Man in the Fallen State Is in the Image of God — John Murray

Thus praying, O Lord, we confess the ruin that we have brought upon ourselves, and the hopeless degradation to which we have descended. We implore, O Lord, Thy grace, so that we may be renewed in knowledge, in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

And do Thou grant that we may direct all our thought to the promotion of that glory of Thine, which we have come short, and which we have violated, so that Thou wouldst be glorified through that transformation which is wrought by Thy redemptive grace.

In Jesus' name, Amen. ...the goals of the earth to deal with the subject of man in the image of God. And the question is, what is meant by the image of God in which man was created? And this is a question of which there has been a great deal of diversity of opinion in the history of the Church.

There are well-defined lines of distinction between Protestant thought and Roman Catholic thought. And then, within Protestantism, there is also rather radical divergence, particularly the divergence between the Lutheran position and the Reformed position.

And, of course, the main question is whether the image of God designates something which belongs to man as man and is therefore inalienable, or whether it designates something which has been lost by the fall, a character that has been given him at his creation, but which he forfeited by his sin.

Or, if it's possible, that there are two aspects to the divine image, one aspect inalienable, and the other aspect forfeited by the fall, to which he is restored by the processes of redemption. Now, the thesis I am going to propound is that there are passages in the Scripture which imply that man, in his fallen state, can be spoken of as in the image of God.

Man in the Fallen State and the Divine Image

That is my first proposition, or my first thesis. There are passages which imply that man, in his fallen state, is in the image of God. And I'm going to appeal, first of all, to Genesis 5, verses 1 and 3.

Genesis 5, verses 1 and 3. Now just listen to what these two verses are. Genesis 5, 1. This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day of God's creating Adam, in the likeness of God, made he him.

In the likeness of God, made he him. Now, there is no question, but there is an allusion here to Genesis 1, 26, and has, therefore, the same import. In the day of God's creating Adam, in the likeness of God, created he him.

Here you have reference simply to likeness, but there is no problem. This is simply an abridged statement. Nevertheless, referring to the same fact. Now Genesis 5, 3. Reads,. And it came to pass that Adam was a hundred and thirty years old.

No, no, it's... And Adam lived, not he, but he. And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat, meaning a son, and begat a son in his likeness according to his image, and called his name Seth, in his likeness according to his image.

Now it could be maintained that there is a sharp distinction between the image in which Seth was born, and the likeness in which Adam was created. And so the stress, in verse three, falls upon Adam's likeness and image, in contrast with the image and likeness of God in which he was created.

That is the view of certain interpreters, and it can be made to appear quite plausible, if one lives in the likeness of God, maybe Adam, whereas in verse three, Adam begat a son in his own likeness, according to his image.

...submit that this exegesis is arbitrary and harsh for two reasons. Genesis 5 -1... First, Genesis 5 -1 harks back to Genesis 1 -26. All that is expressed by both terms in Genesis 1 -26 is implied in the abridged statement of Genesis 5 -1.

That's the first point. Now, second, in Genesis 5 -3 we have both terms, the both and several, likeness and image, in form, in his likeness, according to his image. That, now, is distinctly reminiscent of Genesis 1 -26.

...alone, in this case, that the word likeness alone could be interpreted as referring to appearance or features, becomes increasingly, it becomes difficult to escape the force of the allusion when both terms are used.

Image, in Hebrew or Greek, is not used in the Scripture to describe man in his own identity, as distinguished from the identity in which he was created. If there is a contrast between Adam's own image in Genesis 5 -3 and the image and likeness of God in Genesis 5 -1, we have a contrast which is not characteristic of Hebrew usage, of Hebrew or Greek usage, in respect of these terms, image and likeness.

Now, as we shall find out later, man is spoken of as being in the divine image, and consequently, the harshness and the arbitrariness, making a sharp distinction between Genesis 5 -1 and Genesis 5 -3, is virtually confirmed.

The harshness and arbitrariness are virtually confirmed by the comparison of Genesis 5 -3 with these other passages. Now we'll pass on to the next passage, which is Genesis 9 -6. Genesis 9 -6. Again, the tree who sheds the blood, the man, and his blood shall be shed.

The image of God made he the man. The man. We take man seriously in our translation because the article no doubt appears into his distinctive identity. Who so sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, because in the image of God made a man.

Because in the image of God made the man. Now there can be no question, but it is the image of God that makes the shedding of man's blood so grievous and fast. In the image of God made man's blood so grievous and fast.

Now if the image of God, the divine image, makes man's blood be any longer, or in other words, if man is now destitute of the divine image, is being made in the divine image, be assigned as the reason for capital punishment.

Genesis 9 -6. Enunciates a law that applies to all men. The life of fallen man is sacred, and if man in his fallen state does not bear the divine image, then the ground for the gravity of the offense and the gravity of the punishment is removed.

The conclusion is that Genesis 9 -6 clearly implies that man, just because he is man, is made in the image of God, on his life, for that reason, on the life of identity, by himself, by the image of God.

The Image of God and the Sanctity of Human Life

Genesis 9 -6. Now the next passage is 1 Corinthians 11 -7. 1 Corinthians 11 -7. For the man, that is the male, as distinguished from the female, the man ought not to be covered with sexy head, the male is the Christian of respect, ought not to be covered as respects his head, the image and glory of God.

A cold kind docks at the unity park, being the image and glory of God. Being the image and glory of God. Now here you have a cold, a particular term of which we are interested. You might say this cannot have any relevance to the question, because it is referring simply to the man, as distinguished from the woman.

And the reference is to the specific identity of the man, specific authority of the man, distinguished from the identity and authority of the woman. There can be no question that here you have a specialized use, specialized use of the term a cold, specialized use of that term as applied to the man, as distinct from the woman.

And this of course must not be interpreted for that reason, as conflicting in any way with the other truths of Genesis 1, that the woman as well as the man was created in the image of God. It is simply that we have to recognize here a more specialized use.

This does not make the passage irrelevant however, doesn't make the passage irrelevant, because it certainly does mean that the man, the man is the image of God, is the image and glory of God. And certainly means that the man is in the image of God.

Now, what Paul is dealing with here, is the position that man occupies in the divinely instituted economy, the position he occupies in the divinely instituted economy. And therefore he is initiating a general principle, that it is contrary to particular possession, a particular possession which the man occupies, for him to have his head covered.

So if man were completely destitute of the divine image, completely destitute of the divine image, how could Scripture appeal this fact that man is the image of God, in support of a certain practice, a practice which bears upon the relationships, which men and women sustain to one another, in the divinely instituted economy.

We are speaking here simply of man as he was originally, and of man regenerated through revealing with something that by application, regenerated through revealing with a thing that by application, the economy which God has established.

So I think this passage of Paul, has its own particular meaning, does bear upon the question, it's like the underlying assumption of this passage, that man,. The next passage is James 3 .9, which reads,.

Therewith blessed we the Lord and Father, and therewith cursed we the men, who are made after the likeness of God. And therewith cursed we the men, who are made after the image, after the likeness of God.

Now it would be quite arbitrary to suppose, that the men spoken of here, are exclusively regenerate men, that who are made after the image of God, after the likeness of God, is a restrictive class. Restrictive to certain men who are made after the likeness of God, or men who are not made.

James is indicting, the cursing of men, that's the point. He is bringing an indictment against that practice, cursing men. And it is a general statement, and must apply to all such vilification, all such vilification.

And therefore it implies, that men are made in the likeness of God. And the underlying instruction is to that effect. Now these passages, sometimes are rather superficially dismissed, by certain exeges and certain theologians.

The Biblical Witness in Genesis, Corinthians, and James

In the treatment of this question, it is to be admitted, that these passages do not deal expressly with the question, which we are now discussing. They do not deal expressly with this question, but they are surely relevant to the question.

Because the underlying assumption of these passages, particularly of Genesis 9, 6, 1 Corinthians 11, 7, and James 3, 9, is that the divine image or likeness, is predicated of man. And predicated of man, in a way that has bearing, and directs the conduct of man, in the daily economy, which God has established, for the regulation of human life and behavior.

That I think is altogether important. The economy, which God has established, for the regulation of human life and behavior. We can see that particularly in Genesis 9, 6, because this has to do with the life and behavior of man, in relationship to the sin of murder and the penalty that must be inflicted upon the murderer.

1 Corinthians 11, 7, deals very definitely with an economy of relationship that God has established. And of course, James 3, 9, likewise, because James 3, 9 is directed against the great sin of malediction, vilification.

And the gravity of the offense is pointed out there by showing the utter contradiction between blessing God and cursing man who are made in the likeness of him. The underlying thought of James 3, 9, is in Genesis 9, 6, the gravity of murder, the gravity of murder, and the gravity of the offense with which it must be visited, which rests upon the character of man as made in the divinity.

The gravity of the sin of cursing is right in the identity of man as made in the likeness of God's thought. When we curse man, we are really cursing God. We are contradicting the blessing which we may profess.

So, you see, in a certain sense, these passages are more significant because they initiate an underlying assumption, an underlying assumption. If you deny a fair relevance, the divine injunctions which are given in these respective situations.

So are these passages, that it is the biblical position that man in his fallen state must be regarded as made in the image of God, and that really defines his identity as man. Now we come to the dilemma with which we are confronted, if that position is maintained.

Redemption and the Image Renewed

There are other passages which define the divine image. They define the divine image, and they define the divine image in terms that are not predictable of man in his fall. And I'm thinking particularly of Ephesians 4, 24, or Colossians 3, 10.

Because when you put these two passages together, it is perfectly apparent that the divine image is defined in terms of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness of the truth. Knowledge, righteousness, and holiness of the truth.

It's perfectly obvious. Do not apply to man in his fallen and regenerate state. Refer to the new creation, and to the new man in Christ Jesus. These passages do not expressly refer to Adam as created.

They do not expressly refer to Adam as created. They refer to the new man that we created. And it is true, likewise, that they do not expressly define the divine image in which man was created. At the beginning, they do not expressly define man as he was created because they expressly define the title of the new man in Christ Jesus.

We must ask this question. Cannot avoid it. Well, there is an allusion to which is God in which man was created. And allusion to the image of God in which man was created. And there seem to me to be two or three considerations which require that conclusion, or at least point in that direction, that these passages do have some reference to Genesis 1 .26 and Genesis 5 .1.

And the first consideration is this, that these texts, Ephesians 4 .24, Colossians 3 .10, these texts do define the divine image. They do define the divine image because you have, after God, in Ephesians 4 .24, kataseon, and in Colossians 3 .10, you have katekona, according to the image of man who created.

So kataseon and katekona do refer to the divine image, and therefore define that with which the image of God consists. Therefore, I believe that this, such predication, such predication that knowledge, righteousness, and holiness belong to man in his original state, arbitrary and indefensible to exclude these predications of the divine image referred to in Genesis 1 .26.

It would be arbitrary and indefensible to exclude these predications, these quotes from Genesis 1 .26. Yes? Yes. It would be arbitrary and indefensible for the reason I have just... Do you want me to go back further?

Yes, therefore, such predications as... Well, you have to go back further to get my connection. I don't have this in my notebook. Okay. The question is, if, therefore, such predications as knowledge, righteousness, and holiness belong to man in his generic state, original state, if they belong to man in his original state, in kataseon, because he has created others, if these belong to man in his original state, then it would be arbitrary and indefensible maintaining that these qualities included, or these predications, are not included in the image of God referred to as arbitrary and indefensible.

To exclude these predications from the image of God referred to in Genesis 1 .26. That is just saying that since Adam was created at the beginning, and knowledge, righteousness, and holiness included in the divine image, and Ephesians 4, 24, and Colossians 3, 10, defined the divine image expressly in terms of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

It's difficult to eliminate Colossians 3 .10 especially, an allusion to Genesis 1 .26 and 27, because Colossians 3 .10 reads as follows, remember, and having put on a new man, who is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him who created him, being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him who created him.

Now that expression, after the image of him who created him, is so similar to what you find in Genesis 1 .26, and Genesis 5 .1, that it would be very difficult to exclude that allusion. And so you would at least be able to say, you would be able to say this at least, that to exclude from two passages, Ephesians 4 .24 and Colossians 3 .10, a retrospective reference, Genesis 1 .26, and therefore to the first creation, would be contrary.

Analogy, analogy of Scripture usage. And so, Calvin's inference is well supported, namely, that that which holds the truth in the renovation of the world must have held the principal place in the first creation.

That which holds the principal place in the renovation of man must have held the principal place in his renovation. I'm not saying that the case, the case for defining the divine image which man has created in terms of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness of the spirit, is conclusively demonstrated.

I'm not saying that, that it is conclusively demonstrated by these considerations which I have achieved. What I am saying, that to exclude the divine image, dedication of Ephesians 4 .24 and Colossians 3 .10, that is, to exclude from the divine image in which man was created at the beginning, these fabrications given in Ephesians 4 .24 and Colossians 3 .10, requires arbitrary, arbitrary inference and is not in accord what we should expect according to the analogy, biblical language.

Thank you.