The Foundations of the Faith

Studies in Genesis 1-11

Sermon Number Four: The Doctrine of Man (part 2)

Jim Bordwine, Th.D.

Introduction

REVIEW

In the last sermon, I stated that the question, “Who is man?”, sounds simple, but is one of the most profound questions which can be asked. I stated that this question and all other fundamental questions about life and purpose are answered definitively in the account of creation. Included in the record of how this world came to be is the explanation concerning mankind’s beginning. From a Biblical perspective, man as a being with purpose and responsibility cannot be known apart from the revelation provided by the Creator. It is in this revelation that we learn how man came to be, what man is intended to be and how man relates to the rest of his existence.

The outline which I am following consists of three points: 1. The presentation of the doctrine; 2. The development of the doctrine; 3. The application of the doctrine. In the last sermon, we began examining the doctrine of man as it is given in the opening pages of the Bible. We completed point number one and began looking at how the doctrine of man develops in the rest of the Bible.

I read two primary passages which, together, constitute the Biblical doctrine of man. In Gen. 1, after the fifth day of creation, the text says:

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.

Later, in the second chapter, we find what most believe to be a restatement of man’s creation:

7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

I noted that the first and most obvious fact about mankind to be revealed is his origin. Based upon the testimony of these verses, we can say confidently that man did not exist—in any form—until God, the Creator, made him using the same power and wisdom which He utilized in the creation of everything else. Man’s immediate creation by God is emphasized in the second account found in 2:7. Man did not develop, but, as already stated, was brought into existence by the direct, uninterrupted action of the Creator: “the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

I observed that the term used here, which is rendered “formed” (yatsar), describes the work of a potter who carefully and purposely fashions his vessel as it pleases him. I also mentioned the statement, “[God] breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being,” is thought by some to be that which distinguishes man from the animals. However, the Hebrew phrase used here does not support that notion (cf. 1:24 where nephesh is used of animals; 7:22). The writer is emphasizing the manner of man’s creation at this point; he is emphasizing the direct involvement of the Creator.

That which distinguishes man is the fact that he is the image-bearer of God. This, as I pointed out, is the second important fact revealed about man. Man being created in God’s image means that man would bear certain characteristics of the Creator. This statement does not mean that man would be God, it means that man would be representational of God. Man would possess certain attributes or qualities which would reflect the nature of God. For example, man would be a thinking, knowledgeable being; he would be a spiritual and moral being, as well.

We then saw that the third significant fact revealed about man in these accounts has to do with man’s purpose or, we might say, his relationship to the rest of creation. The Creator made man and then explained how this creature would relate to the rest of creation. In 1:26, God declares that man is to “rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And, in v. 28, God blesses man, made male and female, and commands them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the first of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” God intended man to take control of the rest of creation. The implication is that man would serve under God, but over the rest of the world.

Having identified the three primary facts revealed about man’s creation in these two passages, I then began tracing the development of the doctrine of man using those three basic truths. I concentrated first on the fact that man, as a created being, is morally accountable to the Creator. We saw that the first and clearest development in this aspect of the Biblical doctrine of man comes just a few verses after the passages in which man’s creation is reported. In the second chapter, we also read: “16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.’”

I pointed out the two chief elements contained in these verses: the command or word of God and the promised consequence for disobeying the command of God. This is a clear illustration of what man’s moral accountability before God means. God speaks and there is only one proper response from man and that response is obedience. I stated that throughout the rest of the Bible, this issue is the issue between God and mankind. We constantly find God giving His word or His law or His stipulations or His commandments and man being called to obey those pronouncements. When man obeys, he continues in God’s favor, but when man does not obey, he succeeds not in throwing off the rule of God, but only in bringing misery to himself.

END OF REVIEW

02. The Development of the Doctrine (continued)

We now are ready to continue our examination of how the doctrine of man develops in the rest of Scripture. There are two areas remaining to be explored: man as an image-bearer of the Creator and man in relation to the rest of creation. Of the many things which could be said about man as the image-bearer of God, I want to concentrate on one particular element, which is man’s dignity. The Bible has something to say about the nobility of man and this honor stems from the fact that man is unique in all of God’s creation. As stated before, the opening pages of Genesis make clear that only man is the image-bearer of the Creator and only man has a distinct dignity as a result. This truth is expressed in two primary ways: in ethics and in providence.

As an example of how Biblical ethics reflect the fact that man is an image-bearer of God, consider Gen. 9:

5 “And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”

This statement comes just after the flood when God is speaking to Noah and his sons. As He did in the creation of man, God again distinguishes this creature from all others. This time, the distinction is made in the provision for the protection of human life. All other forms of life are here declared inferior to human life in the sense that the shedding of man’s blood is a far more serious matter than the shedding of any other creature’s blood. Notice the basis for this extraordinary commandment: “For in the image of God He made man.” The fact that man is made in God’s image means that his life is of greater worth or dignity, as I’ve said; this truth gives rise to the development of an elaborate ethical system in the Bible.

For example, what God says here is the foundation for the numerous laws which are given later to the nation of Israel in which man alone receives various legal rights and protections. Every aspect of man’s life is touched upon in the law of God. Personal and public matters are covered; business relations, family relations and relations between strangers are all covered. God’s law represents justice and where it touches man, it often stems from the fact that he is an image-bearer of the Creator.

Another interesting application of the image-bearer principle in the area of ethics is found in the third chapter of the book of James. In this section, the writer is speaking of the menace of an uncontrolled tongue:

6 [T]he tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell. 7 For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed, and has been tamed by the human race. 8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father; and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; 10 from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.

Notice, again, the reference to man made in the image (or “likeness”) of God. James indicates that one man ought not to curse another because we all are made in God’s image. There is a nobility associated with man which makes this kind of activity wrong and that worth comes from the fact that man is made in God’s likeness. To curse a man, in the sense James has in mind here, is a failure to recognize the dignity that belongs to all men. That which compounds this transgression is the fact that the same tongue speaks praises to the God in whose image we are created. James concludes simply: “My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.”

Both of these passages illustrate that man, because he is made in God’s image, has a dignity above that of other creatures. This fact serves as the basis for laws that regulate a society and for the routine, day to day, manner in which men relate to one another. This shows us the important part played by this one aspect of the doctrine of man.

I stated previously that the dignity of man is expressed in two primary ways after the account of man’s creation in the image of God. The first way, as we have just seen, has to do with ethics or the code of conduct by which we are to live. The second way is in the providence of God. For this aspect, we’ll consider a portion of the Savior’s sermon on the mount, which is recorded in Matt. 5-7.

Jesus begins this lengthy talk with the Beatitudes in which He speaks of those qualities and conditions in which God takes particular pleasure and for which He supplies His blessing. Jesus also covers such things as persecution for the sake of righteousness, the duty that His disciples have to manifest knowledge of Him in all places and times and the abiding validity of the Law and the Prophets. Further, Jesus includes a section in which He corrects the misinterpretation of God’s law by certain religious leaders.

The sixth chapter opens with the Lord’s warning to His disciples about practicing their righteousness before men. Works of piety are to be done unto God and should not serve as an occasion for self-glorification. Toward the end of the sixth chapter, we find a question posed by Jesus: “Is not life more than food, and the body than clothing?” This question comes as Jesus is encouraging His disciples to be faithful in their service to God and not to worry about such things as what they will eat or what they will drink or what they will wear. Jesus means that life is more significant than a mere concern for food and clothing as basic as this concern might be. The question which comes to mind is: Why should we not be overly concerned about such fundamental matters as food and clothing? The answer is found in God’s favorable providence toward man:

“26 Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single cubit to his life's span?”

Jesus refers to God’s general benevolence toward His creatures as evidence that His disciples need not be exceedingly worried about life’s necessities as they go about the business of His Kingdom. Birds do not sow or reap and they do not store food in barns; yet they have plenty to eat and are sustained. This is so because their Creator provides for them. It is His nature to be good and to show goodness to His creatures. If this is true of birds, Jesus offers, what must be said of God’s concern for men? (“Are you not worth much more than they?”) If God shows such goodness to birds, will He not show even more goodness to men? Jesus’ comparison leaves only one response: “Yes, if God so cares for birds, certainly He will care for me because I am of much greater worth than any bird.” Note that the only basis for this distinction between man and birds or between man and the rest of God’s creation is the information which we are given in Gen. 1 and 2, namely, that man alone was created in God’s image and this made him unique.

Jesus provides another illustration from nature: “28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, 29 yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory did not clothe himself like one of these.” The sheer beauty of God’s creation indicates His concern for what He has made, the Lord teaches. Nothing that man devises for clothing can surpass the beauty of God’s decoration of creation. Even a simple flower growing wild in a field is more beautifully clothed, more appropriately clothed, than the great King Solomon in all this regal splendor. So consider, Jesus adds, the implication of God’s care for us in light of His “clothing” of the lilies of the field: “30 … if God so arrays the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more do so for you, O men of little faith?”

Once again, Jesus invites a comparison between man and the rest of creation. God expends His goodness on flowers that appear only briefly and then are consumed by the flame as the grass is cut and burned. If God shows such kindness toward a mere flower, what are we to expect from Him? This comparison, in which the disciples were to conclude that they were extremely valuable in the eyes of God, is based only upon the fact that man is made in God’s image and that is what separates us from the rest of creation and that is the reason God would show such special providence to us. Man created in God’s image gives man an unmatched dignity in creation.

From the account of man’s creation in Gen. 1 and 2, I said that we see three important facts. We have considered the first two: man is, indeed, a created being by the immediate and direct involvement of God and man is an image-bearer. Now we will turn briefly to the third important fact which is revealed about man in the creation account. This has to do with the assignment given to man by the Creator: “And God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” (Gen. 1:28)

Since I plan to cover the doctrine of dominion in another sermon, I will say only a few words about another aspect of the task assigned to man for the remainder of this sermon. I want to call your attention to the community orientation, or, to be more precise, the family orientation, which God established for mankind at the point of his creation. The command which I just read was preceded by the statement that God made man male and female. And it is to mankind, represented by the first man and woman, that the order to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” is given. This shows us just how essential the family unit would be to the fulfillment of the task assigned to man. Adam could not “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” by himself!

Here in Gen. 1, then, we have the concept of the family presented as indispensable in the accomplishment of man’s purpose. I won’t spend a lot of time on this point, but I will mention just a few things by way of summary. As we know, the Bible speaks repeatedly on matters touching the family. The Bible has much to say about marriage—what it is and how it is to be regulated; the Bible has much to say about children—how they are to be desired and how they are to be raised. As mankind becomes more numerous and as God tells us more about how we are to conduct ourselves, the family becomes the point of focus. Great stress, as you know, is placed upon the importance of family among the patriarchs, for example. The whole plan of redemption is presented in terms of how it will be played out along familial lines when God speaks to Abraham. The structure of the nation of Israel was determined by family relationships and this notion carries over into the New Testament where Gentiles are said to be made part of the family of God. In their wilderness wanderings, the people of Israel traveled in family groups; when they entered the promised land, it was settled in terms of family relationships.

In the midst of a challenge to the people of Israel, Joshua uttered that famous line: “As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Jos. 24:15) This statement is typical of how the family was viewed among the people of God. God was served by families and Hebrew men and Hebrew women wanted to be part of such a family. This emphasis was not manifested only from man to God, but also from God to man. So, when God expressed displeasure in the transgression of a man, He often did so with reference to the man’s family (cf. Lev. 20:5 where God says that He will set His face against the sinner and the sinner’s family so as to cut them off from among Israel). Do you know what happened to an Israelite who, because of poverty, had to sell himself into service to one of his brethren? In the year of Jubilee, a wonderful thing happened—the man was set free so that he could return to his family (cf. Lev. 25:41).

This emphasis upon the family was no coincidence. God intended that the central significance of the family be clearly portrayed and understood. The Christian faith is one which has a dominant family theme. The context of the family is the primary place for coming to know the faith. Speaking of God’s law, Moses said: Deut. 6:6 “And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; 7 and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.” The Bible presents the family as the ordinary means by which knowledge of salvation is passed from generation to generation. All this begins with God’s statement to the first man and the first woman.

3. The Application of the Doctrine

In the last sermon, I offered a few words of application based upon the first important fact to be learned about mankind from the account of his creation, namely, that man is a being created by the direct and immediate involvement of God. Now, let’s consider how we might apply the remaining two facts about man’s creation: man as an image-bearer and man as a family oriented being. What implications for our present situation come from the truth that man is God’s image-bearer? This question is not difficult to answer. What do we see these days as we consider how our society views mankind? We see evidence of a disdain for man and this disdain is originating with men. Today, some people assign more worth to a tree or a fish or a slug than to a man. If some people had their way, we would be become the servants of creation and everything about our lives would be shaped according to an overriding interest in thing non-human.

There is a feeling of contempt for our race in the hearts of many these days. Modern man does not view himself as an image-bearer of God and, consequently, has no reason to see himself as anything other than one more animal among many. And when this view is taken, it becomes apparent to some that the animal man has done more than his share of taking resources from the earth and more than his share of harming other species for the sake of his own comfort. Remove the thought of man being created in God’s image and you remove man’s dignity in this creation; and remove his dignity and he will turn upon himself. This is exactly what we are witnessing today.

Again, if some people had their way, mankind would stop building, stop exploring and stop consuming and just move over to make room for the hundreds of other equally important species which we have oppressed for so long. If man is simply a product of evolution, then he has no particular dignity. If man is not an image-bearer, then there is nothing about him that needs to be repaired, as Christians claim. If man is not an image-bearer of God, then man really has nothing to fear from that coming judgment which Christians talk about all the time. If man is not an image-bearer, then he has no particular moral responsibility and he has no motivation to investigate and understand this universe. Take away the notion of man as a unique creature, one made in the likeness of the Creator of all things and man loses his identity and his sense and his reasoning becomes like that of the animals.

The history of our race, however, shows us that when man has understood that he is an image-bearer of God, when man has functioned with the conviction that he alone in all of God’s creation, has a particular dignity, then mankind has excelled in exploration, learning and civilization, as these things are defined in the Bible. Be careful that you do not allow your thinking or the thinking of your children to be molded by the spirit of this age which says that man is nothing more than an animal with no specific dignity or worth.

Now let me ask what implications might be drawn from the fact that man is a family oriented creature. The application of this issue is easy to identify. No generation in recent history has witnessed the kind of attack on the family which we are witnessing in our lifetime. It’s not just that the traditional—Biblical—family structure is less popular than before; no, the real problem is that perversions of various kinds are being put forth and, in many cases, sanctioned by existing authorities, as being viable alternatives to the family consisting of a father, mother and children. This is not a trend to be ignored, not if we understand the essential nature of the traditional family as it relates to the advancement and stability of society.

This issue strikes much closer to home (pardon the pun) than what I’ve just indicated, however. We should, of course, be concerned about what is happening to the concept of family in our culture and we should do what we can to counter the promotion of ungodly substitutes for the family as created by God. But even more pressing is the responsibility we have to see to the strength and integrity of our own family. If the family is as essential as I’ve said, if the well-being of our culture depends on strong families and if, in fact, the fulfillment of the task assigned to our race by God depends on strong families, then what does this say to us about tending with all diligence to our duties as husbands, wives, fathers and mothers? Could it be said, based upon an observation of your home life, that you, father, and you, mother, really believe that your family is your number one priority in this life in terms of how you are serving God?

There are times when we must work more than we’d like and there are times when we cannot have our families functioning just as we would like, but let’s not concentrate on the exceptions; let’s talk about the general state of our homes. Do you honor the concept of the family? Husbands and fathers, do you do this by providing good, dependable and Biblically-informed leadership? Wives and mothers, do you do this by pursuing the duties assigned to you in the Word with joy and thanksgiving to God? Men, you are called to be husbands and fathers, not wives and mothers. Let your wife fulfill her responsibilities and you fulfill yours; and the same thing goes for women. As far as circumstances permit, we should seek to reproduce in our homes the pattern given to us in the Bible—a man who provides and leads, a woman who supports and nurtures. This pattern is going to become more and more difficult to follow in the foreseeable future, but we must remain committed to it and we must hand this pattern intact to the next generation.

Conclusion