Moral Excellency - Appendix - Dominion Over Creatures — John Murray

O Lord, our God, let us ever come to Thy throne of grace with humility, contrition, and yet with confidence, for Thou art God, Thyself alone, and Thou art reconciled in peace with Christ, having opened that newer living way through His blood.

May we ever know that we have in Him a sure and an abiding mediator and intercessor, who is able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God through Him, seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them.

In His name, amen. The text of this today will not only include the lectures, but also the first five chapters of the textbook, page 116. I understand that the first five chapters of volume two were hard, and I would urge you particularly to pay attention to chapter three, because I have not dealt with such a topic at all, the origin of the stone as it has been called, but pay particular attention to that since that was not covered in the lectures.

And pay particular attention to the two views, the creationist view and the traditional view with respect to the origin of the stone. Now after the text I may have some things to say on this topic, but at the present time I will not say anything on that subject.

The Human Body Within the Image of God

We now turn to what we were dealing with at the close of the last hour, and the question was whether the human body is embraced within the divine image. And I mentioned as the first consideration in favor of that position, that it is man as a unit who is spoken of when God said, Let us make man in our image after our likeness.

The image of God refers to human personality as I maintain. The image of God refers to human personality. We must remember that according to the biblical representation, the human body is an integral part of human personality.

And the separation that takes place in death is utterly abnormal. And therefore there is a consideration residing in the fact of human personality and in the unity of human personality, by which we will be constrained, at least we should be constrained, to regard the human body as brought within the scope of that which is referred to as the image of God.

But then there is a second consideration, a second consideration supporting this same conclusion. Because the human body is predicated for our predicated righteousness and holiness, as well as sin and impurity.

That is to say the human body is the subject of moral predication, moral predication. As a body of sin. A body of sin, and that means a sinful body. Consequently that predication could not be made unless moral character belongs to the body.

And if the thesis I have presented is correct, it is because man has moral identity, that he is in the image of God. So I conclude that it is man in his unity and integrity who is made in the image of God.

And that therefore the very body of man is determined. By the fact that man is made in the image of God. We must remember, you see, that man has body, has distinguishing character, from every other being that is body.

For that is body. He has distinguishing character. The only reason why he has this distinguishing character, is that his very identity is defined in terms of the image of God. That his very identity is defined in terms of the image of God.

Don't be used from that fact that God has a body, or anything resembling a body. Remember that there is a radical differentiation between God and man, even in respect of spiritual being. Radical differentiation in respect even of spiritual being.

And there is still further radical differentiation in respect of man as body. That difference, that difference that obtains in respect of man's body, simply another example of the radical differentiation, which applies even to the spirit of man.

Moral Excellence in Humanity's Original Integrity

That is all on that subject of the first aspect of the divine. All this personality, personality. Now we come to the second aspect of it. This refers to moral excellence. Those characteristics belong to man in his original integrity, but which do not belong to him in his fallen state.

And they are briefly after the pattern of Ephesians 4 .24 and Colossians 3, saying, knowledge, righteousness and holiness of the truth. Knowledge, righteousness and holiness of the truth. Knowledge is dedicated of man in his original state.

We must not think of this as consisting merely in the possibility of attaining to knowledge. If knowledge is an ingredient, if knowledge is an ingredient, then it means the intelligent apprehension of the meaning of reality.

It means that the cognitive content of man's mind corresponded with reality. Cognitive content of his mind corresponded with reality. And that simply means that it was knowledge of the truth. And the truth be eminently as it belongs to God.

We have the knowledge of God. This does not mean that it was complete knowledge. Quite conventionally, with the knowledge of God, man will never possess. But in complete knowledge, instead of knowledge, it measures up to that which our Lord characterizes as life.

And also righteousness, not simply freedom from wrongdoing, not mere innocence, but positive conformity to the will of God. Positive conformity to the will of God. Not only the disposition to, but the fulfillment of His will.

And holiness comprising two elements, namely consecration and purity. Consecration and purity. That man was created with righteousness and holiness of the truth, we mean that he was created with positively holy and righteous character, positively holy and righteous character, and did not seek to attain to that character by a process of development.

This character was con-created. Con-created. A con-created investiture or a con-created endowment. In Genesis 1 .31, as it applies to man, Genesis 1 .31 says that God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Very good. Including, of course, man. And that predication, as it applies to man, very good, must be given a connotation that is relevant to his distinguishing and specific character. I repeat, must be given a connotation that is relevant to his distinguishing and specific character as a moral and religious being.

This general statement means that each creature was very good in terms of the sphere to which it belonged and in terms of the purpose fulfilled. The sphere to which man belonged, the highest of created reality.

Con-created. The definition of very good, as it applies to man, requires no lower definition than knowledge, righteousness, and holiness of the truth. For only in terms of these characterizations could he be pronounced very good.

Is all the truth referred only to holiness or to all the great?

Well, whatever it may refer to in the particular text, you see, that's a matter of possible differences of opinion. I think it does refer to both righteousness and holiness in that particular text. But even if in the strict exegesis of that passage it refers only to holiness, nevertheless, we, on general principles, would have to apply to all three because the knowledge that measures up to what the scripture describes as knowledge is never knowledge unless it's knowledge of the truth.

And righteousness is never true righteousness unless it is righteousness that is in conformity with truth. So whatever the particular exegesis would require of that text, nevertheless, it's proper to extend that phrase of the truth to all three.

I come to an appendix to our discussion respecting the image of God, the man in the image of God, and this has respect to dominion over the creatures. Dominion over the creatures. The Thucydides restricted the divine image to dominion over the creatures.

It would be quite erroneous to make that restriction numerate all the realms on the basis of which that position would have to be pronounced as erroneous. But even orthodox theologians take the position that dominion over the creatures is to be regarded as an ingredient in the divine image.

So they would list it as number three, as an ingredient in the divine image, as an element of the divine image. There are two things to be said about that position. First, it would not involve serious error.

Any serious theological error. The second thing I have to say about that position is that there are certain things that might seem to convey this idea that the dominion is to be reckoned as the image of God.

Take Psalm 8, for example. Psalm 8. Him, or the son of man that thou visitest, visiteth him. Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels. Thou hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou hast put all things unto his feet, sheep and oxen, gay and the beasts of the field, and so on.

That psalm is dealing, you see, specifically with the dominion which man is invested to be on that psalm. Jesus, too, makes that very clear. The theme of that psalm, of glory, as far as man is concerned, is dignity that belongs to dominion.

You see, that is the theme of the psalm. This is the psalm, the theme of the psalm. The election of the name of the Lord. But as far as man is concerned, his dominion, that is, reflectiveness, and the dignity that belongs to him in virtue of that investment, or that that dominion is imbued in the very definition of man.

Because the psalmist asked, what is man that thou wert mindful of him, or the son of man that thou visitest? It would be very easy, you see, to infer that this dominion belongs to man's very definition, because it is with that question that the lyric echo of man's creation begins.

What is man that thou wert mindful of him, or the son of man that thou visitest? I've made him a little lower than me, the angel, so if he were a little lower than God, I would crown him with glory and honor.

First Corinthians 11 and Humanity's Authority

And the other passage which might appear to give some plausible support to the idea that the image is defined in terms of the authority. 1 Corinthians 11, 7. Because Paul there, you see, is dealing with the authority with which the man has distinguished from the woman.

It is in that, the authority that belongs to him. And it is in that connection that he says, the man is the image and glory of God. He coldly remembers Eustace, the image and glory of God. So these considerations could be pleaded in support of the thesis that dominion over the creatures must in some way or other be contrived in what is regarded as the image of God.

And in a similar play with respect to this question, what is regarded as the image of God? And in a similar play with respect to this question, and so it isn't a question that is of what you would call vital theological concern, what I would say about this is that the relevant evidence would not favor the inference that dominion is an aspect of the divine image.

Genesis 1 and Dominion as Humanity's Function

Go back to Genesis 1, 26 through 28. Genesis 1, 26 through 28. Are given three different perspectives of the relation of dominion to the image of God. Genesis 1, 26. You remember, and God said, let us make man in our image according to our likeness and let them have dominion.

Let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the cattle and over everything of the earth and over all the creeping things which creeps upon the earth. God created the man in his image.

In his image, in the image of God, created he him. And then I just pass over to verse 28 at the latter part of the verse. This is a command directed to man and exercise dominion and rule over literally and exercise dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over every living creature which creeps upon the earth.

Now, the representation which you have in Genesis 1, 26 through 28 is to the effect that since man is created in the image, he is to exercise this dominion. The dominion in the image of God is being made in the image of God.

To say dominion is regarded as a function, as a duty. As a duty that man is to perform. The sequence would be much more naturally taken as following. The input, I should say, of the sequence would naturally be taken as following.

In the image of God. God, because he is God, is sovereign over that which he is. Since he is God, is sovereign over that which he is created. Since he is in the image of God, is God's vicegerent on earth.

That is to say he is given a dominion which is patterned after the dominion which God exists. This dominion which God exists doesn't define his Godhood. It is a necessity arising from the dominion which man exists, not the definition of his manhood.

Which he necessarily exercises in virtue of his disassumption. Which he necessarily calls his manhood in terms of the image of God. The very same sequence in Psalm 18 and in 1 Corinthians 11, 7. The same sequence he forms upon the dignity which belongs to man.

The dignity that belongs to man. But that dignity that belongs to him and is expressed in the dominion that he exercises. Not need according to be defined. Compatible with the sequence of Psalm 8. Perfectly compatible to regard the dominion.

Reflected upon which illustrates the dignity. Belongs to his nature. Belongs to his being. And likewise in 1 Corinthians 11, 7. It does not say that the image consists in man. It doesn't consist in. It is perfectly compatible.

Denies the authority with which the man is in correlative with. It does not mean correlative. He is being the image and glory of God. Correlative with. Does not mean. The glory of God is perfectly defined in terms of his dominion.

Correlativity does not mean identity or equation. We must remember that the uniform representation of the Church with respect to dominion. Uniform representation is that it is a function or office to be executed.

Office to be executed. It is a duty man is commanded to fulfill. Commanded to fulfill. Now these two do consider that it is a function to be executed. And a duty to be fulfilled. Do not comport. Do not agree.

Do not comport with the idea. Belongs to the image of God. Is God. And an obligation. Is made in the image of God. Of course he is made in the image of God. Now that is my dominion. Included as an element in the image of God.

I shall not explode. Therefore the position I take. Yes.

Theological Degrees of Error in Interpreting the Image of God

Why did you say that it is not a serious matter in the theology of God?

That it is not a serious matter in the theology of God? No, no, I don't think so. Something may be exegetically untenable and yet not involve a basic theological error. If you were to suppose that the image of God is comprised exclusively in the dominion, well that would be a serious error.

But I wouldn't characterize the viewpoint that it is a subordinate element in the divine image. Subordinate element as involving any serious theological error. Then the theological principle would be at stake.

That's all. There are certain things which deviate from what you would call found exegesis. But which nevertheless do not involve basic theological error. Of course, all deviation from found exegesis is error.

But there are differing degrees of error. And all I would say is that it does not involve any basic theological error. It does not involve principles that are detrimental to theology as a whole. Wouldn't make a great deal of difference.

So long as you recognize the primacy of the first two elements. Especially of the first element. Well, now I'm going to pass on to the various views. Various views with respect to the image of God. More accurate at this point to use the designated man's primitive condition.

Roman Catholic Views of Humanity's Primitive Condition

The view of man's primitive condition. It so happens that, especially with respect to the woman's casual view, that is a more felicitous caption. Because there is much more than the view of that in which the divine image exists.

You bear that in mind because if I should ever ask you a question in an examination, give the set of the Roman Catholic view of man's primitive condition, you'll understand what I'm getting at. It wouldn't be so accurate to call it the Roman Catholic view of man, even if he's God.

Because it involves far more than that. That is only a subordinate aspect of the view. And the same concerns the Lutheran view, and the classical Roman view, and so on, and the Canadian view. So this caption is a little more accurate and more felicitous at this particular point.

Now, we take up first of all the Roman Catholic view of man's primitive condition. And I'm going to deal with that under four, and play the bell with some four main captions. The Roman Catholic view under four captions might get expanded to five before I'm finished, but you'll have to be satisfied with four just now.

And you just have to put these down now so that you'll know where I'm going. The first, I'm going to put down that in terms of the state of pure nature in the Catholics, respecting the state of pure nature.

It's a literal translation. State of pure nature. Then, the second would be what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about the conflict. The final term is sputna concupiscentia. And then you have the third, the dona supradita.

You have the imago dei, in which it's God. There's no doubt you often hear about the dona superaditum, God. Dona superaditum. It's really not strictly accurate to speak of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the dona superaditum.

You have to use the plural. Dona superadita. Bear that in mind. Superadit gift, because Roman Catholic theology today does not speak of a dona superaditum but of dona superadita. The older Roman Catholic theology would speak about dona, but presently Roman Catholic theology is very jealous of the stations here.

And they speak about dona superadita, superadit gifts. That is not a singular. Remember, dona is a neuter, and dona is a plural. And this refers to the image of God. Now, we'll begin with the first point, which is the state of pure nature.

Well, there's no purpose in my beginning. There will be in a moment.