Theology

DOCTRINE OF CREATION 1

[The doctrine of creation is] one of the two central themes in Scripture comprising the backbone

of its theological teaching, the other theme being redemption. Creation is not the same as re-

demption; nor can redemption so overshadow creation as to cut short its theological validity.

Both doctrines belong together but in a unique relationship. The God of Israel is also the God

who created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. Redemption occurs within the creation,

which serves as its presupposition and backdrop. The end of redemption is the creation of the

new heavens and the new earth.

Human beings unaided by divine revelation cannot arrive at the biblical doctrine of creation

by theological, philosophical, or scientific speculation. According to the Bible, human

knowledge of creation must come by God’s revelation (cf. Heb 11:3). That creation V 1, p 540

p 540 is known only by faith means that it is known only by revelation.

Understanding Creation. To start a discussion of the doctrine of creation with a comparison

of the Genesis record and modern science is to begin at the wrong place. One should first ask

what the creation account would have meant to a Hebrew person in Bible times; then one should

ask what use the prophets of Israel made of the doctrine of creation. The following are some

points to be noted:

1. Creation was a conquering of chaos. Most creation accounts from the ancient world began

with a primeval chaos. The God who could conquer chaos was understood as the true and living

God. Genesis 1 is a magnificent account of how the God of Israel brought the chaos of Genesis

1:2 into an ordered cosmos.

One aspect of this motif that often puzzles modern Christians is the biblical reference to Be-

hemoth (Job 40:15) and Leviathan (Job 41:1). Both the hippopotamus and the crocodile were

fierce, terrible, powerful, and awe-inspiring creatures in biblical times. A hippopotamus can

weigh up to 4½ tons and in short spurts can outrun a man. The crocodile is armor-plated, has

jaws that snap in two rather than crush, and can measure up to 20 feet long. The Lord has made

such creatures. The Lord controls such creatures. No other gods can. Therefore, the Creator and

Lord of the hippopotamus and the crocodile is the true God.

2. Creation is the result of grace. It was not asked for by man but was a free act of God. It is

good (1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). On the basis of that fact Christians assert that life is a gift of

grace and is good. The Christian affirmation stands against all the nihilisms and pessimisms

found in religious and philosophical history.

3. Creation is opposed to all dualisms (two ultimate realities). Good and evil do struggle with

each other, but the biblical record is clear that good eventually wins. Matter and spirit may be

opposed to each other but God, who is a Spirit, has the final word (Rom 8:1–11; 1 Cor 15:42–58;

Rev 20). God and the devil may seem to compete on equal terms, but that is not so. God con-

quers both death and the devil in the Bible’s final chapters.

4. Creation is under the shadow of sin (Rom 8:18–25). Scripture teaches that creation today

is not seen in its original pristine purity but rather is seen as a world with a large measure of am-

biguity.

5. Creation is dependent upon God. The relationship of God to his creation is set out in Ephe-

sians 4:6. God is above all; that is, he is transcendent. God is through all; that is, he works in all

1 Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, eds. “Creation, Doctrine Of,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rap-

ids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 539–542.

things. God is in all; that is, he is divinely present or immanent in the entire creation (Ps 90; 104;

cf. Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16, 17).

6. Creation is by the word of God (Gen 1; Heb 11:3). Students of literature have said that the

creation of the world by the “word of God” is one of the most sublime of all human thoughts.

Among other things it means creation by a Person. The vast expanse of the universe and the

enormous number of stars and galaxies can numb a thoughtful person into a sense of meaning-

lessness. But when one knows that it was all created by the word of God, one knows that a Per-

son is behind the frigid mask of the stellar spaces (Ps 8; 19; Rom 1:20).

7. Creation as depicted in the Bible stands up to critical examination. Scholars have studied

parallel accounts of other peoples of biblical times, and none of them has the majesty and theo-

logical purity of the Genesis account. American archaeologist W. F. Albright said that, given the

same limitation of space, it would be difficult to imagine a modern scientist improving on Gene-

sis 1.

Creation and Theology. The doctrine of creation is built on the sum of all the biblical teach-

ings on creation. Examination of that material leads to a number of further conclusions.

1. The doctrine of creation gives us our fundamental understanding of humanity. Men and

women are in the image of God (Gen 1:26, 27). That means at least that a human being is more

than an animal, even though both are from the dust of the earth and have much in common.

Many surmises have been made about the positive meaning of the expression “image of God.” If

there is a common denominator, it is that human beings find their meaning, their destiny, and

their worth in their special relationship to God.

2. Parallel to the statement of humanity’s relationship to God is the affirmation that humanity

is to be lord of God’s creation. Again, human beings are separated from the animal world, and

their responsibility before God is specified (Gen 1:28; 2:15; Ps 8).

3. Both male and female are in the image of God. That means that the divine image is borne

equally by both sexes. It also means that sexuality in human beings has many more dimensions

than sexuality among animals. The sexual life of human beings is therefore vastly richer than that

of animals and subject to deeper corruption (Mark 10:2–9; 1 Cor 7:1–5; Eph 5:25–31; cf. Heb

13:4).

4. The doctrine of prayer as “asking and receiving” is grounded in the providence of God,

which in turn is grounded in creation. There is meaning in petitionary prayer only if there is a

sovereign Creator who can answer V 1, p 541 p 541 the petitions of his own creatures (Mt

6:5–13; Col 4:2; 1 Pt 5:6, 7; Rev 8:3).

5. The history of humankind and of Israel begins with Genesis 1. Creation begins history; it

is not merely the premise of history. The God of creation is the God of Abraham, of Moses, of

the prophets, and of Jesus Christ.

6. Creation is a witness to the existence and nature of God (Ps 19; Rom 1:18, 19). In theology

the expression used is “general revelation.” “General” means that it is a revelation witnessed by

all people.

7. Creation is a total creation. The Genesis account mentions certain bodies in the skies, cer-

tain creatures in the seas, certain plant and animal life on the earth. The number of species runs

into the millions. Genesis does not attempt to list them but merely suggests such a list. God has

made all that there is (cf. Jn 1:1, 2). Therefore, there is never a threat to the believer in the Lord

from any part of the universe. There is only one Lord, not many gods and lords, to whom all are

called in obedience. The personal meaning is found in Romans 8:38, 39, where the apostle Paul

searches the entire universe and can find nothing in it, anywhere or at any time, that can separate

a believer from the love of God in Christ.

8. The chief theological use of the doctrine of creation in the OT is to label idolatry for the

sin that it is. Idolatry is the primeval lie and it leads to immorality, making a lie of one’s life.

9. One of the remarkable doctrines of the NT is the “cosmic Christ.” Christ is set out as the

Creator (Jn 1:1, 2; Heb 1:3; Col 1:16). The purpose of linking Christ with creation is to show that

he is more than a 1st-century Jew, more than an inhabitant of Palestine.

Creation and Science. Does science prove creation? Some scientists have thought that the

innumerable conditions necessary for life, which do as a matter of fact exist on the earth, is such

a proof. That argument has been called “cosmic theology.”

Another so-called proof of creation from science is the “big bang” theory of the origin of the

universe. Although that view has forged ahead of its competitors, it is a theory of “first states”

and not of the absolute origin of all things. The Christian doctrine of creation from nothing

(Latin, ex nihilo) means more than that: it means that the absolute origin, sustaining, and mean-

ing of all things is in the living Lord of Israel and of the church.

Another argument comes from the second law of thermodynamics and the concept of en-

tropy. Heat systems cool off. The universe is not infinitely old or it would now be cool (entropy

refers to the leveling off of energy or temperature to a state in which no energy is available).

Since there are still stars and suns, the universe must have been created a finite time ago. An-

other argument is that it was necessary to create a universe that would run down. In so running

down, it supplies heat to the earth so that the drama of God and man could unfold.

The Issues Around Evolution. When Charles Darwin proposed biological evolution in the

middle of the 19th century, many evangelical Christians took exception to it. They objected even

more strenuously when books were written about human evolution. Two famous debates resulted

from that controversy. In England the issue was debated in 1860 before the British Association at

Oxford. That debate pitted Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (against the theory) against T. H. Huxley

(for the theory). Although there was no formal decision, sentiment was with Huxley. The second

debate was the famous Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. William Jennings Bryan de-

fended the law which said that John T. Scopes should be found guilty of teaching evolution in

the classroom. Clarence Darrow defended Scopes. Again, the sentiment was with the proponent

of evolution, Darrow (although Bryan gave a sturdier defense of his beliefs than is generally

acknowledged).

Both orthodox Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants have taken various views of the

controversy, of which only a few can be mentioned.

1. Some argue that evolution is contrary to the teachings of Scripture and is—in the name of

science—actually the supreme defiance of Scripture’s authority. Thus, no quarter must ever be

given in the battle against evolution.

2. Others find a satisfactory resolution in “theistic evolution.” They try to show due regard

for both science and Scripture.

3. Many see the parallels between the order of fossil-bearing strata in the so-called “geologi-

cal column” and the six days of creation as too close to be accidental. For them there is essential

harmony between “Genesis and geology.”

4. Many regard evolution as a theory like all other theories, which will be made or broken in

the laboratory or in field work. They see the doctrine of creation as neither for nor against evolu-

tion. It is on a different level of explanation: “Science tells how; Scripture tells why.”

5. Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin attempted to save Christianity from evolution by

“christifying” the whole evolutionary process.

6. British author C. S. Lewis, among others, seems on target in distinguishing evolution from

what might be called “evolutionism.” V 1, p 542 p 542 Lewis says that the validity of evolu-

tion as a narrow scientific thesis is for scientists to decide. But the notion of a total, all-encom-

passing evolutionary myth, as a human pseudo-doctrine of creation, is clearly not scientific.

Creation, Science, and Morality. The growth of world population and the spread of industri-

alization have produced the problem of local and worldwide pollution. The ecological crisis has

been said by some scholars to be the fault of Christian faith, which inspired man—as the “lord of

creation”—to exploit creation. But that is hardly the meaning of Genesis 1:26, which is an in-

junction to responsibility. A number of OT texts show clearly that the concern of Scripture is for

human responsibility in God’s world; hence Scripture parallels modern ecological concerns.

Science stretches theological understanding by continually revising our knowledge of the

universe, but the biblical doctrine of creation does not retreat as science advances. For the Chris-

tian, the world studied by scientists and pondered by philosophers remains God’s created world.

Bibliography. K. Barth, Church Dogmatics III; J.M. Houston, I Believe in the Creator; S.

Jaki, Cosmos and Creator and The Road of Science and the Ways to God.2

2 Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, eds. “Creation, Doctrine Of,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rap-

ids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 539–542.

Carl F. H. Henry

IMAGE OF GOD

Image of God. The doctrine that humanity is in certain respects created in the divine likeness.

The Bible answers the question of the nature of humanity by pointing to the imago Dei. That hu-

manity by creation uniquely bears the image of God is a fundamental biblical doctrine—as is

also that this image is sullied by sin and that it is restored by divine salvation. Humanity’s nature

and destiny are interwoven with this foundational fact, and speculative philosophies inevitably

strike at it when they degrade humanity to animality or otherwise distort the personality.

Biblical Data. The biblical data pertaining to the imago Dei are found in both New and Old

Testaments. Their setting throughout is revealed religion and not speculative philosophy. De-

pendence of the Pauline view on the Hellenistic mystery religions has been asserted by the com-

parative religions school. Reitzenstein has affirmed (Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 7–

10) that Paul’s teaching on the image is indebted to the private mystery cults in Egypt, Phrygia,

and Persia, particularly those of Isis, Attis and Cybele, and Mithra, with their goal of salvation

secured through personal union with the god or goddess. But H. A. A. Kennedy has argued con-

vincingly in St. Paul and the Mystery Religions that the basic NT ideas are forged against the

background of Hebrew theology, rather than of the Hellenistic cults, and that even in respect to

the image the resemblance between the Pauline concepts and the mysteries is superficial. David

Cairns also emphasizes that “the New Testament writers make almost no use”—he might

properly have deleted the word “almost”—of notions frequently found in the mystery cults such

as the divinization of the believer and human absorption into the Deity.

Hebrew-Christian theology frames the doctrine of the imago in the setting of divine creation

and redemption. “The gist of the doctrine of Creation is surely this,” Cairns reminds us, in re-

spect to the image, “that man’s being, though linked with the divine, is itself essentially not di-

vine, but created, and thus dependent on God, and of a different order from His own being

though akin to it” (63). Bible doctrine does not, therefore, simply affirm in a religious manner

what speculative philosophies express more generally in their emphasis on the inherent dignity

and worth of the person, or on the infinite value and sacredness of human personality. For Scrip-

ture conditions one’s dignity and value upon the doctrine of creation, and not upon an intrinsic

divinity, and assuredly it does not obscure the fact of the fall and of the desperate need of re-

demption. Those who, like Kingsley Martin, profess to find in Stoicism a superior and sounder

basis for human dignity than that afforded by biblical theology seem little to realize that in such a

transition to pantheism the Hebrew-Christian dimensions of the imago are actually abandoned.

The biblical discussion turns on the Hebrew words ṣelem and dĕmût, and the corresponding

Greek terms eikōn and homoiōsis. Scripture employs these terms to affirm that humankind was

fashioned in the image of God, and that Jesus Christ the divine Son is the essential image of the

p 592 invisible God. The passages expressly affirming the divine image in humanity are Genesis

1:26, 27; 5:1, 3; and 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; Colossians 3:10; and James 3:9. The doctrine is im-

plied also in other passages in which the precise phrase “image of God” does not appear, particu-

larly in Psalm 8, which J. Laidlaw called “a poetic replica of the creation-narrative of Genesis 1

as far as it refers to man” (HDB 2:452a), and in the Pauline reference on Mars Hill to humanity

and the Maker. The terms “image and likeness” in Genesis 1:26 and 5:3 do not distinguish differ-

ent aspects of the imago but state intensively the fact that men and women uniquely reflect God.

Instead of suggesting distinctions within the image, the juxtaposition vigorously declares that by

HDB Dictionary of the Bible, ed. J. Hastings

creation humanity bears an image actually corresponding to the divine original. In Genesis 1:27

the word “image” alone expresses the complete idea of this correspondence, whereas in 5:1 the

term “likeness” serves the same purpose.

Although humanity images God by creation—a fact which the divine prohibition of graven

images (which obscure the spirituality of God) serves pointedly to reinforce—the fall precludes

all attempts to read off God’s nature from humanity’s. To project God in humanity’s image is

therefore a heinous form of idolatry confounding the Creator with the creaturely (Rom. 1:23).

This confusion reaches its nadir in worship of the beast and his image or statue (Rev. 14:9–11).

Recent Theological Studies. Granted that the terms “image” and “likeness” denote an exact

resemblance, in what respect does humanity reflect God? What of the vitiating effects of the fall

into sin? Is the NT conception of the imago in conflict with the OT conception? Is it in conflict

with itself? These questions are among those most energetically debated in contemporary theol-

ogy.

The importance of a proper understanding of the imago Dei can hardly be overstated. The an-

swer given to the imago-inquiry soon becomes determinative for the entire gamut of doctrinal

affirmation. The ramifications are not only theological but affect every phase of the problem of

revelation and reason, including natural and international law, and the cultural enterprise as a

whole. Any improper view has consequences the more drastic as its implications are applied to

regenerate and to unregenerate humanity, from primal origin to final destiny.

The new theology supports a “christological” or “eschatological” interpretation of the divine

image in humankind. This orientation is formally commendable, since the God-man assuredly

exhibits the divine intention for persons, and the glory of redeemed humanity will consist in full

conformity to Christ’s image. In the past a type of Christian rationalism has sometimes unfortu-

nately emerged, seeking on the basis of anthropology alone, independently of Christology, to de-

lineate one’s true nature and destiny. Such expositions, which arbitrarily identify the imago in

fallen humanity with that of Christ, blur easily into speculations of a personalistic and idealistic

nature.

But there is also need for caution over the new theology, since it often incorporates an eva-

sive turn into its christological appeal. It diverts attention from the important question of human-

ity’s primal origin—that is, from the creation and fall of the first Adam—because of a reluctance

to challenge the modern evolutionary philosophy from the standpoint of the Genesis creation ac-

count.

By the imago the Protestant Reformers understood especially humankind’s state of original

purity, in accord with Genesis 1 and 2, wherein Adam is depicted as fashioned for rational,

moral, and spiritual fellowship with his Maker. The existentializing philosophy of our times,

however, finding this representation too abruptly contradictory of current scientific views, con-

fers upon the first Adam only a mythical status, regarding him—in respect to deviation from per-

fection—as simply a type of every person. The imago is then no longer conceived as a state, but

as a relation—since an original state of Adamic purity is set aside. Hence neo-orthodox theology

not only rejects, in common with Protestantism generally, the Roman Catholic exposition of the

image in Thomistic terms (of analogia entis, a “being” which Creator and creature share in dif-

ferent degrees), but also sets aside the traditional Protestant confidence in the Genesis creation

narratives as a scientifically relevant account of origins.

Just because the christological or eschatological view looks to the end rather than to the be-

ginning, it does not by itself do full justice to the biblical representation. It subordinates the exhi-

bition of the divine image as God’s gift in creation and is vulnerable also to universalistic

expositions of redemption. For while the image of the Godhead (Gen. 1:26) on the basis of crea-

tion has an anticipatory reference to the God-man, it is not as such the image of Jesus Christ the

Redeemer. Although the redemption-image truly presupposes the creation-image, and the crea-

tion-image prepares the way for the redemption-image, Karl Barth’s emphasis that all divine rev-

elation is redemptive ignores significant considerations. If the original image is in fact a reflex of

grace, if humanity is God’s image only by promise (whereas Jesus Christ is actually God’s im-

age), can universalism really be avoided? We may note: (1) The creation-image was once-for-all

wholly given at the creation of the first Adam; the redemption-image is gradually fashioned. (2)

The creation-image is conferred in some respect upon the whole human race; the redemption-im-

age only upon the redeemed. (3) The creation-image distinguishes humanity from the animals;

the redemption-image p 593 distinguishes the regenerate family of faith from unregenerate

mankind. (4) The creation-image was probationary; the redemption-image is not.

Statements of the imago Dei in current theology, while equating the image with those fea-

tures by which humankind transcends the animals, often give to the biblical passages a bizarre

tone of novelty. Barth proposed at least two interpretations of the image, and Emil Brunner,

three, and none of their recensions are devoid of difficulties. The conclusion to be drawn from

such adjustment and readjustment is that theologians today seek to comprehend the image within

a framework that is unsatisfactorily narrow. While pantheizing liberalism formerly set aside sin

and the need for redemption, and mistakenly regarded the natural person as destined for Christ

simply on the basis of creation, neo-orthodox writers exaggerate the transcendence of God to the

dilution of the imago in humanity as both created and fallen. The recent dialectical reconstruc-

tions of the imago almost invariably profess to honor the Protestant Reformers, who are credited

with first having controlled the imago idea in terms of the “true dialectical or christological prin-

ciple.” But Calvin’s stress on continuity and discontinuity of humanity’s imago with the Maker

is said to have lacked a proper working balance, which the dialectical approach now provides.

The new speculation conceives their unity “eschatologically”; that is, neither original righteous-

ness nor the fall are conceded a place in a past empirical time-series, but are held to be known

only in faith-response. So it is that the christological and eschatological expositions of the imago

today are surfeited with dialectical and existential elements.

Recent denials that the imago survives in fallen humanity reflect an extreme point of view.

Barth championed this position at an earlier stage, contending that humanity and personality

have no significance for the image. T. F. Torrance professed to find it in Calvin. Brunner readily

acknowledged that the image formally survives the fall but vacillated over the question of its ma-

terial content. Nonetheless, the divergences of neo-orthodox theologians are not as significant as

their agreements, especially their exclusion of the forms of logic and of a conceptual knowledge

of God from the imago. The result is their depreciation of the rational element in revelation, both

general and special. This modern revision of the noetic aspect of the imago accords with the lim-

itation of human reason in dialectical philosophy; the admission of such conceptual knowledge

of God would undermine the possibility of and necessity for the dialectic.

Evangelical expositors of the biblical revelation find the created image of God to exist for-

mally in human personality (moral responsibility and intelligence) and materially in his

knowledge of God and of his will for humanity. Hence the image is not reducible simply to a re-

lation in which one stands to God, but rather is the precondition of such a relationship. The fall

of humanity is not destructive of the formal image (human personality), although it involves the

distortion (though not demolition) of the material content of the image. The biblical view is that

humanity is made to know God as well as to obey him. Even in revolt humanity stands

condemned by the knowledge it has and is proffered God’s redemptive revelation in scriptural

(i.e., in propositional) form. The objections that the admission of such a rational content to the

imago implies pantheism, or a capacity for self-salvation by reflection through its supposed as-

sertion of an undamaged spot in human nature, loses force when the support for such objections

is seen to rest on exaggerations of divine transcendence from which the dialectical view itself

arises, rather than on biblical considerations.

Although the Old and New Testaments seem to conflict—since the former reiterates the sur-

vival of the image in humankind after the fall, while the latter stresses the redemptive restoration

of the image—there is no real clash. The OT conception is presupposed also in the New, which

is a legitimate development, for the NT also speaks of the divine image in the natural person (1

Cor. 11:7; James 3:9). But its central message is the redeemed person’s renewal in the image of

Christ.

Wider Implications. The Bible depicts humanity primarily from the perspective of its rela-

tion to God because its nature and destiny can be grasped only from this standpoint. Its interpre-

tation of humanity is therefore primarily religious. The creation narratives are not written ex-

pressly to answer the questions posed by modern science, although attempts to discredit them as

unscientific sooner or later are embarrassed by inevitable reversals of scientific opinion. Helpful

evangelical discussions of the harmony of Scripture and science on such matters as the origin,

unity, and antiquity of the human race may be found in Contemporary Evangelical Thought (C.

F. H. Henry, ed., “Science and Religion”) and Theology and Evolution (R. Mixter, ed.). The Bi-

ble does not discriminate humanity from the animals in terms of morphological considerations,

but rather in terms of the imago Dei. Humanity is made for personal and endless fellowship with

God, involving rational understanding (Gen. 1:28–29), moral obedience (2:16–17), and religious

communion (3:3). Humanity is given dominion over the animals and charged to subdue the earth,

that is, to consecrate it to the spiritual service of God and humankind.

Nor does Scripture detail a science of psychology in the modern sense, although it presents a

consistent view of human nature. Its emphasis p 594 falls on humanity as a unitary personality

of soul and body. Their disjunction is due to sin (2:17); human reconstitution as a corporeal be-

ing in the resurrection is part of the human destiny. While the soul survives in the intermediate

state between death and resurrection, this is not the ultimate ideal (2 Cor. 5:1–4), in sharp con-

trast to Greek philosophy. The dispute over dichotomy or trichotomy too often loses sight of the

unitary nature of human personality. It is not possible to assert separate distinctions within hu-

man nature simply on the basis of the different scriptural terms for soul, spirit, mind, and so

forth. Hebrews 4:12, often cited in behalf of trichotomy (“dividing soul and spirit, joints and

marrow”), does not establish soul and spirit as different entities, but as different functions of the

one psychic life of humankind, as is evident from the parallel phrase “the joints and marrow” in

relation to the body.

To the OT picture the NT adds the graphic exposition of the adoption of grace (John 1:12)

and the new role, subsequent to the rescue from an unregenerate race, in the family of redemp-

tion. As a member of the church, the body of Christ, whose head has already passed through

death and resurrection, the redeemed person already has an existence in the eternal order (Eph.

1:3), so that the sudden end of this world order will disclose the exalted Redeemer as the true

center of one’s life and activity. At the same time, the crowned Christ mediates to the members

of the body powers and virtues that belong to the age to come as an earnest of their future inher-

itance (2 Cor. 1:22; Gal. 5:22; Eph. 1:14). One’s destiny is therefore not simply an endless exist-

ence but is moral—either a life redeemed and fit for eternity, or a life under perpetual divine

judgment.

Bibliography. K. Barth, Church Dogmatics; G. C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God; E.

Brunner, Man in Revolt; D. Cairns, Image of God in Man; G. H. Clark, Christian View of Man

and Things; A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image; J. G. Machen, Christian View of Man; J. M.

Miller, “The ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God,” JBL 91:289–304; W. Mundle et. al., NIDNTT

2:284–93; R. Niebuhr, Nature and Destiny of Man; J. Orr, God’s Image in Man; H. W. Robin-

son, Christian Doctrine of Man; M. Smith, Image of God; T. F. Torrance, Calvin’s Doctrine of

Man.3

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colon Brown 3 Carl F. H. Henry, “Imago of God,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition, ed. Walter A. Elwell

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 591–594.

H. D. McDonald

THE DOCTRINE OF MANKIND

Mankind, Doctrine of. In the Old Testament. In the Genesis account of creation man’s pres-

ence in the world is attributed directly to God. By this act alone, as the God of love and power,

man was “created” (bārāʾ, 1:27; 5:1; 6:7) and “formed” (yāṣar, 2:7–8). By this creative act man

was brought into existence in a duality of relationships—at once to nature and to God himself.

He was formed of the dust of the earth and was endowed with soul life by the breath of God.

God is the source of his life and dust the material of his being. Woman, likewise, was created in

this duality of relationships to the earthly and the divine, being created from the “stuff” of the

created man and the direct life-giving action of God (Gen. 1:27). Thus, do man and woman stand

from the first in a relationship of equality before God and for the living of life together in that re-

lationship of equal partnership.

Human Nature. Human personhood, then, did not spring out of nature by some natural evolu-

tionary process. It is the result of the immediate action of God, who used already existing created

material for the formation of the earthly part of their being. Man and woman have, thus, physio-

logical similarities with the rest of the created order (Gen. 18:27; Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14, etc.)

and consequently share with the animal world in dependence on God’s goodness for their contin-

uance (Ps. 103:15; 104; Isa. 40:6–7). Throughout the Old Testament this relationship of the hu-

man persons to nature is everywhere stressed. As men and women share with nature in the con-

stitution of their being, so does nature share with human beings in the actualities of their living.

Thus, while nature was made to serve this humankind, so was this humankind on its part required

to tend nature (Gen. 2:15). Nature is therefore not a sort of neutral entity in relation to human

life. For between the two—nature and humankind—there exists a mysterious bond so that when

sin entered the human condition the natural order was also deeply afflicted (Gen. 3:17–18; cf.

Rom. 8:19–23). Since, however, nature suffered as a result of sin, so does it rejoice with man-

kind in its redemption (Ps. 96:10–13; Isa. 35, etc.), for in that redemption it too will share (Isa.

11:6–9).

But however deeply related is the human person to the natural order, he and she are presented

nonetheless as something different and distinctive. Having first called the earth into existence

with its various requisites for human life, God then made man and woman. The impression that

the Genesis account gives is that human personhood was the special focus of God’s creative pur-

pose. It is not so much that such was the crown of God’s creative acts, or the climax of the pro-

cess, for although last in the ascending scale, mankind is the first in the divine intention. All the

previous acts of God are presented more in the nature of a continuous series by the recurring use

of the conjunction “and” (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24). “Then God said, ‘Let us make men.’”

“Then”—when? When the cosmic order was finished, when the earth was ready to sustain hu-

man life. Thus, while humanity stands before God in a relationship of created dependence, it has

also the status of a unique and special relation to God in terms of human personhood.

Personal Constituents. The three most significant words in the Old Testament to describe this

relation to God and nature are “soul” (nepeš, 754 times), “spirit” (rûaḥ, 378 times), and “flesh”

(bāśār, 266 times). The term “flesh” has sometimes a physical and sometimes a figurative ethical

sense. In its latter use it has its context in contrast with God to emphasize human nature as con-

tingent and dependent (Job 10:4; Ps. 56:4; 78:39; Isa. 31:3; 40:6). Both nepeš and rûaḥ denote in

general the life principle of the human person, the former stressing more particularly human indi-

viduality, or life, and the latter focusing on the idea of a supernatural power above or within the

individual.

Of the eighty parts of the body mentioned in the Old Testament the terms for “heart” (lēb),

“liver” (kābēd), “kidney” (kĕlāyôt), and “bowels” (mēʿîm) are the most frequent. To each of

these some emotional impulse or feeling is attributed either factually or metaphorically. The term

p 731 “heart” has the widest reference. It is brought into relation with total human psychical na-

ture as the seal or instrument of human emotional, volitional, and intellectual manifestations. In

the latter context it acquires a force we should call “mind” (Deut. 15:9; Judg. 5:15–16) or “intel-

lect” (Job 8:10; 12:3; 34:10). The term is frequently employed to denote by metonymy one’s

thought or wish with the idea of purpose or resolve, for one’s thought or wish is what is “in the

heart,” or, as would be said today, “in the mind.”

These several words do not, however, characterize human life as a compound of separate and

distinct elements. Hebrew psychology does not divide up human nature into mutually exclusive

parts. Behind these usages of words the thought conveyed by the Genesis account, that the hu-

man person is twofold, remains. Yet even there the human individual is not presented as a loose

union of two disparate entities. There is no sense of a metaphysical dichotomy, while even that

of an ethical dualism of soul and body is quite foreign to Hebrew thought. By God’s in-breathing

the human person he formed from the dust became a living soul, a unified being in the interrela-

tion of the terrestrial and the transcendental.

Throughout the Old Testament the two concepts of individuality as unique and responsible

and as a social and representative being have emphasis. Adam was both a man and yet mankind.

In him individual personhood and social solidarity found expression. At times in Israel’s history

there is emphasis on individual responsibility (e.g., Ezek. 9:4; 20:38; cf. chs. 18 and 35), while

the “Thou shalt” or “Thou shalt not” of the law and the prophets is characteristically singular, be-

ing addressed to the individual. Yet generally in Hebrew thought the individual is not viewed at-

omistically but in intimate connection with, and representative of, the whole community. So does

the sin of the single individual involve all in its consequences (Josh. 7:24–26; cf. 2 Sam. 14:7;

21:1–14; 2 Kings 9:26). On the other hand, Moses and Phineas stand before God to plead their

people’s cause because they embody in themselves the whole community. In the intertestamental

period, however, this awareness of solidarity passes from being a realized actuality in the social

consciousness of the nation to being increasingly an idealistic and theological dogma.

From this perspective of racial solidarity in the first man it follows that Adam’s sin involved

every individual both in himself and in his social relationships. Because of Adam’s transgression

everyone is affected in the whole range of his being and in the totality of his societal living.

In the New Testament. The Teaching of Jesus. In formal statements Jesus had little to say

about mankind as such, but by his attitude and actions he showed that he regarded the human

person as significant. To Jesus the individual person was not just a part of nature; rather he or she

is more precious in God’s sight than the birds of the air (Matt. 10:31) and the beasts of the field

(Matt. 12:12). The human persons’ distinctiveness lies in the possession of a soul, or spiritual na-

ture, which to forfeit is the ultimate tragedy and final folly (Matt. 16:26). Human life is conse-

quently life under God and for his glory. It does not consist in the plenitude of earthly posses-

sions (Luke 12:15). The sole wealth is therefore the wealth of the soul (Matt. 6:20, 25). Yet

while emphasizing the spiritual aspect of human nature, Jesus did not decry the body, for he

showed concern throughout his ministry for total human needs.

This view of every human person as a creature of value was for Jesus an ideal and a possibil-

ity. For he saw all individuals, whether man or woman, as blind and lost and their relationship

with God broken off. Although he nowhere specified the nature of sin, he clearly assumed its

universality. All are somehow caught up in sin’s plight and enmeshed in its tragic consequences.

Thus, all who would live to God’s glory and eternal enjoyment must experience newness of life.

And it was precisely this purpose that Christ came into the world to accomplish (Matt. 1:21;

Luke 19:10). It follows therefore that it is by one’s attitude to Christ as the Savior of the world

that individual human destiny is finally sealed.

The Pauline Anthropology. Paul’s declarations regarding the nature of the human individual

are generally stated in relation to salvation so that his anthropology throughout serves the inter-

ests of his soteriology. Foremost, therefore, in his teaching is his insistence on the human need

for divine grace. Paul is emphatic about the universality of sin. Because of Adam’s fall sin some-

how got a footing in the world to make human life the sphere of its activity. Sin “entered the

world through one man” (Rom. 5:12). Consequent on Adam’s transgression, “all have sinned and

fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). To meet humanity in its plight, Paul sets forth the

gospel as a righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe (cf. Rom.

3:22–25).

In this context Paul contrasts the “old self [or, man]” of nature (Rom. 6:6; Eph. 4:22; Col.

3:9) who is “according to the sinful nature [flesh]” (Rom. 8:4, 12; Gal. 4:23, 29, etc.) with the

“new self [man]” in grace (Eph. 4:24; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15) who is “in accordance with the

Spirit” (Rom. 8:5; Gal. 4:29). He speaks also of the outer nature of the human individual which

perishes and the inner nature which abides and is daily being renewed in Christ (2 Cor. 4:16; cf.

Eph. 3:16) and of the “natural man” (psychikos anthrōpos) and “he who is spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:15

NASB; cf. 14:37).

In contrast with the second Adam, the first Adam was “of the dust of the earth” (1 Cor.

15:47) but was yet “a living being” (v. 45). Though man p 732 on his earthly side has borne

“the image of the man of dust,” he can by grace through faith be made to “bear the image of the

man from heaven” (v. 49). The human individual as such is a moral being with an innate sense of

right and wrong which Paul speaks of as “conscience” (21 times). This conscience can, however,

lose its sensitivity for the good and become “defiled” (1 Cor. 8:7) and “seared” (1 Tim. 4:2).

As the chief exponent of the application of Christ’s saving work to personal life Paul can

hardly avoid reference to the essential nature and makeup of human personhood. Inevitably such

allusions will reflect the Old Testament usage of such terms, while being the more precisely ap-

plied especially in his epistles. The most significant terms in his anthropological vocabulary are

“flesh” (sarx, 91 times), which he uses in a physical and an ethical sense; “spirit” (pneuma, 146

times), to denote generally the higher, Godward aspect of human nature; “body” (sōma, 89

times), most often to designate the human organism as such, but sometimes the carnal aspect of

the human individual; “soul” (psychē, 11 times), broadly to carry the idea of the vital principle of

individual life. Paul has several words translated “mind” in the English versions to specify man’s

native rational ability, which is the aspect of human nature seriously affected by sin (Rom. 1:21;

8:6–7; Eph. 4:17; Col. 2:18; Titus 1:15). But the mind transformed brings God acceptable wor-

ship (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23) and so becomes in the believer the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16; cf.

Phil. 2:5). The term “heart” (kardia, 52 times) specifies for Paul the innermost sanctuary of an

individual’s psychical being either as a whole or with one or another of its significant activi-

ties—emotional, rational, or volitional.

Sometimes Paul contrasts these aspects—flesh and spirit, body and soul—to give the impres-

sion of dualism in the makeup of individual human nature. At other times he introduces the

threefold characterization of body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess. 5:23), which raises the question

whether the human person is to be conceived dichotomously or trichotomously. The interchange-

able use of the terms “spirit” and “soul” seems to confirm the former view, while the fact that

they are sometimes contrasted is held to support the latter. Yet, however used, both terms refer to

the human’s inner nature over against flesh or body, which refers to the outer aspect of the indi-

vidual in space and time. In reference, then, to human physical nature, “spirit” denoted life as

having its origin in God and “soul” denotes that same life as constituted in personhood. Spirit is

the inner depth of a man’s or a woman’s being, the higher aspect of personality. Soul expresses a

person’s own special and distinctive individuality. The pneuma is an individual’s nonmaterial

nature looking Godward; the psychē is that same individual’s nature looking earthward and

touching the things of sense.

Other New Testament Writings. The rest of the New Testament in its scattered allusions to

individual human nature and constituents is in general agreement with the teaching of Jesus and

of Paul. In the Johannine writings the estimate of the human person is centered on Jesus Christ as

true man and what that human person may become in relation to him. Although John begins his

Gospel by asserting the eternal Godhead of Christ as Son of God, he declares in the starkest man-

ner the humanity of the Word made flesh. Jesus was all that God intended humankind should be.

What people saw was a “man called Jesus” (John 9:11 NRSV; cf. 19:5). It is against the perfect

humanness of Jesus that the dignity of every human person is to be measured. By uniting himself

with humanity, God’s Son has made it clear for always that being human is no mean condition.

For he took upon himself all that is properly human to restore men and women through his son-

ship to the relationship of sons and daughters of God (John 1:13; 1 John 3:1). Such, too, is the

theme of the epistle to the Hebrews. The epistle of James declares that man was created in the

“likeness” (homoiōsin) of God (3:9).

Historical Development. From these biblical statements about human nature, the history of

Christian thought has focused on three main issues.

Content of the Image. The most enduring of these concerns is the content of the image. Ire-

naeus first introduced the distinction between the “image” (Heb. ṣelem; Lat. imago) and “like-

ness” (Heb. dĕmût; Lat. similitudo). The former he identified as the rationality and free will

which inhere in man qua man. The likeness he conceived to be a superadded gift of God’s right-

eousness which man, because of his reason and freedom of choice, had the possibility to retain

and advance by obedience to the divine commands. But this probationary endowment was for-

feited by acts of willful disobedience by Adam and Eve and their descendants. This thesis of Ire-

naeus was generally upheld by the scholastics and was given dogmatic application by Aquinas.

In Aquinas’s view, however, Adam had need of divine aid to continue in the path of holiness.

But this aid, in its turn, was conditioned on Adam’s effort and determination to obey God’s law.

Thus, from the first, in Aquinas’s scheme, divine grace was made to depend on human merit.

The Reformers denied this distinction between image and likeness upon which the works-

salvation of medievalism was reared and insisted upon the radical nature of sin and its effect

upon the total being of every person. Thus they maintained that salvation is by grace alone as the

gift of God.

p 733 Some moderns have revived Irenaeus’s distinction under new terms. Emil Brunner,

for example, speaks of the “formal” image to express the essential structure of human person-

hood which is not greatly affected by the fall. The “material” image, on the other hand, he re-

gards as quite lost by sin. Those who do not admit a different connotation for the terms have

sought to identify the content of the image as either corporeal form or pure spirit. Schleiermacher

speaks of the image as human domination over nature, a view expounded in more recent days by

Hans Wolff and L. Verdium. Karl Barth conceived of it in terms of male and female, although he

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

stresses at the same time that only in relation to Christ is there a true understanding of man. The

Reformed position is that the image of God consists in human rationality and moral competency,

but that it is precisely these realities which were lost or marred through sin. Others consider per-

sonality as the ingredient of the image, while still others prefer to see it as sonship, contending

that man was created for that relationship, which his sin he repudiated. His sonship can now only

be restored in Christ.

The Origin of the Soul. In the light of such passages as Psalm 12:7; Isaiah 42:5; Zechariah

12:1; and Hebrews 12:9, the creationist doctrine that God is the immediate creator of the human

soul has been built. First elaborated by Lactantius (ca. 240–ca. 320), it had the support of Jerome

and of Calvin among the Reformers. Aquinas declared any other view to be heretical and so fol-

lowed Peter Lombard, who in his Sentences says, “The Church teaches that souls are created at

their infusion into the body.”

The alternative view, traducianism (Lat. tradux, a branch or shoot), expounded by Tertullian,

is that the substances of both soul and body are formed and propagated together. Favored by Lu-

ther, it is consequently generally adopted by later Lutheran theologians. In support of the view is

the observation that Genesis 1:27 represents God as creating the species in Adam to be propa-

gated “after its kind” (cf. Gen. 1:12, 21, 25). And this increase through secondary causes is im-

plied in the following verse (cf. 1:22; 5:3; John 1:13; Heb. 7:9–10) and in the passages which

suggest the solidarity of the race and its sin in the first man (Rom. 5:12–13; 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph.

2:3).

From its stress on the continuing kinship of God and man, the Eastern church has favored

creationism. Here God is regarded as acting immediately to bring individual life into being. The

Western church, on the other hand, by emphasizing God’s otherness from the created order and

the depth of the yawning gulf between the human and divine consequent on man’s sin, sees

God’s contact with created life in the world as more distant. Traducianism, therefore, in which

God’s relation to individual conception and birth is held to be mediated, has had from the third

century wide support.

The Extent of Freedom. Consonant with his ideas of the imago Dei as grounded in human na-

ture as rational and free, Justin Martyr set in motion the view that every individual is responsible

for his own wrongdoing, which was to become a characteristic note of the Eastern church. Thus,

Adam is seen as the primary type of each individual’s sinning, and the fall is the story of Every-

man. Western theology, by contrast, regards Adam’s transgression as the fountainhead of all hu-

man evil, but against Gnosticism refused to locate its source in individual life in the material of

the body. Tertullian traced sin to humanity’s connection with Adam, through whom it has be-

come a natural element of every human’s nature, yet he allowed some free will to remain.

In Pelagius and Augustine these two views came into sharp conflict. Pelagius taught that in-

dividual human existence was unaffected by Adam’s transgression, his will retaining the liberty

of indifference so that each individual possesses the ability to choose good or evil. In the light of

Romans 5:12–13 Augustine maintained that Adam’s sin has so crippled humanity that each indi-

vidual can act only to express his or her own sinful nature inherited from their first parents. The

inevitable compromise appeared in the semi-Pelagian (or semi-Augustinian) synergistic thesis

that, while everyone does inherit a bias to sin, a freedom of decision remains that permits some

at least to take the first step toward righteousness. In the Calvinist-Arminian controversy of the

seventeenth century the conflict was reenacted. Calvin contended for the total depravity of man;

man “has no good remaining in him.” Therefore, the will is not free to choose the good; so salva-

tion is an act of God’s sovereign grace.

Arminius allowed that Adam’s sin had dire consequences and that each possesses a “natural

propensity” to sin (John Wesley), while maintaining, at the same time, that it belongs to every

person of their own free will to ratify this inner direction of their nature. On the other hand, it is

possible for anyone, by accepting the aid of the Holy Spirit, to opt for God’s way, for he or she

still possesses an inner ability to do so.

In the Pelagian-humanist scheme all men are well and need only a tonic to keep them in good

health. In the semi-Pelagian (semi-Augustinian/ Arminian) doctrine man is sick and requires the

right medicine for his recovery. In the Augustinian/Calvinist view man is dead and can be re-

newed to life only by a divinely initiated resurrection.

Bibliography. S. B. Babbage, Man in Nature and Grace; G. C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image

of God; p 734 E. Brunner, Man in Revolt; D. Cairns, Image of God in Man; G. Carey, I Believe

in Man; S. Cave, Christian Estimate of Man; W. Eichrodt, Man in the Old Testament; P. E.

Hughes, True Image; W. G. Kümmel, Man in the New Testament; J. Laidlaw, Bible Doctrine of

Man; J. G. Machen, Christian View of Man; H. D. McDonald, Christian View of Man; J. Molt-

mann, Man; J. Orr, God’s Image in Man; H. W. Robinson, Christian Doctrine of Man; R. F.

Shedd, Man in Community; C. R. Smith, Bible Doctrine of Man; W. D. Stacey, Pauline View of

Man; T. F. Torrance, Calvin’s Doctrine of Man; C. A. van Peursen, Body, Soul, Spirit; J. S.

Wright, What Is Man?4

4 H. D. McDonald, “Mankind, Doctrine of,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition, ed. Walter A. El-

well (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 730–734.