to inhabit a body; without a body, it is incomplete and imperfect. The soul is the spirit organized into physical life. Such a soul characterizes animals and particularly mankind. If man loses his body through death, he continues to exist, but in a deprived, naked condition, so that the resurrection at the last day restores that loss. But angels are not souls; they were never intended for corporeal life and thus have heaven, not earth, as their dwelling place; they are pure spirits. This endows them with great advantages over human beings, for they are superior in knowledge and power, have a much freer relation to time and space, can move more easily, and are thus eminently suitable for carrying out God's commands on earth.
However, these advantages come with a significant distinction.
Because angels are pure spirits, they exist apart from one another in a relative sense. They were all created simultaneously in the beginning and have lived and continue to live side by side. They do not form an organic whole, not one family. Nevertheless, there is a natural order among them. According to Scripture, there are thousands upon thousands of angels (Deut. 33:2, Dan. 7:10, Rev.
5:11), divided into classes such as Cherubim (Gen. 3:24), Seraphim (Isa. 6:2-6), thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers (Eph.
1:21, 3:10, Col. 1:16, 2:10), and distinguished among themselves in rank. Gabriel and Michael occupy special places among them (Dan.
8:16, 9:21, 10:13, 21, Luke 1:19, 26). Yet, they do not form one family, do not share each other's blood, and did not originate from one another. We speak of a single humanity, but not of a single "angelic race." When Christ assumed human nature, He became related to all men, their blood relative, their brother in the flesh. But angels live side by side, each independently, so that one portion could fall while another remained faithful to God.
There is a third distinction to consider: since angels are spirits and thus not tied to the earth, and since they are not related by blood to one another, lacking the bonds of men and women, fathers and mothers, parents and children, brothers and sisters, there is a fundamental separation among them. Though angels may be more powerful than humans, they are not as versatile, having far fewer relational ties. The richness and depth of human emotional life surpass that of the angels. It is true, as Jesus states in Matthew
22:30, that marriage will cease in the resurrection, but the relationships on earth have profoundly enriched the spiritual
treasures of humanity, and these treasures will not be lost in the resurrection; they will be preserved for eternity.
Consider that the richest revelation God has granted us lies in His name as Father, in the name of His Son, who became like us, serving as our prophet, priest, and king, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who is poured out upon the congregation and makes God dwell within us. Reflecting on all this, we realize it is not the angels but humanity that is made in God's image. Angels witness His power, wisdom, and goodness, but human beings partake in His eternal mercy. God is their Lord, but not their Father; Christ is their Head, but not their Reconciler and Savior; the Holy Spirit is their Guide, but He does not testify within them that they are children and heirs of God, co-heirs with Christ. Here on earth, the great battle between heaven and hell is waged; here, the congregation is formed into the body of the Son; here, the decisive struggle is fought, and the final triumph over God's enemies is achieved. Thus, angels desire to look into these mysteries of salvation revealed here, and they seek to learn from the church the manifold wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10, 1 Pet. 1:12).
Angels, therefore, have many relations with us, and we with them.
Faith in the existence and activity of angels is not of the same value as the faith with which we trust in God and love, fear, and honor Him wholeheartedly. We may not place our trust in any creature, not even in an angel; we may not worship them or offer them any religious tribute (Deut. 6:13, Matt. 4:10, Rev. 22:9). Guardian angels, purportedly assigned to each person, and the intercession of angels on our behalf are not mentioned in Scripture. However, this does not render belief in angels indifferent or worthless. On the contrary, they held an important place during the time of revelation; they appear at
all critical points in the life of Jesus and will one day accompany Him on the clouds of heaven. They rejoice at the conversion of sinners
(Luke 15:10), watch over the faithful (Ps. 34:7, 91:11), protect the little ones (Matt. 18:10), follow the church through history (Eph.
3:10), and carry the children of God to Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22).
Therefore, let us remember them with reverence and speak of them with honor; let us bring them joy through our conversion; follow their example in serving God and obeying His word; let them witness the manifold wisdom of God in our hearts, lives, and in the whole congregation; let us be mindful of their fellowship, and together with them, proclaim the mighty works of God. Thus, there is a distinction between angels and men, but no conflict; diversity, but also unity; separation, but also fellowship. When we come to Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, we also come to the innumerable hosts of angels and with them restore the bond of unity and love that sin had broken. In God's great and rich creation, they and we each have our own place and accomplish our own tasks.
Angels are the sons, the mighty warriors, the hosts of God; men were created in His image and are His offspring.
If the image of God is the distinctive mark of humanity, we must grasp clearly what it entails.
In Genesis 1:26, it is recorded that God created mankind in His own image and likeness, granting them dominion over all creatures, particularly over all living beings. Three aspects demand our attention. First, the resemblance between God and man is conveyed through two terms: image and likeness. These words are not, as some
have surmised, different in content but are meant to complement and reinforce each other. Together they signify that man is not a mere semblance, nor a flawed representation, but a perfect, true image of God. Just as man is on a smaller scale, so is God on an infinitely larger scale, for man is like God. Man is infinitely lower than God and yet related to Him; as a creature, he is utterly dependent on God, and yet, as a human being, he possesses independence and freedom. Bondage and freedom, dependence and independence, an immeasurable distance from and an intimate relationship with God are marvelously, incomprehensibly united in man. How a puny creature can at the same time be the image of God transcends our understanding.
Secondly, it is stated that God created mankind in His image and likeness. From the beginning, it was His design not to create a solitary individual in His image but a multitude. Hence, He created man and woman from the outset, not isolated from each other, but in relationship and fellowship, verse 27. Not in the man alone, nor in the woman alone, but in both together, and in each of them in a unique manner and aspect, the image of God is manifested.
It has been argued contrariwise, citing 1 Corinthians 11:7, where Paul declares that the man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man. This passage has often been misapplied to deny the woman the image of God and to degrade her below the man.
However, the Apostle speaks not of man and woman in their essence, but in their marital relationship. He asserts that the man, not the woman, is the head; deriving this from the fact that the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. The man was created first, made first in God's image, and in him, God first revealed His glory. If
the woman shares in this, it is secondarily, indirectly, from and through the man. She indeed received the image of God, but subsequent to man, in dependence upon him, through his mediation.
Therefore, the man is the image and glory of God directly and originally; the woman is this in a derived manner, being the glory of the man. What is written in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 must be seen in conjunction. The manner in which the woman is created in Genesis 2 elucidates how she and the man together bear the image of God, as stated in Genesis 1:27. This further clarifies that the image of God rests in a multitude of people, with diverse genders, gifts, and powers
—that is, in mankind—and that after the fall, it receives its full development in the new humanity, in the church of Christ.
Thirdly, Genesis 1:26 reveals that God had a specific purpose in creating man in His own image: that man should exercise dominion over all living creatures and should fill and subdue the earth through multiplication and expansion. If we encapsulate this subjugation of the earth under the now common term of culture, then this, in its broadest sense, is the purpose for which God created man in His image. Thus, cult and culture, religion and civilization, Christianity and humanity are not at odds with one another, but rather, the image of God was bestowed upon man for this very purpose—that he might manifest it through his dominion over the entire earth. This dominion is not limited to the oldest professions such as hunting, fishing, agriculture, and stock-breeding, but extends to trade and industry, finance and credit, the exploitation of mines and mountains, science and the arts. All this culture does not terminate in man, but through man, who is the image of God and who imprints his spirit on all his works, it returns to God, who is the First and the Last.
The content of this image of God is more fully unfolded in the rest of Revelation. Notably, even after the fall, man continues to be called the image of God.
In Genesis 5:1-3, it is noted that God created man and woman together in His image and blessed them, and that Adam begat a son in his own likeness and image. In Genesis 9:6, the prohibition against killing man is grounded in the fact that God made him in His image. The psalmist, in the beautiful eighth psalm, extols the glory and majesty of the Lord, which are most splendidly manifested in heaven and earth, above all in man and his sovereignty over all the works of God's hands. When Paul addressed the Athenians on the Areopagus, he approvingly cited one of their poets: "For we are also
His offspring." In James 3:9, the apostle highlights the evil of the tongue by noting the contradiction that through it we bless God and the Father and curse those made in His image. Thus, Scripture not only calls fallen man the image of God but continues to regard and treat him as such, always seeing in him a rational, moral being, accountable to God for all his thoughts, words, and deeds, and obligated to serve Him.
Nevertheless, we also find the notion that man has lost the image of God through sin. Although this is not explicitly stated, it can be clearly deduced from the entire teaching of Scripture concerning sinful man. As will be shown later, sin has stripped man of innocence, righteousness, and holiness; it has corrupted his heart, darkened his mind, inclined his will to evil, and consigned his mind and body with all its members to the service of unrighteousness.
Hence, he must be transformed, born again, justified, washed, and sanctified. He can only partake of these benefits through union with
Christ, who is the Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15), and to whose image we must be conformed (Rom. 8:29). The new man, put on by faith in this fellowship, is therefore created according to God's will in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24). The virtues of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, which the believer acquires through union with Christ, have their origin, example, and ultimate goal in God, and make man partakers of the divine nature once again
(2 Pet. 1:4).
This teaching of Scripture forms the basis for the distinction typically made in Reformed theology between the image of God in a broader and a narrower sense. If, on one hand, man still retains the image and lineage of God after his fall and disobedience, and on the other hand, has lost those virtues which specifically conform him to God through sin and only regains them in communion with Christ, then both aspects are in harmony only if the image of God encompasses something more than exclusively the virtues of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. This was acknowledged by the Reformed and upheld against the Lutherans and the Roman
Catholics.
The Lutherans do not distinguish between the image of God in a broader and a narrower sense; and even when they do make such a distinction, they place little emphasis on it and fail to grasp its full significance. For them, the image of God coincides with the original righteousness, which encompasses the virtues of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. They acknowledge only the image of God in a narrower sense and feel no compulsion to relate this image to the entirety of human nature. The religious and moral life of man forms its own separate domain; it is not interconnected with, nor
does it influence, the work to which man is called in society, state, art, and science. If the Lutheran Christian partakes of the forgiveness of sins and communion with God through faith, this suffices for him; he rests in this assurance and does not concern himself with connecting this spiritual life back to God's counsel and election, or forward to mankind's entire earthly vocation.
Consequently, when man loses the original righteousness through sin, he is deprived of the entire image of God; he retains nothing of it, not even minor remnants. He is likened to a stick and a block, thus diminishing and misapprehending the rational and moral nature that still belongs to him.
Conversely, the Roman Catholics do distinguish between the image of God in a broader and a narrower sense, although they often misapply these terms; they also strive to establish a connection between the two. However, this connection is not intrinsic but extrinsic; it is not grounded in both natures but is artificial, not organic but mechanical. The Roman Catholics propose that without the virtues of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness (the image of God in the narrow sense), man is conceivable and can exist in reality.
In such a state, man still possesses a religious and moral life, but only to the degree and extent that can flow from natural religion and natural morals; it remains confined to and within this earth and can never lead him to heavenly bliss and the direct vision of God.
Moreover, while it is theoretically possible for such a natural man, devoid of the image of God in the narrow sense, to fulfill the duties of natural religion and the natural moral law as required, in reality, this is extremely difficult because man is a material, bodily, and sensual being. This sensual nature of man is always accompanied by lust, and
although this lust is not inherently sinful, it nevertheless presents a significant occasion for sin. By its very nature, it is opposed to the spirit, being fleshly, and poses a constant danger of overpowering reason and will through the power of the flesh.
For these reasons, God has freely added to natural man the image of God in the narrow sense. God could have created man without this image; but foreseeing that man would easily become prey to fleshly lusts, and desiring to elevate man to a higher state of salvation than is possible on earth, namely to heavenly glory in His immediate presence, God endowed man with original righteousness. This supernatural addition raised man from his natural state to a higher, supernatural position, achieving two purposes. Firstly, with the aid of this supernatural gift, man could easily restrain, control, and suppress his natural fleshly lusts. Secondly, by fulfilling the supernatural duties prescribed by original righteousness (the image of God in a narrower sense), he could also attain a corresponding supernatural blessedness. Thus, the supernatural addition of original righteousness serves two purposes for Rome: it acts as a rein for the flesh and simultaneously paves the way of merit to heaven.
Between the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics, the Reformed hold their distinct position. According to Holy Scripture, the image of God is broader and more extensive than original righteousness; for while the latter has been lost through sin, man still bears the designation of the image and family of God. There are still remnants of the likeness of God within him, according to which he was originally created.
Therefore, original righteousness could not have been an entirely separate gift imposed upon man from without, unconnected to human nature. Man did not first exist as a naked natural being, to
whom original righteousness was later added. Instead, man was conceived and created simultaneously with that original righteousness; it is inherent in the very idea of man. Without it, man is neither conceivable nor existent. The image of God in the narrower sense is closely related to the image of God in the broader sense; man does not merely bear the image of God; he is the image of God. The image of God is intrinsic to man himself; it extends as far as the essence of human being. Insofar as man has remained man even in the state of sin, he has also retained remnants of the image of God.
To the extent that he has lost the image of God, he has also ceased to be fully and truly man.
The image of God in the narrow sense is nothing more than man's spiritual health. Even when a man becomes physically or mentally ill, he remains a man, though he has lost something essential to human harmony and has gained something contrary to that harmony.
Similarly, when man lost his original righteousness through sin, he remained a man, but he lost something inseparable from the essence of humanity and received in its place something excluded by that essence. Man, having lost the image of God, did not become a mere stick or log but retained his rational and moral nature. However, he did not lose something that did not belong to his nature; rather, he gained something that affected and corrupted his entire nature. Just as original righteousness was man's spiritual health, sin is his spiritual infirmity—moral corruption, spiritual death, death in sins and transgressions, as Scripture describes it.
This understanding of the image of God does full justice to all the teachings of Scripture; it maintains both the connection and distinction between nature and grace, between creation and re-
creation. It gratefully and wholeheartedly acknowledges the grace of God, which enabled man to remain a man even after the fall and continues to regard and act upon him as a reasonable, moral, responsible being. It also maintains that this same man, deprived of the image of God, is totally corrupted and inclined to all evil. Life and history confirm this: in the deepest recesses, man's nature is preserved; yet, whatever summit of earthly greatness man may reach, he remains small and weak, guilty and impure. Only the image of God makes man a true and complete man.
If we now endeavor to give a brief overview of the contents of the image of God, we must first consider the spiritual nature of man.
Man is a physical being, but he is also a spiritual being; he possesses a soul, whose core is spirit. This is clear from what Scripture teaches about the origin, nature, and immortality of the human soul.
Regarding the origin, we read that, unlike the animals, Adam received the breath of life from above (Genesis 2:7), and this holds true for all human beings. For it is God who gives each man his spirit, Ecclesiastes 12:7, and forms the spirit of man within him,
Zechariah 12:1. Therefore, in distinction from the fathers of the flesh, God can be called the Father of spirits, Hebrews 12:9. This special origin of the human soul also determines its being. Although
Scripture occasionally attributes a soul to animals, Genesis 2:19, 9:4, etc., it uses the term in the broader sense of the life principle. Man, however, possesses a higher soul, whose core and essence is spirit.
This is reflected in the fact that Scripture attributes a unique spirit to man, but never to animals. While animals share a spirit in the sense that they, along with all other creatures, are supported and sustained by the Spirit of God (Ps. 104:30), they have no independent spirit of their own. Human beings, on the other hand, each have their own
spirit, Deut. 2:30, Judges. 15:19, Ezek. 3:14, Luke 23:46, Acts 7:59, 1 Cor. 2:11, 5:3, 4. Because of this spiritual nature, the soul of man is also immortal; it does not die with the body as with animals but returns to God, who gave it spirit, Ecclesiastes 12:7, cannot be killed like the body by men, Matthew 10:28, and continues to exist as spirit,
Hebrews 12:13, 1 Peter 3:19.
This spirituality of the soul elevates man above the beasts and makes him akin to the angels. Though he belongs to the sensuous world and is of the earth, he transcends the terrestrial through the immortal spirit implanted within him, thereby entering into the realm of the spirits with regal freedom. Through this spiritual nature, man is linked to God, who is Spirit, as it is written in John 4:24, and who inhabits eternity, Isaiah 57:15.
Secondly, the image of God is revealed in the faculties and powers bestowed upon man's spirit. While the higher animals can perceive and link images, they do not progress beyond this point. Man, however, ascends above mere perceptions into the realm of concepts and ideas. By thinking—a spiritual activity not to be confused with the physical movements or separations within the brain—he abstracts the general from the particular, ascends from the visible to the invisible, forms ideas of the true, the good, and the beautiful, and discerns God's eternal power and divinity from His creations. By his will, which is distinct from mere sensual desire, he detaches from the material world and reaches for unseen and transcendental goods.
His affections are not solely stirred by useful and pleasant things within the material sphere but are also awakened by ideal, spiritual goods that defy numerical calculation. All these forces and activities originate and converge in self-awareness, through which man knows
himself and bears within an indelible consciousness of his own existence and the peculiarities of his rational and moral nature.
These faculties manifest outwardly in language, religion, morality, law, art, and science—phenomena unique to the human world, absent in animals.
These faculties and activities are traits of the image of God. For according to the revelation in nature and Scripture, God is not an unconscious, blind force but a personal, self-conscious, knowing, and willing being. Even affections and passions such as wrath, jealousy, hatred, vengeance, mercy, and love are ascribed to God in Scripture
—not as disturbances He endures, but as actions of His all-powerful, holy, and loving being. Scripture's human-like descriptions of God presuppose that man was created in His image, possessing all these faculties and activities.
Thirdly, this applies even to man's body, which is not excluded from the image of God. Scripture explicitly states that God is Spirit, John
4:24, and does not attribute a body to Him. Nevertheless, God is the Creator of the body and the entire visible world; all things, including material entities, originate and subsist in the Word, which was with God, John 1:3, Colossians 1:15, and thus rest in thought and spirit.
Furthermore, while the body serves as an instrument, it is not the cause of man's actions; it is not the ear that hears, but the soul that hears through the ear.
The Scriptures speak of God's hands and feet, His eyes and ears, and so forth, to indicate that whatever man accomplishes through his body originally and perfectly belongs to God. Should He who plants the ear not hear? Should He who forms the eye not see? Psalm 94:9.
Therefore, insofar as the body serves as an instrument for the spirit's work, it bears a resemblance and provides a glimpse of how God works in the world.
All this pertains to the image of God in its broader sense. Yet the resemblance between God and man is even more profoundly marked in the original righteousness with which the first man was endowed, termed the image of God in its narrower sense. When Scripture accentuates this original righteousness, it underscores that the image of God concerns not merely the faculties of intellect and will, but their proper exercise. It is not the mere capacity to think and choose, to love and hate, but rather the content and orientation of these faculties in alignment with God's will and honor. The faculties of cognition and volition, of affection and aversion, were bestowed upon man precisely so that he might employ them rightly, according to God's precepts.
Even the devils have retained their faculties of knowledge and will, yet they employ them solely in their hatred and rebellion against God; even their belief in God, which in itself is good, only results in fear and trembling before His judgment (James 2:19). The Jews, despite their wisdom and zeal, showed their alignment with the devil through their deeds and desires, proving their likeness to him by their opposition to Jesus (John 8:39-44). Thus, the true likeness to God in man is not primarily manifested in his possession of intellect and will, but in pure knowledge, perfect righteousness, and holiness
—constituting the image of God in its narrow sense, with which man was originally adorned.
The knowledge imparted to the first man did not imply omniscience or an inability to grow in understanding concerning God, himself, and the world. For even the knowledge of angels and the blessed continues to expand, and Christ Himself increased in wisdom during His earthly life. Rather, Adam's knowledge was adequate for his state and calling and was devoid of error. He loved the truth wholeheartedly; falsehood, with all its attendant error, doubt, unbelief, and uncertainty, had not yet tainted his heart. He stood in the truth, perceiving, knowing, and valuing everything as it truly was.
This knowledge of the truth encompassed righteousness and holiness. Holiness signified that the first man was free from sin's stain; his nature was untainted, no evil thought or desire emerged from his heart. He was not ignorant, for he knew God and His law, written in his heart, and loved it fully. Standing in truth, he also stood in love. Righteousness denoted that man, knowing the truth and being holy in will and affection, conformed wholly to God's law, meeting His righteous demands, and stood guiltless before Him.
Truth and love brought peace—peace with God, with oneself, and with all creation. A mind and will entirely pure and free from sin are far beyond our current experience. Observing how sin permeates all our thoughts, words, and actions may even cause doubt whether such a state of truth, love, and peace is possible for humanity. Yet,
Scripture dispels this doubt.
Firstly, in the very midst of history, it presents a man who could justly challenge His adversaries: "Which of you convicts Me of sin?"
(John 8:46). Christ was a true and perfect man, sinless, with no deceit in His mouth (1 Peter 2:22). Secondly, Scripture teaches that the first human couple was created in the image of God, in
righteousness and holiness derived from the knowledge of truth.
Furthermore, it maintains that sin is not inherent in human nature and can therefore be eradicated.
If sin has clung to man from his earliest origins, by virtue of his inherent nature, then, by its very essence, no deliverance from sin is possible; deliverance from sin would be tantamount to the destruction of human nature. Yet, not only is a man without sin conceivable in the abstract, but such a holy man has indeed existed.
And when the first man fell and became guilty and unclean, another man, the second Adam, arose without sin, to free fallen humanity from all guilt and to cleanse it from all stain. The creation of man in God's image and the possibility of his fall inherently include the possibility of his redemption and re-creation; he who denies the former cannot maintain the latter. The denial of the fall inevitably leads to the bleak proclamation of man's irredeemability. To fall, however, man must first have stood; to lose the image of God, he must first have possessed it.
The creation of man in the image of God had, according to Genesis 1:26, 28, the immediate goal of fulfilling, subduing, and ruling the earth. This dominion is not a constituent part of the image of God and, much less, its entire content, but it is by no means an arbitrary or incidental addition. On the contrary, the emphasis placed on it and its close connection with the creation in God's image conclusively prove that the image of God is expressed in that reign and must unfold and expound its content more and more.
Furthermore, the description of this dominion clearly indicates that it was given to the first couple immediately, but that it had to be acquired to a significant degree in the future. God not only declares
in general terms His intention to create humans in His image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), but when He created the first couple, He blessed them and commanded them: "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen. 1:28). He specifically tasked Adam with cultivating the garden and keeping it in order (Gen. 2:15).
All this teaches us as clear as day that man was not created to be idle, but to work. He was not to rest on his laurels, but was to go out into the wide world and subject it to the power of his word and will. He was given a large, extensive, rich task to do on earth. He was entrusted with a work that would require centuries of effort. A path was pointed out to him, of immense length, which he had to follow and which he had to travel to the end. In a word, there is a great difference and a long distance between the situation in which the first man was created and the destination to which he was called.
Although this destiny is closely connected with his being, just as this being is closely connected with his origin, it is nevertheless distinct from it. The essence of mankind, that is, the image of God, after which he was created, had to develop its content ever more richly and fully in the pursuit of his destiny; it had to be extended, so to speak, by mankind to the ends of the earth and pressed into all the works of his hands. The world had to be worked by man so that it became more and more a revelation of God's virtues.
Dominion over the earth was therefore the nearest, but not the ultimate goal to which man was called. The nature of the matter already indicates this. Work, which is true work, cannot rest and does not have a final goal in itself, but always aims to accomplish something and stops when this goal is reached. Work, merely for the sake of work, without consultation, without a plan, without a
purpose, is without hope and unworthy of a reasonable man.
Development that always continues is not development; to say development is to say progress, course, order, final goal, and destination. If man was called to work when he was created, this implies that after completing his work, he should enter into rest for himself and for the human race that is to come from him.
The institution of the seven-day week confirms and strengthens this consideration, which arises from the very nature of the matter. God labored six days in His creation and rested on the seventh day from all His works. Man, having been created in God's image, receives the right and privilege to follow God's example from the moment of his creation. The work entrusted to him—namely, the fulfillment and subjugation of the earth—is a faint reflection of God's creative activity; his labor, too, is undertaken with deliberation, proceeds in regular order, and has a definite purpose. Man is not a mere machine that moves forward unconsciously; he does not turn with unchanging uniformity on a treadmill. Rather, he remains, even in his work, a man—the image of God—a thinking, willing, acting being who seeks to create something with his labor and who, at the end, looks down with satisfaction upon the work of his hands. His work culminates, as with God Himself, in rest, enjoyment, and pleasure. The six-day week, with the Sabbath at its conclusion, ennobles human labor, elevates it above the monotonous toil of inanimate nature, and bestows upon it the dignity of a divine vocation. Therefore, whoever enters God's rest on the Sabbath day, in accordance with His purpose, rests in the same joyful manner upon his works, as God rests upon His own, Heb. 4:10. This applies to the individual human being, but also to the church and to mankind. The world, too, has its labor, which is followed and concluded by the eternal Sabbath. There
remains a rest for the people of God, of which every Sabbath day is merely an example and foretaste, but also a prophecy and a guarantee (Heb. 4:9).
This is why the Heidelberg Catechism rightly states that God created man good and in His image, so that he might know God his Creator, love Him with all his heart, and live with Him in eternal bliss, to praise and glorify Him. Man's final destination lay in eternal bliss, in the glorification of God, in heaven and not on earth. But in order to reach this final destination, he must first fulfill his calling on earth.
To enter God's rest, he must first complete God's work. The path to heaven lay through and over the earth; the entrance to the Sabbath is opened up by six days of labor; eternal life is attained in the way of works.
This teaching on man's destiny rests entirely on thoughts expressed in Genesis 1:26-2:3. But the remainder of the second chapter adds another important aspect. When God places man in paradise, He grants him the right to eat freely from all the trees in the garden; but He excludes one tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, from which man may not eat, for if he eats of it, he will surely die,
Gen 2:16, 17. To all the commandments, a single prohibition is added. The commandments were known to Adam partly from his own heart, partly from the spoken word of God. They were not devised by him but were instilled and communicated to him by God.
Man is not religiously and morally autonomous; he is not his own lawgiver and cannot do as he pleases. Rather, God is his only
Lawgiver and Judge, Isa 33:22, James 4:12.
All those commandments which Adam received ultimately boiled down to this: that he, who was created in the image of God, should remain
God's image in all his thinking and doing, in all his life and work. He had to remain so personally for himself, but also in his married life, in his family, in his six days of labor, in his rest on the seventh day, in his expansion and multiplication, in his subjugation and control of the earth, in his cultivation and guarding of the garden. Adam was not to go his own way but was to walk in the path that God showed him.
But all these commandments, which left Adam ample scope for movement and indicated the whole earth as his field of activity, were augmented by one prohibition, a singular limitation. For the prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil does not belong to the image of God, nor is it a constituent part of it; on the contrary, it is the limitation of it. Should Adam violate this prohibition, he would forfeit the image of God, place himself outside the communion with God, and die. Thus, man's obedience was tested by this prohibition. It would become evident through this prohibition whether man would follow God's way or his own; whether he would adhere to the straight path or go astray; whether he would remain a son of God in the Father's house or journey to a distant country with the share of goods given him.
Hence, this prohibition is typically referred to as the trial commandment. Adam and Eve could find no reason why the eating of this particular tree was forbidden; they had to obey the prohibition, not because they saw and understood its rational content, but simply because God had decreed it, based on His authority, requiring pure obedience, out of a sheer sense of duty.
This is why the tree whose fruit was forbidden was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That tree would reveal whether mankind would arbitrarily decide for itself what was good and evil or
whether he would be entirely led by and adhere to the commandment given by God.
So the first man was given much to do, but also something to abstain from—little, but still something. The latter is often much more challenging than the former. Many people, for instance, are willing to do a great deal for their health, but they are not willing to sacrifice much or anything for it; they find it hard to bring themselves to do anything and regard the smallest act of self-denial as an unbearable burden. The forbidden exerts a mysterious attraction; it raises questions about the why, the what, and the how; it awakens doubt and stimulates the imagination. The first man had to resist this temptation emanating from the prohibition; this was the battle of faith he had to fight; but in the image of God, in which he was created, he also received the strength with which he could stand and overcome.
Yet this trial commandment shows even more clearly than the institution of the seven-day week that man's destiny differs from his creation. Adam was not yet, in the beginning, what he could and should become at the end. He lived in paradise, but not yet in heaven. He had a long journey before reaching his final goal. He had to acquire eternal life by doing and abstaining. In a word, there is a great difference between the state of innocence in which the first man was created and the state of glory for which he was destined.
What this difference consisted of is further elucidated in the remainder of Revelation.
While Adam was subject to the alternation of day and night, of waking and sleeping, we are told of the heavenly Jerusalem that
there will be no night there, Rev. 21:25, 22:5, and that the redeemed will stand before the throne of God through the blood of the Lamb and serve Him day and night in His temple, Rev. 7:15. The first man was bound by the division of the week into six working days and one day of rest, but for the people of God, there remains an eternal, undisturbed rest, Heb. 4:9, Rev. 14:13. In the state of innocence, man had a daily need for food and drink, but in the future, God will destroy both food and drink, 1 Cor. 6:13. The first man and woman were male and female and were blessed to be fruitful and multiply; but in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels of God in heaven, Matt. 22:30. The first man,
Adam, was earthly, had a natural body, and became a living soul, but believers receive a spiritual body in the resurrection and will then bear the image of the heavenly man, of Christ, the Lord from heaven,
1 Cor. 15:45-49. Adam was created in such a way that he could still err, sin, fall, and die; but believers are already here on earth, in principle, above all of that: they can no longer sin, because everyone who is born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God (1 John 3:9). They cannot fall away to the end, for they are preserved by faith in the power of God unto salvation, which is ready to be revealed at the last time, 1 Pet.
1:5; nor can they die, for those who believe in Christ already have eternal, undefiled life here on earth; they do not die in eternity, and even live though they die, John 11:25, 26.
In contemplating the creation of the first man, we must avoid two extremes. On the one hand, we must assert, based on Holy Scripture, that he was created at once in God's image and likeness, endowed with true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. He was not initially a small, insignificant child who needed to develop
independently; nor was he a mature human being who was spiritually empty and neutral between truth and falsehood, between good and evil. Far less was he an animal being who had gradually evolved and now needed to become human through struggle and effort. Such ideas are utterly at odds with Scripture and common sense.
On the other hand, we must not exaggerate the state of the first man, as is often done in Christian teaching and preaching. However exalted Adam's position by God, he did not yet possess the highest; he had the capacity not to sin but was not yet endowed with the inability to sin. He did not yet possess eternal life, which is imperishable, but received a provisional immortality, contingent upon fulfilling a condition. He was created in God's image but could still forfeit this image with all its glory. He dwelled in paradise, but this paradise was not heaven and could be lost with all its beauty. All the spiritual and physical riches Adam possessed lacked one essential thing: absolute security. Without this, peace and enjoyment remain incomplete. The present era, with its numerous attempts to insure all human possessions through societies or the state, sufficiently proves this point. Believers are insured for this life and the life to come, for Christ is their surety and will not permit any of them to be torn from His hand and perish (John 10:28). Perfect love, therefore, casts out fear in them (1 John 4:18) and assures them that nothing will separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus their
Lord (Rom. 8:38-39). But this absolute certainty was lacking for man in paradise. Though he was created in God's image, he was not immutably secured in goodness. Despite all he possessed, he could still lose everything for himself and his descendants. His origin was divine, his nature akin to God, and his destination was eternal bliss
in the immediate presence of God. Yet, whether he would reach that destination was left to his own choice and depended on his own will.
Study Questions for Reflection 1. How does the special attention given to the creation of mankind in Genesis 1 and 2 underscore the significance of humans in God's creation?
Reflect on why Scripture focuses so much on the creation of man compared to other creatures and what this reveals about humanity's role and value in God's plan.
2. What is the importance of God consulting within Himself before creating man, and how does this act reflect His wisdom, goodness, and omnipotence?
Consider the implications of this divine deliberation and how it emphasizes the uniqueness of humanity's creation.
3. In what ways does being created in God's image and likeness establish a unique relationship between humans and God compared to other creatures?
Reflect on the meaning and significance of bearing God's image and how it sets humans apart from all other forms of life.
4. How does the creation of humans as male and female, both bearing God's image, highlight the importance of relationship and covenant in reflecting God's nature?
Discuss the theological and relational significance of male and female being created together in the image of God.
5. What does the command to have dominion over all living beings and the earth reveal about humanity's role and responsibility in creation?
Reflect on the implications of this command for how humans should interact with and care for the rest of creation.
6. How does the detailed account of man's initial dwelling place in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2 enrich our understanding of God's provision and care for humanity?
Consider the significance of the garden's preparation, its trees, and rivers, and what this tells us about God's intentions for human life and flourishing.
7. Why is the command given to Adam to cultivate and guard the Garden of Eden, along with the prohibition regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, foundational for understanding human vocation and obedience?
Discuss the relationship between work, stewardship, and obedience in the context of God's original plan for humanity.
8. What does the creation of woman from man's side and the institution of marriage teach about the nature of human companionship and the fulfillment of God's design for relationships?
Reflect on the theological significance of Eve's creation and how marriage reflects God's purpose for human companionship.