|
|
FULL BACKGROUND
GOD — (A.S. and Dutch God; Dan. Gud; Ger. Gott), the name of the Divine Being. It is the rendering (1) of the Hebrew
The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of the being of God are:
(1.) The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason.
(2.) The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are,
(a) The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause.
(b) The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature.
(c) The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that “verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth.”
The attributes of God are set forth in order by Moses in Ex. 34:6,7. (see also Deut. 6:4; 10:17; Num. 16:22; Ex. 15:11; 33:19; Isa. 44:6; Hab. 3:6; Ps. 102:26; Job 34:12.) They are also systematically classified in Rev. 5:12 and 7:12.
God’s attributes are spoken of by some as absolute, i.e., such as belong to his essence as Jehovah, Jah, etc.; and relative, i.e., such as are ascribed to him with relation to his creatures. Others distinguish them into communicable, i.e., those which can be imparted in degree to his creatures: goodness, holiness, wisdom, etc.; and incommunicable, which cannot be so imparted: independence, immutability, immensity, and eternity. They are by some also divided into natural attributes, eternity, immensity, etc.; and moral, holiness, goodness, etc. 1.
GOD. God is and he may be known. These two affirmations form the foundation and inspiration of all religion. The first is an affirmation of faith, the second of experience. Since the existence of God is not subject to scientific proof, it must be a postulate of faith; and since God transcends all his creation, he can be known only in his self-revelation.
The Christian religion is distinctive in that it claims that God can be known as a personal God only in his self-revelation in the Scriptures. The Bible is written not to prove that God is, but to reveal him in his activities. For that reason, the biblical revelation of God is, in its nature, progressive, reaching its fullness in Jesus Christ his Son.
In the light of his self-revelation in the Scriptures, there are several affirmations that can be made about God.
I. His Being
In his Being God is self-existing. While his creation is dependent on him, he is utterly independent of the creation. He not only has life, but he is life to his universe, and has the source of that life within himself.
Very early in biblical history this mystery of God’s being was revealed to Moses when, in the wilderness of Horeb, he met with God as fire in a bush (Ex. 3:2). The distinctive thing about that phenomenon was that ‘the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed’. To Moses this must have meant that the fire was independent of its environment: it was self-fed. Such is God in his essential being: he is utterly independent of every environment in which he wills to make himself known. This quality of God’s being probably finds expression in his personal name Yahweh, and in his self-affirmation: ‘I am who I am’, that is, ‘I am the one that has being within himself’ (Ex. 3:14).
This perception was implied in Isaiah’s vision of God: ‘The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary. . .. He gives power to the faint, and to him who has no might he increases strength’ (Is. 40:28-29). He is the Giver, and all his creatures are receivers. Christ gave this mystery its clearest expression when he said: ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself’ (Jn. 5:26). This makes independence of life a distinctive quality of deity. Throughout the whole of Scripture God is revealed as the Fountainhead of all there is, animate and inanimate, the Creator and Life-giver, who alone has life within himself.
II. His nature
In his nature God is pure spirit. Very early in his self-disclosure as the author of the created universe, God is represented as the Spirit who brought light out of darkness, and order out of chaos (Gn. 1:2-3). Christ made this disclosure of God as the object of our worship to the woman of Samaria: ‘God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth’ (Jn. 4:24). Between these two affirmations there are frequent references to the nature of God as pure spirit and as divine spirit. He is called the Father of spirits (Heb. 12:9), and the combination ‘the Spirit of the living God’ is frequently used.
In this respect we must distinguish between God and his creatures that are spiritual. When we say that God is pure spirit, it is to emphasize that he is not part spirit and part body as man is. He is simple spirit without form or parts, and for that reason he has no physical presence. When the Bible speaks of God as having eyes, ears, hands and feet, it is an attempt to convey to us the senses that these physical parts convey, for if we do not speak of God in physical terms we could not speak of him at all. This, of course, does not imply any imperfection in God. Spirit is not a limited or restricted form of existence, it is the perfect unit of being.
When we say that God is infinite spirit, we pass completely out of the reach of our experience. We are limited as to time and place, as to knowledge and power. God is essentially unlimited, and every element of his nature is unlimited. His infinity as to time we call his eternity, as to space his omnipresence, as to knowledge his omniscience, as to power his omnipotence.
His infinity likewise means that God is transcendent over his universe. It emphasizes his detachment as self-existing spirit from all his creatures. He is not shut in by what we call nature, but infinitely exalted above it. Even those passages of Scripture which stress his local and temporal manifestation lay emphasis also on his exaltation and omnipotence as a Being external to the world, its sovereign Creator and Judge (cf. Is. 40:12-17).
At the same time God’s infinity implies his immanence. By this we mean his all-pervading presence and power within his creation. He does not stand apart from the world, a mere spectator of the work of his hands. He pervades everything, organic and inorganic, acting from within outwards, from the centre of every atom, and from the innermost springs of thought and life and feeling, a continuous sequence of cause and effect.
In such passages as Is. 57 and Acts 17 we have an expression of both God’s transcendence and his immanence. In the first of these passages his transcendence finds expression as ‘the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy’, and his immanence as the one who dwells ‘with him who is of a contrite and humble spirit’ (Is. 57:15). In the second passage, Paul, in addressing the men of Athens, affirmed of the transcendent God that ‘the God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything’, and then affirms his immanence as the one who ‘is not far from each one of us, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’’ (Acts 17:24, 28).
III. His character
God is personal. When we say this we assert that God is rational, self-conscious and self-determining, an intelligent moral agent. As supreme mind he is the source of all rationality in the universe. Since God’s rational creatures possess independent character, God must be in possession of character that is divine both in its transcendence and immanence.
The OT reveals a personal God, both in terms of his own self-disclosure and of his people’s relations with him, and the NT clearly shows that Christ spoke to God in terms that were meaningful only in person to person relationship. For that reason we can predicate certain mental and moral qualities of God, such as we do of human character. Attempts have been made to classify the divine attributes under such headings as Mental and Moral, or Communicable and Incommunicable, or Related and Unrelated. Scripture would seem to give no support to any of these classifications, and in any case God is infinitely greater than the sum of all his attributes. *God‘s names are to us the designation of his attributes, and it is significant that God’s names are given in the context of his people’s needs. It would seem, therefore, more true to the biblical revelation to treat each attribute as a manifestation of God in the human situation that called it forth, compassion in the presence of misery, long-suffering in the presence of ill-desert, grace in the presence of guilt, mercy in the presence of penitence, suggesting that the attributes of God designate a relation into which he enters to those who feel their need of him. That bears with it the undoubted truth that God, in the full plenitude of his nature, is in each of his attributes, so that there is never more of one attribute than of another, never more love than justice, or more mercy than righteousness. If there is one attribute of God that can be recognized as all-comprehensive and all-pervading, it is his *holiness, which must be predicated of all his attributes, holy love, holy compassion, holy wisdom.
IV. His will
God is sovereign. That means that he makes his own plans and carries them out in his own time and way. That is simply an expression of his supreme intelligence, power and wisdom. It means that God’s will is not arbitrary, but acts in complete harmony with his character. It is the forth-putting of his power and goodness, and is thus the final goal of all existence.
There is, however, a distinction between God’s will which prescribes what we shall do, and his will which determines what he will do. Thus theologians distinguish between the decretive will of God by which he decrees whatsoever comes to pass, and his preceptive will by which he enjoins upon his creatures the duties that belong to them. The decretive will of God is thus always accomplished, while his preceptive will is often disobeyed.
When we conceive of the sovereign sway of the divine will as the final ground of all that happens, either actively bringing it to pass, or passively permitting it to come to pass, we recognize the distinction between the active will of God and his permissive will. Thus the entrance of sin into the world must be attributed to the permissive will of God, since sin is a contradiction of his holiness and goodness. There is thus a realm in which God’s will to act is dominant, and a realm in which man’s liberty is given permission to act. The Bible presents both in operation. The note which rings through the OT is that struck by Nebuchadrezzar: ‘He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What doest thou?‘‘ (Dn. 4:35). In the NT we come across an impressive example of the divine will resisted by human unbelief, when Christ uttered his agonizing cry over Jerusalem: ‘How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!‘ (Mt. 23:37). Nevertheless, the sovereignty of God ensures that all will be overruled to serve his eternal purpose, and that ultimately Christ’s petition: ‘Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven’ shall be answered.
It is true that we are not able to reconcile God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility because we do not understand the nature of divine knowledge and comprehension of all the laws that govern human conduct. The Bible throughout teaches us that all life is lived in the sustaining will of God in whom we live and move and have our being’, and that as a bird is free in the air, and a fish in the sea, so man has his true freedom in the will of God who created him for himself.
V. His subsistence
In his essential life God is a fellowship. This is perhaps the supreme revelation of God given in the Scriptures: it is that God’s life is eternally within himself a fellowship of three equal and distinct persons, Father, Son and Spirit, and that in his relationship to his moral creation God was extending to them the fellowship that was essentially his own. That might perhaps be read into the divine dictum that expressed the deliberate will to create man: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,‘ that it was an expression of the will of God not only to reveal himself as a fellowship, but to make that life of fellowship open to the moral creatures made in his image and so fitted to enjoy it. While it is true that man through sinning lost his fitness to enjoy that holy fellowship, it is also true that God willed to make it possible to have it restored to him. It has been observed, indeed, that this was probably the grand end of redemption, the revelation of God in Three Persons acting for our restoration, in electing love that claimed us, in redeeming love that emancipated us, and in regenerating love that recreated us for his fellowship. (*Trinity.)
VI. His Fatherhood
Since God is a Person he can enter into personal relationships, and the closest and tenderest is that of Father. It was Christ’s most common designation for God, and in theology it is reserved specially for the first Person of the Trinity. There are four types of relationship in which the word Father is applied to God in Scripture.
There is his Creational Fatherhood. The fundamental relation of God to man whom he made in his own image finds its most full and fitting illustration in the natural relationship which involves the gift of life. Malachi, in calling his people to faithfulness to God and to consideration of one another, asks: ‘Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us?‘ (Mal. 2:10). Isaiah, in a plea to God not to forsake his people. cries: ‘Yet, O Lord, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou art our potter; we are all the work of thy hand’ (Is. 64:8). But it is, more particularly, for man’s spiritual nature that this relationship is claimed. In Hebrews God is called ‘the Father of spirits’ (12:9), and in Numbers ‘the God of the spirits of all flesh’ (16:22). Paul, when he preached from Mars’ Hill, used this argument to drive home the irrationality of rational man worshipping idols of wood and stone, quoting the poet Aratus (‘For we are indeed his offspring’) to indicate that man is a creature of God. The creaturehood of man is thus the counterpart of the general Fatherhood of God. Without the Creator-Father there would be no race of man, no family of mankind.
There is the Theocratic Fatherhood. This is God’s relationship to his covenant-people, Israel. In this, since it is a collective relationship that is indicated, rather than a personal one, Israel as a covenant-people was the child of God, and she was challenged to recognize and respond to this filial relationship: ‘If then I am a father, where is my honour?‘ (Mal. 1:6). But since the covenant relationship was redemptive in its spiritual significance, this may be regarded as a foreshadowing of the NT revelation of the divine Fatherhood.
There is Generative Fatherhood. This belongs exclusively to the second Person of the Trinity, designated the Son of God, and the only begotten Son. It is, therefore, unique, and not to be applied to any mere creature. Christ, while on earth, spoke most frequently of this relationship which was peculiarly his. God was his Father by eternal generation, expressive of an essential and timeless relationship that transcends our comprehension. It is significant that Jesus, in his teaching of the Twelve, never used the term ‘Our Father’ as embracing himself and them. In the resurrection message through Mary he indicated two distinct relationships: ‘My Father, and your Father’ (Jn. 20:17), but the two are so linked together that the one becomes the ground of the other. His Sonship, though on a level altogether unique, was the basis of their sonship.
There is also the Adoptive Fatherhood. This is the redeeming relationship that belongs to all believers, and in the context of redemption it is viewed from two aspects, that of their standing in Christ, and that of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in them. This relationship to God is basic to all believers, as Paul reminds the Galatian believers: ‘For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith’ (Gal. 3:26). In this living union with Christ they are adopted into the family of God, and they become subjects of the regenerative work of the Spirit that bestows upon them the nature of children: one is the objective aspect, the other the subjective. Because of their new standing justification) and relationship (adoption) to God the Father in Christ, they become partakers of the divine nature and are born into the family of God. John made this clear in the opening chapter of his Gospel: ‘To all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power (authority) to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God’ (Jn. 1:13). And so they are granted all the privileges that belong to that filial relationship: ‘if children, then heirs’ is the sequence (Rom. 8:17).
It is clear that Christ’s teaching on the Fatherhood of God restricts the relationship to his believing people. In no instance is he reported as assuming this relationship to exist between God and unbelievers. Not only does he not give a hint of a redeeming Fatherhood of God towards all men, but he said pointedly to the cavilling Jews: ‘You are of your father the devil’ (Jn. 8:44).
While it is under this relationship of Father that the NT brings out the tenderest aspects of God’s character, his love, his faithfulness, his watchful care, it also brings out the responsibility of our having to show God the reverence, the trust and the loving obedience that children owe to a father. Christ has taught us to pray not only ‘Our Father’, but ‘Our Father who art in heaven’, thus inculcating reverence and humility.
Bibliography. T. J. Crawford, The Fatherhood of God, 1868; J. Orr, The Christian View of God and the World, 1908; A. S. Pringle-Pattison, The Idea of God, 1917; G. Vos, Biblical Theology, 1948; H. Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, 1951; J. I. Packer, Knowing God, 1973; J. Schneider, C. Brown, J. Stafford Wright, in NIDNTT 2, pp. 66-90; H. Kleinknecht et al., in TDNT 3, pp. 65-123. 2
MAN — (1.) Heb. ‘Adam, used as the proper name of the first man. The name is derived from a word meaning “to be red,” and thus the first man was called Adam because he was formed from the red earth. It is also the generic name of the human race (Gen. 1:26, 27; 5:2; 8:21; Deut. 8:3). Its equivalents are the Latin homo and the Greek anthropos (Matt. 5:13, 16). It denotes also man in opposition to woman (Gen. 3:12; Matt. 19:10).
(2.) Heb. ‘ish, like the Latin vir and Greek aner, denotes properly a man in opposition to a woman (1 Sam. 17:33; Matt. 14:21); a husband (Gen. 3:16; Hos. 2:16); man with reference to excellent mental qualities.
(3.) Heb. ‘enosh, man as mortal, transient, perishable (2 Chr. 14:11; Isa. 8:1; Job 15:14; Ps. 8:4; 9:19, 20; 103:15). It is applied to women (Josh. 8:25).
(4.) Heb. geber, man with reference to his strength, as distinguished from women (Deut. 22:5) and from children (Ex. 12:37); a husband (Prov. 6:34).
(5.) Heb. methim, men as mortal (Isa. 41:14), and as opposed to women and children (Deut. 3:6; Job 11:3; Isa. 3:25).
Man was created by the immediate hand of God, and is generically different from all other creatures (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:7). His complex nature is composed of two elements, two distinct substances, viz., body and soul (Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 12:7; 2 Cor. 5:1–8).
The words translated “spirit” and “soul,” in 1 Thess. 5:23, Heb. 4:12, are habitually used interchangeably (Matt. 10:28; 16:26; 1 Pet. 1:22). The “spirit” (Gr. pneuma) is the soul as rational; the “soul” (Gr. psuche) is the same, considered as the animating and vital principle of the body.
Man was created in the likeness of God as to the perfection of his nature, in knowledge (Col. 3:10), righteousness, and holiness (Eph. 4:24), and as having dominion over all the inferior creatures (Gen. 1:28). He had in his original state God’s law written on his heart, and had power to obey it, and yet was capable of disobeying, being left to the freedom of his own will. He was created with holy dispositions, prompting him to holy actions; but he was fallible, and did fall from his integrity (3:1–6). (See FALL.) 1.
WOMAN — was “taken out of man” (Gen. 2:23), and therefore the man has the preeminence. “The head of the woman is the man;” but yet honour is to be shown to the wife, “as unto the weaker vessel” (1 Cor. 11:3, 8, 9; 1 Pet. 3:7). Several women are mentioned in Scripture as having been endowed with prophetic gifts, as Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4, 5), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), Noadiah (Neh. 6:14), Anna (Luke 2:36, 37), and the daughters of Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8, 9). Women are forbidden to teach publicly (1 Cor. 14:34, 35; 1 Tim. 2:11, 12). Among the Hebrews it devolved upon women to prepare the meals for the household (Gen. 18:6; 2 Sam. 13:8), to attend to the work of spinning (Ex. 35:26; Prov. 31:19), and making clothes (1 Sam. 2:19; Prov. 31:21), to bring water from the well (Gen. 24:15; 1 Sam. 9:11), and to care for the flocks (Gen. 29:6; Ex. 2:16).
The word “woman,” as used in Matt. 15:28, John 2:4 and 20:13, 15, implies tenderness and courtesy and not disrespect. Only where revelation is known has woman her due place of honour assigned to her. 1.
FALL OF MAN — an expression probably borrowed from the Apocryphal Book of Wisdom, to express the fact of the revolt of our first parents from God, and the consequent sin and misery in which they and all their posterity were involved.
The history of the Fall is recorded in Gen. 2 and 3. That history is to be literally interpreted. It records facts which underlie the whole system of revealed truth. It is referred to by our Lord and his apostles not only as being true, but as furnishing the ground of all God’s subsequent dispensations and dealings with the children of men. The record of Adam’s temptation and fall must be taken as a true historical account, if we are to understand the Bible at all as a revelation of God’s purpose of mercy.
The effects of this first sin upon our first parents themselves were (1) “shame, a sense of degradation and pollution; (2) dread of the displeasure of God, or a sense of guilt, and the consequent desire to hide from his presence. These effects were unavoidable. They prove the loss not only of innocence but of original righteousness, and, with it, of the favour and fellowship of God. The state therefore to which Adam was reduced by his disobedience, so far as his subjective condition is concerned, was analogous to that of the fallen angels. He was entirely and absolutely ruined” (Hodge’s Theology).
But the unbelief and disobedience of our first parents brought not only on themselves this misery and ruin, it entailed also the same sad consequences on all their descendants. (1.) The guilt, i.e., liability to punishment, of that sin comes by imputation upon all men, because all were represented by Adam in the covenant of works (q.v.). (See IMPUTATION.)
(2.) Hence, also, all his descendants inherit a corrupt nature. In all by nature there is an inherent and prevailing tendency to sin. This universal depravity is taught by universal experience. All men sin as soon as they are capable of moral actions. The testimony of the Scriptures to the same effect is most abundant (Rom. 1; 2; 3:1–19, etc.).
(3.) This innate depravity is total: we are by nature “dead in trespasses and sins,” and must be “born again” before we can enter into the kingdom (John 3:7, etc.).
(4.) Resulting from this “corruption of our whole nature” is our absolute moral inability to change our nature or to obey the law of God.
Commenting on John 9:3, Ryle well remarks: “A deep and instructive principle lies in these words. They surely throw some light on that great question, the origin of evil. God has thought fit to allow evil to exist in order that he may have a platform for showing his mercy, grace, and compassion. If man had never fallen there would have been no opportunity of showing divine mercy. But by permitting evil, mysterious as it seems, God’s works of grace, mercy, and wisdom in saving sinners have been wonderfully manifested to all his creatures. The redeeming of the church of elect sinners is the means of ‘showing to principalities and powers the manifold wisdom of God’ (Eph. 3:10). Without the Fall we should have known nothing of the Cross and the Gospel.”
On the monuments of Egypt are found representations of a deity in human form, piercing with a spear the head of a serpent. This is regarded as an illustration of the wide dissemination of the tradition of the Fall. The story of the “golden age,” which gives place to the “iron age”, the age of purity and innocence, which is followed by a time when man becomes a prey to sin and misery, as represented in the mythology of Greece and Rome, has also been regarded as a tradition of the Fall.
Easton, M. G., M. A. D. D., Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1996. 1.
MAN. The Genesis account of creation accords to man a supreme place in the cosmos. Not only is his creation the final work of God, but in it the work of the other 5 days finds its fulfilment and its meaning. Man is to possess the earth, make it serve him, and to rule the other creatures (Gn. 1:27-2:3). The same witness to man’s dominion and centrality in creation is given elsewhere (Am. 4:13; Is. 42:5f.; Pss. 8:5f.; 104:14f.), and is supremely given in the incarnation (cf. Heb. 2).
a. Man in nature
It is emphasized throughout the Bible that man is part of nature. Being dust, and made from dust (Gn. 2:7), his biological and physical similarity to the animal creation is obvious in many aspects of his life (Gn. 18:27; Jb. 10:8-9; Ps. 103:14; Ec. 3:19-20; 12:5-7). Being ‘flesh’ he shares in the helpless dependence of the dumb creation on God’s mercy (Is. 2:22; 40:6; Pss. 103:15; 104:27-30). Even in making nature serve him he has to serve nature, tend it, and bring it to fruition (Gn. 2:15). He is subject to the same laws as the natural world, and can find himself overwhelmed in the midst of the grandeur of the world in which he lives (Jb. 38-42).
Nature is not simply a neutral framework or background for man’s life. Between nature and man there are deep and mysterious bonds. The natural world falls under the curse of corruption through the Fall of man (Gn. 3:17-18), and now suffers pain and death, waiting for the final redemption of mankind before it can expect its own (Rom. 8:19-23). Nature is regarded in the Bible as rejoicing in the events that lead to man’s redemption (Ps. 96:10-13; Is. 35; 55:12-13) when it, too, shall enjoy deliverance (Is. 11:6-9; 65:25). Man, on his side, has an instinctive sympathy with nature (Gn. 2:19) and must respect its ordinances (Lv. 19:19; Dt. 22:9-10; Jb. 31:38-40), realize his dependence on it, and toil to gain from his natural environment sustenance for his life and enrichment for his culture (Gn. 3:17; 9:1-7).
b. Man’s destiny
Yet man cannot find the true meaning of his life within this context. The animals can provide no ‘helper fit for him’ (Gn. 2:18). He has a history and a destiny to fulfil, unique among the rest of creation. He is made ‘in the image of God’ (Gn. 1:27). While some have suggested that this image is expressed in man’s dominion over the earth, or in his power of reasoning, or even in his physical characteristics, it seems better to find it neither in man’s relationship with the world nor in any static impress on man’s being, but in his responsibility towards his Creator. In the Genesis account of creation God, when he creates man, is regarded as taking up an attitude of deeper personal concern for him (Gn. 1:26; cf. 1:3, 6, etc.), and an approach that involves himself in a closer relationship with man his creature (Gn. 2:7) than with the rest of creation. God approaches man and addresses him as a ‘thou’ (Gn. 3:9, av), and man is made to respond to God’s gracious word in personal love and trust. Only in this response can man be what he truly is. God’s word by which he lives (cf. Mt. 4:4) offers him a relationship that lifts him above the rest of creation around him, and confers on him his dignity as a child of God, made in his image and reflecting his glory. This dignity, moreover, is not something he possesses as an isolated individual before God, but only as he also stands in responsible and loving relationship to his fellow-men. It is as man within his family and social relationships that he truly reflects the image of God (Gn. 1:27-28; 2:18).
c. Man ‘s structure
Various words are used to describe man in his relationship to God and to his environment, and in the structure of his own being. These are: spirit (Heb. ruÆah\, Gk. pneuma), soul (Heb. nep_esû, Gk. psycheµ, body (only in NT Gk., soµma), flesh (Heb. baµsŒaµr, Gk. sarx). These words are used according to the different aspects of man’s activity or being which it is intended to emphasize, but they must not be regarded as describing separate or separable parts which go to make up what man is. The use of the word ‘soul’ may emphasize his individuality and vitality with emphasis on his inner life and feeling and personal consciousness. The use of the word ‘body’ may emphasize the historical and outward associations that affect his life. But the soul is, and must be, the soul of his body, and vice versa. Man is also in such a relation to the Spirit of God that he has spirit, and yet not in such a way that he can be described as spirit, or that spirit can be regarded as a third aspect of his identity. Man as ‘flesh’ is man in his connection with the realm of nature and with humanity as a whole, not only in its weakness but also in its sinfulness and opposition to God.
Other words are used to define the seat of certain particular aspects or functions of man. In the OT emotional impulses and feelings are attributed, really and metaphorically, to organs of the body such as the *heart (leµb_), *liver (kaµb_eµd_) *kidneys (kelaµyoÆt_) and *bowels (meµÔéÆm). The *blood is also regarded as being closely identified with the life or nep_esû. It is especially the heart (leµb_) that is the seat of a wide range of volitional and intellectual as well as emotional activities, and tends to denote the soul, or man viewed from his inward and hidden side. In the NT the same use is made of the Gk. word kardia (= leµb_, heart). Two more words, nous, ‘mind’, and syneideµsis, ‘conscience’, are brought into use, and a clearer distinction is made between the ‘inward’ and ‘outward’ man, but these two aspects of the one man cannot be separated, and the future holds not the mere ‘immortality of the soul’ but the ‘resurrection of the body’, which means the salvation and renewal of the whole man in the fullness of his being.
d. Man’s sin
The Fall of man (Gn. 3) involves his refusal to respond to God’s word, and to enter the relationship in which he can fulfil the purpose for which he was created. Man seeks to find within himself the justification for his existence (Rom. 10:3). Instead of seeking to enter a true relationship with God and his fellow-men in which he can reflect God’s image and glory, he seeks to find the meaning of his destiny merely in his relationship with the created world in the context of his immediate environment (Rom. 1:25). The result is that his life has become characterized by bondage (Heb. 2:14-15), conflict with evil powers (Eph. 6:12), frailty and frustration (Is. 40:6; Jb. 14:1), and he is so perverted and evil in his mind and heart (Gn. 8:21; Jb. 14:4; Ps. 51:5; Mt. 12:39; 15:19-20) that he turns the truth of God into a lie (Rom. 1:25).
e. Man in God’s image
Yet in spite of the Fall, man under the promise of Christ must still be regarded as in the image of God (Gn. 5:1ff.; 9:1ff.; Ps. 8; 1 Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9), not because of what he is in himself, but because of what Christ is for him, and because of what he is in Christ. In Christ is now to be seen the true meaning of the covenant which God sought to make with man in the Word, and the destiny which man was made to fulfil (cf. Gn. 1:27-30; 9:8-17; Ps. 8; Eph. 1:22; Heb. 2:6ff.), for the unfaithfulness of man does not nullify the faithfulness of God (Rom. 3:3). Therefore in the sight of God, man, seen both in the individual (Mt. 18:12) and corporate (Mt. 9:36; 23:37) aspects of his life, is of more value than the whole realm of nature (Mt. 10:31; 12:12; Mk. 8:36-37), and the finding of the lost man is worth the most painful search and complete sacrifice on God’s part (Lk. 15).
Jesus Christ is the true image of God (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 4:4) and thus the true man (Jn. 19:5). He is both the unique individual and the inclusive representative of the whole race, and his achievement and victory mean freedom and life for all mankind (Rom. 5:12-21). He fulfils the covenant in which God bestows on man his true destiny. In Christ, by faith, man finds himself being changed into the likeness of God (2 Cor. 3:18) and can hope confidently for full conformity to his image (Rom. 8:29) at the final manifestation of his glory (1 Jn. 3:2). In ‘putting on’ this image by faith he must now ‘put off the old nature’ (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), which seems to imply a further renunciation of the idea that the image of God can be thought of as something inherent in the natural man, though even the natural man must be regarded as being created in the image of God (cf. 2 Cor. 5:16-17).
In the development of the doctrine of man, the church came under the influence of Gk. thought with its dualistic contrast between matter and spirit. Emphasis was placed on the soul with its ‘divine spark’, and there was a tendency to regard man as a self-contained individual entity whose true nature could be understood by the examination of the separate elements constituting his being. Emphasis was placed by some of the Fathers on the rationality, freedom and immortality of the soul as being the main element in man’s likeness to God, though others found the image of God also in his physical being. Irenaeus regarded the image of God as a destiny which man was created to grow into. Augustine dwelt on the similarity between the Trinity and the threefold structure in man’s memory, intellect and will.
An exaggerated distinction was also suggested between the meanings of the two words ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ (s\elem and demuÆt_) of God, in which man was said to be created (Gn. 1:26), and this gave rise to the scholastic doctrine that the ‘likeness’ (Lat. similitudo) of God was a supernatural gift given by God to man in his creation, i.e. an original righteousness (justitia originalis) and perfect self-determination before God, which could be, and indeed was, lost in the Fall. The ‘image’ (imago), on the other hand, consisted of what belonged to man by nature, i.e. his freewill, rational nature and dominion over the animal world, which could not be lost even in the Fall. This means that the Fall destroyed what was originally supernatural in man, but left his nature and the image of God in him wounded, and his will free.
At the Reformation Luther denied the distinction between imago and similitudo. The Fall radically affected the imago, destroyed man’s freewill (in the sense of arbitrium, though not of voluntas), and corrupted man’s being in its most important aspects, only a tiny relic of his original image and relationship to God being left. Calvin, however, also stressed the fact that the true meaning of man’s creation is to be found in what is given to him in Christ, and that man comes to be in God’s image as he reflects back to him his glory, in gratitude and faith.
In later Reformed dogmatics the concepts of imago and similitudo were again differentiated when theologians spoke of the essential image of God which could not be lost, and the accidental but natural endowments (including original righteousness) which might be lost without the loss of humanity itself. In more modern times Brunner has attempted to use the concept of the ‘formal’ imago consisting of the present structure of man’s being, based on law. This has not been lost in the Fall, and is a point of contact for the gospel. It is one aspect of a unified theological nature of man which even in its perversion reveals traces of the image of God. ‘Materially’, however, for Brunner, the imago has been completely lost. R. Niebuhr has returned to the scholastic distinction between, on the one hand, the essential nature of man which cannot be destroyed, and, on the other hand, an original righteousness, the virtue and perfection of which would represent the normal expression of that nature.
Karl Barth, in formulating his doctrine of man, has chosen a path different from that followed by church tradition. We cannot know real man till we know him in and through Christ, therefore we must discover what man is only through what we find Jesus Christ to be in the gospel. We must not take sin more seriously than grace, therefore we must refuse to regard man as being no longer the one God made him. Sin creates the conditions under which God acts, but does not so change the structure of man’s being that when we look at Jesus Christ in relation to men and mankind, we cannot see within human life analogical relationships which show a basic form of humanity corresponding to and similar to the divine determination of man. Though man is not by nature God’s ‘covenant-partner’, nevertheless in the strength of the hope we have in Christ human existence is an existence which corresponds to God himself, and in this sense is in the image of God. Barth finds special significance in the fact that man and woman together are created in the image of God, and stresses the mutual communication and helpfulness of man to man as being of the essence of human nature. But only in the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, and through his election in Christ, can man know God and be related to God in this divine image.
Bibliography. H. Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man, 1926; O. Weber, Dogmatik, 1, 1955, pp. 582-640; E. Brunner, Man in Revolt, E.T. 1939; K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, E.T. III/1, pp. 176-211, 235-249, and III/2, Christ and Adam, E.T. 1956; D. Cairns, The Image of God in Man, 1953; R. Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, 1941; Gustaf Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 1959; Günther Dehn, Man and Revelation, 1936 pp. 9-37; H. Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, E.T. 1950, pp. 220-250; C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2, 1883, pp. 3-116; W. Eichrodt, Man in the Old Testament, E.T. 1951; C. H. Dodd, P. I. Bratsiotis, R. Bultmann and H. Clavier, Man in God’s Design, 1952; R. P. Shedd, Man in Community, 1958; W. G. Kümmel, Man in the New Testament, 1963; K. Rahner, Man in the Church (= Theological Investigations 2), 1963; idem, Theology, Anthropology, Christology (=Theological Investigations 13), 1975; R. Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology, 1966; W. Pannenberg, What is Man?, 1970; T. M. Kitwood, What is Human?, 1970; J. Moltmann, Man, 1971; R. Jewett, Paul’s Use of Anthropological Terms, 1971; P. K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female, 1975; H. Vorländer, C. Brown, J. S. Wright in NIDNTT 2, pp. 562-572. 2.
WOMAN (Heb. ÕisûsûaÆ, Gk. gyneµ.) Woman, with man, was ‘made in the image of God’: ‘male and female he created them’ (Gn. 1:27). She is man’s helper (Gn. 2:20). (*Eve.)
From the Heb. laws we see that the mother was to be honoured (Ex. 20:12), feared (Lv. 19:3) and obeyed (Dt. 21:18ff.). She was to be reckoned with in her household, naming the children and being responsible for their early education. The same sacrifice was offered for cleansing, whether the new-born child was male or female (Lv. 12:5f.). She attended the religious gatherings for worship, and brought her offerings for sacrifice. The Nazirite vow was taken by her as she sought to dedicate herself specially to the worship of Yahweh (Nu. 6:2).
The woman was exempt from sabbath labour (Ex. 20:10), and if sold as a slave was freed like the man in the 7th year. If there were no male heirs, the woman could inherit and become a landowner in her own right.
Young men were exhorted to marry within the tribe lest their womenfolk wooed them away from their service of Yahweh.
Monogamy was regarded as the ideal state, although polygamy was common, and the relationship of Yahweh and Israel was often compared with that of a man and wife.
There are many examples of women of stature playing their part in the life of the people, e.g. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and being in a direct personal relationship with Yahweh. On the other hand, one sees the tremendous influence wielded against Yahweh by women such as Jezebel and Maacah.
As time went on there was a tendency, under rabbinical teaching, to make the man more prominent and to assign to women an inferior role.
Of greatest importance in the NT is our Lord’s attitude to women and his teaching concerning them.
*Mary, the mother of Jesus, was described as ‘Blessed . . . among women’ (Lk. 1:42) by her kinswoman Elizabeth. Anna, the prophetess at the Temple, recognized the baby’s identity (Lk. 2:38). There was much concerning her Son that Mary did not understand, but she ‘kept all these things, pondering them in her heart’ (Lk. 2:19), until the time to make public the details of his birth and boyhood. As he was on the cross Jesus commended her to the care of a disciple.
The Gospel narratives abound with instances of Jesus’ encounters with women. He forgave them, he healed them, he taught them, and they in their turn served him by making provision for his journeys, by giving hospitality, by deeds of love, by noting his tomb so that they could perform the last rites for him, and by becoming eyewitnesses of his resurrection.
Jesus included them in his teaching illustrations, making it clear that his message involved them. By thus honouring them he put woman on an equality with man, demanding the same standard from both the sexes and offering the same way of salvation.
After the resurrection the women joined ‘in prayer and supplication’ with the other followers of Jesus, in entire fellowship with them (Acts 1:14). They helped to elect Matthias (Acts 1:15-26), and received the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4, 18).
It was the home of Mary, the mother of John Mark, which became a centre of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). Paul’s first convert in Europe was the woman Lydia (Acts 16:14). Priscilla with her husband taught the great Apollos the full truths of the gospel. The four daughters of Philip ‘prophesied’ (Acts 21:9). Many others, as, for example, Phoebe, were active Christians and wholly engaged in the service of the gospel.
Paul dealt with the local situation in the churches by requiring that the conventions of the time be observed. Meanwhile he laid down the principle that ‘God shows no partiality’ and that in Christ ‘there is neither male nor female’, since Christians ‘are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 3:28).
Bibliography. H. Vorländer et al., in NIDNTT 3, pp. 1055-1078; K. Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women, 1966; P. K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female, 1975. 2.
1. Easton, M. G., M. A. D. D., Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1996.
2. The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962.
|
|
