Part 19 (1/2)

a) On Adam, and Eve.

b) On the Race.

(1) Various Theories.

(2) Scriptural Declarations.

THE DOCTRINE OF MAN.

I. THE CREATION AND ORIGINAL CONDITION OF MAN.

1. MAN MADE IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF G.o.d.

Gen. 1:26--”And G.o.d said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” 9:6--”For in the image of G.o.d made he man.” What is meant by the terms _image_ and _likeness_? _Image_ means the shadow or outline of a figure, while _likeness_ denotes the resemblance of that shadow to the figure. The two words, however, are practically synonymous. That man was made in the image and likeness of G.o.d is fundamental in all G.o.d's dealings with man (1 Cor. 11:7; Eph. 4:21-24; Col. 3:10; James 3:9). We may express the language as follows: Let us make man in our image to be our likeness.

a) The Image of G.o.d Does Not Denote Physical Likeness.

G.o.d is Spirit; He does not have parts and pa.s.sions as a man.

(See under Doctrine of G.o.d; The Spirituality of G.o.d, pp. 19, 20).

Consequently Mormon and Swedenborgian views of G.o.d as a great human are wrong. Deut. 4:15 contradicts such a physical view of G.o.d (see p. 19, b, c). Some would infer from Psa. 17:15--”I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness,” that in some remote way, a physical likeness is suggested. The R. V., however, changes somewhat the sense of this verse, and reads: ”I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with _beholding_ thy form.” See also Num. 12:8, R. V. It is fair to believe, however, that erectness of posture, intelligence of countenance, and a quick, glancing eye characterized the first man. We should also remember that the manifestations in the Old Testament, and the incarnation must throw some light upon this subject (see p. 20).

b) Nor Are the Expressions ”Image” and ”Likeness” Exhausted When We Say That They Consisted in Man's Dominion Over Nature, and the Creation of G.o.d in General.

Indeed the supremacy conferred upon man presupposed those spiritual endowments, and was justified by his fitness, through them, to exercise it.

c) Positively, We Learn from Certain Scriptures in What This Image and Likeness Consisted.

Eph. 4:23, 24--”And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after G.o.d is created in righteousness and true holiness (B. V., holiness of truth).” Col. 3:10--”And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” It is clear from these pa.s.sages that the image of G.o.d consists in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; moral, not physical likeness.

d) The Original Man Was Endowed with Intellectual Faculties.

He had sufficient intelligence to give names to the animals as they were presented before him (Gen. 2:19, 20). Adam had not only the power of speech, but the power of reasoning and thought in connection with speech. He could attach words to ideas. This is not the picture, as evolution would have us believe, of an infantile savage slowly groping his way towards articulate speech by imitation of the sounds of animals.

e) The Original Man Possessed Moral and Spiritual Faculties.

Consider the moral test in Genesis 3. Adam had power to resist or to yield to moral evil. Sin was a volitional thing. Christ, the second Adam, endured a similar test (Matt. 4).

From all this it is evident that man's original state was not one of savagery. Indeed there is abundant evidence to show that man has been degraded from a very much higher stage. Both the Bible and science agree in making man the crowning work of G.o.d, and that there will be no higher order of beings here on the earth than man.

We must not forget that while man, from one side of his nature, is linked to the animal creation, he is yet supra-natural--a being of a higher order and more splendid nature; he is in the image and likeness of G.o.d. Man has developed not _from_ the ape, but _away from_ it. He never was anything but potential man.

”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 the man. The links that should bind man to the monkey have not been found. Not a single one can be shown. None have been found that stood nearer the monkey than the man of today.”--_Aga.s.siz_.

II. THE FALL OF MAN.

The doctrine of the Fall of Man is not peculiar to Christianity; all religions contain an account of it, and recognize the great and awful fact. Had there been no such account as that found in Genesis 3, there would still have remained the problem of the fall and sin.

Yet, the doctrine of the fall has a relation to Christianity that it does not have to other religions, or religious systems. The moral character of G.o.d as seen in the Christian religion far surpa.s.ses the delineation of the Supreme Being set forth in any other religion, and thus heightens and intensifies its idea of sin. It is when men consider the very high character of G.o.d as set forth in Christianity, and then look at the doctrine of sin, that they find it hard to reconcile the fact that G.o.d, being the moral Being He is, should ever allow sin to come into the world. To some minds these two things seem incompatible.

1. THE SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNT OF THE FALL OF MAN.

The third chapter of Genesis gives the fullest account of this awful tragedy in the experience of mankind. Other scriptures: Rom.