Providence Reformed Episcopal Church: Weatherford, Texas

Was Man Made In The Image Of God?

providencerec — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:39:59 +0000

Junell Taylor

This treatise examines the debate over whether the image of God is reflected in every human, unbeliever as well as believer. Popular consensus holds that the image of God is indeed reflected in every human being, and this is not often questioned. In fact, many of our forefathers, and most modern theologians, seem to agree with this concept. Unless you go into Scripture and diligently seek the answer, it appears to be a given. However, when we look at man’s depravity from the fall, and the particular way that God deals with the elect as well as the reprobate, we begin to see that it is folly to believe such a statement.

Throughout this treatise I will quote a dear friend with whom I have had an ongoing debate concerning this subject. He has some valid reasons why he believes that the image of God must be in every human being, and he gives some interesting examples. I will use his quotes as a springboard for my responses and explain why I believe the opposite. I willbegin with his statements which will all be in italics.

WHAT IS THE IMAGE OF GOD?

“The topic of the image of God in man is an interesting one. Certainly God’s image in our moral nature became radically and completely corrupted at the fall as Paul so soberly teaches in the opening chapters of Romans. However, our rational thought processes along with our creative, communicative, introspective and interpersonal activities all continue to reflect the image of God. Even the vilest sinner still reflects God’s image if for example he expresses love to someone and has a relationship.”

The above opening paragraph is what prompted a response from my own understanding of what the image of God means. The topic of the image of God has been interesting me for years, along with the currently held view of common grace. I found both of these views affect some very foundational tenets of Christian doctrine. As it concerns God, it therefore belongs to the foundation of truth. But, unless our concept of God is totally based upon what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture, the word “God” doesn’t even have a fixed content, and communicates no objective meaning, much less the “image” of God.

What is this image of God? When researching the meaning of the word “image”, I found, “to be like, resemble, that which resembles an object, or which represents it, hence, image, likeness.”¹ Another source was even more precise, saying, “an image of the things (the heavenly things); used of the moral likeness of renewed men to God; the image of the Son of God, into which true Christians are transformed, is of God, is likeness not only to the heavenly body, but also to the most holy and blessed state of mind, which Christ possesses.”² Yet a third definition explains, “not merely the image but also the pattern, the original, not just a shadow”³; meaning that the image reflects the original, or God Himself in Jesus Christ, and that we are being conformed to that pattern. Finally, there is the “express image” found only in Christ, who is the ‘brightness of his (God’s) glory, and the ‘express’ image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power…”⁴

In studying these definitions I could see three distinct uses of “image”. The first definition includes things other than the image of God. The image and inscription of Caesar on the coin in Matthew 22:20, Mark 12:16, and Luke 20:24; the image made like unto creeping things from Romans 1:23; and the image of the beast in many Revelation passages, all teach the physical likeness of something or someone. The Greek word is “eikon” and is where we get our word “icon”. Ayto’s Dictionary of Word Origins says, “The etymological idea underlying ‘icon’ is of ’similarity.’ It comes via Latin ‘icon’ from the Greek ‘eikon’ from a primitive base meaning ‘be like.’ From ‘likeness, similarity,’ ‘eikon’ progressed semantically via ‘image’ to ‘portrait, picture.” In other words, something artificial can “image, or reflect the real thing.”

Bullinger⁵ also gives an example of this type of image, or analogy, from Scripture which helps us understand the reality, or truth. James 1:6 and 23 are given as examples: “For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.” Also, “For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.” This type of image is where we get our word ’simile’. Similes, analogies, and metaphors all follow this idea. What I conclude from this word is that a comparison is being made of unlike things. A man is very different than the wave of the sea, but they are alike in the way they are tossed to and fro with the wind, one physically, the other spiritually.

In conjunction with that, men are also able to have this same “eikon.” In 1 Corinthians 11:7 Paul exhorts the ‘brethren’ not to cover their heads because they are the “image” and glory of God. The context of this chapter of Scripture is rules for divine worship. Women were told to cover their heads symbolizing the headship of their husband. Men, by not coveringtheir head, symbolize Jesus Christ as their head, and that (act of not covering) represents the image and glory of God–the head of Christ. Also within this description we find in 1 Corinthians 15:47, 49, “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. And as we have borne the “image” of the earthy, we shall also bear the “image” of the heavenly.” This says that “since the ‘animal nature’, which we have first of all, is the image of Adam (we resemble Adam in our nature), (it is like, or similar to the way) we will conform to Christ in His heavenly nature; and when that happens our restoration will be complete. For we now begin to bear the image (see second definition below) of Christ, and we are daily being transformed into it more and more; but that image depends upon spiritual regeneration.”⁶ This latter image of Christ does not belong to the ungodly because, as it is written, they reflect the image of their father the devil who has ‘blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”⁷

Which brings us to the second, deeper meaning of “image”; we see Christians being transformed into the very likeness of Christ who is the very “image” of God. Even patterning themselves after Christ through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:29 begins by saying, “Moreover whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the “image” of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Also, ” we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same “image” from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” ⁸

I will continue to bring out other passages of Scripture concerning the “image of God” as the debate goes on. The first place Scripture itself defines God’s image is in Genesis 1. There we find that God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him…” (v.26,27). But what does it mean to be like God? It would mean that God’s character could be reflected in a creature. Man would be able to understand perfectly, because he would have knowledge of God;⁹he would be holy because God is holy; and having been created like God, would have perfect righteousness¹⁰, and so on.

There is even an underlying sense that God made man and woman in a unity much like the triunity between Himself, the Son, and Holy Spirit–for He did say let ‘us’ make man in ‘our’ image. This unity is expressed in the Covenant of God. As God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, so man and wife are one, and so the family becomes one in the Covenant also. Man as head and father over his family, woman as co-equal, yet a different person, mother over the godly seed which would fill the earth.¹¹ Here, then, is a perfect example of the reflection of that image of God in man. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. ¹²

Then, the unthinkable happened and all was ruined, or was it? For the time being it was, but God had a preordained plan (the Covenant) that would restore what was lost by Adam’s deadly sin. Now totally gone was God’ image so graciously bestowed upon innocent man. No longer could he reflect God, because he was in sin. No longer could he know God fully, because his knowledge was tainted by sin. Of course, no longer was he holy, or righteous; he was sinful through and through. In fact, he tried to hide himself from God. The mind that had once been God-centered had now become sinfully self-centered. Men would now blame any but himself for the sin that so easily beset him. They now would always err in their hearts, and they would not know God’s ways.¹³ Was this fallen creature like God? The debate continues.

Adam was then taken from Eden to begin his journey toward death. He begat children in sin. They came into the world sinners.¹⁴ Why did God even let them live a little while? Why did he not destroy everything then? “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?”¹⁵ The answer, again, is in His Covenant–the promise of something better. God said to Satan, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” This was the promise of the Son yet to come in the flesh. The third distinction and perfect definitive of God’s image as it was meant to be reflected in Adam– the “Express Image” Jesus Christ.

Meanwhile, it doesn’t take long for us to see what God thinks about sinful man. All his rational thought processes, all his creative, communicative, introspective and interpersonal activities are but filthy rags needing to be discarded. (Why?) “God looked around and saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was ONLY evil! It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. The Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” ¹⁶

But in keeping with the plan based upon His Covenant, God ordained a remnant of the seed of the woman to carry the line to the promised Seed. Abel, Seth, Enoch, on up to Noah, had found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Noah had been warned of God’s wrath to come and had obeyed God in building the ark of safety. This ark was a shadow of the promise of another Ark of safety that would be actualized by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and afterward reflected in baptism.¹⁷ Another beautiful simile.

A short time later we come to see that sin didn’t die with the flood, only sinners. All through Scripture God shows us his sovereign power and the glory of His justice by what He does to wicked man. He also makes it very clear what He thinks of the wickedness of man. It’s not easy to read all lumped together, but it is very important for us face:

“They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is NONE that doeth good; they are altogether become filthy, there is NONE that doeth good, no not one¹⁸; every man at his BEST state is altogether vanity¹⁹; we are shapen in iniquity; and in sin do our mothers conceive us²⁰; God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy²¹; the wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies²²; The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity²³; there is not a just man upon the earth that doeth good, and sinneth not²⁴; the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint; From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores²⁵; the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;²⁶ But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away;²⁷ The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?²⁸ And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing;²⁹ The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge;³⁰ Behold they are all vanity; their works are nothing.”³¹

These are just some of the verses I have highlighted in my Bible to remind me where I stand without Christ. In this list I find no part of man that has been left out. No part that could possibly reflect God, none. It is a grave mistake to assume something within wicked man reflects God.

The Westminster Confession of Faith has this to say: “Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner– according to the word; nor to a right end–the glory of God; they are therefore sinful…(c.16:7). This teaches that man cannot reflect God in his actions, no matter what they are, because when done by faithless men the WORKS themselves become sinful! Sinful thoughts cannot reflect God, sinful creativity cannot reflect God, sinful love to someone in a relationship cannot reflect God.

IS THE HUMAN CONSCIENCE A REMNANT OF GOD’S IMAGE?

“As to the moral and spiritual aspects of God’s image, Heb. 9.14 and 10.22 both speak of the cleansing of our consciences through Christ’s shed atoning blood. This implies the existence of the conscience (although evil) after the fall and before regeneration. In fact, if the image of God, as reflected in our conscience, didn’t still exist, then even the reprobate would no longer be held accountable as a responsible moral agent because he wouldn’t be willfully ’suppressing’ (Ro. 1.18) the truth but acting totally apart from the remnants of God’s image still resident within.”

Ro. 2: 2.14 reads, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, ‘do by nature’ the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a ‘law unto themselves’.” Does nature teach that if you jump off a high cliff you will die? The ‘law’ of gravity most certainly does teach this. These ‘natural’ laws are essentially the same as ‘moral’ laws. All of God’s creation is ruled by both natural and moral laws. If broken, natural consequences occur in both cases, whether broken by the believer or by the unbeliever. The natural ability to understand this is also a ‘law’ or ‘conscience’ given to all creation. This is the same ‘conscience’ experienced when approaching the edge of the cliff, and the one I believe the unregenerate have written in their hearts.³²

The Westminster Larger Catechism helps us to understand this also. Q. 2. asks, “How doth it appear that there is a God? The answer is, “The very ‘light of nature’ in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but his word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation.” This ‘light of nature’ is a created thing just like all the other works of creation. Our created conscience and ability to think are very much a proof of God’s power in creation, and proves God’s existence as all of God’s creation does, however, it does not claim anymore than that. The image of God is not a created thing, it is a reflection of God in man through His Spirit in us.

Bullinger³³, and others³⁴, agree with this definition of conscience: ‘a knowing with one’s self, being conscious, the being one’s own witness.’ This is effected by the knowledge of the consequences of lawless activities. For example, any person on earth would acknowledge that he does not want anyone to steal from him, or to hurt him in any way, or his wife to commit adultery. Therefore, being a witness unto himself, he realizes without the slightest care towards God, that these things are wrong. Because we know what makes us happy or unhappy, we act accordingly. All of my sources (see footnotes) make a distinction between the unbeliever’s conscience and the believer’s, the believers being ” the conscience that man has of himself in relation to God (not in relation to himself), and is the effect and result of faith.

The Westminster Confession and Scripture both speak of a ‘light of nature’ as an explanation of why rational man has any conscience of truth. He is enabled to acknowledge that all of creation reveals a power that is beyond his capacity to fully understand. But only through faith is man able to “understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”³⁵ Again, this ‘light of nature’ is the expression that should be used instead of ‘image of God’, because it is a natural creation. It turns the basis for man’s conscience to nature, or natural causes. Notice that the more unregenerate man knows of creation, the less he believes in God–it ought to be the other way around! This is exactly in keeping with the Scripture which proclaims, “that which may be known of God is manifest in them: for God hath shewed it unto them.” (How?) “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, (even his eternal power and Godhead); being understood by the things that are made (nature), so that they are without excuse.” ³⁶ So then what happens? In Scripture’s words, “they hold the truth in unrighteousness”. Some translations read this verse as “willfully suppressing the truth,” I don’t believe this interpretation adequately teaches the correct intensity of the verse because it denotes a knowledge of truth that the ungodly is just willfully ignoring, at this point it is only ’suppressed’. (Example: “I know what the truth is, but I want to do it my way anyway.”) This is very different from believing the truth unrighteously, or turning truth into a lie, and embracing (holding onto, and living out) that unrighteousness. (An example of this unrighteousness would be: “God has said in His Word that He hates divorce, that means He doesn’t desire a person to put away their happiness by continuing in a dead-end marriage.”) So then, apart from His ‘image’ God has provided a way wherewith the ungodly are without excuse for their actions–not because the truth that they see is not understandable, but because they hold that truth in unrighteousness, even denying God had anything to do with the truth that they see. The key is whether God is ‘glorified as God,’ or whether they are ‘thankful’ for what they see. The image of God in man would reflect both of these. Romans 1:17 reveals, “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed (I believe this to be another phrase for the image of God in man) from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”

In conclusion, the ‘conscience’ is not the image of God because it is a created thing, but it should reflect God’s image, which it cannot do apart from faith. Nor because man is ‘conscious’ has he the image of God–for he is either conscious of God or consciously denying He exists.

WAS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT INSTITUTED BECAUSE OF THE IMAGE OF GOD IN EVERY MAN?

“God gave Noah the command concerning capital punishment after the fall which demonstrates that we still exist in the image of God but in rebellion and therefore spiritually dead. Thus 1 Cor.15.45-49 differentiates between the present corrupted and future perfected image of God within us. Similarly, Rom.8.29 speaks of the sanctifying process resulting in a restored perfected image which will be ours ultimately in our glorified state.”

1 Cor. 15:45-49 is speaking of the future resurrection. It certainly speaks of the difference in our natural bodies and the spiritual ones to come. But it is not speaking of the ‘image of God’ now and then. It differentiates the image of the earthy and natural from that of the heavenly. The image of the earthy cannot be restated to say the image of God of the earthy –but in fact says we are all natural and earthy right now, and as Scripture explains, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” Nowhere does this text teach that the corrupt carry the image of the heavenly!

“Being conformed to the image of His Son” is a sanctifying process resulting in a restored perfected state in glory. Where does this process begin? Does it begin in every human being, lying dormant until God causes it to begin growing? No, not in every human being but, “whom He did foreknow (the loved of God from eternity), he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.” This tells me there is an appointed time that this process begins and only those who are God’s elect can begin to be conformed to God’s image. They have a beginning point at regeneration (regeneration being God generating the dead spirit to life again which was lost in Adam, and restoring His image by the Holy Spirit within– which was gained in Christ). To the rest, their spirits are dead in Adam forever.

Noah, the only survivor of God’s wrath against evil, was given direct laws concerning the new world. Murder must have been commonly committed in the pre-deluvian world–an inference I make based upon the very first ‘law’ given afterwards. In order to insure that it would not get to that level of intensity again God told Noah that: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed…” ³⁷ It seemed that now God was handing over to man the awesome responsibility of executing justice for those who would break the law. And Scripture goes on to say, “…for in the image of God made he man”. Notice that this phrase is said in the past-tense. He had made Adam with His image, also with freedom to destroy it, which Adam did. Now only God could restore that image, which He did in Christ. All who are included under the Covenant would be a part of that restoration. Noah was a part of that restoration and he would be reflecting God’s image in the keeping of God’s law, and as God’s executioner. It is reasonable to believe this since the statement about the image is connected to the law to execute. According to God’s new law, murderers would need to be destroyed. . This statement doesn’t mean that execution must be done for the sake of justice, or for the sake of the image bearers, or for society in general–though it does benefit these areas. The executioner is called to occupy that position for God’s sake and in obedience to Him. The fact that man has fallen and that apart from the grace of God in Christ Jesus it has become utterly impossible to obey God’s law does not change the obligation to the law of God one iota. It is a divine ordinance given by our sovereign God. This is another reason why the ungodly are without excuse. These things are clearly revealed in Scripture, and unbelief does not make the truth of Scripture of no effect.³⁸ This is also why, in our day and age, capital punishment is not considered the right thing to do, because God’s law no longer determines man-made law.³⁹ With this progressive new thought on law we are to believe the inherent good in man (or that remnant of God’s image) should not be put to death, but reformed. Because (as man has always thought) the blame is not with man, but his environment and society. This erroneous way of thinking is the reason we see murder and other similar violence so rampant And this is one of the reasons I take the unpopular view of the image of God in man.

In conclusion, God gave Noah the command concerning capital punishment after the flood–because of the sin of murder, and since only God’s elect would carry his image, since they would have to live among those who didn’t–God established a judgment that murderers would need to be put to death. And this law was established first of all to the glory of God’s justice, secondly, for the sake of God’s Covenant with His elect who alone reflect His image.

DOES MAN’S INTELLECT REFLECT THE IMAGE OF GOD?

“Eph. 4.17-24 speaks very well to this corrupted nature in a moral and spiritual sense. Clearly the ignorance referred to is spiritual and not intellectual. The fallen mind is still capable of putting a man on the moon and is therefore not ignorant in the general sense. Col. 3.10 talks of a new self and a new mind which is the same idea of renewal spoken of in Ro. 12.2. This new mind does not result in one suddenly being able to figure out the theory of relativity, but in being able to correctly interpret and respond to moral and spiritual input.”

In one of my letters I had explained what I believed Scripture further interpreted concerning the image of God. The above was the response. Eph. 4:17-24 says, “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” The question is not whether man is so ignorant that he cannot put a man on the moon, or whether he is ignorant of spiritual things, but whether he has the image of God in either one of these. It is clear that man’s intellect can put men in space, and certainly true that God gave them this intellect. But again “knowledge, or any other thing proceeding not from an heart purified by faith; nor done in a right manner, according to the word; nor to a right end–the glory of God; are therefore sinful.”⁴⁰

In this day and age, it is tremendously offensive to suggest that someone who does something wonderful, with the best intentions, cannot please God merely because that person is not one of His own.⁴¹ Such was the case in God’s past providential dealings with many people. Cain is a good example. He was a good farmer. His wheat and fruit were good, so good, that he thought to offer them to God as a sacrifice of his hard labor. “But unto Cain and to his offering, He (God) had not respect.”⁴² Why? Because Cain had no faith. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.”⁴³ A New Testament example further explains, “Unto the pure all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”⁴⁴

Col.3:10, “And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him.” This verse teaches without a doubt that in order to have the image of the One that created you, you must become a new man renewed in knowledge. This knowledge is the intimate knowledge of God. It does not teach, nor do any others, that man is not capable of figuring out the theory of relativity without the image of God in him. Both believer and unbeliever may very well be able to do exactly the same intelligent things, however, one reflects God in his doing, the other does not. One acts soberly, according as God hath dealt to him a measure of faith.⁴⁵ The other has left off to be wise, and to do good.⁴⁶ It is the ability to correctly interpret and respond to moral and spiritual input that reflects God, not putting man on the moon or figuring out the theory of relativity. The latter is a created mind able to think things out in a natural way, the former is ‘the mind of Christ’.⁴⁷

Again, let me quote the Westminster Confession: “After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls (these set us apart from the animals, j.t.), endued with knowledge, righteousness and true holiness, after his own image…”⁴⁸ (These set believers apart from unbelievers). One may be quick to point out that reasonable and immortal souls are the part that remained after the fall and are the remnant of the image of God, though sinful. But I believe it is these parts ‘endued’ with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness that make up the image of God,⁴⁹ and are the very parts that lose the image of God after the fall. We are made special in the sense that we are the very vessels which God endues His characteristics. However, without His image we are just ‘empty’ vessels–good for only dishonorable use.⁵⁰

IS THERE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN AND CHRIST JESUS WHO ‘IS’ THE IMAGE OF GOD?

In regard to II Cor. 4:3-6, the context is such that Christ is being referred to as the image of God in the same way as Col.1.15, 19 where we’re told that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ. A distinction is made therefore between the image of God as ‘reflected’ in man and Christ Jesus who ‘is’ the image of God. That’s the whole thrust of Paul’s argument in II Cor. 4.6 where we have the “knowledge of God in the face of Jesus.”

The statement above could have been written by me, except for the distinction being made. I see no distinction. If Jesus ‘is’ the image of God, then, I understand it to mean that only those ‘in’ Jesus can have that image. And it is that ‘express image’ to which we are being conformed.

IS THE IMAGE OF GOD WHAT SEPARATES US FROM THE COMMON BEAST?

Let me quote Calvin, “…the image of God extends to everything in which the nature of man surpasses that of all other species of animals. Accordingly, by this term is denoted the integrity with which Adam was endued when his intellect was clear, his affections subordinated to reason, all his senses duly regulated, and when he truly ascribed all his excellence to the admirable gifts of his Maker. And though the primary seat of the divine image was in the mind and the heart, or in the soul and its powers, there was no part even of the body in which some rays of glory did not shine. It is certain that in every part of the world some lineaments of divine glory are beheld; and hence we may infer, that when His image is placed in man, there is every kind of tacit antithesis, as it were, setting man apart from the crowd, and exalting him above all other creatures.” And further on, “It cannot be doubted that when Adam lost his first estate he became alienated from God. Wherefore, although we grant that the image of God was not utterly effaced and destroyed in him, it was, however, so corrupted, that any thing which remains is fearful deformity; and therefore, our deliverance begins with the renovation which we obtain from Christ, who is, therefore, called the second Adam, because he restores us to true and substantial integrity.” (Institutes, 1.164).

I take from this, that Calvin extends to the image of God in man, in its general sense, all things which differentiate man from a beast. And that in the fall, although this image was radically corrupted, some dreadful remnant of it remains. This remnant is utterly void of any moral integrity (true righteousness and holiness) and is therefore the focus of our deliverance in that it is renovated by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and in conformity to the will of the Father. Calvin uses the word, ‘renovation’, which brings to my mind the picture of a derelict house. There the house stands, but it is condemned, uninhabitable, boarded-up, ruined, totally unable to be a home and destined for destruction from the wrecking ball. And yet in this hopelessly ruined state, one could still view it and recognize that it was once a house and, in that sense, see something of its former glory. Now along comes the renovator, who for his purposes and by his will alone, determines to restore the home and, through the process of renovation, brings it back to its former glory.

I had quoted Calvin in one of my letters in which he commented on Eph.4:24, “Adam was at first created in the image of God, so that he might reflect, as in a mirror, the righteousness of God. But that image, having been wiped out by sin, must now be restored in Christ. The regeneration of the godly is indeed, as is said in II Cor.3:18, nothing else than the reformation of the image of God in them. But there is a far more rich and powerful grace of God in this second creation than in the first. Yet Scripture only considers that our highest perfection consists in our conformity and resemblance to God. Adam lost the image which he had originally received, therefore it is necessary that the design in regeneration is to lead us back from error to that end for which we were created.”⁵¹

All this bandying about really gets confusing, which is a good reason to stick to Scripture on these matters. But I take the above to mean just what it says–The image of God was wiped out by sin, and is only restored in Christ. Calvin said it is nothing short of the (reformation of the image of God in man. It was formed there to begin with, disappeared with the Fall, was formed again in Christ. Our highest perfection consists in our conformity and resemblance to God. This I have conceded from the beginning. Scripture does not back up the ‘general sense’ of the image of God being ‘man is different from the beast.’ Man’s ‘position’ in creation does not teach that he has the image of God. God’s declaration that man has dominion over beasts does not teach that man has the image of God. When God said let us make man in our image, in our likeness–that statement taught us that the image of God consisted in being like God. Not that we become God, but that we reflect his characteristics. Scripture specifically mentions holiness, righteousness, and knowledge in connection with His image.⁵² If we go further than that, we chance man’s interpretation.⁵³

Outside of these characteristics I grant that both man and animals, and all of God’s creation reflect rays of glory in God’s creative abilities. Man is not more glorious in substance than any other of God’s creation. If substance reflects God’s image, then all of God’s creation has the image of God reflected in it. Everything about creation reflects^{54 55 56} the full scope of who God is, and in that respect images, or reflects His powerful Being. But this is reversed from what we are discussing. We are discussing how man distinctly, apart from God’s other creation, is in His image. In opposition to this way of thinking, it seems God wanted to let us know that we–in sin–are no different than any of his other creation when He compares us with it. Recall a few of those similes? We are as/like grasshoppers, filthy rags, leaves and grass that fade, briers and thorn hedges, worms,⁵⁷ brute beasts,⁵⁸ sons of the Devil,⁵⁹ to name a few.

In the analogy of the derelict house, I find the age-old problem of the difference in viewing man from man’s perspective, or from God’s. From man’s perspective, we look at the derelict house and see that it is still a house, and we can imagine its former glory. Nor can we know whether or not the renovator will come and restore it; he could if it is His will. However, we are told in Scripture what God’s perspective is. For example, we are told, “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”⁶⁰ The opposite of that statement would be–the house that is dissolved without being one of God’s will leave nothing. Another example is the Potter and the clay. Out of the same lump He makes one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor.⁶¹ In Job, I found the truest analogy of God’s perspective, “Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth? They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it.”⁶² And in another place, “The Lord casteth away the substance of the wicked.”⁶³ In God’s judgment it is not the housing that matters, for we are all deteriorating because of sin, even after regeneration. It is the foundation that we are built upon that is the key, “But the righteous have an everlasting foundation.”⁶⁴ The Job portion of Scripture spoke of the derelict house being built upon the dust. I Cor. 3:10 also speaks of the importance of the foundation, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” If that derelict house is sitting on a solid foundation, though it be derelict for a time, the Master builder will be by to renovate it in His time. But of the rest God says they have no foundation,⁶⁵ and they perish forever without any regarding it.

WHAT PART OF US IMAGES GOD?

Let’s follow your statements to their logical conclusion and please correct me if I have wrongly interpreted anything you’ve said. You state that from your understanding of Eph. 4:24 and Col.3:10 that absolutely nothing remains of the image of God in unregenerate man. You also state a point of common ground between us which is that man is born with a natural disposition, an ‘old man.’ Thus I am driven to the conclusion, from your assertions, that at regeneration, there is imputed or created within man a new nature which either replaces the old nature or coexists with it (you used the word ‘amends’, which I don’t think is consistent with your argument, but if it is the word you want, then what is it amended to?) but since this newly created nature is from God, it must be perfect and therefore not in need of sanctification. Since your ‘old man’ possesses no remnant of the image of God, then it is incapable of being sanctified and we’re left with a kind of spiritual standoff between the two natures. One might argue (as the dispensationalist do) that it is the Holy Spirit who causes the new nature to win over the old nature. I’m sure you’ll agree that this line of reasoning provides the (incorrect) rationalization for the whole idea of the so-called carnal Christian who maintains that he’s a Christian, but that his behavior is simply his old nature asserting itself and that he hasn’t totally ’surrendered.’ This, of course, immediately opens the door to the heresy of antinomianism (people who sin that grace may abound-jt), which I know you don’t support. However, back to the old man; if on the other hand, it’s destroyed, then the individual has a perfect nature, since it was imputed by God. But that doesn’t wash because we know that we’re in a constant state of sanctification.

Using the example of the house, if there’s nothing at all there to renovate, then the builder absolutely destroys and removes the wreckage (he needs the space) and builds a perfectly glorious new home which requires no further work. If the brand new house is the regenerated Christian, then he’s ‘arrived’ and is in need of no further sanctification, which we know is not so.

There were so many assertions being made in the above statement it was difficult for me to follow. But taking it a step at a time I believe I can answer the questions, and counteract the assumptions. The first part, where he follows my conclusions to their logical end, was a correct interpretation. His conclusions to my assertions got off a bit, which normally happens in written conversations; you just can’t know exactly where a person is coming from without the benefit of further, and deeper, explanation.

I emulated the language of Scripture which says, “Wherefore if any man be in Christ, he is a ‘new creature’: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”⁶⁶ The Greek of the word ‘creature’ reads ‘creation’, therefore we are a new creation. And again in Rom.6:6, “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” Also, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.”⁶⁷ What is this new creature if not what it says? It is not the natural flesh, mind, and heart we were born with, but the new disposition gained by being given the Holy Spirit, thereby being made capable of reflecting the image of God.

My words being commented on in the next step were these: Eph.4:24 and Col.3:10 plainly state what that image consists of; righteousness, true holiness, and renewed knowledge. In those passages the gist is regaining these perfections through regeneration. If we had God’s image in our unregenerated, rational thought processes and creative, communicative, introspective, and interpersonal activities, then why are we told to lay these, and all parts of our old nature, aside, and put off the old man?⁶⁸ “The old man, as taught in the sixth chapter of Romans, and other passages, means the natural disposition which we bring from our mother’s womb. In two persons, Adam and Christ, Paul describes to us what may be called two natures. As we are first born of Adam, the depravity of nature, which we derive from him, is called the old man; and as we are born again in Christ, the amendment of this sinful nature is called the new man. In a word, he who wishes to put off the old man must renounce his old nature.”⁶⁹

The use of the word ‘amendment’ seems to have caused confusion, but again, societal use of certain words weaken over time. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines ‘amendment’ starting with the weaker, and most popular description: A change for the better (in our case this wouldn’t work, for if we are changing for the better, that could mean we started out with something–we didn’t, only Adam did), improvement (has the same connotations, improving something denotes a possible good to begin with, it’s just being made better–this of course is out). Definitions #2, 3, and 4 fit better with what is being conveyed: 2. A correction (which we definitely need because what we have has gone totally wrong), 3. A revision or change (which is exactly what I mean), 4. A formal statement of such a change (which is exactly what I am making). In going back to the root of the word ‘amend’ I found it means ‘to free from faults’, or, ‘removal, out of defect, fault’.⁷⁰ The original etymology of this word fits clearly with what has been stated in the word ‘amend’. So obviously words can mean many different things, especially passing through time in the American language. In fact words–or the definition of the image of God–are the very things under consideration between two people who have basically the same theological beliefs. However, having said that, we may not use man’s idea of word definitions if and when they do not line up with Scripture, which is God’s definitive standard.

Let’s go back to the question, ‘What is our old nature amended to?’ Well, I have been saying that our old nature is amended (or changed, as we are born again in Christ) to the new man. I’ve had an illustration of this written in my Bible for many years, I think it is from Augustine:

Pre-fall man–able to sin, able to not sin.
Post-fall man–able to sin, unable not to sin.
Reborn man–able to sin, again able to not sin.
Glorified man–unable to sin.

Pre-fall man was able to reflect the image of God in doing those things wrought by God, but freely chose to sin. Post-fall man, having lost God’s image, is unable to do anything but sin–and that is his desired choice. Reborn man is given back the image of God in that he is now able once again to reflect the works of God wrought in him, but with the help of the Holy Spirit must mortify the sinful flesh still resident within. This makes him long for the glorified state, where he will not choose, desire, or be able to sin, and will no longer possess anything of the old nature.

Knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness are what God endues us with when we become a new man. These characteristics of God and the works wrought in us by God are perfect. These need no sanctification. Our old man, still resident within, must continually be put away, and therein lies the substance of our sanctification. This is the way we are conformed more and more to God’s ‘express’ image, Jesus Christ.

I believe there is a wonderful reason for sanctification. This remnant of the old man continually reminds us where we have come from. I believe God planned it this way for that purpose. Romans 7 specifically brings this out when our beloved Paul has this very struggle and ends by saying, “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind (new nature) I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh (old nature) the law of sin.”⁷¹ Paul also admits that, “lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.”⁷² I believe God will always remind us that we are creatures, subject to vanity, even to the end.

How can it be said that ’since the old man possesses no remnant of the image of God, then he is incapable of sanctification and we’re left with a kind of spiritual standoff between the two natures?’ What?! Is God not all-powerful? Is the God who created man in the first place now unable to recreate out of nothing a loving attitude toward Him? With man it IS impossible, but with our God all things are possible. And it is this same God who sanctifies us wholly. There are two uses in Scripture for sanctification. One is a ’setting apart for holy use’, another is ‘growing in holiness’. The first is said of Christ⁷³, the latter is accomplished by man through the gift of God, ⁷⁴ by Christ, ⁷⁵ through the Holy Spirit, ⁷⁶ with additional helps of the Truth ⁷⁷ and prayer. These helps (or tools) of sanctification originate in God’s power, through the Holy Spirit. The new man has access to these tools to put away the old nature. It is the new man who desires to use them against the old sinful nature. There will never be a spiritual standoff where God is involved, because He promised through His Son–”Who gave Himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”⁷⁸

Now, where is it said that the Holy Spirit causes the new nature to win over the old nature? The Word of God (not the Dispensationalist–if that is what they say). Even regenerated man often would, and does, choose to sin. “Who saves us from this body of death?,” Paul asked. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”⁷⁹ “But if ye, through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”⁸⁰ Believers are “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, UNTO obedience…” The Spirit is exactly the One who causes the new nature to begin with, or we would not obey either unto salvation, or sanctification. The very idea that a Christian would take this truth and make a case for sin (as the Antinomians do) is addressed by Paul in Romans 6, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?”⁸¹ Why did Paul have to reprove that line of thought, and teach the truth? Because some were already distorting it right in the beginning. In fact, there is much heresy that comes from distortion of the truth, even to this day. We must always be careful to discern these heresies, as Paul often reminds us. Finally, the truth without the house analogy is much more interesting.

IS THE IMAGE OF GOD IN EVERY HUMAN BEING IN LINE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY?

You described the old man as the ‘old disposition’ and it is that word, disposition, which I believe provides the key to our discussion. John Gerstner describes the orthodox Reformed view of justification as, “a new foundation for activity or a new disposition implanted in (not alongside or instead of) the old ego.” Before regeneration, the old nature was totally disposed against God and, as such, was absolutely unable to do good, nor did it desire to do so. At regeneration, the believer is enabled and is disposed to love and serve God, his new King. Thus, his old nature comes under the process of sanctification. This is in complete harmony with the doctrine of Total Depravity.

In pondering the phrase ‘implanted in’ I found Scripture does not use this term (unless it is used in a modern version). The closest I could come to the meaning of this phrase was the word ‘endued’. Endued means “to go in, enter in (as a garment), to cause to go into a garment. To be clothed, or to clothe one’s self.”⁸² An example from Scripture is when Christ had ascended to the Father, but had come back to tell His disciples to wait for the Comforter. “And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” ⁸³ Another place asks, “Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.”⁸⁴ This is also the very Greek word used for ‘put on’, as in the example of Eph. 4:24 where we “put on the new man”. The same word is used for ‘clothed’. An example is, “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest (pledge) of the Spirit.”⁸⁵ This particular part of Scripture is speaking of our desire for the glorious state we will possess in heaven, but it gives me a clue to what the other same Greek words mean. Will our glorious state also be implanted along side our sanctified old ego? Or is there going to be a change? I believe there is going to be another change, just as I believe there is a change when we are being endued, clothed, or have put on the new man, through the earnest of the Spirit, (“in the place of what was formerly and has not yet been used. To daily acquire new strength, which previously it had not”⁸⁶) being renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created us.⁸⁷ Even so, I’ll grant that you could use ‘implant in’ if you want, so long as what’s there already is considered nothing before the implantation, and only something because God resides there now.

HOW CAN MANKIND LOVE IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THE IMAGE OF GOD?

Let’s look at another one of your assertions. You cited Gen.5.1-3 as possibly opening to question whether Adam still possessed the image of God in begetting Seth. Dr. Meredith Kline, Professor at Gordon-Conwell and former Professor at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, PA., says of this passage in the Westminster Theological Journal, “There, a re-statement of Adam’s creation in the likeness of God is juxtaposed to a statement that Adam begat a son in his own likeness. Unmistakably, the father-son relationship of Adam and Seth is presented as a proper analogue for understanding the Creator-man relationship and clearly man’s likeness to the Creator-Spirit is thus identified as the likeness of a son derived from his father.” Clearly this is in direct contradiction to your conclusion of this passage’s relationship to Gen. 9.6 where you maintain that because the image is lost entirely, then the executor is only performing his duty out of representational status rather than representational likeness or resemblance. Again, let me quote Calvin, “I presume it has already been sufficiently proved, that the image comprehends everything which has any relation to the spiritual and eternal life. The same thing, in different terms, is declared by St. John when he says, that the light which is from the beginning, in the eternal Word of God, was the light of man (John i.4). His object being to extol the singular grace of God in making men excel the other animals, he at the same time shows how he was formed in the image of God, that he may separate him from the common herd, as possessing not ordinary animal existence, but one which combines with it the light of human intelligence. Therefore, as the image of God constitutes the entire excellence of human nature, as it shone in Adam before his fall, but was afterwards vitiated and almost destroyed, nothing remaining but a ruin, confused, mutilated, and tainted with impurity, so it is now partly seen in the elect, in so far as they are regenerated by the Spirit. Its full luster, however, will be displayed in heaven.” (Inst. i, 165) Your assertion, that the image is obliterated, leaves nothing that would separate him from the common beast. Thus, apart from the duty of representational status, one might possibly support abortion, euthanasia, and slavery for these unregenerate animals. Where then is love if my behavior towards the unregenerate is only the outworking of the duty of representational status? Jesus always displayed a strong love for the lost. Note His concern for the lost sheep of Israel (Mt. 9.36) and His compassion for doomed Jerusalem (Mt. 23.37). I most certainly don’t accuse you of this type of thinking, but maintain that it is the logical conclusion of your premise.

How very offensive to people like my friend above when they read God’s view of the unregenerate. The very beasts that we are suppose to be separate from God says we are just exactly like.⁸⁸ When God compares us to nature, or natural beasts, I think He is being kind. It is because God has made man with the faculty to think and reason that man without God is worse than any animal in his depravity. Animals only kill for two main reasons–hunger and protection. Man, on the other hand, kills out of anger, frustration, accidentally, ignorantly, and worst of all, convenience (abortion, euthanasia, infanticide). Remember, unbelievers do as their father the devil does–murder and lie at will, because they are in his image. Again, we just happen to be the vessels God chose to place His image into, that alone sets us apart from animals.

I am not saying nature has been unaffected by the fall; it has. As Scripture declares, “For the creature itself also shall be delivered from the of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”⁸⁹ We also learn that God is able to raise ’stones’ up to be children unto Abraham.⁹⁰ And if Gods’ disciples should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.⁹¹ God didn’t make stones to put His image into, but He could have. Instead He made human beings for His image. But He also made those who are no different than stones, because their hearts are made of it. Again, the Potter hath power over the clay to make vessels unto honor, or dishonor. The vessels of honor may not look any different than the vessels of dishonor; in fact, Scripture teaches they don’t–we all come from the same lump of clay. The difference is only in the use. Some vessels in honor contain the image of God, but the dishonorable are empty vessels and are to be thrown away into the furnace.

This is all to say that God’s view of man is much different than man likes to think, or than man’s view of himself. It is not an easy thing to know, but one God made sure was clear in His word. Where then is love? Only in the Lord Jesus Christ do we find the real thing. And if I am His, and He is mine, and we are one, then I will love–for God is love. But I won’t find it in my nature. Man does not know how to love without God’s intervention. Certainly anyone can mimic the real thing, but the basis of wicked man’s loving action will be found self-serving You only have to pick up any of the magazines on any store’s rack to see that. We don’t love unconditionally, as Jesus did, without His Spirit in us. Neither can I take the credit for unconditionally loving someone–I must give the honor and glory to God. I believe this to be one of the reasons we are told to love our enemies; to show God’s power in us. Without it you do not see anyone loving their enemy. The command to love our enemies also shows us something else. God did love–even us–when we were yet enemies, by giving His only begotten Son. When we as sinners struggle to love someone who is an enemy we can understand the depth of a holy God loving us.

It has also been intimated that without the image of God in every human being we are left with the inability to love that person since there is nothing in them to love. But this line of reasoning is leaving out the aspect of the believer having the image of God and therefore able to love all men in a Christ-like way. Turning now to how we as Christians act toward the unbelieving if my premise is correct, there seems to be confusion in the way the godly view the unregenerate, and the way the unregenerate view themselves. It is the unregenerate that DO believe it is a ‘right’ they have to abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide. Does this make them animals that I think SHOULD be killed? What a question! They are human beings who are depraved–totally, so was I at one time. Herein lies the answer, the Christian can’t judge by depravity whether a person is to be a vessel of honor or dishonor, whether he is elect or not, but since Christians are told to love their enemies, and have been given the ability to do so–that love images God. I agree with Calvin when he states that the image comprehends everything which has any relation to the spiritual and eternal life. I don’t agree that this is the ‘light of man’. Jesus Christ is life because He created all things, and gave man life. This ‘light of man’ is man’s earthly life. John 1:9 tells us that Jesus Christ is the true Light. This true Light was also said to light every man that cometh into the world. And when the Light shined in the darkness, the darkness didn’t comprehend it. The world knew Him not! How could that be? He came unto His own (the Jews), and they received Him not. Why? Because they were not His sheep. As he explains further in John 8:12, “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the ‘light of life’. Just as we have been taught in Romans–unbelievers have the Truth (Jesus) right before their eyes (the Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world) just like all of creation is right before their eyes, even their own life. But they didn’t comprehend, they didn’t understand. God, however, says they are without excuse. Why? Because the truth is clearly seen. So what is the key? FAITH! “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.⁹² What happens when the faithless see the truth? They change it into a lie, and worship and serve the creature (themselves) more than the Creator, they don’t acknowledge God, they hold the truth in unrighteousness, thereby clenching their fate–reprobation. This reprobation is part of God’s ‘object’ in revealing the Truth (lighting every man that cometh into the world). This is also, as part of God’s sovereignty, the reason the light of the Gospel must be preached to every human being.

Concerning Seth, it was said that ‘in the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”⁹³ Then a hundred and thirty years goes by, and Adam begets a son in “his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.” ⁹⁴ First of all notice that God is speaking of a certain time in history. I believe it is said in the past-tense twice so that no part of the sentence could be construed in the present time. God made man in his image in the day He created them. And God called man Adam in the day He created him. Then years later, Adam has a son in his own likeness, after his own image. I take this to mean that the sinful nature was passed on to Seth, but also that the image that was originally in Adam was also being restored because we know that Seth was of the seed of the woman that would carry the lineage to the Promised Seed. This was God’s Covenant from the beginning and He was carrying it out. Why else would ‘image’ be stressed again only after Seth was born?

In the final place Scripture addresses ‘image’ it is translated ’similitude’. James 3:8-18, “But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the ’similitude’ of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be. Does a fountain bring forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? (Does a believer in the image of God with the waters of the Holy Spirit flowing from him bring forth sweet water or bitter?) Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? (Can a Christian bear evil fruit?) so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh (the Holy Spirit does not spew forth salty/bitter water). Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation (life) his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth⁹⁵. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.”

This section is a wonderful exhortation for the Church. I believe if you look at the whole chapter and its contents you find James reproving the bickering, strife, and envying that go on in the body of Christ. If you have ever participated in a voter’s meeting, or financial board meeting, or a synod, etc., you see whom he is directing his concern toward. It will even crop up in differences we have with our teachers of the Word. James especially confronts this. Look at verse 1, “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.” What does this mean? The word ‘masters’ is referring to teachers of scholars, or disciples in the Christian church. They are especially functional as interpreters of God’s salvation, distinct from the evangelist.⁹⁶ This is the reason the warning precedes the exhortation–the masters therefore shall receive the greater condemnation (judgment). Teachers have an awesome responsibility and they will be judged according to what they have taught. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God….If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” Here we see what we must teach–’the word of truth’, next, what it accomplishes–’salvation to the beloved’, and how we should teach–’with a listening ear, not too wordy, and peaceably’.

It is in this context that we read verse 9, “Therewith (the tongue) bless we God, even the Father, and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” Showing how the tongue can lead us away from godliness into earthy, sensual, and devilish error–even toward our brothers in Christ.

It was incredulous to James that the brethren and master’s, who possess God’s image were choosing to reflect the devil instead by their evil confusions. I contend they were doing it for their own vainglory. We are still in the flesh, even with the image of God. Our flesh still ‘lusteth to envy’. It is the fight we will continue to fight until glory.

Without God, man exhibits nothing, and even less than nothing. Even after conversion, we barely rise from the dust, but must contend with the battle of our flesh and the Holy Spirit reflecting God in us. It is only when we are face to face in glory, when we shall be perfectly like Christ that we will amount to anything. Any good that is done here on earth is entirely wrought by God.⁹⁷ I am immensely thankful that I am one of His. But what is my life? “It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.”⁹⁸ Even so, God calleth forth from this vapor a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; (why?) that we should show forth the praises (virtues, characteristics, attributes– in His image) of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His marvelous light!⁹⁹

ARE THERE TWO IMAGES?

The conclusion to this lengthy debate is the difference in what the image of God means. The one side believes that man reflects God’s image in substance as well as soul and spirit, setting us apart from all other of God’s creation. On the other hand, I believe that all of God’s creation (including man) reflects God’s creative power and Godhead, thereby imaging Who God is¹⁰⁰; but we must have God present within us by the Holy Spirit before we have the image God in us. The seat of those actions lost the image of God when sin entered the picture (through Adam), and are only reformed through faith (in Christ).

IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

The whole idea of something within wicked man that is good because wicked man is in the image of God is what I believe has caused the Church to become the liberal, and Arminian, bastion it is. The whole foundation of liberal/Arminianism is based in man’s high view of himself, thereby turning the Church into a social organization, rather than the bearer of the Gospel. Paul wrote, “I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”¹⁰¹ But the Church has come a long way from that.

The second doctrinal tenet wavering in the wind is the doctrine of Total Depravity. How many of us like that doctrine? Not me. But it is taught all through Scripture, and can’t be avoided, unless you suppress the truth. Even in Reformed churches we see the foundation cracking and moving closer to the liberal churches–slowly but surely. The argument goes; But if we teach Total Depravity too much we may lose some of our people! Woe unto that church who buries God’s truth for the sake of attendance!

The third doctrine completely deleted by a wrong view of God’s image is limited atonement. A quote from Kenneth S. Wuest, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Greek at the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago will suffice to prove this. Professor Wuest was defining the ‘Agapao’ love of Scripture. He says, “Agapao” is used in John 3:16; “God’s love for a sinful and lost race springs from His heart in response to the high value He places upon each human soul. Every sinner is exceedingly precious in His sight. “Phileo,” which is another word for love, a love which is the response of the human spirit to what appeals to it as pleasurable, will not do here, for there is nothing in a lost sinner that the heart of God can find pleasure in, but on the contrary, everything that His holiness rebels against. But each sinner is most precious to God, first, because he bears the image of his Creator even though that image be marred by sin, and second, because through redemption, that sinner can be conformed into the very image of God’s dear Son. This preciousness of each member of the human race to the heart of God is the constituent element of the love that gave His Son to die on the Cross.”¹⁰²

Fourth, it has been successfully argued by many current theologians that if we do not believe that the image of God is in every human we cannot love them–for what purpose is there in doing good, or loving someone who is evil if we could not acknowledge that that person is in the image of God? This type of thinking forgets that the one loving is the one with the image of God. God did not tell us to love our enemies because they have the image of God in them to love, but the image of God in us is capable of such an act because ‘when we were yet sinners He loved us’¹⁰³–therein is the basis of our love to our enemies.

Fifth, this idea of the image of God in every man is not consistent with the mandate to put to death those who murder. If that murderer has the image of God then he has a basis for being reformed, and unfortunately we see that type of thinking currently with capital punishment being resisted. Again, it is the image of God in believer’s which insists that we must do away with murderers, because they represent God’s justice against evil doers.

Sixth, on the other hand, the argument is being used that we should not put our children to death in the womb because they have been made in the image of God. My concern here is should we use that line of thought when the more important reason is that God’s law forbids murder? We see once again that unregenerate beings do not respond to God’s law, but may respond to something inherently good in another potential human being. (‘Potential’ is used here the way the world thinks). The result of our moving away from the law of God is what I believe brought about the legalization of abortion in the first place. We should always be concerned with obeying God first.

Finally, I know that everyone is on a different level when it comes to their faith. “Unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ… For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Ye are in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. Who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”¹⁰⁴ So, if these things are at stake I believe God will prevail in those who love him and will bring them to the truth of the matter. Believers who disagree are still God’s servants in Christ. He accepts our diligent seeking and is pleased with it. Maybe at this point in time two different views have just crossed paths on their way to more mature thinking in the matter. I’ll grant that for myself. God is certainly not finished with me. Five years from now I may see all this in a different light–some new insight will put a different slant on it. At the level of my understanding now, and as I perceive Scripture’s teaching in this matter, I have come to the above conclusion. But I allow my friend to be fully persuaded in his view. This is the reason I believe there are differences in our churches, and the key to keeping us all in God’s Word. In the end, all God’s elect who seek truth will find it.

Bullinger’s A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament.
Kittel’s The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol..2, pg. 381
Bullinger’s Lexicon
Hebrews 1:3a
A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, pg.401, definition of ‘image’.
Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, vol.9, pg. 341; see also Gen.5:1-3.
John 8:44, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do.”, 2 Cor.4:4, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the ‘light’ of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”
2 Cor.3:18
Col.3:10
Eph.4:24
Psm.103:13. Other parallels which would reflect God in our families are found in such passages as Eph. 6:1-4 and Col.3:18-21. The obedience of children, the submission of wives, the love of husbands, and the mercy of fathers is not ‘right’ and ‘fit’ and ‘well-pleasing’ just because it is what God commands, but because it shows His own glory as Father, Son, and Spirit. (Ronald Hanko–Covenant Reformed Fellowship News, Vol.1, #23)
Remember that this also was lost at the fall. We see this in the deteriation of the family– apart from God they cannot prosper.
Heb.3:10; 12:1
Psm.58:3; Isa.48:8; John 9:34
Psm.8:4
Gen.6:5-8
1 Peter 3:20-21
Psalm 14:1
Psalm 39:5
Psalm 51:5
Psalm 53:1-4
Psalm 57:3
Psalm 94:11
Ecclesiastes 7:20
Isaiah 1:4-6
Isaiah 40:22
Isaiah 64:6
Jeremiah 17:9
Daniel 4:35
Micah 7:2-4
Isaiah 41:29
Rom.2:14-15
Bullinger’s Lexicon, pg. 181, says “especially the consciousness man has of himself in his relation to God, manifesting itself in the form of a self-testimony. Consequently it is the effect and result of faith, for a man’s conscience will never condemn that which he believes to be right, and vice versa: hence the only conscience worth having is that which springs from “a faith unfeigned,” 1 Tim.1:5.
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible says “the inner judge of moral issues.” Also, Vines Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words, lit., a knowing with (sun, with, oida, to know), i.e., a co-knowledge (with oneself), the witness borne to one’s conduct by conscience, that faculty by which we apprehend the will of God, as that which is designed to govern our lives.
Hebrews 11:3
Romans 1:18-21. I have always believed the way this verse is arranged in the King James makes it sound like the eternal power and Godhead are made. This of course is not the case but would seem to fuel the Jehovah Witness belief of Jesus as a created being. I have taken the liberty to arrange it the way it should read not only for my purposes, but to correct erroneous beliefs. “Both the everlasting power and divinity of him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things made, so that they are without excuse.” This is a literal rendering from The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, A. Marshall.
Genesis 9:6
Romans 3:3
Proverbs 16:2, “All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes…” Isaiah 55:8-11, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap.16: 7–Scripture ref.: Gen.4:5, Heb.11:4, 6; 1 Cor.13:3, Isa.1:12; Matt.6:2, 5, 16; Hag.2:14, Tit.1:15, Amos 5:21,22, Hos.1:4, Ro.9:16, Tit.3:15.
Rom.8:8-9, “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
Gen. 4:5
Heb. 11:4
Tit. 1:15
Rom.12:3
Psm.36:3
1Cor. 2:16
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap.4:2
Col.3:10, Eph.4:24
Rom.9:21; 2 Tim.2:20
Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, of Eph.4:24, Bk#11, pg.191
Eph.4:24, Col.3:10
2 Pet.1:20
“Whatever object comes into existence or whatever event comes to pass in time is included in the counsel of God. His decree has as its content and object the idea of the universe, “the totality of ideas.” This concept of the universe is closely related to God’s being, but must not be identified with God’s being nor with the Son or with the Logos. The same relation exists between the idea of the universe and the being of God as between God’s world-consciousness and his self-consciousness. God’s self-knowledge is not exhausted in the universe any more than is his power or any of his attributes. Nevertheless, the universe is a proper instrument for the manifestation, in creaturely fashion, of all God’s attributes. The idea of the universe was by God so conceived that it is able to reveal his glory and to show forth his excellencies in a manner suited to the creature. It is a mirror in which God reflects his image. It is the creaturely reflex of his adorable being; it is a finite, limited, inadequate, yet true and faithful reproduction of God’s self-knowledge… Whatsoever is temporal is an image of that which is eternal; whatsoever exists is a shadowing forth of that which was conceived in thought, and in the final analysis whatsoever is and comes to pass is a reflection of God’s being.” Herman Bavinck’s The Doctrine of God, pg. 370, 371. The above quote agrees with my understanding of God’s creation reflecting who He is. Another quote also shows this, “God is the similitude of all things according to his essence”. Thomas Aquinas, as quoted from Herman Bavinck’s book above, pg. 371.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Job 25:6
Jude 10
John 8:44
II Cor.5:1
Rom. 9:21
Job 4:8-11
Prov.10:3
Prov.10:25
Luke 6:49
II Cor. 5:17
Gal.6:15
Heb.12: 1, Jas.1:21, 1 Pet.2:1, Eph.4:22, 25, Col.3:5-10
Quoted from a letter to me from Rev. Ron Hanko of the Protestant Reformed Church.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
Rom.7: 24-25
2 Cor.12.7-9
John 10:36
1 Thess.5:23
Heb. 2:11
1 Pet. 1:2
John 17:17
Titus 2:14
Romans 8:2
Romans 8:13b
Romans 6:1
Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon
Luke 24:49
James 3:13
2 Cor.5:1-5
A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, Bullinger’s definition of ‘renewed’
Col.3:10
Jude 10, “But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.”
Romans 8: 20-21
Matt.3:9
Luke 19:40
Heb. 11:3
Gen.5:1-3
Gen.5:1-3
Romans 1:25
Definition of ‘master’ from Bullinger.
Phil.1:6, 2:13; Col.1:29; Heb.13:21; Eph 2:10.
James 4:14
1 Peter 2: 9
Psm.19:1-2; Psm.97: 6; Psm.104:24, 31, and many more.
1 Cor.2: 2
Wuest’s Word Studies, pg.60-61
Rom.5:8
Eph. 4: 7, 12; 1 Cor.1: 30-31; 2: 16

Angels

providencerec — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:54:46 +0000

Angels

RL Dabney

Against ancient Sadducees, who taught neither resurrection, angel, nor spirit, (Acts 23:8) and made the angels only good thoughts and motions visiting human breasts; and our modern Sadducees, among Rationalists, Socinians and Universalists, who teach that they are impersonations of divine energies, or of good and bad principles, or of diseases and natural influences; we prove the real, personal existence of angels thus: The Scriptures speak of them as having all the acts and properties, which can characterize real persons. They were created, by God, through the agency of the Son. Col. 1:16; Gen. 2:1; Exod. 20:2. Have a nature, for Christ did not assume it, Heb. 2:16. Are holy or unholy, Rev. 24:10. Love and rejoice, Luke 15:10. Desire, 1 Pet. 1:12. Contend, Rev. 12:7. Worship, Heb. 1:6. Go and come, Gen. 20:1; Luke 9:26. Talk, Zech. 1:9; Luke 1:13. Have knowledge and wisdom, (finite) 2 Sam. 14:20; Matt. 24:36. Minister in various acts, Matt. 13:29,49; Luke 16:22; Acts 5:19. Dwell with saints, who resemble them, in heaven, Matt. 22:30, &c. If all this language was not intended to assure us of their personal existence, then there is no dependence to be placed on the word of God, or the laws of its interpretation.

The name angel (messenger) is indeed applied to ordinary messengers, Job 1:14; Luke 7:24; to prophets, Is. 42:19; Mal. 3:1; to priests, Mal. 2:7; to ministers of the Church, Rev. 1:20, and to the Messiah, Mal. 3:1; Is. 63:9, &C., &C. But the other sense of personal and spiritual existences, is none the less perspicuous. They are called angels generally, because they fulfill missions for God.

The invisible and spiritual nature of these beings does not make their existence less credible, to any, except atheists and materialists. True, we have no sensible experience of their existence. Neither have we, directly, of our own souls, nor of God. If the existence of pure, finite spirits is impossible, then man cannot be immortal; but the death of the body is the death of the being. Indeed, analogy would rather lead us to infer the existence of angels, from the almost numberless gradations of beings below man. Is all the vast gap between him and God a blank?

To fix the date of the creation of angels is more difficult. The old opinion of the orthodox Reformers was that their creation was a part of the first day’s work. (a.) Because they, being inhabitants or hosts (see Ps. 103:21: 148:2) of heaven, were created when the heavens were. But see Gen. 1:1; 2:1; Exod. 20:2. (b.) Because Scripture seems to speak of all the past eternity “before the foundation of the world ” as an unbroken infinity, in which nothing existed except the uncreated; so that to speak of a being as existing before that, is in their language, to represent him as uncreated. See Prov. 8:22; Ps. 90:2; Jno. 1:1. Now I concede that the including of the angels with the heavens, under the term hosts of them, is correct. But first, the angels were certainly already in existence when this earth was begun. See Job 38:7. Second: the “beginning “in which God made the heavens and the earth, Gen. 1:1, is by no means necessarily the first of the six creative days. Nor does Gen. 2:1, (“Thus were finished,” is an unnecessarily strong rendering) prove it. Hence, third, it may be granted that the beginning of the creation of God’s created universe may mark the dividing point between unsuccessive eternity, and successive time, and between the existence of the uncreated alone, and of the creature; and yet it does not follow that this point was the first of the Mosaic days. Hence, it is best to say, with Calvin, that the age of the angels is unrevealed, except that they are older than the world and man.

The angels are exceedingly numerous. Gen. 32:2; Dan. 7:10; Luke 2:13; 8:30; Matt. 26:53; Heb. 12:222. Their nature is undoubtedly spiritual, belonging generally to that class of substances to which man’s rational soul belongs, They are called Pneumata. Heb. 1:13, 14, 7; Luke 20:36; 24:39; Col. 1:16. This also follows from what we learn of their traits, as intelligent and voluntary beings, as invisible, except when they assume bodies temporarily, as inexpressibly quick in motion; and as penetrable, so that they occupy the same space with matter, without displacing or being displaced by it. Several supposed objections to their mere spirituality have been mooted. One is, that they have, as we shall see, so much physical power. The answer is, that the ultimate source of all force is in spirits; our limbs only have it, as moved by our spirit’s volitions. Another is, that if pure spirits, they would be ubiquitous, because to suppose any substance possessed of locality must imply that it is defined by extension and local limits. But extension cannot be an attribute of spirit. I reply, that it must be possible for a spirit to have locality “definitely,” though not “circumscriptively,” because our consciousness assures us that our spirits are within the superficies of our body, in some true sense in which they are not elsewhere; yet it is equally impossible for us to attribute dimension, either to our spirits or their thoughts. And just as really as our spirits pass through space, when our bodies move, so really angels change their locality, though far more swiftly, by an actual motion, through extension; though not implying extension in the thing moved. Again, it is objected: angels are spoken of as having wings, figure, and often, human shape, in which they were sometimes, not merely visible, but tangible, and performed the characteristic material acts of eating and drinking. See Gen. 28:2, 5, 8; 19:10, 16. On this it may be remarked that Scripture expressly assigns wings to no orders but cherubim and seraphim. We see Dan. 9:21, and Rev. 14:6, speaking of angels, not cherubim and seraphim, as “flying.” But this may be in the general sense of rapid motion; not motion with wings. The purpose of these appearances is obvious, to bring the presence and functions of the angelic visitant under the scope of the senses of God’s servants, for some particular purpose of mercy. Angelic apparitions seem to have appeared under three circumstances—in dreams—in states of inspired ecstasy, and when the observer was in the usual exercise of his senses. Only the latter need any explanation; for the former cases are accounted for by the ideal impression made on the conception of the dreaming or ecstatic mind by God. But in such cases as that of Gen. 38 and 19, we are bound to believe that these heavenly spirits occupied for the time, real, material bodies. Any other opinion does violence at once to the laws of exegesis of Scripture language, and to the validity of our senses as inlets of certain and truthful perceptions.

Whence then, those bodies? Say some, they were the actual bodies of living men, which the angels occupied, suppressing, for the nonce, the consciousness and personality of the human soul to which the body belonged. Some, that they are material, but glorified substances, kept in heaven, ready for the occasional occupancy of angels on their missions; as we keep a Sunday-coat in our wardrobes. Some, that they were aerial bodies, composed of compacted atmosphere, formed thus for their temporary occupancy, by divine power, and then dissolved into air again. And still others, that they were created by God for them, out of matter, as Adam’s body was, and then laid aside. Where God has not seen fit to inform us, I think it best to have no opinion on this mysterious subject. The Scriptures plainly show us, that this incorporation is temporary.

The angels are intelligent and voluntary beings, as is most manifest, from their functions of praising, worshipping, teaching the prophets, and ministering to saints, and from their very spirituality; for thought is the characteristic attribute of spirit. We naturally infer that as angels are incorporeal, they have neither senses, nor sensation, nor literal language. Since our senses are the inlets of all our objective knowledge, and the occasional causes of all mental action, we have no experience nor conception of a knowledge without senses. But it does not seem unreasonable to believe that our bodies obstruct the cognitions of our souls, somewhat as imprisoning one within solid walls does his communication with others; that our five senses are the windows, pierced through this barrier, to let in partial perceptions; and that consequently, the disembodied soul perceives and knows somehow, with vastly greater freedom and fulness, by direct spiritual apprehension. Yet all of the knowledge of angels is not direct intuition. No doubt much of it is mediate and deductive, as is so much of ours; for the opposite form of cognition can only be universal, in an infinite understanding. It is very clear also, that the knowledge of angels is finite and susceptible of increase. Mark. 13:32;Eph. 3:10; I Pet. 1:12; Dan. 8:16. Turrettin’s four classes of angelic knowledge—natural, experimental, supernatural, and revealed— might, I think, be better arranged as their concreated, their acquired, and their revealed knowledge. It is, in fine, clear that their knowledge and wisdom are great. They appear, Dan. and Rev., as man’s teachers, they are glorious and splendid creatures, and they enjoy more favour and communion from God. See also, 2. Sam. 14:20.

They are also beings of great power; passing over vast spaces with almost incredible speed, Dan. 9:23; exercising portentous physical powers, 2 Kings 19:35; Zech. 12:8; Acts 12:7, 10; Matt. 28:2, and they are often spoken of as mighty beings Ps. 103:20; Rev. 10:1; 5:2, and are spoken of as powers, principalities, &c., Eph. 6:12; 2 Thess. 1:7. This power is undoubtedly always within God’s control, and never truly supernatural, although superhuman. It seems to have extended at times, by God’s permission, to men’s bodies, to diseases, to the atmosphere, and other elements.

The romantic distribution of the angels into a hierarchy of three classes and nine orders, borrowed by the Pseudo Dionysius from the Platonizing Jews, need not be refuted here. It is supposed by many Protestants, that there are differences of grade among angels, (though what, we know not,) from the fact — (a) That Paul uses several terms to describe them, Col. 1:16; (b) That there is at least one superior angel among the evil angels; (c) That we hear of an archangel, Michael; (d) That God’s terrestrial works exhibit every where, gradations.

If, as some suppose, Michael is identical with the Angel of the Covenant, the third of these considerations is removed. Their reasons are, that he is called the Archangel, and is the only one to whom the title is given; that he is called the Prince, and great Prince, who stood for Israel, (Dan. 10:21; 12:1,) and that he is seen, (Rev. 12:7,) heading the heavenly war against Satan and his kingdom; a function suited to none so well as to the Messiah. But it is objected, with entire justice, that his name (Who is as God?) is not any more significant of the Messiah than that of Michaiah, and is several times the name of a man— that he is one, “one of the chief princes.” Dan. 10:13. That in Jude, he was under authority in his dispute over Moses’ body, and that he is plainly distinguished from Christ, (I Thess. 4:16,) where Christ descends from heaven with the voice of the archangel, and trump of God.

A more difficult question is, what were the cherubim mentioned, Gen.3:24; Exod. 25:18; I Kings 6:23; Ps. 18:10; Ezek. 10:5, 7, &c., and most probably, under the name of seraphim, in Is. 6:2. It is very evident, also, that the “living creatures, described in Ezekiel’s vision, 1:5, as accompanying the wheels, and sustaining the divine throne, were the same. Dr. Fairbairn, the most quoted of modern interpreters of types and symbols, teaches that the cherubim are not existences at all, but mere ideal symbols, representing humanity redeemed and glorified. His chief argument, omitting many fanciful ones drawn from the fourfold nature, and their wings, &c., is: that they are manifestly identical with the Zoa of Rev. 4:6-8, which evidently symbolize, 5:8-10, somehow, the ransomed Church. The great objections are, that the identification is not certain, inasmuch as John’s Zoa had but one face each; that there is no propriety in founding God’s heavenly throne and providence on glorified humanity, as His immediate attendants; but chiefly, that while it might consist with prophetic vision to make them ideal symbols, it utterly outrages the plain narrative of Gen. 3:24. And the duty of the cherubim, there described, obstructing sinful man’s approach to the tree of life, with a flaming sword, the symbol of justice, is one utterly unfitted to redeemed and glorified humanity. Hence, I believe, with the current of older divines, that the cherubim are not identical with John’s “living creatures,” but are angels, like all the others, real, spiritual, intelligent beings; and that when God was pleased to appear to Isaiah and Ezekiel in prophetic vision, they received temporarily these mixed forms, to be symbolical of certain traits of obedience, intelligence, strength, and swiftness, which they show as ministers of God’s providence and worshippers of His upper sanctuary. (The etymology of the word is utterly obscure.)

That all these spiritual beings were created holy and happy, is evident from God’s character, which is incapable of producing sin or misery; see Gen. 1:31; from the frequent use of the term holy angels, and from all that is revealed of their occupations and affections, which are pure, blessed and happy. The same truth is implied, in what is said, 2 Pet. 2:4, of “angels that sinned,” and so were not spared, but cast down to hell, and Jude 6, of “angels that kept not their first estate.” This first estate was, no doubt, in all, an estate of holiness and happiness. As to the change which has taken place in it, we are indeed left mainly to inference, by God’s word; but it is inference so well supported by His attributes, and the analogy of man’s case, that I feel a good degree of confidence in drawing it. A holy, intelligent creature, would owe service to God, with love and worship, by its natural relation to Him. And while God would be under no obligations to such a creature, to preserve its being, or bestow a happy immortality, yet His own righteousness and benevolence would forbid His visiting external suffering on that creature, while holy. The natural relation then, between such a creature and God, would be this: God would bestow perfect happiness, just so long as the creature continued to render perfect obedience, and no longer. For both the natural and legal consequence of sin would be spiritual death. But it would seem that some of the angels are elect, and these are now confirmed in a state of everlasting holiness and bliss. For holiness is their peculiarity, their blessedness seems complete, and they are mentioned as sharing with man the heavenly mansions, whence we know glorified saints will never fall. On the other hand, another class of the angels have finally and irrevocably fallen into spiritual death. The inference from these facts would seem to be, that the angels, like the human race, have passed under the probation of a covenant of works. The elect kept it, the non-elect broke it; the difference between them being made, so far as God was the author of it, not by His efficacious active decree and grace, but by His permissive decree, in which both classes were wholly left to the freedom of their wills. God only determining by His Providence the circumstances surrounding them, which became the occasional causes of their different choices, and limiting their conduct. On those who kept their probation, through the efficacy of this permissive decree, God graciously bestowed confirmation in holiness, adoption, and inheritance in life everlasting. This, being more than a temporary obedience could earn, was of pure grace; yet not through a Mediator; because the angels, being innocent, needed none. When this probation began, what was its particular condition, and when it ended, we know not; except that the fall of Satan, and most probably that of his angels, preceded Adam’s. Nor is the nature of the sin known. Some, from Mark 3:29, suppose it was blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Others, from 1 Tim. 3:6, suppose it was pride; neither conclusively. Guessing is vain, where there is no key to a solution. It may very possibly be that pride was the sin, for it is one to which Satan’s spiritual nature and exalted state might be liable. The great difficulty is how, in a will prevalently holy, and not even swayed by innocent bodily wants and appetites, and where there was not in the whole universe a single creature to entice to sin, the first wrong volition could have place. At the proper time I will attempt to throw on this what light is in my power.

The good angels are engaged, first, in the worship and adoration of God. Matt. 18:10; Rev. 5:11.Second, God employs them in administering His gracious and providential government over the world. Under this head we may notice: (a) That they aided in the giving of Revelation, as the Law. Acts 7:53; Gal, 3:19, and many prophetic messages and disclosures, as Dan. x. (b) They seem to have some concern in social and national events, procuring the execution of God’s purposes. Dan. 10:13. © They are employed to punish His enemies, as instruments of His righteous vengeance. 2 Kings 19:35; Acts 12:23; I Chron. 21:16. (d) They are sent forth to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation. Heb. 1:14; Acts 12:7; Ps. 91:10-12. (e) They guide the departing souls of Christians home to their mansions in heaven. Luke 16:22. Last. They are Christ’s agents in the general judgment and resurrection. Matt. 13:39; 24:31; 1 Thess. 4:17, 18.

As to the exact nature of the agencies exerted for the saints by the ministering angels, Christians are perhaps not very well instructed, nor agreed. A generation ago, it was currently believed that they communicated to their minds instructions important to their duty or welfare, by dreams, resentiments, or impressions. Of these, many Christians are now skeptical. It seems more certain that they exert an invisible superintendence over our welfare, in and under the laws of nature. Whether they influence our waking minds unconsciously by suggesting thoughts and feelings through our law of associated ideas, is much debated. I see in it nothing incredible. The pleasing and fanciful idea of guardian angels is grounded on the following scriptures: Dan. 10:13; Matt. 28:10; Acts 7:15. The most that these passages can prove is, that provinces and countries may have their affairs committed in some degree to the special care of some of the higher ranks of angels; and that superstitious Jews supposed that Peter had his own guardian angel, who might borrow Peter’s body for the purpose of an apparition. The idea has more support in New Platonism than in Scripture.

The personality of Satan and his angels is to be established by an argument exactly similar to that employed for the good angels. Almost every possible act and attribute of personality is ascribed to them; so that we may say, the Scripture contains scarcely more proof of the existence of a personal God, than of a Devil. He speaks, goes, comes, reasons, hates, is judged, and is punished. See for instance, such passages as Matt. 4:1-11; Jno. 8:44; Job 1:6 to 2:7. There is no subject on which we may more properly remember that “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy.”

It is evidently the design of the Scriptures to make much of Satan and his work. From first to last, the favorite representation of the world’s history is, that it is the arena for a struggle between two kingdoms—Christ’s and Satan’s. Christ leads the kingdom of the good, Satan that of the evil; though with different authorities and powers. The headship of Satan over his demons is implied where they are called “his angels.” He is also called Prince of Devils. Eph. 2:2; Matt. 25:41 9:34. Prince of the powers of the air, and Prince of darkness. Eph. 6:12. This pre-eminence he doubtless acquired partly by seducing them at first, and probably confirmed by his superior powers. His dominion is compacted by fear and hatred of God, and common purposes of malice. It is by their concert of action that they seem to approach so near to ubiquity in their influences. That Satan is also the tyrant and head of sinful men is equally plain. This prevalent Bible picture of the two kingdoms may be seen carried out in these particulars. (a) Satan originated sin. Gen. 3:1; Rev. 12:9,10, 20:2, 10; I Jno. 3:8; Jno. 8:44; 2 Cor. 9:3 (b) Satan remains the leader of the human and angelic hosts which he seduced into hostility, and employs them in desperate resistance to Christ and His Father. He is the “God of this world.” 2 Cor. 4:4.”The Spirit that worketh in the children of this world.” Eph. 2:2. Wicked men are his captives. See above, and 2 Tim. 2:26.He is “the Adversary” (Satan,) ” the Accuser,” “the Destroyer,” (c) The progress of Christ to the final overthrow of this kingdom is the one great business of all time; the history of the conflict is the history of man and redemption. Gen. 3:15; Jno. 12:31; 1 Jno. 3:8-10; I Pet. 5:8; Eph. 6:2; Jno. 8:44; Mark. 3:23-27; Rom. 16:20; Acts 26:18; Luke 10:18.The single fact that ungodly men, until the end of the world, compose Satan’s kingdom, proves that he has, and will have some power or influence over their souls.

The powers of Satan and his angels are (a) always, and in all forms, strictly under the control of God and His permissive decree and providence. (b) They are often, perhaps, super-human, but never supernatural. If they do what man cannot, it is not by possession of omniscience or omnipotence, but by natural law: as a son of Anak could lift more than a common man, or a Davy or Brewster could control more of the powers of nature than a peasant.

There is a supposition, which seems to have plausible grounds, that as the plan of redemption advances, the scope of Satan’s operations is progressively narrowed; just as the general who is defeated, is cut off from one and another of his resources, and hemmed in to a narrower theatre of war, until his final capture. It may be, then, that his power of afflicting human bodies, of moving ‘the material elements, of communicating with wizzards, of producing mania by his possessions, has been, or will be successively retrenched; until at last the millennium shall take away his remaining power of ordinary temptation. See Luke 10:18;Mark 3:27; Rev. 20:3.

But Satan once had, and for anything that can be proved, may now have extensive powers over the atmosphere and elements. The first is proved by Job, ch. 1 and 2. From this would naturally follow influence over the bodily health of men. No one can prove that some pestilences and droughts, tempests and earthquakes are not his work now.

He once had at least an occasional power of direct injection of conceptions and emotions, both independent of the man’s senses and suggestions. See Matt. 4:3, &c. This is the counterpart of the power of good angels, seen in Dan. 9:22; Matt. 2:13. It this power which makes the crime of witchcraft possible. The wizzard was a man, and the witch a woman, who was supposed to communicate with an evil angel, and receive from him, at the cost of some profane and damnable price, power to do superhuman things, or to reveal secrets beyond human kind. Its criminality was in its profanity, in the alliance with God’s enemy, and its malignity in employing the arch-murderer, and always for wicked or malicious ends against others. In Exod. 22:18, witchcraft is made a capital sin; and in Gal. 5:20, it is still mentioned as a “work of the flesh.” Yet some suppose that the sin never could be really committed. They account for Moses’ statute by supposing that the class actually existed as impostors, and God justly punished them for their animus. This, I think, is hardly tenable. Others suppose the sin was anciently actual; but that now, according to the supposition of a gradual restriction, God no longer permits it; so that all modern wizzards are impostors. Doubtless there was, at all times, a large infusion of imposture. Others suppose that God still occasionally permits the sin, relaxing His curb on Satan in judicial anger against men, as in the age of Moses. There is nothing unscriptural in this. I do not admit the reality of any modern case of witchcraft, only because I have seen no evidence that stands a judicial examination.

Evil spirits had power over men’s bodies and souls, by usurping a violent control over their suggestions, emotions and volitions, and thus violating their rational personality, and making the human members, for the time, their implements. This, no doubt, was attended with unutterable horror and agitation of consciousness, in the victim. This has been a favorite topic of neologic skepticism. They urge that the Evangelists did not really mean to teach actual possession; but their object being theological, and not medical or psychological, they used the customary language of their day, not meaning thereby to endorse it, as scientific or accurate; because any other language would have been pedantic and useless. They refer to Josh. 10:12. In Matt. 4:24, lunatics are named; but we do not suppose the author meant to assert they were moonstruck. They remind us of similar cases of mania now cured by opiates or blisters. They remind us that “possessions,” like other superstitions, are limited to the dark ages. They argue that demons are said, Jude 6th, to be in chains, &c.

In this case the theory is incompatible with the candor of the sacred writers. For: 1st. They distinguish between “possessions” and diseases of a physiological source, by mentioning both separately. See Mark 1:32; Luke 6:17,18; Matt. 4:24; &C. 2d. The demons, as distinct from the possessed man, speak, and are spoken to, are addressed, commanded and rebuked by our Savior, and deprecate His wrath. Mark 1:25, 34; 9:25; Matt. 13:32; 17:18. 3d. They have personality after they go out of men; whereas the disease has no entity apart from the body of which it was an affection. See Luke 8:32.4th. A definite number of demons possessed one man, Mark 5:9, and one woman, Mark 16:9. 5th. Their moral quality is assigned. 6th. The victories of Christ and His Apostles over them, announced the triumph of a spiritual kingdom over Satan’s. Mark 3:27; Luke 11:20.

Do “possessions” now exist? Many reply, No; some, on the supposition of a progressive restriction of Satan’s license; others, supposing that in the age of miracles, Providence made special allowance of this malice, in order to give Christ and His missionaries special opportunity to evince the power of His kingdom, and show earnests of its overthrow. The latter is one object of Christ’s victories over these “possessions.” See Mark 3:27. Luke 11:20; 10:17-20, (where we have a separate proof of the spiritual nature of these possessions, as above shown). Whether “possessions” occur now, I do not feel qualified to affirm or deny.

The fourth power of Satan and demons is doubtless ordinary, and will be until the millennium; that of tempting to sin. This they may still carry on by direct injection of conceptions, or affections of the sensibility, without using the natural laws of sensibility or suggestion; and which they certainly do practice through the natural co-operation of those laws. Thus: A given mental state has a natural power to suggest any other with which it is associated. So that of several associated states, either one might naturally arise in the mind by the next suggestion. Now, these evil spirits seem to have the power of giving a prevalent vividness (and thus power over the attention and emotions) to that one of the associated states which best suits their malignant purposes. Thus: shall the sight of the wine-cup suggest most vividly, the jollity and pleasure of the past, or the nausea and remorse that followed it? If the latter, the mind will tend to sobriety: but if the former, it is tempted to sin. Here is the subtlety, and hence the danger of these practices, that they are not distinguished in our consciousness from natural suggestions, because the Satanic agency is strictly through the natural channels.

The mutual influence of the physiological states of the nerves and acts of organs of sense, over the mind, and vice versa, is a very obscure subject. We know, at least, that there is a mass of important truth there, as yet partially explored. Many believe that a concept, for instance, actually colors the retina of the eye, as though the visual specter of the object was formed on it. All have experienced the influence of emotions over our sense-perceptions. Animal influences on the organs of sense and nerves influence both concepts and percepts. Now, if evil spirits can produce an animal effect on our functions of nervous sensibility, they have a mysterious mode of affecting our souls. We must also consider the regular psychological law, that vivid suggestions recurring too often always evoke a morbid action of the soul. The same subject of anxiety, for instance, too frequently recalled, begets an exaggerated anxiety. The “One-idea-man” is a monomaniac. It thus becomes obvious, how Satan may now cause various grades of lunacy, and often does. (This is not to be confounded with actual “possessions.”) Hence, in part, religious melancholies, the most frightful of mental diseases. The maniac even, has recessions of disease; or he has seasons of glee, which, if maniacal, are actual joy to his present consciousness. But the victim of religious melancholy has no respite; he is crushed by a perpetual incubus. You can see how Satan (especially if bodily disease co-operates) can help to propagate it by securing the too constant recurrence of subjects of spiritual doubt or anxiety. You will see also, that the only successful mode to deal with the victims of these attacks is by producing diversion of the habitual trains of thought and feeling.

How powerful is the motive to prayer, and gratitude for exemption from these calamitous spiritual assaults, for which we have no adequate defense in ourselves? The duty of watchfulness against temptations and their occasions, is plain. It becomes an obvious Christian duty to attempt to preserve the health of the nervous system, refraining from habits and stimulants which may have, we know not what influence on our nervous idiosyncrasy. It is also the duty of all to avoid overcoming and inordinate emotions about any object; and to abstain from a too constant pursuit of any carnal object, lest Satan should get his advantage of us thereby. This discussion shows us how beneficent is the interruption of secular cares by the Sabbath’s break.