Tags
B.H. Carroll – Losing The Image Of God
The fifth chapter [of Genesis] opens a new section: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The unique phraseology, "This is the book of the generations," occurs here only in the Old Testament and only once in the New Testament (Matt. 1:1). It is designedly limited to the two Adams – the natural man and the Lord from heaven.
One cannot escape deep conviction of the unity of the Bible when he compares Genesis 5:1, with Matthew 1:1. Place them side by side thus:
"This is the book of the generations of Adam."
"This is the book of the generations of Jesus Christ." With this parallel before you, read Romans 5:12-21.
The next two sentences of this section constitute another amazing parallel. Put them also side by side, thus:
"In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him."
"And Adam begat a son in his likeness, after his image."
This parallel is far from meaning that Adam perpetuated, in his son, Seth, the likeness and image of God which he himself had received in creation (Gen. 1:26). By sin Adam lost the image of God and became corrupt in his nature. This is evident by what regeneration and sanctification must accomplish in a son of Adam. "Ye have put off the old man with his doings, and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him" (Col. 3:9-10). "Put ye away, as concerning your former manner of life, the old man, that waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit; and be ye renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth" (Eph. 5:22-24).
This fallen father could not transmit what he had lost. Seth was born in the image of a corrupt father. The first Adam, by creation, was in the image of God. The Second Adam, by eternal subsistence, was the effulgence of God’s glory and the very image of his substance (Heb. 1:3). Hence Paul says, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul. The last man Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. And as is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (I Cor. 15:45-49).
(B.H. Carroll, An Interpretation of the English Bible)
Related Post:
I’ve had this discussion with my elders – did man lose “the image of God” when Adam sinned, or was it “tarnished” or “damaged”, etc. as many reformed folk teach? My elders line up with the latter, saying that man’s inherent characteristics (creativity, etc.) are remnants of the image of God. I perceive this as the sci-fi presentation of clones – after several generations they are mere echoes of the original.
And yet – the Scripture says that Adam’s sons were in his – Adam’s – image, not the image of God.
How important is this issue?
I believe it to be very important Manfred, in that it regards the current state of fallen man as well as our view of God, His justice, etc. It is my position that if we describe man as yet partially reflecting the image of God we are giving credence to the gnostic belief of ‘a divine spark’ residing within men that only needs to be discovered. For a recent example of how it can affect thinking, see here.
In short, any wrong biblical doctrine is important. You might think of it a someone saying “Sure, I have gangrene in my big toe, but…it’s no big deal.” 🙂
Yes, JT. This is the reason people like Warren believe all you have to do is coax man to feel comfortable in a worldly entertaining church then you can manipulate him into saying some magic words and VIOLA, he’s saved…
It’s because too many “preachers” do not understand what the Bible teaches. Man has no spark. He is totally depraved. However, total depravity does not fill seats (especially not 80,000 of them) so you fall back to plan B… and so it goes on the broad road.
The doctrine of regeneration also comes into play. If we insist that mankind yet reflects some portion of the image of God, is that not implying only partial regeneration is needed? A partial new birth? After all, why would regeneration or sanctification be needed for that part of man where the image of God exist??
Many thanks. This is one issue on which I disagree with my elders.
I’ve been pondering this and still tend to agree with B.H. Carroll. I am troubled, however, on how James 3:7-9 fits into this perspective:
James 3:7-9 “For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.”
This is a declaration that men in general – not only the redeemed – are made in God’s image. Doesn’t a dead man still bear the image of a live man? Hence, bearing an image of God doesn’t appear to demand anything less than biblical regeneration.
I am not trying to nit-pick. I want to better understand this issue.
Looks as if I may have to post on the imago dei to answer this one 🙂