01.12. Origin, Being and Destiny of mankind.

12. Origin, Being and Destiny of mankind. The story of the origin of heaven and earth ends in the first chapter of Genesis with the creation of mankind. The creation of the other creatures, of heaven and earth, of the sun and moon and stars, of plants and animals, is only briefly recorded, and the creation of the angels is not even mentioned. But when the Scriptures have come to man, they dwell at length on him, describing not only the fact but also the manner of his creation, and return to it at length in the second chapter of Genesis. This special attention devoted to the origin of man is in itself proof that man is the end and goal, the head and crown of the whole work of creation. But there are several other elements which highlight man’s rank and value, which transcends all creatures. In the first place, there is the special counsel of God, which precedes the creation of man. When the other creatures were created it is only said that God spoke and thus called the various creatures into existence. But when God creates mankind, He first consults with Himself and arouses Himself to make man according to His will. This indicates that the creation of mankind in particular rests on deliberation, on Divine wisdom and goodness and omnipotence. Nothing is created by chance. But with mankind the counsel and the decision of God is even more clearly revealed in man than in other creatures.

Furthermore, in this counsel of God special emphasis is placed on the fact that man is created in God’s image and likeness, and therefore has a completely different relationship to God than all other creatures. No other creature, not even angels, are ever said in Scripture to be created in the image of God and to bear His image. They may contain indications of one or more of God’s attributes, but man alone is called created in God’s image and likeness. The Scriptures also emphasize that God did not create just one man, but that He created men in His image. And in the end of Genesis 1:27, those human beings are referred to as man and woman. Not the man alone, nor only the woman, but both, and both in relation and covenant with each other, are bearers of the image of God. And they are therefore not only so for themselves, but, according to the blessing of multiplication which is pronounced upon them in -
Genesis 1:28, they are so also in and with all their offspring. The human race in each of its members and as a whole was originally created in the image and likeness of God. And finally there is explicit mention of the fact that this creation of mankind in the image of God must above all be reflected in the dominion over all living beings and in the subordination of all living beings to God. Because man is the son of God, he is also king of the earth. The childhood of God and the inheritance of the world are already inseparably connected in the creation. The story of the creation of mankind in the first chapter of Genesis is expanded and completed in the second chapter, Genesis 2:1-25. Wrongly this second chapter of Genesis is sometimes called the second story of creation. For the creation of heaven and earth is presupposed, and in verse 46 only remembered with a single word, to indicate the occasion on which God formed man from the dust of the earth, Genesis 3:7. And all the emphasis in this second chapter is on the creation of man and the manner in which it took place. In these particulars, which are given concerning the formation of man, lies the great difference between the first and second chapters of Genesis.

Genesis 1:1-31 of the creation of heaven and earth and ends with man. Man is here the last creature to be brought into existence by God’s omnipotence; he is the end of the series of creatures, the ruler of nature, the king of the earth. But the second chapter, Genesis 2:1-25, begins with man, takes him as its starting point, puts him in the center and now recounts what happened at the creation of man, how it took place in both man and woman, where man received his residence, what vocation he was given, what destiny he was given. The first chapter speaks of mankind as the end of creation; the second of him as the beginning of history. The contents of the first chapter can be summarized under the name of the work of creation; the title of Genesis 2:1-25 can easily be called Paradise.

Three particulars are communicated in this second chapter concerning man’s origin, and serve to supplement what the first chapter has told in general terms.

First, there is a fairly extensive discussion of man’s first place of residence. The first chapter only stated in general terms that man was created in the image of God and was the ruler over the world. But it said nothing about where on the great earth man first saw the light of day or where he first lived. But now the second chapter completes the creation story on this point. When God created the heavens and the earth and gave birth to the sun and the moon and the stars, to plants and birds, and to animals of the water and land, there was not yet a particular place reserved for mankind where he was to live. That is why God, before creating mankind, prepares a garden, a paradise, in the landscape of Eden, to the east of Palestine. And this garden is laid out in a special way. God caused all kinds of trees to sprout from the ground there, which were desirable for looks and useful for food; of these trees two are specifically named, the tree of life, which was planted in the center of the garden, and also the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The garden was finally situated in such a way that a river, which originated higher up in the Eden landscape, flowed through it and then split into four arms, the Pison, Gihon, Tiger and Euphrates.

Over the centuries, much effort and work has gone into determining the location of Eden and the Garden of Eden. Various hypotheses have been formed, about the one stream that flowed through the garden and out of Eden, about the four rivers into which the one stream split, about the name of the Eden landscape and the garden, which was a special area within it. But all these hypotheses have remained hypotheses; none of them can be conclusively proven. Two views, however, are undoubtedly preferable. The first is that according to which Eden was located more to the north, in Armenia; the other is that according to which this landscape must be sought more to the south, in Babylonia. Between these two, the decision is difficult; the data contained in Scripture are no longer sufficient for us to indicate the exact location with certainty. But if we consider that mankind, which sprang from Adam and Eve, although banished from Eden, nevertheless continued to live in the vicinity, Genesis 4:16, that Noah’s ark rested on the Ararat mountain in eastern Armenia after the flood, Genesis 8:4, and that the new mankind spread from Babel over the earth, we can conclude that the place of the new mankind is in Babylon, Genesis 11:8-9; then there is no doubt that the cradle of mankind was in that region, which is defined by Armenia in the north and Sinear in the south. And science has recently reinforced this teaching of Scripture. It is true that in the past she made all sorts of guesses about the original place of residence of mankind and looked for it in all parts of the world in turn, but she is reconsidering this more and more. Ethnology, the history of civilization, language and history point to Asia as the continent where once mankind was born. A second peculiarity, which draws attention in Genesis 2:1-25, is the trial commandment, which is given to the first man. This first man was simply called man, ha-adam, because for a long time he was alone and had no one like him; not until Genesis 4:25 does the name Adam appear without an article and thus becomes a proper name. This clearly shows that the first man, who for a time was the only man, was the origin and the principle, the head of the human race. As such, he received a double task: 1°. to cultivate and guard the Garden of Eden, and 2°. to eat freely from all the trees in the Garden, except from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The first task describes his relationship to the earth, the second his relationship to heaven. Adam must subdue and control the earth, and he must do so in two senses: he must cultivate it, extract from it all the treasures that God has placed in it for mankind, down to the very bowels; and he must also guard it, secure it, protect it from all evil powers that threaten it, he must make it safe from the servitude of destruction, under which the whole of creation now groans. But man can only fulfill his vocation toward the earth if he does not break the bond with heaven, if he takes God at his word and, despite all temptations, continues to obey his commandment. The twofold task is in principle only one. Adam must rule, rule over the earth, not by idleness and idleness, but by the work of his head and heart and hand. But to be able to rule, he must serve God, who is his Creator and Lawgiver. Work and rest, dominion and service, earthly and heavenly calling, civilization and religion, culture and cult, go together from the beginning, belong together and both encompass the great, holy, glorious destiny of mankind. The entire culture, that is, all the work man undertakes to subjugate the earth, agriculture, animal husbandry, industry, trade, science and whatever else one can think of, all that work is the fulfilment of a divine calling. But if it is to be and remain so, it must be undertaken in dependence on and in obedience to God’s Word. Religion must be the principle that inspires and sanctifies the whole life in the service of God. The third special feature is the gift of women and the institution of marriage. Adam had received much. Although formed from the dust of the earth, he was nevertheless a bearer of the image of God. He was placed in a garden that was a place of beauty and abundant with everything that was desirable to the eye and good for food. He was called to cultivate the garden and subdue the earth by pleasant labor, and to walk in accordance with the commandment of God to eat freely of all the trees except one tree. But however richly endowed, the first man was grateful, yet not satisfied. And the cause is discovered in him by God Himself; it lies in his loneliness. It is not good for man to be alone. He is not built for it, he was not created for it; his nature is of a sociable nature; he must be able to express, reveal and give; he must be able to pour out his heart, translate his afflictions, communicate his sensations to a being who can understand him, sympathise with him and empathise with him. Solitude is poverty, desolation, slow languishing and collapse. How lonely it is to be alone! And He, who created mankind in such a way, with such a need for communication and expansion, can only satisfy that need to the extent of His favour and power. He can only make a home that is opposite to him, that is related to him and suits him. And now it is presented like this, Genesis 2:19-21, that the Lord created all the animals of the earth and all the birds of the air and brought them to man, to see if there was not a creature among all these creatures that could be a companion and support for Adam. The purpose of these verses is not to indicate the temporal order in which the animals and mankind were created, but to show the factual order, the relation of rank, the degree of kinship between the two types of creatures. This rank relationship is indicated by the first man in that he gave names to the animals.

Adam therefore knew all these creatures, he understood their nature, he could arrange and classify them and assign to each of them its rightful place in the scheme of things. Therefore, if later on he did not discover a creature among all those creatures that was related to him, this was not a result of ignorance or of foolish self-assertion and pride, but it was due to the fact that between him and all the other creatures there was a specific difference, not only a difference in degree but in essence. There are all sorts of similarities between animals and man; both are physical beings, share all kinds of earthly needs and desires for food and drink, for procreation and expansion; both have the senses of smell, taste, touch, sight and hearing and are also familiar with the lower activities of the cognitive faculty, perception, representation and the connection of ideas. But man is still a different being than the animal; he has reason and will and, as a result, language and religion, morality and law, science and art. He is formed from the dust of the earth, but still he received the breath of life from above. He is a physical being, but also a spiritual one, a reasonable and moral one. That is why Adam did not find any one among all those creatures that was related to him and could be his helper. He gave them all names, but none was worthy of the exalted, royal name of man. And when man could not find what he sought, God gave him, without his knowledge or will, and through no fault of his own, that which he could not provide. The best gifts fall into our lap as gifts without labor and without price. We do not earn and acquire them, we receive them freely. The richest and most precious gift that can be given to a man on earth is the woman; and he receives it in his deep sleep, unconscious, without effort of will or fatigue of hand. Searching, looking, asking, realizing the need, praying precede it; but then God gives the gift freely, alone, without our help; He leads the man to the woman as if by His own hand. And the first sensation Adam feels when he wakes up and sees the woman standing before him is one of admiration and gratitude. He does not feel strange towards her, but immediately recognizes her as being of the same nature as him. His recognition was a re-acknowledgement of that which he felt he missed and sought, but could not provide himself. And his admiration gives itself air in the first wedding song that resounded over the earth: this one is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Mannina, because she was taken from the man. Adam thus remains the principle and head of the human race; the woman is not created beside him, but from him, 1 Corinthians 11:8. Just as the material for Adam’s body is taken from the earth, so Adam’s side forms the basis for Eve’s existence. But as the first man was first made man from the dust of the earth by the breath of life from above, so the first woman was first made man from the side of Adam by the creative omnipotence of God. She is of Adam and yet different from him; she is related to him and yet different from him; she belongs to the same species and yet has her own place in it; she is dependent and yet free; she is after Adam and from Adam, but still owes her existence to God alone. And so she serves as a helper for man, to enable him to fulfil his calling to rule over the earth; as a helper, not as a mistress and much less as a slave, but as an independent and free being, who did not receive existence from man but from God, is responsible to Him, and was added to man as a free, undeserved gift. This is how Scripture tells the story of the origin of man, both man and woman; and this is how it conceives the institution of marriage and the beginning of the human race. But nowadays, under the name and authority of science, we are given an entirely different picture of all this. And since this is penetrating more and more into the circles of the people and has the greatest significance for the whole consideration of the world and life, it is necessary to devote a few moments to it and to examine the grounds on which it is based.

If one rejects the Scriptures’ account of the origin of mankind, one must, of course, try to give a different explanation. Man exists; we cannot therefore evade the question of where he came from. If he does not owe his origin to the creative omnipotence of God, he must have come into existence in some other way. And then there is not much else left, but to imagine that man gradually developed from the previous lower creatures and thus worked his way up to his present high position. Development (evolution) is therefore the magic word, which nowadays must serve as the solution to all questions about the origin and nature of creatures. Of course, since the doctrine of creation is rejected, one must assume that something existed in the beginning, for nothing can be created out of nothing; but then one starts from the completely arbitrary and impossible assumption that matter and power and movement have been eternal, and adds that our solar system was preceded by a situation in which the world was nothing but a chaotic, gaseous mass. And from there the development began, which gradually gave birth to our world with all its creatures. Through development the solar system and the earth came into being; development formed the layers of the earth and the minerals; through development, in an endless series of years, the living arose from the inanimate; development gradually gave birth to the plants, the animals and the human beings ; and in the world of mankind it is again the same development that has brought about gender division, marriage, the family, society, the state, language, religion, morality, law, science, art and all other goods of civilization in a regulated order. If one may start from this single assumption that matter and power and movement were eternal, one also believes that God is not needed at all. The world contains its own explanation; science, it is believed, has made God entirely superfluous. The origin of mankind is then further explained by development theory, in essence as follows. When the earth cooled down and was suitable for the creation of living beings, life probably arose under the conditions then prevailing, in that first lifeless protein compounds were formed, which through various influences acquired different qualities, and that these protein compounds then through connection and mixing produced the protoplasm, the first life germ. Thus began biogenetic development, the development of living beings, which may have lasted a hundred million years. This protoplasm forms the protein-like independence of the cell, which is now generally considered the basic component of all living beings, plants, animals and mankind. Single-celled protozoa or moners (the name for the very first living creatures) were thus the oldest organisms. As they became motionless or mobile, they gradually developed into plants or animals. Of the animals, the infusions (the smallest worms) are the lowest, but from these, through various transitions and intermediate forms, the higher types of animals gradually developed, which are known as vertebrates, articulates, molluscs and rays. The vertebrates are in turn divided into four classes: fish, amphibians, birds and mammals; the latter in turn are divided into three orders: platypuses, marsupials and mother mammals, and the latter in turn into rodents, hoofed mammals, predators and beasts of prey. The animals or primates again have three classes: half-monkeys, real monkeys and apes. When mankind is compared to these various animals in terms of its body structure, it appears, according to the theory of evolution, that he is successively more closely related to the vertebrates, mammals, mother beasts, gentleman beasts and most closely related to the great apes, which are represented by the orang and gibbon in Asia and by the gorilla and shimpanzee in Africa. These are also the next of kin to man; they differ from man in size, shape etc., but are similar to him in the basis of his physique. Yet man does not derive from the same species of monkey, which are still alive, but from a long-extinct species of man-monkey, which is either thought of as more like a man or more like an ape, and which is the common ancestor of monkeys and men. So apes and humans exist in blood, belong to the same family, but in relation to each other they should not be considered brothers and sisters, but cousins. This is the idea behind the development theory. This is how she imagines the course of events to have been. But of course it was also called upon to explain in some way how it all happened. One could say that plants, animals and human beings formed an unbroken, ascending series, but one still had to demonstrate to some extent that such a development was indeed possible, that for example an ape had gradually transformed into a human being. To give such an explanation Charles Darwin made an attempt in 1859. He observed that plants and animals, e.g. the roses and the pigeons, can be significantly modified by artificial choice of cultivation, and this gave rise to the idea of whether such a choice of cultivation could not also be at work in nature, albeit not an artificial one, guided by the hand of man, but at least an unconscious, involuntary, natural choice of cultivation. This thought lit a fire for him. For by adopting such a natural choice of cultivation he considered himself in a position to explain that plants and animals gradually change and transform themselves, that they could overcome disadvantages in their organization and gain advantages, and that in so doing they could equip themselves ever better for the struggle for existence and persevere above others. For life is everywhere and always in the whole of creation a struggle for existence. On the surface there seems to be peace in nature, but appearances are deceptive. On the contrary, everywhere there is a struggle for life and the necessities of life, because the earth is too small and too poor to provide all living creatures that are born with sufficient food. Millions of organisms die of want; only the strongest remain. And these strongest, who stand out from the rest due to one or another characteristic, inherit the advantageous characteristics they have gradually acquired from their offspring.

Thus there is progress and ever higher development. According to Darwin, natural choice of cultivation, struggle for existence and inheritance of old and newly acquired characteristics explained the emergence of new species, and also the transition from animal to man. In judging this theory of development it is necessary, first of all, to make a sharp distinction between the facts on which it relies and the philosophical considerations which it attaches to them. The facts all consist of the fact that man has all kinds of characteristics in common with the other living creatures, especially with the higher species and among these especially with the apes. Of course, these facts were largely known before, for the similarity in physique, in the various organs of the body and their functions, in the senses, in the sensations and perceptions, in the representations and in their connections, etc. is immediately obvious to everyone and cannot be denied. But the dissecting sciences, the sciences of life, the phenomena of life and life’s functions and also spiritual science have in recent times investigated all these features much more deeply and accurately, and have thereby increased their number and strengthened their significance. Various other sciences have also contributed to confirm and extend these similarities between man and animal. The study of the human body in the mother’s womb, before birth, showed that in the very first stages of its existence, man showed a resemblance to fish, amphibians and lower mammals. Palaeontology, which studies the conditions of ancient times, discovered human remains such as skeletons, bones, skulls, tools, decorations, dwellings, etc., which indicated that centuries ago man lived in a very simple way in some regions of the earth. Ethnologists have learned about tribes and peoples who are spiritually and physically separated from the civilized nations by a great distance, When these facts, brought together from different quarters, became known, philosophical thought hastened to relate them to each other and merge them into one system, the system of slow development of all things, especially mankind. This idea of development did not arise only after and because of the facts, but it had existed for a long time, had been advocated by various philosophers and was now applied to the partly new found facts. The old system was now, it was believed, resting on established facts; and a cry of joy went up that all the riddles of the world except one, that of eternal matter and power, had been solved and all secrets discovered. But scarcely had this proud edifice of developmental theory been completed when the attack and the demolition began. Darwinism, said a famous philosopher, emerged in the sixties, held its triumphal march in the seventies, was at its height in the eighties, was then doubted by a few in the nineties and since the end of the last century strongly opposed by many. The first and sharpest attack was directed against the explanation which Darwin had tried to give of the way in which the various species had originated. The struggle for existence and the natural choice of cultivation were unable to provide the service to which they had been called. It is true that in the world of plants, animals and mankind there is often a fearful struggle that has an important ’influence’ on their nature and existence. But it is by no means proven that this struggle can produce new species. It can help to strengthen aptitudes and abilities, organs and powers through exercise and effort; it can develop what is, but it cannot produce what does not exist. It is also an exaggeration, as everyone knows from his or her own experience, that there is always conflict everywhere and that there is nothing but conflict.

There is not only hatred and enmity, there is also love and cooperation and helpfulness in the world. The doctrine that nowhere is there anything but war of all against all is as one-sided as the idyllic view of the eighteenth century, which found peace and tranquility everywhere in nature. There is room for many at the great table of nature, and the earth, which God gave to mankind as a dwelling place, is inexhaustibly rich. Many facts and phenomena have nothing at all to do with a struggle for existence. No one can say what the colors and shapes of snail skin, the black color of the belly skin of many vertebrates, the graying of hair in old age, the reddening of leaves in autumn have to do with the struggle for life. It is also not true that in this struggle the strongest specimens always and exclusively win, and the weakest always perish. A so-called coincidence, a happy or unhappy circumstance, often mocks all our calculations. A strong man is sometimes snatched away in his prime, and a weak and infirm man or woman extends life into old age. A Dutch scientist has therefore substituted Darwin’s natural choice of cultivation with another theory, that of mutation, according to which changes in the species do not occur regularly and slowly, but sometimes suddenly and leaps and bounds; but the question is whether such changes are only changes within the species, or whether they give rise to new species. And the answer to this question is, in turn, related to the definition of the concept of species. And not only the struggle for existence, the natural choice of cultivation and the survival of the fittest, but also the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which Darwin assumed to be necessary in order to increase the rate of development, has lost its credit with many. The passing on of the natural, innate qualities of the parents to the children argues from the nature of the case more against than for Darwinism, because it includes the constancy of the species; from humans, for centuries on end, only humans have emerged. But about the inheritance of characteristics acquired later in life there is nowadays so much difference of opinion that nothing can be said with certainty. What is certain is that acquired characteristics are often not passed on from parents to children. Circumcision, for example, has been used for centuries by some peoples and yet it leaves no trace on the children; it always has to be done to each child. Inheritance takes place only within certain limits and does not change the species. If the change has been produced artificially, it must also be maintained artificially or else it will be lost. Neither heredity nor mutability are explained by Darwinism; both are facts whose existence is not in doubt, but whose coherence and connection lie as yet beyond our knowledge.

More and more, therefore, the men of science have abandoned Darwinism proper, Darwinism in the narrow sense, namely the attempt to explain species change by struggle for existence, natural choice of cultivation and inheritance of acquired characteristics. The prophecy of one of the first and most important opponents of Darwin’s theory has literally been fulfilled, that this attempt to explain the mysteries of life would not reach the end of the (nineteenth) century. But of much more importance is the fact that criticism has not only raised its voice against Darwin’s method of explanation, but also against development theory. Of course, facts remain facts and cannot and should not be denied. But it is something else with the theory, which is built on those facts by thinking. And it now appeared more and more that the development theory did not fit the facts and was even in conflict with them.

Geology (the science of the earth’s strata) brought to light that the lower and higher animal species did not appear one after the other, but have existed side by side since the oldest times. Palaeontology did not provide any conclusive proof for the existence of transitional forms between the various species of organic beings, which, according to Darwin’s theory of extremely slow development through extremely minor changes, should have been present in large numbers; also the much desired and diligently pursued transitional form of monkey and man has so far not been found anywhere. The study of the development of the human body in the mother’s womb does show some external similarity to the development of other animal bodies before birth; but this similarity is external, because from an animal body in the mother’s womb a human being never develops, and conversely from that of a human being an animal never develops; from the moment of conception, therefore, human beings and animals already diverge, although the inner difference is not perceptible to us. Biology, the science of life and life-phenomena, has so far provided so little support for the assumption that life arose spontaneously that many now even accept the impossibility of this and have renewed the earlier idea of a special life force. As they continue their research, physics and chemistry have uncovered more and more mysteries and wonders in the world of the infinitely small, and have led many people back to the view that the last constituents of things are not substances but forces. And - to mention no more - all the attempts that have been made to explain consciousness, freedom of will, reason, conscience, language, religion, morality, etc., solely from development, have as yet met with none of them with a favorable outcome. The origins of all these phenomena, as well as those of all things, are shrouded in mystery to science. For it is important to note that when man appears to us in history, he is already a man in body and soul, and he already possesses, everywhere and at all times, all those human qualities and activities whose origins science is investigating. Nowhere are people found that they do not have a mind and will, reason and conscience, thought and language, religion and morality, marriage and family, etc.? If all these characteristics and phenomena were to have developed gradually, then that development certainly took place in pre-historic times, that is to say, in those times of which we know nothing directly and which can only be traced back to later times on the basis of a few pieces of information. Science which wants to penetrate to that prehistoric time and find the origins of things must therefore, by its very nature, resort to guesses, conjectures and suppositions. These are not susceptible of strict proof. The theory of development, and in particular the theory of the descent of man from animals, is in the least unsupported by facts from the historical period. Of all the elements of which it is composed, only a philosophical world view remains, which seeks to explain all things and phenomena without God, only from and through itself. One of its advocates expressed it openly: there remains only the choice between the theory of descent and the miracle; since the latter is absolutely impossible from a scientific point of view, we are forced to take our stand in the first. But this also shows that the theory of descent is not the result of accurate science, but a postulate of materialistic or pantheistic philosophy. It is not, as someone expressed it years ago, a hypothesis to explain facts, but it constructs facts to confirm a hypothesis. The idea of the origin of man is most closely related to his being. Many people nowadays speak differently, suggesting that the world and mankind, however they may have been conceived of and developed in the past, are what they are today׳ and remain the same for all mankind. The latter is, of course, perfectly true; reality remains absolutely the same, whether we form a correct or incorrect conception of it. But the same is true, in the same sense, of the origin of things. Whether we imagine that the world and mankind have become this way or that way, for example, have gradually developed from themselves over the course of centuries through minor changes, the origin of things is not changed in the slightest. The world has become as it has become, and not as we would think or wish it to be. But the idea of the origin of things is inseparable from the idea of the nature of things.

If the first is wrong, the second cannot be right. If we think that the earth and all the kingdoms of nature, that all creatures and in particular mankind, came into being without God, solely as a result of the development of forces that lie in the world, then it goes without saying that such a thought must have the greatest influence on our conception of the nature of the world and of mankind.

World and man remain completely the same in themselves and are independent of our conception; but for us they change, increase or decrease in value and significance, as we think differently about their origin and creation. This is so obvious that it needs no further explanation or confirmation. But since the opinion that we can think whatever we like about the origin of things, because their essence remains the same for us, recurs again and again, e.g., in the teaching of Scripture, the religion of Israel, the person of Christ, religion, morality, etc., it may be useful to demonstrate the falsity of this opinion a little more fully in the teaching of the nature of man. This is not difficult. For if man has gradually developed from the animal, without God, solely by blindly working natural forces, it goes without saying that he cannot essentially differ from the animal and remains an animal even in his highest development. There is then no place left for a soul distinct from the body, for moral freedom and personal immortality; and religion, truth, morality and beauty lose their absolute character.

These conclusions are not imposed by us on the proponents of the evolution theory, but are derived from it by them. Darwin, for example, says himself that our unmarried women, if mankind had been brought up in exactly the same conditions as the honeybees, would consider it a sacred duty, like the worker bees, to kill their brothers, and mothers would try to kill their fertile daughters, without anyone thinking of intervening. Good and evil, like true and false, are relative concepts, whose sense and value, like fashion, are subject to the changing of times and places. Likewise, according to others, religion has only been a temporary help, which mankind has used in its powerlessness in the struggle against nature and which now still serves as a sleeping potion for the people, but which in time, when mankind has attained full freedom, will naturally die out and disappear. Sin and crime, fornication and murder, do not make man guilty, but are after-effects of the uncivilized state in which mankind has lived in the past, and diminish as mankind develops and society improves; the criminals are to be considered as children, as animals or as mentally ill, and must be treated accordingly; the prisons must make way for institutions of improvement. In a word, if man is not of divine but of animal origin and has gradually raised himself above it, he owes everything to himself, is his own legislator and master and lord. All these conclusions of the (materialistic or pantheistic) theory of development are very clearly revealed in contemporary science, as well as in literature, art and the practice of life. But reality teaches quite differently. Man may well imagine that he has become everything himself and is bound by nothing. But he remains a dependent creature in all respects; he cannot do what he wants. In his physical life he remains bound to the laws governing respiration and circulation, digestion and reproduction. If he goes against these laws and does not pay attention to them, he damages his health and undermines his own life. And the same is true of his soul and spirit life. Man cannot think as he pleases, but is thereby bound by laws which he has not devised and not given himself, but which are embedded in his thinking and come to manifestation. And if he does not abide by these laws, he will be trapping himself in error and lies. Man also cannot will and act as he wishes; his will is subject to the discipline of reason and conscience; and if he disregards this discipline and reduces his will and action to an arbitrary level, self-accusation and self-reproach, regret and remorse, gnawing and remorse of conscience will follow. The life of the soul, therefore, is not built on arbitrariness any more than the physical life is. It is not a state of lawlessness and anarchy, but is governed by laws from all sides and in all its activities. It is subject to rules of truth and goodness and beauty and thus proves that it did not create itself. In a word, man brings with him his own nature, his own essence, which can never be violated with impunity. And so much is nature stronger than doctrine in this respect, that even the adherents of the theory of evolution continue to speak of a human nature, of uniquely human characteristics, of man’s prescribed laws of thought and conduct, of an innate religious disposition. The idea of the nature of man then conflicts with that of his origin. In Scripture, however, there is perfect agreement between the two. Man’s being corresponds to his origin. Because man, although formed according to his body from the dust of the earth, received the breath of life from above and was created by God Himself, he is an individual being, he has an individual nature. And that essence lies in the fact that he is the image of God and shows His likeness.

Through this image of God mankind is distinguished both from animals and angels. He has traits in common with both of them, but he differs from them in his own nature.

Like all creatures, animals were also created by God; they did not come into existence by themselves, but by a special word, by an act of God. And they were also created in different species, just like the plants. All human beings descend from one pair of parents and therefore form one family. But that is not the case with animals; they have, so to speak, different progenitors. It is therefore remarkable that zoology (zoology) has so far not been able to reduce all animals to a single type; it immediately starts dividing them into seven or four main groups or basic forms (or types). In connection with this it is also certain, that most animals are not spread over the whole earth, but live in certain regions; the fish live in the water, the birds in the air, and the land animals are for the most part bound to certain countries: the polar bear is only found in the far north and the platypus only in Australia. In Genesis it is therefore specifically said that God created the plants, Genesis 1:11, and also the animals according to their nature, that is, in species. Of course this does not mean that the species originally created by God were exactly the same as those into which animals are now divided by science, for example by Linnaeus. For in the first place, our classification is always fallible and open to revision, because our zoology is still imperfect and because we do not know how to classify the species. The artificial, scientific concept of species is very difficult to establish and is completely different from the natural concept of species, which we are still searching for. Secondly, in the course of time a large number of animals have become extinct or extirpated. From the remains, which have been preserved intact or damaged in the earth’s strata, it appears that various animal species, such as mammoth, cave hyaene, fish lizard, which no longer exist, lived in large numbers in earlier times. And thirdly, it is certain that, as a result of various influences, the animal world has undergone major modifications and changes which often make it difficult or impossible for us to reduce it to its original form. But then, moreover, it is remarkable in the creation of animals, as it is in that of plants, that, although they come into being by a special act of power, nature indirectly plays a part. The earth brings forth plants, seed-sowing crops and fruit trees, it is said in Genesis 1:11, and the earth did so, Genesis 1:12. And likewise the message in Genesis 1:20 the waters bring forth a multitude of living souls in sorts, and so it came to pass, Genesis 1:21; and in Genesis 1:24, the earth brings forth living souls, cattle, and creeping and wild beasts in sorts, and so it came to pass. With all plants and animals, therefore, nature itself is used by God as an instrument; it is she who, although naturally enabled and made fit for the task by God’s Word, brings forth all these living creatures in great variety of species.

Now this peculiar origin of animals also throws light on their being. That origin shows, namely, that the animals are much more closely connected with the earth and nature than mankind. The animals are living beings, and as such are distinguished from inorganic, lifeless creatures; they are therefore often called living souls, Genesis 1:20-21, Genesis 1:24; in the general sense of the principle of life, animals also have a soul, Genesis 2:19, Genesis 9:4, Genesis 9:10, Genesis 9:12, Genesis 9:16. But this vital principle of the soul is with the animals so closely bound to nature, to metabolism, that they cannot attain independence and autonomy and cannot continue to exist independently of metabolism.

Therefore, the soul of the animal dies with death. And from this it further follows, that the animals, at least the higher species, have the same senses as man and that they can perceive (hear, see, smell, taste, touch), form ideas and can connect these ideas with each other, but the animals have no reason, they cannot detach the ideas from the special, individual and concrete, which clings to them; They cannot convert them into concepts, raise them to concepts, link these concepts to judgements, draw conclusions from these judgements, and execute these conclusions by a will. Animals have perceptions, representations and connections of representations; they have instincts, desires and drives. But they lack the higher faculty of knowledge and desire that is characteristic of man; they have no reason and no will. And all this is reflected in the fact that animals have no language, no religion, no morality and no sense of beauty; they have no conception of God, of the unseen, of the true, the good and the beautiful. In all these things man is far superior to the animal; there is no gradual transition between the two but a cleft; that which constitutes man’s actual being, his reason and will, his thought and language, his religion and morality, etc., is alien to the animal. That is why the animal cannot understand man, but man can understand the animal. Nowadays psychology seeks to explain the soul of man from that of the animal, but in doing so it takes the opposite path. The soul of man is the key to explaining the soul of the animal; the animal lacks what man possesses, but man also shares what is typical of the animal. This is not to say that man already knows the animal through and through. The whole world is a problem for man, a solution to which he seeks and can seek, and likewise every animal is a living riddle. The meaning of the animal, therefore, by no means only consists of being useful to man and providing him with food and shelter, clothing and ornaments. There is much more to the subjugation and domination of the earth than the fact that mankind, rather selfishly, uses everything to his advantage. The animal world also has significance for our science and art, for our religion and morality. God has something, and a lot, to say to us. His thoughts and words speak to us from the whole world, from the world of plants and animals; and when botany and zoology trace these thoughts, they are, like those of the whole of nature, wonderful sciences, which no man, and above all no Christian, may despise. And then again, how rich is not the ethical (maritime) significance of the animal world for mankind! The animal shows us the boundary below which man must raise himself up and to which he may not sink back. Man can become an animal and less than an animal if he numbs the light of reason, breaks the link with heaven and seeks all his lust and pleasure in the earth. The animals are symbols of our virtues and vices; the dog shows us the image of loyalty, the spider of diligence, the lion of courage, the sheep of simplicity, the dove of sincerity, the stag of the soul that thirsts after God; But likewise the fox is the image of cleverness, the worm of misery, the tiger of cruelty, the swine of meanness, the serpent of the devil’s trickery, and the monkey, which comes closest in stature to man, proclaims what the excellence of physical organization means and is capable of without the spirit that is from above. In the monkey man beholds his own caricature.

Just as man differs from animals in the image of God, so he is also distinguished from angels in the image of God. The existence of such beings cannot be proved by scientific means apart from the Scriptures; science knows nothing about them, it cannot argue that they exist, nor can it demonstrate the contrary. But it is noteworthy that the belief in beings who are superior to man occurs in all peoples and religions, and that after people have rejected the Scriptures’ testimony to the existence of angels, they return to believing in supernatural beings in all kinds of superstitious forms. Our present generation provides abundant evidence of this. Angels and devils are no longer believed in, but in their place has returned in many circles to the belief in silent forces, mysterious natural powers, ghosts, spirit appearances, revelations of the dead, animated stars, inhabited planets, living atoms, etc. Whether they are based on deception or reality, they forbid all soothsaying, Leviticus 19:31, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:10-14, sorcery, Deuteronomy 18:10, Jeremiah 27:10, Revelation 21:8, star-worship, Leviticus 19:26, Isaiah 47:13, Micah 5:11, interrogation of the dead or daemons, Deuteronomy 18:11, guile or consultation of oracles, Leviticus 19:26, Deuteronomy 18:10, conjuration with magic formulas, Deuteronomy 18:11, Isaiah 47:9 etc., and thereby puts an end to all superstition, as well as all unbelief. Christianity and superstition are sworn enemies, and not science, enlightenment or civilization, but only faith in God’s Word is the power that saves us from them. The Scriptures make man fundamentally dependent on God, but precisely because of this make him free of all creatures; they place man in the right relation to nature and thereby make possible the true science of nature. But Scripture teaches that there are angels, not mythical creations of the human imagination, not personifications of mysterious forces, not descendants risen to a higher rank, but spiritual beings created by God, subject to His will, called to His service; beings, therefore, of whom we can form a clear conception by the light of Scripture, and who have nothing in common with the mythological figures of pagan religions. They are high above men in knowledge, Matthew 18:10, Matthew 24:36, and power, Psalms 103:20, Colossians 1:16, but they are created by the same God and through the same Word, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and have the same reasoning power. Colossians 1:16, and have the same reasonable and moral nature, so that, for example, it can be said of the good angels that they obey God’s voice and do His good, Psalms 103:20-21, and of the evil angels that they do not stand in the truth, John 8:44, are tempted, Ephesians 6:11, and sin, 2 Peter 2:4. But in spite of this similarity, there is nevertheless a great difference between angels and men. The first difference is that the angels are not composed of soul and body, but are pure spirits (Hebrews 1:14). Revelation 18:3, Revelation 19:14, indicate that these forms were temporary forms of appearance and alternated according to the nature of the mission. The angels are therefore never called souls, living souls, like animals and men. For the soul and spirit are distinguished by the fact that the soul is spiritual by nature, incorporeal, unseen and even in man forms a spiritual independence; but the soul is always a spiritual force or a spiritual independence, which is placed on a body, fits a body and without such a body is incomplete and imperfect. The soul is the spirit that is organized into a physical life. Such a soul is characteristic of the animals and especially of mankind: if man loses his body through death, he continues to exist, but in a deprived, naked condition, so that the resurrection at the last day is a restoration of that loss. But the angels are not souls; they were never intended for a corporeal life and, therefore, have not received the earth but heaven as their dwelling place; they are mere spirits. This is why they have great advantages over human beings, for they are superior in knowledge and power, have a much freer relation to time and space than human beings, can move much more easily and are thus eminently suitable for carrying out God’s commands here on earth. But - and this is the second difference between angels and human beings - these advantages have a reverse side. Because the angels are pure spirits, they all stand apart from each other in a relative sense. They were all created at the same time in the beginning and have lived and continue to live side by side. They do not form one organic whole, not one family. However, there is a natural order among them; for according to Scripture there are thousands upon thousands of angels, Deuteronomy 33:2, and these are divided into classes, into Cherubim, Genesis 3:24, Seraphim, Isaiah 6:1-13, thrones, powers, dominions and forces, Ephesians 1:21, Ephesians 3:13, Colossians 1:16, Colossians 2:10, and also distinguished among themselves in rank ; Gabriel and Michael occupy among them a special place, Daniel 8:16, Daniel 9:21, Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21, Luke 1:19, Luke 1:26. But nevertheless, they do not form one family, they do not exist in each other’s blood, they did not spring from each other. We may speak of a single humanity, but not in that sense of an ״angeliness. When Christ assumed human nature, then He was at once related to all men, their blood relative, their brother in the flesh. But the angels live side by side, each on his own account, so that one part of them could fall and another part could remain faithful to God.

Now there is a third difference in connection with this: since the angels are spirits and therefore not related to the earth, and since they are not related by blood to one another and therefore do not know men and women, fathers and mothers, parents and children, brothers and sisters, etc., there is a complete separation of angels and angels. They may be more powerful than human beings, but they are not so versatile, they have far fewer relationships, and the wealth and depth of their emotional life far surpasses that of angels. It is true that Jesus says in Matthew 22:30 that marriage will end with this dispensation, but the relationships on earth have increased the spiritual treasures of mankind to a significant degree, and these treasures will not be lost in the resurrection either; they will be preserved for eternity.

If we then consider that the richest revelation which God has given us lies in his Father’s name, and in the name of his Son, who became our likeness and our prophet, priest and king, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who has been poured out in the congregation and makes God himself live in us - if we consider all this, then we feel that it is not the angel, but mankind that has been created in God’s image. Angels experience His power and wisdom and goodness, but human beings share in His eternal mercy. God is their Lord, but He is not their Father; Christ is their Head, but He is not their Reconciler and Saviour; the Holy Spirit is their Sender and Guide, but He never testifies with their minds that they are children and heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. It is here that the battle between heaven and hell is fought, it is here that the congregation is formed into the body of the Son, it is here that the decisive battle is fought and the final triumph over the enemies of God is won. Thus they want to see the secrets of salvation, which are revealed here, and they want to learn from the church the manifold wisdom of God, Ephesians 3:10, 1 Peter 1:12.

Angels therefore have many relationships with us and we with them. Faith in the existence and activity of angels is not of the same value as the faith with which we trust in God and wholeheartedly love, fear and honor Him. We may not put our trust in any creature, not even an angel; we may not worship them or pay them any religious tribute, Deuteronomy 6:13, Matthew 4:10, Revelation 22:9; and not even the guardian angels, who are supposed to be given to every man in particular, and the intercession of the angels on our behalf are mentioned in a single word of Scripture. But that does not make belief in the angels indifferent and worthless. On the contrary, they occupied an important place in the time of the revelation; they appear in the life of Jesus at all turning points, and they will one day appear with Him on the clouds of heaven. They rejoice at the conversion of sinners, Luke 15:10, watch over the faithful, Psalms 34:8, Psalms 91:11, protect the little ones, Matthew 18:10, follow the church through its history, Ephesians 3:10, and carry the children of God in Abraham’s womb, Luke 16:22.

Therefore, we shall remember them with reverence and speak of them with honour; give them joy through our conversion; follow their example in serving God and in obeying His word; make them see the manifold wisdom of God in their own hearts and lives and in the whole congregation; be mindful of their fellowship, and together with them proclaim the great works of God. Thus there is difference between angels and men, but no conflict; diversity, but also unity; distinction, but also fellowship. When we come to Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, we also come to the many thousands of angels and with them re-establish the bond of unity and love that sin has broken. In the great, rich creation of God, they and we have our own place and accomplish our own task. Angels are the sons, the mighty heroes, the mighty hosts of God; men were created in His image and are God’s lineage.

If the image of God is the distinguishing feature of mankind, we must have a clear idea of its content. In Genesis 1:26 we read that God created human beings in His image and likeness, so that they would have dominion over all creatures, especially over all living creatures. Three things attract attention. First, the similarity between God and man is expressed by two words: image and likeness. These two words are not, as many have thought, objectively different in content, but serve to complement and reinforce each other. Together they indicate that man is not a more or less real, and much less a failed, portrait, but that he is a perfect, true image of God. Just as man is in miniature, so God is in large, in infinitely large, because man is like God. Man is infinitely lower than God and yet related to Him; as a creature he is completely dependent on God and yet, as a human being, an independent, free being; bondage and freedom, dependence and independence, immeasurable distance from and intimate relationship with God are combined in a wonderful, incomprehensible way in man. How a puny creature can at the same time be the image of God is far beyond our understanding.

Secondly, it is said that God created human beings in His image and likeness. From the beginning it was His intention that God should create not one single human being in His image, but a multitude of human beings. That is why He created man and woman right from the start, neither separate from the other, but in relationship and in fellowship with each other, Genesis 1:27. Not in the man alone, nor in the woman alone, but in both together, and in each of them in a special way and according to a special side, the image of God comes out.

It has been said that the opposite is true, because in 1 Corinthians 11:7 Paul says that the man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man; and this passage has often been misused to deny the woman the image of God and to degrade her far below the man. But the Apostle does not speak of the man and the woman in themselves, but of their relationship in marriage. And then he says that it is not the woman, but the man who is the head; and he deduces this from the fact that the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. The man was created first, he was made first in God’s image, in him God revealed his glory first. And if the woman shares in all this, it is in the second place, indirectly, from and through the man. She did receive the image of God, but after the man, in dependence on him, under his mediation. Therefore, the man is the image and glory of God directly and originally; the woman is it in a derived way, in that she is the glory of the man. What is written in Genesis 1:1-31 and Genesis 2:1-25 must be connected with each other. The way in which the woman is created in Genesis 2:1-25 is the way in which she and the man together receive the image of God, Genesis 1:27. This further clarifies that the image of God rests in a multitude of people, with different genders, gifts and powers, that is, in mankind, and that after the fall it receives its full development in the new mankind, in the church of Christ. And thirdly, Genesis 1:26 teaches us that God had a purpose in creating man in his own image, namely that man should have dominion over all living creatures and should fill and subdue the earth in the way of multiplication and expansion. If we summarize this subjugation of the earth under the now common name of culture, then this is, in the broadest sense, the purpose with which God created man in His image. So little do cult and culture, religion and civilization, Christianity and humanity conflict with one another, that the image of God was given to man for that purpose, that he might manifest it in his dominion over the whole earth. And it is not only the oldest professions, such as hunting and fishing, agriculture and stock-breeding, that serve this dominion over the earth, but also trade and industry, finance and credit, the exploitation of mines and mountains, science and the arts. And all this culture does not end in man, but through man, who is the image of God and who imprints his spirit on all his work, returns to God, who is First and Last. The content of this image of God is unfolded more fully in the rest of Revelation. It is worth noting that even after the fall man continues to be called the image of God. In Genesis 5:1-3 it is remembered that God created man and woman together in His image and blessed them, and that Adam thereby begot a son, who was His likeness and image. In Genesis 9:6 the killing of man is forbidden, because God made him in His image. The poet of the beautiful eighth psalm sings the praises of the glory and the majesty of the Lord, which is most splendidly manifested in heaven and earth, above all in the void man and in His sovereignty over all the works of God’s hands. When Paul spoke to the Athenians on the Areopagus, he adopted the words of one of their poets with approval: For we are also the family of God. In James 3:9 the apostle, as proof of the evil of the tongue, makes this contradiction, that through it we praise God and the Father and curse those who are made in His image. And Scripture not only calls fallen man the image of God, but it also continues to regard and treat him in this way; it always sees in him a reasonable, moral being, responsible to God for all his thoughts, words and deeds, and obliged to do his service.

Nevertheless, we also find the idea that man has lost the image of God through sin. Although this is not stated anywhere directly and in so many words, it can be clearly deduced from the entire teaching of Scripture concerning sinful man. As will be shown later, sin has robbed man of innocence, righteousness and holiness; it has corrupted his heart, darkened his mind, inclined his will to evil, transformed his mind and body with all its members into the service of unrighteousness. Thus he must be changed, born again, justified, washed and sanctified. He can only partake of all these benefits in the fellowship with Christ, who is the Image of God, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15, and whose image we must be conformed to, Romans 8:29. The new man, put on by faith in his fellowship, is therefore created according to God’s will in true righteousness and holiness, Eph. The virtues of knowledge, righteousness and holiness, which the believer acquires through the fellowship of Christ, have their origin, example and ultimate goal in God and make man partakers of the divine nature again, 2 Peter 1:4. This teaching of Scripture is the basis for the distinction which is usually made in Reformed theology between the image of God in a wider and a narrower sense. If, on the one hand, after his fall and disobedience, man still retains the image and the lineage of God, and if, on the other hand, man has lost those virtues which in particular conform him to God through sin and only receives them back in communion with Christ, then the one and the other are in harmony only if the image of God includes something else and something more than exclusively the virtues of knowledge, righteousness and holiness. This was recognized by the Reformed and upheld by them against the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics. The Lutherans do not distinguish between the image of God in a wider and a narrower sense; and if they make the distinction at all, they attach little value to it and do not see its significance. For them the image of God coincides with the original righteousness, that is, with the virtues of knowledge, righteousness and holiness. They know only the image of God in a narrower sense, and feel no need to relate this image of God to the whole of human nature. The religious and moral life of man forms its own, separate field; it is not connected with and has no influence on the work which man is called to do in society and state, in art and science. If the Lutheran Christian partakes of the forgiveness of sins and communion with God through faith, then this is enough for him; he rests and enjoys in this and does not worry about relating this spiritual life back to God’s counsel and election, and forth to mankind’s entire earthly vocation.

It follows, therefore, in the opposite direction that man, having lost the original righteousness through sin, is deprived of the whole image of God; he has nothing left of it, not even minor remnants; he is like a stick and a block, and is thus short-changed and misunderstood in the rational and moral nature which is still his own. On the other hand, the Roman Catholics do distinguish between the image of God in a broader and a narrower sense, although they usually do not use these terms correctly; and they are also careful to establish some connection between the two. But with them this connection is not internal, but external; it is not grounded in both natures, but artificial; not organic, but mechanical. The Roman Catholics propose that without the virtues of knowledge, righteousness and holiness (the image of God in the narrow sense), man is conceivable and can exist in reality. In that case man still has a religious and moral life, but only to the degree and extent that can flow from natural religion and natural morals; it remains, as it were, limited to and within this earth, and can never pave the way for him to heavenly bliss and the direct vision of God. Moreover, although it is possible in the abstract that such a natural man, without the image of God in the narrow sense, can fulfil the duties of natural religion and of the natural moral law as required, in reality this is extremely difficult, because man is a material, bodily, sensual being. This sensual nature of man is always accompanied by lust, and although this lust in itself is not yet a sin, it is nevertheless a very easy occasion for sin. For by its very nature it is opposed to the spirit, being fleshly, and is a constant danger to it, that reason and will may be overpowered by the power of the flesh. For these two reasons God has freely added to natural man the image of God in the narrow sense. God could have created man without this image; but because He foresaw that man would then very easily become a prey to fleshly lusts, and because He also wanted to bring man to a higher state of salvation than is possible here on earth, namely, to heavenly glory in His immediate presence;

Therefore God added to man the original righteousness and thereby raised him from his natural state to a higher, supernatural position. This achieved two goals. Firstly, with the aid of this supernatural addition man could very easily restrain, control and suppress his natural lust for the flesh; and secondly, by fulfilling the supernatural duties prescribed by the original righteousness (the image of God in a narrower sense) he could also acquire a corresponding supernatural blessedness. The supernatural addition of original righteousness thus serves two purposes for Rome: it serves as a rein for the flesh, and at the same time it paves the way of merit to heaven.

Between the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics, the Reformed take their own position. According to the Holy Scriptures, the image of God is broader and more extensive than the original righteousness; for while the latter has been lost through sin, man still bears the name of the image and family of God; there are still small remnants in him of the likeness of God, according to which he was originally created. The original righteousness, therefore, could not have been a gift that was entirely separate from itself and in no way connected to human nature. Man did not first exist, whether in thought only or also in reality, as a naked natural being, to which later the original righteousness was imposed from without or added from above. But man was conceived and created at one and the same time with that original righteousness; it is inherent in the idea of man; man without it is neither conceivable nor existent; the image of God in the narrower sense is closely related to the image of God in the wider sense; man does not bear the image of God, but he is the image of God. The image of God is part of man himself; it extends as far as the human being in man. Insofar as man has remained a man in the condition of sin, he has also retained remnants of the image of God, and to the same degree as he has lost the image of God, he has also ceased to be man, truly and completely. The image of God in the narrow sense is nothing more than man’s spiritual health. If man becomes sick in body and soul, even if he becomes insane, he still remains a man, but he has lost something that belongs to man’s harmony, and in its place he has gained something that is contrary to that harmony. Likewise, when man has lost his original righteousness through sin, he has remained a man, but he has lost something that is inseparable from the idea of man, and he has received in its place something that is excluded by that idea. Man, having lost the image of God, did not therefore become a stick and a log, but he retained his reasonable and moral nature. And he did not lose something that did not really belong to his nature, but received something in its place, which affected and destroyed his entire nature. Just as the original righteousness was man’s spiritual health, so sin is his spiritual infirmity; sin is moral corruption, spiritual death, death in sins and crimes, as Scripture describes it. This conception of the image of God does full justice to all the teaching of Scripture; it maintains at the same time the connection and distinction between nature and grace, between creation and re-creation. She gratefully and wholeheartedly acknowledges the grace of God, which enabled man to remain a man even after the fall and continues to regard and act upon him as a reasonable, moral, responsible being; and she also maintains that this same man, deprived of the image of God, is totally corrupted and inclined to all evil. Life and history are there to confirm this. For in the deepest recesses man’s nature is still preserved; and whatever summit of earthly greatness man may reach, even there he remains small and weak, guilty and impure. Only the image of God makes man a true and complete man.

If we now try to give a brief overview of the contents of the image of God, we must first consider the spiritual nature of man. Man is a physical being, but he is also a spiritual being; he shares a soul, which at its core is spirit. This is clear from what the Scriptures teach about the origin, nature and longevity of the human soul. With respect to the origin, we read that, unlike the animals, Adam received the breath of life from above (Genesis 2:7), and this is certainly true of all human beings. For it is God who gives each man his spirit, Ecclesiastes 12:7, and forms the spirit of man within him, Zechariah 12:1, and therefore, in distinction to the fathers of the flesh, can be called the Father of spirits, Hebrews 12:9. This special origin of the human soul also determines its being. It is true that the Scriptures several times attribute a soul to animals as well, Genesis 2:19, Genesis 9:4, etc., but then the word is used in the broader sense of life principle. Man, however, possesses another, higher soul, a soul whose core and essence is spirit. This is reflected in the fact that the Holy Scriptures attribute a spirit of their own to man, but never to animals. The animals do share a spirit in the sense that they, along with all other creatures, are supported and sustained by the Spirit of God (Psalms 104:30), but they have no independent spirit of their own. On the other hand, the human beings each have their own spirit, Deuteronomy 2:30, Richt. 15:19, Ezekiel 3:14, Luke 23:46, Acts 7:59, 1 Corinthians 2:11, 1 Corinthians 5:3-4. Because of this spiritual nature, the soul of man is also immortal; it does not die with the body as with animals, but returns to God, who gave it spirit, Ecclesiastes 12:7, cannot be killed as the body by men, Matthew 10:28, and continues to exist as the spirit, Hebrews 12:13, 1 Peter 3:19. This spirituality of the soul elevates man above the animal and makes him equal to the angels. He belongs to the sensuous world and is earthly in origin, but he rises above the earth through the immortal spirit that has been implanted in him, and enters royally free into the realm of the spirits. Through his spiritual nature man is related to God, who is Spirit, John 4:24, and dwells for ever, Isaiah 57:15.

Secondly, the image of God is manifested in the faculties and powers that have been given to man’s spirit. The higher animals are able to obtain images through perception and to link these to one another, but they do not get any further than this. Man, on the other hand, elevates himself above conceptions and ascends into the realm of concepts and ideas. By thinking, which cannot be understood as a movement or separation of the brain but is a spiritual activity, he derives the general from the particular, ascends from the visible to the invisible, forms the ideas of the true, the good and the beautiful, and learns to understand God’s eternal power and divinity from the creatures. By the will, which is also distinguished from sensual desire, he separates himself from the material world and reaches out to unseen and transcendental goods. His affections are by no means only set in motion by useful and pleasant things within the circle of the material world, but they are also aroused by ideal, spiritual goods which cannot be calculated in numbers. All these forces and activities have their starting point and center in the self-awareness through which man knows himself and carries within him an inextinguishable awareness of his own existence and of the peculiarities of his rational and moral nature. And all these special faculties are outwardly manifest in language and religion, in morality and law, in art and science, all of which, with many others, are phenomena in the human world and do not occur in animals.

All these forces and activities are traits of the image of God. For, according to the revelation in nature and Scripture, God is not an unconscious, blind force, but He is a personal, self-conscious, knowing and willing being. Even affections and passions, such as wrath, jealousy, hatred, vengeance, mercy, love, etc., are attributed to God in Scripture without hesitation, not as disorders which He patiently undergoes, but as actions of His all-powerful, holy and loving being. Scripture could not speak of God in this human way if man had not been created in His image in all these powers and effects.

Thirdly, this even applies to man’s body. This too is not completely excluded from the image of God. Scripture does say explicitly that God is Spirit, John 4:24, and nowhere does it attribute a body to Him. Yet God is also the Creator of the body and of the whole visible world; all things, including material things, have their origin and substance in the Word, which was with God, John 1:3, Colossians 1:15, and therefore rest in thought, in spirit. Furthermore, although the body is the instrument, it is not the cause of all those activities which man performs; it is not the ear that hears, but the soul of man that hears through the ear. The Scriptures speak of his hands and feet, his eyes and ears, and so much more, to show that whatever man does and does by means of his body, originally and perfectly belongs to God. Should He who plants the ear not hear? Should He, who forms the eye, not behold? Psalms 94:9. So, inasmuch as the body serves as an instrument for the work of the spirit, it bears some resemblance and gives us some idea of the way God works in the world.

All this still belongs to the image of God in the wider sense. But the resemblance of God and man is much stronger in the original righteousness with which the first man was endowed and which is called the image of God in the narrow sense. When Scripture emphasizes this original righteousness, it indicates that the image of God is not only and not primarily about the that, but primarily about the what. It is not that we think and will, love and hate, but that man’s likeness to God has its primary meaning therein, which is the content of our thought and will, the object of our hate and our love. The formal faculties of position and will, of affection and aversion, were given to man for that very purpose, that he might use them in the right way, according to God’s will and to His honor. The devils have also retained the faculties of knowledge and willingness, but they use them only in the service of their hatred and enmity against God; even belief in God’s existence, which is in itself something good, produces in them nothing but trembling and fear of His judgment, (James 2:19). But because they did just the opposite, and sought to kill Jesus, they betrayed that they were of the devil’s father, and wanted to do his will (John 8:39-44). The desires of the Jews and the works they did, in spite of all their cleverness and zeal, made them equal to the devil. And so, conversely, man’s likeness to God is not expressed chiefly in his having an intellect and a reason, a heart and a will; but it is manifested chiefly in pure knowledge and in perfect righteousness and holiness, which together constitute the image of God in the narrow sense, and with which man was favoured and adorned at his creation. The knowledge given to the first man did not mean that he knew everything and could no longer learn anything about God, himself and the world; for even the knowledge of the angels and the blessed is still there, and the knowledge of Christ on earth was open to increase until the end of his life. But this means that Adam received a knowledge that was sufficient for his situation and calling and that this knowledge was pure. He loved the truth with all his soul; the lie, with all its pitiful consequences of error, doubt, unbelief and uncertainty, had not yet taken root in his heart; he stood in the truth, and saw and knew and appreciated everything as it really was. This knowledge of the truth brought with it righteousness and holiness. Holiness indicates that the first man was created free from all the stain of sin; his nature was undefiled; no evil thought, deliberation or desire came out of his heart; he was not dumb as an ignoramus, but knew God, and he also knew the law of God, which was written in his heart, and loved it with all his soul; because he stood in the truth, he also stood in love. And righteousness indicates that man, who thus knew the truth in his mind and was holy in his will and in all his affections, thus fully agreed with God’s law, fully satisfied the demands of his right, and stood before Him guiltless; truth and love bring peace, peace with God and with ourselves and with the whole world. Man, who stands in the right place, where he ought to stand, also automatically stands in the right relation to God and all creatures. A head and a heart, a mind and a will that are completely pure and free from all sin are far beyond our experience. When we consider how sin is woven into all our thinking and speaking, all our will and action, then even the doubt may arise in our hearts as to whether such a state of truth, love and peace is possible for mankind. But the Scriptures overcome and dispel that doubt. For first of all, not only at the beginning, but also in the middle of history, it presents us with a man who could quite rightly ask his adversaries: Who among you convinces me of sin? John 8:46. Christ was a true and therefore perfect man, who committed no sin, and no guile was found in his mouth, 1 Peter 2:22. And secondly, it teaches that the first human couple was created in the image of ׳God, in righteousness and holiness as the fruit of known truth. In addition, Scripture maintains that sin is not part of the nature of man, and that it can therefore be removed from that nature.

If sin has clung to man from his earliest origins, by virtue of his inherent nature, then, by its very nature, no deliverance from sin is possible; deliverance from sin would be tantamount to the destruction of human nature. But not only is a man without sin conceivable in the abstract, but such a holy man has actually existed. And when he fell and became guilty and unclean, then another man, the second Adam, rose up without sin, to free fallen man from all guilt and to cleanse him from all stain. The creation of man in God’s image and the possibility of his fall include the possibility of his redemption and re-creation; but he who denies the first cannot maintain the second, and the denial of the fall has as its flipside the dismal preaching of man’s irredeemability. To fall, however, man must first have stood; to lose the image of God, he must first have possessed it. The creation of man in the image of God had, according to Genesis 1:26, Genesis 1:28, the immediate goal of fulfilling, subduing and ruling the earth. This dominion is not a constituent part of the image of God and much less, as is sometimes claimed, makes up its entire content, but it is also by no means an arbitrary and incidental addition. On the contrary, the emphasis placed on it and its close connection with the creation in God’s image prove conclusively that the image of God comes out in that reign and must unfold and expound its content more and more. Furthermore, in the description of this dominion it is clearly expressed that, to a certain extent, it was given to the first couple immediately, but that it had to be acquired in the future to a very significant degree. After all, God not only says in general terms that He wants to create ״humans’ in His own image and likeness, Genesis 1:26, but when He created the first couple of men and women, He blessed them and said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, Genesis 1:28, and even more specifically He gave Adam the task of cultivating the garden and keeping it in order, Genesis 2:15.

All this teaches us as clear as day that man was not created to be idle, but to work. He was not to rest on his laurels, but was to go out into the wide world and submit it to the power of his word and will. He was given a large, extensive, rich task to do on earth. He was entrusted with a work that would require centuries of effort. A road was pointed out to him, of immense length, which he had to follow and which he had to travel to the end. In a word, there is a great difference and a long distance between the situation in which the first man was created and the destination to which he was called. Although this destiny is closely connected with his being, just as this being is closely connected with his origin, it is nevertheless distinct from it. The essence of mankind, that is, the image of God, after which he was created, had to develop its content ever more richly and fully in the pursuit of his destiny; it had to be extended, so to speak, by mankind to the ends of the earth and pressed into all the works of his hands. The world had to be worked by man so that it became more and more a revelation of God’s virtues.

Dominion over the earth was therefore the nearest, but not the last goal to which man was called. The nature of the matter already indicates this. Work, which is true work, cannot rest and does not have a final goal in itself, but always aims to accomplish something and stops when this goal is reached. Work, merely for the sake of work, without consultation, without a plan, without a purpose, is without hope and unworthy of a reasonable man. Development that always continues is not development; to say development is to say progress, course, order, final goal, destination. If man was called to work when he was created, this implies that after completing his work, he should enter into rest for himself and for the human race that is to come from him. The institution of the seven-day week confirms and strengthens this consideration, which stems from the nature of the matter. God worked six days in His creation and rested on the seventh day from all His work. Man, having been created in God’s image, receives the right and privilege to follow God’s example in this right from the moment of creation. The work entrusted to him, namely the fulfillment and subjugation of the earth, is a faint imitation of God’s creative activity; his work, too, is undertaken with deliberation, proceeds in a regular order, and has a definite purpose. Man is not a machine that moves forward unconsciously; he does not turn with unchanging uniformity on a treadmill; but he is also in his work a man, the image of God, a thinking, willing, acting being, who with his work seeks to create something and who at the end looks down with satisfaction on the work of his hands. His work ends, as with God himself, in resting, enjoying, in pleasure. The six-day week with the Sabbath at the end, nobles human work, elevates it above the monotonous work of inanimate nature, and gives it the stamp of a divine profession. Therefore, whoever enters God’s rest on the Sabbath day in accordance with his purpose, rests in the same joyful manner on his works, as God rests on his own, Hebr. 4:10. This applies to the individual human being, but also to the church and to mankind. The world also has its work, which is followed and concluded by the Western Sabbath. There remains a rest for the people of God, of which every Sabbath day is merely an example and foretaste, but also a prophecy and a guarantee (Hebrews 4:9). That is why the Heidelberg Catechism rightly says that God created man good and in His image, so that he might know God his Creator, love Him with all his heart and live with Him in eternal bliss, to praise and glorify Him. Man’s final destination lay in eternal bliss, in the glorification of God, in heaven and not on earth. But in order to reach this final destination, he must first fulfill his calling on earth. To enter God’s rest, he must first complete God’s work. The way to heaven lay through and over the earth; the entrance to the Sabbath is opened up by six days’ work; eternal life is attained in the way of works. This teaching on man’s destiny rests entirely on thoughts expressed in Genesis 1:26-31, Genesis 2:1-3. But the remainder of the second chapter adds another important aspect. When God places man in paradise, He gives him the right to eat freely from all the trees in the garden; but He excludes one tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, from which man may not eat, for if he eats it, he will die, Genesis 2:16-17. To all the commandments a single prohibition is added. The commandments were known to Adam partly from his own heart, partly from the spoken word of God. They were not invented by him, but were inculcated and communicated to him by God. Man is not religiously and morally autonomous; he is not his own lawgiver and cannot do what he likes; but God is his only Lawgiver and Judge, Isaiah 33:22, John 4:12. All those commandments which Adam received came down to this: , that he, who was created in the image of God, should remain God’s image in all his thinking and doing, in all his life and work. He had to remain so personally for himself, but also in his married life, in his family, in his six days’ work, in his rest on the seventh day, in his expansion and multiplication, in his subjugation and control of the earth, in his cultivation and guarding of the garden. Adam did not have to go his own way, but had to walk in the way that God showed him. But all these commandments, which, as it were, left Adam full scope for movement and indicated the whole earth as his field of activity, were increased by one prohibition, or rather limited by one prohibition. For the prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil does not belong to the image of God, is not a constituent part of it, but on the contrary is the limitation of it. If Adam violates this prohibition, he loses the image of God, places himself outside the community of God, and dies. Man’s obedience is thus tested against this prohibition. It will become evident from this prohibition whether man will follow the way of God or his own way; whether he will keep to the straight path or go astray; whether he will remain a son of God in the Father’s house, or whether he will travel away to a distant country with the share of good that has been given him. That is why this prohibition is usually called the trial commandment. Adam and Eve could find no reason why the eating of this one tree in particular was forbidden; they had to obey the prohibition, not because they saw and understood its rational content, but simply because God had said so, on the basis of His authority, out of pure obedience, out of pure regard for duty. That is why the tree whose fruit it was forbidden to eat was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That tree would show whether mankind would arbitrarily and of its own accord determine and decide for itself what was good and what was evil, or whether he would be entirely led by and abide by the commandment that God had given him. So the first man was given something and much to do, but he was also given something to leave behind, little but still something. The latter is usually much more difficult than the former. There are many people who, for example, want to do a great deal for their health, but they are not willing to sacrifice much or anything for it; they cannot bring themselves to do anything and consider the smallest act of self-denial to be an unbearable burden. The forbidden exerts a mysterious attraction; it raises questions about the why, the what and the how, it awakens doubt and stimulates the imagination. The first man had to resist this temptation that emanated from the prohibition; this was the battle of faith which he had to fight; but in the image of God, in which he was created, he also received the strength with which he could stand and overcome.

Yet this trial commandment shows even more clearly than the institution of the seven-day week that man’s destiny is different from his creation. Adam was not yet in the beginning what he could and should become at the end. He lived in paradise, but not yet in heaven. He had a long way to go before he reached his final goal. He had to acquire eternal life by doing and by leaving. In a word, there is a great difference between the state of innocence in which the first man was created, and the state of glory for which he was destined. What this difference consisted of is further elucidated in the remainder of the Revelation.

While Adam was dependent on the alternation of day and night, of waking and sleeping, we are told of the heavenly Jerusalem that there will be no night there, Revelation 21:25, Revelation 22:5, and that the redeemed will stand before the throne of God through the blood of the Lamb and serve Him day and night in His temple, Revelation 7:15. The first man was bound by the division of the week into six working days and one day of rest, but for the people of God there remains an eternal, undisturbed rest afterwards, Hebrews 4:9, Revelation 14:13. In the state of innocence man had a daily need for food and drink, but in the future God will destroy both food and drink, 1 Corinthians 6:13. The first man and woman were man and woman, and they were blessed to be fruitful and to multiply; but in the resurrection they do not take in marriage, nor are they given in marriage, but they are like angels of God in heaven, Matthew 22:30, The first man Adam was earthly, had a natural body and became a living soul, but the believers receive a spiritual body in the resurrection and will then bear the image of the heavenly man, of Christ, the Lord from heaven, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49. Adam was created in such a way that he could still err, sin, fall and die; but in principle the believers are already here on earth above all of that: they can no longer sin, because everyone who is born of God does not sin, because his seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God (1 John 3:9). 1 John 3:9; they cannot fall away to the end, for they are preserved by faith in the power of God unto salvation, which is ready to be revealed at the last time, 1 Peter 1:5; neither can they die, for they who believe in Christ already have eternal, undefiled life here on earth; they do not die in eternity, and even live though they die, John 11:25-26. In considering the first man we must therefore be on our guard against two extremes. On the one hand we have to maintain, on the basis of the Holy. On the one hand, we have to maintain, on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, that he was created at once in God’s image and likeness, in true knowledge, righteousness and holiness; that he was not at first a small, insignificant child who had to develop on his own; that he was not a human being who, being mature in body, was spiritually without substance and neutral between truth and falsehood, between good and evil; and much less that he was originally an animal being who had gradually evolved from the animal and now had to become a human being through struggle and effort. This whole idea is irreconcilably at odds with Scripture and with common sense.

Yet, on the other hand, the state of the first man must not be exaggerated, as is often done in Christian teaching and preaching. However high Adam was placed by God, he did not yet possess the highest; he possessed the ability not to sin, but was not yet a partaker of the inability to sin; he did not yet possess eternal life, which can never perish and never die, but received a provisional immortality, whose existence and duration depended on the fulfilment of a condition; He was created in the image of God, but could still lose this image with all its glory; he lived in paradise, but this paradise was not heaven and could even be forfeited by him with all its beauty. All the spiritual and physical riches Adam possessed were lacking in one thing: absolute security. As long as we do not have this, our peace and enjoyment are not yet complete; the present time, with its many attempts to insure all that man possesses through societies or the state, provides sufficient proof of this. The believers are insured for this life and for the life to come, for Christ stands surety for them and will not allow one of them to be torn out of His hand and perish, John 10:28; perfect love therefore casts out the fear in them, 1 John 4:18, and makes them feel assured that nothing will separate them from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus their Lord, Romans 8:38-39. But man still lacked this absolute certainty in paradise; he was not, at the same time as he was created in God’s image, immutably secured in the good; however much he possessed, he could still lose everything for himself and his descendants. His origin was divine; his nature was akin to God; his destination was eternal bliss in the immediate presence of God. But whether he would reach that destination was left to his own choice and depended on his own will.